ChaoticMindSays wrote:Persecrates,
I believe we have had a series of mis-communications...
It's not really a misunderstanding.
I made the difference between what you were trying to say in your conclusion and what you actually said, what arguments you used, ideas you tried to push (e.g. the title of this thread) in order to present the said conclusions but... Did you?
My goal is not to prove you wrong. I happen to agree with your
conclusions. But as sound/true (and even evidenced) as your conclusions are, the
arguments you used and your questioning of logic are
unsound/false.
I think it's because you make (like a lot of people, even most of philosophers don't worry) two essential mistakes. But these mistakes are of damaging consequences.
First, you conflate beliefs with ideas, hypotheses and knowledge. And it’s not a semantics problem.
IMO, there are no such things as justified (based on some sort of proof or evidence) belief.
The very purpose of a belief is to justify/satisfy a desires or fears.
A belief has no cognitive value, it is linked to an idea, hypothesis only from a psychological/psychoanalytic point of view. It’s a psychological/emotional parasite.
A belief is not needed to emit nor try to validate/prove any hypothesis.
We have emotions, desires and fears. One of these fears and the correlating/compensating desire is the fear of the unknown and, therefore, the desire to know.
So, a belief is our attempt to satisfy both this desire and this fear by pretending, (think/do
as if we knew) to know something to be true or false when we truly don't. We
desire this idea/hypothesis to be true or false. That’s what causes us to express/create/form a belief.
But a belief has no direct nor causal link to Reality (what is actually and objectively ‘true‘). It is attached (like a remora is attached to a shark. There is no symbiosis, a belief has no positive aspect/utility whatsoever.) to our desire to know and ‘model’ Reality to fit our desires and fears.
But we are also rational, our thought process is only partly composed and disrupted by beliefs (caused by desires and fears, then). Thinking (or reasoning here) is essentially and inherently logical by nature. We use unknowingly and ‘indiscriminatively’ what is called deductive and inductive logic for nearly every thought we form, without realizing it. We, therefore, form ideas and hypotheses (more structured, argued, comprehensible... ideas) and try to see/verify, when possible, if they match with Reality (by experience or experiments) or not.
Our very thinking process (dependent on our brain and ‘mind’ structures/architectures) is inherently logical.
But, as I said, desires/fears, emotions, beliefs are also there and they don't obey the same rules... at all.
So, it's an unconscious constant struggle/adjustment between these irrational/illogical psychological phenomena (which, again, have no part, beside a disruptive one, in the cognitive process, i.e. the accession to knowledge) and the epistemic/cognitive/objective concepts of hypothesis and knowledge/truth/Reality. Still, they both have physical causes…
So, to conclude briefly on this point, a belief is our attempt to consciously satisfy/acknowledge a desire or a fear.
It attaches itself to an idea/hypothesis/theory, BUT is not to be misidentified nor conflated with an hypothesis.
When (what you take for) a belief is well constructed/formulated enough and based on evidence/proof, it's in fact an hypothesis.
When a belief is proven true, it's a truth/knowledge. In this case a belief is not necessary/relevant anymore. Reality supersedes it.
The belief should be replaced by hypotheses and knowledge.
The fact that sometimes a belief can still subsist when there is evidence/proof (rendering this belief irrelevant) and that it can still be part of people’s thought process at the ’hypothesis level’ (higher than the ’idea level’ but lower than the knowledge one) prove that beliefs are not of a cognitive significance/nature, but an emotional one.
The
second mistake is easier to explain.
You are confusing the (mis)use people make of Logic and Logic (the method) itself.
Many people (among those who even use the formal/classical method consciously), don't use it properly.
Most often, people (scientists or not) use the words "rational"/"logical" to justify their (dis)belief or their attempt to disinformation.
E.g: "The idea that aliens exist is irrational/illogical/unscientific".
In fact, the hypothesis is not only a valid one, rational and logical, but supported by countless of evidence/proof.
People who are denying the possibility of their existence or even their presence are the one totally illogical.
They have succumbed to or orchestrated the brainwashing, attempts to ridicule the phenomenon, disinformation... They are the irrational ones not using Logic to formulate an opinion/hypothesis on the subject. They have to deny countless of evidence to do that.
They are many other hypotheses, like the ones you cited, that are
irrationally not accepted (
believed to be false) by mainstream scientists and average/mundane people, at least openly, because of their
fear to lose credibility (fear of ridicule and/or to lose their job --life?--), or their desire for Reality to be simple, not complicated.
They are the ones living in a box. But it's not the box of Logic, but the one of beliefs, desires, fears (other/opposite types than the ones desiring for it to be true).
But, don't forget, the sheep are in both camps. The beliefs they rely on may be opposite but they are nonetheless beliefs. And when you have beliefs and you are not rational enough, you are sure to be (potentially) manipulated/‘manipulatable‘.
Few are the people, like me, that don't need to believe or disbelieve the hypotheses they make/encounter or to demonstrate or disprove them (among those who even make the intellectual effort to form hypotheses as opposed to mere beliefs in vague ideas).
A belief is not only unnecessary, it is damaging and curbing.
The idea of logic being a constant renders it as fallacious because, logically, logic can not be perfect and unchanging.
The method has already been improved along the centuries, formal/mathematical/‘algorithmic’ logics have been created.
It surely is not an absolute constant.
The main point is to accept that the logical method is dependent on our use of it, but the method(s) itself is the only one at our disposal to formulate/acquire meaningful hypotheses/knowledge.
Don't blame the method, blame the people misusing it or
pretending to be rational/logical but who are (absolutely) not.
I believe that it IS possible for our thoughts to change the world around us. My belief is based off of actual experiences that I have had.
So, that's a hypothesis and you should be able to formulate it logically. I don't ask you to do it here. But for yourself. If you can’t do it, maybe you will have to reevaluate your hypothesis. Or maybe your hypothesis is not as sound/true as you think (believe) it to be.
I am simply going one step further than abiathar and crystallizing my belief into my view of reality, because, I think that beliefs are actually very important(*which seems to be our only real disagreement). They give us gumption, fervor, energy.
You don't need beliefs for that. You have them so you try to justify their existence by rendering them necessary. But it's an
a posteriori and misplaced/unnecessary/false justification ('after the fact').
Beliefs can make you strongly dismiss ideas/facts, and accepting others.
Beliefs are not deciding in your pursuit of the truth. But they are in your pursuit of what you desire/fear to be the truth.
But if you have irrefutable proof one way or another, you realize that your desires and fears, therefore beliefs are
irrelevant. All that is left to you is to
accept the ‘truth‘. There is no choice to believe this or that anymore.
Reality (should) compel(s) you to abandon them and replace them by knowledge.
That's proof that beliefs are unnecessary/irrelevant and ‘parasiting’ your intellectual/cognitive/reasoning process.
By saying "This is real", instead of, "This may be real" I am pushing my mind harder to really prove it, not only to myself but to everyone else around me.
...
But you blind yourself/close your mind to competitive/alternative hypotheses that you will overlook or totally dismiss because of your belief, you desire/fear to be true.
Do you understand?
But just because I hold these beliefs does not mean I am disillusioned, it means, as I made an analogy of earlier, that I am using metaphysics, something outside of logic, to create the target for which I am aiming.
Sadly, yes it does. Because, precisely, there is nothing 'real'/meaningful outside of Logic. If you use it correctly, everything that is true can be proven (if not directly empirically, at least logically). If you can’t seem to use logic to prove/demonstrate an idea, there is a great probability that the phenomena you believe to exist doesn’t. It’s not a certitude though, it can simply be because of your incapacity to formulate a meaningful hypothesis/demonstration and/or our limited understanding/knowledge of Reality. But in both these cases, why believe it?? Why not simply treat it as a hypothesis… Well, because of your desires (fears) of course…
I hope now, you understand your mistake to try to disqualify logic and scientific (logic+experiment as the only cognitive methods) instead of realizing that‘s people who are to blame.
Persecrates wrote:a belief is desired to be held even against (in spite of) proof of the contrary.
ChaoticMind wrote:
I hold no such 'beliefs' as these....
So, these are not beliefs but hypotheses. You don't realize it. It's not simply a problem of semantics. It's a question of thought process, of cognitive/epistem(olog)ic(al) approach.
Please note that most of people hold on to some beliefs (at least the important ones) no matter what (e.g. God, afterlife, love...).
Again, a belief is nearly always attached to an (un)substantiated (enough) claim, idea. A hypothesis doesn’t need a belief because it’s enough evidenced/demonstrated. You don't need to add a belief to a hypothesis, it can only impair your reasoning/objectivity and openness to other hyppotheses/possibilities.
Persecrates wrote:The problem with beliefs is that they appear through a pleasant idea (an idea that satisfies a desire), NOT through reasoning
ChaoticMind wrote:I most definitly used reasoning to come to my beliefs.
Do you understand why this sentence is false now?
Not all of the things I believe are... 'Pleasant'. Some of them are actually quite horrible.
Of course, ‘you’ (people) have to comply with Reality/Logic at some point (you say you can do that without problem) and incorporate it in your reasoning. Remember I don't say people
only rely on/use beliefs... But they do add them to their thinking process (thinking they are a ‘natural‘, even necessary, part of it. And it's curbing them (their mental capacity)... Always.
Persecrates wrote:Reality is only used when it seems to comply with the desire/belief and dismissed/denied when it doesn't.
ChaoticMind wrote:I function on the opposite of this...
So, you shouldn't need beliefs and you should understand the 'message'/idea I try to convey/share.
My belief in 'God', If that is what we choose to call it, is simply that it consists of the connections between everything. All things living and un-living are interconnected and this body of connections makes up a living organism called 'God'. We, the human group consciousness, make up a sub division of the organism, and then all living things another, and then all things living and un-living yet another. (Of course this last is speculation) I do claim to have experienced this presence myself multiple times and do not believe it to be through disillusionment because prior to said experiences, and, in fact, for as long as I can remember, I was an atheist.
Is it possible that you misinterpreted your experiences? Did you really/objectively tried to find other possibilities/arguments/hypotheses to explain what you think (believe?) you experienced?
These questions don't need to be addressed. Simply ask them yourself. And don't be too quick/prompt to say yes.
The path to knowledge is not only a difficult but a tricky and long one. Don't be sure too easily of what
is true, but ALWAYS ask yourself what
could be. Make several hypothesis and test them (logically or empirically if you can).
ALWAYS doubt, always try to find counter-arguments to yours, always be ready to drop any idea/hypothesis you have if proven wrong or impossible (this last, you're saying you're doing it already, so the rest should be easier.)
Hmm... I disagree with this. I don't think that 'empirical truths' exist... Truth is relative, in the the sense that once the current paradigm shifts this 'empirical truth' may no longer be so.
The laws of Reality (Physics) never change, only our interpretation/understanding of the nature of Reality does. But, still, truth/knowledge (and Reality) are very tricky/complex concepts. I use them for the sake of simplicity and communication.
I develop a bit on the concept of Reality in my last thread on Mathematics in the metaphysics forum.
What I call an 'empirical truth' is simply the best hypothesis at a time T (our time) and that
seems to be confirmed by experience.
And, btw, I never claimed that there was a better system, only that there is one waiting out there to be discovered, or created.
I don't know about that. But I think that we should learn how to use the logical method properly (and identify when people misuse it or simply claim to use it) before to claim we need another one...
As for other types of new paradigm, there's a thread on the subject.
What I am proposing is basically a more.. balanced system.
No balance can be obtained between emotions/desires/fears/beliefs and logic.
That's the reason why we almost haven't mentally evolved since the dawn of time...
To try to do so can only lead to failure.
The emotions/desires... must be progressively diminished through the teaching/use of logic and psychology/psychoanalysis. That's the only solution.
Why learn how to live with a cancer/parasite when you can reduce it(s presence, curbing effect) and become more healthy.
I see logic as having to far to much power... So much that it is covering the importance of other things, such as metaphysics and philosophy.
They also depend on logic, rationality... For the most part... You just don't realize it.
Metaphysics/Philosophy are not Poetry.
Every arguments/concepts/ideas… formulated has been created through the use of logic. The problem is it hasn’t been created
only with logic but also with emotions (desires/fears), that’s why there are levels of value/significance for argumentations/demonstrations.
Beliefs/emotions are so bound up with logical thinking/reasoning that they are undistinguishable for most people, and obviously you.
To conclude this lengthy post, try to imagine what we potentially could be able to if the unconscious control we have over our own body and each and every cell composing it, would be conscious.
If we could understand how we can do so logically, rationally instead of through religious fervor/beliefs... without true control over it.
You wouldn't need to believe it's possible, you would simply do it... Because you would KNOW HOW... And you could only do that using logic and experience.
Don't see logic as a subject of study or a discipline. Logic is the consequence of your brain structure, your wiring. It is the very thing that allows you to think.
The proper/methodological use of it can induce the paradigm your looking for... I assure you.
@Marabod:
I just saw your post mentioning that logic was taught until the end of WW2.
I agree with the reasons you give for the abandon of this subject in universities.
But that’s not what I’m considering we should do, only 1 or two hours of Logic in school for scientific students, no.
I envisage to teach it to everyone since a young age and at length. That it should be, with psychology, the two first/main and always present subjects to teach our children, then teen, then adults, always.
Don’t worry I don’t forger language, of course, nor the other subjects there are to be learned… But you know what I mean.