Belief, faith, doubt

[Chriliman]

To be honest, I don't use philosophy or the intellect to guide me when it comes to religion/spirituality; it's useful for clarity afterward but that's pretty much the extent of my interest in it.

I tried to point out some blind spots in your philosophical approach, but I think I've pretty much mentioned what I originally wanted in this thread, so I'm going to move on.

Thanks for your input. Hopefully we can all recognize the blind spots in our reasoning and make corrections to be inline with what's true.

 

[Chriliman]

When you realize something true that you didn't know before, does it not effect you in any way?

That is the point I'm trying to make. Truth effects us, even though it's not a material thing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When you realize something true that you didn't know before, does it not effect you in any way?

That is the point I'm trying to make. Truth effects us, even though it's not a material thing.

Truth affects you. [/pedant]

You appear to frame your posts as if to address the point being discussed, or some familiar point of discussion, but they're expressed vaguely enough that when pressed, you can present them as some quite different point.

For example, you responded to Treasurehunter's post on dualism with what appeared to be your own point on dualism, but it turns out that you apparently had something quite different in mind; I find it hard to believe you can confuse the immaterial that gives rise to the interaction problem of dualism, with conceptual abstractions such as truth that may be non-material, but are qualitatively different and irrelevant to the original point.

Just sayin'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Generally what I get at this point. People claiming that I'm wrong without being able to show how my reasoning is wrong.

We have tried, but it gets old - life's too short. For example, huge chunks of at least two threads devoted to trying to get you to understand or accept that a claim, by itself, is not evidence (except evidence of itself, which is trivially and tautologically true of everything that exists).

As I said before, I do appreciate your objective input in regards to subconsciousness and consciousness.

You're welcome. Please try to remember the general ideas there, they're not my opinions, but the results of empirical studies.

 

[Chriliman]

Truth affects you. [/pedant]

Agreed.

You appear to frame your posts as if to address the point being discussed, or some familiar point of discussion, but they're expressed vaguely enough that when pressed, you can present them as some quite different point.

For example, you responded to Treasurehunter's post on dualism with what appeared to be your own point on dualism, but it turns out that you apparently had something quite different in mind; I find it hard to believe you can confuse the immaterial that gives rise to the interaction problem of dualism, with conceptual abstractions such as truth that may be non-material, but are qualitatively different and irrelevant to the original point.

Just sayin'.

In your own words, what is the interaction problem of dualism that arises from the immaterial?

 

[Chriliman]

We have tried, but it gets old - life's too short. For example, huge chunks of at least two threads devoted to trying to get you to understand or accept that a claim, by itself, is not evidence (except evidence of itself, which is trivially and tautologically true of everything that exists).

I know, I still don't get how in the same sentence someone can say a claim is not evidence and then literally right after that, albeit in parenthesis, say a claim is evidence of itself. What you don't seem to get is that whether you think a claim is evidence of itself or not has no bearing on the fact that claims are evidence of something.

I'll put it this way: Is a claim evidence or not? If a claim is evidence of itself, then a claim is evidence. If a claim is not evidence of itself, then a claim is not evidence. This is really basic logic! Please pick the right answer.

 

[devolved]

with conceptual abstractions such as truth that may be non-material, but are qualitatively different and irrelevant to the original point.

I think the semantics of the issue comes to play, mainly because there's no clear distinction of "natural mechanics" when it comes to these concepts like, truth, love, logic. Thus, these are cast into "non-material" category, while in reality these seem to be material processes that are being conceptualized.

Hence, I think that these things can be treated like "memetic entities"... of the below kind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore

I remember an Ivy League Urban legend about a fraternity registering a student, and collectively taking classes for him to demonstrate the impersonal nature of education at that level. The story goes that the student eventually got to win some scholastic award, and when the time came to accept it the entire group represented that student got up and went to the

Religious experience strikes me as very similar in so much that "God's work" seems to be done by people.

 

[devolved]

I'll put it this way: Is a claim evidence or not? If a claim is evidence of itself, then a claim is evidence. If a claim is not evidence of itself, then a claim is not evidence. This is really basic logic! Please pick the right answer.

It depends what you are trying to accomplish.

If you are trying to support the claim, then you will need evidence that's external to the claim itself.

If you merely saying something just to say it, then you can keep doing what you are doing, and refer to claim as evidence of that claim.

 

[Chriliman]

I think the semantics of the issue comes to play, mainly because there's no clear distinction of "natural mechanics" when it comes to these concepts like, truth, love, logic. Thus, these are cast into "non-material" category, while in reality these seem to be material processes that are being conceptualized.

Hence, I think that these things can be treated like "memetic entities"... of the below kind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore

I remember an Ivy League Urban legend about a fraternity registering a student, and collectively taking classes for him to demonstrate the impersonal nature of education at that level. The story goes that the student eventually got to win some scholastic award, and when the time came to accept it the entire group represented that student got up and went to the

Religious experience strikes me as very similar in so much that "God's work" seems to be done by people.

I just want to say that it appears that you're starting to get it

I do think truth, love, and logic are immaterial, but they have a real affect on the material world. How we interpret these affects and to what we attribute the source is debatable. Obviously, Christians, including myself, regard truth, love and logic to being one with God's nature and that He wants us to be one with Him as well through His son Jesus Christ.

 

[Chriliman]

It depends what you are trying to accomplish.

If you are trying to support the claim, then you will need evidence that's external to the claim itself.

If you merely saying something just to say it, then you can keep doing what you are doing, and refer to claim as evidence of that claim.

Great, so you agree that claims are evidence?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Generally what I get at this point. People claiming that I'm wrong without being able to show how my reasoning is wrong.

Experience with you tells me that you do get explanations why you're wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

Experience with you tells me that you do get explanations why you're wrong.

Your above claim is evidence that you think I'm wrong, but it does not prove that I'm wrong does it?

 

[devolved]

I do think truth, love, and logic are immaterial, but they have a real affect on the material world. How we interpret these affects and to what we attribute the source is debatable. Obviously, Christians, including myself, regard truth, love and logic to being one with God's nature and that He wants us to be one with Him as well through His son Jesus Christ.

No... it appears that you still don't get it.

These things don't effect the material world. These things are a result of material world - these are functions of material world. These don't exist somewhere independently.

 

[devolved]

Great, so you agree that claims are evidence?

Here's a basic diagram, so you you can understand what claim is and what it is not.

http://www.masoncoschools.com/userfiles/25/Classes/470/claims_reason_evidence.pdf?id=536396

In short, no, a claim alone can't be evidence of the content of that claim. Do you understand what a tautology is? Look it up.

 

[Chriliman]

No... it appears that you still don't get it.

These things don't effect the material world. These things are a result of material world - these are functions of material world. These don't exist somewhere independently.

You say "These don't exist somewhere independently" as if you're somehow certain about that. Yet, how could you possibly know for sure, unless you were all knowing, like God?

 

[bhsmte]

Here's a basic diagram, so you you can understand what claim is and what it is not.

http://www.masoncoschools.com/userfiles/25/Classes/470/claims_reason_evidence.pdf?id=536396

He has to believe claims are evidence, or his personal beliefs become threatened.

 

[Chriliman]

Here's a basic diagram, so you you can understand what claim is and what it is not.

http://www.masoncoschools.com/userfiles/25/Classes/470/claims_reason_evidence.pdf?id=536396

The diagram is just another claim meant to be evidence of something. Which is the point I'm already trying to convey.

 

[devolved]

You say "These don't exist somewhere independently" as if you're somehow certain about that. Yet, how could you possibly know for sure, unless you were all knowing, like God?

So, you think there's love and freedom on Mars where there is no people? These concepts only make sense in a physical reality of people. We made these words up to describe setting and a process. That's how I know that these don't exist independent from us. We made up these words to point to processes.

 

[devolved]

The diagram is just another claim meant to be evidence of something. Which is the point I'm already trying to convey.

It's not a claim, it's a verbal outline that describes semantic meaning of words that you are using.

You are welcome to re-define these however you like, but you are not going to be very successful when it comes to navigating through complex issues of reality.

In fact, I've already shown you that with a claim about 100$ in my pocket. You believed me on claim alone, and you have failed. I didn't even have pockets.

 

[Chriliman]

So, you think there's love and freedom on Mars where there is no people? These concepts only make sense in a physical reality of people. We made these words up to describe setting and a process. That's how I know that these don't exist independent from us. We made up these words to point to processes.

I agree that we have to make up words to describe phenomena, but this does not mean the phenomena cannot exist separate from our ability to understand and label the phenomena.