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

[creation]

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.

I never said you said anything like that either.

[Terrapin Station]

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.

I never said you said anything like that either.

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

But I never said anything even remotely like, "It is a matter/issue of what I claim or how I think about 'it'." So nothing changed. No "goalpost" was moved.

[Terrapin Station]

Oops "what you claim/how you think about it" for the second part there.

[creation]

Oops "what you claim/how you think about it" for the second part there.

Did you, or did you not, write: "It's not a matter of what you claim or how you think about it."

[Terrapin Station]

Oops "what you claim/how you think about it" for the second part there.

Did you, or did you not, write: "It's not a matter of what you claim or how you think about it."

Yes, which is not "changing any goalposts," because I never wrote anything even remotely resembling "It is a matter of what you claim or how you think about it."

[creation]

Did you, or did you not, write: "It's not a matter of what you claim or how you think about it."

Yes, which is not "changing any goalposts," because I never wrote anything even remotely resembling "It is a matter of what you claim or how you think about it."

Okay. So, you do accept I can do everything without beliefs, correct?

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, which is not "changing any goalposts," because I never wrote anything even remotely resembling "It is a matter of what you claim or how you think about it."

Okay. So, you do accept I can do everything without beliefs, correct?

Lol, you're like talking to a brick wall. No, or course I do not accept that.

[Terrapin Station]

Sigh with the typos: "of course" not "or course"

[creation]

Okay. So, you do accept I can do everything without beliefs, correct?

Lol, you're like talking to a brick wall. No, or course I do not accept that.

Okay great.

Now, is this because you believe that it is impossible to do everything without beliefs, or for some other reason?

If it is for some other reason, then what is that reason?

[Terrapin Station]

Now, is this because you believe that it is impossible to do everything without beliefs,

No. And this should already be clear to you from my earlier comments.

for for some other reason?

Because all evidence aside from mere possibility suggests that contingently, it's the case that humans can't function in any sort of normal manner without beliefs.

Again, this is how beliefs work in general.

[creation]

Now, is this because you believe that it is impossible to do everything without beliefs,

No. And this should already be clear to you from my earlier comments.

for for some other reason?

Because all evidence aside from mere possibility suggests that contingently, it's the case that humans can't function in any sort of normal manner without beliefs.

What "evidence"?

What I find far more reasonable is you provide the actual so called "evidence", instead of just saying things like: "Because all evidence aside ...". This could be seen as a diversionary tactic to not produce any so called "evidence" at all.

Also, the mere ability not just suggests that contingently, it is the case that humans can function in all sorts of normal manner without beliefs, but the mere ability to function without beliefs is proof that humans can function without beliefs, which, by the way, has already been proven true, right, and correct anyway..

Again, this is how beliefs work in general.

Once more, beliefs in general work by preventing and/or stopping people from learning more or anew. Now, this is how beliefs work, generally.

[Steve3007]

Lol, you're like talking to a brick wall.

It seems to me that's been obvious for quite a long time. It's why I stopped talking to him/her some time ago, after initially trying to make some simple progress. It was obvious that it was going to be an infinite game of snakes and ladders. Not interesting. That's why I asked (on one of the many other threads where essentially the same futile conversation is happening) why bother?

[Terrapin Station]

What "evidence"?

Human behavior, human physiology, logical implications in light of the above, etc.a

What I find far more reasonable is you provide the actual so called "evidence", instead of just saying things like: "Because all evidence aside ...". This could be seen as a diversionary tactic to not produce any so called "evidence" at all.

I've done this, but you just ignore it. You certainly have no counter to any of it. Examples include someone being hungry and heading to their refrigerator for something to eat, where we know from biological and physiological facts about humans that they do not simply do this instinctually, or needing to urinate or defecate and heading to the bathroom, again where we know that's not simply instinctual (because we have to be taught these things), or wanting to make a trollish post here, as you regularly like to do, and heading to a keyboard (virtual or not) and pressing certain keys to make certain letters appear on the screen in certain orders, etc. There countless examples available like this.

Also, the mere ability not just suggests that contingently, it is the case that humans can function in all sorts of normal manner without beliefs, but the mere ability to function without beliefs is proof that humans can function without beliefs, which, by the way, has already been proven true, right, and correct anyway..

Empirical claims are not provable.

There's no example I know of where one has to do anything willfully or intentionally that doesn't involve beliefs. We'd not be able to explain the action in question otherwise.

Contingently, it turned out that humans have to do countless things willfully or intentionally rather than instinctually. That's an upshot of the way our brains developed, an upshot of our intelligence, which enabled us to construct cultures, civilizations to the extent we have.

Once more, beliefs in general work by preventing and/or stopping people from learning more or anew.

I already explained Now this isn't the case with numerous examples. You had zero argument against those examples.

If I give you an counterexample to a claim you make and you want to claim that the claim still stands, you need to explicitly present the supposed problems with the counterexample. You can't just ignore the counterexample and just double down via repeating the claim as if the counterexample was never given.

[Terrapin Station]

Oops typo: "I already explained Now" should have read "I already explained how"

[Terrapin Station]

Lol, you're like talking to a brick wall.

It seems to me that's been obvious for quite a long time. It's why I stopped talking to him/her some time ago, after initially trying to make some simple progress. It was obvious that it was going to be an infinite game of snakes and ladders. Not interesting. That's why I asked (on one of the many other threads where essentially the same futile conversation is happening) why bother?

I probably still find it interesting because it's not clear to me if he's trolling or if it's some sort of serious mental/developmental disability. If it's the latter, I find the psychology of that, the psychology of trying to rationally interact with it, intriguing.

If he's trolling, then it's just a matter of how long he'll do so before he gets bored with it . . . and if he trolls long enough, that in itself is indicative of some serious mental problems, which I find interesting, especially in the context of attempting to interact rationally with someone with various mental problems. If it's rather the latter, then aside from my general fascination with oddities, oddball behavior, etc. and trying to interact rationally with it, there's always the possibility that eventually you can get through to someone like that, even a tiny bit, even if they're not about to admit it online.

I've mentioned before that I've taught private music lessons on the side in the past, and I had a number of students with learning disabilities--I gained a reputation as a worthwhile teacher for those students, and I found it an intriguing challenge to try to get through to them, where I had a lot of success in that, but it could take a very long time, an incredible amount of patience, and subtle creativity on my part re trying to figure out ways to "break through."