a non-physical thing

[Doreen]

My experience is that people see into stuff what isn't there far more often than they refuse to see what is there when its pointed out.

Absolutely not my experience. I see people failing to notice patterns of all kinds all the time.

How do you know its a valid pattern if others can't see it?

Most of the general patterns I see, others see. Perhaps not consensus, but people I respect do. Enough in any case. Most people laugh at people who think professional wrestling is real. You know, people who cannot grasp the fakeness pattern. For laughing at them should be tempered by humility. At least, it seems to me most people fail to see other patterns. Like those who take the USA as a democracy.

Humans are skewed towards seeing patterns. Its been shown over and over that ee see patterns were there blatantly aren't any, particularly cyclic data like random walks. If I couldn't get some one to see the patterns I saw, I would be very suspicious about those patterns.

And then intelligent people have various checks and balances when they see new patterns or ones that are not consensus. But less is not always more. In fact it is just that, less, often.

No, parsimony is choosing the simplest explanation which accounts for all the data. Oversimplification is as grievous an error as piling on irrelevant accounts. That said, oversimplification tends to be easier to repair than overcomplexification. So if one must err, purposefully erring on the side of simplicity is preferred.

Not a good rule for scientists choosing new directions. And the good ones trust their pattern recognition ability. sure they check afterwards, but they know they are not guessing. It is a real ability.

Just talking in general here, but godders always amaze me. Take evolution. Here is something for which we literally have tons of evidence, but they can't accept that. However the inexplicable appearance of magic sky fairies who spontaneously create whole people from mud and get pissed if a guy rides the baloney pony, that they swallow hook line and sinker. And then they get huffy when the word delusion comes out. Sheesh!

yeah, I feel that way about democrats and republicans.

 

[swarm]

My reason being: delusion cannot be defined merely by democratic enumeration......

Racism and religion both come to mind as examples. Oh, make that "other religions" for those who might be religious.

The pathological certainty of the fanatic is notoriously difficult to dislodge, particularly when coupled to a martyrdom complex where the merest hint of reason or disagreement is seen as "persecution." All of normal means of persuading some one of their error are discarded as being against the will of "god."

Luckily most people can't hold on to that sort of pathological position and are willing to at least tentatively question even deep held beliefs.

 

[swarm]

If other people do not find you delusional, you are probably disconnected or keeping mum about stuff.

You should consider the difference between being wrong and being delusional.

 

[swarm]

when I say I tentatively agree, I mean "i agree for now"...

Whoa! Relax there fella. We aren't getting married or anything. You can change your mind as the situation dictates. I certainly do.

 

[swarm]

think about this for a second.

Please do so yourself. What is the implication of adding "correct" in from of a term like "belief?"

Correct - adjective
8. conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate: a correct answer.
Random House Dictionary

Now if your belief is in fact a correct belief, then it conforms to facts or is true. This implies that you can prove your belief is a correct belief by demonstrating this conformance.

By putting "correct" in front you gain the burden of proof.

Here's mine

Thanks for proving my position.

A correct belief in this case was "people were suffering."

The incorrect belief was that they were "hypocondriac, lazy, faking, etc."

Trying to prove the incorrect belief FAILED. The people who were correctly claiming they were suffering could show that belief was still correct even after the people with the incorrect belief about why had done what they claimed was the solution.

So the incorrect belief that they were "hypochondriac, lazy, faking, etc." was discarded and further research was done to find aa actual correct belief: at least some of them suffer from the Epstein Barr virus. This process continues as the various things which can result in the cluster of symptoms called CFS are addressed.

Proving a correct belief, particularly about something complex and subtle can take time, but it never will happen if your pat answer to everything you don't understand is it is "god's will."

It is because of proof that a belief is rightly considered correct. Just because that proof is hard, or takes time, that doesn't reduce its need or importance and until the proof is complete, claiming to know its a correct belief is premature.

If you can't present such proof for god, god is not a correct belief.

And if you refuse to even bother, god isn't even a valid consideration.

 

[swarm]

...

The thing about a valid pattern is that it allows predictability. Generally that is enough to bring people around.

Not a good rule for scientists choosing new directions.

The scientists I've known tend to uniformly choose parsimonious explanations. "New directions" tend to come from taking a mass of messy anomolous data which has accumulated and finding a new parsimonious explanation for it like e=mC^2 to explain why the sun hadn't already burn out.

And the good ones trust their pattern recognition ability. sure they check afterwards, but they know they are not guessing. It is a real ability.

Where did I ever claim pattern recognition wasn't a real ability? My objection is when you claim the checking isn't necessary if you are going to claim the pattern is a valid one.

 

[wesmorris]

Whoa! Relax there fella. We aren't getting married or anything. You can change your mind as the situation dictates. I certainly do.

But you said...

*runs away crying*

(the wife is relieved though and sends her thanks)

 

[Doreen]

The thing about a valid pattern is that it allows predictability. Generally that is enough to bring people around.

We seem to live in different universes. 1) my example earlier 2) I notice people often do not come around 3) we often find out later that whistleblowers, for example, were right after all. Sometimes the poor whistleblower, by this time, is dead, often of old age.

Where did I ever claim pattern recognition wasn't a real ability? My objection is when you claim the checking isn't necessary if you are going to claim the pattern is a valid one.

Which I never said. I did point out that one can recognize a pattern, be correct about its existence and your interpretation of it AND NOT be able to substantiate it (for experts, for one's community, etc.).

I have not and would not take a stand against checking. And it is necessary for the other members of the community if THEY - NOTE: THEY - are going to take on the belief. But it is not necessarily always an option. In other cases the community lacks the skills, technology or interest. Nevertheless it can be rational to hold the belief despite this.

Please do not turn my position into an argument that everyone should just believe what others believe without checking. I am talking about that first person.

 

[Doreen]

Please do so yourself. What is the implication of adding "correct" in from of a term like "belief?"

Correct - adjective
8. conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate: a correct answer.
Random House Dictionary

Now if your belief is in fact a correct belief, then it conforms to facts or is true. This implies that you can prove your belief is a correct belief by demonstrating this conformance.

By putting "correct" in front you gain the burden of proof.

Only if you try to convince others of your belief. If I believe I saw a mountain lion in a region they are not supposed to exist, I can be correct and rational even if I cannot produce pawprints or whatever. I am not saying others should believe me. I am saying that it can be correct for me to belief I saw a mountain lion in such a region.

Thanks for proving my position.
A correct belief in this case was "people were suffering."

The incorrect belief was that they were "hypocondriac, lazy, faking, etc."

Trying to prove the incorrect belief FAILED.

I notice you are avoiding the fact that the sufferers had a belief, were correct and could not provide evidence. You twist the scenario to fit your position in a way that does not work.

No. The incorrect belief succeeded for ten years. I know one woman who died before it ULTIMATELY FAILED. I any situation we cannot know what one day will be the case.

IOW someone like you, which many of the medical people were like, viewed the sufferers as irrational because no evidence could be found that they were sick. And so states that the doctors knew existed and did fit the picture were seen as real and present.

You, Swarm, could have said to these people, ´since you cannot provide evidence, you are not correct´.

The people who were correctly claiming they were suffering could show that belief was still correct even after the people with the incorrect belief about why had done what they claimed was the solution.

In this case, EVENTUALLY. However those people could not show they were correct AND YET WERE RATIONAL AND CORRECT.

Do you really not understand?

You keep saying the believer should be able to prove it to others. History shows that they often cannot even in their own lifetimes. Those are the cases we know where people turned out to be correct.

You are putting forward a criterion for truth that it should be provable to others, now. IOW how do you know they are incorrect if the evidence can come out later.

You could say that ´we do not know if they are correct or not, because they have not provided enough evidence, and so we are not convinced.' But you take this a large step further and say that if someone cannot provide proof, they are not correct in their belief.

