You HAVE to believe

MarcAC said:
You just have to make sure you know which determines which. God knows what [will] happen [s/ed]; therefore what happens necessarily determines his knowledge. His knowledge doesn't determine what will happen.

I don't think you understand. The Bible in no way implies that perspective, as comforting as it may be, and as Jenyar correctly says, "If one's definition isn't shaped by the guidelines in the Bible, one cannot call it "Biblical" anymore."


Oh and did I mention you'll be shocked?
 
§outh§tar said:
The Bible in no way implies that perspective, as comforting as it may be, and as Jenyar correctly says, "If one's definition isn't shaped by the guidelines in the Bible, one cannot call it "Biblical" anymore."
Sometimes one has to infer. If you can find something in the Bible which negates the perspective, or illustrate how it violates some Biblical principle then I might have something to worry about. The Bible is God's written Word to and through man. There is a lot more to life and truth than words.
 
§outh§tar said:
How arbitrary must one get in order to realize they are doing fanciful extrapolation?
It's not arbitrary really. I use the info I have and simply come to the simplest and most fitting conclusion. It seems to work too - and yes - very comforting. :)
Err.. how did you know this?
Answered that several times - this time would be one too many.
 
MarcAC said:
It's not arbitrary really. I use the info I have and simply come to the simplest and most fitting conclusion. It seems to work too - and yes - very comforting. :)

How many times do you contradict yourself here?

The most honest liar I have ever seen.

Answered that several times - this time would be one too many.

How many is one too many?
 
§outh§tar said:
How many times do you contradict yourself here?
Non as far as I can see; of course you can always attempt to illustrate how I have.
How many is one too many?
The Bible is a compilation of works of people who had faith in God as I see God. As sure as God exists, as I (we) percieve Him, the Bible is His Word to man, through man - take it or leave it.
 
§outh§tar said:
Who or what exactly is preventing you to read the Bible the way you want to read it?

The brain.

Alright.


How did you know language was a medium? By language maybe? Hmm

Hah! Good question.


Circularity is long before that. To try to justify something, you must first assume it. Assume it because you want to. Or so you assume because you simply don't know. So is it then you who wants to assume? You don't know.

But.

You still assume anyway.

Doesn't all that smell like smelling rotten tuna to you? Leaves a bad taste.

I think this once more has to do with time perspective and the acquisition of knowledge and development of concepts.

Namely, that some content is an assumption is so termed only *later*, when things don't go the way we thought we should. It is when there is a discrepancy between expectation/prediction and experience that we become aware of there being an expectation/prediction in the first place. If all went by our expectations, we'd be dumb and deaf, never knowing that we think, never knowing that we make expectations, predictions (ie. assumptions).


That would be the way most people think - in terms of cause and effect. So why think in terms of cause and effect? Don't know.

It just so happens to be an orientation advantage to think in terms of cause and effect. That is, speaking in terms of evolution, we can *later* on conclude that organisms who think and behave in terms of cause and effect have survived and prospered better than those who did not think in terms of cause and effect.


But the absence of knowledge doesn't bother, why not still think that way because it is common sense.. Seeing circles yet?

It's economy. Again, this coclusion made later on.


I have told you millions of times, don't exaggerate your point. The alternative is confoundingly simple. Just say, Lord, I don't know.

No, this is just the first part.
The second part is, "Lord, make me do thy will."


And since you know that you don't know, don't assume. That is the real trap. Not analyticity.

It is analyticity that enables you to see that trap.


And we see what we want to see. Call it negativism all you want but it's true.

No. More truly, we see what we *can* see. The want in encompassed in the can.


Well, to keep with your line of argument: It is economical to be complacent (" ").
And before you ask: Living system behave economically, it is inherent to them.

That sounds very much like a cop out to me

For the (10^a lot)-th time: Why does this sound liek a cop out to you?


Well if we don't know why, then what is the point in assuming? Isn't that self defeating?

It's not, because some answers to some why-s offer orientation advanatge.


Did I mention I don't like the 'that's just the way it is' response? Blame the neurons.

Blaming the neurons is still a 'that's just the way it is' response.


You know what image came to mind? A haystack with a needle in it. Burn the straw I say.

Yes. Then find the needle, clean it and sew yourself a nice dress.


I think that nobody *wants* to be vulnerable.

"Being afraid of being vulnerable" is a misnomer. One doesn't want to be hurt.

Let me guess: that's just human tendency. That's just the way it is.

Yes, this is what we get to see. (Right backatcha face value!)


An act of a person who does not know himself?

In reality, that is the wisdom of a person who does not pretend or assume he knows his fellow human. An extremely wise step in the right direction.

Once one admits that one doesn't want to be hurt, one knows that one is a coward. It is not self deprecating, it is not negativism. You might not want to face it or you might want to make it pretty or whatever but that's the truth. The truth doesn't hurt when you don't want to know it.

Nothing hurts you until you say it hurts you. And so it does not hurt me.

Men. I'll drop this. Start a thread, if you wish.


You wouldn't believe how much has changed since our last conversation.

I'm aching to know!


I think I have found the explanation. It is rather amusing and I often giggle when I think of how absurd it sounds. I don't think anyone is going to believe me if I told them the truth. The crazy crazy truth.

Beyond your wildest dreams I promise.

You promise me? What will you promise me next? That my favourite colour is pink?


Yes. I win.

Hah!


Maybe if you would look at trust from some other perspective -- instead of the inductive statistic you are using now --, trust would make a lot of sense to you.
[hint, hint!]Think about how it is when you are happy when you are with someone.[hint, hint!]

And so you trust because of a feeling?! I certainly do not will myself to be happy when I am with something - but I am anyway. The experiencer, that's what I am. Haha. If I told you, you would think I was absolutely crazy for having entertained it.

I trust because it makes me feel good. Now there's something I can live with. That makes sense.. for some odd reason. I like it. Selfish but good. We are getting somewhere.

*gives SouthStar a skewed look*


Damn you and your pointing out my self contradictions.

*You* will have to pay me extra facial anti-wrinkle creams for having to look askew at you so much!


What truth? Objective reality a la Ayn Rand?

I still don't know who she is and I see her name here and there.

The Mother of Objectivism.


Is she also a she-deathbeast with claws?

Nah, she was an excuse of a person.


But if we don't make baseless assumptions in the first place, we would not even be looking at the past ruefully. Don't make an assumption and you won't have to live with it. How simple is that? A marvelous truth!

It takes Buddhist patience to live that way.


And in your case, it determined that you are to change your course.
Okay.

Okay. Show me the way.

Okay. Look into the mirror.


You are digging your own grave.

Not at all. I am on the highest mountain! My truth is my truth alone. Mine!

There you have it, finally!


The secret is: You have to be indifferent. You can't put yourself at the center of your life. This might seem absurd but it is shockingly true. Haha. I can't believe I didn't think of this before.

I think you have, I think you knew it all along, but you just haven't thought about it with such non-theistic words.
What you've said above can translate into "Put your trust in the LORD, be humble, and do the LORD's will." The part about being indifferent is that you should not depend on other people and circumstances to tell you your worth -- but to have the LORD determine it.


I think they have their reasons.
And I think we would have them to, if we would in fact believe.

Belief because we believe in faith.

No!
The "beacuse" is the wrong operator, it skewes the whole picture of faith into something rationalizable.


I am trying SO HARD to knock it into you that there is something fishy about that.

Yes, what is fishy is your definition of faith!


Faith cannot be trusted. It should not. It just should be avoided like a crushed bird's carcass in the roadside.

NO.
NO.
NO.
You are still arguing from the position that faith is something rigid, stale, cemented. Perfect, or not at all. State of no doubt.


Back to laws. Is it then not an absurdity to impose laws. It is absurd!

I have never seen such a gross oversimplification of life as is clearly evident in the ignominious doctrine of free will. It is not even self evident for Christ's sake!

It really really is not that simple.

If society is going to presuppose an absurd concept, it might as well not be one which is riddled with problems. From free will, an absurd system of standards is opposed for the alledged "good" of the individual when this good is clearly not self evident and is most surely presupposed. And so the people see the good of laws because they see what they want to see. Assume it is so and it will be so for you. How any so-called "intelligent" human being cannot see the error of presuming and the consequential errors in their assumptions is beyond me.

We MUST be suspicious of our knowledge and the very reason for which we know. Taking it for granted is unacceptable. Saying that's just the way it is is unsatisfactory. Calling it impractical is unjustified.

You simply can NOT be complacent about this. It is dangerous. Very dangerous.

Laws work. How and why they work, how and why we justify them -- that's another story. But I don't think there is something wrong with laws.
They have developed, just as an individual develops values and preferences.


I am beginning to be satisfied with a lot of things. I just need to try.. a little more..

As long as you are not secretly forcing yourself into being satisfied. For if you are -- the revenge will be dreadful.


I just don't have the time I used to have anymore but I am progressing, really I am.

Good then!


Intimacy creates the space within which trust is possible sounds a lot to me like 'intimacy is the reason for trusting someone' reworded vaguely.

No. Maybe I just can't express myself clearly enough.


I don't see any reason why intimacy should be considered when deciding whether or not to trust someone and you don't either.

Would you trust a random stranger on the street who would tell you to trust him?


"I" don't want to believe. "I" don't want to trust. There is no "I" as I have been telling you all along. The "I" is a grand delusion. I knew you would never believe me if I told you and even know I am chuckling to myself. The reality is beyond our wildest dreams.

Why do you think that I am bashing Ayn Rand and objectivism? Because those suckers think to know reality.


I want to believe because the brain wants to believe.

But where does this bring us?
I understand the implications -- but what about applying this "I want to believe because the brain wants to believe" in everyday life?

You better have a good answer, because "I want to believe because the brain wants to believe" stinks of relativism.


That oversimplifies it. A lot of what you are saying oversimplifies the reality. Haha. You'll be shocked at the reality. Shocked!

And you, like, know objective reality? Fantasizing of Ayn Rand?


I like talking to you. It makes me see things a lot differently. I must have been mad not to realize this earlier.

Oh. I wish I knew whether this is you being facetious again, or something else.


I'm going back and encoding everything..

Oh no, too late. 'Member, the downfall came by a woman ...
:p
 
The Bible is a compilation of works of people who had faith in God as I see God. As sure as God exists, as I (we) percieve Him, the Bible is His Word to man, through man - take it or leave it.

