5
   

How is this definition of "belief"?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 06:52 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

A cautious yes.


Thank you, Olivier.

I would say that the "yes" would have to be very cautious.

I honestly do not see any unambiguous evidence that naive reality prevails over the possibility of an illusion of a (possibly) single mind.

Your response, with all due respect, in my opinion would fall into the realm of "blind guess" rather than estimate.

I'm going to bow out for now. I hope JL is still following this thread...and that he offers some words to move this along. As I mentioned, the jury is still out for me (as it is with the existence or non-existence of gods)...so I doubt I could do justice to the possibility of the "no" side.

JL...and Fresco (if Fresco is following the thread) are both excellent at presenting the other scenario as a possibility...although both tend so toward it being the case, they can come up with a (cautious) "No" as a response to the question at hand.

I'll be back tomorrow to see what transpires.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 08:46 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
These are all conceptual frames; millions of reasonable, intelligent people use them every day. But only a negligible number among these people would say they actually believe in them.


Thanks for adding your thoughts. I have to disagree, though. These frames you mention fit my definition precisely. If we cannot find any facts to confirm that what these people believe in is actually true, we cannot rule out the possibility that these people, regardless of how many millions of them there are, are delusional. It is entirely possible, even plausible, that the world is governed by delusional, powercrazed monkeys who have no regard for anything but their own bankroll. But even if they rule, that doesn't make them right.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 08:53 pm
@Cyracuz,
You're diverting from belief to right and wrong, a judgement that has many answers. Who's to say "powercrazed monkeys" are wrong?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 08:59 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You're most welcome, Frank.

Quote:
I would say that the "yes" would have to be very cautious.

I honestly do not see any unambiguous evidence that naive reality prevails over the possibility of an illusion of a (possibly) single mind.

Your response, with all due respect, in my opinion would fall into the realm of "blind guess" rather than estimate.


I am only cautious about the inner essence of things, not their existence. I trust my senses in that I trust they reflect a real world. Out there.

My take is: I am 100% sure my little self cannot invent this virtual world. I can hardly draw, for one thing... :-) so that means I would have to be this super gifted virtual reality designer one split second and a poor drawer the next? Or better: a 'super-me' that's a total genius, and dumb-as-dirt 'mini-me', wholy inconscious of super-me and evidently his extension, creation and puppet, watching the show and playing the game...

Strange idea. Like I am the dumb son of God in a movie or something...

Much much stranger on gut feeling alone (I agree, it's a guess) than the "naïve" idea that I live in a real world, in which I am about as important as rat **** and cerainly not the only one around, a world (and people) which I can perceive only indirectly through some sort of mediation or another and never know their real nature, and where my poor drawing skills shock no one except my mother...
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:07 pm
@Olivier5,
This said, I agree with you on one thing: a true non-believer should in all logic doubt the existence of the whole universe, time, and himself too.

But this leads to severe schyzophrenia, believe it or not.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:07 pm
@Olivier5,
It does? How do you know? LOL

BTW, we're all SUPER!
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Only time can tell. If they prevail, they weren't wrong. But you are right in that I went beyond the context of what we are speaking of with the monkey business.
A point that can be made from this, however, is that our final measurement of what is true and real might not be rooted in facts at all, but in belief. I am not saying it is... Just saying that the though might be worth a few minutes.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:16 pm
@Cyracuz,
I can buy that! It sounds "reasonable" from my perspective of this topic.

There are many examples of "our final measurement of what is true and real might not be rooted in facts at all, but in belief."

That even explains why people's perspective of religion and politics can differ by poles (180 degrees).
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 05:57 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

You're most welcome, Frank.

Quote:
I would say that the "yes" would have to be very cautious.

I honestly do not see any unambiguous evidence that naive reality prevails over the possibility of an illusion of a (possibly) single mind.

Your response, with all due respect, in my opinion would fall into the realm of "blind guess" rather than estimate.


I am only cautious about the inner essence of things, not their existence. I trust my senses in that I trust they reflect a real world. Out there.

My take is: I am 100% sure my little self cannot invent this virtual world. I can hardly draw, for one thing... :-) so that means I would have to be this super gifted virtual reality designer one split second and a poor drawer the next? Or better: a 'super-me' that's a total genius, and dumb-as-dirt 'mini-me', wholy inconscious of super-me and evidently his extension, creation and puppet, watching the show and playing the game...

Strange idea. Like I am the dumb son of God in a movie or something...

Much much stranger on gut feeling alone (I agree, it's a guess) than the "naïve" idea that I live in a real world, in which I am about as important as rat **** and cerainly not the only one around, a world (and people) which I can perceive only indirectly through some sort of mediation or another and never know their real nature, and where my poor drawing skills shock no one except my mother...


