Belief vs. Reality

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you just saying simply believing or do you mean actually changing reality based on your perception of it? New Age beliefs, pardigm shifts, etc.
Seems like a lot of people these days believe in the latter.
Myself, I really don't know,but I really find the thought fasinating.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and the opinions generated by them. However, anybody who suspends, or displays a lack of diligence in the use of their critical thinking skills simply because it looks like the conclusions will contradict their belief or violate their senses, is willfully negligent in their search for the truth. They at least need to examine the contradiction and decide what is more important to them; basing belief on faith, hope, and desire; or basing belief on evidence, reason and logic.

Nothing wrong with going with the former, as long as it is not used to investigate and draw conclusions on things that fall within the realm of the latter. For example, it is nothing short of foolish to use faith based beliefs to study the structure of matter, the details of evolution, or the workings of the human genome. Likewise it is foolish to look to the scientific method to explain matters of faith like the purpose of life and reasons for existence.

IMO, people who understand that distinction can easily reconcile everything they observe, and have no problem with conflicting beliefs. Those who can not are doomed to reach the most ridiculous conclusions.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." Albert Einstein

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[pirana 0]

Quote

I believe I'll have a slice of pizza for breakfast.

It doesn't really matter, though, you are all just a bunch of playing cards.

Did you warm it up or eat it cold?

A full personality profile; including vocational recommendations, matchmaking services, and the diet that is best for you will be based on your answer.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Throwing this out there. Do you believe if you really believe in something, does it make it true? Like if you don't believe in a hell.. then there isn't a hell. Or do you believe there is a universal truth no matter what we believe in or not?

What do you believe in and why?

You can believe in somthing wrong. It does not make it true.

You might not believe in something true. It does not make it false.

Religious convictions aside, these questions are unanswerable conclusively by anyone.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

anybody who suspends, or displays a lack of diligence in the use of their critical thinking skills simply because it looks like the conclusions will contradict their belief or violate their senses, is willfully negligent in their search for the truth

but that is the definition of Speaker's Corner - it's a great thing, not bad, but a wonderful, marvelous thing

Pizza Cold. And then, of course, the second I'm finished, Kim calls and wants to meet for lunch.

not "Lunch", just lunch, of course

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[pirana 0]

Quote

What is reality? Remember the matrix? No I am not saying the movie is true just the idea. We know very little and the little we know most mistake and think is a lot.

How do you reach that conclusion? I had someone who was debating the size of the universe with me throw that line out, as if it supported either side of the debate.

I say we know a lot, and that there is also a lot we do not know. I would say classifying the entire body of knowledge aquired to date by the human species as "little" is a glittering generality that is not only irrelevant to the discussion, but is mostly just a popular catch-phrase used by the uninformed. I'm not selling myself short and nobody should. I know a lot. Not everything of course, but more than a little. I think lines like that are a euophemism for "I do not feel like putting a lot of energy into this, and desire to diminish the legitimacy of those that do."

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Darius11 12]

Quote

that is not only irrelevant to the discussion, but is mostly just a popular catch-phrase used by the uninformed.

Do we even know what everything is to know what portion of it you know? You must as you claim we know a lot.

I think your forgetting that the world was flat and you would fall of the edge if you traveled to far towards the horizon just a very little time ago (little time in universe standards as a 1000 years is not much).
Every civilization thinks they are right and that they know everything or at least most things. It is a comforting thought. So many would stand there and claim they are 100% sure about (x =whatever) only to be proven wrong as time went on. I think maybe this concept might be to hard for you to understand and I don’t care enough to try to explain it to you. Either you get it or your don’t

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

Oh Oh What’s up girl?

So you’re posting in SC and stopped lurking about time.

As for the Base rig I think I will sell my soul for it if I don’t get one by next year.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

anybody who suspends, or displays a lack of diligence in the use of their critical thinking skills simply because it looks like the conclusions will contradict their belief or violate their senses, is willfully negligent in their search for the truth

but that is the definition of Speaker's Corner - it's a great thing, not bad, but a wonderful, marvelous thing

Pizza Cold. And then, of course, the second I'm finished, Kim calls and wants to meet for lunch.

not "Lunch", just lunch, of course

So the definition of Speakers Corner is willful neglect? High and mighty opinions, pointless pontification, non-stop rambling, endless debates on unresolveable issues - I'll give you all that. If it was just willful neglect we'd all ignore each other and get back to work.

