Seriously, Dawkins?

[Pope Lecherous]

Still, "If the box contains a diamond, I desire to believe that the box contains a diamond." Yes, things exist or do not exist, or are true or not-true irrespective of our believing otherwise, but I still desire to have mental states resembling the reality.

Is "I don't know" unacceptable to you?  I will say "I don't know"  until i find the desire or need to know.  Then i will try to discover the truth if i am able.  If it aint possible to know then, "I don't know, maybe this, maybe that, I don't know."

Yes but, the more likely result is the more likely, and therefore the most rational position. If you've got a roulette wheel in front of you, and the house is paying 1:3 on Red, and 1:3 on 00, you bet on Red.

Rationality can be a means to maximizing your utility.  Achieving ones ends is not really what we're talking about.  You're absolutely right... about what you are talking about.

Sure, but when yous tate your beliefs, it is situationally obvious that that is what "you believe" and "you think to be true" by virtue of being said by you. It's redundant saying it all the time, it makes sense to just call yourself an "Atheist".

It may sound ridiculous to you but i preface my beliefs with a disclaimer.  Otherwise i just speak.

To have a Theory of Mind is to make a "fact" of the existence of other human beings, (Which is technically unknowable)

Solipsism?  Really?  In the case of solipsism i think my viewpoint of it can "hold true" or be useful to everyone.  Whether nothing really exists or not is not important to me.  It is not relevant to my life, nor my day to day business, nor how i conduct myself.  If the prospect that nothing is real bothers you or creates for you some kind of existential crisis...  good luck with that.  That's really all i have on that note.

[Slyph]

Sorry, I wasn't actually arguing in favour of solipsism, I was comparing solipsism and neutral agnosticism, "This is unknowable."

It's like, sure, maybe, but try

[Luna]

You can't detect it with your instruments, it's magic.

What, we can't still have fun cutting you up and taking a look? Alright Luna, help me strap him to the table, looks like he's going to put up a fight over this.

Save me, Smouleng! Use your breath-weapon!

Your breath-weapon holds no terror for me.  I've been in the same room with victims of Richter's vindaloo.

When you see the instruments I have for detecting magic, you'd wish you'd gone for the colonoscopy.  Somebody pass the speculum.

Man, my digestive tract is really going to be in for it this weekend, huh?

It's gonna be a good time.   

[Nephew Twiddleton]

You can't detect it with your instruments, it's magic.

What, we can't still have fun cutting you up and taking a look? Alright Luna, help me strap him to the table, looks like he's going to put up a fight over this.

Save me, Smouleng! Use your breath-weapon!

Your breath-weapon holds no terror for me.  I've been in the same room with victims of Richter's vindaloo.

When you see the instruments I have for detecting magic, you'd wish you'd gone for the colonoscopy.  Somebody pass the speculum.

Man, my digestive tract is really going to be in for it this weekend, huh?

It's gonna be a good time.   

I'll see if I can find some matches...

[Faust]

Sorry, I wasn't actually arguing in favour of solipsism, I was comparing solipsism and neutral agnosticism, "This is unknowable."

It's like, sure, maybe, but try

I'm of the opinion that we will be able to try but not until long after my lifespan. Any presumption before that is basically just masturbation or worse, violating ones intellectual integrity.

[Pope Lecherous]

Sorry, I wasn't actually arguing in favour of solipsism, I was comparing solipsism and neutral agnosticism, "This is unknowable."

It's like, sure, maybe, but try

Oh it's cool.  I'm just enjoying this discussion.  It's going a hell of a lot better than my android thread  

I'm of the opinion that we will be able to try but not until long after my lifespan. Any presumption before that is basically just masturbation or worse, violating ones intellectual integrity.

Also,  this.

[Kai]

I see PL is back to tell Kai how science is done.   

After talking with Phox, I've decided it's not worth my time. Discussions can only happen when all members can contemplate evidence that would change their position. Blackfoot cannot, so there's no reason to continue except for the lulz, and I'm not having any fun with it.

Besides, LMNO is already using arguments which I would have presented. And doing an admirable job, despite Blackfoot's unwillingness to actually have a discussion.

ETA: and no, Blackfoot, it's not a discussion. See here: http://dumpdc.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/discussionflowchart.jpg

[Pope Lecherous]

After talking with Phox, I've decided it's not worth my time. Discussions can only happen when all members can contemplate evidence that would change their position. Blackfoot cannot, so there's no reason to continue except for the lulz, and I'm not having any fun with it.

Wow.  Has someone made a point that i've "refused" to consider?  The only "positions" i've taken thus far are on the meanings of the terms i'm using.

Besides, LMNO is already using arguments which I would have presented. And doing an admirable job, despite Blackfoot's unwillingness to actually have a discussion.

Um...  When i said i like LMNO it was because he succinctly summarized a lot of what i was trying to say.  It wasnt sarcasm and it wasnt an attack.  I agree with him. And if he's using arguments you would have used it seems like you are arguing with me not against me.  If you missed something or some context that would have allowed you to recognize where i stand compared to your position, that's an honest mistake.  This thread has come together pretty fast.  Otherwise, i find youre being pretty sensitive about a non-issue.

ETA: and no, Blackfoot, it's not a discussion. See here: http://dumpdc.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/discussionflowchart.jpg

I suppose you are right.  No one is actually having a discussion at all, because all we have really done up to this point is try to clairfy terms.

Nice flowchart.  Again, the only thing i've argued is that; there is a difference between knowing and believing,  beliefs do not influence reality, and atheists can't claim to "know" anything more than their counterparts at the opposite end of the spectrum.  Argue with that if you like or dont.  Just know that anyone who agrees with that, agrees with me on at least those things.  If you or anyone else refuse to get past these statements I CANT have a discussion with.

[Kai]

After talking with Phox, I've decided it's not worth my time. Discussions can only happen when all members can contemplate evidence that would change their position. Blackfoot cannot, so there's no reason to continue except for the lulz, and I'm not having any fun with it.

Wow.  Has someone made a point that i've "refused" to consider?  The only "positions" i've taken thus far are on the meanings of the terms i'm using.

Besides, LMNO is already using arguments which I would have presented. And doing an admirable job, despite Blackfoot's unwillingness to actually have a discussion.

Um...  When i said i like LMNO it was because he succinctly summarized a lot of what i was trying to say.  It wasnt sarcasm and it wasnt an attack.  I agree with him. And if he's using arguments you would have used it seems like you are arguing with me not against me.  If you missed something or some context that would have allowed you to recognize where i stand compared to your position, that's an honest mistake.  This thread has come together pretty fast.  Otherwise, i find youre being pretty sensitive about a non-issue.

ETA: and no, Blackfoot, it's not a discussion. See here: http://dumpdc.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/discussionflowchart.jpg

I suppose you are right.  No one is actually having a discussion at all, because all we have really done up to this point is try to clairfy terms.

Nice flowchart.  Again, the only thing i've argued is that; there is a difference between knowing and believing,  beliefs do not influence reality, and atheists can't claim to "know" anything more than their counterparts at the opposite end of the spectrum.  Argue with that if you like or dont.  Just know that anyone who agrees with that, agrees with me on at least those things.  If you or anyone else refuse to get past these statements I CANT have a discussion with.

You're right, there's a problem with terms.

Let me define mine:

Belief: an anticipation about reality

Belief in belief: an anticipation it is good, beneficial and/or righteous to anticipate a certain thing about reality. Does not require the actual anticipation of reality. See "there's an invisible dragon in my garage".

Truth: an anticipation about reality (belief) that actually corresponds to reality (map corresponding to territory).

To know: to have particular anticipations about reality that strongly correspond to reality (i.e. when an individual map strongly corresponds to the territory).

To believe: to have particular anticipations about reality.


Within my definitions, "to know" is only a strong version of "to believe". Knowing is only a stronger version of believing, and subjective.

To address your points:

1. Knowledge is a particular kind of belief. It is otherwise a belief.

2. Anticipations of reality can and do influence reality, but not to that which is anticipated. (i.e. an anticipation of god does not determine the actual existence of god, but it may influence reality in other ways). See: belief in belief.

3. An atheist knowing there is no god is possible, as the lack of evidence for a god in reality strongly corresponds to this anticipation.

