What Is Belief?

[vicente]

"In its simplest form, belief occurs as a mental act, a thinking process in the brain. To "believe" requires a thought accepted as having some "truth" value. To communicate this thought requires spoken or written language...."

"Many people misunderstand what constitutes belief and what does not. For many, belief has so infiltrated their minds, that everything perceived or thought incorporates a belief for them, including all of their knowledge and experience. However, beliefs have no bilateral symmetry requirements; although one can believe in knowledge, one can know without beliefs, although one certainly accepts their own beliefs, not all things accepted require beliefs...."

"Although one can argue that beliefs supported by scientific evidence represent a benign form of beliefs, they also act as barriers towards further understanding. Even the most productive scientists and philosophers through the ages have held beliefs which prevented them from seeing beyond their discoveries and inventions...."

"For example, Aristotle believed in a prime mover, a "god" that moves the sun and moon and objects through space. With a belief such as this, one cannot possibly understand the laws of gravitation or inertia. Issac Newton saw through that and established predictions of gravitational events and developed a workable gravitational theory. Amazingly, Newton began to think about relativity theory long before Albert Einstein. However, his belief in absolute time prevented him from formulating a workable theory. Einstein, however, saw through that and thought in terms of relative time and formulated his famous theory of General relativity. However even Einstein had beliefs which barred him from understanding the consequences of quantum mechanics. He could not accept pure randomness in subatomic physics, thus he bore his famous belief: "God does not play dice." Regarless, physicists now realize that for quantum mechanics to work, nature not only plays with dice, but randomness serves as a requirement if one wishes to predict with any statistical accuracy. And on it goes...."

"Many a believer, religious and atheist alike, will become astonished at any statement against belief, if for no other reason because they believe and the people around them have beliefs. They tend to form a belief-of-its-own that projects beliefs onto others. However, simply because most others believe does not necessarily follow that all people require the concept of belief. To claim the knowledge that everyone on earth believes in something portends an astonishing proclamation. It would require an omniscient ability to see into the minds of every human on earth. Moreover, many people fail to understand that belief requires conscious acceptance. People who own beliefs (unless they lie) do not deny them. Quite the contrary, people who believe, admit their beliefs quite readily. Furthermore, few people stop to ask what we mean by beliefs or understand that one can replace belief with other forms of "thinking."

http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

:)

[rich]

Vicente,

I am not meaning to be sarcastic, but to succeed in this world, there are

certain axioms, theorums, mathematical concepts, one must believe in,

for none have proved them to be false. Basic fundamentals i am writing

about. IOW, You gotta believe because they are true. It would be

fruitless on the part of anyone, to say the basic concepts are false. I do

not think you are trying to do this, for I believe you have more common

sense, than to do that.

Though we have our differences vicente, there are a few places, where

we can still agree. :) You have a good brain. :mellow: Use it wisely. ;)

[vicente]

RichieT,...did you write your above post from your own preconceived beliefs, or as a response to the article on beliefs, as provided through the link?

The article, I felt, quite clearly addressed your concepts about your perceived need for beliefs.

Contrary to what you may think RichieT, there is no notation for belief that science or mathematics add to compute their theories and facts.

Vicente
:)

[rich]

Vicente,

I believe what I wrote in my post about belief is believeable enough.
AFAIAConcerned Vicente, as R J Ripley said," You can Believe It Or Not." No one is forcing you either way.

[a random hack]

there is no notation for belief that science or mathematics add to compute their theories and facts.

Isn't this just because science and maths attempt to define their beliefs and biases before measuring and theorising? In theory, at least?
And aren't these sciences designed as tools to test beliefs? (Whether they are allowed and able to perform rhis function is another question, however :) )

[Thomas Knierim]

Anonymous: "However, beliefs have no bilateral symmetry requirements; although one can believe in knowledge, one can know without beliefs, although one certainly accepts their own beliefs, not all things accepted require beliefs...."

Slippery territory.

Personally I do not believe(!) in a fundamental epistemic difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge'. What concerns the theories we have about the world, belief and knowledge merely indicate different levels of corroboration. For example, you might assume that when you feel a pointed pressure your back, accompanied by a voice shouting "Hands up!", the pressure is caused by the muzzle of a gun. Until you have looked at the object it is hard to tell. Until then you are a believer.

Between belief and knowledge there is merely a gradual difference, although the extreme ends of both may be in stark contrast to each other, as for example the knowledge that the earth rotates around the sun, and the belief that the sun rotates around the earth. Until the study of celestial bodies reached a sufficient level sophistication that ocurred with the invention of the telescope, both theories seemed viable, and the latter was even more intuitive than the former.

What we call 'knowledge' is supported by collectively acquired, corroborated, and approved theory, whereas 'belief' usually lacks the features of collective corroboration and approval. Yet, it is obvious that many of today's established scientific theories started out as feeble beliefs. Aristotle, for example, believed that the world is round. Newton believed that massive objects attract each other. Einstein believed that time is relative. Max Planck believed -although very hesitantly- that heat energy occurs quantized rather than in a continuum. Although few contemporaries believed them in the beginning, the process of corroboration, theoretically and by experiment, transformed their hypotheses into 'knowledge'.

Fortunately, science circumvents the epistemological conundrum of knowledge. When one presents a certain observation as 'knowledge' or as a 'fact' this usually suggests that the observation cannot or should not be doubted. It suggests certainty. Alas, the word 'certainty' lives in a heavenly, remote space of ideals and -like any other of the ideals living in that space- it does not apply itself very well to the conditions of earthly/humanly existence. Empirical science therefore avoids the the claim of certainty. What is demanded from a scientific theory is instead falsifiability. This means that a scientific theory must be rendered in a way that makes it vulnerable to refutation. It must say "prove me wrong." If the theory survives refutation attempts for a reasonably long time, it can be considered trustworthy.

Religious or esoteric concepts, such as God, reincarnation, fortune telling, or astrology, are generally not falsifiable, which puts them into a different class that stands apart from ordinary scientific or empirical theories. This does not mean that these concepts cannot be approached from an empirical standpoint and in a logical fashion. However, the concepts themselves are apodictic and at the same time unprovable. According to this line of thought, the sentence "God does exist," is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable, while the sentence "God does not exist," is scientific because it is falsifiable, and hence, the latter is the default position of science.

Cheers, Thomas

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Aug 20 2003, 12:48 PM
there is no notation for belief that science or mathematics add to compute their theories and facts.
One's 'opinional position' on this, I think, depends on which mind-frame lens one is looking through -- IOW, in my 'mind' there's a "notation for belief" that's been 'built into' the foundational operations of science and mathematics from its very beginning.

