In order to say that in reality, independently from what anyone thinks, Santa Claus actually does exist you must accept that “independently from what anyone thinks” is a meaningful statement. Which I don’t. It’s a meaningless statement that was invented by people who, lacking in experience, have no choice but to literally interpret other people’s statements that must be interpreted laterally in order to extract any meaning from them.
Santa Claus is neither existent nor non-existent independently from what anyone thinks. Rather, what we have is people thinking that Santa Claus is either existent or non-existent. In other words, whether Santa claus exists or not depends on what the one choosing between the two options thinks. But that does not mean that people necessarily choose what they are going to believe based on what they want to believe. For example, I think that if I cut my wrist and let it bleed that I will die. Even though this is not what I want to happen. I’d rather stay alive.
There is a difference between what one expects will happen (map) and what will in fact happen (territory.) It is one thing to expect, for example, that it will rain on Monday and another thing to see with your eyes that it is raining on Monday. Note that both of these are subject-dependent. It is the subject that expects and it is the subject who sees with his own eyes. Removing the subject from your statements does not change the fact that each one of these actions is subject-dependent.
Because other people make such a distinction and you want to deny it.
The distinction between “that which exists (independently from what anyone thinks)” and “that which some person thinks exists” is a spurious one. It only exists in language. Outside of language, there is no such a distinction.
I don’t make such a distinction. Other people do. And if you want to address them, you have no choice but to make such a distinction yourself in order to be able to deny it.
Hallucinations, mirages and dreams are not unreal. Rather, it is our assumptions that they extend in ways that they actually don’t that are unreal.
That’s language. Language is flexible. Words are largely ambiguous on their own i.e. they have more than one meaning. The word “break” for example has 40 meanings or so. Words generally don’t have much meaning on their own. Most of their meaning comes from context. You need to put them in context.
And unlike what JSS is telling you, this discussion isn’t about language. It is about how things work. It’s about phenomena.
I saw a woman yesterday and she was a “real” woman in the sense that she had all of the things I expect in a woman.
You are missing the point.
That’s true.
Yes. The only difference is that the former is succint.
They are not. They can be about past. They can also be timeless (as in the case of agents that employ what I call atemporal intelligence that operates on atemporal data, but that’s too strange in relation to how necessary it is in order to demonstrate my point.)
Nowhere is it implied that if you don’t experience something that you assume that it exists. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be much point to assumptions.
Events are not defined by effect. You can have events without any notion of cause-and-effect.
There is such a thing as an assumption that has no effect on behavior. This is pretty much indisputable. I don’t think it’s fruitful to discuss it in depth.
Let’s just say that at the present moment in time the assumption that there is a bomb planted in my house has no effect on my behavior. This means it is not motivating me to do something about it (e.g. defuse it or run away from my house.)