[Questioning Everything]

[Hobbes' Choice]

Those examining Galileo bent over backwards to be accommodating; it is rather that Galileo was the intransigent, closed minded one. Critics said that he was welcome to teach that his theory broadly fitted the observed facts, however they pointed out (rightly) that there were holes, his maths did not quite work, so he should not claim in his teachings that there were no other possibilities. But Galileo would not compromise, so they eventually inflicted the mildest of restrictions..

This is pretty much a complete travesty of the facts.
I do not consider home arrest for life "the mildest of restrictions"; perpetrated against a man widely respected and famous as a great man.

His "holes" were not so large as those in the Geocentric hypothesis.

And it was "THEY" that burned Giordano Bruno with a similar theory with much smaller holes, even that GG.

[Noax]

What were the holes at the time? I actually don't know, but all this was pre-Newtonian mechanics, so a simple model of uniform-speed circular or elliptical orbits is going to be off. There is mutual interaction with the larger planets. The sun does not stay put.

My points remain with the general populace, not with the other learned men of the time. They experienced a sun that made its way across the sky each day, and a geocentric model fit that more comfortably. Nobody (except astrologers) had to do the more complicated math to predict where Venus might appear on some future date.

[Hobbes' Choice]

What were the holes at the time? I actually don't know, but all this was pre-Newtonian mechanics, so a simple model of uniform-speed circular or elliptical orbits is going to be off. There is mutual interaction with the larger planets. The sun does not stay put.

My points remain with the general populace, not with the other learned men of the time. They experienced a sun that made its way across the sky each day, and a geocentric model fit that more comfortably. Nobody (except astrologers) had to do the more complicated math to predict where Venus might appear on some future date.

Astrologers, and navigators.
Gallieo was a talented astrologer btw.

There were holes in the heliocentric hypothesis.
If you read Koerstler "The Sleepwalkers", he relates that Copernicus had to add 14 extra epicycles to accomodate those pesky perfect circles.
What really pissed off the church was that their claim, made for generations, that their cosmology was divinely inspired and was Christianity's great triumph predating Christ, by using Ptolemy's and Aristotles' conception borrowed from a range of sources.
What the church said was nothing more than what God had told them, anything less, anything else was heresy and a challenge to that which justified their power as god's agency on earth.

[ken]

I think it was this statement that seemed to state otherwise, and not make it clear and obvious (my bold):
A confusing difference between holding a view but not having a held view.

I would never write that intentionally, so IF I did, then it was completely unintentional and a complete accident. I do not recall writing that anywhere so it would be great if you could point out to us whereabouts exactly I did allegedly write that so that I, and/or others, can look over what else I wrote.

Post 127, this one being 134. I'd reference the time, but it shows up differently for everybody depending on your zone. Press <ctrl>F and type the words. That's how you find things like that.

Now I see where the confusion is. This is what I ACTUALLY wrote; "But I do NOT have a held view, which are always open to changing. They are always open to changing because I do NOT have a belief, or in other words, I do NOT hold onto a view nor have a held view."

Even you wrote, "... using the dictionary definition of 'belief', which is effectively just a held view, and could very much be true or false." The very reason I wrote I do NOT hold onto a view nor have a held view IS because of the very fact that a belief is effectively just a held view.

If you have ever really noticed I am NOT saying anything much more different than you are. You are just trying to find fault in what I am saying. YOU do this because of YOUR beliefs. Because you HAVE beliefs you can NOT be open to what I am saying, and therefore you will always disagree with what I am saying, TRY to always find fault, and then always TRY argue all you can.

The first part of what I wrote is, admitting, very clumsily written. But, after rereading this, and looking at it from the context of what it was meant to mean, I did actually write that intentionally. I was stating My statement is just a view AND that MY views are NOT beliefs because;
1. I do NOT believe in the views.
2. I do NOT believe the views are true, right, and/or correct.
3. The views could be right or wrong, true or false, and/or correct or incorrect.

Therefore, I do NOT have a belief.

The views I have are just that, a view, which are all truly open. If the views are being held or held onto, then I would NOT be open. BUT My views NOT held nor held onto, so they are all open, to change. The views are also being expressed as just that, that is a view and NOT a belief. To Me, views can change because by their very nature they are open to change. Whereas, a belief can NOT change because by its very nature it is being believed as already being true, right, and/or correct.

Would you believe (in) any thing if you did NOT already believe that it was true, right, and/or correct? Answer that and hopefully you will then (begin to) see and understand where I am coming from.

Because you have already stated YOU already have beliefs;

If you answered, "No", then that shows that you already have a belief in some things, and thus you already believe you know what is true, right, and/or correct, and therefore you are NOT open to other things.

If, however, you answered, "Yes", then WHY?

WHY would any person believe (in) some thing if they do NOT already know if it is true or not, right or not, or correct or not?

A view can be changed at anytime, as long as it is not being held or held onto. A belief can NOT be changed at anytime, because while it is a belief it is obviously already being believed (in) as being true, right, and/or correct. A belief can NOT be changed but as a soon as it is stopped being believed (in) and thus the belief has gone, then, and only then, it changes back into just being a view again, and then, and only then, this is when change can occur.

Maybe the sublimity of all this is to "deep" for some, and thus why this is not coming across as easy and as obvious as I thought it would have, by now.

Now, if you wrote MY last sentence as I wrote it, that is with the parts underlined as I had done, and NOT changed it as you had done, then it is plainly obvious to see that I was just saying that the views I DO HAVE are NOT held onto nor are they held at all. Meaning the views I DO HAVE are always OPEN to change.

You, however, you were trying to imply that I was saying that I do not have views, which is totally NOT what I was saying. By you changing what I actually wrote and adding in your own bold made this far more confusing than it needed to be. Your attempt at changing what I wrote and/or misconstruing what I actually wrote, although maybe not intentionally, even confused Me, for a little while. That was until you pointed Me to My exact quote and I was able to look at it for what it really was.

So, there is actually NO confusing difference between holding a view but not having a held view at all, as you suggested in the beginning here. Holding onto a view is the exact same as having a held view. I, for what it is worth, do neither hold onto a view nor do I have a held view. BUT I most certainly, and very obviously, DO HAVE views.

[ken]

I think it was this statement that seemed to state otherwise, and not make it clear and obvious (my bold):
A confusing difference between holding a view but not having a held view.

I would never write that intentionally, so IF I did, then it was completely unintentional and a complete accident. I do not recall writing that anywhere so it would be great if you could point out to us wherebouts exactly I did allegedly write that so that I, and/or others, can look over what else I wrote.

Post 127, this one being 134. I'd reference the time, but it shows up differently for everybody depending on your zone. Press <ctrl>F and type the words. That's how you find things like that.

I certainly do not hold anything against them or against anyone. That is because I already know WHY they all think and do what they do.

Everybody does that. Its human nature. You want to be open to new ideas, but you don't recognize them when they go by, so you hold onto old views.

Not everybody does that. If I do not recognize a new idea, when they go by, or even if I see no merit in a new idea, I still do NOT hold onto old views. I certainly do NOT hold onto them as though they are true, right, and/or correct. I just allow views to come and go as they please. I certainly also do NOT just disregard the views I have or that I am having because of a recognized new idea. I just take notice of the views, as they appear, continue looking the same way, that is openly, and move on. I am always open to new ideas and if there is merit within them, then My views change accordingly. By their very nature views ARE what I am seeing and how I am seeing things. I can look from an OPEN perspective or from a closed perspective. The views I am having at any give time is what I am seeing. I can NOT just decide to have NO views at all. Really I can, but the time frame I am able to do this is so minuscule it is not even note worthy. So, I can not just disregard or throw away the views that are appearing, and thus I have, but I also certainly do NOT hold onto them so that I am then not open to other views or ideas, nor do I believe (in) My views in any way, shape, nor form.

I have been saying WHY it is wrong from the outset. If people did not hold a belief nor believe in what they believed, then they would have and could have learned or discovered something more or new a lot earlier. Holding a belief does not allow one to be open to something else.

Well, fitting the facts to the truth you know does this. Holding a belief because of facts, a belief that is open to change with new facts,

I do NOT care how many facts in the Universe fit to the truth, as I have explained many times before I will still NOT have nor hold a belief because of the very simple and obvious fact that if I did believe, then I would NOT now be truly open.

Explain to Me how a person can believe (in) one thing and also be open to some other thing. Also, provide examples if you can so we can look at them together.

You're trying to say you strive for the latter, as do I.

I do NOT recall ever saying I "strive" for the latter, as do you. I, however, do recall saying, "I NEVER have nor hold a belief ever, so I am already always OPEN TO CHANGE, anyway".

Please TRY TO understand that I do NOT have a belief EVER. Therefore, 'I' am NOT much like 'you' at all.

The only thing I strive for is to be heard fully, and thus be fully understood.

The Galileo people had no reason to change their view just because one guy proposed a new one that solved none of their problems.

To Me, this is NOT about having or not having a reason to change their view. To Me, if they just remained open to the facts, then they would have seen the facts. This is NOT about changing ones views anyway. It is about by just remaining open, views just change quickly, simply, and extremely easily, and also naturally anyway. By the way, I am not sure what "problems" you are talking about, and, it has to be remembered that a person has to be somewhat interested in some thing before they will even begin to look at it.

That's what I'm trying to say. Nobody was trying to learn modern physics, especially since most of the critical pieces were still missing (objects tending to stay at rest, forces, etc.).

Truthfully, how many people living at any given time are really interested in modern physics?

Who is really trying to learn "modern" physics today?

How "modern" is modern, anyway? What is new today can be truly outdated by tomorrow.

Some people, even today, still believe that the Universe was created OR evolves. What is "modern" to some today is so outdated it is not even funny anymore.

Another example is some people believe in free will while others believe in determinism. Some views like this are so prehistoric in nature to us I wonder how human beings ever "progressed" to where they have.

What benefit was it to them to adopt this new story?

Probably the same benefit it is to most people today, even to those who have "adopted" this "story", which is absolutely zero.

Being open would not have helped.

Are you absolutely sure that it does NOT being open? I would suggest to think about how much easier it is to learn and discover more and new things when you are open compared to when you are closed.

Do you really believe that being "open-minded", as you would say, does NOT help people to learn more and/or new things?

Are you suggesting that being "closed-minded", as you call it, produces the outcome in the learning and discovery of new or more things?

The new story had to solve a problem, or you're just one of those people open to any crackpot theory no matter how useless.

You are going off tangent a bit here, for Me. To Me, there was no problem anyway. The "new" story was NOT to help solve a problem, it was just a new or another way of looking at some thing. It was just a "new" or another view, from the view the people's were having at that particular time. To Me, being TRULY OPEN means that that person will see any and ALL cracks in any theory, no matter WHAT.

Who cares, at the moment? I have only being trying to express a view that says it is possible to not hold a belief, and that I think it is far better to not have nor hold a belief in anything because doing this leaves a person far more open. By being open a person is far more able to learn and discover more and anew. Questioning everything is where and how we all can and do become wiser. Holding a belief prevents and stops people from questioning things.

I've been trying to point out to you some beliefs you seem to hold.

Instead of just "trying" to point them out, just do it, and write down the so called "beliefs" which I seem to hold, to you.

The more you write down the better for both of us.

And it is OK to do so (as I defended the general populace at Galileo's time), but there have been some interesting advances in science getting about a century old now, and most people are not open to them, and for the same reasons they didn't believe Galileo: It didn't solve any problems in their daily lives since they were not physicists.

Besides the belief that people are NOT open to advances in science just because those advances seemingly do not solve any problems in the daily lives, could it even be possible, within those views of yours, that the reason people are NOT open to things is because they believe (in) the opposite or contrary things? I found people are NOT open because of their beliefs. NOT because some thing does not solve any problem in their daily lives.

Do you really believe that the people's of galileo times did not believe him because his views did not solve any problems in their daily lives, and it was NOT because of their religious teachings that told them that they have to believe in the exact opposite of what galileo was actually trying to express and teach?

In fact I could show how to solve any and ALL problems in every person's life, in and for every day more. Going on your conclusion every person should now be truly open to what I have to show them. How many people now do you really think are really OPEN to what I have say, express and show them? If you can think of one, then that is one more than I can find. I think you will find, if you are open enough, that people are closed because they have and hold beliefs, and NOT because of what you believe here.

When I write, "I can show you HOW it is really easy and very possible to create a truly peaceful way of life. A way of life in which everyone is living in peace and harmony together, forever more. It is also a way of life where everyone can be truly happy and which can be created in a truly non-polluting way too" This I think WILL solve any and ALL of people's problems, but I do NOT see a mass of peoples come flocking to Me in a truly open fashion. What I do see and find, however, is people believing wholeheartedly that this is NOT possible, and so they are NOT at all open to any thing I have to say regarding this view.

The very thing you are trying to say is true, right, and correct, I find is not true, not right, and incorrect.

And, by the way, My view is it is NOT OK to have and hold beliefs, like you believe it is OK to do so.

The universe in one state, constantly rearranging? A valid interpretation with improbably complicated math just like the sun going around the earth.

Why do you say, "with improbably complicated math"?

Do you KNOW all the math or are you just presuming that?

Do you have any real idea, or are you just guessing?

You said you had a consistent set of views (which you didn't elaborate on), but I suspect it's consistent because you've never confronted the facts that contradict it.

I have yet to find any thing contradicting it.

Your beliefs are reinforcing the consistent set of views I have now.

I have not yet been able to elaborate on it because I have yet learned how to get over the one and only hurdle. That is HOW can I get people to open up to a new idea, especially when they so strongly believe the opposite is true? Thus My references back to galileo.

Do you think i prefer to be spending hours here in this forum learning how to better communicate this set of views, which i do not necessarily want, instead of just enjoying life with My family?

i did not ask for these views, i certainly did not want them, but i obtained them and i have them now, and the more i express a tiny fraction of them the more they appear to be more true, right, and correct, and then the more i want to spend on learning how to communicate better. i think it would be a wasted life if i did not do all i can now to be heard fully, recognized for I am, and accepted for who I really am. I do this by learning how to express the thoughts/views, within this body, the best and most succinct way i can. I am doing this so that I can and will make life better for My children, (which is everyone by the way). Then, and only then, I can really enjoy living and being alive.