And to think the world isn't black and white..
 
water said:
I think this once more has to do with time perspective and the acquisition of knowledge and development of concepts.

Namely, that some content is an assumption is so termed only *later*, when things don't go the way we thought we should. It is when there is a discrepancy between expectation/prediction and experience that we become aware of there being an expectation/prediction in the first place. If all went by our expectations, we'd be dumb and deaf, never knowing that we think, never knowing that we make expectations, predictions (ie. assumptions).

Life would still go on. Isn't that the point?

Without being aware, *we* would still make expectations, predictions/assumptions.. That is a very good point.

Of course, let me first remind you that there is no "we" and the we is a farce which does not exist (except in the mind, by the mind, and for the mind). It's shocking..

Now given that, how can there be free will? The only reason free will is inferred (as far as we can tell) is because we are conscious of thoughts and actions, like I talked about in the rough draft. Now imagine you were a zombie and were not at all conscious of any thoughts or actions. Even though they occured all the same, there was no "you" to perceive them.

Does that not disqualify free will?

The point is, because we are conscious of a will, an expectation, and so on, we are able to make inferences. Now I am of the extreme suspicion that even if there was no one to perceive these things, they would still occur anyway - demonstrating that there is no "I" or "you" behind the wheels of the brain and also showing that consciousness is unnecessary from an evolutionary standpoint.

Go ahead and resist the truth.

You'll be shocked to know.

It just so happens to be an orientation advantage to think in terms of cause and effect. That is, speaking in terms of evolution, we can *later* on conclude that organisms who think and behave in terms of cause and effect have survived and prospered better than those who did not think in terms of cause and effect.

I'm afraid to say that this assumption is baseless. We simply don't know - simply do NOT know - that this is true.

A) We don't know whether or not this is true of organisms
B) As I said previously, just because we are aware of it in ourselves and just because we make inferences does not mean those inferences are true. Just because the brain produces a thought that says we think in terms of cause and effect does not mean that is how the brain operates. Scary isn't it? That is why I'm afraid to trust.. Too risky.

Of course you are going to blather on about how impractical it is to live that way :D but I'm not concerned about the practicality, I'm not telling anyone to drop their pants and live in the wilderness. I'm just saying, we should be a little more suspicious of what we know. As I have said all along. We don't know. We say we know. But the truth is: We think we know. We think we think we know. We think we think we think we know.

And who thinks?

Up till now no one can give me a straight answer.

This is one of the flaws in our knowledge that I explore in the theory. Fun stuff.

No, this is just the first part.
The second part is, "Lord, make me do thy will."

I'm not sure I see any room for free will in "make me do thy will"..


It is analyticity that enables you to see that trap.

You think you know that analyticity enables me to see that trap.

But do you yourself know it?

Then who are you, who is the knower?


No. More truly, we see what we *can* see. The want in encompassed in the can.

Tell me, do you enjoy beginning every other response with the word "No" followed by a full stop? I always thought it was some sort of rhetorical strategy for psychological effect but here's your chance to say so.

You'll be shocked to know.


For the (10^a lot)-th time: Why does this sound liek a cop out to you?

You are saying because it is economical to be complacent, we can be complacent. Why? Because it is economical to be complacent of course!

Sigh..

It's not, because some answers to some why-s offer orientation advanatge.

But they are not necessary all the same - superfluous, they are.

Why assume when you don't need to assume?

Blaming the neurons is still a 'that's just the way it is' response.

You'll be shocked to know.

Yes. Then find the needle, clean it and sew yourself a nice dress.

Pass the wrinkle cream.


Let me guess: that's just human tendency. That's just the way it is.
Yes, this is what we get to see. (Right backatcha face value!)

From now on NO MORE USING MY ARGUMENTS AGAINST ME!

Men. I'll drop this. Start a thread, if you wish.

I hate crying.


You promise me? What will you promise me next? That my favourite colour is pink?

You'll be shocked to know.

But if we don't make baseless assumptions in the first place, we would not even be looking at the past ruefully. Don't make an assumption and you won't have to live with it. How simple is that? A marvelous truth!
It takes Buddhist patience to live that way.

Shouldn't be too difficult since we have free will to think..



I think you have, I think you knew it all along, but you just haven't thought about it with such non-theistic words.
What you've said above can translate into "Put your trust in the LORD, be humble, and do the LORD's will." The part about being indifferent is that you should not depend on other people and circumstances to tell you your worth -- but to have the LORD determine it.

Who is the LORD that I may know Him?


No!
The "beacuse" is the wrong operator, it skewes the whole picture of faith into something rationalizable.

I was afraid to ask this earlier but here it is:

If faith is not rational, then what is the point in believing since it is not necessary?

Yes, what is fishy is your definition of faith!

FAITH: Knowing that truth is false and not caring.


NO.
NO.
NO.
You are still arguing from the position that faith is something rigid, stale, cemented. Perfect, or not at all. State of no doubt.

Like I asked, if it is not these things, then what is the point in having faith at all?


Laws work. How and why they work, how and why we justify them -- that's another story. But I don't think there is something wrong with laws.
They have developed, just as an individual develops values and preferences.

Another that's just the way it is explanation..

Loong sigh.

As long as you are not secretly forcing yourself into being satisfied. For if you are -- the revenge will be dreadful.

Shake me down and build me up. I'm not afraid.

Would you trust a random stranger on the street who would tell you to trust him?

According to you trust is unconditional.

Why do you think that I am bashing Ayn Rand and objectivism? Because those suckers think to know reality.

Fools, they are.

Like I pointed out above, there is something very wrong with our knowledge. It is.. not correct. It is not wrong. But it is not correct.

But where does this bring us?
I understand the implications -- but what about applying this "I want to believe because the brain wants to believe" in everyday life?


You better have a good answer, because "I want to believe because the brain wants to believe" stinks of relativism.

Sounds like a strawman considering the "I" DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL. EVER.

There is no such thing. A farce. A construct. There is no "I". We cannot experience the "I".

Remember what I said in the Godel thread relating experience to knowledge? Well that ties in here too. We don't know the "I" because we don't experience the "I". And you know it.

As for applying this to everyday life.. I am not sure it can be applied since my mode of thinking has been marred and butchered by assumptions I now *know* to be wrong, or have no reason to believe any longer.

I'll try to think of something but for now you'll just have to be content with the fact that it's something new to chew on.

And you, like, know objective reality? Fantasizing of Ayn Rand?

Haven't I already said millions of times that there is something wrong with our knowledge? How can I know objective reality of all things then? How, when I don't even know how to think?

Another looong sigh after shaking my head very very sadly.


Oh. I wish I knew whether this is you being facetious again, or something else.

You'll be shocked to know.


Oh no, too late. 'Member, the downfall came by a woman ...

Takes a man to put a woman in place.

Hehehehehe..

Don't hurt me.
 
SouthStar said:
Oh and did I mention you'll be shocked?

Uh. You are spoiling all the fun and excitement by preparing us all to be shocked. And if you would now show me a pink purple-spotted squid living in Antarctica, I would NOT be shocked.


* * *


§outh§tar Happy said:
Birthday to me today!!!

Happy belated birthday!

:) :)


* * *


Life would still go on. Isn't that the point?

Yes, but it would be life in *some other* form, not human.


Without being aware, *we* would still make expectations, predictions/assumptions.. That is a very good point.

That is still just an intelligent guess though, mind you.


Of course, let me first remind you that there is no "we" and the we is a farce which does not exist (except in the mind, by the mind, and for the mind). It's shocking..

I do not find that shocking at all. It is this construct that I have been telling you about all along.


Now given that, how can there be free will? The only reason free will is inferred (as far as we can tell) is because we are conscious of thoughts and actions, like I talked about in the rough draft. Now imagine you were a zombie and were not at all conscious of any thoughts or actions. Even though they occured all the same, there was no "you" to perceive them.

Does that not disqualify free will?

It would disqualify free will, if by free will we would understand 'the ability to do whatever you want to; God-potential'.


The point is, because we are conscious of a will, an expectation, and so on, we are able to make inferences. Now I am of the extreme suspicion that even if there was no one to perceive these things, they would still occur anyway - demonstrating that there is no "I" or "you" behind the wheels of the brain and also showing that consciousness is unnecessary from an evolutionary standpoint.

I think you have a mix-up there.
If anything, the brain and a complex holistic causality is behind the wheel of what we call "I". But since the I does not have ultimate insight into the brain and the complex holistic causality, it, by Occham's Razor, or, to keep to the terms of systems theory, by the principles of system economy and system pressure, -- since the I does not have that insight, it concludes it is in charge.


Go ahead and resist the truth.

La la la la la ...


You'll be shocked to know.

I can't be shocked now, you have desensitized me, thoroughly, with your announcements of shock.


It just so happens to be an orientation advantage to think in terms of cause and effect. That is, speaking in terms of evolution, we can *later* on conclude that organisms who think and behave in terms of cause and effect have survived and prospered better than those who did not think in terms of cause and effect.

I'm afraid to say that this assumption is baseless. We simply don't know - simply do NOT know - that this is true.

A) We don't know whether or not this is true of organisms
B) As I said previously, just because we are aware of it in ourselves and just because we make inferences does not mean those inferences are true. Just because the brain produces a thought that says we think in terms of cause and effect does not mean that is how the brain operates. Scary isn't it?

I think what you have just found out is that objective reality is intangible directly.
I think Kant made a career out of developing thoughts on this intangibility ...


That is why I'm afraid to trust.. Too risky.

Are you afraid of death?
(There is a certain line of thoughts that lead me to ask this question here. But bear with me.)


Of course you are going to blather on about how impractical it is to live that way but I'm not concerned about the practicality, I'm not telling anyone to drop their pants and live in the wilderness.

No, no, no. Do you trust that the milk and bread you buy are not ********? Do you, before you take a bite, *each* bite, *each* sip, do you consider that they might be poisonous? And that there is no logical reason not to think that some secret force sprinkled arsenic on your bread just before you took a bite?


I'm just saying, we should be a little more suspicious of what we know. As I have said all along. We don't know. We say we know. But the truth is: We think we know. We think we think we know. We think we think we think we know.

Yes.


And who thinks?

Up till now no one can give me a straight answer.

The French poet Arthur Rimbaud said once:
It is wrong to say "I think". We ought to say "I am being thought."

"Who thinks?" is a dubious question -- as it all depends on our definitions of thinking and I-ness.