This is absurd.


Further a ten year interim opens the door for larger interims.

Your criterion as originally stated and as stated below, does not include some time limit or the possibility that they are rational, right now, and evidence will come through later.

Proving a correct belief, particularly about something complex and subtle can take time, but it never will happen if your pat answer to everything you don't understand is it is "god's will."

Please show me where I said this.

It is because of proof that a belief is rightly considered correct.

By others. My point all along is that it can be rational to believe something one cannot prove to others. As in the case of CFS.

Just because that proof is hard, or takes time, that doesn't reduce its need or importance and until the proof is complete, claiming to know its a correct belief is premature.

Ah, so the sufferers were premature in their belief? They should not have believed they were sick until, after 10 years, it turned out they were. Only after that was it rational for them to believe.

That is where I disagree.

You are confusing the issue of when the community should believe and when individuals with specific experiences/skills should believe.

And you do this over and over.

If you can't present such proof for god, god is not a correct belief.

I really don't know why you keep bringing god into it, but let us generalize your formula.

If you can't present proof for X, X is not a correct belief.

Again, think about if you really want to hold this position.

This would mean that the CFS sufferers were incorrect until science backed them up.

This would mean that I was incorrect about seeing a mountain lion until ten years later a man admitted he illegally kept mountain lions on his property in that region and one did in fact escape in 2009.

And note, maybe the guy would have kept quiet on his deathbed, rather than feeling sorry for the guy everyone mocked about his ´sighting´. In that case, according to you, I would be incorrect period.

Again, I am not saying everyone should believe I saw a mountain lion without more evidence. I am saying that I can be correct despite my inability to prove it.

If you cannot understand this, there is not point in communicating further.

In fact, I do not wish to. Write for the gallery if you wish.

 

[wynn]

Only if you try to convince others of your belief. If I believe I saw a mountain lion in a region they are not supposed to exist, I can be correct and rational even if I cannot produce pawprints or whatever. I am not saying others should believe me. I am saying that it can be correct for me to belief I saw a mountain lion in such a region.

...

You keep saying the believer should be able to prove it to others. History shows that they often cannot even in their own lifetimes. Those are the cases we know where people turned out to be correct.

You are putting forward a criterion for truth that it should be provable to others, now.

This is absurd.

I agree, and thank you for the succint formulation.

However, many people have a position like Swarm - "If you can't prove X to others, then your beliefs about X are wrong / shouldn't be taken seriously / you should be dismissed because of them as insane / inept. Whatever you believe, you have to be able to prove it to others, on their terms, or your beliefs are not valid."

Being doubted like that can even drive people insane.


So my questions to you are:
How to handle being doubted like this?
What to do when faced with such extreme societal disapproval?
How to avoid the self-doubt arising from others doubting you?
How to heal from the the self-doubt that already arose from others doubting you?

 

[Adstar]

Being doubted like that can even drive people insane.


So my questions to you are:
How to handle being doubted like this?
What to do when faced with such extreme societal disapproval?
How to avoid the self-doubt arising from others doubting you?
How to heal from the the self-doubt that already arose from others doubting you?

These questions only need answering by someone with a strong need for the approval of others.

Those that believe God only need recognition from Him.

God says go out and give them my message, they will lampoon you, they will laugh at you, they will hate you, and they will abuse you. Don't worry you have been forewarned.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[wynn]

These questions only need answering by someone with a strong need for the approval of others.

Those that believe God only need recognition from Him.

That is easy for you to say...

 

[swarm]

We seem to live in different universes.

not last I checked.

1) my example earlier

Hmm?

2) I notice people often do not come around

Well, to be fair I don't think that is the pattern's fault.

3) we often find out later that whistleblowers, for example, were right after all.

Other than showing that things don't happen instantaneously, this is relevant because???

I did point out that one can recognize a pattern, be correct about its existence and your interpretation of it AND NOT be able to substantiate it.