Well...you appear to me to be a typical "believer" sort, Olivier...just about certain that some possibilities can be eliminated from REALITY. For many atheists...the possibility of gods can safely be eliminated...so they make that guess. For many theists...the possibility that "all this" is not the product of a creator can safely be eliminated from REALITY...so they make that guess.

You think the possibility of what you call "yourself" and "your mind" cannot be a universal/shared/all-powerful oneness that allows itself to "experience" experience by operating on a level such as we perceive to be "reality"...so you make that guess.

(Lots more of the same kinds of things exist.)

These guesses are what most people call "beliefs."

I do not make those guesses...so not only do I not have any guesses on these issues, I also do not have any "beliefs" on them.

I consider all of them to be presumptuous, illogical, unwarranted, and unnecessary...although one or several of them may be (probably is) correct.

But, if your guesses about the unknown make you more comfortable...go with them...and if it makes you even more comfortable to call your guesses "what you believe"...go with that also. I have no problem with that at all...although I enjoy discussions on the issue.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 05:59 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

This said, I agree with you on one thing: a true non-believer should in all logic doubt the existence of the whole universe, time, and himself too.

But this leads to severe schyzophrenia, believe it or not.


No, Olivier...a true non-"believer" doesn't have to "doubt" anything, because that would be a form of "believing."

All a non-"believer" has to do is to not "believe"...which is to say not to make unwarranted, unnecessary, illogical, baseless guesses about the unknown and then disguise the fact that guesses are being made by calling them "beliefs."
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 06:48 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
It does? How do you know? LOL


Because I went there myself, and managed to find my way back.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 07:22 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You think the possibility of what you call "yourself" and "your mind" cannot be a universal/shared/all-powerful oneness that allows itself to "experience" experience by operating on a level such as we perceive to be "reality"...so you make that guess.


Well, bite me if if I take reality seriously and don't think I'm the dumb son of God tied on a chair in a movie. What difference would it make to my life anyway, other than leading to suicide, perhaps?

Look at you: what difference does it make in your life, whether you believe in the world or not? Whether it is virtual or real makes no difference, you still got to live in it - no escape xcept death. You still go on with your life, and to do so you assume just as much as I do. You just don't verbalize it the same way. You still (perhaps virtually) wake up every (perhaps virtual) morning and eat breakfast, and meet your (virtual) wife, friends or colleagues, then come to A2K to share (virtual) ideas with (virtual) me...

It looks like Pascal's wager: let's believe in the universe a bit, just in case it's real.

I prefer to believe in it fully, and get that strange, purely theoretical, depressing, irrelevant and inconsequential idea of the dumb-son-of-God-in-a-movie behind me. I prefer to try and live my life more fully. To give it a chance, to make a leap of faith and trust it, to bite in life even if it does not always taste good, to get a hell of a ride from it, to marvel about it and to try to understand it, and to despair about it... rather than ponder forever whether it's 'real or an 'illusion', a question without any consequence anyway...

Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 08:00 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
But you are right in that I went beyond the context of what we are speaking of with the monkey business.


I actually thought you were onto something important there with your monkeys.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 08:03 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
You think the possibility of what you call "yourself" and "your mind" cannot be a universal/shared/all-powerful oneness that allows itself to "experience" experience by operating on a level such as we perceive to be "reality"...so you make that guess.


Well, bite me if if I take reality seriously and don't think I'm the dumb son of God tied on a chair in a movie. What difference would it make to my life anyway, other than leading to suicide, perhaps?


It could lead to being honest with yourself...and to getting over yourself a bit. Sorry you see the choices as between "making guesses about the unknown" or "committing suicide."

Must be lonely there!

Quote:
Look at you: what difference does it make in your life, whether you believe in the world or not? Whether it is virtual or real makes no difference, you still got to live in it - no escape xcept death.


Interesting that you consider it "living it"...or "escaping through death." For me...I consider it mostly a delight...with some very hard times thrown in to highlight that the delight is, in fact, quite delightful.

Quote:
You still go on with your life, and to do so you assume just as much as I do.


Well, not quite as much. You seem to assume you have a handle on REALITY and the unknown...and I am content to acknowledge that I do not. So you are one up on me there. (Or one down on me, as the case may be.)

Quote:
You just don't verbalize it the same way.


I think it is a bit more than "verbalizing" it differently, Olivier. I think you do also...but this was a throw away line that sounded good, so you included it.

Quote:
You still (perhaps virtually) wake up every (perhaps virtual) morning and eat breakfast, and meet your (virtual) wife, friends or colleagues, then come to A2K to share (virtual) ideas with (virtual) me...


The round of golf, Olivier. You forgot the most important part of our day...the round of golf.

