What is Belief?

[Arising_uk]

Beliefs are the things that sit between one's identity and one's capabilities. They support one's identity and are informed by it, they inform one's capabilities and are supported by them. They generally have bugger all to do with the real world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Beliefs are the things that sit between one's identity and one's capabilities. They support one's identity and are informed by it, they inform one's capabilities and are supported by them. They generally have bugger all to do with the real world.

Agree.
Note in addition to instincts, emotions and the autonomic system.

[Age]

You are going crazy!
First you put words into my mouth when they are actually quoted from the SEP site.

Now in the above you are accusing me of believing in the "mysteries of life."
mystery = https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mystery
Where is your evidence for that?

You need to apologize for this mistake.

BUT I have NOT accused you of BELIEVING in the "mysteries of life".

Maybe you may want to apologize the this mistake that you have obviously made here.

I have expressed that you still are NOT sure of some things in Life. This means that, to you, there are still some mysteries in Life. Are you TRYING TO suggest that, to you, there are NO mysteries in lifes, and therefore you KNOW ALL there is to KNOW? If so, then please reveal the ANSWERS to ALL these thing, that are mysteries, to the rest of you, human beings.

Changing tunes.

Was I?
Or, was it you, TRYING TO do it right now?

Note the conventional meaning of 'mysteries' I linked above.

Which "conventional" meaning? There are, at first glance, about ten meanings that I saw.

And, what has this got to do with me saying;
You BELIEVE that you already KNOW the answers.

I NEVER said that you BELIEVE that you already KNOW the mysteries.

Whatever is not known as present are potential and possible empirical facts not 'mysteries' as defined above like the reality of a God, ghosts, and the likes.

YOUR "conventional" 'mysteries' are NOT at all what I was actually talking about.

Again, you are letting your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS get in the way BEFORE you discover the real and actual Truth of things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, you are letting your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS get in the way BEFORE you discover the real and actual Truth of things.

You tell me what is the real-actual-true-apple without assumptions and beliefs?

[Mortalsfool]

I think most of us can agree beliefs are an inherent quality of the human race. For philosophy, I like the word innate. One of Marion Webster's definitions for innate is, "originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience".

I say this, because most philosophical questions are centered on ethereal subjects rather than those things we can observe. And since we are unable to actually observe what we are discussing, we argue from a point of view that best describes what we believe, hence a 'belief'; ours! Even if you don't believe in beliefs!

Of course, there is also the fact that, if we lost the ability to believe what others say, meaning have beliefs of our own, our society could not exist. The fanciful stories that make up what we believe, are the threads that bind our society together. Since it's impossible for everyone to maintain one common belief, multiple beliefs must exist, making our society like a patchwork quilt of opinions, sharing borders and differences while trying to maintain some harmony of understanding.

A person that says they have no beliefs, is expressing his own. Their attempt to see themselves with some uniqueness, is dissipated by the sheer number of people sharing inane opinions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think most of us can agree beliefs are an inherent quality of the human race. For philosophy, I like the word innate. One of Marion Webster's definitions for innate is, "originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience".

I say this, because most philosophical questions are centered on ethereal subjects rather than those things we can observe. And since we are unable to actually observe what we are discussing, we argue from a point of view that best describes what we believe, hence a 'belief'; ours! Even if you don't believe in beliefs!

Of course, there is also the fact that, if we lost the ability to believe what others say, meaning have beliefs of our own, our society could not exist. The fanciful stories that make up what we believe, are the threads that bind our society together. Since it's impossible for everyone to maintain one common belief, multiple beliefs must exist, making our society like a patchwork quilt of opinions, sharing borders and differences while trying to maintain some harmony of understanding.

A person that says they have no beliefs, is expressing his own. Their attempt to see themselves with some uniqueness, is dissipated by the sheer number of people sharing inane opinions.

Agree.

Age's claims are;

• 1. He is not a human being [by implication]
  
  2. He does not have ANY beliefs.
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25589

He implied being human and having beliefs is foolish, i.e. an ignorant fool.

Something is obviously wrong with Age rather than us humans.

[Mortalsfool]

Agree.

Age's claims are;

• 1. He is not a human being [by implication]
  
  2. He does not have ANY beliefs.
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=25589

He implied being human and having beliefs is foolish, i.e. an ignorant fool.

Something is obviously wrong with Age rather than us humans.
[/quote]

I would have to attribute Age's claims to extreme youth, possibly even physical. From the little that I could read, or understand, I presume that he somehow blames us elders for all that's wrong in his life; we did it! Hopefully maturity will steer young people like him into acceptance of their own faults.

[commonsense]

There may or may not be something amiss about age, but concerning the question of what is belief there have been many spot on comments. Essentially, all of the comments in this thread, save anything posted by age. A heuristic applies here, namely that the majority wins.

[Age]

Again, you are letting your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS get in the way BEFORE you discover the real and actual Truth of things.

You tell me what is the real-actual-true-apple without assumptions and beliefs?

Have you missed what I have been saying here all along?

Here I will repeat it for you, once again.

If some thing is in agreement with ALL, then there is NONE in disagreement. Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, if ALL are in agreement with WHAT THE REAL-ACTUAL-TRUE-APPLE IS, then that IS what IS True, Real, and Correct, which IS what the real-actual-true-apple IS.

This 'apple' not be KNOWN through assumption nor beliefs. In fact IF any assumptions were made prior to what IS this 'apple' being KNOWN or if any beliefs are made along the way, then that WILL distort in being able to SEE and UNDERSTAND the real-actual-true-apple for what It really IS. This discovery, or revelation, is only made without any assumptions nor beliefs being made.

There, you asked for me to tell you what is the real-actual-true-apple without assumptions and beliefs. Now, you tell us all here if you are going to agree with that. Or, if not, how you are going to counter it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, you are letting your ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS get in the way BEFORE you discover the real and actual Truth of things.

You tell me what is the real-actual-true-apple without assumptions and beliefs?

Have you missed what I have been saying here all along?

Here I will repeat it for you, once again.

If some thing is in agreement with ALL, then there is NONE in disagreement. Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, if ALL are in agreement with WHAT THE REAL-ACTUAL-TRUE-APPLE IS, then that IS what IS True, Real, and Correct, which IS what the real-actual-true-apple IS.

This 'apple' not be KNOWN through assumption nor beliefs. In fact IF any assumptions were made prior to what IS this 'apple' being KNOWN or if any beliefs are made along the way, then that WILL distort in being able to SEE and UNDERSTAND the real-actual-true-apple for what It really IS. This discovery, or revelation, is only made without any assumptions nor beliefs being made.

There, you asked for me to tell you what is the real-actual-true-apple without assumptions and beliefs. Now, you tell us all here if you are going to agree with that. Or, if not, how you are going to counter it?

What you are ignorant of is the detailed evolutionary process of knowledge within the human brain and that of the collective.

The most reliable knowledge of what is any real-actual-true empirical object or concept, e.g. an apple [a fruit of specific qualities] is based on Science.
Science has to rely on assumptions.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions
Scientific knowledge start with conjectures and progress to beliefs then finally polished intersubjectively as knowledge.

According to Popper [which I agree] scientific theories are merely polished conjectures.
Beliefs are personally justified conjectures.
Knowledge is intersubjectively agreed shared justified true beliefs.

Science is based on consensus of the majority not ALL and every scientists.
There is a need for majority consensus because each of the different scientists relevant to the issue has a range of different personal beliefs.
What become scientific knowledge is the shared common personal-justified-beliefs.

Note the case of Pluto.

Pluto (minor planet designation: 134340 Pluto) is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt, a ring of bodies beyond Neptune. It was the first Kuiper belt object to be discovered.

Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930 and was originally considered to be the ninth planet from the Sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

then in 2018

New research suggest Pluto should be reclassified as a planet
he reason Pluto lost its planet status is not valid, according to new research from the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-pluto-rec ... t.html#jCp

The final solution of whether Pluto is a normal planet or dwarf planet is dependent on the consensus of the majority and not ALL scientists within the astronomical community.

[Age]

You tell me what is the real-actual-true-apple without assumptions and beliefs?

Have you missed what I have been saying here all along?

Here I will repeat it for you, once again.

If some thing is in agreement with ALL, then there is NONE in disagreement. Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, if ALL are in agreement with WHAT THE REAL-ACTUAL-TRUE-APPLE IS, then that IS what IS True, Real, and Correct, which IS what the real-actual-true-apple IS.