Things are not as you always presume they are by the way.

Relativity is a far simpler model mathematically, but not consistent with a current state that changes in place.

Fair enough. I accept that that is your view, but just remember My view is Everything is relative to the observer.

Its why I said I wish I knew my physics better. I want a set of views that does not contradict the current state of physics. For example, I spent a couple years figuring out how dualism might fit in, but in the end decided that while it was possible and even inevitable, it was not how it works for us. The way I worked it out is testable, and the test fails. OK, so I worked it out wrong.

The first mistake I see here is "trying" to fit some thing in with some thing else. "Figuring" out how you can fit one of your views in with another so that then there is no contradiction is just silly and a complete waste of any one's time and energy.

JUST learn or discover how to look at ALL the things the right, and thus the best, way in the beginning, then you will just about instantly see and understand how ALL things fit in perfectly together with each other, anyway.

To gain a set of views that does NOT contradict the current, which is really the one and only REAL and TRUE state of physics, nor could nor would contradict with any thing else for that matter, is to gain the know-how of HOW to be able to look at ALL things from the true and right perspective, or in other words, learn and discover HOW to gain THAT view, which is totally unambiguous and non-contradictory, is done by just learning HOW and becoming and remaining OPEN, always and in all ways.

There is really nothing new here, or not what you did not already know anyway. To put it into language that you might be familiar with, if you want a set of non-contradictory views, then do NOT be "closed-minded", like you are now. By just becoming "open-minded", and truly "open-minded" that is, you will gain what it is that you truly want here.

[Noax]

If you have ever really noticed I am NOT saying anything much more different than you are. You are just trying to find fault in what I am saying. YOU do this because of YOUR beliefs.

You get me wrong. You consider yourself more open than others to new views, as do I. I got that many posts ago. But because you claim you are completely open, I'm trying to point out some views of yours that you are seemingly holding onto despite heavy evidence against, or point out marked resistance to consideration of evidence against. In that respect, I suppose I am finding fault. I have a view that you don't know yourself as well as you imagine.

Because you have already stated YOU already have beliefs;

Yes, but I used the dictionary definition, which says nothing about not being open to alternatives given evidence. In your words, I have views just like you do. As I said, we're not so different except in our usage of the language.

Would you believe (in) any thing if you did NOT already believe that it was true, right, and/or correct? Answer that and hopefully you will then (begin to) see and understand where I am coming from.

A circular question. Do I believe something if I don't already believe it? What??? Perhaps you need to reword this.

You, however, you were trying to imply that I was saying that I do not have views, which is totally NOT what I was saying.

I was trying to get your language usage straight, not trying to imply something. I consider things like theism to be a view. All those ism words. Some I think are more correct than others, and these would I suppose be my held views, which I label beliefs. You take those words more as a hardline non-negotiable position, and thus do not use them. But then what do you call all the various views that you don't think are likely? They're all views, but you 'have' some of those views, but don't 'have' others? Don't 'hold' any of them? Did I get it right? I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I'm trying to figure out what terms I can use to communicate.

In your terms then, I can describe my rational views (those I worked out by thinking): I believe nothing, and hold no view. I have some views and don't have others, especially since many of the views I don't have are not 'had' because they seem to contradict empirical evidence. My goal is to consider all evidence, and not cherry pick only evidence that supports the views that I have. In this way, the two of us are hopefully similar.
I think almost everybody can be described like this. It is not a thing that you do or do not do. It is a matter of how much you are open, how much you actively seek out conflict in views and attempt to rationally work out the more likely one. The average person simply has certain views and sees no reason to go out and challenge them. But in doing this, they are forced to ignore evidence to the contrary when it goes by. This denial of contradictory evidence is the hallmark of confirmation bias. Only a few (like Trump) do it knowingly, using it as a tool of power. Most just naturally turn away from facts that don't bolster up one's held position.

So do you actively seek unbiased evidence on both sides of each particular potential view, or do you refrain from investigation in areas which have the potential to upset the views you currently have?

[Noax]

Please TRY TO understand that I do NOT have a belief EVER. Therefore, 'I' am NOT much like 'you' at all.

The only thing I strive for is to be heard fully, and thus be fully understood.

I understood that statement quite a few posts ago. My mistake is, as always, a failure to express my statements in the terms as you use them.

To Me, this is NOT about having or not having a reason to change their view. To Me, if they just remained open to the facts, then they would have seen the facts.

What facts? I experience the sun going overhead each day. That's the facts. Galileo added nothing to that experience, and I cannot think of other 'facts' that would mean anything to the average person of the day. A person completely open to knew ideas would have no reason to alter his view to Galileo's new one. Assume he was aware of the new idea, aware that the model was simpler, but was incapable of (or unwilling to) following the mathematics involved.
What facts should they have seen at the time, but failed to because of not being open? The point is important to me.

By the way, I am not sure what "problems" you are talking about, and, it has to be remembered that a person has to be somewhat interested in some thing before they will even begin to look at it.

Well the general population entrenched in their held beliefs seem to be the ones you're criticizing. The other 'physicists' of the day (they weren't called that back then) could do the math enough to note, as Hobbes points out, that the predictions made by the hypothesis were not accurate, and needed all these unexplained adjustments to get the approximation closer. So that brings us to the class of 'interested layman', who might not be able to follow the equations exactly, but take the word of the physicists of the day and update their views with the implications thereof. Those people are in the absolute minority, and it is unclear how they would even have learned of Galileo's hypothesis, absent internet and published journals and all. If they accepted the view, would they do the next step and ponder the philosophical implications of the view? People back then had very held beliefs, mostly because there was a gun pointed at their heads. If you disagreed or kept yourself open, you at least kept quiet about it. So history records a slow acceptance of Galileo's hypothesis because nobody dared voice a different stance.

Truthfully, how many people living at any given time are really interested in modern physics?

Who is really trying to learn "modern" physics today?

I am, because I am interested in philosophy, and to philosophize without knowledge of physics is to build a house on a foundation of quicksand lies.

No, most people don't worry about the parts that don't impact their day to day lives. One can only have so many interests. Reality TV beckons. It is less effort (and more comforting) to be told a truth of choice than to work it out.
People on this forum are often an exception. Some of us are here to learn, to identify conflict and work out better truth from it.

Some people, even today, still believe that the Universe was created OR evolves.

What do you mean by a view that the universe evolves?

Another example is some people believe in free will while others believe in determinism. Some views like this are so prehistoric in nature to us I wonder how human beings ever "progressed" to where they have.

That debate is usually a conflict in definitions/point-of-view. Given a set of assumptions and definitions, the debate usually fades away.

Are you absolutely sure that it does NOT being open? I would suggest to think about how much easier it is to learn and discover more and new things when you are open compared to when you are closed.

How am I closed? I said I have beliefs, yes, but using my definition of the word, which translates to "I have views".

Instead of just "trying" to point them out, just do it, and write down the so called "beliefs" which I seem to hold, to you.

The more you write down the better for both of us.

Did that. You didn't even recognize them as such. Each time your reply is to underline some statement that you don't have beliefs. OK, I get that. Even if you have a view that seems to contradict evidence, you will not call your position a belief, or a 'held' view.

I mean I might assert that real unicorns exist outside the imagination, but without supporting argument, you're not likely to accept such a view as very probable. But a lot of the argument hinges on the definition of "to exist". Given an objective definition, yes, I think they exist, and on Earth no less. Subjectively they do not. By subjectively, I mean I'm not likely to experience hard evidence of their existence, like skeletons or camera footage like they keep getting of bigfoot. But subjectively I have no hard evidence that you are conscious, yet I have a view that you are. I'm open to being corrected of course.

Besides the belief that people are NOT open to advances in science just because those advances seemingly do not solve any problems in the daily lives, could it even be possible, within those views of yours, that the reason people are NOT open to things is because they believe (in) the opposite or contrary things? I found people are NOT open because of their beliefs. NOT because some thing does not solve any problem in their daily lives.

I think everybody's beliefs are open to challenge, but some resist it more than others. It is a spectrum. An inquisitive person takes a more active role in the seeking of truth. For the most part, I think you're right. I see all the postings on this forum and rarely do I see an opinion get moved. Mine certainly has, but most of those changes were from before I moved to this forum. I was very lost at first. I found conflicts in every story told.
Two people have very conflicting opinions on some point. Neither seems to consider valid points brought up by the other. That seems to demonstrate biased choosing of evidence, the worst kind of bad reasoning. I strive not to do it, but I know enough about myself to see it anyway.

Do you really believe that the people's of galileo times did not believe him because his views did not solve any problems in their daily lives, and it was NOT because of their religious teachings that told them that they have to believe in the exact opposite of what galileo was actually trying to express and teach?

Well those teachings seemed to be the problem then, no? Why deny the church when that only costs you problems in society, and gains you nothing in return except a simpler, albeit innacurate, model of the workings of the heavens.

How many people now do you really think are really OPEN to what I have say, express and show them?

You've got something to say/show to them? All I've seen so far is assertions about how open you are and we should be. Quite good, but no actual view to which they're all seemingly closed.

When I write, "I can show you HOW it is really easy and very possible to create a truly peaceful way of life. A way of life in which everyone is living in peace and harmony together, forever more. It is also a way of life where everyone can be truly happy and which can be created in a truly non-polluting way too" This I think WILL solve any and ALL of people's problems, but I do NOT see a mass of peoples come flocking to Me in a truly open fashion.

Pretty arrogant wording. Do please convey this solution instead of just assert its existence. I will perhaps critique it, but if you're afraid of that, the solution must be pretty fragile. The best ideas encourage and stand up to the critique.

What I do see and find, however, is people believing wholeheartedly that this is NOT possible, and so they are NOT at all open to any thing I have to say regarding this view.

I've stated that I'm open. So let's hear it. I've asked before, but perhaps missed the reply.

And, by the way, My view is it is NOT OK to have and hold beliefs, like you believe it is OK to do so.

Again, I was not using your usage of the term.

The universe in one state, constantly rearranging? A valid interpretation with improbably complicated math just like the sun going around the earth.

Why do you say, "with improbably complicated math"?

Do you KNOW all the math or are you just presuming that?

Do you have any real idea, or are you just guessing?

I know my relativity, yes. It postulates a constant speed of light, and from that describes a 4-dimensional spacetime where all local experiments give consistent results despite the arbitrary orientation of any of the 4 axes. The mathematics of it describes reality. No 3-dimensional model has been found. It would involve non-constant light speed, clocks that do not measure time flow, and no ability to describe the position of any object that is not here.

I don't know my QM well, but I know enough of it to have a preference against interpretations that involve events that cause effects in the past. I have adjusted my philosophical views accordingly, despite the unintuitive conclusions reached.

You said you had a consistent set of views (which you didn't elaborate on), but I suspect it's consistent because you've never confronted the facts that contradict it.

I have yet to find any thing contradicting it.

Yes, I've noticed that.

I have not yet been able to elaborate on it because I have yet learned how to get over the one and only hurdle. That is HOW can I get people to open up to a new idea, especially when they so strongly believe the opposite is true? Thus My references back to galileo.

Well most people didn't care. The ones that did care (thinking people) were interested and probably quite accepting of it. Their public acceptance was doubtlessly curtailed by the church that found itself challenged, and which had the power to suppress such ideas. So absent such pressure in free countries, consider me a person open to your ideas. Perhaps I can help you express them better instead of focusing only on the critique.

If the solution involves cooperation, how is the problem of non-cooperation solved? How is the cooperation enforced?

The solution seems to be one for society, and not so much a set of views of the nature of reality and consciousness and such. My said consistent set of views concern more the latter. Does the correct answer to the origin of the universe or the nature of time really hold any solution as to how to live in peace and harmony sufficiently to provide a good future to one's children? A little I guess.

Things are not as you always presume they are by the way.

No doubt of that.

Relativity is a far simpler model mathematically, but not consistent with a current state that changes in place.

Fair enough. I accept that that is your view,

No, relativity is a well tested scientific hypothesis, not an unverifiable philosophical view. My view is that it is a true hypothesis, giving me a foundation for a philosophical interpretation of time consistent with it.

but just remember My view is Everything is relative to the observer.

Not sure what you mean by this. You don't express things in objective terms? How can one make the world a better place in the long term if one does not exist as an observer except in the short term? I find 'observer' to be a loaded term, and prefer to speak in terms of 'a point of view'.

The first mistake I see here is "trying" to fit some thing in with some thing else. "Figuring" out how you can fit one of your views in with another so that then there is no contradiction is just silly and a complete waste of any one's time and energy.

So you can have a set of mutually contradictory views and that's ok? I mean Newton's F=MA (force, mass, acceleration, all intuitive now, but it wasn't in the 17th century) contradicts the view that the sun goes around the earth, and its ok to have that view and still accept Newtonian mechanics? I guess it sort of works, with the gods providing the needed F and all. Maybe the sun is not really that far away or big so there's not so much work for those gods to do. Its not like I've gone out there and checked.

[ken]

If you have ever really noticed I am NOT saying anything much more different than you are. You are just trying to find fault in what I am saying. YOU do this because of YOUR beliefs.

You get me wrong. You consider yourself more open than others to new views, as do I. I got that many posts ago. But because you claim you are completely open, I'm trying to point out some views of yours that you are seemingly holding onto despite heavy evidence against, or point out marked resistance to consideration of evidence against. In that respect, I suppose I am finding fault. I have a view that you don't know yourself as well as you imagine.

That is great you expressed this last view. More human beings telling Me what they see and think about Me helps Me to see thee Self better also. When fault is found I like and much prefer to be informed of this.

Now you have mentioned a couple of times that you are "trying" to point out some views of MinE, which you suggest that I seem to be holding onto, despite there being alleged heavy evidence against them. You also want to point out my alleged marked resistance to consider the alleged evidence against My views.

