5
   

How is this definition of "belief"?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 06:56 am
The Koreans are every bit as goofy as the Portuguese--and that goes for people who just live there, too.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 07:00 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

The Koreans are every bit as goofy as the Portuguese--and that goes for people who just live there, too.


I can be a goofy ************; I won't deny that. Laughing
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 07:25 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

There you go again with Religion as one of the sources of the problem...its wrong thinking Religion is not the source but an ingrained symptom


Agreed. Religious thinking is just one of a number of symptoms of belief-making.

Quote:
...and more of a consequence of at least 2 different causes if not more, one being instinctive decision making on which certainty is not a choice and believing is useful


You seem to conflate decision-making with believing here. If you equate them, please explain how they are necessarily, innately indistinguishable. Otherwise, please observe the distinction.

Quote:
...and the second being a symbolic explanatory system on the workings of a far to complex world, a zipped summarizing theory, a mythology,


Are these also really synonymous? It seems to me that the habit of glossing over fine distinctions is unskilled.

Quote:
...which in the case the identification of a final set, a final cause, where responsibility or justification can rest is paramount to keep enduring the hardships of life...people need those things and there is no evidence any of them won't be needed in the future...whether is a Lion in the Savannah or a fast car coming at me instinctive reactive decision making is as useful today as it was 20 thousand years ago...mythology thinking be it concerning the bible creation myths or a urban legend is more alive then ever...


Again, you seem to be equating decision-making and mythology. If I see a dangerous thing rushing me, I don't recount my mythological conditioning to decide upon a response. The response is somatic. It doesn't require any beliefs. I would expect natural selection to select against anyone who took the time to reflect upon mythology in such a circumstance.

Quote:
...finally to clarify that to classify something as being useful categorizes as being good while it is or while it lasts or fits a given frame of conditions and thus as not in any sense meaning as being ultimately good or universally good...


I don't recall mentioning anything about "ultimately" or "unconditionally." When you say that something is useful (to the individual, since you mentioned natural selection), do you not mean to imply that it is good because it is useful?

Quote:
PS - My use of quotation marks was not to address your classification but to emphasize the relative meaning of wording as "good" or "evil" portray.


Thanks for clarifying that.


Yes quick decision making often requires you to straight believe or assume something is true rather then to pounder something might be true a far weaker response...

No, I equate quick decision making as being the primitive reason for believing without certainty while relate the problem of mythologys, and not just religious ones, with the problem of symbolic explanations, the use of simplified theorethical generalizations...

And yes I mean to implly that something useful is contextualy good or functionly purposeful...

ATM I am replying from my mobyle in a coffe shop I apologise for my English as I can't correct it from bere and I will reply with further detail later on...
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 07:26 am
@FBM,
goofy [ˈguːfɪ]
adj goofier, goofiest Informal
1. foolish; silly; stupid

Really... take it on the chin why don't you!
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 07:34 am
@igm,
Read my previous post. Wink
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 07:35 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I put my hand on a hot stove, I don't have time to believe nothing. Reflexes pull the hand back before a single thought is formulated.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 07:39 am
@FBM,
I know you didn't make any assertion about "unknowable". You questioned the worth of beliefs.
Consider the beliefs "life is sacred and one should not kill". It is not hard to see how those beliefs shape us, and how different the world might be if we had held to the beliefs "life is worthless and one should kill as much possible".
I am pretty sure you have your ideas on whether or not it is wrong to kill, and that those ideas guide your behavior.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 07:42 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

I know you didn't make any assertion about "unknowable". You questioned the worth of beliefs.
Consider the beliefs "life is sacred and one should not kill". It is not hard to see how those beliefs shape us, and how different the world might be if we had held to the beliefs "life is worthless and one should kill as much possible".
I am pretty sure you have your ideas on whether or not it is wrong to kill, and that those ideas guide your behavior.


Why are you pretty sure about that? Have I or have I not killed before?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 07:43 am
Norwegians, too . . .
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 07:44 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Norwegians, too . . .


They're the worst. Silly lot.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 07:54 am
@FBM,
The idea is not fresh new in Biology but I can clarify it since you don't seem to connect the dots without help, or then you are just showing deliberate animosity towards an explanation that turns upside down you set of beliefs...in the Savannah when you hear a whistle of the wind rustling in the high grass, you better don't pounder whether it is a predator or just the wind playing games with your mind as a weak rational response of doubt is not enough to make you react quickly enough and run for a tree in time...doubters were goners !