If the word "truth" is tripping you up, please read: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth

[Kai]

To go further, there is absolutely no reason for me to have to preface my statements such as "There is no god", with "I believe" or "I anticipate", because by the very nature of me making the statement it is implicit that I anticipate such. E-prime is completely unnecessary.

[Pope Lecherous]

To go further, there is absolutely no reason for me to have to preface my statements such as "There is no god", with "I believe" or "I anticipate", because by the very nature of me making the statement it is implicit that I anticipate such. E-prime is completely unnecessary.

The terms as you define them seem to elevate an individual's grid above all else. What then becomes the point of pursuing the truth. Making your BIP more comfortable for you? Making it so communicating ideas becomes safer to the person espousing them?

[Kai]

To go further, there is absolutely no reason for me to have to preface my statements such as "There is no god", with "I believe" or "I anticipate", because by the very nature of me making the statement it is implicit that I anticipate such. E-prime is completely unnecessary.

The terms as you define them seem to elevate an individual's grid above all else. What then becomes the point of pursuing the truth. Making your BIP more comfortable for you? Making it so communicating ideas becomes safer to the person espousing them?

Making your map as close to reality as possible. This has nothing to do with prisons of the mind, or elevating the status of "grids". It most certainly doesn't have anything to do with anyone else's self-deception. If you're not honest with yourself about evidence or lack thereof then thats your own problem.

And as for "the point of pursuing the truth", countless other's have said their piece about this in the past, but some of my favorite statements are by Darwin,

"When I vew all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal dscendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was Deposited, they seem to me to become enobled."

And Feynman,

I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.

Or Yudowsky, more succinct,

"If we cannot learn to take joy in the merely real, our lives will be empty indeed.

Take any of those. They all talk about the same thing, the pleasure and joy of having a map that actually matches the territory. When you anticipate reality as it is then you can plan and make choices based on it. When you anticipate an absence of deities it frees you from that supernatural trap of control by anyone but yourself and reality, and devotion to no one else but other people and those various parts of reality that you choose to give devotion. There's no requirement. It's a sandbox rather than an organized game, but, I guess some people still pretend games when the universe is really just a sandbox. The only problem comes in when I have to play your game.

And like I said, anyone else's self deception isn't my problem.

[Pope Lecherous]

Take any of those. They all talk about the same thing, the pleasure and joy of having a map that actually matches the territory. When you anticipate reality as it is then you can plan and make choices based on it. When you anticipate an absence of deities it frees you from that supernatural trap of control by anyone but yourself and reality, and devotion to no one else but other people and those various parts of reality that you choose to give devotion. There's no requirement. It's a sandbox rather than an organized game, but, I guess some people still pretend games when the universe is really just a sandbox. The only problem comes in when I have to play your game.

And like I said, anyone else's self deception isn't my problem.

What you say here is really great and true.  The only comment i have is that you can do all this and live like this without claiming to Know Truth.

[Kai]

Take any of those. They all talk about the same thing, the pleasure and joy of having a map that actually matches the territory. When you anticipate reality as it is then you can plan and make choices based on it. When you anticipate an absence of deities it frees you from that supernatural trap of control by anyone but yourself and reality, and devotion to no one else but other people and those various parts of reality that you choose to give devotion. There's no requirement. It's a sandbox rather than an organized game, but, I guess some people still pretend games when the universe is really just a sandbox. The only problem comes in when I have to play your game.

And like I said, anyone else's self deception isn't my problem.

What you say here is really great and true.  The only comment i have is that you can do all this and live like this without claiming to Know Truth.

Are you using my definitions of those terms or are you using your undefined ones?

You know what? fuck it. Taboo "know" and "truth", and tell me what you mean again.

[Pope Lecherous]

Are you using my definitions of those terms or are you using your undefined ones?

You know what? fuck it. Taboo "know" and "truth", and tell me what you mean again.

Truth = Reality. 

Opinions are beliefs and ideas about reality.  Facts are the truth about reality.

Less wrong, as great as it is has a specialized language for ideas about ideas about what people think are true and false ad nauseum... all of that is unnecessary.