Noax wrote:I looked at your definition of 'belief' and it seems nobody uses the word that way.
Well I guess I am nobody then.
I also find it truly amazing how you seem to know the way
everybody, which is roughly about 7 billion, uses the word 'belief'.
Noax wrote: It's more like you got hard-knowledge and belief switched.
I have NOT got them switched. The way I use words and the definition I use for words IS how I do it and HOW I express it here.
Remember "everybody" saw that the sun revolved the earth while only one saw things differently. That one "body" was seen as to be wrong by every "body", who probably also suggested that he and had got things switched. But the
real truth that one "body" had eventually came to light when "everybody" else eventually looked at things differently.
Noax wrote: To most people, belief is held for things assumed to be true, despite lack of proof.
From what I have witnessed and seen to
some adult people, a belief is held for things that are assumed to be true as well as for things that are believed to be, despite lack of proof or even with indisputable, unambiguous, confirmed, sound and valid argument-ed proof. By the way I use the word '
some', to mean any number of
from one up to but not including ALL, in or of any group of things.
Noax wrote: Since almost nothing can be proved, that means almost any view at all.
You mean from YOUR PERSPECTIVE that means that, right? Because I do NOT have a belief in ALL of the views I have.
How many things can be proved and what are they or what are some of them?
Noax wrote: It doesn't mean the thing believed is beyond question and cannot be altered with new information.
If "it" does not mean that, then why hold a
belief in "it"?
Noax wrote:One dictionary's definitions for 'belief' are
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof And,
2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)
If there is any doubt whatsoever whether a thing exists or does not exist or whether a thing is true or not true. Or, if there is NOT whole, full, and complete 100% trust, faith, nor confidence in (someone or something), then I would ask the question, again, WHY hold a belief in that thing?
Again, I will reiterate I do NOT hold nor have a belief in any thing whatsoever. I do NOT have nor hold any beliefs because If I did, then I would NOT be open. If I were NOT open, then I would NOT be able to learn and discover more and new/er things. Being open allows Me to question everything, and from that I can and do become wiser. I also question WHY others do not do the same. I question more when people
believe that they HAVE TO have and hold
beliefs.
Another thing I question is If a thing believed can be questioned and can be altered with new information, then WHY have or hold a belief in it in the first place? If a thing may not exist or be true in the first place, then why believe it does exist and/or is true. WHY believe you know the truth BEFORE you actually do?
There are so many questions to be asked in relation to just this, with so many being unanswered satisfactorily by human beings.
IF some thing may not be true, right, or correct, then WHY hold a belief in it?
I do NOT know how much more simpler, straight-forward, open-ending My questioning can be just to get clarity of what appears to blatantly obvious anyway, well to Me it does.
Noax wrote: So belief that the sun went around the world was common in Galileo's time, and for one person to buck that belief at the time was not enough evidence to turn common opinion. Learned scientists had access to the math and findings and probably accepted the new finding quite quickly, but also quite quietly since one might find one's self strung up for suggesting a theory that did not require a god to cart the sun across the sky each day.
So true, and the very reason I use this example quite often is to point out that just ONE person, who could be and may well be considered to be wrong, using words and/or their definitions differently than ALL others do, appears to be completely delusion, strange, idealistic, simple and/or slow, over the top, insane, or any thing else that could be used to NOT listen to, MIGHT just be on to some thing?
Noax wrote: Point is, belief is held, and that should never mean the beliefs cannot be questioned.
That is YOUR point. My point comes from the correct answer to the question, WHY hold a belief in the first place?
A more enlightening and/or revealing point is understood when people answer correctly the question, WHY do people believe that they and thus all human beings HAVE TO hold a belief in the first place?
Beliefs, by their very nature, close off the Mind, and it is already generally known that being "closed minded" is not the best thing to be nor do. Some people already generally know that it is better to be "open-minded" than to be "closed-minded" about anything.
Noax wrote: Knowledge requires belief since almost nothing is provable fact.
Remember that is from YOUR perspective and/or view. That is certainly NOT from Me.
Knowledge does not require anything, except a way to get that which is external to the body, inside the body where that actually becomes in-formed knowledge. The way information travels from the external of the human body to the internal of the human body is through some or all of the five senses.
Again, what are the things that are provable facts.
Noax wrote: The belief that there is stuff out there even when not observed is just that, a belief, and one not held by all, at least not rationally.