This 'apple' not be KNOWN through assumption nor beliefs. In fact IF any assumptions were made prior to what IS this 'apple' being KNOWN or if any beliefs are made along the way, then that WILL distort in being able to SEE and UNDERSTAND the real-actual-true-apple for what It really IS. This discovery, or revelation, is only made without any assumptions nor beliefs being made.

There, you asked for me to tell you what is the real-actual-true-apple without assumptions and beliefs. Now, you tell us all here if you are going to agree with that. Or, if not, how you are going to counter it?

What you are ignorant of is the detailed evolutionary process of knowledge within the human brain and that of the collective.

Are you 100% absolutely sure of this, or is this just your assumption?

The most reliable knowledge of what is any real-actual-true empirical object or concept, e.g. an apple [a fruit of specific qualities] is based on Science.
Science has to rely on assumptions.

Yes true 'science' has to rely on assumptions because 'science', by definition, is the study of what is NOT yet known. Science only looks at what COULD BE. 'Science' is not concerned about what IS, therefore science does NOT look at what IS. Human beings only study, through a scientific method, conjectures and/or assumptions. 'Science' itself is incapable of LOOKING AT and SEEING the Truth for what It really IS. This may seem somewhat paradoxical, to some, but that is just the nature of Truth, Itself.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions
Scientific knowledge start with conjectures and progress to beliefs then finally polished intersubjectively as knowledge.

Already obvious, and already KNOWN. Except that human beings do NOT have to "progress" to BELIEFS. The Truth IS that just some human beings choose to have and/hold BELIEFS, which is actually NOT a progressing behavior at all and rather the opposite of being a stifling or holding back behavior.

According to Popper [which I agree] scientific theories are merely polished conjectures.
Beliefs are personally justified conjectures.
Knowledge is intersubjectively agreed shared justified true beliefs.

Science is based on consensus of the majority not ALL and every scientists.

Why do you use the words "not ALL and every scientist" for? I NEVER said that.

You really TRY TO "twist" words around to suit your own distorted BELIEFS. You are capable of reading the words that I write, but you are incapable of SEEING the actual words that I write because that brain is trying so hard to twist and distort things so that they fit into that brain's own already held BELIEFS that this really is funny to observe and watch sometimes.

You are TRYING so hard to NOT agree with me that that brain will make up and see extra words like; "... not ALL and every scientists" so that that brain then thinks that it has made some sort of argument to support its position.

Whether you like it or not, veritas, you are saying just about the exact same thing as me. You are just incapable of SEEING this, just yet anyway.

There is a need for majority consensus because each of the different scientists relevant to the issue has a range of different personal beliefs.

It is these different personal BELIEFS that actually distorts the Actual and Real Truth in Life from being SEEN and KNOWN, and thus BELIEFS affect/effect human beings' ability to SEE what IS True and Real.

What become scientific knowledge is the shared common personal-justified-beliefs.

So, after all of this, you are more or less just saying what I said, and so you are in agreement with me, correct?

If not, then why not?

If you just took out the unnecessary words of "personal-justified-beliefs', and replaced them with the word 'views', then you are saying EXACTLY what I am saying here.

Note the case of Pluto.

Pluto (minor planet designation: 134340 Pluto) is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt, a ring of bodies beyond Neptune. It was the first Kuiper belt object to be discovered.

Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930 and was originally considered to be the ninth planet from the Sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

then in 2018

New research suggest Pluto should be reclassified as a planet
he reason Pluto lost its planet status is not valid, according to new research from the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-pluto-rec ... t.html#jCp

The final solution of whether Pluto is a normal planet or dwarf planet is dependent on the consensus of the majority and not ALL scientists within the astronomical community.

The ONLY person you are fooling here is yourself when you add in the totally misleading words like "... and not ALL scientists within the astronomical community". YOU are the ONLY person who has used those words. NOT me. So, to use those words as if they somehow back up and support your now BELIEF does NOT work at all.

Your conclusion here is; what is real-actual-true IS dependent on the consensus of the majority.
My conclusion here is; What is real-actual-true IS dependent on the consensus of ALL.

Now, the position of one of these two would be, and obviously IS, much stronger than the other one is. This stronger position is also much more well supported and much better backed up, and even includes the evidence, and thus proof, within the framework of its own language or its own self. In other words the Real-Actual-Truth speaks for its Self.

