I want to say thank you for your thoughts. They contribute to the betterment of my thoughts which help me be a better person for me and all I have a interaction or outer action with.. Have a great day :)
Already in the Upanishads they said, you can not know what God is, but only what he is not. The true knowledge is negative knowledge. I think that is one of the healthiest mindsets one can have.
Some false beliefs hurt people other than the person who thinks them, but give the person who thinks them tactical advantages. For example, narcissism.
What I use as a guide to decide if a belief is aligned with truth is that all truth works for the good and is beneficial to all of life. Whatever belief is in alignment with thag I accept as true.
This is good in terms of choosing beneficial behaviors. I tend to abide the basic philosophy 'harm none' as my compass for going through life. But in terms of open-ness, even these beliefs should be recognized as beliefs and not truth itself. Not recognizing them as true or false beliefs but simply beliefs. Extreme empiricism is the technique for receptivity and open-ness. But on the practical level, having beliefs that work toward the good of all are very useful and helpful guidelines.
Holding different believes create different personalities within you. I am amazed how your view of life looks completely different depending on the perspective you adopt. Where is the truth? I do not know. Every time I adopt a new perspective life changes its colors, and it makes sense as though if was true. I guess that is what the game is about. It can be exhausting though.
My eye is a better pupil than my ear, seeing a ship sailing over the curvature of the earth, rather that hearing a train passing a crossing, creates the suspicion that the earth is round; my beliefs require further investigation. More will be revealed as truth.
I believe I can fly.........aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......smash!!!!!. Beliefs should be based on external evidence. Not just on feelings or things that make us feel good. We should be open to evidence that contradicts our beliefs so that we can correct any false beliefs we may have. Skeptical thinking is a good tool to use when determining if something is true or false. A wise person once said: “It is good to have an open mind, but no so open that your brains fall out.”
I would just posit that there is such a thing as a map that IS the territory. That thing is called Truth; it is the ontological syntax of existence and though you can't experience it directly or semantically you can have epistemic knowledge of it conceptually. In other words without experience you can still know it just as you can tautologically know that 1+1=2.
I don't believe anything, but knowledge in the gnostic sense is experience! Beliefs tend to lean towards dogma and prejudice, leading to garbage in and garbage out.
No, but Solipsism is a common trap to fall into when looking into these topics. Solipsism itself, is just another belief from the limited human intellect. And thus, cannot truly fathom and wrap around all that exists within the field of awareness. It's just another human approximation, which is all the intellect is capable of. To adopt a belief in Solipsism will cause just as many blockages as any belief in Naïve Realism (Solipsism's opposite). The main thing is to realize the limitations of the human mind to "know" anything about reality at all. We tend to mistakenly think that we are the mind, and that the mind is the thing that "understands" reality. So, we forget this limitation and we miss the fact that there is an awareness that supercedes the mind, which can experience and fathom of all of reality without having to create an approximation such as a belief in "Solipsism". So, this video might get you to question and shake free of the belief in Naïve Realism. But to then determine that the answer must be in Solipsism is to fall into the same trap, only on the other side of the horse. The main point is to realize that all beliefs are merely approximations and don't give any real, experiential truths about reality. They are just functional tools for human understanding. But they are not Truth itself.
I have been presented with the idea that we have our own truth. I see it as our own belief which may or may not be true but there is a truth that we may or may not know. What would your opinion be?
Well, it's quite natural to have a worldview and a definite set of beliefs based upon past experiences and emotions. However, if you're looking for the truth, then beliefs must be recognized as simply thoughts with an emotional charge. That way you can suspend them and do further inquiry and investigation. But even if beliefs have great practical utility, they are by definition not the truth itself.
Well, it's quite natural to have a worldview and a definite set of beliefs based upon past experiences and emotions. However, if you're looking for the truth, then beliefs must be recognized as simply thoughts with an emotional charge. That way you can suspend them and do further inquiry and investigation. But even if beliefs have great practical utility, they are by definition not the truth itself.
Jay Jones Thank you! :DWell, there are practical/relative truths that can be proven on the practical level. But the "ultimate" truth is not possible to perceive and therefore not possible to prove. But it is what you are. I watched a Rupert Spira video yesterday and he gave a great metaphor. He said something to the nature of 'if there is a movie, then the main character of the movie will never find the screen that the movie is projected upon within the movie itself.' So, the screen in this metaphor is the ultimate truth but the relative truths are the truths that occur within the film. But the film is temporary and changing and therefore are not the ultimate truth.
