[Questioning Everything]

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote:You have said you gained a view of God which fitted perfectly in with what all religions were teaching
This suggests that the religions had an influence on how your view of God came about or is that wrong
IF i wrote I gained a view of God which fitted perfectly in with what all religions were teaching, then that does NOT necessarily suggest that the religions had an influence on how my view of God came about. I could have been forming a view of a Thing, which when i would be explaining this Thing i was then being told that that Thing is in religious texts, and that I should read some of those religious texts. AFTER i did read some of those texts i realized that this Thing, which i was gaining a view of, was the exact same Thing as a Spirit, as Allah, as God, and as Enlightenment was written within religious text. Remember I say what is written in religious texts is what religions are teaching. The stuff that comes out of human beings mouths about religions CAN BE and, to occasionally, IS WRONG. The WAY religion is taught by human beings IS wrong. What is in religious texts does NOT appear to be wrong, to Me. But this is because I read and see differently than human beings do.

That said, and even though that is what took place, of course religions had an influence on how my view of God came about, just like science had an influence on how my view of God came about, and just like absolutely everything that i was exposed to previously has had an influence on how my view of God, or view of any thing else, came about. What i had previously experienced to regarding religions AND science both equally had an influence on how my view of God came about. For example, science says everything evolves, whereas, religions say everything was created. To Me, everything evolves and is created absolutely equally. In both religious and scientific texts both prove that both creation and evolution work together equally, both in complete harmony with each other. I know this is NOT taught by human beings, using religious and scientific texts, but human beings do have a propensity to misinterpret texts or even just the simple written word.

This is how I see evolution and creation working both together equally. In fact one could not exist without the other;

Besides the 'Universe', Itself, which is All there is as One, every thing else was obviously created. The word 'was' is used in religious texts because only after the fact a thing had come about could it then be talked about, and then only the past tense word of 'was' could be used correctly in relation to what had then been created. However, what was not realized when religious texts were written was that every thing also evolves. 'Evolve', just meaning to develop gradually or change. Obviously there is no stop, start motion in the Universe. All things just develop or change gradually. The change might not necessarily be noticed, but change is always gradually occurring in absolutely every thing, including the Universe, Itself.

If every action causes a reaction, and every reaction is just another action, or a re-action, then each and every action is a new thing that has come about. Each and every new thing that comes about is a new creation. So, if every reaction is a new creation, then reaction 'just is' creation, (or it is if the letters are re-arranged). This reaction/creation process is how the Universe works.

For any (new) creation to come about at least two things are needed. While all things are gradually changing they come together or interact with other things. Only with the coming together of at least two things, then a new thing can come about or be created. Obviously if just one thing did not re-act with some other thing, then no change could nor would occur, and then nothing new could nor would change nor be created.

But some might think and/or say, if the Universe is just One, as I am saying it is, then how could that change or be created. But My question in reply would be who says it was created? There is NO evidence that supports that the Universe 'was' created. There is however a lot of evidence supporting that the Universe is in Creation, right HERE and right NOW, and the evidence suggests that the Universe always has been, always IS, and always will be in Creation, right HERE & NOW.

But how could this possible be happening if the Universe is One, and before you stated that at least two things are needed in order for anything to be created, might be a question thought and/or asked by some. How this always continually evolving, creating process takes place is because the Universe, Itself, is made up of at least two things at the most fundamental level. They are things and no things, or in other words physical things and non-physical things, or just matter and space. The Universe has physical matter and a space in between and around all the physical things, from the smallest of particles of matter, like sub-atomic particle, up to the largest of objects like stars and planets. There is always a space void of any thing between and around these things. The Universe is freely and limitlessly able to move or change in any way, shape, or form because of the non-particle nothingness between and surrounding ALL physical things. The Universe, Itself, 'was' NEVER created as such but 'is' IN Creation. The constant-change process of evolution causes every thing to interact with other things, which in turn cause or creates the reaction process known as Creation, Itself.

This is NOT what is taught by human beings using religious and scientific texts, but this is a view I gained of how things work. I gained this view while being told to look at written texts within religion and science books. The way I changed and was now looking at things allowed Me to find and see things that were certainly not being taught to Me previously. But I must reiterate what I came to see could still be completely or partly wrong, I do NOT dispute this fact, but what I was and am still coming to see seems to make far more sense than what others continually try to tell Me is the truth.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by ken »

Dalek Prime wrote:
ken wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:

Thanks for providing that one belief.

Let us start with who or what is the 'I' you are referring to here?

If you are not able to provide a sufficient answer, then how much of the statement "'I' am aware" is actually true. If you are not aware of who or what the 'I' actually is, then how much actual truth is in the statement "I am aware" really?

To Me Consciousness or Awareness is reached when all the meaningful or metaphysical questions can be answered, this happens when ALL the answers are agreeing, supporting, or fitting together, with each other, perfectly. So, if Awareness has been reached, then the "I am aware" could be expressed with more truth than it is when expressed when the 'I' is not even aware of who or what it actually is yet. If, however, you can answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', then you would be one of very few who can.

Also, if you could express "I am aware" with more truth behind it because you have gained more awareness than you had before, then would you have more belief in the statement "I am aware"?

I can know some thing but still neither believe nor disbelieve in it. The reason I neither believe nor disbelieve (in) any thing is because then I am not open to any thing else. So, if you believe 'I am aware', then you are not open to any thing else. You are choosing to have a belief in some thing. But choosing to have a belief in some thing, in of itself, does NOT mean that it is impossible to not hold a or any belief. If you believe you are NOT just choosing to have a belief, then you will need to explain how beliefs actually form, how they remain, and why they stay. You will also have to explain WHY it is impossible to not hold any belief? And, tell us at what age does this HAVING TO have and hold beliefs starts appearing within human beings.