As I have been saying ALL along the Truth can be RECOGNIZED, SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD, almost immediately. What IS the actual real Truth in Life is already KNOWN. This Truth does NOT need to be looked for and discovered, like "scientific knowledge" needs to be. You just NEED to LEARN how to LOOK AT and SEE things, from a different perspective, to be able to SEE and UNDERSTAND this Truth.

All I have been suggesting all along is if you learn how to look at what IS properly and correctly instead of just looking at what COULD BE, then you would NOT have to conjecture up nor make up assumptions of what 'could be' thee Truth. When, and IF, you LEARN how to look and see properly, then you will have been able to SEE and KNOW what the actual and real Truth IS already. But there is still a great deal of work to be done with you, veritas, yet, BEFORE you are able to gain this ability. The reason there is still so much work to be done on you, is because of those strongly held BELIEFS that you so dearly want to HOLD ONTO and NOT at all let go of.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Have you missed what I have been saying here all along?

Here I will repeat it for you, once again.

If some thing is in agreement with ALL, then there is NONE in disagreement. Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, if ALL are in agreement with WHAT THE REAL-ACTUAL-TRUE-APPLE IS, then that IS what IS True, Real, and Correct, which IS what the real-actual-true-apple IS.

This 'apple' not be KNOWN through assumption nor beliefs. In fact IF any assumptions were made prior to what IS this 'apple' being KNOWN or if any beliefs are made along the way, then that WILL distort in being able to SEE and UNDERSTAND the real-actual-true-apple for what It really IS. This discovery, or revelation, is only made without any assumptions nor beliefs being made.

There, you asked for me to tell you what is the real-actual-true-apple without assumptions and beliefs. Now, you tell us all here if you are going to agree with that. Or, if not, how you are going to counter it?

What you are ignorant of is the detailed evolutionary process of knowledge within the human brain and that of the collective.

Are you 100% absolutely sure of this, or is this just your assumption?

Yes I am sure you are ignorant of what I have asserted above, based on what you have been posting.

Your conclusion here is; what is real-actual-true IS dependent on the consensus of the majority.
My conclusion here is; What is real-actual-true IS dependent on the consensus of ALL.

Note you are changing the subject, the earlier point was;

Age: Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, if ALL are in agreement with WHAT THE REAL-ACTUAL-TRUE-APPLE IS, then that IS what IS True, Real, and Correct, which IS what the real-actual-true-apple IS.

The point is about an empirical apple.
There is no real-actual-true-apple in the absolute sense.
A real-actual-true-apple can be the following;

• 1. apple is a combination of various physical elements as conceptual apple
  2. A cluster of molecules, H, O, C, etc.
  3. A cluster of atoms, electrons, nucleus,
  4. A cluster of quarks and sub-atomic particles

Thus what is a real-actual-true-apple is relative to the above perspective.

Note Russell's 'Perhaps there is no table at all';

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

In addition we cannot nail a permanent real-actual-true-apple because at every nano-second "t" moment is it a different apple. The real-actual-true-apple at t1 is not the same one at t2, t3, infinitely.
Thus there is no absolute real-actual-true-apple but rather only a relative apple that is dependent on assumptions, beliefs and intersubjective consensus.

Now, in your conclusion you are trying to shift the subject to;

Age: My conclusion here is; What is real-actual-true IS dependent on the consensus of ALL.

You are not talking about the 'apple' or even any physical nor abstract empirical object but rather some obscure thing which you are unable to define nor present properly.
From your posting I understand what you are trying to claim is at best an illusion which you are unable to provide justifications and arguments.

'Absolute Consensus of ALL' is FAKE NEWs, every individual is different just like fingerprints of each person, there is no absolute reality that can be the same for all.

[Age]

What you are ignorant of is the detailed evolutionary process of knowledge within the human brain and that of the collective.

Are you 100% absolutely sure of this, or is this just your assumption?

Yes I am sure you are ignorant of what I have asserted above, based on what you have been posting.

Your conclusion here is; what is real-actual-true IS dependent on the consensus of the majority.
My conclusion here is; What is real-actual-true IS dependent on the consensus of ALL.

Note you are changing the subject, the earlier point was;

That is NOT changing the subject.

I was responding to what YOU, veritas, WROTE.

