No one chooses what they believe

[Jodie.Lynne]

1 hour ago, Br Cornelius said:

The only thing I think i know with certainty is that anyone who is certain about anything is a fool.

I disagree with this statement.

I am certain that I exist. I reject "brain in a vat", or "matrix" type existences, for the simple reason that IF, I were existing only in my consciousness, my simulated life would be much more pleasant, and would be minus some of the most awful portions.

As another principle of why I reject "simulated" existence, is there are far too many really annoying personalities (just on these boards!) that I would gladly do without, so I can't even picture myself creating these annoyances. 

 

I am certain that if I drop an object, it will fall, therefore, gravity is a fact that I am certain of.

I am certain that there were a chain of humans leading up to my birth. I have seen, talked to, and touched some of those who came before me.

Just as I am certain that there will be a chain of humans, after I cease to exist, because I helped to create one of them.

I am also certain that all the personas I have interacted on this forum (as well as others), do in fact, exist. Even you Br Cornelius.

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

our analogy is flawed. If Frank sees the grass, and sees that it is green, he has first hand knowledge of the facts.

Hi Jodie

My grass isn't always green.

jmccr8

[Jodie.Lynne]

6 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Jodie

My grass isn't always green.

jmccr8

 

Hun, y'all gotta stop smokin' that stuff! 

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

 

Hun, y'all gotta stop smokin' that stuff! 

But Jodie

Now it's legal.

jmccr8

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

4 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Damn! You cleared something up for me. (And yeah, I think you maybe right about this doctor. He was my son's pediatrician and this was years ago in another state. I don't know. *shrugs* ) But, I did some searching from what you suggested, and came up with this: 

Note: although it's, I believe, called Heterochromia iridum. I looked up the term you put, and kept getting links to get some specially made sun glasses.     I even wikipedia it, and despite some links in it about retina scans, there was also a link to Wil Wheaton! (surprised about that) 

But, I found this Wikipedia page  and this bit here: ( I have to note, despite that it's discussing a set of eyes, one a particular color, the other, a different color, this is more of what my son has. 

Though, the brown in his eye is thinner. 

I also did some more searching, off Wikipedia to this page:

The thing is my hubby's and my eyes are the same, both blue. Then again, I'm from parents, whose both of their set of eyes are brown. Who knows! *shrugs* But, I learned something new today.............. that makes sense.     

Yes, it was a long time ago when I looked it up.  It is Heterochromia Irridum.  I am doing pretty well if I remember it that close.    The link I found had more description.  I will see if I can find it as I do not use wikipedia very often.  There are almost always better sources.

I would be looking forward to seeing that. The second link is not from wikipedia. (I agree with you on Wikipedia ) I just worded it wrong, looking like I pulled it from Wikipedia, when I meant I went somewhere else, other than Wikipedia. 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Quote

Heterochromia iridis is characterized by color differences of the iris (the colored part of the eye), either between the eyes or within one eye. In people with complete heterochromia, the iris of one eye is a different color than the iris of the other eye. Segmental heterochromia occurs when areas of the same iris are different in color. Most cases of heterochromia iridis occur sporadically and are not associated with any other symptoms or problems. Rarely, heterochromia iridis is part of a congenital (present from birth) syndrome such as Waardenburg syndrome, Sturge-Weber syndrome, Parry-Romberg syndrome, or Horner's syndrome. Treatment for people with heterochromia iridis may only be needed if there is an underlying syndrome causing health problems.^[1][2]

Last updated: 4/8/2015

 

https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8590/heterochromia-iridis

Here is another link:

https://www.aao.org/eye-health/diseases/what-is-heterochromia

 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

4 hours ago, danydandan said:

Pffft, if you're always right, I'm always right and MrWalker is always right.....then something doesn't add up.

You did your word math wrong. 1+1 = Me. There's is no room for anyone else in that equation. I might give you a pass considering you're a ginger as well. And we are both a part of the #1 minority group on the planet. Never mind that. Have I told everyone that I spelunked into a volcano, gave someone open heart surgery on a jungle trip, and single handedly stopped a robbery with only a toothpick, that's how awesome I am. True story.

I concur, because I raised him right!!!!!!  

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It does say Pascal later accepted the solution, but I was surprised that Pascal, whose definition in my brain is admittedly uninformed and is just 'legendary genius mathematician', had trouble with an idea that seems so basic and logical and obvious.  I'm not sure how accurate this story is, but it's interesting to think of how much differently they must have thought about things and how different their reality was when obvious-now things like this hadn't occurred to them and were tough to grasp.

I don't know the program you watched, but I'd be surprised too. Galieo had introduced the "counting" method of probabilitiy calculation by about 1600 (probability of favorable outcome = count of favorable "equally likely" outcomes / count of all possible "equally likely" outcomes). So far as I know, what Pascal and Fermat contributed were advanced methods for counting (the general formulas for combinations of n things taken m at a time, the permutations...), application of those methods to complicated betting games, and foundational discussion about whether the "expected value" is the "fair value" of a game (which turns out to be a hard question; people don't usually behave that way except for small stakes).