No, this is just the first part.
The second part is, "Lord, make me do thy will."

I'm not sure I see any room for free will in "make me do thy will"..

There is: Only someone who is familiar with the intricacies of his own will can say "Lord, *make* me do thy will."


You think you know that analyticity enables me to see that trap.

But do you yourself know it?

Then who are you, who is the knower?

The space in which thinking occurs.


Tell me, do you enjoy beginning every other response with the word "No" followed by a full stop? I always thought it was some sort of rhetorical strategy for psychological effect but here's your chance to say so.

(Should I?, Alright, I'm up for fun today:)

No. There is no special enjoyment or purpose in beginning sentences this way.

(Haha! Like it?)


You are saying because it is economical to be complacent, we can be complacent. Why? Because it is economical to be complacent of course!

Sigh..

Uh, yes. What did we say about the circularity of rational justifications?


Why assume when you don't need to assume?

We don't need to assume? We never need to plan anything, never need to think ahead?


You'll be shocked to know.

Oh, was that a jumbo jet that crashed down right in front of the house? I really didn't notice, I am so desensitized, being prepared to be shocked.


Yes. Then find the needle, clean it and sew yourself a nice dress.

Pass the wrinkle cream.

Alright. Then give me a carefully composed answer to *why* you wouldn't like a dress.


From now on NO MORE USING MY ARGUMENTS AGAINST ME!

Like, *why*?

Hehe.


I hate crying.

And you hate emotions altogether, right? You hate to hate ...


You'll be shocked to know.

What?! A meteorite hit planet Earth, destroyed all life, which then, in millions of years sprung anew -- while I was sleeping here in my cave, not noticing anything?!


Who is the LORD that I may know Him?

Seek, and thou shall find.


I was afraid to ask this earlier but here it is:

You really needn't be afraid. Noone here bites.


If faith is not rational, then what is the point in believing since it is not necessary?

How is it not necessary to not have faith? How is it not necessary to believe?

It may not be necessary to have *elaborated* beliefs on matters like religion (or science), one can spend a life watching goats graze and be a simple illiterate farmer. But then one just has *other* beliefs, some *other* faith, that, in comparison to "civilized forms" may seem small or even non-existent. But those "simple" beliefs are still beliefs, that "simple" faith is still faith.


FAITH: Knowing that truth is false and not caring.

STOP THIS RIGHT NOW.

What you are doing is thinking that falsity is true and you care.
But how exact are you? Do you *always* apply this principle?

Also, the logical mucus-pukus here is unbearable -- "truth is false" and "falsity is true"!
Dost thou not laugh?


Like I asked, if it is not these things, then what is the point in having faith at all?

1. We cannot but have some faith, in some thing.
We are limited beings, limited in our knowledge, and thus we take things on some trust, on some faith. We must do that, our being limited is forcing us into this.

2. Whether we work on this faith, whether we think about it, try to understand it -- this is another story. One can have faith, but not know much about it in the sense that one may not be able to explain it in fancy theoretical meta-terms.

3. The more you want, the more faith you need.
The more you want, the more you need to plan how to get it. The more you need to plan, the more you need to know how to get it. The more you know of the intricacies of how to get what you want, the more it takes to get over the eventual irrationality of it -- and for that, faith is needed.


Another that's just the way it is explanation..

Loong sigh.

Well, what do you want? Direct knowledge of objective reality?


Shake me down and build me up. I'm not afraid.

You are not afraid? But you are afraid to trust, you said.


Would you trust a random stranger on the street who would tell you to trust him?

According to you trust is unconditional.

Yes, once it is established, *then* it is unconditional (or it isn't trust at all).
And you haven't answered my question.


Why do you think that I am bashing Ayn Rand and objectivism? Because those suckers think to know reality.

Fools, they are.

Like I pointed out above, there is something very wrong with our knowledge. It is.. not correct. It is not wrong. But it is not correct.

It is not correct, it is not wrong -- but it enables us to live in this world. That's just how it is ........................


Sounds like a strawman considering the "I" DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL. EVER.

The I may not exist to us in the same manner that, say, a table or a tree exist. But it exists in some other way.


There is no such thing. A farce. A construct. There is no "I". We cannot experience the "I".

Just because it is a construct doesn't make it a farce.


Remember what I said in the Godel thread relating experience to knowledge? Well that ties in here too. We don't know the "I" because we don't experience the "I". And you know it.

As for applying this to everyday life.. I am not sure it can be applied since my mode of thinking has been marred and butchered by assumptions I now *know* to be wrong, or have no reason to believe any longer.

I'll try to think of something but for now you'll just have to be content with the fact that it's something new to chew on.

Nuhr-wan-ah!


Haven't I already said millions of times that there is something wrong with our knowledge? How can I know objective reality of all things then? How, when I don't even know how to think?

Another looong sigh after shaking my head very very sadly.

It just so seems to me that you are after objective reality.


You'll be shocked to know.

Lucy in the sky with diamonds ...


Takes a man to put a woman in place.

Hehehehehe..

Like, yeah.


Don't hurt me.

How could I?!
 
water said:
Uh. You are spoiling all the fun and excitement by preparing us all to be shocked. And if you would now show me a pink purple-spotted squid living in Antarctica, I would NOT be shocked.

Would you be shocked if you weren't shocked in the first place?

You'll be shocked to know what lives down under.

Happy belated birthday!

Thank you! I am old now and just don't have the time I used to but there's going to be a lot of good stuff in here.



Yes, but it would be life in *some other* form, not human.

It is not good to arbitrarily define human and then claim this 'other form' is not human.


That is still just an intelligent guess though, mind you.

Did you see that link I posted on zombies? Good stuff.

I do not find that shocking at all. It is this construct that I have been telling you about all along.

If you knew it all along then why do many of your posts ignore it for the old assumptions? You'll find it shocking anyway.


It would disqualify free will, if by free will we would understand 'the ability to do whatever you want to; God-potential'.


See what I mean? You say you knew of this construct all along and then in the very next statement you pretend it does not exist.

By free will, we mean the ability to think. I think even you can accept that if we can't think, then there simply is no case to be made for free will.

So what's your stand? Can we think or not?

I think you have a mix-up there.
If anything, the brain and a complex holistic causality is behind the wheel of what we call "I". But since the I does not have ultimate insight into the brain and the complex holistic causality, it, by Occham's Razor, or, to keep to the terms of systems theory, by the principles of system economy and system pressure, -- since the I does not have that insight, it concludes it is in charge.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

DON'T ASSUME THE I. There is no "I" which has ultimate insight into the brain. Simply put: PLEASE do not treat the "I" and the brain separately, as if there was an 'I' to perceive. There is no I to make any of these conclusions. If you assume this, you will be in very big trouble defending yourself from some of my free will accusations.

I told you, the explanation will be shocking.

Just because you experience a thought that says 'I think' does not mean you think. In the same way, just because you feel like you are "in charge". I can say I raise my arm all I want but just because I think I raise my arm does not mean I know I raise my arm.

Remember what I said in the Godel thread: Experience is what gives us knowledge.

I can't be shocked now, you have desensitized me, thoroughly, with your announcements of shock.

YOU WILL NOT BE SHOCKED.


I think what you have just found out is that objective reality is intangible directly.
I think Kant made a career out of developing thoughts on this intangibility ...

Here is my problem: Why do people live their lifes assuming that objective reality is at their fingertips? It's almost like they don't think!


Are you afraid of death?
(There is a certain line of thoughts that lead me to ask this question here. But bear with me.)

Not at all.

Remember, experience -> knowledge.

If I have not experienced death, I cannot be afraid of it.

I have experienced thoughts of death perhaps, these I can be afraid of. But I have not experienced death.

No, no, no. Do you trust that the milk and bread you buy are not ********? Do you, before you take a bite, *each* bite, *each* sip, do you consider that they might be poisonous? And that there is no logical reason not to think that some secret force sprinkled arsenic on your bread just before you took a bite?

We have already established our constant hypocrisy. Everyone fails at their own standards and pretends that they don't. It is absurd, yes.

But the question is, if we fail by assuming, then what is the point in assuming the first place?

The answer is: We don't know!

Which raises a more difficult question. If we don't know, then why do we ignore our ignorance and live life as if we know what we claim to know when all we do is assume we know?

Sounds confusing but that's the point. There is some inconsistency that makes the whole shebang smell very bad.


The French poet Arthur Rimbaud said once:
It is wrong to say "I think". We ought to say "I am being thought."

"Who thinks?" is a dubious question -- as it all depends on our definitions of thinking and I-ness.

A very brilliant realization. But there is no definition of "I" to behold like we discussed in the PM. 'We' don't experience the "I", we don't experience ourselves.

'We' might experience a thought that says "I am" but again, that does not mean that I really am or that I am experiencing myself. The stupid language, I keep using "I" to express myself when it contradicts the very point I am trying to make.

That is why there is something smelly about our assumptions and why we assume in the first place.

There is: Only someone who is familiar with the intricacies of his own will can say "Lord, *make* me do thy will."

Just because someone 'experience' will does not mean they are the ones willing. The conclusion is non sequitur. Which means the basis of religion is non sequitur. But you will respond and say, faith cannot be justified via reason. To which I will reply, then what is the point?


Then who are you, who is the knower?
The space in which thinking occurs.

Trick question. Nope!

There is no "you". "You" or what is perceived as "you" is a mere facet of your brain. Difficult to explain here so you'll have to wait.

Like in Multiple Personality Disorder, this space can house more than one "you". I initially followed the same assumption you made but found it was problematic in accounting for MPD so I tweaked it a little bit.

(Should I?, Alright, I'm up for fun today:)

No. There is no special enjoyment or purpose in beginning sentences this way.

(Haha! Like it?)

....

No.


:p


Uh, yes. What did we say about the circularity of rational justifications?

//I am screaming by now

THEN WHAT IS THE POINT IN JUSTIFYING SOMETHING IF THE JUSTIFICATION IS GOING TO BE CIRCULAR ANYWAY?

Nothing needs to be rationalized if it is going to end up being as circular as ever. Why not depend on the listening parties to unreasonably assume the same axioms you do - the justification is of no consequence either way!

We don't need to assume? We never need to plan anything, never need to think ahead?

That was speaking in relation to free will. If there is free will, then we could think. And if we can think, then we can think without assuming.