The way I see the particular 'world' referred to by science and math, it all started with some folks 'daringly' at least tentatively 'believing' in the possibility that 'nature' behaved in an 'orderly' fashion, and that such order could be de·ciphered using the 'scientific method' combination of observation and experimentation -- hypothesis formation, testing, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, mathematician-scientist types found what they were looking for, they 'found' what they 'believed' they were likely to find, IOW.

Now, if one assumes (believes?) that those mathematician-scientist types were so dispassionately intelligent that they were completely Reality the above may look like no more than a tautology kind o' thang to you.

But, if one has a more metaphysically magical view/understanding (belief system?) pertaining to the universe, things may reasonably be interpreted in a way quite different than that.

Let's assume (just tentatively 'believe' it for a moment - you can always decide that this is/was no more than a silly game) that it is 'really' true' that the 'stuff' of the universe continually rearranges itself to accommodate the 'beliefs' of observers, and thus to 'reflect' them as 'true', at least in some 'significant' ways -- 'significant' to the 'believing' observer(s) that is; the 'reflection' may have a totally difference 'significance' or 'no significance' at all to differently 'believing' observers.

Then, i.e., in that case, when a mathematical-scientist logically convinces himself (and other 'logical' folks) that a certain hypothesis is consistent with the 'belief' that the 'stuff' of the universe flows in 'orderly' ways, according to 'laws' which are the same for all observers (i.e., that such 'laws' are 'universal'), what metaphysical-naturally 'happens' is that the 'stuff' of the universe (re)arranges itself in 'accommodation' and, lo and behold, the mathematician-scientist 'finds' confirming (outer-manifestion) 'evidence'. Each and every scientific 'discovery' and 'validation' of some new law or principle or 'stuff-behavior' that is in keeping with it may indeed be reasonably/logically 'viewed' as something that was 'created' (in the 'elaqstic rearrangement' of the universe sense) by the mind-accepted and heart-felt 'beliefs' of the 'theoretician(s)' and 'experimenter(s)'.

Methinks its really some kind of a "mind over matter", "you find what you are looking for in significant (to the observer) measure" universal-dynamic we each individually, with 'significant' collective overlap, 'live' (i.e. are 'conscious' and 'navigate about') 'in'.

Here's an excerpt from an article (which never got published) I once wrote, in which I take the above 'logic' to it's 'logical' conclusion (caveat: it's a 2½ pages-worth 'essay' dealing with some of the nitty-gritty of the Theories of Electromagnetism and Relativity --only for those who like to chew 'hard', IOW):

For now, I would just like to take you on what, if you've been indoctrinated in the ways of Western science, will probably, at first at least, strike you as being an 'unbelievable' journey, pertaining to the phenomenon of intersubjectivity and consequent, when many Spirited-Minds are intensely co-involved, 'mass' manifestations.

The Western scientific concept of 'reality' was and continues to be built on an axiomatic belief that any 'laws' of nature (hence, of 'physics' as well) must operate in the same way for all 'observers'. This belief was significantly strengthened and grew more widespread as a result of the number of 'discoveries' of generally applicable cause-effect 'laws' and implementable 'technologies' which consequently fell into place along the lines[U] of this [U]assumption.

In the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, for instance, it was 'found' that an electric 'field' was generated by a changing magnetic 'field', that a magnetic 'field' was generated by a changing electric 'field', and that the 'strength' of the generated fields in both cases was in proportion to the rate of change of the other, all according to standard (i.e., the same for all observers) measures. That's the time period when the now ubiquitous light bulb and the electric motor were invented.

Further down the time-line, near the turn of the next Century, Maxwell's electromagnetic field-interaction equations mathematically yielded 'the result' that, assuming there could be such a 'thing', the speed of a traveling electromagnetic wave would have to have a particular value. If it traveled faster than that, the strength of the fields generated in the ongoing reciprocal electromagnetic cycle (remember, this depended on the rate of the fields' fluctuations in space) would increase without limit, thereby violating the conservation of energy 'law'. On the other hand, if it traveled slower than that, the strength of the fields generated would soon damp out and the electromagnetic 'wave' would cease to exist. The clincher was that the particular speed it was calculated an electromagnetic wave could travel at in a self-sustaining way turned out to be the same as the measured speed of light. This was how 'Western scientists' as a group got the notion that light must be an electromagnetic wave in the first place!

About that time or shortly thereafter, the speed of light was observed (i.e., 'measured') as being equal to the same 'constant' even when measured by different observers who were moving relative to one another in the same direction as the beam of light. No one had any way of resolving this apparent anomaly, until Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity (in the first decade of the Twentieth Century), which simply took 'the fact' that the speed a beam of light travels at was constant as a 'given', and mathematically determined that, from the point of view of any given observer, length (in one's direction of motion) must contract and time must dilate in the 'system' of any other observer who was 'seen' to be moving, in formulaic dependency on the relative speed of that observer's motion, such contraction of length-units and dilation of time-units, in combination, being just the right amount so each observer would 'see' the other's measurement of the velocity of a light beam (calculated as the distance traveled divided by the time of travel using the other's 'apparently' distorted measuring units) as having the same numerical value as his own!

Now, I can't possibly definitively 'prove' this, but, based on the model I've described, I think it is quite logical to speculate, and ultimately 'believe', that the manifest 'fact' of the speed of light's absolute constancy even as measured by observers moving relative to one another, as well as 'the fact' of length-contraction and time-dilation, are probably the quite unintended and very weird 'manifest' results of Spirited-Minds having operated, en masse, on the assumption that natural 'laws' must operate in the same way for all observers.

You see, in the case of observers who are in motion relative to one another, there is no way of telling how much, if any, of an observed motion is 'absolute' (if indeed there is any such thing) as opposed to being a 'relative' effect due to the observer's own motion. So, in any Body that is a 'manifestation' of a Spirited-Mind which assumes, believes and holds that all natural 'laws' must operate in the same way for all observers, the 'collapsed' wave function that 'takes place' will 'appear' in a 'form' wherein the numerical value of speed of light, when measured, is the same 'constant' (as calculated by Maxwell's electromagnetic field equations) for all observers, regardless of any relative motion — according to the workings of the model presented in this article, in any event.

