I would eat my own head.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
An in your case I’d be eating me some moon cheese!
V[/quote]
Not me. Too gritty and it tastes like it’s been left out for like a billion years.
[/quote]
to someone with a more refined palate we would call it ‘proper aged’.[/quote]
You’d definitely need some wine to wash it down and enjoy it. As long as it has been sitting, that might be your last supper.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The only reason it would matter if one of our beliefs (ideals) were wrong would be if that belief affected the way we act and if the consequences of that action affected someone else or the world in a negative manner.
The discussion about belief versus knowledge is an old one.
Every ideal held by an individual is a belief whether it can be proven or not. A belief is nothing more than an emotional conviction that something is true. When we say we believe something we are essentially saying we require no evidence to prove whether it is true or not.[/quote]
The problem with this is that you are arbitrarily assigning a definition (one of many possibilities) to the word “belief.” What we are talking about here is one of the basic organizing functions of the human mind.
We develop assumption/gain knowledge as we grow and gain experience. We then organize this knowledge/memories into blocks of related assumptions… most of this relates to how we interact with the physical world. This works well for us because there is a limit to the quantity of variables that we can process at any given moment. Acting on assumptions mitigates this shortcoming.
The problem arises when we choose to translate this tool into unnecessarily broad sets of assumptions… a perfect example is belief in a god. It allows us to organize into assumptions a vast amount of information that was once unanswered questions, pressing variables. It may make life easier on us, but it limits our ability to reason.
I would concur Egypt ASAP, and drive their people into the Sea.
You fucking people and your “what ifs”. The OP is trying to ask a question based on a set of rules. And you fucking people keep trying to explain it away…
Fuck off and die.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Yes, I would learn everything I could about Egyptian beliefs and adjust my life and behavior accordingly.
No doubt, it would be an enormously emotional and spiritual paradigm shift, as was my journey out of Christianity. It would take courage, commitment, and integrity. But I would do it to the best of my ability. [/quote]
inb4 character bashing happens to you[/quote]
Just in time, it seems ;)[/quote]
It’s like I have psychic powers!
I must only use this power to annoy!
[quote]Valor wrote:
You fucking people and your “what ifs”. The OP is trying to ask a question based on a set of rules. And you fucking people keep trying to explain it away…
Fuck off and die.[/quote]
Wow!
What a useful post. Please… don’t stop.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The only reason it would matter if one of our beliefs (ideals) were wrong would be if that belief affected the way we act and if the consequences of that action affected someone else or the world in a negative manner.
The discussion about belief versus knowledge is an old one.
Every ideal held by an individual is a belief whether it can be proven or not. A belief is nothing more than an emotional conviction that something is true. When we say we believe something we are essentially saying we require no evidence to prove whether it is true or not.[/quote]
The problem with this is that you are arbitrarily assigning a definition (one of many possibilities) to the word “belief.” What we are talking about here is one of the basic organizing functions of the human mind.
We develop assumption/gain knowledge as we grow and gain experience. We then organize this knowledge/memories into blocks of related assumptions… most of this relates to how we interact with the physical world. This works well for us because there is a limit to the quantity of variables that we can process at any given moment. Acting on assumptions mitigates this shortcoming.
The problem arises when we choose to translate this tool into unnecessarily broad sets of assumptions… a perfect example is belief in a god. It allows us to organize into assumptions a vast amount of information that was once unanswered questions, pressing variables. It may make life easier on us, but it limits our ability to reason. [/quote]
Who ever said emotion is reasonable?
That’s why I call a belief an emotional conviction.
A belief doesn’t guarantee truth.
This should be obvious.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The only reason it would matter if one of our beliefs (ideals) were wrong would be if that belief affected the way we act and if the consequences of that action affected someone else or the world in a negative manner.
The discussion about belief versus knowledge is an old one.
Every ideal held by an individual is a belief whether it can be proven or not. A belief is nothing more than an emotional conviction that something is true. When we say we believe something we are essentially saying we require no evidence to prove whether it is true or not.[/quote]
The problem with this is that you are arbitrarily assigning a definition (one of many possibilities) to the word “belief.” What we are talking about here is one of the basic organizing functions of the human mind.
We develop assumption/gain knowledge as we grow and gain experience. We then organize this knowledge/memories into blocks of related assumptions… most of this relates to how we interact with the physical world. This works well for us because there is a limit to the quantity of variables that we can process at any given moment. Acting on assumptions mitigates this shortcoming.
