belief and knowledge

[binary suns]

hm. so this idea is.. inherently, easy to object to, or to reject, or to dismiss. 

 

so it is hard to talk about. it's hard to hear, hard to understand, hard to accept, and hard to apply. 

 

I've tried to ... approach the topic a few times before, but I'm no expert so I've not done a good job. I'm still learning how to understand it fully, and how to apply it well to my life. 

 

 

 

 

basically.. there is no knowledge at all. no facts, and no truth. 

To explain - All that we have to measure the world we assume is there, is our senses. We touch a wall and we feel it, we look at the wall and we see it - but these sensations are nothing more than an imprecise measuring tool. And when we create the laser precise tools and particle collides and huge telescopes and highly sensitive devices of various kinds - These still remain to be a reflection of what they measure, and further - we only "know" they are reliable because of our sight! We read the information from them. Nothing but perception lies between our understanding we ourselves hold, and the assumed "true world" that is beyond the self. 

And We do also have our thoughts, logic - but the assumption that thought is different from sensation is itself a belief we hold, and in fact the assumption that either our sensations or our thoughts are real are themselves a belief too! 

 

 

A common rejection to this is the claim "yes there is reality! get hit by a car and tell me there's no reality!" - this is not what is being claimed, however. Maybe reality is as we believe it is, but maybe it isn't. maybe reality is in a way that we cannot even fathom - maybe reality really is just a dream, or a simulation. but this is not the purpose of this idea. 

 

 

The thing is, that knowledge is actually synonymous with belief. Science is actually entirely dependent on faith. Any concept we have of the self is nothing more than a fictitious dream we cling to.  This is not to say that such things are bad, or wrong! We humans make great use of all of these beliefs. But these beliefs also can become traps, capturing us into self-deception, misunderstanding, or projection and bigotry towards others. 

 

 

but if we spend time to investigate our "knowledge" we will find - that all of our ideas depend on other ideas to validate their "truthfulness" - and all of those ideas on further ideas - and eventually we will link this chain of codependent ideas onto our sensations. And if we are aware enough of sensation, we notice that they are quite unreliable - believing we see a threat in the shadow, when there is just a shadow - hearing a noise and placing its source from the wrong direction - touch only is best effective when there is change - we think a metal is cold because it feels cold, when really both the metal and the book are just as warm as the air around us. And did you notice how all these claims of the way the world works that our sensations fail to capture, are ideas dependent on ideas? 

 

It may be difficult to grasp - it is difficult really - but it is actually quite impossible to know the Truth of reality. We only have faith in our assumptions. Sometimes our assumptions are so precise that we can predict the future! (or at least believe that there is a passage of time at all lol) but sometimes these beliefs are less accurate than we believe, and our culture has to take a 50 year adjustment to shift our scientific paradigm on understanding the fallacy as a fallacy and the new "truth" as "true" 

 

in fact, there is no truth in knowledge at all. if knowledge appears to helpfully explain certain observations, then that knowledge is applicable. sometimes it happens that ideas which appear to completely counter each other - both could explain patterns in the real world - and there really is no way to determine which is "better" because well - either works. Could be the case that both are foolish ideas! we really don't know!

 

there is no knowledge that isn't faith. 

 

 

 

[AVEN #1 fan]

Well, yeah people have their subjective beliefs, and they believe they know what they know, but what if they rly don't know? We'll never know bc the "supreme absolute truth" doesn't and will never exist.

 

 

But I see, a lot of empiristic philosophers believed our knowledge only comes from our perceptions of the world and experiences and is something subject.

[drudenfuss]

I think you're simultaneously giving Faith too much and too little credit. That said, there's much I agree about with this post.

 

Faith is a term that exists to describe the trust one places in something that is unproven. Science is about identifying (and often manipulating) demonstrable patterns. When Science creates a hypothesis surrounding a subject that cannot be demonstrably proven, they do so based on similar patterns that have been proven before. This is a presumption, which is not the same thing as Faith, and we only assume it is Truth insofar as it seems to help our understanding of a subject.

 

As an example, I might type: "1, 2, 3, 4, 5..." and then ask you what the next number might be. The most reasonable number would be 6, because based on previously proven patterns, 6 would occur after 5, assuming I kept the pattern of +1. This is not a matter of Faith, but of presumption.

 

Knowledge and Science are not the same thing either. One can have Knowledge of Science, but one could also have Knowledge of cookie cutter patterns developed in 1931. Knowledge is so wide and vast, it really refers to anything an individual can possibly register using their senses.

 

What I think is Truth is that all we know is absolutely subjective to our own existence. Humans are still encountering errors in mapping our own behavior, let alone mapping the stars billions of miles above us. That said, we could potentially argue that within the limited capabilities of human experience, certain things could be considered "true" (even if it's only by way of proving what "isn't true").

 

The scientific back-and-forth you refer to regarding theories and how we advance them does have a bit of a flaw; you seem to view it as though every few years we sweep out the old works to make way for entirely new ones. This is not the case. With every generation, we come to a closer understanding if the subjects we work with precisely because we are not abandoning the old works, but building on its shoulders. Information is updated as our understanding is expanded and yes, that means we might always be in a state of growth regarding the Truth. For instance, there was a theory in the 1800s about "gemules", which were reasoned to be the tiny parts of the body which determined inherited traits. While this theory is outdated, Mendel was not entirely off-base and added some truth to hereditary cells that allowed us to pursue other avenues of investigation. Rather than presenting Truth, he brought us closer to it. Now, we may not know everything about cells/molecules/genetics, but we have visual confirmation and medical responses which indicate that many of our patterns of understanding are as true as we can currently achieve with our resources.

 

Where your ideas really hold sway is that of "cultural truths". There is evidence that certain cultures in certain periods exhalted (what we would now call) homosexual pederasty as the truest form of emotional bonding between two people. There is evidence of the exact opposite being true. In our society, the people who do well in the entertainment industry are considered at the top of the social ladder, but in pre-modern times, actors and musicians - however talented - were always at the bottom, alongside prostitutes.

 

The ideas and values society holds at a given point in time is always in flux. Yet, is there a "true nature" we should be appealing to that is free from socio-cultural bias? Even animals have their biases.

 

It's all interesting to speculate.

[Yatogami]

I seen your other posts about this, and I can say that I 100% know what you are talking about. 

 

I also think humans can alter somewhat, their "Internal" reality, by altering their "perception" of it. 

[Nidwin]

8 hours ago, Meow. said:

there is no knowledge that isn't faith.

 

It depends how you look at it. I also consider your conclusion as non-valid for me as a person.

 

Knowledge is just the set, sum of gathered data or information about an amount or x-amout of subject(s). Faith on the other hand is based on having at least one belief, believing something to be true (faith is always about something being true) without any proven evidence that it could be true.

 

Knowledge can be true, false, incomplete or partially one of the three. (simplified)

Faith on the other hand is always true to the person claiming having faith in x,y,z.

 

Take as two examples (simplified to avoid writing a waterproof 200 pages long essaie)

 

Today, humans can't fly, except Superman, by themselves.

Today humans can't live underwater, except the man of Atlantis, the same way fish does.

 

These are two facts we can consider true based on knowledge. This isn't faith as this is true for anyone alive Today based on knowledge.

But I've faith, technically I don't as I don't hold any kind of belief but just for the sake here, that some of us, including me thinks we know how it truly feels, flying like Superman or swimming like the man of Atlantis. We think we know because we have some knowledge and we have experienced flying or deep sea ocean swimming in our dreams.

 

It would be faith if I claim I exactly know how it feels,flying or freely deep sea or ocean swimming. as I've zero evidence to backup my claim, meanwhile having knowledge about how it actually could feel.

[orangecat]

23 hours ago, Meow. said:

 

The thing is, that knowledge is actually synonymous with belief. Science is actually entirely dependent on faith. Any concept we have of the self is nothing more than a fictitious dream we cling to.  This is not to say that such things are bad, or wrong! We humans make great use of all of these beliefs. But these beliefs also can become traps, capturing us into self-deception, misunderstanding, or projection and bigotry towards others. 

 

I wasn't agree with this at the first second but when I come back and think about it..I got your idea and I agreed.  Science is a fact. Faith/belief is about how you would use the fact. If you have no faith, Science has no use to you.

An example for people who don't know the idea of this: I have knowledge of create nuclear fission. I could use it to make a nuclear power plant to light up the computer you are using or simply to make a bomb to kill. 

[binary suns]

I was pondering this morning on the walk. I may speak these thoughts in a poor order, so bear with me. 

 

Faith and Understanding cannot exist independantly. well, they can, but when they do, they are weak. If a person does not understand faith in the religious sense, then we say they have no faith. If a person has no faith that their understanding is really a valid conclusion, in the pursuit of science, than we say that they do not really understand. 

 

So these two things are necessarily linked. But as we investigate this link - a reference to my past contemplation, so this thought might be easy to reject without similar time spent contemplating it - as we investigate the link, we find that there is not so much different between faith and knowledge after all. And yet we are so adamant that they are different!

 

This is an interesting thing that we can often stumble upon in contemplation of many things. How two things don't seem different, or perhaps, we cannot trully capture wherein the thing lies. And yet, the thing, the concept, or idea, or system of prediction - it feels so very real. so true. we understand it and we have faith in it, so how can it possibly be not there, not different, nothing?? 

 

It is the value that we give to the difference, that makes it different. the importance of things, the segregation of concepts, the differences - all of these are self-derived. Self-referential. They rely on their own truth in order to be true. Whether it is an idea, or a difference between two concepts, or the system as a whole. they do not have their value, except because value is assigned to them by the subject of our imagination. This can be such a frustrating conundrum, contradiction, rejectable truth.

 

 

 

But this is kind of the thing - what I say here isn't true either. What I say and the purpose for saying it, is to try to help the reader (and myself) to come to realize more fully, how nothing we say is Truth. Everything we say is - you could call it belief, or you could call it knowing. you could call it a lot of things beside those too.

 

Do not worry I will get to the purpose of finding this realization.

 

Let's look at a system, a logical path which concludes certain truths. We would find - that the system is self-reliant on its own derivation. Perhaps some of the structure would remain, but if one of the assumptions turns out to be false, or we've made a mistake a weak link, then the structure collapses on itself - many of the derived things will suddenly be wrong too, and many of the root assumptions will be cast into doubt as well. And so we have a habit of rebuilding, repairing, or just healing the wound, when a toppling occurs. We use our logic or our faith or our intuition or our knowledge or our understanding to gather the pieces and start to build the links back up, begin to build the structure again. Self-referentially, self-derived.

 

Let's look at a relationship. My best friend is the most important person to me in the world! And I look to why - I ask, what is the reason for why she matters so much? It seems ridiculous to claim that she only matters because I make her matter. that is almost an insult to me and to her! But then I think - oh, no, I make her matter because she already matters! but wait - this is self-derived too! and I ponder further. It is hard to see in detail, because my relationship to her is complex and runs deep. but intuitively, I realize - That all the history that I have had, and the history that she has lived, and the history we've found together in our friendship, builds up to the point where there is naturally importance found in her and for her in me. and with that link we build it stronger, both independently and together. It seems like magic that we are so important to us! but due to the circumstances of our lives it is almost inevitable that it would be so important at all. The relationship is not only derivitive of itself, but also derivitive of our individual selves as well. our relationship with our self and our relationship with the Other. (the Other is the sense of other people, that there are people out there beyond ourselves who are independent of us and just as conscious and individual as us, and with the same human potential of being)  

 

I left these examples of contemplation hanging. I can only have faith, trust in you, that you will spend some time pondering these ideas, and your own ideas that are inspired by this conversation, to attempt to build up your understanding of this topic better. 

