Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2013, 03:18 AM
Re: RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 02:11 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 11:41 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  How can humans and minds have existed without evolution existing as a fact? If it wasn't a fact then, its not one today.

Putting ideas into categories is a human concept to understanding reality, yes... Facts may be one term also used.

You should answer this one: A rock is a rock, even if no human/mind is around to label it a rock: agree or disagree?

I understand the view you mean by this.. But its an unproven method of viewing reality. You can claim its reality all you want, that doesn't make it any more sound of an idea.

A rock is not a rock if nobody believes it is a rock. Is it a rock to a fruit fly or a bird? No, because they don't have a mind like we do.

The movie scene where a coke bottle falls into an isolated tribe? The tribesmens minds did not believe it was a coke bottle and they were using it for other things.

Evolution is true for us today and for us in the past because we have minds that believe in that.

Then I disagree with you on your base premise, I can't speak for Bucky though.

I understand your idea on its philosophical level, but don't think its a confirmation of reality.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 04:18 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 03:18 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 02:11 AM)I and I Wrote:  A rock is not a rock if nobody believes it is a rock. Is it a rock to a fruit fly or a bird? No, because they don't have a mind like we do.

The movie scene where a coke bottle falls into an isolated tribe? The tribesmens minds did not believe it was a coke bottle and they were using it for other things.

Evolution is true for us today and for us in the past because we have minds that believe in that.

Then I disagree with you on your base premise, I can't speak for Bucky though.

I understand your idea on its philosophical level, but don't think its a confirmation of reality.

Disagree with what? Are you implying that a bird can "know" what a rock is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 04:25 AM
Re: RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 04:18 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 03:18 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Then I disagree with you on your base premise, I can't speak for Bucky though.

I understand your idea on its philosophical level, but don't think its a confirmation of reality.

Disagree with what? Are you implying that a bird can "know" what a rock is?

Drinking Beverage

I said... Your premise... Is your premise: birds can't know what a rock is? No!

The premise facts requires belief.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 04:28 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 04:31 AM by absols.)
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
a bird cant know when it doesnt see itself

self awareness is the reason of else perspective

and else perspective is a confirmation of being free

but the fact is there, u can only know urself forever

else existence is always through absolute objective facts not anything particularly

this is how beliefs are all wrong

what is wrong relatively is wrong absolutely

what is seen right relatively could b right absolute but freed from other things, but it should b not seen wrong anywhere otherwise it is wrong all the ways more

again i repeat, believe is a right word freed in truth only as a verb meaning present b and leaving all to b too

the sense of truth in meaning if u see smthg, that the only reaction possible is to let it b then, not to name it or enjoy turning around
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 07:56 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 04:18 AM)I and I Wrote:  Disagree with what? Are you implying that a bird can "know" what a rock is?

Once again, you're being incredibly facetious.

If external reality persists independent of human perception (note: you have agreed with this assumption), then the objects and interactions comprising it maintain their characteristics regardless of human perception. The characteristics observed by a human being which lead to an identification of 'rock' are still present absent human observation. This is only an assumption, true; it has historically been of some use.

A bird does not look at a rock and think to itself in human language "that is a rock". That's a nonsensical strawman. Your contention is thus: only humans think as humans do. That is inarguable, insofar as it is purely tautological. It is just about the most useless and circular observation it is possible to make.

A bird is, of course, fully capable of observing a rock, recognizing those of its characteristics which it has the capacity to recognize, and interacting with it accordingly.

Is... is there a point to any of this thread? Beyond the exceedingly obvious?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
10-09-2013, 08:07 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 07:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 04:18 AM)I and I Wrote:  Disagree with what? Are you implying that a bird can "know" what a rock is?

Once again, you're being incredibly facetious.

If external reality persists independent of human perception (note: you have agreed with this assumption), then the objects and interactions comprising it maintain their characteristics regardless of human perception. The characteristics observed by a human being which lead to an identification of 'rock' are still present absent human observation. This is only an assumption, true; it has historically been of some use.

A bird does not look at a rock and think to itself in human language "that is a rock". That's a nonsensical strawman. Your contention is thus: only humans think as humans do. That is inarguable, insofar as it is purely tautological. It is just about the most useless and circular observation it is possible to make.

A bird is, of course, fully capable of observing a rock, recognizing those of its characteristics which it has the capacity to recognize, and interacting with it accordingly.

Is... is there a point to any of this thread? Beyond the exceedingly obvious?

So do facts exist to birds? I say no....because facts require human belief in them. Birds can see a hammer, but a hammer as all the things it means to us (heidegger would say hammer as such) does not exist to a bird. Humans believe and accept the uses that a hammer has, this belief in the uses of a hammer are part of what make it a hammer. Evolution is the result of our human minds situating the world as best we can from out perspective as to what happened in the past, a bird can never do this so evolution is not a fact according to a bird.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 08:12 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 09:49 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 02:11 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 11:41 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  How can humans and minds have existed without evolution existing as a fact? If it wasn't a fact then, its not one today.

Putting ideas into categories is a human concept to understanding reality, yes... Facts may be one term also used.

You should answer this one: A rock is a rock, even if no human/mind is around to label it a rock: agree or disagree?

I understand the view you mean by this.. But its an unproven method of viewing reality. You can claim its reality all you want, that doesn't make it any more sound of an idea.

A rock is not a rock if nobody believes it is a rock. Is it a rock to a fruit fly or a bird? No, because they don't have a mind like we do.

The movie scene where a coke bottle falls into an isolated tribe? The tribesmens minds did not believe it was a coke bottle and they were using it for other things.

Evolution is true for us today and for us in the past because we have minds that believe in that.

NOTE: This is not saying that what we call a rock or what we call a coke bottle doesn't exist as physical matter.

Thanks for proving, I and I, you really are Idiot Squared.
Whether a bird believes in a hammer or not, it can still fly into one, and get killed. It can still be killed by one, very easily. Your point is false. Very easily false. Pointless.
The hammer exists, and is possibly consequential to the bird whether it believes in them or not. The hammer does not disappear, because the bird does not know about it, or fails to recognize it.

So WTF is the point ?
The object or reality exists regardless of what it is named.
You've just answered your own stupid, worthless, inane question.
You're trying to say it doesn't. Either that, or you have no clue what you're saying.

"Evolution is true for us today and for us in the past because we have minds that believe in that."

No it isn't. It's true because the process works, and exists. Period. What goes on in human minds does not in any way affect it's on-going reality. Human minds would not exist, if Evolution did not happen, independent of them. YOU cannot, and have not provided ONE example to the contrary. You don't even know what the point of all this crap is.

Give us ONE example of external reality which is changed by belief. Whatever the object is named, (a rock), the object is still there, no matter what it's called.

One example. Give us ONE example.

One.

Example.

"A rock is not a rock if nobody believes it is a rock. Is it a rock to a fruit fly or a bird? No, because they don't have a mind like we do."

Irrelevant. The objective reality still exists, no matter what it's named, or whether it's recognized. By this crap logic, there is no objective reality to a deaf-blind, retarded person. That is easily demonstrably false.

"The movie scene where a coke bottle falls into an isolated tribe? The tribesmens minds did not believe it was a coke bottle and they were using it for other things."

Irrelevant. They were still seeing something, and using something. What they named it, is irrelevant.

"Evolution is true for us today and for us in the past because we have minds that believe in that."

No. False. Demonstrably false.
It's a true process. It goes on whether it's perceived or not. It does not cease occurring if it stops being recognized.
It happens all the time, while no one is watching. Your premise is false, and your conclusion is false.

"NOTE: This is not saying that what we call a rock or what we call a coke bottle doesn't exist as physical matter."
Just proof Idiot Squared has no idea what he's actually saying.

All his points are demonstrably false.
NOT ONE TRUE EXAMPLE has been provided.
Pointless, Idiotic thread.
Refused to define terms, as requested.
Fail.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-09-2013, 08:12 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
(10-09-2013 08:07 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 07:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Once again, you're being incredibly facetious.

If external reality persists independent of human perception (note: you have agreed with this assumption), then the objects and interactions comprising it maintain their characteristics regardless of human perception. The characteristics observed by a human being which lead to an identification of 'rock' are still present absent human observation. This is only an assumption, true; it has historically been of some use.

A bird does not look at a rock and think to itself in human language "that is a rock". That's a nonsensical strawman. Your contention is thus: only humans think as humans do. That is inarguable, insofar as it is purely tautological. It is just about the most useless and circular observation it is possible to make.

A bird is, of course, fully capable of observing a rock, recognizing those of its characteristics which it has the capacity to recognize, and interacting with it accordingly.

Is... is there a point to any of this thread? Beyond the exceedingly obvious?

So do facts exist to birds? I say no....because facts require human belief in them. Birds can see a hammer, but a hammer as all the things it means to us (heidegger would say hammer as such) does not exist to a bird. Humans believe and accept the uses that a hammer has, this belief in the uses of a hammer are part of what make it a hammer. Evolution is the result of our human minds situating the world as best we can from out perspective as to what happened in the past, a bird can never do this so evolution is not a fact according to a bird.

Definition of FACT
1: a thing done
2: performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4a : something that has actual existence
b : an actual occurrence
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality


You are ignoring any but definition 5.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-09-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
Are you back to arguing that evolution didn't happen because people weren't around to observe it? I&I either you have a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works, or your objection is not made on practical grounds.

Worms exist to birds. Worms exist as food to birds. The existence of worms as food to birds is a fact to birds. What are we talking about hammers for? Even if we talk about something simpler such as a single cell that cannot understand facts in any conscious fashion, the facts of the world around them still shape their survival which in turn shapes the genome of their population.

Is there a reason why you chose to move your evolution debate here? Why not continue where you left off: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid340343

While you're there, can tell me how the letters in my simulation used their belief in evolution in order to form the final letter sequence?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
10-09-2013, 08:19 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2013 08:22 AM by absols.)
RE: Do facts require belief for it to be a fact?
objective evolution somewhere exist, but humans evolution no

we can see how humans profit from some relative effects of objective evolution like technology, while humans themselves are much more lazy and living for silly stupid pleasures then they ever were

it is obvious how all civilisations are dead

u mean some conclusions too fast bc u dont mean facts, u mean to lean on what people might believe to introduce ur religion kind about life

thousands of years before jesus christ, great philosophers were existing and great humans minds and wills too, that humanity will never know again for sure, bc rights were constantly the target to abuse and killed

now all what is left of humans are the cheapest liars type, u cant name one living right
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: