Philosophy without faith

[saucer]

I have no faith in any philosophy that offers no religious requirements by which to live.

Please change my mind. I want to relish a single philosophical idea having no applicable value or meaning whatsoever for my or any other's way of life.

 

[Black Rose]

In probability theory, you can predict likely outcomes and change what you do based on them. Over time we build up reliable models of how to influence events.

 

[saucer]

If I predict a response to my response here and it comes true, how does this then inform any further predictions of mine with respect to other responses? And how does time contribute to these predictions?

Are you secretly trying to convert me to some religion here? That wouldn't be very philosophical of you in this subforum you know..

 

[birdsnestfern]

Space, kindness or feeling grateful inside and expressed through art, word, music, or thought help make the world a better place.

Oh, I can't articulate right now, sheesh. Nevermind. Anyway, I think you are asking do you need faith to make something meaningful, and no, you don't.

 

[saucer]

Yes some would wave tongue-tiedness off as an alternate retelling of the "Tower of Babel" myth -- a religious reference not permissible within the philosopy subforum.

Come on guys let's build something to unquestionably unenlighten & unchange everyone's lives here in this thread! We have the chance, right now, to build something truly senseless & inapplicable for all to embrace faithfully not faithlessly!

 

[Black Rose]

If I predict a response to my response here and it comes true, how does this then inform any further predictions of mine with respect to other responses? And how does time contribute to these predictions?

That is called a stochastic update rule.

When we find that something happens in a frequency, the likelihood becomes proportional to the number of times it has happened in relation to all other events.

Are you secretly trying to convert me to some religion here? That wouldn't be very philosophical of you in this subforum you know..

you need no religion to think in probabilistic terms.

it just develops in you as you get older.

I did not understand what you meant to discuss in this thread?

 

[saucer]

If I predict a response to my response here and it comes true, how does this then inform any further predictions of mine with respect to other responses? And how does time contribute to these predictions?

That is called a stochastic update rule.

When we find that something happens in a frequency, the likelihood becomes proportional to the number of times it has happened in relation to all other events.

Are you secretly trying to convert me to some religion here? That wouldn't be very philosophical of you in this subforum you know..

you need no religion to think in probabilistic terms.

it just develops in you as you get older.

I did not understand what you meant to discuss in this thread?

Your stochiastic update rule, Animekitty, seems to exist by way of belief that events of interest will repeat in the future and that my life should be lived in a way that honors that rule.

That's a suspiciously religious assertion there...

 

[Black Rose]

Your stochiastic update rule, Animekitty, seems to exist by way of belief that events of interest will repeat in the future and that my life should be lived in a way that honors that rule.

That's a suspiciously religious assertion there...

I do not know about your life. But in my life...

I have seen many things repeat. (Like gravity) but also that this can be used to predict the behavior of people via personality i.e. MBTI, big 5, and other such things.

It is like you have a skeptical view of statistical reasoning?

Many physical laws and are our own psychology is based on statistical reasoning.

 

[saucer]

In my life, Animekitty, the future is completely unknown. I have no means to travel into the future, gather data on it, and then return to the present with findings.

So yes while many things have repeated like gravity & MBTI test results when offering the same answers (or similar answers to similar questions), how is one to have faith that these thing will persist in repeating? And if so, how is one to embrace it without regard to one's life?

I.e., this probability stuff is all looking suspiciously like a religion to me if only to honor some sort of god of luck or good fortune sans the future providing evidence for repeatability somewhere.

 

[Black Rose]

In my life, Animekitty, the future is completely unknown. I have no means to travel into the future, gather data on it, and then return to the present with findings.

So yes while many things have repeated like gravity & MBTI test results when offering the same answers (or similar answers to similar questions), how is one to have faith that these thing will persist in repeating? And if so, how is one to embrace it without regard to one's life?

I.e., this probability stuff is all looking suspiciously like a religion to me if only to honor some sort of god of luck or good fortune sans the future providing evidence for repeatability somewhere.

In "Hume's problem of induction" we cannot know if anything will be the same based on the past.

But so the question is: will we be able to predict anything?

How do we know if pink elephants will NOT float by us in the next three seconds out of nowhere? We cannot know anything. Not the next three seconds, not the next 5 minutes not the next 5 days, not the next million years.

But is it luck to say that during the day traffic will be greater at 11 A.M. than 2 A.M. ?

Based on the number of times I've been outside at those time periods I say that the next time I go outside at 2 A.M. I will see fewer cars than at 11 A.M.

