to believe or not to believe

[insulinshock]

when i don´t know i make a belief system(my god has blue teeth and blonde hair).

my beliefs are my thoughts (i think teeth are dark blue and you´ll just have to believe me).

my thoughts are limited and created division ( blond... not brunette).

division is conflict( blond or brunette... i´m right... you´re wrong).

my thought is choice(i make myself not free by choosing blonde).

so can there be -------( don´t know what to call this) without belief( and without thought,division,choice etc)?

 

i write english because my norwegian is too funny to read.

smile.

[Hamnli2]

You'll need to rewrite your post, I don't understand what you mean And the lack of replies implies that I'm not the only one...

[Heradon]

Your english is odd as well, I believe your sentences can't get more messy in Norwegian than this. Try to write in both languages or something

[insulinshock]

Your english is odd as well, I believe your sentences can't get more messy in Norwegian than this. Try to write in both languages or something

 

hello lubben.

my use of english is not normal meaning statistically average(it is not what education systems teach. agreed.) so therefore odd. i make only apologies if it hinders dialogue and none if it increases awareness of conflict towards understanding.

helpful for me is if you define odd so i don´t guess your meaning(s).

you share with me a belief( my sentences can´t get more messy in norwegian). thanks for your belief. and it is also your knowing i find useful if you care to share. i wish i had called this thread "to believe or not to believe and still know who you are".

 

my reasons for odd writing are

to slow the process of mutual examination,

to trigger our conditioning and increase awareness of for example conditioning, intolerance,impatience, and ego righteousness. not forgetting comfort.

 

and my written english is incomprehensible. i accept that you have difficulty understanding my oddness. did some make sense to you? i wish more info from you so i can examine further how to better know you beyond your belief systems.

 

piece, glove and misunderstandings(only if it increases our knowing)

 

true smile. tanks a lot mate.

[Imsvale]

Some beliefs are crucial to our survival; we cannot be void of beliefs if we wish to remain alive.

 

I understand you just fine, and find your style, hm... refreshing.

[insulinshock]

You'll need to rewrite your post, I don't understand what you mean And the lack of replies implies that I'm not the only one...

 

hello.

what don´t you understand? some? none of it? let me know please...

if i re-write then maybe you will understand. maybe not. either way how should i write so it is ok for you?

 

 

lack of replies implies.......(you write). implication means not knowing? a belief?

 

you remind me of how easy it is to believe ( which does not require the other person, or for that matter god) and how little awareness i have of knowing myself.

 

thank you so far.

[insulinshock]

Some beliefs are crucial to our survival; we cannot be void of beliefs if we wish to remain alive.

 

I understand you just fine, and find your style, hm... refreshing.

 

hey trond man!

will you example me on belief crucial survival alive? which beliefs?

i getting your drift slightly and prefer better to hear your version so i have something to lock onto that is yours.

 

i´m new to this. never done it before. so i get (from two others) "huh?"

my ego pulled my underpants over my trousers and cried like most false superheros.

 

i old my breath and wait for gordot!!!!

[Imsvale]

If you believe you can fly, but cannot, you're likely to hurt yourself falling or jumping off of something tall. Hence, your survival depends on you holding certain beliefs regarding your motion in relation to the world around you.

 

There are countless examples which could be mentioned, but I'm lazy and trust that you do indeed catch my drift.

Endret 19. mars 2009 av TrondH86

[fuzzyboots]

This is a common english error.

 

"If you have it, it’s a belief; if you do it, you believe. People can’t have religious “believes”; they have religious beliefs. If you have it, it’s a belief; if you do it, you believe. "

 

What we know about the laws of physics are "believes", to the extent where we can never actually know anything for certain. But please note the difference between belief and believes.

 

I don't know if this is of most relevance, but keep this in mind before using the terms.

[pekaman77]

when i don´t know i make a belief system(my god has blue teeth and blonde hair).

my beliefs are my thoughts (i think teeth are dark blue and you´ll just have to believe me).

my thoughts are limited and created division ( blond... not brunette).

division is conflict( blond or brunette... i´m right... you´re wrong).

my thought is choice(i make myself not free by choosing blonde).

so can there be -------( don´t know what to call this) without belief( and without thought,division,choice etc)?

 

i write english because my norwegian is too funny to read.

smile.

 

 

We dont know anything and intepretate evrything (make belief). Choice is probably an illusion so you where never free.

What is the: "------- (don't know what to call this)" ? Try to describe it or i dont understand and can't answer the question.

[insulinshock]

This is a common english error.

 

"If you have it, it’s a belief; if you do it, you believe. People can’t have religious “believes”; they have religious beliefs. If you have it, it’s a belief; if you do it, you believe. "

 

What we know about the laws of physics are "believes", to the extent where we can never actually know anything for certain. But please note the difference between belief and believes.

 

I don't know if this is of most relevance, but keep this in mind before using the terms.

 

 

can you example what you mean with belief v. believe?

-belief is a noun. static (it either is or is not word). an acceptance of. objectified.

