Now you're just being purposefully confusing.

Whatever the court of law sets.

No. About what?

I don't get it then.

Without human brains, there can also be no human facts.

Yes, all opinions. But not all opinions are created equal. Some opinions are more useful than others.

So what is your definition of "fact?" .

Through my lawyers. If I can convince the right people that I'm right, then they will enforce my will.

I guess I'm not making my point clear:

As I see it, a "fact" is the product of a neurological process. Consequently, if there's no "brain" then there are also no "facts."

But all facts are claims.

Yes, but the claim that this state of affairs exists cannot exist without a human brain.

By appealing to approximate consensus. There is a societal consensus that I can sue him in a court of law. And if I win, then society will order officers to collect that debt for me.

What do you mean by "state of affairs?"

I happen to believe that the Earth existed before the appearance of "human brains."

However, this 'fact'- the claim that the Earth existed, etc. etc.- cannot exist without a brain to think it.

i disagree. If there are no brains, then there will also be no facts.

I don't define "fact" like the way a lot of other people do. As I see it, a "fact" is just a strongly held opinion that a person's brain [edit] is really certain about.

It avoids airy statements like "the world happens to be from some reference point."

Thanks.

A better (more specific) definition would be:

"facts are perspectives generated by the brain that the brain happens to be really really certain about."

The only options are "flag, share, quote."

Alright.

[Is there a way to edit your previous posts?]

What's your definition of "fact?" I define it as a strongly held opinion, a feeling of certainty towards a belief.

Ah. Then what's your definition of "fact?"

Fair enough: then provide a definition that I can understand because obviously, your brain is superior to mine.

As a matter of opinion, I strongly believe that I submitted a comment, too. But again, I only know this because my brain trusts itself.

Here's my take:

1. I submitted a comment above.
2. This comment showed up on your screen.
3. Your eyes read the statement. Your brain interpreted it.
4. You're not schizophrenic. Consequently, your brain trusts itself.
5. Your brain is certain that it's a "fact" that I submitted a comment.

Hence: all facts are strongly held opinions. You have a very strongly held opinion that I submitted a comment, which you call a "fact."

Condense it into something understandable. I know that website and it's virtually unreadable.

What argument? Give me your definition of "fact" and we can talk about it.

Not all opinions are created equal.

I've given a partial definition of "fact." Give me your definition and I'll answer your question.

Let me try and clarify more:

1. People establish their "facts" from experience.
2. They assume these "facts" are permanent (which is why they call them "facts"). E.g. statements like "you're entitled to your opinions, not your 'facts'.

This is a contradiction. If facts come from experience, then they cannot be permanent because people in the future will have very different experiences.

Hence my claim that all facts are just strongly held opinions.

To be frank, I didn't really understand what you just said. But at least you're talking about "properties of classes," and that's a good sign.

What whollyrolling is saying. Kinda.

I'm claiming that the "class" of "facts"- as the average person would think of it- is empty because the properties of the class contradict itself.

It is a strongly held opinion of mine that I have opinions.

Yes, you have a very strongly held opinion that you're replying to what I submitted.

Obviously, we need a definition of "fact."

Here's mine. In order for a concept to be a "fact", it has to have at least two properties:

1. Permanence. For example, if you believe it's a fact that the Earth goes around the Sun, you can't just willy nilly believe the opposite the next day. Similarly, if you accept that "X is a fact" you're assuming that people in the future will also accept that "X is a fact."

2. All "facts" are statements.

My position is that these two properties are in contradiction with one another. Consequently, there is no such thing as facts.

No, I'm fairly confident in my opinion that all facts are just strongly held opinions.

No I'm pretty sure it is my opinion. I don't understand your line of questioning. What's your point?

No, because the moment you think about it you're stating it to yourself.

I'm pretty sure it is.