Normally perhaps. Specific order confines belief to linear causal time. And yet in speed reading, one can be trained to read one sentence from left to right and the next from right to left and still see the meaning.

and

Wrods cna be raed eevn if tehy aer wrtiten wtih teh ltetres aer mxied up lkie tihs.

What has science learned about backward causal events. Can the future influence the past or can the present be influenced by the future?

Your examples are backward perception, not backward causation.

And isn't belief concerned with mental perception?

And why would you assume that perception is something that is or moves "backward" or "forward?"

(We only read from left to right because we decided to do it that way, we could have easily decided to read and write from left to right.) So why would one be considered backward and the other forward?

I think they still may be related, (as I believe that everything is connected.)

The question remains:

What has science learned about backward causal events. Can the future influence the past or can the present be influenced by the future?

This question relates to the claim that thought/belief requires a certain chain of events which happen in a specific order.

I was just confused why you mentioned causation.

There is no reason to believe backward causation has anything to do with perceivable events.

I Believe..........

Well I mentioned it because of what Creative said.

I am assuming he is referring to linear time when he says "causal connection" and "chain of events.." (causation)





I was under the impression we were talking about "belief" not simply "perceivable events."

Perhaps Creative can clear it up.

Creative:
What are one in the same thing? Belief and mental correlation?




Could you elaborate or explain? Perhaps site an example?

What kind of specific order?

Bushi,

The examples were perception which might normally be viewed as backwards from what we consider normal. But I don't think they are actually backwards perception. I don't think there is such a thing as backwards perception.

I didn't give any examples of backwards causation. I'm sorry for the confusion. (That was a different subject altogether.)

New subject:

I simply posed the question:
What has science learned about backward causation?

Can the future influence the past or can the present be influenced by the future?

(If so, even in the smallest degree, then might our belief can also be influenced?)

I'm failing to see how any of that has to do with what was written Jb. I think Bushido agrees.

sure. to think there is a god requires mental correlation. to believe there is a god requires no mental correlation. requires faith.

Fascinating topic, however I think it would be best in its own thread, or a thread about physics.

We see all the time that a co-relation can occur and not be an accurate representation of reality, that does not preclude the correlation from occurring. Your Example does not match the requirement.

sure it does.

To the point of speaking nonsense.

Jb, your approach kind of reminds me of the ancient alien claims that come on History channel at times. The guy with the ka-razee hair and all... that's a cool hair-do.

That show is grounded on this sort of backward causation that you're referring to, I think. Accepting those things as true would change one's current belief system. Correlations are being made here as well.

By the way the 'History' channel has little in the way of history. It ought be re-named the male soap opera channel.



That is a correlation being made.

The simplest kind of correlation that I can muster is something like...

"What is that?" can be thought without language. Obviously it would not be in words, but rather it would be a state of mind regarding fact/reality. Prior to "what is that?" must be some sort of identity regarding that. That must be first perceived, or at least simultaneously perceived along with the curiosity stemming from that perception.

"X exists" cannot occur on it's own. Thought/belief about existence requires much more complex correlations.

Then explain what you mean by this:

Because if you don't believe anything, and question everything, then the answers would only give you reasons to believe, which you don't do, so why ask questions.

Example 1:
Bogie: What time is it?
Anyone: five thirty.
Bogie: I don't believe you.
Anyone: Okay.

Example 2:
Bogie: The soup is too salty, isn't it?
Bogie's mother: No, deary, it is not.
Bogie: Mom, I don't believe you.
Mother: (Sez nothing, her shoulders droop.)

Example 3:
Bogie: I don't believe anything, and question everything.
Other forumer: You don't do that.
Bogie: How so?
Other forumer: Coz you ask quesitons. If you don't believe anything, then why ask?
Bogie: I can't believe this.

I agree. If you claim that you don't believe anything then there is no point in asking questions or making statements.

If you make a statement that you yourself don't believe, then why make the statement?

If you don't believe anything, how can you expect to convince anyone of anything?

You can't. You may as well not even open your mouth.

I think the whole idea of saying that you don't believe anything is ridiculous.

You apparently believe that you don't believe anything, so the statement itself is canceled out, and is meaningless drivel.