The Power Of Belief

[scameter]

It is so amazing to me, to be talking to my mormon friend Jenna about her views. She was raised mormon, and the mormon views have been synonymous to her own since childhood. But, to see them in action is so amazing, honestly. Especially when they are confronted by scientific logic. It has taught me that belief, as William James said, is extremely powerful, if not the most powerful aspect of humanity, and that logic is a tool and is subjective. It has been a very interesting experience. To hear her say that the Great Flood happened, and that dinosaurs existed alongside humans, and that they actually devolved, not evolved, and that the earth has only existed a few thousand years, and that most of scientific and historical theory is entirely false, and that dragons were most likely dinosaurs that humans used to fight, and that the Bible is in every way true seems eccentric to me and entirely false, but it is amazing to see her conviction to her beliefs when pressed with concrete scientific logic and evidence. To me, this is one of the very few things, if not the only thing, science and philosophy have wrong: scientific logic cannot disperse any belief. Belief is, if it is indeed compounded in the individual with enough severity, entirely concrete, and is almost impossible to chip, much less break. :)

[locomotive]

she has quite an ego.

[Smurf]

Without belief you are as nothing, your beliefs make your principles which in turn influence your decision-making and overall actions. Thus we mostly :P judge people by their actions.

[scameter]

lol You're calling someone else egotistical? :D

[Smurf]

heh :D that's a good point actually Scam :P

[scameter]

:P

[locomotive]

is that a witty joke or are you saying I'm egotistical like her?

[locomotive]

in skill. better yet, that things are not definite.

[Kether]

I don't think that scientists and philosophers have overlooked your point. Some experience with the very faithful - like your Mormon friend - has shown that if someone is conditioned to not believe in reason, then they won't believe in reason. And if they don't believe in reason, it is almost impossible to shake their faith.

[locomotive]

exactly.

[Smurf]

faith like scams friend are more brainwashed than faithful...


:applause: :lol:

[scameter]

If you don't mind, please refrain from insulting my friend, especially with sly insults with subtle negativities; for one, it makes you look very ignorant and immature, and two, she is a *very* good friend of mine.

Now, actually I was being both serious and joking locomotive, but what I said could apply to anyone calling someone else egotistical as if they are not, or that the other person is more egotistical than they are; every human being is trapped in the state of being that they are insnared to/by their ego. It is inevitable. Only through forgetting the ego can it be relinquished, as is the goal of Buddhism.

I agree Kether; honestly, I think it is foolish for anyone supporting of reason, science or philosophy to talk logically with someone so strong in their faith. It is a task in futility. Because even the most astute logician poised against someone so entrenched in their faith as my friend could give unquestionable evidence of something to the believer, and the believer would revoke it without doubt or question to their faith. Honestly, it is both saddening and amazing. I think that both belief and reason are necessary; without the former, life would become boring with only the latter, and without the latter, we would lack a necessary tool to sustain life. This is why I so love transcendentalism, because it is not agnostic; it claims that there is most definitely a natural, powerful spirituality to existence in whole, but it does not label at as religions do; it merely allows it's subtlty and passiveness to endure in it's purity abound and within, beautifully.

But, it is wrong of us to call her or anyone else so faithful (if they are like my friend and consider their views logical, no matter the actuality of their belief) ignorant or false; yes, her parents were Mormon, and she was raised Mormon, but she has still thought about it to a high degree, and honestly I am happy for her that she has something like religion. Life can become rather lonely without such a thing. I'm sure I will be persecuted for such a view as that, but you know it is true. Religion is like an unseeable friend. But, religion is not my problem; it is the church, and it's rather human corruption and perverse devotion to money, even above their spirituality. To me, also, religion has lost one of it's most basic and pivitol qualities: philosophy. It is unfortunate. But, I am happy for her, and honestly, I enjoy discussing with her these things, mainly because I enjoy seeing her rather irrational reactions :D, but I know I do so in futility. And it is fine with me. :)

[locomotive]

I was saying that she has quite an ego because if you talk about these things and you don't have an open mind, what is there to talk about? What does she want? surely it's not knowledge and better understanding if you go about it like that.
Ego's come in different shapes and sizes.

[Smurf]

open mindedness doesn't necessarily mean complete entrance of infinity, it is the unlocking of the ability to accept anything, which perhaps you find difficult to understand? :P

[locomotive]

infinity entering and accepting everything is the same thing...unless you mean accepting even those things that are unrelated which would be unnecessary to consider.

[Smurf]

what?

I was just trying to explain Open-mindedness, not the censorship of information through the mind.

no because infinity entering happens all at once, infinity does not wait for time, whereas the acceptance of everything waits for the person accept it. also infinity does not equal everything, two different concepts.

Open-mindedness does not have an ego, you do not need an ego to live your life for you. your personality can do that for you already.

[locomotive]

I wasn't talking about censorship. What you wrote seemed the same because of your choice of words and because I tried to understand why you are saying that but now that you elaborated it..

no because infinity entering happens all at once, infinity does not wait for time, whereas the acceptance of everything waits for the person accept it. also infinity does not equal everything, two different concepts.

I see.
complete entrance of infinity
why say this? what are you talking about? what did you thought? Were on two different pages it seems now.
Open-mindedness does not have an ego
I know.

[deepakgang]

Sometimes we dont realise what we are missing when we think what we know is complete.
Truth is that ones faith is ones God.
Gandhi has said - An atheists' faith that there is no God, is his God.

Scams friend may be brainwashed. But you cant deny her faith after her brainwashed state.
Everyone thinks what they say or believe is right. Faith is one thing one cling to, one derives ones principles to live from. If you argue thats wrong - the life so far appear futile to them. That may be the reason they wont hear to your proofs or theories that may be correct. But I dont think thats something which cannot be changed. Ones faith have to be changed by self. Its when one become faithless - let it be the result of anything - one becomes attracted to other things. Simply arguing with some one - its only the clashing of egoes which will produce nothing but snobish attitudes towards each other (may be some other word suits better )
And at last each one will say the other one is not open minded and all.

[Smurf]

because open-mindedness can be mistaken for being completely open and nothing actually in there :lol:

[locomotive]

:) better you explain yourself further smurf before I say something stupid again.

there is no denieng the fact that we need a foundation which we build with our senses so we can live. But seeing something complete which in fact cannot be complete because it is obviously lacking something is self deluded.

[Kether]

Scameter,
I agree that logic is not everything, but I don't consider the other element in life belief. In its place, I would place emotion, and everything that springs from it. Reason and faith deal with the same fields, and are therefore opposed. I know that you consider the metaphysical beyond science, and it's true that it is beyond empirical observation (or at least our current methods), but it is not beyond reason.
Emotion can and should be kept separate from the acquisition of knowledge, but cannot and should not be eradicated from human understanding altogether. Indeed, emotion could be said to be ultimate, but only in the internal realm of the psyche. As concerns our knowledge of the universe, logic is the best - and I will venture so far as to say only - way forward.

[scameter]

I was saying that she has quite an ego because if you talk about these things and you don't have an open mind, what is there to talk about? What does she want? surely it's not knowledge and better understanding if you go about it like that.
Ego's come in different shapes and sizes.

Actually, I was the one who asked her about her beliefs; she wasn't questioning me about them in order to gain more knowledge and/or understanding. Her beliefs are satisfactory enough for her.

Sometimes we dont realise what we are missing when we think what we know is complete.
Truth is that ones faith is ones God.
Gandhi has said - An atheists' faith that there is no God, is his God.

I agree.

Scams friend may be brainwashed. But you cant deny her faith after her brainwashed state.
Everyone thinks what they say or believe is right. Faith is one thing one cling to, one derives ones principles to live from. If you argue thats wrong - the life so far appear futile to them. That may be the reason they wont hear to your proofs or theories that may be correct. But I dont think thats something which cannot be changed. Ones faith have to be changed by self. Its when one become faithless - let it be the result of anything - one becomes attracted to other things. Simply arguing with some one - its only the clashing of egoes which will produce nothing but snobish attitudes towards each other (may be some other word suits better )
And at last each one will say the other one is not open minded and all.

I agree entirely; I like your entire post my friend. :)

Scameter,
I agree that logic is not everything, but I don't consider the other element in life belief. In its place, I would place emotion, and everything that springs from it. Reason and faith deal with the same fields, and are therefore opposed. I know that you consider the metaphysical beyond science, and it's true that it is beyond empirical observation (or at least our current methods), but it is not beyond reason.
Emotion can and should be kept separate from the acquisition of knowledge, but cannot and should not be eradicated from human understanding altogether. Indeed, emotion could be said to be ultimate, but only in the internal realm of the psyche. As concerns our knowledge of the universe, logic is the best - and I will venture so far as to say only - way forward.

I never said the metaphysical is beyond reason or logical; logic is a tool and can be applied anywhere, as it is with my friend who believes her views to be entirely logical. I mean that science cannot explain what isn't observational: the metaphysical, or possibly more appropriate, the spiritual. And I think emotion is there just as much as logic, but belief isn't dependant on emotion. Belief is a power in and of it's self, and should be appreciated as being so, just as logic isn't dependant on emotion, and emotion not on the other two powers; they form a unique, psychological triangle of powers. And I agree that emotion shouldn't be erradicated, as that would be unnatural, because it is here obviously for a purpose or it would not exist; but, why is going forward so important? To further the ego and to conquer is a Western view that is extremely common, if not omnipresent, in the entirety of the West, if not fundamental to it's very consciousness; the East views abadoning the ego to be more appreciable.

[Smurf]

better you explain yourself further smurf before I say something stupid again

why are you afraid to say something stupid? After this happens it is only laughing we induce.

don't worry about it mate :thumbsup:

[locomotive]

your right but I meant it like this: if I respond to your post you would just say no I meant it like this, so why not put all your thoughts on the table so we don't strafe away from the topic and start throwing wild theories at eachother never understanding from what point of view we are talking.

what is the difference between logic and intuition? you know that intuition can be wrong. I did research on it actually. This makes me think that intuition is simply just a thought out of the blue.
just like when you are using logic. With logic you for instance hold a question in your thought and then other thoughts follow. Some people talk inside their heads to "think". Some thought are when thinking about it really amazing. Just this morning I was looking at this guy that walked funny, I thought about how the muscles would work, then suddenly I saw exactly what muscles he's contracting and such. Thinking happens fast, I only thought about maybe my own body for less than a second and drawed a conclusion. Not really suprising when you take into account that my mind has been aware of my body for 17 years. It only seems that you don't know.
.....

[Smurf]

I don't know what? :unsure:

[scameter]

I agree psyche; altruism, essentialy. :) And, intuition is not simply passive thought, nor is it fallable, from a certain point of view; from another, it is, as is with anything. Intuition is a sort of spiritual insight and instant, no-thought thought that is perfect, and is, I believe, the basis of animal consciousness; and, it is also, I believe, perfectly logical and rational, with no influence from emotion.

[Kether]

From a psychological perspective, surely 'intuition' is essentially a form of emotion? A subconscious feeling?
Why is going forward so important?
Progress as a society is essential if human beings are to live to their potential. Our finite needs must be satisfied if we are to actualise as individuals, and such satisfaction of wants cannot be attained without the best possible economy, social consciousness, and scientific knowledge. You consider the alternative to social progress to be the eradication of the ego, but self-transcendence can only be attained if our needs are met.

[locomotive]

in fact, meditating is all about fullfilling your needs. thats why I like buddhas quote that goes something like this: life is suffering, the end to suffering is in suffering the cause of suffering is suffering.

[scameter]

Actually Kether, a friend of mine and I a couple days ago were discussing how humanity's so-called "necessities", such as social programs, organization of high complexity, and technology, aren't necessary at all; we merely do them out of boredom, curiosity, and the desire to make life easier. Indeed, is all that is required to sustain our existence is the bare essentials: shelter, food, hydrating liquid, reproduction, defense, and probably fire and clothing; that's it. Nothing more. Everything else we have are out of the three things I listed above.

Buddhist monasteries are not so furnished as is modern society; they, as far as I know and in their purity, do not have computers, manufactured goods, proper and complete healthcare, necessary political freedom, and most other things we have; indeed, they live off of the essentials that I listed above, and acquire transcendence from simplicity and the abandonment of the ego, their possessions being not so necessary as they seem to be to Westerners.

[locomotive]

sometimes people look in the wrong direction to fullfill needs. like seeking possesion.

[scameter]

I agree. But, is that really "wrong"?

[locomotive]

well if the need stays and you can't fullfill it you are doing something wrong.

[Kether]

Humanity's so-called "necessities", such as social programs, organization of high complexity, and technology, aren't necessary at all; we merely do them out of boredom, curiosity, and the desire to make life easier.
Assuming you are right, what is wrong with desiring to alleviate boredom, fulfill curiosity, and make life easier? The easier life is, the easier it is to concentrate on fulfilling our potential.

[scameter]

it is not intrinsically wrong...but possessions often don't bring as much satisfaction as we think/hope they will...now there are different types of possessions....a stradivarius owned by a violin virtuoso is not the same as imelda marco's hundreds of pairs of shoes...

Why?

well if the need stays and you can't fullfill it you are doing something wrong.

We always have had and will have needs that will go unfulfilled; so does this make continuous desire wrong?

right scam...if you try and don't do you have not done...it is a failure...so as locomotive says if it isn't working you have failed...though it wasn't wrong to try...

Indeed, you are probably not rightfully fulfilling apart of the desired system of acts; but, does this make desiring or having possessions wrong?

Assuming you are right, what is wrong with desiring to alleviate boredom, fulfill curiosity, and make life easier? The easier life is, the easier it is to concentrate on fulfilling our potential.

I never said it was wrong; I was merely illustrating that we do not need these extra possessions and lifestyles we have. We only need that which is necessary to sustain human society on a more species level than on a social or progessive level.

because they become never ending goals...you will never be amused enough...life will never be sufficiently easy...without discipline most people would never move on to concentrate on fulfilling our potential....satisfying curiosity is fine....it can even lead you to fulfilling your potential...

Why is fulfilling our "potential", whatever it is, so important? Moving forward; conquering; ruling; understanding: all meant to alleviate fear and move into excess our comfort and pleasure in life, essentially effecting our narcissism.

[locomotive]

"We always have had and will have needs that will go unfulfilled; so does this make continuous desire wrong?"
no because you need it. It should be fullfilled or it will become harmfull to your body.

[Kether]

Why is fulfilling our "potential", whatever it is, so important? Moving forward; conquering; ruling; understanding: all meant to alleviate fear and move into excess our comfort and pleasure in life, essentially effecting our narcissism.
You repeatedly say that all of human behaviour is basically motivated by the avoidance of pain, which you call fear. Now you say that this is ethically wrong?
Our morality and sense of meaning and value must adapt to the truth, and thus something fundamental to existence, which cannot be changed, should not be held as evil.

Transcendence of the ego can is tied up with the achievement of actualisation. Thomas explained this well in the 'e' beings topic.

To be honest, striving for fulfillment and happiness is the way the human mind is programmed - this is a useful evolutionary device. It's what we do. A psychologist or evolutionary biologist could probably tell you why.

[scameter]

Yes, they do need fulfillment; but sometimes, the lack of fulfillment is both enjoyable and not wrong. For instance, fulfillment of my desire to understand everything about nature would result in both boredom and discomfort, but it's lack of completion allows enjoyment, with a lack of wrongness.

You repeatedly say that all of human behaviour is basically motivated by the avoidance of pain, which you call fear. Now you say that this is ethically wrong?
Our morality and sense of meaning and value must adapt to the truth, and thus something fundamental to existence, which cannot be changed, should not be held as evil.

I never said it was wrong. I said that it is important because we wish to avoid fear and discomfort in a narcissistic way; I never said narcissism was wrong or incorrect. And how can we see truth? We cannot attain true objectivity by any means (except, I believe, the total abandonment of the ego), thus truth, as you say is that which is fundamental to existence and life, cannot be seen entirely, and thus not with any concreteness.

Transcendence of the ego can is tied up with the achievement of actualisation. Thomas explained this well in the 'e' beings topic.

Transcendence of the ego; more conquering. Another goal to be fulfilled and completed, ruled. What about the abandonment of the ego, as is expressed in buddhist philosophy?

To be honest, striving for fulfillment and happiness is the way the human mind is programmed - this is a useful evolutionary device. It's what we do. A psychologist or evolutionary biologist could probably tell you why.

I agree entirely; it is most definitely true to both evolution and natural behavior, and I never denied this. But, it is not necessary for us to strive for more. We could merely go on the essentials. But, living only on the essentialls would effect both boredom and displeasure, something not desired by humans, who have such a massive curiosity.

[locomotive]

well you don't need to think. what if you were doing a exam with stress and stuff.

[scameter]

What do you mean?

[Kether]

I feel I understand your stance better now, Scameter. However, I would not regard our avoidance of pain to be 'narcissistic' - the word implies selfishness, whereas the avoidance of pain is a deeply social thing.