-believe i as a verb. a process. in progress. a movement.

 

can i have a movement or can i be in it?(be in it for me)

can i have an object(yes for me)

i agree with you.

so my thread examines to be or not to be.

 

have to go ... later.

 

thank you.

[insulinshock]

when i don´t know i make a belief system(my god has blue teeth and blonde hair).

my beliefs are my thoughts (i think teeth are dark blue and you´ll just have to believe me).

my thoughts are limited and created division ( blond... not brunette).

division is conflict( blond or brunette... i´m right... you´re wrong).

my thought is choice(i make myself not free by choosing blonde).

so can there be -------( don´t know what to call this) without belief( and without thought,division,choice etc)?

 

i write english because my norwegian is too funny to read.

smile.

 

 

We dont know anything and intepretate evrything (make belief). Choice is probably an illusion so you where never free.

What is the: "------- (don't know what to call this)" ? Try to describe it or i dont understand and can't answer the question.

 

 

on the edge of questions

- can we know?

- how can i be sure

- can we exist without choice and which dimension.

- can we examine such questions how?

 

thank you

[Petrvs Romanvs]

English is not my mothertounge so accordingly to the fact that this is a Norwegian forum I choose to express my thoughts in a much clearer way.

 

I'll give you an example in old norse wormtoungue:

 

Katten ser på meg rolig med kølsvarte øyner, vi vet vel begge innerst inne hvordan verden egentlig ser ut. Den er helt forferdelig, grotesk så grotesk.

 

Jeg prøver å synge, prøvelsen i x i hjertet x i hjertet x i hjertet.

 

Nei, i dette koret er det få som har gehør.

 

Edit: Skal man sensurere swastikaen, tja.. Martin Hoellwarth tok gesturen halvt ut under hoppuka ellers hadde det blitt baluba

Endret 19. mars 2009 av Ba'al

[insulinshock]

English is not my mothertounge so accordingly to the fact that this is a Norwegian forum I choose to express my thoughts in a much clearer way.

 

I'll give you an example in old norse wormtoungue:

 

Katten ser på meg rolig med kølsvarte øyner, vi vet vel begge innerst inne hvordan verden egentlig ser ut. Den er helt forferdelig, grotesk så grotesk.

 

Jeg prøver å synge, prøvelsen i x i hjertet x i hjertet x i hjertet.

 

Nei, i dette koret er det få som har gehør.

 

Edit: Skal man sensurere swastikaen, tja.. Martin Hoellwarth tok gesturen halvt ut under hoppuka ellers hadde det blitt baluba

 

hello baál

please do norwegian with me. don´t let the english make you talk a forked tongue(smile)... haven´t they done quite enough of this already. don´t allow the empire to strike back!

i will ponder the cat with good honest norwegian friends. thank you ....i hjertet a little to the left.

[pekaman77]

on the edge of questions

- can we know?

- how can i be sure

- can we exist without choice and which dimension.

- can we examine such questions how?

 

thank you

 

Again im not certain if i understod you corectly, so ill just respond to what you wrote one by one for the sake of it.

 

We can know nothing but belive anything (I define knowing as a 100% answer here).

 

You can never ever be sure (pretty much the same answer).

 

We dont know if we exist, if existance is real then it probably can be without choice, choice is a human intepretation off acts in situasions with multiple "possibilitys".

 

We can examin any question by using systems (methods). Its "obvius" that humans have several basic systems we operate through to be as advanced as we are. Developing systems we can intepretate the world through, using them gives us belifs about the world.

[Petrvs Romanvs]

i will ponder the cat with good honest norwegian friends. thank you ....i hjertet a little to the left.

The cat has been calm for some time now, so that's no problem... I think.

[insulinshock]

on the edge of questions

- can we know?

- how can i be sure

- can we exist without choice and which dimension.

- can we examine such questions how?

 

thank you

 

Again im not certain if i understod you corectly, so ill just respond to what you wrote one by one for the sake of it.

 

We can know nothing but belive anything (I define knowing as a 100% answer here).

 

You can never ever be sure (pretty much the same answer).

 

We dont know if we exist, if existance is real then it probably can be without choice, choice is a human intepretation off acts in situasions with multiple "possibilitys".

 

We can examin any question by using systems (methods). Its "obvius" that humans have several basic systems we operate through to be as advanced as we are. Developing systems we can intepretate the world through, using them gives us belifs about the world.

 

hello le

i wish to slow the process so increase understanding between us(maybe).

i´ll examine with you into your "we can know nothing but believe anything". ok.

 

when i know (example i cannot fly of this edge) then what need is there for belief? (none for me).

belief( i cannot fly) is then my knowing so this no longer has meaning as a belief? it is knowing. no doubt.

 

when my belief(i can fly) is different from my knowing(i cannot fly) then what? if my knowing is 100% then i go with the knowing.

so can knowing be 100%? well...

 

no if knowing is based in time, choice, change and thoughts(beliefs) which are limited.

 

yes if knowing is out of time, eternal and unlimited.

can this exist? to know without belief? yes.

 

how? it is choiceless(timeless, thoughtless) awareness(eternal.. no start or finish). a process and not a thing.

 

i´ll pause here. chew well, spit out and ....later.

 

thank you.

piece, glove and misunderstandings

[Eppelsin]

I agree, your writing is odd. I'm not sure if you're english or not, so I'll answer in english. My writing might be a little odd as well (but I'll try to proof-read it before posting it, but that doesn't always work. Also, I might misunderstand the question... Also, I'm not really the philosophical type..).

 

What I understand by what you call "belief system", is how your brain (or, conciousness, or, well, you) thinks, or works, not just in a religious sense. But, what you do not know, you do not neccesary have to take on good faith (or god faith, whichever applies). One can use some sort of a probability: You have never been able to fly when flapping your arms while on the ground, or jumping from a chair, even after a 10000 tries. Why should you be able to fly when you stand on the top of a tall building? In fact, most objects you have observed fallng from a greater height, or have been told by others who have observed it, get a greater speed before hitting ground, thus greater damage. Hence, this would seem like an unwise thing to do.

So one might argue that this is some sort of belief, and not knowing 100%, and I think that is right. But it's not like 50-50. More like 99.999999999999999%. Or virtually 100% certainity; you cannot fly.

 

You say thoughts are limited. In your example of your blonde blue-teethed God, you seem to attribute this to classification (blond... not brunette). Well, can one be both? (a limitless God can be both, of course. Or if some sort of half'n'half blond/brunette fashion should emerge by coulouring one half of ones hair - so you see; not impossible ) Anyway, I think you are right in the sense that our tendency to group things, classify the world, influences our thinking, and hence could be limiting the thought process. It's not easy to "think outside the box".

I believe (or not) that physorg.com had an article about just that a little while ago, with regards to language: http://www.physorg.com/news154865165.html

 

 

You also ask: "so can there be -------( don´t know what to call this) without belief( and without thought,division,choice etc)?"

 

What does "-------" constitute? What do you have without "thought, division, choice etc"?

 

On one level it seems to me that what you have without "thought, division, choice etc", is just that - a belief, an unconditional one at that, robbed of free will (the worst kind! And lets not get into free will at this point).

 

But also, it seems (pretty strongly) to be in our nature to categorise and generalize the world, to be curious, and ask the questions why and how.

 

Also, "the world" seems to be organized already, on different levels in different structurs. Following a set of rules we call "nature laws", which is really not laws per se, but the so-far best theories. From gluons and quarks forming atomic nucleic particles like protons, neutrons, electrons (and their antimatter equivalents) forming the material world, via chemical bonding, cells, amoebas, multi-cell organisms (animals, humans, families, coorporations, nations, united nations, united federation of planets), planets, stars, starsystems, galaxies and clusters of galaxies and clusters of clusters of galaxies.. If this was not the case, everything would be uniform all around, would it not? And there would then be no borders to talk about, no divisions or categories in which to label things, which we like, and no happyness, no unhappiness, no dark spots, no sunshine, no fight over what is good and neutral (oops, sorry, I meant good and evil, a little joke inspired from a cartoon named Futurama), no death, no life, no nothing really. No observations and no consciosness (so in a sense it wouldn't really matter then).

 

Luckily, that is not the case, or at least so it seems (maybe everything is a dream). So, to comprehend all this, one have to start somewhere? Even if the starting point is dead wrong.

 

Maybe your "-------( don´t know what to call this)" can be replaced by "Truth"?

 

So, if the question is, "can there be truth without belief?", then I believe (or not ) the answer to that question is, well, "no", given that the meaning of "belief" in this case is as a model of the world (which also can be a religious belief, but not neccesarily). You have to have some model (or belief) to test observations against. And to test an observation, to evaluate it, you have to have some sort of intelligence ( as in "thought, division, choice" or whatnot constitutes thinking) to see if the model is, well, true! And then to replace it if neccessary when new observations about the world occurs. Then, in time, I would assume a model emerges that will be true for all observers. Yet, one can probably not be 100% sure of it. (Also, time probably never stops, so the finale model (the "Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything") will probably never be. But one can always hope.

 

 

In short I guess the essence is to get a "working copy", (a model, or "truth" if you will), of the world in our mind (I think this will also be important in the emerging field of artificial intelligence).

 

In the opposite case, where a truth exists without thougths, you just have a set of rules (the truth), but no resoning about them.

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, we humans tend to accept and notice what we already think we know (or "believe") is the truth, and hide away and forget, or not notice the unpleasant stuff we do not agree with (it's probably wrong anyway ) and which makes our model of the world crash. It's unpleasant when that happens.

 

(Sometimes we combine them. "Both particles and waves". It's probably the third option).

[Petrvs Romanvs]

hello baál

Here in Norway we go completely nuts after St. Hans, grilling sau-sages, an old tradition I think. Who actually startet it I don't know, but it keeps the mos-quit-oes away :!: