Pattern-chaser
1.1k

They are not my "beliefs", mostly because I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa


Then what word (label) do you use to describe the things you think you know? — Pattern-chaser

Two quick question for you, if I may:

Do you think it is idiosyncratic of me to call my blind guesses...my blind guesses rather than my beliefs?

Do you think calling my blind guesses "beliefs"...is a superior ethical position than calling them "blind guesses."

Pattern-chaser
1.1k

They are not my "beliefs", mostly because I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa


Then what word (label) do you use to describe the things you think you know? — Pattern-chaser

I would not use "a word" to describe the things I think I know, PC. I would say, "I think I know...x."

Terrapin Station
9.1k

Fine.

YOU do "believing."

I do not.

As to the immediate question of whether any gods exist or not...

...do you blindly guess there are gods or blindly guess there are no gods?

Me...I do not blindly guess in either direction. — Frank Apisa


You do what-I-and-most-people-call-"believing" but what-you-idiosyncratically-call-something-else.

Re the question of gods, I know there are none, based on lots of different evidence. — Terrapin Station

So you think it is idiosyncratic of me to call my blind guesses...blind guesses?

Really?

And you think it idiosyncratic for me to call my opinion, estimates, and suppositions...opinions, estimates, and suppositions...rather than calling them my "beliefs?"

Wow.

Get the hell off it...both you guys.

Grok what I am saying ...or stay under your rock.

leo
250
↪Frank Apisa


You haven't addressed any of my points, you just keep repeating again and again that you "do not do believing". This type of behavior is precisely that of people who believe strongly in something. You believe strongly that you "do not do believing".

How did you arrive at this conclusion that you "do not do believing"? Look at the dictionary definition of belief, "confidence in something", "acceptance that something is true", do you never do that? When you are confident in something, by definition you believe in that thing. When you accept that something is true, by definition you believe in it. By definition you DO believing. You just don't like to call it believing, maybe because you don't want to see yourself and be seen on the same level as the people who believe in a god.

So ok you do not believe there is a god, and you don't believe there is no god, but you believe that you can't know either way, which is a belief by definition: you're confident that you can't know either way, you accept as true that you can't know either way.

However, some people have had experiences that they interpret as being in contact with god, as feeling god, so they're not blindly guessing, they're making an educated guess, they become confident that there is a god, and they choose to believe it, to accept it as true. — leo

I have explained my position as clearly as possible.

You simply want to insist that I consider my guesses, estimates, opinions, and the like to be "beliefs."

As I said, it is my opinion that you are full of shit.

My opinions...are my opinions. They are not my "beliefs", mostly because I do not do "believing."

My guesses...are my guesses. They are not my "beliefs", mostly because I do not do "believing."

My estimates...are my estimates. They are not my "beliefs", mostly because I do not do "believing."

Sorry you have so much trouble with that.

Terrapin Station
9.1k

I DO NOT DO BELIEVING.

I do understanding; guessing; supposing; estimating...and all that kind of stuff that others call "believing."

But I call my guesses, suppositions, and estimations...guesses, suppositions and estimations.

I DO NOT EVER CALL THEM BELIEFS. — Frank Apisa


You might not call them beliefs--that's fine, but you're doing what I name "belief" when you assert things like "I do not do believing." You can call it something else. What we name it doesn't really matter. Many of us just happen to name "that thing" "belief." — Terrapin Station

Fine.

YOU do "believing."

I do not.

As to the immediate question of whether any gods exist or not...

...do you blindly guess there are gods or blindly guess there are no gods?

Me...I do not blindly guess in either direction.

leo
249

Ahhh...practicing to be a psychologist by doing cyber-analysis. — Frank Apisa


Actually for now I'm guessing that you have some issues related to the concept of believing, that's not meant to be an attack that's an hypothesis as to why you react the way you do, and if you consider it seriously and do some introspection that might help you. But if you keep reacting like that this hypothesis might turn into a belief.

I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa

I DO NOT DO BELIEVING. — Frank Apisa

So...I do not do believing. — Frank Apisa

That is why I say I do not do "believing"...because I don't. — Frank Apisa

I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa

I do not do believing. — Frank Apisa

But I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa

...I do not do believing. — Frank Apisa

But I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa

I am not doing "believing." — Frank Apisa

Do you have a problem with that? — Frank Apisa

What is your fucking problem? — Frank Apisa


There are so many things to focus on, yet you seem most focused on making other people know and accept that you "do not do believing". I have seen you do that on at least one other thread. When people disagree with you, you respond with passive-aggressiveness, or you attack them. It doesn't take a psychologist to notice that you fixate on it and you react very strongly to it. When people stop replying to you you consider you have them convinced, but really you're just driving them away.