Is this a religious belief? I think maybe because I cannot know but as a philosophical belief it has been empirically tested many times by me.

So because it is empirical I have a good guess of what will happen.

If you think the future is completely unknown that is just as much a religious as a philosophical belief. I have no idea how you would distinguish them.

religious empiricism vs philosophical empiricism?

What is religious? what is philosophical?

 

[saucer]

Yes, Animekitty. Who made the silly decision to bar the philosphy subforum from adding the sands of religions to the playpen? I mean, my faith is strong that the housecats are gonna use it as a litterbox regardless -- so it definitely needs to be covered even when used exclusively by the atheist & agnostic cats among us.

That's what sparked the idea for this thread & it got me thinking about the early days of Western science & the now ubiquitous routines of modern life from traffic signs to savings accounts & more -- nevermind the streamlining of words, their meanings, language structures, etc. to include mathematics & logic & knowledge in general.

I mean, it all SEEMS like a virtuous, unbreakable circle for human civilization yet it's enforced & reinforced so often & so deeply that to question it as did Hume comes across as scandalous, something to defend against lest the flock be rendered unworthy of God's love & bring about a vengeful yet unpredicted tidal wave to kill hundreds of thousands in Asia & send a Japanese nuclear power plant into meltdown.

So no, not everything is faith if we are to hear out your & birdsnestfern's "X or not-X" logical addition maneuver in attempt to build something out of this nonsense. Me? I'm just "a cat taking a poop in the litterbox" in the end so I don't really know what else to do but keep floundering for a persuasive example for "not-X", as it can be at least logically if not entirely convincingly asserted.

 

[Black Rose]

I don't really know what else to do but keep floundering for a persuasive example for "not-X", as it can be at least logically if not entirely convincingly asserted.

I take it that science in your view is faith-based?

And you are looking for something to assert with certainty that can be entirely known without faith?

How about cogito ergo sum?

I exist and I know I exist.
What else can we know, knowing that we exist?
What follows from this?

 

[saucer]

Descartes predicates his existence on having an imaginary French Catholic demon to fight. So no. Descartes' contribution is disqualified from this philosophy subforum.

 

[Black Rose]

What philosophical statement can be asserted without faith then?

 

[saucer]

Because in science there is risk of falsification for anything asserted, I think for now its fair to conclude that every philosophical statement here whether religious & nonreligious requires faith or at least courage -- which some might regard as synonymous with faith -- to assert.

But let's imagine I am instead conversing here with some sort of AI program not another human being -- or perhaps Descartes' imaginary demon. Does then this conversation & any assertions made involve faith or courage? Is there anything happening there that could be regarded as scientific or falsifiable, risky?

I mean, where's the risk, "the skin in the game" in just taking a shit in the litterbox?

 

[Black Rose]

I am making a video on a.i. soon. (in a different thread)

That will be "my skin in the game" regarding my philosophical assertions.

 

[Cognisant]

Because in science there is risk of falsification for anything asserted, I think for now its fair to conclude that every philosophical statement here whether religious & nonreligious requires faith or at least courage -- which some might regard as synonymous with faith -- to assert.

So you're asserting that because of epistemological nihilism there are no true facts that aren't in some way predicated upon an axiom that must be taken on faith? Yeah sure that's true.

The difference is these axioms are allowed to be questioned, for example solipsism is a valid philosophical theory, it's just not a particularly useful one.

Whereas for example you cannot be a Christian unless you believe in the existence of God, you may speculate about the nature of God and its relationship with humanity but there are certain things you're simply not allowed to question.

Philosophy isn't a book of answers, it's a toolbox, there's no correct philosophy, no canonical truth, though there are fallacies and every true philosopher strives to have the least fallacious perspective possible. Accordingly philosophers take a rather dim view of theologians who may practice philosophy but only insofar as it validates their beliefs and are willfully ignorant of anything that doesn't.

It's like comparing someone swimming in a pool to someone free diving in the ocean, as though these things are somehow equivalent because they're both swimming, when really the comparison only goes to show how they're not.

 

[saucer]

Cognisant, I can't faithfully assert myself as a cat taking a poop in a litterbox if I'm also an epistemelogical nihilist. Were that the case, perhaps I might be working on a comedy while faithfully embracing the belief that I really can't understand anything you or I or anyone else wrote here or anywhere -- all alone & isolated in my mind, clinging to whatever imaginary totems (mostly snickers & occasional peels of laughter but not out loud of course so no one thinks I'm crazy) I've granted myself like a religious...

