You know that I was arguing in support of position that a belief has a different existential status than a mere claim, right?

...when would it be ok to believe in a some thing that, is considered absurd, illogical, irrational, etc.. anytime, sometime, never?

↪ovdtogt You know that I was arguing in support of position that a belief has a different existential status than a mere claim, right? — Pantagruel

Please put in the quote that you are referring to.

..when would it be ok to believe in a some thing that, is considered absurd, illogical, irrational, etc.. anytime, sometime, never? — 3017amen

Considered by whom?

Considered by the person who is doing the considering.

..when would it be ok to believe in a some thing that, is considered absurd, illogical, irrational, etc.. anytime, sometime, never? — 3017amen

Why would anyone believe something they know to be absurd, illogical or irrational? Do you?

Yes. If one believes they themselves exist, they would then believe in the illogical. Because, consciousness is, in itself, illogical (how consciousness/subconsciousness functions together). Not to mention all the other metaphysical phenomena... .

So the statement : Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am), is in that sense illogical and/or an existential absurdity/tautology.

Yes. If one believes they themselves exist, they would then believe in the illogical. Because, consciousness is, in itself, illogical (how consciousness/subconsciousness functions together). Not to mention all the other metaphysical phenomena... .

So the statement : Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am), is in that sense illogical and/or an existential absurdity/tautology. — 3017amen

This makes no sense to me at all. Why is consciousness illogical? Consciousness is neither constrained nor defined by logic, which is only a tool. Consciousness is what it is. Its experience of its own existence is a primitive fact. Facts are not "logical," facts just "are".

Why would anyone believe something they know to be absurd, illogical or irrational? Do you? — ovdtogt

Yes. If one believes they themselves exist, they would then believe in the illogical. — 3017amen

So you are saying, to believe you exist is absurd, illogical and or irrational? So you go around telling everyone, you don't exist. When someone you greets you, you say: "Hey man, you don't exist and I don't exist."

Wouldn't a belief require a believer?


Good for a laugh.

This makes no sense to me at all. Why is consciousness illogical? — Pantagruel

Because it breaks the laws of non-contradiction (I.E., driving while daydreaming, sleepwalking...).

So you go around telling everyone, you don't exist. When someone you greets you, you say: "Hey man, you don't exist and I don't exist." — ovdtogt

Ha! No, I go around telling everyone that they should be humble because they cannot prove that their own existence is purely logical (consciousness breaking the rules of non-contradiction).

Because it breaks the laws of non-contradiction — 3017amen

Consciousness isn't a statement or a proposition. The law of non-contradiction applies to statements or propositions.

Okay gotcha. Let's start with this.

Driving while daydreaming, and sleepwalking thus:

Jack is driving and not driving= true or false statement?

Jack is sleeping and not sleeping= true or false statement?

Please, you may re-word the phenomenon anyway you like to make it logical.

Okay gotcha. Let's start with this.

Driving while daydreaming, and sleepwalking thus:

Jack is driving and not driving= true or false statement?

Jack is sleeping and not sleeping= true or false statement?

Please, you may re-word the phenomenon anyway you like to make it logical. — 3017amen

Jack is actually doing whatever he is doing at the time he is doing it. Whatever that is. If he is driving and daydreaming, then he is driving and daydreaming. It is just the way that you are rephrasing the statements that is causing the apparent contradiction. Daydreaming does not equal not driving. Sleepwalking does not equal not-sleeping. You are equivocating in the most question-begging way possible.

Daydreaming does not equal not driving. — Pantagruel

Really. Consider Jack navigating the highway and is dreaming about the beach or a meeting he's about to attend. He subsequently crashes by running through a stop sign. He fortunately survives. He said he was at the beach in his mind. So, was his consciousness or subconsciousness driving the car?

Or said in a proposition: he was driving and not driving.

You can infer whatever you choose, it doesn't alter the fact that Jack is doing exactly what he is doing. I don't have to explain it, since he is doing it, which you yourself allow since it forms part of your argument. Consciousness isn't bound to be rational or even consistent. People have chaotic conscious experiences all the time. Possible some people are "more conscious" than others and maybe those people do tend to be more "self-aware" in lets say avoiding such internally contradictory states as you describe. But that's another issue.

Human multi-tasking. Continuous Partial attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking

..when would it be ok to believe in a some thing that, is considered absurd, illogical, irrational, etc.. anytime, sometime, never?
— 3017amen

Why would anyone believe something they know to be absurd, illogical or irrational? Do you? — ovdtogt

I don't know many people that believe their existence is absurd, illogical and irrational. Do you?

You could 'claim' you had seen these things only if you had indeed really (imagined) to have seen these things — ovdtogt

By other words, using "Doublethink".

Nah, you're just wrong about my position... — creativesoul

And could you explain me why is so?

This makes no sense to me. Truth cannot be false. Belief can. Thus, belief can be falsifiable. Truth cannot. — creativesoul

Truth is grounded on belief. There is no such thing as an "Universal Truth", there is only diferente perceptions of concepts, that some may indeed believe is truth and some who may not. Truth can be false. Belief cannot.
Truth doesn't exist outside of ourselves, in the Universe, as an all powerful force. It only exists as belief, that then is projected as "Truth" by the individual.

A claim need not be believed in order to be exist.
— creativesoul
But this was my point. There is a world of difference between a belief upon which you would stake your life, and one that you just cook up. — Pantagruel

We agree. That was never at issue. Whether or not all claims are believed by someone... that was at issue.

The one you cook up really doesn't qualify as a belief at all, it is just an arbitrary statement.

Correct. It's a meaningful claim that no one believes. That proves the point that there are such things.

Nah, you're just wrong about my position...
— creativesoul

And could you explain me why is so? — Gus Lamarch

Because I do not believe what you wrote.

Truth is grounded on belief. — Gus Lamarch

Not on my view.

:up:

Truth cannot be false.
Belief can.
Being falsifiable requires the ability to be false and the ability to be shown as such
Some belief can be falsifiable.
Truth cannot.

Which part are you objecting to and what grounds that objection?

Found this interesting quote at the beginning of Popper's 'Realism and the aim of science', about comparing "opposite systems" and finding a way the merge their "chief theories". Which is a propos of the OP. This suggests that periods of paradigm shift are optimally conducive to this process.

So much is certain, that nothing is better adapted to form a mind which is capable of a great development, than living and participating in great scientific revolutions. I would therefore counsel all to whom the period they live in has not naturally presented with this advantage, to procure it artificially for themselves, by reading the writings of those periods in which the sciences have suffered great changes. To peruse the writings of the most opposite systems, and to extract their hidden truth, to answer questions raised by these opposite systems, to transfer the chief theories of the one system into the other, is an exercise which cannot be sufficiently recommended to the student. He would certainly be rewarded for this labour,by becoming as independent as possible of the narrow opinions of his age.
~Hans Oersted

Truth can not be opposed by truth

Knowledge (unverified) is belief.
Only empiricism can verify this belief.
Only once it is verified (empirically) to be 'true' we may consider it knowledge.
Knowledge is information.

"What can be said can and should always be said more and more simply and clearly"
~Karl Popper

"What can be said can and should always be said more and more simply and clearly"
~Karl Popper — Pantagruel

So that even the dumb fuckers can understand it.