I'd prefer "can be persuaded to believe anything" -- in the absence of a solid ground from which to avoid conversion to another belief-system, I think that persuasion is a lot easier; in other words, if they have no vested interested in not-believing whatever it is you're saying, and are presumably uninformed, then it should be quite straightforward for them to believe whatever the hell it is you want them to.
A belief in nothing most likely comes from a deep rooted cynicism, an unwillingness to accept other beliefs and systems as veritude. It does not foster the capacity for a belief in anything, but if they believe nothing they should be capable of doing anything.
Well, in that case a person who believes nothing is a practical impossibility.
you wouldn't believe that you wouldn't fly off the ground, that your eyeballs weren't about to melt, that your clothes would stay on, that opening your mouth would help you eat, that you even had the capacity for belief.
I was thinking on a far more general term of ethics and metaphysics.
Which I guess is more an absence of belief; most people are agnostic rather than atheistic -- some would even like to be hardcore Christians/Muslims/whatever, but just don't have the faith/commitment.
So, yes. But then, all the major world religions of today were once loony-lefty cults (or whatever).
I remember many years ago playing in a game of Space opera run by godzuki in which I was a member of the entirely respectable galactic church of Scientology.
In the context of the orginal quote, it's used to justify religion as a way to contain morality and order, which is fair enough.
But a person, any sentient being, by nature, is one who believes in something. From the second she was born, Caitlyn beleived that warmth would protect her, that food would sustain her.
Without getting too Cartesian, if you remove the fundamental aspects of a man, such as instinct, learning, and the desire to check his butt in a mirror, you do not have a man at all, and the premise becomes flawed.
I'm not sure whether at Caitlyn's age behaviour indicates belief. It's not something, in the absence of language at such an age, we can ever test, either.
This is a really odd thing to say, but we need to avoid anthropomorphising young'uns ;-)
What about something with that sort of bland apathy characteristic of so many of our Camly chums? ;-) The lack of a noticeable belief, perhaps?
So, in your argument, animals have no belief system? Belief is not derived from empirical evidence, but something which runs contrary to or apart from it?
Her beliefs, which I think steers us back onto the subject, an unusual thing I know. Does she believe nothing, and as a result are the Jehova's witnesses rubbing their hands with glee and perching on her doorstep hoping to make a convert?
Read the intervierws - google will find them for you. In one, she says she doesn't feel she can have a baby as there aren't enough other females for her to have a family (i.e. one male, several females). One wonders if the womens lib ovement have heard about this.
Koko the gorilla, who has been taught american sign language and has in turn taught it to other gorillas. She apparently has a vocabulary of about 1000 words and an IQ of 85.
And clever hans? I think you'll have to do a lot better than that.
But then we get into very wooly "missing link" waters. If a being is capable of learning language beyond the communication of simple concepts, then they have imagination; and all belief needs is imagination or indoctrination. But then that's not belief, that's following rules.
Ine of our 3rd year options was "Models of mind", which was great - It was about deveoping an artificial intelligence, and how that requires us to understand was intelligence is and what belief systems are. A real eye opener. I recopmmend to you Douglas Hofstadters books.
If you want an nice easy starter: "The Minds I". Something a little more thought provoking : "Metamagical Themas". If you want your brain to run out of your ears "Godel, Escher, Bach." If you want to outdo me, you can read Godel Escher Bach from cover to cover - feat which I have never acheived. Utter, utter genius.
And the Cam thing is often about as well-thought out as Kitten's Political Manifesto. People who believe in nothing more than that they deserve more, aren't sure how to get it, but that it's someone else's fault.
And, hey, I dislike that attitude too, but I don't think I am especially right wing, all things considered. It's OK to be annoyed by mindless consumption.
I don't think I'm hugely left wing, but I am a liberal in the Gladstonian sense; Equality of Opportunity. Throw in Nye Bevan's support for the less able and Disraeli's Laissez Faire and I'm a peculiar political beast indeed.
but isn't "life isn't the way I wanted it, and it's the fault of those spongers over there" the mating call of the right-winger? I'm not really sure how these calls differ to tell you the truth.