Not only that, because the equations pertaining to the speed of light and relative motion also indicate that moving objects must increase in mass (a mathematical equivalent between mass and (kinetic) energy 'pops out' of the equations), the scientific community 'believed' there probably was an underlying reality to the Einstein's derivation, E = mc² (where c represents the speed of light). About forty years later, the possibility of huge amounts of 'nuclear' energy being released in interactions in which the combined 'mass' of the 'particles' (things which themselves are only 'apparently' real) after the interaction was less than it was beforehand was then 'actualized' as envisioned. It occurs to me that the Body-events that happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki may well have just been particularly dramatic instances illustrating what Jesus meant when he said: "Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." (Mark 11:23) Western scientists as a group certainly strike me as having believed 'without doubt' in the reality of their 'vision'; and the nuclear power stemming therefrom has certainly 'moved mountains', or the equivalent.

On reviewing what I've said, it also occurs to me that, to members of an extraterrestrial civilization, whose 'laws' of physical science and consequent 'discoveries' were based on and derived from assumptions that were significantly different than ours, might well find many of our technologies just as 'mystifying' and 'inexplicable' as those indoctrinated in Western science now find the documented results of acupuncture and other 'alternative modalities' — unless, of course, they happen to have a clear comprehension of the metareality (I hesitate to use the word metaphysics because of the mish-mash of its historically accrued connotations) elucidated in this article. This may also explain why UFO's sighted by competent and reliable witnesses (airplane pilots, for example) don't show up on radar scans covering the area of the sighting (at least not as far as I know), as well as the fact that they have been observed to execute maneuvers, such as extremely sudden accelerations and changes in direction, which we consider pretty nigh physically 'impossible'. Their 'physics' and derivative technology probably does have a different kind of Spirit-Mind basis than our own. (The fact that we visually register them at all suggests that we must constitutionally share at least some 'physiological' frequencies and wavelengths; either that, or our species' Spirited-Mind is becoming more open and sensitive to intuitonal ways of 'knowing'.)

There are, I think, also other, more general kinds of 'indications' that what is 'envisioned' is then reflected in the 'reality' of the world one then proceeds to encounter. The residual negative effects, such as radioactive pollution, that have attended and continue to attend our use of nuclear technology (Can you believe it? They still haven't found a 'safe' way, not one they can agree on at least, to dispose or store the huge quantities of radioactive waste that continue to be generated.) [such 'residual'] may well be a 'reflection' of the fearful and hateful presumptions [i.e. internalized probablistic 'beliefs'] we collectively have regarding the 'callousness' or 'cruelty' of nature and the presence and amount of 'evil' in the human psyche. If I am even only partly right about this, this does not bode well in terms of what we collectively are also likely to have to face as a result of the race to implement and deploy technologies developed from current 'findings' in the 'field of genes'.

:ph34r: Who IS that masked man?

Hiyo, Pegasus, warp-speed ahead!

ZOWIEEE!!

[Thomas Knierim]

David: Let's assume that it is 'really' true' that the 'stuff' of the universe continually rearranges itself to accommodate the 'beliefs' of observers...

Isn't it the other way round? Aren't our beliefs continuously rearranged to accommodate the "way of the world"? It seems that there is some historical evidence for the latter, and cosmogeny/cosmology is perhaps a good example for this. Initially the fix stars where understood as small light sources attached to a crystal sphere, and the sun,the moon, and the planets were funny balls rotating around the center of the universe (=us), whereas the apparent design and balance of the system seemed so inexplicable that a higher power was presumed to have created it. Our current picture of the universe is completely different. Today we understand the self-organizing principles that form stars, planets, solar systems, and we even have an (admittedly incomplete) idea of how galaxies and the universe itself came into being. Evolution theory is another example of how myopic beliefs (such as humans being formed from a blob of earth) have transformed into intricate theory based on empirical observations, continuous research, and theoretical refinement. Both are examples of historical adaptations of belief structures collectively held by humanity. These adaptations were driven by rational inquiry, and supported by advancing technology and new discoveries, rather than by braiding and branching belief systems.

If your suggestion that the universe accommodates our beliefs were correct, we could expect various gods and demons to have popped out of the sky by now to manifest themselves. We could also expect that we would have been able to develop methods of communication with the spirits of our ancestors, and natural spirits of trees, mountains, etc. But all this did not happen. Instead we have things, such as computers and the Internet now, which would have seemed unimaginable and very odd a few centuries ago.

To me it seems, it is neither "mind over matter," nor "matter over mind." Mind and matter go together, because matter forms mind and mind forms matter, and both are equally malleable. For example, one might hypothesize an alien life-form in a remote planetary system that is based on silicon rather than carbon. One might hypothesize that this life-form has adapted to a zero gravity environment. The thoughts, and ideas that this life-form has developed about the universe would certainly be very different from ours, not to mention its alien culture and civilization. Yet, this life-form is surely familiar with the number pi (3.1415...), with the atomic structure, with triangulation, Newton's laws, ect., and although these concepts may be expressed very differently and in a very different context, the underlying principles are universal; "universal" meaning they apply on Earth as well as on Alpha Centauri, or anywhere else in the cosmos.

Cheers, Thomas

[a random hack]

Why would 'one' bother to measure 'the Universe' if 'one' had nothing to prove/ disprove, no axe to grind?

[Thomas Knierim]

random: Why would 'one' bother to measure 'the Universe' if 'one' had nothing to prove/ disprove, no axe to grind?

Perhaps it is human nature. The human minds tends to invent its own causes which includes axes to be grinded. :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[Polaris]

I believe that when everything (and I mean everything) is taken into account the need for beliefs no longer exists. What remains is knowledge.

Now the trick is to somehow account for everything. Would that be possible? Probably not, since space and time are supposedly infinite. At best we can really only account for a few things and know these things beyond any shadow of doubt; beyond belief. Therefore in order to function with any measure of success we have to make assumptions about the world around us, knowing that we can't know everything.

I look up and down the street before crossing and there isn't a vehicle in sight. I believe it is safe to cross because I have crossed safely under those conditions many times before. However, I didn't look above me and didn't see that grand piano falling from above me from the window of the penthouse apartment. As the paramedics scrape me up off the sidewalk, in my dying breath I utter "Who knew??"

We tend to believe in things that haven't been proven one way or the other. As long as people are able to evaluate new information and are flexible enough to change their way of thinking then those people will progress.

[rich]

Rather than use the word belief , when speaking about religious beliefs.
Two other words immmediately come to my mind, which may be used, when speaking about They are, realization and affirmation.

A conversation may sound like this:

R: What is your realization, Vicente? :unsure:
V: What do you mean? Do you mean my realies-ation, Rich? :o
R: No lies Vicente, What is your affirmation? ;)
V: Ererrrr, err, MYOB, Rich! :angry:
R: Sorry I asked. :(

[DavidS]

Hi Thomas -

Thomas Knierim,Aug 21 2003, 08:46 PM]:
David: Let's assume that it is 'really' true' that the 'stuff' of the universe continually rearranges itself to accommodate the 'beliefs' of observers...
TK: Isn't it the other way round?

There are 'complications' in the 'picture' which my thesis leaves out, stemming from the fact that the process is continually unfolding and feeds back on itself at the same time. This is a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" kind of thang. Take the following comments in that light.

These adaptations were driven by rational inquiry, and supported by advancing technology and new discoveries, rather than by braiding and branching belief systems.

Yes, but the 'rational order' of the 'world' that we (that is 'we' in 'the West', generally generally) live 'in' is itself a 'world' that could be said to have been 'created' by the 'belief' that there was such an order and the world we 'believe' to be 'real' has been a branching and braiding hypothesis-leading-to-'discovery' process. My point, though, is that it didn't have to come out in the specific way that it did.

I would suggest that this 'world' is just one of many possible, and possibly quite differently 'operating', 'mansions'. ("In my father's house, there are many mansions." - tho, JC might(?) have only been referring to 'celestial' (i.e., in the 'psyche') mansions, I am making a 'connection' between these and the varities of 'earthly' phenomena-n-experience.)

There is also the 'rational order' of the 'world' referenced by 'acupuncture', for instance, which cannot be 'rationalized' by the creators/discovers of Westerm Science. It also has very 'real', 'palpable' validity as a 'world' of perception and experience -- as evidenced by the variety of effeocts that stem from acupuncture 'treatments'.

And there's the more 'irrational order' of 'shamans' and 'medicine men', etc, which I have heard believable attestations regarding the 'real' or 'palpable' potency thereof.

If your suggestion that the universe accommodates our beliefs were correct, we could expect various gods and demons to have popped out of the sky by now to manifest themselves.
They've done exactly that (i.e., 'manifested') among people who've had 'beliefs' which were compatible or even just not incompatible in a 'strong' enough way. Before you 'react' to this, I remind you that I did say in my post that what the 'world' reflected back in 'significant' 'measure' to a 'believer' might not be regarded as 'significant' to someone whose 'beliefs' were different - for instance, based on the notion that if you can't actually physically detect or measure something, for any and all practical purposes, it doesn't exist. Are you familiar with Swedenborg's works? Lots of 'spirit' visions in his expeerience.

We could also expect that we would have been able to develop methods of communication with the spirits of our ancestors, and natural spirits of trees, mountains, etc. But all this did not happen.
But it did happen and still continues to happen (one example: are you familiar with the history of the founders of the Findhorn Foundation in Scotland?)

Instead we have things, such as computers and the Internet now, which would have seemed unimaginable and very odd a few centuries ago.
Yes, these are the manifestation-result-fruits of the 'belief' system which gave rise to Western Science and Tech. These examples simply confirm my point, I think. You've heard the saying, "If it can be imagined, it can be built!" or something like that -- now THERE'S a BEEFY 'belief' for you!!.

To me it seems, it is neither "mind over matter," nor "matter over mind." Mind and matter go together, because matter forms mind and mind forms matter, and both are equally malleable.

The Mind-Matter connection is convoluted and also get's us back into the chicken or the egg 'first'? argument. Here's a quote from something I wrote pertaining to 'beings' and 'happenings': "The phrase ‘Life processes’ includes beings as well as happenings. These are phenomenologically not as different as you may be inclined to think: beings are actually happenings with a particular history-conditioned character, just as matter is energy with a particular space-time locus." One may perhaps thinks of 'beings' as mind 'states' (or mind-n-spirit 'states') and 'happenings' as time-space-n-matter 'states'. They may be considered 'equally' co-generative, or the mind-n-spirit 'state' may be regarded as more 'primarily' generative (if not totally so). Based on my observations and experiences in the fields of 'hypnosis' and 'psyhic healing', which sometimes evidence quite dramatic results, I have come to a 'position' of 'believing' :) that the latter must be the case.

For example, one might hypothesize an alien life-form in a remote planetary system that is based on silicon rather than carbon. One might hypothesize that this life-form has adapted to a zero gravity environment. The thoughts, and ideas that this life-form has developed about the universe would certainly be very different from ours, not to mention its alien culture and civilization. Yet, this life-form is surely familiar with the number pi (3.1415...), with the atomic structure, with triangulation, Newton's laws, ect., and although these concepts may be expressed very differently and in a very different context, the underlying principles are universal; "universal" meaning they apply on Earth as well as on Alpha Centauri, or anywhere else in the cosmos.

I agree with the number pi (3.1415) as probably :) having 'universal' significance - to those who 'discover' or 'learn about' it, that is. But I still think that the 'explanation' I presented, that the 'physics' of ET's may be 'significantly' different in fairly 'fundamental' ways from ours, holds - at least as a 'possible' hypothesis in view of the 'fact' that observed UFO movements are 'impossible' in our physical-principle 'world'.

IMO, the argument in your last para a based on the presumption, which amounts to a belief that the 'scientific' (or 'order'ly) principles governing worldly event-happenings are really 'universal', and apply 'equally' or 'in the same way' to all 'observers'. That's not a 'bad' belief system at all. Despite its considerable limitations - where everything tends to get 'reduced' to the lowest 'common' 'denomination'er :)), it has MANY positive 'results' to recommend it, IMO. But it is still (clearly IMO!) a belief system, one that has to be 'axiomatically' accepted 'on faith'. Those who 'believe' that will selectively pay attention to 'facts' that 'confirm' it, equally selectively 'ignoring' 'facts' that don't, IMO.

A pleasure chewing over this nut with you - David :)

[rich]

Rich posted this idea, which I can not understand, why it was not deemed worthy of a response.

Rather than use the word belief , when speaking about religious beliefs.
Two other words immmediately come to my mind, which may be used, when speaking about They are, realization and affirmation.

:) I'm not posting this, just to blow my own horn, but wondering how many believers really realize or affirm, just what they believe. :unsure:

[a random hack]

but wondering how many believers really realize or affirm, just what they believe.

That' a very good question, rich. Seems to me, the 'facts' I question least, are the ones I don't realise I hold. :)

Now the trick is to somehow account for everything. Would that be possible? Probably not, since space and time are supposedly infinite.

Not to mention that both the 'observer' and the 'observed' are constantly changing. Aren't they??

At best we can really only account for a few things and know these things beyond any shadow of doubt; beyond belief.
Nup, I disagree. At some point, 'belief' becomes 'knowledge'. These 'facts' may be applicable to reality, but as reality changes over time, as above, 'facts' become ... <shrug>, 'unfacts'?
Therefore in order to function with any measure of success we have to make assumptions about the world around us, knowing that we can't know everything.