I have asked you, a couple of times, to actually supply and point out exactly what you say you are "trying" to point out. In other words, just do it, instead of saying you are trying to do it.

If you can find fault in My views, then seriously I am the first one who wants to be informed of that fault, shown where it is exactly, and most importantly WHY it is at fault. I am very open to this and invite it. I even expressly asked for this information on numerous occasions because if My views are wrong in any way, then I would like to be the first one to be told of this, so that I can correct it/them. But if I am NOT told of what I obviously i have not yet recognized and most importantly NOT told why it is wrong, then I may never see it.

Because you have already stated YOU already have beliefs;

Yes, but I used the dictionary definition, which says nothing about not being open to alternatives given evidence.

Which dictionary did you use? It does not really matter which dictionary exactly, the point in the question is for you, when answered correcty, to recognize that even different dictionaries provide different definitions. There is NO one that is true, right, and correct.

By the way I also used and use A dictionary definition of the word 'belief'. So we are not so different in this regard at all.

In your words, I have views just like you do. As I said, we're not so different except in our usage of the language.

You are free to use any language you like when describing you, but if you want to use language to describe Me, then expect Me to correct the language you use.

If you do just have views, instead of beliefs, like you are saying you have now, then that is great. You have been open to what I have been saying, and thus you are seeing that we really are not that different afte all. You are the type of human being that I have been looking for.

Would you believe (in) any thing if you did NOT already believe that it was true, right, and/or correct? Answer that and hopefully you will then (begin to) see and understand where I am coming from.

A circular question. Do I believe something if I don't already believe it? What??? Perhaps you need to reword this.

It is not as circular as it first appears. Well it is not when looked at from another or different perspective.

If there was some doubt about the truth of some thing, then would you believe (in) it?

For example;
Would you believe that unicorns existed, if there was some doubt about their existence?
Would you believe that we all could live in peace and harmony, if there was some doubt about this?
Would you believe that we all could NOT live in peace and harmony, if there was some doubt about this?
Would you believe in God, if there was doubt about this?

However, if there was NO doubt about the truth of some thing, then would you believe (in) it?

For example;
Would you believe that unicorns existed, if there was NO doubt about their existence?
Would you believe that we all could live in peace and harmony, if there was NO doubt about this?
Would you believe that we all could NOT live in peace and harmony, if there NO doubt about this?
Would you believe in God, if there was NO doubt about this?

If you answer these correctly, that is in a truly Open and Honest way, then you will discover, learn, see, and/or understand that if you believe (in) some thing, then you are NOT open to any thing opposite or contrary.

For example, if you believe some thing took place and I am saying some thing different took place, then you will NOT be open to even begin listening to Me, let alone hearing Me out fully.

So, to Me, the language people use is extremely important. Until a person is beginning to show some interested in what it is that I am actually saying and have to say effects how much of the seemingly "new idea" I will reveal to them.

The openness you showed by suggesting I reword the above means I will express more and more freely.

You, however, you were trying to imply that I was saying that I do not have views, which is totally NOT what I was saying.

I was trying to get your language usage straight, not trying to imply something. I consider things like theism to be a view. All those ism words. Some I think are more correct than others, and these would I suppose be my held views, which I label beliefs. You take those words more as a hardline non-negotiable position, and thus do not use them. But then what do you call all the various views that you don't think are likely? They're all views, but you 'have' some of those views, but don't 'have' others? Don't 'hold' any of them? Did I get it right? I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. I'm trying to figure out what terms I can use to communicate.

Any word that end in 'ism' i think it will be found is what a person or people believe (in).

To Me, there is NO one correct 'ism'. To Me, 'ism's' are just views that people want to hold and/or believe (in).

If you provide some of your 'held views', which you label 'beliefs', which I also by the way label 'beliefs', then we can look at them and see other they actually do interfere in your ability to remain open to new ideas. Looking at this, by the way, also shows more about how the Mind and the brain actually work. Learning and discovering how these actually work helps in being able to become more open and eventually remain completely open.

In your terms then, I can describe my rational views (those I worked out by thinking): I believe nothing, and hold no view. I have some views and don't have others, especially since many of the views I don't have are not 'had' because they seem to contradict empirical evidence. My goal is to consider all evidence, and not cherry pick only evidence that supports the views that I have. In this way, the two of us are hopefully similar.

We are similar but not the same. The time it takes to consider ALL evidence is shortened down, considerably, to nearly instantly when looking at ALL things from the truly open viewpoint. Whereas, whilst you still hold onto a view or have a belief, then you will look from a confirmation biased viewpoint. Again, how this happens exactly is better understood when how the Mind and the brain work is better understood also.

I think almost everybody can be described like this. It is not a thing that you do or do not do. It is a matter of how much you are open, how much you actively seek out conflict in views and attempt to rationally work out the more likely one.

If, and when, you are completely open, then ALL conflict is noticed, nearly straight away, and so the Truth is also, nearly instantly, seen and recognized also.

The average person simply has certain views and sees no reason to go out and challenge them. But in doing this, they are forced to ignore evidence to the contrary when it goes by. This denial of contradictory evidence is the hallmark of confirmation bias. Only a few (like Trump) do it knowingly, using it as a tool of power. Most just naturally turn away from facts that don't bolster up one's held position.

Yes I understand this and that is why I have been suggesting that not having nor holding any beliefs (and disbeliefs) whatsoever is the best way to look at and understand ALL things.

By the way what is the 'average' person?

So do you actively seek unbiased evidence on both sides of each particular potential view, or do you refrain from investigation in areas which have the potential to upset the views you currently have?

Neither. I look for and see the truth in ALL things, almost instantaneously. Again, this happens once you are remaining completely open. If, and when, you are completely open, then a truly objective viewpoint advantage is gained. From here I can see both the truth and the falsehoods in both sides of ALL subjective viewpoints. From there thee Truth is found, seen, discovered, understood, and/or revealed.

[Noax]

Yes, but I used the dictionary definition, which says nothing about not being open to alternatives given evidence.

Which dictionary did you use?

Like the definition you get when you type 'define belief' from a google bar:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

No mention of being closed minded to change of view even in the face of evidence. I could not find a dictionary reference that included that wording as part of the definition, like "an insistence that some position is true". The word bias is defined with 'prejudice', but again I could not find a definition that implied complete close-mindedness, except 'to know'.
This definition disagreement is off-topic, but you're trying to communicate clearly, and using a different definition of 'belief' is not very clear communication. Just saying.

It does not really matter which dictionary exactly, the point in the question is for you, when answered correcty, to recognize that even different dictionaries provide different definitions. There is NO one that is true, right, and correct.

By the way I also used and use A dictionary definition of the word 'belief'.

Kindly link/quote this alternate definition you've found.

If there was some doubt about the truth of some thing, then would you believe (in) it?

Given that pretty much anything can be doubted (including "I think, therefore I am", which is a poor translation of "cogito ergo sum"), it seems one is forced to rationally have only doubted views. No, that would not be a belief as you define it.

For example;
Would you believe that unicorns existed, if there was some doubt about their existence?
Would you believe that we all could live in peace and harmony, if there was some doubt about this?
Would you believe that we all could NOT live in peace and harmony, if there was some doubt about this?
Would you believe in God, if there was doubt about this?

No to all of them, given your definition of belief. There is doubt about everything. This answer tells you nothing of my views on these topics, which is why I find definitions of belief similar to the one quoted above more useful.

However, if there was NO doubt about the truth of some thing, then would you believe (in) it?

For example;
Would you believe that unicorns existed, if there was NO doubt about their existence?
Would you believe that we all could live in peace and harmony, if there was NO doubt about this?
Would you believe that we all could NOT live in peace and harmony, if there NO doubt about this?
Would you believe in God, if there was NO doubt about this?

A harder question, since you're supposing the removal of all doubt, which I'm not sure would be something I can relate to. I have no doubt that 5+5=10, so do I unmovingly 'know' that? What if evidence to the contrary was produced? Would the doubt suddenly be there? I've seen it done, making somebody doubt that 5+5=10, on the subject of counting one's own fingers. So no, there can be doubt even for things like that.

For example, if you believe some thing took place and I am saying some thing different took place, then you will NOT be open to even begin listening to Me, let alone hearing Me out fully.

Yes, you've explained at length how you use that word. But when I say I believe something took place, it does not imply a lack of openness to being corrected.
Doctor: "When did you get that eye surgery?" Me: "I believe it was when I was 6". That exchange conveys a lot less confidence to it that me just saying that it happened when I was 6. Using the word 'believe' there actually casts the fact into greater doubt. I don't know for a fact anymore when it happened, so the date is now just an approximate belief.

I always strive to remain open, which seems to be the point you're going for.

Any word that end in 'ism' i think it will be found is what a person or people believe (in).

To Me, there is NO one correct 'ism'. To Me, 'ism's' are just views that people want to hold and/or believe (in).

I'm asking about the views you have. I know you don't consider any of your views to be beliefs. I'm learning nothing of your views by simply knowing that they're not beliefs.

Your views seem perhaps to be social ones. You've not given a lot of thought to the nature of reality (have not expressed it to me at least), but you have given quite some thought as to how humanity can exist in harmony. But that's as far as I got.

If you provide some of your 'held views', which you label 'beliefs', which I also by the way label 'beliefs', then we can look at them and see other they actually do interfere in your ability to remain open to new ideas.

Sorry. None that you would label beliefs or held views. My views are more like best-guesses. They are an attempt, open to change, and very probably wrong. I've never met two people that had exactly the same views on things, and so if they're all different like snowflakes, only one can be completely right, and odds are none of them are just like there is not the one perfect snowflake. To assume one has all THE answers seems to be just arrogance and self-delusion.

Looking at this, by the way, also shows more about how the Mind and the brain actually work. Learning and discovering how these actually work helps in being able to become more open and eventually remain completely open.

I had a different experience. I opened enough doors to find some I could not open, but no, I don't insist that they're unopenable.

[/quote]We are similar but not the same. The time it takes to consider ALL evidence is shortened down, considerably, to nearly instantly when looking at ALL things from the truly open viewpoint. Whereas, whilst you still hold onto a view or have a belief, then you will look from a confirmation biased viewpoint. Again, how this happens exactly is better understood when how the Mind and the brain work is better understood also.[/quote]Well then I at least have a track record of unconfirming several of my initial biases. The way I assumed the universe worked hit a contradiction hard enough to make me step back and question things I had not thought to question before. The way the pieces fit together better with the biases removed so moved me that I began a discipline to find new things to question. I wanted the universe to make sense. You want to save humanity I think. We have different goals and we've learned different things. Most of the biases I think I sense in you have to do with areas unimportant to your goals, so I'm backing off. I want to hear your views, but I don't have much so far.

If, and when, you are completely open, then ALL conflict is noticed, nearly straight away, and so the Truth is also, nearly instantly, seen and recognized also.

Perhaps so, since I sort of had a revelation like that. Still, if you believe nothing, how is it the truth you're recognizing?

By the way what is the 'average' person?

Most people I think find a comforting view and pick their facts to bolster it, and expend little energy to the painful process of challenging those views. Science is more after truth, and so encourages/mandates the painful challenge process. It is truly an exhilarating thing to think of something new and to have it stand up to a good scrutiny.

Neither. I look for and see the truth in ALL things, almost instantaneously. Again, this happens once you are remaining completely open. If, and when, you are completely open, then a truly objective viewpoint advantage is gained. From here I can see both the truth and the falsehoods in both sides of ALL subjective viewpoints. From there thee Truth is found, seen, discovered, understood, and/or revealed.

Cool. What are you doing here on this forum then if you see truth in things instantly? I'm not sure what you mean by this, since you say you don't believe any of it. Perhaps you could reveal one of these truths? I might not recognize it as such, being all mired in my biases like I am.

[ken]

Please TRY TO understand that I do NOT have a belief EVER. Therefore, 'I' am NOT much like 'you' at all.

The only thing I strive for is to be heard fully, and thus be fully understood.

I understood that statement quite a few posts ago. My mistake is, as always, a failure to express my statements in the terms as you use them.

If we are going to discuss and talk about 'Me', then it is My terms we will use. It is after all 'Me' we are talking about. However, if we are going to discuss and talk about 'you', then feel free to use whatever terms you like. It is after all 'you' we are talking about.

To Me, this is NOT about having or not having a reason to change their view. To Me, if they just remained open to the facts, then they would have seen the facts.

What facts?

It does not matter one bit what facts nor what the facts are. What does matter is remaining open to the facts, whatever they may be.

I experience the sun going overhead each day. That's the facts.

Yes that is the facts from 'your' subjective viewpoint.

Galileo added nothing to that experience, and I cannot think of other 'facts' that would mean anything to the average person of the day.

Any new or more true, right, and/or correct knowledge would mean some thing to any person of any day.

By the way I again wonder what that word 'average' exactly means here.

A person completely open to knew ideas would have no reason to alter his view to Galileo's new one.

A person who is completely open can not NOT alter their view. Obviously to a completely open person views change automatically and almost instantaneously when a newer and/or more correct view comes along. There is NO conscious effort needed in order for a view to change, in regards to a truly open person.

Assume he was aware of the new idea, aware that the model was simpler, but was incapable of (or unwilling to) following the mathematics involved.
What facts should they have seen at the time, but failed to because of not being open? The point is important to me.

The facts they should have seen were the ones that were true, right, and/or correct. That is those unambiguous facts that can not be disputed.

By the way, I am not sure what "problems" you are talking about, and, it has to be remembered that a person has to be somewhat interested in some thing before they will even begin to look at it.

Well the general population entrenched in their held beliefs seem to be the ones you're criticizing. The other 'physicists' of the day (they weren't called that back then) could do the math enough to note, as Hobbes points out, that the predictions made by the hypothesis were not accurate, and needed all these unexplained adjustments to get the approximation closer. So that brings us to the class of 'interested layman', who might not be able to follow the equations exactly, but take the word of the physicists of the day and update their views with the implications thereof. Those people are in the absolute minority, and it is unclear how they would even have learned of Galileo's hypothesis, absent internet and published journals and all. If they accepted the view, would they do the next step and ponder the philosophical implications of the view? People back then had very held beliefs, mostly because there was a gun pointed at their heads. If you disagreed or kept yourself open, you at least kept quiet about it. So history records a slow acceptance of Galileo's hypothesis because nobody dared voice a different stance.

