When does thought transition to belief?

[quiXilver]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

So you asked for no other reason than amusement. Do remind me to not respond to any of your future topics. 

Be well mate.  Not selling anything, or trying to convince anyone of anything, just sharing ideas and space for a time.

If that's offensive, or off-putting, i leave that to you, it was not intended, but like song's meanings being subjective, no compliance is being sought and no offered answers are condemned.  It's just a conversation among acquaintences on this site that allows us, who would likely never meet in 'real' life, to connect and share.

 

As the conversation and answers are still engaging for me, I'll remain in your absence and wish you well in your weekend.

[quiXilver]

Manwon's question 'are you real?' re-minded me... brought this quote to awareness again.
 

Quote

 

What is real is not the external form, but the essence of things... it is impossible for anyone to express anything essentially real by imitating its exterior surface.

~Constantin Brancusi

 

His myriad sculptures... are they real?  When they've ceased to maintain their form, will they be unreal?

As to the meaning of them... are my thoughts and reactions to his sculptures my own; and are they more or less valid than any others?

 

Guess it comes circle again... like nature does... it's Fall, again.

Yet this Fall is not last Fall... it is as it is, now.

 

 

What is the essence of thought?  What is the essence of belief?

[quiXilver]

Dreams come to mind.

Are dreams thoughts?

 

When in a dream, sights appear real, if fantastic at times.  There may even, on occasion, be smells and taste.  Touch.

When in a lucid dream, decision affects the fabric of the experience, just as decision reflects change in the waking 'real' world...

Tibetans have held for millenia the dream like nature of our perception of 'reality'. 

 

When I think about a song... when I hear it in my mind only; is this thought music?

Where does music live?  When do sounds transition from 'noise' to 'music'?

Seems related to the crossover of thought to belief on a level beneath conscious awareness.  I can sense it, but putting it to words is a distinctly challenging, yet engaging pursuit.

[lightly]

19 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

 

When I think about a song... when I hear it in my mind only; is this thought music?

Where does music live?  When do sounds transition from 'noise' to 'music'?

Seems related to the crossover of thought to belief on a level beneath conscious awareness.  I can sense it, but putting it to words is a distinctly challenging, yet engaging pursuit.

That sounds like the .."if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it..does it make a sound" question. (the answer is,Yes.)    

To answer your second question first... I'd say sound transitions from noise to music in the way we interpret and understand the "noise" ?

....and as someone who 'composes' songs...I'd say that music in our, or at least my, mind is Music.   I have often written ,and heard, music in my head.  Then later, when I wrote down the words, and found chords for it, and played it out loud...it sounded pretty much the same !      (at least the notes of the vocal part are identical).

So, yes, I'd say if you can hear music in your mind...you are hearing music in your mind.  

[quiXilver]

56 minutes ago, lightly said:

That sounds like the .."if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it..does it make a sound" question. (the answer is,Yes.)    

To answer your second question first... I'd say sound transitions from noise to music in the way we interpret and understand the "noise" ?

....and as someone who 'composes' songs...I'd say that music in our, or at least my, mind is Music.   I have often written ,and heard, music in my head.  Then later, when I wrote down the words, and found chords for it, and played it out loud...it sounded pretty much the same !      (at least the notes of the vocal part are identical).

So, yes, I'd say if you can hear music in your mind...you are hearing music in your mind.  

Well said.

Noise becomes music when it takes on meaning for me, when the rhythm and tones take on a recognizable pattern which resonates with significance.  I'm fascinated as to where the significance arises...

Much like thoughts transcending to beliefs.  When they take on a meaning and significance. 

From whom, or where does significance arise from?  In many cases with beliefs, I find we are rethinking the thoughts of others, of those who came before us, as they were re-lated to us through our society and families.  Some thoughts are significant enough to engender reaction that becomes belief.  Yet just because I thought something and felt strongly about it... does this make it real?  For others?  Objectively?

 

What a fascinating bone to chew.  Truly thankful for those who've taken their time to share their take on this.  I haven't been engaged this way in many months.  I'm grateful.

