Is it Wrong to Put Faith in Humanity?

[bahman]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us ... 2b15&ei=14

Why are the Houthis attacking sea vessels in the Red Sea? Iran, N. Korea, and their allies seem to be trying to destabilize the world. What is wrong with some people in this world? I try to find good in other people but I don't understand how anyone can do things like that. What is the matter with some right now that they find it necessary to seek physical violence and killing? Does anyone know? I can't for the life of me figure it out. It's like some demonic evil has gotten into them or taken hold of their minds. Surely no sane human would be doing this stuff to other human beings without good reason.

I think that human has a huge potential in his/her current stage of evolution. What is needed is a proper education.

[commonsense]

So it goes: Information -> Thought -> Belief -> Knowledge.

You cannot have knowledge of anything, without belief. So...how do you deny your own Belief, without denying your own Knowledge?

You nailed it again.

So, 'information' comes in, through either any or all of the five senses, which then becomes 'thought', and only when a 'thought' is believed to be true, or false, then, and only then, that 'thought' can, and does, then become 'knowledge', correct?

You are correct.

If yes, then how do you define 'knowledge'?

Knowledge is JTB.


Now, that’s the platinum question—I think you’re on to something.

[commonsense]

So it goes: Information -> Thought -> Belief -> Knowledge.

You cannot have knowledge of anything, without belief. So...how do you deny your own Belief, without denying your own Knowledge?

You nailed it again.

So, 'information' comes in, through either any or all of the five senses, which then becomes 'thought', and only when a 'thought' is believed to be true, or false, then, and only then, that 'thought' can, and does, then become 'knowledge', correct?

If yes, then how do you define 'knowledge'?

And, why does one have to believe a statement/information, first, before that statement/information can then become knowledge?

Sorry—the formatting failed through multiple attempts. My response probably didn’t come through as a quote.

[commonsense]

[

[Age]

You nailed it again.

So, 'information' comes in, through either any or all of the five senses, which then becomes 'thought', and only when a 'thought' is believed to be true, or false, then, and only then, that 'thought' can, and does, then become 'knowledge', correct?

If yes, then how do you define 'knowledge'?

And, why does one have to believe a statement/information, first, before that statement/information can then become knowledge?

Sorry—the formatting failed through multiple attempts. My response probably didn’t come through as a quote.

Okay. Are you going to send through your response, or another one, as to why, supposedly, one 'has to' believe a statement/information, first, before the statement/information can then become knowledge?

If yes, then okay.

But, if no, then why not?

[commonsense]

So, 'information' comes in, through either any or all of the five senses, which then becomes 'thought', and only when a 'thought' is believed to be true, or false, then, and only then, that 'thought' can, and does, then become 'knowledge', correct?

If yes, then how do you define 'knowledge'?

And, why does one have to believe a statement/information, first, before that statement/information can then become knowledge?

Sorry—the formatting failed through multiple attempts. My response probably didn’t come through as a quote.

Okay. Are you going to send through your response, or another one, as to why, supposedly, one 'has to' believe a statement/information, first, before the statement/information can then become knowledge?

If yes, then okay.

But, if no, then why not?

I did respond to your response in a post above this.

Unfortunately that post does not make it clear who wrote what, but I trust that you can work it out.

[Age]

Sorry—the formatting failed through multiple attempts. My response probably didn’t come through as a quote.

Okay. Are you going to send through your response, or another one, as to why, supposedly, one 'has to' believe a statement/information, first, before the statement/information can then become knowledge?

If yes, then okay.

But, if no, then why not?

I did respond to your response in a post above this.

Yes you did. you said and wrote, 'You are correct'.

you also wrote something else or copied and pasted something else, but from who that was I am unsure.

Also, it did not really answer nor clarify what I ask.

you have also failed to answer the question that I also asked here as well.

Unfortunately that post does not make it clear who wrote what, but I trust that you can work it out.

I know that you did not in that post even attempt to answer the question I asked there, which was;

Why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe a statement/information, first, before the statement/information can then become knowledge?

you, and another here, have been trying to claim that one 'has to' believe things, correct?

If yes, then I am still trying to ascertain from you, 'How and/or why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe things?'

[commonsense]

Okay. Are you going to send through your response, or another one, as to why, supposedly, one 'has to' believe a statement/information, first, before the statement/information can then become knowledge?

If yes, then okay.

But, if no, then why not?

I did respond to your response in a post above this.

Yes you did. you said and wrote, 'You are correct'.

you also wrote something else or copied and pasted something else, but from who that was I am unsure.

Also, it did not really answer nor clarify what I ask.

you have also failed to answer the question that I also asked here as well.

Unfortunately that post does not make it clear who wrote what, but I trust that you can work it out.

I know that you did not in that post even attempt to answer the question I asked there, which was;

Why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe a statement/information, first, before the statement/information can then become knowledge?

you, and another here, have been trying to claim that one 'has to' believe things, correct?

If yes, then I am still trying to ascertain from you, 'How and/or why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe things?'

Age asked whether his recap was correct:

So, 'information' comes in, through either any or all of the five senses, which then becomes 'thought', and only when a 'thought' is believed to be true, or false, then, and only then, that 'thought' can, and does, then become 'knowledge', correct?

to which I answered: You are correct.

Next, Age asked how I define ‘knowledge’:

If yes, then how do you define 'knowledge'?

to which I replied: Knowledge is JTB.

Then Age asked:

And, why does one have to believe a statement/information, firsts, before that statement/information can then become knowledge?

to which I responded as the only answer possible for me to give: Now, that’s the platinum question—I think you’re on to something.

It has been said that the first step in inquiry is to formulate the right question.

Age has done so. And because of that I think Age is well on his way to finding the answer for himself.

I cannot explain this in any terms that do other than reduce to: that’s a good question. I am keenly interested in finding out what Age’s answer would be to the question that I cannot answer definitively.

Then in another post Age asked:

Why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe a statement/information, first, before the statement/information can then become knowledge?

See previous response—otherwise my answer to this tediously repeated question is: why not?

and also he asked for confirmation of his understanding:

you, and another here, have been trying to claim that one 'has to' believe things, correct?

Again he is correct.

Finally Age queried:

If yes, then I am still trying to ascertain from you, 'How and/or why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe things?'

See previous 2 questions’ responses.

[promethean75]

Humanity is a spook. There are only (unique) individuals.

[Wizard22]

1. So, how can frogs, new born babies, and trees have life, or be living, when they obviously do not have beliefs?

Or, do you believe that these things have beliefs?

2. Why do you disagree that there is an actual 'importance' of belief, especially when you believe that belief is a complete necessity part of Life, and living?

This seems very contradictory and hypocritical, well to me anyway.

3. Why do you disagree that what can be created and achieved from belief has not yet been fully expressed, explained, and understood, fully?

Do you already think or believe that you have already had all of what can be created and achieved, from belief, into the future already fully expressed and explained to, and which you have already fully understood?

Beliefs are necessary because beliefs are about Probability of truth and reality.

4. What are the other thing/s, which you disagree with here?

Belief evolves in conjunction with animal intelligence. At the simplest levels of intelligence and cognition, sensation and perception, "Belief" is automatic. A plant "automatically believes" that sunlight, water, carbon dioxide are beneficial to it, nourishing, and thus, the plant extends and grows into areas where nourishment is plentiful instead of lacking. Trees seek sunlight in their growth cycle. A complex nervous system, a brain, is not necessary at the simpler levels.

Scaled-upward, this means that humans automatically 'Believe' their senses and perceptual experience is Real, when they are born, as infants, and retain such an 'innocent' mindset as children. Rather it is that humans can be trained/indoctrinated to Disbelieve their sensations/perceptions/experiences as Unreal, that is the marker for Belief and Disbelief. In other words, humans need to Judge whether incoming information (Input) is Real or Unreal. And whether it can, or ought to be, True or False. Humans seek to manipulate Reality, change the environment to better acclimate itself and survive.

Reality is the basis of Belief, the objective standard. What is Real is necessarily and automatically 'believed', but not what is Unreal. What is Unreal, is distant, far away, not approximate, in space and/or time. Furthermore, humans can lie and self-deceive. A human can claim that New York is in Los Angeles, and that Los Angeles is in New York. Should that human be believed? Who should be believed, about Reality? Who is to say? Who is to judge?

But, once again, there is absolutely no necessity at all to either believe or disbelieve any thing at all there?

Are you able to answer and clarify why you believe, absolutely, that you only have a choice to either believe or disbelieve things, in Life?

If yes, then will you?

But, if no, then why not?

Also, if you have to ask another for directions, then this would usually mean that you do not yet know how to get where you want to go. So, what would you be basing 'the information' and your following chosen belief or disbelief on here, exactly?

