BloodHenge wrote:
Mestro wrote:
If there is no evidence for something, you cannot believe that it exists and remain sane.
Not necessarily. That's what cognitive dissonance is for.
Nix, cognitive dissonance is two-part,
a) you believe something that contradicts another thing you already believe in
b) you examine the contradiction. (or it is brought to your attention)
Boss Out of Town wrote:
Hmmm . . . problem is, this is one of those quotes that sounds very profound, but means very little in practice.
Well, it wasn't a quote. Begging pardon for fallible memory of course..
Well, evidence in this case refers to any kind of knowledge (that is itself justified) that justifies the existence for that something. I'm basically refering to the difference between a belief and knowledge; i think there was an ok explanation on wikipedia about it.
Well, in practice, if the statement makes sense to you, it means that believing that something exists because you want it to, or because it seems it ought to, without being able to justify it, (using whatever form of justifiable knowldege), means you've just brought a little more insanity into your soul.
Forrest wrote:
I disagree that calling something sentient or a person is necessarily a value judgement. [snipe] You could conceivably come to the conclusion that "to be sentient is to be X, Y, and Z; but there's nothing inherently valuable about sentience."
The position that sentience sui generis is valuable is itself a value judgement. However, identifying whether something is or is not intelligent or sentient by usnig the attributes of "X, Y and Z" is not a value judgement, only a description (although one that is based on the premise of another value judgement).
Logic wrote:
But the second sentence sortof states otherwise if you have a different frame of mind? What?
Oh sorry if i was confusing, I didn't mean to be, should have expanded more on the sentence.
It is possible to determine the existence of something by stating everything that it is not, i.e negatively. However, you need to be able to describe an infinity of "this is not x" before being to describe any real object. So to describe something negatively, you need an infinite mind.
Logic wrote:
There's no proof of God, yet ninety percent of the world believe there is one. Is the whole planet apeshit nuts?
They do not know how to think rationally and probably haven't even truly examined their beliefs. So most just don't know themselves. Second, if they have examined their beliefs and do not reject them, are although not 'apeshit nuts' are just a little bit insane. 'course, by this, we are all everyone of us including myself a little insane as we are not infinite minds and are only possessed of a bounded rationality.
About the brain, we are more than the sodden mess of cells of the brain, we exist in the changing of patterns and the interplay of ideas, we change everytime we have a new thought and everytime we change, we make I anew.
Just because you want there to be a 'soul' driving the brain, whatever you think the soul is, does not mean that there must be one. We are all no longer children, wanting something doesn't mean someone will give it to you.
Science can't account for many thing because people either haven't properly applied science to it yet or because science as an epistemology cannot be applied there. You don't expect a soundcard to start working as your videocard do you?