And, oh, lunch? Is that LUNCH or lunch? Nudge nudge, wink wink, know what I mean.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Throwing this out there. Do you believe if you really believe in something, does it make it true? Like if you don't believe in a hell.. then there isn't a hell. Or do you believe there is a universal truth no matter what we believe in or not?

If you jump out of an airplane and then just decide that you no longer believe in gravity, you'll still die regardless.

Not according to Douglas Adams.

He's dead, though.

But didn't that require the Infinite Probability Drive, not just a belief?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein

That is a great quote, and not just because it is catchy or cute. He and Bohr shed so much light on the illusiveness of reality that we are still struggling to catch up almost 100 years later. Pretty amazing when you consider the speed at which the world is changing and at which humans attempt to adapt. But the counter-intuitive implications of relativity have proven a tough sell. The energy/matter stuff most everybody gets. But the notion that space and time are not absolutes, WHOA, pass that thing over here.

Relativism blew most any notion of anything being absolute out of the water.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Do we even know what everything is to know what portion of it you know? You must as you claim we know a lot.

I think your forgetting that the world was flat and you would fall of the edge if you traveled to far towards the horizon just a very little time ago (little time in universe standards as a 1000 years is not much).
Every civilization thinks they are right and that they know everything or at least most things. It is a comforting thought. So many would stand there and claim they are 100% sure about (x =whatever) only to be proven wrong as time went on. I think maybe this concept might be to hard for you to understand and I don’t care enough to try to explain it to you. Either you get it or your don’t

Never said many of those things. Never said we know everything. Never said we know most things. Never stated what we know as a portion of all things. I did say we know a lot, and stick by that, regardless of what portion of all knowledge that is.

We may never know what the total possible pool of information is. Is that a reason to forever say we know little? Do you really think that because we don't know the total pool of available knowledge, that is reason to label what we do know as little?

Even using the Earth as an analogy, if I hand dig a hole and end up removing 10 cubic yards of material, that's a lot of dirt. I don't care that it is some incredibly small percentage of the Earth. It is still a lot of digging. You do not deposit percentages in the bank, you deposit real dollars. That is my point.

Regardless of how uncomfortable people are with what they do not know, it is without any merit to say we only know a "little."

Additionally, the world was never flat and I would never have fallen off; regardless of any belief I or anyone else had about those things. It is not terribly relevant to use past ignorance as a means of proving current or future ignorance. The world is a very different place, with very different methods not just of observation and investigation, but of thinking. BTW, the flat Earth is a poor analogy because even if the masses had that belief, scholars had moved beyond that way before the timeframe you gave.

As an aside; there are very strong hints that we are closing in on some very fundamental truths. The homogenous nature of the elementary particles, the fact that we have thoroughly mapped out the nature of matter at a level where there is very little difference in the structure of ANYTHING, including the forms and nature of delivery of energy in discreet and irreduceable packets; all point to a ceiling of sorts.

And I still wouldn't say we know everything, but it is denigrating to our endeavors in general, and to the pioneers of discovery specifically, to say we only know a little.

And do you really think the concept you described would be "to" hard for me to understand? You think it might be that I understand it but disagree? And the comment about not caring enough to explain?

I do not think I was insulting or condescending to you. I deserve the same.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

But didn't that require the Infinite Probability Drive, not just a belief?

No!! You must return to your studies!

Its actually the infinite improbablity drive, and learning to fly does not require the use of one, although a nice pair of legs, revolutionary mathematical theory or erupting volcano may come in handy.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

it is without any merit to say we only know a "little."

actually, isn't that the basis of the desire for religion? that way lies madness......

I think, that people use the "well, we all know so little in the grand scheme of things, and we can all agree on that" is an attempt to disengage from a debate in a graceful manner. Especially when the debate isn't going anywhere or even to ones detriment - or, in most cases, over the head of one but not the other. It's much more polite than "Good Day, SIR".

See, we say "But we know so little, so are we to say what's true or not?" then you both are supposed to look thoughtful, maybe hold your chin in a scholarly manner, and then walk away or stare at your shoes. Again, nodding thoughtfully in order to pretend you are thinking deep thoughts when all you are really wondering is whether the snack machine still has any Oreo snack packs left.

I consider it a punt used by either very religious types, or fake intellectuals.

you just as well close a discussion with any random self evident pap "so, in closing, we can agree that the sky is kinda blue today" nod thoughtfully, smile, walk away

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Darius11 12]

Quote

I say we know a lot, and that there is also a lot we do not know. I would say classifying the entire body of knowledge aquired to date by the human species as "little" is a glittering generality that is not only irrelevant to the discussion, but is mostly just a popular catch-phrase used by the uninformed. I'm not selling myself short and nobody should. I know a lot. Not everything of course, but more than a little. I think lines like that are a euophemism for "I do not feel like putting a lot of energy into this, and desire to diminish the legitimacy of those that do."

So what is it? we know alot or there is alot we don't know?

Quote

Even using the Earth as an analogy, if I hand dig a hole and end up removing 10 cubic yards of material, that's a lot of dirt. I don't care that it is some incredibly small percentage of the Earth. It is still a lot of digging. You do not deposit percentages in the bank, you deposit real dollars. That is my point.

You just made my point! Standing in front of the dirt your little dirt hill might look huge to you, even bigger to an ant. As you stated your self it is an insignificant amount when compared to the amount of dirt on the planet or in the known universe. To the ant that little hill might seem as a universe by it self.

Either way this is not an argument you or I can win. I believe there is way more things we don’t know then thing that we truly understand. Especially considering things that we claim to be sure of have been proven false as time went on. How many scientific theories have changed or simply proven wrong over the last 100 years.

Quote

Additionally, the world was never flat and I would never have fallen off; regardless of any belief I or anyone else had about those things. It is not terribly relevant to use past ignorance as a means of proving current or future ignorance.

Wow wrong again. History repeats it self. Now they don’t just say that because it is a cool catch phrase for the uninformed, but because history has and will repeat it self.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[tbrown 26]

Quote

Throwing this out there. Do you believe if you really believe in something, does it make it true? Like if you don't believe in a hell.. then there isn't a hell. Or do you believe there is a universal truth no matter what we believe in or not?

What do you believe in and why?

I believe that all reality may be an illusion of our concious mind - a central belief to Eastern and Buddhist thinking. But I still wear a parachute when I jump. I don't know if I believe in heaven and hell or not, but if they exist they'll be there whether I believe in them or not. Or maybe they don't exist.

Faith in a belief that can't be proven (i.e. belief in the existence of God) can be a wonderful thing. Or we can just go around believing every cool thing we like at the moment and not believing in those things that make our tummies a little queasy. There are a lot of people out there spouting a lot of crap and it's really up to us to decide what we're going to believe in and whether or not it's worth governing our lives by those beliefs.

So I'm not going to tell you if you're right or wrong - just to choose carefully and be willing to make the hard choices.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[pirana 0]

Well, I guess we just have a very different way of interpreting the world, as well as very different criteria for drawing conclusions. You pre-empted ny calling "history repeats itself" as another catchphrase. That is just too simple, and lacks any supporting discussion on how it is relevant.

Does that comment somehow support the notion that humans don't know much? Or does the assumption we don't know much lead to the conclusion that history repreats itself? How are the 2 connected?

Phrases like that remind me of the Father Guido Sarduci approach to education and knowledge. His class on religion was: God is everywhere. Economics was: Suply and demand. So history will now be summed up as: History repeats itself. And the whole of Humanities is: Humans don't know squat.

That part was meant in fun, and not a knock on what I think you understand, Don't need to give me another Wow!

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

another catchphrase

Hmmmm, catchphrase, (rubbing chin thoughtfully).
I see, well then, that settles that (nodding and looking scholarly).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants