by MD » Thu 14 Jul 2005, 15:27:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bobbotov', '
')
Can I ask if you would agree that knowledge and belief are mutually exclusive and if not how do they co-exist without conflict?
Your question is nonsensical. I would consider knowledge and belief to be complimentary. Mutual exclusiveness doesn't even come into consideration between the two. Certainly they are not one and the same, and certainly they do not occupy the same space. If that is what you mean by mutual exclusivity, so be it.
There is what I know, and what I believe. Much of what I believe is based on what I know.
This whole business about killing belief is just silly nonsense to me, perhaps I am just too dense to get it.
Believe as you like.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.
Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
-
MD
- COB
-
- Posts: 4953
- Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: On the ball
-
by Bobbotov » Thu 14 Jul 2005, 15:30:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bobbotov', '
')
Can I ask if you would agree that knowledge and belief are mutually exclusive and if not how do they co-exist without conflict?
Your question is nonsensical. I would consider knowledge and belief to be complimentary. Mutual exclusiveness doesn't even come into consideration between the two. Certainly they are not one and the same, and certainly they do not occupy the same space. If that is what you mean by mutual exclusivity, so be it.
There is what I know, and what I believe. Much of what I believe is based on what I know.
This whole business about killing belief is just silly nonsense to me, perhaps I am just too dense to get it.
Believe as you like.
Okay. Do you believe you are you or do you know you are you? Do you believe it is Thursday or do you know it is Thursday? Do you believe in life after death or do you know there is life after death? The answer cannot be yes in all cases or you do not understand the fundamental difference between knowing and believing.
by MD » Thu 14 Jul 2005, 15:38:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bobbotov', '
')Okay. Do you believe you are you or do you know you are you? Do you believe it is Thursday or do you know it is Thursday? Do you believe in life after death or do you know there is life after death? The answer cannot be yes in all cases or you do not understand the fundamental difference between knowing and believing.
I know I am me. (there are arguments to challenge that statement)
Some days I know what day it is, some days I am not so sure.
Whats is "thursday"? How can we know for sure today is "thursday"? This may always be a belief statement.
I believe there is life after death. I won't know until after I die, or if I am wrong in my belief, I will never know at all.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.
Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
-
MD
- COB
-
- Posts: 4953
- Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: On the ball
-
by PenultimateManStanding » Thu 14 Jul 2005, 15:58:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bobbotov', '
')Your choice is delusion or meaninglessness according to your contrasting sentences. That is a Hobson's choice. What I am saying is that there is no meaninglessness to knowledge only belief.
No it is not an all or nothing choice. Here it is again:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')any questions of 'meaning' are iffy. If you have a positivistic outlook then you have to throw it all overboard. If you are willing to follow intuition and 'belief' you can turn up some amazing things that are not positivistically verifiable but you run the risk of subscribing to a delusion. The opposite pole, however is to run the risk of impoverishing one's self in meaninglessness. Take your pick.
A positivistic outlook means that you require rigorous, scientifically verifiable, repeatable, experimental, scientific, quantifiable, etc confirmation of whatever it is you are considering before you give it any credence. But consider Poetry, or Art, or even subtle, intuitive notions that you concieve about people. None of this stands up to any positivistic scutiny. Same thing with dreams. So it isn't a question of delusion vs. meaninglessnes
per se. Rather, what I am saying is that at the opposite ends of the positivism vs intuition spectrum you have opposing risks. Perhaps the 'take your pick' remark is what caused the confusion. All I mean by that is that there pitfalls whichever side you come down on. You seem to be arguing from the positivistic side and so I'm addressing it from the other pole, so to speak.
by MD » Thu 14 Jul 2005, 16:12:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bobbotov', '
')Ah, but the last one is the one I am most interested in. What would happen to your life now if you dropped the notion of life after death? Would it hasten your death or have no effect?
I have been aware of your interest in that question for some time now.
Since a modification in my belief system would likely cause changes in my lifestyle and or decision making process, and I can't predict the future, then I can't say whether my life would be shorter, longer, or remain the same.
off line a few hours. I will pick up this thread later
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.
Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
-
MD
- COB
-
- Posts: 4953
- Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: On the ball
-
by Bobbotov » Thu 14 Jul 2005, 16:17:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bobbotov', '
')Your choice is delusion or meaninglessness according to your contrasting sentences. That is a Hobson's choice. What I am saying is that there is no meaninglessness to knowledge only belief.
No it is not an all or nothing choice. Here it is again:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')any questions of 'meaning' are iffy. If you have a positivistic outlook then you have to throw it all overboard. If you are willing to follow intuition and 'belief' you can turn up some amazing things that are not positivistically verifiable but you run the risk of subscribing to a delusion. The opposite pole, however is to run the risk of impoverishing one's self in meaninglessness. Take your pick.
