Beliefs

[Maia]

So, to you, if and when you see the sun revolving around a flat earth, you trust your senses that the earth really is flat and the sun really does revolve around the earth correct?


'Evidence,' bad, good, or even 'very good' is NEVER 'proof' and it is only in 'proof' where the IRREFUTABLE Truth is found.

For example, seeing and investing the sun appearing to revolve around the earth is 'evidence', and some would argue 'very good evidence' that the sun revolves around earth. So, there is 'very good, supposed, evidence' for a geocentric earth, which some people started BELIEVING, INSTEAD of just ALWAYS REMAINING OPEN until THEE PROOF comes in revealing what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.


But you said your BELIEFS are based on two sources of information;

1. From your own senses.

2. From sources you can trust.

But then you said you can NOT even imagine a situation where your own BELIEFS, from so-called 'trusted sources' could override your BELIEFS from your OWN senses.

So, to me, this would mean that your BELIEFS, from your own senses, would always override your OTHER BELIEFS, which you previously CLAIMED were 'trusted sources'. Or, are ALL your BELIEFS from BOTH sources NEVER incompatible, like they ARE in EVERY other adult human being?

+++So, to you, if and when you see the sun revolving around a flat earth, you trust your senses that the earth really is flat and the sun really does revolve around the earth correct?+++

I'm blind, I don't see the sun revolving around the earth, flat or otherwise.

+++'Evidence,' bad, good, or even 'very good' is NEVER 'proof' and it is only in 'proof' where the IRREFUTABLE Truth is found.

For example, seeing and investing the sun appearing to revolve around the earth is 'evidence', and some would argue 'very good evidence' that the sun revolves around earth. So, there is 'very good, supposed, evidence' for a geocentric earth, which some people started BELIEVING, INSTEAD of just ALWAYS REMAINING OPEN until THEE PROOF comes in revealing what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.+++

Is absolute proof of anything really possible?

Yes.

There is one thing.

In the real world, very good evidence of something is the same as proof, for all practical purposes.

But were you just implying that there is NO such thing as absolute truth in your question above?

If yes, then if 'very good evidence' is the same as 'proof', then there is ALSO NO such thing as 'very good evidence'. Unless, of course, you want to say and suggest that there is a difference between 'proof' and 'absolute proof', and if you do, then what is that difference, exactly?

But if you were not imaging that, then good.

We couldn't function otherwise.

We, supposedly, could not function because of what, exactly?

Some people BELIEVE that they could NOT function without their phones, or some without money, but what some people think or BELIEVE that they can NOT function without, is not necessarily remotely true at all let alone thee actual Truth of things.

Also, and by the way, how do you distinguish between the 'real world' from any 'other world'?

I could also begin a sentence with, 'In the real world', also, but that in no way gives more weight nor more support for the rest of the sentence, either.

+++But you said your BELIEFS are based on two sources of information;

1. From your own senses.

2. From sources you can trust.

But then you said you can NOT even imagine a situation where your own BELIEFS, from so-called 'trusted sources' could override your BELIEFS from your OWN senses.

So, to me, this would mean that your BELIEFS, from your own senses, would always override your OTHER BELIEFS, which you previously CLAIMED were 'trusted sources'. Or, are ALL your BELIEFS from BOTH sources NEVER incompatible, like they ARE in EVERY other adult human being?+++

If evidence is conflicting I reserve judgement until I have more, weighing up the trustworthiness of the sources.

Okay, but that is just deflecting away from what I was asking.

+++Yes.

There is one thing.+++

Well, don't keep me in suspense. What is it?

[Age]

+++So, to you, if and when you see the sun revolving around a flat earth, you trust your senses that the earth really is flat and the sun really does revolve around the earth correct?+++

I'm blind, I don't see the sun revolving around the earth, flat or otherwise.

+++'Evidence,' bad, good, or even 'very good' is NEVER 'proof' and it is only in 'proof' where the IRREFUTABLE Truth is found.

For example, seeing and investing the sun appearing to revolve around the earth is 'evidence', and some would argue 'very good evidence' that the sun revolves around earth. So, there is 'very good, supposed, evidence' for a geocentric earth, which some people started BELIEVING, INSTEAD of just ALWAYS REMAINING OPEN until THEE PROOF comes in revealing what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.+++

Is absolute proof of anything really possible?

Yes.

There is one thing.

In the real world, very good evidence of something is the same as proof, for all practical purposes.

But were you just implying that there is NO such thing as absolute truth in your question above?

If yes, then if 'very good evidence' is the same as 'proof', then there is ALSO NO such thing as 'very good evidence'. Unless, of course, you want to say and suggest that there is a difference between 'proof' and 'absolute proof', and if you do, then what is that difference, exactly?

But if you were not imaging that, then good.

We couldn't function otherwise.

We, supposedly, could not function because of what, exactly?

Some people BELIEVE that they could NOT function without their phones, or some without money, but what some people think or BELIEVE that they can NOT function without, is not necessarily remotely true at all let alone thee actual Truth of things.

Also, and by the way, how do you distinguish between the 'real world' from any 'other world'?

I could also begin a sentence with, 'In the real world', also, but that in no way gives more weight nor more support for the rest of the sentence, either.

+++But you said your BELIEFS are based on two sources of information;

1. From your own senses.

2. From sources you can trust.

But then you said you can NOT even imagine a situation where your own BELIEFS, from so-called 'trusted sources' could override your BELIEFS from your OWN senses.

So, to me, this would mean that your BELIEFS, from your own senses, would always override your OTHER BELIEFS, which you previously CLAIMED were 'trusted sources'. Or, are ALL your BELIEFS from BOTH sources NEVER incompatible, like they ARE in EVERY other adult human being?+++

If evidence is conflicting I reserve judgement until I have more, weighing up the trustworthiness of the sources.

Okay, but that is just deflecting away from what I was asking.

+++Yes.

There is one thing.+++

Well, don't keep me in suspense. What is it?

The 'thoughts' within a body.

Although EVERY 'thought' could be wrong, or even deluded, the Fact that there are 'thoughts' existing is, literally in itself, absolute proof.

[Maia]

Yes.

There is one thing.



But were you just implying that there is NO such thing as absolute truth in your question above?

If yes, then if 'very good evidence' is the same as 'proof', then there is ALSO NO such thing as 'very good evidence'. Unless, of course, you want to say and suggest that there is a difference between 'proof' and 'absolute proof', and if you do, then what is that difference, exactly?

But if you were not imaging that, then good.



We, supposedly, could not function because of what, exactly?

Some people BELIEVE that they could NOT function without their phones, or some without money, but what some people think or BELIEVE that they can NOT function without, is not necessarily remotely true at all let alone thee actual Truth of things.

Also, and by the way, how do you distinguish between the 'real world' from any 'other world'?

I could also begin a sentence with, 'In the real world', also, but that in no way gives more weight nor more support for the rest of the sentence, either.




Okay, but that is just deflecting away from what I was asking.

+++Yes.

There is one thing.+++

Well, don't keep me in suspense. What is it?

The 'thoughts' within a body.

Although EVERY 'thought' could be wrong, or even deluded, the Fact that there are 'thoughts' existing is, literally in itself, absolute proof.

Well, yes, we did a bit of Descartes at school.

Then again, perhaps thoughts, and consciousness, are just an illusion, brought about by the random interactions of countless billions of particles. So there are no real thoughts at all.

[Age]

+++Yes.

There is one thing.+++

Well, don't keep me in suspense. What is it?

The 'thoughts' within a body.

Although EVERY 'thought' could be wrong, or even deluded, the Fact that there are 'thoughts' existing is, literally in itself, absolute proof.

Well, yes, we did a bit of Descartes at school.

Who is the 'we' here?

i am CERTAINLY NOT in that 'we'.

Then again, perhaps thoughts, and consciousness, are just an illusion, brought about by the random interactions of countless billions of particles.

An illusion to who or what, possibly?

And, how would this 'illusion' be transferred to that 'who' or 'what' if NOT through 'thoughts', and/or 'consciousness'?

So there are no real thoughts at all.

How would ANY one KNOW this if NOT through thoughts or consciousness?

[Maia]

The 'thoughts' within a body.

Although EVERY 'thought' could be wrong, or even deluded, the Fact that there are 'thoughts' existing is, literally in itself, absolute proof.

Well, yes, we did a bit of Descartes at school.

Who is the 'we' here?

i am CERTAINLY NOT in that 'we'.

Then again, perhaps thoughts, and consciousness, are just an illusion, brought about by the random interactions of countless billions of particles.

An illusion to who or what, possibly?

And, how would this 'illusion' be transferred to that 'who' or 'what' if NOT through 'thoughts', and/or 'consciousness'?

So there are no real thoughts at all.

How would ANY one KNOW this if NOT through thoughts or consciousness?

The we in that statement refers to myself and people I went to school with.

As for the rest, to be honest, I'm more interested in how we actually perceive the world around us, than ultimately sterile speculation like that.

[Age]

Well, yes, we did a bit of Descartes at school.

Who is the 'we' here?

i am CERTAINLY NOT in that 'we'.

Then again, perhaps thoughts, and consciousness, are just an illusion, brought about by the random interactions of countless billions of particles.

An illusion to who or what, possibly?

And, how would this 'illusion' be transferred to that 'who' or 'what' if NOT through 'thoughts', and/or 'consciousness'?

So there are no real thoughts at all.

How would ANY one KNOW this if NOT through thoughts or consciousness?

The we in that statement refers to myself and people I went to school with.

As for the rest, to be honest, I'm more interested in how we actually perceive the world around us, than ultimately sterile speculation like that.

But how can Truly open questions, just asked for clarification only, be so-called 'sterile speculation'?

What do you envision is being speculated here?

Also, how human beings actually perceive things is just through any or all of the five senses of seeing, hearing,smelling, tasting, and feeling.

Some the information input through these five senses is then gathered and stored, within the brain, as 'thoughts', themselves. Which can then be put-out in written, signed, or spoken words, sometimes now known as knowledge.

[Maia]

Who is the 'we' here?

i am CERTAINLY NOT in that 'we'.


An illusion to who or what, possibly?

And, how would this 'illusion' be transferred to that 'who' or 'what' if NOT through 'thoughts', and/or 'consciousness'?



How would ANY one KNOW this if NOT through thoughts or consciousness?

The we in that statement refers to myself and people I went to school with.

As for the rest, to be honest, I'm more interested in how we actually perceive the world around us, than ultimately sterile speculation like that.

But how can Truly open questions, just asked for clarification only, be so-called 'sterile speculation'?

What do you envision is being speculated here?

Also, how human beings actually perceive things is just through any or all of the five senses of seeing, hearing,smelling, tasting, and feeling.

Some the information input through these five senses is then gathered and stored, within the brain, as 'thoughts', themselves. Which can then be put-out in written, signed, or spoken words, sometimes now known as knowledge.

There are more senses than that. The sense of balance, for example, and possibly a magnetic sense. But I agree those are the traditional five, of which I only have four.

The idea that we can know nothing other than that we exist is sterile because, even if it's true, it leads us to doubt what our senses are telling us. It's much more interesting, and useful, to accept that our senses are telling us something valid and then go from there.

[Age]

The we in that statement refers to myself and people I went to school with.

As for the rest, to be honest, I'm more interested in how we actually perceive the world around us, than ultimately sterile speculation like that.

But how can Truly open questions, just asked for clarification only, be so-called 'sterile speculation'?

What do you envision is being speculated here?

Also, how human beings actually perceive things is just through any or all of the five senses of seeing, hearing,smelling, tasting, and feeling.

Some the information input through these five senses is then gathered and stored, within the brain, as 'thoughts', themselves. Which can then be put-out in written, signed, or spoken words, sometimes now known as knowledge.

There are more senses than that. The sense of balance, for example, and possibly a magnetic sense. But I agree those are the traditional five, of which I only have four.

The idea that we can know nothing other than that we exist is sterile because, even if it's true, it leads us to doubt what our senses are telling us.

Well considering I have NEVER had that idea, I am NOT sure WHY you are bringing this up here.

It's much more interesting, and useful, to accept that our senses are telling us something valid and then go from there.

Okay, what do the senses in that body tell 'you' are valid?

And then where would 'you' like to go from here, or there?

But, if you would prefer me to begin, the senses in this body have told 'me' that BELIEFS , like money, are a completely UNNECESSARY part of life, but which a lot of adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, have grown up BELIEVING that both of these things are completely or absolutely NECESSARY, and I am trying to work out where to go from here.

[Maia]

But how can Truly open questions, just asked for clarification only, be so-called 'sterile speculation'?

What do you envision is being speculated here?

Also, how human beings actually perceive things is just through any or all of the five senses of seeing, hearing,smelling, tasting, and feeling.

Some the information input through these five senses is then gathered and stored, within the brain, as 'thoughts', themselves. Which can then be put-out in written, signed, or spoken words, sometimes now known as knowledge.

There are more senses than that. The sense of balance, for example, and possibly a magnetic sense. But I agree those are the traditional five, of which I only have four.

The idea that we can know nothing other than that we exist is sterile because, even if it's true, it leads us to doubt what our senses are telling us.

Well considering I have NEVER had that idea, I am NOT sure WHY you are bringing this up here.

It's much more interesting, and useful, to accept that our senses are telling us something valid and then go from there.

Okay, what do the senses in that body tell 'you' are valid?

And then where would 'you' like to go from here, or there?

But, if you would prefer me to begin, the senses in this body have told 'me' that BELIEFS , like money, are a completely UNNECESSARY part of life, but which a lot of adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, have grown up BELIEVING that both of these things are completely or absolutely NECESSARY, and I am trying to work out where to go from here.

This is exactly the sort of vacuous verbiage that puts me off philosophy. If you don't believe that typing the above will make it appear and be communicated to me, why bother doing it? Perhaps you're just assuming it will. Well, that's called belief.

[Age]

There are more senses than that. The sense of balance, for example, and possibly a magnetic sense. But I agree those are the traditional five, of which I only have four.

The idea that we can know nothing other than that we exist is sterile because, even if it's true, it leads us to doubt what our senses are telling us.

Well considering I have NEVER had that idea, I am NOT sure WHY you are bringing this up here.

It's much more interesting, and useful, to accept that our senses are telling us something valid and then go from there.

Okay, what do the senses in that body tell 'you' are valid?

And then where would 'you' like to go from here, or there?

But, if you would prefer me to begin, the senses in this body have told 'me' that BELIEFS , like money, are a completely UNNECESSARY part of life, but which a lot of adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, have grown up BELIEVING that both of these things are completely or absolutely NECESSARY, and I am trying to work out where to go from here.

This is exactly the sort of vacuous verbiage that puts me off philosophy. If you don't believe that typing the above will make it appear and be communicated to me, why bother doing it? Perhaps you're just assuming it will. Well, that's called belief.

HOW EXACTLY could ASSUMING be called BELIEF, and that be a logically valid statement?

The word BELIEF means and refers to one thing, while the word ASSUMING means and refers to something else and different.

Also, there are a countless number of things that get done WITHOUT ANY BELIEF AT ALL being involved.

For example, do you walk around BELIEVING that you will NOT bump into things? Or, do you BELIEVE you will?

Either way does that STOP you from walking around or ALLOW you to walk around?

Oh, and by the way, who my target audience is here is NOT necessarily you anyway. So, when I write I do NOT care whether you receive it or not anyway.

