Maybe that's not the right way to put it.

I want to talk about how people believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence. It's more like as the strength of the evidence to contradict their premise increases, the strength of will or skew of perception required to counter (and conserve self) it increases proportionally.

There are some odd properties to this as far as I can tell. It seems that as you conserve self your "strength" of self is higher in some ways because 'will' is applied toward fortifying the foundation of perspective. This ... well, it fortifies one's foundatoinof perspective and makes it "stronger" in the sense that it becomes more and more impenatrable in the sense that perception is skewed in a manner that cannot do anything but strengthen the foundation regardless of logic or reason.

There is something to this idea, but I haven't really lined it all out. Sound interesting to anyone?

It may be as simple as people just don't like to be wrong. They are threatened by the fact that something they so strongly believe could be debunked, or even questioned for that matter. But I see what you're getting at: Since many people define themselves by their beliefs, they feel like they would be denying their "self" if they had to recant their beliefs.

This is interesting in the light of most "skeptics". These are often people who are completely willing to change what they think is true if they are shown imperical evidence. Scientists have often done complete 180s in what they believed to be true because new discoveries have enlightened them. They see irrefutable proof and are forced to change their way of looking at things. This is sometimes a welcomed turn of events, because often many more questions are raised and need to be studied. Their whole modus operandi is discovery of proof/truth, so if that means changing their whole outlook because of new evidence, so be it. This was pretty much the whole reason behind the Enlightnenment Era. People were looking to sceince and discovery for the truth, not to the Bible and the Pope.

So, I guess that raises the question: Are some people who believe, no matter what, simply ignorant? They can't grasp the concept that what they believe may be debunked? They don't understand the evidence and don't want to learn how to understand the evidence against their claims, so they just deny it and go on believing?

Maybe it's just laziness. Takes too much time and effort to see all sides of the issue? It's easier just to believe? Anything you can throw at them as reasonable refutation is discounted, and they adhere to the parts of the belief that have yet to be completely addressed. Any test is rendered untestable by introduction of new elements. See Carl Sagan's example of the dragon in the garage:

I have a dragon in my garage.

I don't see it.

Of course not. He's invisible.

Maybe I could put some paint on the floor. He'll make foot prints.

Nope. He floats.

I could throw some paint in his direction. It will stick and show his form.

Nope. He's noncorporeal. The paint would go right through.

Dragons breath fire, right? I can use this thermometer to see temperature differences and be able to find his mouth and nose.

Nope. His fire breath is the same as the surrounsing temperature.


....ad infinitum.

By countering the dragon owner's assertions, you are affronting his sense of self.

It may be as simple as people just don't like to be wrong

the point being though that if that is true, there is a reason for it. you are right that people don't like to be wrong.. (edit: in fact, I think that unless people condition themselves to the idea of being wrong (like 'getting in shape' mentally), they will be in no condition to change themselves, their will to do so lacking since they are not 'in shape' if you see what I mean) but I'm saying there is a reason somewhat analagous to the conservation of energy, maybe "conservation of will" that is the reason people don't like to be wrong. being wrong requires effort to overcome. being wrong give you guilt, it solidifies to you the invalidity of your conceptual inter-relationships and signifies that you have to do something in order to overcome your current state of comprehension - as it has been revealed to you that it is flawed.

They are threatened by the fact that something they so strongly believed could be debunked, or even questioned for that matter.

Exactly, and I think it's for the fundamental reasons I'm trying to outline. "conservation of self (in the now)" is pertinent, because to change to a different self requires exertion of will (energy).

But I see what you're getting at: Since many people define themselves by their beliefs, they feel like they would be denying their "self" if they had to recount their beliefs.

Indeed. I'm actually getting at something more fundamental than that even (I think anyway).

Perhaps it should be "persistence of self, conservation of will".

I'm actually getting at something more fundamental than that even (I think anyway).

So...that people's beliefs are sort of hardwired into their mind/psyche/self being?

So...that people's beliefs are sort of hardwired into their mind/psyche/self being?

Of course they are. It's a dynamic hardwiring job, constantly rearranging, but based on the same foundation. If your foundation is not flexible, you will not be able to rewire to compensate for new input - you will snap. *shrug*

I'd say "will" is an imaginary component of your brain that can actually affect the direction of the hardwirage in process.

I promised myself that I was never going to enter a discussion on the philosophy forum because I absolutely loathe this stuff, but you two don't seem to be trying to "outdeep" each other, so at least until the people who can't speak plain english enter the fray, I would like to offer some thoughts.

