Where can the truth and reality be known to exist?

Nouveau

Well-known member
Strawman, actually "false beliefs" don't exist in reality. And it is only when you falsely believe "false beliefs" exist in your mind is when you are deceived. Like you are demonstrating right here and now.
You don't seem able to keep your story straight. You keep flipping between telling me false beliefs don't exist, and that my beliefs are false. If you could learn to tell the difference between act and object then maybe you could avoid contradicting yourself like this.

Actually if "false beliefs" have no object of belief that exists in reality, then "false beliefs" are not beliefs in reality, because in reality it is only the truth and a believing mind that can be known to exist. And outside of a believing mind nothing is able to be known to exist.
Ambiguous language again. False beliefs are not beliefs-in-reality (because what is believed-in is not real), but they are still, in reality, real beliefs. Do you think belief in Allah is true? Or are you denying that anyone really believes in Allah?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
You are correct. What you say here is illogical nonsense.
Strawman, rather I said your conjuring is 'illogical nonsense', so if I am "correct", then in reality that would make what YOU are saying “illogical nonsense” silly. You seem to struggle in understanding how logic, the truth and reality works.
I know that thinks exist which I did not know about before, which I do know exist now.
If in reality YOU cannot "know" about things existing before you believe they exist in reality, then it is impossible for you to know of anything existing in reality without a believing mind, because consciousness and a believing mind like reality is only knowable and experienceable in the present tense and unknowable to you outside or without the benefit of a believing mind.
Several planets spring to mind. Today I discovered the existence of a dinosaur named "Irritator challenger". It has been known in the scientific world since 2996. It lived 110 million years ago. Its existence and knowledge of its existence are two separate timeliness. Your position seems to be that the sum of all knowledge is the sum of all things that exist. This is clearly wrong in the past and continues to be proved wrong with every new discovery.
Strawman. Actually if "the sum of all knowledge" of the truth and reality is belief based and the ONLY thing that is capable of belief is a believing mind, then the truth and reality must be the product of a believing mind. And your inability to name another way of place outside of a believing mind that is capable of belief is a testimony to this argument.
Wrong. There is no logical reason why this should be the case. Your assertion has no basis in fact.
Sure there is, it is logical because it is true and you cannot show otherwise.
More nonsense. Your conflation of existing and being known to exist continues to be faulty. Just saying the same thing in more convoluted language doesn't make what you say true. It is a simple fact that not all things that exist are known to exist.

How can you know about existing without believing and being known to exist in reality silly?
And if in reality all things that exist are ONLY known to exist in and by a believing mind, then the ONLY thing capable of knowing of and experiencing its own existence in reality is a believing mind. And you cannot show otherwise.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I am still waiting for someone to tell us of another way or place outside to a believing mind that the truth and reality can be known to exist. Is there anyone out there that can answer this question?
This reminds me of when I was young, and a friend asked me "If a tree falls in the woods but no one is around to hear it; does it make a Sound?". The Instinct is to say 'Yes' but the answer is "No'. It takes a transmitter and a Receiver to make a Sound, and it takes a Mind and a Mind for Truth to exist on opposite Poles of the planet; and in Reality/the Universe. Truth is measured, and only Minds do this...
 

5wize

Well-known member
How come you cannot show how and why it is false then?
I can show you.

All believing minds are products of physical brains.

That's it. That's the proof of the falsehood of your belief.

If you can prove that wrong, either physically or logically, then you have a theory to explore. If you cannot, then you have nothing of interest to talk about.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Strawman, rather I said your conjuring is 'illogical nonsense', so if I am "correct", then in reality that would make what YOU are saying “illogical nonsense” silly. You seem to struggle in understanding how logic, the truth and reality works.
I'm sure I'm neither the first person nor the last to say, please find out what a strawman is. It doesn't mean "any argument or statement I disagree with.

If in reality YOU cannot "know" about things existing before you believe they exist in reality, then it is impossible for you to know of anything existing in reality without a believing mind, because consciousness and a believing mind like reality is only knowable and experienceable in the present tense and unknowable to you outside or without the benefit of a believing mind.
(bolding mine). Your "if" is not true, which renders the rest of your argument untrue. I do know of things that I previously did not know existed.