Thank you again! You have just helped me to see myself a bit clearer. I realize that I simply function on the practical level and and the effort I have made in seeking a "deeper understanding" and becoming frustrated with it is because it is a thing that can not be found and if I think I have found a bit of it.. I can not prove my idea. You dear lady are very intelligent and seem to me to be able to function at a deeper level of thought that I am able to..
The idea that math and physics proves the earth is round and I can prove it to myself with knowledge. Then the earth is round is a knowledge not a belief even though I am not seeing it. With greater knowledge comes greater understanding, once one understands this reality better they will never believe but seek knowledge.
You are wrong. You have not yourself confirmed that the world is round, that you make a judgement and believe that it is round. Same way when you read history that you did not experience. You are still taking it at face value. Greater knowledge does not necessarily lead to greater understanding because the knowledge you “believe” can be beliefs that are falsehoods and take you away from the truth and truth. Wisdom is closer to the truth because it is confirmed because is is inherent in us. Wisdom comes from within through introspection and thus us inherent to us all and universal. For example, wisdom is a river of love that flows from within, if all human beings seek introspection then they can find wisdom which makes them more loving, empathetic, compassionate and thus more open minded and with it comes greater understanding. Knowledge is sought out in the outside world so you may have the belief that Jesus was real even though you never met him and can’t confirm that. You may then be Christian and have a set of religious beliefs through which you see the world specifically. For example, if friend behaves in a certain way that doesn’t effect you or anyone else for example he gets pissed drunk and blackouts every Saturday night and doesn’t go to Sunday mass since he is hungover. With your lens of Christian religion beliefs you will view that as a sin and automatically place a moral judgement. In this way religion is a bucket of knowledge and beliefs that are limiting you from having empathy for your friend and perhaps understanding the reason for his drinking. So when your spirituality comes as s result of introspection and wisdom it results in universal love inherent in all of us. When your spirituality comes as a result of thinking you are and understanding person because you have 10 commandments that your follow then that results in lack of empathy, love and lack of understanding.
Sure. My email is thediamondnetchannel@gmail.com. I usually check and respond to messages the same day or the day after depending on what I have going on.
The Diamond Net thanks and I didn't expect an instant response. Nice way to keep in touch with the viewers! Keep it up! I'll contact you via email when I get a chance.
Onyx 2K Thank you. I try to get to everyone. But I've actually been slacking a bit today. I have about ten or so comments to get to. So, I spotted yours and I was like, "Ooh... and easy one." :D
///____be_careful (A) Beliefs are entirely non necessary. Life consists of: (a) a layer of probabilities. (uncertainty principle) (b) beliefs that may or may not occur on (a). (belief = accept as true...especially absent evidence) So, we may select probabilities, without ever accepting those probabilities as true. . . . . . (B) Nature encodes many action-probability mappings. (uncertainty principle) EG: bird + flying = action probability mappings. Wright brothers used the above mapping, absent belief. . . . . . (C) Belief may constitute non-science. Science shan't encode non science; ie: scientific evidence shan't encode non scientific evidence. Thusly, it is non scientific to believe.
In Matter and Consciousness, Paul Churchland enumerates five types of theories of mind: dualism, behaviorism, reductive materialism or identity theory, functionalism and eliminative materialism. Brian McLaughlin adds epiphenomenalism, parallelism, monism, central state materialism, and non-reductive or emergent materialism. Deborah Modrak showed Aristotle's theory is yet a different type. The list itself is enough to show that there is neither a final theory of mind, nor a settled taxonomy of existent theories. God, Science and Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis. Science is shitty smelling ass shit.
omni scient Charles Babbage KH FRS (/ˈbæbɪdʒ/; 26 December 1791 - 18 October 1871) was an English polymath.[1] A mathematician, philosopher, inventor and mechanical engineer, Babbage is best remembered for originating the concept of a digital programmable computer.[2] In 1837, responding to the series of eight Bridgewater Treatises, Babbage published his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, under the title On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation. In this work Babbage weighed in on the side of uniformitarianism in a current debate.[98] He preferred the conception of creation in which a God-given natural law dominated, removing the need for continuous "contrivance".[99] 1. Terence Whalen (1999). Edgar Allan Poe and the masses: the political economy of literature in antebellum America. Princeton University Press. p. 254. ISBN 978-0-691-00199-9. Retrieved 18 April 2013. 2. plato.stanford.edu/entries/computing-history/ 98. Genesis and Geology: A Study in the Relations of Scientific Thought, Natural Theology, and Social Opinion in Great Britain, 1790-1850. Harvard University Press. 1996. p. 247. ISBN 978-0-674-34481-5. Retrieved 19 April 2013. 99. John G. Trapani (2004). Truth matters: essays in honor of Jacques Maritain. CUA Press. p. 109. ISBN 978-0-9669226-6-0. Retrieved 19 April 2013. All of the truth I imparted in my comment you responded to still stands as stated. There has been no advance on your claimed contrivances.
omni scient You're using the science to try and disparage me, and nothing is more shitty than that. 3-0. I'll give you one last chance and then I'll have you arrested for class A felony for disparaging a judge.