I am not sure if you have noticed yet but I have absolutely no care nor concern of any particulars about this in galileo's time. I only use this particular example because it is generally used in reference to how supposedly although one person, who was trying to express a truth, was meant to have been punished and ridiculed by ALL others because they believed otherwise. The main point for Me using this example is to show how strong beliefs can be in preventing human beings from seeing what the actual truth is or even may be.

Truthfully, how many people living at any given time are really interested in modern physics?

Who is really trying to learn "modern" physics today?

I am, because I am interested in philosophy, and to philosophize without knowledge of physics is to build a house on a foundation of quicksand lies.

You do realize the term 'modern' is redundant when in relation to knowledge that is continually changing?

To 'philosophize', in how you use the term, does NOT need a thorough understanding of ALL physics because that is just about unattainable anyway. You just need to know 'what IS' in regards to physics to then be able to 'philosophize', in the way you are defining it here.

No, most people don't worry about the parts that don't impact their day to day lives. One can only have so many interests. Reality TV beckons. It is less effort (and more comforting) to be told a truth of choice than to work it out.

Again, there is nothing to "work out". The Truth is seen and known, again almost instantaneously, when you are completely and fully open to It. With the know-how of HOW to remain completely open, and you are doing it, then ALL is revealed, anyway.

People on this forum are often an exception. Some of us are here to learn, to identify conflict and work out better truth from it.[/quote]

And some are just here to learn how to express, seemingly new ideas, better. If, and when, these people are challenged, questioned, and critiqued correctly, then these people can and do learn much quicker.

Some people, even today, still believe that the Universe was created OR evolves.

What do you mean by a view that the universe evolves?

I was referring to;

How some people believe that the Universe was created while others believe in evolution. And,

How holding either of these beliefs is totally stupid and ridiculous.

Another example is some people believe in free will while others believe in determinism. Some views like this are so prehistoric in nature to us I wonder how human beings ever "progressed" to where they have.

That debate is usually a conflict in definitions/point-of-view. Given a set of assumptions and definitions, the debate usually fades away.

The very fact that there is a 'debate' in the first place is WHY it is so prehistoric in My view.

ALL 'debates' by their very nature are IN conflict. The very definition of 'debate' means there is and will be conflict.

A completely open person sees the Truth before a 'debate' ever even begins to eventuate. You are on the right path on suggesting that given a set of definitions, then a debate can fade away. Sitting down and discussing the definitions of the words that are going to be used in ANY and ALL discussions, and, coming to an accepted agreement on the definitions of words first IS one of the key factors in creating a truly peaceful world. Obviously there is NO conflict if everyone is in agreement and accepting the words or terms that are being used. One of the biggest causes of most conflicts is just the (subjective) definition, or meaning, we each give to a word when we are speaking to each other.

Are you absolutely sure that it does NOT being open? I would suggest to think about how much easier it is to learn and discover more and new things when you are open compared to when you are closed.

How am I closed? I said I have beliefs, yes, but using my definition of the word, which translates to "I have views".

But beliefs and views are NOT the same, obviously. Otherwise there would NOT be two different words.

A person can NOT be open while having and maintaining beliefs (or disbeliefs).

By the way I never said you are closed, here. But you, subliminally, are saying you are closed when you write about yourself and say, "I have beliefs".

I was suggesting that if you stopped and think about how much easier it is to learn and discover more and new things when 'you', a person, is open compared to when 'you', a person, is when 'you', a person, is closed, then you will see how important being open, by NOT having beliefs is. That is this is only important to the ones who want to learn and discover new or more things in order to become wiser.

You will have to decide whether you have views, which by their very nature are open to change, or, whether you have beliefs, which by their very nature are NOT open to change. That is of course unless you can show Me, with evidence, some of the beliefs that you have and maintain and which are still able to be changed. Do that then My view will obviously change also.

Of course 'beliefs' can and do change, but My view is that whilst a belief is being held and maintained it can NOT be changed. Only after the belief has faded away to only just being a view that I obtained, then they can be changed.

Instead of just "trying" to point them out, just do it, and write down the so called "beliefs" which I seem to hold, to you.

The more you write down the better for both of us.

Did that. You didn't even recognize them as such.

Okay and fair enough, you say you have done it already but I do not recognize them as such. Therefore, could you please point out where you did this or summarize what they were again.

I have already admitted that I am slow and simple and that I do NOT pick up and see absolutely everything, from the perspective, that it is written down here. I apologize for this, but I really am interested in those "beliefs" that I seem to be holding onto to, which others can see and that I do not.

Each time your reply is to underline some statement that you don't have beliefs. OK, I get that. Even if you have a view that seems to contradict evidence, you will not call your position a belief, or a 'held' view.

Yes that is what I do. I HAVE views. I do NOT have beliefs (or disbeliefs) nor do I hold onto a view.

Now, could you please bring to light those views of Mine that seem to contradict evidence, and provide the contradictory evidence also. Only when this is shown to Me then I can learn and discover more regarding this.

I mean I might assert that real unicorns exist outside the imagination, but without supporting argument, you're not likely to accept such a view as very probable. But a lot of the argument hinges on the definition of "to exist". Given an objective definition, yes, I think they exist, and on Earth no less. Subjectively they do not. By subjectively, I mean I'm not likely to experience hard evidence of their existence, like skeletons or camera footage like they keep getting of bigfoot. But subjectively I have no hard evidence that you are conscious, yet I have a view that you are. I'm open to being corrected of course.

What you might or might not do does not really matter here. What matters is you enlightening Me to what you say I am unable to see or do not recognize.

Besides the belief that people are NOT open to advances in science just because those advances seemingly do not solve any problems in the daily lives, could it even be possible, within those views of yours, that the reason people are NOT open to things is because they believe (in) the opposite or contrary things? I found people are NOT open because of their beliefs. NOT because some thing does not solve any problem in their daily lives.

I think everybody's beliefs are open to challenge, but some resist it more than others.

Any person can be open to being challenged or they can be closed to being challenged. The amount of resistance to challenge is caused by how much belief they have. Beliefs, by definition, are NOT open to being challenged. Beliefs are NOT open. People can be open. Or, they can be closed. That is their choice. Beliefs are some thing that people choose to have. Beliefs are not, in of itself, some thing that can be open.

It is a spectrum. An inquisitive person takes a more active role in the seeking of truth.

Truth can be 'sought' by people, but Truth IS seen and understood, already anyway, by a truly open person.

For the most part, I think you're right. I see all the postings on this forum and rarely do I see an opinion get moved. Mine certainly has, but most of those changes were from before I moved to this forum. I was very lost at first. I found conflicts in every story told.
Two people have very conflicting opinions on some point. Neither seems to consider valid points brought up by the other. That seems to demonstrate biased choosing of evidence, the worst kind of bad reasoning. I strive not to do it, but I know enough about myself to see it anyway.

I do see that obvious behavior in ALL people. I also see thee Truth (and falsehoods) in ALL opinions, views, et cetera no matter how conflicting they may be to each other.

Do you really believe that the people's of galileo times did not believe him because his views did not solve any problems in their daily lives, and it was NOT because of their religious teachings that told them that they have to believe in the exact opposite of what galileo was actually trying to express and teach?

Well those teachings seemed to be the problem then, no?

Of course wrong teaching was part of the problem here. The main problem is caused by adult human beings believing (in) things. But the reason they believe is NOT their fault as such. Children human beings are born completely open, so unfortunately they are able to learn, understand, and reason, absolutely anything. This ability of being truly open, although is what allows human beings to keep discovering new and more, and thus is what allows them to keep progressing the way they are, can also unfortunately be their downfall. Because of being born with this ability to learn and reason anything, human beings grow up to learn how to "reason" their held beliefs, no matter how wrong they are or could be. And, when an adult human being really believes in what they think and say, then this belief can and usually does get passed onto their children, and their children, and so on. This can and has even got the stage that some human beings even believe that they can not live without having and maintaining beliefs. Beliefs can be so strongly entrenched that some people have to believe that they HAVE TO have beliefs, just to "try" to support the beliefs that they want and choose to maintain.

Why deny the church when that only costs you problems in society, and gains you nothing in return except a simpler, albeit innacurate, model of the workings of the heavens.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, nor where you are coming from.

How many people now do you really think are really OPEN to what I have say, express and show them?

You've got something to say/show to them?

Yes, thus the reason I am here. I am here to learn how to say, show, and/or express this "new idea" better.

If anywhere is going to find fault and/or critique another's written work, then it would think it would be in a philosophy forum.

All I've seen so far is assertions about how open you are and we should be.

That is because I am still finding resistance, attacking, opposition, and refusal to consider this view.

I may well be wrong and to find out if I am wrong, I have been asking for some examples, from those people who believe that what I am saying is not true, of how one can have or hold beliefs and still be open, or, I am still waiting for evidence of how NOT being completely open is just as productive as being closed.

Quite good, but no actual view to which they're all seemingly closed.

The view is how to live in a truly peaceful and harmonious "world", in an obvious conflict-free, pollution-free, and non-greedy way of life.

As stated already I have not found one person who has shown any real inquisitiveness nor any real interested in learning more about this.

When I write, "I can show you HOW it is really easy and very possible to create a truly peaceful way of life. A way of life in which everyone is living in peace and harmony together, forever more. It is also a way of life where everyone can be truly happy and which can be created in a truly non-polluting way too" This I think WILL solve any and ALL of people's problems, but I do NOT see a mass of peoples come flocking to Me in a truly open fashion.

Pretty arrogant wording.

Why do you say that?

If you were around in galileo's time would you also say, "Pretty arrogant wording", to him if and when he wrote, "I can show how the earth revolves around the sun?"

Do please convey this solution instead of just assert its existence.

This is just a philosophy forum board, how many words would you like and in how much detail would you like it.

Probably the shortest I can do is The solution that solves ALL our problems is found in the answer/solution to the question/problem, 'How do we find the solution to all our problems?' The answer to that question is by being truly Honest, Open, and seriously Wanting to change, for the better. HOW is the formula and the solution that WILL solve ALL of our problems.

I could also spend as long as you want making this much clearer and easier to be fully understood. How long you want to spend on this is up to you. Your inquisitiveness and openness will be shown in just how much clarifying questioning and/or challenging you do regarding each of My views.

I will perhaps critique it, but if you're afraid of that, the solution must be pretty fragile.

I am certainly NOT afraid. In fact if and when all My writings here are reread it will be discovered just how many times I have asked to be challenged and questioned regarding ALL of My views. I have expressly asked to be challenged quite a few times. I also have written in very different ways to see which way invokes some interest. All so far have seemed to fail.

The best ideas encourage and stand up to the critique.

As I have stated already I have not found a fault in these views coming to Me. In contrary they just seem to become more and more consistent, thus the reason I am still here. Personally, I sometimes wish they were contradictory or did not fit in with each other, then i could go back to how was living before and just enjoying life. Now I feel like I HAVE to share, which is unfortunate when others appear to NOT be interested at all.

What I do see and find, however, is people believing wholeheartedly that this is NOT possible, and so they are NOT at all open to any thing I have to say regarding this view.

I've stated that I'm open. So let's hear it. I've asked before, but perhaps missed the reply.

Most people say they are open, but are they really?

What is it exactly that you want to hear?

You have asked for what exactly before, which you may have missed?

And, by the way, My view is it is NOT OK to have and hold beliefs, like you believe it is OK to do so.

Again, I was not using your usage of the term.

If you want to discuss this more I think we will find we are both using dictionary definitions, AND, we could very easily both come to an accepted and agreed upon definition, this would then help in making any further discussions flow much more easily.

You said you had a consistent set of views (which you didn't elaborate on), but I suspect it's consistent because you've never confronted the facts that contradict it.

I have yet to find any thing contradicting it.

Yes, I've noticed that.

Why you do not provide ALL the contradicting things to My views?

I seriously would like them so that My views are able to change, for the better.

I have not yet been able to elaborate on it because I have yet learned how to get over the one and only hurdle. That is HOW can I get people to open up to a new idea, especially when they so strongly believe the opposite is true? Thus My references back to galileo.

Well most people didn't care. The ones that did care (thinking people) were interested and probably quite accepting of it. Their public acceptance was doubtlessly curtailed by the church that found itself challenged, and which had the power to suppress such ideas. So absent such pressure in free countries, consider me a person open to your ideas. Perhaps I can help you express them better instead of focusing only on the critique.

I am sure you could help me express better, you have done so already.

If the solution involves cooperation, how is the problem of non-cooperation solved? How is the cooperation enforced?

Knowing what has caused the "problem" of non-cooperation IS the solution of how to prevent non-cooperation in the future Cooperation or non-cooperation is caused by teaching and learning, just like about everything else is by the ways, so once the teaching of cooperation is done successfully, then cooperation becomes more and more easier and stronger, thus creating more and more cooperation all the time.

In My view nothing is enforced. Everything is done voluntarily, and with enthusiasm, otherwise, this would never work.

The solution seems to be one for society, and not so much a set of views of the nature of reality and consciousness and such. My said consistent set of views concern more the latter. Does the correct answer to the origin of the universe or the nature of time really hold any solution as to how to live in peace and harmony sufficiently to provide a good future to one's children? A little I guess.

No matter how much solution is in the correct answer to any question it ALL helps in finding the best solution that will work. To be able to gain the full and whole True picture of 'ALL there is' then a consistent set of views has to concern ALL things. By the way this relates to what is generally known as the meaningful or metaphysical things in life. A very general idea of the very basic fundamental aspects of physics and how the Universe and time actually works is all that is needed here. As for the very fine detail of all things physical this is not of any real importance regarding the issue of living together in harmony. Although it may well be very interesting in understanding about all physical things, I found learning about how to live in peace and harmony with each other, without polluting ourselves to death first, a bit more important than learning and understanding all the other stuff. The beauty of what I want to express is it is so quick and easy to learn and understand, and from that one becomes truly open, and then, if interested, discovering and learning far more than can be imagined now happens far quicker and far easier also.