Age: Therefore, and OBVIOUSLY, if ALL are in agreement with WHAT THE REAL-ACTUAL-TRUE-APPLE IS, then that IS what IS True, Real, and Correct, which IS what the real-actual-true-apple IS.

The point is about an empirical apple.

The point WAS about an empirical apple, which is WHAT I responded to, two posts back. In your second last post, however, which is what I was responding to before and which caused your response here, you mentioned this empirical apple in a very slight way, but quickly CHANGED the point to not being about the apple at all, but to being about how "science has to rely on assumptions", thus the path that I ended up following and discussing, which you are now TRYING TO suggest is my fault for the changing of the subject.

Please at least keep with what you are doing, even if you can NOT keep up with me.

There is no real-actual-true-apple in the absolute sense.

Based on this assertion, then there is NO real-actual-true-anything, and therefore WHATEVER YOU SAY is NOT real, NOT actual, and NOT true, also.
You can NOT logically, soundly, nor validly argue that things can NOT be real, actual, nor true, but then other things, that you so wish or desire to be can be real, actual, and true.
If there can NOT be any thing that is real, true, nor correct, then whatever you SAY is also NOT real, NOT actual, and NOT true, and IS therefore, also meaningless, pointless, and a complete waste.

If there is NO thing in the absolute sense, as you so BELIEVE is the case, then there is NO use in discussing any thing at all.

Why are you bothering saying anything here?

You have, once again, MISSED my whole point. If ALL are in agreement, then there is NO one disagreeing.
Therefore, IF ALL agree on what is a real-actual-true-apple IS, then, in as far as an absolute sense can be, then that IS, what that 'apple' IS.

Surely that is NOT to hard to understand or comprehend? Or, maybe I am WRONG here, and for some that is just way to hard for them to understand and comprehend.

A real-actual-true-apple can be the following;

• 1. apple is a combination of various physical elements as conceptual apple
  2. A cluster of molecules, H, O, C, etc.
  3. A cluster of atoms, electrons, nucleus,
  4. A cluster of quarks and sub-atomic particles

Thus what is a real-actual-true-apple is relative to the above perspective.

OBVIOUSLY, there WAS and IS no need to repeat this obvious remark. It is FULLY understood.

ALSO, 'what is a real-actual-true-apple is relative; to the agreement/consensus of the one's discussing the issue.

You are MISSING THE POINT. IF, and only IF, ALL are in agreement, which MEANS consensus, then that is what makes a "thing" what it IS.

In addition we cannot nail a permanent real-actual-true-apple because at every nano-second "t" moment is it a different apple.

Is this a real-actual-true STATEMENT? If so, and ALL are in agreement, then what IS that statement if it is NOT a truth in the absolute sense?

You keep INSISTING that there is NO real-actual-true THING, which means statements, themselves, but you are consistently writing statements as though they are real-actual-true statements.

The real-actual-true-apple at t1 is not the same one at t2, t3, infinitely.

If that is what you BELIEVE, then so be it.

What do you want me to do? Agree with you?

Thus there is no absolute real-actual-true-apple but rather only a relative apple that is dependent on assumptions, beliefs and intersubjective consensus.

Once again:
A perspective of some thing is NOT, and I will repeat, NOT NECESSARILY dependent upon assumptions and beliefs at ALL.
What some thing IS; is reliant upon assumptions and beliefs at all.
I was the ONE who said agreement, which IS consensus, makes a thing, what it IS.
I am also the ONE who has continually stated that absolutely EVERY thing is RELATIVE, to the observer. This EVERY thing, obviously also includes an 'apple'.

Depending on how one is looking at, viewing, and/or seeing things, this will then influence just how real-actual-true an apple is or not.

Now, in your conclusion you are trying to shift the subject to;

Age: My conclusion here is; What is real-actual-true IS dependent on the consensus of ALL.

You are not talking about the 'apple' or even any physical nor abstract empirical object but rather some obscure thing which you are unable to define nor present properly.

OF COURSE I was NOT talking about the apple in my previous post. This is BECAUSE, in YOUR reply, you stopped looking at and talking about the 'apple' example, and shifted the subject to look at how 'science has to rely on assumptions'. You are the one who SHIFTED. I did NOT. I was just REPLYING to what YOU had shifted to and WROTE.

The "obscure thing" is YOUR OWN POSITION, which by the way frequently changes.

From your posting I understand what you are trying to claim is at best an illusion which you are unable to provide justifications and arguments.

This is totally understandable. From your perspective it does NOT matter what is presented to you, if it does NOT agree with your already biased positions, then you are totally incapable of looking at and seeing it for what it really is. This is because of the assumptions and BELIEFS that you already have and maintain.

Also, here we go once again. You assert that I am claiming some thing, and, now I will ask you to clarify what it is that you BELIEVE that I am claiming, and then, just like all the other times this has happened, you will NOT, and I will repeat, YOU WILL NOT give any examples whatsoever. This is because you have absolutely NO clue what you are talking about here.

You just wrote that you understand what I am trying to claim, and that it is at best an illusion.

So, how about you present the example of, 'what you understand', "what I am trying to claim", AND THEN we can SEE WHO has the illusion AND what the actual illusion IS.

'Absolute Consensus of ALL' is FAKE NEWs, every individual is different just like fingerprints of each person, there is no absolute reality that can be the same for all.

REALLY?

If so, then what you say here may NOT also be reality, and thus may also NOT be thee Truth at all.
If what you say may not be, and/or is not the truth, then what IS the Actual and Real Truth here?

According to your "logic", your "truth" could be just as WRONG as an other individual's "truth" is. But according to your BELIEFS, you are NOT wrong at all, am I correct?

Talk about TRYING TO 'make up' a picture of things, that is; an illusion of things, just to fit in with one's own already held (biased) view of things.

The absurdity and hypocrisy of what you have been saying is very amusing to watch and endure, but what I find extremely entertaining is the absolute contradictory nature of your talk.

OF COURSE, EVERY individual is different. By definition, 'individual' infers being different, a separate identity. But are you really TRYING TO suggest that there is NOT one thing EVER that ALL human beings could be in agreement on?

What IS already KNOWN is; that when you, human beings, discover the things that you ALL do agree on, then that is HOW and WHEN you can and WILL BE able to distinguish subjective truth (which could be and is quite frequently wrong and incorrect truth) from objective Truth (which is absolutely RIGHT and CORRECT Truth).

Absolute consensus CREATES absolute Truth.

ALL knowledge comes fundamentally from thought.
ALL thought comes from past experiences.
ALL human beings have had some EXACT SAME experiences.
Therefore, there are some things that are in agreement by ALL, or what you might call 'absolute consensus'.

If there is absolute consensus, then there is nothing in dispute.
If there is nothing in dispute, then, by definition, that IS absolute Truth, or thee Truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is no real-actual-true-apple in the absolute sense.

Based on this assertion, then there is NO real-actual-true-anything, and therefore WHATEVER YOU SAY is NOT real, NOT actual, and NOT true, also.
You can NOT logically, soundly, nor validly argue that things can NOT be real, actual, nor true, but then other things, that you so wish or desire to be can be real, actual, and true.
If there can NOT be any thing that is real, true, nor correct, then whatever you SAY is also NOT real, NOT actual, and NOT true, and IS therefore, also meaningless, pointless, and a complete waste.

If there is NO thing in the absolute sense, as you so BELIEVE is the case, then there is NO use in discussing any thing at all.

Why are you bothering saying anything here?

You have, once again, MISSED my whole point. If ALL are in agreement, then there is NO one disagreeing.
Therefore, IF ALL agree on what is a real-actual-true-apple IS, then, in as far as an absolute sense can be, then that IS, what that 'apple' IS.

Surely that is NOT to hard to understand or comprehend? Or, maybe I am WRONG here, and for some that is just way to hard for them to understand and comprehend.

Nope, I did not imply this;

• Age: Based on this assertion, then there is NO real-actual-true-anything, and therefore WHATEVER YOU SAY is NOT real, NOT actual, and NOT true, also.

I stated there is NO real-actual-true-anything in the ABSOLUTE SENSE.
Note I raised the thread,
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
There is an inverse correlation between the degree of reality and degree of hallucination

Nb: Absolute = totally unconditional.

However within that state of hallucination, there are relative actual-true-things.
These emerged from experiences, assumptions, beliefs and justified true beliefs which are sufficient and optimal for survival and progress of humanity. These are based on common sense, conventional sense, scientific, legal, economics, etc.
Legal laws [e.g. those that decide one will live or die] which are agreed by a majority within a Nation are not necessary agreed by ALL within the Nation and those outside the Nation.

There are NO real-actual-true-anything in the Absolute sense, but there are real-actual-true-anything in the relative/conditional sense. Note these are not map-territory things but emergent things.

Therefore, IF ALL agree on what is a real-actual-true-apple IS, then, in as far as an absolute sense can be, then that IS, what that 'apple' IS.

This is an impossibility, i.e.
it is impossible for ALL to agree what is a real-actual-true-apple IS or whatever an empirical thing is in the absolute sense. I have given my justifications above.

I had used 'apple' as an example, but the philosophical fact is there are NO real-actual-true-anything in the Absolute sense.

If you do not agree with apples, show me what 'thing' is real-actual-true in the absolute sense.

Philosophically, the usual argument to claim a thing exists in the absolute objective sense is that the thing is grounded on ousia or essence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia

The other is to ground whatever thing on God as the ultimate absolute.

If your argument of the real-actual-true absolute thing is not grounded on the above, then where is your personal argument for it?

[Age]

There is no real-actual-true-apple in the absolute sense.

Based on this assertion, then there is NO real-actual-true-anything, and therefore WHATEVER YOU SAY is NOT real, NOT actual, and NOT true, also.
You can NOT logically, soundly, nor validly argue that things can NOT be real, actual, nor true, but then other things, that you so wish or desire to be can be real, actual, and true.
If there can NOT be any thing that is real, true, nor correct, then whatever you SAY is also NOT real, NOT actual, and NOT true, and IS therefore, also meaningless, pointless, and a complete waste.

If there is NO thing in the absolute sense, as you so BELIEVE is the case, then there is NO use in discussing any thing at all.

Why are you bothering saying anything here?

You have, once again, MISSED my whole point. If ALL are in agreement, then there is NO one disagreeing.
Therefore, IF ALL agree on what is a real-actual-true-apple IS, then, in as far as an absolute sense can be, then that IS, what that 'apple' IS.

Surely that is NOT to hard to understand or comprehend? Or, maybe I am WRONG here, and for some that is just way to hard for them to understand and comprehend.

Nope, I did not imply this;

• Age: Based on this assertion, then there is NO real-actual-true-anything, and therefore WHATEVER YOU SAY is NOT real, NOT actual, and NOT true, also.

I stated there is NO real-actual-true-anything in the ABSOLUTE SENSE.

Define the difference between 'NO real-actual-true-anything', and, 'NO real-actual-true-anything in the ABSOLUTE SENSE'.

And then, just define 'ABSOLUTE SENSE'.

Note I raised the thread,
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316
There is an inverse correlation between the degree of reality and degree of hallucination

Just because you, veritas, raised a thread does NOT necessarily mean that you are NOT suffering from the exact same condition as what the title of the thread says.

Nb: Absolute = totally unconditional.

Is the Universe, Itself, totally unconditional?

Or, to you, is there NO absolute Universe?

However within that state of hallucination, there are relative actual-true-things.

Is that the state of hallucination that ALL of you, human beings, are in? Or, is that the state of hallucination that you, veritas, is in? Or, is that the state of hallucination that only "other" people are in?

These emerged from experiences, assumptions, beliefs and justified true beliefs

But when, and if, you are ever truly OPEN, then there are NO assumptions, beliefs, nor justified true beliefs of what COULD BE actually real and true. Once you are completely OPEN, then there is only what IS or Reality. What IS is NOT an hallucination, but rather thee Truth and Reality of things.

However, of course, if you have assumptions, beliefs, and justified true beliefs, like you do veritas, then you can be and quite frequently are IN a state of hallucination. By having assumptions, beliefs, et cetera, then you are OBVIOUSLY consciously creating a "reality", which, also obviously, may NOT fit in with nor even be close to what IS, actually Real and True.

which are sufficient and optimal for survival and progress of humanity.

Your beliefs may be "sufficient" and "optimal" for you, BUT beliefs are certainly NOT necessary for the survival and progress of humanity. Unless of course you can SHOW and PROVE otherwise.

In fact, from what I have observed BELIEFS are the very things stopping and preventing human beings from progressing.

These are based on common sense, conventional sense, scientific, legal, economics, etc.

