On the issue of belief!

[Doctordick]

To me, this seems to be a contradiction:shrug:

That's because you are missinterpreting the quotes. :steering: :xparty:

 

I am sure DanGray will explain it all to you. :phones: :Bump2::confused:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[DanGray]

That's because you are missinterpreting the quotes. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

Have fun -- Dick

there you go :)

 

Zythryn spot on to what I said :)

 

even the way you think,,, it makes sense to me

 

as the book was written in the span of time I believe it was a/for history of the time not so much at that time of the write for the future, I said not so much,,,

we know there were beast before Man kind, during and after

when when the 2nd was written.

and of course beast were made after man .

I don't even see a problem in the way you wrote it

interpreted your way..

well , I have work to getR done,, you all have fun

and be sure to make the right decisions in life, it's almost all that matters..

of course the place that they are based on counts most..for what's in store for you after you leave here :) make sence of that if you will ;) :shrug:

[lawcat]

Belief:

 

First, it must be defined as subjective.

 

Then, it is a subjective conviction that something is or not, based on subjective perception of the underlying circumstances.

 

A belief can be judged objectively as sincere, reasonable, substantial, competently supported, widely accepted, etc.

[HydrogenBond]

Belief has a subjective component. But it doesn't have to be 100% subjective to be classified as a belief. A belief can also contain a high percentage of objective or rational components. Even a small percent of subjective can turn it into a belief. Many believe a socialist form for government is the best way to go. There are rational arguments but also subjectivity due to personal preference.

 

Belief in God has a high percent of subjectivity since it is hard to provide objective proof. It is not purely subjective because religious accounts can sometimes be supported with evidence.

 

There are also science beliefs. For example, the big bang is mostly objective but it is not 100%. There is no longer even a consensus since other "beliefs" are also popping up, with even less objectivity. The iron core of the earth is a belief that has a high percent of objectivity but no direct core sample to make it 100%.

 

Empirical science is an odd duck since the method is not based on cause and affect or objectivity. It has a built in uncertainty feature which is another name for scientific subjectivity. The results use belief. For example, eating white sugar is not good for you. This is a belief we would like to think is objective even if it doesn't apply to everyone. It is not based on rational certainty of 1.0.

[lawcat]

Below, Updated.

[lawcat]

Belief is the single most devastating concept ever imposed upon humanity. There is no requirement for belief with regard to any concept of reality. The only requirement of any explanation of any kind is that it be consistent with what is known: i.e.., it produces no expectations counter to what has been experienced. Belief serves no purpose beyond presenting a prediction beyond what is actually expected. So long as prediction is consistent with expectations, there is no necessity of belief whatsoever. In actual fact, belief is in direct opposition to recognition of a competent represention of reality.

 

If you seriously disagree with my assessment with the circumstance please comment on this post. I would be seriously interested in your complaints.

 

Have fun—Dick

 

While this is a common sentiment, I’ve never found it very satisfying. My only problem is the inability to properly, and more important objectively define belief. If we are going to say belief is a devastating concept then we have no choice but to define it and distinguish it from things like knowledge, facts, scientific theory, and experience. I don’t know if that sounds intuitively easy to other people, but to me it is incredibly subjective and difficult.

 

~modest

 

Belief must be subjective.

 

To say that a belief exists outside of an entity would be absurd. Belief is a function of reasoning, therefore it cannot exist in a vacuum. It must exist within an entity, whether a group or a person.

 

As a function of reasoning, a belief is a conviction in something, rooted in the perceived subject matter

 

However, an objective (outside) observer can judge a belief. For example, we can say that a belief (a conviction in perceived subject matter) is unreasonable because there is a problem (objectively viewed) with (1) conviction, or (2) perception, or (3) subject matter.

 

Thus, a belief may be insincere because (1) the conviction, in such belief is disingenuous. Or the belief is flawed because (2) the entity lacks perceptive ability. Or, the belief is unreasonable because there is no evidence of support in the (3) subect matter.

 

Therefore, subjectively, a person can have honest conviction in perceived subject matter. But objectively, we may find it reasonable, irrational, convincing, persuasive,fair, or insincere. We can judge the quality of someone's belief objectively.

 

In science, we can do a bit more than that. We can not only judge the substance of the belief, but also the procedure. We can judge whether the reasonable perceptive procedures were applied, and whether the reasonable logical procedures were applied to get from perspection to conviction.

 

In science, it is generally irrelevant whether a belief is substantively "fair," but it is important procedurally. Beliefs are fair if they comport with the reasonable expectation of the relevant parties. Thus, for example, your belief that your girlfriend should not cheat is only fair to you and your girlfriend if that belief comports with the reasonable expectations of both. Reasonable expectations are social constructs that have relevance to the fairness of a belief, but in science have very little relevance outside of procedural characterization--techniques applied. Here, reasonableness is again an objective standard.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Lawcat, to argue with DoctorDick on a subject which he initiates ... is like accepting a challenge from a master swordsman. If you make it out alive, you'll be a stronger person. His worldview has razor sharp edges - and the intensity of its colors can blind you.

 

I'm content to simply watch, as I doubt very much if his statement about belief is incorrect. I never really thought about belief in the way he proposes. The fact that it shocked me made me think that there was something important there which could be found if I looked hard enough.

 

I'm fairly certain that there is a common idea in all of his threads and if you're serious about this, check them all out. His respect for language is enormous and I've never seen him play games with definitions, well, not to obfuscate anyway.

 

Good Luck, by the way.

[lawcat]

You are appealing to authority; ; and then your emotions--inspiration. That is precisely what doctordick urges against, to my understanding.

 

Modest requested a definition prior to any analysis, so I provided one. What a definition generally does is: it clears up the fear of unknown, it focuses light on the matter.

 

Doctordick's problem with a concept of "belief" struck me more as an attitude or fear of belief than an explanation, although the initial post does indicate that "belief" is essentially flawed. If you read posts that followed the initial one you will find that other poster's have suggested that more is needed, or something different is needed, to make a more reasonable conclusion.

 

But, we operate and function on beliefs, for without we would be vegetation. I invoked some legal concepts--I synthesized legal view--of a what is belief, although it has never been formally defined as I explained it. Formal definitions, the ones you may find by googling, are very vague and lack direction and guidance. But, I welcome any opinion to what I have posted.

 

DoctorDick states:

 

Belief is the single most devastating concept ever imposed upon humanity.

 

I do not agree that it is all doom and gloom. Without belief we would not know we are, according to Descartes. But then it gets interesting, and I like it. The intial post is ingenious. Kudos to DD.

 

There is no requirement for belief with regard to any concept of reality. The only requirement of any explanation of any kind is that it be consistent with what is known; i.e.., it produces no expectations counter to what has been experienced.

 

I can not agree with this either, because humans conjure up things--just watch movies. In addition, the assertion here is that what is known is not reality. Therefore, the premise is that everything we know does not exist. Moreover, belief produces no expectations about reality, or about what is not know, which is reality.

 

Belief serves no purpose beyond presenting a prediction beyond what is actually expected. So long as prediction is consistent with expectations, there is no necessity of belief whatsoever.

 

I can not agree with this either. beliefs are often about past. But, according to DD: beliefs serve purpose only about what is expected, which according to previous post is about everything we know, which is not reality.

 

In actual fact, belief is in direct opposition to recognition of a competent represention of reality.

 

So in essence, the premise that

There is no requirement for belief with regard to any concept of reality. .

 

leads to conlusion that

 

In actual fact, belief is in direct opposition to recognition of a competent represention of reality.

 

Naturally. :-) Or, if future is not reality, then: because beliefs are about future, then they are not about reality. Or, maybe DD invokes Proust or Sartre and means: If thinking is always in the future, ahead of now; and if future is not reality; then thinking or beliefs are not in reality. Therefore, they can not be about reality. Or, if beliefs are in the past, they cannot be about reality, since past is not reality.

 

I think DD is talking about expectations even though some people say that DD is talking about faith. Ingenious nevertheless.

 

What makes this ingenious is that the conclusion ends in a paradox, which is also the premise. DD structures a false argument about what is in fact known: in actual fact we do not know reality: he knows reality, but at the same time he does not know reality.

 

The argument that: we do not know reality, ends up in : this sentence is false--the liar paradox.

 

So since this is a liar's paradox, thre are only two things that can be true: (1) we know reality, and (2) we know not reality. In essence, DDs argument boils down to this:

 

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW; and who can argue with that ladies and gentlemen?!?

 

So if you want to waste time, argue with DD about: everything we know is not reality. But, this post is not the height of DD, there are pages of threads that rotate around this simple premise. It's fun, check it out around these parts.

 

 

Have fun

[Donk]

Lawcat, to argue with DoctorDick on a subject which he initiates ... is like accepting a challenge from a master swordsman. If you make it out alive, you'll be a stronger person. His worldview has razor sharp edges - and the intensity of its colors can blind you.

I'd say lawcat managed to say touché a few times there... maybe even drew a little blood

 

I'm not in the same class, but I'll throw in my two cents anyway.

Belief is the single most devastating concept ever imposed upon humanity. There is no requirement for belief with regard to any concept of reality. The only requirement of any explanation of any kind is that it be consistent with what is known: i.e.., it produces no expectations counter to what has been experienced. Belief serves no purpose beyond presenting a prediction beyond what is actually expected. So long as prediction is consistent with expectations, there is no necessity of belief whatsoever. In actual fact, belief is in direct opposition to recognition of a competent represention of reality.

As people have pointed out, it comes down to definitions.

 

I believe in myself. Is that bad? If I had no self-belief, I wouldn't achieve anything. If I believed in myself more, I'd achieve more. But from the tenor of the OP that isn't what's meant.

 

As HydrogenBond pointed out, unless you're 100% sure of something, what remains is belief. Not exactly a "devastating concept". In fact, a necessary one, to smooth over the cracks between what's known and what's assumed.

 

I would guess that DD is railing against belief against the evidence (i.e. blind faith). A statement that everyone here would support.

[lawcat]

 

I would guess that DD is railing against belief against the evidence (i.e. blind faith). A statement that everyone here would support.

 

 

Next time someone tells you: Everything we know is not reality. Tell them: Of course. You do not know what you do not know; you only know what you know.

 

If they tell you: Straw man. That is not what I am saying. Tell them: Trust me. I know. Reality is reality precisely because we define it as what we know. We can assign anything to what we know: such as X, or any combination of words, or in your case not reality. But DD places utmost importance on this arbitrary liguistic construct instead of the essence of: we know what we know, so he goes around in loops. This is unremarkable, because scientists only know what they know.

 

We only know what we know, and that which we know we call reality.

 

Because what we know is reality, then religion is protected as a fundamental right in U.S. Because what we know is reality, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Ballard has expressly stated:

 

Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law.

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=322&page=78

 

 

But, now that we know what we know only, we can get to DD's life's inquiry:

 

The only answer is, we know something and we need a way of keeping track of it which does not depend on knowing what it is that we know.

 

He is pulling toward predictions--his wave equation. But I gave him some essential tools to work with unrealted to wave equation:

 

Belief must be subjective.

belief is a (1) conviction in something, rooted in the (2) perceived (3) subject matter.

 

Then, in "What we know of reality" thread, DD asserts:

 

 

We can then use extended formal logic to deduce the consequences of these fundamental “rational” assertions, ignoring the “beliefs” which would otherwise impede our progress.

 

But here he confuses beliefs with conclusions--they are one and the same. Or, DD means to differentiate between scientific and religious beliefs. Nonetheless, I explained:

 

Therefore, subjectively, a person can have honest conviction in perceived subject matter. But objectively, we may find it reasonable, irrational, convincing, persuasive,fair, or insincere. We can judge the quality of someone's belief objectively.

 

In science, we can do a bit more than that. We can not only judge the substance of the belief, but also the procedure. We can judge whether the reasonable perceptive procedures were applied, and whether the reasonable logical procedures were applied to get from perspection to conviction.

 

In science, it is generally irrelevant whether a belief is substantively "fair," but it is important procedurally. Beliefs are fair if they comport with the reasonable expectation of the relevant parties. Thus, for example, your belief that your girlfriend should not cheat is only fair to you and your girlfriend if that belief comports with the reasonable expectations of both. Reasonable expectations are social constructs that have relevance to the fairness of a belief, but in science have very little relevance outside of procedural characterization--techniques applied. Here, reasonableness is again an objective standard.

 

So that is that, about what we know.

 

 

have fun

[HydrogenBond]

Belief can help shape the factual future, even when it is not subject to the temporal evidence of the present. For example, Einstein believed in relativity, even though there was no proof while he was formulating. It went against the temporal assumptions and the hard data that supported that temporal dogma, which the future shows were based on just their own beliefs.

 

Belief may be irrational, but it looks to the future, and therefore may not be in touch with the temporal present. When the future comes, historians try to be figure out why the past had their belief, which was then considered a self evident fact.

 

If man was meant to fly he would have wings. This was based on the hard evidence of the time, since the mechanical was not yet well known and part of the mainstream hard data. The data was limited to birds and bugs. The belief saw mechanical and added to the data changing the self evident truth.

 

There is another side of belief, based on the motivation created, even when the belief is irrational and doesn't pan out. For example, during the gold rush years, many went west with the belief they would strike it rich. The believe was not real, but it was nevertheless a motivator, that helped to alter the future of the west. If none of the 49'ers had that pipe dream belief, but all decided to stayed practical within the limits of the temporal common sense and hard data, the new frontier would have moved like a snail. Instead the future accelerated because of belief.

 

One of my favorites is Christopher Columbus. The hard data said if he sailed west one would fall off the earth. This was based on a belief assumed self evident fact and the way that self evident fact shaped how one would be able to see the data. He had no proof to the contrary, but a belief it would somehow it would work out.

[Doctordick]

This thread grew quite fast with so many thoughtless posts that I took to not reading it (at least not very often). It seemed to me that my point was, to a great extent, being completely ignored. However, I just happened to look yesterday (I do that occasionally) and discovered Idsoftwaresteve's post (which was flattering but a little wide of the mark: a master swordsman??? :lol: ) I am afraid that his judgment has little to support it. If I were even competent with arguments, I think one would expect a little more success in communicating than I have achieved. :D

 

Anyway, I showed Idsoftwaresteve's post to my wife, and she was curious as to what lawcat had posted so I went back to find out. I discovered a large number of reasonable posts which I had not responded to and I apologize for that. At any rate, I would like to relieve those who took my post seriously of the idea that I don't care about their opinions. So, starting with the beginning of the thread, here are some quick comments on each post. Just a simple statement of my reaction to those posts. ;)

 

Post #2, Clay: The common use of the word belief is that a belief is something which must be taken on faith: i.e., something which can not be established as “fact”. Sorry, but languages are all essentially circular constructs so settling the issue is not really possible.

 

Post #3, REASON: Am I willing to elaborate! Belief is not necessary; opposition to a competent thought seems to be its only purpose. No one seems to have even tried to defend its necessity nor consider its purpose. Or perhaps I have missed something buried in the garbage.

 

Post #4, modest: First let's answer the question, is belief necessary? I say it isn't. Then let us examine the purpose of this particular meme. As I see it, the purpose is clearly to avoid conscious thought. My position is quite simple, one not need to avoid conscious thought to act; they should be separate but compatible realms. That was the theme of my “rational discussion” post.

 

Post #5, Rade: As usual, a “believer” proposing thought should be avoided.

 

Post #6, Overdog: Oh, as you are using the word, belief appears to be impossible to avoid; however, it is what I call “squirrel thought conclusions” which you are referring to as beliefs. I hold that “belief” is a more sophisticated concept than is what is held by common squirrels. I doubt a squirrel has any concept of belief. Or better than that, I don't think “belief” in the validity of the individual bodily actions leading a basket ball star down the court to a three point basket play a roll in his success: if it did play a role, the fact that he achieved three points less than a quarter of the time would be disturbing. He is simply turning control of his body over to his instincts. There is no need for him to “believe” they are correct, but only that following them is the best bet.