In principle, mental states can easily change without physical changes because intentions can be *_dispositional,_* with no immediate effect. If I am driving to Chicago, change my mind, and decide to go to Los Angeles, my decision may not be immediately expressed. My car's location and velocity will be continuous across the instant of decision. The change in governing intention only disposes me to act differently at a future junction. Further, I could change my mind again, and the first decision might never result in a physical change. This shows it is logically impossible to have an intention change not reflected by a physical change. God, Science and Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis (physicist) Chapter 6 Experience of Mind. UA-cam username = dfpolis. He's one of a handful of people on Earth who actually understands the mind. Scientific materialists have no settled taxonomy, no final theory on mind. You were taught complete crap at university,.
TrustinJesus111:You would do well to remember this in future postings. "This is plagiarism. By neither using quotation marks, nor citing a source, you are presenting someone else's words (and, hence, their work or ideas) as your own. It makes no difference that you have slightly altered the text, the lack of quotation marks implies that the words/ideas are your own, which they are not.Sep 8, 2005"
Thank you, I realize that every moment is a manifestation of my beliefs
+Tyiece LivingInSync Thank you for watching. :)
Thoughts not beliefs, thoughts precedes beliefs
I want to say thank you for your thoughts. They contribute to the betterment of my thoughts which help me be a better person for me and all I have a interaction or outer action with.. Have a great day :)
I found your channel a few weeks ago and I am blown away by your content. Thank you for these!
Already in the Upanishads they said, you can not know what God is, but only what he is not. The true knowledge is negative knowledge. I think that is one of the healthiest mindsets one can have.
Some false beliefs hurt people other than the person who thinks them, but give the person who thinks them tactical advantages. For example, narcissism.
+MegaBro Very true. :)
Any video for this week thanks anyway
I believe my unconscious can and does solve practical problems that my conscious mind is unable to solve. I’m hanging onto that one.
Good to see you. It's been a while...
Gracias... Esmeralda...Muchas Gracias
What I use as a guide to decide if a belief is aligned with truth is that all truth works for the good and is beneficial to all of life. Whatever belief is in alignment with thag I accept as true.
This is good in terms of choosing beneficial behaviors. I tend to abide the basic philosophy 'harm none' as my compass for going through life. But in terms of open-ness, even these beliefs should be recognized as beliefs and not truth itself. Not recognizing them as true or false beliefs but simply beliefs. Extreme empiricism is the technique for receptivity and open-ness. But on the practical level, having beliefs that work toward the good of all are very useful and helpful guidelines.
Another Gem - very insightful, thank you!
Holding different believes create different personalities within you. I am amazed how your view of life looks completely different depending on the perspective you adopt. Where is the truth? I do not know. Every time I adopt a new perspective life changes its colors, and it makes sense as though if was true. I guess that is what the game is about. It can be exhausting though.
Knowledge=already verified observed belief, already materialised or experimented.
BELIEFS= NOT YET MATERIALISED thought
My eye is a better pupil than my ear, seeing a ship sailing over the curvature of the earth, rather that hearing a train passing a crossing, creates the suspicion that the earth is round; my beliefs require further investigation. More will be revealed as truth.
the greatest truth we can understand is that we understand nothing at all.
Absolutely. It's amazing how little we can actually know about how reality works.
Elliot Gale wtf!!
Wtf!!!
I believe I can fly.........aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......smash!!!!!. Beliefs should be based on external evidence. Not just on feelings or things that make us feel good. We should be open to evidence that contradicts our beliefs so that we can correct any false beliefs we may have. Skeptical thinking is a good tool to use when determining if something is true or false. A wise person once said: “It is good to have an open mind, but no so open that your brains fall out.”
I would just posit that there is such a thing as a map that IS the territory. That thing is called Truth; it is the ontological syntax of existence and though you can't experience it directly or semantically you can have epistemic knowledge of it conceptually. In other words without experience you can still know it just as you can tautologically know that 1+1=2.
I don't believe anything, but knowledge in the gnostic sense is experience! Beliefs tend to lean towards dogma and prejudice, leading to garbage in and garbage out.
Would you consider this a lesson on Solipsism? It's one of the earliest philosophies I adopted, before I even know it had a name.
