Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

[Aridas]

I didn't mention anywhere that that meant exclusively...

There was no point at all underlying your comment and suggestion of dishonesty, then?

A paradigm may be a pattern, contrary to your belief:

Responding with something that's irrelevant to the point as if it were somehow relevant is a fallacy, at last check. You're trying to dodge the point by invoking something that adds no meaningful information regarding the actual issue at hand.

You might have missed it, but science cannot include non-science, where as belief can...

You might have missed it, but you're invoking blatantly fallacious logic when you're trying to use that to justify what you are. Does red oppose crimson because red can refer to other shades of red than crimson as well as crimson, while crimson can only refer to crimson? No. It cannot be validly said to do so, unless we were to accept that crimson is "opposed" to crimson. As that relates to your claims, a necessary consequence of the logic that you're employing is that science is opposed to science.

False.
You may notice that I referred to two groups:
(1) Heathens.
(2) Theists.

Heathens may include atheists.

Heathens, in the real world, include both theists and atheists. Denying reality is not a trait that you should be embracing if you actually value science.

It is still observable that your thoughts on the matter are errors.

You've completely failed to demonstrate such without invoking fallacious logic, thus, I cannot responsibly accept your claim.

Science is not a "belief", it is a methodological process used to help determine whether not a belief is true.

The scientific method is inherently based in belief and people accepting it and employing it is also inherently driven by belief. There is, quite literally, no way around that, if one is interested in dealing with the reality of what's going on. It's not magical in the least at its base, after all, unlike you would seem to suggest here with your poorly based attempt at denial and there's no need to descend to the level of the "woos" who try to misconstrue what's actually going on to gain fallacious support for the answer that they desire. In application, after one accepts (in line with the first of the definitions of belief) the premises that the scientific method rests upon, which were specifically chosen to try to be as reasonable and useful as possible, then the results of that method of evaluation help to inform an assessment about how reasonable it is to accept a belief.

Alternately and more simply, your claim can be refuted by saying "The scientific method is a set of beliefs that we employ to evaluate what we can to try to help determine if it's reasonable to accept a belief."

I ask why beings bother to contact belief.

There are a few answers, dependent on what, exactly, you're referring to as belief. You seem to have issues with conflating different usages of the term, though, so no direct answer can be given to this.

Belief is not only redundant (science is true regardless of belief),

Even taken alone, this part would be enough to demonstrate your remarkable foolishness on this subject, quite frankly. It doesn't get any better with the context, either. "Belief" is not inherently redundant because it addresses other concerns, like whether something is reasonable to accept even after all the many uncertainties are taken into account, rather than a direct claim that something is definitely the case. Also of note is that science is NOT true regardless of belief, no matter how many times you try to religiously equate the two. Reality is true regardless of belief. Science is fairly certainly the best tool at our disposal by far for determining how well various beliefs align with reality, but it is not truth itself and nor is it anywhere close to foolproof.

but also, belief inherently opposes science; it concerns especially non-evidence.

As fallacious and unimpressive as the last many times you tried to assert this and were refuted.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

There was no point at all underlying your comment and suggestion of dishonesty, then?



Responding with something that's irrelevant to the point as if it were somehow relevant is a fallacy, at last check. You're trying to dodge the point by invoking something that adds no meaningful information regarding the actual issue at hand.




You might have missed it, but you're invoking blatantly fallacious logic when you're trying to use that to justify what you are. Does red oppose crimson because red can refer to other shades of red than crimson as well as crimson, while crimson can only refer to crimson? No. It cannot be validly said to do so, unless we were to accept that crimson is "opposed" to crimson. As that relates to your claims, a necessary consequence of the logic that you're employing is that science is opposed to science.




Heathens, in the real world, include both theists and atheists. Denying reality is not a trait that you should be embracing if you actually value science.



You've completely failed to demonstrate such without invoking fallacious logic, thus, I cannot responsibly accept your claim.



The scientific method is inherently based in belief and people accepting it and employing it is also inherently driven by belief. There is, quite literally, no way around that, if one is interested in dealing with the reality of what's going on. It's not magical in the least at its base, after all, unlike you would seem to suggest here with your poorly based attempt at denial and there's no need to descend to the level of the "woos" who try to misconstrue what's actually going on to gain fallacious support for the answer that they desire. In application, after one accepts (in line with the first of the definitions of belief) the premises that the scientific method rests upon, which were specifically chosen to try to be as reasonable and useful as possible, then the results of that method of evaluation help to inform an assessment about how reasonable it is to accept a belief.

Alternately and more simply, your claim can be refuted by saying "The scientific method is a set of beliefs that we employ to evaluate what we can to try to help determine if it's reasonable to accept a belief."



There are a few answers, dependent on what, exactly, you're referring to as belief. You seem to have issues with conflating different usages of the term, though, so no direct answer can be given to this.



Even taken alone, this part would be enough to demonstrate your remarkable foolishness on this subject, quite frankly. It doesn't get any better with the context, either. "Belief" is not inherently redundant because it addresses other concerns, like whether something is reasonable to accept even after all the many uncertainties are taken into account, rather than a direct claim that something is definitely the case. Also of note is that science is NOT true regardless of belief, no matter how many times you try to religiously equate the two. Reality is true regardless of belief. Science is fairly certainly the best tool at our disposal by far for determining how well various beliefs align with reality, but it is not truth itself and nor is it anywhere close to foolproof.