When a person says, "I believe there is a god"...all they are doing is saying, "It is my blind guess that there is at least one god in the REALITY"...but they are pretending they are saying something else. They are disguising the fact that they are making a blind guess by calling it a "belief." — Frank Apisa


It is not "all they are doing", because they also think and act as if this god exists, sometimes they feel him, they expect to meet him at some point, all that they wouldn't do if they were just blindly guessing.

Did you have help constructing that abomination of a sentence...or did you do it on your own, perhaps while under the influence? — Frank Apisa


In terms that you can understand, YOU DO BELIEVING, even if you don't say it, and even if you don't realize it.

I gave an example, in that example you hold a belief, the way belief is defined, so by the definition of belief you do believing. Now you keep saying that you do not do believing, but that's not in accordance with the definition of belief, because by that definition you do believing. — leo

Leo...you are completely full of shit.

I do not do "believing."

If you are saying that I do guessing...you are correct. I do guessing. If you want to call your guesses (especially the BLIND guesses) beliefs...fine with me. BUT I DO NOT DO THAT.

When I guess...I guess; when I estimate...I estimate; when I suppose...I suppose

If you or anyone else wants to guess or estimate or suppose...and pretend it is something else by calling it a belief...fine with me. But I do not do that.

I do not do "believing."

Not sure what your problem is with that, but it is YOUR problem. Not mine.

If you are not bright enough to understand my point...or if you think you are the arbiter of what I do or do not do...

...that also is YOUR problem.

leo
248

I don't think they are. To me...when a person says, "I believe (in) god" I think they are actually saying, "My guess is there is a god." When a person says, "I believe there are no gods" I think they are actually saying, "It is my guess there are no gods."

I do NOT see them as worlds apart. I do not use the "believe" form...because I see it as an attempt to disguise. — Frank Apisa


You seem to have some deep-seated issues with the concept of believing.

You keep referring to it in the context of believing in a god or believing there is no god, you don't like people who say they believe in a god, presumably because they have caused you some suffering in some way? You don't want them to accept something as real if you don't have evidence of it and they can't show you evidence of it? — leo

Ahhh...practicing to be a psychologist by doing cyber-analysis.

I see.

Don't give up your day job, Leo!

Belief is a word used to refer to various states of mind, but it doesn't reduce to a guess. When people say they believe there is a god they think and act as if there is a god, which is not the same as simply guessing. Sometimes they even see god. — Leo

When a person says, "I believe there is a god"...all they are doing is saying, "It is my blind guess that there is at least one god in the REALITY"...but they are pretending they are saying something else. They are disguising the fact that they are making a blind guess by calling it a "belief."

Same thing goes when a person says, "I believe there are no gods."

You say you do not do what these people do, but you do, you just don't say it, and maybe you also don't realize it. — Leo

Did you have help constructing that abomination of a sentence...or did you do it on your own, perhaps while under the influence?

In any case, of course I do what others do. I take a dump in the morning before going to the golf course...and during the day I will make calculations, guesses, suppositions and the like. BUT I will call my calculations, guesses and suppositions...calculations, guesses, and suppositions. I will not call those things "beliefs." No need to disguise something like that.

Say a friend of yours come visit you, and when you're with that friend you chat and have fun and let your guard down. Now it is not impossible that this person who has come to visit you is not your friend, but his twin he never told you about, or a clone, and that this person has come to hurt you. And yet you don't consider the possibility, you think and act as if this person has good intentions towards you, and that state of mind we call a belief, in this case a false belief. Now you can choose to not use that word, but that's the word we usually use.

I would choose not to use that word...and I do not much give a shit what word you, or anyone else, would use. I do not do "believing."

Anyway...cyber-friend to cyber-friend, Leo, I sincerely meant what I said earlier. Do not give up your day job.

First Ant: But…but…what if there is more to “what is” than what we ants can see, explore and speculate about?