No, but Solipsism is a common trap to fall into when looking into these topics. Solipsism itself, is just another belief from the limited human intellect. And thus, cannot truly fathom and wrap around all that exists within the field of awareness. It's just another human approximation, which is all the intellect is capable of. To adopt a belief in Solipsism will cause just as many blockages as any belief in Naïve Realism (Solipsism's opposite). The main thing is to realize the limitations of the human mind to "know" anything about reality at all. We tend to mistakenly think that we are the mind, and that the mind is the thing that "understands" reality. So, we forget this limitation and we miss the fact that there is an awareness that supercedes the mind, which can experience and fathom of all of reality without having to create an approximation such as a belief in "Solipsism". So, this video might get you to question and shake free of the belief in Naïve Realism. But to then determine that the answer must be in Solipsism is to fall into the same trap, only on the other side of the horse. The main point is to realize that all beliefs are merely approximations and don't give any real, experiential truths about reality. They are just functional tools for human understanding. But they are not Truth itself.
I have been presented with the idea that we have our own truth. I see it as our own belief which may or may not be true but there is a truth that we may or may not know. What would your opinion be?
Well, it's quite natural to have a worldview and a definite set of beliefs based upon past experiences and emotions. However, if you're looking for the truth, then beliefs must be recognized as simply thoughts with an emotional charge. That way you can suspend them and do further inquiry and investigation. But even if beliefs have great practical utility, they are by definition not the truth itself.
Well, it's quite natural to have a worldview and a definite set of beliefs based upon past experiences and emotions. However, if you're looking for the truth, then beliefs must be recognized as simply thoughts with an emotional charge. That way you can suspend them and do further inquiry and investigation. But even if beliefs have great practical utility, they are by definition not the truth itself.
I love your perspective.. Do you think that a belief can be truth that is not possible to prove to be truth?
Jay Jones Thank you! :DWell, there are practical/relative truths that can be proven on the practical level. But the "ultimate" truth is not possible to perceive and therefore not possible to prove. But it is what you are. I watched a Rupert Spira video yesterday and he gave a great metaphor. He said something to the nature of 'if there is a movie, then the main character of the movie will never find the screen that the movie is projected upon within the movie itself.' So, the screen in this metaphor is the ultimate truth but the relative truths are the truths that occur within the film. But the film is temporary and changing and therefore are not the ultimate truth.
Thank you again! You have just helped me to see myself a bit clearer. I realize that I simply function on the practical level and and the effort I have made in seeking a "deeper understanding" and becoming frustrated with it is because it is a thing that can not be found and if I think I have found a bit of it.. I can not prove my idea.
You dear lady are very intelligent and seem to me to be able to function at a deeper level of thought that I am able to..
The idea that math and physics proves the earth is round and I can prove it to myself with knowledge. Then the earth is round is a knowledge not a belief even though I am not seeing it. With greater knowledge comes greater understanding, once one understands this reality better they will never believe but seek knowledge.
You are wrong. You have not yourself confirmed that the world is round, that you make a judgement and believe that it is round. Same way when you read history that you did not experience. You are still taking it at face value. Greater knowledge does not necessarily lead to greater understanding because the knowledge you “believe” can be beliefs that are falsehoods and take you away from the truth and truth. Wisdom is closer to the truth because it is confirmed because is is inherent in us. Wisdom comes from within through introspection and thus us inherent to us all and universal. For example, wisdom is a river of love that flows from within, if all human beings seek introspection then they can find wisdom which makes them more loving, empathetic, compassionate and thus more open minded and with it comes greater understanding. Knowledge is sought out in the outside world so you may have the belief that Jesus was real even though you never met him and can’t confirm that. You may then be Christian and have a set of religious beliefs through which you see the world specifically. For example, if friend behaves in a certain way that doesn’t effect you or anyone else for example he gets pissed drunk and blackouts every Saturday night and doesn’t go to Sunday mass since he is hungover. With your lens of Christian religion beliefs you will view that as a sin and automatically place a moral judgement. In this way religion is a bucket of knowledge and beliefs that are limiting you from having empathy for your friend and perhaps understanding the reason for his drinking. So when your spirituality comes as s result of introspection and wisdom it results in universal love inherent in all of us. When your spirituality comes as a result of thinking you are and understanding person because you have 10 commandments that your follow then that results in lack of empathy, love and lack of understanding.
I subscribed to you. I'd like to chat with you some time, nothing serious, just to bounce ideas and such and seeing what your perspective is.
Sure. My email is thediamondnetchannel@gmail.com. I usually check and respond to messages the same day or the day after depending on what I have going on.