[Maia]

Well considering I have NEVER had that idea, I am NOT sure WHY you are bringing this up here.



Okay, what do the senses in that body tell 'you' are valid?

And then where would 'you' like to go from here, or there?

But, if you would prefer me to begin, the senses in this body have told 'me' that BELIEFS , like money, are a completely UNNECESSARY part of life, but which a lot of adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, have grown up BELIEVING that both of these things are completely or absolutely NECESSARY, and I am trying to work out where to go from here.

This is exactly the sort of vacuous verbiage that puts me off philosophy. If you don't believe that typing the above will make it appear and be communicated to me, why bother doing it? Perhaps you're just assuming it will. Well, that's called belief.

HOW EXACTLY could ASSUMING be called BELIEF, and that be a logically valid statement?

The word BELIEF means and refers to one thing, while the word ASSUMING means and refers to something else and different.

Also, there are a countless number of things that get done WITHOUT ANY BELIEF AT ALL being involved.

For example, do you walk around BELIEVING that you will NOT bump into things? Or, do you BELIEVE you will?

Either way does that STOP you from walking around or ALLOW you to walk around?

Oh, and by the way, who my target audience is here is NOT necessarily you anyway. So, when I write I do NOT care whether you receive it or not anyway.

When I walk around I believe I will not bump into things. Unless I have a cold or something, then I believe I will, if I'm not very careful.

[Age]

This is exactly the sort of vacuous verbiage that puts me off philosophy. If you don't believe that typing the above will make it appear and be communicated to me, why bother doing it? Perhaps you're just assuming it will. Well, that's called belief.

HOW EXACTLY could ASSUMING be called BELIEF, and that be a logically valid statement?

The word BELIEF means and refers to one thing, while the word ASSUMING means and refers to something else and different.

Also, there are a countless number of things that get done WITHOUT ANY BELIEF AT ALL being involved.

For example, do you walk around BELIEVING that you will NOT bump into things? Or, do you BELIEVE you will?

Either way does that STOP you from walking around or ALLOW you to walk around?

Oh, and by the way, who my target audience is here is NOT necessarily you anyway. So, when I write I do NOT care whether you receive it or not anyway.

When I walk around I believe I will not bump into things. Unless I have a cold or something, then I believe I will, if I'm not very careful.

Okay.

Do you BELIEVE you can NOT function if you just STOPPED BELIEVING things?

[Maia]

HOW EXACTLY could ASSUMING be called BELIEF, and that be a logically valid statement?

The word BELIEF means and refers to one thing, while the word ASSUMING means and refers to something else and different.

Also, there are a countless number of things that get done WITHOUT ANY BELIEF AT ALL being involved.

For example, do you walk around BELIEVING that you will NOT bump into things? Or, do you BELIEVE you will?

Either way does that STOP you from walking around or ALLOW you to walk around?

Oh, and by the way, who my target audience is here is NOT necessarily you anyway. So, when I write I do NOT care whether you receive it or not anyway.

When I walk around I believe I will not bump into things. Unless I have a cold or something, then I believe I will, if I'm not very careful.

Okay.

Do you BELIEVE you can NOT function if you just STOPPED BELIEVING things?

i believe that it's impossible not to believe things, if you have a functioning brain.

[Age]

When I walk around I believe I will not bump into things. Unless I have a cold or something, then I believe I will, if I'm not very careful.

Okay.

Do you BELIEVE you can NOT function if you just STOPPED BELIEVING things?

i believe that it's impossible not to believe things, if you have a functioning brain.

Okay.

But if what you BELIEVE is true here was actually NOT true, then would you want to hear it?

[Maia]

Okay.

Do you BELIEVE you can NOT function if you just STOPPED BELIEVING things?

i believe that it's impossible not to believe things, if you have a functioning brain.

Okay.

But if what you BELIEVE is true here was actually NOT true, then would you want to hear it?

Yes of course. Beliefs are contingent on evidence, and we can always find out more.