[scameter]

Social? Hmm...I thought it more physical, in the way of avoiding pain/discomfort in favour of the more pleasurable comfort and lack of pain effected by avoidance of pain/discomfort. And by narcissistic I didn't mean it negatively; just observationally, objectively. It seems a rather apparent quality in human behavior. :)

[locomotive]

what I meant was, what if you needed to understand a puzzle and you where stressing like some do when doing exams?
plus if you have fullfilled thinking then that does not mean boredom. Boredom is desire.

[Kether]

What I mean is that our basic need to avoid pain has been the root of many social constructs. Art and emotion help us to understand the world - and this need may be ultimately reducible to the need to survive in it. The same could be said of science and philosophy, and humanity's many other attempts to attain knowledge. At the root of all behavioural drives is survival of the species - the whole species. That is not individualistic.
And by narcissistic I didn't mean it negatively; just observationally, objectively.
I understand that totally. :)

[scameter]

what I meant was, what if you needed to understand a puzzle and you where stressing like some do when doing exams?
plus if you have fullfilled thinking then that does not mean boredom. Boredom is desire.

Then you would need to calm yourself and have patience, to not worry about the future and to live in the moment, and indeed there, thinking is necessary; but, taking tests isn't natural. Other animals don't take tests for things. Tests are purely conceptual creations. Not that that is wrong or negative, but it is true.

What I mean is that our basic need to avoid pain has been the root of many social constructs. Art and emotion help us to understand the world - and this need may be ultimately reducible to the need to survive in it. The same could be said of science and philosophy, and humanity's many other attempts to attain knowledge. At the root of all behavioural drives is survival of the species - the whole species. That is not individualistic.

I agree, but even in evolution, natural selection favours the individual; thus, even in human society, the individual does things to improve him/herself, even if subsequently, the entirety of human society is helped. But yes, those things unnecessary, dependant on conceptuality, such as art and the academic studies, are essential if we are to avoid life's barren pain in normality and to avoid the almost equal pain of boredom. However they are unnecessary for the sustaining of life in human society, they are necessary for the progression of human culture. :)

[Kether]

I tend to think of it as the other way round: that the pain we derive from boredom is a strategy to motivate us in the direction of creativity, knowledge and other complex strategies, that are ultimately psychological means to help us understand and survive in our environment.

Natural selection does sometimes favour individual organisms, but primates have begun to evolve in the direction of collectivity, a much more effective strategy. Thus we see altruism and 'overcommitment strategies' - AKA love - in humans and other apes.
Moreover, the individual organism can survive best if it is conditioned by society - the individual is ultimately dependant on the group.

[scameter]

I agree. And altruism is actually present in other animals, such as a particular kind of bird that helps it's parents to raise more children instead of having it's own children, and with ants that live purely for the mother ant, and are willing to die in combat to protect the mother. But, in human society, we no longer require collective societal conditioning; the individual does just as good and has just as many opportunities to do so by him/herself. Yes, this cannot be done without contact with the rest of society, but the individual is still considered an individual if he/she works and progresses without the entire benefit or assistance of the whole. And, even in collectivism, the individual is still crucial, and especially in human society the individual is indeed very much so individual, his/her traits not dependant on that of other people; influenced by them yes, but not dependant on them.

[Kether]

Despite owing its identity to its environment, the individual organism feels separate. Conditions and environment control its actions, but it has the impression of separateness and control.

[locomotive]

yes our basic thing is to live but you need your brain and take the time if you don't then you end up thinking about emotions and what not. The difference is that a critical thinker doesn't suffer really. understanding emotions and such is something like a science, he already is you could say mindfull. The way these thing degenerate are evident in my life for example. I started to wonder and dream to much and after some time I became all lazy and weak and stupid something I found absurd some years earlier. All the things people say like beeing in the moment. Only one consciousness at a time. When fighting you have to see the others source of power. relax the muscles , all of this I did when I was young and I used it. Later it all went away. Howso? because I stopped acting and started talking! huraaaj. Well it's all good now.

boredom is not pain, it's a craving. Society does not do well in conditioning. The individual therefore must make his own stand but he needs to know society to work with it.
There was some point in my post but forgot what it is, oh well.

[CSwriter1]

"You are calling someone else egotistic?" What we see in others is a reflection of ourselves. However, I think Locomotive makes an excell point, and immediately Muslim suicide bombers came to mind. The ones I have seen expressing their point of view on TV seem complied by religious belief to be extremely egotistical. Christians seem to carry this too. Or is there another word for being important to God? By religious belief, more important to God than all rest of humanity.

[CSwriter1]

The quote function isn't working for me. "At the root of all behavioural drives is survival of the species - the whole species. That is not individualistic."

I am not sure this is the ultimate truth? I think it is possible God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking up in plants and animals, to know self in man. That would make the root of all behavioural drives, God wanting to experience life with all its ups and downs.

Have you thought of being a soul with no experience as a body experiencing life? Without our bodies we would not know pain and pleasure. Would not know glory and defeat. Without these manifest material lives, there would be no great movies, no great novels, no great accomplishments of any kind. Would you want an eternity like that? Without us that is what God would have.

[Kether]

Without "this manifest material life", our souls could not exist at all.

[CSwriter1]

Two last comment. Quantum physics tells us our thoughts effect manifest reality.

Our brains literally change around age 8. We stop asborbing information like a sponge and start discriminating, choosing what we will accept as good ideas or reject as not true or useful. That is our concept of reality is developed before we are aware of learning and begin discriminating. From there on out we, defend our concept of reality, as though our lives (egos) depend on it. To question we believe is true, can result is intolerable physical and mental discomfort, and a sense of loosing our sanity. Who am I if I do not believe what believe is true? Religion, unfortunately feeds into this. Public education preparing students as it once did, for logic and independ thinking, corrects this problem.

We are not naturally critical thinkers, but must learn the skills for this. Without these skills all we have is our feelings to tell us what is true or false. Therefore, one remains much as the 8 year old child, going through life on feelings, rather then critical thinking and maturing. The US is in deep trouble now, because education for technology, is producing products for industry, not citizens for democracy. This is the New World Order and the same threat to world that Hitlers New World Order was.

[scameter]

So Kether, you believe there is no individuality to life, we are only led to believe this? If so, then how is there anything called individuality to be led to believe? Ants know nothing of individuality. But, we do. How can this be if indeed there is no individuality?

[locomotive]

CS, I believe survival or tasks with personal time at hand develope critical thinking.

from a universal look there is no individual only an event. When we think of how it would be to get inside somebody elses head we can't know if they think like us, are like us therefore I am a individual. If ants have nothing to remind themselfs of that they are seperate constantly for instance that they aren't aware that they are following orders and then moving a leg they won't think anything of it. Then again maybe they are aware that they are running around but their way of living is their life. When they get seperated from their group they sufficate mentally.

[scameter]

I'm sorry, but I personally think it is ignorant to think we aren't individuals. Even ants are individuals, their awareness of it being irrelevent. Even scientifically we are all different; our cells and biological structure formation have different markers and architecture, which would do nothing for efficiency of either the individual entity or the group, and obviously purely exist because each entity is individual.

[Thomas Knierim]

CSWriter: We are not naturally critical thinkers, but must learn the skills for this. Without these skills all we have is our feelings to tell us what is true or false. Therefore, one remains much as the 8 year old child, going through life on feelings, rather then critical thinking and maturing.

This is essentially what happens in Thailand and in other NICs with inadequate education systems. The traditional education system in Thailand is based on rote learning and obedience. The motto is: One must always respect authority and never ask any questions. Critical thinking, self-reliance, and problem-solving skills are never taught. I can't even begin to tell how many problems this causes and what an ignorant society this creates. I once taught computer science in Thailand at the young adult level. Unfortunately, at the age of 20 cultural programming is completed, and there is no way a teacher can reverse the damage done.

The lectures I gave were pretty much all monologues. People do not ask questions, even if they don't understand a thing. Luckily I found out rather quickly. They don't understand abstract relationships and entities. They only understand practical examples. They are able to reproduce solutions for specific problems for which they have been trained. They are not able to generalise and devise their own solutions for new problems. Initially I found this quite shocking, since the people I am talking about were university students and graduates, and I wasn't used to treat people of this age like children.

It is a sad fact, however, that in Thailand the majority of adults have undeveloped minds, particularly in the intellectual department, and that many people remain at the mental level of a child forever. When I started my own software company, I had great problems finding qualified programmers. Even when I could find people with the required technical know-how, it was difficult to work with them, because they weren't used to organising their work and tackling problems on their own. This situation forced me to micromanage teams to a degree that would be considered embarrassing in most other places.

In the meantime I have retired from both teaching and managing employees in Thailand. If I should do it again, I would prefer to work with young children. Working with adults simply isn't that rewarding. During all those years in Thailand, I certainly met also many highly educated individuals. Most of them were from well-to-do families and had enjoyed an education abroad or at expensive private institutions. One can only hope that Thailand's politicians and education professionals will wake up to this problem, take the necessary steps, and reform the public education system.

