I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said here. But I was trying to look at the genesis of the belief system, not how it functions once it is already in place.

Once you start talking about anything after the first two bits of information and the necessarily arbitrary decision that must be made before a belief system can exist, you're talking about a fully functional system, not the mechanism or process which brought that system into being.

In short, there was a point in time when the belief system did not exist, and there is a later point in time where a belief system does exist. What I'm looking at is what happened in between those two times.

As I see it, in order for a belief system to come into existence at all, there had to be:
1) at least two data
2) at least one arbitrary decision regarding those two data.

And the making of that initial arbitrary decision marks the creation of the belief system. Also, it is recognized that the initial decision that creates the belief system does not have to be made based on only two data. That decision could be postponed until many data are received. But in any case, per Creative's definition of "belief system" it is that initial, arbitrary decision that marks the point at which the belief system came into being.

You're absolutely right. There is criticism of PEAR and SRI research, just as there is with virtually any research.

That's why I said "determination of reliability is up to you".

Personally, I have had first hand experience with remote perception and as far as I'm concerned, observation always trumps logic.

But I totally understand that it is largely dependent on the subjective, so not only is difficult to demonstrate objectively (as was discusssed in the linked document) but it is difficult to even conceive of subjectively, for one who has never experienced anything like it.

Princeton Enginerring Anomalies Research and Stanford Research Institute have both done experiments in Remote Viewing/Remote Perception.

PEAR: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/remote_perception.html
SRI: http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

Determination of reliability is up to you.

My own personal opinion...

We are each and every one of us gods. There is no one entity that is more "godlike" than any other, so there really is no "One True God" in that sense.

JMHO

Creative saidWhat about "unconscious/subconscious agreement"? (Which I consider to be different from faith.)

Are belief systems necessarily composed strictly of conscious agreements?

If so, then what of the unconscious/subconscious? Does it have any part in belief systems? (Basically I'm just saying that from a practical standpoint, subconscious agreements can have just as much effect on one as conscious agreements.)

Fundamentally, a belief system (as you've defined it) contains simply an aggregate of ideas that are "true/false because _________."

Now even if something is considered true/false because of an unconscious agreement, it still fits the definition of a component of a belief system.

So it seems to me that unconscious mechanisms can affect one's belief system, which seems to be borne out by observation of such things as instinct and intuition.

In order to utilize logic, there must be at least two data to compare, and a standard of some sort that can be used to measure them (which may be one of the perceptions/data).

So at the point where the very first perception/datum is received, it is not possible to either reject it as false, or accept it as true, because there is no second datum to compare it with. It is only after a second perception/datum is received that any comparison can be made. So there can be no belief system until there have been at least two perceptions/data received.

But even at this point, there can be no logical reason for assigning truth or falsehood to either perception/datum. There must (eventually) be some completely arbitrary decision made.

However, the way you defined "innate sense of logical reasoning" makes it dependent upon time. That is, there is a cause, and following that, there is an effect. But then how are the cause and the effect asssociated with each other? The simply observation of two events happening at different times does not necessarily indicate any inherent connection between them. So there must still be an arbitrary decision made (association of cause and effect if you will) in order for there to be any belief system at all.

The bottom line here is that one must make a decision of some sort, (and that decision cannot be anything but arbitrary) before there can be a belief system. Thus, there is nothing in a belief system that is not ultimately based (either directly or indirectly) on an arbitrary decision. And since the belief system is created by a decision, it seems reasonable to assume that it can be changed (or even "uncreated") by a decision.

Well then we simply disagree. As far as I’m concerned, it is obviously true because I’ve personally observed it.

Yet you offer no logical reasoning which refutes any of it? Refute what? Your “five-step program for changing a personal preference”? There is no need to refute it. You can get peanut butter from a jar by smashing the jar. That cannot be refuted either. But there are better, more efficient ways to do it.

The simple fact is that the process starts with the decision that the feature exists. (Or maybe more accurately with the decision to rid oneself of the feature. But one had to have decided that one has the feature before on could contemplate ridding oneself of it.) And it ends with the decision that the feature does not exist – which decision is what marks the end of the process. You can put anything you want in between. But without those two delimiting decisions, the process never occurs, and it occurs whether or not anything happens in between.

Or put it this way: If one did not decide that one had the feature, then there would be no reason to attempt to rid oneself of it. And once one decides that one no longer has the feature, the attempt to rid oneself of it ceases.

Since we do not agree on what “decision” is, it’s obvious that we cannot agree on this point. But simply put, it is my opinion that decision is what creates reality/actuality. So yes – “poof”.

And again we get to the difference between our concepts of what constitutes a decision. As far as I’m concerned, “having a basis” is not a requirement for a decision.

Yes.

And we still don’t have a meeting of minds regarding what “decision” is. This particular statement is the most telling: “'deciding' that things are not what they are”. As stated, there is a decision of “what they are”. Following that is a decision of “not what they are”. In other words, it’s saying “I decided ____ (but not really.)” The example states an outright contradiction (“I’ll pretend that it is, but it really isn’t.”)

In short, the first decision is being maintained and the second one is being recanted. So it most definitely was not “decided out of existence” because there was no decision that it doesn’t exist.

This is the self-contradiction trap that most everyone sets for themselves and then steps into – saying that they decided something and immediately following (or preceding) that with a statement that denies the decision.

Well I do my best to try and add things I think will help illustrate my point/position. But if that didn’t help, then so be it. I tried.

You’re going to have to expand that some because you lost me completely. (Or would you prefer I just reply with something like “Is that supposed to mean something?” )

Hmmmm…

Ok, if this discussion is confined to “human beings” only, then I will concede that your logic is quite sound.

Just don’t forget that, by definition, it precludes any understanding of anything non-deterministic. So the whole thread is a moot point. You’ve postulated a starting point (human beings) from which you can never arrive at a conclusion of free will because the fundamental postulate excludes that possibility at the outset.

In other words, “you can’t get there from here.” Not because there are no roads, but because all the roads between here and there are purposefully and intentionally blocked before you even start out.

You’re right, it’s not. It’s because those rules are incorrectly applied to the example, just as with “orange rules” being applied to apples.

Well I prefer to believe my own observation and experience, which indicates otherwise. I’m sorry to end up with a subjective argument, but as far as I’m concerned, personal observation trumps logic every time. The only alternative is to accept someone else’s opinion over my own observations, which is not a healthy way to live life, in my opinion.

Well I won’t lower myself to accusing you of the very same thing. Rather than assuming you are in denial, I prefer to assume that you’re just missing some information, that’s all.

Just because you think that your decision is the cause of your liking the taste of apple pie does not prove that that is the case.Well I never said it did. But just because you think that my decision is not the cause of my liking the taste of apple pie does not prove that that is the case either. So we’re even.

And I understand and accept that that particular argument (pre-conception existence) has no value to you because you have never seen any (or enough) evidence to convince you that it is true. And since, as you say, it is necessarily subjective, it is impossible for anyone to present any “logical grounding” to support it. The very most I can do is inform you that I have seen enough evidence to convince me that it is true.

What would you be willing to accept as “evidence that would necessarily lead to that conclusion”? You tell me, and then I’ll decide if I want to try to give it to you.

From the patent document...
(http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description;jsessionid=185176A86FCAC80AEC5858A7F593CA3B.espacenet_levelx_prod_2?CC=US&NR=2004071944A1&KC=A1&FT=D&date=20040415&DB=&locale=)



Thats 336 pounds in about one cubic foot - a little less than half the density of lead. And also about half the weight of a 20 gallon tank of gasoline. Just a bit if trivia that I found interesting.

What I think is cool is the possibility for truly independent, all-wheel drive, like diesel-electric train engines. We just have to get the electric motors scaled down to fit within the parameters of a personal vehicle while keeping the horsepower-to-the-wheels factor high enough. (And of course the suspension problems that go along with that approach.)

Fascinating prospects though.

I completely agree that the universe contains both deterministic and non-deterministic factors.

But if we’re talking “might bes”, then we cannot exclude the possibility that the deterministic factors could be a product of the non-deterministic factors. (Like a determinisitic machine that was built by a non-deterministic individual.) Which would make the non-deterministic factors the “absolute, universal, permanent, immutable” ones.

Such a system would look exactly like a wholly deterministic system as long as the non-deterministic factor did not alter it’s operation. So if one did nothing to change the operation of the machine (e.g. exercise one’s free will), the system would be indistinguishable from a wholly deterministic one.

Not side-step, recognize as being virtually irrelevant and not contradicting my own personal view.

I can show it, but considering your identification of “choice” and “decision” I expect that same conflation to occur when the explanation is evaluated by you. Not saying there is anything wrong with that. Only that if one’s only criteria for determining whether a fruit is an apple or an orange is color, then the result of making such a determination will be different if one uses other criteria such as texture, taste, origin, etc. Likewise, without any differentiation between “choice” and “decision”, the is no way to understanding my world view.

So with that in mind…

The main difference between “teachings” and “belief systems” is in point-of-origin. “Teachings” originate from “other”. Belief systems originate from “self”.

Or one could put it in computer terms - Teachings are “input” and belief systems are “output”.

Or one could put it in terms of foods – teachings are “unprocessed” and belief systems are “processed”.

Which means that either 1) there was a belief system in place to start with, or 2) there was no belief system and the belief system just magically popped into existence at some point.

Seriously. If one starts out with no belief system to color one’s interpretation of one’s perception, then how did any belief system come into existence at all? Where is the line between “no belief system” and “belief system”? What exactly is it that changed? (“A miracle occurred”?)

And yes there’s the tired old “emergent property” response. But as far as I’m concerned, saying “it’s a mystery” reminds me of the old George Carlin routine in the Catholic school where all the really hard questions were answered simply with “Well, it’s a mystery” and it ended there.

Basically you’re saying that “in the beginning” there was no belief system to color perception. So when the very first perception occurred, was it colored by a belief system?

According to what you’ve been saying, there could not have been any belief system in place, so that very first perception could not have been colored by a belief system. So then what? That very first, uncolored perception becomes the sum total of one’s “belief system” and every perception after that becomes, and is colored by, the existing belief system. In other words, one’s belief system is the sum total of all perceptions, colored by anything or not.

Now interestingly enough, I think that’s not far off. The result is essentially that the aggregate of everything one perceives is what makes up the belief system. The single place where this does not align with my view is in scope. As far as I’m concerned, a decision came before the first perception – that first decision being “to perceive”, with all it’s attendant implications. But before that decision was made, the was no perception.

Yes, that is true by definition.

But the act of deciding is the key point of free will. We are free to decide. What we decide may be dependent on other factors - or not. But the "decision to decide" (oh geez what a semantic mess) is totally free and unaffected by anything other than self. In fact, it must be so otherwise it cannot even be called a decision - it must be the effect of a cause and thus not a decision at all but a reaction. (Although, even so there must have been a prior decision to react. So we're back at the chicken/egg issue.

If "that" refers to "outside influence", I can only say that that is simply a statement synonymous with "everything is deterministic" (i.e. every apparent choice is not really a choice at all but the direct and invariant effect of a cause.) In other words, everything is deterministic because everything is deterministic.

No problem. That often helps clarify things.

Well let me put it this way. I can decide to want something that I didn’t want before I made the decision to want it. This is why I say that decision precedes want, not the other way around. (However, I will admit that this is pretty much a chicken/egg issue.)

Yes, that would be a more concise way of putting it.

I can definitely say that it is not impossible, just as it is not impossible for me to hit 10 free throws in a row – but I may not actually succeed in accomplishing it invariably – or even once.

But the simple fact of the matter is that I do have a choice in what foods I find tasty, and I have decided that I like the taste of apple pie – regardless of whether that makes sense to you or not. Simple saying that I do not or cannot, does not make it so, paticularly in the face of direct evidence that I do and have.

Bottom line, you say I didn’t decide (or can’t have decided) that I like the taste of apple pie, and I say that I did decide that I like the taste of apple pie.

So where does that leave us?

Personally, I would choose my own observation of my own mind over someone else’s professions that they know how my mind works better than I do.



Well, there’s a piece missing there – one can decide to suffer (e.g. ascetics). So what you’ve just said “would be”, is simply an opinion that is contradicted by observation.

Personally, I think it is you who are doing the conflating by equating “choice” with “decision”. Without any differentiation between the two, you’re absolutely right that my view would not make sense.

The bottom line here seems to be that our concepts of “scope” are different. As far as I understand it, in your world view, everything having to do with human behavior starts sometime around conception, give-or-take a few weeks or months. But in my view, the events that contribute to shaping an individual’s “human behavior patterns” go back several dozen orders of magnitude farther than that – past even the beginning of this physical universe to the point where the original decision was made to “join in the game”.

Consider the game of basketball as an analogy. Suppose you decided to hypnotize yourself into believing that nothing existed before the game started and that everything would cease to exist after the game ended. As far as you’re concerned, you cannot quit the game, you cannot change the rules, you cannot break the rules without being punished, and you cannot do anything but play the game. (The three laws of thermodynamics: you can’t win, you can’t break even, and you can’t get out of the game. :laugh) All the people in the stands are not people you could ever meet. They are simply part of the environment that you have no control over, as are the referees, the boundaries of the court, the baskets, the key, the freethrow line, the three point line, etc., etc.

Now in that analogy, you are talking about just the one game that you are playing, whereas I am talking about all the “before and after the game”, particularly including the decision to limit one’s awareness to only those factors that are present in that one game being played – which is the original (free will) choice to not have complete free will during the course of the game. (e.g. to be unable to quit playing.) But remember that the whole thing started with the original decision to play the game without any knowledge of anything outside the game.

Now don’t get me wrong. I completely understand how postulates of 1) a time limit measured in decades, and 2) a dependency on the physical, would logically result in the conclusions regarding human behavior that contribute to your world view.

I really do understand that.

I just don’t happen to base my world view on those same postulates is all.

Creative said:From a free will perspective, I would say that one must first decide that (the feature) exists. And from there, it continues to exist until one decides that it does not exist, for “deciding that it no longer exists” marks the point where the entire cycle of “changing the feature” ends. So really, one’s own decisions are what drives the whole process. It starts with a decision and ends with a decision.

So as I see it, the complexity of that whole 5 step process is unnecessary. All that is really required is
1) Decide that (the feature) exists
2) Decide that (the feature) doesn’t exist.

Those are the two decisions that define the process. And they are the only two factors that are absolutely required.

Now of course, the nature of free will dictates that one can make any other decisions as to prerequisites and dependencies and intermediate steps and by-products and results and whatever. But all of those contain their own two step, start/end sub-processes, which are delimited by the “decide/decide not” steps. Different people may do different things in between. Or one may just go directly from 1) to 2) without doing anything in between. (And interestingly enough, the directness of the route from 1) to 2) could be considered a good measure of one’s own personal power and/or ability – in the human sense. But that’s getting off the subject.)

One of the problems I see here is that there doesn’t seem to be much recognition of the flip side of the free will
coin – that free will includes the capability of deciding that something is “not”. Sort of like the conundrum “Can God make a rock so heavy he himself can’t lift it?” The key is not in God’s lifting ability, the key is in God’s ability to decide not to be able to lift the rock. So the size of the rock is just a red herring. God could decide not to be able to lift a grain of sand.

In other words, if we’re going to talk about free will, it must to be treated as an absolute – and likewise for deteminism. Otherwise we’re simply arguing about where to draw a line and say “This is where the miracle occurs”.

Now if we treat free will as an absolute, then we must conclude that, as with the God/rock conundrum, free will allows for the decision that one does not have free will – and poof, just like that, no free will. Or one could decide that one’s freedom of will is limited to specific factors, and poof, just like that, “limited freedom of will”.

------------------------------

The basic argument for determinism seems to be: Everything that we do understand is deterministic, therefore everything that we don’t understand must be deterministic as well.” (Which, in itself, seems to indicate that determinism is a requirement for understanding. But that’s another tangent.)

But it doesn’t stop there. We go on and build this hugely complex set of rules (e.g. logic, science) for evaluating deterministic factors. But those rules are designed to deal only with deterministic factors. They cannot be applied to non-deterministic factors because the very foundation of the rule set is the postulate that all things examined must be deterministic. So in truth, attempting to apply those rules of evaluation to something non-deterministic is an error in category. Quite simply, it’s attempting to evaluate apples using methodology/criteria designed for evaluating oranges. The only thing it can result in is factors relating to oranges. And the results are obvious – e.g. “it is not ripe because the skin is green” and we miss out on enjoying all those delicious Granny Smith apples because they’re green.

Don't know who chooses their parents, but you said "belief system" not "teachings" - completely different.

You’ve completely left out the key point: where is “the non-deterministic factor” in your example? The way you state it, it looks to me like the nail hitting the board was the factor that determined the emergence of the virgin. So you’ve set up a scenario where you’ve specifically stated a cause (nail hitting board) and it’s effect (virgin). You have not shown or explained or exemplified anything non-deterministic at all. If the hammer hitting the nail is not what caused the virgin to appear, then what did?

On the other hand, if you are simply arguing that non-determinism is equivalent to “unexpected”, then I can go along with that – as a starting point. But for that to be realistically applied in the determination of non-deterministic events, one would have to know any and every possible deterministic factor. Not very practical.

Excellent advice that I would urge you to follow in the same spirit as you have urged me to.

Yes, and I covered that already. Expecting evidence of a non-deterministic factor is nonsensical. It is, by definition, no possible.

I'm not making you do anything. (But that's just my opinion. I can understand that for one who believes all is deterministic, that one could be "made" to post in a forum, without making a decision to do so.)

And I might add that YOU are "doing the EXACT SAME THING" in assuming that a point is closed just because YOU say it's closed.

Well, I don't happen to agree that it is closed, so I feel perfectly free to comment on it in any way I see fit (in accordance with the forum rules.

But if you feel it's closed, then by all means don't reply to any comments about it.

One other thing regarding "...we have no reliable evidence that it has."

Evidence itself requires a cause-and-effect chain, so how could there be evidence of something that "breaks the chain"? If it breaks the chain, then it is external to the chain and thus the chain itself cannot be used as evidence because it is no longer a chain - it is broken by the non-deterministic factor.

In other words, asking for evidence of a non-deterministic factor is nonsensical. If it is non-deterministic, there can be no evidence of it, by definition.

I think you’re missing an option – the possibility that there are both deterministic and non-deterministic factors at work in the world.

Although I wouldn't have stated it the same way, interestingly enough I have no objection to that definition for knowledge. However I must acknowledge that we have somewhat different standards as to what consititutes both "justification" and "truth".

not