Belief vs Knowledge - The Force

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

I know I like certain foods. I know I liked having hair in my 20s.

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!

https://www.livescience.com/33720-13-scientifically-proven-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?

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?

"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

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.

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:

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 (https://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?
https://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. https://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".

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.

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.

ZealotX wrote: 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.

Of course they have outside input. Take fear for example. Your walking in the woods and you see a bear. Many physiological changes in the body occure first, accelerating breathing rate (hyperventilation), heart rate, vasoconstriction of the peripheral blood vessels leading to blushing and sanskadania of the central vessels (pooling), increasing muscle tension including the muscles attached to each hair follicle to contract and causing "goose bumps", (piloerection) (making a cold person warmer or a frightened animal look more impressive), sweating, increased blood glucose (hyperglycemia), increased serum calcium, increase in white blood cells called neutrophilic leukocytes, alertness leading to sleep disturbance and "butterflies in the stomach" (dyspepsia). These primitive mechanisms help an organism survive by either running away or fighting the danger. With the series of physiological changes, the consciousness realizes an emotion of fear. So the process is, external danger presents itself, the body reacts, the mind becomes aware of the reaction and realizes thoughts and emotions of fear.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: 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.

Of course they have outside in put. Take fear for example. Your walking in the woods and you see a bear. Many physiological changes in the body occure first, accelerating breathing rate (hyperventilation), heart rate, vasoconstriction of the peripheral blood vessels leading to blushing and sanskadania of the central vessels (pooling), increasing muscle tension including the muscles attached to each hair follicle to contract and causing "goose bumps", (piloerection) (making a cold person warmer or a frightened animal look more impressive), sweating, increased blood glucose (hyperglycemia), increased serum calcium, increase in white blood cells called neutrophilic leukocytes, alertness leading to sleep disturbance and "butterflies in the stomach" (dyspepsia). These primitive mechanisms help an organism survive by either running away or fighting the danger. With the series of physiological changes, the consciousness realizes an emotion of fear. So the process is, external danger presents itself, the body reacts, the mind becomes aware of the reaction and realizes thoughts and emotions of fear.

but... you just said "you see a bear". Therefore, you are thinking something as a result of having seen a bear. You don't have physiological changes just by being near the bear. You have to know it's there or have a reason to believe its there. Matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that if someone tells you there is a bear you'll have the same physiological reactions because the trigger is an idea caused by what you either see or simply "believe" to be true.

ZealotX wrote:
The placebo effect would not exist if you were correct.

Actually why cant both of them exist? The placebo effect, much like homeopathy, are ways to fool the brain into thinking something is happening that is really not happening. You will never cure disease with a placebo but you can relieve symptoms. When the mind is conditioned to this response, then upon taking a fake pill, the patient will relax their body, relieve anxiety and stress, stop worrying, things like this also cause a physical response in the body. Another form of external input that allows someone to help themselves to an extent. relieving tension in the muscles will reduce pain. Also the mind is powerful in convincing ourselves of effects that are not in evidence. Take faith healers for example, They have never fixed a single thing in anyone, never cured cancer or fixed a crooked back or raised the dead. However many people believe they have. Same thing as the placebo. Pavlov's dog is another example of this phenomenon. Ring a bell, (external stimuli) the dog salivates because it has been conditioned to expect food. However this does not work in everyone and so the effect can be relegated to just those susceptible to such events and not a truly valid evolutionary factor in how the body processes responses.

ZealotX wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: 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.

Of course they have outside in put. Take fear for example. Your walking in the woods and you see a bear. Many physiological changes in the body occure first, accelerating breathing rate (hyperventilation), heart rate, vasoconstriction of the peripheral blood vessels leading to blushing and sanskadania of the central vessels (pooling), increasing muscle tension including the muscles attached to each hair follicle to contract and causing "goose bumps", (piloerection) (making a cold person warmer or a frightened animal look more impressive), sweating, increased blood glucose (hyperglycemia), increased serum calcium, increase in white blood cells called neutrophilic leukocytes, alertness leading to sleep disturbance and "butterflies in the stomach" (dyspepsia). These primitive mechanisms help an organism survive by either running away or fighting the danger. With the series of physiological changes, the consciousness realizes an emotion of fear. So the process is, external danger presents itself, the body reacts, the mind becomes aware of the reaction and realizes thoughts and emotions of fear.

but... you just said "you see a bear". Therefore, you are thinking something as a result of having seen a bear. You don't have physiological changes just by being near the bear. You have to know it's there or have a reason to believe its there. Matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that if someone tells you there is a bear you'll have the same physiological reactions because the trigger is an idea caused by what you either see or simply "believe" to be true.

Yes, you see a bear, your body reacts, the emotion of fear is generated in the mind, and then the thoughts occure of "I gotta get outa here"! Then you run. Its event, body reaction, emotional response, thought, action.

You can cure or aid recovery with placebos. They ran medical tests on the effectiveness of prayer. They found the only thing prayer affects is the mind -- and the mind has great untapped power over our physiology.

ren wrote: ... the mind has great untapped power over our physiology.

No. The picture of fundamental principles that govern our world on resolutions remotely interesting to us is complete. All of the power that "the mind" (what ever that is supposed to be) can possibly have over our physiology (again, assuming that expression can actually mean something coherent in one way or another) is either well tapped and mapped or nowhere near "great".

Gisteron wrote:

ren wrote: ... the mind has great untapped power over our physiology.

No. The picture of fundamental principles that govern our world on resolutions remotely interesting to us is complete. All of the power that "the mind" (what ever that is supposed to be) can possibly have over our physiology (again, assuming that expression can actually mean something coherent in one way or another) is either well tapped and mapped or nowhere near "great".

This sounds like 3rd person omniscient to me. What scientific basis are you standing on to make this claim?

“We know very little about the brain. We know about connections, but we don’t know how information is processed," she said. Learning, for example, doesn’t just require good memory, but also depends on speed, creativity, attention, focus, and, most importantly, flexibility. Understanding exactly how the neural pathways function could lead to improved treatments for depression, genetic disease, and many other conditions, she explained.

Neuroscientist and Nobel Laureate Tom Südhof, MD, PhD, echoed those sentiments, telling the audience: “Medicine is a craft… It’s empirical, but we don’t know how to treat [problems] if we don’t understand the disease and the underlying biology."

Mapping the components of the brain is far more complex than mapping the human genome, Südhof said. He encouraged researchers tackling big challenges to "stick with it," and he reminded the audience of the incremental nature of scientific discovery: "There is never a single discovery that changes science… Science works as a process that extends over decades.”

https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2016/11/08/challenges-in-neuroscience-in-the-21st-century/

I agree with Ren. We really don't know what we don't know. I can say I know computers but that doesn't mean I know how CPU's actually work and everything they can do. There is a mass of potential that we're still writing new apps for every day.

It seems to me that belief is very powerful in what it can enable the brain to do. But this is hard to prove. It's like trying to prove a subconscious reflex. I've seen a lot of weird and crazy stuff on the internet that I didn't think humans could do. And sure, a lot of these examples are likely hoaxes. I'm not trying to make a case for levitation and the like. However, considering different things like the effect of stress on the body, placebos, hypnosis, etc. one should be open minded about the potential.

The biochemistry of our body stems from our awareness.[5] Belief-reinforced awareness becomes our biochemistry. Each and every tiny cell in our body is perfectly and absolutely aware of our thoughts, feelings and of course, our beliefs. There is a beautiful saying ‘Nobody grows old. When people stop growing, they become old’. If you believe you are fragile, the biochemistry of your body unquestionably obeys and manifests it. If you believe you are tough (irrespective of your weight and bone density!), your body undeniably mirrors it. When you believe you are depressed (more precisely, when you become consciously aware of your ‘Being depressed’), you stamp the raw data received through your sense organs, with a judgment – that is your personal view – and physically become the ‘interpretation’ as you internalize it. A classic example is ‘Psychosocial dwarfism’, wherein children who feel and believe that they are unloved, translate the perceived lack of love into depleted levels of growth hormone, in contrast to the strongly held view that growth hormone is released according to a preprogrammed schedule coded into the individual's genes!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802367/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/jacobs-staff/201504/what-we-choose-believe-the-power-belief

So the first link deals more with the biochemistry and the second the psychological impact. There are tons of self help books about positive thinking and habits of successful people. At this point I don't know what else could prove this point.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote:
The placebo effect would not exist if you were correct.

Actually why cant both of them exist? The placebo effect, much like homeopathy, are ways to fool the brain into thinking something is happening that is really not happening. You will never cure disease with a placebo but you can relieve symptoms. When the mind is conditioned to this response, then upon taking a fake pill, the patient will relax their body, relieve anxiety and stress, stop worrying, things like this also cause a physical response in the body. Another form of external input that allows someone to help themselves to an extent. relieving tension in the muscles will reduce pain. Also the mind is powerful in convincing ourselves of effects that are not in evidence. Take faith healers for example, They have never fixed a single thing in anyone, never cured cancer or fixed a crooked back or raised the dead. However many people believe they have. Same thing as the placebo. Pavlov's dog is another example of this phenomenon. Ring a bell, (external stimuli) the dog salivates because it has been conditioned to expect food. However this does not work in everyone and so the effect can be relegated to just those susceptible to such events and not a truly valid evolutionary factor in how the body processes responses.

So then you agree with me. Or at least you're willing to concede half way, that we are both correct and that there is a 2 way street between the endocrine system and the nervous system. That's good enough for me as far as the point I was actually trying to make.

ZealotX wrote:

Gisteron wrote: The picture of fundamental principles that govern our world on resolutions remotely interesting to us is complete. All of the power that "the mind" (what ever that is supposed to be) can possibly have over our physiology (again, assuming that expression can actually mean something coherent in one way or another) is either well tapped and mapped or nowhere near "great".

This sounds like 3rd person omniscient to me. What scientific basis are you standing on to make this claim?

The existence and unparalleled success of QFT and QCD in general and the standard model in particular. There are still margins of error but they are so far on the opposite of "great" as to warrant saying something very much like that on the scales relevant in our daily lives the fundamentals are indeed fully understood.
Every bit of my expression there is chosen with care, I should stress. I specified that I'm talking about fundamental principles, because I mean only those and not each and every ever so subtle consequence. I specified relevant resolutions, because there exist open mysteries we already know about that only matter on, say, intergalactic scales, and the riches of which will remain beyond our reach at least until the upcoming heat death of the universe. I'm not saying we know everything, far from it. A lot of work is still ahead of us, by all means, but the basics that matter in practice are something we have covered beyond any reasonable need for worry.
There is no ghost pulling levers, or idling until we let it. The mind (depending on how we define it) is either not actually separable from the body that produces it in which case it makes little sense to speak of it as having power over physiology, or it is and its untapped power resides entirely within the margins of error that are so slim that for all intents and purposes there might as well not be any at all.

Yes, we don't know what we don't know, but we do know what we do know and that puts upper bounds on the maximal magnitude effects we don't yet know about can have on us. We may not know what lies outside of the walls, but we do know that inside the room we are locked in we cannot hear it, so what ever is out there can only be so loud. We would know that something is out there otherwise.

I've experienced some crazy stuff. Went on six month benders. My mom is very controlling. My brothers are career criminals. All my experiences have shaped the person I am today. If I hadn't went through what I did, I would not know the world and some of the people in it. I'm always trying to experience new things. Meet new people and make friends.