Philosophy Discussion Forums

Jester Gren wrote: A chain is not necessarily a bad thing, it is what keeps us on this Earth, able to understand each other's arguments, we must understand that a chain is useful if only connected to something.

I think that "chains" is too perjorative of a word to use, so I'd like to rescind that. In a more positive light, truths are like the plot in a story, and each person is writing a story; the story is empowered and driven by these "truths"; they offer motivation and characterization.

I also think there's a lot of confusion about what I mean by "truth", even though I explained it in an earlier post (I think in this thread). I'm not talking about lying to oneself or others; I'm talking about "truths" in the sense of believing in things that are beyond one's experience as being true, such as larger models that "explain" one's experence.

The difference between me and some others isn't that I can tell myself that my car is a toaster; that would be lying. I can, however, choose to hold the provisional opinion that my car is infused with a friendly, protective spirit that looks out for me. I don't know that to be true, just as I don't know the converse to be true; but I can apply that provisional opinion if I wish because it motivates me in certain ways just as the "truths" of others motivates them.

I can use this "provisional opinon" (since James considers my use of the term "belief" misleading, since I don't hold such views as necessarily true) to motivate me to keep the car clean and well serviced (like a pet). I find such a storyline more interesting to be involved in; others may disagree.

However, if any of my "provisional opinions" are directly contraindicated by direct experience, then I dismiss the opinion and generate another in line with actual experience. All of my provisional opinions must never contradict my actual experience.

However, the fine point is in discerning the difference between what one is actually experiencing, and a whole host of subtle, deeply-woven, taken-for-granted beliefs about what one is experiencing. The truths I'm talking about write their own story; the actors and events are driven to inexorable conclusions based on the truths involved.

I'd rather be able to write my own story - invent my own motivations and plotline. Yes, it makes the story less inetensely experienced to a large degree, but that suits my nature. I enjoy holding the provisional opinion that my car contains an extradimensional spirit that is dedicated to my protection. It makes washing and vacuuming my car a very fun and amusing experience.

Abacab wrote:Meleagar said the truth has only imprisoned him. He must learn not to say YOU when he means HE, its bad grammer.

You are taking my actual statements out of context to make it appear as if I advocate lying - to others, or oneself. What I have actually said is:

Meleagar wrote:Systems and models of truth, IMO, shut down or prevent free will. The truth doesn't set you free, IMO, it chains you to it as long as you believe it to be true.

"The truth" refers to systems and models believed in as true that attempt to explain what one experiences. A lot of people believe that fundamentlist, radical Islam is true; they believe it so much they're willing to blow themselves up and kill bystanders. Does that believed-in Truth liberate? How about racist beliefs that many hold as truths? How about sexist, homophobic truths, and political truths?

These believed in truths are most often not correlations to experience, but are rather models that lie entirely outside of ones experience. These "truths", IMO, do not set anyone free at all; they direct and confine behavior towards the ends that these beliefs dictate.

In order to escape these systemic truths and the ends they drive one to, one must be willing to dislodge the belief that they are true. That's all I have done; I've dislodged the notion that any such system or models are "true"; thus, I am not directed toward their necessary consequences. I hold all such perspectives provisionally and only as long as they benefit my experience and do not contradict anything I actually experience.

Meleager; "I bought something on sale and it was really a poor product. People should never, ever buy anything on sale."

..it is the same difference as;

Meleager; "Someone once believed a 'truth' that was really stupid. No one should ever believe a truth."

James S Saint wrote:Meleager; "I bought something on sale and it was really a poor product. People should never, ever buy anything on sale."

..it is the same difference as;

Meleager; "Someone once believed a 'truth' that was really stupid. No one should ever believe a truth."

I don't advocate that others shouldn't believe in their truths, or that truths are "poor products", or that believing in them is stupid. On the contrary, I think that these truths produce some of the most beautiful, inspiring, amazing, tragic, and wonderful stories in existence.

"If you are seeking my anaolgy on QM mysticism then why not just say so? If what a person thinks and really believes as true is all that is required to solve their situation or to make their thoughts a reality [as Meleagar asserts] why is it that millions are starving? Why is it only the good die young? it raises more questions than it answers do you see the analogy? If we all follow Meleagars QM theory, in which we create our reality, we are condoning suffering as something created by the sufferer and not mans neglect. Where a materialist would act on it and help the sufferer the theorist like Meleagar would say man caused his own suffering and created it so let him stew in it. See where this leads ..to chaos is where it leads. Any man believing he is a god or is instructed by his god is a path leading to chaos, and lacks reason"

While I see your point, that only reassures me that the current system we live under is not working that well either.

Jester Gren wrote:"If you are seeking my anaolgy on QM mysticism then why not just say so? If what a person thinks and really believes as true is all that is required to solve their situation or to make their thoughts a reality [as Meleagar asserts] why is it that millions are starving? Why is it only the good die young? it raises more questions than it answers do you see the analogy? If we all follow Meleagars QM theory, in which we create our reality, we are condoning suffering as something created by the sufferer and not mans neglect. Where a materialist would act on it and help the sufferer the theorist like Meleagar would say man caused his own suffering and created it so let him stew in it. See where this leads ..to chaos is where it leads. Any man believing he is a god or is instructed by his god is a path leading to chaos, and lacks reason"

Or, you could just stop attempting to explain my perspective for me and let me do it, considering you're entirely mischaracterizing my view here.

There is absolutely zero in my philosophy that says everyone who suffers creates their own suffering; I've never said it, and I've never implied it. I have stated several times that I do not believe everyone has free will. If you do not have free will, you can hardly be creating your own suffering, now can you?

Also, let me ask you something: how many of those suffering, starving millions have you personally experienced?

This is one of the differences between a truth that correlates to actual experience, and a belief that one holds as true but is about something they do not actually experience, which I diligently guard against in my philosophy.

Meleagar wrote: Or, you could just stop attempting to explain my perspective for me and let me do it, considering you're entirely mischaracterizing my view here.

There is absolutely zero in my philosophy that says everyone who suffers creates their own suffering; I've never said it, and I've never implied it. I have stated several times that I do not believe everyone has free will. If you do not have free will, you can hardly be creating your own suffering, now can you?

Since QM really has nothing to do with what you are talking about, exactly what is your perspective?

Meleagar wrote:Also, let me ask you something: how many of those suffering, starving millions have you personally experienced?

I have and their mental state, indirectly, has been a part of my business (as yours would have been).

Meleagar wrote:This is one of the differences between a truth that correlates to actual experience, and a belief that one holds as true but is about something they do not actually experience, which I diligently guard against in my philosophy.

But do you really?

State in plain English what your "perspective" really is without references to what you believe other people have said.

State in plain English what your "perspective" really is without references to what you believe other people have said.

James, Meleagar cannot do this without use of English or some other language that he is fluent in. Any fluent language speaker has been taught the language within a language community, and cannot experience language use by his own Free Will.

You know this James but Meleagar does not.

Meleagar, can you tell whether someone is a Free Will person like yourself, or alternatively a deterministic robot? If so how do you know?

If you can tell the difference, how do you know that you yourself are a Free Will person, or are as you are because of the circumstances both personal and universal that have been your life's ambience since you were conceived in your mother's womb?
Meleagar wrote

The difference between me and some others isn't that I can tell myself that my car is a toaster; that would be lying. I can, however, choose to hold the provisional opinion that my car is infused with a friendly, protective spirit that looks out for me. I don't know that to be true, just as I don't know the converse to be true; but I can apply that provisional opinion if I wish because it motivates me in certain ways just as the "truths" of others motivates them.

Certainly you can and if it works for you you should. It seems to me to be good to say thanks to your car for getting you safely home.It is true that humility about the dangers of the road makes you a safer driver. Anyone with imagination can work out a car-thanking ritual without at the same time believeing in Free Will. To thank one's car is deterministic since the ritual is a partial cause of your being a better road user than those others who because of something or other cannot imagine such a ritual.

BTW, Meleagar, you claim in this thread that you cannot experience another's feelings. I dont get the feeling that you are autistic, so I wonder what if any has been your experience of the arts which mediate vicarious experiences of others' feelings.

Belinda wrote: James, Meleagar cannot do this without use of English or some other language that he is fluent in. Any fluent language speaker has been taught the language within a language community, and cannot experience language use by his own Free Will.

Untrue. I actually invented my own language in order to express concepts in my philosophy which are - to varying degrees - inapprorpriately communicated in English. For example, James disagrees with my use of "belief" when I am talking about models I have adopted to act by as if true, but in which I have no invested belief as actually true. I invented the word "velas" for this concept.

One of the things I learned on my journey to more accurately correspond my description to my experience is that virtually all words are perjorative in the sense that they in and of themselves modify description to approximate a material, objective reality view of the world, and they game other progressions of thought as well. These words also set up objectivist and materialist semantic paradoxes and necessary connections that are difficult to overcome unless one just invents new words for these concepts which are not provided for in the language - which I did.

You know this James but Meleagar does not.

And you would know what I know and don't know ... how? How about speaking for yourself and not for me?

Meleagar, can you tell whether someone is a Free Will person like yourself, or alternatively a deterministic robot? If so how do you know?

As I've already answered at least twice in these forums, I only know what I directly experience; I don't directly experience the conscious state of other intelligent beings.

It is my velas that a good way to discern between the former and the latter is to ask them a simple question; do you believe what you must, or do you believe what you wish? Outside of that, when you see people being forced to do things they do not enjoy by the truth-models they hold, even when all experience is contradicting the validity of their model (by their own admission), then they're likely automatons.

how do you know that you yourself are a Free Will person

I know I have free will because I experience it.

Anyone with imagination can work out a car-thanking ritual without at the same time believeing in Free Will.

You miss the point; the point is that the car-spirit model represents a "provisional belief" system, and is how I hold all of my views. I believe as I wish, not as I must. If you can say the same thing about your views on everything (and mean it), then I would consider you a free will entity whethre or not you claim to believe in free will.

BTW, Meleagar, you claim in this thread that you cannot experience another's feelings. I dont get the feeling that you are autistic, so I wonder what if any has been your experience of the arts which mediate vicarious experiences of others' feelings.

A vicarious or empathetic feeling is my feeling, not theirs. To experience what they are experiencing, I'd have to be them.

Meleagar wrote:I believe as I wish, not as I must.

I think that one line sums it up.

And as I pointed out earlier, insanity and irrationality are far more free than sanity and rationality. But then, so is falling from an artificial building.

"The truth will set you free" came from the idea that the truth sets you free from oppressive governments, not free from reality. Believing as you wish enslaves you to governments. That is why it is promoted and encouraged as a "good" thing.

Meleagar wrote

You are taking my actual statements out of context

Have the good manners to quote where I took any statements you said out of context. I have quoted you verbatim and responded in context.


Meleagar wrote

it appear as if I advocate lying

Yes it does appear as if you advocate lying "To act as if true"

how many of those suffering, starving millions have you personally experienced?

Unfortunately far too many.



Meleagar asserts he doesn`t believe in what he must, but only in what he wishesto believe, yet he thinks nothing of preaching that we must follow a moral law that is objective but MUST be *transcendent*!!
Not even defining what transcendent means by his use of altering the english language to his quirks of methodology.

Moral Law Must Be Objective & Transcendent

Meleagar wrote:
I believe as I wish, not as I must.

The same as I and many others believe in what we wish, for the most part truth enters such wishes or in the very least getting to the truth.

Abacab wrote:
Have the good manners to quote where I took any statements you said out of context.

I did.

I have ... responded in context.

You did not.

Yes it does appear as if you advocate lying

Not from my words. I didn't advocate lying. As I have said, my "provisional beliefs" never contradict actual, experiential knowledge.

If I do not know if something is true or false, but act as if it is true until it is demonstrated untrue, then that is not lying or advocating lying. It might be acting on faith or provisionally, but it is hardly lying.

In order to lie I'd have to know something is false and claim it is true, or not know it is true and claim that I know it to be true. I do not ever claim to know that such things are true; I do not ever claim such things to be true, even to myself. I am only acting as if they are true, which doesn't including telling others that it is true, nor does it include telling myself they are true; it is only an act, like an actor getting "into character" and proceeding from the assumed motivation. It is only a lie if I assert that the motivation represents an actual truth, or if I assert that I am not "acting".

Unfortunately far too many.

Then that is where our experience is markedly different. I've never experienced a single starving human. I see no reason to act as if they exist when I have no experience of them.

Meleagar asserts he doesn`t believe in what he must, but only in what he wishesto believe, yet he thinks nothing of preaching that we must follow a moral law that is objective but MUST be *transcendent*!!

I have never claimed anyone should (much less "must") follow any moral law. I have only argued that in order for meaningful morals to exist, they have to be objective and transcendent. You're confusing elements of an argument with beliefs. I never said I believed in objective or transcendent morals.

Not even defining what transcendent means by his use of altering the english language to his quirks of methodology.

I have used a standard definition of transcendent. From dictionary.com:

1.going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding. 2.superior or supreme.

and the definition of transcend:

1.to rise above or go beyond; overpass; exceed: to transcend the limits of thought; kindness transcends courtesy. 2.to outdo or exceed in excellence, elevation, extent, degree, etc.; surpass; excel.

My use of transcendent to mean above and beyond all relative and subjective cultural or individual interpretations is validated by these definitions, whereas any reference to "God" is only the third definition offered.

Meleagar wrote:I am only acting as if they are true, which doesn't including telling others that it is true, nor does it include telling myself they are true; it is only an act, like an actor getting "into character" and proceeding from the assumed motivation.

Meleagar wrote:I believe what I wish, not what I must.

So which is it?

If you are not lying to yourself, but merely acting, then you are not actually believing, just pretending to believe (deceiving).

be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.
1. To accept as true or real
2. To credit with veracity
3. To expect or suppose; think:

A person cannot choose what he believes. He can only encourage a belief, pretend to believe, or actually believe.

James,

I've already noted your disagreement with my use of the term "belief". If you wish, you can subsitute "provisional opinion" or my invented term, "velas" for "belief". I wish you would stop arguing the semantics - it's irrelevant to the point.

IOW, for you, since you insist on narrow interpretation of the word "belief", you can read my free-will discovery question as "Do you hold provsional opinions as you wish, or as you must?" or "Do you velaso (the verb version of what I mean by "belief" in my invented philosophical language) as you wish, or as you must?"

Automatons cannot hold and act consistenly from any provisional opinion (velas) they wish; their opinions which they act upon are manufactured by their truth-program. All perspectives, beliefs, and provisional opinions are manufactured by the truth-program in automatons; only those with free will can hold any "provisional opinion" they wish.

Meleagar wrote:James,

I've already noted your disagreement with my use of the term "belief". If you wish, you can subsitute "provisional opinion" or my invented term, "velas" for "belief".

IOW, for you, since you insist on narrow interpretation of the word "belief", you can read my free-will discovery question as "Do you hold provsional opinions as you wish, or as you must?" or "Do you velaso (the verb version of "belief" in my invented philosophical language) as you wish, or as you must?"

In English, "provisional opinion" means a current opinion that is contingent on further investigation. It does not constitute a belief, but a temporary acceptance awaiting judgment. Otherwise known as ontological faith.

As to your question. A person never holds an opinion by conscious choice even though they very often pretend or express the "provisional opinion" as a true belief. If they do not express that it is only provisional, they are lying simply because they are presenting themselves as something they are not.

There is a means to intentionally cause oneself to believe something and thus be more free of direct belief causation, but you do not know that means.

#154 Jester Glen its good practice to say or show who you are quoting, in this case me, as you can read, Meleagar in post #155 thinks he is quoting your comment, and not mine.

Regarding #154 [in bold]

Abacab wrote "If you are seeking my anaolgy on QM mysticism then why not just say so? If what a person thinks and really believes as true is all that is required to solve their situation or to make their thoughts a reality [as Meleagar asserts] why is it that millions are starving? Why is it only the good die young? it raises more questions than it answers do you see the analogy? If we all follow Meleagars QM theory, in which we create our reality, we are condoning suffering as something created by the sufferer and not mans neglect. Where a materialist would act on it and help the sufferer the theorist like Meleagar would say man caused his own suffering and created it so let him stew in it. See where this leads ..to chaos is where it leads. Any man believing he is a god or is instructed by his god is a path leading to chaos, and lacks reason"

Jester Glen replied

While I see your point, that only reassures me that the current system we live under is not working that well either.

Meleagar said to James S Saint

I've already noted your disagreement with my use of the term "belief". If you wish, you can subsitute "provisional opinion" or my invented term, "velas" for "belief". I wish you would stop arguing the semantics - it's irrelevant to the point.

Words are not just semantics when using this genre called written communication its the difference between life and death for some people. As for use of the term belief do you really think you can conduct a written debate with others if your written terms don`t match the English language? I could term poppycock the new word for science so everytime I said poppycock is a method to find the truth of things many using the english language would laugh out loud and more annoyingly be misled by me. You can`t just change words to change your premises. If you assert that we MUST use morality as transcendent objectivity who is the transcender, who decides? If you term QM as something dictated by your and out observational thoughts, you need to show why and how you think it works that way, not by unprovable anecdotes but by hard scientific evidence. Not only do you need to show us all reading this thread how it works in practice, you need to show how powerful it is in terms of people and life? Does it make others do your bidding and the universe do your bidding? However I think you can only offer anecdotes, as QM science says no such thing. As for assessment in my quote above to Jester Glen, he asked me for my analogy, so you can`t complain I am quoting you out of context, I am giving my analogy on what you have asserted on this thread.