Strawman. Actually if "the sum of all knowledge" of the truth and reality is belief based and the ONLY thing that is capable of belief is a believing mind, then the truth and reality must be the product of a believing mind.
Untrue. Nothing you have said here does anything to disprove the existence of things that are not known. Belief is certainly necessary, as is truth to gain knowledge, but there are certainly classes of objects that are not believed in, and not known about but still exist. We know this because we discover them, at which point they become known. Prior to that point, they still existed.

And your inability to name another way of place outside of a believing mind that is capable of belief is a testimony to this argument.
obviously, belief requires a mind. Equally obviously existence does not require a mind. It is your inability to disprove the existence of objects outside the knowledge of a believing mind that shows the falsity of your argument.
And if in reality all things that exist are ONLY known to exist in and by a believing mind , then the ONLY thing capable of knowing of and experiencing its own existence in reality is a believing mind. And you cannot show otherwise.
And if the bolded section is not true, then the guff about the believing mind falls. Now you need to show that everything that exists is known to exist. Good luck with that.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
This reminds me of when I was young, and a friend asked me "If a tree falls in the woods but no one is around to hear it; does it make a Sound?". The Instinct is to say 'Yes' but the answer is "No'. It takes a transmitter and a Receiver to make a Sound, and it takes a Mind and a Mind for Truth to exist on opposite Poles of the planet; and in Reality/the Universe. Truth is measured, and only Minds do this...
No, this is not true. It only takes a transmitter to make a sound. It takes a receiver to detect it. There is no way of telling how many sounds go undetected, but the tree falling in the forest is one of them. There is likewise no way of telling how many things exist that are not known about. We do know however, that this set is not empty, or at least was not empty in the very recent past, because we keep discovering things that were previously unknown.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
You don't seem able to keep your story straight. You keep flipping between telling me false beliefs don't exist, and that my beliefs are false. If you could learn to tell the difference between act and object then maybe you could avoid contradicting yourself like this.
You're projecting. As if it is YOU who is insisting on YOUR "false beliefs" exists in reality and I am not insisting that "false beliefs" exist in reality, then it is YOU who must show how you know YOUR "false beliefs" exist in reality silly.
Ambiguous language again. False beliefs are not beliefs-in-reality (because what is believed-in is not real), but they are still, in reality, real beliefs.
Projection and strawman, as if "what is believed-in is not real" and a belief-in-reality is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you, then how do you know what you are saying is true in reality silly?
Do you think belief in Allah is true? Or are you denying that anyone really believes in Allah?
You are conflating belief and unbelief, because if I have a NO "belief in Allah" and belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to everyone including you, then you are pretending that someone else's "belief in Allah" is somehow applicable to me, when in reality it obviously isn't.
 

5wize

Well-known member
You're projecting. As if it is YOU who is insisting on YOUR "false beliefs" exists in reality and I am not insisting that "false beliefs" exist in reality, then it is YOU who must show how you know YOUR "false beliefs" exist in reality silly.

Projection and strawman, as if "what is believed-in is not real" and a belief-in-reality is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you, then how do you know what you are saying is true in reality silly?