What ARE "these", which you say are based on common sense, conventional sense, scientific, legal, economics, et cetera?

Are you saying/suggesting that 'relative actual-true-things' ARE based on the above here?

Was the flat earth, of which the sun revolved around, a 'relative actual-true-thing', which was also based on common sense, conventional sense, scientific, legal, economics, et cetera also?

If so, then that speaks for itself.

Legal laws [e.g. those that decide one will live or die] which are agreed by a majority within a Nation are not necessary agreed by ALL within the Nation and those outside the Nation.

So WHAT?

What has this got to do with anything I have been talking about.

According to your BELIEFS, there is absolute no thing that is agreed upon by ALL. So, WHY point this one, thing, out?

Also, again, the readers will be noticing the contradictory nature of your writings again more now.

There are NO real-actual-true-anything in the Absolute sense,

I KNOW that this is what you BELIEVE is thee Truth.

A pity now you WILL just have to acknowledge and accept that you are BELIEVING in some thing that may NOT even be close to the Truth, and in fact be completely and utterly wrong.

More the pity is that that statement of YOURS is a Justified True Belief, to you, and now that statement can not NOT be wrong, nor incorrect, which by itself is obviously a very contradictory predicament that you are in NOW.

but there are real-actual-true-anything in the relative/conditional sense. Note these are not map-territory things but emergent things.

You, human beings, can keep on emerging to finally see more and more of the Real and Actual Truth if you so want to continue that way. I have already explained, enough times already, HOW you can SEE what IS and KNOW the Truth already.

There is NO need to wait for the Truth to emerge, especially when the Truth is, literally, staring you in the face, RIGHT NOW. Thee Truth is HERE for ALL to SEE, unfortunately though, human beings have NOT yet evolved to SEE and UNDERSTAND this yet, when this is written.

Therefore, IF ALL agree on what is a real-actual-true-apple IS, then, in as far as an absolute sense can be, then that IS, what that 'apple' IS.

This is an impossibility, i.e.
it is impossible for ALL to agree what is a real-actual-true-apple IS or whatever an empirical thing is in the absolute sense.

REALLY?

This 'impossibility' thing sounds just like some thing in and of the 'absolute sense'. Or, can you NOT hear this?

I have given my justifications above.

You may have given YOUR "justifications", but by YOUR very own "logic" YOUR own "justifications" are only relative, and relative to you only, which has emerged from YOUR experiences. Obviously YOUR relative, to you, real-actual-true "justifications" are NOT the Actual-Real-True Justifications, which would be for and by EVERY one. Therefore, your ATTEMPT at providing True Justifications is completely unsatisfactory and insufficient to and for ALL of US. Although those "justifications" may be "sufficient" enough to and for YOU, and YOUR beliefs, veritas. They CERTAINLY are NOT sufficient to and for US.

I had used 'apple' as an example, but the philosophical fact is there are NO real-actual-true-anything in the Absolute sense.[/quote]

Do you think or belief that by adding the word 'philosophical' in YOUR statement now provides more strength and/or more support to YOUR "justification" in YOUR state of hallucinated conscious reality now?

If you do not agree with apples, show me what 'thing' is real-actual-true in the absolute sense.

How many times do I have to show you?

If ALL agree on some thing (any thing), then there is NO one disagreeing.
Therefore, THAT agreement, whatever THAT is, is Real, is Actual, and is True in the absolute sense, (or what may also be KNOWN as thee Truth).

Can you SEE the 'thing' NOW?

Philosophically, the usual argument to claim a thing exists in the absolute objective sense is that the thing is grounded on ousia or essence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia

The other is to ground whatever thing on God as the ultimate absolute.

If your argument of the real-actual-true absolute thing is not grounded on the above, then where is your personal argument for it?

Where My argument IS; is WHERE it has been from the outset here. That is; In My WORDS.

If we are ALL in agreement, then there is NO THING in dispute, nor NOTHING unambiguous, nor NOTHING to show nor say that 'IT' (whatever 'IT' is that IS in agreement) is any thing other than a FACT, in the absolute sense. It is in the 'absolute sense' because there is, literally, absolutely NOTHING else.

What IS, which is in agreement with and by ALL would be, obviously, totally unconditional.

Hopefully you have understood this by now, so then you can move onto your next point of contention, of which I am already able to counter.

Let us please move on, NOW.