niin

No. I never said that you said that. :hihi: Belief and faith is almost the same thing. You have information and you act on it. If someone ask why you did it, you can say: 1) I believe this information 2) I have faith in this information. both seem like valid answers to me.

Believe, belief and faith are pretty much the same thing. If you have experience with something and you think it is worth something ,you can chose to believe it. Science and religion is belief systems that have value for people and you can chose to believe in em. You can think that only science is good, that only religion is good or that both are good. :) this look like a tautology to me. If the person was a Christian fundamentalist, i would expect that person to reject the darwinian model. I don't believe that is true. "believe it and you will believe it" is not an effective persuasive argument. There actually is some facts associated with religion. Yes, one might even say it's all about "the flow." In any case, evolution is every bit as natural as water. Evolution is a theory and can be falsified. Water is not at theory. It is a fact.

I meant dark energy when i said dark matter. sorry. So would it still move apart and would it be accelerating?

Only two possible explanations? What if everything had a repulsive force that correlate with distance. That could explain it? Actually is that not what black energy is? I said, what if there was no gravity and no dark matter, but the universe was still expanding. Would the expanding still make everything move apart? Would it go faster and faster?

So you are saying that the apparent expansion is not real motion and we are not actually moving away from everything faster and faster? I can think about space as non-physical nothingness, so i don't think the analogy is bad. If it is just a distance between objects, how can you say the space is expanding. Is it not then the Distance that is getting larger? Does it not seem more logical to say, that the objects are accelerating and space is not expanding between us. What if we are not holding hands (no gravity) and there is no black energy. Would we still move away from each other? At what speed? Accelerating? Well i don't rely on intuition, so that should not affect the discussion. It is only weird if you believe in it without understanding it. It seems illogical to me. Maybe it would help if you talked about the definitions.

I think that unless the expansion is physically pushing us, it should have no effect on our momentum at this time. I can believe, that we got a momentum imparted by the big bang, but the principle of conservation of momentum say, that unless a force act on the system the momentum is constant. But that would be because the field was imparting momentum to us....pushing us along with the expansion. You said that space did not push us. if we use your analogy. The field would just expand under us. If two flag was put in the ground they would move further away from both of us as the field expanded. The distance between me and my friend would stay the same.

I can not make any sense of what you are saying. Should gravity not move everything together then. If everything is moving apart, something must be doing something to prevent gravity from collecting everything in a big pile. There would have to be an opposing force. Is it not because the universe (space) is expanding? You say space has nothing to do with matter, then you say the matter is moving along with it. Why is it moving along with space again? "related" is kind of vague. What do you mean? Are you saying that the big bang is pushing stuff somehow? Like an explosion? The expansion on cosmological scales are speeding up right? Why is the momentum being imparted by the big bang getting bigger then?

If two things are objectively the same color, but you get more value from believing they are different. Then it would be better to believe them to be different. I think this is the reason why color illusions work. Nature have found that it is better to believe the colors are different. In some cases it might be better to not believe in a illusion, but i don't think this is true for all illusions.

I think, people don't have a right to have an opinion. I came to this opinion by the following logic: 1) A "right" is something that can't be taken away. 2) A "opinion" is a public stating of information, that is hear and believed. 3) An opinion can be taken away (prevented). k) Opinions can't be a right.

I think, that in a universe containing only two atoms, there would not be anything to separate the two atoms. So the two atoms could never be separated to begin with. I think, gravity would likely still be active, but it would not be observable.

You don't have to give a suitable reward. They only need to get a suitable reward from something. I don't think it is. Reward could be so many things, because the world is complex. We could get the complex example by applying the theory to a specific case. This sound like a good argument for my version. Which techniques are you talking about? It is hard to believe this when you don't give an example. Just because you stated some techniques first, does not mean that i could not have stated them without your input. I disagree. Every time the rewards is to small, you can't persuade them. Limit right there. I was talking about the biggest reward. You have to compare rewards. It is not enough to just have a reward. You can't expect to discredit a theory by stating you don't understand it. 'intellectual perfection' could very easily aid survival. What really helps survival is useful stuff. Rewarding stuff. It is a result of evolution. Things that is helpful to your continued survival is important. How would you know what that is? Just look for the rewards. significance = rewards I can see that I can't persuade you. Maybe i didn't explain it right or maybe you just invested to much in your theory. Maybe the reward for the truth will become big enough later. If you change your mind in a few years, come back and tell me. :lol:

Yes. :) It is a very significant reward for alot of people.

