How is this definition of "belief"?

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

In a religious discussion (in discussions about the true nature of REALITY)...using the word "belief" is a way to disguise the fact that a blind guess is being made!

How do you know that Frank? You say you 'know ' that belief in such a discussion 'is' a blind guess. Again, how do you know that?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Okay, so you have beliefs just like anybody else, but call them blind guesses to de-emphasise / de-sacralise (is that a word?) them. I think we all got that point by now...

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Just curious how you'd explain your belief that a car (going back to our earlier discussion) is 'more' than the sum of its parts? I take it that you mean it is 'literally true' that a car is more than the sum of its parts? The reason I'm asking is that I'd say it literally isn't true that a car is more than the sum of its parts.

Definition:
In a literal manner or sense; exactly: "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the traffic circle".

2 Replies

@igm,

Of course not, you are absolutely right, the trick to bypass the metaphor in the sentence is to consider the assembly, the sum of interrelated operating functions a part on what the car is being...the sum of parts if properly done is correct. Form or shape often come out of functional relations...an engine in its holistic algorithm of shapes provides each part with a contextual function resulting as a whole in a specific design. That very overall design resulting from mechanic coordination of parts is itself a part.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

What I am saying is that X of 9 in a Universe of X of 9 is not like X of 8 in a Universe like X of 8...they may seam the same, they may operate more or less in the same way, but when we consider the final result of what they are doing together as a whole, in the measure that each part contributes actively for that whole as distinct from another whole, say the whole of X of 9 as opposed or instead of the whole of X of 8, then it becomes clear that each part function fits a different place in the holistic context...the problem regarding analysing parts mechanic operations is that we normally consider the local context, the effective causes and tend to forget the overall context...X of 9 locates different to its pairs in relation to X of 8...that spatial distinction in relation to the whole seams to be important.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

If I know you personally I gladdy would go play golf with you, have some chats, and what not because I think you are a nice person...none of it changes the situation here...I must be tight independently of my good opinion on you so that this debate can go anywhere in the form of me having an honest shot to show you otherwise...you in turn don't have the smallest intention of letting that happen no matter what...

Well...if we get a chance to play golf...let's go for it.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

In a religious discussion (in discussions about the true nature of REALITY)...using the word "belief" is a way to disguise the fact that a blind guess is being made!

How do you know that Frank? You say you 'know ' that belief in such a discussion 'is' a blind guess. Again, how do you know that?

Almost every comment about the true nature of REALITY...with the exception that what IS, IS...is a guess.

Unless it is called a guess...it is being disguised.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Okay, so you have beliefs just like anybody else...

No I do not.

Quote:

...but call them blind guesses to de-emphasise / de-sacralise (is that a word?) them. I think we all got that point by now...

You are almost there, Olivier. Actually, I have guesses about the true nature of REALITY...just as it seems everyone else does...but I refuse to disguise the fact that they are guesses by using the word "beliefs" to describe them the way some others do.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

But honestly Frank even if making an effort to doubt all assumptions how can you be aware that all your assumptions are guess work if not by default which is nothing but a trick to bypass the problem...in practice there are a bunch load of assumptions which you are not analysing and that thus keep operating as naive assumptions, its inescapable ! When you run out of one assumption you immediately fall for the next one...doubting by default can't avoid the mechanic of functional beliefs...you would dive in such a depressive state you wouldn't get out of bed, if it was the case that you could doubt everything for real...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Bottom line you are just exorcizing doubt to an abstract place holder for discursive purposes but in practice could not live or operate if such was truly the case...

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Just curious how you'd explain your belief that a car (going back to our earlier discussion) is 'more' than the sum of its parts? I take it that you mean it is 'literally true' that a car is more than the sum of its parts? The reason I'm asking is that I'd say it literally isn't true that a car is more than the sum of its parts.

Would you then be ready to pay the same price for an assembled car and for a non-assembled pile of spare parts?