You also wrote, "I am aware, because I am". Now as far as I know that is true, I would agree 'I am aware'. (But what I am actually aware of, is another matter). But, anyway, like everything else I agree with I then do NOT HAVE TO believe (in) it. If a thing 'just is', then it 'just is'. By just looking at 'what is' then I, for One, do NOT have to hold a belief in it. It is just 'what is'. So, by just knowing 'what is' and not HAVING TO hold a belief in it, then there is one possible way to not hold that, or thus any, belief. As far as I know there is NO law nor any other rule of life that stipulates within the thinking of a human being THEY HAVE TO have and hold onto a belief.

The way it is possible, and the way I do, NOT hold a belief in the "I am aware" statement is the way I have already done it and which I have shown in this forum already. That way is I say, "Know" instead of "belief" or "believe". By just saying, 'I know ..." instead of "I believe ...", even if it is for some thing as known, for sure and as surely, as "I am aware", means it is possible to not hold that, thus any, belief.

If the truth be known the ONLY thing we can know, for sure, as I have explained already is the thoughts within the head that we reside in. Everything else could just be an illusion, as far as we know.

1. You are not a fully aware being, yet, so I would ask why have or hold a belief in a being that is not yet fully known?
2. A belief is some thing that by definition, and through self-talk, is NOT some thing that could be disputed, so I would ask why have or hold a belief in some thing that one day may be able to be disputed, and thus is actually not true?
3. Just because I know some thing, even if I know it, for sure, then that still is no reason to have nor hold a belief in it. 'What is' IS just 'what is'. I do NOT have to hold a belief in it or in anything, so again I would ask why have or hold a belief in some thing when you know, for sure, it exists anyway?

If the answer is there is no real valid nor sound reason to hold a belief any of these three questions, then there is no real reason to do so at all. If holding a belief is just a choice and there is no real reason to do so, then it is possible to not hold any belief. I, personally, do not hold any belief, so to Me it is very possible. But, i guess to a person who believes that it is impossible to not hold any belief, then i guess, to them, then it is impossible to not hold any belief. Obviously, no person would do any thing, including listening to or looking for any thing that would be in contradiction to what they already believe is true, right, and/or correct, especially if they hold or maintain a belief in it. If a person does have and hold a belief, then they are not open. Therefore, I guess to the truly open it is very possible to not hold any belief, but to the believer it would obviously be impossible to not hold any belief. One can NOT hold and maintain a belief, and thus be a believer, and also be OPEN at the same time, to the fact that it is possible to not hold any belief. The contradiction in the two would, i imagine, be unbearable.

How (and why) a person (does) not have beliefs is by choice. It is possible to choose to not hold any beliefs because i choose not to hold any. If i can not hold any beliefs, then any person CAN also. However, how (and why) a person believes that is impossible to not hold any beliefs is because they choose to have and hold beliefs. You may propose that this is impossible to do, but you are not aware of what I am capable of doing nor of what 'I am aware' of. Just like I am not aware of that, that you are aware of. That is of course we share that what 'I am aware' of to each other. I have shared that I do not have nor hold any beliefs and how and why I do this, but you could NEVER believe Me while you maintain and hold beliefs, and thus believe that it is impossible to not hold any beliefs.

While you have and hold beliefs you are a believer, and a believer can not ever be open to absolute facts such as It may just be possible to not hold any beliefs.
Consciousness is the alpha and omega of philosophy. It is the sine qua non of everything we are, and philosophy would not exist at all without it. So you can play at being the smartest man in the room all you wish, and talk circles out of squares, but that means nothing to me.
Not entirely sure the reason for these remarks but I am not playing at being anything. I am just expressing those thoughts, which you accept entirely are there. How these thoughts, from within this head, appear to others is not wholly My fault. I just try to express them the best way I can.

Two starting points I accept entirely are; there is thought, and there are things, external to my mind, as they persist whether I am aware of them or not. If you do not hold to this, there is nothing we will or can agree on.[/quote]

Of course I AGREE WITH THIS. I have NEVER said anything to imply that I do not agree with this.

I have stated that the only thing that we can really KNOW, FOR SURE, is the thoughts that do exist. So, I do agree there is thought AND that there are also things external to the body, which the thoughts are within. I have NOT seen any evidence whatsoever contrary to either of these to things so I agree totally with this. I will, however, remain open that this might not be absolutely or partly true, right, and/or correct. But that in no way interferes with the fact that I am in total agreement with you on this.

The only thing I questioned before was your BELIEF. Previously you wrote, "How can a person not have beliefs? It's impossible not to hold any."

I showed how a person CAN not have beliefs, and, thus how it is possible not to hold any beliefs.

I noticed you have now changed your wording a bit, which to Me makes what you write now far more acceptable, and thus more agreeable, without much at all to question. However, I will still question your use of the words "my" and "mind". What is 'mind'? And, 'my' implies owner, so who or what is the 'my', the owner of 'mind"?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by ken »

Noax wrote:I'm picking quotes from multiple places and posts here.
ken wrote:To Me Consciousness or Awareness is reached when all the meaningful or metaphysical questions can be answered, this happens when ALL the answers are agreeing, supporting, or fitting together, with each other, perfectly.
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?

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.

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.

If, however, that is not what you meant by self-consistent answer, then what exactly do you mean?

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. To reach full Consciousness or Awareness, Itself, is to be fully Aware or Conscious of all the meaningful or metaphysical questions in Life. Obviously just one individual being could NOT be aware of or conscious of every answer to every possible question. There are just way to many physical questions to ask to ever be able to know ALL the answers to. These type of questions are not really that meaningful anyway to even worry about or consider. However, to ALL the metaphysical or meaningful questions, then there are answers that can be learned, discovered, and known by just one or every individual being, or any amount in between. Having and knowing ALL these answers and if and only if they all fit together perfectly without any inconsistencies, then that is when a conscious being could I suggest say they are Consciousness or Awareness, Itself.

By the way, the only way that I know of to be able to answer any and all meaningful questions is done by and with the formula HOW. Honesty, Openness, and seriously Wanting, to change, for the better. But this is certainly NOT to say that there is not others way to reach Consciousness. That is just to say that is the only way I know of.