I guess you think my concept give less details than your way of looking at it. Lets look a some of your suggestions. 1) Explain ideas clearly The more time i have to use to understand your ideas, the more i want out of it. Just like i do when i work. If i usually get xxx amount of reward for a period of time spent reading, then i will not settle with less. 2) Make your ideas interesting Interesting ideas is only interesting because they are rewarding. 3) the truth has an advantage Well The truth is often a very good advantage to have. Yes...very rewarding. 4) Restrict your points to one thesis at a time so that a persuasive error in one will not affect the other If you keep making mistakes, you prove that you are not trustworthy. The perceived value of the reward become lower and lower. 5) if the person agrees with you, do not say much more Again if you say something stupid, you lower the value of the reward. Another reward can then look bigger than your reward. 6) tailor your arguments to your audience You maximize the perceived value of the reward. 7) improving the tightness of the argument You maximize the perceived value of the reward. 8) Respect your opponent. You maximize the perceived value of the reward. Which details are missing? Your friend didn't believe you the first time. He would have had to distrust mainstream views. When later he found out the mainstream view was wrong, he would have to distrust himself if he wanted to keep up his false belief. So he changed his mind and got the reward of trusting in his own experiences. The perceived reward became bigger and that was what changed his mind. You say that people persuade themself with the arguments. What if you don't understand the arguments? By looking for a reward, they could be persuaded even if they didn't completely understood the argument. Just like a child can be convinced of something because the parent rewards it. Do you also think parents brainwash children? I think there is only one. The reward factor.

I thought that your suggestions about what to do was pretty good. I think i can understand better why it works if it works the way I have suggested. Knowing the concept, also make it easier to identify new ways of improving in persuading. I am glad that you think so. I was thinking the same. :naughty: I like to use occam's razor. When we have two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, the less complicated formulation is usually better. I think my formulation is less complicated. How did i apply it wrongly? What kind of things do you think is going on? Or where you referring to earlier posts? I can see how one could misuse my concepts to "brainwash", but should this prevent us from talking about it? All good things can be used for evil.

If i really look into anything objectively, i can always find a reward. This and logic tells me that rewards are the only method. I believe that rewards are what makes everything tick. Why do you do sports? You get rewarded by improving your health. Why do you eat? You get the reward of not dying of hunger. Why do you do anything. Because it is rewarding. Why could you be convinced? because you where rewarded. A reward could be money. It could be a useful memory. It could be the feeling you get when you do something you love. It could be alot of thing. A reward is something that make someone do something. A reward is the net result when you take all income and deduct all the costs. I believe it to be a matter of rewards Social survival is about keeping the social position you have (or improving it). If you beliefs survives an attack you get the reward of keeping the social position you have (or improving it). If your beliefs don't survives the attack, you social position might suffer. If you stand to loose more than you like by maintaining your "wrong" beliefs, you switch side and get the reward of not losing a big part of your social position. If the cost of changing your mind is to great, then it is possible that no reward is big enough to change your mind. I don't believe it is a distraction. :weather_storm: The reward for being persuaded is bigger when it is not a person who persuaded you. Socially we are indebted if someone shows us the truth. So that cost is deducted from any potential rewards. So by not officially trying to convince them, you make the reward for being convinced bigger. I can see nothing wrong with it in this case All things that helps you persuade, helps because they modify the rewards. Really? Why do you call it "ideal arguing" then? Would "real arguing" or "internal arguing" not be better?. I normally don't think about Ideals as real. I believe that people wish to keep the respect of other people. If those people think evil is wrong, the reward gets smaller. The rewards for evil is not big enough for most people.