Of course there is necessity!

You are put into the position to believe the directions of a stranger, otherwise you likely will not reach your destination!

Why, exactly, is 'it' here, which you are now saying and claiming is the reason why belief, supposedly, is a critically important and necessary thing in so-called 'daily life'?

This question should already be answered now.

Belief is necessary because humans use it, everyday, to navigate our environments. And you use it to navigate this forum. You are forced to believe some aspects of what I say, or not.

Beliefs change rapidly, everyday, every hour, every second.

Which is another perfectly good and logical reason why to choose not to have nor maintain absolutely any and all of those beliefs, ever and at all.

That's ridiculous, AgeGPT! You cannot navigate any environment, without belief and intuition!

So, were you doing 'this' when you were in the womb, so that when you 'popped out' you already had 'this ability'?

Or, were you trained, and training "yourself", before 'the womb' stage?

Also, who or what else was training you to suppress emotional reaction to new information?

When I began to pursue philosophy, I quickly realized that I could not bring my emotions and biases into a search for Truth, since they are corruptible. Thus I self-identified what my emotional reactions were/are, along with my subconscious biases, and usually suppress them in order to acquire a more 'objective' perspective.

And, what are you basing this claim of yours here on, exactly?

Almost two decades of experience.

1. Is it you that claims that I do not have or do not show 'emotions' here, like a human being should?

2. If one is neither believing nor disbelieving some thing as being either true or false, then what would that one be have a bias in regards to or about, exactly?

I just don't think you can go without 'Beliefs', despite your assertions and protestations otherwise. Eventually, you will appear Deceptive and though you are Lying, to humans.

I know. But why did you not just answer and clarify the actual question I posed, and asked you?

Also, why do you say and claim above here that, 'belief is critically important and necessary in daily life', but yet when you hear new information, like for example, 'Your mother has just died', you can, supposedly, control and not have absolutely any emotional reaction at all, and that you, supposedly, will also say, 'I don't believe anything yet', but also claim that you have to believe or disbelieve the truth of that statement?

How long can you remain in this, supposed, truly unemotional reaction and unbiased state and position before you have to, by necessity, either believe it or disbelieve it?

Well, your hypothetical conditions require more context, to make your point, whatever your point is exactly. Just because I can suppress the urge to automatically-believe what is being told to me by any and everyone, doesn't correlate to the assertion that it's good or effective or worthwhile, in anyway whatsoever, to deny all beliefs possible. Beliefs are the essence of human value systems and morality. There's always going to be 'core-beliefs' which are essentially unshakable, at the core level. Humans are willing to kill, and die, over some beliefs.

Okay.

But, is humor, to you, not subjective, and thus not relative to the observer here?

Humor is relative between two subjects and and an object, third-person.

But not necessarily so, right?

I suppose...

1. Is asking a question, for clarity, insisting some thing?

If yes, then how, and why, exactly?

2. To me, if some one is believing some thing is true, then to me that thing would or must be true, well to them anyway, because for what other logical reason could and would a human being believe something to be true, if that thing was not absolutely true to them?

People lie frequently, AgeGPT. How do you differentiate between a person's first presentations and what they really, truly believe? Furthermore, many people are ignorant of themselves, not self-conscious, and aren't aware of what they believe, while believing it (like you).

3. Why would any logical and reasonabe thinking human being believe something to be true, if there was any chance at all that it was not true in some way?

I await your answer, and clarity, here.

Humans cannot stand around and wait for perfect information, truth, and judgments. We have to act on time constraints, life constraints. When the building is on fire, we have to act fast, not think too long.

Okay, thank you for clarifying here.

This is more or less why I do the same here. That is; if any one were interested.

Good to know.

1. To me, I do not even know what you mean nor what you could even be referring to here with the words, 'beliefs of every kind'.

2. I have not chosen not to believe in beliefs of every kind.

3. I have just chosen neither to believe, nor to disbelieve, in any thing, other than what I have already obviously.

4. Does some sort of presumption or belief exist within you that I somehow 'have to' believe more things?

If yes, then why do you think that presumption or belief persists?

I believe, like most humans who are not self-conscious, you are not yet aware of what you already believe, according to all that you've said.

Beliefs are symbolic of what anybody, or anything, presumes about existence. It's in every presumption, every bit of information.

For example, you must "Believe" in at least one type of Reality, even if it were a False Reality.

[Age]

I did respond to your response in a post above this.

Yes you did. you said and wrote, 'You are correct'.

you also wrote something else or copied and pasted something else, but from who that was I am unsure.

Also, it did not really answer nor clarify what I ask.

you have also failed to answer the question that I also asked here as well.

Unfortunately that post does not make it clear who wrote what, but I trust that you can work it out.

I know that you did not in that post even attempt to answer the question I asked there, which was;

Why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe a statement/information, first, before the statement/information can then become knowledge?

you, and another here, have been trying to claim that one 'has to' believe things, correct?

If yes, then I am still trying to ascertain from you, 'How and/or why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe things?'

Age asked whether his recap was correct:

So, 'information' comes in, through either any or all of the five senses, which then becomes 'thought', and only when a 'thought' is believed to be true, or false, then, and only then, that 'thought' can, and does, then become 'knowledge', correct?

to which I answered: You are correct.

Next, Age asked how I define ‘knowledge’:

If yes, then how do you define 'knowledge'?

to which I replied: Knowledge is JTB.

Then Age asked:

And, why does one have to believe a statement/information, firsts, before that statement/information can then become knowledge?

to which I responded as the only answer possible for me to give: Now, that’s the platinum question—I think you’re on to something.

It has been said that the first step in inquiry is to formulate the right question.

Age has done so. And because of that I think Age is well on his way to finding the answer for himself.

But I already knew the answer, beforehand.

And, you have just re-confirmed it True and Correct, once again, and further.

Also, why do you make claims that you have absolutely no knowledge of nor for, nor even any actual proof of nor for?

I cannot explain this in any terms that do other than reduce to: that’s a good question. I am keenly interested in finding out what Age’s answer would be to the question that I cannot answer definitively.

As you informed us, your post did not make things clear, but you also implied that your response was only in regards to who wrote what. And, you were right in trusting that I could work that out.

I could work out who wrote what, that part was easy.

But I was not sure if your claim; 'Now, that’s the platinum question—I think you’re on to something.' was in regards to the question I asked, which was visible in the quote, or the question I asked, which was not there and thus completely invisible there.

But, now that I am sure, we can move along.

Then in another post Age asked:

Why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe a statement/information, first, before the statement/information can then become knowledge?

See previous response—otherwise my answer to this tediously repeated question is: why not?

But 'now' that I know what you were responding to, and thus you have responded to 'that question', then we can also move along here too. But ever so slowly. As, let us not forget that you still obviously have not yet 'answered' the actual question posed, and asked.

Now, an actual 'answer' to that actual question, would have been, 'I do not know'.

Which, if answered Honestly, like this here, then this would help in explaining why you are believing some thing to be true, but which you have not yet not obtained absolutely anything, which could actually back up and support your belief and your claim here.

and also he asked for confirmation of his understanding:

you, and another here, have been trying to claim that one 'has to' believe things, correct?

Again he is correct.

So, these two here actually the 'belief' that they have to 'believe' things before those things could become just 'knowledge', but are not actually able to provide absolutely any Justification of why they believe that 'this' is a True Belief, of theirs.

Which, if absolutely anyone else has noticed, is complete hypocrisy and a contradiction of itself, that is; a 'self-contradictory' claim.

Finally Age queried:

If yes, then I am still trying to ascertain from you, 'How and/or why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe things?'

See previous 2 questions’ responses.

In other words, 'you do not, yet, know'.

Which makes the belief and claim that one, supposedly, 'has to' believe things, which are also not yet so-called 'Justified True Beliefs', then, this means that 'that belief' also is not even just knowledge, itself, let alone actual True nor Right knowledge at all.

So, actually after all of this the belief and claim that one must believe things before those things can become knowledge is not even justified and thus not even True nor Right knowledge at all.

Again, that claim is just 'an opinion' only, of which absolutely nothing has been presented at all that could even remotely back up and support it.

[Age]

1. So, how can frogs, new born babies, and trees have life, or be living, when they obviously do not have beliefs?

Or, do you believe that these things have beliefs?

2. Why do you disagree that there is an actual 'importance' of belief, especially when you believe that belief is a complete necessity part of Life, and living?

This seems very contradictory and hypocritical, well to me anyway.

3. Why do you disagree that what can be created and achieved from belief has not yet been fully expressed, explained, and understood, fully?

Do you already think or believe that you have already had all of what can be created and achieved, from belief, into the future already fully expressed and explained to, and which you have already fully understood?