Cheers, Thomas

[joye_r2]

When a child is born, what is inherent in him/her? If the same child grows in different environment, what qualities will the child retain in common?

I think there is nothing called individuality. Man is a product of the environment. Two different individuals brought up in exactly same environment will behave the same. It is impossible to have exactly same environment in practice as each faces different experiences. Same child growing in different environments will be totally different. Like a Thai child studying in USA will develop most qualities of US students. The Thai influence will be there due to the environment with parents and relatives.

The environment has developed over millions of years and it will not be possible to bring the changes in short time.

I think, irrespective of any culture, some basic qualities are required for a good environment. Other qualities are optional.

The good qualities required are..
i) Everyone has the same right to live, speak and do things as I have. i.e Everyone's life is of equal value.
ii) People are different due to their environment in which they grew up and hence I must understand the difference and accept the difference.

If all people in the world accept and understand the above two qualities, life will be like a heaven..

[Kether]

So Kether, you believe there is no individuality to life, we are only led to believe this?
Consciousness and the Mind are perhaps the only 'individuals' in existence -they feel individual. However, I agree with joye_r2: we owe our material and psychical identities to our environments.
Quantum physics tells us our thoughts effect manifest reality.
I’ve heard this mentioned several times, and don’t really understand it or the reasoning behind it. If someone could explain it to me I would be grateful.
I get the impression that this theory means that subatomic particles appear to change while being observed. But how does this refute the idea that consciousness is rooted in material existence? No doubt I’m missing something

[locomotive]

so basically scam you are saying that because people are different they are individuals. So are trees.

[scameter]

In common speech, the word individual most often refers to a person, or, by analogy, to any specific object in a group of things. For example, you the reader are an individual person, and a lawn is made of individual blades of grass. Originally, in the 15th century or earlier, the term meant "indivisible" as still used in statistics (see below), but from the seventeenth century on the term indicated separateness, as in individualism. (Abbs 1986, cited in Klein 2005, p.26-27)

In metaphysics and statistics, the word individual, while sometimes meaning "a person", more typically describes any numerically singular thing. Used in many contexts, both 'Socrates' and 'the Moon' denote individuals; 'grapefruit' and 'redness' (generally) do not. 'Individual' as a piece of philosophical jargon is much-bandied and often to be found in the company of particular -- indeed, often treated as synonymous with 'particular' (though one wonders if abstract particulars can count as individuals) -- and contrasted with 'universal'.

In philosophy, the issue of personal identity concerns the conditions under which a person at one time is the same person at another time. An analysis of personal identity provides a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the identity of the person over time. This concept of personal identity is sometimes referred to as the diachronic problem of personal identity. It contrasts with the synchronic problem, which is the question of what constitutes personhood at a time - what kind of thing is a person?

John Locke considered personal identity (or the self to be founded on consciousness, and neither on the soul nor on the substance (or the body) (see Consciousness as the basis of personal identity (John Locke)).


The problem of personal identity is at the center of discussions about survival of death and immortality. In order to survive death, there has to be a person after death who is the same person as the person who died. So in virtue of what is the post-death individual the same person as the earlier temporal stage of the person who it is claimed is survived in the post-death individual?

There have been many thought experiments about personal identity, for example, "swamp man".

This is all from www.wikipedia.com, and the associated articles therein.

[locomotive]

and your point was?

[scameter]

I didn't say there was one. This is merely the views of that site on the subject.

[scameter]

Furthermore, in the philosophy of ontology, it is thought that "mind, instead of referring to an entity, refers to a collection of mental events experienced by a person; society refers to a collection of persons with some shared characteristics, and geometry refers to a collection of a specific kind of intellectual activity. Any ontology must give an account of which words refer to entities, which do not, why, and what categories result. When one applies this process to nouns such as electrons, energy, contract, happiness, time, truth, causality, and god, ontology becomes fundamental to many branches of philosophy." (From wikipedia.com)

[CSwriter1]

Thomas, I am moved to tears with feelings of gratitude for your observation of what happens when there is complete failure to prepare citizens for critical thinking. I am deeply saddened by the general failure to understand critical thinking is complex skills that must be learned. This is what separated Athens from all the rest of the world, and later seperated east from west. However, the west's grasp of this concept of citical is so lacking where governments are consumed by New World Order thinking, that their civilizations may fall, as have civilizations of the past.

I don't know. You so stir my passions with your wisdom, that I must withdraw for awhile and contemplate your words and the thoughts you have stirred in my mind. How I wish I could simply explain to the world that discussion such as we are having here, is what advances civilization and citizens must be prepared for this, or at least the more complex civilizations begin to decay and fall.

[scameter]

Also furthermore, Anaximander, student of Thales of Ionia, believed that (quoted from wikipedia.com):

"By emerging from the primeval oneness, each definite individual thing must pay a price by returning. This meant that the individual, separate existence of each and every thing is unjust. It has no justification or value in itself."
:)

[CSwriter1]

The subject here is belief, and psyhe mentioned "What the Bleep Do We Know".

There have also been experiments on the power of meditation to change reality. When a large number of people meditate for peacefulness and focus this to a particular city, there is a significant decrease in violence.

On the other hand, the Christian belief that we are born in sin, and their expectation of evil, and exclusion of themselves as God's favored people, etc. produces a lot of harm. I don't think this belief system is compatible with democracy, which must rule by reason, or it is not democracy.

[Kether]

"Good" government should most certainly rule by reason - and also by love. But this is not inherent in the nature of 'democracy', which means 'rule by the people'. Ideally, equal power by all individuals in decisions that concern them should be the form that democracy takes.
The word 'democracy' has over time become synonymous with 'freedom' - thanks to the philosophers and reformers who believed in both. However, 'rule by the people' can inhibit freedom. For a 'good' government to be possible, freedom of expression and opinion must be allowed. Ideal government: equal freedom in decision-making of all parties affected, coupled with individual freedom in matters of opinion.
There have also been experiments on the power of meditation to change reality. When a large number of people meditate for peacefulness and focus this to a particular city, there is a significant decrease in violence.
I have not seen the evidence for or against this, so I shall not make any final judgements on it.
The concept that 'reality' is a product of mind, and that the right focus of mind can therefore alter it, seems to be verified by this evidence. It is not a theory that I personally agree with.

[scameter]

Is that not what democracy is, power to every individual person for the benefit of the entirety of society for harmony, peace, and reasonful unity and stability, as well as prosperity?

[Kether]

Yes. I was dealing with the question of personal freedom, concluding that authority, even if it is held equally by all people, can still oppress it. Thus democracy should respect the individual as well as the group.

[scameter]

I agree, and it does; one must not forget that no true democracy has ever existed save probably that of Greece and Viking Scandinavian society, due to it's rather low population. Currently-titled democracies are actually indeed republics with a slight leaning towards democracy, personified in America's national anthem.

[Kether]

I agree, and it does; one must not forget that no true democracy has ever existed save probably that of Greece and Viking Scandinavian society, due to it's rather low population.
And also due to the fact that there was a very large slave class and that women were treated as totally inferior. They did all the work, and the rich men who were counted as citizens could therefore participate in government.
With the technology we have and are easily capable of having, the place occupied by women and slaves in Athens could be occupied by machines, creating an overclass of humans: true equality and democracy. Just imagine what such a society could be capable of.
Currently-titled democracies are actually indeed republics with a slight leaning towards democracy
I agree.

[scameter]

But that is not possibly Kether, because it would take too long for every citizen to vote on every single topic of debate and issue, even with our wonderful technology. And actually Greece did have a true democracy because slaves and women weren't counted as citizens of society. And what of Viking society? Were they as "uncivil"?

[Kether]

In a sense, Athens had one of the most perfect democracies in history. But on the other hand, it could be considered an oligarchy: there were lower classes of women and slaves.

I am not suggesting that all citizens should vote on every individual issue, but that there should be a general ethos of participation in government, perhaps through assemblies which could form the centre of communities.

[scameter]

In a sense, Athens had one of the most perfect democracies in history. But on the other hand, it could be considered an oligarchy: there were lower classes of women and slaves.

Not within the democracy.

I am not suggesting that all citizens should vote on every individual issue, but that there should be a general ethos of participation in government, perhaps through assemblies which could form the centre of communities.

Like a state government? :)

Nope.

[Kether]

What do you mean by a 'state government'?
Me: In a sense, Athens had one of the most perfect democracies in history. But on the other hand, it could be considered an oligarchy: there were lower classes of women and slaves.
Scameter: Not within the democracy.
I didn't mean within the 'democracy' - the upper class - I meant within society as a whole. I said that Athens was not totally democratic, not that the Athenian oligarchy wasn't.

[scameter]

What was considered society in Athens was only the democracy; the slaves were seperate. Just as currently, cars are not considered to be citizens of America's democratic republic, and just as horses weren't considered citizens of Viking democratic society.

And by state government, I mean the American system of each state in the union having an individual government tied of course to the Federal government, but yet seperate in that they hold individual elections and decisions, usually more mediocre than those pursued by the Federal government yet affecting of state affairs, and that their formation was a main cause for the American Civil War.

[Kether]

I wasn't talking about what was considered by those in power to be society, I was talking about what was society. Cars and horses are not part of society because they are not human beings, and society is composed of all human beings. We cannot possibly begin to analyse a civilization if we only look at a small part of it, which - for all its stunning achievements - led a parasitic existence.

I understand what you mean by 'state government' now: federalism. But I wasn't in fact suggesting decentralisation, but merely trying to get around the logistics of full participatory democracy.

[Kether]

Great achievements are unlikely to be achieved by people whose basic needs are unsatisfied, but those needs do not have to be satisfied through a parasitic existence.

[locomotive]

everyones a parasite. :P

[locomotive]

yeah

[CSwriter1]

"Yes. I was dealing with the question of personal freedom, concluding that authority, even if it is held equally by all people, can still oppress it. Thus democracy should respect the individual as well as the group".

Authority, what a fine word. To whom does God give his authority? The forefathers of the US democracy answered that question with "everyone". How does authority oppress? Or perhaps we should ask, what is authority?

This thread is about belief. What is important to belief is truth.
Who is the authority of truth? Everyone? Are we born such authorities or does something have to happen for us to gain such authority?

What is rule by reason? How is it gained? How is it maintained?

[CSwriter1]

"everyones a parasite" Doesn't parasite imply a one side relationship, of living off another? Isn't it more true that we have symbiotic relationships of give and take? According to one of the earliest creation stories, we were created to help a river stay in its banks. Many primitive cultures maintained the idea that we are suppose to take care of the earth.

The Greeks maintained we are made in the image of the gods, because we can learn and reason, and we can manifest reality as we concieve it.

Chardin said God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. That is, we are god's consciousness. What if all existed but there were no consciousness of it?

I think we are more important than parasites.

[locomotive]

yeah thats the grand plan. Still we are all parasites in a sense.

[scameter]

Society is only what is considered society, and during that time women and slaves weren't considered apart of their democratic society; now if you meant the whole of Greek civilization, then that would be the more appropriate termonology.

Well, state governments do not decentralize, they merely add centarlization to an already thin country such as America, spread out over so much real estate; state governments are necessary in order to attain full union and centralization, to which all follow the supreme head of the federal government but prefer to have their own individuality and take care of state problems rather than to participate in all federal and nation issues.

[Kether]

Well, state governments do not decentralize, they merely add centarlization to an already thin country such as America, spread out over so much real estate; state governments are necessary in order to attain full union and centralization, to which all follow the supreme head of the federal government but prefer to have their own individuality and take care of state problems rather than to participate in all federal and nation issues.
You're right: and I suppose that a system such as the one you describe would be perfect for participatory democracy and world government.
everyones a parasite" Doesn't parasite imply a one side relationship, of living off another? Isn't it more true that we have symbiotic relationships of give and take?
Ethically, that would be ideal, but that is often not the case. But nor are all people parasites. Human beings' relationships with each other and their environments are complex and often differ between individuals and societies.
Authority, what a fine word. To whom does God give his authority? The forefathers of the US democracy answered that question with "everyone". How does authority oppress? Or perhaps we should ask, what is authority?
Perhaps I should not have used that ambiguous word, and instead said 'power'.
Power is a phenomenon of human relationships and the relationships between human beings and material wealth. It is not God-given, or ideal, but fundamental to society nevertheless.
Society is only what is considered society, and during that time women and slaves weren't considered apart of their democratic society; now if you meant the whole of Greek civilization, then that would be the more appropriate termonology.
'Civilisation' is a very ambiguous term that I would rather avoid. I hold to my definition of 'society', and since it is a definition shared by a great deal of people I see no need to change it.
The common consensus for the meaning of 'society' is of all people participating in a direct or indirect relationship of some kind with each other, not of a small group of people living off the rest. A society with no means by which to reproduce, and no means of economic production? A strange society indeed.

[scameter]

You're right: and I suppose that a system such as the one you describe would be perfect for participatory democracy and world government.

Wow, thanks. :)

Power is a phenomenon of human relationships and the relationships between human beings and material wealth. It is not God-given, or ideal, but fundamental to society nevertheless.

The Will to Power as expressed by Nietzsche would essentially explain that, and to me correlates very well with the theory of evolution and natural selection. :)

'Civilisation' is a very ambiguous term that I would rather avoid. I hold to my definition of 'society', and since it is a definition shared by a great deal of people I see no need to change it.

Ok, but understand that government, such as democracy, does not always encompass the whole entirety of society; for instance, in an arictocracy, the aristocrats only consider themselves apart of true civilization and society, the "lower classes" being merely additional baggage, such as is with horses and materials.

The common consensus for the meaning of 'society' is of all people participating in a direct or indirect relationship of some kind with each other, not of a small group of people living off the rest. A society with no means by which to reproduce, and no means of economic production? A strange society indeed.

Indeed, and also indeed, that view of society is objective politically; subjectively, as I said above in an aristocracy, society is defined differently by the individual. But, I understand your point of objectivity and it's particular validity here. :)

[Kether]

The Will to Power as expressed by Nietzsche would essentially explain that, and to me correlates very well with the theory of evolution and natural selection.
Nietzsche meant the power of one individual over others. I did not say that this was fundamental to society, and in fact I consider it ethically wrong: ideally, 'power' should be distributed equally.

[scameter]

Equality is not power. Nietzsche did yes mean it in that way, and it seems that evolution/natural selection favour the individual to survive, even if that accordingly benefits the species's progression and prosperity. Even if it is ethically wrong, as many things are, it still exists.

[Kether]

Equality is power - it's a certain configuration of the structure of power.
I was not denying the existence of Nietzsche-esque power structures: yes, they do exist, and they can be effective in terms of survival of the species - though I consider the existential fulfillment and satisfaction of desires of individuals to be more important than that.

[scameter]

It may be a configuration, but it is indeed not power in the singular sense; it is a configuration of power, not power in and of it's self.

Individuals?

[Kether]

That's very true, Psyche. Yes, power is fluid, but patterns in history emerge nevertheless: from them we can deduce the rules by which human social/psychological behaviour is governed.

Scameter,
I meant all individuals, or the greatest number of individuals as possible.
It may be a configuration, but it is indeed not power in the singular sense; it is a configuration of power, not power in and of it's self.
What is power 'in and of itself'? I'm sure you would agree that 'power' means control: and is control by one person a lesser form of control than control by many people?
Power only exists in 'configurations'.

[scameter]

power tends to migrate...no one nor group holds it permanently...rome was powerful...now it is not...bush has power but if we are still here on janury 1, 2009 he will have none...

Indeed, but not all power is in capabilities; Clinton isn't president anymore, yet he has published a widely selling book and is still heard by many.

Scameter,
I meant all individuals, or the greatest number of individuals as possible.

There is individuality?

What is power 'in and of itself'? I'm sure you would agree that 'power' means control: and is control by one person a lesser form of control than control by many people?
Power only exists in 'configurations'.

"Power (sociology), the ability to impose one's will on others " - wikipedia And by power in and of it's self, I mean without application to society. Equality is it's rather abnormal and honestly untrue configuration, not really suiting definition as "power", it is simply equality; which yes is the distribution of power, but it is not true power. As wikipedia said, power is the ability to impose one's will on others, the "one's" and "on others" in emphasis by me. Power does not exist at all; it is conceptual, symbolic, just like nearly everything else in human society, thus it does not "only exist" in configurations, it's application upon society merely only exists in configurations; power as a concept and as a word exists independantly.

[locomotive]

any power can be seen as control.

[MidnightSun]

Make a compromise :lol:

Power causes influence which might control.

[scameter]

yes there is another form of power in your capabilities and your power to use these influence aid others....power is not always a explotative control...ghandi had much power and he did influence many but he did not exercise control other inspring people naturally wanting to be 'with him'....

That is not power; he wasn't enforcing his will on others. That is compassionate leadership.

there is power to influence not control...

The ability to influence, not the power to control.

the d'alai lama just recently asked the tibetans to stop the fur trade in tiger and leopard skins and many tibetans burned all of their animal skins....that is not control that is influence....now the chinese persecuting them: that's power....but the 'power' of influence is often greater than the control type of power...what power did jesus have...a trememdous power to influence....then in his 'name' comes the inquisition which held terrifying punitive power....

They followed him out of respect of both him and what he stands for, and of the traditions they follow (or followed). The Chinese murdering them is power, it is asserting their will on others, namely the Tibetans. I think by power, you don't mean it's actual dictionary definition of imposing your will on others, but rather in the term "ability". Ghandi, The Dalai Lama and Jesus all had the ability to influence, but they did/do not exercise power over others.

remember the information on wikipedia is contributed by people whose knowledge could be faulty or not comprehensive....thus the invitation to contribute/correct/edit....
it is not the vedas or the tao te ching....

I know, but it is valid. It is still a dictionary, and the leaders of the site wouldn't allow a faulty definition. And do you consider the Vedas and the Tao Te Ching unchangeable/undebatable/uneditable?

[scameter]

I would ask that you not put words in my mouth; I never said I was absolutely certain of what I claimed, nor of anything else.

from Old French poeir

Makes sense.

possession of control, authority, or influence over others

POSSESSION.

ability to act or produce an effect

ABILITY.

[scameter]

QUOTE
influence over others

POSSESSION of influence over others.

QUOTE
the leaders of the site wouldn't allow a faulty definition

As I said, I am not entirely certain of that nor of anything else, and I never once said I am for I would've been not myself to say so. I do believe the authors of the site would critique their definitions and content, however.

[scameter]

And a genuine, valid one at that. People contribute to that just as people did to the actual dictionaries and encyclopedias, except the contributors of wikipedia most likely aren't all certified as being masters of what they are contributing.

[scameter]

I wouldn't know.

[CSwriter1]

Wow an experiment I can do. I can develop ant colonies in my home and separate one and oserve if its behavior changes or it if dies sooner.

Ants will attack ants that are not of their own colony so they have the ability to recognize "us" from "them" I believe. Now if same speices ants recognize their own kind as one of "us" I don't know? May be it is just different species they fight with? Does anyone know if this has been determined? :huh:

How many ants of "us" and "them" can be introduced in an ant hill before the fighting begins if they are the same species? Like will they unite like lone primates, or will one on one, they recognize each other as from different colonies and fight? What exactly is the nature of ant consciousness?

[CSwriter1]

The quote function doesn't appear to be working for me. Joye r2 said individuals in the same environment with be the same, and this is not true. Driker (sp?), a child psychologist explains the dynamics of the family make each individual different. The Chinese in the I Ching also recognize position in the family, as playing a strong role in determining a person's nature. Even twins develop separate personalities, and this slight difference at first is increased as people react to each different personality differently.

This brings us to the fact each individual will experience everything as a unique experience. They look at the sun set together, and each will have his/her own unique experience of it.
We come to everything in our lives, with our individual experience of life, our different histories, emotions, memories.
Perhaps ants don't develop as individuals, because they share the same ant hill experience, but as our humans our lives are full of variety. When we watch the sun setting, we come to this experience with our personal histories.

[CSwriter1]

Interesting, I asked about authority and the discussion became a question of power. Perhaps a question of authority and power should be the subject of another thread. The subject of this thread is belief. What we believe is directly related to authorty and power, but is a different subject.

Protestants give the power of authority to the bible. Muslims give the power of authority to the Koran. Catholics give the power of authority to the church. Jews give the power of authority to rabbies, and Muslims give power of authority to clarics. Those who are secular give power of authority to government. Religious people can also be secular people. Democracy, more than any other belief system, gives the power of authority to the individual, but this can not be so when the understanding does not include the philosophical reasoning for democracy.

It is as we believe it should be, and therefore, manifest it to be. The power of belief is the power of manifestation.

[scameter]

The power of belief is the power of manifestation.

Exactly. Which is why people aren't a logical species: because we can believe, which is emotional, and we can even use logic as a tool in our belief to simply strengthen it, even when scientifically it is irrelevent; but, science takes just as much belief as does religion or anything else for that matter.

[Smurf]

yes...

Science is the sails and religion is the rudder of the ship of life

[scameter]

And without belief, neither are seen.

[locomotive]

without trees we would not know leaves. Does belief become an attachment when confronted with contradiction? Then what is belief in your view?

[scameter]

Belief is not an attachment because belief is inherent, as is with logic. Everything perceived by humanity requires belief; even the scientists who think they know that scientific logic and empirical science can conquer all, and can find true objective truth *believe* that. They have seen it, and thus believe it. Just like Muslims have been raised around the practices and views of Islam and thus believe it; and indeed if they find a different belief, it is because they see something else more logical to them, which changes their belief. Also, logic is a tool, something I've observed; scientific logic is different. Scientific logic is the application of logic's inherent being of a tool in an empirical, fact-finding way. In the same way, a person who is Jewish logically believes in Judaism, and logically believes it to be true. Nothing can exist from the human perspective without belief, it is a rather fundamental fact, which essentially certifies subjectivity in life. Life is individually relative.

without trees we would not know leaves.

Logically, you believe that. Science could prove otherwise perhaps, as could religion. However, you personally used your tool logic to discern that without trees, because you have always only seen leaves on trees, there would be no leaves. You saw, and thus interpreted it with use of the logic tool, and then you believed it. It is a fundamental aspect of the human psyche. Not negative, or positive; simply there. :)

[locomotive]

religion logic is flawed because it refuses other facts. There is a term for that, it means something like assuming things (believing) with flawed logic.

"without trees we would not know leaves."
with this I wanted to say that belief is not really anything, facts are there no question about it.
When you have found a view and you can tell what you saw then another can tell you what you missed or something else. Remembering that you indeed have 5 fingers there is no belief because there is nothing to hold on to. You will always have those 5 fingers. There may be another invisible finger but thats another matter. Belief comes into existence when you are talking about something and fight over the truth in that.
There is also a difference between knowing and believing. When you say I believe the cause of this and that is this you are always guessing. You are not sure what some of the parts of the system do. When knowing you have the facts, the paths and you have seen it work. So one is guessing the facts and the other is finding the facts.

either it is belief because it is rigid solid or you don't call it belief because the thing is always changing meaning it is never belief.

[Thomas Knierim]

cswriter: The quote function doesn't appear to be working for me.

To quote a passage you can use iconboard tags. Enclose the text within [ quote ] ... text goes here... [ /quote ] without the spaces, or use the edit buttons above the text window.

cswriter: What exactly is the nature of ant consciousness?

I would love to know that, too. What does it feel like to be an ant? Biologist are quite used to viewing ant colonies (and other colonies of the hymenoptera order) as a single organism. Obviously the single ant is an individual phenotype in the usual sense, but when you look at the colony as a whole, a collective behaviour emerges that is more intelligent than the behaviour of the individual phenotype. This is a very interesting phenomenon.

It seems to be opposite with humans. :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

religion logic is flawed because it refuses other facts. There is a term for that, it means something like assuming things (believing) with flawed logic.

Ah, you mean facts approved on by the empirical science philosophical denomination? Yes, indeed from that view, it is flawed; if one does hold belief in scientific logic, then religious logic is flawed. :)

with this I wanted to say that belief is not really anything, facts are there no question about it.

And you believe that don't you? :)

Remembering that you indeed have 5 fingers

What is 5? :)

So one is guessing the facts and the other is finding the facts.

The facts they believe are facts. :)

either it is belief because it is rigid solid or you don't call it belief because the thing is always changing meaning it is never belief.

Belief can change, just as science can; it simply depends on the change-effecting efforts of the beliefs of the practitioners of those fields.

Biologist are quite used to viewing ant colonies (and other colonies of the hymenoptera order) as a single organism. Obviously the single ant is an individual phenotype in the usual sense, but when you look at the colony as a whole, a collective behaviour emerges that is more intelligent than the behaviour of the individual phenotype. This is a very interesting phenomenon.

Indeed; actually, it could possibly be applied too to the universe, from the viewpoint of dependant origination, perhaps?

It seems to be opposite with humans.

Definitely. However, whereas individuals in society are different, each several perform a certain function in society, even if that performance isn't approved of by those producing other performances. Thus, would that possibly, but just a little more broadly, apply to human society?

[locomotive]

no religious logic is not flawed only because one believes in scientific logic. it is flawed because something is not logical.

"with this I wanted to say that belief is not really anything, facts are there no question about it."
"And you believe that don't you?"

Do things exist? yes.

you cannot question existence. An apple is there. If you ask do you believe that there is an apple you shift the subject to what else could it be. molecules whatever. Thus everytime you ask if I believe it you differt the subject. You place the facts in some concept making it another subject.
Therefore belief is a disceptive word used mostly when theorizing. It is the same reason words like most probable exist.
When someone lies: "her hair is red" and I say her hair is red because some said it is I only asume it is red and some caution may be exerted.
Now I am merely de-emphasizing belief. This is because one that believes is sometimes associated with arrogance, stuborness, a nasty person. Belief is because of that seen as something bad whitch it is not in fact it is mostly nothing. This associating comes from certain people that are non critical thinkers or for example religious people whereas why they truly belief something is often concealed by their own ignorance.

pertaining to the topic I think that the power of belief comes from attachment. Freedom from attachment comes through mindfullness but ofcourse you are still attached to reality. That is where the power lies. The nature of life or the human in general to yield so he will remain.

[locomotive]

you mean the brain works on energy?

[Kether]

Kether: I meant all individuals, or the greatest number of individuals as possible.
Scameter: There is individuality?
The only thing that relies only on itself for the meaning of its existence is the whole universe in its entirety. But when we are speaking on a sociological, non-metaphysical level, it is fine to think of humans as individuals - after all, the ego as a subject feels itself to be an individual.

I'm going to leave our discussion of power for the moment, as it turned into a conflict of our two definitions of the word, neither of which could be disproved.
CSwriter: The power of belief is the power of manifestation.
Scameter: Exactly. Which is why people aren't a logical species: because we can believe, which is emotional, and we can even use logic as a tool in our belief to simply strengthen it, even when scientifically it is irrelevant; but, science takes just as much belief as does religion or anything else for that matter.
I have always considered logic to be a means to an end, but this fact does not make us irrational. To be rational is to use reason as a means to an end - for it can never be used as anything else. We can determine our goals in life using reason, but we choose them in view of whether they will help us to achieve others - and the ultimate goals we are trying to achieve are those we take for granted.
But is this what you are saying? I'm not sure that it is. You are saying that all 'knowledge' takes belief, an assertion that all epistemologists accept. But how is 'belief', in this sense, something contrasted with logic?

[locomotive]

your sentance was to complex for me to understand. yeah everything is energy.
So you say there is a strength in the mind. Do you have an idea on what that depends?

[scameter]

you cannot question existence.

Then philosophy nor science has any relevence.

The only thing that relies only on itself for the meaning of its existence is the whole universe in its entirety. But when we are speaking on a sociological, non-metaphysical level, it is fine to think of humans as individuals - after all, the ego as a subject feels itself to be an individual.

Indeed; humans most assuredly believe they are individuals, yet usually do not think so of other things, such as dogs. They may feel for a dog, name it, buy it and call it their's, but they still say "a dog" or "my dog", and if it dies, they ask "Should I buy another dog?" One doesn't ask, if a human dies, "should I buy another human?" Except perhaps when slavery existed.

You are saying that all 'knowledge' takes belief, an assertion that all epistemologists accept. But how is 'belief', in this sense, something contrasted with logic?

I am not saying that all knowledge takes belief at all; experiencial, or non-chosen, knowledge is simply gotten through living, something not chosen and thus not taking of belief. But, once that knowledge is recognized, it does take belief to have any amount of presence in the human's vision. Belief is not at all contrasted with logic; on the contrary, I think logic is simply a tool and can be applied to any knowledge. Scientific logic is not the same, for scientific logic is logic applied to science. But general logic is simply a tool, used to affirm a belief in the mind of an individual, in any case of knowledge. For instance, my friend Jenna is a mormon, and from talking with her I have seen that she uses logic to affirm her beliefs, making them more concrete; when I attempt to impose my scientific views on hers, it is very close to impossible to alter her beliefs, because my belief in science is simply a logic-affirmed belief, just as is her's. They are simply different.

our true goals are more likely to be those we are unaware of...

But are goals not something consciously chosen, and thus influencable by human arrogance taking them for granted, or for the human mind to simply forget them?

your sentance was to complex for me to understand. yeah everything is energy.
So you say there is a strength in the mind. Do you have an idea on what that depends?

Everything is energy? Loose or concentrated energy, or some different form, or simply energy, and how exactly do you define energy? And I think there is definitely a strength in the mind: that of the individual soul/will, and it's power to believe, feel, and to influence the environment.

but if we collect our mind and focus we now have a powerful force...

But can it not be easily changed, the focus broken from it's intensity on the one thing to much lesser intensity on the new focus, thus losing it's potency?

[locomotive]

Then philosophy nor science has any relevence.

why?

Everything is energy? Loose or concentrated energy, or some different form, or simply energy, and how exactly do you define energy? And I think there is definitely a strength in the mind: that of the individual soul/will, and it's power to believe, feel, and to influence the environment.

yes stored and released energy is something that gives motion.

And I think there is definitely a strength in the mind: that of the individual soul/will, and it's power to believe, feel, and to influence the environment.

why made you come to that?

[scameter]

Because both question existence, philosophy questiong it using "why", and science questioning it using "how".

yes stored and released energy is something that gives motion.

But what is energy?

why made you come to that?

Both observation and experience.

[Kether]

I am not saying that all knowledge takes belief at all; experiential, or non-chosen, knowledge is simply gotten through living, something not chosen and thus not taking of belief. But, once that knowledge is recognized, it does take belief to have any amount of presence in the human's vision. Belief is not at all contrasted with logic; on the contrary, I think logic is simply a tool and can be applied to any knowledge. Scientific logic is not the same, for scientific logic is logic applied to science. But general logic is simply a tool, used to affirm a belief in the mind of an individual, in any case of knowledge.
All knowledge takes belief. That which is 'known' must both true and believed: one cannot know something if one doesn't believe it. This is all I mean by 'belief' here.
Why must belief come from an act of free will? Does Jenna believe what she does purely of her own free will, or does her upbringing have something to do with it? I think that all knowledge is to some degree experiencial, or a posteriori.
Logic is not simply a tool for affirming a person's beliefs, it is a tool for deciding what to believe (in other words, what is true), or for ironing out the contradictions in a system of beliefs.
please give me some examples what you mean by ultimate goals that we take for granted...
With some retrospection, I've come to regret my description of such things as being 'taken for granted'.
What I mean is that certain things are ends in themselves. Logic is not necessarily a tool used to achieve them, but a tool used to attain knowledge, and knowledge could be considered a means to an end. Ethically, that end should be a constant reaching out to other, better identities and forms of existence - actualisation, and enlightenment. Thomas said: There is one crucial capability that allows us to reflect on our own programs and even to reprogram them. That is self-awareness. The entire spiritual venture is aimed at developing higher levels of self-awareness and thus -if you want- increased capability for reprogramming.

[Kether]

Yes, I think you're right - it is probably best to concieve of self-awareness as a goal, and reflection as a method. :)

[locomotive]

"Because both question existence, philosophy questiong it using "why", and science questioning it using "how"."
the question of existence is: yes or no?

"yes stored and released energy is something that gives motion."
"But what is energy?"
potential

"why made you come to that?"
"Both observation and experience. "
yes that is what you did but what did you observe and experience?

[locomotive]

@psyche.
You mean like when I think I want to find money somewhere and the next minute I find some?
Do you think your will alters reality?
Where do you think lies the source and the power of such progress?

[scameter]

Why must belief come from an act of free will? Does Jenna believe what she does purely of her own free will, or does her upbringing have something to do with it? I think that all knowledge is to some degree experiencial, or a posteriori.

I didn't say belief comes from an act of free will. However, belief does come when recognition of experiencial knowledge is inacted, and thus must be made into a belief by logic. And of course her upbringing and her experience has something to do with her beliefs, but that is true of everyone. However, her beliefs, however from experience as usual, were recognized by her, and even if her choosing them was influenced by her family being of that belief, she did still recognize them and use logic on them to affirm them for herself; and, as a note, her father I don't think had the beliefs the majority of her family had, and she was very close to him. But I'm not entirely sure on the note, I'll have to ask her.

Logic is not simply a tool for affirming a person's beliefs, it is a tool for deciding what to believe (in other words, what is true), or for ironing out the contradictions in a system of beliefs.

Truth is entirely subjective, and is based on what a person believes. The different sections of one particular field of belief, such as science, can of course be as you say ironed out by use of scientific logic, but that form of logic is still simply taking on the form suited to the belief to which it is being used. Indeed logic does have many different functions, but it is still a tool of and for belief(s).

it is probably best to concieve of self-awareness as a goal, and reflection as a method.

For what, and of what?

the question of existence is: yes or no?

No, the questions of existence, indeed the exact questioning of existence, is essentially seperated by common sense logic, "how" and "why".

potential

Potential for something, or of something, or by something, or as something?

yes that is what you did but what did you observe and experience?

Observation and experience. :P

[renegade_paramour143]

reality is the result of my consiousness. Collectively we are all participating in our reality. I have discovered that holding onto a belief, good or bad, dark or light, will insure that events I believe will eventually happen.

First I hold the belief, the desire or the intention and then I let it go. I may not feel any anxiety of anticipation of the fruition of my desire or else those anxieties have the tendency to cease their movement into fruition. I must first believe that it my beliefs will come into my reality and then I must know that they will come and are coming.

Belief is knowing.

Currently I am experimenting with bringing loved ones from my past into my present. I am already amazed at the results I am having. B)

[locomotive]

I found money when I wished it often, cool huh?

@scameter,

the why and how come after you have answered if there is existence or not.
everything is potential.

[MidnightSun]

reality is the result of my consiousness

Nice i dea, i will learn it by heart.

[venom mama]

this is what its going to take



for everyone to freak out
get naked


and realize


i believe

[Kether]

Truth is entirely subjective, and is based on what a person believes. The different sections of one particular field of belief, such as science, can of course be as you say ironed out by use of scientific logic, but that form of logic is still simply taking on the form suited to the belief to which it is being used. Indeed logic does have many different functions, but it is still a tool of and for belief(s).
Entirely subjective? No, no, my friend. Truth is the ultimate reality, and it will not change to suit our beliefs -the question is whether we recognise it, and whether our symbol-based minds represent it well.

Logic is not a tool for affirming dogmatic beliefs, but for understanding the truth. When one constructs a system of 'logic' to affirm beliefs in the way you describe, it is a way of using logic with certain premises and a large degree of bias. Logic can be used in this way, but it is possible to use it with no assumptions that cannot be disproved by the logical system used.
Knowledge is belief that is true, and thus by using logic we can attain knowledge - as I said before, logic can tell us what to believe.

Belief need not be conscious, or recognised by the believer. The assumptions to which a person is conditioned can still count as beliefs.
Belief is knowing.
I think it's the other way round: knowing is believing. We cannot, and would not, claim to 'know' something we do not believe.
Belief counts as knowledge only if it is true; we cannot 'know' something false, only believe it.
reality is the result of my consciousness. Collectively we are all participating in our reality.
The mind creates a representative 'model' of the external reality, and some models can correspond to it better than others. But crucially, there is an ultimate reality, and it is possible to have knowledge of it, or rather to have an accurate model of it. I have set this out in more detail in the 'Buddhism and Science' thread.

[scameter]

Belief is knowing.

First comes experience (unintentional knowledge), then the recognition followed by interpretation of that experience by logic into a belief.

the why and how come after you have answered if there is existence or not.
everything is potential.

We can never truly know if existence exists or not; we simply base that it does on what our senses perceive, making life essentially entirely subjective. The how and why questions interpret the data our senses obtain into experience, then that experiencial knowledge is recognized and then interpreted by logic into a belief.

reality is the result of my consiousness

That is the Buddhist view.

Entirely subjective? No, no, my friend. Truth is the ultimate reality, and it will not change to suit our beliefs -the question is whether we recognise it, and whether our symbol-based minds represent it well.

How can we truly know if existence exists or not, except by what our senses receive? We cannot ever truly with 100% certainty know that anything exists, much less is how we perceive it. The ultimate reality as many philosophers so often refer is simply what we perceive. And if the ultimate reality/truth exists or not, or if it is as we perceive it or not, our interpretation of it is the result of the recognition of experience, then that knowledge's interpretation by logic into a belief.

Logic is not a tool for affirming dogmatic beliefs, but for understanding the truth. When one constructs a system of 'logic' to affirm beliefs in the way you describe, it is a way of using logic with certain premises and a large degree of bias. Logic can be used in this way, but it is possible to use it with no assumptions that cannot be disproved by the logical system used.
Knowledge is belief that is true, and thus by using logic we can attain knowledge - as I said before, logic can tell us what to believe.

I think you are confusing belief with religion. Logic actually can be applied to dogmatic beliefs, just as it can to what is called undogmatic beliefs. And yes when one uses logic to affirm beliefs it is biased, but that is true of anything; our scientific knowledge is both biased and subjective, even though the scientific method attempts to disprove this with the necessity for repetition of experiments; but that repitition makes no difference. The very experiment could very well not exist, but it is simply how our senses perceive it. And they can very easily be fooled, as is true of the art of illusions. And indeed, experiencial knowledge that is recognized is knowledge, and this is immediately translated into a belief by thought/logic.

Belief need not be conscious, or recognised by the believer. The assumptions to which a person is conditioned can still count as beliefs.

Assumptions are things taught through conscious learning and experience recognized, and thus is cognitive. Thus, would belief, the thoughtful/logical recognition of experience, not be only conscious? Or, can instincts effect belief, in other animals? Thus are instincts perhaps simply a very thoughtless and primitive form of logic?

We cannot, and would not, claim to 'know' something we do not believe.

Very true.

Belief counts as knowledge only if it is true; we cannot 'know' something false, only believe it.

Hmm...interesting point. Because belief is recognized experiencial knowledge, we cannot know anything if it is false, but we can have experienced it; but, can we not recognize something and believe in something and believe that it is false, and not true?

But crucially, there is an ultimate reality, and it is possible to have knowledge of it, or rather to have an accurate model of it.

What has caused you to believe that, may I ask?

[locomotive]

so you are saying that we do not exist?

[scameter]

I never said that, nor do I believe it. I believe it is a possibility, just as it is a possibility that we do exist, in this form or another, or an infinite number of other possibilities. We cannot know anything with 100% certainty.

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: Truth is entirely subjective, and is based on what a person believes. The different sections of one particular field of belief, such as science, can of course be as you say ironed out by use of scientific logic, but that form of logic is still simply taking on the form suited to the belief to which it is being used. Indeed logic does have many different functions, but it is still a tool of and for belief(s).

That is a deeply confused piece of reasoning. It truly worries me.

scameter: Belief is knowing.

Certainly not. At the very best, belief is proto-knowledge if it is based on an educated guess rather than on blind faith/trust. Of course, you can attempt to redefine the epistemic meanings of the words knowledge and belief and in such manner that it proves your assertion, however, that would be merely a language game.

scameter: reality is the result of my consiousness. That is the Buddhist view.

That's not the Buddhist view at all. Buddhism rather teaches the opposite, namely that reality is independent of your consciousness.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I thought it prudent to point out false perceptions.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

scameter: Belief is knowing.

I actually quoted that. :D

That's not the Buddhist view at all. Buddhism rather teaches the opposite, namely that reality is independent of your consciousness.

Oh? In the Dalai Lama's book, he says that one aspect of the Buddhist view is that the entire existence is the result of consciousness. Or did he mean this differently than he said it? Don't mean to sound like a smartass, I'm really asking; I'm not very familiar with Buddhist texts. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: I actually quoted that.

You can prevent such errors if you mark your quoted text.

scameter: In the Dalai Lama's book, he says that one aspect of the Buddhist view is that the entire existence is the result of consciousness.

You need to pay attention to the details. To say that "existence is the result of consciousness" is completely different from saying that "reality is the result of consciousness."

[scameter]

Indeed I could; of course, you have seen enough of my posts to know that I quote like that always, and never put a space between the lines of my own text except between quotes and my own writing.

You need to pay attention to the details. To say that "existence is the result of consciousness" is completely different from saying that "reality is the result of consciousness."

Is reality not existence?

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: Indeed I could; of course, you have seen enough of my posts to know that I quote like that always, and never put a space between the lines of my own text except between quotes and my own writing.

Yes, I have noticed that. --It is quite confusing.-- I wonder why you do that... it defeats the purpose of clarity.

scameter: Is reality not existence?

I read it as follows: what the Dalai Lama meant with existence in this quotation is samsaric existence. It is real in one sense and unreal in another. The Buddhist concept of reality is very different from samsaric existence.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

It doesn't for me.

what the Dalai Lama meant with existence in this quotation is samsaric existence. It is real in one sense and unreal in another. The Buddhist concept of reality is very different from samsaric existence.

But, his view is Buddhist, or is the samsaric view Buddhist too? <_<

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: It doesn't for me.

Well, it's nice to know that. But what about the other readers?

scameter: But, his view is Buddhist, or is the samsaric view Buddhist too?

"Samsaric" is an anglicised adjective that refers to samsara (Sanskrit: wandering) which means recurrent existence. The term has specific meanings in Buddhism and Hinduism.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

No one else has ever complained about my quoting method.

Reincarnation?

[MidnightSun]

No one else has ever complained about my quoting method.

I was going to :lol:

[scameter]

Fine.