You speak of getting your mind in shape. I think comparing getting your mind in shape to getting your body in shape are analogous. If I spend six months working to get myself in reasonable shape to enter a 10K, I can't automatically expect to win, and shouldn't beat myself up if I don't. Chances are the winner has been a lifelong runner. Big deal. I gave it a good effort, ran a great time relative to my expectations and I go on my merry way. That's what a reasonable person would do. If my goal is to win, then I just keep training that much harder. If the winner of the race wants to share some training tips with me, I would be a complete idiot not to allow him to share. Certainly any reasonable person would expect me to want to solicit info from him in order to get better. That's how training and improvement works.

When it comes to matters of beliefs, be they spiritual, philosophical, religious, or scientific, people tend to have a tendency to marry themselves to ideas and POV's much quicker than they would methods of physical improvement, and are much more reluctant to seek out the expert in the subject for counsel. It's understandable to a point, but the degree to which people cling to beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence to make them question is curious at the least, and at the most, deeply frightening.

Back to the point. Having a strong will is not necessarily a bad thing. You don't want to be such a spineless jellyfish that you fall for anything that comes along contrary to your accepted beliefs, but I've never understood the refusal to even read and study things that might run contrary to your system. Seems to me that's how we keep moving forward as a species. We study, we question, we test, we re-evaluate and we do all of this with no conclusion in mind. That's science. That absolutely scares the shit out of some people. You see examples on this forum everyday of people that are so obstinant they refuse to even consider scientific or historical data that might run counter to their forgone conclusion or suppositions.

In so many cases around here, they simply change the subject or throw out a non-sequiter. This place ought to be re-named The Red Herring.

Once values or beliefs are ingrained into us as children it is rather hard to go against what our parents have told us as the truth. As we become older we tend to get set in our ways and don't like our beliefs to be challanged so we tend to side with others that have thoughts the same way as us. When we finally "see" anothers perspective on life we then start to understand that we are not the only ones who have beliefs that are true but that others also have been brought up to believe their parents also. We aren't wrong and they aren't either. We just think differently than them and they, us.

Wes....compliments on the thread :)

I know I will possibly draw some flak with what I am going to write here but what the hell....

To me belief is a sign of low self esteem. To me belief is formed to overwhelm fear. A sort of prop to get past our inadequacies. ( like spelling the word inadequacies)
Belief is a self perpetrated fraud, an act of self deception.

When I ask some one " do you believe in God?" and they say they do i know (not believe) that they are reay lost trying to survive with out knowing what they are trying to know.

Do you know God? they say of course I don't know God but I believe in God's existence.

I ask why do yu believe in God and not know God. They say simply that one can not know God.

So I suggest that it is their belief in God that stops them from knowing God.
Because knowing God does not require belief.
Belief is a construct of the mind and heart.

So belief to me is a fraud that can stop us from knowing. As any real scientist will agree. "The results of my experiment should not be subject to belief"

Thanks Double Q.

This thread started actually as and attempt to get across something I've been thinking for a long time that came up in Lou's thread about believing stuff or whatever:


I feel sorry for those who believe in evolution, they are sad creatures....


I believe in evolution and I'm not at all sad. I'm a little disturbed by your misplaced pity, but it does little to bum me out.

Actually, I suppose I'm wrong.

I don't necessarily believe in evolution in terms of origins of species.. it simply seems more plausible than any other explanation I've heard. That's mostly because I can observe direct evidence of it in my every day surroundings. I guess I do believe in evolution in terms of its usefullness as descriptive of the behavior of certain types of systems.

So I think really it's people who have to be right about whatever assertion regarding the origins of species, regarding the nature of the universe or regarding religion that really seem sad to me. The strongest thing I think is a valid statement from a person is "I think I'm right.". That I can relate to. "I know I'm right." leads to dead people.

Regardless, the people that seem sad to me from that angle aren't necessarily so as whatever belief that I hold in such personal disdain, could be the source of great joy for them and though I do reject it as such on a personal level, I find some joy in that they find joy from whatever source, be it bullshit or not.

"I feel sorry for those who believe in evolution, they are sad creatures.... "

Taking a religious perspective and arguing accordingly.......

When people deny that which is obvious in favour of something less concrete simply expose the weakness of their personna.

It is obvious that the universe is constantly evolving and this is with out question a valid statement ( even halucinations evolve )

For a religious person to declare that their God does not evolve is a grave error of perspective.

I guess it is because they feel that God (Perfection) can not, nor needs to evolve. But one could argue that perfection requires as a necessity evolution of perfection to maintain that perfection.