WHAT are you talking about now? WHY talk about things that are NOT even observed? HOW did we get to this?
And did you notice you are partially answering some of My questions here. You are implying that holding a belief in some thing, which has not yet been observed and thus may not even be true, is NOT a rational belief.
By the way even if the absolute Truth has be observed and thus is KNOWN of any thing, then I would still ask WHY have or hold a belief in it?
Noax wrote: Does an idealist actually believe his own story at the core (below rationality)? I don't think so, since most idealists are in the habit of looking before crossing the street lest an unobserved nonexistent bus runs him down.
NOT sure where you heading with this nor what "road" you are crossing here.
Noax wrote: ken wrote:Noax wrote:I'm picking quotes from multiple places and posts here.Do you have a self-consistent answer, or do you not consider yourself conscious?
Firstly when you say, do I have a self-consistent answer do you mean do I have one answer that fits all?
I mean whatever you meant by that comment. You're the one who said "when ALL the answers agree, ... perfectly". And you add that consciousness is not reached until that is achieved. I'm trying to figure out what you meant by that.
What I meant by that is If and when ALL the answers are fitting in together to form One Unified Picture, then they are consistent answers.
I am not sure how the question, "Do you have a self-consistent answer, or do you not consider yourself conscious?" applies. To Me, this would be much better presented as two completely and solely different questions. So, "Do I have a self-consistent answer" would depend on what do you actually mean by self-consistent? I already explained that the answers I was getting and still get are consistent and getting consistently stronger in that they are fitting more tightly or better together, forming a clearer more thorougher picture of Life.
As to whether I consider myself conscious, then the answer is yes.
Noax wrote: If so, then the answer is no. The is not one answer that fits all questions. However, there are answers that are consistent with other answers and if ALL answers are consistent with each other, then a big or whole true picture is formed. Obviously, if there are no inconsistencies, then there is only one consistent thing.
Agree, it would be a set. So do you have such a list of mutually consistent answers?
YES.
Noax wrote: Do you consider it any kind of evidence of truth, or do you acknowledge that there might be a totally different set of answers that is also self-consistent?
Depending on what you are meaning by 'truth' when you are asking this question will depend if I consider the answers to be any kind of evidence of 'truth'.
Of course I acknowledge that there might be a totally different set of answers that is also self-consistent. There, in fact, could be as many differing sets of answers that are self-consistent as there are and have been human beings who existed.
Noax wrote: Maybe that is what you meant by self-consistent answer. If that is what you mean by having a self-consistent answer, then a picture that is wholly consistent and true could be considered to be a Self-consistent answer.
I think you called it "thee Truth", like there's only one such set.
Yes I did call It that, and that is because, to Me, only when absolutely everyone is in agreement, then they would be being as One or One being by the way, then THAT that we are ALL agreeing on would be, by its very nature, by one answer, or what I call 'thee Truth'. By the very fact that NO one is disagreeing or not in agreement means that THAT what is in agreement on is the one and only True answer. Although I call It a True answer or thee Truth, with capital T, there is still no satisfactory reason at all, to Me anyway and so far, to believe in, have, nor hold a belief in this Truth.
Noax wrote: I consider 'conscious' to mean aware of. If a being is aware of, any thing, then it is a conscious being, so yes I consider Me to be conscious. I also consider 'Consciousness' to be the pinnacle of being aware of or as some would call it 'Awareness', Itself.
Oh, you mean different things by conscious and consciousness. You don't regain consciousness when you wake each morning, you regain the state of being conscious (nobody else says that).
Absolutely NO body?
And, if it is true, then I do NOT really care.
I also think galileo did NOT really care that NO body else said, what he was saying.
Noax wrote: The other term means (to you) something more like 'enlightenment'. You need to call that out. Your usage of several words is different than that assumed by most readers, and hence a lot of the backlash you're getting from people assuming the more usual definitions of 'consciousness' and 'belief' and perhaps a few other things.
Oh I totally understand the backlash. As I have reiterated many times previously I am only here to learn how to express better. To Me this is what "philosophers" do in philosophy forums when any thing new or strange or weird or not easily understood are presented. Most readers just want to see and read what fits in perfectly what they already see, understand, and believe. Most people will usually "fight to the death" to defend the beliefs that they are already holding.
Noax wrote: I don't think it would be philosophy if the correct answers to anything could actually be known.