 

Post #7, Doctordick:

 

Post #8, Overdog: You are just using the confusion contained in the English language to avoid thinking about my comments. I merely used the word “inkling” because it does not carry the weight of “faith” delivered by “belief”. The issue here is “the need for belief”, there is no need of “belief” embedded in the response to a hornet sting. “Belief” is a human idea conceived of to justify the correctness of ones actions. My point is that there is no need to justify them as correct; just let them stand as your best bet.

 

Post #9, Doctordick:

 

Post #10, Overdog: Seems to be no more than obfuscation of the central theme I was trying to discuss.

 

Post #11, Overdog: I didn't see your response as displaying any serious thought regarding the theme of the thread.

 

Post #12, Clay: Your judgment of the situation was in error.

 

Post #13 and #14, nutronjon: No significance of any kind.

 

Post #15, ldsoftwaresteve: Yes you could term it a belief if you wish; I would rather use the term “opinion” and that is why I started the thread: to discover if there is any serious reason to consider the judgment false. Beliefs are communicated from person to person, sometimes with pressure, that is why I used the word “imposed”. Societies have, throughout the centuries, used faith in their beliefs to destroy those who did not believe. I think that fulfills the meaning of the word “imposed”.

 

Post #16 through #24: REASON, Idsoftwaresteve, nutronjon, Overdog, modest, Idsoftwaresteve, Overdog, modest and Rade: Off subject.

 

Post #25, Thunderbird: Off subject. Who suspended nutronjon and why???

 

Post #26, modest: Off subject. If it was modest, he had a reason.

 

Post #27, Turtle: Belief is “uplifting?” What do you mean? That it makes you feel good? Know what I am talking about??? I expressed an opinion and asked for logical “reasons” to doubt that opinion. What do I get?? Squirrel conclusions that I am wrong; just a feedback of others opinions. Fundamentally an intellectual waste of time.

 

Post #28, DanGray: Belief is necessary to Believe! Boy if anything reminds me of the movie Idiocracy that does. This thread is straight out of that movie; it's a parody of the cabinet meeting about watering fields.

 

Post #29, Clay: Thank you Clay!

 

Post #30, DanGray: More Idiocracy???

 

Post #31, freeztar: You need to see that movie. I think you might understand what is going on in this thread.

 

Post #32, Clay: I have no idea why you are wasting your time posting to this thread. But I should talk? :) :lol:

 

Post #33, DanGray: Well Dan, I guess you cleared all that up!

 

Post #34, Zythryn: Nice retort, but what purpose does it serve?

 

Post #35, Doctordick: I apparently dropped by this thread in September 08.

 

Post #36, DanGray: See Zythryn; some people are incorrigible. Belief is a powerful drug.

 

Post #37, lawcat: Is this supposed to be a defense of “belief” as a good thing?

 

Post #38, HydrogenBond: Off subject! Never even touches the question as to the need of belief! It just presumes Belief is necessary.

 

Post #39, lawcat: I think you can delete posts. The system implies you can, though I haven't tried. I will try with this post next week.

 

Post #40, lawcat: Nothing illogical here. Just totally off subject. It never touches upon the issues. Is belief necessary? And, if it isn't, exactly what does it do for society? Can anyone come up with a beneficial consequence of belief?

 

Post #41, Idsoftwaresteve: Your problem clearly was that you didn't understand what I was talking about. Lawcat is not arguing with me at all. He just misunderstands what I was trying to say.

 

Post #42, lawcat: Without belief we would be vegetation? That is a rather extreme assertion. And, “belief produces no expectations about reality”? I am afraid your comments seem about as well thought out as DanGray's. You really ought to see that movie Idiocracy.

 

Post #43, Donk: I have no complaint with what you have said and only question your assertion that it is necessary to “smooth over the cracks between what is known and what is assumed”. Cause it makes you feel good? That seems like a rather dangerous need. It appears to be exactly what drives drug addicts. What I am “railing against” is the presumed need for “belief”.

 

Post #44, lawcat: Sorry sir but your complaints simply do not strike me as “well thought out”. They appear more as common everyday assertions of social beliefs, unnecessary to common sense. I tried to clear up my position with my thread on “Defining the nature of rational discussion” but apparently failed quite completely.

 

Post #45, HydrogenBond: Again, totally off subject.

 

If any authorities want to delete this post, (or the whole thread for that matter) I would have no complaint. Donk is right, it is little more than a rant!

