WJ

Thanks Adrian!

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

You can ask a thousand times, but your request will still be incoherent. I do not maintain a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing or event, without sufficient evidence presented to support that state or habit of mind.

Since you are not capable of reading my mind to independently verify this, asking me to "prove" it is an innapropriate and incoherent request.

It must be accepted as fact for the sake of argument or dismissed as fact for the sake of argument.

If you choose to dismiss my declaration as fact for the sake of argument, then what would by your reason for doing so and how would it be at all relevant?

The only thing you could say is (as before), "I don't believe you," which is trivial and pointless and nothing more than an expression of subjectivity.

It is not necessary for you to believe my declarative for it to be pragmatically true, which, in case you're not following too closely, is the point I have raised repeatedly.

Again, you do not have to have complete knowledge and understanding of my entire mental activities in order for you to accept my declarative as true for the sake of argument, especially since, comparatively speaking and similiar to the irrelevant "justification of belief" pointlessness, how I choose to function in regard to my own cognitive processing is ultimately a trivial, ancillary matter that you and WJ are evidently only interested in as a sidetrack.

The direct issue is that one does not require "absolute knowledge of" reality in order to function within realty or to recognize that there exists an "out there" out there (i.e., an objective reality that exists independently of the human mind).

It simply is not necessary just as it is not necessary to have "absolute knowledge of" mathematics in order to recognize that "1 + 1 = 2."

Then properly apply terminology accordingly.

John Page

Declaration dismissed, repeated lack of evidence, documentary proof above.

3 strikes. Goodbye

abe smith

words words words blah blah blah...... Like 'the Cheuch" and a whoh'lot of other Platonisms, 'reality" is a human fiction=a manmad artefact; and why shd we waste time talking about sech a thang/ waste time seriously talking about such a thang; le's look at the scallop's beautiful sapphire \blue eyes & hold our breath. Have you ever looked at an octopus [in a tank] for 10,15 mins? Abe

Koyaanisqatsi

That is, indeed, a defining quality, yes. No need for impressions.

Do you mean, if a belief can be shown to be "true" (as in, established as fact) does it stop being a belief, then the answer is, obviously, yes. Once something is shown to be true (established as fact), then it would, necessarily, cease to be a belief, according to my definition.

This is self-evident within the wording of my definition.

Not necessarily true. Since your "belief," as you put it, would necessarily be dependent upon complex mathematics as evidence and not just physical evidence, you could certainly consider falsification (such as is found with String Theory) to be sufficient evidence to "place your trust" in your "belief" of many universes.

If, however, you are limiting yourself necessarily to just physical evidence, then you're correct. You would indeed be placing your trust in a thing or event without sufficient evidence to support the truth claim of your belief.

Bear in mind, of course, that you have declared a "belief" in many universes and not posited a theory that entails the notion of many universes as a necessary contingent, so, again, do not make the repeated mistake of confusing similiar terminology as WJ (and, to a lesser extent, John) does.

They are apples and oranges, accept in a trivial, colloquial sense.

Let's be clear so we can get past my having to constantly repeat what I've already clarified. A belief that there are many universes is, indeed, according to my definition, ultimately pointless and self-delusional (if only trivially so) based on the fact that you have labeled it a belief.

A theory, on the other hand, that involves the hypothetical existence of many universes as a necessary compenent to the solvency of that theory would not be pointless or trivially self-delusional, since the fundamental purposes of a theory and a belief are, IMO, diametrically opposed.

As stated previously, the primary delineation between holding a belief and the scientific method (or, perhaps better, positing a hypothetical) is that the belief is held regardless of the evidence that would discount its truth claim and a hypothetical is generally not held, once the evidence discounts the truth claim.

In other, more painfully simple terms, on the whole, the hypothetical is mutable; belief is not.

Is that now painfully clear or shall we continue to pointlessly muddy the waters further?

Incorrect. If you hold a belief that is later demonstrated to be "true," then ultimately it can be said that you were correct--but only retroactively--but this would not exonerate you from self-delusion, because of the contingent quality of "self-delusion" in the definition.