Beliefs are necessary because beliefs are about Probability of truth and reality.

4. What are the other thing/s, which you disagree with here?

Belief evolves in conjunction with animal intelligence.

Well considering the Fact that there is no such thing as so-called 'animal intelligence', but there is, however, Intelligence existing within the human being animal, then what you believe, say, and claim here might not be as Accurate as you would like to believe.

The Fact that the Intelligence within human beings can be accessed, partly accessed, or is not being accessed is, actually, in correlation with the amount of 'belief' within. And, it could be said or argued that 'belief', itself, could have been evolving into becoming stronger or more fixed and rigid, as 'time' has gone on.

But, as beliefs become more fixed or stronger the less Intelligence can be accessed, and thus the less intelligent that one presents and/or becomes.

See, and as I have been continually alluding to throughout this forum, the more something is believed or presumed to be true, then the narrower or more closed one's views and perspectives become, which aligns with, or is in conjunction with, a lesser amount of Intelligence within being accessed. So, as the completely unnecessary 'belief' that 'one 'has to' believe things' evolves stronger and more rigid within some, then the less Intelligent those ones with this 'belief' become also.

So, while 'belief', itself, evolves then this happens in conjunction with a decrease in the ability to access the True Intelligence that is within.

But, you may see things very differently right "wizard22"?

At the simplest levels of intelligence and cognition, sensation and perception, "Belief" is automatic. A plant "automatically believes" that sunlight, water, carbon dioxide are beneficial to it, nourishing, and thus, the plant extends and grows into areas where nourishment is plentiful instead of lacking. Trees seek sunlight in their growth cycle. A complex nervous system, a brain, is not necessary at the simpler levels.

Scaled-upward, this means that humans automatically 'Believe' their senses and perceptual experience is Real, when they are born, as infants, and retain such an 'innocent' mindset as children. Rather it is that humans can be trained/indoctrinated to Disbelieve their sensations/perceptions/experiences as Unreal, that is the marker for Belief and Disbelief. In other words, humans need to Judge whether incoming information (Input) is Real or Unreal. And whether it can, or ought to be, True or False. Humans seek to manipulate Reality, change the environment to better acclimate itself and survive.

Reality is the basis of Belief, the objective standard. What is Real is necessarily and automatically 'believed', but not what is Unreal. What is Unreal, is distant, far away, not approximate, in space and/or time. Furthermore, humans can lie and self-deceive. A human can claim that New York is in Los Angeles, and that Los Angeles is in New York. Should that human be believed? Who should be believed, about Reality? Who is to say? Who is to judge?

But, once again, there is absolutely no necessity at all to either believe or disbelieve any thing at all there?

Are you able to answer and clarify why you believe, absolutely, that you only have a choice to either believe or disbelieve things, in Life?

If yes, then will you?

But, if no, then why not?

Also, if you have to ask another for directions, then this would usually mean that you do not yet know how to get where you want to go. So, what would you be basing 'the information' and your following chosen belief or disbelief on here, exactly?

Of course there is necessity!

I agree that, of course, 'necessity' exists. For example, you human beings 'need' four things to exist, and maybe these four things only.

You are put into the position to believe the directions of a stranger, otherwise you likely will not reach your destination!

But I can think, and accept, that the direction given might be correct, and then decide to follow them to see if I reach where I wanted to go, all while never believing absolutely anything here to true, nor not true.

Why does this ability seem impossible to some of you here?

Why, exactly, is 'it' here, which you are now saying and claiming is the reason why belief, supposedly, is a critically important and necessary thing in so-called 'daily life'?

This question should already be answered now.

Well this question is obviously not yet actually answered. As can be clearly seen above here.

Belief is necessary because humans use it,

you human beings use poker machines too, so does this make poker machines 'necessary' as well?

everyday, to navigate our environments.

Well I have, can, and do navigate the environment without belief.

But maybe if you define what the 'belief' word means or refers to, to you, exactly, then this might help in explaining why you believe that you cannot live without 'belief'. Will you define the word 'belief' here?

If no, then why not?

And you use it to navigate this forum.

But I do not.

So, why do you believe that I use belief here just to do a Truly basic, simple, and easy task as so-called 'navigate this forum'?

You are forced to believe some aspects of what I say, or not.

Who and/or what is doing this, supposed, 'forcing' upon 'me'?

And, why do you believe that this is absolutely true?

Beliefs change rapidly, everyday, every hour, every second.

Which is another perfectly good and logical reason why to choose not to have nor maintain absolutely any and all of those beliefs, ever and at all.

That's ridiculous, AgeGPT! You cannot navigate any environment, without belief and intuition!

If this is what you believe is true, then here is another prime example of a correlation between belief and the inability to access Intelligence, Itself.

But, as with absolutely everything throughout this forum, it might just be the case that the definition of a word or words that is 'what' is causing the confusion and/or conflict here.

So, were you doing 'this' when you were in the womb, so that when you 'popped out' you already had 'this ability'?

Or, were you trained, and training "yourself", before 'the womb' stage?

Also, who or what else was training you to suppress emotional reaction to new information?

When I began to pursue philosophy, I quickly realized that I could not bring my emotions and biases into a search for Truth, since they are corruptible.

Why did you only learn this when you began to pursue 'philosophy'? And, what, exactly, is 'philosophy' to you, and, how, exactly do you pursue that 'thing'?

Also, how old were you when you, supposedly, began to 'pursue philosophy'?

Thus I self-identified what my emotional reactions were/are, along with my subconscious biases, and usually suppress them in order to acquire a more 'objective' perspective.

Okay, but you still have to believe different things continuously throughout your daily life, correct?

And, what are you basing this claim of yours here on, exactly?

Almost two decades of experience.

So, you base your belief that you reportedly are better at suppressing emotional reactions to new information than others can on solely just two decades of your experience alone.

1. Is it you that claims that I do not have or do not show 'emotions' here, like a human being should?

2. If one is neither believing nor disbelieving some thing as being either true or false, then what would that one be have a bias in regards to or about, exactly?

I just don't think you can go without 'Beliefs', despite your assertions and protestations otherwise.

So, now you only just think that you cannot go without 'Beliefs', with a capital 'b'. Why do you not 'believe' this? It seems really funny that you claim that you have to believe different things throughout the day but one of maybe the most important of your claims you do not believe is true, that is; you just only 'think' it is true.

Also, why did you even reply like you did here and completely and utterly ignored both of the clarifying questions that I posed, and asked here?

Eventually, you will appear Deceptive and though you are Lying, to humans.

If you say and believe so, but what you say and/or believe here does not even make sense to me.

I know. But why did you not just answer and clarify the actual question I posed, and asked you?

Also, why do you say and claim above here that, 'belief is critically important and necessary in daily life', but yet when you hear new information, like for example, 'Your mother has just died', you can, supposedly, control and not have absolutely any emotional reaction at all, and that you, supposedly, will also say, 'I don't believe anything yet', but also claim that you have to believe or disbelieve the truth of that statement?

How long can you remain in this, supposed, truly unemotional reaction and unbiased state and position before you have to, by necessity, either believe it or disbelieve it?

Well, your hypothetical conditions require more context, to make your point, whatever your point is exactly.

But I am not necessarily making any point at all here.

I am just asking you some clarifying questions, in regards to what you are saying and claiming. Which, by the way, you are not actually answering, as can be clearly seen and proved True above here.

Just because I can suppress the urge to automatically-believe what is being told to me by any and everyone, doesn't correlate to the assertion that it's good or effective or worthwhile, in anyway whatsoever, to deny all beliefs possible.

Okay. Hopefully some video footage will exist when you are informed of a death of a family member, so that can back up and support your claims here.

Beliefs are the essence of human value systems and morality.

Ah okay. To this one here the very essence of being human and their value systems and morality is 'beliefs', themselves.

So, this might explain somewhat why there was so much conflict and tension in 'the world' when this was being written.

Some like this one actually 'believed' that their own 'beliefs' that they had and were holding onto were the absolutely true, right, and correct 'beliefs', which, by the way, were sometimes completely opposite of what other ones 'believed' were absolutely true, right, and correct. Thus, the conflict, tension, fights, warring, and even killing of each other, back in the days when this was being written.

There's always going to be 'core-beliefs' which are essentially unshakable, at the core level.

And, for an absolute and irrefutable proof of this, and a prime example of this, can be found in what this one just said, wrote, and claimed here, which it believes is absolutely, and thus unshakably, true, right, and correct.

And, to prove that 'this' is absolutely true, this one will keep 'believing' that 'this' is absolutely true, and even essentially unshakably true. Thus, by this one's very own unnecessary behaviors is making its own made up and unnecessary False and Wrong beliefs here, in a sense, absolutely true.