 

Edited September 7, 2019 by quiXilver
added: "Objectively"

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 hours ago, quiXilver said:

Who are you?  asked the Caterpillar

What are you?  asked Alice

Are you real?  Asked Manwon

 

Wonderful question.  More and more I love the open, answerless questions.  Those whose answers depend entirely on the perceptual position and whose answer is usually parametered by how the question is phrased.  How one frames a question, or line of questing, will determine the potential set of answers.  Reframe the question and the line taken to answer it will diverge to a new potential set.

The nature of any given thing studied, often depends on the level of magnification and the tool of perception.  I got my son a microscope when he entered 5th grade.  We are constantly taking samples under it to examine their nature at various levels of myopia.

 

To my naked eye, my fingernail looks smooth.  Under 100x magnification, it's a craggy mountainous plateau, streaked with valleys and peaks, blowouts and odd shapes.

To the naked eye, I would likely be identifiable as human to another human.  Yet look more myopically, on the cellular level, at my intestines and you would see a veritable war zone of cells dissolving, consuming and offing each other in great battles.  Yet less myopically, this war zone, is the healthy incorporation of nutrition to the overall organism and the venting of unusable and toxic byproducts.

At the atomic and sub atomic level... is any resemblance to human present?

What is real?

 

 

Thoughts occupy a length of time, but not a position in space.  They lack a shape.  Are they real?

Yet in engendering emotional charges, thoughts can directly impact the physiology of my physical form and its state of health.  My wife's experience with Ulcerative Colitis is testament to the impact on physical form, of thoughts and emotions. 

 

Perhaps another topic all together. 

 

What is real?

Thanks for you response, because if you are real my thoughts that you were are also real.

[Mr Walker]

14 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Your memory, upon which your idea that personal experience is paramount relies, should tell you that we've discussed this before and I don't agree with you.  Assuming you are using measuring capabilities that you might reasonably have access to, your measure of Everest is very unlikely to be exactly correct, there are too many opportunities for misperceptions, erroneous measurements and calibrations, as well as the unavoidability of lack of precision.  Anyway, your 'true personal experience' theory doesn't work well, you are smuggling in the relevant point as a given:  'true'.  My knowledge that Everest exists, despite never visiting it nor personally experiencing it, is far more reliable than what my memory says occurred when I was in 4th grade which I did personally experience.

I don't, I factor in evidence and make estimates which become my beliefs.  I played the lotto last night, I haven't checked the tickets yet but the odds are at least 1 in 70 million of winning the jackpot.  Do you neither believe nor disbelieve I won the lotto?  You're really 'suspending' belief about something that has incredible odds against it?  Personally, I don't believe I won the lotto, I just believe I have a minuscule chance of winning.

Then you need to reread the Patterson example, I didn't say anything about 'knowledge' or 'prove' and I have no idea where you think 'bias' is entering into the equation.  I think for you to understand this, you need to not just use 'belief' and 'knowledge' without specifying what the belief and knowledge is.

Original Belief: The Patterson film depicts a real Bigfoot.

Evidence: The discovery that Patterson didn't just happen to be carrying a camera into the woods and stumbled on a Bigfoot, he purposely was shooting a Bigfoot documentary.  That requires money, which provides a motivation to fake it.  And as the availability of cameras has increased, the quality and quantity of Bigfoot footage has decreased since this film, which is not what we would expect if Bigfoot was real.  And the evidence against it provided by biology concerning evidence for Bigfoot that would be expected but does not exist.

Revised Belief: The Patterson film does not depict a real Bigfoot.

Thus, you are incorrect and 'evidence does really support beliefs'.  This is an example as requested where evidence changes belief yet doesn't provide knowledge of the status of Bigfoot.  So where is this 'inner thought' or 'bias' are you referring to?

I'm not sure anyone's said differently although that is not a well constructed statement, I don't know what 'turns out to be' is doing in there.  A belief that turns out to be true and justifiable is at that point usually called 'knowledge', and it can't turn out to be 'true and justifiable' without evidences.  Again, I think your insistence of trying to treat knowledge as its own special thing is pointless and results in needless complication.  There is no philosophical, mathematical, or scientific equation that indicates the threshold when a proposition becomes knowledge, there is no unit of measure involved there, so it's always personal judgment.