Second Ant: If you want to fool around with nonsense and “what if’s”…go do it. Just do it somewhere else. We intelligent ants are discussing REALITY. We are discussing why we can figure out what is logical and what is not...what can exist and what cannot.

luckswallowsall
13
Causeless effects are not possible because if an effect has no cause it's by definition not an effect. — luckswallowsall

Which is the reason several of us have taken exception to the assertion that the universe is an effect...which requires a cause.

If one calls the universe "the Creation"...that gratuitously implies a Creator.

If one calls the universe "an effect"...that gratuitously implies a cause.

Gotta be careful of that "better."

Who decides what "better" means?

Important, because the decision will always effect someone else.

Be uncertain. Nothing wrong with it.

Try not to jump off buildings because you are uncertain that gravity always works, though.

Richard Feynman used to talk about certainty often...about what we actually know. He was a guy who "knew" lots, but his take might disturb you, because he was of the mind that we "knew" very, very little with certainty.

I'm a bit solipsistic myself.

No big deal for me.

Janus
7.2k

So, surely we must conclude that anything we believe possible - not probable or likely, only possible - remains so until more evidence clarifies matters? — Pattern-chaser


Logically and epistemologically speaking, yes. I am holding open the possibility that at least some things which we cannot prove to be impossible, actually are impossible simply due to the nature of things, in other words that at least some things may simply be ontologically or physically impossible. This seems obvious to me, and I am genuinely perplexed that others seem to be having difficulties with it, even though no one seems to be able to explain what the problem is. — Janus

What perplexes me is anyone who cannot see that if one has not established a thing as IMPOSSIBLE...it is at very least...POSSIBLE.

You continue to confuse what actually MAY BE...with what is possible.

If there are no life forms of any sort on any of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol...

...it is impossible for there to be any sentient life on any of those planets.

That is a given.

But right now...here...if the question is, "Is it possible that there are sentient beings living on one of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol?...

...the answer is absolutely YES.

It is possible. Just as sure as it is POSSIBLE there are no sentient life forms on any of those planets.

The possibility has nothing to do with the Reality. It has to do with establishing the reality.,

But...apparently you cannot see that...or cannot acknowledge that.

Way it goes.

Isaac
672

What is your fucking problem?

I have never expressed dissatisfaction with people who use other terminology. — Frank Apisa



But "believe" (the disguise word for guess) does cause difficulties. — Frank Apisa


...it matters, even if there are people too immature and ignorant to realize it. — Frank Apisa — Isaac

Do you have a point?

IF a person wants to use "believe" rather than "blindly guess"...it is fine with me. One has the right to do that.

It is my opinion that disguising a blind guess...can cause difficulties (often DOES cause difficulties.)

And if there are people too immature or too ignorant to realize those things...IT STILL MATTERS.

We can discuss it.

I am attempting to do so right here...in the context of Brian's OP.

But apparently I am not discussing it the way Brian wants me to.

BrianW
740

...I do not do believing. — Frank Apisa


So you say. — BrianW

I do say that.

I do guessing and estimating and supposing and things like that. — Frank Apisa


which are 'obviously worlds apart from the processes of belief... hmm, very curious :chin:

I don't think they are. To me...when a person says, "I believe (in) god" I think they are actually saying, "My guess is there is a god." When a person says, "I believe there are no gods" I think they are actually saying, "It is my guess there are no gods."

I do NOT see them as worlds apart. I do not use the "believe" form...because I see it as an attempt to disguise.

You seem to have a problem with that.

Why not talk about the problem you have with it?

If you cannot accept it...that is a problem you must deal with. — Frank Apisa


It certainly seems so.

Well, I shall question no longer. I accept.

Good.

BlueBanana
903

I do not do believing.

I do guessing and estimating and supposing and things like that.

But I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa


"I won't die, I will just cease living. Thus, I'm immortal." — BlueBanana

No. If you cease living, you are not immortal. That was an even worse analogy than the other nonsense.

Calm down. Stop being so bothered by the fact that I do not want to disguise my guesses by calling them "beliefs."

If I do not use "believe"...I am not doing "believing."

In a discussion about the nature of the REALITY of existence...

...it matters, even if there are people too immature and ignorant to realize it.

Suppose the title of this thread used "guess" rather than "believe."

It would read:

We Don't Want To GUESS - Because, If We GUESS, Then...

Now what in the hell would that be about.

If you want to guess on something you cannot know...there is nothing wrong with making a guess.