Also, the answer to the question, HOW can we find the answer that will answer all of our questions and solve all of our problems IS also the exact same answer. With HOW. That is HOW the answer IS found or discovered. That is a pretty self-consistent answer.
Noax wrote:What if this grand answer is perfectly self-consistent, but is still in fact entirely wrong?
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.

The thoughts or views within this head seem and appear to fit perfectly together to form One true, right, and correct big or whole picture of Life, but that in no way suggests that this picture IS true, right, and correct.

I will only KNOW if it is true, right, and correct IF, and only IF AND WHEN Everyone is in agreement. That is NOT to say in agreement with this view but when Everyone is in agreement with WHATEVER IT IS that they are in agreement with. The beauty of My view is it is always open so My view changes with the true, right, and correct knowledge when It comes along. Whatever view I have fits in perfectly with Everyone's view because My view is OPEN to Everyone's view.
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.
Honestly I am not really sure what it is you are saying here, but there are multiple questions with multiple answers so when I say thee one and only Truth that is in relation to one particular question, although that does not dismiss that there may be one and only Truth to some questions that sums up ALL questions.

Also thee one and only Truth to one question is NOT fixed and thus is able to change. 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:
So, even IF everyone is in agreement on a truth, and thus it is thee Truth, it is still a stupid thing to go and believe in it.
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.
Noax wrote:
ken wrote:To Me, there is 'thinking' some thing, 'knowing' some thing, and then there is 'belief'. The distinctions are:

To think some thing, (is how it literally sounds and what it literally means). To 'think' that some thing is true, right, and/or correct is to NOT know, for sure, if it is true, right, and/or correct.
...
To know some thing, (is how it literally sounds and what it literally means). To 'know' that some thing is true, right, and/or correct can only be done with evidence and proof. ...
For example, a thing we all know everyone could agree with is, 'We human beings do NOT need money to live'. This can be shown with proof and evidence.
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. 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. Human beings prevent human beings dying of starvation, and money is NOT needed in this type of true help.
Noax wrote: Nobody has ever died from having insufficient resources which money would have obtained?
Okay if you say so. But what about the ones who have died of insufficient resources which money COULD have obtained.

By the way how many are dying of the pollution caused by obtaining and using resources, solely because of money, or more correctly the love of having money?

The love of obtaining more money is probably one of the biggest reasons why some are dying of starvation, that combined with learned attitudes towards others. The love of money is certainly not preventing some human bodies from dying of starvation.
Noax wrote: I'm sure I'm misrepresenting this truth of yours, so clarify for me please.
Which truth? If it is the one that '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. Also, think about how human beings are just another animal and no other animal needs money in order to live and survive. Also, think about how one human being could live and some do live without money.

If it is possible for human beings to live without money, then We, human beings, do NOT need money to live.

It has been proven that human beings can live without money. Just look through one's own ancestry to find the evidence and proof, and just look at some human beings can and are doing right now. They live and lived with money. Therefore, We, human beings, do NOT need money to live.
Noax wrote:Concerning evidence and proof, can anything at all actually be proven?
That depends on what the any thing is.

Of course some things can, while for others it may be a bit harder, and for some things it might well be impossible.
Noax wrote:Science is no help here.
Again, that would depend, would it not?
Noax wrote: They're in the business of making useful inductive predictions, not in the proving of anything. Your whole assertion about not needing money rests on unproven assumptions about what we all agree upon constitutes money, 'we human beings', and 'live'. Mostly those assumptions are not even questioned since everybody knows what you're talking about, but the biases I'm talking about (ones deeper than rationality) are discovered by questioning those very things.
The reason I gave a definition to 'We' was so not to cause confusion.

As for 'money', 'human beings', and 'live' I will allow you to come up with the definitions for them, because I surely do not want to appear as having any biases at all whatsoever. You come up with the definitions that we all will agree upon, then we can see if My statement still stands or not.

The biases you are alluding to can are gotten rid of when they have been discovered by questioning those very things, which you suggest, but also during or after questioning EVERYTHING else, which goes even deeper and beyond what you are talking about here. This is when HOW to rid one's self of ALL biases is discovered and learned.
Noax wrote:I'm labeling your need-money statement a belief of yours since you claim to 'know' this.
You can label anything anyway you want.

But it appears no matter how many times I explain what I actually do, you still want to tell Me otherwise.

My statement IS NOT a belief because It is just a view, which of course could be true or could be 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?
Noax wrote: It is also a weak declaration since it is a negative. X is not factual, which is weak knowledge. Stating that Y is factual is stronger. Humans need air to live. Not true, but a stronger statement than one involving what is not needed.
How is not needing some thing a "weaker" declaration to needing some thing?

Why do humans not need air to live, by the way?

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?
Noax wrote:Perhaps you mean that without money, at least one human is likely to survive for at least such and such time.
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
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. This your own path you are going down now. If you do NOT ask clarifying questions, then you are going and heading in whatever way that YOU want to go down.
Noax wrote: If I let go of this rock, it is likely to fall to the ground. Is that sufficiently questionable that I should withhold a belief in that statement?
I could follow you down this path but, at the moment, I am not particularly interested in doing that. The reason I am not really interested in doing that is because you have detoured way to far now from what it was that I was and am actually saying.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by ken »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ken wrote:
For example, you believe in the knowledge that can be verified and shown to be true, am I right?
.
Having knowledge is not having to believe.
I KNOW THAT. And, if you had read what I have been writing, from an open perspective, then you would also KNOW, that I know that.

I was just asking a question for clarity.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by Noax »

I looked at your definition of 'belief' and it seems nobody uses the word that way. It's more like you got hard-knowledge and belief switched. To most people, belief is held for things assumed to be true, despite lack of proof. Since almost nothing can be proved, that means almost any view at all. It doesn't mean the thing believed is beyond question and cannot be altered with new information. 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.

Point is, belief is held, and that should never mean the beliefs cannot be questioned. Knowledge requires belief since almost nothing is provable fact. 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. 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.
ken wrote:
Noax wrote:I'm picking quotes from multiple places and posts here.
ken wrote:To Me Consciousness or Awareness is reached when all the meaningful or metaphysical questions can be answered, this happens when ALL the answers are agreeing, supporting, or fitting together, with each other, perfectly.
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.
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? 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?
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.
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). 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.

I don't think it would be philosophy if the correct answers to anything could actually be known. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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? If it is the truth, then any real change makes it not true. 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.
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.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by ken »

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]
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by ken »

Noax wrote:
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.
Do you really believe that Everyone would, let alone could, be in agreement with what you are proposing here?

Would you, could you, agree that there was no holocaust? If not, then NOT Everyone would be in agreement.

And you are exactly right in that some thing that could NOT be considered a fact could not and would not be in agreement. So, to propose this would be unnecessary.
Noax wrote:All the charity money that goes to prevent starvation of poor folks is unnecessary?
Noax wrote:
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.
What you do or do not do, personally, does NOT have any real bearing on what another human being could or could not do, nor on what human beings on a whole could or could not do. However, if one human being can do some thing, then that means human beings can do that thing. Human beings did not need money to live and they still do not need money to live. Although I do agree some do believe that they need money to live.
Noax wrote:
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.


While people are greedy they will take what others need to live. ALL the money in the "world" does not fix a problem. Only human beings fix problems, but while greed still exists within human beings then obviously the ones who are able to keep taking without ever really worrying or considering that the money they have could be letting others live.
Noax wrote: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.
How do you propose the super rich are probably helping the earth in the long run exactly?
Noax wrote: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 am glad you did not allow any negativity to affect your conclusion. That WAS sarcasm by the way if it was not instantly noticed.

I have a plan, the power, the integrity, the ability, and the strength to show HOW the plan can work to create a truly peaceful and harmonious way of life for Everyone.
Noax wrote: 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.
Why do you not have the "stomach" for what needs to be done? (What do you mean by 'stomach' by the way?)
Noax wrote: 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?
A few questions here to get through, which by the way the questions that are asked from presumed answers only confuse what My answers will be.

I will leave the first question for last.

Of course human beings should be preserved. Human beings are the only ones that are causing all the problems but they are also the ones who can fix all the problems. So, that question is not open anymore. Why would it even be considered to put an a1 in charge? Human beings can answer and solve ALL questions and problems, so human beings can be and would best be in charge. If that question is open or not, which it is not now, then how one defines 'benevolent', or any other word for that matter, is to look up a dictionary for its definition. By the way how one defines 'benevolent' does not really matter in the plan to living in peace and harmony with each other.

So, back to the first question; " So completely hypotheical (as objectively as you can), what should be done?"

If you mean 'what should be done' in regards to human beings starving to death then that just needs greed to be taken out of society. Human bodies are born, like all genetic species are, with a desire to live and procreate. Within the genes there is a driver to keep the species alive. However, human beings, unlike all other animals, have the ability to learn any thing whatsoever. Unfortunately this has allowed them to learn to be greedy, and learn how to justify this wrong behavior also. But, the beauty of being a creature that is able to learn absolutely any thing is that we, adults, can also learn how to not be greedy any more. The very way human beings learn some thing is how they can also unlearn that same thing. If, and when, adults accept that they are doing wrong to their children, and one way they are doing this wrong is by teaching their children to greedy, by teaching them to only care for and about themselves, and a few select others, BUT, if these same adults really care for and love their children with all they have and want to do the right and best thing for their children, then they will do all they can for their children, including learning how to STOP being greedy themselves anymore, and thus start to teach their children HOW to be loving and caring human beings for ALL human beings, which obviously includes ALL the dying and starving ones too. Once greed is taken out of society this way then ALL human beings will do ALL they can to prevent and stop just those few that are dying from just a lack of a few nutrients.

Noax wrote:
'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.
You, having the leisure to post on internet forums, does NOT mean this is a civilized "world". The very fact that human beings are bombing each other to death, (over what exactly not many really know why), polluting the actually air and water that we need to live (over greed), allowing others to die of starvation (over greed), and abusing each other (over built up frustration, anger, et cetera.) is NOT, and I will repeat, NOT a civilized "world".

Where do you draw the line between 'we-humans' and 'they-humans'?
Noax wrote:
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.
But I do NOT have a held view, which are always open to changing. They are always open to changing because I do NOT have a belief, or in other words, I do NOT hold onto a view nor have a held view.
Noax wrote:
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'.
REMEMBER it is I who is saying that I know a way that can create a truly peaceful and harmonious way of life for Everyone. I KNOW this way because of the views I have now.

And REMEMBER you are not saying anything other than trying to dismiss My views as being wrong and/or wrong because I have allegedly redefined some words and use words differently than others do.

If ALL the answers I have come to, stumbled upon, or have been revealed to fit perfectly together as I say they do to form a True and whole picture of LIfe, with no unresolved mysteries anymore, while others, like you, are still saying they you do not have all the answers, are still confused about some things, and/or that there are still mysteries in life for you, then why should I dismiss My views and start believing in those types of views?

If you have noticed you have not really brought any thing here other than trying all you can to dismiss what it is that I am saying. If you are going to try so hard as to define 'belief' to the most stringent of terminology, which is unchangeable and NOT look at My definition, which BY THE WAY, IS a dictionary definition of the word, then WHY? WHAT is your purpose for doing so?

I am just trying to learn how to show a way that can and WILL create True peace on earth for Everyone?

If you believe that this is impossible, then that is great, totally understandable, and fine. Just say so that we all know what you are trying to do here. I have already explained what I am doing here. What is your reason for being here?
Noax wrote:
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 could probably breathe some thing else also, when it is invented, but at the moment I prefer to keep the air clean so that My children, and grand-children, et cetera can just use what was naturally clean and sustainable before we human beings started destroying it.

By the way oxygen may well be delivered via means other than air, which works for nine months, BUT where did this oxygen come from to be able to be delivered this way. It came from the AIR that the mother NEEDS, in order to stay alive and keep living.
Noax wrote:
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.
So, to Me it is still very strong because of the truthfulness of it. To Me, it is NOT weak because you see as being negative or not your actual number. I do NOT want your phone number SO it is NOT weak at all, to Me anyway. If it is a true statement, which you say it is, and I verified the truthfulness of it and it is a TRUE statement, then to Me it is a very strong True statement. It is NOT weak in any way, shape, nor form.
Noax wrote:
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.
Everyone expected the sun to revolve the earth. They all said it is strange to see otherwise, and WRONG, et cetera. BUT as I alluded to previously I do NOT care what any nor every one expects. I only express what I see. If you do NOT like that, then I do NOT care.

The thing is you are NOT clarifying any thing. What you are doing IS trying to tell Me that I am wrong and that I should see things the way you do, and the way you think and believe EVERY one else does. I will ask again WHY? If I did all of a sudden say, "How right you are", what is it exactly that I will see and understand from this view and perspective? Will I see the same "loose ends" you see, and the same confusion you have, and the same mysterious that still surround you? If I did see, again, ALL this, then WHAT FOR? What achievement will I get from your closed, unsatisfactory, confused, mysterious, and unresolved questions that you have and see? What will I become enlightened by and to exactly?

If, however, you WANT to learn and discover some more and anew things, then WHY not just become more open?
Noax wrote:
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.
WHY?
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by Noax »

ken wrote:I also find it truly amazing how you seem to know the way everybody, which is roughly about 7 billion, uses the word 'belief'.
Not all of them speak English.
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.
Interesting analogy. So you're saying you've done some experimentation and made a scientific discovery showing our definition of that word has been wrong all this time, and the whole world is stubborn for not seeing the obvious truth of it.
How many things can be proved and what are they or what are some of them?
Four color theorem was supposedly proved...
If "it" does not mean that, then why hold a belief in "it"?
I hold an unprovable belief that there is a pitcher of water in the next room which will help quench my thirst. Basically, that things exist beyond my direct perception. You also stated this basic assumption (which you don't label a belief, but I'm using the dictionary definition here). Anyway, I'd die of thirst if I didn't have a belief that the water is real and not just an illusion of watery experience. There are practical reasons to hold basic beliefs.
You believe that the keys you press will translate to words in these forum posts, else you'd have no reason to have bothered attempting the key pressing. Why press the keys and not the alarm clock buttons instead? Perhaps you have a faith/confidence that the keyboard is more likely to get your post out there.
You cannot perform a scientific experiment if you don't believe in your instruments or their measurements. Knowledge requires some belief, even if the exact nature of the thing believed needs to change.
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.
Only by your definition. I believe the keyboard will work, but I'm occasionally wrong about that, and I don't continue typing just because I'm totally closed to the idea that the keyboard can never be detached from this site. One can believe but be open to alterations to that belief. None of that violates that dictionary definition you posted.
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 agree, being open is a good thing. Find things to question. I never disagreed with any of that. Trick is to identify the things that you never thought to question. Not as easy as it looks, and there is no way to question everything since it implies you've identified everything to question.
WHY believe you know the truth BEFORE you actually do?
I never laid claim to a known truth.
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?
New ideas always meet such resistance, as they should. It takes quite a bit of work to back them up. Otherwise there would again be no knowledge since every new idea would discard anything that had been learned. Galileo is a bad example since the power of the church was threatened. They had very good reasons to suppress a truth like that one. Ignorant masses are compliant masses.
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.
Only as you define the word. A closed mind to me is a biased mind. Beliefs are critical to functioning. Biases inhibit progression to truth. Like I said, we use the words differently. Not sure what a bias is to you that is different than 'belief'.

You seem completely closed minded to the idea that you hold some beliefs.
Noax wrote:Knowledge requires belief since almost nothing is provable fact.
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.
I think that assumes quite a number of beliefs, such as you having senses. Maybe you already had the knowledge and just need to process into workable form to recognize it. I don't know. I've questioned the people that believe that stuff and never get a satisfactory answer as to how you can learn something you didn't already know. It presumes my bias that information requires input of some form.
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?
Sorry, you brought it up. You presume there are things whose existence persists even when out of your perception. You stated this to others in this thread as something you both agree on. So do I, but I label it a belief. I believe in mind-independent matter. I have evidence, but no proof. I'm open to the alternative, which has yet to register very far on my plausibility meter.
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.
Didn't say "not yet" observed. I leave the room. Does the now-unobserved table cease existence? Would it surprise you if you went back and there was no table there this time? Why, if you never believed it was there in the first place?

Do you not avoid touching the stove burner because you hold no belief that it will hurt? Sorry, your position really confuses me.