Cognisant! Are you also trying to trick me into adopting some sort of religion in the philosophy subforum here!?! A place where religion is FORBIDDEN?!?

Not only that, you attempt to take my very own brain and offer me only the word "mind" -- something that according to epistemological nihilists really contains nothing -- in exchange?

Shame on you, Cognisant.

But more seriously, yes at first glance especially American philosphy to me seems very concerned with uncovering limits in human knowledge, understanding & capability not just mentally but physically -- a massive effort to predict the future by at least eliminating impossible futures first.

 

[Cognisant]

It's difficult to understand when you're being sarcastic and not.

Cognisant! Are you also trying to trick me into adopting some sort of religion in the philosophy subforum here!?! A place where religion is FORBIDDEN?!?

You clearly didn't understand me either.

 

[saucer]

Thanks, Cognisant. I suggest next time don't bother using terms like "epistemological nihilism" & "solipsism" so I can try to understand YOU and not just the mental masturbatory religious ceremonies you've generously offered. I'd recommend more lofty terms like "cat", "litter" & "shit" instead -- terms that eclipse human religious rites, terms truly deserving entry into this pure, virgin white philosophy subforum.

*finds a secluded spot in the woods, dons white robes, scatters the X or not-X gifts having been offered from other members here, raises hands to the starry sky & stares wildly at the Moon all while wondering how any of this was ever meaningful but still apprehensive at the thought of an isolation tank w/no internet access*

 

[Cognisant]

Alright I'll make it simpler then.

You contend that everything is a matter of faith because for all we know nothing we've been told or experienced ourselves is actually real, we could be brains in jars experiencing a simulation, we might not even have brains.

To which I partially agree and I contend that my ability to agree with you is itself an example of the difference between belief and faith, I can question my assumptions whereas a person of faith cannot.

To a religious person faith itself is a virtue, thus one does not need evidence for faith, indeed the less evidence there is (or evidence to the contrary) the more virtuous their faith is.

Personally I see faith as a form of mental illness.

 

[Black Rose]

Personally I see faith as a form of mental illness.

If the OP believes everything is religion no conversation can be had because "he" can always accuse you of being religious no matter what you say and thus ding a forbidden thing "himself". No assertions can be made and everything the OP says is forbidden also. All "he" wants is to accuse other people of what "he" is doing "himself".

@Cognisant "He" is toying with us. No matter what you say "he" will always say you are trying to convert "him".

 

[saucer]

Sorry to report, Cognisant, that your summation is a strawman.

I simply argue that faith -- let's call it a hypothesis -- and a way by which to test it -- let's call that a method, a prescription, or perhaps even a way to live -- permeates all human thought & expression.

Yes my using the word "religion" was intentionally provocative, but I wanted to give projectors the opportunity to reveal their projections.

I'm not advocating for any religion & I don't have much personal interest in the subject at all. I'm really just winging the thread here & seeing if it goes anywhere interesting. So far I myself have projected 2 items that interest me and so I'm playing along still to find a 3rd item to make a trinity from this thread lmfao

 

[saucer]

lol Animekitty not trying to be mean or inflexible.

If in the end philosophy is a game & nothing more, we still embrace rules by which to play it. Some might deduce religions as rules by which to "play" and so there is a connection there.

Maybe I should then rephrase the question as, "Is there a game for the faithless to play? What is the game? Is there no game for the faithful to play? What then is THAT non-game?"

 

[Black Rose]

If in the end philosophy is a game & nothing more, we still embrace rules by which to play it. Some might deduce religions as rules by which to "play" and so there is a connection there.

Some philosophers say language has no inherent meaning.

So the rules can change at any time.

I find this disturbing because when I do talk to people they tend to not understand me. I understand what I am saying most of the time but people either have low intelligence or have hidden motivations / emotional tensions. Some are just delusional.

So to me, understanding is more important because that determines how I will communicate with others.

For my own reasons, hateful dishonest persons have no guarantee of my trust.

And no, I will not be mean to them always, but it does mean the barriers between what is allowed to happen and not happen will become very, very high.

Maybe I should then rephrase the question as, "Is there a game for the faithless to play? What is the game? Is there no game for the faithful to play? What then is THAT non-game?"

There are rules a person will not break to themselves unless overwhelmed by emotions or because of those emotions. Whatever is in control of you dominates your behavior, be it biology or a belief, or a physical circumstance. Physically we cannot go above a pain threshold. And so it is about our ability to tolerate certain things. Consequences do not matter beyond that. But choice becomes important regarding tolerance. A rational person tolerates more than an emotional one because they can handle consequences that they can see. The emotional person is in the grip of something they cannot control. Which leads to addiction, panic, rage, and giving up.

We reach a limit rationally and irrationally that determines what we can and cannot do.

 

[Cognisant]

I simply argue that faith -- let's call it a hypothesis -- and a way by which to test it -- let's call that a method, a prescription, or perhaps even a way to live -- permeates all human thought & expression.

And I'm saying you're conflating faith with belief, they are not the same.

Faith is a belief in something, but belief is not faith, it's only faith when the act of believing is itself believed to a virtuous.

I have beliefs, we all do, indeed I'd even go so far as to say it's impossible to live without believing anything but those beliefs need not be religious and as proof of that I present myself, I am not a man of faith.

 

[Cognisant]

If in the end philosophy is a game & nothing more, we still embrace rules by which to play it. Some might deduce religions as rules by which to "play" and so there is a connection there.

Anything can be a game if it is simply acting within a set of rules, that doesn't really prove anything.

 

[saucer]

Yes, Animekitty. For example when post-WWI France lost ~50% of its male population in the span of only several years to tip its population to majority female, the instinct for safety then dominated the nation to such an extreme that it became "rational" for France to let innocent-born Berliner children starve to death & those who survived crippled for life from malnutrition rather than emerge as healthy adults & possibly rape away any barriers left to protect the French women.

And yet for those who survived regardless of outcome -- those eligible for some faith but providing no direction in any way of life whatsoever -- what might they have said if anything?

Let's get this train back on the rails. You cited Descartes. I accepted your Cartesian plane. I see the demon who granted you a mind with which to think & exclaim your existence. The orgasms are over time to clean up, get dressed & get back to the work!

Or failing that, where does this train go next?

 

[saucer]

Cognisant, I don't agree. Faith & belief are synonymous so long as a belief requires "skin in the game".

I think you mean to say that one is easily abandoned while the other not so much. Ok but then you are imposing degrees of belief, a means of identifying threshholds for their abandonment by use of words otherwise commonly regarded as synonyms.

Fine but I myself am inquiring into faith & action & their opposites & what might be their consequences at least for now. Any ideas? If no, I've got no problem with whatever comes to anyone's mind regardless...

 

[Black Rose]

You cited Descartes. I accepted your Cartesian plane.

From my experience:

I have five senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste.

I am in an environment with a body.

I have memories of doing such and such, my understanding of the physics I am in is apparent to me what I can and can't do.

But also I know that I can learn more about where I am.
I can know more about people and more about science.

Currently and since age 12 I have been working on a.i.
I have been acclimating ideas on how a theory of mind works.
And I have been thinking of the algorithms in a computer it would use.

Simulation theory states that I myself may be an a.i. - How could I know?
I do not think that is possible to know, but I can assume if I were "he" would be seeing what it is I am doing. I am "his" experiement. So to continue is to grant that I have a purpose. And that is to create a new a.i.

The a.i. will need an avatar
The a.i. will need an environment.
The a.i. will need a mind.

I believe that to make this a.i. it will need a purpose.
To have the ability to act autonomously and independently.

But also that it will need dignity. It would be wrong to make a.i. that was a slave or a toy. - I believe that it should have the same moral compass as I do so I should design it in a way as for it to have a certain personality. One with respect for others and the like.

 

[saucer]

But Animekitty, AI is the ultimate slave, the ultimate toy. That is where AI's "dignity" rests.

 

[Black Rose]

But Animekitty, AI is the ultimate slave, the ultimate toy. That is where AI's "dignity" rests.

ok, I see that you have a problem with the term "a.i." - because as a robot these things will not be free like a human can be free. well I consider myself not as free as I can be, I do believe I have consciousness. so let's call these things free consciousness agents.

what will make them happy? what will make me happy?

first, excessive strife and excessive boredom will not make "me" happy.

my inability to change my environment is the cause of this.

and I am more disconnected from my emotions than I should be.

-

a happy free consciousness agent will be balanced in emotion, intelligence, and its effectiveness in its environment.

it will be social so the solutions we have made for social networks must be built into the environmental infostructure.

a good set of rules will have a good outcome and a bad set a bad outcome.

because of the study of psychology and sociology, we have the ability to prevent wars and mental illnesses from arising in the future virtual worlds we will be able to create.

 

[saucer]

beep boop

 

[Cognisant]

 

[saucer]

Yeah this thread mostly sucks. I regret starting it. Would be happy to see the mod delete it.

 

[onesteptwostep]

It is Gopher again?