Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[creation]

Is it possible that it is possible for human beings to function without beliefs,

Sure, but you'd need to support that, you'd need to plausibly explain how it would work.

I have explained how this works to you a few times already. But you are not ready to accept this, nor have you even tried to understand this.

Also, because you do not read all of what I write, you may have just completely MISSED it. And, from all accounts this appears to be exactly what you have done.

If you cannot imagine at any stage of a human being's life, from their earliest stages up to the last breath, and how they continual evolve, and function, and their has NEVER been any second of a moment in all that time that there was not a belief, then so be it.

Maybe you have just not worked out and understood what a 'belief' actually entails yet?

[Terrapin Station]

So, if you believe P is true, but at the exact same time you also say you are open to P being not true at all, then why?

Why do you accept some thing is true when it could be false all along anyway?

I've explained this to you many times. In order for me to head to the bathroom when I feel like I need to go to the bathroom, I need to believe that there is a bathroom I can head to, or at least I need to believe that there might be a bathroom I can head to, etc. Otherwise I'd have no reason to head to a bathroom and I'd just go in my pants.

We believe things on the best reasons available. But we realize that the things we believe might turn out to be false. When we get different or better evidence, different or better reasons, we adjust our beliefs.

And, why choose to believe P is true and be open to P not being true, when you could choose to believe P is not true and be open to P is true?

Beliefs are adopted based on the best reasons available, the best evidence. There will be better reasons to believe one option over another in many cases.

And you "coincidentally" not reading 'that' what proves you wrong,

"Proof" is not apt for this sort of stuff. Reasons/evidence to buy one claim versus another is. But we're not going to completely rule one option out.

[Terrapin Station]

Also, because you do not read all of what I write, you may have just completely MISSED it. And, from all accounts this appears to be exactly what you have done.

Sure, so just copy past the relevant part, or retype it or whatever, without rambling on for 1000 words.

[creation]

So, if you believe P is true, but at the exact same time you also say you are open to P being not true at all, then why?

Why do you accept some thing is true when it could be false all along anyway?

I've explained this to you many times. In order for me to head to the bathroom when I feel like I need to go to the bathroom, I need to believe that there is a bathroom I can head to, or at least I need to believe that there might be a bathroom I can head to, etc. Otherwise I'd have no reason to head to a bathroom and I'd just go in my pants.

Do you need to believe that urine would come out of you before you could perform that action?

If no, then there is ANOTHER example that you CAN function without believing things to be true.

We believe things on the best reasons available.

YOU do that. I do NOT.

You can tell me forever what 'you' do. But I already KNOW what 'you' do, and already KNOW how and why you think the way you do.

But we realize that the things we believe might turn out to be false.

Well there is a perfectly reasonable reason WHY not to believe any thing. If what you believe is false, then, to me, believe that it is true is a very irrational and very stupid and non sensible thing to do.

When we get different or better evidence, different or better reasons, we adjust our beliefs.

You can do that till the day you die. But there is NO need to.

Me and new born infants are living proof that there is NO need to believe any thing at all, and still function.

And, why choose to believe P is true and be open to P not being true, when you could choose to believe P is not true and be open to P is true?

Beliefs are adopted based on the best reasons available, the best evidence. There will be better reasons to believe one option over another in many cases.

But WHY do it, when it is NOT necessary?

And you "coincidentally" not reading 'that' what proves you wrong,

"Proof" is not apt for this sort of stuff. Reasons/evidence to buy one claim versus another is. But we're not going to completely rule one option out.

So you say that I am making almost zero effort to justify or explain it aside from claiming over and over that it's the case. But when I provide the reasons for WHY there is NO need to believe things and I provide you with evidence of HOW I function without beliefs, then they do not suffice for you either. Have you noticed absolutely nothing suffices for you, which is contrary to your current and obviously maintained belief here?

For this very reason is WHY I do NOT have any beliefs at all, contrary to your own very strongly held onto belief.

Look I have provided evidence of how and when I function without beliefs.
I, for example, do not believe that you will not have died from covid-19 before you read this, so I do not accept that you will still exist before you get this nor do I accept that you will get this is even true, but I am still able to function and to send this, and I am still motivated to action to send this, which proves that I am able to function without believing any thing, which is all contrary to what you believe is true.

So, you either accept the evidence, or you reject this outright and continue to believe whatever you want to believe. I seriously do not care what you believe or disbelieve is true. But I am telling you, with evidence provided, that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing at all.

Are you even OPEN to you being absolutely and completely WRONG here?

You Honest answer would be much appreciated. Or, will this question be just another one of the countless ones that you do not read and/or do not reply to?

[creation]

Also, because you do not read all of what I write, you may have just completely MISSED it. And, from all accounts this appears to be exactly what you have done.

Sure, so just copy past the relevant part, or retype it or whatever, without rambling on for 1000 words.

So, you are too lazy to read what I write the first time, or just too deceitful, but then you expect me to paste it or retype it again now. LOL.

You are just plain and simple WRONG. The end.

[Terrapin Station]

Do you need to believe that urine would come out of you before you could perform that action?

Of course not. Belief is pertinent to willfully doing things.

If no, then there is ANOTHER example that you CAN function without believing things to be true.

What's at issue isn't whether it's possible to do anything without belief. What's at issue is whether it's possible to do everything you do without belief.

That's all I read. Keep your replies shorter if you want me to read everything. If you don't care, then type as much as you want.

[Terrapin Station]

So, you are too lazy to read what I write the first time

My aims in posting can't be met by not being concise and focused. I can't force people to be concise and focused, but I'm not about to indulge them rambling on, lecturing, being unfocused, etc. either.

[Terrapin Station]

As I've stated many times, I'd rather be chatting in real time, via a chat client where there's a twitter-like limit on the length of posts. In my view that's the most productive way to do this stuff (well, aside from having a conversation in person, which would be my #1 choice, followed by a telephone conversation or chatting via Skype or something as #2).

[creation]

Do you need to believe that urine would come out of you before you could perform that action?

Of course not. Belief is pertinent to willfully doing things.

If no, then there is ANOTHER example that you CAN function without believing things to be true.

What's at issue isn't whether it's possible to do anything without belief. What's at issue is whether it's possible to do everything you do without belief.

It is possible to do everything without belief.

I, and others, are living proof that this is possible.

Therefore, issue settled.

That's all I read. Keep your replies shorter if you want me to read everything. If you don't care, then type as much as you want.

[creation]

As I've stated many times, I'd rather be chatting in real time, via a chat client where there's a twitter-like limit on the length of posts. In my view that's the most productive way to do this stuff (well, aside from having a conversation in person, which would be my #1 choice, followed by a telephone conversation or chatting via Skype or something as #2).

Well if you are here in this forum, then those other choices must not be that available to you.

Also, some people prefer the very opposite of you, as they ask others to write as much as they like because they are aware that some things just cannot be fully explained and be fully understood in just a few very short sentences.

[Terrapin Station]

What's at issue isn't whether it's possible to do anything without belief. What's at issue is whether it's possible to do everything you do without belief.

It is possible to do everything without belief.

I, and others, are living proof that this is possible.
[/quote]

It's not a matter of what you claim or how you think about it. It's a matter of whether it's possible to do everything where certain sorts of mental states do not obtain, whatever we call them.

[Terrapin Station]

Well if you are here in this forum, then those other choices must not be that available to you.

Correct. Can't find a good philosophy chat room any longer (for years I chatted on Undernet #philosophy, but that's not active any longer), and my social circle hasn't included people well-versed in philosophy for awhile. Hence why I stick to consolation prizes like this board.

Also, some people prefer the very opposite of you, as they ask others to write as much as they like because they are aware that some things just cannot be fully explained and be fully understood in just a few very short sentences.

Sure, hence why there's some tension between differing preferences.

[creation]

What's at issue isn't whether it's possible to do anything without belief. What's at issue is whether it's possible to do everything you do without belief.

It is possible to do everything without belief.

I, and others, are living proof that this is possible.

It's not a matter of what you claim or how you think about it. It's a matter of whether it's possible to do everything where certain sorts of mental states do not obtain, whatever we call them.

You like to change and move the goal posts frequently.

So, you first say the issue is whether it is possible to do everything I do without belief.

I inform you that because I, and some others, do everything without belief, then it is therefore possible to do everything without belief.

However, you now want to say that it is not a matter/issue of what I claim or how I think about "it". It is now a matter/issue of whether it is possible to do everything where certain sorts of mental states do not obtain, whatever we call them.

Well obviously until you tell us what you call "them", then I have no idea what you are referring to exactly.

Anyhow, I have already informed you that I am able to do everything without the mental states of neither believing nor disbelieving anything is true.

Either you accept this, or, your belief that everyone 'must have' beliefs is just way to strong for you to be able to see and understand thee actual Truth of things clearly?

[creation]

Well if you are here in this forum, then those other choices must not be that available to you.

Correct. Can't find a good philosophy chat room any longer (for years I chatted on Undernet #philosophy, but that's not active any longer), and my social circle hasn't included people well-versed in philosophy for awhile. Hence why I stick to consolation prizes like this board.

Also, some people prefer the very opposite of you, as they ask others to write as much as they like because they are aware that some things just cannot be fully explained and be fully understood in just a few very short sentences.

Sure, hence why there's some tension between differing preferences.

What "tension" are you talking about? Where is the "tension"?

I am not even sure if you even know those that I was referring to. They are not in this forum, so I am not sure how there could be any so called "tension" between your preference and their different preference?

[Terrapin Station]

What's at issue isn't whether it's possible to do anything without belief. What's at issue is whether it's possible to do everything you do without belief.

It is possible to do everything without belief.

I, and others, are living proof that this is possible.

It's not a matter of what you claim or how you think about it. It's a matter of whether it's possible to do everything where certain sorts of mental states do not obtain, whatever we call them.

You like to change and move the goal posts frequently.

So, you first say the issue is whether it is possible to do everything I do without belief.

I inform you that because I, and some others, do everything without belief, then it is therefore possible to do everything without belief.

However, you now want to say that it is not a matter/issue of what I claim or how I think about "it".

No "goalpost" moved. I never said anything even remotely resembling the idea that whether you have beliefs is a matter of whether you'd say you have beliefs, whether you characterize anything as beliefs, etc.