Personally, I believe we can't know anything for sure (including this ;) :lol:, and for some reason that doesn't particularly bother me. might even say it was liberating :) )

Keep dodging those pianos :D

[Thomas Knierim]

Polaris: Now the trick is to somehow account for everything. Would that be possible? Probably not, since space and time are supposedly infinite.

I am not so sure. Viewed from this body named Thomas Knierim, time and space certainly look finite. The time experience of this body so far amounts to a tiny slice of 38 years within the approx. 4,600,000,000 years of Earth's history. And what concerns my location within the seeming infinity of space: I am not looking forward to intergalactic, not even interstellar travel during this lifetime. So much for limitations. Earth's life itself is finite, as well as the life of our solar system, our galaxy, and the Universe itself. Infinity does not apply to physical entities; it is rather a porperty of mind. So, the problem that we cannot account for everything arises from the nature of our mind. We acquire knowledge in a dualistic manner. We create new knowledge every day, so the collective amount of knowledge is ever increasing while it never quite meets "everything". Perhaps the most optimistic expectation we can have towards the accumulation of dualistic knowledge is that it converges against completeness. That's sort of a Hegelian dream.

Polaris: At best we can really only account for a few things and know these things beyond any shadow of doubt; beyond belief.

Even that sounds fairly optimistic to me. Since conventional knowledge is based on reason, and since we are not able to employ reason to the end of proving beyond doubt that our life is not a dream (see solipsism / The Matrix), what knowledge can be said to be beyond doubt? "I think therefore I am?" - Certainly not!

Polaris: However, I didn't look above me and didn't see that grand piano falling from above me from the window of the penthouse apartment.

You have made a category error - that's a common cause of death. Our brain and behavior is programmed to make such errors, so you don't need to feel guilty about it. At least you died in "grand" style. Grand piano style that is.

Polaris: We tend to believe in things that haven't been proven one way or the other.

Yes, indeed. We always make decisions on the basis of incomplete information. That's the very nature of decision making. In your grand piano example, your visual field only provided information about horizontally moving objects and not about vertically moving ones. Since your brain is programmed to filter out irrelevant information, it has been functioning perfectly normal at the time of the incident. Sensory data and mental processes provide limited information for decision making. Most of the time we operate on the basis of assumptions. For example, when we buy a yoghurt in the supermarket, we assume that it will be safe to eat it. We are all believers! The safe-yoghurt belief does of course have some rational underpinning. Socio-cultural conventions make sure that the manufacturer and seller have an interest in providing safe yoghurt.

Perhaps there is little epistemic difference between the belief in God and the belief in safe yoghurt. Both are culturally conditioned. The safe-yoghurt-belief presuopposes a higher power (=society) to ensure the veracity of the belief. Obviously, the belief in God does the same.

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

David: Yes, but the 'rational order' of the 'world' that we (that is 'we' in 'the West', generally generally) live 'in' is itself a 'world' that could be said to have been 'created' by the 'belief' that there was such an order and the world we 'believe' to be 'real' has been a branching and braiding hypothesis-leading-to-'discovery' process. My point, though, is that it didn't have to come out in the specific way that it did.

I think we can agree about that. Alan Watts once described the concepts that result from branching and braiding thought as "grammatical ghosts", which are subjects arising from the application of language and its syntactical structure to the contents of perception. This somewhat mystifying description refers to what the medieval scholastics called "universals", nouns that describe categories of objects with supposedly universal features. For example, one might ask if a tree exists. The answer is no, a tree does not exist, but there may be woody plants in your garden to which you can point that participate in "treeness". The word "treeness" indicates an abstract property defined by human mind. There is no corresponding physical entity, but there are phenomena that can take its place. Hence, there is no "universalia ante rem", no "thing in itself", only neural activity and the sound of spoken words, "flatus vocis."

David: There is also the 'rational order' of the 'world' referenced by 'acupuncture', for instance, which cannot be 'rationalized' by the creators/discovers of Westerm Science. It also has very 'real', 'palpable' validity as a 'world' of perception and experience -- as evidenced by the variety of effeocts that stem from acupuncture 'treatments'.

Agreed. Acupuncture is one of the great achievements of Chinese medicine. Unfortunately, in addition to useful things, Chinese medicine also contains a plethora of nonsense, as Chinese culture itself is rife with superstitions and odd beliefs. Of course, Western thought is not free from this either. But, it seems that Western medicine got ahead of Chinese medicine by the 19th century at the latest, although there is still no satisfactory scientific explanation for the success of acupuncture. This indicates that the processes are too complex to be understood with present Western theory.

David: But it did happen and still continues to happen (one example: are you familiar with the history of the founders of the Findhorn Foundation in Scotland?)

Not until you mentioned it. Are you saying the Findhorners are communicating with spirits?

David: "The phrase ‘Life processes’ includes beings as well as happenings. These are phenomenologically not as different as you may be inclined to think: beings are actually happenings with a particular history-conditioned character, just as matter is energy with a particular space-time locus."

I like that quote.

David: You've heard the saying, "If it can be imagined, it can be built!" or something like that -- now THERE'S a BEEFY 'belief' for you!!.

Perhaps as beefy as it sounds dodgy. :lol: I can imagine a superluminal spacecraft complete with airbags, in fact, movies have been shot that feature such vehicles, but can I build it?

David: IMO, the argument in your last para a based on the presumption, which amounts to a belief that the 'scientific' (or 'order'ly) principles governing worldly event-happenings are really 'universal', and apply 'equally' or 'in the same way' to all 'observers'.

That's not really how I meant it. Scientific principles are de-scriptions of the universe, not pre-scriptions. They don't really "apply" to anything on behalf of themselves, but they are being applied by thinking individuals. This implies that it is possible for us to "apply" the concept of pi to any spherical body in the universe, and any intelligent extraterrestrial being would be in the position of applying the concept of pi in the same manner. However, the extraterrestrial being might have developed alternative concepts that include pi and that are no less universal than our own.

David: A pleasure chewing over this nut with you.

Equally pleased.

Cheers, Thomas

[Polaris]

Polaris: Now the trick is to somehow account for everything. Would that be possible? Probably not, since space and time are supposedly infinite.