In other words, at the time you held the belief--assuming, as your scenario does, that insufficient evidence existed at this time to support the truth claim of that belief--you would be considered self-delusional (however trivially so) according to my definition, because you held the belief regardless of the lack of evidence.

Again, let me stress the trivial nature of these specifics.

If by "proved" you mean "demonstrated to be true," it is abundantly clear that if a "fact" has not yet been demonstrated to be true, one could only delude oneself into believing it were true absent sufficient evidence.

Again, this is a trivial distinction, ultimately, but nonetheless "true," as well as self-evident, so why all this focus upon it escapes me.

I agree, thus the star's explosion is not dependent upon human perception. Once again and for auld lang syne, what "we" do or do not do on a cognitive level is largely irrelevant in regard to the existence of an "objective reality," which is why all of this pointlessness about the justification of personal beliefs serves no ultimate purpose to the question of "what is (objective) reality?"

Considering you never stated a belief that a star exploded exactly 80 billion years ago to the day, I agree with your assessment.

Incoherent.

To whom? The believer?

As I argued previously, a "belief" cannot be "demonstrated to be false" since its truth claim is not dependent upon sufficient evidence as a necessary qualifier. One "believes" regardless of the evidence that would serve to either "prove" or "disprove" the truth claim, thus it is not proper to use the term "demosntrated to be false" in regard to the personal justification for someone to decide to hold a belief.

Again, personal justification is irrelevant and is not necessary for holding a belief, which is a primary reason why holding a belief is, as I stated earlier, spurious and, ultimately, pointlessly self-delusional (if only trivially so).

More importantly than this ancillary crap, however, is that holding a belief is an ultimately useless construct when attempting to answer the question of this thread, "what is reality?"

Since the construct of "belief" allows anyone to simply state, "I believe reality is a purple cloud of happiness," such parameters are clearly and demonstrably useless when applied to the question.

Agreed and I didn't think you were talking about God here.

I think that "value" system has now been abundantly clarified, yes?

Again, please be careful about the terminology you throw around.

Certainly many beliefs (like christianity) contain contradictory evidence that is denied, but I did not intend that as a contingency of my definition.

Since, however, I provided the definition only as a basis for WJ to either add to or detract from in order to define the terms of the debate he keeps challenging me with but always runs away from, I would have no problem including this addendum.

"Possible," but not necessarily contingent, which I would argue is the key. A hypothesis or theory is contingent upon the evidence; beliefs are not and that, again, is the primary delineation, IMO.

Applied critical analysis as detailed in this post.

Correct.

See above.

That is an element, yes.

Non sequitur. "Where there was none" means that there is no contradictory evidence, but does not ipso facto mean that there is sufficient evidence.

"Marry to a fact" is a nonsensical statement. Could you clarify this, please?

The qualifier "justified" is better understood in the context I was applying it, i.e., "personally justified" or justified to the self and I apologize if that wasn't clear.

A trivial distinction, since to hold a belief that a star exploded 80 billion years ago to this day is a trivial belief.

Regardless, any individual can personally justify any belief they choose to personally justify, simply by declaring, "It's my belief and I can choose to believe anything I want to."

That is why the concept of "personal justification" when it comes to beliefs is trivial and pointless.

That's a very good question, which is why I argue that the scientific method is far better equipped as a tool of cognition than holding a belief, precisely because it provides a method to apply critical analysis to such questions.

Mere "belief," however, (as you and I have defined it) provides us with no tools (other than trivial ones) and is therefore largely useless to apply to such questions.

Well, let's wait until Walrus can demonstrate he knows how to properly apply those terms before passing any qualitative judgment on his question, yes?

Especially since we have just established that "it" is not "only when it is logically contradictory to maintain a statement in face of the facts."

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Grow up, John and address the arguments I presented.

Short of reading my mind, there is no way for me to "prove" my declaration nor any requirement for me to do so in order for you accept it as true for the sake of argument.

For f*ck's sake.

WJ

John!

You made a wise choice. He still doesn't get it. He can't past the issue of absolutes, nor does he understand the basic scientific sythetic apriori methods of discovery-propositional. It's ironic though for him, if there are no absolutes, what follows (assuming of course that life/reality is based on the logic of language and the intellect)?