A positivistic outlook means that you require rigorous, scientifically verifiable, repeatable, experimental, scientific, quantifiable, etc confirmation of whatever it is you are considering before you give it any credence. But consider Poetry, or Art, or even subtle, intuitive notions that you concieve about people. None of this stands up to any positivistic scutiny. Same thing with dreams. So it isn't a question of delusion vs. meaninglessnes
per se. Rather, what I am saying is that at the opposite ends of the positivism vs intuition spectrum you have opposing risks. Perhaps the 'take your pick' remark is what caused the confusion. All I mean by that is that there pitfalls whichever side you come down on. You seem to be arguing from the positivistic side and so I'm addressing it from the other pole, so to speak.
I am an artist so the reference has significance to me. Knowledge does not presuppose that symbolic treatment of information is delusional anymore than the symbolism of language or mathematics is delusional. It is a tool. Art and poetry are tools of expression. But they are not arbitrary. They are intentional. They must convey meaning however obscure they might be to be relevant. The fundamental kernel of meaning can certainly stand up to logical positivism regardless of how elaborately they are cloaked otherwise they are just pointless. The problem faced with dreams is that you cannot crack the code of symbolism in a meaningful way and there is no way to verify any of it.
If intuition is real then it has a meaningful purpose. The purpose I suspect is akin to having what Hemmingway called a " built in crap detector." It is possibly a trait to help the individual survive by allowing them to discern better on a subconscious or metaconscious level or one that is not at least part of cognitive awareness. You sense something. But all knowledge comes from senses so it is not outside the realm of the substantive. But if what you sense is without substance in reality then it is a delusion. Beliefs are things sensed without substance but rather we have imposed the meaning instead of drawing intrinsically from the thing itself.
In the life after death belief there is nothing intrinsic to death as observed by the living to indicate such is the case. A body dies and rots. Instead we impose a desire on the concept of death that is a delusion. We can never know and that gnaws at some of us as being unfulfilling so we invent a ready made answer.
Perhaps a stronger case could be made for reincarnation as there is a pattern of rebirth evident in the world around us - the seasons, for example.
by Bobbotov » Thu 14 Jul 2005, 16:55:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zentric', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bobbotov', 'B')eliefs are things sensed without substance but rather we have imposed the meaning instead of drawing intrinsically from the thing itself.
This above definition of 'beliefs' is hurting. Define it better, using terms such as 'emperical', then this debate might go away.
But where would we be then?
Okay. Taking the life after death example. We have no direct knowledge of what happens to us. Yet, that is unsettling so we impose meaning beyond what is empirical. We project our sentiments on it and come up with a myriad of belief systems that serve to explain away or comfort us in regards to such a seemingly terminal state. We hope there may be life after death because we cannot comprehend total finality.
But there is nothing in the observation of death per se that would provide any seed to these beliefs. They are made of vapor. My premise has been that there are many things in this world which are pattently incomprehensible and unknowable. But it does not follow that we need to invent a belief to live a productive life under those circumstances. As a matter of fact I contend that dropping beliefs will allow us to live without the polarizing effects in interpersonal relations that belief systems create.
"Belief are things sensed without substance." In otherwords, there is no empirical reason to sense anything (i.e. there is nothing there).
"...we have imposed the meaning instead of drawing intrinsically from the thing itself." Meaning, we project a meaning onto the meaningless or unknowable.
Last edited by
Bobbotov on Thu 14 Jul 2005, 17:04:22, edited 1 time in total.
by Bobbotov » Thu 14 Jul 2005, 16:57:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bobbotov', '&')gt;Either way, you can call me perceptive. Your emotional response is exactly what can be predicted of the intellectually precious. Sorry Bobbotov, but you're not the smartest guy in the room here, nor the wisest. Underneath the arrogance is incredible anger.
What a whimpy response. Sorry, no substance to it. As far as anger is concerned I will add more smileys
To be fair, I have to take myself to task here. Profiling you isn't fair, as you're obviously not an animatronic dummy responding reflexively to the idea of 'belief' based on your social milieau. You've thought about the issue and reached your own conclusions.
I have a knee jerk reaction to some issues likely due to personal experiences with friends many years ago. A very good friend of mine was a radical feminist deconstructionist, who did a fair (albeit radical) job of deconstructing gender issues, but failed utterly to apply deconstructionism to any other issue. She managed to fit me into a tight little category I didn't belong in and it was a really terrible experience.
No harm as continued dialogue can solve many misperceptions. Welcome to the fray. Incidentally, I have no axe to grind with any of you and part of the reason for discussion is to achieve mutual understanding if not agreement and growth for us all. I ain't dead yet so it is all good.
Just a joke, no flame. I'm serious.