Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Marabod]

Marabod,

- and I said this statement was false. There is no need to swirl like an eel now - the words have been said already!

There is no intention to catch you anyhow, if you now agree with me that the quoted statement was false, you can simply confirm this.

Wow, you are ridiculous.... I stand by what I said, that we do have the power to effect the course of evolution. Which, really, is common sense. And if you can't handle that obvious truth, or at least debate against it in an intelligible way, then I am done discussing the matter with you. I'm tired of the endless little loops you seem so proud to be running in.

This reply tells more about you than you may like to be publicly advertised.

[Intuitiv3infid3l]

The only way to live seeing the truth is to think and percieve from the outside while you survive from within.... Or you can become a hobo and have next to no effect whatsoever on the currant situation...
You just have to put EVERYTHING into perspective. never take anything as fact until you have looked at it from every angle.

That is indeed the balance of life... but it is just too difficult to do. I know this because I have been living it for the past 2 years and it has caused me to be emotionally imbalance, miserable, etc...

I do think from the outside and have several reasonable conclusions on various issues, however, these have no effect on the inside. This is because due to survival, I am not able to even to talk to people inside about conclusions/theories I formed by thinking on the 'outside.' The things I AM able to take from 'outside' to inside, the normal people do not have the mental capacity to understand, and even if they do and agree with me, they just ignore it because it is of no value to them to the inside. Therefore the only way to change the inside would be to gain power, or sacrifice yourself and be part of the change that will not come into effect in your life time. That is why the only way I try to infiltrate the 'inside' is through the internet. But sometimes I figure I should go all out and sacrifice myself because my 'inside' life is frustrating already. That is, once you are enlightened, you can never pretend. The sheer stupidity of people on the 'inside' is enough to drive me to drink; this is made worse by the fact that for survival isolating myself is NOT an option. So my life: being forced at gunpoint to deal with retards who cannot or will not be cured. It doesn't stop there though... you might say 'who cares if they are retards.. let them be..' well I can't. Due to the fact that I need them for survival, I must deal with them daily, and I am still human, so I end up being frustrated, angry, etc... upon dealing with them and I see no solution. Therefore I believe it is completely moral for me to try to make life living hell for everybody to the best of my ability, and if this helps me deal with the frustration, it is my only option left.

[wanabe]

ChaoticMindSays,

Addressing the questions of the poll.:

Classifying things in a hierarchy is improper when speaking of awareness. Attention is simply in a different place. Awareness is of infinite depth, infinite vastness, and infinite in its forms. Thought therefore has no pinnacle.

Addressing the op.:

Emperical: Derived from or guided by experience or experiment... We put value to empirical evidence because it is the parts that make up empirical fact. Empirical fact can be demonstrated over and over again to be the case(assuming a lack of error) by anyone. We must remember however that value is subjective.

We believe what we see.

The eyes can be deceived.

We need scientific proof

I would say some of us need it to believe something; in some cases.

I don't believe that millions of people believe in something for thousands of years for no reason.

Beliefs need not be reasonable.

I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power.

Surly there are flaws, but we need not throw away everything because of flaws(just a reminder) imagine throwing away your computer for example because a finger print was on it.

[ChaoticMindSays]

Intuitiv3infid3l said,

That is indeed the balance of life... but it is just too difficult to do. I know this because I have been living it for the past 2 years and it has caused me to be emotionally imbalance, miserable, etc...

I do think from the outside and have several reasonable conclusions on various issues, however, these have no effect on the inside. This is because due to survival, I am not able to even to talk to people inside about conclusions/theories I formed by thinking on the 'outside.' The things I AM able to take from 'outside' to inside, the normal people do not have the mental capacity to understand, and even if they do and agree with me, they just ignore it because it is of no value to them to the inside. Therefore the only way to change the inside would be to gain power, or sacrifice yourself and be part of the change that will not come into effect in your life time. That is why the only way I try to infiltrate the 'inside' is through the internet. But sometimes I figure I should go all out and sacrifice myself because my 'inside' life is frustrating already. That is, once you are enlightened, you can never pretend. The sheer stupidity of people on the 'inside' is enough to drive me to drink; this is made worse by the fact that for survival isolating myself is NOT an option. So my life: being forced at gunpoint to deal with retards who cannot or will not be cured. It doesn't stop there though... you might say 'who cares if they are retards.. let them be..' well I can't. Due to the fact that I need them for survival, I must deal with them daily, and I am still human, so I end up being frustrated, angry, etc... upon dealing with them and I see no solution. Therefore I believe it is completely moral for me to try to make life living hell for everybody to the best of my ability, and if this helps me deal with the frustration, it is my only option left.

I have also been attempting to live this model for the last couple years... And I have also had some... Problems with my emotional stability. Doesn't help that I am bi-polar though.

‎"Culture is the mental environment to which we must adapt if we are to survive, and in our adaptation and survival we automatically sustain culture." - Joseph Pearce

It's a self defeating system. (on our parts) I have pretty much decided that my life is to be dedicated to attempting to dismantle this 'box', as I put it. If that means I must sacrifice myself... Well, if I cannot fulfill my purpose in life perhaps I can set up the situation for it to be fulfilled in death. I plan on making a lot of noise before I die, and the more people who tell me to be quite the louder I'm going to get.
I have this thing, this trait about me... I don't like it when people tell me I can't do something. It infuriates me when people condescend to me, drives me into a fervor and 90% of the time I can't be stopped until I prove them wrong. I've learned to use this... Trait of mine and it has helped me over come many extremely challenging situations.

I know how it feels... To see all these things and understand all these concepts that most people just cannot, or are slow in their ability to, grasp. I have been experiencing that for most of my life. Since I was a little kid I've been thinking of these things... I was a philosopher by the time I was 8... they though I was schizophrenic when I was 5 and I was diagnosed bi-polar when I was 3.
I try to look at the situation with a... Comic sense. Sure, we must depend on other peoples competence for our own survival, sure we have to assimilate to culture and accept many cultural ideals to properly function on the 'inside.' But we always know, we know life is bigger, and that makes us bigger.

I'm going to change something in this world, even if it kills me doing it.

I suggest you read the book, Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, If you have not already. The author in Robert Pirsig. The book pertains to this discussion in many ways... This entire feed actually.

wanabe,

Classifying things in a hierarchy is improper when speaking of awareness. Attention is simply in a different place. Awareness is of infinite depth, infinite vastness, and infinite in its forms. Thought therefore has no pinnacle.

Hmm... So you agree that their are and always will be higher plains of awareness? Or do you believe my poll questions to be flawed?

I would say some of us need it to believe something; in some cases.

I certainly agree that what I said only applies to 'some' of us. I do not include myself in the group of people who need scientific proof for every little thing, I was simply making a general statement about humanity.

Beliefs need not be reasonable.

Correct, and I am not claiming they are. All I am claiming is that, reasonably, there is far to much ______ to disqualify the idea of a God because of lack of empirical evidence. Just as there are far to many people who have experienced, or claimed to, certain things(cryptoids, ghosts, miracles, PK, ect.) To discount the idea because of lack of empirical evidence. We, as humans, are flawed. So everything we create is flawed. Logic is our creation, so therefor logic is flawed.

Surly there are flaws, but we need not throw away everything because of flaws(just a reminder) imagine throwing away your computer for example because a finger print was on it.

I am not trying to 'throw away everything'. What I am attempting to do is to put things back in their proper place. Logic and the empirical method are, of course, important but they are not the almighty concepts that they are so very often portrayed to be. They are just as opened ended, and therefor susceptible to reform, as everything else is. Many don't consider them to be, and that is the problem. To function properly over a long period of time they have to be able to adapt to new discoveries. But instead we attempt to assimilate all new discoveries to them.

[Persecrates]

@Rajaroux:

Please note that the use of the word 'you' is here rhetorical, it doesn't necessarilly means you as an individual, but people in general.

It is a way too miserable life to believe that logically derived knowledge is the pinnacle of human evolution.

There is nothing miserable in learning, understanding.
And you can only do that from experience (empirical method) and reasoning (logical thinking).

What is miserable is to live one live believing... Whatever...
Doing so, you're sure to miss the true beauty of nature, not the one you believe it has.

It's like loving the image of a person (what you believe and desire her/him to be) instead of loving (or not) the actual person for what she/he truly is.
Tell, me what is more beautiful?
Truth/knowledge or illusion? That's the real question everyone has to answer for themselves.

Of course people are full of it, but does this fact change simply by bellieving the opposite or closing your eyes on what they truly are (us included)?

Can you really change yourself and the 'world', if you don't first acknowledge that there is definitively something wrong with the world we living? If you don't identify the true causes/reasons for people to be like they are (and, therefore, the society we're living in)?

Do you sincerely expect than to pour more beliefs and desires in our mind will improve ourselves and the world??

'Knowledge' of Newton's laws of Thermodynamics, for example, can very effectively predict the path of a bullet. These laws become inadequate to describe or predict the chaotic movement of air around the bullet and the resultant physical damage to it on impact.

So, because we're not there yet, we have to give up and resort to illusions and delusions?
Never. If you want to give up, that's your choice... But don't claim that knowledge, logic and science are useless.
Chaos, contrary to randomness, is simply the acknowledgement that the (initial) conditions are very complex (to identify and understand), not that there are no cause. What seems to us chaotic to us today, won't be in the future.
If scientists keep on looking for the true causes of phenomenon, instead of throwing statistics and probabilities around to avoid a difficult and hard work of identification (of the correlations/causes of phenomenon), they WILL find them.

Don't get me wrong, I think that probabilities (and statistics) are very helpful... If we consider them for what they are: an attempt to fill a conjonctural lack of knowledge, NOT a structural incapacity to reach knowledge because of a claimed nature of Reality (a-causal).

Reality is very much causal but if we are convinced by scientific ideology (QM is the best exemple of this ideology) that it is not, we won't even bother trying to look for these causes!
That's the true problem of physics for about a century now.

And in a-causality, illusions, preposterous ideas and chaos rule... Think long and hard to whom profit the crime...

These laws then have nothing to say about effect on the life of a person it hits.

Who said that physics' purpose is to solve every problems?
Moral/ethical/psychological problems can be solved through the use of logic and scientific method... And ONLY through them.
Thousands years have passed since Christ, Buddha... have offered Love as a remedy for all Mankind's problems.
We have a 2000 years trial with billions of people involved... Did it work? (What is love anyway?)

We don't need more believers! We need more rational people that can understand (through logic and psychology/psychoanalysis) that any human being deserve the same respect (... Till they don't deserve it anymore because of their own choice, behavior). Not to simply believe it!
The life of our family is of no higher value, than the life of a perfect stranger.
Also, and for example, psychoanalysis is needed to understand how can someone take pleasure in the suffering of others (sadism), to truly understand it's because of their own fear and beliefs... It's also needed to understand why we have these beliefs/desires instead of trying to justify them without expressing any other reason than "I like it", "It satisfies me"...

Once you'll know the real reasons for your desires/beliefs you'll feel first disgusted and/or stupid and then maybe, just maybe, you'll realize that not only you don't need them but they are damaging/curbing for you.

You see here that a formula to describe and categorise phenomena is just a formula.

What about simple words, logically and meaningfully expressed words for the purpose to make you understand and, therefore, to alleviate your pain? Would they do the trick? Could they make people understand? I think so.

Real life in the ever-changing present can only be seen or experienced without the glasses of logic, or any other glasses for that matter, including belief.

Same question than to ChaoticMind: What is there other than logic/knowledge or belief/illusion?

That is not to say that logic isn't essential for knowledge. We can even use logic to demonstrate that everything changes. But there is no logic that can underpin the absolute knowing of everything, since everything that knowledge describes is subject to change. Even our most previously treasured constants, like the speed of light, we now know is subject to changes with relative conditions.
As soon as we reference knowledge, we undermine direct experience.

The method doesn't have to change. Even if it does so what? We would have improved it. Good for Mankind.
Knowledge will improve too. So what?
I think you have a very selfish approach here. Is it because we'll never know 'everything' (because of our short lifespan) that we have to give up the future generations of little Rajaroux and Rajarouxies?
Even if you understand/discover only one thing new in your entire life and share it with only one individual it's always a life you would have changed.

So we, the human race, could theoretically have a vast logically derived knowledge base that superficially describes almost everything, subject to continuous change. This knowledge could be stored on computers for our reference but will still undermine our personal experience in the present.

How can knowledge undermine anything?? Beside illusion I mean. Is it healthy and even sane to rather choose a world of illusion than Reality? Isn't it also the best way for you to be manipulated/controlled/imprisoned in the illusion of freedom and wonder?

Wonder is, there's no need to create or believing it. Just acknowlegde the beauty of 'Reality' (not Mankind, but everything else).

So for a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind to mask their present experience with borrowed stories of gods, born of fear of death and the unknown, only shows their stage of evolution, not any indication of any truth.

I agree. And it's not a very evolved stage, is it?

Some have since evolved to shed light on the unknown with logically, scientifically formulated knowledge. But the present reality remains masked as long as we think those formulas, categories and names are indistinguishable from the things they describe.

I agree but there is no other way to interact with, understand/appreciate the beauty of the universe.
Again, you can fall in love with reality, you don't need illusion. Granted, for people we seem most of the time better of not knowing who they truly are, what are they real thoughts... But if we don't stop burrying our heads in the sand, we will never change and therefore will always have to choose to be blind to what we really are in order to stand each other...

We need to face the truth at some point... And stop avoiding/fleeing it... We are full of S***, we are scared little petty sadistic, pervert, narcissistic/egotistic creatures. The longer we'll deny that (through belief and illusions), the longer we'll stay the same...

No knowledge can describe the endless detail of it's appearance.

Poetry is the illusion of beauty. Poetry is to describe an illusion using imaginery concepts in a agreable manner. It's a childish attempt to express desires that are stupid in the first place. That's not what makes life beautiful... LIFE IS BEATIFUL, we don't need to make it so, to try to enhance it with BS.
It's like taking a Michael Angelo painting and put some (actual) s*** (feces) on it truly believing it renders it more. More beautiful, more expressing... More whatever... In fact we just put some s*** on a beautiful painting... Period.

I used a lot 'beautiful' and 'beauty'...

The problem is that everyone believes that the s*** that has just been added is not ****, but 'something' with improving and aesthetic properties...

Knowledge then is not the goal

It's one necessary first goal/step whitjout which no (intellectual but also psychological) improvement is possible.
There is nothing more enjoyable (beside sex) than to understand, 'figure out' something for the first time. To catch a glimpse of all the doors it opens to us.
Knowledge is a constant renewal of this satisfaction, a pleasure without end (at least in our lifetime, for sure)... Since knowledge is a set immensely large.

Unstead of thinking of it as discouraging, one could see it as a constant challenge, a neverending, never boring story... I guess it depends if you see the glass half empty or half full...

To go as far as to empirically identify the Higgs Boson, the God particle, or to prove a unified theory is not the end that will make us all happy and right.

As the man said: "It's no about the destination, it's about the journey."
Still, along your trip you can find unexpectedly interesting and enjoyable places.

@ChaoticMind:

You have stated your beliefs again and again, if you are refusing to recognize this fact then you really are as blinded as I claim.

Still can't make the difference between a logically demonstrated hypothesis and a belief. Not surprising since you can't make the difference between a phenomenon, a concept and a theory...

There have been laboratory expirements done proving PK.

I guess we don't speak of the same thing. I was specifically refering to Telekinesis.

Abiathar said,

The idea of conscious thought being able to manipulate, potentially even change, the thoughts of others and the world around us, has nearly been scientifically proven, studied, prodded, and poked and no holes have as of yet to be found.

Abhiatar put it in a better way. "It might be possible because some studies seem to indicate it."
That's an example between a belief and a hypothesis.
You (desire to) believe it's absolutely true. I think it's possible.

What do you mean by tangible?

By tangible I mean real. We have real purposes, or we do if we believe it to be so.

What is the difference between a real/tangible purpose and a purpose? Is it your belief it exists that makes it real/tangible??

Well your obviously pompous enough to believe in your own grandiosity. If you 'proved' something than you 'believe' in the thing you supposedly 'proved'. You keep contradicting yourself, 'and you don't even realize'.

See, I don't have to believe (before hand) in a hypothesis to prove it.
I test it logically and once I'm convinced the arguments and/or demonstration are valid and sound I present it (in a more or less structured form).
I may test other hypotheses before to present the one I give.
But maybe your misinterpretation is due to the fact I present only one. So you think I believed in it.
Anyway, most of the time I present arguments, hypotheses that are not proven, simply evidenced. Again, there are open to debate.
That's the (big) difference compared to a belief (besides the justifiction that induces a belief, not a real objective 'investigation' then, a biased one), a belief is desired to be held even against (in spite of) proof of the contrary.

The problem with beliefs is that they appear through a pleasant idea (an idea that satisfies a desire), NOT through reasoning.
So, the reason for a belief to exist is ONLY to satisfy a desire. Only AFTER comes the attempt of JUSTIFICATION to try to comfort our desire. Beliefs have nothing to do with 'Reality'. Reality is only used when it seems to comply with the desire/belief and dismissed/denied when it doesn't. Reality is not a fact or something to be understood but merely a tool for the satisfaction of a desire.
That's how twisted the mind of people is.
And that's why a belief has no cognitive significance/value/level at all, only a psychological one.

Also, you're saying that the fact that they believe something is proof that this something exists.

As I said before, I never said that. Neither of the quotes you listed prove that i said that, they only prove that you have a severe misunderstanding of what I am trying to say. So much for your logic, for you seem to be able to understand mine.

I said:

I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power.

So, our logic and empirical method are necessarily flawed since they don't confirm/prove the beliefs of people??
Do you read yourself?
You can't think the contrary? That they can be wrong??
Oh, no I forget, it's impossible since they are so numerous to believe so for so long...

You clearly have a cognitive problem...

Yes I do believe that there is some sort of higher power, but NO I do not believe that because so many people have believed in a God for so long that that proves a Gods existence. All I am claiming in this statement is that because so many people have believed for so long that there may be something besides what logic is showing us. And I even use logic to show that, as I said, Billions of people don't believe in something for hundreds of generations for no reason, despite what your logic may show.

Here you go again, you're doing it again!

Please can someone else explain him?..

So, what you're using is a (some in fact like circular thinking, stolen concept, ad numerum...) fallacy to prove me fallaciously that you are illogical.

I told you there are reasons for people to believe in a higher power for ages... But they are not the one you desire it to be. They are psychological ones!

Now do you see how logic itself is a fallacy?

No, not really no.
The only think you proved is that a fallacy is indeed a fallacy... All that without realizing it....

you are obviously contradicting yourself at every turn and not comprehending what I am saying.

Please indulge me, where do I contradict myself?
If you could comprehend what you are saying, it would be a first step.

They don't have to be, they are... The quicker you realize and ACCEPT that, the better off you'll be.

You just keep believing that. I don't care what you believe, your only hurting yourself.

Again, it's not a belief but an empirical truth.
Please, prove me that another 'method'/system/way (to access knowledge) is more effectitive than logic and empirical validation, or even exists... Then you'll be able to laugh at me... For now, you're the one ridiculous...

Oh, I forgot:

I don't have an answer

Ok, at least, if you don't have an alternative, prove me that logic method and empirical validation are useless, or even that it's possible than another method exists... Other than saying: "it exists" of course.

See, I'm accommodating.

Professor Groff- "After years of conceptual struggle and confusion, I have concluded that the data from LSD research indicate an urgent need for drastic revision of the existing paradigms for psychology, psychiatry, medicine, and possibly even science itself."

Was he using?
No, seriously, I don't know what to think of it.

There is another story of a man with a deadly form of throat cancer. 5% chance of surviving, he was given a new kind of medicine which was supposed to be a real breakthrough and his tumors melted over night. Months later they found out that the medicine didn't actually work and the cancer immediately came back. The doctor, again, gave him the same medicine, saying that it did in fact work and that this was a extremely potent batch. He immediately recovered from the cancer again. Later they did more tests and confirmed, without a doubt, that the medicine didn't actually work. At hearing this the man almost immediately got cancer AGAIN and died a few days later.

There is noti=hing illogical nor supernatural here.
Our brain has control over all our body, the day that control becomes conscious, we could even be shape-shifters for all I know.
For, me this is totally logical and proven.
There is no miracle here, simply mind/brain capacity/potential.

Not to mention THE PROVEN fact of stigmata. It REALLY happens. My mother has met a stigmatist. People who have recovered from illnesses and injuries miraculously, such as people regenerating bone- "A 1962 x ray showing the degree to which Vittorio Michelli's hip bone had disintegrated as a result of his malignant sarcoma." The pictures are from a book so I can't post them, "After a series of baths in a spring a lourdes, Michelli experienced a miraculous healing. His hip bone completely regenerated over a course of several months..."They have X-Ray photos and a doctor testimony. How is that NOT empirical evidence? Seriously... You have to be blind to not notice all the things controlled by our will power, placebo effect, documented mirales (like stigmata and such), among many, many other things.

Same here, It's logical to think that if we can heal ourselves we can inflict these injuries and even disease.
I hypothesize (I don't think that I'm alone on this) that cancer is mostly psychosomatic and self-inflicted.
Again, no higher power here... And it's even more amazing!

People are soweak that they have to invoke a God to explain the things they can do. They prefer to allot their 'power' to an external entity than to accept their responsabilities. No, they feel better as victims or choosen ones... The puppets of their own life...

The fact is that there is lots of evidence supporting lots of different things that the mainstream scientific society won't allow to be accepted. People are scared of speaking of their true beliefs and discoveries because by doing so they risk their reputations, and therefor, their careers.
The current paradigm is basically concealing tons of information from the general public because information of this type would call for a complete reform of everything science has "proven" to be "absolute".

This I agree with.

[ChaoticMindSays]

Persecrates,
I believe we have had a series of mis-communications...

Quote:
That is not to say that logic isn't essential for knowledge. We can even use logic to demonstrate that everything changes. But there is no logic that can underpin the absolute knowing of everything, since everything that knowledge describes is subject to change. Even our most previously treasured constants, like the speed of light, we now know is subject to changes with relative conditions.
As soon as we reference knowledge, we undermine direct experience.

The method doesn't have to change. Even if it does so what? We would have improved it. Good for Mankind.

As Rajaroux said... Everything is subject to change, including logic. The only point I am trying to prove here is that logic is not the constant that many people believe it to be. The idea of logic being a constant renders it as fallacious because, logically, logic can not be perfect and unchanging.

Abhiatar put it in a better way. "It might be possible because some studies seem to indicate it."
That's an example between a belief and a hypothesis.
You (desire to) believe it's absolutely true. I think it's possible.

Here is our mis-communication. 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. 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. 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. No, I have not collected the information to prove these things as scientific fact. And I am not trying to push my beliefs onto you. 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.

a belief is desired to be held even against (in spite of) proof of the contrary.

I hold no such 'beliefs' as these.... As I said, i have very good reasons to believe in what I do. And none of my beliefs have been dis-proven here or anywhere else, that I am aware of.

The problem with beliefs is that they appear through a pleasant idea (an idea that satisfies a desire), NOT through reasoning

I most definitly used reasoning to come to my beliefs. Not all of the things I believe are... 'Pleasant'. Some of them are actually quite horrible.

Reality is only used when it seems to comply with the desire/belief and dismissed/denied when it doesn't.

I function on the opposite of this...

Quote:
I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power.


So, our logic and empirical method are necessarily flawed since they don't confirm/prove the beliefs of people??
Do you read yourself?
You can't think the contrary? That they can be wrong??
Oh, no I forget, it's impossible since they are so numerous to believe so for so long...

Hmm... I am going to try very hard to make what I am trying to say clear to you. Because, despite what you think, I am not using the fallacy that you believe me to be. First of all, this original comment should be changed. Forgive me, I tend to like to make a splash so that I can gather peoples reactions and get feeds off on a jump start.

Change "than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about some kind of higher power"
To, "than, say, that there is not something more in what we are initially perceiving of the concept of a God."

I stand behind this statement, if not the prior, and offer another explanation.
I don't believe that because billions of people have believed in an almighty, omniscient God that one exists, I, actually, don't even believe in such a God and think the idea to be ridiculous.
BUT, I do think that peoples beliefs are important and not entirely unfounded. I believe that the creation of so many 'Gods' in the history of mankind was our collective sub-conscious attempting, poorly, to represent something that may be real. Of course, it does not exist in the sense that any mainstream religion would propose it as existing, it is something far more... subtle. I base these beliefs, not on unfounded 'desires' but on actual experiences I have had.
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.

I hope that I have made myself more clear... I am really getting tired of this... Mis-understanding.


I said,

Now do you see how logic itself is a fallacy?

I do not believe logic itself to be a fallacy, just that the current general standard of logic to be a fallacy. If you do not abide by this logic than the logic you use is not fallacious.

Again, it's not a belief but an empirical truth.

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. For now, in our current paradigm, you are correct. it is, as well as we know it to be, an 'empirical truth'.

And, btw, I never claimed that there was a better system, only that there is one waiting out there to be discovered, or created.

There are a few paradigm shifts in the making that propose better systems, one is the metaphysics of quality, or MOQ.

http://www.moq.org/

I have read both of Pirsig's books and, in my opinion, his three part system is superior to the current two part objective/subjective system we use today. I have also had personal experiences with support this belief. Such as the very same "waves of crystallization" that Pirsig speaks of in ZMM.

Ok, at least, if you don't have an alternative, prove me that logic method and empirical validation are useless, or even that it's possible than another method exists...

I never claimed they were useless, just that there is very likely a better system.
What I am proposing is basically a more.. balanced system. 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.

Was he using?
No, seriously, I don't know what to think of it.

I believe he was required to use as part of his psychological studies. I do know that his experience with LSD is what started his studies.

There is noti=hing illogical nor supernatural here.
Our brain has control over all our body, the day that control becomes conscious, we could even be shape-shifters for all I know.
For, me this is totally logical and proven.
There is no miracle here, simply mind/brain capacity/potential.

This is what made me realize that we were having a mis-communication. I am simply trying to extend the fact that we have more control over our own physical bodies than most people realize to the world out side of our physical bodies. Or, in other words, PK. I agree that there is nothing supernatural about it.

I hypothesize (I don't think that I'm alone on this) that cancer is mostly psychosomatic and self-inflicted.

I agree completely, as do many other people. I am not giving the credit of the miracles I spoke of to a higher power. I am giving the credit to the power of our own subconscious minds... This is why i think that beliefs are important, and do have an effect on reality. These miracles, some that have been witnessed by thousands of people, are hypothesized by some to have been created by the people who were witnessing them. A sort of mass PK experience, they manifested their beliefs through a state of unified religious fervor.

I said,

The fact is that there is lots of evidence supporting lots of different things that the mainstream scientific society won't allow to be accepted. People are scared of speaking of their true beliefs and discoveries because by doing so they risk their reputations, and therefor, their careers.
The current paradigm is basically concealing tons of information from the general public because information of this type would call for a complete reform of everything science has "proven" to be "absolute".

This I agree with.

This is all I am really trying to argue in this feed... That there may be other, superior, systems other than the ones that we believe to be "proven and "absolute". I am simply including logic into these things that are considered to be "Proven and "absolute".

[Wowbagger]

I voted for the fourth option - being the only person doing that.. My reasoning is summarized in this thread: http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... php?t=4262

I'm wondering what the psychological motivations as to why people seem drawn to mystery stuff.

[Belinda]

Wowbagger, perhaps people are drawn to mystery stuff because we all need to make meanings. Mystery stuff of the interconnectedness sort makes me feel that, as a human being about to die and therefore to become meaningless as an entity, I will still be connected to the grand What Is The Case.

Similarly people who believe in the beneficent Providence of God their Creator can have faith that they will never die, never cease to be.

[Intuitiv3infid3l]

Intuitiv3infid3l said,

That is indeed the balance of life... but it is just too difficult to do. I know this because I have been living it for the past 2 years and it has caused me to be emotionally imbalance, miserable, etc...

I do think from the outside and have several reasonable conclusions on various issues, however, these have no effect on the inside. This is because due to survival, I am not able to even to talk to people inside about conclusions/theories I formed by thinking on the 'outside.' The things I AM able to take from 'outside' to inside, the normal people do not have the mental capacity to understand, and even if they do and agree with me, they just ignore it because it is of no value to them to the inside. Therefore the only way to change the inside would be to gain power, or sacrifice yourself and be part of the change that will not come into effect in your life time. That is why the only way I try to infiltrate the 'inside' is through the internet. But sometimes I figure I should go all out and sacrifice myself because my 'inside' life is frustrating already. That is, once you are enlightened, you can never pretend. The sheer stupidity of people on the 'inside' is enough to drive me to drink; this is made worse by the fact that for survival isolating myself is NOT an option. So my life: being forced at gunpoint to deal with retards who cannot or will not be cured. It doesn't stop there though... you might say 'who cares if they are retards.. let them be..' well I can't. Due to the fact that I need them for survival, I must deal with them daily, and I am still human, so I end up being frustrated, angry, etc... upon dealing with them and I see no solution. Therefore I believe it is completely moral for me to try to make life living hell for everybody to the best of my ability, and if this helps me deal with the frustration, it is my only option left.

I have also been attempting to live this model for the last couple years... And I have also had some... Problems with my emotional stability. Doesn't help that I am bi-polar though.

‎"Culture is the mental environment to which we must adapt if we are to survive, and in our adaptation and survival we automatically sustain culture." - Joseph Pearce

It's a self defeating system. (on our parts) I have pretty much decided that my life is to be dedicated to attempting to dismantle this 'box', as I put it. If that means I must sacrifice myself... Well, if I cannot fulfill my purpose in life perhaps I can set up the situation for it to be fulfilled in death. I plan on making a lot of noise before I die, and the more people who tell me to be quite the louder I'm going to get.
I have this thing, this trait about me... I don't like it when people tell me I can't do something. It infuriates me when people condescend to me, drives me into a fervor and 90% of the time I can't be stopped until I prove them wrong. I've learned to use this... Trait of mine and it has helped me over come many extremely challenging situations.

I know how it feels... To see all these things and understand all these concepts that most people just cannot, or are slow in their ability to, grasp. I have been experiencing that for most of my life. Since I was a little kid I've been thinking of these things... I was a philosopher by the time I was 8... they though I was schizophrenic when I was 5 and I was diagnosed bi-polar when I was 3.
I try to look at the situation with a... Comic sense. Sure, we must depend on other peoples competence for our own survival, sure we have to assimilate to culture and accept many cultural ideals to properly function on the 'inside.' But we always know, we know life is bigger, and that makes us bigger.

I'm going to change something in this world, even if it kills me doing it.

I suggest you read the book, Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, If you have not already. The author in Robert Pirsig. The book pertains to this discussion in many ways... This entire feed actually.

wanabe,

Classifying things in a hierarchy is improper when speaking of awareness. Attention is simply in a different place. Awareness is of infinite depth, infinite vastness, and infinite in its forms. Thought therefore has no pinnacle.

Hmm... So you agree that their are and always will be higher plains of awareness? Or do you believe my poll questions to be flawed?

I would say some of us need it to believe something; in some cases.

I certainly agree that what I said only applies to 'some' of us. I do not include myself in the group of people who need scientific proof for every little thing, I was simply making a general statement about humanity.

Beliefs need not be reasonable.

Correct, and I am not claiming they are. All I am claiming is that, reasonably, there is far to much ______ to disqualify the idea of a God because of lack of empirical evidence. Just as there are far to many people who have experienced, or claimed to, certain things(cryptoids, ghosts, miracles, PK, ect.) To discount the idea because of lack of empirical evidence. We, as humans, are flawed. So everything we create is flawed. Logic is our creation, so therefor logic is flawed.

Surly there are flaws, but we need not throw away everything because of flaws(just a reminder) imagine throwing away your computer for example because a finger print was on it.

I am not trying to 'throw away everything'. What I am attempting to do is to put things back in their proper place. Logic and the empirical method are, of course, important but they are not the almighty concepts that they are so very often portrayed to be. They are just as opened ended, and therefor susceptible to reform, as everything else is. Many don't consider them to be, and that is the problem. To function properly over a long period of time they have to be able to adapt to new discoveries. But instead we attempt to assimilate all new discoveries to them.

Glad to know there are at least some people like me. Well I know there are but they are so rare that you rarely stumble across one... so glad to find one.

I blew up recently and told some people about some of this... as I expected they just laughed at me and called me 'bitter.' I said OF COURSE I am bitter when I am so isolated.. FFS the ironic part is that each one of these individuals get angry at each other for the slightest thing and stop talking to each other for periods of time then they make up again... like babies. Yet they have the nerve to call me bitter in a condescending way. Why is society so stupid? You don't call a bitter person bitter... there is a REASON they are bitter... and the STUPID society is that reason. Therefore don't just call them bitter... learn from them so you can stop your illogical stupidity which caused that person to be bitter in the first place.

[ChaoticMindSays]

Glad to know there are at least some people like me. Well I know there are but they are so rare that you rarely stumble across one... so glad to find one.

I blew up recently and told some people about some of this... as I expected they just laughed at me and called me 'bitter.' I said OF COURSE I am bitter when I am so isolated.. FFS the ironic part is that each one of these individuals get angry at each other for the slightest thing and stop talking to each other for periods of time then they make up again... like babies. Yet they have the nerve to call me bitter in a condescending way. Why is society so stupid? You don't call a bitter person bitter... there is a REASON they are bitter... and the STUPID society is that reason. Therefore don't just call them bitter... learn from them so you can stop your illogical stupidity which caused that person to be bitter in the first place.

Hmmm... Most of the people I have found who can think along the same lines as us are rather.... Unintelligible. Don't get me wrong, they are intelligent but they lack any type of mental structure or discipline. So the way they communicate their ideas is rather... Jumbled, and most of the energy put into the discussion goes to untangling all the things they are saying. There used to be people like that on this forum, but they have all recently disappeared.

We are all subject to enculturation, and therefor, are created, or in some cases, co-created by it. Most people don't see what is happening and have no resistance against the process. Some few can see it and allow for two feeds of information, one which is direct from culture and the other which is culture ran through the conscious filter which puts everything into perspective. Then some fewer break off from culture entirely... It's a sad process, you can either assimilate, pretend or fall off the face of the earth.

[Persecrates]

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.

a belief is desired to be held even against (in spite of) proof of the contrary.

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.

The problem with beliefs is that they appear through a pleasant idea (an idea that satisfies a desire), NOT through reasoning

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.

Reality is only used when it seems to comply with the desire/belief and dismissed/denied when it doesn't.

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.

[Marabod]

Persi, bizarre it be, but I often agree with what you are saying "in theory", my major disagreements with you start when you are recommending some practical solution...

You see, I am a pragmatic by approach, and certainly a full Vulgar Materialist, I adhere to Dialectical Materialism only for work purposes (helps to extract the INCOME). I take the world as it is, not as it "must be", and in my practice prefer to go with the flow. I am very logical (because I am one of those who studied Formal Logic when a child, despite it was already prohibited - cudos to my parents and their survived textbooks). Therefore it is probably cheaper to brainwash a population of some small rural state than to brainwash me. My motto is "show me the money".

It is a FACT, which we are facing - that there is no more Logic taught in our world. So, I accept this fact, and act on its premise. Say, I always ask the promoters, what do they really want - to give the money to ME, or to make me to give the money to THEM? None so far returned...

Yes, it would be nice if everyone was logical by education! But this is NOT something what we can have - so why bother bathing in the dreams? All you can practically do is to make your own children to know Formal Logic, this would certainly increase their chance for surviving, at least they would not invest in some Madoff. Because you are unable to change anything on a bigger scale than the narrow circle of people close to yourself. Our life is solely in our own hands, but only if we exercise all available means to control it - otherwise it becomes a toy in someone else's hands, and if this happens, the best is just to relax and go with the flow (I always do this when an ambulance carries me away from the place of an accident, let them do whatever they want, its not under my control anymore). Its like Russian women like to say - "if you cannot resist a rapist, then relax and try to draw some pleasures".

[ChaoticMindSays]

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?

I understand... but you don't seem to.

The only real disagreement we are having is that of 'beliefs'. I stand by my statement that beliefs are important. Your statements don't 'prove' anything other than yourspecific definition of the word belief.

And it’s not a semantics problem.

It's more of one than you may think.

IMO, there are no such things as justified (based on some sort of proof or evidence) belief

"IMO" Exactly. Semantics.

But a belief has no direct nor causal link to Reality

Hmm...I disagree. There is empirical evidence showing otherwise.

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.

This is completely, in every way, untrue. It goes against the very nature of what I believe. If there is sufficient evidence for something that is contrary to my belief I will not retain said belief. That is illogical and, as I have said, I am not an illogical person. The fact is that this is mainly a semantics problem. You hold a different idea of 'belief' than I do.

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.)

This is something I practice regularly.

'real'/meaningful outside of Logic.

No balance can be obtained between emotions/desires/fears/beliefs and logic.

As I have already stated, I am not attempting to discredit logic itself, just the current idea that mainstream science holds as logic, which is, as you said, flawed. I have no problem when logic is used as it should be, just when it is viewed as... More important than it is.
Even if you don't follow along with the mainstream trend the above quotes prove that you have a limited understanding of both logic and what is meaningful outside of logic. Not everything that is 'meaningful' lies within the constraints of a logical system.

I believe that these ^ may actually be more semantic problems... You see logic/reason as something "wired into our brains", and I see it as something we created. It's a tool, and there will always be an opportunity to make a better tool.

Hmm.. consider this. The fact that you put so much faith in your belief of logic has hampered your ability to, "ALWAYS doubt, always try to find counter-arguments to yours". Because you cannot see anything outside of the argument of logic... You say you have no beliefs, but your definition of beliefs seems to be seriously misconstrued. I don't believe anything to ever be proven, including the systems we use to prove things. And therefor, by your definition of belief, we have to believe in those systems which we use to 'prove' our 'facts'.

In all actuality I am no less logical than you, no less misguided or deluded. From my POV it actually seems that I am more logical. Because for me logic is a tool... For you it is a master.

[Eveready]

Persecrates seems to be the one at odds here, Chaotic you are not to my knowledge being or behaving illogically and the logic Persecrates is using reads as linear by that I mean their one dimensional opinion. I have a science thread of differing approaches to science which speaks about the linear logic that shows it makes less sense than allowing all avenues to logic.

here

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... php?t=4282

[Persecrates]

You see, I am a pragmatic by approach, and certainly a full Vulgar Materialist, I adhere to Dialectical Materialism only for work purposes (helps to extract the INCOME). I take the world as it is, not as it "must be"

Reality may be as it is, but people can and will change. Our society will also change. So the world you refer to is in a 'constant state of change'.
I don't pretend to know the world as it is (too many things are hidden from us) nor as it must be (Does the world must be some way?). But I can try to show one or several aspects of what it could be.

I am very logical (because I am one of those who studied Formal Logic when a child, despite it was already prohibited - cudos to my parents and their survived textbooks).

I was not that lucky. I'm still in the process of doing it all by myself.

It is a FACT, which we are facing - that there is no more Logic taught in our world.

Agreed.

So, I accept this fact, and act on its premise. Say, I always ask the promoters, what do they really want - to give the money to ME, or to make me to give the money to THEM? None so far returned...

Here I can't follow you. That's just a problem between me and the mirror/Reality. I can't lie to myself. I condamn the very concepts of money/power. I live my life simply and it's enough for me. But if I could make a real difference I would.

Manipulation is necessary but to a point. I can't manipulate myself. Like I can't be manipulated... for long. I make my own choices and assume the consequences. The problems arise when my choices are misinterpreted and/or convey through lies by others... It happens.
Still I don't blame people. As the man said: "Forgive them, they don't know what they do."

That's also, and paradoxically, the reason why I am Misanthropist and don't like people that much.
I won't share tears when our civilization falls, and millions die (millions already die per year anyway... and not from natural causes). They should have seen it coming. We will see that 'fall' in our lifetime, you know...

Yes, it would be nice if everyone was logical by education! But this is NOT something what we can have - so why bother bathing in the dreams?

I understand. But I assure you I don't dream while being awake.
I owe myself to accept the truth. I try to use Logic as much as I can. I also owe myself to share this basic truth (not all truths I know of course): Logic is the only way. Because if I can understand and do it, if you also can do so, then others can.

So, maybe this idea will not be disseminated by the 'establishment' through institutionalized organisations, but we can do our part at our level/micro scale (like here, on these kinds of forum) to convey the message.
Then, people can make a conscious choice.

Because you are unable to change anything on a bigger scale than the narrow circle of people close to yourself.

We can do a bit more, as I suggest, without sinking into megalomania. Are you that desillusioned?
Myself, I don't do it for the people, nor because I think it's right. I do it selfishly, because I would think my life to be totally useless, meaningless if I didn't share even this, again, basic truth.

the best is just to relax and go with the flow (I always do this when an ambulance carries me away from the place of an accident, let them do whatever they want, its not under my control anymore). Its like Russian women like to say - "if you cannot resist a rapist, then relax and try to draw some pleasures".

I really do have a problem with the very idea of submission. Every choice I make or don't make must be somehow justified not only accepted.