Knowledge is information. The apple is green. The apple is red. Using logic to derive understanding, we notice a contradiction that needs to be resolved. We can distinguish truth from falsity by reflecting back to the grounding in reality. The apple is actually red, not green.

I distinguish belief from knowledge in that belief is trust, loyalty and faith put into something. There are two (main?) types of belief that I have discerned, one that I call healthy and the other unhealthy, in terms of properly aligning our perceptions with reality.

![102a-Beliefs-40.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmfEeUFXdkJwgCMhBU9edqhn8rSxHA3h1quRYWLeq1faTy/102a-Beliefs-40.jpg)

Unverified knowledge is belief. Claims of truth that aren't verified are not truth to us because we haven't verified it. We can believe and have trust, loyalty and faith in others, which is the foundation for cooperation and human success, as we can't know and verify what happened in other people's lives and must trust them and their competency. A health belief is fine, so long as we don't actually call it the actual truth that is demonstrable and verified. When people tell us things, we can say we believe them, or we believe they are telling us the truth, because that's how it actually works. 

Truth has a definition. It's veracious and veritably verifiable, from Latin veritas (truth). Belief has a definition, which is of faith, loyalty and trust in something, an idea, a person, etc. To accept truth is objective, one only need to initially have faith, trust and loyalty to believe the truth is possible, then when one goes out to understand more and verify things, one can indeed verify that truth exists as a universal grouping order construct, like reality, existence, universe do. Many things exist yet don't exit in themselves as their own individual things, like an apple, atom, etc. Morality is another thing that exists as a description reflecting our behaviors. Truth is a reflection of "what is" or what was, and there is the future that will be the truth of what will come to be when it happens.

Belief potentials from imagination are where we can create anything and then verify with reality to see if what we think is true or not. It can lead us to a type 2 truth as I call it, moral truth of possible ways to live. 

![19a-Truth-Two-Levels---Two-Truths.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmVLuhjQvjbBtTrwr2BYLqN5nR8jfLLP3prKDKE27mmvRe/19a-Truth-Two-Levels---Two-Truths.jpg)

Right and wrong can be objectively determined. I don't adhere to your definition of objective. Actions come from hands that are real. Actions are real. They are objective. What they do is objective. The harm they create is objective. The basic foundation is the objective harm from murder, rape, assault, theft. 

If someone doesn't understand that those actions are real and objectively discerned, then that sucks that they can't see the reality of human behavior before their eyes. I can't get past rigid "left"-brain imbalanced mindsets like that. Discerning what is objective and what is subjective is required, which I have tried to do: [Objective and Subjective Defined](https://steemit.com/philosophy/@krnel/objective-and-subjective-defined). Simply because something originate from a subjective internal consciousness of thoughts and emotions, actions are in the real world with effects and are objective occurrences. Subjective morality is fake false understanding of how morality works as a representation and reflection of our behavior. Objective morality is objective discernment of the difference between right and wrong. And it's complex as hell, as there are nearly infinite context and situations that can arise, which is why rulsets are not the goal, but proper thinking. Learning how to think is required so that differentiation can be done given a context, not rote obedience to a rulset like the "legal" system has co-opted in place of moral law comprehension.

Indeed, we must always be ready to revise something if better reflections with reality emerge. But there is a real territory we are discovering, and if we discover 5% of one aspect, and later 5% more, it doesn't mean that the first 5% was wrong, but only applicable to that depth of perception which limited deeper comprehension and additional facets. The map detail was on enhanced into higher definition detail. Vision is enhanced compared to before. And for sure, many times there can be outright false mapping that doesn't represent reality. We need to be more careful and desiring to root the false areas out, than to enhance the detail in other areas. Avoiding disaster is better.

Personal experience still reflects "reality", but maybe we hallucinated and it didn't happen in external reality, but only our internal reality hehe ;) Still the senses are all we have, those are the instruments we must trust. They are the portal to truth. If we were blind, deaf, couldn't taste, feel, or smell, then we would be dead in short time. Senses although limited compared to other tech, are the tools that were designed for our use, and we have them to make good use of in order to discern objective reality of the territory in existence.

You seem to think you can't know anything with certainty to base your actions upon, so it's all "internal approximation of reality"? The overly "left"-brain type of hyper-skepticism and doubt can lead to a subjectivist and solipsistic type of thinking. I know, I was there in the past. I'm just mentioning this, as I'm getting this mindset from you at times. It can also happen with "right"-brain imbalanced mindsets as well. But, if you mean it's an approximation like the %5 now, and it's not "100%" of all knowledge or truth about something in reality... ok. You don't need to, nor can likely have, 100% absolute knowledge of everything about something. We learn all the way through life ideally. That doesn't mean that as we go, we don't achieve levels of comprehension, certain percentage points of understanding something, that is accurate and won't need to be revised, ever. There are some things that are certain for us to base our actions upon, and not approximate.

That's my objection to some points in what you said. I like how you think for the most part, except for what I consider some misunderstanding of what objective is. I've done lots of thinking and infographics and audios and text on this type of stuff. I mostly stick to the realm of consciousness and more general things in reality, as you may notice I don't do specific political things or events much. This is because these truths about ourselves, behavior, thinking, and some things about reality in general, can all be verified and demonstrable on our own, by each person. It applies to all our lives and we can all see it if we want to learn and verify it. Psychological and philosophical understanding is the foundation to start from that we can each very on our own.  Then the trust we can put in others competency also grows as each person becomes a better thinker.

Anyways, I respect you, your psyche-mind, and I rarely take the time to respond in depth as I have been. It takes a lot of time to explain things hehe. Like this aspect of confusion regarding objective and subjective is a big rabbit hole. I understand it, but explaining it takes so much time. I have pieces of work that interconnect that relate to understanding the intricacies. If you have more issues about this, I'll try to make posts next time. Doing things one-on-one takes up a lot of time with fewer people befitting from it :P I like to do one-to-many information presentation.