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?
NOT sure where you heading with this nor what "road" you are crossing here.
Are you familiar with idealism? It is an alternative to almost every belief the typical person holds. Babies are kind of idealistic when born, which is why they love to play peek-a-boo. Cover your eyes and daddy ceases to exist. Endless fun.
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.
That would be a self-consistent answer, yes.
Noax wrote:So do you have such a list of mutually consistent answers?
YES.
Care to share a bit of it? Just a basic summary? How might you explain the existence of this universe, and what would you qualify as 'this universe' as opposed to perhaps another one? Not asking if you believe any of it.
For me, my rational belief is something like physical-realist (not physicalist, but close), eternalist, and realist (non-idealistic) about almost everything. So a consequence is that I believe unicorns are real, not just imaginary things. I would be idealistic to say they don't exist just because I haven't seen direct evidence of one.
Anyway, I say this is my consistent story, but I don't believe my own story deep down. I live my live to a different set of principles. These seem to be my core biases and I have little influence over them.
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.
Or more. I have no reason to think that humans would be in charge of coming up with the only possible lists of answers, and I think most people's answer is not self-consistent. Most people don't care. You just ignore the parts that make you uncomfortable. That's closed mindedness, and it keeps the average person reasonably sane. I'm closed minded about some things, and therefore don't even know what they are. To believe the actual truth would very likely be fatal.
I also think galileo did NOT really care that NO body else said, what he was saying.
Galileo did not discard all beliefs. He simply discovered something new that explained something better. He cared, else he'd have kept it to himself and not have brought the wrath of the world upon himself.
What is 'philosophy' to you? What is the definition you give to 'philosophy'?
I use the dictionary definition, but I find that all philosophical topics that find their way to empirical verification cease to be considered philosophical topics. So how the sun went across the sky was a philosophical subject until Galileo did his thing (and gained acceptance).
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?
I think then one of us would be using the language incorrectly if the difference was significant. I can say that it means the study of the biology of grass, but that would just confuse communication with others if I used the word that way.
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.
Well, I agree that it will always exist. I don't agree that all correct answers can be found. Nobody has proved that the earth goes around the sun for instance because nobody has proved the existence of either. And sun going around earth still works as well. That answer is not wrong, just more complicated.
If you say so.
Yes, I say so.
And, of those few questions that have answered were they answered correctly? If so, then correct answers can actually be KNOWN.
Yes and no. Yes, earth goes around the sun. No, that fact can't actually be known. A paradox almost.
What are your stray ends?
Hard to express without a detailed description of where I stand. Not believing my own story isn't one of them. It is strangely expected. I am rationally happy with my answer. It seems relatively self-consistent. Belief in it would remove anxiety of death. I fear death. I must not believe it.
What was the part that interests you lately?
Wish I knew my physics better. Also, a consistent answer is rarely a complete one. What questions have I not even yet thought to consider???
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.
What if it was actually best if the squirrels were wiped out? What are the odds they'd agree to that assessment? What if they were sufficiently capable to follow the logic as to why their demise was for the best?
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.
??? How could it be the answer if it is only for some moment? Suppose new information comes to light that invalidates it. Was it ever the correct answer then, even at a time when all agreed on it? I just don't see how any collection of (agreeing?) opinions has anything to do with actual truth.
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.
Still don't follow. There's no absolute known truth about the sun. The old interpretation was replaced by a newer one that makes more sense, but all are still interpretations. There was an accepted truth at the time that the sun traveled overhead each day, but an accepted truth does not seem to have any relation to actual truth. It certainly was not a unanimous explanation of the sun's apparent movement, then or now.
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.
I'll concede here. Definition of 'the truth' is not a consistent thing.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by Noax »

Do you really believe that Everyone would, let alone could, be in agreement with what you are proposing here?
Would you, could you, agree that there was no holocaust? If not, then NOT Everyone would be in agreement.
I would eventually not be around to disagree. Why would anybody agree to the existence of an event that doesn't even have a name, let along any evidence?
While people are greedy they will take what others need to live. ALL the money in the "world" does not fix a problem. Only human beings fix problems, but while greed still exists within human beings then obviously...
Obviously? I imagine a world full of totally ungreedy humans sharing all the world, as Lennon said. How do you think that will work out in the long run? Everybody starves simultaneously and spectacularly. The fix needs to be more involved than simply removal of greed.
How do you propose the super rich are probably helping the earth in the long run exactly?
By bursting the bubble sooner than the scenario above where there is perfect sharing.
I am glad you did not allow any negativity to affect your conclusion. That WAS sarcasm by the way if it was not instantly noticed.
OK, so I'm cynical.
I have a plan, the power, the integrity, the ability, and the strength to show HOW the plan can work to create a truly peaceful and harmonious way of life for Everyone.
Tell me your less negative plan then. Sharing all the world requires self regulation. Without that, humanity is nothing but the worst mass extinction event since the dinosaur asteroid. Said regulation requires some pretty brutal changes.
Why do you not have the "stomach" for what needs to be done? (What do you mean by 'stomach' by the way?)
From yourdictionary.com: stomach verb
To stomach is defined as to bear or deal with something.
Of course human beings should be preserved.
Would be nice, but except for a subjective loyalty to my own race, I could not list that as a given assumption. It needs justification. So perhaps, but not 'of course'.
Human beings are the only ones that are causing all the problems but they are also the ones who can fix all the problems. So, that question is not open anymore. Why would it even be considered to put an a1 in charge? Human beings can answer and solve ALL questions and problems, so human beings can be and would best be in charge.
I find humanity, when presented with problems like limited resource, little more intelligent than bacteria in petri dish of nutrients. The answer is always the breaking into groups that individually complete for those resources. Never a successful attempt to actually address the problem as a central group (a non-corrupt collaboration of all humanity with the authority to enforce its decisions). Why does nobody seem to want such central regulation? We're not nearly so intelligent in groups as we are as individuals.
If that question is open or not, which it is not now, then how one defines 'benevolent', or any other word for that matter, is to look up a dictionary for its definition. By the way how one defines 'benevolent' does not really matter in the plan to living in peace and harmony with each other.
I think I would call this leadership benevolent if it works for the benefit of whatever it represents, and not for the benefit of itself. It would seem to be more intelligent if it works for long-term benefit, not short term.