 First para you are correct but nonetheless despite some inaccuracies the only way you can KNOW the height of Everest is to measure it for yourself. or observe the measurement process 

I am in the same position as you  on the lotto. Of course i suspend disbelief.  Otherwise what would be the point of playing. I know i cant win if I don't enter 

I understood the   Patterson example but it doesnt do what you claim 

When you found out the background,this is not evidence that the film is not real 

You still didn't know if it was.

thus you still had a choice to believe or disbelieve 

I guess a suspicious and cynical mind   might suspect something was up but that is not knowledge, but disbelief based on your mindset   You didn't change you mind based on any evidence the film was not real,  but on other beliefs and biases. 

The turns out to be is important due to this only being discovered later, if you discover it to be true then it is knowledge Otherwise, despite being true (which you did not KNOW at the time) and even justifiable,   it is not knowledge  but belief based on faith in the source 

 

 eg I say there is life on mars 

later this is found to be true 

Now, however, despite it being proven true later on, and despite it being quite a justified belief,  it is only belief and can't be knowldge     

[Mr Walker]

12 hours ago, XenoFish said:

So you asked for no other reason than amusement. Do remind me to not respond to any of your future topics. 

Isn't amusement a valid  enough reason for discussion and debate (even though i think there was more to it than that purpose) 

[jmccr8]

10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

First para you are correct but nonetheless despite some inaccuracies the only way you can KNOW the height of Everest is to measure it for yourself. or observe the measurement process 

Hi Walker

Could you clarify the standard that you are using to determine correctness and inaccuracies as it has not been outlined yet.

As well I would be willing to hold one end of the measuring tape and you can climb up and send a pic, I am sure that I can scrounge up the funds even if you aren't interested in my cloning lab. 

15 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I am in the same position as you  on the lotto. Of course i suspend disbelief.  Otherwise what would be the point of playing. I know i cant win if I don't enter 

Well,...hmm,.. maybe but I don't gamble with my money. I got my life for free and play those chances to survive and spend my money on fast women and slow horses? Hell no, well maybe fast women(but they would have to get me drunk and take advantage of me)

20 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I understood the   Patterson example but it doesnt do what you claim 

So what is your counter so I can understand your objection.

22 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

thus you still had a choice to believe or disbelieve 

Sooo,.. you don't have a oh well and move on bin, I don't make choices on things that can not show that they have potential and don't care until it does.

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I guess a suspicious and cynical mind   might suspect something was up but that is not knowledge, but disbelief based on your mindset   You didn't change you mind based on any evidence the film was not real,  but on other beliefs and biases. 

Yeah Walker nothing suspicious or cynical about a guy and his wife that have a plan to shoot someone that breaks into their house and avoid prosecution.

You are projecting again and not actually absorbing what is being said to you and this is evident in the whole of your response.

30 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The turns out to be is important due to this only being discovered later, if you discover it to be true then it is knowledge Otherwise, despite being true (which you did not KNOW at the time) and even justifiable,   it is not knowledge  but belief based on faith in the source 

You know, not knowing something and admitting it doesn't break my heart or spirit( not the snuggly wuggly kind or the bottled but the means by which I move myself through this world). the only thing that I can truely believe is I am.

jmccr8

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 9/8/2019 at 1:52 AM, Mr Walker said:

I am in the same position as you  on the lotto. Of course i suspend disbelief.  Otherwise what would be the point of playing.

Because you can believe that you can win while simultaneously disbelieving that you actually have.  Remember your definitions of belief; there'd be no point in playing if you 'know' you aren't going to win, not merely if you disbelieve you are going to.

On 9/8/2019 at 1:52 AM, Mr Walker said:

I understood the   Patterson example but it doesnt do what you claim 

When you found out the background,this is not evidence that the film is not real 

You still didn't know if it was.

Then you again don't understand the Patterson example.  I just noted how I didn't say anything about knowledge and it has nothing to do with this but you then replied with 'you still didn't 'know' it was'.  The background you refer to is evidence that the film is not real, what other label do you want to give it if not 'evidence'?  It's not irrelevant.  Patterson appeared to have had a motive for faking it, money, he wanted to make a Bigfoot documentary.  It would have been more believable if this film was provided in a PBS special and filmed personally by Sir David Attenborough and a research team after spending many months looking for and tracking Bigfoot, which is a more realistic scenario for discovering a real Bigfoot and removes the profit motive to fake it that no-name Patterson would have had.

