Is fact independent of belief?
Options
Hyde Parke
Members Posts: 2,573 ✭✭✭
Is belief necessary for fact(s) to exist? If so, how is that measured? Anyone?
Comments
-
You don't need belief for facts to exist, but you need belief for the facts to thrive.
-
Are you talking about the language here or are you asking if the world exists without our minds perceiving it?
-
alissowack wrote: »You don't need belief for facts to exist, but you need belief for the facts to thrive.
? can you expound on that? that statement sounds contradictory. -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »Are you talking about the language here or are you asking if the world exists without our minds perceiving it?
yes, moreso the latter. kool, you understand what direction I am going with this. I think it is reasonable to state there is a physical world beyond our perception. So are there two or more realities? Our perception, or what actually is? or is it something else altogether? Our human reality seems to be that of formed images. We see an object, but we do not see the chemical, cellular structure and all the components that make up that object thru the naked eye, so are we really seeing the object, or just the image we have formed of that object by lights reflection? Well theres more, but I will stop right here for now, i dont want to go beyond my understanding. -
Fact should make you believe. If a man hits you in the mouth, he hit you in the mouth. Fact is he hit you in the mouth and you knowing he hit you in the mouth should make you believe he hit you in the mouth unless you are not normal mentally and don't have those censors. You can make fact independent of believe by lying and getting others to believe that the facts don't exist though by telling others that you did not get hit in the mouth. So, yes facts can be independent of belief but when it comes to something as serious as religion should be, your health should be,things like that if you find a fact you had better not make it independent of your belief.
-
Fact should make you believe. If a man hits you in the mouth, he hit you in the mouth. Fact is he hit you in the mouth and you knowing he hit you in the mouth should make you believe he hit you in the mouth unless you are not normal mentally and don't have those censors. You can make fact independent of believe by lying and getting others to believe that the facts don't exist though by telling others that you did not get hit in the mouth. So, yes facts can be independent of belief but when it comes to something as serious as religion should be, your health should be,things like that if you find a fact you had better not make it independent of your belief.
The question pertains to how it relates to the individual self, and what the self thinks. If i have a toothache, i'll use that analogy, since no fool has yet attempted to hit me in the mouth, if I have a toothache, that is a fact, i dont need to believe it to make it true. What you say just revealed something to me tho, a belief is needed only in relation to others in certain circumstances, if i witnessed a situation, and you witness the same, we would both consider that situation witnessed a fact, relating that to another would require their belief.This is how I understand it. -
Hyde Parke wrote: »? can you expound on that? that statement sounds contradictory.
It's like saying this...a lot of the facts discovered would not have "life" if people didn't feel as if the world needs to know about it. Gravity may exists, but it don't mean a whole lot if Newton kept this fact to himself. -
Hyde Parke wrote: »yes, moreso the latter. kool, you understand what direction I am going with this. I think it is reasonable to state there is a physical world beyond our perception. So are there two or more realities? Our perception, or what actually is? or is it something else altogether? Our human reality seems to be that of formed images. We see an object, but we do not see the chemical, molecular structure and all the components that make up that object thru the naked eye, so are we really seeing the object, or just the image we have formed of that object by lights reflection? Well theres more, but I will stop right here for now, i dont want to go beyond my understanding.
good thread/great points being made
to an extent i have to roll with the highlighted. The capacity of the mind to hold an image that is a geometric form is literally filled with this mass-less Force that we perceive to be light.. Once the image in our mind becomes intense enough, its clarity, definition, and animation are all mental exercises that attract, magnetize, bind and animate light.. once the light particles fold upon themselves to the extent that they become intensely dense and concentrated, the object that we hold as a vision in our head is literally created outside of us in this dimension. -
melanated khemist wrote: »good thread/great points being made
to an extent i have to roll with the highlighted. The capacity of the mind to hold an image that is a geometric form is literally filled with this mass-less Force that we perceive to be light.. Once the image in our mind becomes intense enough, its clarity, definition, and animation are all mental exercises that attract, magnetize, bind and animate light.. once the light particles fold upon themselves to the extent that they become intensely dense and concentrated, the object that we hold as a vision in our head is literally created outside of us in this dimension.
good description. so to go further, carefully, our perception is shaped by light's various frequencies (not sure what the exact frequency is, or how it is measured) reflection from whatever the object may be to our retina? That object or our perception of that object would be something different alltogether if we were traveling at or even near to the speed of light, which would be the actual thing? Is it even possible to observe anything from our perpective at that or near that speed? -
Fact is something that can be proven. It is indisputable truth. An opinion is just interesting ? that anyone come up have and if anyone can have it, it's nothing special
-
Fact is something that can be proven. It is indisputable truth.
on the surface, it appears that way, at the very least.
. -
Hyde Parke wrote: »good description. so to go further, carefully, our perception is shaped by light's various frequencies (not sure what the exact frequency is, or how it is measured) reflection from whatever the object may be to our retina? That object or our perception of that object would be something different alltogether if we were traveling at or even near to the speed of light, which would be the actual thing? Is it even possible to observe anything from our perpective at that or near that speed?
so to go further, carefully, our perception is shaped by light's various frequencies (not sure what the exact frequency is, or how it is measured) reflection from whatever the object may be to our retina?
exactly.. our eyes contain receptor cells which respond to messages from the brain as they experience external stimuli..our receptor cells are sensitive to specific classes of stimuli within a certain range of intensity or vibration. The ability to see depends on a certain amount of light penetrating the lens and cornea of the eyes. So that it focuses on the delicate retina. The part of the eye has nerve cells which relay impulses to the Cerebral Cortex of the brain then an image is visualized.
That object or our perception of that object would be something different alltogether if we were traveling at or even near to the speed of light, which would be the actual thing? Is it even possible to observe anything from our perpective at that or near that speed?
Man im getting a headache trying to figure this out. Excellent question. I cant answer that, BUT what i do know is this; whatever youre/we are trying to observe is formed from the same quanta-particles that formed our brain and body,,we have to align with the consciousness of that desire and redirect its relationship to ourselves. -
melanated khemist wrote: »so to go further, carefully, our perception is shaped by light's various frequencies (not sure what the exact frequency is, or how it is measured) reflection from whatever the object may be to our retina?
exactly.. our eyes contain receptor cells which respond to messages from the brain as they experience external stimuli..our receptor cells are sensitive to specific classes of stimuli within a certain range of intensity or vibration. The ability to see depends on a certain amount of light penetrating the lens and cornea of the eyes. So that it focuses on the delicate retina. The part of the eye has nerve cells which relay impulses to the Cerebral Cortex of the brain then an image is visualized.
That object or our perception of that object would be something different alltogether if we were traveling at or even near to the speed of light, which would be the actual thing? Is it even possible to observe anything from our perpective at that or near that speed?
Man im getting a headache trying to figure this out. Excellent question. I cant answer that, BUT what i do know is this; whatever youre/we are trying to observe is formed from the same quanta-particles that formed our brain and body,,we have to align with the consciousness of that desire and redirect its relationship to ourselves.
Man, Melanated, thx for letting me pick your brain on this! The fact that you understand why im saying here, is enough for now. I cant stop thinking about it. Upon discovering and really understanding that what we see, is not really what we see and that this other reality, if we can call it that, there is also no sound, is just mind boggling.
BUT what i do know is this; whatever youre/we are trying to observe is formed from the same quanta-particles that formed our brain and body,,we have to align with the consciousness of that desire and redirect its relationship to ourselves.
i agree, we are that, and that is us, like a reflection. could be possible, that which observes us, perhaps has no filter, whereas we do for yet unknown reasons?.. .if that is even the right way to look upon it.
good insight, i will add on later. thx -
why are you guys tripping so hard over eyeballs? human eyes are wack, they still have saltwater in them because they evolved when we were still fish-things
and they got blind spots in them due to the optic nerve connecting in a less than optimal place
check this ? out
close your left eye and look at the cross. move your head closer until the dot disappears. that's your blind spot. you cant see that area, so your brain fills it in with what it thinks must be there based on what you can see nearby.
and this works with all types of other ? , not just simple dots on blank backgrounds. if you're looking at a crowd and one person is in your blind spot, your brain fills in that area with parts of other people. so the hardware is wack, but the software is pretty good. -
If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it.......IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE A SOUND!!!!!
I'm not joking either.......this is a fact, not up for debate.
PEACE -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »why are you guys tripping so hard over eyeballs? human eyes are wack, they still have saltwater in them because they evolved when we were still fish-things
and they got blind spots in them due to the optic nerve connecting in a less than optimal place
check this ? out
close your left eye and look at the cross. move your head closer until the dot disappears. that's your blind spot. you cant see that area, so your brain fills it in with what it thinks must be there based on what you can see nearby.
and this works with all types of other ? , not just simple dots on blank backgrounds. if you're looking at a crowd and one person is in your blind spot, your brain fills in that area with parts of other people. so the hardware is wack, but the software is pretty good.
ok, i still see the dot,(w/left eye closed) unless i damn near put my face on the screen, uh whats up with that? and explain this evolving fish thing stuff. -
That's your blind spot.Hyde Parke wrote: »ok, i still see the dot,(w/left eye closed) unless i damn near put my face on the screen, uh whats up with that?
Our predecessors came out of the ocean already having eyes. Selection pressures on land never swapped them for something that would be better suited to an air environment.and explain this evolving fish thing stuff.
This is why your tears are salty. -
Hyde Parke wrote: »ok, i still see the dot,(w/left eye closed) unless i damn near put my face on the screen, uh whats up with that? and explain this evolving fish thing stuff.
Left eye closed, move slowly towards the screen, the dot will disappear. Happened to me about half way.
This thread reminds me of an episode of "Through the Wormhole" that I seen. I completely forgot the name of the episode though... -
The True Flesh wrote: »If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it.......IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE A SOUND!!!!!
I'm not joking either.......this is a fact, not up for debate.
PEACE
.
you're right, i briefly mentioned that. thats trippy,that there is no sound in underlying reality, only the mind interprets movement as sound. very interesting stuff. makes me wonder
just how much do we really know about our senses. -
Left eye closed, move slowly towards the screen, the dot will disappear. Happened to me about half way.
This thread reminds me of an episode of "Through the Wormhole" that I seen. I completely forgot the name of the episode though...
k, this def did not work with my left eye, when i tried w/ my right eye it works,shrugs. Is this show on the History Channel? -
Left eye closed, move slowly towards the screen, the dot will disappear. Happened to me about half way.
This thread reminds me of an episode of "Through the Wormhole" that I seen. I completely forgot the name of the episode though...
k, this def did not work with my left eye, when i tried w/ my right eye it works,shrugs. Is this show on the History Channel? -
Hyde Parke wrote: »k, this def did not work with my left eye, when i tried w/ my right eye it works,shrugs. Is this show on the History Channel?
Science channel. -
-
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »That's your blind spot.
Our predecessors came out of the ocean already having eyes. Selection pressures on land never swapped them for something that would be better suited to an air environment.
This is why your tears are salty.
k, for the sake of not sounding dumb, i will have to read up on this. -
ktulu, im 5mins into this search for info to support your claim and its starting to look a lil suspect. im gonna need a source.