Relativity is a far simpler model mathematically, but not consistent with a current state that changes in place.

Fair enough. I accept that that is your view,

No, relativity is a well tested scientific hypothesis, not an unverifiable philosophical view. My view is that it is a true hypothesis, giving me a foundation for a philosophical interpretation of time consistent with it.

Thus my view that Everything is relative to the observer could carry more "weight", (for lack of a better more literal word), with that well tested scientific hypothesis.

but just remember My view is Everything is relative to the observer.

Not sure what you mean by this. You don't express things in objective terms?

Yes I do. An 'observer' could be seeing from a subjective viewpoint or from an objective viewpoint.

How can one make the world a better place in the long term if one does not exist as an observer except in the short term?

When you find out who the One and True Observer is, and how this One is different from the one that we, human beings, think we are, then you will be able see from two advantage points, one being in the short term, the other being in the long term.

I find 'observer' to be a loaded term, and prefer to speak in terms of 'a point of view'.

Fair enough, but who is the one with the point of view?

The first mistake I see here is "trying" to fit some thing in with some thing else. "Figuring" out how you can fit one of your views in with another so that then there is no contradiction is just silly and a complete waste of any one's time and energy.

So you can have a set of mutually contradictory views and that's ok?

I do NOT have a set of mutually contradictory views, but human beings do. Is that okay? Well that is just how human beings have evolved, and they will continue having these mutually contradictory views, that is until they learn how to look at and see things from the truly open view point. From this advantage point ALL can be seen for what it truly IS.

I mean Newton's F=MA (force, mass, acceleration, all intuitive now, but it wasn't in the 17th century) contradicts the view that the sun goes around the earth, and its ok to have that view and still accept Newtonian mechanics?

You are free to see, and do, whatever you want. It is all okay with Me. I just suggest that being open is far better in being able to see Truth than it is to be accepting and believing or holding onto any view.

I guess it sort of works, with the gods providing the needed F and all. Maybe the sun is not really that far away or big so there's not so much work for those gods to do. Its not like I've gone out there and checked.

I am not sure why you went off in the tangent of god and such here. Are you trying to tell Me some new idea here?

[ken]

Yes, but I used the dictionary definition, which says nothing about not being open to alternatives given evidence.

Which dictionary did you use?

Like the definition you get when you type 'define belief' from a google bar:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

No mention of being closed minded to change of view even in the face of evidence. I could not find a dictionary reference that included that wording as part of the definition, like "an insistence that some position is true". The word bias is defined with 'prejudice', but again I could not find a definition that implied complete close-mindedness, except 'to know'.
This definition disagreement is off-topic, but you're trying to communicate clearly, and using a different definition of 'belief' is not very clear communication. Just saying.

But I have NOT used a different definition of 'belief' at all. In fact I have used the exact same definition of 'belief' as you have above.

Have you ever thought or even considered that the reason human beings are confused about what is wrong and what is right, are confused about what the meaning of life is, and all those other meaningful questions, have you ever considered WHY it is that human beings to this day still do NOT know and are confused about who 'they' are and who 'I' am? The reason WHY they are so totally confused about these things may well be because they believe that the languages and the definitions they use, and thus their communications, ARE absolutely correct and should in no way be changed at all. To BE different, like galileo, or to use words in a truly literal sense, like I, is seen as some thing so totally wrong that it should NOT even tried to be understood at all. Human beings say they are open but when confronted with any thing that is even just remotely or slightly different from their already held views, then that should be and will be dismissed and rejected quicker than just looking at it.

Did you notice also that there was no mention of being "open-minded" in those definitions? Did you also notice that if there was "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists", then NO evidence contrary or in opposition could be provided because an acceptance has already been made that a statement is true. So, to a person with a belief there could be NO evidence otherwise. Therefore, to Me definition 1. clearly shows how by having a belief one is NOT open, even when there is clear evidence showing otherwise.

As for definition 2. having "trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something" does NOT leave a person open to some thing contrary or in opposition, does it? If you have all your trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something, then there is nothing left for any thing else. Surely you can see and understand this by now. You frequently say you understand Me but then you completely oppose this by continually fighting for the belief that by having or holding a belief you can still be open. I can not think of any examples of how this is possible. You insist that it is possible so why not give us some examples so that we can examine them fully?

While we are on the subject of providing examples, did you notice that you still have not provided any examples of the so called and alleged beliefs that you say that I seemingly hold on to?

By the way I also could not find a dictionary reference that included that "open mindedness" wording as part of the definition, like "a non-insistence that some position is true".

'To know' does not necessarily infer being closed, as it looks like you are implying it does here. 'To know' some thing, for sure, is just 'to know' that every one could be in agreement with "it", the some thing.

By the way I also used and use A dictionary definition of the word 'belief'.

Kindly link/quote this alternate definition you've found.

Why did you assume that is was an alternate definition. The very link to the definition I have been using is the exact same link you provided. If you have not yet noticed we just look at the exact same thing from two completely perspectives. I look at it from the truly open Mind, and then use the brain, whereas you look at it from the brain only, and from those already held views and beliefs stored within it.

If there was some doubt about the truth of some thing, then would you believe (in) it?

Given that pretty much anything can be doubted (including "I think, therefore I am", which is a poor translation of "cogito ergo sum"), it seems one is forced to rationally have only doubted views. No, that would not be a belief as you define it.

HOW and WHY would you say this last sentence?

HOW do you think I define 'belief'? NOW we will see if you have really been listening to Me, or if you have just been perceiving Me as what your already gained views of Me, want you to see Me as.

You say you are open, but with your responses I doubt that very much.

For example;
Would you believe that unicorns existed, if there was some doubt about their existence?
Would you believe that we all could live in peace and harmony, if there was some doubt about this?
Would you believe that we all could NOT live in peace and harmony, if there was some doubt about this?
Would you believe in God, if there was doubt about this?

No to all of them, given your definition of belief.[/quote]

Okay fair enough. But what about with given your definition of 'belief' would you believe (in) them then?

There is doubt about everything. This answer tells you nothing of my views on these topics, which is why I find definitions of belief similar to the one quoted above more useful.

When are you going to understand I do NOT care about your views on these or any topics. I KNOW that all you are trying to get out of Me is My views, but I seriously am NOT like 'you' as I do NOT care about your view of things. The only thing I care about is HOW you are looking at things.

Again, I use the EXACT same definition. You just look at it differently than I do.

However, if there was NO doubt about the truth of some thing, then would you believe (in) it?

For example;
Would you believe that unicorns existed, if there was NO doubt about their existence?
Would you believe that we all could live in peace and harmony, if there was NO doubt about this?
Would you believe that we all could NOT live in peace and harmony, if there NO doubt about this?
Would you believe in God, if there was NO doubt about this?

A harder question, since you're supposing the removal of all doubt, which I'm not sure would be something I can relate to.

I did NOT ask you to relate to it nor do you have to relate to it. Just imagine.

I have no doubt that 5+5=10, so do I unmovingly 'know' that?

WHAT? WHY did you go from do I believe that to do I unmovingly know that? I asked a simple straight-forward question about would you believe.... and somehow and for some reason you twisted it around to, would you 'unmovingly know it'. If 5+5=10 is right and you know it, then just say so. I do NOT care. I was just asking, for example, if 5+5=10, would you believe that?

What if evidence to the contrary was produced?

Are you asking Me that question? If so, then I do not know and I do not care. The whole point in asking you would you believe (in) some thing is so that you could see that when you do, then you are NOT open to any contrary evidence being produced.

Would the doubt suddenly be there?

That would depend on how open one was or not.

I've seen it done, making somebody doubt that 5+5=10, on the subject of counting one's own fingers. So no, there can be doubt even for things like that.

So, are you now saying that you would NOT believe in some thing even if there appears to be no doubt because there can be doubt? Is that what the "no" was in reference to? If so, yet you still insist you believe some things. Therefore are you now saying that if you will not believe in things that have no doubt then that implies that you will believe in things if there is doubt. This could get confusing, or am I moving to far forward to quickly?

For example, if you believe some thing took place and I am saying some thing different took place, then you will NOT be open to even begin listening to Me, let alone hearing Me out fully.

Yes, you've explained at length how you use that word. But when I say I believe something took place, it does not imply a lack of openness to being corrected.
Doctor: "When did you get that eye surgery?" Me: "I believe it was when I was 6". That exchange conveys a lot less confidence to it that me just saying that it happened when I was 6. Using the word 'believe' there actually casts the fact into greater doubt. I don't know for a fact anymore when it happened, so the date is now just an approximate belief.

You could have used the word 'think' instead of 'belief', which would have also provided much more truth to the matter. I am left wondering what did you actually mean when you said it that way? If there is some doubt I wonder why you would use the 'believe' word. Sure, it can mean I am not sure at all or it can mean I am totally and absolutely 100% sure. But which one are you really meaning I am not sure of until I ask for clarity.

I always strive to remain open, which seems to be the point you're going for.

Yes it is. Hopefully, you can see by now that when a person says they believe some thing, then I am left in doubt whether they are inferring they 'believe' some thing to be true or if they are only 'thinking' it to be true. If it is the former, then I have word differently, whereas if it is the latter a much more open discussion can and will take place.

I always try to understand exactly where another is coming from. I like to do this by asking clarifying questions.

Any word that end in 'ism' i think it will be found is what a person or people believe (in).

To Me, there is NO one correct 'ism'. To Me, 'ism's' are just views that people want to hold and/or believe (in).

I'm asking about the views you have. I know you don't consider any of your views to be beliefs. I'm learning nothing of your views by simply knowing that they're not beliefs.

I KNOW you want to know My views, but I want to know how open you are first. It is a complete and utter waste of time and energy expressing views to a person who believes otherwise.

How much time do you have to spend on learning My views?

Your views seem perhaps to be social ones. You've not given a lot of thought to the nature of reality (have not expressed it to me at least), but you have given quite some thought as to how humanity can exist in harmony. But that's as far as I got.

How would you know how much or how little thought I have given to the nature of reality, or anything else for that matter. I have not chosen to share much with you yet, so how would you know how much thought I have given. I can pretty well assure you that the thought that I have given to 'reality' is some thing that you would not have even heard of before, yet the thought you have given to this subject I could pretty well guess is stuff that has already been written down somewhere.

If you provide some of your 'held views', which you label 'beliefs', which I also by the way label 'beliefs', then we can look at them and see other they actually do interfere in your ability to remain open to new ideas.

Sorry. None that you would label beliefs or held views. My views are more like best-guesses. They are an attempt, open to change, and very probably wrong. I've never met two people that had exactly the same views on things, and so if they're all different like snowflakes, only one can be completely right, and odds are none of them are just like there is not the one perfect snowflake. To assume one has all THE answers seems to be just arrogance and self-delusion.

That all depends on who/what the 'one' is that you are talking about here. There is the 'one' and there is thee 'One'. 'One' is perfect and has ALL the answers while the other 'one' is not perfect and only has a very small amount of answers.

By the way I have met many people who have exactly the same view on things. In fact there are some things that ALL people have the exact same view of.

Looking at this, by the way, also shows more about how the Mind and the brain actually work. Learning and discovering how these actually work helps in being able to become more open and eventually remain completely open.

I had a different experience. I opened enough doors to find some I could not open, but no, I don't insist that they're unopenable.

Yes that is how 'you' and 'I' are different. Our previous experiences have taken us on different paths. ALL doors were opened up for Me so that I could become truly open.

We are similar but not the same. The time it takes to consider ALL evidence is shortened down, considerably, to nearly instantly when looking at ALL things from the truly open viewpoint. Whereas, whilst you still hold onto a view or have a belief, then you will look from a confirmation biased viewpoint. Again, how this happens exactly is better understood when how the Mind and the brain work is better understood also.[/quote]Well then I at least have a track record of unconfirming several of my initial biases. The way I assumed the universe worked hit a contradiction hard enough to make me step back and question things I had not thought to question before. [/quote]

See, I NEVER assumed how the Universe worked because I did NOT care. It was only AFTER I was shown how the Universe worked that I realized that that fits in with all the other stuff that was being shown to Me.

The way the pieces fit together better with the biases removed so moved me that I began a discipline to find new things to question.

I questioned everything that came my way, and that way ALL the answers also came to Me.

I wanted the universe to make sense. You want to save humanity I think.

But humanity can only be saved by KNOWING how the Universe works. It ALL has to make sense for humanity to save its self.

We have different goals and we've learned different things.

Of course we have learned different things. I think it would be near impossible to learn the exact same things, and boring if we did. But I also think you will find that your underlying and deepest goal is no different than mine nor of any one else.

Most of the biases I think I sense in you have to do with areas unimportant to your goals, so I'm backing off.

This I think is at least the third time you have mentioned My biases, My beliefs, My held views, which you allege I have, YET you never show what they actually are. It is one thing to accuse another of some thing but then NEVER to show any proof nor evidence of what that actually is.

When you say you are backing off does that mean you will NOT mention My alleged bias or beliefs again?

I want to hear your views, but I don't have much so far.

What views do you want to hear exactly?

If, and when, you are completely open, then ALL conflict is noticed, nearly straight away, and so the Truth is also, nearly instantly, seen and recognized also.

Perhaps so, since I sort of had a revelation like that. Still, if you believe nothing, how is it the truth you're recognizing?

What do you mean by "Still, if you believe nothing"? You said that I believed nothing earlier on and I was going to pick you up on that back then but I left it alone. Do you really believe that I believe 'nothing'?

Now, that question is really going to confuse now.

Again, it appears you have taken what I have actually said and written and twisted it around, ever so slightly I must admit but, just enough to misconstrue what I actually said and meant so that it is taken out of context.

