Philosophers fail to realize that they are creating a separate world that can fall apart if applied too closely to the real world. — TheSageOfMainStreet

If philosophers are doing this, I suggest they're doing it wrong. If philosophy does not relate to the world we experience, what use is it?

"Objective Truth" just means "I'm really really sure this is correct and if you don't agree with me you're dumb." — YuZhonglu

No, "Objective truth" describes a statement/proposition/etc that accurately and correctly reflects that which actually is. The word you have described is "opinion".

There is no thing as it is. Any belief is the result of physical processes of the brain. No brain = no truths.

No one who is serious points to a bridge and says "this thing is as it is." Pointing at a belief and saying "this thing is as it is" is just as silly.

Any belief is the result of physical processes of the brain. — YuZhonglu

Maybe. Please don't state possibilities - even those you believe to be highly probable - as certainties. This is a philosophy forum, after all. :smile:

Maybe. Please don't state possibilities - even those you believe to be highly probable - as certainties. This is a philosophy forum, after all. — Pattern-chaser

Focusing on certainty, as if it is or should be a goal, as if we need it to claim things, etc. is a big mistake in my opinion.

Yes, certainty paralyses your thinking. Why would you question or consider anything, when you know you're right, that your beliefs are certain? [Or 'certainly correct', if you prefer.]

Knowing something doesn't imply certainty though.

Knowing something doesn't imply certainty though. — Terrapin Station

Sorry, I tend to use "know" for what we certainly know, and "believe" for what we think we know. I forget not everyone uses that particular distinction. :blush:

Aren't the two intrinsically connected, however?

Sorry, I tend to use "know" for what we certainly know, and "believe" for what we think we know. — Pattern-chaser

The standard analysis of knowledge in philosophy is that knowledge is a type of belief.

Yes, but one is certain, and the other (which applies to almost everything :wink:) is not. That's the only distinction between them, as far as I can see.

The standard analysis of knowledge in philosophy is that knowledge is a type of belief. — Terrapin Station

In the way that I use the words, everything we think correct is belief, even the things we're certain of, which are also known. Because belief is less than "know". So I agree that knowledge is a type of belief. But maybe that's not quite the meaning you intended?

I get what you're saying.
But considering we believe in what we know and know what we believe, I don't see how one is more certain than the other.

Sorry, it's the way I use the words, but not everyone else does. :wink: That's fair enough. There are no terms defined, and distinguished, for this purpose.

No, beliefs and knowledge ARE the results of physical processes of the brain. Zombies and dead people don't have beliefs.

The feeling of spiritualism is a physical process of the brain, too. Ants don't get spiritual. Why? Because they don't have the brains for it.

No, beliefs and knowledge ARE the results of physical processes of the brain. — YuZhonglu

Then I leave you in the ecstasy of certainty. Enjoy! :smile:

Then I leave you in the ecstasy of certainty. Enjoy! :smile: — Pattern-chaser

I'd say that we know that they're physical processes of the brain.

I wouldn't say that it's impossible that they could be something else.

But there would have to be good reasons--some evidence, whether good empirical evidence or some sort of sound logical argument--to believe otherwise.

There would have to be good reasons ... to reach a conclusion. In this, and in many (most? all?) other topics. Without good reasons, we guess and carry on. And, as long as we don't mistake our guesses for something more well-founded, all is well. (IMO, of course.) I seek only to keep the door to the unknown ajar. :wink:

A statement is either true or false. — curiousnewbie

Schrödinger's cat is dead.

There would have to be good reasons ... to reach a conclusion. In this, and in many (most? all?) other topics. — Pattern-chaser

Right, which there are for believing that mind is identical to brain, but not otherwise.

Conclusive reasons?

Yes, especially given that all evidence points to it.

Does it? The brain is colourless, odourless, meaningless matter, yet the mind experiences and assigns these things. It seems to be obviously the case that the mind and brain are different.

But regardless of that, if it is objectively the case that something exists, which it must be, then there must be objective truth that we are capable of knowing, right?

The brain is colourless, odourless, meaningless matter, yet the mind experiences and assigns these things. It seems to be obviously the case that the mind and brain are different. — AJJ

Wait, first, the brain is colorless, odorless?? Brains definitely have a color and would have an odor if you were to smell them. What that has to do with anything is another issue, but what are you thinking, that brains are transparent or something?

A brain in and of itself has no colour. It refracts light a certain way. This refraction is experienced in the mind as colour. How can something that has no colour as we experience it experience colour?

A brain in and of itself has no colour. It refracts light a certain way. — AJJ

"It refracts light a certain way" is what color is.

Its colour is what we experience, in our minds. In purely material terms there is no colour, only light refraction.

In purely material terms there is no colour, only light refraction. — AJJ

"In purely material terms," light refraction IS COLOR.

Conflating that with the experience of color is just that--a conflation.

It’s only colour once someone experiences it, in their mind. Otherwise it’s just particles bouncing around.

It’s only colour once someone experiences it, in their mind. Otherwise it’s just particles bouncing around. — AJJ

Conflating color in general with the experience of color is just that--a conflation.

You want to keep repeating a conflation because?