I may use the terminology "Hope Paralysis" where by a persons hopes are so strong that they paralise their ability to move forward. People hope they are right, they also hope that God ("Universe") is perfectly static and non-evolving.

This is what I mean when I refer to belief being an obstacle to the "Truth" or for that matter true "knowing"

As you Wes are no doubt aware subjectivity and belief go hand in hand.

If one believes an apple exists and that belief is strong enough then when the apple is gone the belief in the apple maintains it's existance as a contruct of the mind and not a sharable "truth" or "Knowing" thus a belief can lead to a state of halucination or self deception.

How often do you hear of stories where some one has passed away and the close companion refuses to accept the knowledge that that person has departed.

The departed person goes on existing as a mental construct ( Belief ) and not a reality.

The "Hope" that the truth is not true paralises the companion into a sort of suspended functioning. The Hope breeds a belief which is now a delusion.
The belief stops his evolution. The belief stops his ability to adapt and change with the reality arouind him.

I think Mankind hopes that reality is not as "nasty" as it is and seeks to deny the truth by creating a belief that God is perfect and we are not, thus perpetuating the delusion and stopping us from actually doing anythng about the "Nastiness" we see, in the hope that God will make it right in the end and not ourselves.

Belief often is a synonym of delusion. The two exist side by side and in most cases are indiscernable.

Belief and Subjectivity also are synonymous.
Know and objectivity are synonymous also.

To believe you know is delusion
To know you know is closer to the "Truth"
To know, as in self evident.......hmmmm.......now you are talking

Wes I hope you are well :)

the thing is
Evolution = Change = Time = Change = Evolution
If Time exists then so to does change thus evolution.

Belief hinders change, knowledge allows change

sorry the thoughts are running....

A good example of belief/knowledge bunfight could be sciences beliefs and knowledge as to the nature of light.

Now we say that Theories about Light seem to be so true so much so that we believe in them.
Science believes that Light travels at 'c" but for some reason the theory doesn't hold up fully and the belief keeps science trying to prove a theory and the harder they try the deeper the science goes and the more exceptions to the rule are found but science clings to the belief in the theories and is bending over backwards trying to support and defend that belief.

If they knew the answer to the question research would be uneeded. The problem having been solved in full. Theories would not be needed to support theories etc.

So Hope and Belief in something can be and often is all pervasive.

It is true that Science has greater evidence etc but in some ways they have a greater problem to solve than a "religious fanatic" in that science think they know and can in part support their belief with evidence.
Thus they have greater difficulty in discerning delusion from truth......
Afterall the theories "seem" to work.

Afterall 50 odd years defending a theory tends to make persons devoted to that theory.

I think Einstien was quoted as saying " It takes a lifetime of work to create a theory but only one exception to prove it wrong" or something to that effect.

Einstien himself even proved his thoeries wrong and yet today the belief in the completeness of his work is so strong.

Newtonian laws about gravity etc are also held as Gospel and yet there are many exception ( 3 body problem ) ( no universal constant etc)

The belief that Newtons laws are sound has put science in a subjective bind and lateral thought is impossible beyond the belief.
So when science is able to let go and take a fresh look that is when forward movement on the "Big" issues will occur.
Best me thinks that we sit back and ask ourselves why does the theory need defending because if it is a truth then defending it should not be necessary.

the thing is
Evolution = Change = Time = Change = Evolution
If Time exists then so to does change thus evolution.

Belief hinders change, knowledge allows change

That's a good damned point. Hmm..

hmm.. should change be facilitated?

survival might dictate an emphatic, NO!

(i am alive now, change is bad!)

well there you go...say no more......if change is deemed bad then you are up against it big time ...because change is inevitable and a fact of life or should I say existance.

If one rejects change then one is rejecting reality.

I think once change is determined as favourable then it should be encouraged, if it isn't favourable then as mankind is so good at doing change the change so that it is favourable.
Where religoin seems to fail is that it seems so reluctant to change or evolve.

For example; for 2000 odd years the Christian belief structure has been more or less static and the result is conflict with reality and postings like this one.

Well, survival is obviously at odds with reality eh?

Survival dictates: LIVE!!!!!!!

And reality dictates: YOU WILL DIE!!!!!!!

I think I'm just lucky to have been at all.

The mind is really one big survival mechanism right? Why did it evolve??? Simple, being persistent in time, rather... a 'sense of self' is obviously a very successful survival mechanism. Seems that from the perspective of the natural world, the more you can remember the better off you are eh?

Shit it seemed I had somewhere to go with it when I started but I got nuthin, or too much. I'll wait and try to find the right amount. ;)

And reality dictates: YOU WILL DIE!!!!!!!


Excuse me If I ask to this satement " Who says so?"

Define death?
What are your beliefs about Death?

In some circles Death is just like getting on a train and traveling to another destination only to wait a few more years before another trip is needed.

If you belive Death to be final then you are stuck with your belief.
If you dare to challenge this need for proof before holding a posssibility in your mind then you will always fear something you know nothing about.

WE have no proof for either reincarnation or finality.
Why believe either?

Just because we can't see something doesn't make it's existance impossible.

But to hold either as a belief dissallows either possible truth.

in otherwords live with an open mind and therefore "Die with an open mind"

Excuse me If I ask to this satement " Who says so?"

Seems like everyone eh? Eventually (at least up until now), life as we know it ends. I'd say that no matter what, life as we know it eventually ends.

Define death?

The time at which your brain no longer functions?

What are your beliefs about Death?

Well I have some weird theories but no firm beliefs.

In some circles Death is just like getting on a train and traveling to another destination only to wait a few more years before another trip is needed.

Could be.

If you belive Death to be final then you are stuck with your belief.

Of course. I thought we'd already reached a conclusion about beliefs eh? Hehe. :)

If you dare to challenge this need for proof before holding a posssibility in your mind then you will always fear something you know nothing about.

Allrighty then.

WE have no proof for either reincarnation or finality.

Agreed.

Why believe either?

Because some people's psyche demands it, as they are either prone to do so, or conditioned as such in their youth.

Just because we can't see something doesn't make it's existance impossible.

That's for damned sure. We can infer some stuff I think. I'm feeling pretty good about my mind-body solution. Did you catch it? I'm proud of it. I don't remember the thread. I think it was in my "your function" thread and again in zonabi's thread that I can't remember the title of, something about dimensions and time and such. I think I've got time nailed down pretty well too. Not sure of course, but I like the smell of my bullshit eh? Heheh. ;) Pardon.

But to hold either as a belief dissallows either possible truth.

Ah my fellow true agnostic, we seem like a rare breed. *shake hand* It's a pleasure kind sir. ;)

Wesmorris:
There are some odd properties to this as far as I can tell. It seems that as you conserve self your "strength" of self is higher in some ways because 'will' is applied toward fortifying the foundation of perspective. This ... well, it fortifies one's foundatoinof perspective and makes it "stronger" in the sense that it becomes more and more impenatrable in the sense that perception is skewed in a manner that cannot do anything but strengthen the foundation regardless of logic or reason.

Why do you speak like this? Its a disservice to you.

I get the gist of what's being said- denial- but don't have time right now to elaborate. More later.

-gend

Wesmorris:

Why do you speak like this?

Because I just speak. If I wait to get it straight before I get it out, it's gone. I have to get it out and hone it on the way. It's just the way it works for me. *shrug*

It's not really a choice for me. I don't mind it until assholes start with the finger wagging. Ack.

Its a disservice to you.
It's the only service I have available.

I get the gist of what's being said- denial- but don't have time right now to elaborate. More later.
I'm actually trying to get at the workings of the mechanisms in more of a "properties of consciousness" kind of sense, in terms of the expenditure of will, it's interaction with conceptual inter-relationships, how strong beliefs interact and all that. Denial is right on track.. shit I dunno this was just a thought I've played with for a long time and never taken very far. Seems to be on it to me. I've used the term "conservation of will" and "persistence of self" before and wanted to see where it went if I threw it out here.

cya when you come back.

Could it be that there can be drawn a distinction between life ( death ) and existence. You end your life but do you end your existence?

A long time ago I came to the conclusion that I am neither alive nor dead but for sure I exist.

To think of your experience in terms of existence only can be quite liberating ha ha

Wes:
I don't mind it until assholes start with the finger wagging. Ack.

Then fuck you, monsieur meanderer (wag wag wag). Kidding.

Now- as far as a man's will exaggerating in the face of evidence going against him, and then blowing up some more when shown more evidence we can easily call it denial and be done with it.

But I move to say its a battle between implicit confidence vs. explicit confidence.

Ever notice how its the schock jocks and psudos that cry loudest? They have the strongest opinions on everthing- why? If you study them closely you notice they have low self esteem or poor, impoverished relationships with others. Howard Stern has described himself as a pasty dickwad and I agree with him all the way (cringe).

Limbaugh is a fat pig who knows that he is one. But ask Limbaugh his opinions on abortion or gay rights and look how loud he is.

Both their inner feelings toward self are low, but implicit.
Their outer feelings toward world must then make up for it- explicit.

And so all that pigheadedness is compensating for things lacking by shifting its focus and becomnig explicit.

Conclusion: those that are pigheaded most likely know that they're pigs and don't like it. Only a theory.

gendanken, I think you are quite right in that "loud" belief is a sign of low self esteem.
The belief being a tool to help prop up a vacuum of knowledge. Almost a superstitious reaction to the fear of the unknown.

1st of all, people are stubborn. (nono, that's not "strength," but it is a good quality)

2nd of all, people like to invision things that make them feel more comfortable, wether it is a skeptical or an optimistic view. In face of evidence of the contrary, they are being pushed out into uncomfortable area and therefore are reluctant to accept the new facts. This can go to extent of blindness. I remember reading on bbc website about a governor in some African country (pardon) who wouldn't allow polio vaccine because, he and his scientists believe, it is a threat to Muslim women and children (no joke).

In my opinion, strength is revealed when an individual is able to look at the new evidence, consider it with a cool clear mind, and make a reasonable conclusion.

It takes a person with self-confidence to consider ideas that might run counter to their beliefs. You can cruise these forums and see who has the confidence, and who is still searching.

Quantum Quak:
gendanken, I think you are quite right in that "loud" belief is a sign of low self esteem.
The belief being a tool to help prop up a vacuum of knowledge. Almost a superstitious reaction to the fear of the unknown
Low self esteem in most, yes. But there is such a thing as intellectual insecurity also that makes some loud.

I myself have been known to be arrogant in some....past life. I know why.

15of19:
It takes a person with self-confidence to consider ideas that might run counter to their beliefs. You can cruise these forums and see who has the confidence, and who is still searching
Cruised and cruising.

I can pull a few names out. Can you?
Muhahhahahaha...........

Yes indeed Gendy. I had a few posters in mind when I wrote that.

The southern gentleman in me says that it wouldn't be very classy of me to name names, so I wont.

holy FUCK.

i just lost a fucking beautiful post. GODDAMNIT.

*sigh*

man i swear i just explained human thought in about 200 words and it was fucking beautiful... and now it's gone. ACK. i'm SO fucking dumb.

okay.. well anyway, this is going to fucking SUCK in comparison, but I'll try to get the point across.

basically, thought is the act of "falling forward" in a sense, like perpetually traversing an 64,502 (definately not 64,501) dimensional web of conceptual inter-relationships formed by experience and the processing of the experience into those inter-relationships, continually re-enforcing or tearing away at the structure that exists at the time of the processing. if you add to it, it's easy to throw it onto a pile you've already got laying around. if you start tearing away at it well.. how do you get from one idea to the other? There's nowhere to tread. You might get sucked into a hole in those inter-relationships.. if you know what I mean.

*shrug*

that was kind of it but it seemed cooler the first time and I'm not sure if I missed something.

EDIT: So that's what I mean by "conservation of self": that what already is, stays... unless you risk falling down.

If you learn how to get back up, holes aren't such a problem.

I wanted to use sculpture as a metaphor because it seemed analagous, but I know shit about stone, so I will use woodworking, something I know a few things about.

When I'm building something out of wood, I follow the old adage of "measure twice, cut once" because I've definitely known the pain of being hasty with my saw. You can always shave another 32nd off of a cut, but you just can't ever put that 32nd back.

Now imagine thought being like a piece of wood, only the difference is that this particular piece of wood is not dead, it's still growing, ever so slowly.

The mind is a big block of this wood. We are the carpenters of our own minds. If we are hasty and cut too deeply we may have no choice but to simply wait for the wood to grow. Watching wood grow is a tedious endeavor, but nevertheless often a necessary endeavor. We're very selfish with our cutting tools, and balk at the idea of letting anyone else manipulate these tools against our block of wood, but often, in the skilled hands of the proper craftsman, we can't help but let them wield the tools. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as we have surveyed the craftsman to be worth of holding our tools. (Don't go there. I see it. Perverts.)

Some of us are much more reticent to defer to a better craftsman entering our workshop. We all have our reasons. As we get older I think we generally become much better appraisers of another craftsman's work, and thereby become less reticent toward surrendering the tools.

I wanted to use sculpture as a metaphor because it seemed analagous, but I know shit about stone, so I will use woodworking, something I know a few things about.

Nice. Man I'm a woodworking retard. I've always admired you woodworking bastards. All the building related tradesmen generally interest me, as it's something I just don't know shit about, probably won't ever, but it's so damned cool to see people make something.

When I'm building something out of wood, I follow the old adage of "measure twice, cut once" because I've definitely known the pain of being hasty with my saw. You can always shave another 32nd off of a cut, but you just can't ever put that 32nd back.

Right on. I'm a little more reckless but I'm dealing with imaginary shit most of the time. Half the reason I don't know shit about wood, etc. is that I've never had the patience to measure that second time. To me there's a little bit of a kick in winging it. I'm not sure if it's because it's all I know how to do and my configuration has arranged a reward system for me because my stimulous has lead to idea that I am good at winging it. Partially I think I've managed to set my sculpture up so that when I skate across the contours of it, I get a good few of the larger structure... I can derive whatever I need on the fly rather than having to rely on much knowledge. I'm half convinced that I've made some sort of half-conscoius effort not to know a damned thing, but to be able to make everything up as I go along but it just so happens that what I make up is mostly right. Hehe. Okay nevermind.

Now imagine thought being like a piece of wood, only the difference is that this particular piece of wood is not dead, it's still growing, ever so slowly.

I think it's actually kind of quick in a sense.. depends on how you look at it. Problem is that the roots go deep eh? You put jesus in a child and jesus goes deep, pertinent to "reality" or not. Reality is in essense "as one knows it" so to the person who has jesus put in their mind, it is their experience that jesus is part of their environment, be he entirely imaginary or not. Thus the stimulous from their environment reflects the environment back at it, as processed by that perspective. Jesus is real because he is part of their environment, and with roots that deep.. he's almost surely gonna stay real, as to that perspective he is nothing less... depending on a lot of factors I guess. Rather, a lot of different things could be introduced to make something irrelevant to a person after having been very relevant, it's that "self is conserved"... unless will or force is applied, you will remain whereever your momentum takes you. Grr, that's not worded quite right but I"m getting sleepy, pardon.

The mind is a big block of this wood. We are the carpenters of our own minds. If we are hasty and cut too deeply we may have no choice but to simply wait for the wood to grow.
Sometimes though, the momentum imparted into one's mind due to the stimulous from their environment cuts deeply without the volition of the carpenter. That's what I'm getting at, one's stimulous imparts a momentum into their mind based on their conceptual junk per above. To separate from that momentum, one must apply will. That takes energy. Maybe it's kind of a "every reaction and the opposite action" kind of thought thing. Lol. Yah okay sleeping soon.

Wes:

Then fuck you, monsieur meanderer (wag wag wag). Kidding.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.

That's good wag.

Now- as far as a man's will exaggerating in the face of evidence going against him, and then blowing up some more when shown more evidence we can easily call it denial and be done with it.

We could just as easily call it cheese. Mmmmm.

But I move to say its a battle between implicit confidence vs. explicit confidence.
So you're saying confidence is more pronounced than resistance to change? This is weird they are both ego related. I'm saying that when you "think" you're basically exploring a contextualized/conceptualized version of your impression of your experience. You've hardwired that shit into your brain. Unless you've conditioned yourself to continually update, you will find whatever excuse necessary to avoid updates. Conservation of self. You are wired as you are and creating new conceptual node type things takes cranial resources.... preoccupation of sort... I suppose attention is a better thing, and attention requires will.. which requires effort, which is also conserved. ;) Clashes between implicit and explicit confidence are IMO, indicative of a problem with ego in that uhm... the clash creates a 'conceptual sink'.... in which what I'm talking about might... like every other thing that crosses the mind of the person.... be drawn into it.

At least that's how I see what you said fitting into the scheme I see.

Ever notice how its the schock jocks and psudos that cry loudest?

Hehe.. Yeah maybe, but I don't think crying loud is really related. I think a soft-spoken christian or a boystrous (sp?) hari krishna is subject to the same conservation of will as anyone. It's a matter of emotional and physical investement in the hard wiring of your brain and the effort and preoccupation required to actually drive it to change itself in a willfull manner... like learning japanese or accepting that you were wrong about something or blah blah. A lot of people can accept it when they're wrong because they've wired themselves over time such that accpeting it is part of the deal. That makes them conceptuall healthy, same as like riding a bike or running a marathon...they can integrate stuff into their heads better because they are used to doing so... rather than wrapping all of their input onto their pre-conceived notions (which requires less effort for the most part (debatable i guess)).


They have the strongest opinions on everthing- why?
Hm...

If you study them closely you notice they have low self esteem or poor, impoverished relationships with others.

I'm sure we could probably have a long talk about that, it's complicated (as you know) but I'll tentatively go with it.

Howard Stern has described himself as a pasty dickwad and I agree with him all the way (cringe).
I consider that a proven fact.

Limbaugh is a fat pig who knows that he is one. But ask Limbaugh his opinions on abortion or gay rights and look how loud he is.
I wonder if he knows he's a pig. I'm sure he knows he's fat but I wonder if he hides that he is a pig from himself. I'd guess he did but who knows.

Both their inner feelings toward self are low, but implicit.

You're saying he's a pasty dickwad because he's it's implicit to who he is: a pasty dickwad?

Their outer feelings toward world must then make up for it- explicit.

Yeah okay I use different semantics.. compensation! I'd say... I would. Really. I don't think he's necessarily a pasty dickwad though. He only is because he thinks he is. That's his whole problem I'd guess, that he's become fixated on something that makes him a pasty dickwad. I'd further say that he's gotten rich by being a pasty dickwad and that fucks him up worse that normal even, really tweaking the ego in a generally undesirable manner. Making them superman and Panzy Limperson at the same time. A fraud. Bah I'm fucking rambling.

And so all that pigheadedness is compensating for things lacking by shifting its focus and becomnig explicit.

Well, I like your analogy but have to put it in my own terms because I'm lamer than shit and have a hard time seeing it other ways. I can put your stuff in my terms as I tried to above. I suppose I've chosen (like you must have) my terms because they are what work for my current comprehension of whatever. I should ask though, you're saying that shifting the focus from internal to external compensates for internalized dissapointments? It also allows them to fester. I think our comments are really just part of the same landscape of mind. I suppose I think you're right. I'd look at that as "rewiring around the sink" (i say sink in terms of 'sources and sinks') such that the brain can still function with this huge sink happening... I'd also still say that self is conserved in this manner. This particular deal is a surivival thing. As man is a social animal, he must still have his brains operational to survive, the brain's flexibility allows this to be the case and his .. well, let's just say if his brain didn't "wire around it" all inputs would end up at that sink, leading to insanity and an inability to survive. Conservation of self in another aspect of the same idea which is I think basically analagous to the conservation principles in physics like "conservation of energy" and such.

Conclusion: those that are pigheaded most likely know that they're pigs and don't like it. Only a theory.

Hehe. Hey get off me. I can't help it that I'm beautiful. :D

There is another thing when it comes to conservation of self:
Namely, how self comes about in the first place. Why do I feel like I?
(I am referring mostly to Spiegel Special, No. 3, 2003.)
Evidence shows that certain regions of the brain are not developed by the age of 2 or so; it is only around that time that episodic memory begins to develop, and we need episodic memory in order to remember a chain of related events or processes. This is why we don't consciously remember things that happened until that age.
Parallel to that, we are raised as humans and are referred to as persons and treated as if we have an I. However, we do learn things before we reach age 2. So we learn that we are an I, before we are able to be aware of it. We take it for granted.

(Little children refer to themselves with their name up to a certain age; they don't say "Give me an apple!", a little Thomas says, "Give Tommy an apple!" -- Why did I choose the apple?!)
Of course, the data is indirect, as nobody per definition can remember what he thought when he was 1 year old.

That's the big trick why our thoughts, if we follow logic, always come down to But through what is the instance of observation (the I) defined? Where does this instance come from? Who is the I?

This is where all sorts of ethic, sociological and religious theories and dogmas come in. (Note: here the discourse stops being logics, it becomes ethics!) And we all know how disputable ethic, sociologial and religious (and other more or less magical) explanations are ...

Because of that trick it is so much more important that a child has a healthy environment and is nurtured and loved; for what we learn then fundamentally shapes our thinking and behaving (thanks for the term, Wes :) ).
We learn that we are an I, before we are able to be aware of it; how strongly we take it for granted depends on how much safety and love we experienced at home. It doesn't matter whether the parents are Catholics, Mormons, thoruoghly educated or whatever; the main point is whether they are true to the child and love him; and whether their economical and social situation allows them to do so.
Otherwise it is "Hamlet, here we come!" put into practice.

I don't think that Mormons or whoever are happy because of their belief; the belief is just something to ease that trick of logic. The main thing is the happiness of heart. (If someone scolds me for being "unscientific" I'll tell him to piss off and get a life! :bugeye: ) Of course, a certain belief dictates our actions in this world, what we do for a living and how we live. The happiness of heart depends on what we do for a living and how we live, and vice versa. Anyway, I think that here the "initial push" by the parents is very important; but it seems that things can be majorly fixed later on too.
*****

Another thing with thinking and the way we see ourselves and the world is the fact that we think in metaphors; we cannot directly (" ") talk about abstract things.

A metaphorical image of perceiving the mind as a peace of wood that keeps on growing, but that we can work on and chissle it; then the tree metaphor with the roots, and the stem, and the branches, and the leaves, and the fruits, and new seeds; and the soul is a bird -- does it poo too, and change feathers, and migrate to North ?? -- and arrrrrrrgh it makes one crazy trying to find the right metaphor for something we are thinking about.

So love ye one another. ;)

Ever notice how its the schock jocks and psudos that cry loudest? They have the strongest opinions on everthing- why? If you study them closely you notice they have low self esteem or poor, impoverished relationships with others.

They have the strongest opinions on everything -- because this is how they compensate their lack of self-esteem and their impoverished relationships. Needless to say, crying out loud the way some do endorses and perpetuates this lack of self-esteem and their relationships remain impoverished.

Quantum Quack,

"I feel sorry for those who believe in evolution, they are sad creatures.... "

Taking a religious perspective and arguing accordingly.......

Maybe you are judging too harshly, by "evolution", he could have meant "theory of...", pertaining to speciation. That being the case, his statement is understandable, if a little harsh.

For a religious person to declare that their God does not evolve is a grave error of perspective.

How so?

But one could argue that perfection requires as a necessity evolution of perfection to maintain that perfection.

What do you think perfection is?

People hope they are right, they also hope that God ("Universe") is perfectly static and non-evolving.

Why would it be in anyone's interest to hope for the above?

This is what I mean when I refer to belief being an obstacle to the "Truth" or for that matter true "knowing"

Do you know the truth?

If one believes an apple exists and that belief is strong enough then when the apple is gone the belief in the apple maintains it's existance as a contruct of the mind and not a sharable "truth" or "Knowing" thus a belief can lead to a state of halucination or self deception.

Believing an apple exists is not the same as believing in the apple.
If you told someone that the apple existed, then you are sharing a truth/knowledge, whether or not you can prove your belief.
If someone challenges you to prove your belief to them, and you cannot, does it mean your belief is false?

I think Mankind hopes that reality is not as "nasty" as it is and seeks to deny the truth by creating a belief that God is perfect and we are not,

An you think this is the only reason we believe in God?

thus perpetuating the delusion and stopping us from actually doing anythng about the "Nastiness" we see, in the hope that God will make it right in the end and not ourselves.

How do you explain the work some religious people do in the heart of this nastiness, for nothing more than the desire to help?

Belief often is a synonym of delusion. The two exist side by side and in most cases are indiscernable.

Belief or belief in God? :rolleyes:

To believe you know is delusion

And a contradiction. ;)

Jan Ardena.

Jan Ardena

I believe if you re-read the post and apply the correct context yo may understand what I am attempting to say

"I feel sorry for those who believe in evolution, they are sad creatures.... "

Taking a religious perspective and arguing accordingly.......

When people deny that which is obvious in favour of something less concrete simply expose the weakness of their personna.

It is obvious that the universe is constantly evolving and this is with out question a valid statement ( even halucinations evolve )

For a religious person to declare that their God does not evolve is a grave error of perspective.

I guess it is because they feel that God (Perfection) can not, nor needs to evolve. But one could argue that perfection requires as a necessity evolution of perfection to maintain that perfection.

I may use the terminology "Hope Paralysis" where by a persons hopes are so strong that they paralise their ability to move forward. People hope they are right, they also hope that God ("Universe") is perfectly static and non-evolving.

This is what I mean when I refer to belief being an obstacle to the "Truth" or for that matter true "knowing"

As you Wes are no doubt aware subjectivity and belief go hand in hand.

If one believes an apple exists and that belief is strong enough then when the apple is gone the belief in the apple maintains it's existance as a contruct of the mind and not a sharable "truth" or "Knowing" thus a belief can lead to a state of halucination or self deception.

How often do you hear of stories where some one has passed away and the close companion refuses to accept the knowledge that that person has departed.

The departed person goes on existing as a mental construct ( Belief ) and not a reality.

The "Hope" that the truth is not true paralises the companion into a sort of suspended functioning. The Hope breeds a belief which is now a delusion.
The belief stops his evolution. The belief stops his ability to adapt and change with the reality arouind him.

I think Mankind hopes that reality is not as "nasty" as it is and seeks to deny the truth by creating a belief that God is perfect and we are not, thus perpetuating the delusion and stopping us from actually doing anythng about the "Nastiness" we see, in the hope that God will make it right in the end and not ourselves.

Belief often is a synonym of delusion. The two exist side by side and in most cases are indiscernable.

Belief and Subjectivity also are synonymous.
Know and objectivity are synonymous also.

To believe you know is delusion
To know you know is closer to the "Truth"
To know, as in self evident.......hmmmm.......now you are talking

Wes I hope you are well