-->
@keithprosser
Perhaps you are right but my experience is what has made me the sort of person that thinks over a proposition before accepting it. Unless I somehow chose to have those experiences then it hardly matters.
What do you believe?
Posts
Total:
495
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is only a reliable method if my experiences are "real" and I can think of no mechanism for test8ng this proposition. It is the best avenue available to me but that is not necessarily the same as being reliable.
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps you are right but my experience is what has made me the sort of person that thinks over a proposition before accepting it. Unless I somehow chose to have those experiences then it hardly matters.
Everyone is 'the sort of person that thinks over a proposition before accepting it'.
-->
@keithprosser
Yes each after their own fashion.
-->
@secularmerlin
I think all human brains operate on the same lines. My guess is we build up a 'schema' or world-view and somehow new candidate facts are checked for consistency with that schema. Our different life experences mean that over time we build slightly diferent schemas and so can come to believe different things from each other.
-->
@keithprosser
Which, if true, is not inconsistent with the view that beliefs are not a choice.
Not only is it consistent it helps clarify why beliefs are not a choice.
Let me test if SM is right.I have two heads.My guess is you thought that was a lie; straight way you felt it wasn't true. But how did you decide it wasn't true? Did you examine the evidence and determine it wasn't true? If so, can you outline the algorithm you employed?I can guess that the agorithm relies on fitting new information into an existing schema. In your brain's schema people have one head - so somehow you retrieved that piece of information (ignoring millions of irrelvant pieces of information such what is the capital of paris), detected an anomaly and rejected the new information that I have two heads.
Sounds about right to me. It's certainly not impossible that you have two heads since I am aware that there are cases of this even among humans but the relative rarity of the condition combined with the lack of evidence leads me to doubt this us the case for you.
That is very reasonable sounding, but I have no idea it is really how brains work!It is almost (but not quite) a pardox that brains have no idea how they work.
I'm not too bothered by how my subconscious works. I can't directly control my subconcious, I can only double check it.
It is only a reliable method if my experiences are "real" and I can think of no mechanism for test8ng this proposition. It is the best avenue available to me but that is not necessarily the same as being reliable.
I seem to have mistyped. When I said 'reliable' what I meant to say was 'most reliable', in other words 'best' as you put it.
But if this is the best way of sorting between what is true and what is not then is it not worthwhile to consider our beliefs and check to be sure that they are reached through the same guiding principles of examining the evidence that is available? (Assuming that holding true beliefs is valued)
Keith rightly points out that the method the subconscious uses to reach its conclusions is not well understood. Conclusions reached subconsciously very well may therefore use one of the many possible inferior methods of deciding on beliefs.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
(Assuming that holding true beliefs is valued)
Everyone thinks they hold true beliefs. I paradoxically both believe that everything I believe to be true is true and simultaneously believe that at least one thing I believe to be true must be false. What I value is the scientific method as the most reliable method of separating fact from falsehood. Provided of course that our observations accurately reflect reality.
-->
@Reece
Exists as a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept and n not as any actual, realized occupied space coin.How about multi-dimensional-coin. Is that better?
Until you cannot grasp and acknowledge the differrence between occupied space coin and conceptual coin your doomed to believe in occupied space of multi-dimensions, of which we have no evidence they exist.
We have mysteries, that are difficult to answer ergo people reach out for abstract, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual scenarios irrespective of how illogical, irrational or lack of common sense occur.
Ex why does speed of radiation appear the same to all observers irrespective of their speed towards or away from the radiating photon?
Driving home the other night I once again ran this one through my mind and had some new thoughts in those regards that relate to my numerically derived geometric torus with inversions that result in an internal sine-wave pattern /\/\/\/\/ topology.
/\/\/\/\/\/--->|-----(observer)---->|<-----/\/\/\/\/\/\/
speed of radiation{ photon } ----->|----( * i * )--->|<---speed of radiation{ photon }
photon speed towards------>|----away from--->(* i * )---towards--->|<----photon speed towards
----->|------------>---------->|<-----------
My latest thoughts on the above semi linear scenario is that when we observe the photon it is not from a linear pathway from the source{ ex the sun or flashlight }.