You are conflating belief and unbelief, because if I have a NO "belief in Allah" and belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to everyone including you, then you are pretending that someone else's "belief in Allah" is somehow applicable to me, when in reality it obviously isn't.
Do you think it is possible for a mind to believe things that are not real?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I'm sure I'm neither the first person nor the last to say, please find out what a strawman is. It doesn't mean "any argument or statement I disagree with.
A strawman is when you misrepresent what I say and then proceed to argue against YOUR misrepresentation of what I said rather than what I said in reality. And that's exactly what you did, so learn how to think and argue properly to get to the truth, rather than your projecting and strawmanning.
(bolding mine). Your "if" is not true, which renders the rest of your argument untrue. I do know of things that I previously did not know existed.
But everything after the 'if' is true and that's what's important. So, whereas 'in reality YOU cannot "know" about things existing before you believe they exist in reality, then it is impossible for you to know of anything existing in reality without a believing mind, because consciousness and a believing mind like reality is only knowable and experienceable in the present tense and unknowable to you outside or without the benefit of a believing mind.' You need to refute what I said instead spewing your objections to the word "if".
Untrue. Nothing you have said here does anything to disprove the existence of things that are not known. Belief is certainly necessary, as is truth to gain knowledge, but there are certainly classes of objects that are not believed in, and not known about but still exist.
Illogical nonsense and simply false. Please list these "things that are not known" or these "classes of objects" "that are not known", and say what they are and how and why you know they exist in reality.
We know this because we discover them, at which point they become known. Prior to that point, they still existed.
Actually everything we know we know ONLY because we believe it in reality, because all knowledge of the truth and reality is belief based and without a believing mind the truth and reality are unknowable to you. So, in reality "prior to" your belief in reality, you know nothing, so stop pretending you do.
obviously, belief requires a mind.
Actually in reality "belief requires a mind" and we require a believing mind in order to make the truth and reality known to us.
Equally obviously existence does not require a mind.
Really? How can you know anything about anything's "existence" in reality including any knowledge of our own existence without the benefit of a believing mind in order to make it known to us silly? You cannot, so you are again pretending to know what isn't knowable to you in reality.
It is your inability to disprove the existence of objects outside the knowledge of a believing mind that shows the falsity of your argument.
Strawman and you are projecting again, because in reality "it's your inability to" prove the "existence of" anything without the benefit of a "believing mind that shows the falsity of your" criticism silly, because outside of a believing mind the truth and reality are unknowable to you.
And if the bolded section is not true, then the guff about the believing mind falls. Now you need to show that everything that exists is known to exist. Good luck with that. And if in reality all things that exist are ONLY known to exist in and by a believing mind

Actually in reality all things that exist are ONLY known to exist in and by a believing mind, because it is only a mind that is capable of knowledge of the truth and reality and it is ONLY a believing mind that is capable of believing the truth and reality known to us. And because it is ONLY a believing mind that capable of knowing of and experiencing its own existence in reality, then the truth and reality must be the product of a believing mind, because it is ONLY a believing mind that is capable of this feat. And you have not and cannot show otherwise without exposing yourself to a self-refuting argument.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
No, this is not true. It only takes a transmitter to make a sound. It takes a receiver to detect it. There is no way of telling how many sounds go undetected, but the tree falling in the forest is one of them.
Actually in reality if you are referring to the noise we hear with our ears and in our minds, then this sound is produced in and by our ears and mind, because in reality outside of our ears and minds sound is unreproducible and irreproducible in reality.
There is likewise no way of telling how many things exist that are not known about.
That's right, because until something is believed in and by a mind it isn't knowable nor is it producible.
We do know however, that this set is not empty, or at least was not empty in the very recent past, because we keep discovering things that were previously unknown.
Again, if all knowledge of the truth and reality is only knowable in the present tense, then our consciousness of reality and reality are only knowable in the same way and place and that's in and by a believing mind.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Actually in reality we cannot "believe things that" we know are "not real" silly.
Strawman. That is not what you were asked. You are misrepresenting the posters question and answering the misrepresentation rather than the actual question.

You were not asked "Is it possible to believe things that we know are not real."

You were asked "Is it possible for a mind to believe things that are not real?"
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Actually in reality if you are referring to the noise we hear with our ears and in our minds, then this sound is produced in and by our ears and mind, because in reality outside of our ears and minds sound is unreproducible and irreproducible in reality.
Wrong. What we hear as sound is a reaction to a wave passing through a medium (usually the air) and being detected by our ears. The wave is an objective phenomenon, completely reproducible whether our ears are there to detect it or not.
That's right, because until something is believed in and by a mind it isn't knowable nor is it producible.
Agreed. This has never been disputed.

Again, if all knowledge of the truth and reality is only knowable in the present tense, then our consciousness of reality and reality are only knowable in the same way and place and that's in and by a believing mind.
But that is false. We actually only capable of knowing the past. The process of detection and recognition all take time. None of the events that we experience are happening as we experience them. A tiny delay is always present.