The problem arises when we choose to translate this tool into unnecessarily broad sets of assumptions… a perfect example is belief in a god. It allows us to organize into assumptions a vast amount of information that was once unanswered questions, pressing variables. It may make life easier on us, but it limits our ability to reason. [/quote]
Who ever said emotion is reasonable?
That’s why I call a belief an emotional conviction.
A belief doesn’t guarantee truth.
This should be obvious.[/quote]
I understand…
But I don’t agree that “every ideal held by an individual is a belief…”
Nor do I agree that a belief is necessarily an emotional conviction. “Belief” can also be used to describe an assumption, one that has nothing or little to do with emotion.
You analysis of beliefs and ideals seems to avoid the more important cognitive/functional underpinnings of these concepts. I suspect that most people operate within this sort of superficial relationship of “belief,” and thus are willing to build a worldview that is comfortable and useful but not necessarily true.
I’m suggesting that the original questions become less troubling when a more functional model of cognition is employed… when you stop believing in anything.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
What if you found out that your belief in the ancient Egyptian religion was a lie and that you should have believed in Thor all along? Would you take up a giant hammer, gloves of metal, and smack Loki upside his head?[/quote]
Nah, I think we’d be screwed, since Ragnarok would have already happened…[/quote]
Thor’s a wiener anyway. I would probably side with Odin so I could ride that 8 legged horse.
[quote]Valor wrote:
You fucking people and your “what ifs”. The OP is trying to ask a question based on a set of rules. And you fucking people keep trying to explain it away…
Fuck off and die.[/quote]
What if I tried to do this and bumped my head and couldn’t wake up in the morning?
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
I would eat my own head.[/quote]
I would eat your brains.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The only reason it would matter if one of our beliefs (ideals) were wrong would be if that belief affected the way we act and if the consequences of that action affected someone else or the world in a negative manner.
The discussion about belief versus knowledge is an old one.
Every ideal held by an individual is a belief whether it can be proven or not. A belief is nothing more than an emotional conviction that something is true. When we say we believe something we are essentially saying we require no evidence to prove whether it is true or not.[/quote]
The problem with this is that you are arbitrarily assigning a definition (one of many possibilities) to the word “belief.” What we are talking about here is one of the basic organizing functions of the human mind.
We develop assumption/gain knowledge as we grow and gain experience. We then organize this knowledge/memories into blocks of related assumptions… most of this relates to how we interact with the physical world. This works well for us because there is a limit to the quantity of variables that we can process at any given moment. Acting on assumptions mitigates this shortcoming.
The problem arises when we choose to translate this tool into unnecessarily broad sets of assumptions… a perfect example is belief in a god. It allows us to organize into assumptions a vast amount of information that was once unanswered questions, pressing variables. It may make life easier on us, but it limits our ability to reason. [/quote]
Who ever said emotion is reasonable?
That’s why I call a belief an emotional conviction.
A belief doesn’t guarantee truth.
This should be obvious.[/quote]
I understand…
But I don’t agree that “every ideal held by an individual is a belief…”
Nor do I agree that a belief is necessarily an emotional conviction. “Belief” can also be used to describe an assumption, one that has nothing or little to do with emotion.
You analysis of beliefs and ideals seems to avoid the more important cognitive/functional underpinnings of these concepts. I suspect that most people operate within this sort of superficial relationship of “belief,” and thus are willing to build a worldview that is comfortable and useful but not necessarily true.
I’m suggesting that the original questions become less troubling when a more functional model of cognition is employed… when you stop believing in anything.
[/quote]
Don’t let my use of the word emotion deter my argument. There are varying degrees of emotion involved in every belief. The only thing that distinguishes a belief is that we do not require any proof of its truth. Whereas if we want to claim a certain belief as a natural law, for example, then we must formally prove it. This does not necessarily mean we don’t desire to know if our beliefs are formally true just that often times most people don’t even know why they believe what they do in the first place.
Every statement of a fact has to first come from a belief in its truth.
edit – I am not really concerned so much in the cognitive aspects belief rather than why certain beliefs can be bad for society. I am not sure we can ever know why our mind works the way it does.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:<<< epistemological certainty. >>>[/quote]And just like clockwork (so to speak =] ) Here we are at the real question again. I answered this thread in our last exchange.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
<<< Don’t let my use of the word emotion deter my argument. There are varying degrees of emotion involved in every belief. The only thing that distinguishes a belief is that we do not require any proof of its truth. Whereas if we want to claim a certain belief as a natural law, for example, then we must formally prove it. This does not necessarily mean we don’t desire to know if our beliefs are formally true just that often times most people don’t even know why they believe what they do in the first place.