I wouldn't bother with his other personal baggage stuff. He's a fundy, only in the 'atheistic' sense

Isn't that right Koy?

Walrus

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Isn't what right, Walrus?

Adrian Selby

Fascinating Koy, thanks, I have some minutiae outstanding with regard to your comments, but nothing which I feel worth pursuing beyond the following, so with this last comment or two, I'll leave it.

"Regardless, any individual can personally justify any belief they choose to personally justify, simply by declaring, "It's my belief and I can choose to believe anything I want to.""

I wouldn't hold this to be a justification of the belief, this fictional quote as expressed would add nothing to the holding of the belief besides expressing some conviction that the person is at liberty to do so. I take justification to be, a rational basis for holding one belief rather than another. What I mean merely is that one can hold a belief that could be true and the justification would, in the case of the example, be evidence left that a star did indeed explode at that time.

On a sidenote I don't see how a statement of belief could only be retroactively true. The statement either describes a fact or it doesn't. That there was insufficient evidence does not falsify the statement, and I still don't think one could therefore be deluded by asserting or holding the belief the statement expresses. That you label the belief trivial is a value judgement on your part, and doesn't affect the substance of the argument that the belief could be factual. I also don't think its trivial for a belief to have evidence appear subsequently that is accepted by every astronomer, rather than, for example, only that person's spouse hoping to appease their partner for the sake of an easier life.

". A hypothesis or theory is contingent upon the evidence; beliefs are not and that, again, is the primary delineation, IMO."

I agree that with your definition of belief, they aren't contingent upon evidence, nevertheless, they may entirely and accurately describe the evidence, when it appears. This is no way to proceed I admit, but I wonder whether the belief loses its status as a belief by your definition simply because it has been held without sufficient evidence, and now has sufficient evidence.

Why this is less than trivial for me is that this seems to describe a scientist who has not yet received contradictory evidence for a belief that other universes exist (I appreciate my lack of knowledge may have rendered this analogy a bit problematic) nevertheless may hold it in the face of what they deem to be insufficient evidence. Sufficient evidence could be a key problem here, because what counts as sufficient in areas like, for example, theoretical physics, or even archaeology, may be the subject of fierce debate. When do facts count conclusively against and for a belief?

I do think that in areas within these disciplines there are scientists that hold beliefs, and the question of when evidence is sufficient such that to go on believing in spite of it becomes pointless and delusional is extremely hard to delineate, if indeed it ever becomes possible to delineate. The natural cut off point seems to be when it becomes logically contradictory to assert a belief when faced with the evidence. Whether its possible to have this state of affairs in matters outside formal logic is the issue I daresay WJ wants to embark on in some capacity.

Finally, my sentence with 'marry to a fact' you called nonsensical isn't, it is a figure of speech, describing how the statement of a belief accords with an observable fact.

I note that you are very harsh when it comes to addressing the manner of speech your interlocutors sometimes employ. I appreciate your desire for correspondence to be as formally correct as possible, however, please be aware that some of your interlocutors stopped reading any philosophy books 13 years ago with any seriousness, and 'rusty' is the most apt metaphor for their ability to express themselves properly

I appreciate all this is a sidetrack, and will enjoy any further points you choose to explore, but I'll leave it there as overall, I agree this isn't the most substantive of issues in the great scheme of things.

Adrian

jenn

WJ,
It was not my intention to get you into an all out war.
I believe that the question I proposed to this thread wasn't actually detailed enough to get a precise answer.It seems to reason(for me) that reality relies on our percerption of our senses. If we trust our senses and believe them to be "real" then, I guess it is safe to say that reality is real.
Reality stems from ones own brain...agree?
Then, for reality to be truly defined as being "real" would we then have to discover and discuss ALL aspects of the brain?
I perceive myself as being a loving mother and a person who sees the best in everyone.I perceive myself as being a skeptic, and absolutley loving the subject of Science and Physics.
When the average Joe (that knows me)perceives me as the person, who do they perceive?
I always question EVERYTHING...there is always one that needs to be asked under every circumstance.I think way deep, and yet found other deep thinkers on this forum.
I hope that by asking such a CRAZY question, we can all agree that it is one to be asked, and it is also questionable.
p.s. John...I love the way you answered <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />