What is Belief?

[Iacchus]

What do you believe in then? Or, is everything pretty much spelled out in terms of matter-of-fact to you? If, by your own admission however, you are a creature of belief, then that opens up the door of possibility that there is a God. Why? Because that tells us that man is religious by nature.

 

[Piscivore]

"Have you got anything without spam?"

 

[Iacchus]

Green eggs and ham?

Actually it's a pretty basic question, that kind of gets to the heart of the matter. But then again if it's something you would rather not hear? Doesn't jive with what you want to believe, huh?

 

[Piscivore]

Green eggs and ham?

Actually it's a pretty basic question, that kind of gets to the heart of the matter. But then again if it's something you would rather not hear? Doesn't jive with what you want to believe, huh?

No, on all counts.

Wait, no- you are correct in that I'd rather not hear it, because it's typical meaningless blather.

 

[Iacchus]

No, on all counts.

Wait, no- you are correct in that I'd rather not hear it, because it's typical meaningless blather.

Oh, I see that you're beginning to fit in with the crowd here rather nicely.

I understand that meaning is relative though, because it's all a matter of belief, right?

 

[Piscivore]

Oh, I see that you're beginning to fit in with the crowd here rather nicely.

I understand that meaning is relative though, because it's all a matter of belief, right?

Thanks- I consider that a compliment, Yes, and No.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Oh, I see that you're beginning to fit in with the crowd here rather nicely.

I understand that meaning is relative though, because it's all a matter of belief, right?

Meaning is relative because it is dependent upon the interpretive power brought to bear on the information. Beliefs can influence how one interprets and makes use of the information, of course, but this is not the basis for the relativity of meaning.

 

[Iacchus]

So basically you agree with what I'm saying here, and explain why, and then turn around and say it's unrelated, without any explanation. Interesting. Do you have anything further to add?

 

[Z]

Belief is a function of ignorance. Faith/belief fades as ignorance is eliminated. "Proof denies faith" et. al.

I once believed that those huge metal constructs that dot the landscape were alien machines, until I learned that they were radio towers. Once ignorance was peeled away, my belief went with it, and was replaced with certain knowledge.

This is the nature of things - Religion and faith are only necessary when one is ignorant of the truth. Belief that rainbows are a contract with God fades once one understands light refraction and atmospheric densities. Belief that lightning is hurled by Gods living in clouds fades when one comes to understand the subtle play of atmospheric charge during a storm.

Every hole that God has hidden in turns out to be empty when the light of Truth is shined into it. In no wise has God upheld himself before the inquiries of truth.

However, I've no doubt you will continue to believe that man is a creature of faith. First, you are yourself painfully ignorant; second, most people are, in fact, painfully ignorant as well, and are therefore, creatures of faith.

 

[Iacchus]

However, I've no doubt you will continue to believe that man is a creature of faith. First, you are yourself painfully ignorant; second, most people are, in fact, painfully ignorant as well, and are therefore, creatures of faith.

Do you believe that reality is absolute? Or, do you know that reality is absolute?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Cap'n Sparky
So basically you agree with what I'm saying here, and explain why, and then turn around and say it's unrelated, without any explanation. Interesting. Do you have anything further to add?

So basically, you can't understand that things can be related without one thing being based on the other. Let's take this step by step, and maybe you won't have to make such asinine statments as this in the future.

Originally posted by me
Meaning is relative

OK. Here I agree with your statement that meaning is relative. So far, so good.

because it is dependent upon the interpretive power brought to bear on the information.

Now, I give the reason I consider meaning to be relative. Let us note that this is a different reason than the one you gave.

Beliefs can influence how one interprets and makes use of the information, of course,

Here, I concede that beliefs can exert some influence on interpretation of information, or giving something meaning. Note that I did not say "Beliefs do influence..." Consult any standard dictionary to learn what this distinction might mean.

but this is not the basis for the relativity of meaning.

Here, I explicitly deny that your reason is correct. The reason I give has already been stated, but, to make sure you get it, let's review...

it is dependent upon the interpretive power brought to bear on the information.

Now, if you have any questions that don't rely on a complete misunderstanding of what I said, feel free to ask.

 

[Iacchus]

OK. Here I agree with your statement that meaning is relative. So far, so good.

So what makes meaning relative if, in fact it isn't a matter we believe? (and/or interpret). Sorry, the rest of what you say is a load of BS. Designed to confound and confuse I would say.