Why would it cause the kind of personal conflict suggested or implied in the title?

It wouldn't.

But "believe" (the disguise word for guess) does cause difficulties.

Think about that.

BrianW
739

If a person is making a blind guess that there are no gods...and says "I believe there are no gods" rather than "It is my blind guess that there are no gods"...ya gotta wonder why they are doing it. — Frank Apisa


This is semantics. It's about the mode of expression instead of implied meaning. Also, the blind guess is still predicated by the law of "what goes in, is what comes out", input=output. This means the mind can only give an outcome based on the corresponding inputs. A sub-conscious process of mind is no less valid or meaningful than the conscious processes. For example, a person may choose to believe/disbelieve in god(s) for no other reason than they made a choice having been given that opportunity (no matter the name the process is designated by), and it would still be valid, meaningful and within his/her purview since he/she has such capabilities. I'm not arguing about the quality in how belief is achieved (low/high quality 'stuff' is still 'stuff'), I'm investigating what belief is and why people choose one instead of others. — BrianW

Brian...

...I do not do believing.

I do guessing and estimating and supposing and things like that.

But I do not do "believing."

If that troubles you...that is your problem.

I have explained that as best I can.

If you cannot accept it...that is a problem you must deal with.

BlueBanana
902
↪Frank Apisa

This I have said so far: you have given and been given examples of things that fall under the umbrella term of belief (blind guess, acceptance of experience, etc.) and you refuse to use the umbrella term (seemingly claiming that apparently words referring to concepts are mutually exclusive, as if calling a guess a belief implies it's not a guess).

Furthermore, your choice of words does not reflect reality - if the word belief means (among other things) a guess, then guesses are beliefs regardless of whether one chooses to call them beliefs.

That's where I'm going and where I've gotten, if you claim it requires expanding tell me how so. "No it isn't" isn't a valid rebuttal of that. — BlueBanana

Banana...I do not EVER say "I believe...ANYTHING."

I do not do believing.

I do guessing and estimating and supposing and things like that.

But I do not do "believing."

If that troubles you...that is your problem.

BlueBanana
901
↪Frank Apisa
I remember what I said, and I replied to your reply with "How so", followed by expanding on my first comment. — BlueBanana

Keep expanding. You haven't gotten wherever you are going yet.

BrianW
738

A person saying, "I believe X"...is a person doing "believing."

A person saying, "It is my blind guess that X" is a person doing "blind guessing.

If you do not understand that...not much I can do to help you.

I do not do "believing."

I really do not understand why this is causing some of you so much trouble? — Frank Apisa


First, I'm not troubled, I find it quite interesting to see where this particular rabbit hole leads to. — BrianW

No rabbit hole. Interesting topic...not a rabbit hole.

Secondly, a person doing "X" and calling it "Y" is very suspicious, hence my interest.

Precisely.

That, in essence, is my point.

If a person is making a blind guess that there are no gods...and says "I believe there are no gods" rather than "It is my blind guess that there are no gods"...ya gotta wonder why they are doing it.

Or, if a person is making a blind guess that there is at least one god...and says, "I believe (in) God" rather than "It is my blind guess that there is at least one god"...ya gotta wonder why.

That is my point.

Thank you for making it again.

Relativist
612

I never said or intimated that a "belief" has to be certainty.

In fact, I said that in some cases, it is nothing more than blind guessing being disguised.

We can discuss it if you like...but I do not want my position to be distorted. — Frank Apisa


Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief." — Frank Apisa

Sorry if I misinterpreted, but bear in mind that the only response you gave to my original post was a tangential comment about my terminology, and your repeat of your position that the word "guess" should be used. That was actually off-topic, and pointless since we've been through this before. If you want to understand my point within my own terminology then ask. If you want to make a case for using your terminology, start a new thread. Otherwise, please stop interjecting your dissatisfaction that everyone doesn't use your preferred terminology. — Relativist

What is your fucking problem?

I have never expressed dissatisfaction with people who use other terminology. In fact, I expressedly said it was okay with me...but that I did not do it.

You seem to be the one with a problem with my using what I want to use.

You made a post saying something to which I made an appropriate response.

If you don't like it...don't read it.

BrianW
737
↪Frank Apisa


Definition of belief (Merriam-Webster)
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.
2 : something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed.
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

This are the common meanings expressed by term 'belief' and also what I'm referring to. So, either none of them refers to what you understand by belief implying that you have you own reference other than these, in which case, we are not talking about the same thing. — BrianW

A person saying, "I believe X"...is a person doing "believing."

