Philosoft

How do you know this? Is it not also possible that we accept our senses as reliable because we lack the ability to do otherwise?

<strong> This is wholly unrelated to our sensory reliability. We are able to walk because of the interaction of multiple feedback mechanisms, which presumes the reliability of the senses.

<strong> Um, what is demonstrated?

<strong> We couldn't have any assumptions because our senses would return a different signal every time. It wouldn't be possible to distinguish between different chunks of matter.

The Messiah

You can continue to walk without looking at the ground, in fact most of the time you do. We do not use echo location so we cannot know where the ground is yet we generally walk and run without any problems. As I said when there is a break in the terrain we stumble meaning the assumptions used by our subconcious can sometimes be incorrect. We believe the ground will generally be at the same level to make the next step. If we had to check our assumption before making a movement we wouldn't be able to move because the time it takes to establish the validity of the assumption would mean the time has elapsed since the last check and we would have perform a new check, hence immobility.

Philosoft

My point was that you wouldn't even be able to think because all sensory returns would be random. They would all appear identical, or perhaps all different. Either way, I don't think it's even possible to talk about human thought processes in such a scenario.

The Messiah

Why not?

rebelnerd

When I've had those discussions where I've been told "You've got to believe in something", what is usually meant is having a belief system meaning belief in god(s), astrology, whatever in order to give life some meaning. Just believing in something such as gravity is not what I would consider a belief system. I believe in all kinds of things with out having a belief system to give my life value or worth.

My two cents.

Filo

The Messiah

Filo,

A Mandelbrot set is based on the equation

xn = (xn-1)^2+c, the set being the complex numbers c for which xn does not approach infinity.

From very simple rules extremely complex patterns can arise. I was trying to illustrate that belief is necessary to function, from this start point many new and complex beliefs arise.

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: The Messiah ]</p>

rebelnerd

Agreed.
I think you might have missed my point. Are you saying that complex belief systems arise out of less complex beliefs? I can accept a complex belief system with regards to learning how to walk without falling down (gravity, motion, balance, etc.), but I can't accept that these would continue to the complexity of deity belief or supernatural belief. That would mean that deity/supernatural belief was a natural result of elemental beliefs.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Filo

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]</p>

The Messiah

Filo,

No, I don't think you are misunderstanding. I think beliefs are employed as a tool. From making assumptions about the position of the ground to making assumptions about why the sun comes up. Just because we can replace beliefs with certainties does not mean that the tendancy to establish beliefs is diminished. Perhaps the term 'you've got to believe in something' could be more accurately replaced with 'you do believe in something', but then of course the definition of belief comes into question.

rebelnerd

Messiah,

I understand your point, but for me it is still quite a leap from beliefs/assumptions about something tangible to belief in mythology.

Filo

Philosoft

Because there aren't any distinct things to think about. All sensory returns are either identical or different. Either way, there's no way to have a sensory experience of something that will facilitate an abstraction.