A good point? Maybe...
Perfect example of semantics? Definetly.

There are quite a few more meanings to the word "sound". Why did you choose the one other meaning that should have been ruled out by logic given the example shown that "noone hears it"???

Would you like the definitions for the words I used in my reply also?

I base much thinking on that as well. I think that it establishes good internal grounds to develop openmindedness. In addition to that, it also has the side benefit of not allowing oneself to become too overconfident; The recognition of which helps to keep one intellectually honest.

The only argument here would be the distinction made in my mind that denotes the different characteristics between actuality and reality.

I think we are reading two very different sets of writing.





I am reading my own.

This was written in response to Shoku:






It is not the beneficial semantic arguments that bother me as much as the ones that do not change anything except the most commonly used forms of meaning for the terms themselves.

Evidence is an outward sign or indication of proof.

indication : something that serves to indicate
indicate : to point out or point to b : to be a sign, symptom, or index of
proof: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact


"It" refers to evidence. Since "It"(outward sign - indication of proof) does exist independently of the mind, your perception is irrelevant UNTIL you wish to present it as proof.



Are you confusing "proof" with "evidence"?



Then you should concede that evidence does exist outside of your perception.

Pan,

You do not understand the argument being presented here.

Yes I do, I brought about the agument in recognition of how you considered evidence that didn't agree with you.

Merian-Webster...
actuality: 2 : something that is actual : fact, reality

I see no difference between reality and actuality.

I'm getting off this merry-go-round, have fun on your see-saw...

Truly. A semantic circus it most certainly is.

Besides it all boils down to nothing more than people differing in their own personal views of things. There are no 'absolutes' to pin down.

Like you say, the question about the tree falling in the woods answers it all.

The objective answer is, yes, the tree makes sound because objectively sound is defined as vibrations in air, and it's safe to conlude that if the tree fell in a forest the air was vibrated.

The subjective answer is, no, because subjectively sound is defined as that which we perceive and if no one was there to perceive it, then no sound was experienced, even though air was vibrating (i.e. the objective definition of sound).

So both answers are correct depending on which premises and defintions a person is willing to accept.

The whole cirrus of "What constitutes evidence" is the very same deal. It's entirely up to the person who is deciding what 'evidence' even means to them.

A while back Creative wrote:



But that's a misguided fallacy. We all choose our definitions of how we see things based on our world view. Or, if we are truly open-minded we realized that there are many world views and therefore definitions are never concrete.

As to the "rules" of logic, most people use the same rules, however, depending on which premises they choose as a foundation for their logical analysis they may arrive at vastly different conclusions. There can be no such thing as "Absolute Logic" without the existence of "Absolute Premises". And there are no Absolute Premises.

Objective-thinking people assume as a premise that there is an objective world "out there" that are attempting to analyize.

Subjective-thinking people assume as a premise that their experience is the focal point of "reality".

Semantically swapping in the word "actuality" instead of "reality" serves what purpose?

Whatever "realilty" actually is would be "actuality" so it's just semantic smoke and mirrors to play the word games. The two words must ultimately mean the same thing in the end otherwise it would imply that the word "reality" doesn't truly refer to what's "actually" going on. But that would fly in the face of what "reality" is supposed to mean.

So yes, a semantic merry-go-round is indeed what it is. You either jump off while the merry-go-round is spinning, or you stay on it forever because the semantic games are never going to stop.

Creative wroteIsn’t the perception of a thing evidence of its existence?

It seems to me it is, which means that anything perceived is evidence.

Either that or the thing itsef isn't evidence, rather the perception of it is the evidence. Which would make evidence entirely subjective.

Intersting food for thought.

In a general terms, yes everything perceived is evidence of something.

All "stuff" is evidence of something.

But if you are looking for evidence of a particular thing, assertion, statement, crime, etc. everything perceived is not evidence of that.

I agree. Evidence requires something to relate to. That is to say, in order for anything to be considered evidence, it must be evidence of something.

Well this was my position way back at the beginning of the thread. I stated that the very term 'evidence' is meaningless outside of the context of the specific situation or idea that the 'evidence' is being said to support.

But I was chastised by the host for attempting to go beyond the purpose of the thread which was to consider 'evidence' without reference to any specific situations or ideas. I suggested that "evidence" would be a meaningless concept in that case and I still maintain that view.

Without a specific situation or idea to support, the very meaning of the concept of 'evidence' is lost. It's a meaningless concept when taken out of context like that. It's not an absolute idea it's an idea that is relative to other ideas and dependent upon them for it's very meaning.

Yes. I went back an looked and there it is - right on page one.

I think that the underlying foundation which constitutes the need for very concept of evidence is being ignored here. I must take responsibility for this in some way because, by my very nature, I attempt to speak to others in a language in which they understand. Therefore, in discussions like this, when one presents an argument which is illogical, I will attempt to use their own argument as a demonstration to show why.

This discussion has had a few interesting twists and turns, to say the least. Arguments were given. I addressed accordingly. Then the argument changes. I re-address accordingly. Then, it changes once more. Now, we have the claim that reality/actuality exists independently of one's mind, therefore evidence exists outside of perception? How does that necessarily follow???Then the label of 'semantic' is being attributed to my refutations? I have given logical grounds. Those can be quoted and further discussed in context, in order to get out this this classic example of bait and switch.



I have addressed previously unmentioned factors on at least two occasions without written acknowledgment. Very sound reasons have already been given to warrant the need for those new factors to be held in one's consideration, without those even being addressed in a logical manner. Quoting words alone does not suffice. When one's words are quoted, those words must be logically assessed by determining what follows from them.

Instead the focus has been upon proving that I am somehow being hypocritical according to someone elses perception which goes logically unsupported. I have already shown how that is not the case. That alone indicates the party is either unable or unwilling to acknowledge new evidence being presented and insists upon making the same claims in spite of growing evidence to the contrary. Which is fine on personal terms for personal reasons. However, this is a philosophical discussion. There are rules for correctly doing that. There are very good reasons for why those rules exist.

With that in mind, the label 'semantic' is being strewn about as if it is necessarily an indication of something negative. That is simply untrue. While I believe that it can be, in this case the semantics are everything.

The point is very simple. I will make it, once again, by using another previously undemonstrated determining factor that is not being properly taken into consideration.

A gun necessarily is a gun.

A gun is not necessarily evidence of anything, including it's own existence.

An orange is necessarily an orange.

An orange is not necessarily evidence, including it's own existence.

The list of things this pattern necessarily applies to is nearly endless and correlates to all known things. I am not prone to claming absolutes, but when it comes to a man-made concept, such a evidence, it is absolutely man-made. Evidence is a tool which facilitates the ability to consistently interact in the world according to our understanding of it. It is contingent upon human use for it's very existence.

Therefore...

What MAKES *anything* evidence is it's use as such. Before then it is only a thing, in and of itself - whatever that may be. If one wants to address this, then please logically address what I have written...in context.

End of argument against unknown and/or unrevealed evidence.

Pan wrote:



Allow me to hold up a mirror for you.

Complete with clowns...



Are you absolutely sure?



Show how that question connects to all. I can certainly show it's irrelevancy to much. All necessarily includes that.



One is completely objective and exists independantly of the human mind, and the other is a completely man-made concept.

That is not the very same deal.



That is an unsupported open assertion. Got grounds for it?



What does that first sentence even mean?

Some are logical and openminded and therefore review evidence carefully. Therefore, some realize that the above is an assertion which falsely proclaims that believing that statement is evidence for open-mindedness. Openmindedness is not contingent upon holding that belief.



I see one right here.



Assume? Assumption goes unsupported by fact. Someone say 'semantic'?



Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

Perception is reality, because it's affects are real.

Reality is not actuality. The benefit you ask? I already answered...

Well then what is called "evidence" is a matter of opinion.

When you use "stuff" and call it "evidence" and the "stuff" is not accepted as "evidence" then its becomes an opinion whether the stuff is evidence or not.

1. So "evidence" has to be shown (to someone else.)
2. It has to be accepted by someone else.
3. Personal experience is not evidence, because it cannot be shown.

I suggest taking a walk, there IS evidence that it may lighten your mood.

If perception is reality, and reality is not actuality, then how do you know what actuality is?

Is it an agreement or is it unknown?

I will respond to this after a movie with the chilluns.