As fallacious and unimpressive as the last many times you tried to assert this and were refuted.

The prior points of mine are observably valid.

Perhaps you should consider doubly or perhaps triply reading your response above.

Simply, belief by the standard definition, may include non science, whereas science may not.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Heathens also includes theists.

Yes.

You may have noticed that in the original post, I expressed of heathens .. "and theists too".

Thusly, it is quite clear that I had been referring to atheist aligned heathens...

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Pay attention: I was refering to bacteria, which YOU brought up.



It's interesting that you're only paraphrasing yourself, here, and dishonestly so at that.



It only appears that way because you lost track of the conversation.



I love that you're quoting yourself as a refutation.

I had mentioned insects, bacteria and non human animals.

You had not specified of bacteria in your response via reply 20.

You had blundered, and thusly it is time to move on. Ironically, it is you that had lost track of the conversation.

 

[Belz...]

I had mentioned insects, bacteria and non human animals.

You had not specified of bacteria in your response via reply 20.

Because it was bloody obvious, given that you mentioned two specifically non-thinking lifeform types a third category which includes ALL animals (of which insects are a subcategory, by the way).

You had blundered

Don't blame your inability to understand what people are telling you on others.

Ironically, it is you that had lost track of the conversation.

I can't possibly lose track of the single thing I said. If you didn't focus on trying to "win" the conversation you wouldn't make such stupid mistakes.

 

[steenkh]

There is a non-trivial probability that life's goal state/purpose/meaning occurs on the horizon of optimization. (See "Dissipative Adaptation", by physicist Jeremy England)

Wait ... you are saying that scientists have found the meaning of life?

That's amazing!

Well, actually, I read Quanta Magazine's article on "Dissipative Adaptation in Driven Self-assembly" and there was no mention of meaning of life. Do you think I would find it if I paid for Jeremy England's original article?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

You know PGJ, we all agree with the first of what you're saying.
We all know that science is the best tool we have for understanding the world around us. We all agree that holding faith over empiricism is dangerous and has lead to many tragedies. You don't have to convince us of that.
Many of us would even agree with you that it is best to question all our own assumptions and be prepared to adjust our world view in the light of new evidence.

The problem is how you convey your message. The idiosyncratic robot speak. The fallacies. Getting bogged down in discussing specific words rather than the arguments that are being made.

 

[Mojo]

Noticing your username, what do you garner is life's purpose?

Unless one of you is a Geordie, it seems you have misread Porpoise of Life's username.

 

[Aridas]

The prior points of mine are observably valid.

Perhaps you should consider doubly or perhaps triply reading your response above.

Simply, belief by the standard definition, may include non science, whereas science may not.

Does red oppose crimson because red can refer to other shades of red than crimson as well as crimson, while crimson can only refer to crimson?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Because it was bloody obvious, given that you mentioned two specifically non-thinking lifeform types a third category which includes ALL animals (of which insects are a subcategory, by the way).



Don't blame your inability to understand what people are telling you on others.



I can't possibly lose track of the single thing I said. If you didn't focus on trying to "win" the conversation you wouldn't make such stupid mistakes.

Conversation history:

(1) Jordan: Insects, bacteria, and non-human animals don't appear to require belief to fulfill tasks
(2) Argumemnon: It goes without saying that beings without the ability to think can't believe..

It appeared to be a blunder, because that bacteria don't think at all, is unclear:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100114143310.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/12/10/do-bacteria-think/

You had not specified of the bacteria class in your earlier speech, and so you unavoidably blundered...

(This is because that bacteria can't think at all, is not a valid statement)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Wait ... you are saying that scientists have found the meaning of life?

That's amazing!

Well, actually, I read Quanta Magazine's article on "Dissipative Adaptation in Driven Self-assembly" and there was no mention of meaning of life. Do you think I would find it if I paid for Jeremy England's original article?

Here is another article:

"MIT Physicist Proposes New 'Meaning of Life' "
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/mit-physicist-proposes-new-meaning-of-life

 

[Mojo]

Here is another article:

"MIT Physicist Proposes New 'Meaning of Life' "
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/mit-physicist-proposes-new-meaning-of-life

Would steenkh discover the meaning of life if he paid for Jeremy England's original article?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You know PGJ, we all agree with the first of what you're saying.
We all know that science is the best tool we have for understanding the world around us. We all agree that holding faith over empiricism is dangerous and has lead to many tragedies. You don't have to convince us of that.
Many of us would even agree with you that it is best to question all our own assumptions and be prepared to adjust our world view in the light of new evidence.
The problem is how you convey your message. The idiosyncratic robot speak. The fallacies. Getting bogged down in discussing specific words rather than the arguments that are being made.

That's odd.

There doesn't appear to be any such fallacies; the original post expresses that belief is both redundant, and perhaps dangerous, as is expressed by the portions highlighted in yellow above.

 

[Belz...]

