When does thought transition to belief?

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

What if, hypothetically, you never knew your parents and were told you were created in a lab by scientists with advanced technology that didn't need a sperm and an egg.  They actually made and coded the DNA somehow.

At that point, could you logically construct a belief that you have no mother?

Thats why i put in, "logically'

Given present science we all have a mother.

In the future your scenario could raise reasonable/logical  doubts, but not today.

A person can construct any belief where they lack knowledge.

My assumption here is that current knowledge requires a mother to bear a child.   

If you don't like that example, use my other one. No one (with a functioning mind)  believes or disbelieves they can breathe earth's air.  We know we can, so neither belief nor disbelief is a logical option.  

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Tell her on UM, you are consistently, dependably, and committed to only black and white. 

For ex: because you believe that a pillar of light talks and performs magic doesn’t qualify you as a thinker who thinks in shades of grey. what you do well is redefine the wheel and then try and persuade us your perception is reality, 15 years you have used this strategy to no avail, I’d say this is about as black and white as you can get.  I suggest you try critical thinking, but  I am sure you think you are a cognitively flexible wizard and will predictably tell me all about in black and white terms. 

I wouldn't lie to her 

That is untrue

I tend to take one pov (often a non mainstream view)  and argue it with all the sources and evidences I can. 

That is different to being committed to it  ie having an ideological or emotional attachment to the view. I just like certain views and find the values and ethics of certain things to be more constructive than other ones 

You've read my posts for long enough to know and understand the very lengthy thought processes, research, and gathering of evidences, i went through to reach a conclusion on that pillar of light And my conclusion is not definite or fixed, because there are some things i cannot know 

What i do know is.

That it was real ie had its own independent physical existence 

 That it had an expressed intent and purpose 

That it had a physical effect on me

That the entity returned dozens of times in my life to; protect, educate, empower me, and to save our lives many times. 

you just refuse to believe this is possible.

it is YOU who is trapped in black and white perceptions  ie " Such things are impossible thus such a thing never actually happened to mr walker. "   

Critical thinking is easy  but dependent on both knowledge and training in such thought.

It does not lead inexorably to only one answer, but helps a person find the most likely answer based on evidences and logic.

It is NOT critically thinking to begin with a proposition that such things  do not exist or are impossible.

critical thinking BEGINS with an open mind 

quote

 

What I’ve discovered is that when it comes to solving problems, making decisions, or creating strategic plans the processes you use require one important ingredient – an open mind. Without maintaining an open mind any formal process that you use will amplify the old adage “garbage in, garbage out.”

What do I mean by that? Every critical thinking process is only as good as the facts that you put into it. And those facts must include information and data that not only supports the perceived decision your gut tells you to make – or the cause of a problem you assume to be the root of your troubles –  it must also include data which contradicts your assumptions.

Most people, however, suffer from a common critical thinking malady called “information bias.” Information bias is seeking and selecting information or data that only supports your assumptions. Simply put, we avoid facts that go against our beliefs and experiences. To be good critical thinkers we must maintain an open mind. Being open minded means that we must not just hear, but listen, to facts that are opposite from our established beliefs.

https://www.executivedevelopment.com/critical-thinking-starts-open-mind/

 

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Let’s hope you never need this system, people who are innocent get convicted a lot. 

 

I think i explained that quite clearly.

People who are physically guilty are also  often found legally innocent, and then they ARE innocent, and no one can publish a counter statement/claim ( in our jurisdictions)  without facing contempt of court proceedings 

Legal innocence and guilt can be quite different to physical innocence and guilt.

None the less, our  legal system  defines who is guilty and who is innocent.

They become what the court decides they are,  no matter what we think, or how we feel  

[onlookerofmayhem]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Thats why i put in, "logically'

Given present science we all have a mother.

In the future your scenario could raise reasonable/logical  doubts, but not today.

A person can construct any belief where they lack knowledge.

My assumption here is that current knowledge requires a mother to bear a child.   

If you don't like that example, use my other one. No one (with a functioning mind)  believes or disbelieves they can breathe earth's air.  We know we can, so neither belief nor disbelief is a logical option.  

No. You missed my point. The science being real has no bearing my hypothetical. It is what the person is being told that holds significance. 

The individual being told may not understand that it is logically impossible for the scenario given to them to take place.

But given the information they have they could logically construct a belief that they have no mother, which you said was impossible. 