Anyway, the fact is it is very, very, very easy to see and recognize Truth WITHOUT then having to believe (in) it. It is so easy that I can do it all the time.

By the way what is the 'average' person?

Most people I think find a comforting view and pick their facts to bolster it, and expend little energy to the painful process of challenging those views. Science is more after truth, and so encourages/mandates the painful challenge process. It is truly an exhilarating thing to think of something new and to have it stand up to a good scrutiny.

Two things here;
How do you know it is truly an exhilarating thing to think of something new and to have it stand up to a good scrutiny? What was the new thing you thought of that stood up to a good scrutiny? Or are you just imagining that that would be exhilarating?

I have yet to express the something new thing that was given or revealed to Me to see if it could stand up to any scrutiny? By the way the something new thing that I want to express is what everyone already knows, but they are just unconsciously aware that they know it yet. So what will appear to be a new thing when I do get to express will actually be found to just be anew thing.

The other thing is you never really answered My question at all in that response.

Neither. I look for and see the truth in ALL things, almost instantaneously. Again, this happens once you are remaining completely open. If, and when, you are completely open, then a truly objective viewpoint advantage is gained. From here I can see both the truth and the falsehoods in both sides of ALL subjective viewpoints. From there thee Truth is found, seen, discovered, understood, and/or revealed.

Cool. What are you doing here on this forum then if you see truth in things instantly?

To learn how to express better and more succinctly. What are you doing here on this forum?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, since you say you don't believe any of it.

After every thing I have said, which you say you understand, you then go and write something like this that shows you have not understood much if any thing at all.

Can you still NOT fathom that it is possible to gain views without necessarily having to believe in any nor ALL of them?

Perhaps you could reveal one of these truths? I might not recognize it as such, being all mired in my biases like I am.

But you have not even got the first part of understanding Me, let alone moving on. But anyway what truth or what type or kind of truth do you want Me to reveal to you?

Maybe if you explain to us what do you mean by 'one of these truths' this will help Me in deciding what to reveal to you. What do you mean by 'these' in 'these truths'?

[Noax]

Galileo added nothing to that experience, and I cannot think of other 'facts' that would mean anything to the average person of the day.

Any new or more true, right, and/or correct knowledge would mean some thing to any person of any day.

A person completely open to knew ideas would have no reason to alter his view to Galileo's new one.

A person who is completely open can not NOT alter their view. Obviously to a completely open person views change automatically and almost instantaneously when a newer and/or more correct view comes along. There is NO conscious effort needed in order for a view to change, in regards to a truly open person.

I'm not really understanding this lack of effort on the part of this completely open person. How is this state distinct from abject ignorance since every view going by is accepted as "sure, that's possible", without conscious effort. What views would qualify as the more true, right, correct ones if no effort has been expended sorting the crap ideas from the more plausible ones, none of which is beyond doubt?

Assume he was aware of the new idea, aware that the model was simpler, but was incapable of (or unwilling to) following the mathematics involved.
What facts should they have seen at the time, but failed to because of not being open? The point is important to me.

The facts they should have seen were the ones that were true, right, and/or correct. That is those unambiguous facts that can not be disputed.

Kindly point one out to me since you've been pretty thin on examples. Assume I am totally open and not in need of conscious effort to accept the possibility of any idea. Point out a fact that Galileo brought to light, since you're criticizing the people of the day for not being immediately accepting of his interpretation.

I am not sure if you have noticed yet but I have absolutely no care nor concern of any particulars about this in galileo's time. I only use this particular example because it is generally used in reference to how supposedly although one person, who was trying to express a truth, was meant to have been punished and ridiculed by ALL others because they believed otherwise.

It was punished because it was an attack on the authority of the day. People believed the story of said authority because it was the prevailing view and they'd receive similar punishment for publicly accepting a different interpretation.
As for the true/right/correctness, Galileo simply expressed a new interpretation. It was in doubt, so not a truth. It was demonstrated not accurate, so again not a truth. If one is to be completely open, there is no truth, which would only serve to close doors to the un-truths that conflict said truth.

To 'philosophize', in how you use the term, does NOT need a thorough understanding of ALL physics because that is just about unattainable anyway. You just need to know 'what IS' in regards to physics to then be able to 'philosophize', in the way you are defining it here.

I need to know the parts of physics relevant to the philosophical interpretation of interest, and the kinds of questions I explore are very heavily physics related. The unicorn thing is due to this sort of investigation. I assign a probability of over 50% to the existence of unicorns on Earth, but that seems an absurd statement to anybody who has not given good thought to the implications of the current state of physics.

Again, there is nothing to "work out". The Truth is seen and known, again almost instantaneously, when you are completely and fully open to It. With the know-how of HOW to remain completely open, and you are doing it, then ALL is revealed, anyway.

Yes, you keep saying this, but you also claim no known truths (since you're completely open to alternatives). Some examples are really needed of some truth you've effortlessly realized simply by being completely open.

People on this forum are often an exception. Some of us are here to learn, to identify conflict and work out better truth from it.[/quote]

And some are just here to learn how to express, seemingly new ideas, better. If, and when, these people are challenged, questioned, and critiqued correctly, then these people can and do learn much quicker.

What do you mean by a view that the universe evolves?

I was referring to;

How some people believe that the Universe was created while others believe in evolution.

Evolution is not a theory of the origin of the universe. The two views are different subjects, not complimentary views of one topic.

I said I have beliefs, yes, but using my definition of the word,

But you, subliminally, are saying you are closed when you write about yourself and say, "I have beliefs".

I said above that I was using my definition of the word, not yours. I have been trying hard to qualify each use of the word, or to avoid it entirely.

You will have to decide whether you have views, which by their very nature are open to change, or, whether you have beliefs, which by their very nature are NOT open to change. That is of course unless you can show Me, with evidence, some of the beliefs that you have and maintain and which are still able to be changed. Do that then My view will obviously change also.

How might I give evidence of my openness? I said I could be open to 5+5 not equaling 10.

Okay and fair enough, you say you have done it already but I do not recognize them as such. Therefore, could you please point out where you did this or summarize what they were again.

I said I was backing off. The sorts of things I am referring to are ones you've not even considered. You don't seem to have an interest in physics, so the implications you get from it are not even things you realized could be questioned. You've actually told me almost nothing about your views. So lets get on with it and lay of the constant accusations that I have any rational views that are beyond doubt. I don't hold any since everything is built on a foundation, and that part is a straight guess.

Besides the belief that people are NOT open to advances in science just because those advances seemingly do not solve any problems in the daily lives, could it even be possible, within those views of yours, that the reason people are NOT open to things is because they believe (in) the opposite or contrary things? I found people are NOT open because of their beliefs. NOT because some thing does not solve any problem in their daily lives.

I think everybody's beliefs are open to challenge, but some resist it more than others.

Beliefs, by definition, are NOT open to being challenged.

Show me this strange definition of belief. I've never seen a dictionary mention that beliefs are not open to challenge.

Do you really believe that the people's of galileo times did not believe him because his views did not solve any problems in their daily lives, and it was NOT because of their religious teachings that told them that they have to believe in the exact opposite of what galileo was actually trying to express and teach?

Well those teachings seemed to be the problem then, no?

Children human beings are born completely open,

You sure of this?

Yes, thus the reason I am here. I am here to learn how to say, show, and/or express this "new idea" better.

If anywhere is going to find fault and/or critique another's written work, then it would think it would be in a philosophy forum.
...
I am still finding resistance, attacking, opposition, and refusal to consider this view.

Hardly enough to critique. I have no idea how being completely open is distinct from being completely ignorant. You need to supply more than three words: "Be completely open". A completely open person in Galileo's time would be open to the Church interpretation as much as Galileo's. Fine, they both explain the sun. The person then goes on about his daily life, just as does the completely ignorant person who really doesn't care how the sun gets up there. At what point is true/right/correctness achieved from this openness?

The view is how to live in a truly peaceful and harmonious "world", in an obvious conflict-free, pollution-free, and non-greedy way of life.

As stated already I have not found one person who has shown any real inquisitiveness nor any real interested in learning more about this.

I have a lot of interest in this one, but I don't post much about it since I have not exactly found any sort of solution to my liking. I mean, I could not define any goals even. The wording above is not bad, but I presume it is humanity that is to live like that. I like to not leave things unstated.

When I write, "I can show you HOW it is really easy and very possible to create a truly peaceful way of life. A way of life in which everyone is living in peace and harmony together, forever more. It is also a way of life where everyone can be truly happy and which can be created in a truly non-polluting way too" This I think WILL solve any and ALL of people's problems, but I do NOT see a mass of peoples come flocking to Me in a truly open fashion.

Pretty arrogant wording.

Why do you say that?

If you were around in galileo's time would you also say, "Pretty arrogant wording", to him if and when he wrote, "I can show how the earth revolves around the sun?"

Galileo put out the interpretation first, which was only accepted after some time. He didn't open with a statement expecting flocking acceptance of a view not yet communicated.

Probably the shortest I can do is The solution that solves ALL our problems is found in the answer/solution to the question/problem, 'How do we find the solution to all our problems?' The answer to that question is by being truly Honest, Open, and seriously Wanting to change, for the better. HOW is the formula and the solution that WILL solve ALL of our problems.

You envision changing the way everybody thinks and acts, in order to be completely open and honest. That actually would work if there was a way to do that, and it still leaves us now open/honest people with nothing but the desire for change, and no real clue where to start. Not saying it is impossible. It has actually been done before, and I see signs that we're on a path leading to such a thing. Alas, the path is not a fast one.

A practical and most urgent problem for instance is the carbon emissions, which already seems to have passed the tipping point for full scale destruction of the biosphere. We might be able to reverse that inevitability by ceasing all carbon emissions immediately, but there's a cost to that. Not sure how the open/honest/change-wanting populace is going to accept that cost, or how your complete openness to all views will show the truth of the solution to that problem. So far you've given no examples of how the openness leads to more correct answers.

I could also spend as long as you want making this much clearer and easier to be fully understood. How long you want to spend on this is up to you. Your inquisitiveness and openness will be shown in just how much clarifying questioning and/or challenging you do regarding each of My views.

I think you need to begin by clarifying how being completely open leads to a correct view, especially without expenditure of effort. Given that clarification, perhaps my critique above (everybody being open but nobody knowing exactly what should be done) would dissolve.

Most people say they are open, but are they really?

You doubt that I'm open. Good! One should not blindly believe stuff like that. But I'm beginning to suspect that you're closed minded to the possibility that I'm open to your view.

Why you do not provide ALL the contradicting things to My views?

I seriously would like them so that My views are able to change, for the better.

Maybe because you will not convey hardly any of your view except being completely open.

Knowing what has caused the "problem" of non-cooperation IS the solution of how to prevent non-cooperation in the future Cooperation or non-cooperation is caused by teaching and learning, just like about everything else is by the ways, so once the teaching of cooperation is done successfully, then cooperation becomes more and more easier and stronger, thus creating more and more cooperation all the time.

What good is teaching if the truth of what is being taught is doubted? These people are completely open after all, to all views, not just the ones being taught.

In My view nothing is enforced. Everything is done voluntarily, and with enthusiasm, otherwise, this would never work.

I agree, this is how you know its working. I said it has been done before, but even then there are members of the cooperative group that don't cooperate properly, and need intervention of one kind or another.
Meanwhile, it is hard for a starving family to share its insufficient food with an even more starving family, thus assuring all their deaths. So perhaps something like proactive starvation prevention is part of the solution everybody sees, preventing it coming to this sort of end.

Although it may well be very interesting in understanding about all physical things, I found learning about how to live in peace and harmony with each other, without polluting ourselves to death first, a bit more important than learning and understanding all the other stuff.

Have to agree with that. But I found the two related at least somewhat. Various religions still posit very different stories about the nature of reality, and those differences seem to be the cause of an awful lot of close-mindedness and non-cooperation, supposedly the opposite effect of the values claimed by them.

The beauty of what I want to express is it is so quick and easy to learn and understand, and from that one becomes truly open, and then, if interested, discovering and learning far more than can be imagined now happens far quicker and far easier also.

Is it quick and easy? I have yet to figure it out beyond the 3 words.

I find 'observer' to be a loaded term, and prefer to speak in terms of 'a point of view'.

Fair enough, but who is the one with the point of view?

A point of view does not require a 'who' to view from it.

[Noax]

Which dictionary did you use?

Like the definition you get when you type 'define belief' from a google bar:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

No mention of being closed minded to change of view even in the face of evidence.

But I have NOT used a different definition of 'belief' at all. In fact I have used the exact same definition of 'belief' as you have above.

HOW do you think I define 'belief'? NOW we will see if you have really been listening to Me, or if you have just been perceiving Me as what your already gained views of Me, want you to see Me as.

If I say I believe X, you interpret that statement as if I was completely closed to alternatives, which is completely not how the word is used. There is no mention of a closed mind in the definition. The very word conveys doubt.

"It rained here Tuesday" is a far stronger statement than "I believe it rained here Tuesday", which conveys that the statement is more of a best guess than a known fact.

Okay fair enough. But what about with given your definition of 'belief' would you believe (in) them then?

Afraid to answer that since you might interpret a positive response as being closed minded. So I abstain. Ask using a different word than believe or hold-a-view, another term you've put off limits.

WHAT? WHY did you go from do I believe that to do I unmovingly know that? I asked a simple straight-forward question about would you believe.... and somehow and for some reason you twisted it around to, would you 'unmovingly know it'. If 5+5=10 is right and you know it, then just say so. I do NOT care. I was just asking, for example, if 5+5=10, would you believe that?

Abstain due to ambiguity. I'll say that I could have 5+5=10 thrown into doubt. I've seen it done. Nothing seems immune from doubt. I used the word unmovingly because I wanted to think of some postition that no contrary evidence could put into doubt. I could not think of one. I'm not unmoving on anything.

The whole point in asking you would you believe (in) some thing is so that you could see that when you do, then you are NOT open to any contrary evidence being produced.