Oh and thank you for subbing!
The Diamond Net thanks and I didn't expect an instant response. Nice way to keep in touch with the viewers! Keep it up! I'll contact you via email when I get a chance.
Onyx 2K Thank you. I try to get to everyone. But I've actually been slacking a bit today. I have about ten or so comments to get to. So, I spotted yours and I was like, "Ooh... and easy one." :D
The Diamond Net good luck when you get to 500,000 subs lol
I love your wisdom... You inspire me to start a religion with you as the central figure.
Yikes. What an oxymoron!
do you know about Noah Elkrief? he also shares this truth
I haven't heard of him before, but I'll keep my eyes open for his work. Much of this video is inspired by Peter Ralston's work.
ok , thank you
///____be_careful
(A)
Beliefs are entirely non necessary.
Life consists of:
(a) a layer of probabilities. (uncertainty principle)
(b) beliefs that may or may not occur on (a). (belief = accept as true...especially absent evidence)
So, we may select probabilities, without ever accepting those probabilities as true.
.
.
.
.
.
(B)
Nature encodes many action-probability mappings. (uncertainty principle)
EG: bird + flying = action probability mappings.
Wright brothers used the above mapping, absent belief.
.
.
.
.
.
(C)
Belief may constitute non-science.
Science shan't encode non science;
ie: scientific evidence shan't encode non scientific evidence.
Thusly, it is non scientific to believe.
In Matter and Consciousness, Paul Churchland enumerates five types of theories of mind: dualism, behaviorism, reductive materialism or identity theory, functionalism and eliminative materialism. Brian McLaughlin adds epiphenomenalism, parallelism, monism, central state materialism, and non-reductive or emergent materialism. Deborah Modrak showed Aristotle's theory is yet a different type. The list itself is enough to show that there is neither a final theory of mind, nor a settled taxonomy of existent theories.
God, Science and Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis.
Science is shitty smelling ass shit.
Ironically, science engendered the creation of the device, that you used to type your silly comment...
omni scient Charles Babbage KH FRS (/ˈbæbɪdʒ/; 26 December 1791 - 18 October 1871) was an English polymath.[1] A mathematician, philosopher, inventor and mechanical engineer, Babbage is best remembered for originating the concept of a digital programmable computer.[2]
In 1837, responding to the series of eight Bridgewater Treatises, Babbage published his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, under the title On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation. In this work Babbage weighed in on the side of uniformitarianism in a current debate.[98] He preferred the conception of creation in which a God-given natural law dominated, removing the need for continuous "contrivance".[99]
1. Terence Whalen (1999). Edgar Allan Poe and the masses: the political economy of literature in antebellum America. Princeton University Press. p. 254. ISBN 978-0-691-00199-9. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
2. plato.stanford.edu/entries/computing-history/
98. Genesis and Geology: A Study in the Relations of Scientific Thought, Natural Theology, and Social Opinion in Great Britain, 1790-1850. Harvard University Press. 1996. p. 247. ISBN 978-0-674-34481-5. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
99. John G. Trapani (2004). Truth matters: essays in honor of Jacques Maritain. CUA Press. p. 109. ISBN 978-0-9669226-6-0. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
All of the truth I imparted in my comment you responded to still stands as stated. There has been no advance on your claimed contrivances.
It remains ironic that you claim science to "be shitty", yet use devices engineered via science.
omni scient You're using the science to try and disparage me, and nothing is more shitty than that. 3-0. I'll give you one last chance and then I'll have you arrested for class A felony for disparaging a judge.
In principle, mental states can easily change without physical changes because intentions can be *_dispositional,_* with no immediate effect. If I am driving to Chicago, change my mind, and decide to go to Los Angeles, my decision may not be immediately expressed. My car's location and velocity will be continuous across the instant of decision. The change in governing intention only disposes me to act differently at a future junction. Further, I could change my mind again, and the first decision might never result in a physical change. This shows it is logically impossible to have an intention change not reflected by a physical change.
God, Science and Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis (physicist) Chapter 6 Experience of Mind. UA-cam username = dfpolis.
He's one of a handful of people on Earth who actually understands the mind. Scientific materialists have no settled taxonomy, no final theory on mind. You were taught complete crap at university,.
TrustinJesus111:You would do well to remember this in future postings.
"This is plagiarism. By neither using quotation marks, nor citing a source, you are presenting someone else's words (and, hence, their work or ideas) as your own. It makes no difference that you have slightly altered the text, the lack of quotation marks implies that the words/ideas are your own, which they are not.Sep 8, 2005"