I'm just playing devil's advocate to show that it's not impossible. 

You just didn't come up with a scenario in which it could happen.

I did.

[+Liquid Gardens]

14 hours ago, Sherapy said:

If it is any consolation to you, you made Bigfoot more interesting then I ever would have bothered with before.

Bigfoot is on par with ghosts for me, give me something sheesh, kudos to you for giving the filmmaker a fair shake in the first place. I commend you. 

It is the kind of subject one simply apologizes for being wrong about and calls it a ay in the obscure event Bigfoot or ghosts happen to pan out. 

Thanks, actually the background on Patterson I learned here on one of the threads.  Good ol' UM, making unexplained mysteries more explained and less mysterious all the time.

[+Sherapy]

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I wouldn't lie to her 

That is untrue

I tend to take one pov (often a non mainstream view)  and argue it with all the sources and evidences I can. 

That is different to being committed to it  ie having an ideological or emotional attachment to the view. I just like certain views and find the values and ethics of certain things to be more constructive than other ones 

You've read my posts for long enough to know and understand the very lengthy thought processes, research, and gathering of evidences, i went through to reach a conclusion on that pillar of light And my conclusion is not definite or fixed, because there are some things i cannot know 

What i do know is.

That it was real ie had its own independent physical existence 

 That it had an expressed intent and purpose 

That it had a physical effect on me

That the entity returned dozens of times in my life to; protect, educate, empower me, and to save our lives many times. 

you just refuse to believe this is possible.

it is YOU who is trapped in black and white perceptions  ie " Such things are impossible thus such a thing never actually happened to mr walker. "   

Critical thinking is easy  but dependent on both knowledge and training in such thought.

It does not lead inexorably to only one answer, but helps a person find the most likely answer based on evidences and logic.

It is NOT critically thinking to begin with a proposition that such things  do not exist or are impossible.

critical thinking BEGINS with an open mind 

quote

 

What I’ve discovered is that when it comes to solving problems, making decisions, or creating strategic plans the processes you use require one important ingredient – an open mind. Without maintaining an open mind any formal process that you use will amplify the old adage “garbage in, garbage out.”

What do I mean by that? Every critical thinking process is only as good as the facts that you put into it. And those facts must include information and data that not only supports the perceived decision your gut tells you to make – or the cause of a problem you assume to be the root of your troubles –  it must also include data which contradicts your assumptions.

Most people, however, suffer from a common critical thinking malady called “information bias.” Information bias is seeking and selecting information or data that only supports your assumptions. Simply put, we avoid facts that go against our beliefs and experiences. To be good critical thinkers we must maintain an open mind. Being open minded means that we must not just hear, but listen, to facts that are opposite from our established beliefs.

https://www.executivedevelopment.com/critical-thinking-starts-open-mind/

 

 

The issue you have is you are trying to persuade me of “your” conclusion without presenting the facts, for the sake of clarity; what I refuse to do is to suspend critical thinking and logic to accept your conclusion without the supporting facts. 

This is what you have provided.

“What i do know is.

That “it”was real ie had its own independent physical existence 

“it” what is “it” 

 That it had an expressed intent and purpose 

That it had a physical effect on me

That the entity returned dozens of times in my life to; protect, educate, empower me, and to save our lives many times” ( Walker). 

Basically, the only fact I have is that you saw a pillar of light, which I accept, the rest is a construction that you have fabricated, constructed, it is clear you are emotionally attached to this particular conclusion. Remember Walker a person can construct any belief where you don’t have the facts, and until you provide the facts it is logical to conclude this is a possibility. I have an open mind though, meaning I will absolutely change my mind based on any new facts. 

On this note, how you get through the day is your call, if it helps good for you, but you aren’t critically thinking, you are not presenting facts, instead, you are rationalizing and twisting your logic to support your conclusion.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

9 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Thanks, actually the background on Patterson I learned here on one of the threads.  Good ol' UM, making unexplained mysteries more explained and less mysterious all the time.

I see you have the Rock and Brews mural on your page. We love that place! We go all the time. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

I see you have the Rock and Brews mural on your page. We love that place! We go all the time. 

I just looked that up, it looks like a cool place!  Maybe this is there, my profile page has part of a picture I always thought was clever, the "Pink Floyd Back Catalogue":

[Jodie.Lynne]

30 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I just looked that up, it looks like a cool place!  Maybe this is there, my profile page has part of a picture I always thought was clever, the "Pink Floyd Back Catalogue":

It rather gives a new meaning to "the Dark Side of the Moon", doesn't it?