So, back to the first question; " So completely hypotheical (as objectively as you can), what should be done?"
If you mean 'what should be done' in regards to human beings starving to death then that just needs greed to be taken out of society. Human bodies are born, like all genetic species are, with a desire to live and procreate. Within the genes there is a driver to keep the species alive. However, human beings, unlike all other animals, have the ability to learn any thing whatsoever. Unfortunately this has allowed them to learn to be greedy, and learn how to justify this wrong behavior also. But, the beauty of being a creature that is able to learn absolutely any thing is that we, adults, can also learn how to not be greedy any more. The very way human beings learn some thing is how they can also unlearn that same thing. If, and when, adults accept that they are doing wrong to their children, and one way they are doing this wrong is by teaching their children to greedy, by teaching them to only care for and about themselves, and a few select others, BUT, if these same adults really care for and love their children with all they have and want to do the right and best thing for their children, then they will do all they can for their children, including learning how to STOP being greedy themselves anymore, and thus start to teach their children HOW to be loving and caring human beings for ALL human beings, which obviously includes ALL the dying and starving ones too. Once greed is taken out of society this way then ALL human beings will do ALL they can to prevent and stop just those few that are dying from just a lack of a few nutrients.
Greed serves a purpose. Please comment on the above suggestion that elimination of greed will just result in quicker elimination of resources. Nothing has been suggested to limit the inevitable growth that would result from a society that shares everything. That's the mathematics of it. A solution is one that results in steady sustainable state, not exponential growth.
You, having the leisure to post on internet forums, does NOT mean this is a civilized "world". The very fact that human beings are bombing each other to death, (over what exactly not many really know why), polluting the actually air and water that we need to live (over greed), allowing others to die of starvation (over greed), and abusing each other (over built up frustration, anger, et cetera.) is NOT, and I will repeat, NOT a civilized "world".
I find that quite civilized. We simply form larger societies, groups that work together for some common goal, which unfortunately means the aggressive control of resources for the group at the expense of another one. Efficient greed. So we need to unite as one society instead of a bunch of competing ones, but without the competition, there's no drive to hold it together.

Where do you draw the line between 'we-humans' and 'they-humans'?
Noax wrote:
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 do NOT hold onto a view nor have a held view.
...
REMEMBER it is I who is saying that I know a way that can create a truly peaceful and harmonious way of life for Everyone. I KNOW this way because of the views I have now.
A view you don't hold. I see. Your peaceful and harmonious society, with greed eliminated, will starve en-masse when the food runs out.
I am just trying to learn how to show a way that can and WILL create True peace on earth for Everyone?
I was trying to point out why it cannot work. You've added no limits. Every species seems to limit its numbers by either starvation, being prey, or by murder of its own kind. There are other options, but they seem to defy evolution, preventing their implementation.

If you believe that this is impossible, then that is great, totally understandable, and fine. Just say so that we all know what you are trying to do here. I have already explained what I am doing here. What is your reason for being here?
I could probably breathe some thing else also, when it is invented, but at the moment I prefer to keep the air clean so that My children, and grand-children, et cetera can just use what was naturally clean and sustainable before we human beings started destroying it.
I brought up the air thing simply as an example of a fact presumed true (a bias of sorts), but not actually true upon relatively simple reflection. And yes, the fluid is invented, and it is used in hospitals and in deep diving.
The thing is you are NOT clarifying any thing. What you are doing IS trying to tell Me that I am wrong and that I should see things the way you do, and the way you think and believe EVERY one else does.
That was the point. I'm not pushing a view as the correct one. You claim to hold no views or beliefs, but if I put out counter examples to statements you make, you put up this big resistance, just like the people did to Galileo's discovery back in the day. You seem very hostile to any suggestion that a view you claim not to hold might not be correct. You appear to contradict yourself.

Not sure what view I claim to be correct. I should not be able to say you are wrong if there is no view you hold that is a candidate to be wrong. OK, I don't think elimination of greed will solve the starvation problem. I suppose that is something I have claimed.
mystical_universe
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 11:55 pm

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by mystical_universe »

BradburyPound

The only reason why I mentioned the universe in that sentence, was to offer some Clarity of my implication on the Subject matter,
when I talk about (the universe)
I really talk about the Conception we have of our Existence,
the Universal theory is also just a conception, Granted its the most accepted and believed of all theories, but just because its the only one that makes the most sense to us,
is no prove or confirmation of the authenticity of the theory itself,
we humans Define reality true our logic and rationality,
we only accept ideas and theories if we can associate them with how we ourselves perceive the reality to be,
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by ken »

Noax wrote: You claim to hold no views or beliefs,
On the contrary. Before I respond to anything else you have written it appears I will have to clarify something completely wrong that you have written here, so that others are not confused like you are. I never claimed to not have a view, ever. The opposite is true. I have continually said I HAVE views, which may be right or wrong or partly wrong. I HAVE also continually said I do NOT have nor hold a belief in these views.

I thought this would have been totally clear and obvious by now. Imagine if it takes this many back and forth responses just to get this understood by one person how long it will take to explain how easy it is to really live in peace and harmony for everyone.

I knew I was useless at communicating clearly and succinctly by I never thought I was this bad.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by Noax »

ken wrote:
Noax wrote: You claim to hold no views or beliefs,
On the contrary. Before I respond to anything else you have written it appears I will have to clarify something completely wrong that you have written here, so that others are not confused like you are. I never claimed to not have a view, ever. The opposite is true. I have continually said I HAVE views, which may be right or wrong or partly wrong. I HAVE also continually said I do NOT have nor hold a belief in these views.
I thought this would have been totally clear and obvious by now.
I think it was this statement that seemed to state otherwise, and not make it clear and obvious (my bold):
I do NOT hold onto a view nor have a held view.
A confusing difference between holding a view but not having a held view.