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

f you asked a person riding a bike exactly how they do it, they'd be hard-pressed to put into words.  The same is true with so called 'black box' machine learning applications like Sebastian's.  No one, including Sebastian, knows how it detects skin cancer. 

Depends. "Neural net" style machine learning ("black box" as used in the quote?) doesn't usually offer explanations, and doesn't aspire to. "Bayes net" style learners have more potential for offering explanations (they track the influence of specific observations to specific changes in "confidence" among the hypotheses). Bayes net style learners also integrate well into widely used formal decisionmaking techniques.

Oh - Sebastian Thrun probably:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21056

 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

26 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I don't know the program you watched, but I'd be surprised too

Yea, I thought that was strange.  The only reference I see that is similar is in the blurb for a book on Amazon, but it sounds overstated also:

"In the early seventeenth century, the outcome of something as simple as a dice roll was consigned to the realm of unknowable chance. Mathematicians largely agreed that it was impossible to predict the probability of an occurrence. Then, in 1654, Blaise Pascal wrote to Pierre de Fermat explaining that he had discovered how to calculate risk. The two collaborated to develop what is now known as probability theory—a concept that allows us to think rationally about decisions and events."

https://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Game-Pascal-Fermat-Seventeenth-Century/dp/0465018963

 

[Jodie.Lynne]

53 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I concur, because I raised him right!!!!!!  

Awwwww!  Adorable. I wanna hug them, but I know Mama Bear would shred me like cheese.

[Unfortunately]

10 hours ago, danydandan said:

The Oxford dictionary agrees with you.

"An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

Other dictionaries have it as with or without proof. So I guess it depends on which side of the Atlantic you are on?

You've really hit the nail on the head here, it could mostly be a question of semantics now. 

10 hours ago, Mellon Man said:

We are discussing the philosophical concept of belief. Not it's common definition. 

As to regards, knowlegde being a particularly kind of belief, please see below (not directed at you (danydandan). 

"Let us begin with the observation that knowledge is a mental state; that is, knowledge exists in one's mind, and unthinking things cannot know anything. Further, knowledge is a specific kind of mental state. While "that"-clauses can also be used to describe desires and intentions, these cannot constitute knowledge. Rather, knowledge is a kind of belief. If one has no beliefs about a particular matter, one cannot have knowledge about it."

https://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/

In order to discuss the concept of belief one needs to use a standardised definition for the word.

Our arguments become valid when we use the definitions that we are familiar with, it doesn't help that both definitions are accepted/refused throughout the world depending on your geographic location.

Without being able to agree on a standard definition we can't effectively breakdown the word in order to discuss the philosophical concept of it. We're essentially at a roadblock, so to speak. 

[Guest Br Cornelius]

9 hours ago, XenoFish said:

What The Fool means.

 

A better description of the fool is had here:
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/crowley/libro_thoth03.htm
A way to think of the fool is as the start and end points of any journey.

Br Cornelius

Edited July 25, 2019 by Br Cornelius

[Mr Walker]

On 24/07/2019 at 1:09 AM, cormac mac airt said:

HERC2 doesn't make melanin, at all. HERC2 inhibits the OCA2 gene which...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2045q6234h66p744/

It's the inhibition of the OCA2 gene that causes blue eye color NOT a difference in the HERC2 gene.

cormac

did you bother reading the source i gave?

Basically it is as i explained. But i am happy to give you a technical point or two  

[Mr Walker]

On 24/07/2019 at 1:47 AM, cormac mac airt said:

Never said "A" gene wasn't passed down by procreation however in your pretenses to expounding on evolution you ignore the fact that there ARE MULTIPLE genes responsible for coloration while you stick to HERC2 as if it's the end all/be all of the discussion. It ISN'T. You weren't even right in what HERC2 does. HERC2 is basically, at this point, the last piece of the puzzle but without the other pieces, especially OCA2, it's irrelevant. And its inhibition of the OCA2 gene isn't considered "evolution" until such time as it is successfully passed down to later generations. Existing for just one or two generations would make it an evolutionary FAILURE. Not my fault you don't understand "why" evolution is defined as it is, beyond what amounts to "I don't like that definition" from you. Your problem. 

cormac

No I am not ignoring this. Each and every gene is passed down by one individual and each alteration occurs at an individual level The combination and adaptions  within genes also comes from  breeding over time between individuals  it want MY point it was the sources . And No. Again you are wrong. Every individual alteration is a part of evolution. Evolution is constant ongoing and NOT a series of separate identifiable stages in evolution (although they also come about over time 

Not my problem. Wherever you got it from, or learned it,  your definition of what evolution is, is totally wrong and almost every source you will find confirms this

eg quote

 The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.

https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html

Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called "microevolution."

But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species, known as "macroevolution." It can turn dinosaurs into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans.

The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called mutations. "Mutations are basically the raw material on which evolution acts," Pobiner said. 