[Jodie.Lynne]

ON TOPIC:

"When does thought Transition to Belief?"

When an individual ONLY refers to material that re-enforces their 'thought', ignoring all data, thoughts, and premises that contradict their 'thought'.

"I think all Ferengi are shifty, criminally minded con men."  But, I will only refer to sources that agree with me, ignoring all contrary data.

[Aquila King]

19 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

"When does thought Transition to Belief?"

When an individual ONLY refers to material that re-enforces their 'thought', ignoring all data, thoughts, and premises that contradict their 'thought'.

Just to play devil's advocate here...

What if you happen to have more or less data / information than somebody else? And what if that data led you to a different conclusion? You would then have two people with two totally different conclusions, just going off the available data that they currently know. Would two differing conclusions also be considered two different beliefs?

[Jodie.Lynne]

7 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Would two differing conclusions also be considered two different beliefs?

Absolutely! Because the conclusions are based on the data that one accepts.

In my somewhat facetious example above, A Klingon would consider the Ferengi to be dishonourable, a Romulan would consider them to be a valuable avenue of information, but wouldn't trust them.

A Ferengi, would extol the virtues of Ferengi teachings, no?

 

Suppose you think that you can fly, without mechanical assistance. So, you do some research, you read the tale of Icarus; you read vlogs & blogs of people who claim that they can fly, and so can you! You watch sketchy YouTube videos that purport to show humans flying. All sources that support what you think.

But then, you accidently stumble on a biological study that demonstrates, completely and irrefutably,  that humans cannot fly, un-aided. But, because it denies your thought, you discard it, in favour of the sources that support your thought.

That is the point at which your 'thought' becomes 'belief'.

 

[Aquila King]

29 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Absolutely! Because the conclusions are based on the data that one accepts.

In my somewhat facetious example above, A Klingon would consider the Ferengi to be dishonourable, a Romulan would consider them to be a valuable avenue of information, but wouldn't trust them.

A Ferengi, would extol the virtues of Ferengi teachings, no?

 

Suppose you think that you can fly, without mechanical assistance. So, you do some research, you read the tale of Icarus; you read vlogs & blogs of people who claim that they can fly, and so can you! You watch sketchy YouTube videos that purport to show humans flying. All sources that support what you think.

But then, you accidently stumble on a biological study that demonstrates, completely and irrefutably,  that humans cannot fly, un-aided. But, because it denies your thought, you discard it, in favour of the sources that support your thought.

That is the point at which your 'thought' becomes 'belief'.

Interesting analysis there.

Personally I feel the question to be a semantics issue more than anything else. What matters is simply being correct. Whether that's called a "belief" or a "fact" or "babalabadingdong," it doesn't really matter too much.

So long as the core ideas you wish to represent are adequately conveyed to the person you're speaking to, and those core ideas are correct, that's all that matters to me.

That's just my 2 cents worth on it anyway. 

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Just to play devil's advocate here...

What if you happen to have more or less data / information than somebody else? And what if that data led you to a different conclusion? You would then have two people with two totally different conclusions, just going off the available data that they currently know. Would two differing conclusions also be considered two different beliefs?

Do you mean like a light appears in the dark of night and one person concludes that it is headlights while another concludes it is an alien entity that talks and removes physical addictions and offers friendship? 

I would say one is going off the available data to the best of their ability what they know and the other isn’t at all.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, Sherapy said:

The issue you have is you are trying to persuade me of “your” conclusion without presenting the facts, for the sake of clarity; what I refuse to do is to suspend critical thinking and logic to accept your conclusion without the supporting facts. 

This is what you have provided.

“What i do know is.

That “it”was real ie had its own independent physical existence 

“it” what is “it” 

 That it had an expressed intent and purpose 

That it had a physical effect on me

That the entity returned dozens of times in my life to; protect, educate, empower me, and to save our lives many times” ( Walker). 

Basically, the only fact I have is that you saw a pillar of light, which I accept, the rest is a construction that you have fabricated, constructed, it is clear you are emotionally attached to this particular conclusion. Remember Walker a person can construct any belief where you don’t have the facts, and until you provide the facts it is logical to conclude this is a possibility. I have an open mind though, meaning I will absolutely change my mind based on any new facts. 