On 9/8/2019 at 1:52 AM, Mr Walker said:

I guess a suspicious and cynical mind   might suspect something was up but that is not knowledge, but disbelief based on your mindset 

I specifically state this has nothing to do with knowledge and you still can't help bringing it up... 

My disbelief isn't based on a mindset, it is based on evidence.  Again, if you really don't understand that evidence can support and can change beliefs then I think you are very confused on what occurs in a lot of courts of law.  To use the US example, 'proving beyond a reasonable doubt' is not 'prove to absolute certainty', thus the outcome of most court cases is a belief.  There'd be no point then to even having court trials if evidence didn't support beliefs.

[Mr Walker]

On 9/8/2019 at 3:57 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Could you clarify the standard that you are using to determine correctness and inaccuracies as it has not been outlined yet.

As well I would be willing to hold one end of the measuring tape and you can climb up and send a pic, I am sure that I can scrounge up the funds even if you aren't interested in my cloning lab. 

Well,...hmm,.. maybe but I don't gamble with my money. I got my life for free and play those chances to survive and spend my money on fast women and slow horses? Hell no, well maybe fast women(but they would have to get me drunk and take advantage of me)

So what is your counter so I can understand your objection.

Sooo,.. you don't have a oh well and move on bin, I don't make choices on things that can not show that they have potential and don't care until it does.

Yeah Walker nothing suspicious or cynical about a guy and his wife that have a plan to shoot someone that breaks into their house and avoid prosecution.

You are projecting again and not actually absorbing what is being said to you and this is evident in the whole of your response.

You know, not knowing something and admitting it doesn't break my heart or spirit( not the snuggly wuggly kind or the bottled but the means by which I move myself through this world). the only thing that I can truely believe is I am.

jmccr8

Accuracy is not so important as personal  knowledgee Eg i can know a wedge tailed eagle on sight without "knowing"  a lot of its scientific background

To measure  Everest i would suggest the use of satellites and Gps  My point was that, for me to KNOW the height i would have to be involved in the measurement or a t least observe it taking place

The Patterson example uses no evidence only suspicion.   

Where is the evidence of fakery?   "You" changed your mind based on suspicion or belief.

   For me knowledge is important It prevents errors and assists in living life to the best 

I also believe it is important that people understand that much pf what the y think is knowledge is really belief, based on accepting the credibility of the sources which provide their knowledge This prevents people from being sceptical about all sources of external knowledge 

This concept  (of accepting knowledge as what books teachers and expert sources say it is)  has been developed and encouraged by people who want others to accept what the y are educated to know, rather than what the y actually know.

Before mass education almost  EVERYONE knew only what they had learned from  personal experience   You didn't read a book on how to shoe a horse, weave a shirt , or shoot a gun, you learned by experiencing and practicing it. 

It doesn't work when students all begin questioning  what the y are being taught,  but most young people accept the word of 'authority" figures.  

[+Sherapy]

On 9/6/2019 at 4:20 AM, Mr Walker said:

Rubbbish Where on earth did you get that idea from?

In the investigation of science many propositions begin with an idea or hypothesis for which there is little or no evidence  Over time evidence is gathered and tested with hypotheses gradually modified until knowledge is gained but almost ALWAYS science examines things which lack enough evidence to be known or proven Eg we have no evidence for life on mars but we spend billions searching for it

The dragon in the garage is a furphy

The fact that you  have not discovered a dragon scale does not mean there is not a dragon in the garage. It might be invisible or it might not have scales  Evidence proves existence but lack of evidence, in itself, can not be used to prove non existence. 

 

 

Wally, knock it off, you clearly do not understand a hypothesis, and don’t even bother trying to respond with how you were a Science teacher, with that being said, let me help you.

A Hypothesis must meet two criteria it has to be testable and it must be be falsifiable.

First criteria: testable means you have to be able to make observations that agree/disagree with it if the hypothesis cannot be observed it can’t be tested, therefore, is not considered scientific.  Second criteria: means it has to be shown to be false if it is actually false. 

Let’s use your example: “The fact that you have not discovered a dragon scale does not mean there is not a dragon in the garage. It might be invisible or it might not have scales  Evidence proves existence but lack of evidence, in itself, can not be used to prove non existence. (Walker).

While your example is a statement which might or might not be true, it isn’t a hypothesis, simply because it can’t be tested and if one can’t observe the dragon he/ she can’t do what?

No need to answer or respond, just stand corrected, thank you, Wally.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

On 9/10/2019 at 4:25 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

Because you can believe that you can win while simultaneously disbelieving that you actually have.  Remember your definitions of belief; there'd be no point in playing if you 'know' you aren't going to win, not merely if you disbelieve you are going to.

Then you again don't understand the Patterson example.  I just noted how I didn't say anything about knowledge and it has nothing to do with this but you then replied with 'you still didn't 'know' it was'.  The background you refer to is evidence that the film is not real, what other label do you want to give it if not 'evidence'?  It's not irrelevant.  Patterson appeared to have had a motive for faking it, money, he wanted to make a Bigfoot documentary.  It would have been more believable if this film was provided in a PBS special and filmed personally by Sir David Attenborough and a research team after spending many months looking for and tracking Bigfoot, which is a more realistic scenario for discovering a real Bigfoot and removes the profit motive to fake it that no-name Patterson would have had.

I specifically state this has nothing to do with knowledge and you still can't help bringing it up... 

My disbelief isn't based on a mindset, it is based on evidence.  Again, if you really don't understand that evidence can support and can change beliefs then I think you are very confused on what occurs in a lot of courts of law.  To use the US example, 'proving beyond a reasonable doubt' is not 'prove to absolute certainty', thus the outcome of most court cases is a belief.  There'd be no point then to even having court trials if evidence didn't support beliefs.

Your first comment doesn't make sense to me 

There is always a chance i will win if i enter, so i cant KNOW i wont win.  I cant KNOW i will win either, but i can choose to believe that i will and imagine what i will do with 100 million dollars (this weeks powerball prize) 

The Paterson example doesn't  prove your point.

You changed your belief based on  other beliefs, not on any knowledge you had. Ie you didn't KNOW it was faked, you chose to believe it was . There was no evidence of fakery (as you described the incident)  only suspicion  Your original claim was that knowledge can change beliefs  You changed your beliefs but not due to any knowledge, only due to  other beliefs and suspicions 

if a person doesnt know the accused is guilty then the y should vote not guilty.

  None the less a good point  I started off by explaining how beliefs can be shaped by knowledge. In this case the jurors decision is based on belief not knowledge  ie the evidences offered to them are (for them)  beliefs not known facts    

Edited September 11, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

14 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Wally, knock it off, you clearly do not understand a hypothesis, and don’t even bother trying to respond with how you were a Science teacher, with that being said, let me help you.

A Hypothesis must meet two criteria it has to be testable and it must be be falsifiable.

First criteria: testable means you have to be able to make observations that agree/disagree with it if the hypothesis cannot be observed it can’t be tested, therefore, is not considered scientific.  Second criteria:  means it has to be shown to be false if it is actually false. 

Let’s use your example: “The fact that you  have not discovered a dragon scale does not mean there is not a dragon in the garage. It might be invisible or it might not have scales  Evidence proves existence but lack of evidence, in itself, can not be used to prove non existence. (Walker).

While your example is a statement which might or might not be true, it isn’t a hypothesis, simply because it can’t be tested and if one can’t observe the dragon he/ she can’t do what?

No need to answer or respond, just stand corrected, thank you, Wally.

 

 

 

 

 

lol never was a science e teacher but did pre uni physics.

Also  hypotheses are used in many subjects such as geography and history and politics  Several uni entrance subjects i taught had a major component where students had to create an hypothesis and then  do practical work to   test  it.

Not only did I teach those subjects i was also a state moderator who (along with other moderators)  checked the marks and standards  of all teachers and students across the state.  

ps there were two parts to my post, divided by the sentence, "The dragon in the garage is a furphy " 

It is a furphy precisely because it is not testable or falsifiable, given the technologies and unknowns we have.  

I thought this was clear from  my explanation.

We can't test for the existence of god either, but his does not prove god's non existence  or even suggest such non existence is likely  

Edited September 11, 2019 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

11 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

lol never was a science e teacher but did pre uni physics.

Also  hypotheses are used in many subjects such as geography and history and politics  Several uni entrance subjects i taught had a major component where students had to create an hypothesis and then  do practical work to   test  it.

Not only did I teach those subjects i was also a state moderator who (along with other moderators)  checked the marks and standards  of all teachers and students across the state.  

ps there were two parts to my post, divided by the sentence, "The dragon in the garage is a furphy " 

It is a furphy precisely because it is not testable or falsifiable, given the technologies and unknowns we have.  

I thought this was clear from  my explanation.

We can't test for the existence of god either, but his does not prove god's non existence  or even suggest such non existence is likely  

Until god or your dragon furby are testable you are rationalizing hot air, and pseudo woo. 

Your best bet is to say you can’t know and let’s say this together

Cuz we don’t have a way to test or falsify invisible dragon furby’s or god(s).

You can’t prove what you can’t disprove, you can test or falsify what you can’t observe. 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

11 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Until god or your dragon furby are testable you are rationalizing hot air, and pseudo woo. 

Your best bet is to say you can’t know and let’s say this together

Cuz we don’t have a way to test or falsify invisible dragon furby’s or god(s).

You can’t prove what you can’t disprove, you can test or falsify what you can’t observe. 

 

 

 

READ what i said. It is the same as you are saying, which is why we cannot use the dragon in he garage as an example of proving anything, or the lack of evidences for gods to prove they  don't exist  Your desire to argue with me has blinded you to the fact that we are on the same page

One difference remains however.

i have seen,  heard, felt, and been touched by,  a "god".

That puts me in a different position to you, as i CAN prove to myself that it is real, and even determine some things about its nature.

  I can verify or falsify the reality of this entity god (or whatever it is ) using the same principles and practices by which i verify or falsify the existence of any real  solid thing, because it IS  a real and solid thing.   

[+Sherapy]

28 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

READ what i said. It is the same as you are saying, which is why we cannot use the dragon in he garage as an example of proving anything, or the lack of evidences for gods to prove they  don't exist  Your desire to argue with me has blinded you to the fact that we are on the same page

One difference remains however.

i have seen,  heard, felt, and been touched by,  a "god".

That puts me in a different position to you, as i CAN prove to myself that it is real, and even determine some things about its nature.

  I can verify or falsify the reality of this entity god (or whatever it is ) using the same principles and practices by which i verify or falsify the existence of any real  solid thing, because it IS  a real and solid thing.   

 You observed a light beam. 

That s all you have.

The rest of the tale is your imagination.

woo story bro. 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

 You observed a light beam. 

That s all you have.

The rest of the tale is your imagination.

 

 

 

lol I nearly added in my post  "but of course you cannot believe this " 

That is your problem and flaw, and failure to accept reality, not mine   

You are entitled to believe as you will, but not to make  your belief a statement of fact,  when it is not  What you can offer is a belief /opinion based on your own lack of contact experiences and (I believe ) a deep fear that such a being might exist, all around you  You don't much like peole in your life telling you what to do or how to behave, so guess the idea of a god is especially annoying.  In your mind  It might prove critical and  judgemental, like many of those in your childhood  (as you have explained in many posts over the years)   

i have 60 years and a book's worth of contact experiences, so it is much much more than just a single pillar of light.

My wife and i would have died several times, without the direct physical and verbal intervention of this entity.   

Edited September 11, 2019 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

59 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Accuracy is not so important as personal  knowledgee Eg i can know a wedge tailed eagle on sight without "knowing"  a lot of its scientific background

Hi Walker

That may well be true but I can know that if I hit my thumb with a hammer I would think that accuracy would insure a higher success rate of missing my thumb and hitting the nail.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

To measure  Everest i would suggest the use of satellites and Gps  My point was that, for me to KNOW the height i would have to be involved in the measurement or a t least observe it taking place

Well I was just offering a means of scientific method that we could demonstrate and prove as accurate and having experienced although admittedly my end of the tape is being held under the leg of the chair in the pub I'm sitting in while you climb up there with the smart end of the tape measure.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

The Patterson example uses no evidence only suspicion. 

So this is your whole rebuttal?

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Where is the evidence of fakery?   "You" changed your mind based on suspicion or belief.

Not sure what you mean here as I haven't expressed an opinion, I asked you to clarify your position.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

For me knowledge is important It prevents errors and assists in living life to the best 

Okay and this was not a point of contention unless you clarify how this is an answer to my post.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I also believe it is important that people understand that much pf what the y think is knowledge is really belief, based on accepting the credibility of the sources which provide their knowledge This prevents people from being sceptical about all sources of external knowledge

Interesting argument considering your point of view in past threads is that once you know something it's no longer a belief. I am skeptical about everyone and everything which is why I take the time to study and observe.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

This concept  (of accepting knowledge as what books teachers and expert sources say it is)  has been developed and encouraged by people who want others to accept what the y are educated to know, rather than what the y actually know.

And your point is what exactly I wasn't questioning the educational system or authority?

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

It doesn't work when students all begin questioning  what the y are being taught,  but most young people accept the word of 'authority" figures. 

The purpose of education is to question, that is how we advance otherwise we would still be picking and eating fleas off of each other.

jmccr8
 

[Mr Walker]

3 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

That may well be true but I can know that if I hit my thumb with a hammer I would think that accuracy would insure a higher success rate of missing my thumb and hitting the nail.

Well I was just offering a means of scientific method that we could demonstrate and prove as accurate and having experienced although admittedly my end of the tape is being held under the leg of the chair in the pub I'm sitting in while you climb up there with the smart end of the tape measure.

So this is your whole rebuttal?

Not sure what you mean here as I haven't expressed an opinion, I asked you to clarify your position.

Okay and this was not a point of contention unless you clarify how this is an answer to my post.

Interesting argument considering your point of view in past threads is that once you know something it's no longer a belief. I am skeptical about everyone and everything which is why I take the time to study and observe.

And your point is what exactly I wasn't questioning the educational system or authority?

The purpose of education is to question, that is how we advance otherwise we would still be picking and eating fleas off of each other.

jmccr8
 

Not really far apart here.

i would just explain that knowledge always trumps belief (including disbelief)  and makes it logically impossible.

Also for me knowledge is ONLY what we learn from  experience, not from  books or teachers etc  Personally i dont have any reason to doubt myself so i don't doubt the knowldge i gain from  experience however i am sceptical of all OTHER knowledge.

The last couple of points were just interesting observations and a suspicion about the biases of modern compulsory (post 1870) education.

My family has been involved in education including quite high levels since it became free and compulsory and i have studied how modern education was designed to create skilled but unquestioning workers after the industrial revolution  After the technological evolution of the late 1900s the nature of education changed radically again, but still we tend to indoctrinate  (and teach useful skills and knowledge) rather than create free thinkers.     

The concpet that the purpose of education is to question s a very modern one historically and never really evolved (in pre university education ) until the very late 1900s.

  In the 60s, for example, a student was strongly and physically discouraged from  asking questions This was also the case in the 70s and perhaps into the eighties in many places. 

 

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Not really far apart here.

Hi Walker

From where I'm sitting unless you could make a little more distinction here Western Canada is quite far from Australia and you are arguing that knowing something has greater value than accuracy which I counter with accuracy has greater value( quantified and qualified Knowledge) because of reliable consistency although I did not express it that manner.

10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

i would just explain that knowledge always trumps belief (including disbelief)  and makes it logically impossible.

And you just said that what many believe is knowledge is belief which makes your argument logically or illogically impossible?

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Also for me knowledge is ONLY what we learn from  experience, not from  books or teachers etc  Personally i dont have any reason to doubt myself so i don't doubt the knowldge i gain from  experience however i am sceptical of all OTHER knowledge.

And yet we spent the better part of a year or more where you held the position that you gained most of your knowledge through books and that was the best way to have knowledge and I argued that my knowledge was primarily experiential supplemented with reading.

19 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The last couple of points were just interesting observations and a suspicion about the biases of modern compulsory (post 1870) education.

My family has been involved in education including quite high levels since it became free and compulsory and i have studied how modern education was designed to create skilled but unquestioning workers after the industrial revolution  After the technological evolution of the late 1900s the nature of education changed radically again, but still we tend to indoctrinate  (and teach useful skills and knowledge) rather than create free thinkers.     

The concpet that the purpose of education is to question s a very modern one historically and never really evolved (in pre university education ) until the very late 1900s.

  In the 60s, for example, a student was strongly and physically discouraged from  asking questions This was also the case in the 70s and perhaps into the eighties in many places.

Thanks but none of this was relative to your and my specific interaction and have to wonder why you are expressing this to me?

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

50 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

From where I'm sitting unless you could make a little more distinction here Western Canada is quite far from Australia and you are arguing that knowing something has greater value than accuracy which I counter with accuracy has greater value( quantified and qualified Knowledge) because of reliable consistency although I did not express it that manner.

And you just said that what many believe is knowledge is belief which makes your argument logically or illogically impossible?

And yet we spent the better part of a year or more where you held the position that you gained most of your knowledge through books and that was the best way to have knowledge and I argued that my knowledge was primarily experiential supplemented with reading.

Thanks but none of this was relative to your and my specific interaction and have to wonder why you are expressing this to me?

jmccr8

Precise accuracy is less important than  knowledge eg you dont need to know the precise temp at which water boils to know when to get out of the cooking pot  but of course some accuracy is also important 

What others believe knowledge to be is irrelevant I am clear in my own mind. Knowledge is only what we have learned from  personal experience 

I doubt i said i got "knowledge " from  books, although in a generic definition of knowledge, that is true  i also didnt say i got MOST of my knowledge form books although you could be excused for interpreting it that way.

i explained that books and other sources can give us access to a lot of information which we cant gain personally such as what it is like to lie live in anther country as a person of a different race  or time However that all has to be take in faith of the authors expertise.

  I argued that anyone who did not read books missed out on a lot of information, thoughts, ideas, opinions, lifestyles, values etc which are found within them.  Also some skills can be learned from books which become knowledge when we try them out and find they work 

You said that the purpose of education was to question I was just pointing out that, while (up to a point) that might be one aim of education today, it never was until about 30 years ago. Indeed up until about 50 years ago, questioning authority was verboten.

[eight bits]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

if a person doesnt know the accused is guilty then the y should vote not guilty.

That's not the "English" standard of civilian criminal guilt (seen in the UK, but also in systems descended from the same ancestral form, e.g. those of USA, Canada and Australia). Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard, and  on its face the phrase admits the possibility of being wrong. A typical jury instruction on the meaning of the phrase specifically addresses scrupulous doubt, the awareness of the juror that he or she cannot know the guilt of anyone else in any strict sense of knowing. The juror is instructed to overlook that inevitable aspect of the human condition.

(If the juror were in a position to "know" something specifically relevant, being a witness of some kind, then they would have been excluded from the jury.)

It may well be true that real-life jurors interpret their instructions as high confidence that the accused is guilty. That's not the standard, either, since the object of evaluation is not one's opinion about the in-principle unknowable facts of the matter, but rather the quality of the prosecution's case for the guilt of the defendant.

The reason why the rules are what they are reflects a trade-off between the purpose of punishing crminals and the purpose of protecting non-criminals from punishment - even protecting criminals from being punished except for things they actually did. The aphorism is better a thousand guilty people go free than one innocent person be punished. That's not descriptively realistic of the actual operation of the criminal justice system in real life, but it does show awareness of the need for a trade-off.

Based on your posting history, you don't appreciate the necessity for trade-offs in many situations, and responsible jury duty turns out to be yet another of those situations.

Edited September 11, 2019 by eight bits

[+joc]

I think that thought transitions to belief via the misunderstanding of reality as it actually is.  When one has a firm understanding of what is real...actually real...it is difficult to 'believe' things that others say are real and yet have no logical foundation in actual reality.  

There use to be a doll on the market when we were kids. My sister had one. Chatty Cathy.   She had a string on the back of her neck...and when you wanted her to speak...you would just pull her string.  One day Chatty Cathy's string broke off inside and she never said another word.  It occurs to me that perhaps many on this website view another poster as their own personal Chatty Cathy...they just love to pull the string and hear what the doll says....

....I tired of pulling the string a long time ago...so I just stopped pulling it...but...I guess such is the fascination for Chatty Cathy....and other such w o r d y characters that have nothing relevant to say about anything.  Just me musing from the lounge....

 

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard, and  on its face the phrase admits the possibility of being wrong.

Exactly right, but the focus is on the word 'reasonable'. Which is the key phrase. "What would the average rational person thnk?"

If a defendant is on trial for personally murdering another, but there is evidence and witnesses to corroborate that the defendant was 2,000 miles away at the time of the murder, that places 'reasonable doubt' about the prosecutions case.