Mutations can be caused by random errors in DNA replication or repair, or by chemical or radiation damage. Most times, mutations are either harmful or neutral, but in rare instances, a mutation might prove beneficial to the organism. If so, it will become more prevalent in the next generation and spread throughout the population. 

In this way, natural selection guides the evolutionary process, preserving and adding up the beneficial mutations and rejecting the bad ones. "Mutations are random, but selection for them is not random," Pobiner said.

But natural selection isn't the only mechanism by which organisms evolve, she said. For example, genes can be transferred from one population to another when organisms migrate or immigrate, a process known as gene flow. And the frequency of certain genes can also change at random, which is called genetic drift. 

 

 

All of this is evolution in action

 

[Mr Walker]

On 25/07/2019 at 6:21 AM, XenoFish said:

If you really think about aren't all of us related in some way? 

genetically yes  at least back to about 150000 years if you are a woman alive today. 

 

[Timothy]

On 28/06/2019 at 12:32 PM, spartan max2 said:

Do people really choose to be a believer or disbeliever ?

I'm an atheist. I would never say I chose think that way.

At all points in my life, when I was a believer , an agnostic , and an atheist , I never once felt like I chose that.

It always felt likes things that just happened to me. It was always a slow transition until I woke up one day and felt different. 

It seems people do not really choose what they believe. It seems like it just happens. 

Does anyone feel the same way? Or do you feel your belief or lack there of was a choice?

Most people don’t choose, because most people are emotional and swayed by whatever influences them at the time.

You can choose. 

You have a choice. If you’re ignorant enough to ignore it, that must work for you. 

Ignorant in bliss, or hardship etc. it’s easy to look for something if you can’t logically find an answer. 

That’s it. Black and white. You can understand the magnitude of life, or you can believe. 

Belief is easier than understanding our mortality.

Edited August 4, 2019 by Timothy
Don’t know why font is different size, must be fate!

[XenoFish]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201808/why-do-people-believe-in-god

An interesting read.

[+DieChecker]

On 7/24/2019 at 2:10 PM, XenoFish said:

I won't mind getting a DNA test at some point. I'm pretty sure unknown might be on the list...

My wife got me one for Fathers Day and I just did it last week. I'll be finding out what kind of mutt I am pretty soon.

My dad did one and his said he was approximately 99% on the bell curve of neanderthal genes. Not sure what % that is. Maybe 2%?

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

My wife got me one for Fathers Day and I just did it last week. I'll be finding out what kind of mutt I am pretty soon.

My dad did one and his said he was approximately 99% on the bell curve of neanderthal genes. Not sure what % that is. Maybe 2%?

I don't know what percent xenofishian I am? 

[+DieChecker]

Just now, XenoFish said:

I don't know what percent xenofishian I am? 

Probably 25%... The other 75% is BS. 

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

Probably 25%... The other 75% is BS. 

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, XenoFish said:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201808/why-do-people-believe-in-god

An interesting read.

Oh come on.

This can't possibly be correct.

After all, it is just what i have been arguing on UM for over a decade, and no one believes anything i say  

Hence these experts must be wrong, if they agree with me  

[+Liquid Gardens]

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Oh come on.

This can't possibly be correct.

After all, it is just what i have been arguing on UM for over a decade, and no one believes anything i say  

Hence these experts must be wrong, if they agree with me  

Ha, what specifically in that article have people said they don't believe when you state it?  What the article says and what you then extrapolate as truths from those ideas are entirely different things.

You usually are very choosy, I would say 'inconsistent', concerning which ideas you try to argue these extrapolations or possible implications from.  You tend to avoid or hand-wave away the implications from other things mentioned in the article:

" But in anonymous societies, it’s easy to take advantage of others, as there’s no way for the rest of the group to punish those who take advantage of the system. The solution was to invent ever-watchful gods who’ll punish cheaters for us. "

" Perhaps relatedly, we also see a tendency for people who are higher in intelligence to hold agnostic or atheistic beliefs. "

"As a general rule, religious belief is considerably lower in developed countries compared with the underdeveloped world."

"Organized religion may no longer be needed in such societies, but it’s still human nature to perceive agency in the complexity and unpredictability of the world, even when there is none."

[brian100]

On 6/27/2019 at 7:32 PM, spartan max2 said:

Do people really choose to be a believer or disbeliever ?

I'm an atheist. I would never say I chose think that way.

At all points in my life, when I was a believer , an agnostic , and an atheist , I never once felt like I chose that.

It always felt likes things that just happened to me. It was always a slow transition until I woke up one day and felt different. 

It seems people do not really choose what they believe. It seems like it just happens. 

Does anyone feel the same way? Or do you feel your belief or lack there of was a choice?

 

Yeah  its always the persons choice. I think people who become atheistic would rather be nothing (dead and gone) than say a prayer to God thanking him for the gift of life.

 

[spartan max2]

4 hours ago, brian100 said:

Yeah  its always the persons choice. I think people who become atheistic would rather be nothing (dead and gone) than say a prayer to God thanking him for the gift of life.

 

No, I'm atheist and if offered the choice to live forever I'd take it in a second.