But to attempt to capture the meaning to these excursions - can you see how, there is no clear beginning? And now I will jump back to the main point, which also is reflected in these examples. 

 

The main point is in realizing what is True. that what is true is not True, and is actually only as real as what is false. truth and falsehood is an arbitrary assignment, moralization, which is only as useful as the value we assign to it, and in reality, has no reality at all. 

 

 

We assume that there is a True reality out there - we touch it and smell it and hear it and reason about it, so it must be True! But this is illusory - because everything which we experience is only a shadow of that Truth. a reflection of it. Everything we reason out, is further only a shadow of that Truth, a reflection, an image, a mirage. in this way, we can never Know Truth. we can never experience it, we can never be it, we can never be fully sure that it is really there. A comedic example is that maybe it is just a simulation - but this is still its own mirage. Really maybe it is not there at all - or maybe our measurements of Truth are false, and only Truth itself is true. or maybe our measurements are all that are True - and the reality that is there is really actually False. 

 

Ah- but that is the thing - For us, the measurements are the only Truth we can know. For us, from the relitive perspective of us, the measurement, the shadow, the reflection, of the outside world is the only Truth we can know, the only Truth we have, the only Truth we can ever experience. the only Truth we can ever be. If there is indeed something out there - some "more true" reality - really, there is only for that reality Truth, as there is truth for its own sake, for itself. and as we are not that, we can never know that Truth, never truly understand that reality, and never experience that existence. We can only measure it with our perspective - and then assume that it is really there - assign value to it. By assigning value to our beliefs, those beliefs become true, and become understanding, and in the understanding of them become true. The trap is in then concluding that all other things are false - when it is only the perspective we have faith in, the perspective we hold, which makes the false things "wrong" and the true things "right". 

 

 

 

 

 

So - yes this is complex stuff. a lot of content, thick, difficult to accept as logically consistent. I assure you it has been very consistent for me and natural - my only hope is that you can find some new realization to it, which will help you escape the traps therein.

 

 

So - what is the application of all this jabber? all this theory and philosophy - how can it be pragmatic? 

 

One is that only in action is there reality, only in being do we really matter. all the theory is just wishy washy - the theory of gravity is useless unless we wish to escape the weight that holds us to this world. It is the actions of flight that make flight true, not the theory that is only just a dream. 

Another is in debate - in realizing that your opponent is not wrong, they are right. and you are right to. but neither of you are True - both of you are just a system of beliefs that  works to a certain extent under a certain perspective. this is all. In this way, we can find trust even in negativity - trust that that belief is true for that perspective, and may or may not have any meaning for us, but that doesn't make any of this bad. 

A third is in handling pains and worries and stress and other negative emotions and thoughts - to see how they do not hold any more weight than that weight we apply to it. naturally it is difficult to escape that just like the flick of a switch - by pointing out this possibility I do not remove you from the chains of suffering. however, as you go forward in life, you can work on your habits to lessen the weight of suffering, instead of blindly gifting it more value unknowing of the trap you've fallen to. 

A fourth is in noticing how your knowledge is faith - to hold an impartial, objective view of these beliefs - to be more free to use the ones which help you come to action, and let go of them when they are unnecessary. to open your mind to things you before rejected - not to suddenly necessarily claim they are true, but to see them as at the least a way to find truth, even if by negation of it, or by the negative space it creates. Or perhaps a part of it is a good reference to help build some other understanding - a part that is difficult to see and compare to without the entire concept system as a backdrop to highlight the subsection. 

 

there are more pragmatic applications.. they pop up the more you come to terms with the reality that our only Truth we can actually exist with is the Truth of perception, faith, knowing, consciousness, dreaming. There really isn't a difference between belief or knowledge at all. 

[binary suns]

my best advice is to not get caught up in the length, confusing nature, or difficult to follow aspect of that full post. Do not look to capture the fullness of it therein - but instead look to see it as an arrangement of building blocks, and pick up the building blocks you can foresee their usefulness. and use those building blocks to better advance your understanding. 