Every statement of a fact has to first come from a belief in its truth.
edit – I am not really concerned so much in the cognitive aspects belief rather than why certain beliefs can be bad for society. I am not sure we can ever know why our mind works the way it does.[/quote]Lifty does it again. There is some real live serious thinking in here. Quite sincerely. Then he’ll turn around 2 minutes later and proclaim some truly hair brained anarchist idiocy. Anyway, there is a bunch of eyebrow raising formal truth seeping through this package of falsehood you posted here.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Don’t let my use of the word emotion deter my argument. There are varying degrees of emotion involved in every belief. The only thing that distinguishes a belief is that we do not require any proof of its truth.[/quote]
Emotion is not my issue. it’s your statement that we do not require any proof to formulate a belief. Beliefs almost always arise with some sort of proof. The problem is when the source of that proof is a belief…
Now, we could have a ton of fun with your definition of belief. It makes it incredibly easy to poke holes in religion, superstition, etc… But, it doesn’t match the actual process.
[quote]
edit – I am not really concerned so much in the cognitive aspects belief rather than why certain beliefs can be bad for society. I am not sure we can ever know why our mind works the way it does.[/quote]
It has been a long time since I looked at the topic, but quite a bit of work has been done in this area. The “block” model of organizing assumptions and knowledge that I mentioned earlier did not come from idle speculation in my part. I read about it in a long series that Scientific American did a few years ago… not sure if I still have those issues, but it seemed like well-sourced and well-received stuff.
Also, back to my point above. I think that certain beliefs are bad for society, because their proofs are other beliefs… shaky ground.
Further…
I actually think that the very concept of belief is bad for society. It allows for an abuse of an already complex and barely manageable cognitive process.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
I would eat my own head.[/quote]
That reminds me of a question I have: If a snake tries to devour itself starting at its tail, what happens? I’m thinking it would turn inside out but I’m not sure.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The only reason it would matter if one of our beliefs (ideals) were wrong would be if that belief affected the way we act and if the consequences of that action affected someone else or the world in a negative manner.
The discussion about belief versus knowledge is an old one.
Every ideal held by an individual is a belief whether it can be proven or not. A belief is nothing more than an emotional conviction that something is true. When we say we believe something we are essentially saying we require no evidence to prove whether it is true or not.[/quote]
The problem with this is that you are arbitrarily assigning a definition (one of many possibilities) to the word “belief.” What we are talking about here is one of the basic organizing functions of the human mind.
We develop assumption/gain knowledge as we grow and gain experience. We then organize this knowledge/memories into blocks of related assumptions… most of this relates to how we interact with the physical world. This works well for us because there is a limit to the quantity of variables that we can process at any given moment. Acting on assumptions mitigates this shortcoming.
The problem arises when we choose to translate this tool into unnecessarily broad sets of assumptions… a perfect example is belief in a god. It allows us to organize into assumptions a vast amount of information that was once unanswered questions, pressing variables. It may make life easier on us, but it limits our ability to reason. [/quote]
Who ever said emotion is reasonable?
That’s why I call a belief an emotional conviction.
A belief doesn’t guarantee truth.
This should be obvious.[/quote]
I love a good discussion on epistemology, unfortunately, this is not one of them.
A belief vs. knowledge in the simplest definition of conflict is that belief is something you cannot prove conclusively, knowledge is that which you know to be true absolutely.
Therefore a belief isn’t something obtained with a complete lack of evidence, but cannot be proven absolutely. Knowledge is something that is indisputably true.
What you come to realize if you think about it, is that what you really ‘know’ is actually very little.
[quote]pat wrote:
I love a good discussion on epistemology, unfortunately, this is not one of them.
A belief vs. knowledge in the simplest definition of conflict is that belief is something you cannot prove conclusively, knowledge is that which you know to be true absolutely.
Therefore a belief isn’t something obtained with a complete lack of evidence, but cannot be proven absolutely. Knowledge is something that is indisputably true.
What you come to realize if you think about it, is that what you really ‘know’ is actually very little.[/quote]
Agreed, but I am not arguing the difference between belief and knowledge. I am arguing that “belief” is poor use of the underpinning cognitive tool.