Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
1.) Quote from paper:
2.) In reality, an aim to be "more comprehensive" doesn't suddenly mean that the thing in question isn't comprehensive at all!
Does it mean that it is a scientific fact?
1.) It is no surprise that some people without PhD's or Masters will find my model strange. However, from my interactions, professors or PhD holders, tend to find my model straight forward.
2.) Sample discussions with PhD Holders:
A fun exchange between myself and Garret Lisi (PHd theoretical physicist, inventor of E8 theory, a grand unified theory of everything) wrt my "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network": https://imgur.com/X6eZ5FC.png
A discussion about my "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network", with PHd computer scientist Eray, on a public facebook board. (Eray is winner of 2015 Kurzweil Idea Awards, for his contributions to universal induction): See the first post regarding the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network" on this facebook discussion.
Congratulations, Your very first paragraph is an appeal to authority.
And who said that I haven't got a degree?
I would wager I'm as qualified as anyone here (within my relevant field) and earn far more then most.
However, I don't feel the need to blather on about it to support my claims, i let the science and evidence do that... i leave it people like you to churn out utter garbage as fact when the citations provided are unsubstantiated at best.
Also, your fun little conversations do not qualify as scientific facts.
1.) For example, that particular persons are observed to understand QM, does not suddenly warrant that such a scenario is an "appeal to authority"!
2.) I had already informed you of your erroneous, prior remark. That the article aims to be more comprehensive, does not suddenly warrant that it isn't comprehensive at all, as you had sillily claimed.
Well it's clear you missed the point made, again! And you do not understand logical fallacies.
No you didnt, my prior comment is valid! You are trying to pass off another claim that relies on papers that are not scientifically proven, hardly stringently tested and once more even the authors declare a better model and testing is required.
Such unadulterated garbage.
1.) You are yet to cite where the article supposedly says that belief is essential, i.e. we must believe.
2,) Could you cite where you supposedly found that beliefs are "essential" (i.e. that we have to believe?) from the article? Or perhaps you sillily confused "we do things grounded in belief.." with the expression not present in the article "we must believe"?
2.b) That society is grounded in belief is an "old hat"; a large point of the article is that belief generally occurs such that evidence is ignored, and that belief generally facilitates that people tend to twist new evidence to suit old false beliefs. Is it then essential that we don't correctly update our expressions?
ProgrammingGodJordan "You are yet to cite where the article says that belief is essential,"
They're all in your quote, but here they are again.
"Although obvious, beliefs are significant because they are held by us to be true and ****provide the basis for us to understand the world and act within it**** (Halligan, 2006)"
"The high degree of consistency in defining beliefs in the general community is both reassuring and informative. It also supports the need for belief or a belief-like construct when accounting for how we interact with the world and each other."
"“Every action that we take is grounded in an elaborate web of beliefs and goals. Take the simple act of opening a door. Such an act depends on our beliefs about what lies beyond the door, as well as what is available to us in our current location. At an even more basic level, our attempt to open the door is rooted in a belief that we understand how a door works, and are capable of using it. Furthermore, without the goal of pursuing something beyond the door, the act of opening the door would probably not take place.”"
"Second, as a stable representation, beliefs provide an explanatory framework for interpreting the world and processing incoming information. "
"The degree of coherence between beliefs also has implications for interpreting and studying individual beliefs in isolation. A particular belief, for example, may entail a number of similar beliefs on related topics. Indeed, some philosophers have argued that beliefs can only be understood by relating them to a background of other beliefs and desires (referred to here as a holistic account; Davidson, 1973, 1984)."
---------------------------------------------------
"2,) Could you cite where you supposedly found that beliefs are "essential"
Essential to how we interact with reality is what it says, and I already have twice, they're posted above again. The fact that some beliefs are wrong doesn't change the fact that we couldn't function without the cognitive ability to form beliefs. The answer is education and critical thinking, not a hot knitting needle to extirpate all beliefs from human cognitive processes.
I still didn't get an answer from ProgrammingGodJordan on this one:
I challenged you to quote anything from the article you linked that claims it is practical, let alone desirable to expunge the human ability to form beliefs. You might want to explain how we'll function without any beliefs about the world we occupy as well.
As I mentioned on the website, scientists do this all the time; they tend to generally be keen on evidence, rather than generally ignore evidence, as the concept of belief encompasses.
Sheldon said:
I still didn't get an answer from ProgrammingGodJordan on this one:
I challenged you to quote anything from the article you linked that claims it is practical, let alone desirable to expunge the human ability to form beliefs. You might want to explain how we'll function without any beliefs about the world we occupy as well.
ProgrammingGodJordan said Scientists do this all the time; they tend to generally be keen on evidence, rather than generally ignore evidence, as the concept of belief encompasses.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you can't quote anything from the article you linked that claims it is practical, let alone desirable to expunge the human ability to form beliefs. Or explain how we'll function without any beliefs about the world we occupy as well.
In your usual evasive style you simply quoted my post verbatim and added some irrelevant non-sequitur.
So, you're saying that scientific thinking is impossible? Why do you feel that scientific thinking is supposedly "non-sequitur"?
1.) That belief is "significant" had long been underlined in "non-beliefism".
2.) That belief is significant, does not suddenly warrant that belief is a must!
"Although obvious, beliefs are significant because they are held by us to be true and ****provide the basis for us to understand the world and act within it**** (Halligan, 2006)"
ProgrammingGodJordan says.
1.) That belief is "significant" had long been underlined in "non-beliefism".
2.) That belief significant, does not suddenly warrant that belief is a must!
------------------------------------------
So you believe the article you linked to support your beliefs is wrong then? At least where I quoted it in several places where different authors claimed the cognitive ability to form beliefs was essential for us to understand and interact with the world?
1.) The article does not mention that belief is essential. (In fact the word "essential" can't be found in that article!)
2.) The article does not mention that belief is a must!
1.) Wrt that "belief-like" term, "non-beliefism" had long underlined the similarities between itself, and the model called belief.
2.) Website: "Both non-beliefism and belief are ways of modelling the world."
ProgrammingGodJordan
ProgrammingGodJordan's picture
Sheldon said:
The high degree of consistency in defining beliefs in the general community is both reassuring and informative. It also supports the ****need for belief*** or a belief-like construct when accounting for how we interact with the world and each other
1.) Wrt that "belief-like" term, "non-beliefism" had long underlined the similarities between itself, and the model called belief.
2.) Website: "Both non-beliefism and belief are ways of modelling the world."
-----------------------------------------------
Two more irrelevant non-sequiturs. I have placed in asterisks where the quote from the article you linked states belief is a necessary part of human cognition, I did this because asked where in the article it claimed this. Now rather confusingly you're ignoring my examples whilst quoting them, and adding non-sequiturs of your own?
You also still haven't shown a single word from the article you claimed supported your belief that humans could function without the ability to form beliefs?
Tempus fugit
1.) That the evidence disagrees with your opinions, does not suddenly warrant that said evidence is "non-sequitur".
2.) I have also placed in asterisks, the data relevant to my prior quotes, that you falsely ranked to be "non-sequitur".
3.) Rather than ignore your remarks, I underlined that "non-beliefism" had already accounted for them. The article highlights that believers tend to ignore evidence. We also know that scientific thinking is possible, i.e. we can be keen on evidence, contrary to the model of belief, which generally facilitates that evidence is ignored. Scientific thinking is not hidden data.
1.) That actions are generally "grounded" in belief, had long been underlined in "non-beliefism".
2.) However, that actions are generally "grounded" in belief, does not suddenly warrant that belief is a must!
ProgrammingGodJordan
Sheldon said:
"Every action that we take is grounded in an elaborate web of beliefs and goals. Take the simple act of opening a door. Such an act depends on our beliefs about what lies beyond the door, as well as what is available to us in our current location. At an even more basic level, our attempt to open the door is rooted in a belief that we understand how a door works, and are capable of using it. Furthermore, without the goal of pursuing something beyond the door, the act of opening the door would probably not take place.)"
1.) That actions are generally "grounded" in belief, had long been underlined in "non-beliefism".
2.) However, that actions are generally "grounded" in belief, does not suddenly warrant that belief is a must!
--------------------------------------------
You see you requested where in the article you linked the authors claimed the cognitive ability to form beliefs was an essential part of how humans interact with reality, and now you're just separating out each example I gave and ignoring it to make unrelated claims about your own belief that we can function without the ability to form beliefs.
You also still haven't shown a single word from the article you linked that supports your belief that humans can function without the ability to form beliefs about the world they live in?
1.) That actions are generally "explained" by belief, had long been underlined in "non-beliefism".
2.) However, that actions are generally "explained" by belief, does not suddenly warrant that belief is a must!
Again you've simply ignored the quotes you asked for from the article you linked, showing the ability to form beliefs is essential for humans to interact with the world they live in. And again you ave added the identical two non-sequiturs simply restating your own beliefs?
1.) You still persist to claim that I am ignoring the quotes you cited, when non-beliefism had long underlined the quotes from the article you cited.
2.) You still persist to confuse belief's "significance", "explanatory power", or "groundedness" in society, for some false idea that belief is a must. You are still yet to cite where belief is supposedly a must.
1.) That belief is quite promient in society, had long been underlined in "non-beliefism".
2.) However, that actions are generally "explained" by belief, does not suddenly warrant that belief is a must!
ProgrammingGodJordan
Sheldon said:
The degree of coherence between beliefs also has implications for interpreting and studying individual beliefs in isolation. A particular belief, for example, may entail a number of similar beliefs on related topics. Indeed, some philosophers have argued that beliefs can only be understood by relating them to a background of other beliefs and desires (referred to here as a holistic account; Davidson, 1973, 1984).
1.) That belief is quite promient in society, had long been underlined in "non-beliefism".
2.) However, that actions are generally "explained" by belief, does not suddenly warrant that belief is a must!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you've simply ignored the quotes you asked for from the article you linked, showing the ability to form beliefs is essential for humans to interact with the world they live in. And again you ave added the identical two non-sequiturs simply restating your own beliefs?
Not sure why you have separated out each quote from my post to offer the same two non-sequiturs multiple times?
1.) No, the article did not say belief was essential i.e. the article did not say we must believe.
2.) In fact, we already know of a model that is not compatible with the concept of belief; scientific thinking. With scientific thinking we are generally keen on evidence, rather than the concept of belief, which generally facilitates that evidence is ignored!
ProgrammingGodJordan
Sheldon said:
"2,) Could you cite where you supposedly found that beliefs are "essential"
Essential to how we interact with reality is what it says, and I already have twice, they're posted above again. The fact that some beliefs are wrong doesn't change the fact that we couldn't function without the cognitive ability to form beliefs. The answer is education and critical thinking, bot a hot knitting needle to extirpate all beliefs from human cognitive processes.
1.) No, the article did not say belief was essential i.e. the article did not say we must believe.
2.) In fact, we already know of a model that is not compatible with the concept of belief; scientific thinking. With scientific thinking we are generally keen on evidence, rather than the concept of belief, which generally facilitates that evidence is ignored!
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes the article you linked did say several times by different authors that the ability to form beliefs was essential to human understanding of and interaction with the world. The last part of 1) is a straw man you're adding. Scientific thinking is comaptible with beliefs that accept things based on the scientific process, that's axiomatic, and you've been told this already. Do you not believe scientific facts are true?
1.) Where is the word essential, or the term "we must believe" supposedly used in the article?
2.) Particularly, you cited that belief or belief-like mechanisms may be required. Don't you recognize that non-beliefism had long underlined the similarities between itself and belief?
1.) We may think and observe scientific facts as valid, given evidence, but we need not believe in science, for science obtains regardless of belief!
2.) The article does not mention that belief is a must. Could you cite where the article mentions that belief is a must?
3.) You are still ignoring the fact that although some beliefs may occur on evidence/science, the whole concept of belief generally facilitates that evidence is ignored. I've drawn a clear diagram below:
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@Sheldon:
1.) You are still yet to present why you express that the concept of belief isn't supposedly generally science opposing.
2.) Why are you unable to detect that the concept of belief is generally science opposing?
3.) In simpler words, as per the definition you cited, why do you still feel that such a model is compatible with scientific thinking?
(i.e. Why do you feel that a model that generally facilitates ignorance of evidence, is compatible with one that generally facilitates that one is keen on evidence?)
Pages