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Turtle]

Post #27, Turtle: Belief is “uplifting?” What do you mean? That it makes you feel good? Know what I am talking about??? I expressed an opinion and asked for logical “reasons” to doubt that opinion. What do I get?? Squirrel conclusions that I am wrong; just a feedback of others opinions. Fundamentally an intellectual waste of time.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

 

Belief serves no purpose beyond presenting a prediction beyond what is actually expected

 

:lol: Belief is the single most uplifting concept ever evolved in humans. ;) I believe that you believe that you know what you're talking about, however I believe none of us fully knows what we're talking about, ergo... :)

 

Supernatural science: Why we want to believe - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

Originally Posted by Robert Roy Britt

"Many people quite simply just want to believe," said Brian Cronk, a professor of psychology at Missouri Western State University. "The human brain is always trying to determine why things happen, and when the reason is not clear, we tend to make up some pretty bizarre explanations." ...

 

the idea of a forum is singularly based on the concept of feedback on and/or of others' opinions. part & parcel of this forum is to provide links to supporting/elucidating opinions and/or studies of others, and my post is compliant with those elements.

 

now you ascribe the failure to persuade us all of your unique insight into, well, something???, over the last 4, or is it 5, years to your poor communication skills, but on the evidence it is as likely that you simply believe you have something important to declare.

 

now of course you may simply be smarter than anyone you ever encountered & they all will never have the capacity to comprehend your great truth and so then still, what good is that? what have you forwarded Doc? what sets your words out as not Fundamentally an intellectual waste of time.? :D where's the beef? :lol:

[lawcat]

Let's look at DDs reasoning:

 

 

Doctordick says:

 

 

Post #42, lawcat: . . . “belief produces no expectations about reality”? I am afraid your comments seem about as well thought out as DanGray's. You really ought to see that movie Idiocracy.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

So, first, DD quotes me as saying: “belief produces no expectations about reality," and then puts a question mark "?". Then he asserts that it is: Not Well Thought Out. Then, DD concludes: You should see Idiocracy.

 

 

My defense is that the statement “belief produces no expectations about reality" is not my statement, but DoctorDick's Statement. The proof of that is below.

 

First, DoctorDick states:

 

There is no requirement for belief with regard to any concept of reality.

 

In other words, to DD, since beliefs have no requirements about reality, then the requirement must be something from or all not reality.

 

The only requirement of any explanation of any kind is that it be consistent with what is known:

 

So, the only requirement for explanation, which is a belief, something about what is known. So, according to DD, two statements hold: (1) a belief requires not reality, and (2) a belief requires what is known. So, if belief exists at all, and it does under this post, then it exists if and only if: what is known is not reality. This is according to DDs statement.

 

Then, DD asserts this:

 

Belief . . . produces no expectations counter to what has been experienced.

 

So, if experience is what is known, and since belief produces no expectations(2) counter to experience; the, it must be true that a belief produces no expectations about counter to what is known. If counter to what is known is unknown, and if what is known is not reality, then what is unknown is reality. Then, since belief produces no expectations counter to what is known, then a belief produces no expectations about what is unknown or reality.

 

Therefore, according to DD post: belief produces no expectations abour reality.

 

Yet DD assigns this reasoning to me and states that:

 

 

 

Post #42, lawcat: . . . “belief produces no expectations about reality”? I am afraid your comments seem about as well thought out as DanGray's. You really ought to see that movie Idiocracy.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

DD, I ask that you explain your or my confusion, or simply your reasoning, and more specifically your paradox that: what we know is not reality. Then, maybe, we can answer the specific question with a specific answer.

[AnssiH]

Well, for what it's worth, I believe I understand what the OP is about. But I didn't want to take part because I thought it would be hard to to avoid all kinds of very complicated ambiguities. :eek:

 

There is no requirement for belief with regard to any concept of reality. The only requirement of any explanation of any kind is that it be consistent with what is known: i.e.., it produces no expectations counter to what has been experienced.

 

There are few points embedded to this... Well, first, the argument is, that a competent prediction mechanism (~learning/worldview) can exist without incorporating any single belief to itself, i.e. valid probabilities about the future can be arrived at through a mechanism that works with the accumulating data in a manner where nothing is assumed (believed) regarding what the data is or means.