Link: http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/06/agenticity/
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 07:58 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
OK, so you agree with me. Cool.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 07:59 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Here is the entire article:

Quote:
Quote:
Why people believe that invisible agents
control the world



Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators, and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives. Why?

The answer has two parts, starting with the concept of “patternicity,” which I defined in my December 2008 column as the human tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Consider the face on Mars, the Virgin Mary on a grilled-cheese sandwich, satanic messages in rock music. Of course, some patterns are real. Finding predictive patterns in changing weather, fruiting trees, migrating prey animals and hungry predators was central to the survival of Paleolithic hominids.

The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns. So we make two types of errors: a type I error, or false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it is not; a type II error, or false negative, is not believing a pattern is real when it is. If you believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (a type I error), you are more likely to survive than if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (a type II error). Because the cost of making a type I error is less than the cost of making a type II error and because there is no time for careful deliberation between patternicities in the split-second world of predator-prey interactions, natural selection would have favored those animals most likely to assume that all patterns are real.

But we do something other animals do not do. As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex and a theory of mind — the capacity to be aware of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and others — we infer agency behind the patterns we observe in a practice I call “agenticity”: the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents. We believe that these intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top down (as opposed to bottom-up causal randomness). Together patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms.

Agenticity carries us far beyond the spirit world. The Intelligent Designer is said to be an invisible agent who created life from the top down. Aliens are often portrayed as powerful beings coming down from on high to warn us of our impending self-destruction. Conspiracy theories predictably include hidden agents at work behind the scenes, puppet-masters pulling political and economic strings as we dance to the tune of the Bilderbergers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers or the Illuminati. Even the belief that the government can impose top-down measures to rescue the economy is a form of agenticity, with President Barack Obama being touted as “the one” with almost messianic powers who will save us.

There is now substantial evidence from cognitive neuroscience that humans readily find patterns and impart agency to them, well documented in the new book SuperSense (HarperOne, 2009) by University of Bristol psychologist Bruce Hood. Examples: children believe that the sun can think and follows them around; because of such beliefs, they often add smiley faces on sketched suns. Adults typically refuse to wear a mass murderer’s sweater, believing that “evil” is a supernatural force that imparts its negative agency to the wearer (and, alternatively, that donning Mr. Rogers’s cardigan will make you a better person). A third of transplant patients believe that the donor’s personality is transplanted with the organ. Genital-shaped foods (bananas, oysters) are often believed to enhance sexual potency. Subjects watching geometric shapes with eye spots interacting on a computer screen conclude that they represent agents with moral intentions.

“Many highly educated and intelligent individuals experience a powerful sense that there are patterns, forces, energies and entities operating in the world,” Hood explains. “More important, such experiences are not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence, which is why they are supernatural and unscientific. The inclination or sense that they may be real is our supersense.”

We are natural-born supernaturalists.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 08:01 am
@FBM,
Don't be a troll you are better off admitting ignorance on the matter then just trolling your way out of it...
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 08:05 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
What is lack of belief but admission of ignorance? I humbly admit that I don't know. People who believe despite lack of evidence arrogantly claim to know despite being unable to demonstrate the truth of their claims.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 08:07 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 08:11 am
Apophenia. Pareidolia.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 08:40 am
@FBM,
Exactly !
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 09:42 am
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 May, 2013 10:12 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

OK, so you agree with me. Cool.


FBM wrote:
What is lack of belief but admission of ignorance? I humbly admit that I don't know. People who believe despite lack of evidence arrogantly claim to know despite being unable to demonstrate the truth of their claims.


And no I don't agree with you as the all reason of this 2 last pages debate was about myself making a point based on scientific research that you were NOT aware off !

Here it is from your own mouth:

FBM wrote:
Again, you seem to be equating decision-making and mythology. If I see a dangerous thing rushing me, I don't recount my mythological conditioning to decide upon a response. The response is somatic. It doesn't require any beliefs. I would expect natural selection to select against anyone who took the time to reflect upon mythology in such a circumstance.


To which I replied:

"Yes quick decision making often requires you to straight believe or assume something is true rather then to pounder something might be true a far weaker response...

No, I equate quick decision making as being the primitive reason for believing without certainty while relate the problem of mythology's, and not just religious ones, with the problem of symbolic explanations, the use of simplified theoretical generalizations..."

...might I ad now "Agenticity" being one of the possible lot of pattern seeking behaviours !
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 11:36:43