Conversation history:

(1) Jordan: Insects, bacteria, and non-human animals don't appear to require belief to fulfill tasks
(2) Argumemnon: It goes without saying that beings without the ability to think can't believe..

It appeared to be a blunder, because that bacteria don't think at all, is unclear:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100114143310.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/12/10/do-bacteria-think/

Bacteria don't have nervous systems. Ergo they don't think.

You had not specified of the bacteria class in your earlier speech, and so you unavoidably blundered...

No I didn't specify because I thought you were smart enough to understand that.

(This is because that bacteria can't think at all, is not a valid statement)

I'm not sure you're clear on what "valid" means.

All this is a distraction and you know it. You omitted the start of the conversation in your history, which I guess is very convenient to you. You named bacteria and insects and such as a counter to me saying that belief is a useful evolutionary trait, but, and this is how that word should be used, your counter was not valid, because it doesn't address what I said even if it's true.

Do you know why?

Because legs are a useful evolutionary trait as well, but bacteria don't have it. By your logic it means that legs are not useful.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Would steenkh discover the meaning of life if he paid for Jeremy England's original article?

No; see physicist Jeremy England's public domain paper.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Bacteria don't have nervous systems. [Ergo they don't think.


No I didn't specify because I thought you were smart enough to understand that.



I'm not sure you're clear on what "valid" means.

All this is a distraction and you know it. You omitted the start of the conversation in your history, which I guess is very convenient to you. You named bacteria and insects and such as a counter to me saying that belief is a useful evolutionary trait, but, and this is how that word should be used, your counter was not valid, because it doesn't address what I said even if it's true.

Do you know why?

Because legs are a useful evolutionary trait as well, but bacteria don't have it. By your logic it means that legs are not useful.

If I had detected an error in my expressions, I would have then publicly acknowledged such.
However, I had made no such error; I had not omitted any text; your invalid response concerned the lack of specificity amidst bacteria, so it is fair to start where I first mentioned bacteria.

Anyway, you might want to read the articles I enlisted.

So you did need to specify, otherwise your remark is invalid; for some class of bacteria are observed as thinking beings.

Time to move on, you had long blundered, and you further cement your errors by ignoring your blunder's presence..

 

[Belz...]

If I had detected an error in my expressions, I would have then publicly acknowledged such.

Which just shows how poor your reasoning skills and self-awareness are that you didn't spot the errors.

However, I had made no such error; I had not omitted any text

Now that's a lie. Everyone can go back and see the first two posts of the conversation and the context they give to your responses. This is ignoring the fact that you altered your own responses the first time around in order to make the conversation appear as if you were in the right when you were in fact wrong. So that's two lies for the price of one.

your invalid response concerned the lack of specificity amidst bacteria

I guess my assumption was quite wrong then. I shan't make that mistake again.

Anyway, you might want to read the articles I enlisted.

No need. It is physically impossible for bacteria to think, given that they lack brains. You simply don't understand what the articles are talking about.

So you did need to specify, otherwise your remark is invalid

Stop using that word. You don't even know what it means.

Time to move on

I don't believe you. You said that already and didn't move on. Now, do you want to actually move on? If so, address your errors.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Which just shows how poor your reasoning skills and self-awareness are that you didn't spot the errors.



Now that's a lie. Everyone can go back and see the first two posts of the conversation and the context they give to your responses. This is ignoring the fact that you altered your own responses the first time around in order to make the conversation appear as if you were in the right when you were in fact wrong. So that's two lies for the price of one.



I guess my assumption was quite wrong then. I shan't make that mistake again.



No need. It is physically impossible for bacteria to think, given that they lack brains. You simply don't understand what the articles are talking about.



Stop using that word. You don't even know what it means.



I don't believe you. You said that already and didn't move on.

Now, do you want to actually move on? If so, address your errors.

Why do you continue to ignore the links I presented above that show that bacteria can perform cognitive sequences?

Are you blocked from observing links? Was the screenshot showing the evidence not visible to you?

Are you trolling?


For others here, Argumenon argued that bacteria can't think but in contrast, here is data once more, that contradicts Argumenon's nonsensical remark:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100114143310.htm

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/12/10/do-bacteria-think/

What benefit do you gain from ignoring your blunder above?

 

[John Jones]

Conversation history:
[°°°]

Do you have position you wish to present?

 

[Belz...]

Why do you continue to ignore the links I presented above that show that bacteria can perform cognitive sequences?

I didn't. I addressed it, remember?

For others here, Argumenon argued that bacteria can't think but in contrast, here is data once more, that contradicts Argumenon's nonsensical remark:

Please write my name correctly.

What benefit do you gain from ignoring your blunder above?

Just because I pointed out that you made an error doesn't mean you have to accuse me of doing the same over and over. That's what a child does.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/1jiSyAv.jpg[/qimg]

And yet you just can't seem to let it go.

You're ignoring the crux of my argument, which I've repeated several times now. But ignoring or cutting out parts of other people's arguments seems to be your modus operandi. I'll try again:

That other species or families manage fine without feature X does not negate the fact that feature X is a useful evolutionary feature to OUR species. Can you address this, at some point?