Are you saying that a belief is not a matter of what we interpret something to be? What's the difference between that and the relative meaning of something, which is also interpretive?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

So what makes meaning relative if, in fact it isn't a matter we believe? (and/or interpret).

So what this all comes down to is that you don't understand what I mean by "the interpretive power brought to bear on the information." You could have just said so, instead of happily assuming it means nearly the same thing as "belief."

All right, simply put, what I mean is any given piece of information is only given meaning relative to the appartus that is receiving it. A long sequence of 1s and 0s means pretty much nothing if you look at it. Run it through (as varying voltage levels) the right processor, using the right OS, and it means a series of instructions to run some program. It is even conceivable that the same sequence of 1s and 0s may represent an entirely different, but still functional program with another OS, though it is far more likely to be meaningless drivel again.

Now, I suppose you could force the argument that this is based on what the OS's in question "believe" but that's stretching credulity, so please don't.

Sorry, the rest of what you say is a load of BS. Designed to confound and confuse I would say.

Well, it wasn't designed for that purpose, but it sure pulled a number on you, apparently. Maybe had you had different interpretive power, you might have even understood some of it.

Are you saying that a belief is not a matter of what we interpret something to be? What's the difference between that and the relative meaning of something, which is also interpretive?

I'm saying beliefs are not required for interpretation, though when beliefs are present, they do often muddy the waters. My argument with your position is not that belief belongs nowhere near this discussion. I just deny that it is the basis for relative meaning, since such can be achieved in a system devoid of beliefs.

 

[Z]

Do you believe that reality is absolute? Or, do you know that reality is absolute?

If you truly seek an answer to this, I need a definition for absolute. A quick google -define of this term was of no help, as varying definitions for absolute would result in varying answers. Please, elucidate the inquiry.

 

[Mercutio]

If, by your own admission however, you are a creature of belief, then that opens up the door of possibility that there is a God. Why? Because that tells us that man is religious by nature.

Funny...this actually would lead me to a different conclusion altogether. If we are creatures of belief, it could just as easily follow that this characteristic came first, and the belief in some form or other of god came as a result of this characteristic. If we are "believing" by nature (not "religious"), which could easily have been selected for (in terms of genes, and in terms of learning) due to the selective advantage it confers for social animals to be able to organize and follow a leader, then it is a small step from there to create a god in our own image (take the characteristics of the most powerful leader, then amplify them). In the beginning, man created god...

 

[daenku32]

Vague term that you want to make to mean something solid, like that there must be a god.

 

[Iacchus]

So what this all comes down to is that you don't understand what I mean by "the interpretive power brought to bear on the information." You could have just said so, instead of happily assuming it means nearly the same thing as "belief."

Why get technical when there's no need to? Do you expect me to wade past all this crap? Now, wouldn't it be much easier to say that man's "relative" sense of meaning and his sense of "belief" are directly brought about by the same thing, his subjective nature? Now why is that so hard to admit?

 

[Iacchus]

If you truly seek an answer to this, I need a definition for absolute. A quick google -define of this term was of no help, as varying definitions for absolute would result in varying answers. Please, elucidate the inquiry.

Well, you know what they say, "Reality is what remains when you stop believing." Sounds pretty absolute to me.

 

[Z]

Again, I need clarification of terms. Inasmuchas, I believe that the 'whole' is comprised of the real and the unreal, in which case, reality is not absolute; yet reality is whole, in and of itself, and therefore IS absolute; each according to a different shade of the meaning of absolute.

 

[Iacchus]

Funny...this actually would lead me to a different conclusion altogether. If we are creatures of belief, it could just as easily follow that this characteristic came first, and the belief in some form or other of god came as a result of this characteristic.

At the very least, it sounds like man needs reassurance for what he believes. Which, I'm afraid can't be truly realized except with through some big buddy up in the sky type scenario. Do we have any evidence for this? Of course. All throughout history.

If we are "believing" by nature (not "religious"), which could easily have been selected for (in terms of genes, and in terms of learning) due to the selective advantage it confers for social animals to be able to organize and follow a leader, then it is a small step from there to create a god in our own image (take the characteristics of the most powerful leader, then amplify them). In the beginning, man created god...

Or, maybe because we can pass off man's sense of awareness as "relative," we can pass off any notion of God as absolute as well. Sounds to me like wishful thinking either way you look at it.