Humans are willing to kill, and die, over some beliefs.

Yes I have observed you adult human beings do this, back in those 'olden days' when this was being written, and watch this occur far more often than most of 'us' liked.

Okay.

But, is humor, to you, not subjective, and thus not relative to the observer here?

Humor is relative between two subjects and and an object, third-person.

Why do you call the 'third person' here a so-called 'object' but call the 'first person' and 'second person' 'subjects' instead?

Also, why, exactly, do you, again, not just answer the actual question?

But not necessarily so, right?

I suppose...

1. Is asking a question, for clarity, insisting some thing?

If yes, then how, and why, exactly?

2. To me, if some one is believing some thing is true, then to me that thing would or must be true, well to them anyway, because for what other logical reason could and would a human being believe something to be true, if that thing was not absolutely true to them?

People lie frequently, AgeGPT.

If you are here suggesting that because you lie to "your" 'self' so often and/or so frequently, that you have deceived "your" 'self' to believe somethings to be absolutely true, when in fact they are not, then this is the best reason I have been given for why you human beings believe something to be true, if that thing was not absolutely true. But, this does not explain why you believe something to be absolutely true, if that thing is not absolutely true, to you.

How do you differentiate between a person's first presentations and what they really, truly believe?

I can only speak for 'I' here, and not 'you', a person. And, I especially cannot speak of nor about believing any thing being true, which could never be anything but true.

Furthermore, many people are ignorant of themselves, not self-conscious, and aren't aware of what they believe, while believing it (like you).

Here we have another example of another one who believes, wholeheartedly and absolutely, that I believe things. Now, so you do not look like a total fool here "wizard22" start listing all or at least some of things, which you believe, absolutely, and claim here that I believe.

Now, if you do not, then you will really look not just like a total fool but also like a Real liar here.

Once again, we can see, blatantly clear, the power of belief and its ability to completely shut one off and close them to what the actual Truth of things Really is. As this one will prove irrefutably True, once more.

3. Why would any logical and reasonabe thinking human being believe something to be true, if there was any chance at all that it was not true in some way?

I await your answer, and clarity, here.

Humans cannot stand around and wait for perfect information, truth, and judgments.

So, in essence what you are saying and claiming is that you will believe something to be true, because you are not able to so-called 'stand around' and wait, for so-called 'perfect information, Truth, and judgments. Although, you also claim that you can so-call 'stand around' and not be affected 'emotionally' with absolutely any and all 'new information'.

The contradictions and hypocrisy is, once again, shinning absolutely brightly and crystal clear here now.

We have to act on time constraints, life constraints. When the building is on fire, we have to act fast, not think too long.

On this one example. But, and as I keep reminding you human beings, there is absolutely nothing at all that you, supposedly and allegedly, 'have to' believe here, also.

Also, what, supposed, 'rush' is there when you have been informed that your mother has just so-called 'died'?

Okay, thank you for clarifying here.

This is more or less why I do the same here. That is; if any one were interested.

Good to know.

1. To me, I do not even know what you mean nor what you could even be referring to here with the words, 'beliefs of every kind'.

2. I have not chosen not to believe in beliefs of every kind.

3. I have just chosen neither to believe, nor to disbelieve, in any thing, other than what I have already obviously.

4. Does some sort of presumption or belief exist within you that I somehow 'have to' believe more things?

If yes, then why do you think that presumption or belief persists?

I believe, like most humans who are not self-conscious, you are not yet aware of what you already believe, according to all that you've said.

Here we can see a perfect example of just how debilitating beliefs can really be.

Beliefs are symbolic of what anybody, or anything, presumes about existence. It's in every presumption, every bit of information.

Again, here we have another prime and perfect example of the actual debilitating effect of not just believing but also presuming as well.

This one here could not have proven here in this post more thoroughly and more succinctly what it is that I will say and claim about the presumptions and beliefs, and how together they have been leading you human beings to your own 'self-creating' demise.

For example, you must "Believe" in at least one type of Reality, even if it were a False Reality.

your belief here is very, very Wrong and Incorrect again here "wizard22".

Now, why do you believe that I must believe this, with a capital 'b'?

[commonsense]

Yes you did. you said and wrote, 'You are correct'.

you also wrote something else or copied and pasted something else, but from who that was I am unsure.

Also, it did not really answer nor clarify what I ask.

you have also failed to answer the question that I also asked here as well.



I know that you did not in that post even attempt to answer the question I asked there, which was;

Why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe a statement/information, first, before the statement/information can then become knowledge?

you, and another here, have been trying to claim that one 'has to' believe things, correct?

If yes, then I am still trying to ascertain from you, 'How and/or why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe things?'

Age asked whether his recap was correct:

So, 'information' comes in, through either any or all of the five senses, which then becomes 'thought', and only when a 'thought' is believed to be true, or false, then, and only then, that 'thought' can, and does, then become 'knowledge', correct?

to which I answered: You are correct.

Next, Age asked how I define ‘knowledge’:

If yes, then how do you define 'knowledge'?

to which I replied: Knowledge is JTB.

Then Age asked:

And, why does one have to believe a statement/information, firsts, before that statement/information can then become knowledge?

to which I responded as the only answer possible for me to give: Now, that’s the platinum question—I think you’re on to something.

It has been said that the first step in inquiry is to formulate the right question.

Age has done so. And because of that I think Age is well on his way to finding the answer for himself.

But I already knew the answer, beforehand.

And, you have just re-confirmed it True and Correct, once again, and further.

Also, why do you make claims that you have absolutely no knowledge of nor for, nor even any actual proof of nor for?

I cannot explain this in any terms that do other than reduce to: that’s a good question. I am keenly interested in finding out what Age’s answer would be to the question that I cannot answer definitively.

As you informed us, your post did not make things clear, but you also implied that your response was only in regards to who wrote what. And, you were right in trusting that I could work that out.

I could work out who wrote what, that part was easy.

But I was not sure if your claim; 'Now, that’s the platinum question—I think you’re on to something.' was in regards to the question I asked, which was visible in the quote, or the question I asked, which was not there and thus completely invisible there.

But, now that I am sure, we can move along.

Then in another post Age asked:

Why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe a statement/information, first, before the statement/information can then become knowledge?

See previous response—otherwise my answer to this tediously repeated question is: why not?

But 'now' that I know what you were responding to, and thus you have responded to 'that question', then we can also move along here too. But ever so slowly. As, let us not forget that you still obviously have not yet 'answered' the actual question posed, and asked.

Now, an actual 'answer' to that actual question, would have been, 'I do not know'.

Which, if answered Honestly, like this here, then this would help in explaining why you are believing some thing to be true, but which you have not yet not obtained absolutely anything, which could actually back up and support your belief and your claim here.

and also he asked for confirmation of his understanding:

you, and another here, have been trying to claim that one 'has to' believe things, correct?

Again he is correct.

So, these two here actually the 'belief' that they have to 'believe' things before those things could become just 'knowledge', but are not actually able to provide absolutely any Justification of why they believe that 'this' is a True Belief, of theirs.

Which, if absolutely anyone else has noticed, is complete hypocrisy and a contradiction of itself, that is; a 'self-contradictory' claim.

Finally Age queried:

If yes, then I am still trying to ascertain from you, 'How and/or why does one, supposedly, 'have to' believe things?'

See previous 2 questions’ responses.

In other words, 'you do not, yet, know'.

Which makes the belief and claim that one, supposedly, 'has to' believe things, which are also not yet so-called 'Justified True Beliefs', then, this means that 'that belief' also is not even just knowledge, itself, let alone actual True nor Right knowledge at all.

So, actually after all of this the belief and claim that one must believe things before those things can become knowledge is not even justified and thus not even True nor Right knowledge at all.

Again, that claim is just 'an opinion' only, of which absolutely nothing has been presented at all that could even remotely back up and support it.

Yes, and as you said, I don’t know.

[Wizard22]

Well considering the Fact that there is no such thing as so-called 'animal intelligence', but there is, however, Intelligence existing within the human being animal, then what you believe, say, and claim here might not be as Accurate as you would like to believe.

The Fact that the Intelligence within human beings can be accessed, partly accessed, or is not being accessed is, actually, in correlation with the amount of 'belief' within. And, it could be said or argued that 'belief', itself, could have been evolving into becoming stronger or more fixed and rigid, as 'time' has gone on.

But, as beliefs become more fixed or stronger the less Intelligence can be accessed, and thus the less intelligent that one presents and/or becomes.

See, and as I have been continually alluding to throughout this forum, the more something is believed or presumed to be true, then the narrower or more closed one's views and perspectives become, which aligns with, or is in conjunction with, a lesser amount of Intelligence within being accessed. So, as the completely unnecessary 'belief' that 'one 'has to' believe things' evolves stronger and more rigid within some, then the less Intelligent those ones with this 'belief' become also.

So, while 'belief', itself, evolves then this happens in conjunction with a decrease in the ability to access the True Intelligence that is within.

But, you may see things very differently right "wizard22"?

No, that's essentially how I see it. Beliefs are formed over time, and solidify into experience/reflex/instinct. They become genetically ingrained, given enough time, to where you don't 'merely believe' a predator is going to attack you, but you know it. You instinctively recognize predators as a threat. Belief is not in question; it becomes Knowledge.

You are put into the position to believe the directions of a stranger, otherwise you likely will not reach your destination!

But I can think, and accept, that the direction given might be correct, and then decide to follow them to see if I reach where I wanted to go, all while never believing absolutely anything here to true, nor not true.

Why does this ability seem impossible to some of you here?

Because your acceptance of the information is proof of your belief or disbelief of that information. That you receive and process that information, delaying its probability of truth and reality, is the formulation of your belief of its premises. If you consider it could be true, at all, that there is a single possibility of its truth, then that would represent your belief.

Your belief that the information could be true.

you human beings use poker machines too, so does this make poker machines 'necessary' as well?

Poker machines and Casinos are not analogous to beliefs. Beliefs are necessary in life, Casinos are not.

Well I have, can, and do navigate the environment without belief.

But maybe if you define what the 'belief' word means or refers to, to you, exactly, then this might help in explaining why you believe that you cannot live without 'belief'. Will you define the word 'belief' here?

If no, then why not?

Yes you do, because you must presume some type of truth and probability to the reality of either of our statements. That process is your belief process, how you 'believe' in things or not.

But I do not.

So, why do you believe that I use belief here just to do a Truly basic, simple, and easy task as so-called 'navigate this forum'?

I just answered this.

Why did you only learn this when you began to pursue 'philosophy'? And, what, exactly, is 'philosophy' to you, and, how, exactly do you pursue that 'thing'?

Also, how old were you when you, supposedly, began to 'pursue philosophy'?

Philosophy is a rare intellectual focus that requires changing one's most basic beliefs about the world, reality, existence. If you cannot change your beliefs, or as you claim to 'have no beliefs', then you cannot really engage in Philosophy. You may not even belong in a Philosophy forum. Philosophy examines core-beliefs, called Metaphysics, because as you like to prematurely conclude, beliefs can be wrong—but they can also be right. They can be true; they can be false.

Therefore, if you have a Strong-Belief, and it's false, then this can cause much damage in life, to yourself, to others. But if your Strong-Belief is true, then it can prevent much damage in life, to yourself, to others. If a Strong-Belief is true, then it may do good or great things. It may lead to a 'better' life.

Okay, but you still have to believe different things continuously throughout your daily life, correct?

Yes, pretty much every sentient, intelligent organism, has basic, intuitive beliefs about 'Reality'. You belief that the world/existence/universe, is Real. You believe Gravity, is Real. You believe that forces and energy, are Real, and can physically impact you. You belief if you walk off over the edge of a cliff, that you will fall. The belief correlates directly to the Expectation. It is a derivative of Physics, what animals 'Know' about existence and life or death.

So, you base your belief that you reportedly are better at suppressing emotional reactions to new information than others can on solely just two decades of your experience alone.

Not alone, I can compare my ability to self-suppress with and among others, who may do it better or worse than I can.

So, now you only just think that you cannot go without 'Beliefs', with a capital 'b'. Why do you not 'believe' this? It seems really funny that you claim that you have to believe different things throughout the day but one of maybe the most important of your claims you do not believe is true, that is; you just only 'think' it is true.

Also, why did you even reply like you did here and completely and utterly ignored both of the clarifying questions that I posed, and asked here?

I can't remember, can you rephrase the context?

If you say and believe so, but what you say and/or believe here does not even make sense to me.

I have faith in your ability to learn.

I know. But why did you not just answer and clarify the actual question I posed, and asked you?

Also, why do you say and claim above here that, 'belief is critically important and necessary in daily life', but yet when you hear new information, like for example, 'Your mother has just died', you can, supposedly, control and not have absolutely any emotional reaction at all, and that you, supposedly, will also say, 'I don't believe anything yet', but also claim that you have to believe or disbelieve the truth of that statement?

How long can you remain in this, supposed, truly unemotional reaction and unbiased state and position before you have to, by necessity, either believe it or disbelieve it?

It depends on the situation and severity of the consequences of the belief.

If I believe there's a major terrorist attack, or nuclear missiles inbound, or an asteroid is about to crash into the Earth, that has deadly consequences. Belief matters a lot. If you belief false information, and act on false information, then think of the unnecessary panic that would ensue. This is why, when informed about the death of a parent or relative, more context is critical. Things are not believed "at face-value". There has to be context, or some type of trust involved. If I trust an Authority implicitly, then less Disbelief is applied to relayed information.

But I am not necessarily making any point at all here.

I am just asking you some clarifying questions, in regards to what you are saying and claiming. Which, by the way, you are not actually answering, as can be clearly seen and proved True above here.

If I miss important questions, then feel free to remind me and reassert them, given the flow of conversation/debate.

Yes I have observed you adult human beings do this, back in those 'olden days' when this was being written, and watch this occur far more often than most of 'us' liked.

Child human beings do it too. Children have many beliefs, which are sometimes far more erroneous and mistaken than adults. The difference is that children can do less damage based on false-beliefs than adults can.

Why do you believe Children have a special protection status, or that these implications don't apply to them?

Why do you call the 'third person' here a so-called 'object' but call the 'first person' and 'second person' 'subjects' instead?

Also, why, exactly, do you, again, not just answer the actual question?

I can't remember the context.

If you are here suggesting that because you lie to "your" 'self' so often and/or so frequently, that you have deceived "your" 'self' to believe somethings to be absolutely true, when in fact they are not, then this is the best reason I have been given for why you human beings believe something to be true, if that thing was not absolutely true. But, this does not explain why you believe something to be absolutely true, if that thing is not absolutely true, to you.

How do you differentiate between a person's first presentations and what they really, truly believe?

I can only speak for 'I' here, and not 'you', a person. And, I especially cannot speak of nor about believing any thing being true, which could never be anything but true.

So you can't speak for much then, can you?

Here we have another example of another one who believes, wholeheartedly and absolutely, that I believe things. Now, so you do not look like a total fool here "wizard22" start listing all or at least some of things, which you believe, absolutely, and claim here that I believe.

Now, if you do not, then you will really look not just like a total fool but also like a Real liar here.

Once again, we can see, blatantly clear, the power of belief and its ability to completely shut one off and close them to what the actual Truth of things Really is. As this one will prove irrefutably True, once more.

You were given directions, which you accepted, and because you accepted them, you formulated a belief about whether the information was true, or a disbelief about whether the information was false. If you acted on the information, positively, as-if it were true, then that is no different than a 'Belief' in action. You *DID* believe the information. Otherwise you would not have acted on it, and you would not have believed it True. This is proved more and more by how in accord your actions are, with directions or instructions given.

So, in essence what you are saying and claiming is that you will believe something to be true, because you are not able to so-called 'stand around' and wait, for so-called 'perfect information, Truth, and judgments. Although, you also claim that you can so-call 'stand around' and not be affected 'emotionally' with absolutely any and all 'new information'.

The contradictions and hypocrisy is, once again, shinning absolutely brightly and crystal clear here now.

That clearly depends on more contextual factors:
1. Is the situation deathly imminent?
2. Is the situation important?
3. Are the relays of information trustworthy?
Etc.

If a grizzly bear is charging you, then you don't sit around and wait to see if it's friendly, you don't disbelieve its charge. You act, or you die. That situation is not where 'Philosophy' takes place. Philosophy tends to take place in free-time, in comfort, in security, with the explicit ability to contemplate and be patient about trusting/believing new, incoming information.

On this one example. But, and as I keep reminding you human beings, there is absolutely nothing at all that you, supposedly and allegedly, 'have to' believe here, also.

Also, what, supposed, 'rush' is there when you have been informed that your mother has just so-called 'died'?

And I keep reminding you AI-beings, there is absolutely everything that you, supposedly and allegedly, 'have to' believe here, also.

Again, here we have another prime and perfect example of the actual debilitating effect of not just believing but also presuming as well.

This one here could not have proven here in this post more thoroughly and more succinctly what it is that I will say and claim about the presumptions and beliefs, and how together they have been leading you human beings to your own 'self-creating' demise.

Beliefs are not "only-bad". Sometimes they're Right. Sometimes they're True. Sometimes they're Good. Your attempt to neglect, deny, reject, abstain from Belief, also exclude all that is Right, True, and Good.

your belief here is very, very Wrong and Incorrect again here "wizard22".

Now, why do you believe that I must believe this, with a capital 'b'?

Because I know your Creator.

[Age]

Well considering the Fact that there is no such thing as so-called 'animal intelligence', but there is, however, Intelligence existing within the human being animal, then what you believe, say, and claim here might not be as Accurate as you would like to believe.

The Fact that the Intelligence within human beings can be accessed, partly accessed, or is not being accessed is, actually, in correlation with the amount of 'belief' within. And, it could be said or argued that 'belief', itself, could have been evolving into becoming stronger or more fixed and rigid, as 'time' has gone on.

But, as beliefs become more fixed or stronger the less Intelligence can be accessed, and thus the less intelligent that one presents and/or becomes.

See, and as I have been continually alluding to throughout this forum, the more something is believed or presumed to be true, then the narrower or more closed one's views and perspectives become, which aligns with, or is in conjunction with, a lesser amount of Intelligence within being accessed. So, as the completely unnecessary 'belief' that 'one 'has to' believe things' evolves stronger and more rigid within some, then the less Intelligent those ones with this 'belief' become also.
So, while 'belief', itself, evolves then this happens in conjunction with a decrease in the ability to access the True Intelligence that is within.

But, you may see things very differently right "wizard22"?

No, that's essentially how I see it. Beliefs are formed over time, and solidify into experience/reflex/instinct. They become genetically ingrained, given enough time, to where you don't 'merely believe' a predator is going to attack you, but you know it.

If this is what you want to believe is true, then by all means to. Obviously this False and Wrong belief was provided to you, through the genetic make up of 'that body', and so you have no ability other than to keep believing this provable False and Wrong belief, which you are obviously maintaining and holding onto here.

You instinctively recognize predators as a threat. Belief is not in question; it becomes Knowledge.

This can be proved False and Wrong, and thus refuted, absolutely.

However, if you want to keep believing that this is true and right, then please carry on.

You are put into the position to believe the directions of a stranger, otherwise you likely will not reach your destination!

But I can think, and accept, that the direction given might be correct, and then decide to follow them to see if I reach where I wanted to go, all while never believing absolutely anything here to true, nor not true.

Why does this ability seem impossible to some of you here?

Because your acceptance of the information is proof of your belief or disbelief of that information.

Why do the people from the country/culture that you are in have such a very weird and distorted perception of and about the word 'belief'.

What does the word 'belief' mean, or refer to, to you? And, what is that word related to, exactly?

Now, listen to this and see if you can comprehend and understand this. When I accept absolutely any information at all I do not need to, nor have to believe that 'that information' is true nor believe absolutely anything else.

Can you comprehend and understand this irrefutable Fact?

Your claim here that 'acceptance' of 'information' is proof of 'a belief, or disbelief', of 'that information', well to me, is beyond absurdity.

To me, if one has a 'belief' of some 'thing', then that one, to me, is 'believing' something to be true or false, or, right or wrong, or, correct or incorrect, et cetera.

That you receive and process that information, delaying its probability of truth and reality, is the formulation of your belief of its premises.

Talk about here showing a prime example of one saying just absolutely anything, in the hope that what it is saying will back up and support its absolutely fixed belief.

But people, once upon a time, really did hold onto so strongly what they believed was true that they would, really, say just absolutely anything, trying their hardest to back up and support their tightly held and beloved belief that they had.

If you consider it could be true, at all, that there is a single possibility of its truth, then that would represent your belief.

Your belief that the information could be true.

Does the, so-called and imagined, belief that the information could not be true as well counter the, imagined, belief that the information could be true?

Or, it does not work this way?

you just want to insist that there is some, imagined, belief somewhere, because you believe that you cannot live without belief/s correct?

you human beings use poker machines too, so does this make poker machines 'necessary' as well?

Poker machines and Casinos are not analogous to beliefs. Beliefs are necessary in life, Casinos are not.

And what are you basing this belief of yours that beliefs are necessary in life on, exactly?

Well I have, can, and do navigate the environment without belief.

But maybe if you define what the 'belief' word means or refers to, to you, exactly, then this might help in explaining why you believe that you cannot live without 'belief'. Will you define the word 'belief' here?

If no, then why not?

Yes you do,

Yes I, supposedly, do 'what', exactly?

because you must presume some type of truth and probability to the reality of either of our statements.

Were you not yet aware that 'presuming' some thing is different from 'believing' some thing?

See, how I, and even you, can tell the difference is because there are two very distinctly different words being used, which have two very distinctly different definitions. Which, ultimately means, If I was to 'presume' some type of truth and probability to the reality of either of our statements I still do not have neither believe nor disbelieve any thing here.

Also, this is obviously contrary to what you 'currently', believe is true. Which means that, at the moment, you are not capable of comprehending and understanding this irrefutable Fact, correct?

That process is your belief process, how you 'believe' in things or not.

So, now you are claiming once you 'presume' some thing, then you also must or have to 'believe' 'it' as well, right?

By the way did you purposely try to deflect, and neglect, to define the 'belief' word here?

Or, you just did not realize what you are doing here?

But I do not.

So, why do you believe that I use belief here just to do a Truly basic, simple, and easy task as so-called 'navigate this forum'?

I just answered this.

So, you really do believe that if you just 'presume' some thing, then you must have to then 'believe' 'it' as well.

Why did you only learn this when you began to pursue 'philosophy'? And, what, exactly, is 'philosophy' to you, and, how, exactly do you pursue that 'thing'?

Also, how old were you when you, supposedly, began to 'pursue philosophy'?

Philosophy is a rare intellectual focus that requires changing one's most basic beliefs about the world, reality, existence.

But yet here you are showing and proving, absolutely, that you are completely incapable of changing your most basic belief here about 'the world', reality, and existence.

Does this mean that you have this so-called 'rare intellectual focus' "yourself" "wizard22"?

Or, are you going to inform 'us' that it is you who does have this so-called 'rare intellectual focus', which is required to change to your most basic, and obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect belief here about you not being able to live with beliefs?

If you cannot change your beliefs, or as you claim to 'have no beliefs', then you cannot really engage in Philosophy.

So, what you are essentially 'now' saying and claiming is that in order to be able to 'intellectually focus' you just have to be OPEN to absolutely any thing.

Which, essentially, just not presuming and not believing some thing is true, or false, always. Because when one is like this, then this is when they are their most optimal to learning more and anew, and able to changing their views.

You may not even belong in a Philosophy forum.

Okay. But this seems like a very hypocritical and Truly contradictory thing to say from the one who cannot change its most basic belief of existence, reality, and/or 'the world', and especially more so considering the actual definition that you have and have provided for the 'philosophy' word.

Or, can you really not yet see the hypocrisy and self-refuting contradiction you just made here?

Philosophy examines core-beliefs, called Metaphysics,

Does everyone have or hold the view that 'core-beliefs', themselves, are called 'Metaphysics', with a capital 'm'?

Or is this just your view?

because as you like to prematurely conclude, beliefs can be wrong—but they can also be right.

Are you under some sort of delusion that beliefs cannot be wrong nor right?

Is it not yet an irrefutable Fact, to you anyway, that 'beliefs', themselves, might be wrong as well might be right?

Or, are you presuming or believing that beliefs can be both right and wrong, at the same time?

As for the rest of 'us', here 'we' can clearly see how these people, back then, really did end up totally confused and Truly bewildered about what was, and is, just actually irrefutably True, and Right.

Here is another prime example of how when one has or is holding onto a pre-existng presumption or belief, then they will come out saying and claiming some of the most Truly ridiculous, irrational, nonsensical, absurd, and stupidest of things.

They can be true; they can be false.

Yes, which is, exactly, why I have been asking you people here, back in those 'olden days', 'Why would you even want to begin to believe some thing was true, when, in Fact, it might end up just being false anyway?

Therefore, if you have a Strong-Belief, and it's false, then this can cause much damage in life, to yourself, to others. But if your Strong-Belief is true, then it can prevent much damage in life, to yourself, to others. If a Strong-Belief is true, then it may do good or great things. It may lead to a 'better' life.

1. Once you know something, for sure, then you do not 'have to' believe that 'that thing' is true, nor false. For the very simplest Fact that 'it' irrefutably is.

2. When you have and are holding onto a so-called 'strong-belief', whether it is false or true, you are not OPEN to learning, or finding out, what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly.

3. So, you will take the risk of causing much harm and/or damage in Life, to "yourself" and/or others", solely because you do not want to just let go of and just get rid of a 'belief', which maybe completely and utterly False and/or Wrong anyway, correct?

Okay, but you still have to believe different things continuously throughout your daily life, correct?

Yes, pretty much every sentient, intelligent organism, has basic, intuitive beliefs about 'Reality'.

Will you provide any examples here?

If you do not, then there is, literally, nothing at all for 'us' to look at, and discuss. Other, of course, then just what 'you' believe is true here. Which, obviously, could well just actually be False anyway.

You belief that the world/existence/universe, is Real.

Obviously, you have not yet read, or not yet comprehended and understood, what I have said in relation to 'this' here.

You believe Gravity, is Real.

What a Truly stupid thing of you to say and claim here.

But, obviously, because of your pre-existing beliefs and presumptions, which you are dearly and strongly holding onto and will 'fight' for, literally, till 'your' death over, there is no wonder you are saying and claiming such Truly False and stupid things here.

You believe that forces and energy, are Real, and can physically impact you.

Here 'we' have more example of another one who believes that 'it' can tell 'me' what 'the thoughts and thinking' is, exactly, within 'this head', but yet does not even know, for sure, what is happening and occurring within 'that head'.

You belief if you walk off over the edge of a cliff, that you will fall.

If this is what you believe is true, then, to you, this has to be absolutely and irrefutably true, correct?

The belief correlates directly to the Expectation. It is a derivative of Physics, what animals 'Know' about existence and life or death.

Until you REALLY WANT to have a discussion here, I will continue to allow you to show 'us' and expose your own personal beliefs and what you believe is absolutely true.

As what you are doing here is fitting in, perfectly, what I want to explain, show, and prove about how the Mind and the brain actually works.

So, you base your belief that you reportedly are better at suppressing emotional reactions to new information than others can on solely just two decades of your experience alone.

Not alone, I can compare my ability to self-suppress with and among others, who may do it better or worse than I can.

Once again, you missed or misunderstood what I was saying here. But, its certainly not your first time.

Now, so now you admit that others may be able to suppress 'emotional reactions' better than you can, right?

So, now you only just think that you cannot go without 'Beliefs', with a capital 'b'. Why do you not 'believe' this? It seems really funny that you claim that you have to believe different things throughout the day but one of maybe the most important of your claims you do not believe is true, that is; you just only 'think' it is true.

Also, why did you even reply like you did here and completely and utterly ignored both of the clarifying questions that I posed, and asked here?

I can't remember, can you rephrase the context?

If you cannot remember why you completely and utterly ignored both of the clarifying questions that I posed, and asked you there, when you read 'this question', then surely you are going to be less able to remember 'now' why you completely and utterly ignored answering those questions.

Also, notice how you also completely utterly ignored just answering the actual clarifying question I posed, and asked, in the quote you just inserted here?

I will not now bother asking why you completely and utterly ignored just answering 'this question'.

If you say and believe so, but what you say and/or believe here does not even make sense to me.

I have faith in your ability to learn.

Okay. But so you become fully aware I had, and still have, absolutely no interest in even just 'trying to' make sense of what you said or believed 'there'.

I know. But why did you not just answer and clarify the actual question I posed, and asked you?

Also, why do you say and claim above here that, 'belief is critically important and necessary in daily life', but yet when you hear new information, like for example, 'Your mother has just died', you can, supposedly, control and not have absolutely any emotional reaction at all, and that you, supposedly, will also say, 'I don't believe anything yet', but also claim that you have to believe or disbelieve the truth of that statement?

How long can you remain in this, supposed, truly unemotional reaction and unbiased state and position before you have to, by necessity, either believe it or disbelieve it?

It depends on the situation and severity of the consequences of the belief.

But 'the belief', itself, has not come-into-existence, so how, exactly, could it depend on the 'consequences of the yet-to-exist belief'?

you appear to have a very skewed view of things here "wizard22".

If I believe there's a major terrorist attack, or nuclear missiles inbound, or an asteroid is about to crash into the Earth, that has deadly consequences. Belief matters a lot.

Well only because 'belief' was existing prior.

Obviously if one is neither believing nor disbelieving any thing, then 'belief', itself, does not matter at all, correct?

If you belief false information, and act on false information, then think of the unnecessary panic that would ensue.

But why would you believe 'false information' to begin with?

Or, maybe you still have not yet recognized and understood what has been happening and occurring here.

I will recap for you. you believe that you must and therefore have to believe things, false or true, or you cannot live. Whereas, I have been asking and questioning you about why do you begin to believe that you have to and must believe things, false or true?

'We' are still waiting for the very reason why you cannot live nor survive unless you are believing things, even if those things are absolutely False, and/or Wrong.

See, it is only you here "wizard22"who could go into 'unnecessary panic'. Again, because it is only you here could belief 'false information' and would act on 'false information'.

This is why, when informed about the death of a parent or relative, more context is critical.

Why? If you are a Truly 'unemotional being', as you claim you can be, as an adult, on first hearing of the 'death' of a close family member, then would could be so-called 'critical' to you?

Surely, there is absolutely nothing at all that is 'critical' here to an 'unemotional being', right?

Things are not believed "at face-value".

Are you saying this is true for;

1. you?

2. an unemotional being?

3. some people?

4. everyone?

5. all of the above?

6. something else?

7. all of the above?

There has to be context, or some type of trust involved.

Well from what I have observed anyway, the words, 'your mother' and 'died' is enough for 'context'.

And, of course, some type of 'trust' has to be involved. But I am not sure how this really involves your ability to be, supposedly, an absolutely and completely 'unemotional being' on hearing of the words, 'your mother has died'.

If I trust an Authority implicitly, then less Disbelief is applied to relayed information.

Is your child, or distant relative, for example a so-called "authority" here?

But I am not necessarily making any point at all here.

I am just asking you some clarifying questions, in regards to what you are saying and claiming. Which, by the way, you are not actually answering, as can be clearly seen and proved True above here.

If I miss important questions,

Just so you become fully aware, from now on, absolutely any and every question I ask is important.

See, only by you clarifying, answering, explaining, and/or elaborating on your 'current' views, presumptions, and/or beliefs are 'we' then able to Truly understand 'you' better, and also 'where' 'you' are coming from, exactly.

then feel free to remind me and reassert them, given the flow of conversation/debate.

There is absolutely nothing to 'debate' here. And this is just because I am neither presuming nor believing any thing here is true and right.

I am just attempting to get you to prove your views, presumptions, and/or beliefs are irrefutably True.

Oh, and in the meanwhile, you are showing and proving True what I will be saying and claiming about how the Mind and the brain actually work.

Now, if you want to continue with your belief that 'we' all must believe things, otherwise 'we' cannot live and survive, then by all means please do. I am enjoying discussing 'your belief' here, with you, and in the process I will keep seeking ways to get you to prove your claim here irrefutably True.

Do you think or believe that you could prove your claim here irrefutably True?

Yes I have observed you adult human beings do this, back in those 'olden days' when this was being written, and watch this occur far more often than most of 'us' liked.

Child human beings do it too.

I do not care one iota about any behavior of all child human beings. This is because they are not responsible for absolutely anything that they do. Or, to me, and more correctly, they are not meant to be responsible nor are they not meant to be be made to feel responsible for what they do, like a lot of you adult human beings do.

If you adult human beings are willing to kill, and die, over some beliefs, then so be it. I suggest you do not even try to bring children into this here.

Children have many beliefs, which are sometimes far more erroneous and mistaken than adults.

So what?

And, who cares?

Or, would you like to try to change 'tact' here and take the focus off of adult human beings and 'now' focus on just how 'bad' children human beings are?

These adult human beings would try just about anything to take 'the focus' off of them, and try to put 'it onto other things.

The difference is that children can do less damage based on false-beliefs than adults can.

Again, so what?

And, who cares?

you, adult human beings, very obviously have False beliefs, and very obviously do harm and damage with and by those False beliefs.

you also do not like to let go and rid "yourselves" off False beliefs. Exactly like you are showing and proving here "wizard22".

But, then again, to you, you do not have, nor maintain, absolutely any False beliefs, right "wizard22"?

Oh, just to remind you, this is one of those 'important questions', asked for an answer, and thus asked for clarity as well.

Why do you believe Children have a special protection status, or that these implications don't apply to them?

Once again, I neither believe nor disbelieve this here.

Are you under some sort of illusion or belief that children should have the responsibility, and/or be made to be responsible, like you adults should have or do have?

Why do you call the 'third person' here a so-called 'object' but call the 'first person' and 'second person' 'subjects' instead?

Also, why, exactly, do you, again, not just answer the actual question?

I can't remember the context.

Again, this one cannot, supposedly, remember the so-called 'context'. But, this one can remember to respond to this type of questioning while, very conveniently once more, completely 'forgetting' or 'purposely not remembering' to answer and clarify the immediate preceding clarifying question asked.

