Unnecessarily argumentative
Quote from: Me_Be on March 22, 2024, 10:41:23 AMAnd this story authored by you there, is also you're belief. For anything at all to be known, it must first be conceptualised and infused with meaning for it to make sense or not.Or you can just assume the words to carry their most commonly agreed-upon meanings.
QuoteHuman language is the perfect tool for making sense of what we ultimately cannot know,Perhaps it is. Now, what makes you think that there is something worth knowing that we may ultimately not? (By "worth knowing," I mean something that has or can have some interactivity with us)
Quotebut can envision this unknowing as if it is known as and through the senses and the mental capacity to be able impose our make-believed beliefs upon it as and through our conception of it.It ceases to be make-belief when it can be verified as an adequate model of some aspect of reality.
QuoteWe have the capacity to think about reality, to perceive it by attaching labels and stringing them all together to make a storyThere was a time, even in your own life, when all you did was gather and process sensor data. Your conscious capacity to sort and label, not to mention make stories, came later. A person who does not know a language can still perceive and think about reality in terms of some other sensory input, and may output those thoughts by other means than linguistic communication.
QuoteAnd we have been doing this story telling from cradle to grave constantly relating to our thoughts until we think we've understood who we are and the world we live in. But our limited knowledge as finite beings is still just a (belief)It's not a belief if it can be verified as an adequate model of some aspect of reality, even if it is not "cosmically correct." Einsteinian gravity is not a force. Newtonian gravity is. Both model the same aspect of reality with varying degrees of precision. Both are useful. You can throw a ball and predict exactly where it lands using Newton's model. You can drive a car and know exactly where to take the next right using Einstein's. When trying to accomplish something these models are insufficient for, you need a different one.
QuoteBeliefs are mentally constructed arbitrary ideas within the sense of human I Am-ness,No. They need not be arbitrary, or have anything to do with someone's "themness," beyond "running on their hardware."
Quotethey're born of thoughts.This, however, they are. They are born of thoughs and are themselves thoughts. They are a product of sensor input and dataset processing. (Just to explain precisely what I mean by that, a sensor input may be a sound you hear. Dataset processing may be you recalling that sound or relating it to a cat or an air raid siren)
QuoteAnd yet 'thoughts' can never touch reality as it actually is, because reality as it actually is is inconceivable to the human mind.Are you certain that you are not talking about The Cosmic Truth(tm) rather than reality? Because even if your sensor data is faulty, you still use it to perceive reality. It's far from inconceivable, and your conception of it needs not be total or often even approach perfection.
QuoteAnd yet seems to be obviously knowable in this immediate Non-knowing, for how could there be a state of Not-knowing for the mind - 'thought' simply imposes upon this unknowing reality turning it into some kind of known. So what seems to be happening here is very basic and simple once realised, and that is reality is known only by association by what is ultimately always this mysterious unknowing knowing of itself.So close, and yet so far, it seems. Anything that can be sensed, directly or indirectly, be it by you or some tool for the purpose, is knowable. I don't see the mystery here. Precisely how it works - say, how does my brain store faces I've seen in memory - that's the mysterious part as I see it. Of course, the fog of mystery recedes with increased understanding, For an explanation of the state of not knowing, I refer you back to the discussion we've had about you experiencing not being in my living room, or above for the burnt hydrogen example. It works in precisely the same manner.
Quote from: Me_Be on March 22, 2024, 11:03:47 AMI don't think an observation of a belief is what forms the belief.Nono, not what I meant. An observation of a log floating down a river may make you believe that "things float." Throw a rock in, however, and you will have falisified that belief. Thus, your model of reality, in which things float, should be modified to accomodate the new data.
Quote from: Tank on March 21, 2024, 06:46:36 PMHello Adey67Thanks for the welcome Chris it's appreciated.
Welcome to HAF it's good to have you here.
Regards
Chris
Quote from: Asmodean on March 22, 2024, 10:34:42 AMIt's a fair enough observation, but I don't think validation is always secondary to belief in this manner. An observation may form a belief, and therefore precede it.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 22, 2024, 10:34:42 AMThere simply was no you.
You know that you didn't exist before your time - and you know that you will not after (unless you believe in some manner of an afterlife that enables the continuation of you as a single system in some meaningful way) It's... "All chemistry." If you burn two hydrogen molecules, you will get two water molecules. Those molecules did not exist before hydrogen was burned, and will not exist after they have been electrolysed apart or reacted into something else. Humans are no different in this sense - only significantly more complex.