romansh

I would agree that the OP is open to some interpretation ... if that is what you mean. Some Americans being open to open borders, could have been a generalist border. But you have to admit foreigners is a dualistic concept ... in spades. My ancestors left Africa a long time ago. And yours? ?

Well I am not sure about knowing that belongs on the agnostic thread. But science does point away from dualism. Did I say that? The universe is unfolding ... and I am part of that unfolding. Seeing myself as separate from the unfolding is the illusory bit. I am trying to use the same nomenclature as Joseph ... I may have gotten it wrong. Though I don't quite agree with Joseph's nomenclature. Note the lower case i in my first sentence. Why? is a nonsense is some interpretations ... just is. Being if you like. An illusion. It is like an eddy as an oar strokes the surface of the water. Cause and effect. Thormas When you start asking is it OK to derail threads? But I am glad I could accommodate you and start a thread that is on topic that you wanted to discuss.

In short the i sees itself as separate - this is an illusion, if not a delusion. Why does "I" do anything? Why do we hark back to teleology? Why assume a purpose or meaning? Just because we think we can create them? Why do we flit in and out of existence? A more interesting question for me is how?

I think ultimately I and "i" are descriptions and words ... Words by their very nature are dualistic ... so when we try to describe the universe or bits of it we are can get caught up of thinking of reality in a dualistic way. So whatever I and i are they are not as they seem. I am of the universe ... it took a whole universe to make "I" and in my excruciatingly small way "I" am shaping the universe. I and i are two sides of the same coin ... the universe. And going back to the balloon metaphor for knowledge/understanding, ignorance and things to be understood. Our "I"s are on that surface of that balloon as the universe unfolds. This metaphor can be taken with a pinch of salt or a stiff drink.

This to me seems like a semantic hedge. But if we don't give the mind a primacy, then we scepticism is in order. A meandering river chooses its path down a mountain and across a valley bottom. It uses the same four fundamental forces that we are aware of. There may be more, but so what? My point is that forming a belief is an act. It seems to be something that we are of unconscious of for the most part, but we do become aware of it once it has formed. It could be argued this belief (or meme) has found a place to call home or at least for a little while before it replicates on a piece of paper, a monitor or in another brain. These beliefs we take on come from outside, we may not always see the sources. Often they are mix of several other ideas that we think of as novel.

This is not just about the US Joseph ... and to be clear it is Americans who are foreigners ...

OK here are a couple of examples of how I think I formed my beliefs. The Earth is sphere like floating in space around the sun. Despite the apparent simple intuitive observation the sun rising and setting being told in early childhood that the Earth rotates like a spinning ball and being taught in school that it is so was enough to form my belief. Later photos from space man going to the moon etc was enough to convince me. The model of the Earth being a sphere today explains way too much for me to give up on this belief. Regarding things like gods etc I don't recall having any sort literal belief. Never believed in the miracles or the virgin birth etc, even when I would not know what a virgin was. In my teens when I was confirmed I tried to believe and any "Father like beliefs I may have tried to believe were not strong a deistic wishy-washy type affair. Almost immediately after confirmation went to university. This was an a-religious time. Was not difficult to become increasingly agnostic. By the time I finished my second bout of university I was a devout agnostic. Looking back on this I can't help but think my beliefs were a reflection of the company I kept. But today, in a slightly more philosophical bent, I find at times just having beliefs and then confabulating reasons to have them. Obviously I have come across the reasons before but then there is perhaps, unconsciously initially, a point where the belief crystallizes. So when what has been a discussion about choice of belief so far has pointed to conscious choice and unconscious choice. Paul early said he decided to do some research. I can't help wondering how much of a confabulation this was. Was Paul researching and and then "decided" to do more. And regarding how I came to lose my belief in free will. It was simply pointed out if I believed in cause and effect then free will is an illusion. If I believed in indeterminacy in some form then that was even worse. It took about three weeks for me to lose my belief, even though I knew the writing was on the wall once I started thinking about it.

While open borders might not be pragmatic, are ostensibly Christian countries going to give up on the concept of being good Samaritans? If not then what? 50 G$ on a wall? Could that money be spent a little more pragmatically? And if so how?

Thanks for the replies Guys ... I was thinking of a bit more detail ... sure our experiences (aka environment) help form our beliefs. eg take some simple/neutral example like the Earth is a spheroid ... may be we can extend it to more controversial aspects like an afterlife later? I am away for a few days ... you can ponder in peace should you wish ... rom free.

This as you would say is your opinion ... ? What? Well I am glad it is obvious. Yet when I ask for what is immaterial, we end up pointing to the material. What evidence do these others bring to bear that there is an immaterial. Because things like patriotism are very material. Saying patriotism is non-physical is to me a nonsense. The evidence points away from this assertion. You don't seem to mind throwing sticks for me. If one is confident in one's arguments then one does not mind chasing the odd goose. Well there are words like Being, Love, and One which I don't like mainly because they are poorly defined. Plus when I read your sentence I can't quite make sense of it.

Just curious ... how do we come to form beliefs? My personal opinion (based on evidence ?) is that we are physical beings and that we are strongly influenced by our environment and that our substrate (matter, molecules, atoms, fields, fundamental forces, etc) does the rest. For me consciousness does not hold primacy. For example ... I suspect most here at one point or another held a literal belief (perhaps still do) that Jesus was born of a virgin. How did we come to this belief and how did we lose it, if we did? Personally I don't recall ever believing this. I personally can't give a mechanism for not believing this, but I sure can confabulate one.

Perhaps it should be written ... of course opinion (dare I say belief?) based on evidence. And that brings us back to ... how do you form your beliefs thormas? You have had plenty of time to think about it. Patriotism is writ large in a substrate ... like all other concepts! You won't find it outside of the substrate. ... the way we have evolved to encounter and experience reality - as it seems to us ... I think would be more accurate. This of course is the disadvantage of not referencing the bit of text that is being discussed. I am sure you can find where you have discussed false in your recent posts.

Thormas ... And now would be a good time for you to have a go at answering my question. You have had time to think about it.

The problem with using consciousness (should it exist) to determine what is real, is that we have put the fox in charge of the hen house. For example were you aware that you are effectively blind for approximately two hours a day during our waking hours. Yet consciousness presents a continuous stream. Obviously this is for very short bursts and I am not referring to blinking either. There are no end of experiments to suggest we should be very wary of our consciousness. Human being are confabulators extraordinaire. When you present evidence for the non-physical I will consider it. The problem here is of course, if the non-physical interacts reliably with the physical it is immediately subsumed in the physical. But as yet we have no evidence for the non-physical. Waiting with baited breath. While using the word illusion might be scary to some, and in that sense not helpful; but it might be eye opening and helpful in that sense. That you don't spend much time on examining reality and its illusory nature is fair enough. But the word makes one think. Noise is like colour ... an illusion. For example I have tinnitus ... is that noise? Noise itself is a product of the brain. Evolution has given an exquisite mechanism to sense rapidly changing pressures in the air. Just think rapidly changing air pressure, is converted to mechanical movement in the middle ear and which is converted to electrical stimuli in the inner ear. And converted to what we call sound in the brain. I am sure there will be other creatures in the forest that are sensitive to rapidly changing air pressure. We do have a sense of what is false. If you are agnostic about the world being flat, more power to you; but if you are, you are, I see little point in discussing science with you. If you think I have said we cannot determine falseness, then you have not understood what I have been trying to say. Came across this today.

I have mentioned solipsism, have I not? Yes I have faith the universe is real. I have no way that I can certify it is real. There are idealists who claim it is not real. Some claim the moon is only real if it is being observed. Go figure. But our perception of it is. Agnosticism? Perhaps it is more accurate to say our perception of the universe is a reflection and not how we perceive it. Things like free will spring to mind. I must admit I find these theories hard to believe. It is easier to accept that consciousness is also illusionary.

9. Proceed carefully and agnostically.

Summary of my understanding of what I have said? I assume a universe exists. I have limited access to that universe in that my senses are limited. Consequently what I observe directly of the universe is incomplete. Looking at world more carefully using the scientific method our observations are more complete, but still incomplete. If we apply logic and science to our incomplete observations and our intuitive perceptions, we find that our intuitions about red kitchen chairs etc are not what they seem. So using similar processes to everything, we can say the contents of the universe are not what they seem. But nevertheless our perceptions are a reflection of the universe. And our new perceptions of the universe are more accurate as we use the scientific method ... but still likely wrong.

Then which bit or bits is it what I am supposed to mean?

It was sincere. Do you want me to dissect each sentence?

If you mean all four paragraphs? No.

Just happened across this today ... the video complement has just recently been edited and released https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/naturalism2012/# From a naturalist's point of view. Note the sections on reality and meaning ... plus others.

To whom? The request was for you to learn to use the quote function. Personally, I dislike a wall of text especially when it is full of complicated and perhaps ill defined terms. But good, you seem to have run out of questions thormas. How do you form your beliefs?

You can break down the key bit ... or or the whole lot. Your method that you like is awkward for the reader.

Also to add. At least on my computer when I highlight a bit of text ... I get a black quote box saying quote selection. And clicking on that, easily allows quoting. Though at times it can be a little messy, but most of the time is fine.

Carefully - by using different methods of perception, repeating, seeing if predictions corroborate the model. Saying something is not accurate is in itself not accurate. Could there be shades of accuracy. Remember ... our perceptions are reflections of the universe. When you look in a mirror the reflection is backwards left to right. Yes as far as I can tell the universe is real. But someone could go all solipsistic on us and claim some form of idealism on us. Here you seem to confound again ... everything is real. Even our illusions are real. Everything is as it is. We don't 'know'. How did we work out my kitchen chair is not actually red? And again we go round in circles - agnosticism. But we can tentatively put forward models, hypotheses, theories of the universe on a pedestal and take a piñata bat to them. This is the essence of the process of science. The universe is ... as far as I can tell. The chair by definition is a construct ... I could go all Matrix on you ... there is no spoon. The spoon and chair are not made up spoon and chair parts. They are atoms arranged in a particular way as are trees and cats. Sure chairs and spoons have been shaped by human kind, which in turn have been shaped by evolution. And evolution is product of the universe. No intention [you seem to be pointing to intent] here as far as we can tell. And when we talk of our own intentions, this is a confabulation. And at this point the discussion will devolve into consciousness. Yes, nature abhors a vacuum. The Universe from Nothing youtube would be one place to start, Hawking and Mlodinow's The Grand Design gives us an insight how a universe might come into existence. But end of the day this is irrelevant to the immediate problem. Well theists argue what is the first cause for this universe ... the answer obviously being God. Physicalists argue the nothing is the first cause. Nothing [as in vacuum] is unstable. Interestingly we can measure properties of nothing eg the Casimir effect and compare them to theoretical predictions. But these are all hypotheses and should be taken with a pinch of salt. Especially further back we go in the causal chain.