Belief vs Knowledge - The Force

More
09 May 2019 00:38 #338243 by Eleven
Just reading these last few. I kinda am feeling comfort in simply saying in general, "I don't know" and "Does it matter?" There is that freedom of not being tied down to a religious dogma that if you don't believe exactly like this your going to tell or I hate you kinda thing going on.

Not saying anyone's beliefs here or opinions d ont matter but, I get joy out of listening to others opinions and feelings and how they came to that conclusion if that makes sense? I always kind of take something out of it or at least try to
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 May 2019 02:51 #338247 by LTK
Replied by LTK on topic Belief vs Knowledge - The Force
I know I like certain foods. I know I liked having hair in my 20s. ;)

Master: Jestor
τελευταία ευκαιρία
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Uzima Moto

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 May 2019 12:52 #338254 by ZealotX

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: Love, for example. Can you see it? Is there any spectrum of which love emits anything that science can read? If your answer is yes then you've completely thwarted my reasoning so congratulations;


Thanks! ;) :P

www.livescience.com/33720-13-scientifica...oven-signs-love.html


Did you read all of this?

When you're in love, you begin to think your beloved is unique. The belief is coupled with an inability to feel romantic passion for anyone else.

Fisher and her colleagues believe this single-mindedness results from elevated levels of central dopamine — a chemical involved in attention and focus — in your brain.

"Functional MRI studies show that primitive neural systems underlying drive, reward recognition and euphoria are active in almost everyone when they look at the face of their beloved and think loving thoughts. This puts romantic love in the company of survival systems, like those that make us hungry or thirsty," Brown told Live Science in 2011. "I think of romantic love as part of the human reproductive strategy. It helps us form pair-bonds, which help us survive. We were built to experience the magic of love and to be driven toward another."


Do you disagree that these "thoughts and feelings" trigger chemical reactions and not the other way around?

This is an example how the intangible can become tangible.

Or are you suggesting that people love Jesus because of dopamine in their brains telling them to?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Uzima Moto

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 May 2019 13:15 #338255 by ZealotX

Neaj Pa Bol wrote: I find it interesting that the word Theory is used quite a bit....

the·o·ry

noun

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion; opinion, view, belief, thinking, thought(s), judgment, contention
"I reckon that confirms my theory"
principles, ideas, concepts;
principled explanations;
laws;
philosophy, ideology, system of ideas, science
"the theory of quantum physics"
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

Yet the words:
faith

noun

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; optimism, hopefulness, hope, expectation
"he completely justified his boss's faith in him"
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"

Or

be·lief

noun
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence, freedom from doubt; optimism, hopefulness, hope
"I have no real belief in the power of reason"

Yet Faith and Belief gets torn apart but find in interesting the definitions of Theory, Belief and Faith have so much in common...


Yes! That's what I was getting at. Of course, those who don't want to see it get overly attached to the whole scientific theory vs theory debate as if it's relevant here. It's not.

The bottom line is that "belief" is used commonly in science as a prediction of what will happen. That is a belief. If religious Christians believe Jesus will return that is a "prediction" based on what they consider to be evidence. I'm not going to debate that evidence. That's not my point. My point is that there is a place for belief just as there is a place for the logical processing of ideas which produces beliefs ("predictions"). Some people, I feel, want to discount certain terms because of other contexts in which those terms are also used. But those contexts, whether religious or scientific, do not get to own words that already existed and which they use to convey different meanings. If you don't like what certain people do who own vans that doesn't make vans bad. But that's not how we get to truth. Ignoring things because we don't like who else uses it is the same type of partisanship that religious people do by calling non-religious people "sinners" and "worldly". People pretend that they are not a part of the whole because they reject certain ideas but those ideas are human ideas shared by humanity as a species. You don't get to decide what is human and what is not. We are both our strengths and our weaknesses; our faults and successes. That's why the key is finding balance.

Every belief is not good nor is every belief bad. Some beliefs are good in the right person's hand (like a gun) while terrible in others. You cannot predict which hands are the right ones without knowing the person. And so we judge people when we should not judge and that "unrighteous judgment" simply reflects back on us as showing us to be guilty of the same kind of intolerance we see as so bad and so problematic when other groups do it. Everybody wants to be on a side and in the end both sides share blame for fighting. We can exchange ideas but when we start trying to change people on the other side to our way of thinking we become the enemy; always thinking "the other guy" needs help. Arrogance.

Perhaps "the other guy" is getting more out of something fictional (ex: star wars) than you are getting out of your preferred fiction (insert religion here) or maybe the opposite is true. And if someone wakes up tomorrow thinking they're a Jedi and they go out with a mission to save the world then it doesn't matter if it is a dream or delusion. And if someone else wakes up tomorrow having lost all faith and stops caring about the world then what does it matter how scientifically correct they might be? We're all going to die one day. What matters is how you live. I'd rather be the delusional guy trying to save the world than the guy who watches it burn from the sidelines. I've been both believer and non. What matters is your perspective. But if your perspective drives you to discount the perspective of others then how are you any different from those on the other side who also claim to have the truth? You're all going to die anyway. How will you live? And if you're miserable why try to convert others to misery?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Uzima Moto

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 May 2019 15:30 #338269 by LTK
Replied by LTK on topic Belief vs Knowledge - The Force
"Science is not reliable because it provides certainty. It is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present. And it is reliability we need, not certainty. The most credible answers are the ones given by science, because science is the search for the most credible answers available, not for answers pretending to certainty" Carlo Rovelli

Master: Jestor
τελευταία ευκαιρία
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gisteron, Uzima Moto

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 May 2019 16:10 - 09 May 2019 16:19 #338270 by Kyrin Wyldstar

ZealotX wrote:
Do you disagree that these "thoughts and feelings" trigger chemical reactions and not the other way around?

This is an example how the intangible can become tangible.

Or are you suggesting that people love Jesus because of dopamine in their brains telling them to?


Yes I disagree that thoughts feelings trigger chemical reactions. In fact your comments never state that is the process either. It is the chemical reactions that trigger the thoughts and feelings actually. Do you have a thought that you are thirsty and then your body realizes it needs water? No, your body realizes it is dehydrated and signals your brain that you need water and that creates the thought that you are thirsty. Same with love. The pheromones and subtle behaviour triggers physical chemical reactions in the body and that generated thoughts of attraction and lust and love. This is actually the tangible becoming intangible in each case. Peoples physical need to be connected to others, to belong to a group as a survival technique is what created the love for Jesus. totally different thing but same concept.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
Last edit: 09 May 2019 16:19 by Kyrin Wyldstar.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Uzima Moto

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 May 2019 16:23 #338271 by Kyrin Wyldstar

ZealotX wrote:
Yes! That's what I was getting at. Of course, those who don't want to see it get overly attached to the whole scientific theory vs theory debate as if it's relevant here. It's not.

The bottom line is that "belief" is used commonly in science as a prediction of what will happen.



You completely ignored every comment here about scientific theory except this one. This is a level of confirmation bias that cant be argued against... :pinch:

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 May 2019 17:13 #338273 by ZealotX

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote:
Do you disagree that these "thoughts and feelings" trigger chemical reactions and not the other way around?

This is an example how the intangible can become tangible.

Or are you suggesting that people love Jesus because of dopamine in their brains telling them to?


Yes I disagree that thoughts feelings trigger chemical reactions. In fact your comments never state that is the process either. It is the chemical reactions that trigger the thoughts and feelings actually. Do you have a thought that you are thirsty and then your body realized it needs water? No, your body realized it is dehydrated and signals your brain that you need water and that creates the thought that you are thirsty. Same with with love. The pheromones and subtle behaviour triggers physical chemical reactions in the body and that generated thoughts of attraction and lust and love. This is actually the tangible becoming intangible in each case. Peoples physical need to be connected to others, to belong to a group as a survival technique is what created the love for Jesus. totally different thing but same concept.


In my opinion that's backwards and therefore impossible. I already mentioned the placebo effect as evidence. But consider it this way. The chemicals in your body do not have any outside input. So a chemical reaction without external or internal stimuli would be like a computer typing words on the screen by itself. This simply does not happen. What happens is that you press a key. An electrical signal fires from the keyboard, through the computer's "nervous system", gets processed, and the reaction is to display the corresponding character. Not to be crass, but a good example is sexual arousal. You see something sexual. A thought is generated (consciously or subconsciously) and then you have a "physical reaction" to the stimuli. Chemical reactions can be automated but there is almost always a trigger or input... an "action" for the "reaction". In the case of thirst, you're talking about neuroscience ( www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321089.php ) which lags behind actual hydration (absorption). So when you drink enough to quench said thirst it may take 10-15 minutes to actually "register". So it's not the absoption or the endocrine system that makes you feel thirsty but rather the nervous system.

You are familiar with the term psychosomatic, yes?
experiencelife.com/article/emotional-biochemistry/

The placebo effect would not exist if you were correct. Moreover, this would be terrible for sexuality because that suggests that any time your chemicals decided (anthropormorphically guiding themselves a la 'miticloriates') you would be sexually turned on. The fact that you need stimuli means the nervous system is what controls (or at least starts) this process. You don't fall in love because all of this dopamine is released. You fall in love because of how you feel about that person and your body simply reacts to those thoughts. Otherwise, it would have no idea when to trigger any thoughts because it cannot "See" without your eyes and your nervous system! So particularly because these reactions aren't random, and therefore humans getting turned on by turtles may be a thing for only a few people on the planet (I don't even know if that exists. I'm just accepting the freakish possibility), but is not a thing that happens to most of us. Most of us need a human that typically fits into a certain set of criteria before we're turned on. I know personally using Tindr I've never swiped left so hard in my life!

The pheromones and subtle behaviour triggers physical chemical reactions in the body and that generated thoughts of attraction and lust and love.


Even in the animal kingdom, mating is not always quite as simple as suffering from a tantrum of chemical reactions. Animals will compete with each other, display their strength and dominance, and "entice" a female to mate with them. Look at the peacock. These behaviors help to generate thoughts of attraction. Now where some confusion might be is the concept of "heat". A female, because of her reproductive cycle, may be more primed at different times to engage in sex. However, if you think by walking up behind them at the "right time" that they're going to be turned on you might be disappointed. And we all spend much of our lives under the physical... influence of our reproductive cycles. However, we're not a species of horny slaves. Yes, we may think about sex a lot because of that input. But then our bodies react to those thoughts. So on one hand there are autonomous inputs (or more of a "clockwork") influencing the mind but at the same time every chemical reaction isn't autonomous.

Imagine if the adrenal gland simply pumped out adrenaline whenever it felt like it. If the reaction has "situational awareness" then one should conclude that it must be predicated on thought or stress as a trigger. If you can get adrenaline pumping by simply watching a horror movie then this is a case of mind over matter as well as direct evidence of thoughts and feelings triggering chemical reactions. www.healthline.com/health/adrenaline-rush Not to mention there are many other things that you can do to influence or "stimulate" the release of other chemicals via the nervous system.

So no, I wouldn't equate "I'm horny" to "I'm in love".
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Uzima Moto

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 May 2019 17:18 #338274 by ZealotX

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote:
Yes! That's what I was getting at. Of course, those who don't want to see it get overly attached to the whole scientific theory vs theory debate as if it's relevant here. It's not.

The bottom line is that "belief" is used commonly in science as a prediction of what will happen.



You completely ignored every comment here about scientific theory except this one. This is a level of confirmation bias that cant be argued against... :pinch:


because when I was clearly talking about scientific theory I said "scientific theory". I actually do not think anyone is confused about the differences. Someone simply got confused and I apologized for using both variations so closely together thereby enabling that confusion. That doesn't mean we need to talk about it as that is not what the conversation is about. This might actually be an example of other people displaying confirmation bias and not recognizing that I wasn't confusing the two types of theory.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 May 2019 23:22 #338296 by Adder
Belief works best as a dynamic context, not a static context, or an internal context. Knowledge would seem to be that which represents static context. Belief then can then be used where it does not conflict with knowledge, and even become knowledge. Knowledge itself is only relatively static, so that also gets updated and improved. Same with internal context ie self identity, we use what works best. The interaction of all three allows one to have a sensation of freedom from hard determinism.... probably by virtue of the way we're wired. So engineering improvements and advantages in all those three domains of processing can bring benefits over and above what might occur from limiting them, IMO.

Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Uzima Moto

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: KobosBrick