A person saying, "It is my blind guess that X" is a person doing "blind guessing.

If you do not understand that...not much I can do to help you.

I do not do "believing."

I really do not understand why this is causing some of you so much trouble?

BlueBanana
900

No it isn't. — Frank Apisa


How so? For every X for which belief is an umbrella term that has been offered, you've responded that you call X not a belief but simply X - which you are free to do, but it doesn't change that X is a belief. Just like I can choose to call arms arms instead of limbs, but nevertheless, arms are limbs. — BlueBanana

You originally said:

That's similar to stating that I don't have limbs - I have arms and legs, and I don't need to disguise them as anything else by using hypernyms or umbrella terms. — BlueBanana

I'd saying, NO it isn't.

BlueBanana
899
↪Frank Apisa
That's similar to stating that I don't have limbs - I have arms and legs, and I don't need to disguise them as anything else by using hypernyms or umbrella terms. — BlueBanana

No it isn't.

Relativist
611

Some people guess mindreading is possible; some guess it is not possible.

Both are guessing.

Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief." — Frank Apisa

As previously discussed. I use the terminology different than you. Note how I worded my belief: "mindreading is probably physically impossible".

My beliefs are not certainties, but they are justified- based on other beliefs. Happy to discuss, if you're willing to discuss in my terms or you can provide a lexicon for yours. — Relativist

I never said or intimated that a "belief" has to be certainty.

In fact, I said that in some cases, it is nothing more than blind guessing being disguised.

We can discuss it if you like...but I do not want my position to be distorted.

BrianW
736

Brian...what do I have to do to spell this out for you? — Frank Apisa


What's in a name?
A rose by any other name...
a minute ago
Reply
Options — BrianW

If you want to call a rose a rose...do so. It is what I would do.

If you want to make a blind guess and call it a "belief"...do so. You have a right to do that.

I prefer not to. I prefer to call my guesses...guesses. In fact, I no longer use the expression, "I believe..." anything...just to stay consistent.

That is why I say I do not do "believing"...because I don't.

Do you have a problem with that?

Relativist
610
The issue is that our evaluations are colored by our background beliefs. Established beliefs are not easily overturned. This is largely because our beliefs tend ti be interrelated. It is not just that I hold the belief "mindreading is probably physically impossible", as an isolated proposition. Rather, in mycase, my belief in that proposition relates to my beliefs about the nature of minds. For example, memories seem to be patterns in the neural networks of the brain. Even if the potentials of neurons in another's brain could be measured, these would not carry meaning.

Others may believe mindreading is impossible because 1. they can't do it. & 2. it has never been confirmed that anyone can do it. & 3. When it has been investigated, it has been shown to be a trick.
Therefore a single instance of a person with this alleged power is insufficient to negate the prior belief. However, I would suggest that if the alleged mindreader were to read my mind, that would be entirely different. That could be convincing.

I don't know if this was your intent, but this is similar to discussions I've had with Christians about miracles. I believe it highly unlikely that miracles (violations of the laws of nature) occur. No allegged miracle has been objectively confirmed, and many have been shown to be false, and many believers have been shown to have been duped. On the other hand, if I were to personally experience an unequivocal miracle, I could change my mind. — Relativist

Some people guess mindreading is possible; some guess it is not possible.

Both are guessing.

Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief."

Shamshir
176

Could be.

If they are guesses...we should call them guesses.

If they are "acceptance of experience"...we should call them "acceptance of experience."

Just my opinion. — Frank Apisa

Or we can just stick to beliefs.

As what even is a belief? A thought you are confident in.
The thought that you don't believe, is ironically a belief.
All our knowledge, guesses, experience - are also beliefs of sorts.

And I don't see why you attest that beliefs are blind guesses and leave yourself so distraught over it.
Because when you say "I DO NOT DO BELIEVING", all you're saying is "GUESSES AREN'T ENOUGH FOR ME"; which is fine. — Shamshir

If you want to pretend you guesses are not guesses by calling your guesses "beliefs"...do it.

I don't.

BrianW
735

I do not disguise those things by calling them my "beliefs." — Frank Apisa


What is belief other than those convictions and frames of reference in consciousness?