What is 'philosophy' to you? What is the definition you give to 'philosophy'? Would I be wrong to guess that if My definition, and the way I use that word, was not close to your definition, and/or the way you use that word, then My definition would NOT be the "usual" definition, whereas yours would be? Is YOUR definition the exact same as most people "usually" use? Is it the same as the original definition?
To Me, and with My definition of philosophy, no matter how much is KNOWN, philosophy will still exist. The love-of-wisdom will still be wanted and be around. To have this love-of-learning and thus the ability to become wiser comes from obtaining correct answers to things. And, knowing that obtaining the correct answers to things, especially to those things that were thought to be, or believed to be, absolutely unknowable came from a love-of-learning encourages, Me anyway, to show or teach HOW from philosophy ALL correct answers can be found, discovered, and learned.
Noax wrote: A few questions have been answered in the last couple centuries, but they only add new questions to the list of things we never questioned before.
If you say so.
And, of those few questions that have answered were they answered correctly? If so, then correct answers can actually be KNOWN.
Noax wrote: Of course this perfectly self-consistent answer, to Me, could in fact be entirely wrong. I NEVER said it was entirely right. I have only proposed that these are the thoughts, or views, within this head that I am trying to express as clearly and as succinctly as I can, and which may or may not be or may partly be true, right, and/or correct.
So we're not so different. I'm pretty happy with my own answer these days, but there are still some stray ends. And of course, I don't believe it deep down. That was the part that interests me lately.
The only "stray end" I have at the moment is how to learn how to better express, without getting misinterpreted and/or misunderstood as much as I sometimes do now?
What are your stray ends?
You do not believe WHAT exactly deep down? That you are happy with your own answer, or, that there are still some stray ends?
What was the part that interests you lately?
Noax wrote: I will only KNOW if it is true, right, and correct IF, and only IF AND WHEN Everyone is in agreement.
Why would that make it correct? Who gets a vote? Squirrels? Vastly advanced AI? Aliens? They all have their contributions to make.
Yes that is very true, they ALL do have their contributions to make and I have already stipulated that ALL things are included in the Everyone. It would not really be fair to the squirrels, for example, if ALL human beings were agreeing that they were a pest that should be wiped out completely. The squirrels, like every thing else, needs to be included in the Everyone.
Noax wrote:But only if and when everything is in agreement with some thing, then, and only then, it is thee one and only Truth.
Same question, except that there might be a completely different answer that is also self-consistent and is in fact the actual correct answer. So self-consistency does not imply one-and-only.
When any thing is seeing things as One, that is from Everything's perspective, like in Everyone as One, then what is in agreement with every thing is thee one and only answer. There could not be another answer at that moment. Although, what is totally understood is if that answer is not being believed in, then It could change. But again only properly if Everything could be in agreement with the change.
Noax wrote: Also thee one and only Truth to one question is NOT fixed and thus is able to change.
Now I don't know what you mean by truth. Is that another word you redefine?
So, instead of asking Me what do I mean by 'truth', you just state I do not know what you mean by truth, but I will carry on assuming things anyway. For example instead of just asking for clarification of what 'truth' means to Me you will ask Me instead if it is another word I "redefine".
I will answer that question with a NO. You may also be very surprised to discover just how many words I define that it is a dictionary's definition that I actually use.
By the way I do NOT redefine words. I use a definition of words AFTER I have stumbled across a definition or AFTER I have had a definition revealed to Me, which was then fitting in with ALL the other definitions of words I was seeing.
Noax wrote: If it is the truth, then any real change makes it not true.
Just like every thing else even truth can change. Of course there is an absolute Truth that does not change. But truth is usually only known and able to be expressed by human beings, that we are aware of. So, from this perspective what decides on the truth or not of a thing is actually human beings, themselves. So, if human beings change the truth, like in the sun revolving the earth to the earth revolving the sun, then obviously the absolute Truth did not change, but the "truth" obviously did change.
Noax wrote: Any held belief might be eventually challenged, but none of any of it affects actual truth, at least not the way the rest of us define the word.
It is amazing how many people believe that what they see and the way they see things is how "the rest of of us", sane and sensible people do also. Any one else who sees any thing differently or looks at things from another perspective is just plain wrong, stupid, delusion, et cetera.
Again, I will ask the question WHY hold a belief if it can be challenged? A truly open person would answer that question, and see the ridiculousness in the answer. But then again it is the ones who are open who have already answered. It is the ones who are not yet open who do not and will not answer it.