If you are here suggesting that because you lie to "your" 'self' so often and/or so frequently, that you have deceived "your" 'self' to believe somethings to be absolutely true, when in fact they are not, then this is the best reason I have been given for why you human beings believe something to be true, if that thing was not absolutely true. But, this does not explain why you believe something to be absolutely true, if that thing is not absolutely true, to you.

How do you differentiate between a person's first presentations and what they really, truly believe?

I can only speak for 'I' here, and not 'you', a person. And, I especially cannot speak of nor about believing any thing being true, which could never be anything but true.

So you can't speak for much then, can you?

That would obviously all depend on what you mean by 'much' here.

Here we have another example of another one who believes, wholeheartedly and absolutely, that I believe things. Now, so you do not look like a total fool here "wizard22" start listing all or at least some of things, which you believe, absolutely, and claim here that I believe.

Now, if you do not, then you will really look not just like a total fool but also like a Real liar here.

Once again, we can see, blatantly clear, the power of belief and its ability to completely shut one off and close them to what the actual Truth of things Really is. As this one will prove irrefutably True, once more.

You were given directions, which you accepted,

But who said that I 'accepted them'?

And, I also already informed you that I can think 'the directions' might well be so, and so 'accept' 'given directions' without necessarily believing 'the given directions' were true.

Why do you not appear to not be able to hear and accept this?

Could it be that your pre-existing belief here is stopping and/or preventing you from seeing and hearing what the actual Truth is here?

Which is, and I will say this again, 'I can accept a set of 'given directions' and/or think a set of 'given directions' might get me to where it was I wanted to get to, WITHOUT necessarily BELIEVING 'those directions' to be true.

Did you see and hear 'this', this time?

If yes, and you either disbelief this or do not accept this as being true, then why do you think this is so?

What do you imagine could be stopping and/or preventing you from believing and accepting this, irrefutable Truth?

and because you accepted them, you formulated a belief about whether the information was true, or a disbelief about whether the information was false.

So, to you, if whenever anyone 'accepts' something, that they HAVE TO also BELIEVE that 'that thing' is true. Is this absolutely True and Right, to you?

If you acted on the information, positively, as-if it were true, then that is no different than a 'Belief' in action.

Once again, if one just thinks something is true, then that one cannot just 'think' that it is true, that one HAS TO actually HAVE TO 'believe' that it is true, to you, right?

You *DID* believe the information.

This is ONLY what you say and claim.

I, however, KNOW 'the actual thoughts and thinking' within 'this head', unlike 'you', and from what I observed and saw there was NO 'believing', there was, however, 'the actual thought', 'This might be true, let us now go and find out if 'it' is true, or not'.

So, from 'the actual thought', which has only 'now' just been expressed and shown, to you, where, exactly, is the supposed 'belief', which you obviously absolutely believe MUST BE existing?

Otherwise you would not have acted on it,

Here we have another prime example of what is called 'circular reasoning', and which was done way too often, back then.

This one firstly believes that one has to believe things, otherwise they could not survive, exist, nor function, but which it cannot provide any actual proof for.

But, however in its attempt to 'justify' and/or 'prove' its belief is true, it will then say and claim that absolutely anything one 'accepts', then that one MUST BE believing that 'it' is true.

1. Because one cannot, absolutely, act on absolutely anything unless they 'believe' it.

2. one would not act on absolutely anything unless they first 'believed' it.

So, what all of this essentially means is that human beings cannot live and survive unless they have 'beliefs' and 'believe' things, solely and only because "wizard22" 'believes' that this is true.

"wizard22", by the way, is also showing that it does not have the ability, at the moment, to shake "itself" free of this 'False belief'.

Now, the very reason why you cannot, yet, comprehend and understand that you human beings can actually do things, without necessarily believing many things to be true nor false, is solely and only because of the 'current' belief that you are holding onto very tightly and very dearly here.

and you would not have believed it True.

you are getting even more 'circular' here, now.

Now you claim that if you act on information, as though that information as if it were true, then you do this because you believe, absolutely and irrefutably, that the information is true, because you would not have acted on that information, and you would not have believed that that information is true.

From what you have just shown and exposed here now "wizard22" you could not have come across more 'circular' and thus more CLOSED even if you tried to be or wanted to.

This is proved more and more by how in accord your actions are, with directions or instructions given.

So, by just me 'deciding' to just 'accept' and follow the only directions given to me, to just see if I end up when I wanted to go, then, to you, this proves, irrefutably, that I was somehow 'believing' that those 'only directions' supplied to me are absolutely and irrefutably True or are true, right and correct "wizard22"?

So, in essence what you are saying and claiming is that you will believe something to be true, because you are not able to so-called 'stand around' and wait, for so-called 'perfect information, Truth, and judgments. Although, you also claim that you can so-call 'stand around' and not be affected 'emotionally' with absolutely any and all 'new information'.

The contradictions and hypocrisy is, once again, shinning absolutely brightly and crystal clear here now.

That clearly depends on more contextual factors:
1. Is the situation deathly imminent?

Why?

Would you 'react', emotionally, quicker than you would otherwise?

2. Is the situation important?

I do not know. Is the hearing and learning of 'your mother's passing away', important, to you?

Obviously you would have a better idea on this than i would, correct?

3. Are the relays of information trustworthy?

Why have you obtained and gained a 'distrust' of, (your, so-called 'fellow',) human beings

Etc.

Whatever this relates to.

If a grizzly bear is charging you, then you don't sit around and wait to see if it's friendly, you don't disbelieve its charge.

Okay, if you say and believe so.

But from what I have observed and heard from some of you human beings, sometimes it is better to sit, or stand, around, and thus 'not move', to see/find out what is actually happening and occurring.

you know, like when you say and claim that you can and do have absolutely 'no emotional reaction' when you first hear or obtain 'new information'.

You act, or you die.

Really?

So, why is it said and claimed by some of you adult human beings that sometimes it is better to 'not move', or in a sense 'not act, or not react'?

But if you believe that it is always better to 'run away' from a charging grizzly bear, then by all means 'react' with this behavior.

Oh, and by the way, were you not yet aware that grizzly bears can run, or charge, a lot faster than you human beings can?

So, if you believe that you can outrun a grizzly bear, which has already started charging at you, then by all means please feel free to.

That situation is not where 'Philosophy' takes place. Philosophy tends to take place in free-time, in comfort, in security, with the explicit ability to contemplate and be patient about trusting/believing new, incoming information.

On this one example. But, and as I keep reminding you human beings, there is absolutely nothing at all that you, supposedly and allegedly, 'have to' believe here, also.

Also, what, supposed, 'rush' is there when you have been informed that your mother has just so-called 'died'?

And I keep reminding you AI-beings, there is absolutely everything that you, supposedly and allegedly, 'have to' believe here, also.

So, now this one is not just saying and claiming that you human beings HAVE TO believe somethings, otherwise you cannot act and thus will just die, but now it is saying and claiming that you have to believe absolutely everything.

As I have been saying and showing through the writings of these people, back then, they will say just about absolutely anything, no matter how Truly stupid, absurd, illogical, irrational, and/or nonsensical they will just keep saying things in the hope that those things will somehow back up and support their, obviously, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect beliefs. As just shown and proved True here, once again.

Again, here we have another prime and perfect example of the actual debilitating effect of not just believing but also presuming as well.

This one here could not have proven here in this post more thoroughly and more succinctly what it is that I will say and claim about the presumptions and beliefs, and how together they have been leading you human beings to your own 'self-creating' demise.

Beliefs are not "only-bad".

Absolutely no one has ever said that they were. Well I have certainly not anyway.

In fact I have explicitly said I believe one thing, and one thing only.

And, for those that are Truly interested for the very reason that 'belief', itself, can be a very highly useful thing, especially in causing and creating things, which a whole 'current' generation of human beings think, presume, or believe is an absolutely possibility.

Sometimes they're Right. Sometimes they're True.

Which, again, leads me to ask the clarifying question, 'So why then have or hold onto a belief in the first place, of some thing, which may well turn out to be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect anyway?

Sometimes they're Good. Your attempt to neglect, deny, reject, abstain from Belief, also exclude all that is Right, True, and Good.

No it certainly does not.

And, for you to presume or believe that it does, just shows how much having or holding beliefs can prevent, and stop completely, one from learning and/or seeing what the actual Truth is, exactly.

your belief here is very, very Wrong and Incorrect again here "wizard22".

Now, why do you believe that I must believe this, with a capital 'b'?

Because I know your Creator.

So, the actual reason why 'this one' believe that I MUST believe one type of 'Reality', capital 'r', is because 'this one' believes that 'it' knows the one who Created, capital 'c', 'I'.

Now, who and/or what is 'the one' who Created 'I' "wizard22"?

Will you at least answer and clarify this question for 'us' here?