It all boils down to whether you can think or not. If you can, you have free will. If not, you don't.


Oh, was that a jumbo jet that crashed down right in front of the house? I really didn't notice, I am so desensitized, being prepared to be shocked.

Don't worry I am spilling a lot to you in here. I shouldn't have sent you that rough draft since it was purely a harangue on free will and did not properly detail the solutions I have in mind.

But you are hearing bits and pieces here. I won't tell you: Here it is!

It will just come by surprise.

I told you once. You'll be shocked to know.

Alright. Then give me a carefully composed answer to *why* you wouldn't like a dress.

Have you stopped kicking your cat around?

Let's not assume 'me' since I don't assume free will.

Like, *why*?

Hehe.

I said so. That is final. Why? Because I said so. That is final. Why?..


And you hate emotions altogether, right? You hate to hate ...

Just like assumptions, it does not seem necessary to me. I find no proper justification for these things. Why do I feel emotions if I don't want to? Why do I assume if I don't want to?


What?! A meteorite hit planet Earth, destroyed all life, which then, in millions of years sprung anew -- while I was sleeping here in my cave, not noticing anything?!

Note to self:
She death-beasts hibernate for millions of years.


Who is the LORD that I may know Him?
Seek, and thou shall find.

I can't seek if I don't know what I am looking for.


How is it not necessary to not have faith? How is it not necessary to believe?

It may not be necessary to have *elaborated* beliefs on matters like religion (or science), one can spend a life watching goats graze and be a simple illiterate farmer. But then one just has *other* beliefs, some *other* faith, that, in comparison to "civilized forms" may seem small or even non-existent. But those "simple" beliefs are still beliefs, that "simple" faith is still faith.

Back to the Godel thread.

Did you see how those circles influenced thought as every ancillary assumption was necessarily fixed by an earlier assumption?

If you believe God's presence can be witnessed in nature, then whatever you witness in nature will be snugly fit into the circle "God's presence can be witnessed in nature".

If you believe God's presence cannot be witnessed in nature, the same follows.

If you believe God might or might not exist, then thingsyou do will be based on the prior assumption that God might or might not exist.

In all these three cases, whether you like it or not your thinking is influenced by the earlier premise and it is therefore limited to whatever the premise of the outer circle is.

And so knowing, which is already horrifyingly limited, becomes even more limited by assumptions.

Assumptions limit the purview of assumptions.

If we say assumptions are necessary, we also admit that there is no chance of knowing through any other means other than assumptions. We also understand then that any ensuing admission, whether or not you agree, is limited by the previous assumption.
STOP THIS RIGHT NOW.

What you are doing is thinking that falsity is true and you care.
But how exact are you? Do you *always* apply this principle?

Also, the logical mucus-pukus here is unbearable -- "truth is false" and "falsity is true"!
Dost thou not laugh?

1. We cannot but have some faith, in some thing.
We are limited beings, limited in our knowledge, and thus we take things on some trust, on some faith. We must do that, our being limited is forcing us into this.

2. Whether we work on this faith, whether we think about it, try to understand it -- this is another story. One can have faith, but not know much about it in the sense that one may not be able to explain it in fancy theoretical meta-terms.

3. The more you want, the more faith you need.
The more you want, the more you need to plan how to get it. The more you need to plan, the more you need to know how to get it. The more you know of the intricacies of how to get what you want, the more it takes to get over the eventual irrationality of it -- and for that, faith is needed.

Now you see the problem.

I am a hypocrite.

Even though I complain about how self defeating assumptions turn out to be, I cannot help but be trapped in the same vicious circle I find so noisome.

Therefore there is a problem.

Free will won't solve it and neither will relegating it to talk of practicality.

Just as you taught me concerning God, it is good for me to first realize what I am not.






Well, what do you want? Direct knowledge of objective reality?

I don't want to live a life of hypocrisy - pretend that I am not because doing so will be mroe practical. I don't want to live a life of inconsistency. I don't want to life a life of unjustifiable arbitrariness. I don't want to live a life of double standards.

I don't want to live a life of ignorance.


---------

The other day I was talking to this pretty girl (she is Christian). She asked me if I was a Christian.

Guess what I said?

Inconsistency. Arbitrariness. Hypocrisy. Circularity. Lies. Ignorance.

Incompleteness.

And I didn't even care one bit.

*****


You are not afraid? But you are afraid to trust, you said.

For the umpteenth time: NO POINTING OUT MY SELF CONTRADICTIONS!

I suppose I can elaborate now.

To know trust, I would have to had experienced it.

I experience thoughts that tell me that I fear trust. And so the inference is made that I fear trust. And so am I crippled in this manner - even though none of this came by will.

I am not afraid to trust. I am afraid to want to trust.

Would you trust a random stranger on the street who would tell you to trust him?

According to you trust is unconditional.
Yes, once it is established, *then* it is unconditional (or it isn't trust at all).
And you haven't answered my question.

Your question is evil and I would rather not answer it. But.

Yes and no.

Come on.. you know the question is oversimplified. The demeanor and appearance of the stranger, my mood, the environment.. so many things come into play. I cannot give a straight answer.

Without experiencing it, I cannot know.

Unless you want me to assume arbitrarily.

It is not correct, it is not wrong -- but it enables us to live in this world. That's just how it is ........................

Why does that question not satisfy me?


The I may not exist to us in the same manner that, say, a table or a tree exist. But it exists in some other way.

At a chemical level? Of course!

Which reminds me of an objection you made to me elsewhere: "But I do not experience myself as neurons."

How do you know that you don't?


Just because it is a construct doesn't make it a farce.

Absolutely. But the assumptions of man are incompatible. How can free will not be a farce if the "I" is a construct? There is something we are missing. An ignorance which answers everything beautifully. So beautifully I cannot help but laugh.


It just so seems to me that you are after objective reality.

Just behind the courner and take four lefts.


How could I?!

You'll be..

Aw, what the heck!
 
§outh§tar said:
Would you be shocked if you weren't shocked in the first place?

Ah, I'm old.


You'll be shocked to know what lives down under.

No, for I have seen The thing!


It is not good to arbitrarily define human and then claim this 'other form' is not human.

Why is it not good ...


I do not find that shocking at all. It is this construct that I have been telling you about all along.

If you knew it all along then why do many of your posts ignore it for the old assumptions?

They don't. Maybe there was a misunderstanding.


By free will, we mean the ability to think.

No no no. No. NO.
How many times have I said that such a definition of free will is no good?!


So what's your stand? Can we think or not?

Thoughts are being thought.


I think you have a mix-up there.
If anything, the brain and a complex holistic causality is behind the wheel of what we call "I". But since the I does not have ultimate insight into the brain and the complex holistic causality, it, by Occham's Razor, or, to keep to the terms of systems theory, by the principles of system economy and system pressure, -- since the I does not have that insight, it concludes it is in charge.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

DON'T ASSUME THE I. There is no "I" which has ultimate insight into the brain. Simply put: PLEASE do not treat the "I" and the brain separately, as if there was an 'I' to perceive. There is no I to make any of these conclusions. If you assume this, you will be in very big trouble defending yourself from some of my free will accusations.

I wish I knew where we disagree.
Where did I say that the I *has* ultimate insight into the brain?

We can say that the I is one of the functions of the brain. It does not have ultimate insight into the brain, but it does make conclusions (one of these conclusions being that it does make conclusions).


Just because you experience a thought that says 'I think' does not mean you think. In the same way, just because you feel like you are "in charge". I can say I raise my arm all I want but just because I think I raise my arm does not mean I know I raise my arm.

I wonder where we disagree.


Remember what I said in the Godel thread: Experience is what gives us knowledge.

This needs elaboration. Knowledge cannot be "given", it is made, developed -- in accordance with the brain's abilities.


YOU WILL NOT BE SHOCKED.

Good. Now you are dedesensitizing me.
Our local Mengele you are!


Here is my problem: Why do people live their lifes assuming that objective reality is at their fingertips? It's almost like they don't think!

So that sanity be kept.

The connection between us and objective reality is our belief that objective reality is consistent. This belief ensures our sanity.
How this belief developed is crucial -- I think it is beyond our ability to consciously develop that belief. It happens as we grow up, in early childhood.


Are you afraid of death?
(There is a certain line of thoughts that lead me to ask this question here. But bear with me.)

Not at all.

Remember, experience -> knowledge.

If I have not experienced death, I cannot be afraid of it.

I have experienced thoughts of death perhaps, these I can be afraid of. But I have not experienced death.

Have you seen Spidergoat's thread on the fear of death?


We have already established our constant hypocrisy. Everyone fails at their own standards and pretends that they don't. It is absurd, yes.

But the question is, if we fail by assuming, then what is the point in assuming the first place?

The answer is: We don't know!

I think this is beyond knowledge, beyond choice.


Which raises a more difficult question. If we don't know, then why do we ignore our ignorance and live life as if we know what we claim to know when all we do is assume we know?

Even though logically speaking, certain things are assumptions, when we act on them, we may not treat them as assumptions, but as absolutes.

A good example is communication: A theory says that all communication is based on the assumption that we understand eachother. It is only when misunderstandings happen, that we can become aware that we acted on the assumption that we understand eachother. If a misunderstanding doesn't happen, we are not aware that we are acting on the assumption that we understand eachother -- as long as a misunderstanding is absent, we do as if understanding is an absolute.


Sounds confusing but that's the point. There is some inconsistency that makes the whole shebang smell very bad.

But maybe this inconsistency is exactly the thing that keeps us going. Inconsistency forces us into seeking equlibrium, but since we have started out with an inconsistency, we can't ultimately fix it (maybe death -- ultimate cesation would do that), so the best we can do is seek dynamic equlibrium. Fix one inconsistency, and another one appears, fix that one, and another one comes ...


The French poet Arthur Rimbaud said once:
It is wrong to say "I think". We ought to say "I am being thought."

"Who thinks?" is a dubious question -- as it all depends on our definitions of thinking and I-ness.

A very brilliant realization. But there is no definition of "I" to behold like we discussed in the PM. 'We' don't experience the "I", we don't experience ourselves.

'We' might experience a thought that says "I am" but again, that does not mean that I really am or that I am experiencing myself. The stupid language, I keep using "I" to express myself when it contradicts the very point I am trying to make.

The stupid language -- but it's telling, isn't it?

The I is an idea, like there are other ideas. I don't know how to experience the idea of metacognition or unicorns, for example, but I sure as hell can say a lot about them. How ...


Just because someone 'experience' will does not mean they are the ones willing. The conclusion is non sequitur. Which means the basis of religion is non sequitur. But you will respond and say, faith cannot be justified via reason. To which I will reply, then what is the point?

If you ask "What is the point?" you are expecting an answer made by reason, and assuming everything can be explained via reason.

In fact, everything can be *explained* via reason -- for this is what reason does -- it explains!

But the crux is that reason is not all there is to us, and that reason is not what ultimately directs our lives. It is values and preferences that guide our noses.


Then who are you, who is the knower?

The space in which thinking occurs.

Trick question. Nope!

There is no "you". "You" or what is perceived as "you" is a mere facet of your brain. Difficult to explain here so you'll have to wait.

Like in Multiple Personality Disorder, this space can house more than one "you". I initially followed the same assumption you made but found it was problematic in accounting for MPD so I tweaked it a little bit.

Exactly. But this is where psycho-social conditioning comes in! "One body houses one I." It is from this (believing (thinking, being conditioned: ah, all concepts fail here!) that there is only one I) that we can say that the I is the space in which thinking occurs (for we do see that thinking occurs, or so we think, ah).

I don't wish to bring in MPD, for there may be reasons for this that healthy (" ") brains have nothing to do with.

The issue of the problems with the I is spread both in time and in space.
Problems with the continuity of the I through time have already been addressed.
But there is also this: I do feel like I am someone else when I study -- in comparison to what I am when I write a personal letter to my friend or when I hike in the mountains. As if I am so many I's. And what keeps them together, giving me the impression that the I is one, but has many facets? The body?


Uh, yes. What did we say about the circularity of rational justifications?

//I am screaming by now

THEN WHAT IS THE POINT IN JUSTIFYING SOMETHING IF THE JUSTIFICATION IS GOING TO BE CIRCULAR ANYWAY?

Nothing needs to be rationalized if it is going to end up being as circular as ever. Why not depend on the listening parties to unreasonably assume the same axioms you do - the justification is of no consequence either way!

Because this is what reason does: it seeks justifications. And it seeks, and it seeks, and it seeks -- while life goes on.


It all boils down to whether you can think or not. If you can, you have free will. If not, you don't.

I think this is no good. It is trying to define a concept as if we knew objective reality.
You are doing it -- "Why do people live their lifes assuming that objective reality is at their fingertips? It's almost like they don't think!"


It will just come by surprise.

I told you once. You'll be shocked to know.

*long face ...*


Like, *why*?

Hehe.

I said so. That is final. Why? Because I said so. That is final. Why?..

Good. Absolutes. I love that.


Just like assumptions, it does not seem necessary to me. I find no proper justification for these things. Why do I feel emotions if I don't want to? Why do I assume if I don't want to?

Because you are trapped in reason.


Note to self:
She death-beasts hibernate for millions of years.

I am really nice though, you know.


Who is the LORD that I may know Him?

Seek, and thou shall find.

I can't seek if I don't know what I am looking for.

Absolutes! Take heart, we are getting somewhere.


Back to the Godel thread.

Did you see how those circles influenced thought as every ancillary assumption was necessarily fixed by an earlier assumption?

If you believe God's presence can be witnessed in nature, then whatever you witness in nature will be snugly fit into the circle "God's presence can be witnessed in nature".

If you believe God's presence cannot be witnessed in nature, the same follows.

If you believe God might or might not exist, then thingsyou do will be based on the prior assumption that God might or might not exist.

In all these three cases, whether you like it or not your thinking is influenced by the earlier premise and it is therefore limited to whatever the premise of the outer circle is.

And so knowing, which is already horrifyingly limited, becomes even more limited by assumptions.

Assumptions limit the purview of assumptions.

If we say assumptions are necessary, we also admit that there is no chance of knowing through any other means other than assumptions. We also understand then that any ensuing admission, whether or not you agree, is limited by the previous assumption.

So help me Quine.

The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.


If we say assumptions are necessary, we also admit that there is no chance of knowing through any other means other than assumptions.

I know I have said before that for us to get somewhere by plan, we must make assumption.

But there is one very important phenomenon that does have great influence on our lives: surprise.
How come it can happen? And how come it can have a profound effect on our lives-- when we said that we are bound by our assumptions?


Now you see the problem.

I am a hypocrite.

But how?! When there is NO YOU!!?!


I don't want to live a life of hypocrisy - pretend that I am not because doing so will be mroe practical. I don't want to live a life of inconsistency. I don't want to life a life of unjustifiable arbitrariness. I don't want to live a life of double standards.

I don't want to live a life of ignorance.

Who or what is forcing you or leaving you no choice but to live a life of hypocrisy, inconsistency, unjustifiable arbitrariness and double standards?


The other day I was talking to this pretty girl (she is Christian). She asked me if I was a Christian.

Guess what I said?

Inconsistency. Arbitrariness. Hypocrisy. Circularity. Lies. Ignorance.

Incompleteness.

And I didn't even care one bit.

I think the essential information here is that the girl was pretty.


I suppose I can elaborate now.

To know trust, I would have to had experienced it.

I experience thoughts that tell me that I fear trust. And so the inference is made that I fear trust. And so am I crippled in this manner - even though none of this came by will.

I am not afraid to trust. I am afraid to want to trust.

Hm. Who is the "I" in this, and who or what, or how does that will come to be?


Would you trust a random stranger on the street who would tell you to trust him?

According to you trust is unconditional.

Yes, once it is established, *then* it is unconditional (or it isn't trust at all).
And you haven't answered my question.

Your question is evil and I would rather not answer it. But.

Yes and no.

Come on.. you know the question is oversimplified. The demeanor and appearance of the stranger, my mood, the environment.. so many things come into play. I cannot give a straight answer.

Without experiencing it, I cannot know.

Unless you want me to assume arbitrarily.

So would you agree that some intimacy (of some kind) is needed in order to trust?


It is not correct, it is not wrong -- but it enables us to live in this world. That's just how it is ........................

Why does that question not satisfy me?

This question? You mean answer?
It doesn't satisfy you because you have placed reason and consistency to be the highest principles of life.


Which reminds me of an objection you made to me elsewhere: "But I do not experience myself as neurons."

How do you know that you don't?

Conditioning. If I were, from earliest age on, told that I am my neurons, then I think I would "experience" myself as my neurons.


Absolutely. But the assumptions of man are incompatible.

This is because we are, as living beings, left to seeking dynamic equilibrium -- see above.


How can free will not be a farce if the "I" is a construct? There is something we are missing. An ignorance which answers everything beautifully. So beautifully I cannot help but laugh.

And remember: You had to gather wood and carry water before you were enlightened, and you will have to gather wood and carry water after being enlightened.
 
itopal said:
(?)

Hmm . . . sell everything give it away . . . keep just enough to move to a third world country - spend some time there; a lot of time - and then you will know what rubbish is; and it won’t be anything like the modern prosperity and freedom you enjoy to point of - living a existence that is spoiled by velvet circumstances.

Just so as to please SouthStar, I will post this here with the assumption (!), yes, that this thread's title "You have to believe" and my handle "Modern life is rubbish" actually have something to do with eachother.
 
§outh§tar said:
---------
I don't want to live a life of hypocrisy - pretend that I am not because doing so will be mroe practical. I don't want to live a life of inconsistency. I don't want to life a life of unjustifiable arbitrariness. I don't want to live a life of double standards.

I don't want to live a life of ignorance.

The other day I was talking to this pretty girl (she is Christian). She asked me if I was a Christian.
Guess what I said?
Inconsistency. Arbitrariness. Hypocrisy. Circularity. Lies. Ignorance.
Incompleteness.
And I didn't even care one bit.

§outh§tar said:
We have already established our constant hypocrisy. Everyone fails at their own standards and pretends that they don't. It is absurd, yes.

§outh§tar said:
Which means the basis of religion is non sequitur. But you will respond and say, faith cannot be justified via reason. To which I will reply, then what is the point?


Perhaps the point of faith is to allow a person to fail at their standards, admit that they do, live with it, and move ahead. Faith may have been intended as a psychological tool to allow humanity to be always moving ahead, focused on fixing problems and enjoying life rather than on their own (justified) guilt.

If everyone fails at their standards, their are three ways to deal with this -

#1)lower your standards, i.e., say "that wasn't wrong, or "I am just an animal under natural pressures", or "I am not in control of my mind"

#2) receive forgiveness from an external source

#3) forgive yourself. Most people are not good at loving themselves which is obvious when one looks at the foibles **incredible euphemism** of humanity.

This is definitely a vastly incomplete reckoning of the effects of faith, and it seems that this tool has been misused at least as often as it has been used. There are more answers to your question, "what's the point", but I am figuring all this out as I go along too. I think water's quote about carrying water is desperately needed in christian churches.

Also, regarding not wanting to be inconsistent and not have arbitrariness, welcome to the fellowship of humankind. But then again you didn't have to mislead the girl, unless you are just strictly under the control of natural selection. I think you made a choice to be inconsistent. this brings out an important idea for the forgiveness thing. Most people assume you need to be forgiven by others, but take your experience as an example - let's say you never see the girl again, she isn't affected by any "incomplete" truth you spoke, only you are. So, you have three options, oh... there is always
#4) forget about it. But with the obvious emphasis you place on subliminal processes perhaps this is even more destructive than just disliking yourself outright.

P.S. re - can you think? - I think the problem in that thread is that we both have theories with incomplete evidence. I've actually just been lazy and have been waiting for you to bring out your theory. Like I said there, it is always easier to criticize than to create. Do they have a laziness smiley???
 
cole grey said:
Perhaps the point of faith is to allow a person to fail at their standards, admit that they do, live with it, and move ahead.

If it was that simple, we would all go mad.

It appears some of us cannot live with it. Not because we will to be stubborn over something so essential to life, but because. Because.. There is no reason. Why is why it's maddening? HOW can there be no reason? If there is no reason, then why are we inclined to look for reasons? It seems nature - or SOMEONE - has played a horrible trick on us. We think we are progressing, we think we are get aheading ahead. But could it be that you are programmed to view life in terms of progress? Why do we chase our tails when we think?

There is more to it than meets the eye.

Faith may have been intended as a psychological tool to allow humanity to be always moving ahead, focused on fixing problems and enjoying life rather than on their own (justified) guilt.

Faith does not allow us to move ahead (see above). We think in circles and we think in bigger circles and we think in smaller circles and we are always assuming and not caring.

If a man sees faith as problematic, then do you not see something wrong in him trying to fix the 'problem' through faith? Inconsistency.

If everyone fails at their standards, their are three ways to deal with this -

#1)lower your standards, i.e., say "..r "I am not in control of my mind"


Anyone who subscribes to such egoism has a lot of things to account for. I wonder how you plan to use anything as impossibly foolish and oversimplifed as free will to explain multiple personality disorder and sleepwalking.

So how do you think, cole grey?


#2) receive forgiveness from an external source

#3) forgive yourself. Most people are not good at loving themselves which is obvious when one looks at the foibles **incredible euphemism** of humanity.

This is definitely a vastly incomplete reckoning of the effects of faith, and it seems that this tool has been misused at least as often as it has been used. There are more answers to your question, "what's the point", but I am figuring all this out as I go along too. I think water's quote about carrying water is desperately needed in christian churches.

Also, regarding not wanting to be inconsistent and not have arbitrariness, welcome to the fellowship of humankind. But then again you didn't have to mislead the girl, unless you are just strictly under the control of natural selection. I think you made a choice to be inconsistent. this brings out an important idea for the forgiveness thing. Most people assume you need to be forgiven by others, but take your experience as an example - let's say you never see the girl again, she isn't affected by any "incomplete" truth you spoke, only you are. So, you have three options, oh... there is always

//Screaming by now

Listen. I knew very well that I was lying before I lied, while I was lying, and after I lied. I didn't want to lie. But I did. Do you see the problem? Intellectually, I am told I am a liar and a hypocrite. But I don't feel like a hypocrite or anything. All the abhorrence I have for free will, for inconsistency, for arbitrariness, it is PURELY intellectual. NOW. If we assume free will, and we assume that I "have control of my mind." Then there is surely something weird going on if I am thinking to the left and acting to the right. Which leads me to think maybe our assumptions about knowledge are incorrect. Also, back on the subject of you alledging we have control of our minds, tell me, how do you account for people who hear voices in their heads as well? Is this also part of free will? Will you oversimplify the reality?
The girl happens to have become better friends with me by a factor of 10 in the past week alone (after I told her). So you see, my 'white lie' is quickly becoming a deadly sore. I sure as hell can't tell her now. I want to tell her, but I don't want to tell her. And I won't. My not wanting to tell her is purely intellectual, as is my wanting to. If we assume free will, that I have control of my mind, then gee, you have a lot to explain for why I am 'willingly' and 'voluntarily' thinking two different things.

#4) forget about it. But with the obvious emphasis you place on subliminal processes perhaps this is even more destructive than just disliking yourself outright.

I think this stems from a misunderstanding of consciousness. When people say 'I think consciously' or something of the sort, they are making a gross error since that is very impossible. Just ask Benjamin Libet (see 'Can we think' thread).

P.S. re - can you think? - I think the problem in that thread is that we both have theories with incomplete evidence. I've actually just been lazy and have been waiting for you to bring out your theory. Like I said there, it is always easier to criticize than to create. Do they have a laziness smiley???

TruthSeeker has an interesting avatar. I'll be working on it this weekend - hopefully.
 
water said:
No, for I have seen The thing!

Hollywood gets better and better (worse and worse?) every year. But Spielberg has nothing to compare to my shocker.

It is not good to arbitrarily define human and then claim this 'other form' is not human.
Why is it not good ...

We are creating our own truth.

You see, the greater the number of people who believe in something you already believe in, the more cogent that belief becomes. Of course it doesn't work if you didn't already believe, but once you do, then the group becomes like an anchor for our belief. Our assumptions become truth. And so the big religions thrive. And so science thrives. And so we thrive. Herd mentality, regardless of how much we like to perceive ourselves to be independent, objective, and all the other egocentric terms.

As I will go on to show, we are not even human to begin with. We are. Not.

No no no. No. NO.
How many times have I said that such a definition of free will is no good?!

Here comes the 'no' thing again...

See here

If we cannot think, or more accurately, if 'I think' is an untrue statement, then anyone who thinks they have free will is obviously going to have to rethink their philosophy. Free will is inescapably, undeniably, rooted in the assumption that "we" - that there is a "we" - who has control over certain neurological processes. As far as I am concerned, it does not even have to be all neurological processes. Even having control over ONE neurological process is enough to convince me of free will's validity.

Too bad Libet shattered that pipe dream.

I am also now in a better position to soon explain my most famous statement:
Just because you think you think does not mean you think.

So what's your stand? Can we think or not?
Thoughts are being thought.

Come on! Answer the question directly: yes, or no, or even sometimes, if you like. Take a stand. Be a man!

I wish I knew where we disagree.
Where did I say that the I *has* ultimate insight into the brain?

We can say that the I is one of the functions of the brain. It does not have ultimate insight into the brain, but it does make conclusions (one of these conclusions being that it does make conclusions).

The 'I' has no insight into the brain whatsoever. Period. It is actually the other way round which is simply marvelous because it means we are living in a dream. A dream we cannot wake from. We are doomed to forever think from the perspective of an 'I' which does not even exist. This I, as I will show later on, actually limits our thinking. And yet, we free willed sons of gods can do nothing about it. We are living in a dream.

The 'I' does not make conclusions. The 'I' is not even a function of the brain. It continues to baffle me when people say "my mind", or "my brain", or even "my arm" or "my leg" considering the 'I' is such a non existent thing. And that is the painful part. Even though we know there is no 'I' to refer to, our thinking is still stunted by the fact that we have to think in terms of an 'I'. Dammit.

To backtrack a little:
We are our thoughts, our thoughts are us.
There would be no us without our thoughts, just as there would be no thoughts without us.

'We' are not 'our' thoughts. 'We' are not even thoughts. Sorry if I gave that implication before. We are before thoughts but we exist ONLY during thoughts. It is a truly hateful detriment to knowledge. Before you think, or when you are not thinking, there is no 'I' to speak of - becaues you never think of an 'I'. But as soon as you think, there is an 'I' and you think this is you. The 'I' exists hardwired into our thinking, beyond society even - nothing can impede the 'I' from emerging in the mind. We are not our thoughts. Our thoughts say to us there is at all an 'us'. But our thoughts are not us, we simply must not trust our thoughts that quickly. There is more to it than meets the eye. We may say for the sake of simplicity that the 'I' is a type of thought, but it is not thoughts. It is not always we are thinking of an 'I' when we are thinking. Only when an action or thing needs to be assigned to an 'I' do we ever think of the 'I'. Try it. 'Try' as you can, you simply cannot think of the 'I' independently of things that need an 'I' to be assigned to them. When an 'I' does not need to be assigned, the 'I' won't do you any good, try as you may. Try thinking that you are the monitor in front of you. Won't work. (Of course there are exceptions to this second challenge where a person might think he is a teapot, but these outliers simply argue more forcefully against free will). But of course, these are senseless things. Referring to the 'I' as a teapot or as a human being are merely clever ways of avoiding the fact that we don't know what an 'I' is, much less why we think in terms of 'I'. But that is not so bad, it can be explained without referring to an 'I'.

The 'I' is probably an inference. An inference is building an imaginary bridge where one did not exist and declaring the bridge was always there, we just couldn't see it. The brain is an inference machine. It most probably infers an I. This is how the brain acquires knowledge - by inference. The 'I' is obviously needed for matters of assigning ownership and (gasp) - social relations. Shockingly enough, ownership and social relations overlap quite a bit. And so we can assume what the function of the 'I' is. But if the 'I' is the imaginary bridge, then who builds it - and who walks on it?

And so herd mentality kicks in. Everyone has some knowledge of the 'I' and so do 'I', I guess my knowledge must be right. Group reinforcement, yay! A very sad means of determining the validity of knowledge, this "intersubjective provability" talk. Just because every person in the world thinks clouds are white does not mean clouds are white. It means that is how nature has programmed us to see clouds. We see them as white, we agree, and society is not broken apart by disagreements. Convenient, eh? This is why our knowledge is so very untrustworthy. Just because you think you think does not mean you think.

Now in multiple personality disorder, researchers distinguish the 'I' by behavioral traits This is no different. We make the inference that since there are different behaviors at different times, there must be different persons in 'control' at different times. And so do we forget that it might be the same person behind the wheel, but in a different car. Or even that there may be no one behind the wheel, no 'person' in control. This is the miracle of life. Almost everyone who sees a MPD patient will infer that there are actually different people. Nature has programmed us to make similar inferences - to keep society together. THE SAME WITH MORALS. This is what I had meant to say when I claimed in the Godel thread that we might all have been born with inborn prototypes. We think so much alike. And yet it never occurs to us that this might mean we have no free will. Because all our knowledge is based on inference - and is therefore circular, our only comfort in and standard of knowledge is the fact that we can and do make similar inferences, across the ages, across continents and oceans. Because nature has afforded us the same mindset, we can make similar inferences. And since we make similar inferences, the herd mentality jumps in and we become confident that our inferences have been truth all along. Every scientist came to the same conclusion independently and so it must be objective. I protest.



And of course, inferences cannot be supported linearly. When little Timmy holds himself and prances around, we infer that he wants to go to the bathroom. Logically speaking, the conclusion is a non sequitur. But. We find solace in the fact that all children do the same thing. And so do we return to identification by behavior. To think our truth is circular is to question the validity of our own assumptions. But that would be absurd, for is it not 'I' who made the assumption? And so we are trapped in our knowledge. And the group says we have free will. Dammit.


Remember what I said in the Godel thread: Experience is what gives us knowledge.
This needs elaboration. Knowledge cannot be "given", it is made, developed -- in accordance with the brain's abilities.

This too needs elaboration. And onward to the savant. From whence cometh his knowledge then? His knowledge cometh from the Lord, who made heaven and earth.

I think saying "in accordance with the brain's abilities" is a little specious. Knowledge is first and foremostly based on the senses - where a blind man does not imagine and make visual inferences, the deaf do not make auditory inferences. (By "make", I mean 'experience', but I don't want to bog down the explanation more than I already have)

Did you see the thread where I talked about reading with my tongue in between my lips? I found that reading in my head while my tongue was in between my lips created a lisp in my head. It was dumbfounding - how could disabling my tongue possibly impair my auditory thought? Was that action therefore an impairment of the brain?

As follows from what I theorized, since the savant has never experienced how he calculates, he can never know how he calculates. In the same way, since we have never experienced how thoughts come to be, we can never know how thoughts are thought. (By 'know', I mean "make an inference as to") And so because a blind man does not experience visually, his knowledge cannot be visual either. The same goes for the other senses. In this way, we see that knowledge is based on the senses. Of course, I don't consider words to be knowledge. We might know words, but words themselves are not knowledge. Our knowledge of words comes from our senses. To restate nicely: Our knowledge of words comes from sensory input (sound, sight). But when we think of words, is our thought free of the rule of the sense? No, for we think in terms of sound, and we think in terms of sight. If we had no sight to see the words, then we would have no sight when we think the words. This is what I mean essentially by knowledge is based on the senses.

When you look at the computer screen, you see a computer screen.. But how do you see the computer screen? Do you experience the process by which the brain refines the image? No. You only experience ex post. In this way, we can say that conscious knowledge (pleonasm) is also second hand. ALL knowledge, by this token, is "second hand", in the sense that knowledge (read "inference") has to be inferred before we can be conscious of it.

I said in the rough draft, "The consciousness can perceive (be aware) of thoughts and sensory input. Thoughts in this case will entail emotions and the voice in our head. Sensory input refers to when we feel, taste, see, smell, or hear. The two often seem to overlap for at times, sensory input can be ‘mimicked’ in thoughts."

Now what you think you are seeing with your eyes, you are actually seeing inside ("") your brain. Not with your eyes per se. There is just the inference that you are seeing with your eyes; the inference is ex post. The inference comes from you actually touching and waving your hand in front of your eyeballs and so on. From this experience came the inference. And from the inference came the knowledge. Everyone believes they are seeing with their eyes when they are seeing with their brain. From this, we can again confirm that knowledge is second hand. We only know after the inference, never during nor before. I suppose that's what you had been saying all along about "ex post" but I was too dense and had to reach the inference on my own.

Since we only know ex post, then it cannot possibly be true that thinking "I think" means you think, for the thought itself is an inference made, not by 'you' but by the brain. Now why do you not experience yourself as the brain instead of an independent entity? You don't! Remember, knowledge is based on the senses. Have any of your senses ever detected the brain? Therefore could the ancients ever have suspected they were the brain? No! But as soon as we experienced the brain, we began to make inferences of what it could do, and from those very experiences did we leap out of our old circle of thought where the heart was king and into another circle of thought where the brain was king. We saw that grey blob, but the final inference could not be made. For is it not "I" who moves my arm, is it not "I" who thinks? And so the herd mentality suppressed one truth for another.

The brain cannot observe itself. Knowledge comes through thought and thought through inference and inference through experience. As I said before, 'our' knowledge is second hand. More importantly, the brain's knowledge must also be second hand. The brain cannot know the thought it creates until after it is created. That's where consciousness comes in but I'm too lazy to write about that here. Since the brain never experiences itself, it can never know know itself as the brain. I might think I am representational of the brain, but I don't know myself to be a brain for I never experience myself to be so. Just because you think you think does not mean you think. By the same argument, it is impossible for 'you' to have know who, or what, the 'you' is - you have never experienced it. It is then safe to say that it is not 'you' experiencing, but rather that the inference is made, ex post, that 'you' are the one experiencing.

You do however experience thoughts, actions, emotions, and always ex post. [/b]The brain can not know that it is the one thinking, or acting, or feeling, because it is not self aware. This is a limitation of knowledge. The brain will always think in terms of an 'I'. Even though I say it is the brain thinking for 'me', I am still unable to think from the perspective of a brain, instead of thinking in terms of an 'I'. (The 'me', the 'I', will be better described later on). Nature has programmed the brain to infer the 'I' and to know in terms of an 'I'. Objectivity is shattered here. The assumption that our thoughts, our knowledge, is reliable, that too is shattered. Just because you think you think does not mean you think.

Good. Now you are dedesensitizing me.
Our local Mengele you are!

Have you a twin?

!


So that sanity be kept.

The connection between us and objective reality is our belief that objective reality is consistent. This belief ensures our sanity.
How this belief developed is crucial -- I think it is beyond our ability to consciously develop that belief. It happens as we grow up, in early childhood.

Sanity be kept. At the experience of hypocrisy? Double standards? Inconsistency? Incompleteness? What is man looking for? Truth? Or comfortable truth?

Belief is not 'consciously' developed. Nothing is ever developed consciously. It often ends up in consciousness, but that is not where it begins - ever. The assumptions that we think consciously or that we act consciously or that we know consciously, they are all absurd. That is where consciousness and its function come in. It's beautiful really. Remind me to explain in the next reply.

But I will ask for asking's sake: how does one consciously develop a belief, or consciously decide right from wrong, or consciously think, or consciously act? There is a misunderstanding of consciousness. The misunderstanding can be attributed to knowledge and its relation to consciousness. Which is all very beatiful, but I save it for later.

Have you seen Spidergoat's thread on the fear of death?

Where is it?


I think this is beyond knowledge, beyond choice.

Nature programmed us that way. To be the same. To think the same way. We can't be free of our thoughts. Dammit.

Chasing the rainbow to find the legendary pot of truth.


Even though logically speaking, certain things are assumptions, when we act on them, we may not treat them as assumptions, but as absolutes.

A good example is communication: A theory says that all communication is based on the assumption that we understand eachother. It is only when misunderstandings happen, that we can become aware that we acted on the assumption that we understand eachother. If a misunderstanding doesn't happen, we are not aware that we are acting on the assumption that we understand eachother -- as long as a misunderstanding is absent, we do as if understanding is an absolute.

We infer that we were acting on assumption after the misunderstanding, but do we know we were acting on assumption? It seems at best, we may say we assume were were acting on assumption. Why? Because we have second hand knowledge. The inference of an assumption was made by a phantom 'us'. But this will seem unclear until I later reveal the purpose of consciousness. Control your excitement.

This 'us', our identity, it itself an inference. Not a facet of the brain. The 'us' or the 'I' is inferred to be a conscious entity because all we experience is experienced consciously. We do not experience subliminal processes because consciousness is never exposed to these subliminal processes. The 'I' comes from experience. Our knowledge of the 'I' comes from experience.

And so, you now know, you do not exist. Shocked to death yet?

But maybe this inconsistency is exactly the thing that keeps us going. Inconsistency forces us into seeking equlibrium, but since we have started out with an inconsistency, we can't ultimately fix it (maybe death -- ultimate cesation would do that), so the best we can do is seek dynamic equlibrium. Fix one inconsistency, and another one appears, fix that one, and another one comes ...

Like chasing a rainbow..

Certain assumptions, led to other assumptions. One circle leads to another circle. But are they bigger circles? Or just different ways of looking at the same circle? It seems to me that we are programmed to think we are progressing, moving ahead, when we may not be. The idea of progress, of a state better than the current, leads us to press on - in this life or otherwise.


The stupid language -- but it's telling, isn't it?

The I is an idea, like there are other ideas. I don't know how to experience the idea of metacognition or unicorns, for example, but I sure as hell can say a lot about them. How ...

The idea of unicorns is similar to Hume's gold mountain.

This is why I said if we are to look for the origin of thoughts, we must look to random chance and quantum physics. Rigid determinism on the atomic level. Ironically you holists are the ones who don't get to see the big picture. And so do I strive to follow Hume's footsteps to "make a kind of merit of our very ignorance."

But that itself is a problem. I become more confident of my position, because Hume arrived at similar conclusions independently. That is of course a non sequitur and makes no sense! And yet. But your question will be surely answered fully when I tell you all about consciousness. Stay in your seat.

If you ask "What is the point?" you are expecting an answer made by reason, and assuming everything can be explained via reason.

In fact, everything can be *explained* via reason -- for this is what reason does -- it explains!

But the crux is that reason is not all there is to us, and that reason is not what ultimately directs our lives. It is values and preferences that guide our noses.

Reason does not explain. Au contraire, reason makes us confident that our inferences/assumptions have in fact been truth all along. The bridge is not there. All it does is to reassure us of ourselves. Using the very same circularity it wishes to linearize. But of course we don't care, as long as we can rationalize, we can feel good. Hypocrites.

Of course reason does not direct our lives. Chemicals (atoms to be precise) direct life. Not values and preferences. We think values and preferences guide us in life. But do we know that to be true? Or do we just think it to be true - because we rationalize? It seems to me that this preposterous business of neurons rationalizing the behavior of neurons is eternally absurd. But that's just my line of reasoning.

Exactly. But this is where psycho-social conditioning comes in! "One body houses one I." It is from this (believing (thinking, being conditioned: ah, all concepts fail here!) that there is only one I) that we can say that the I is the space in which thinking occurs (for we do see that thinking occurs, or so we think, ah).

I don't wish to bring in MPD, for there may be reasons for this that healthy (" ") brains have nothing to do with.

I only bring in MPD because it of its importance in demonstrating the absurdity of free will and responsibility and its instrumental position in a general theory of knowledge. I've shifted from bashing free will to bashing knowledge. Slipperier than John Kerry, I am.

The 'I', we will investigate shortly. But I am afraid the description will seem incomplete without incorporating consciousness.

The issue of the problems with the I is spread both in time and in space.
Problems with the continuity of the I through time have already been addressed.
But there is also this: I do feel like I am someone else when I study -- in comparison to what I am when I write a personal letter to my friend or when I hike in the mountains. As if I am so many I's. And what keeps them together, giving me the impression that the I is one, but has many facets? The body?

I thought of that too. It seems to me, as I mentioned earlier, that when we perceive others, we identify them by behavior, which is no different from the way we treat MPD patients. But that is why reinterpreting identity is so necessary. The following example will demonstrate:

Patient X starts hearing voices in his head. He gets spooked and sees a psychiatrist.

Now, how did patient X know that those voices in his head were not him? If the 'I' is an inference, why did he feel separate from those voices? Why did he feel those voices were not his?