What "truth" are you alluding to here when you say, "but none of any of it affects
actual truth"? Is it thee actual and real one and only absolute Truth, or just the subjective truth based on personal biases, assumptions, beliefs, preconceptions, and which is usually believed to be the truth, but which is usually eventually found out not to be the actual Truth at all?
I will reply to the rest later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the very reason I recommend NOT having a belief in any thing, including if there is a one and only Truth that Everything is in agreement with. If it is being believed, then that Truth is not able to freely change, as ALL things should be able to freely do.
Noax wrote:What is this 'thee Truth' of which you speak if it might in fact not be true?
Whatever
IT is that Everyone is in agreement on.
Truth defined as what is agreed upon? OK, I have seen that definition. If everyone agrees that there was no holocaust, and all the history books are expunged of the event, and all the people who remember die out, and there is not even a name for it anymore, did it in fact still happen? If so, in what possible way is that still a true fact? It's defensible. A fact completely out of reach of any evidence, that explains nothing in need of explanation, has no business being considered a truth.
Oh can it now?
Yes.
Noax wrote:All the charity money that goes to prevent starvation of poor folks is unnecessary?
All the charity money certainly does NOT help the actual problem. It could be argued that it is a waste of money.
I actually agree there, but I personally would not last a week without what money brings me. Perhaps not an hour. So I die of freezing in an hour (It's winter here) for lack of a way to keep warm that doesn't involve money. I admit being somewhat low on my survival training, being a product of civilization. I don't own any non-bought things that might keep me warm. I have no idea where to get more than trivial bits of food around here that does not exist because of money.
Some folks are still going to die of starvation no matter how much money is in on the planet. Money does not prevent human beings dying of starvation.
Agree with the former. The latter does not follow. I'm mostly on board about the general problems, and why feeding starving people just makes the long term problem worse. Love of money is not what's killing them either. The super rich are actually probably helping earth in the long run. Maybe. Depends how the party ends.
I think what we (humanity) lack is a long term plan and a leader with the power, integrity, and stomach to implement it. Nobody has any of those three things (ok, a few have the third one), so we're doomed. I've played the game of laying out what I would do if I was benevolent boss of the world. I am granted the power, and somehow I don't get the corruption that comes with it. That's two. The third one killed me. I wouldn't have the stomach to do what needs to be done. So completely hypotheical (as objectively as you can), what should be done? First order of business: Should humans be preserved or wiped out? Justify your answer. Hard to make a plan with that question still open. If we put a benevolent AI in charge, how would it answer that question? How does one define benevolent if that question is open?
'We, human beings, do NOT need money to live' one, then just think about how long human beings as a species have been living for, and how long money has been around for.
The pre-money ones are hardly 'we-humans'. They're 'they-humans' living in a very different world. We-humans is now, and in particular, here where things are civilized to the point where I have the leisure to post on internet forums.
My statement IS NOT a belief because It is just a view, which of course could be true or could be false.
Sorry. I was using the dictionary definition of 'belief', which is effectively just a held view, and could very much be true or false.
I know what it is, but that does NOT mean I have a belief in it. But why am I telling you this. You will NOT accept it, am I correct?
You redefined the word, so sure, I accept that you don't 'believe' this as you define 'believe'.
Why do humans not need air to live, by the way?
Oxygen is nice if you're metabolizing. Metabolism can be suspended (making 'to live' a questionable activity), or oxygen can be delivered via means other than air. It worked for you for 9 months for instance. You can breathe liquid even now if it is the right sort of liquid.
I thought the truthfulness of a statement would make it a stronger statement and not just because a human being as a subjective view about negative or positive perspectives?
My phone number is not 5551212. That statement is quite true, but weak, not informing you of my actual phone number.
Perhaps if you did ask clarifying questions before you made any assumptions, and jumped to any of these conclusions, then you would KNOW what I actually meant first. If you just stop presuming things first, and asked for clarity instead from truly open perspective, then you would know exactly what I mean
And 20 posts later I still am clarifying and have concluded nothing. Be clear up front if something that matters is left out. You hold a strange definition of 'believe' and it takes a lot of hammering to get us to go back and translate all your posts with the unintuitive definition. It is also wrong. Use a different word if it is going to mean a different thing than everybody expects.
Noax wrote: That seems more true, but is also a weak statement because of that word 'likely'.
Remember that it was YOU who added the word 'likely' in here, which by the way was NOT a track I was on.
Yes, I was commenting on my own statement.[/quote]