I'm with you in having rationalized views that are open to being updated with new findings. I call them beliefs, and you don't. Most of them are interpretations and thus not right or wrong. We've been using the sun-going-around-the-earth model as our standard for something that got a lot of public resistance at the time, but since the two views are interpretations, neither are really wrong, and the sun doing the travelling matched better to everyone's everyday experience. That interpretation simply has more difficult math. So don't hold it against the populace that they didn't accept Galileo's view at the time. Most of them didn't care about the math being easy, and all this was before Newtons laws of motion. So tell me why it was wrong for them to resist Galileo's findings for so long.
A more accurate interpretation is that the two orbit each other, neither staying still. The sun being the biggest thing tends to be displaced far less, but it still moves enough that the center of the solar system is not within the sun half the time.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by ken »

Noax wrote:
ken wrote:
Noax wrote: You claim to hold no views or beliefs,
On the contrary. Before I respond to anything else you have written it appears I will have to clarify something completely wrong that you have written here, so that others are not confused like you are. I never claimed to not have a view, ever. The opposite is true. I have continually said I HAVE views, which may be right or wrong or partly wrong. I HAVE also continually said I do NOT have nor hold a belief in these views.
I thought this would have been totally clear and obvious by now.
I think it was this statement that seemed to state otherwise, and not make it clear and obvious (my bold):
I do NOT hold onto a view nor have a held view.
A confusing difference between holding a view but not having a held view.
I would never write that intentionally, so IF I did, then it was completely unintentional and a complete accident. I do not recall writing that anywhere so it would be great if you could point out to us wherebouts exactly I did allegedly write that so that I, and/or others, can look over what else I wrote.
Noax wrote: I'm with you in having rationalized views that are open to being updated with new findings. I call them beliefs, and you don't. Most of them are interpretations and thus not right or wrong. We've been using the sun-going-around-the-earth model as our standard for something that got a lot of public resistance at the time, but since the two views are interpretations, neither are really wrong, and the sun doing the travelling matched better to everyone's everyday experience. That interpretation simply has more difficult math. So don't hold it against the populace that they didn't accept Galileo's view at the time.
I certainly do not hold anything against them or against anyone. That is because I already know WHY they all think and do what they do.
Noax wrote:Most of them didn't care about the math being easy, and all this was before Newtons laws of motion. So tell me why it was wrong for them to resist Galileo's findings for so long.
I have been saying WHY it is wrong from the outset. If people did not hold a belief nor believe in what they believed, then they would have and could have learned or discovered something more or new a lot earlier. Holding a belief does not allow one to be open to something else.

I hope that view is finally understood by now.

Noax wrote:A more accurate interpretation is that the two orbit each other, neither staying still. The sun being the biggest thing tends to be displaced far less, but it still moves enough that the center of the solar system is not within the sun half the time.
Who cares, at the moment? I have only being trying to express a view that says it is possible to not hold a belief, and that I think it is far better to not have nor hold a belief in anything because doing this leaves a person far more open. By being open a person is far more able to learn and discover more and anew. Questioning everything is where and how we all can and do become wiser. Holding a belief prevents and stops people from questioning things.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by Noax »

ken wrote:
I think it was this statement that seemed to state otherwise, and not make it clear and obvious (my bold):
I do NOT hold onto a view nor have a held view.
A confusing difference between holding a view but not having a held view.
I would never write that intentionally, so IF I did, then it was completely unintentional and a complete accident. I do not recall writing that anywhere so it would be great if you could point out to us wherebouts exactly I did allegedly write that so that I, and/or others, can look over what else I wrote.
Post 127, this one being 134. I'd reference the time, but it shows up differently for everybody depending on your zone. Press <ctrl>F and type the words. That's how you find things like that.
I certainly do not hold anything against them or against anyone. That is because I already know WHY they all think and do what they do.
Everybody does that. Its human nature. You want to be open to new ideas, but you don't recognize them when they go by, so you hold onto old views.
I have been saying WHY it is wrong from the outset. If people did not hold a belief nor believe in what they believed, then they would have and could have learned or discovered something more or new a lot earlier. Holding a belief does not allow one to be open to something else.
Well, fitting the facts to the truth you know does this. Holding a belief because of facts, a belief that is open to change with new facts, is another approach. You're trying to say you strive for the latter, as do I. The Galileo people had no reason to change their view just because one guy proposed a new one that solved none of their problems. That's what I'm trying to say. Nobody was trying to learn modern physics, especially since most of the critical pieces were still missing (objects tending to stay at rest, forces, etc.). What benefit was it to them to adopt this new story? Being open would not have helped. The new story had to solve a problem, or you're just one of those people open to any crackpot theory no matter how useless.
Who cares, at the moment? I have only being trying to express a view that says it is possible to not hold a belief, and that I think it is far better to not have nor hold a belief in anything because doing this leaves a person far more open. By being open a person is far more able to learn and discover more and anew. Questioning everything is where and how we all can and do become wiser. Holding a belief prevents and stops people from questioning things.
I've been trying to point out to you some beliefs you seem to hold. And it is OK to do so (as I defended the general populace at Galileo's time), but there have been some interesting advances in science getting about a century old now, and most people are not open to them, and for the same reasons they didn't believe Galileo: It didn't solve any problems in their daily lives since they were not physicists.

The universe in one state, constantly rearranging? A valid interpretation with improbably complicated math just like the sun going around the earth. You said you had a consistent set of views (which you didn't elaborate on), but I suspect it's consistent because you've never confronted the facts that contradict it. Relativity is a far simpler model mathematically, but not consistent with a current state that changes in place.

Its why I said I wish I knew my physics better. I want a set of views that does not contradict the current state of physics. For example, I spent a couple years figuring out how dualism might fit in, but in the end decided that while it was possible and even inevitable, it was not how it works for us. The way I worked it out is testable, and the test fails. OK, so I worked it out wrong.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: [Questioning Everything]

Post by Londoner »

Noax wrote:The Galileo people had no reason to change their view just because one guy proposed a new one that solved none of their problems.
I have a bit of an obsession about this subject! We are always given the story of Galileo the rational empiricist versus the closed-minded religious traditionalists, but it is a metaphor which has little connection with the facts.

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

That the earth was a sphere, that it orbited the sun etc. were ideas that long predated Galileo. The only Biblical contradiction was the verse that said God commanded the sun to stand still during a battle. That might have been a problem for modern Bible literalists, but not for a church that saw the Bible as having many layers of metaphorical meaning.

So, the Galileo story, where although he is forced to recant he says; 'And yet it moves' is great as a moral fable, but it is not history.

I realise this is not strictly relevant to the general points you are both making, so forgive the interruption.
Post Reply