DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I think it's how you define it.  To me if any part of the truth isn't such, then it is a lie.  If you suggest it there can be "partial truth" then maybe, but that would be contextual. 

Very well, then allow me to explain my definitions.
To me, reality is that which is, that which exists, the physical world, its interactions and emerging properties.

A statement has a truth value attributed to it. A statement is true if it is an accurate representation of reality.
The partial truth you speak of may be an inaccurate description.
An example I like is how Newtonian relativistic motion is not exactly accurate, but, when it was developed, it was as accurate as possible. Nowadays, we have refined it to include relativistic effects from Einstein. Is our current description the most accurate possible? Maybe, maybe not. But it is the best we have.

Some people are convinced that their description of some aspect of reality is accurate, when it is far from it. I wouldn't label statements from such people as lies, but rather honest mistakes. I think most believers speak of gods from this stand point.

To me, a lie is a deliberate fabrication conveying an erroneous description of reality, masked as an accurate one.

I don't think it works any different for "reality", and the two can be synonymous.  For me "truth would be "what we assert" and "reality" would be "how we live", but someone may come along and define those things differently. 

As I said above, I don't think those are synonyms. They should be close, but these two words describe different concepts.

I'm interested to hear more of your concept of reality. Care to elaborate a bit more, please?

The bit about being responsible to others. I agree. I think social responsibility is important.  But not everybody talks how we are talking where there's an attempt for mutual understanding.  In fact, I would assert more times than not it ends up in a tug-o-war type situation where the end goal is to try and beat the other party. The more they tug, you tug, but that tug-o-war ends up leading to ignorance because the end goal is to win, not learn.

LOL. I'm not sure what there is to win, in here
I'm mostly trying to understand your point of view on these things, while conveying my own in the hopes that any misunderstandings that arise from us attributing different connotations to particular words can be straightened out.

Also, I welcome the change of pace on this thread.

In "reality" you win tug-o-war when you give a little.  My dogs do this. They pull, then they give some slack. That's how they win because by giving slack, they can exert more force when they pull the next time. So back to discussions, that same thing is optimal in conversations. If you give a little slack here and there for the sake of understanding and learning together, it can potentially be win-win. You come to a conclusion that makes sense, even if it's not 100 percent of what you started with.  More times than not, that is where the solution lies.  "Mom, he hit me"  No, Mom he hit me" When they probably both hit each other.

True, true!

As we both know, definitions are important.  I have no doubt that you know that already, even in terms of study, and based on the conversation so far.

As far as reality, I believe it can be both objective and subjective.  One of the emerging (I think) trends is virtual reality.  If you experience something with a VR headset, is it reality?  Is it factual as an experience if I stated this phenomenon in terms of "truth" and "reality."

I did one of the VR experiences where you dive under water and a shark comes along and you have an interaction with the shark.  It was a real experience, but was it reality?  What is the determination of that reality?  Is it conceptual or is it dependent on realism by the objects within that construct?  I think it's all "yes" and "no", because it depends how I look at it.  It could mimic an actual experience with the same stimuli and reactions from the shark darting towards me.  My mind could conceive and even cause me to react by jumping, shaking, being nervous, or even anxious as to when and where the shark was going to show up next.  But does the conception of the stimuli, the feelings, the visualization, and everything else involved make it real?  If you took a blind poll, I can imagine many would say "yes" and likewise many would say "no" based on how they perceive the world and attribute value to things.  I don't think "truth" allows for that same option. Did I have an experience with a shark as defined by a dictionary?  (A: No, I had an experience with a computer simulation that attempted to replicate a shark.) If I claimed it was a "real" shark, people would probably tell me I was off my rocker.   Regardless, both concepts are important and I believe they can both be used to validate one another.  Additionally I'm sure I missed some variables in explaining this because there's so much that can go into discussing such a thing.

As far as the tug-o-war example, I believe optimization is important. When you have a tug-o-war match, optimally you would be having fun, even if it was competitive.  Even if you don't win, you can still smile, shake hands, and hope you come out on top the next time.  You didn't both win the match, but you both won because you had a fun experience.  It's not optimized when the purpose is to degrade or humiliate the other team.  Ridiculing or laughing at them because you won and they fell in the mud, or telling them they were wasting their time.  One party may go away happy, but both likely won't.  Then there's always things like, "I let you win." where the loser could try to degrade the winner by suggesting they were given the match, possibly because due to them being inept and the loser being kind enough to "throw em a bone" in that one.  Again, it's not optimal.

Anyway, regardless of what you find favorable, I don't think my view is necessarily better than your view.  It's how I view life. If I was raised differently with and in regard to different variables, my conclusions may very well be different and match more closely to your views.  We are all subject to something.  Some say it's "God" and others say it's "Randomness" or even something else.  But regardless, I think humanity is optimal when we attempt to become "solution-based" rather than "problem-based."  That way we're looking for answers to things rather than just looking to make more problems.