But I can't think of anything closed to contrary evidence.

I've seen it done, making somebody doubt that 5+5=10, on the subject of counting one's own fingers. So no, there can be doubt even for things like that.

So, are you now saying that you would NOT believe in some thing even if there appears to be no doubt because there can be doubt?

I did not use the word believe in that statement. I'm trying to avoid it altogether.

You could have used the word 'think' instead of 'belief', which would have also provided much more truth to the matter.

Works sometimes. "I believe that I am left handed" works. "I maintain a thought that I'm left handed" is just wrong. "I think in Santa Claus" is also wrong. So no, we can't just substitute "think" everywhere where believe/belief used to go.

I am left wondering what did you actually mean when you said it that way? If there is some doubt I wonder why you would use the 'believe' word. Sure, it can mean I am not sure at all or it can mean I am totally and absolutely 100% sure. But which one are you really meaning I am not sure of until I ask for clarity.

How much time do you have to spend on learning My views?

At this pace, probably not enough. You gave some clues in the prior post. Be totally open and all will become clear. I attempted to query an opinion on something practical and urgent like the carbon thingy. If we're all open and just like you, what solution would we all collectively do to address that issue? While I'm open minded, I am apparently not sufficiently open minded to see the solution with the clarity that comes from total open mindedness.

Your views seem perhaps to be social ones. You've not given a lot of thought to the nature of reality (have not expressed it to me at least), but you have given quite some thought as to how humanity can exist in harmony. But that's as far as I got.

In fact there are some things that ALL people have the exact same view of.

Agree. Some of those views are probably wrong.

When you say you are backing off does that mean you will NOT mention My alleged bias or beliefs again?

Unless I spot one I think you'll be more interested in, and involves less knowledge of physics. You said you wanted feedback.

What do you mean by "Still, if you believe nothing"? You said that I believed nothing earlier on and I was going to pick you up on that back then but I left it alone. Do you really believe that I believe 'nothing'?

You said you have no beliefs. As to whether I believe that statement: abstain.

Two things here;
How do you know it is truly an exhilarating thing to think of something new and to have it stand up to a good scrutiny? What was the new thing you thought of that stood up to a good scrutiny? Or are you just imagining that that would be exhilarating?

Well, I'm not a scientist so I don't go through that formal process, but I have some patents that have a somewhat similar process. My work is peer reviewed, so I know what it is like to come out of that without significant flaws identified.

To learn how to express better and more succinctly. What are you doing here on this forum?

Mostly to read. My preferred forum died, and this one has lower moderation standards, so it is not so productive. But I came to learn, and judging by my changed views, I suppose I have learned. It was a lot of effort though. Truth hardly just comes to me, and what did finally come to me is hardly worthy of not doubting.

Can you still NOT fathom that it is possible to gain views without necessarily having to believe in any nor ALL of them?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has gained all views (or a lot of them at least), and believes in none of them. Truth hardly spews from a list of all views, none held. You say otherwise. You claim to have gained all views, but you don't know them all. Sorry, I'm more trying to parse your sentence than deny what you're saying. I say you believe none of it simply because you endlessly state that you have no beliefs. If you can have no beliefs, but still believe some of those gained views, you need to explain the difference.

But anyway what truth or what type or kind of truth do you want Me to reveal to you?

Suppose everybody was open the way you say we should all be. Everybody sees the truth that currently only you see. What action does this truth give that transforms humanity into the cooperative whole that perhaps saves them? Or do we all just share everything and stop all the wars and crime but otherwise all carry on and be productive members of society? Sort of the "Give peace a chance" solution that Lennon suggested.

[ken]

A person who is completely open can not NOT alter their view. Obviously to a completely open person views change automatically and almost instantaneously when a newer and/or more correct view comes along. There is NO conscious effort needed in order for a view to change, in regards to a truly open person.

I'm not really understanding this lack of effort on the part of this completely open person. How is this state distinct from abject ignorance since every view going by is accepted as "sure, that's possible", without conscious effort.

As an adult human being being in a completely open state is distinctly different than being in a state of abject ignorance because NOT every view going by is accepted as "sure, that is possible". I am not sure how long you think it takes for views to form and change, but I would suggest to you it can happen before you are even consciously aware of it happening. Being prepared to listen to another person, from a completely open state, just means that you are open to listening to them, fully. A completely open person gives another a chance to talk, and be heard, BEFORE any view is formed. While another is talking, a completely open person's views are changing, almost constantly and almost instantly, therefore NOT every view going by is "sure, that is possible". Some of what is being expressed is KNOWN to NOT be possible. As I have already stated truth is seen and known almost instantly to a completely open person.

What views would qualify as the more true, right, correct ones if no effort has been expended sorting the crap ideas from the more plausible ones, none of which is beyond doubt?[/quote]

Obviously the MORE true, MORE right, and MORE correct views would be the views that would, and do, qualify as the more true, right, correct ones.

The facts they should have seen were the ones that were true, right, and/or correct. That is those unambiguous facts that can not be disputed.

Kindly point one out to me since you've been pretty thin on examples. Assume I am totally open and not in need of conscious effort to accept the possibility of any idea. Point out a fact that Galileo brought to light, since you're criticizing the people of the day for not being immediately accepting of his interpretation.

Firstly, I am not criticizing "the people of the day", nor any person, for not being truly open. I understand fully WHY adult human beings are not open. Adults are not fully open because when they were younger they were taught not be to fully open. So, I do NOT criticize any person for doing what they do not know they are doing and/or are only doing what they have been taught to do.

Secondly, I do not know what facts galileo brought to light.

If, however, galileo was, at the time, suggesting that the earth revolves around the sun, then I would suggest it better if people listened to that, openly.

Assuming that you are totally open, which by all accounts you are not, then that is one example of a fact, which no conscious effort is needed to accept the possibility of the idea.

By the way the example of the fact here may not be exactly what you are presuming is the example. The more open you are the more you will be able to see and understand this.

I will await your reply before I show what the actual fact is here.

I am not sure if you have noticed yet but I have absolutely no care nor concern of any particulars about this in galileo's time. I only use this particular example because it is generally used in reference to how supposedly although one person, who was trying to express a truth, was meant to have been punished and ridiculed by ALL others because they believed otherwise.

It was punished because it was an attack on the authority of the day. People believed the story of said authority because it was the prevailing view and they'd receive similar punishment for publicly accepting a different interpretation.

EXACTLY. And that is what I have been saying. If people believe a story, and it does not matter who it was told by, then they are NOT open to more, or the true, facts.

As for the true/right/correctness, Galileo simply expressed a new interpretation. It was in doubt, so not a truth. [/quote]

Some thing being in doubt does not necessarily make it not a truth.

It was demonstrated not accurate, so again not a truth.

What was demonstrated as not being accurate?

If one is to be completely open, there is no truth, which would only serve to close doors to the un-truths that conflict said truth.

Why do you say if one is completely open, then there is no truth?

To 'philosophize', in how you use the term, does NOT need a thorough understanding of ALL physics because that is just about unattainable anyway. You just need to know 'what IS' in regards to physics to then be able to 'philosophize', in the way you are defining it here.

I need to know the parts of physics relevant to the philosophical interpretation of interest, and the kinds of questions I explore are very heavily physics related.

What questions are you still exploring? Maybe I might be able to help you find the true answers to them.

Doing this might also lead Me to showing you some of those truths that you keep asking Me to provide. The reason I have not given you many example is because I am not really sure what truths you want Me to give you.

The unicorn thing is due to this sort of investigation. I assign a probability of over 50% to the existence of unicorns on Earth, but that seems an absurd statement to anybody who has not given good thought to the implications of the current state of physics.

WHY would you assign any probability to any thing that you have absolutely no idea about?

WHY not just remain open, always?

Again, there is nothing to "work out". The Truth is seen and known, again almost instantaneously, when you are completely and fully open to It. With the know-how of HOW to remain completely open, and you are doing it, then ALL is revealed, anyway.

Yes, you keep saying this, but you also claim no known truths (since you're completely open to alternatives).

I do not recall claiming no known truths. I thought I have said the exact opposite by describing how truths are actually known.

Some examples are really needed of some truth you've effortlessly realized simply by being completely open.

I realized it is far quicker, easier and simpler to learn by always being open rather than being closed at any time.

I realized that if everyone could agree on some thing, then that is a known truth.

I realized that every adult abuses children, and will continue to do so as long as they keep denying that they do abuse children.

I realized that just about every thing adults, think they, know is learned, and because of children's gifted ability to be able to learn, understand, and reason, anything, then children can grow up believing that what they have learned is true, right, and/or correct when the exact opposite is what is really true, right, and correct.

I realized how adults can again have that gifted ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely anything, again.

What do you mean by a view that the universe evolves?

I was referring to;

How some people believe that the Universe was created while others believe in evolution.

Evolution is not a theory of the origin of the universe.

Obviously. Evolution could NOT be associated with origin. By definition 'evolution' would have no beginning.

The two views are different subjects, not complimentary views of one topic.

That is your view. To Me, they both compliment each other on the One topic.

I said I have beliefs, yes, but using my definition of the word,

But you, subliminally, are saying you are closed when you write about yourself and say, "I have beliefs".

I said above that I was using my definition of the word, not yours. I have been trying hard to qualify each use of the word, or to avoid it entirely.

Would you believe in some thing if it were not true?

You will have to decide whether you have views, which by their very nature are open to change, or, whether you have beliefs, which by their very nature are NOT open to change. That is of course unless you can show Me, with evidence, some of the beliefs that you have and maintain and which are still able to be changed. Do that then My view will obviously change also.

How might I give evidence of my openness? I said I could be open to 5+5 not equaling 10.

That certainly does NOT prove you are truly open.

I asked for evidence, if there is any, of how the beliefs you have and maintain are open to change.

If you can do that, then I will look at that, openly.

Okay and fair enough, you say you have done it already but I do not recognize them as such. Therefore, could you please point out where you did this or summarize what they were again.

I said I was backing off. The sorts of things I am referring to are ones you've not even considered. You don't seem to have an interest in physics, so the implications you get from it are not even things you realized could be questioned. You've actually told me almost nothing about your views. So lets get on with it and lay of the constant accusations that I have any rational views that are beyond doubt. I don't hold any since everything is built on a foundation, and that part is a straight guess.

I have not accused you of anything other than not being truly open.

WHY build on a guess? Why not just remain open and just look at WHAT IS?

Besides the belief that people are NOT open to advances in science just because those advances seemingly do not solve any problems in the daily lives, could it even be possible, within those views of yours, that the reason people are NOT open to things is because they believe (in) the opposite or contrary things? I found people are NOT open because of their beliefs. NOT because some thing does not solve any problem in their daily lives.

I think everybody's beliefs are open to challenge, but some resist it more than others.

Do you really think people who believe, wholeheartedly about some thing, are open to being challenged?

Of course any person's beliefs are open to challenge, but people who have beliefs, I think you will find, are not open to being challenged.

Beliefs, by definition, are NOT open to being challenged.

Show me this strange definition of belief. I've never seen a dictionary mention that beliefs are not open to challenge.

'belief'
bɪˈliːf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

If you already accept that some thing exists or is true, then you are not really open to that thing not existing or that it not being true.

I am still waiting for you to provide some of the beliefs you have and maintain, and then we will be able to see how open you really can be while having and maintaining those beliefs.

Again of course any belief can be challenged by any person, but a person with a belief will not allow themselves to be challenged. By definition when a person has a belief they already believe 'it' to be true, right, and/or correct. Therefore, they are not open to any thing contrary to the belief.

Do you really believe that the people's of galileo times did not believe him because his views did not solve any problems in their daily lives, and it was NOT because of their religious teachings that told them that they have to believe in the exact opposite of what galileo was actually trying to express and teach?

Well those teachings seemed to be the problem then, no?

Of course what was being taught was wrong.

Especially the teaching that taught you MUST believe (in) some things. And, you MUST believe (in) what we teach you. That teaching IS SO WRONG it is laughable, yet there are some people to this very day who still believe that we MUST believe (in) some things.

Children human beings are born completely open,

You sure of this?

Everything I have seen so far points to this viewpoint being right. That is not to say it is right, but can you provide any examples of what new born babies may not be open to?

Yes, thus the reason I am here. I am here to learn how to say, show, and/or express this "new idea" better.

If anywhere is going to find fault and/or critique another's written work, then it would think it would be in a philosophy forum.
...
I am still finding resistance, attacking, opposition, and refusal to consider this view.

Hardly enough to critique. I have no idea how being completely open is distinct from being completely ignorant.

One implies being completely open to any and all new information and knowledge and the other implies lacking in knowledge or information. I will let you guess which ones belong together and how they are rather distinct from each other.

The "ideas" are not yet ready to be critiqued because I have yet learned how to express them correctly. Once I learn how to do that better then the "ideas" will be open to be critiqued by ALL human beings and not just some.

You need to supply more than three words: "Be completely open". A completely open person in Galileo's time would be open to the Church interpretation as much as Galileo's.

Exactly right, and very true. I wish human beings had remained completely open back then and also prior to this. Human beings would not have created the mess that they are now if they had remained open always.

Fine, they both explain the sun.

They both do not explain the sun. They each are an explanation of what may take place.

The person then goes on about his daily life, just as does the completely ignorant person who really doesn't care how the sun gets up there. At what point is true/right/correctness achieved from this openness?

That point is achieved, seen and known when it is.

Only you can say when true/right/correctness is achieved.

That point, by the way, is achieved much more quickly, easily, and simply once you are truly open.

The view is how to live in a truly peaceful and harmonious "world", in an obvious conflict-free, pollution-free, and non-greedy way of life.

As stated already I have not found one person who has shown any real inquisitiveness nor any real interested in learning more about this.

I have a lot of interest in this one, but I don't post much about it since I have not exactly found any sort of solution to my liking. I mean, I could not define any goals even. The wording above is not bad, but I presume it is humanity that is to live like that. I like to not leave things unstated.

How much interest you have in this is being shown here.

Pretty arrogant wording.

Why do you say that?

If you were around in galileo's time would you also say, "Pretty arrogant wording", to him if and when he wrote, "I can show how the earth revolves around the sun?"

Galileo put out the interpretation first, which was only accepted after some time. He didn't open with a statement expecting flocking acceptance of a view not yet communicated.

I am not sure you know the reason why I am here in this forum. I am only here to learn how to write and communicate my views better. This, I think, is certainly not the place to "air My views", as some may say. My first goal is to just learn how to write in a way that encourages or finds people who really are interested, inquisitive, and want to become more open to new ideas.

Probably the shortest I can do is The solution that solves ALL our problems is found in the answer/solution to the question/problem, 'How do we find the solution to all our problems?' The answer to that question is by being truly Honest, Open, and seriously Wanting to change, for the better. HOW is the formula and the solution that WILL solve ALL of our problems.

You envision changing the way everybody thinks and acts, in order to be completely open and honest. That actually would work if there was a way to do that, and it still leaves us now open/honest people with nothing but the desire for change, and no real clue where to start. Not saying it is impossible. It has actually been done before, and I see signs that we're on a path leading to such a thing. Alas, the path is not a fast one.

But one point I would like to emphasize is the fact that once truly open it is an extremely quick, simple, and easy path and process to follow.

A practical and most urgent problem for instance is the carbon emissions, which already seems to have passed the tipping point for full scale destruction of the biosphere. We might be able to reverse that inevitability by ceasing all carbon emissions immediately, but there's a cost to that.

What is the cost to doing that?

Not sure how the open/honest/change-wanting populace is going to accept that cost, or how your complete openness to all views will show the truth of the solution to that problem. So far you've given no examples of how the openness leads to more correct answers.

How could I show the truth of the solution to "that" problem, when you did not even express what the "cost" is? I can not show how to solve a problem if the problem has not yet even been shown.

I could also spend as long as you want making this much clearer and easier to be fully understood. How long you want to spend on this is up to you. Your inquisitiveness and openness will be shown in just how much clarifying questioning and/or challenging you do regarding each of My views.

I think you need to begin by clarifying how being completely open leads to a correct view, especially without expenditure of effort. Given that clarification, perhaps my critique above (everybody being open but nobody knowing exactly what should be done) would dissolve.

HOW being open leads to a correct view is because there is no presumptive views nor preconceived ideas to distort the true or correct vision of things.

Most people say they are open, but are they really?

You doubt that I'm open. Good! One should not blindly believe stuff like that. But I'm beginning to suspect that you're closed minded to the possibility that I'm open to your view.

Besides being "closed minded" is a totally wrong view of the Mind, I will allow this to pass and say for sure there is a possibility that you are open to My view, you have expressed this clearly already, although how open you really are will become much clearer soon enough.

Why you do not provide ALL the contradicting things to My views?

I seriously would like them so that My views are able to change, for the better.

Maybe because you will not convey hardly any of your view except being completely open.

Expressing this view about being completely open is the hardest one I struggle with;
1. The more people disagree with My view about being open then the more they are showing how they are not open and how they are showing they do not want to become more open.
2. Once how being truly open then all is revealed, is fully understood, then there is nothing much else left to express or explain.
3. Once I can get people to just do and follow voluntarily what they know is right anyway, that is being open is better than being closed, then I do not need to express any of My other views.
4. If people believe that it is better to have and maintain beliefs and believe (in) things, then so be it. But if they never try to be completely and fully open, then they will never know any better.
5. My actual views about what is right or wrong or what the truth is is not really important at all anyway. What is really important is what we all agree on and accept as being true.

Knowing what has caused the "problem" of non-cooperation IS the solution of how to prevent non-cooperation in the future Cooperation or non-cooperation is caused by teaching and learning, just like about everything else is by the ways, so once the teaching of cooperation is done successfully, then cooperation becomes more and more easier and stronger, thus creating more and more cooperation all the time.

What good is teaching if the truth of what is being taught is doubted? These people are completely open after all, to all views, not just the ones being taught.

But there are many things where doubt is reduced to 'known, for sure'. The only point I have been really saying is even when we reach that point, then it is best to still remain open and NOT believe in what is even 'known, for sure'. We CAN still know some thing for sure without having to necessarily have beliefs nor believe (in) it.

In My view nothing is enforced. Everything is done voluntarily, and with enthusiasm, otherwise, this would never work.

I agree, this is how you know its working. I said it has been done before, but even then there are members of the cooperative group that don't cooperate properly, and need intervention of one kind or another.

If by 'intervention' you mean 'support' then that I think is great, but if by 'intervention' you mean 'punishment', 'judgement', and/or ridicule, then I do not think that is the best nor most helpful thing to do. I found supporting each other builds a much stronger and better community.

Meanwhile, it is hard for a starving family to share its insufficient food with an even more starving family, thus assuring all their deaths. So perhaps something like proactive starvation prevention is part of the solution everybody sees, preventing it coming to this sort of end.

I am not really sure what you are alluding to here.

Although it may well be very interesting in understanding about all physical things, I found learning about how to live in peace and harmony with each other, without polluting ourselves to death first, a bit more important than learning and understanding all the other stuff.

Have to agree with that. But I found the two related at least somewhat.

So did I. I found ALL things are related to each other, somehow. With each thing individually providing support, or more evidence and proof, for each other. They ALL compliment each other in the One and only topic.

Various religions still posit very different stories about the nature of reality, and those differences seem to be the cause of an awful lot of close-mindedness and non-cooperation, supposedly the opposite effect of the values claimed by them.

The beauty of what I want to express is it is so quick and easy to learn and understand, and from that one becomes truly open, and then, if interested, discovering and learning far more than can be imagined now happens far quicker and far easier also.

Is it quick and easy? I have yet to figure it out beyond the 3 words.

Why not just try the three words, and see what happens?

I find 'observer' to be a loaded term, and prefer to speak in terms of 'a point of view'.

Fair enough, but who is the one with the point of view?

A point of view does not require a 'who' to view from it.

I agree a point of view does not require a who to view from it. But obviously there has to be awho with a point of view. A 'point-of-view' would literally have to come from a who, or one, seeing, - an observer.

A 'who' or an observer does not come from a point of view, but, a point of view comes from a 'who' an observer.

The viewpoint or advantage point an observer is looking from is relative to what they are seeing. Obviously, if there is already a big picture, or a whole objective, view of ALL there is without any other contradictory views being seen, then that Observer has a much greater vantage point of seeing the Truth than if one just takes a subjective view of things.

[Noax]

Some of what is being expressed is KNOWN to NOT be possible.

How can anything be known to be not possible if the person is open to any view? I don't seem to understand what you're trying to say this this statement seems to conflict with being completely open.

What views would qualify as the more true, right, correct ones if no effort has been expended sorting the crap ideas from the more plausible ones, none of which is beyond doubt?

Obviously the MORE true, MORE right, and MORE correct views would be the views that would, and do, qualify as the more true, right, correct ones.

So you know the more true view because they're more true. How is that answer not circular?

If people believe a story, and it does not matter who it was told by, then they are NOT open to more, or the true, facts.

I've been asking how a completely open person such as yourself would accept Galileo's interpretation as the more true one. You seem to simply use todays teaching of the accepted answer (Earth goes around sun), but the people of the time had no such benefit, and you also state that one should ignore taught facts since they close one's mind. So what possible reason did people have to accept this new interpretation? What sign should they recognize that is one is one of the true ones out of the list of a dozen other false theories about how it all works. And apparently no expenditure of effort is required either. I have news. Truth is work. It takes effort.

It was demonstrated not accurate, so again not a truth.

What was demonstrated as not being accurate?

His proposed mathematics did not accurately predict the positions of things.

If one is to be completely open, there is no truth, which would only serve to close doors to the un-truths that conflict said truth.

Why do you say if one is completely open, then there is no truth?

What questions are you still exploring? Maybe I might be able to help you find the true answers to them.

I don't think so. Effort seems required, so I'm clearly doing it wrong. I'm not looking for effortless answers.

WHY would you assign any probability to any thing that you have absolutely no idea about?

I know a great deal about this. Don't tell me what I don't know.

WHY not just remain open, always?

I realized that if everyone could agree on some thing, then that is a known truth.

That seems like poor logic. What if everybody is wrong?

I realized that just about every thing adults, think they, know is learned, and because of children's gifted ability to be able to learn, understand, and reason, anything, then children can grow up believing that what they have learned is true, right, and/or correct when the exact opposite is what is really true, right, and correct.

You were taught that the Earth goes around the sun. Is the exact opposite of that what is really true, right, and correct? Sorry, just trying to figure out what you're trying to say, which seems to be that everything we're taught is wrong, or closes minds to other views. That's why I equated complete openness with ignorance. No effort required, and no view rejected by a closed mind.

I realized how adults can again have that gifted ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely anything, again.

Would you believe in some thing if it were not true?

I have views that I know for a fact not to be true. Not sure if that's what you're asking since you continue to use that b-word.

I asked for evidence, if there is any, of how the beliefs you have and maintain are open to change.

Again, I have no idea what you would accept as evidence.

If you can do that, then I will look at that, openly.

Heh... I've not seen evidence of this.

Why not just remain open and just look at WHAT IS?

I don't know what is. If I knew, I would be closed minded to what probably actually is.

Do you really think people who believe, wholeheartedly about some thing, are open to being challenged?

Open in what way? Most will not seek out the challenge which can only cause discomfort. The ones on forums like this are an exception. Some who hold beliefs as you describe will listen to challenge, often to bolster their views even further. And some of those fall to the challenge, perhaps to their own surprise. But that does not mean they're going to drop their deeply held belief on mere suggestion of an alternative. The deeper the belief is held, the more powerful the evidence must be to dislodge the belief. Again, effort required.

Of course any person's beliefs are open to challenge, but people who have beliefs, I think you will find, are not open to being challenged.

You seem awfully closed minded about this assessment of everybody else.

Beliefs, by definition, are NOT open to being challenged.

Show me this strange definition of belief. I've never seen a dictionary mention that beliefs are not open to challenge.

'belief'
bɪˈliːf/
noun
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

If you already accept that some thing exists or is true, then you are not really open to that thing not existing or that it not being true.

That part about being closed minded was not in the definition. If it was, link to it please.

I am still waiting for you to provide some of the beliefs you have and maintain, and then we will be able to see how open you really can be while having and maintaining those beliefs.

Don't have them.

Again of course any belief can be challenged by any person, but a person with a belief will not allow themselves to be challenged. By definition when a person has a belief they already believe 'it' to be true, right, and/or correct. Therefore, they are not open to any thing contrary to the belief.

Of course what was being taught was wrong.

How so? What was taught was simply a different interpretation, and one that made better predictions to boot. So what should have motivated open-minded citizen X to update where he puts his truth sticker?

One implies being completely open to any and all new information and knowledge and the other implies lacking in knowledge or information. I will let you guess which ones belong together and how they are rather distinct from each other.[/quote]I have guessed. Without effort, you just have a pile of knowledge, which is as ignorant as a science library. I don't see the distinction. Sorting the more correct views from the false ones requires a partial rejection of some and favoritism to others, all without every really totally accepting or rejecting anything. The process takes effort, and far more effort than any one person can take on by himself. Hence the building upon the work and views of others. This is part of why certain beliefs are hard to dislodge. It requires the rework of an awful lot of effort done by others that may have been working down a false path. But here you are rejecting effort and teachings, but then telling me the Earth goes around the Sun as some kind of obvious truth, when you never would have thought of it by rejecting your teachings and just being open minded. That particular fact is anything but obvious.

The "ideas" are not yet ready to be critiqued because I have yet learned how to express them correctly. Once I learn how to do that better then the "ideas" will be open to be critiqued by ALL human beings and not just some.

I wish human beings had remained completely open back then and also prior to this. Human beings would not have created the mess that they are now if they had remained open always.

We'd be extinct actually. Learning what we are taught is pretty much our only advantage. Raise (protect, but without interference) a bunch of open-minded children and set them out in the wild once they've matured, but without all the belief crap that we saddle them with. See how long they last.

The person then goes on about his daily life, just as does the completely ignorant person who really doesn't care how the sun gets up there. At what point is true/right/correctness achieved from this openness?

That point is achieved, seen and known when it is.

You really have no idea, do you? You gave essentially the same answer above. You know it's true because it just is. OK, I agree that's effortless, but it is how people like Trump work: Truth is whatever I say it is. Lots of complaining when the whole world doesn't see the same truth. Truly open indeed.

But one point I would like to emphasize is the fact that once truly open it is an extremely quick, simple, and easy path and process to follow.

For who to follow? Only the adherents? What about the ones that follow a different process?

A practical and most urgent problem for instance is the carbon emissions, which already seems to have passed the tipping point for full scale destruction of the biosphere. We might be able to reverse that inevitability by ceasing all carbon emissions immediately, but there's a cost to that.

What is the cost to doing that?

OK, you haven't thought about this at all. It seems that all this open mindedness has let some truth slip by unnoticed. The carbon problem is not to be ignored. Immediate halting of all extraction and consumption of fossil fuels is probably no longer enough to prevent the destruction of the biosphere to a sufficient degree that most croplands will fail. We're already that far past the point of no return. The cost is bigger than that. Your vision of happy cooperative enlightened people giving peace a chance is not a solution to that problem. Those people have to cooperatively put their heads together, recognize the problem, and then implement a solution. What is that solution?

I can not show how to solve a problem if the problem has not yet even been shown.

I thought true ideas were recognized without effort. How can you be unaware of carbon emissions and the greenhouse effect it has brought? Or have the scientists not screamed loud enough this last decade? Perhaps you buy the pro-industry story that it is all nonsense unless there is political gain to be had by the view?

HOW being open leads to a correct view is because there is no presumptive views nor preconceived ideas to distort the true or correct vision of things.

I thus far stand unimpressed by your ability to see correct visions of things.


These posts are getting too long. Will respond to the rest later. My responses seem to be getting a bit more impatient. I am losing faith that this will be productive.