On this note, how you get through the day is your call, if it helps good for you, but you aren’t critically thinking, you are not presenting facts, instead, you are rationalizing and twisting your logic to support your conclusion.

 

 

I accept you cant believe without evidences, and i accept  that there are no transferable evidences to give you.

However, you are simply wrong, and i know that from my own experiences, yet you try to impose your belief based opinions over my real life experiences, simply because you find them impossible to believe.

  You try to argue  that your lack of experiences means my own experiences must be invalid 

Ie you go beyond disbelief. You claim to know i am wrong.  You claim to know i am mistaken.  You even claim to know how and why i have confabulated this experience  

Unfortunately, you actually have no knowledge whatsoever, only your belief, based on pre existing biases 

[Mr Walker]

16 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

No. You missed my point. The science being real has no bearing my hypothetical. It is what the person is being told that holds significance. 

The individual being told may not understand that it is logically impossible for the scenario given to them to take place.

But given the information they have they could logically construct a belief that they have no mother, which you said was impossible. 

I'm just playing devil's advocate to show that it's not impossible. 

You just didn't come up with a scenario in which it could happen.

I did.

And i agree that  a person can construct any belief where they lack knowledge (and all children do this)  

BUT you can not construct a belief or disbelief, logically, where it conflicts with what  you know.

  Some other need or  process must then drive you to construct a belief, despite your knowledge, so it is not a logical  belief 

I maintain that you cannot logically construct a belief that you had no mother because you KNOW you did.

  If you had no knowledge then you could construct ANY belief quite logically and legitimately, as children do 

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Just to play devil's advocate here...

What if you happen to have more or less data / information than somebody else? And what if that data led you to a different conclusion? You would then have two people with two totally different conclusions, just going off the available data that they currently know. Would two differing conclusions also be considered two different beliefs?

If neither had sufficient data to know, then yes.

Otherwise the one with sufficient data would have knowledge and the other would have belief 

Eg no one knows if there is life on mars  Some people have more data than others  but no one has enough data to know.

Thus several different beliefs, and several different degrees of certainty,  on the issue, are valid.  

Once a single person gains data to prove there  is life on mars, their belief (and disbelief if that was their position)  becomes knowledge not belief 

[+Sherapy]

18 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I accept you cant believe without evidences, and i accept  that there are no transferable evidences to give you.

However, you are simply wrong, and i know that from my own experiences, yet you try to impose your belief based opinions over my real life experiences, simply because you find them impossible to believe.

  You try to argue  that your lack of experiences means my own experiences must be invalid 

Ie you go beyond disbelief. You claim to know i am wrong.  You claim to know i am mistaken.  You even claim to know how and why i have confabulated this experience  

Unfortunately, you actually have no knowledge whatsoever, only your belief, based on pre existing biases 

“I accept you cant believe without evidences, and i accept  that there are no transferable evidences to give you ( Walker). 

This is logical, factual, credible and critical analysis based on what can be known, well said.

 

The rest is rationalization, meaningless to our discussion, yet I appreciate and accept that this is very emotional for you, and I mean it when I say if it works to give your life meaning good for you.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

45 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Do you mean like a light appears in the dark of night and one person concludes that it is headlights while another concludes it is an alien entity that talks and removes physical addictions and offers friendship? 

I would say one is going off the available data to the best of their ability what they know and the other isn’t at all.

Well that would depend on the quality and quantity of data/evidences available to each/both, would it not ?  

if it WAS an alien entity, then  it would be illogical to believe it was truck lights  

[Aquila King]

35 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Do you mean like a light appears in the dark of night and one person concludes that it is headlights while another concludes it is an alien entity that talks and removes physical addictions and offers friendship? 

I would say one is going off the available data to the best of their ability what they know and the other isn’t at all.

Sherapy, come on. You know that's not what I meant.

I was talking about two perfectly rational but separate conclusions one could make about a given situation based on the individual data each person receives. Your example is of two people using the same exact data and coming to two separate conclusions, one being perfectly reasonable and another being bats**t insane.

To give an example of what I'm talking about here, let's say (hypothetically) your sister sees video evidence of your husband cheating on you, and thus concludes he's a cheat. Whereas you, unlike her, happen to know that your husband has an identical twin, and that the video was shot at a time when your husband with you. Both conclusions each person makes are perfectly rational conclusions based on the current information that each person has, yet the conclusions nonetheless differ dramatically.

My question here was: Are these two differing yet equally rational conclusions separate beliefs? The reason I ask this is because @Jodie.Lynne was essentially saying that the most rational conclusion based on all available evidence isn't really a "belief" per say (correct me if I'm wrong Jodie, that was my interpretation of your post), so I merely posited this question as a hypothetical to challenge that view.

As I said earlier, I personally find this mostly to just be a game of semantics, but regardless the question is worthy of asking IMO.

[+Sherapy]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Well that would depend on the quality and quantity of data/evidences available to each/both, would it not ?  

if it WAS an alien entity, then  it would be illogical to believe it was truck lights  

Ha ha ha ha 

 

[Mr Walker]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

“I accept you cant believe without evidences, and i accept  that there are no transferable evidences to give you ( Walker). 

This is logical, factual, credible and critical analysis based on wht can be known.

 

The rest is rationalization, meaningless to our discussion, yet I appreciate and accept that this is very emotional for you, and I mean it when I say if it works to give your life meaning good for you.

What you mean is  that you can accept  the first because it does not conflict with your beliefs. You refuse to accept the rest because it does

LOl no emotion involved. Pure, simple, rational and logical, reasoning  One doesn't feel emotion for the heart surgeon who operates and saves one's life so why have an emotional investment in an "god" who does the same for you.

I am thankful and appreciative for both but don't FEEL emotional about either.  

 

[Mr Walker]

9 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Sherapy, come on. You know that's not what I meant.

I was talking about two perfectly rational but separate conclusions one could make about a given situation based on the individual data each person receives. Your example is of two people using the same exact data and coming to two separate conclusions, one being perfectly reasonable and another being bats**t insane.

To give an example of what I'm talking about here, let's say (hypothetically) your sister sees video evidence of your husband cheating on you, and thus concludes he's a cheat. Whereas you, unlike her, happen to know that your husband has an identical twin, and that the video was shot at a time when your husband with you. Both conclusions each person makes are perfectly rational conclusions based on the current information that each person has, yet the conclusions nonetheless differ dramatically.

My question here was: Are these two differing yet equally rational conclusions separate beliefs? The reason I ask this is because @Jodie.Lynne was essentially saying that the most rational conclusion based on all available evidence isn't really a "belief" per say (correct me if I'm wrong Jodie, that was my interpretation of your post), so I merely posited this question as a hypothetical to challenge that view.

As I said earlier, I personally find this mostly to just be a game of semantics, but regardless the question is worthy of asking IMO.

The belief that the husband is a cheat and the belief that he is faithful are both beliefs.  Evidence and knowledge may go to one particular event but does not prove overall  innocence .

If the video was  proven to be accurately date stamped and the wife knew her husband was with her  at the time, then she has knowledge he was not unfaithful on that  occasion.

  having a twin brother only complicates the issue.  It might have been the twin, or it  might have been the husband.   Without knowledge as just suggested, the wife still  has to choose which one she believes  was on the video 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Mr Walker

[+Hammerclaw]

7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

What you mean is  that you can accept  the first because it does not conflict with your beliefs. You refuse to accept the rest because it does

LOl no emotion involved. Pure, simple, rational and logical, reasoning  One doesn't feel emotion for the heart surgeon who operates and saves one's life so why have an emotional investment in an "god" who does the same for you.

I am thankful and appreciative for both but don't FEEL emotional about either.  

 

Old, friend, I find you one of the most sincerely emotional posters here, in your own restrained, pedantic, self-depreciating sort of way. You're certainly no Stoic. You might want to check the meanings of emotion and passion, since you have a surfeit of both. That's a complement, by-the-way.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

18 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

What you mean is  that you can accept  the first because it does not conflict with your beliefs. You refuse to accept the rest because it does

LOl no emotion involved. Pure, simple, rational and logical, reasoning  One doesn't feel emotion for the heart surgeon who operates and saves one's life so why have an emotional investment in an "god" who does the same for you.

I am thankful and appreciative for both but don't FEEL emotional about either.  

 

I don’t believe anything,  I don’t know in truth, you saw a light that you thought were truck lights, I believe you, beyond that... I am open to changing my mind if you have evidence or facts of some kind. 

Really, Walls wouldn’t it be a hoot if I was the reason you found a way to evidence this? 

And, who are you kidding you are a teddy bear on the inside, very emotional and sensitive. 

Lol

Edited September 17, 2019 by Sherapy