 

because you are here, it is clear you find interest in this topic. so read what I've said, say anything you wish to respond with... but also, spend time contemplating these ideas and this topic. take a bath, a walk, lay down, sit, talk with a friend, or talk here, process it for yourself. I can only show you building blocks that could help, that do help me. It is up to you to apply the work to those blocks, to piece some of them into your system of belief...  or to discard them and ignore me. 

[Comrade F&F]

You make a really interesting argument about observations. Allow me to expand on it with my input:

 

This argument reminds me a lot of the approach to Quantum Mechanics. There’s two general theories to how it works:

 

First is Copenhagen’s Interpretation: a small object, such as an electron, exists in two separate states (a particle and wave), and until it is observed it remains in both states simultaneously. When it is observed, reality collapses into one of the states. Schrodinger’s cat, if you will.

 

The second theory is presents a different argument. The electron in question is actually a particle being influenced by a wave it creates, and thus, is guided by this wave while creating and influencing the wave. This is called the Pilot Wave Theory, since the wave is what’s ‘piloting’ the particle. It’s less commonly accepted, but it still holds key observations.

 

Both theories are pretty good at explaining the intricacies of Quantum Mechanics, but both are lacking in certain aspects. Skipping all the messy details I’m not good at explaining because I am no legit Quantum Physicist, it comes to the point of, “Accept the theory you’re most comfortable with”.

 

One argues observation is the cause of reality. The other argues reality exists and we just suck at observing it. So which is the legitimate answer?

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Science doesn’t depend on faith. It depends on analyzing observations. These observations create theories. In truth, we can’t fully trust our observations, and we have to acknowledge that reality. If you ask science ‘what is real’? The most truthful answer is: “We really don’t know....” We may know one day, we may never know, but really, we don’t know now. 

[Comrade F&F]

SO! This just got posted today. Enjoy!

 

Spoiler

 

 

[binary suns]

yeah that's actually a pretty good find. by that theory, it's more likely that we are a Boltzmann brain than that we exist as we believe we exist. that alone proves that all of our realiy can only be faith - even if we reject the notion that we are a Boltzmann brain, suddenly upon that reject we are faith. But if we do not reject the Boltzmann brain, then we accept that our existence is purely founded upon belief. 

[Framework_zero]

Did you ever heard about Gödel's incompleteness theorems? two famous theorems of mathematical logic that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system containing basic arithmetic. The impossibility of knowing anything without starting from arbitrary preconceptions, You are absolutely right when saying that knowledge depends on belief, or in the words of St. Augustine - 'Crede ut intelligas' (Believe to understand). You can't create knowledge without a basic set of beliefs, and that says a lot about the place we occupy in the universe. We often see ourselves as isolated individuals floating in a external reality that waits for us to be measured and understood, but the truth is that we are just pieces of the big system that the universe is, a system that can't ultimate know itself because we are only aware of it from the inside. If you renounce to believe in anything, you get the most radical form of freedom, a condition in wich everything is posible but nothing is truth and neither makes sense.

Going back to Gödel, is interesting how, in the end of his life, he advocated some form of religious belief bassed on his former ideas. If you found this interesting I really recomend you to read about Gödel's ontological proof, it may change the way you think about these topics.

[binary suns]

mmhm yes. god must exist, however human belief in their manifestation is no certainty. Perhaps there is infinite manifestation even, or existence without manifestation even, or perhaps we cannot even fathom. 

 

Likewise.. there must be existence, we think therefore we are, tho I would say we perceive therefore we are, but we can never have certainty in that existence except through belief. Perhaps there is a physical world as we try to perfectly describe.. perhaps there is nothing but a dream or simulation.. perhaps there is something we cannot even fathom. Perhaps the world exists in a way where we accurately describe our perception of it, but its dimensional properties are vastly beyond our capability of observation, and in that way we are way off the mark of our belief of what is there.

 

 

all we can do is discuss our beliefs, find consistency in them, and revel in how smart we appear. and yet, cats and dolphins and birds of all kind believe they are smart and we are dumb hoo-mons.