 

Second point, which was not made very clear here; the purpose was not to argue whether we use beliefs naturally in our everyday thinking. The argument was, that it is possible to hold an analytical worldview where there doesn't exist beliefs.

 

Third, it doesn't say that our conscious thoughts wouldn't still be composed of "beliefs" in some sense or another, if you insist to define "belief" in a particular way. For instance, we can simultaneously "perceive" the world in terms of "beliefs", and still analytically recognize this fact. Much like you can recognize that world is not ontologically "colourful" the way you see it.

 

Even the most devoted "constructivist" sees the world the same way as a "naive realist", it's just that he analytically thinks about his perceptions differently. Is that behaviour of the constructivist to be called "a belief", or is it just a case of him recognizing the difference between "epistemological mechanism" and "beliefs about ontology" (and right now I'm incredibly worried of all the semantical ambiguities involved here...).

 

Fourth point, this could be seen partially as an attempt to clearly define what "belief" means, so to clearly separate it from what "objective expectation" means. I.e;

 

Belief serves no purpose beyond presenting a prediction beyond what is actually expected.

 

There are expectations that are based on objective knowledge (i.e. knowledge that doesn't refer to ontological assumptions at all), and then there are expectations that go counter to those objective expectations (and are based on assumptions/beliefs about the ontological reality).

 

I think, to understand that properly, you'd need to first understand what exactly that "mechanism that works with the accumulating data in a manner where nothing is assumed" is, and for that you would have to first understand DD's work, and so I don't think it's exactly fair to expect most people to pick up on this, at least not immediately. I guess DD wanted to open up general conversation, in order to see how people think about the role of "belief" in our means to understand reality.

 

So that's pretty much what it's about, or at least my expectation that I interpreted it correctly is fairly high

 

But hey, why isn't anyone reacting to the Relativity thread, are everyone too busy working it through themselves? No? Or is it just too much fun to believe in an arbitrarily chosen ontology? What's the deal? We could talk about spacetime wormholes or something, I'd have a thing or two to say... :I

 

-Anssi

[Turtle]

...

I think, to understand that properly, you'd need to first understand what exactly that "mechanism that works with the accumulating data in a manner where nothing is assumed" is, and for that you would have to first understand DD's work, and so I don't think it's exactly fair to expect most people to pick up on this, at least not immediately. I guess DD wanted to open up general conversation, in order to see how people think about the role of "belief" in our means to understand reality.

 

So that's pretty much what it's about, or at least my expectation that I interpreted it correctly is fairly high

 

But hey, why isn't anyone reacting to the Relativity thread, are everyone too busy working it through themselves? No? Or is it just too much fun to believe in an arbitrarily chosen ontology? What's the deal? We could talk about spacetime wormholes or something, I'd have a thing or two to say... :I

 

-Anssi

 

that's all well and good, but 4 or 5 years to 'first' understand the work? Ricky has at least half-a dozen threads just here at Hypog, and all related to some nuanced aspect of his whatever he is calling whatever it is he is writing about. that you find some interest in it is all well & good with me, but that doesn't make all this more than Fundamental intellectual onanism. not that there is anything wrong with that. :doh:

 

as to talking about other stuff, why not come over & discuss Fuller's Synergetics? you seem to have the wherewithal to mix it up with such high thinking. if you don't know Synergetics, and i ask you to compare it to Ricky's stuff (as i have doc in the past only to receive summary dismissal), what can/will you say? :ip:

 

don't pay too much attention to me. i challenged the good doctor from the start, & i see fit to periodically post up another challenge such as i am now. i say again; where's the beef? so what if he's right? what then? if nothing, then say so & i'll leave off. :eek:

[Southtown]

According to Genesis 1, man was created and then beast after.

According to Genesis 2, beasts were created before man.

You are backwards. In Gen. 1, beasts preceded man, both on the 6^th day. Gen. 2 the opposite without days being specified. Difference being "created" in ch. 1 and "formed" in ch. 2. Meaning filled (bara) and moulded (yatzar), respectively.