He can edit to the bottom, footnotes as it were.

I agree, new posts are better though.

Schrodinger, you said something interesting in building a taxonomy for "belief" and "fact" that I think bears further investigation.

Lets take the definitions you've given for each (i'm assuming they're from OED or dictionary.com, or some such?) and construct the relationship between them.

In normal, empirical investigation, the causal chain of knowledge goes something like this

[thing in reality] --> [perception of thing in reality(sensate or logical)] --> [knowledge construct of perceptions] --> [belief in knowledge construct]

Take this chain in relationship to the existence of the chair I'm currently sitting in.

[chair exists] --> [I perceive visual and tactile information from the existence of the chair] --> [I interpret the perceived data as being evidence of a chair existing in reality, and reduce the perceptions down to that knowledge construct] --> [I believe in the existence of the chair in reality, to such a degree that i act in accordance with that belief, and sit in the chair]

Note that in this case, the difference between fact and belief becomes a question of degrees; we might say that a fact is a belief that has reached a certain threshold of evidence so as to be normatively accepted by any reasonable person with access to the same data. What we *cannot* say (in terms of our own mental states) is that a fact is a thing which exists in reality, because we have no access to that information! We only have access to our perceptions and knowledge constructs of it. We can speak ideally about things in actual existence, but in terms of our own personal knowledge, there is in no sense a distinction between belief and fact - a fact is a belief of a certain type.

It's important to note that a fact is still contingent on the accuracy of the data received and the accuracy of the knowledge construct drawn from it. If i find a way to alter your brain state so that you perceive a chair in every normative way, even though that chair does not exits, for you that chair reaches the threshold of being fact. You "believe" it to be real, right up to the point where you try to sit in it, and your ass hits the Persian throw rug under it instead. At that point, you have new perceptions that alter your knowledge construct, and so your belief.

I'm going to apply this same idea to metaphysical principles, but I'll do so in a later post - now I need some eggs and coffee, and I have to take down our Christmas lights before our neighbors catch on to the fact that we're pure white trash.

-sm

Better an ass, than a Londener. My ex-wife was from there and she was a bithc.........

Your right... it's not like i'm trying to get out of anything, but I was forgetting to write some things that mentioned that were' not all just talking about mine.

Either way, probobly should have been a safer bet to post in other topics before I started one of my own.

dunlavy, don't apologize for what you posted, just make it more clear; I really do want to have this conversation with you!

Welcome, Quit apologizing. You discussed an idea you had, and in my opinion that is fine.......... Most of the argument you are getting is from only one form of philosophy; that being logic. It's good to be young and to question ideas. I was brought up a fundamentalist. Now, I hate that belief system.

"Those of us who have suffered much become very bitter or very gentle," Will Durant :biggrin:

What the hell? when did logic become an "optional" component of philosophy? I think you want this forum instead

Ok... this'll be it. I apologize for apologizing. ^_^

I enjoy being different. It's what founds most of my beliefs in so many ways. The reason why I want to question everything is because so many of my peers have yet to question anything. I question myself and my existence as well as the existence of everything around me. It's not that I want to continue questioning everything, but rather find a better way to get my own facts and beliefs rather than just take what others hand to me.

When I say i'm tired of religions that have people who take their beliefs as "facts" and place those "facts" ontop of me, it's more based around the whole world than just religions. I enjoy pondering, especially on my own beliefs. I have nothing against the people themselves. They are like me, they have their own beliefs, as I have mine.

When I say doubt everything, I really should have meant "doubt everyone" through a belief of mine that has kept me thinking for many years.

Much of what I belief in can be found in most eastern religions. One of my prime beliefs is the belief in reincarnation. The difference found in mine is that many beliefs feel that you are reborn 15 years forward, while I feel that reincarnation goes beyond space and time, to a point where you could be reborn anywhere at any time. Hence where most of my questions came from about doubt everything. If reincarnation could go beyond space and time, could there not be a point where you are your own family? Where all the friends you've met are actually yourself? If you've lived so many lives over and over that you are the whole population? In murder situations, might there be the possibility that the murderer lead to their own life through the death of the person they killed?

It's just something I like to think upon.

so dunlavy, here's my question.

How do you trace the causal chain of knowledge backward to the fact-in-reality that grounds your belief in reincarnation? Are you saying that you believe it because it is the case, or are you saying that you believe it because you like the effect it has on you to believe it? I trust you see the distinction.

I'll start the causal chain for you

[reincarnation-in-reality] --> [?? perception (logical or sensate)] --> [knowledge construct that reincarnation is a true state of reality] --> [belief in reincarnation, such that you act in accordance with it being true]

Now, if you're saying that your belief in reincarnation doesn't follow this sort of epistemic grounding, then you need to give me a definition for justified belief that makes your comments sensical.

-sm

Unfortunatly, I don't know how to take back the causal chain to prove it. I know I don't just believe in it because I like the effect it has on myself, but from a young age i've always felt as if I had a split life, as if I lived another life before. I don't have specific facts on why I believe what I do, but rather just what I, myself, feel is right. My perception of the world around me has grown this way after multiple large-scale experiences of Deja Vu, experiencing something a friend of mine does as if I had done it in the past.

I wish I could support my theories better, but I still have much to learn, about my beliefs and the beliefs of others.

[brief threadjack] Hey Dunlavy, if you have frequent, instense deja vu experiences that are far beyond what normal people describe, you should see a neurologist. An EEG will determine if you're actually having very mild seizures. And the more mild seizures you have, the more likely you are to have a grand mal seizure (the kind you normally think of, with your body shaking uncontrollably) later in life. [/threadjack]

Two things I've never gotten about reincarnation.

1. If there is reincarnation, then everyone was someone before. Problem is, we have more people now than before. Where did the extra people come from? Take the answer to that question and explain why it doesn't apply to everyone. An unstated assumption of reincarnation, therefore, is that some people used to be someone else and some people are version 1.0 (first generation people). My question is why is it not possible, therefore, that everyone is version 1.0. Ultimately, what question does reincarnation, as an idea, answer? I can't come up with one other than to explain neurotic/pschotic episodes which are best explained in the lab.

2. How come no one ever has/d de deja vu about being a freakin' janitor in a previous life instead of a King, Queen, Emperor, Grand Pooh Bah, etc.

I wanna know how so many people were Cleopatra. I mean I know the girl got around, but ...

Beestie, to partly answer your #1 question (why are there some reincarnated people and some 1.0 people) it's because the reincarnated people either wanted or had to come back for some reason. Maybe they didn't learn what they were supposed to learn or maybe they just want another go at it. Some people choose to remain where they are, others come back. 1.0 people are fresh out of the oven and new to this place. See? :)

Another line of thinking for reincarnation, Schizophrenia. Mayhaps it's more than just one person becoming everyone, what if perchance Schizophrenia was more than a brain disorder, but really two people reincarnated into one body? Have we proven anything?

Most Schizophernia websites have the line "Recent scientific research on the causes of schizophrenia is increasingly suggesting that it is possible to prevent many cases of schizophrenia..." Increasingly suggesting? Possible? "The key message is that the onset and course of schizophrenia are most likely..."

In a sentence, we haven't learned anything yet about it, but rather, we are working off of hypothesises.