Obviously, we can also know what has happened in the past either by direct observation or by deduction. When we discover and observe a distant star, then we know that it existed 2000 years ago because its light has taken that long to reach us. We may only become aware of it now, but we know it existed in the past. We don't know if it exists now.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Strawman. That is not what you were asked. You are misrepresenting the posters question and answering the misrepresentation rather than the actual question.
How can it be a strawman, when it is MY answer to someone else's question silly?
You were not asked "Is it possible to believe things that we know are not real."

You were asked "Is it possible for a mind to believe things that are not real?"
Actually it is impossible for us to believe in something we know isn't true or is not real in reality, because all belief is a belief in reality and everything else is just unbelief of the truth and thus not reality.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
A strawman is when you misrepresent what I say and then proceed to argue against YOUR misrepresentation of what I said rather than what I said in reality. And that's exactly what you did, so learn how to think and argue properly to get to the truth, rather than your projecting and strawmanning.
Good. You know what a strawman is. Now, do you know what projection is?

But everything after the 'if' is true and that's what's important.
No. That's not good enough. You are just asserting that it is true, without showing it.
So, whereas 'in reality YOU cannot "know" about things existing before you believe they exist in reality, then it is impossible for you to know of anything existing in reality without a believing mind, because consciousness and a believing mind like reality is only knowable and experienceable in the present tense and unknowable to you outside or without the benefit of a believing mind.' You need to refute what I said instead spewing your objections to the word "if".
Strawman. The issue is not whether I know things, without belief. That is accepted. The point at issue is whether things can exist without being known. Showing that they cannot be known doesn't do anything. That is part of the initial condition. What you have to show is that if something is not known, it cannot exist. All you are saying is that if it is not known, then it cannot be known to exist. This is not the same thing.

Illogical nonsense and simply false. Please list these "things that are not known" or these "classes of objects" "that are not known", and say what they are and how and why you know they exist in reality.
Strawman. If they are not known to exist, then obviously we don't know that they exist. Equally obviously, this does not prevent them existing while unknown. We know that this happens whenever we discover something in the present that we can se existed in the past. Are you suggesting that Pluto sprang into existence at the moment of discovery?

Actually everything we know we know ONLY because we believe it in reality, because all knowledge of the truth and reality is belief based and without a believing mind the truth and reality are unknowable to you. So, in reality "prior to" your belief in reality, you know nothing, so stop pretending you do.
Strawman. I'm not pretending to know things before I know them, silly. I am saying that once I know them, I can see that they existed before I knew them.

Actually in reality "belief requires a mind" and we require a believing mind in order to make the truth and reality known to us.
Actually in reality, this is exactly what I said. It is not disputed.

Really? How can you know anything about anything's "existence" in reality including any knowledge of our own existence without the benefit of a believing mind in order to make it known to us silly? You cannot, so you are again pretending to know what isn't knowable to you in reality.
Strawman. I never claimed to be able to do such a thing, silly. I am not pretending to know anything. I am saying that I know now of things that existed for a long time before I came to know them. My wife was 25 when I first met her. She had been in existence for 25 years without my knowledge.
Strawman and you are projecting again, because in reality "it's your inability to" prove the "existence of" anything without the benefit of a "believing mind that shows the falsity of your" criticism silly, because outside of a believing mind the truth and reality are unknowable to you.
Strawman, since being unknown to me does not prevent things from existing. 99.999% of the universe is unknown to me, or you, yet we know it exists.

Actually in reality all things that exist are ONLY known to exist in and by a believing mind, because it is only a mind that is capable of knowledge of the truth and reality and it is ONLY a believing mind that is capable of believing the truth and reality known to us. And because it is ONLY a believing mind that capable of knowing of and experiencing its own existence in reality,
All this is true.
then the truth and reality must be the product of a believing mind,
This is not true. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
because it is ONLY a believing mind that is capable of this feat. And you have not and cannot show otherwise without exposing yourself to a self-refuting argument.
The believing mind allows a person to know the truth, if and only if, what is believed to be true actually is true. The belief may coincide with the truth, but it does not create the truth. Reality would be a nightmare if everything that is believed was true.
 
Last edited:
Top