Author
|
Topic: virus: Minimal belief set (Read 855 times) |
|
opsima
Initiate
Gender: 
Posts: 40
Reputation: 5.68
Rate opsima
Don't worry, the worst is yet to come!
  
|
 |
virus: Minimal belief set
« on: 2003-09-02 13:21:17 » |
 |
Something that popped up in the Fred Reed discourse:
It's my understanding that some ammount of belief must be taken to allow the
usage of the scientific method, to observe and draw conclusions about the
world around us...
Not too long ago it was put to me to explain how I could bear to live in
this world if I truly believed *nothing*. But of course I don't, I have some
faith in my own senses and my ability to reason.
I propose the following as a minimal belief set:
1: I believe that I exist; I can percieve and affect my surroundings.
2: I believe that my senses are trustworthy within a margin of error.
3: I believe that everything that may be observed has an explanation which
may be brought about by reason.
Is this a good minimal belief set?
Is it minimal and complete?
Do other people here share similar sets?
Hope to hear some interesting responses :]
---
Calvin Ashmore
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~coa
"Don't worry, the worst is yet to come!"
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Minimal belief set
« Reply #1 on: 2003-09-02 13:49:39 » |
|
Hmm. I personally would substitute the phrase 'To the best of my
knowledge' for the phrase 'I believe'. Maybe this is a semantic quibble
but I have to ask if it is possible for anyone to 'believe' that they do
not exist. (I'm not a great fan of the Matrix you will gather).
Similarly, is it possible to believe that one's senses are not mostly
trustworthy? For my part, I seem to (mostly) do quite a good job of not
walking into walls and so on.
Likewise, apart from the conundrum of 'existence' is it possible to
believe that there is anything which can never be explained? I need to
think about this one a lot more but at the moment I'm inclined to think
that such a thing could not be perceived in the first place.
Everything hinges upon the definition of the word 'belief' I suppose.
Best Regards
Blunderov
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
Of Calvin Ashmore
Sent: 02 September 2003 07:21 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Minimal belief set
Something that popped up in the Fred Reed discourse:
It's my understanding that some ammount of belief must be taken to allow
the
usage of the scientific method, to observe and draw conclusions about
the
world around us...
Not too long ago it was put to me to explain how I could bear to live in
this world if I truly believed *nothing*. But of course I don't, I have
some
faith in my own senses and my ability to reason.
I propose the following as a minimal belief set:
1: I believe that I exist; I can percieve and affect my surroundings.
2: I believe that my senses are trustworthy within a margin of error.
3: I believe that everything that may be observed has an explanation
which
may be brought about by reason.
Is this a good minimal belief set?
Is it minimal and complete?
Do other people here share similar sets?
Hope to hear some interesting responses :]
---
Calvin Ashmore
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~coa
"Don't worry, the worst is yet to come!"
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
opsima
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 40
Reputation: 5.68
Rate opsima
Don't worry, the worst is yet to come!
|
|
RE: virus: Minimal belief set
« Reply #2 on: 2003-09-02 14:52:07 » |
|
For a "minimal belief set" I'm trying to think of statements which are
impossible to derive from other knowledge, axioms in essence.
I mainly want a system through which I can disregard certain unfalsifiable
claims like... "The world doesn't really exist- it's all just part of the
imagination of some other entity" or "There really *are* faeries, You can't
see them, you can't percieve their existence in any way, but they're
there!", and similar such things.
Alternately- we have no justification for using the scientific method unless
we're sure that it is meaningful. Not that one would believe *in* the
scientific method, but rather believe that it describes reality.
I think right now I'm venturing out into some metalogical limb in which I
have relatively little power in argument, but hopefully you can understand
what I'm trying to get at. (And Hermit's prolly going to crack my head on
this like he did when I first joined the list!)
But my basic question is whether something at all is needed to be assumed
(without evidence) before rational discourse can take place, or if it is
possible to make the statment "I believe nothing (without evidence)"
truthfully?
That is a very awkward phrasing though. I agree that the definition of
belief needs to be pondered over.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply!
-Calvin
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:virus: Minimal belief set
« Reply #3 on: 2003-09-02 15:44:05 » |
|
On belief, http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/belief
For a basic set of Axioms, the Epistemological Axioms are a very sound place to begin:
Existence
Consciousness
Reality
Identity
Non-contradiction
Causality
You will find more on the topic at FAQ: Epistemology, Axioms, Reality, Consciousness, the Universe and Everything.
Please notice that while it is quite likely that these axioms are, all of them, as unprovable as they are fundamental, they do suffice to describe our consesus model of the world sufficiently well for us to operate, and removing any one of them appears to cause visible gaps in our network of scientific and philosophical models.
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
opsima
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 40
Reputation: 5.68
Rate opsima
Don't worry, the worst is yet to come!
|
|
RE: virus: Minimal belief set
« Reply #4 on: 2003-09-02 18:54:01 » |
|
Hermit,
Actually... that's exactly what I've been looking for, thank you!
-Calvin
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Minimal belief set
« Reply #5 on: 2003-09-03 02:57:41 » |
|
Agreed. It's pretty damn good stuff.
This reminds me of a story about the late former world chess champion
Mikhail Tal. When a couple of grandmasters came to fetch him from his
hotel to take him to the playing venue, they found him watching a TV
program about chess that was pitched at the level of beginners. They
asked him why he, a GM and former world champ, was taking such an
interest in an elementary program he replied "You can never get enough
fundamentals".
Best Regards
Blunderov
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
Of Calvin Ashmore
Sent: 03 September 2003 12:54 AM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: Minimal belief set
Hermit,
Actually... that's exactly what I've been looking for, thank you!
-Calvin
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