Quote:
It looks like Pascal's wager: let's believe in the universe a bit, just in case it's real.


Egad...between Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor, I wonder which produces a fit of vomiting first. They are both used by people who either can't, or won't, think things through properly. But I get your point, Olivier...we simply "accept" what we have here as it appears...whether an illusion or a reality. (I wonder: Can you say with authority that you were not created just a few seconds ago complete with all the memories you suppose you have?)



Quote:
I prefer to believe in it fully, and get that strange, purely theoretical, depressing, irrelevant and inconsequential idea of the dumb-son-of-God-in-a-movie behind me.


Fine. Frankly, I do not care how you guess about the unknown. But why go for the "son of God" as your theoretical?" Hell...go for GOD ITSELF! Or forget about the "god" designation entirely...and conceive of it as all that exists and has ever existed. Anything is possible...unless you want arbitrarily to designate something as impossible for no good reason at all.


Quote:
I prefer to try and live my life more fully. To give it a chance, to make a leap of faith and trust it, to bite in life even if it does not always taste good, to get a hell of a ride from it, to marvel about it and to try to understand it, and to despair about it... rather than ponder forever whether it's 'real or an 'illusion', a question without any consequence anyway...





If you manage to live your life as fully as I have, Olivier...and if your life is as satisfying as I find mine, you will be a lucky individual. I admire that you are heading in this direction.

I don't mean this as an insult, but you sound to me as though you are trying to convince yourself that you are there...but that you are not even convincing yourself, let alone your audience. I hope I am wrong on that.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 08:26 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Egad...between Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor, I wonder which produces a fit of vomiting first. They are both used by people who either can't, or won't, think things through properly.

Occam's razzor is a good principle, economical and simple theories are to be prefered over complicated ones.

Quote:
But I get your point, Olivier...we simply "accept" what we have here as it appears...whether an illusion or a reality. (I wonder: Can you say with authority that you were not created just a few seconds ago complete with all the memories you suppose you have?)

Yes, we both accept it, and I welcome it. (no I can't. Can you say with authority your are not in fact a large blue carrot?)

Quote:
If you manage to live your life as fully as I have, Olivier...and if your life is as satisfying as I find mine, you will be a lucky individual.

I think it takes a little passion and faith to do so. But that's just me I guess...
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 08:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Fine. Frankly, I do not care how you guess about the unknown. But why go for the "son of God" as your theoretical?" Hell...go for GOD ITSELF! Or forget about the "god" designation entirely...and conceive of it as all that exists and has ever existed. Anything is possible...unless you want arbitrarily to designate something as impossible for no good reason at all.


Sure, Frank. You and I may be GOD ITSELF. Anything is possible. The sky is the limit. The big unknown... Hmmm...

Am I a giant blue carrot created an hour ago, now? Let me think...
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 09:09 am
@Olivier5,
I agree. But it's another discussion entirely. Smile
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 09:23 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:


Quote:
Occam's razzor is a good principle, economical and simple theories are to be prefered over complicated ones.


I think not.

The economical and simple theory of what is happening with the sun and the moon (whether in a reality or in an illusion) are completely worng...and the more complex explanation that comes from understanding the dynamics of the solar system is correct.

There are many others, but Occam's razor seems to prevail among some on the Internet despite the fact that many later philosophers have laughed at it.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 09:24 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Fine. Frankly, I do not care how you guess about the unknown. But why go for the "son of God" as your theoretical?" Hell...go for GOD ITSELF! Or forget about the "god" designation entirely...and conceive of it as all that exists and has ever existed. Anything is possible...unless you want arbitrarily to designate something as impossible for no good reason at all.


Sure, Frank. You and I may be GOD ITSELF. Anything is possible. The sky is the limit. The big unknown... Hmmm...

Am I a giant blue carrot created an hour ago, now? Let me think...


Have fun with it. Much better to do what you are doing that actually face it...and deal with it.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 May, 2013 10:02 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
O: Am I a giant blue carrot created an hour ago, now? Let me think...

Frank: Have fun with it. Much better to do what you are doing that actually face it...and deal with it.

My whole point is you or I can't actually deal with it. No one can do anything with such out-of-this-world speculations. Therefore they are all futile armchair philosophy.

What could I do differently if I was in some parallel universe, supposedly more 'real' than my immediate experience, a giant blue and amnesic carrot tied on a movie theatre seat by some GOD, perhaps incapable of producing the real thing and thus scripting a fake, virtual reality instead? Tell me how this hypothesis is helpful or fruitful in any way?

I choose to deal with the REAL world, with all its complexity rather than let my imagination run loose about what IF that REALITY was virtual... Call me naïve, but I for one can make a choice. It's perhaps what beliefs are about, about making choices.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 06:10:52