For instance, if one says, "I 'believe' (in) God"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that at least one god exists in the REALITY of existence?"

If one says, "I believe there are no gods"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that no gods exist in the REALITY of existence?" — Frank Apisa


Belief is not absolute. Human understanding is not perfect therefore their beliefs cannot be measured by the absolute standard of truth. Our convictions can fail us; our frames of reference can be inadequate - yet they distinctly retain those identities and applications. That's why I said they should be worked on just as we work on scientific knowledge or any other aspect of our faculty of consciousness. — BrianW

Brian...what do I have to do to spell this out for you?

I DO NOT DO BELIEVING.

I do understanding; guessing; supposing; estimating...and all that kind of stuff that others call "believing."

But I call my guesses, suppositions, and estimations...guesses, suppositions and estimations.

I DO NOT EVER CALL THEM BELIEFS.

So...I do not do believing.

If you are wondering if I do guesses and suppositions and estimates and that sort of thing..

...YES, I do.

Shamshir
173

Mostly, our "beliefs" are nothing but blind guesses which we call "beliefs" so that we do not have to acknowledge they are merely guesses. — Frank Apisa

Or they're just acceptance of experience. — Shamshir

Could be.

If they are guesses...we should call them guesses.

If they are "acceptance of experience"...we should call them "acceptance of experience."

Just my opinion.

BrianW
724

I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa


Don't you have any convictions, however simple or complex they are? — BrianW

Yeah, I do. I call my convictions...my convictions. I do not disguise my convictions by calling them my "beliefs."

Don't you have a frame of reference for your information, perception, conception, knowledge and understanding?

Yes, II do. I call my frame of reference for information, my perceptions, my conceptions, my knowledge and my understanding...my frame of reference, my perceptions, my conceptions, my knowledge and my understanding.

I do not disguise those things by calling them my "beliefs."

The reason I ask is because even before we assert belief in the fantastic and preposterous, there is also a level of belief that is decent and natural in its application. What I'm saying is that, belief isn't necessarily something to do away with, rather it should be worked upon the way we would any other part of our faculty of consciousness.

With all the respect in the world, I ask you to consider whether your use of the word "beliefs" for all those things are possibly just a disguise.

For instance, if one says, "I 'believe' (in) God"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that at least one god exists in the REALITY of existence?"

If one says, "I believe there are no gods"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that no gods exist in the REALITY of existence?"

BrianW
723

Isn't that what stage magicians do? I thought this was common knowledge. — TheMadFool


But how many people believe in that kind of 'magic'. To most people it's always a setup especially considering the other stuff that accompany such 'magic'. Anyway, one of my points is that, if humans are natural, then they cannot perform supernatural activities. Is there anything perceived by humans that is actually beyond the purview of nature? And, by what means would those people have acquired such information considering they are bound within the limits of the laws of nature?

My point is to challenge human belief because it seems we often misrepresent ourselves when we represent our beliefs. — BrianW

Mostly, our "beliefs" are nothing but blind guesses which we call "beliefs" so that we do not have to acknowledge they are merely guesses.

I do not do "believing."

Merkwurdichliebe
752

Whether gods exist or not...is not influenced or impacted by whether or not the species known as homo sapiens knows...or even suspects it.

Gods either exist or not.

No way to know...unless they are personal gods and want humans to know. — Frank Apisa


You don't really believe that, do you? — Merkwurdichliebe

I do not do any "believing."

If you are asking it that conveys my opinion...it does.

Why would it not for you?

Whether gods exist or not...is not influenced or impacted by whether or not the species known as homo sapiens knows...or even suspects it.

Gods either exist or not.

No way to know...unless they are personal gods and want humans to know.

S
10.1k

A question if I may:

Are you suggesting that YOU get to decide who the "stuid and gullible" are?

If not...how will that be decided? — Frank Apisa


On whether or not they can spell the word "stupid". — S

Oh, fuck. And you gotta be the one to spot it.

I (everyone) should check each post before actually posting it.

My bad.

Janus
7.2k
↪Pattern-chaser
Right, just to be clear I wasn't referring to the particular you with the "you" but the general you.

I actually don't believe that it is possible to prove that anything is impossible except in the logical context or within a restricted context. For an example of the latter it is currently impossible for me to levitate or walk through walls. I can prove that by trying to do it. Can I prove that it will always be impossible? No. Can I prove that it is simply physically impossible? No. Can I prove that it is physically possible? No. — Janus

So...

...it remain POSSIBLE that you may be able to walk through walls.

You are confusing "what is"...with POSSIBLE.

Get off it. You are too intelligent to continue this farce.

Janus
7.2k

In the case of the first we can say that we know something is impossible if it defies laws of the excluded middle — Janus


In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true. — Wikipedia


So, for any issue where other answers are possible - such as "maybe" as well as "yes" or "no", offering just one of many possible examples - you have no answer. Binary thinking - "Answer yes or no!" - doesn't help here, I suspect? — Pattern-chaser


As I said logical possibility is one kind of possibility, epistemological possibility and ontological or physical possibility are others. If you accept only logical possibility then you will indeed rule out "maybes" as Frank Apisa seems to (insofar as I can determine what his position actually is, since he says he agrees with me and acts as though he doesn't).

So, if you say that if something has not been proven to be impossible it therefore must be possible, that is binary thinking, and you are ruling out the "maybe"; the possibility that it is in actuality impossible even though we cannot prove it.

It is impossible to prove that something is impossible except in the case of logical contradictions. So if the position that insists that if something is not proven impossible it must be possible is saying anything more than that it must be logically possible, or epistemologically possible (as far as we know) it must be saying that it is actually or physically possible. This rules out the possibility (the maybe) that it could be actually or physically (given the nature of things) impossible.

I hope that makes what I have been saying more clear. — Janus

Clear as mud.

There is no such thing as "maybe" in this equation...because anything that is "maybe possible" IS POSSIBLE.

YES, Janus...unless one can establish something as IMPOSSIBLE...it is POSSIBLE.

The nonsense that "maybe possible" exists as an alternative to POSSIBLE is an absurdity.

Eventually you will see that...or perhaps you already do. In which case, eventually you will acknowledge that.

If the entire notion of biased of reading is meaningfully codified to subjective experience as the meaningful standard.... sure I do... — thedeadidea

Al most EVERYONE reads what they want to. Nobody forces people to read things.

That is what you do...and it certainly is what I do.

Insofar as it is hard to define.... well Cambridge Analytica launched a targeted advertising campaign and identified their victims well... Although I wouldn't say it is as 2+2 =4 we are getting a lot better at it.Big Data will take care of that proofing but Big Data will take over everything including democracy more and more.

thedeadidea
64

A question if I may:

Are you suggesting that YOU get to decide who the "stuid and gullible" are?

If not...how will that be decided? — Frank Apisa


Having anticipated this I have already pointed to any number of standards we have allowed to be culturally imposed in multiple ways in life. To the point of also including a citizenship test for immigration. The current litmus test is merely age.... you just need to exist and be born within a certain range of latitude and longitude and hey presto you are an adult citizen and you get a vote.

My argument is more let's not make it arbitrary anymore and tie it to any number of standards already produced whilst also promoting education in civics and critical thinking/reflection things already taught and have been taught for decades.


Moreover I am not saying this test should be a one time deal that is you fail you fail forever, you can take it infinity times... But you have to pass it much like you have to pass a drivers test in order to drive...

Given that your question just has me repeating myself may I ask a question...

Do you read what others write..... or do you more read what you want to read? — thedeadidea

Sure you can ask your question, but I see it as a rather strange question!

Like most (like everyone, I suppose), I read what I want to read.

You do also. Right?

Anyway, I agree it is arbitrary to base voting rights on age...but at least that has to do with something easily defined and authenticated. ("How long you been alive and can you prove it?")

"Are you 'smart' enough to vote"...is not so easily defined. And what you (or a majority) might consider a minimum of intelligence to vote...might exclude people better prepared to make a reasonable selection of whom they want to represent them than those you deem to be "intelligent enough."

In any case, "the current litmus test" is NOT merely age. The desire to vote is also a test. One must go through the process of registering...and completing a ballot.

That desire to vote...seems to me to go a long way toward meeting a standard of being intelligent enough to make a reasonable decision.

Said another way: I'd love to see more people qualify to vote as opposed to seeing fewer qualified due to the standards you advocate imposing.

Look to those who can't follow along... I am arguing something more along the lines of this stupid, gullible people should not be allowed to vote. — thedeadidea

A question if I may:

Are you suggesting that YOU get to decide who the "stuid and gullible" are?

If not...how will that be decided?