Thomas: I am not so sure. Viewed from this body named Thomas Knierim, time and space certainly look finite. The time experience of this body so far amounts to a tiny slice of 38 years within the approx. 4,600,000,000 years of Earth's history. And what concerns my location within the seeming infinity of space: I am not looking forward to intergalactic, not even interstellar travel during this lifetime. So much for limitations. Earth's life itself is finite, as well as the life of our solar system, our galaxy, and the Universe itself. Infinity does not apply to physical entities; it is rather a porperty of mind. So, the problem that we cannot account for everything arises from the nature of our mind. We acquire knowledge in a dualistic manner. We create new knowledge every day, so the collective amount of knowledge is ever increasing while it never quite meets "everything". Perhaps the most optimistic expectation we can have towards the accumulation of dualistic knowledge is that it converges against completeness. That's sort of a Hegelian dream.

Time is finite to the life inside the body called Thomas Knierim and also to the life on this planet, solar system and universe, as we know them. And time is relative only to things which actually 'feel' its passage. But in order for time to end, the vastness of this universe must be completely devoid of living things. Space is only space to living things. In order for space to be meaningless, this universe must be completely devoid of living things. I suppose these are possible. But a barren universe devoid of life is still a universe, but at that point, who cares?

Since conventional knowledge is based on reason, and since we are not able to employ reason to the end of proving beyond doubt that our life is not a dream (see solipsism / The Matrix), what knowledge can be said to be beyond doubt?

But if that's your argument then you cannot even say that we are definitively "not able to employ reason" to prove life is not a dream because even that is reasoning and would therefore be subject to potential error. If it's possible to reason that we can't use reason effectively, then it's also possible to reason that we can use reason effectively. Such is life in the relative. Oh, how we suffer so with these minds that love to juggle reason with two hands.

"I think therefore I am?" - Certainly not!

I agree. Thinking has nothing to do with it. :)

[sahyo]

Time is finite to the life inside the body

no

But in order for time to end, the vastness of this universe must be completely devoid of living things.

no

In order for space to be meaningless, this universe must be completely devoid of living things.

no

I suppose these are possible.

no

But a barren universe devoid of life is still a universe

impossible




which is thinking-timenottime-spacenotsapce-infinitenotinfinite
-insideoutside-thingsnotthings-devoidnotdevoid?

;)
:)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 25 2003, 03:48 PM
Time is finite to the life inside the body

no

But in order for time to end, the vastness of this universe must be completely devoid of living things.

no

In order for space to be meaningless, this universe must be completely devoid of living things.

no

I suppose these are possible.

no

But a barren universe devoid of life is still a universe

impossible




which is thinking-timenottime-spacenotsapce-infinitenotinfinite
-insideoutside-thingsnotthings-devoidnotdevoid?

;)
:)
Okay Asheera. You say 'no' to everything. I don't know everything. I have always admitted that I don't know everything and in doing so I admit that I do make mistakes.

Perhaps, since you seem to know enough to answer "no" to everything I say, you also might know enough to tell me how it REALLY is because, quite frankly, "which is thinking-timenottime-spacenotsapce-infinitenotinfinite
-insideoutside-thingsnotthings-devoidnotdevoid? is not much of an answer.

And how am I suppose to trust that you are anymore right than I am?


:(

[Thomas Knierim]

David: Eileen Caddy often 'meditated' in the loo (only place she could be 'assured' of uninterrupted quite) - started hearing voices - 'nature spirits' or 'elementals' identified themselves and gave her guidance/instructions on where to plant which seeds, what conditions to maintain for them, etc. End result: a 'miraculously' vibrant and productive garden yield.

Wow. As usual, reality outdoes fiction. That is such an odd story! I can picture little carrot spirits hovering above the loo saying: "Plant me heeeere..., plant me theeere..., you shall seeeeee." Enter the cucumber, trumpeting out loud: "Gimme mo humus! I'm young, I need dung!" Makes we wonder whether Eileen found enough time for regular loo business. - Okay, this is getting sort of giddy. Note to self: Return to analytical thought mode (clearing throat). In fact, some plants are spoilt little brats, as I recently found during the course of my six-months balcony-based gardening experience. I had bought some colorful Bougainvillea spectabilis to plant on the south side of my Bangkok condo in supposedly ideal conditions. Fresh potting soil, lots of tropical sunshine, regular clipping. Bougainvillea did not appreciate any of it. Dropped all of its flowers into the swimming pool and started to sprawl in an unruly manner. Bloody pest plant! I punished it by replanting it to the East side window. Now I am growing several Codiaeum variegatum (Croton) interspersed with Golden Dewdrop on the south side. Looks wonderful. We are getting along very well.

Cheers, Thomas

P.S.: Oops - it seems that I accidentally deleted the original post of David. - So sorry. - I shall bang my head on my computer desk three times.

[rich]

Originally posted by Polaris+Aug 26 2003, 02:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Polaris @ Aug 26 2003, 02:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -asheera@Aug 25 2003, 03:48 PM
Time is finite to the life inside the body

no

But in order for time to end, the vastness of this universe must be completely devoid of living things.

no

In order for space to be meaningless, this universe must be completely devoid of living things.

no

I suppose these are possible.

no

But a barren universe devoid of life is still a universe

impossible




which is thinking-timenottime-spacenotsapce-infinitenotinfinite
-insideoutside-thingsnotthings-devoidnotdevoid?

;)
:)
Okay Asheera. You say 'no' to everything. I don't know everything. I have always admitted that I don't know everything and in doing so I admit that I do make mistakes.

Perhaps, since you seem to know enough to answer "no" to everything I say, you also might know enough to tell me how it REALLY is because, quite frankly, "which is thinking-timenottime-spacenotsapce-infinitenotinfinite
-insideoutside-thingsnotthings-devoidnotdevoid? is not much of an answer.

And how am I suppose to trust that you are anymore right than I am?


[/b]

Polaris, As i see it, you are presenting conditions which can not be true, for they already are as they are, and to unrealize those conditions, can not be, because they are.

The points in your post, you are trying to make, would be impossible to prove:
<!--QuoteBegin--asheera@Aug 25 2003, 03:48 PM
Time is finite to the life inside the body

no

But in order for time to end, the vastness of this universe must be completely devoid of living things.

no

In order for space to be meaningless, this universe must be completely devoid of living things.

no

I suppose these are possible.

no

But a barren universe devoid of life is still a universe

impossible

which is thinking-timenottime-spacenotsapce-infinitenotinfinite
-insideoutside-thingsnotthings-devoidnotdevoid?

;

Okay Asheera. You say 'no' to everything. I don't know everything. I have always admitted that I don't know everything and in doing so I admit that I do make mistakes.

Perhaps, since you seem to know enough to answer "no" to everything I say, you also might know enough to tell me how it REALLY is because, quite frankly, "which is thinking-timenottime-spacenotsapce-infinitenotinfinite
-insideoutside-thingsnotthings-devoidnotdevoid? is not much of an answer.

And how am I suppose to trust that you are anymore right than I am?
[/quote]

Polaris, I do not think it is a matter of trust, when the situations presented are impossible to prove, either way. None can win an undebateable argument. :blink: :rolleyes:

[Polaris]

Polaris, As i see it, you are presenting conditions which can not be true, for they already are as they are, and to unrealize those conditions, can not be, because they are.

The points in your post, you are trying to make, would be impossible to prove:


That's right, Rich except that we don't know all the conditions as they are and we can't unrealize something we've never realized in the first place. It's not that what I say CAN'T be true. It's that we have no way of proving that what I say CAN'T be true. I supposed that time wont exist if there are no living organizms which relate to it's passing.

Polaris, I do not think it is a matter of trust, when the situations presented are impossible to prove, either way. None can win an undebateable argument


Rich, I agree that the situations are impossible to prove. Nobody will be around to prove or disprove. At best we can only speculate using what knowledge and tools we currently have at our disposal... which is generally what we do here at The Big View anyhow. When I say "I suppose these are possible" the statement infers that I am speculating.

Suppose.
Main Entry: sup·pose
Pronunciation: s&-'pOz, oftenest after "I " 'spOz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): sup·posed; sup·pos·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French supposer, from Medieval Latin supponere (perfect indicative supposui), from Latin, to put under, substitute, from sub- + ponere to put -- more at POSITION
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 a : to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal <suppose a fire broke out> <suppose you bring the salad> b (1) : to hold as an opinion : BELIEVE <they supposed they were early> (2) : to think probable or in keeping with the facts <seems reasonable to suppose that he would profit>
2 a : CONCEIVE, IMAGINE b : to have a suspicion of
3 : PRESUPPOSE
intransitive senses : CONJECTURE, OPINE

"Suppose" means I don't know. I'm guessing. I wasn't giving my scenarios as the definitive LAW on how thing are. However, to recieve the response of "NO", "NO", "NO" over and over again, well, the word "NO" is VERY definitive. So if the response to my supposing is "NO", I'd like to know why it's "NO" and how she knows it's "NO". If I'm wrong that's fine. I don't mind being wrong and I never claimed to be doing anything more than supposing. I just don't think it's an unusual request to ask "why".

[sahyo]

....You say 'no' to everything....'no' "to everything"? ;)....Perhaps, since you seem to know enough to answer "no" to everything I say....say "no" "to everything I say"?....you also might know enough....no :D....to tell me how it REALLY is...."REALLY is"?....quite frankly, "which is thinking-timenottime-spacenotsapce-infinitenotinfinite-insideoutside-thingsnotthings-devoidnotdevoid" is not much of an answer....was "an answer"?....are seeking"an answer"?.... And how am I suppose to trust that you are anymore right than I am?....are seeking"right"whichnot?...."you" Iam"? ;)....

[Polaris]

Thanks for your "explaination", Asheera. <_<
I would expect nothing less or more from you. :wacko:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Aug 25 2003, 08:03 PM
P.S.: Oops - it seems that I accidentally deleted the original post of David. - So sorry. - I shall bang my head on my computer desk three times.
No problem - you 'got' the 'message' :)

I hope you didn't break the computer! :lol:

[Thomas Knierim]

Polaris: But if that's your argument then you cannot even say that we are definitively "not able to employ reason" to prove life is not a dream because even that is reasoning and would therefore be subject to potential error. If it's possible to reason that we can't use reason effectively, then it's also possible to reason that we can use reason effectively.

I am afraid I have to disagree with this conclusion.

If one use logical thought to determine the improvability of an outer world this does not invalidate reason itself, because (1) reason belongs to the inner world, and (2) because immateriality constitutes no logical fallacy.

The situation may seem a bit knotty, but it is of course possible to use reason in a resonable manner, even though reason's means are limited. As mentioned previously, we cannot establish by any logical chain of thought that life IS NOT a dream. For the same reason it is impossible to prove that life IS a dream.

Both positions have been maintained by different philosophers; the first position is the basis of classical realism, and the second is solipsism, or immaterialism (George Berkeley). Both positions are logically/empirically unassailable, unless of course one goes through the experience of being unplugged like in the Matrix.

Since we do not have any reports of unplugged individuals, we generally assume that life is not a dream. This assumption makes perfect sense.

All logical constructs, including the whole of mathematics and natural science, are based on axioms, or assumptions if you want. It is important to see that these are not arbitrary. They are "intuitive truths," or less formally "things that seem right." Classical geometry, for example is based on "things that seem right" (=axioms), such as "A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points," and "Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line." Logic operates within these parameters.

My point is, of course, to demonstrate that reason is basically detached from ontological ground. It operates within the confines of definitions and has no capacity to penetrate metaphysical questions on its own. This doesn't mean it is in any way impaired.

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

David: I hope you didn't break the computer!

Considering the hardwood core of Thomas' skull this is of course a valid concern. :lol:

[a random hack]

The situation may seem a bit knotty, but it is of course possible to use reason in a resonable manner, even though reason's means are limited. As mentioned previously, we cannot establish by any logical chain of thought that life IS NOT a dream. For the same reason it is impossible to prove that life IS a dream.

Both positions have been maintained by different philosophers; the first position is the basis of classical realism, and the second is solipsism, or immaterialism (George Berkeley). Both positions are logically/empirically unassailable, unless of course one goes through the experience of being unplugged like in the Matrix.


Lovely paradox. :)

What is the 'meaning' of a paradoxical conclusion when using logic? Invalid assumptions?

[Thomas Knierim]

Random: Lovely paradox. What is the 'meaning' of a paradoxical conclusion when using logic? Invalid assumptions?

In this case the paradox arises from contradicting systems of thought. While thesis and antithesis are both logically consistent, they are both incomplete. Incompleteness is a very common feature in logic. As we know -thanks to Gödel-, any sufficiently complex system is incomplete, which means it always contains improvable statements. The pertaining paradoxes are pretty much a feature of thought like mountains are features of a landscape. Theory wrinkles, so to speak. Dazzling mental sights.

Cheers, Thomas

[Polaris]

Polaris: But if that's your argument then you cannot even say that we are definitively "not able to employ reason" to prove life is not a dream because even that is reasoning and would therefore be subject to potential error. If it's possible to reason that we can't use reason effectively, then it's also possible to reason that we can use reason effectively.

Thomas: I am afraid I have to disagree with this conclusion.

If one use logical thought to determine the improvability of an outer world this does not invalidate reason itself, because (1) reason belongs to the inner world, and (2) because immateriality constitutes no logical fallacy.

The situation may seem a bit knotty, but it is of course possible to use reason in a resonable manner, even though reason's means are limited. As mentioned previously, we cannot establish by any logical chain of thought that life IS NOT a dream. For the same reason it is impossible to prove that life IS a dream.

Both positions have been maintained by different philosophers; the first position is the basis of classical realism, and the second is solipsism, or immaterialism (George Berkeley). Both positions are logically/empirically unassailable, unless of course one goes through the experience of being unplugged like in the Matrix.

Since we do not have any reports of unplugged individuals, we generally assume that life is not a dream. This assumption makes perfect sense.

:huh: In the dualistic world we live in it is possible to use reason reasonably, I agree. But it's also possible to use it unreasonably while still being completely convinced any assumption made by reason makes sense. It is perfectly reasonable to assume we aren't living in the Matrix. However, the world is full of people who believe all sorts of things which makes perfect sense to them, from various religious beliefs, to people in institutions who think they are Napoleon Bonapart, to the very fact that you and I can come here and discuss ontology as though we really know for certain what we're talking about. We can only relate and base our assumptions on our own personal experiences. For example, as a child, Santa Claus made perfect sense. For most people, their belief in Santa vanished as they became old enough to understand that Santa Claus really doesn't make as much sense as they originally thought. We go from believing that a fat guy from the North Pole flying around the world in a single night on a sleigh drawn by flying reindeer was perfectly reasonable in explaining the gifts we awoke to every Christmas morning, to understanding that it was our parents who put the presents under the tree.

The point is, at any given time and circumstance, any given assumption based on reason may appear valid. This apparent validity does not confirm that the assumption is correct but neither does it confirm that the assumption is incorrect.

Admittedly, this is an assumption based on reason and although it may seem valid to me, it may not be valid to you. ;)

[Thomas Knierim]

Polaris: The point is, at any given time and circumstance, any given assumption based on reason may appear valid. This apparent validity does not confirm that the assumption is correct but neither does it confirm that the assumption is incorrect.

Exactly!

It also means that we tend to use reason only within the confines of the (axiomatic) systems of thought (=belief systems) we have previously defined and accepted for ourselves, and that those axioms are designed to produce the expected descriptions. A good example for this would be the axiomatization of set theory, which was initially provided by Cantor and later replaced/refined by Zermelo-Fraenkel in order to maintain the integrity of the theory in view of the Russell paradox.

We can expand our mental horizon only by thinking outside of the box, making new experiences, and exploring new territories. Life is an adventure. :D

Cheers, Thomas

[a random hack]

Seems a problem with using logic (or any thought system /tool) is using it in the wrong circumstances.

In this case the paradox arises from contradicting systems of thought.

But in general, systems of thought arise from initial assumptions. Then again, as you said, more 'initial'(ising) assumptions (tend to) arise from systems of thought :lol:.
Well, if you didn't say that, that's what I heard. :lol:

[Polaris]

Originally posted by Thomas Knierim@Aug 27 2003, 11:32 PM
Life is an adventure. :D


I feel like a swashbuckler ;) :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris+Aug 28 2003, 07:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Polaris @ Aug 28 2003, 07:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Thomas Knierim@Aug 27 2003, 11:32 PM
Life is an adventure. :D


I feel like a swashbuckler ;) :)[/b][/quote]
WOOOHOOOO! :lol:

[rich]

Originally posted by DavidS+Aug 29 2003, 12:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DavidS @ Aug 29 2003, 12:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Polaris@Aug 28 2003, 07:59 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Thomas Knierim@Aug 27 2003, 11:32 PM
Life is an adventure.* :D


I feel like a swashbuckler ;) :)
WOOOHOOOO! :lol: [/b][/quote]
David's "WOOOHOOOO" reminded me of this joke. ;) :lol:

Two Indians and a Hillbilly were walking in the woods, all of a sudden one of the Indians ran up a hill to the mouth of a small cave.

"Wooooo! Wooooo! Wooooo!" he called into the cave and then he listened very closely until he heard an answering, "Wooooo! Wooooo! Wooooo!" He tore off his clothes and ran into the cave. The Hillbilly was puzzled and asked the other Indian what that was all about. "Was he crazy or what?" "No," said the Indian. "It is our custom during mating season when Indian men see cave, they holler "Wooooo Wooooo! Wooooo!" into the opening. If they get an answer back, it means there is a girl in there waiting to mate."

Just then they saw another cave. The second Indian ran up to the opening of the cave, stopped and hollered, "Wooooo! Wooooo! Wooooo!" Immediately, there was an answering "Wooooo! Wooooo! Wooooo!" from deep inside the cave. He tore off his clothes and ran into the cave.

The Hillbilly wandered around in the woods alone for a while, and then he came upon a great big cave. As he looked in amazement at the size of the huge opening, he was thinking, "Hoo, man! Look at the size of this cave! It is bigger than those the Indians found. There must be some really big, fine women in this cave!" He stood in front of the opening and hollered with all his might Wooooo! Wooooo! Wooooo!" He grinned and closed his eyes in anticipation, and then he heard the answering call, "WOOOOOOOOO! WOOOOOOOOO! WOOOOOOOOO!" With a gleam in his eyes and a smile on his face, he raced into the cave, tearing off his clothes as he ran.




The next day, the headline read...
"NAKED HILLBILLY RUN OVER BY FREIGHT TRAIN"

[sonrisa]

good one Richie! :D :lol:

[a random hack]

:lol:

[sylph]

Originally posted by rich@Aug 20 2003, 08:55 AM
Vicente,

I am not meaning to be sarcastic, but to succeed in this world, there are certain axioms, theorums, mathematical concepts, one must believe in, for none have proved them to be false. Basic fundamentals i am writing about. IOW, You gotta believe because they are true. It would be fruitless on the part of anyone, to say the basic concepts are false. I do not think you are trying to do this, for I believe you have more common sense, than to do that.
i agree w/ thomas. there is no fine line b/w belief and knowledge.. but perhaps there is a gradient.

our scientific knowledge is considered 'objective', but 'objective' only means everyone* in the scientific community agrees to it. a scientific community is just like any other community, where they are closed off from the rest of the world (because hardly anything can be all-encompassing), and so there could always be something outside their 'little world' that they missed.

* except the radicals, of course

rich, the basic mathematical axioms, etc. only seem certain to you because they are consistent with each other and your perception of the world. but consistency isn't enough, b/c there are many possible consistent worlds.

i would not say the basic concepts are false, but i would say the basic concepts are true for now. always be open to new information. ;)