Yes, you do mistakenly claim that and have failed to substantiate the claim or even give it a semblance of verisimilitude.

 

[(Q)]

God says go out and give them my message, they will lampoon you, they will laugh at you, they will hate you, and they will abuse you.

Maybe it's time he changed his message, then?

 

[swarm]

Only if you try to convince others of your belief.

It is true that I am assuming a certain level of personal integrity which is perhaps unwarranted.

I notice you are avoiding the fact that the sufferers had a belief, were correct and could not provide evidence.

Actually I'm avoiding nothing and they could and did provide evidence they were suffering something, what they were suffering was the question.

You twist the scenario to fit your position in a way that does not work.

I twist nothing. I couldn't have picked a better example myself. You may want to consider things more carefully before making those snap decisions.

The incorrect belief succeeded for ten years. ... before it ULTIMATELY FAILED.

Ultimately failed is the whole point. Thanks for remaking it for me.

IOW someone like you, ...viewed the sufferers as irrational because no evidence could be found that they were sick.

Where did I make any such claims? They were not irrational, they were actually suffering. You should consider more deeply before making snap accusations like that.

You, Swarm, could have said to these people, ´since you cannot provide evidence, you are not correct´.

Well except that they did have evidence.

Do you really not understand?

I understand just fine. You seem a bit in the dark though.

You keep saying the believer should be able to prove it to others.

See that's just the sort of thing I don't say. Beliefs need have no basis in reality, like god for example.

It is only when beliefs are claimed to be actual or correct that I expect there to be overt proof of those claims.

You can see "patterns" all day long and I don't care. But if you claim a pattern is valid, prove it.

You are putting forward a criterion for truth that it should be provable to others, now.

No, just provable. Truth is provable to others. That is why it is truth and not just your belief.

Your criterion as originally stated and as stated below, does not include some time limit or the possibility that they are rational, right now, and evidence will come through later.

There is no time limit. Any truth is subject to review and reproof. People are assumed to be rational until proven religious, ha ha, of course I mean "otherwise."

My point all along is that it can be rational to believe something one cannot prove to others.

I never said it wasn't. But such beliefs do not merit "correct" until you can prove it to others.

Ah, so the ...

Talk about desperately trying to twist things around. The sufferers have the valid experience of their suffering. They may not have a valid name for exactly what it is for 10 years, but they do have its existence right now.

You are confusing the issue of when the community should believe and when individuals with specific experiences/skills should believe.

nope.

I really don't know why you keep bringing god into it

It a handy irrational belief which is often misrepresented.

If you can't present proof for X, X is [not known to be] a correct belief.

I have no problem with this.

This would mean that the CFS sufferers were incorrect until science backed them up.

No, it means that they did not know what it was they were suffering from, which was the cause. There are a number of diseases which we only know as a cluster of symptoms and for which we don't understand the causes. Just because you have a name, that doesn't mean you know what is happening.

CFS just means you evidence a number of a particular set of symptoms, i.e. its a syndrome. It is not a full diagnosis of the underlying pathology that can lead to a specific treatment.

Saying "oh I have CFS, therefor I have an Epson-Barr infection" is faulty reasoning. There are other causes of those symptoms, mitochondrial diseases for example. You can't assume Epson-Barr, you have to prove it is the correct diagnosis.

I really am having trouble understanding your allergy to proof as the means to establish what is actually correct.

Again, I am not saying everyone should believe I saw a mountain lion without more evidence. I am saying that I can be correct despite my inability to prove it.

You can't be known to be correct unless you can establish why you are correct. Also your assumption about where the mountain lion came from is not established either. Look just making stuff up might make you feel good, but it is not enough.

On the mountain lion, there was evidence there even though you failed to take advantage of it: prints, scent, possibly spore, even the remains of a kill.

If you claimed to see a mountain lion and those were lacking, it would be reasonable to assume you were mistaken.

If you...

At least you make me laugh.

 

[swarm]

However, many people have a position like Swarm - "If you can't prove X to others, then your beliefs about X are wrong / shouldn't be taken seriously / you should be dismissed because of them as insane / inept. Whatever you believe, you have to be able to prove it to others, on their terms, or your beliefs are not valid."

I would strongly suggest getting my positions from me instead of from some one misrepresenting them. You know, integrity, that sort of thing. But lets see if we can't set that straight.

If you can't prove X is true and valid then claiming X is correct is not supportable and unwarranted.

The degree to which one should take another's claims seriously is proportional to the evidence they can show to substantiate them.

Claims which have nothing to support them and in particular claims which not only lack support but which are obviously fanciful and contrary to what is known about reality, can be dismissed out of hand until actual evidence in their support is shown.

A person who insists on claiming certain beliefs are true in spite of a lack of evidence to support that contention, or worse in the face of contrary evidence, and despite that belief being contrary to what is known about reality; such a person is delusional.

Delusional people are often quite functional outside the area of their particular delusion, but the stronger the delusion is held and the more encompassing, the more likely there will be negative impact.

For example, most xtians have relatively mild delusions about their "god" belief. They use mordern medicine when they need to. The don't stone their children to death or kill their neighbors for working on the sabbath as their unholy book suggests. But as the delusion intensifies the disfunctionality increases until they begin killing themselves or those in their care, like denying their diabetic kid insulin or drowning all their children before they can "sin" because "god" told them to.

Its pretty much the same insanity be it islamist suicide bombers, hindus assasinating Ghandi, isrealis shelling urban areas, or the US drone bombing families. Once you turn to the delusion instead of reality, you can justify any insanity.

 

[wesmorris]

No, it was merely thought of as water which is not anything like the same as it was water. "It" didn't change.

OF COURSE IT DIDN'T! I said that before. So what changed is in the mind, hence: illusion - all in the mind. Easy, yet you argue.

You also seem to casually disregard the fact that what ever "is something" is something to someone, which generally wouldn't make a lot of difference sure.. but in this conversation - it makes a big difference as I see it. What is, just is. Doesn't matter what we call it or how we model it such that we can process and manipulate it mentally. The "heat waves" can't care what you think of them. However, if I see water - it is water to me until I have evidence to the contrary or unless I doubt it to begin with. Then it's "probably water" or "oh crap that was just heat waves". Since "whatever it is" (heat waves or water) can't care if I know what it is or isn't, what matters about the entirety of the scenario is entirely in one's mind, specifically - the one mistaken about what is. The illusion existed only in their mind.

Only how it was considered changed and this is how people react to illusions. They don't say "wow the water turned into heat waves." Instead they saw "ah, I mistook those heat waves for water."

Of course, but all that matters at a given time is "how was considered". The heat waves and/or water can't care if you don't know your ass from other things.

How can something still be a phenomena and yet not be accessible for further research?

Seriously? Are you brain dead man!?!?!? lol, of course you're not - but this happens all the time. You want to know what's happening on alpha centauri, but can't afford a hyperdrive and those bastards won't let you use the big telescope. Many things in life simply can't be investigate due to lack of resources, rendering them inaccessible.

Actually the point is that it isn't.

To be perfectly incorrect, sure. I know you to be a person attempting correctness though - so get it together man! The thing that changed is the mind, as such - all in the mind. Simple. The illusion itself never actually existed external to the mind. You're arguing for the sake of being right about something you're wrong about it seems, you argumentative bastard. I can appreciate that though, being an argumentative bastard myself so please continue.

So? That there is more information doesn't mean there isn't information already understood.

*sigh* oh? it also means there isn't necessarily all the information. what matters is utility of course. honestly I think you and I think quite similarly on this whole matter, but you want to hold god-people to a fault for claiming reality in their fantasy, and I've stopped doing that a while back because I do not fault them what I consider to be their humanity. Ultimately I think we're all basically doing the same thing they're doing except basing it on what you and I would consider stuff that's far more rational like science and whatnot.

That we have overlapping names for something, each of which has its own distinctions, that doesn't mean that the other words are wrong within their scope.

Of course not, but it doesn't mean they're right either. Sometimes playing around with them can expose errors in logic or unstated assumptions.

have to reboot.

 

[wesmorris]

"If you can't prove X is true and valid then claiming X is correct is not supportable and unwarranted."

?

it may not be correct, but that doesn't render it unsupportable nor unwarranted in general.

I think there's about a 75% chance you'd reject the statement above for instance. In my experience in this thread, that's about correct (actually rather lowballing probably hehe). I can support it. I think it's warranted. I certainly can't prove it.

The degree to which one accepts another's claims is (for the humans in the crowd), generally based on how much trust the person holds in the judgement of the other person as related to the apparent audacity of the claim. What it "should be" is irrelevant.

You're a robot aren't you...

 

[Meursalt]

I do show it. You just can't possess it, or recognize it, or even understand it because it is not your own.

No.
Atheists don't recognise it because the foundation of your own self-perception relies upon that belief system as a premise.

To assume that atheists don't understand it is ridiculous, but unfortunately the rock upon which far too many theists are prepared to rest.

 

[swarm]

OF COURSE IT DIDN'T! I said that before.

Actually what you said was "To the particular mind - it was water."

Either you are being sloppy and then freaking out when I take you at what you say instead of what you intend to say, or you are using imprecise definitions of delusion and illusion.

Here is a good explanation of the difference:

Word Origin & History -delusion
"act of misleading someone," c.1420; as a form of mental derangement, 1552. See delude.

Technically, delusion is a belief that, though false, has been surrendered to and accepted by the whole mind as a truth; illusion is an impression that, though false, is entertained provisionally on the recommendation of the senses or the imagination, but awaits full acceptance and may not influence action.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

You also seem to casually disregard the fact that what ever "is something" is something to someone

I disagree whole heartedly. Objects are what they are in and of themselves without the least need to be "something to someone."

What is, just is. Doesn't matter what we call it or how we model it such that we can process and manipulate it mentally.

Can you see how this sentence and the one I quoted previously are at odds with each other? This sentence I agree with.

However, if I see water - it is water to me until I have evidence to the contrary or unless I doubt it to begin with. Then it's "probably water" or "oh crap that was just heat waves". Since "whatever it is" (heat waves or water) can't care if I know what it is or isn't, what matters about the entirety of the scenario is entirely in one's mind, specifically - the one mistaken about what is. The illusion existed only in their mind.

The part I am disagreeing with here is the hubris of assuming that simply because you think it is water that it is water to me. Conflating these two is an error and one which leads to much theological nonsense like "if I believe in god then god is real for me and that means god is real."

It is not water to you until it is confirmed water to you. Up until then it is just the idea of water. Confusing the notion of water with water itself is how illusion becomes delusion and gods get born.

You want to know what's happening on alpha centauri, but can't afford a hyperdrive and those bastards won't let you use the big telescope. Many things in life simply can't be investigate due to lack of resources, rendering them inaccessible.

Isn't being research by me is not the same as can't be researched. Alpha Centauri is a known phenomena and as such it can and in this case is being researched even if I'm not the one doing so. In particular there is a lot of interest about possible planets which might be in orbit around it or its companions.
http://exoplanets.sfsu.edu/Research/AlphaCen.html

it also means there isn't necessarily all the information.

And that may or may not be relevant information.

you want to hold god-people to a fault for claiming reality in their fantasy, and I've stopped doing that a while back because I do not fault them what I consider to be their humanity.

Lots of behaviors can be considered to be one's humanity. Not all of those are worthy of preservation or exemption from correction.

If you can't prove X is true and valid then claiming X is correct is not supportable and unwarranted.

it may not be correct, but that doesn't render it unsupportable nor unwarranted in general.

You are not paying attention to what is being said. It isn't about X. It is about claiming X is correct without any basis for that claim.

You're a robot aren't you...

I'm a self replicating nano-molecular construct, if that helps.