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...let me ask you Frank what is of more value to you give a step back and admit you have beliefs saving your honesty, or win the argument at all costs ?
What does your "genotype program", your gut feeling, pushes you to choose ?
So far you seam to reason "survival" before "honour"...but as reality is tricky perhaps your true survival resides in giving a step back and save your honour...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

An not assembled car lacks literally the energy and programming linking those parts...it costs less because less is there. Parts without function are noise not information, pure trash !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I have good reason to suspect nothing in the Universe is noise and all is information...everything fits a place..."noise" is the term we use to abstract the complexity of reality from our specific focal points of analysis !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

(by the way meaning that we may well not be able to tell anything about it just as we may...its unknowable)

Then it is not a fact that "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can tell about it".

"What we can tell about it" relates to perception. Your sentence means that there is a state of affairs independent of perception.
Maybe there is. But we can't know it, so it's not a fact, it's a belief.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Are you suggesting that I have asserted that there is a state of affairs independent of perception?

No, I am not. I saw you comment on the first half of that statement, and it seemed like you'd missed the last half, which is the one that makes it unknowable. Hence the clarification from me, which seemed to sort it out.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

But I didn't say it was the case there is no reality outside human perception...it may be the case human perception is a part of what reality is, it needs not be complete to be included in the set of what is real...

Whatever we experience about reality is itself a part of reality, even mistakes...
If I hallucinate and see a flying man with wings its is quite real that I am hallucinating...
The problem of computation is not a problem against reality being real, FACTUAL, its a problem of complete description not being possible. Whatever you know believe or experience still is a part of reality all the same.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

But I didn't say it was the case there is no reality outside human perception...it may be the case human perception is a part of what reality is, it needs not be complete to be included in the set of what is real...

You said that there is a state of affairs no matter what we know about it.
If it is the case that the only state of affairs is the one we perceive, it cannot be true that there is a state of affairs no matter what we know about it.

Quote:

Whatever you know believe or experience still is a part of reality all the same.

I agree. But that doesn't mean there is a reality if there is no one to know or believe or experience.
It may be that "something that can know about it" is a condition of reality happening.
This means that your assertion is a belief, not a fact. Even if it's true, which it might very well be.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
But I didn't say it was the case there is no reality outside human perception...it may be the case human perception is a part of what reality is, it needs not be complete to be included in the set of what is real...

You said that there is a state of affairs no matter what we know about it.
If it is the case that the only state of affairs is the one we perceive, it cannot be true that there is a state of affairs no matter what we know about it.

Quote:
Whatever you know believe or experience still is a part of reality all the same.

I agree. But that doesn't mean there is a reality if there is no one to know or believe or experience.
It may be that "something that can know about it" is a condition of reality happening.
This means that your assertion is a belief, not a fact. Even if it's true, which it might very well be.

When I'm saying it doesn't matter what we know I am not going either way I am just saying it doesn't matter if we do know or if we do not know as the real is the real...

If everything about reality results of a mind thinking, then thinking is not creating reality (we got to rip off "creating" out of the thinking) but rather portraying it, unfolding it inside space time...its like all the objects of your thinking are potentially real, already timeless potential forms, that would come about (materialize) through mind thinking on them...even if so still in good truth minds would not be creating reality as reality would include that platonic realm of mathematical and geometrical potential...in that case what you would have outside time is an ensemble of timeless phenomena, all of them, minds themselves and other geometric forms, or algorithms, on which minds inside time would materialize those forms, a major function in the matrix concerning minds usefulness...thus the act of "thinking" would be a function for materializing information and not to create the true abstract reality out of time and space...in this sense knowing, would be itself an unfolding activity inside time, would be part of that abstract realm, a timeless reality per se...there, we back to square one, there are no minds making reality even if somewhat we came to the conclusion that it seams minds might be making reality...

As I have said before:

On Mind reality:
...if reality was created by minds who created the mind/s as minds are themselves the real ? No one ? Then minds themselves couldn't be real as no mind consciousness or whatever like it could create them...if minds were created by other things which not minds, then minds are not the creator of reality...

3 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

This argument is much more then an argument against minds making reality...its an argument against a classical idea of "God" as being a mind...if anything a valid idea of God should resemble more mathematical order...a sort of timeless program unfolding upon itself with time and space inside itself...

...as a whole "God" doesn't move...time and space are inside it...it doesn't think...it doesn't even act as its frozen from the outside, its actively speaking powerless to change what itself is as totality...all is there...is inside you get the illusion of movement as subsets relate with other subsets mathematically...

0 Replies

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know