Thread: belief

Originally Posted by Bishadi

that is where i differ in reasoning.

We both comprehend that knowledge has progressed over the generations. The quran is a proof of this as it began as a quest to understand and some guy named muhammad combined many frames of understanding to convey new set of 'beliefs'

Same with a ptolemaic model of understanding the sun and 'roaming bodies' of the central earth. It worked for the period.

But as points of reference are reaccessed then new forms of comprehension expand the comprension of nature but the overall quest to understand is still in effect and universal within mankinds living pursuit.

So knowledge has and will continue to evolve, until 'understanding' is perfected in 'truth' (reality).

That to me is the pinnacle of existence; nature (which we are a part of) can understand itself.


the NEW and ever changing 'views' are the evolution of comprehension

Some good, and some not so good. The difference of the old and new is now-a-days people will use natures foundation to comprehension versus maintaining a subjectivity to theological opinion (god stuff that always ends up that 'magic did it')

the environment? You mean, what their culture has taught them?

Otherwise to ground 'truth' to nature, then far fewer tangents would exist from right and wrong.



influences can affect a choice.

the good stay focused on the 'purpose of life' versus the needs and wants of 'self'

Heck, i live in the wolves den and can still do good all day long!

Ok, so we agree on some of the first parts.

From what you write, I gather that you believe that all or most new ideologies are a step forwards, that popular thought goes through some form of survival of the truest mechanism, am I right?

I agree that this happens to some degree, primarily in science, since those ideas often can be based in measurable reality. However, I think that popular thought, or whatever you may call it, goes through a process closer to survival of the fittest. The Ptolemy example you give will go through a survival of the truest, since one since was able to prove that it is an objective truth, but not all popular thoughts benefit from being demonstrably true. As stated in the post you quoted, I'm not talking about them.

However, as I said, I think they go through a survival of the fittest mechanism. The Nazi ideas were based on lies, misconceptions and rhetoric to a large extent, but was easily able to get followers anyway. Communism went through a similar thing. Certain attitudes oscillate, most turns in popular thought have been described (at least to me) as counter-movements to current thought and that swings both ways, which makes me think that neither of them is objectively "better".

Originally Posted by Mehmet

i wanted to address the issue as a whole.
but a partial view is very welcome too.

It was phrased "in other words", I was hoping it was a shorter version of the complete argument

Originally Posted by Mehmet

people switching views maybe only indicates that
their views and perceptions did not last through reality.

Partially. As Bishadi says, certain things, often verifiable things, never go back. Chances that you get people to believe that the earth is flat are slim.

As for other things, there is always at least one group of people that are grumpy over the situation, regardless of what the situation is. I know of no exceptions. Their perceptions do not change because their perceptions do not last through reality, it's because they do not last through other people's perceptions of reality.

Originally Posted by Mehmet

"the" truth should be linked directly
to the "reason of one's existence".
from there everything can evolve.

But different people will have different answers to that question. Unless all are agreed, anyone would be arrogant and ignorant to assume that their own idea is so much better than everyone else's.

Originally Posted by Mehmet

if you don't sort this out, then all realities
based on circumstances are meant to collapse or fade.

Yup, and that is what happens. It has always happened, and I see no reason to believe that today's ideas are any more universal than older ones. I see them as more relevant, and occasionally more true, but I might be as mistaken as I think medieval people were.

Originally Posted by Mehmet

being in peace with the meaning of life and
looking everything from that perspective.

that can either lead to craziness,
or the truth itself.

It's never bad to evaluate one's own preconceptions. However, I think it's a bit ignorant to assume that one's own truth is more relevant than others'. In order for it to lead to truth, you must have at random picked the correct one out of hundreds. And if you pick the wrong one, you might end up hurting yourself and others.

Originally Posted by Mehmet

i find -for instance- existential nihilism, 'allegory of the cave'
or evolution theory inadequate to address these issues.

Yes of course, Existential nihilism and evolution does not strive to answer these questions. Existential nihilism deals completely with ultimate values, whereas my argument that values change over time suggests that the values are not ultimate but confined to humanity. Evolution... Uh, deals with the variety of species, that's not what we're talking about at all. We have been talking about processes that are similar to some that are part of evolution, but that's not all that evolution is.

Originally Posted by Mehmet

thus i wasn't talking about something like this:

after conceiving things by our ideas, we compare these ideas and,
finding that some belong together and others do not, we unite or
separate them. this is called affirming or denying, and in general
judging. this judgment is also called a proposition, and it is easy
to see that it must have two terms. one term, of which one affirms
or denies something, is called the subject; the other term, which is
affirmed or denied, is called the attribute or praedicatum.

—antoine arnauld, the art of thinking (port-royal logic),(1662)
(translated j. buroker 1996), logic, ii.3, page 82

especially in the era we live in,
under all that bombardment of information and us hiding
personal derivations, is there a way to distinguish the truth
from the reality that is being served to us?

Not sure what the logic text is doing there. I am familiar with the process of affirming and denying statements.

Everybody interprets the world differently. Everyone always has. If you knew perfectly all objective truths of the world but nothing else, you would know everything that is objective, but that doesn't mean you would have an idea of what _should_ be, ie, what is right and wrong (as opposed to true or false). As an extreme example, you would know that Hitler invaded Poland, but you wouldn't be able to tell if invading Poland was the right thing to do. You could tell everything that happened as a consequence of that, and even if the people of the world would be happier if he didn't, you wouldn't be able to tell that the happiness of the people of the world is a good thing, because that's a subjective opinion. I agree that I think everybody's happiness is good, and I think every human does (possibly with exceptions), but that makes it at best a human opinion. It is not universal, only human. At best.

Originally Posted by Swensson

Ok, so we agree on some of the first parts.

From what you write, I gather that you believe that all or most new ideologies are a step forwards, that popular thought goes through some form of survival of the truest mechanism, am I right?

not on that chain of thought.

For example: the religions were the 'strongest' and then the 'new' (quran/islam) now has many regressions versus progression in many areas of articulate responsibility.

But of natural evidence, found and revealed; often it is best to rehash the old benchmarks for a progression (evolution) to be earned, by combining information.

A paradigm shift often turns the foundations of knowledge over. ie....ptolemaic to newtonian. or even creation to evolving (life)

So as new information is uncovered, then comprehension cannot be reversed, if recorded for other generations to understand.

Almosty like carring a rock up a hill, each party contributes and eventually the peak will be reached.

I agree that this happens to some degree, primarily in science, since those ideas often can be based in measurable reality. However, I think that popular thought, or whatever you may call it, goes through a process closer to survival of the fittest.

that is how many individual beliefs are sustained. For example; the KT extinction by an asteroid has been proven incorrect by many layers of evidence, but the alvarez family has made the model a part of history.

The Ptolemy example you give will go through a survival of the truest, since one since was able to prove that it is an objective truth, but not all popular thoughts benefit from being demonstrably true.

the ptolemaic model is practically extinct except as a historical marker and western political dynasties have been uprooted because of knowledge sharing that old subjective ideology, can be hosted by the complacent who lose their credibility while sustaining a lie

The protestant schism shares that people will no longer follow corrupt ideology just to be accepted, when subjective leadership falls in objective analysis of data/information.

However, as I said, I think they go through a survival of the fittest mechanism. The Nazi ideas were based on lies, misconceptions and rhetoric to a large extent, but was easily able to get followers anyway.

same with many fools bashing themselves into building with planes strapped to their butts

Who survived that.

Beliefs can cause a false premise.

Truth frees mankind

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/59574-david-icke


any see the icke video?

It's never bad to evaluate one's own preconceptions. However, I think it's a bit ignorant to assume that one's own truth is more relevant than others'. In order for it to lead to truth, you must have at random picked the correct one out of hundreds. And if you pick the wrong one, you might end up hurting yourself and others.

so you do not believe in the existence of a higher truth?
a reference point if you will, that in fact unlocks certain
aspects of the creation...

not a tool to manipulate our own thoughts
but that "end point" which every philosopher ran after.

tested, unbreakable and coherent with the universal system.

Everybody interprets the world differently. Everyone always has. If you knew perfectly all objective truths of the world but nothing else, you would know everything that is objective, but that doesn't mean you would have an idea of what _should_ be, ie, what is right and wrong (as opposed to true or false). As an extreme example, you would know that Hitler invaded Poland, but you wouldn't be able to tell if invading Poland was the right thing to do. You could tell everything that happened as a consequence of that, and even if the people of the world would be happier if he didn't, you wouldn't be able to tell that the happiness of the people of the world is a good thing, because that's a subjective opinion. I agree that I think everybody's happiness is good, and I think every human does (possibly with exceptions), but that makes it at best a human opinion. It is not universal, only human. At best.

what is "right and wrong" should require a common (valid)
reference point. otherwise it's very personal and it may
become 'my truth is your falsehood', so on...

this is my exact question:
why do we stop questioning the validity in most cases?
and how do we get rid of our chains?

what the majority says/accepts may not be the truth.
1 billion people believing in the same thing doesn't make it right.

we may think x=y is indeed a fact because we have been
living in that formula from day one...

even if we see other formulas;
it is hard to leave the comfort zone, right?

happiness (nor suffering) shouldn't be "the" aim of this life.
it is obvious that this whole thing is not about that.
in my opinion; more than those should be chased.

so i'm still at the same point.
how do we get rid of the habits that cloud our free will?
and when we do that how in fact do we get rid of the
need to be right? and perhaps after that, how do we
get to the reference point?

Originally Posted by Bishadi

not on that chain of thought.

For example: the religions were the 'strongest' and then the 'new' (quran/islam) now has many regressions versus progression in many areas of articulate responsibility.

But of natural evidence, found and revealed; often it is best to rehash the old benchmarks for a progression (evolution) to be earned, by combining information.

A paradigm shift often turns the foundations of knowledge over. ie....ptolemaic to newtonian. or even creation to evolving (life)

So as new information is uncovered, then comprehension cannot be reversed, if recorded for other generations to understand.

Almosty like carring a rock up a hill, each party contributes and eventually the peak will be reached.


that is how many individual beliefs are sustained. For example; the KT extinction by an asteroid has been proven incorrect by many layers of evidence, but the alvarez family has made the model a part of history.



the ptolemaic model is practically extinct except as a historical marker and western political dynasties have been uprooted because of knowledge sharing that old subjective ideology, can be hosted by the complacent who lose their credibility while sustaining a lie

The protestant schism shares that people will no longer follow corrupt ideology just to be accepted, when subjective leadership falls in objective analysis of data/information.

same with many fools bashing themselves into building with planes strapped to their butts

Who survived that.

Beliefs can cause a false premise.

Truth frees mankind

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/59574-david-icke


any see the icke video?

very good points about the evolution of knowledge.
once an idea elapses the mind, you can't shrink it again.

but do you believe that there is a source for all the
data we accumulate?

i watched icke's videos.
don't you think he goes a bit far off sometimes?