My latest thoughts is that the photon appears to us from a direction that is 90 degrees to the source and that will help to explain why
speed-of-radiation is a constant irrespective of speed-of-observer.
Here below I'm attempting to show that the overall sine-wave pattern o of photon is linear but that pattern is a resultant of the top peak and peak of trough occurring from the sharp inversions -----ergo at 90 degrees--- from postive peaks of surface of Space Torus postive and negative curvature.
.............................photon..|.............
.............................photon..v.............
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
.............................photon...^...................
.............................photon...|.......................
Seriously if we want to think outside of the conventional box of wisdom if we to understand how a photon can be constant to all observers irrrespective of their speed and direction. There is much more to be considered in the above. This is just my first rough draft for considering alternative ways of thinking about what is occurring.
Think of multi-dimenions being the surface of the graviational-dark energy surface of torus and our 3D reality as the resultant internal to torus tube sine-wave of associated reality.
-->
@Reece
Reece #112--How about multi-dimensional-coin. Is that better?
Correcting some grammar from last reply to you as well as some addendum clarifications.
However, first I want myself and you to reconsider what multi-dimenisonal means in context of beyond spatial 3D and also beyond our observation of time as motion, or reality{ time } we observe.
1} Metaphysical-3 gravity and metaphysical-4 dark energy may be considered beyond our our observed reality ergo beyond our observed 3D, yet they are still within context of 3D, its just we do not observe{ quantise } them. Ok?
2} remember the basic 4th spatial dimension{ 'd' } is just the 45 degree, volumetric diagonal 'd' of a cube{ XYZ } ergo 'd' exists within confines of cartesian XYZ{ 3D }. Ok?
3} Fuller reconsidered dimensions as powers as in matematical powering as motions of spin, orbit, expand-contract etc were powerings. Mathematically powering of shell growth of cubo-octahedron composed of spheres{ vertexes } have layers of concentric shells of events but the whole is withing context of 3D. See LINK
He also considered powering as 4D being spatial four surface openings of tetrahedron, perpendicular to the 4 idametrically opposing vertexes as the basis set of points of consideration for all 3D existence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Multi-dimensional exists as a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept and not as any actual, realized occupied space coin.
Until you can grasp and acknowledge-to-self, the differrence between occupied space coin and a conceptual coin your doomed to believe in a false occupied space of multi-dimensions, of which we have no evidence they exist.
We have mysteries, that are difficult to answer ergo people reach out for abstract, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual scenarios irrespective of how illogical, irrational or lack of common sense occur.
Ex why does speed of radiation appear the same to all observers irrespective of their speed towards or away from the radiating photon?
Driving home the other night I once again ran this one through my mind and had some new thoughts in those regards that relate to my numerically derived geometric torus with inversions that result in an internal sine-wave pattern /\/\/\/\/ topology.
/\/\/\/\/\/--->|-----(observer)---->|<-----/\/\/\/\/\/\/
speed of radiation{ photon } ----->|----( * i * )--->|<---speed of radiation{ photon }
photon speed towards------>|----away from--->(* i * )---towards--->|<----photon speed towards
----->|------------>---------->|<-----------
My latest thoughts on the above semi linear scenario is that when we observe the photon it is not from a linear pathway from the source{ ex the sun or flashlight }.
My latest thoughts is that the photon appears to us from a direction that is 90 degrees to the source and that will help to explain why
speed-of-radiation is a constant irrespective of speed-of-observer.
Here below I'm attempting to show that the overall sine-wave pattern o of photon is linear but that pattern is a resultant of the top peak and peak of trough occurring from the sharp inversions -----ergo at 90 degrees--- from postive peaks of surface of Space Torus postive and negative curvature.
---------( ) gravitational positive surface of torus ( )-----------------------
.............................photon..v.............
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
.............................photon...^...................
-------)( dark energy negative surface of torus )(----------------------------
Seriously if we want to think outside of the conventional box of wisdom if we to understand how a photon can be constant to all observers irrrespective of their speed and direction. There is much more to be considered in the above. This is just my first rough draft for considering alternative ways of thinking about what is occurring.
Think of multi-dimensions being the surface of the graviational-dark energy surface of torus and our 3D reality as the resultant internal to torus tube sine-wave of associated reality.
8 days later
The closet we come to a cosmic two-sided coin, is the torus having both;
1} positive shaped geodesic curvature ( ), and,
2} negative shaped geodesic curvature )(.
And the above does mention what occurs inside the 2-sided cosmic torus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is specifics of all that exists aka The Cosmic Trinity and its subset of trinitys
1} spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } aka metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept with a resultant ego{ i },
.....1a} absolute truth,
.....1b} relative truth,
.....1c} lies.
------------------line-of-demarcation---------------------------------------------
2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied SPACE, that, embraces/surrounds the following,
...2a} ?
...2b} ?
...2c} ?
3} spirit-2, as occupied SPACE Universe aka Uni-V-erse of observed Time aka reality/energy via fermions, bosons ---and possibly a new 3rd hybrid catagory-- or any aggregate collection thereof ex atoms, molecules, planets, clusters of galaxies etc,
.....3a} metaphysical-3 Gravity ( ) as positive shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space,
.....3b} metaphysical-4, Dark energy )( as negative shaped geodesic curvature of occupied Space.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"U" niverse / "G" od is most inclusive set as it includes the Cosmic Trinity and all of its subsets.
Universe aka Uni-V-erse #3 above is less inclusive and is not considerate of #1 and #2 above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
meta is greek for beyond and there is four distinct kinds of meta-physical in the cosmic trinity hence the enumeration #1, 2, 3, 4.
i = ego
* i * = most complex bilateral consciousness
( )( ) = vertical bisection/cross section of a torus, which torus has postive and negative geodesically curved space.
( ( ) ) = horizontal { birds-eye-view } bisection/cross section of a torus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Observed Time aka reality is commonly associated with a sine-wave topology ex /\/\/\/\/\/ or as^v^v^v and defined by diametricallu opposed inversions { >< } from peaks of positive ( ) and negative )( geodesic curvature of a torus ( )( ) ergo the texticonic representation as (><)(><).
Occupied space Universe / Uni-V-erse is composed of fermions and bosons that are each defined by two or more tori interfering with each other. The sum-total of all interfering tori is occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All of the above coincide with my discovery of all prime numbers ---except 2 and 3--- falling on a single line/level within a sequential numerical set as it occurs of four lines/levels ergo a quasi-2D pattern that in-of-itself defines a sine-wave topology, before it is inside-outed.
This latter above also translate to a 2D hexagonal pattern of 6 radii wherein all prime numbers ---except 2 and 3-- fall only two of the 6 radii.
Regular numerical pattern
0...............................................6............................................12.................................................18...........................
........1...............................5P.............7P..........................11P...........13...............................17P...........19P.....................
................2P...............4.............................8............10...............................14..............16.............................20..............
........................3P.............................................9.................................................15..............................................21.....
Inside-outed irregular pattern
..........1......................................5P..............7P...............................11P..............13P....................................17P............................
-
-
0...........................................................6....................................................12...............................................................................
...............................3P......................................................9..........................................................15............................................
-
-
....................2P...................4.....................................8.............10........................................14..............16...............................
The resultant sine-wave topology occurs inside the toroidal tube as the triangularly structural and systemically stable integral set of 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 etc
-->
@secularmerlin
Everyone thinks they hold true beliefs. I paradoxically both believe that everything I believe to be true is true and simultaneously believe that at least one thing I believe to be true must be false. What I value is the scientific method as the most reliable method of separating fact from falsehood. Provided of course that our observations accurately reflect reality.
"Everyone thinks they hold true beliefs."
I think everyone thinks most of their beliefs are true. I hope people who think all their beliefs are true are relatively rare IRL, even if they are common on internet forums!
Q: would the word 'correct' be more appropriate than 'true' in this context?
Also, I suggest that the way you seperate fact from falsehood is very rarely by using the scientific method! you cannot subject every news item you see or read to experimental verification! You distinguish between 'news' and 'fake news' by checking its consistency with your existing knowlege (or is that 'existing beliefs'?).
-->
@keithprosser
Certainty about practically anything may be beyond human epistemology. That is why I will often qualify statements about what is verifiably real/true/correct/existent. Certainly the struggle against confirmation bias is real and ongoing but there is a sharp difference between a belief and a fact. Many of my beliefs are based on my previous understanding of reality but unless these beliefs are readily quantifiable i only believe I do not know.
-->
@secularmerlin
I think we can be more precise. We can only be certain of definitions; we can be certain there are no married batchelors because we have defined 'batchelor' in a way that makes it is so.Certainty about practically anything may be beyond human epistemology.
What we can never be certain about are 'empirical beliefs', that is our beliefs about the real world. For example I believe my friend Tom is a batchelor, but it's possible he's secretly married.
Here's one for you: What is a fact? Consider there are two moons orbiting Mars. Is the fact the state of affairs near Mars or is it the proposition 'Mars has two moons'. I'd say the former was the fact and the latter is a description of that fact.
-->
@keithprosser
I can accept all that.
-->
@secularmerlin
OK - so you think of something we can argue about...!
-->
@keithprosser
I believe in metaphysical determinism.
-->
@Reece
i do not dispute that you believe in metaphysical determinism.
-->
@keithprosser
Umm, okay. So do you have any questions, or are you several steps already ahead?
-->
@keithprosser
Nvm, I posted to the wrong person.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I believe in metaphysical determinism.
I believe in metaphysical determinism.
For similar reasons that secularmerlin outlined previously, or for different ones?
-->
@Reece
@Discipulus_Didicit
For similar reasons that secularmerlin outlined previously, or for different ones?
FYI, reece, secmer said:
My lack of belief is based on the lack of evidence. The universe gets on just fine without freewill. Occam's razor demands that if we already have an observable explanation for an event (say cause and effect) that we dismiss any extraneous and unprovable explanation (such as freewill). If freewill does not exist then we would expect to see no evidence whatever and that is precisely what we see.
He's dead wrong. We see evidence of free will every day. Everytime you see someone choose tea not coffee, coke not pepsi, chicken not beef, democrat not republican it is evidence of free will at work, unless you can see the reason why they chose one and not the other. Belief in 'no freewill' doesn't stem from experience or observation; it stems from the lack of a materialistic explanation of free will.
-->
@keithprosser
@Discipulus_Didicit
I've had this discussion before about choice and free will when it comes to determinism.
Here's how it goes down assuming we're going by the same definition(s):
Choice =/= free will
Choice is merely an act of choosing between multiple possibilities.
The act says nothing about whether free will is occurring.
I think the illusion of free will is just an effect of ignorance.
In other words:
Belief in free will stems from experience or observation; it doesn't stem from materialistic explanation.
Assuming free will wasn't an illusion and actually existed, would we still have free will if we knew everything?
-->
@Reece
It seems to me we agree.
Reece: Belief in free will stems from experience or observation; it doesn't stem from materialistic explanation.
is the same as
KeithP: Belief in 'no freewill' doesn't stem from experience or observation; it stems from the lack of a materialistic explanation of free will.
-->
@keithprosser
I would say experience and observation are subjective, while materialism is objective.
I.e. You're arguing from subjectivity while I'm arguing from objectivity.
-->
@keithprosser
@Reece
I am more interested in first wondering whether the process one uses to make their conclusions is a sound process rather than whether the conclusion itself is sound.
Reece, how does your process for concluding that determinism is accurate compare to secularmerlin's? If your reasoning is based on something other than "an examination of the evidence" then please explain.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I get that... but first we have to identify the process people actually use, not the process they think or say they use!I am more interested in first wondering whether the process one uses to make their conclusions is a sound process rather than whether the conclusion itself is sound.
Sorry we drifted into YAFDAFW (yet another futile debate about free will) while you were away.