I think it has to do with us having an underlying self, or sense of self. This self is also identified by behavior, but in addition, is determined entirely by nurture (and maybe nature). The entire events of your life from birth to now have determined your behavior. You do not determine your behavior - what you are inclined to believe or disbelieve, the tone of your thoughts, the way you speak to certain people, the way you interpret certain situations, your morals. From these and other similar 'behavior factors', there consists an underlying you. (This is most fascinating by the way!) This is the blueprint of you. Anytime the brain creates a thought, it uses this blueprint. If your environment has led you to become a cynical thinker, the brain will create cynical thoughts as well. If your behavior is psychopathic, the brain will create psychopathic thoughts. (There is a nice 'mask' analogy at the bottom of this post to expand.) This is the way MPD operates incidentally. There are different blueprints for different personalities - and so each personality of an MPD patient thinks and acts differently from each other based on what the blueprint dictates. Remember also that since the brain never experiences itself nor this 'blueprint', it can never infer itself as the originator of the voices. Patient X's brain finds that the thoughts are not in sync with his 'normal' behavior and Patient X becomes alarmed and infers that a different 'person' is responsible for the thought. Now remember that the 'I' is associated with behavior and therefore each 'blueprint' neurologically represents a person, an 'I'. (Ask for clarification if I bungled something)

Now in your case, your general behavior too does not change between studying, writing, or hiking mode. You can be a doctor, a sister, and a mother at different times and yet be the same person. This is because there is a special element of the blueprint: memory. Even as these different 'people', you remember the same things and therefore do not think of yourself as different people on different occasions. MPD personalities probably do not share the same memories then, but do tell me if there are exceptions to the rule. Body of course plays a role as well. Just as an example, let us assume a brain has been transplanted into another body, so that the personality has a new body (just for pretense). We would prima facie assume a different person due to the different body, but imagine our confusion when we identify the personality (the behavior) as belonging to someone else! To digress a little bit, I think it would be more than a little shocking in such a scenario for a person who remembers himself in a body far different from what he happens to be in. From this, we may also say that another element of the blueprint is the self image - what our body generally looks like. Wake up in the morning and find your skin green and you'll be quite alarmed. Wake up in the morning and try to think only to hear a chicken squawking in your head and you'll be quite horrified. Again, the body uses these snapshots of the 'self' to maintain a consistent 'I'.

Do tell me if this description can be applied to amnesiacs.

A testament to the flexibility or 'rewritability' of a person's blueprint can be seen in hypnosis where a person is instructed to become someone, or something else. If a hypnotist told you you were a chicken, the 'I' would change and refer not to a human, but to a chicken. This seems also to indicate that our presence in society heavily influences the 'I' - what people tell us about ourselves continually reshapes the identity, the behavior of the 'I'. I do wonder if people under such suggestions still exhibit behaviors characteristic of their blueprints. Is a person 'pretending' to be a chicken similar to an MPD patient who has a peculiar 'chicken' personality? If so, behavior may have very little or nothing at all to do with DNA.

Because this is what reason does: it seeks justifications. And it seeks, and it seeks, and it seeks -- while life goes on.

If you stop to think, life stops with you. Try it.

I think this is no good. It is trying to define a concept as if we knew objective reality.
You are doing it -- "Why do people live their lifes assuming that objective reality is at their fingertips? It's almost like they don't think!"

Judging from how many people will swear that they can and do think and the laws society has forcefully and foolishly imposed upon us, it becomes increasingly evident that an egomaniacal people believe that they can and do think - freely.

But identity is not what it appears to be at face value. There is more to thought and action than meets the eye; we (plural) must stop this foolishness of appealing to ignorance because we don't know what goes on subliminally - our knowledge is ex post and therefore we must stop to realize that the concept of personal responsibility is also a mere inference.

And you will then ask of me: will I then refuse credit for work I do? Will I reject praise for what I write?

That is not the issue. The issue is personal responsibility first, and then everything follows. This far, I have only elaborated on the identity and really haven't gotten too much into knowledge. Later on I will discuss that and consciousness and finally, the place and validity of free will.

It just so happens that I shouldn't be punished for something I didn't do. I shouldn't go to hell for something I could not possibly have done. Especially when there is no 'I' in the first place. Like it or not, that is NOT justice. That is arguing from ignorance. The herd against the outcast. Woe is the society that creates truth.

And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye?

Oh society, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" (Rom. 9:19)

Because you are trapped in reason.

What else in life will satisfy the mind - when I am by myself?

“To indulge the power of fiction, and send imagination out upon the wing, is often the sport of those who delight too much in silent speculation. When we are alone we are not always busy; the labour of excogitation is too violent to last long; the ardour of inquiry will sometimes give way to idleness or satiety. He who has nothing external that can divert him, must find pleasure in his own thoughts, and must conceive himself what he is not; for who is pleased with what he is? He then expatiates in boundless futurity, and culls from all imaginable conditions that which for the present moment he should most desire, amuses his desires with impossible enjoyments, and confers upon his pride unattainable dominion. The mind dances from scene to scene, unites all pleasures in all combinations, and riots in delights, which nature and fortune, with all their bounty, cannot bestow.”​

Not but the labour of excogitation? I pray that it lasts.

I am really nice though, you know.

Yes. I have been wondering why.. to me...


So help me Quine.

The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.

Apart from the fact that he could have said that in plain English..

Wilt society ignore this confilict, which is not at all new, to keep the field of ignorance as sturdy as it is? How long shall we remain in this stagnance?

What else do we have to fall back on when even our knowledge is marred? Surely not the same field? Not the same arbitrariness? Quickly! we must humble ourselves and know that we are not.

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. (Isa. 64:6)


I know I have said before that for us to get somewhere by plan, we must make assumption.

But there is one very important phenomenon that does have great influence on our lives: surprise.
How come it can happen? And how come it can have a profound effect on our lives-- when we said that we are bound by our assumptions?

Nature. Or someone. hath mandated that we not stay in the same circles all our lives. Left to ourselves, Sir Newton's Laws damn us, damn us to death. We would remain in the same stagnant beliefs all our days, but we are saved from ourselves. Hath programmed us to feel and think as if we are progressing, as if we are going somewhere. A very cruel joke.

And so do we think, "we are so much better than we were". But in truth, we have no standard to determine this; we lie. Do we not contrive our own bridges and walk on them? It is from this profound effect that we are driven to what we think is progress. We think we are climbing the mountain, we are getting closer to the top.

Man has been running in circles like a hamster in a wheel, like a dog on a treadmill. Yes, life goes on. Life passes him by. But man stays still.
See how foolish! He thinks it is he who is moving and so he runs and runs from morning till night, from life till death, till he tires and beats no more.

24Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. 25And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. - 1 Corinthians 9:24

Now you see the problem.

I am a hypocrite.
But how?! When there is NO YOU!!?!

Who or what is forcing you or leaving you no choice but to live a life of hypocrisy, inconsistency, unjustifiable arbitrariness and double standards?

Nature. Or someone. Has trapped me in my thoughts. I am snared for my own sake and I cannot be free. Neither can you. Trapped in the herd, trapped in fate.

Think of consciousness as a faceless mask. And think of the 'I' as paint for the mask. And think of the brain as a man. The mask is facing the man. Now the man is in charge of painting that mask into a happy mask, an unhappy mask, a satisfied mask, a pessimistic mask, a cynical mask.

But the man himself is not self aware. Because of this, when he looks at that mask, he infers that the mask must be him. Since he is not self aware, he does not know that he is the one painting the mask either. And so when the man feels angry, he paints the mask to be angry. Now since he does not know he is angry, by looking at the mask, he can infer that he is angry. When he is happy, he paints the mask happy and then infers that he is happy. When he is thinking optimistically, he paints the mask to be an optimistic thinker and infers that he is thinking optimistically. When he thinks about food, he paints the mask to think about food, and therefore infers that he is hungry. When he sees that the mask is painted to be a hypocrite, he infers that he is a hypocrite. Now know that since he is not self aware, he has no "choice" or "free will" to paint the mask as he pleases.

And so when 'I', look at the mask and find that I am staring into a hypocrites face, I infer that I am a hypocrite. I have no "free will" to paint the mask into the face of an optimistist.

I have no "free will" to paint the mask into the face of a believer, or a non-believer.

All I see is a hypocrite.

I think the essential information here is that the girl was pretty.

No! That is what I used to rationalize. To make me feel better. An ex post defense. Ad hoc madness! If I do not know, how will I be satisfied?


Hm. Who is the "I" in this, and who or what, or how does that will come to be?

Patience. The next post will spill the beans. Only remind me so I do not forget.

So would you agree that some intimacy (of some kind) is needed in order to trust?

By no fault of ours. It is the way we are programmed. It does not make sense to me but that is just the way we are inclined. It is the unreasonableness that gets to me.

This question? You mean answer?
It doesn't satisfy you because you have placed reason and consistency to be the highest principles of life.

What then, prithee, are the highest principles of life - for you?

Conditioning. If I were, from earliest age on, told that I am my neurons, then I think I would "experience" myself as my neurons.

Interesting. I disagree because there has been no such thing. But it would be an interesting case. Say more first.

This is because we are, as living beings, left to seeking dynamic equilibrium -- see above.

A terrible, terrible trick. Knowing very well that we would not find for we did not know the thing that we sought. And yet we still run.


And remember: You had to gather wood and carry water before you were enlightened, and you will have to gather wood and carry water after being enlightened.

But will I not be satisfied with reason and consistency? Are these not the highest utopias? Why settle for less?

I will be satisfied to know. If I had what I wanted, why, I would be like unto God.
 
Last edited:
itopal said:
water said:
Just so as to please SouthStar, I will post this here with the assumption (!), yes, that this thread's title "You have to believe" and my handle "Modern life is rubbish" actually have something to do with eachother. ”
In actuality - you are quite (??????) for asserting such.

What is "quite (??????)"?

I would like some words.
 
I was looking for something else, and then I come across this:


§outh§tar
She bangs! (2,987 posts) 01-02-05, 10:44 AM
water was here and she is a pragmatist.. whatever that means

Last edited by §outh§tar : 02-05-05 at 03:37 PM.


§outh§tar
She bangs! (2,988 posts) 12-27-04, 06:02 AM
water practices positivism

Last edited by §outh§tar : 02-05-05 at 03:35 PM.



Why did you go back and edit your posts -- a month later?!
 
Why did you go back and edit your posts -- a month later?!

The crux is that reason is not all there is to us, and that reason is not what ultimately directs our lives.

Do you want a reason too?
 
§outh§tar said:
The crux is that reason is not all there is to us, and that reason is not what ultimately directs our lives.

Do you want a reason too?

Yes.
 
Back
Top