Well, as a right-winger, my mating call is: "Life hasn't turned out the way i wanted. My life is my responsibility and so I'm damn well going to go out and make it into what I want."
as a leftie (pinko hippie tree hugging scum) my attitude is pretty much: "my life (and the world) aren't quite the way I'd like them to be. Better get to doing what I can to change that".
Hmmm, perhaps it's our methods that differ. Mind you, I do loathe certain members of the leftie pinko hippie tree hugging scum community who choose to blame large organisations for everything while smoking roll ups of tobacco wrapped in rizlas combined with marijuana and drinking tea, none of which OBVIOUSLY are anything to do with globalisation or *oppression of the masses*, because all drug cartels care for the poor, and support green industry, and look after the whales... But I think that's not everyone on the left.
At this point we get to teh definition of 'believe'. It can be argued that the aircon in my office has beliefs - it is too hot, too cold, or just right. Can simple physcial responses to environmental stimuli be counted as 'beliefs'? After all, if they aren't how does caitlins liking for food & warmth become one?
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones. - Bertrand Russell 1872 - 1970), Unpopular Essays (1950), "Outline of Intellectual Rubbish"
I suspect that the better quote would use Faith (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=faith) instead of Belief (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=Belief).
I could believe that the sun will rise in the morning. I could believe that there are green cats living within the sun.
I can prove one, I cannot prove the other.
My definitions are closer to: You have Faith in that which cannot currently be proven. You have Belief in that which can currently be proven, even if you choose not to prove it personally or that current evidence is in favor of.
I think the original quote was from someone referring to the rise of millenarial cults in a secular society, so it's best viewed in that light I think.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 02:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 02:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 02:18 am (UTC)A belief in nothing most likely comes from a deep rooted cynicism, an unwillingness to accept other beliefs and systems as veritude. It does not foster the capacity for a belief in anything, but if they believe nothing they should be capable of doing anything.
Not much of an answer, I know.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 02:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 02:40 am (UTC)you wouldn't believe that you wouldn't fly off the ground, that your eyeballs weren't about to melt, that your clothes would stay on, that opening your mouth would help you eat, that you even had the capacity for belief.
I was thinking on a far more general term of ethics and metaphysics.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 02:50 am (UTC)If this is an absence of belief, then what I said above holds, IMO. I think we must assume that the "nothing" here is an exaggeration.
If, as you say, it is a belief in nothing -- a sort of nihilistic cynicism -- then that's a belief in itself.
But if someone's a blank slate, belief-wise, then surely anything paintlike that comes along may well adhere to it?
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 02:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 02:55 am (UTC)So, yes. But then, all the major world religions of today were once loony-lefty cults (or whatever).
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 02:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:03 am (UTC)But a person, any sentient being, by nature, is one who believes in something. From the second she was born, Caitlyn beleived that warmth would protect her, that food would sustain her.
Without getting too Cartesian, if you remove the fundamental aspects of a man, such as instinct, learning, and the desire to check his butt in a mirror, you do not have a man at all, and the premise becomes flawed.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:05 am (UTC)This is a really odd thing to say, but we need to avoid anthropomorphising young'uns ;-)
What about something with that sort of bland apathy characteristic of so many of our Camly chums? ;-) The lack of a noticeable belief, perhaps?
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:10 am (UTC)Stoopid human development.
*grin*
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:18 am (UTC)And she taught it to her children. San Diego Zoo, I believe. I read an intervioew with her once. Interesting.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 04:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 04:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:48 am (UTC)No, I don't think animals have a belief system.
And, no, I don't think belief is derived from empirical evidence, either; testimony is assuredly not empirical evidence, for example.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 04:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 04:20 am (UTC)And clever hans? I think you'll have to do a lot better than that.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:46 am (UTC)*grin*
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:49 am (UTC)I recopmmend to you Douglas Hofstadters books.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:52 am (UTC)If you want to outdo me, you can read Godel Escher Bach from cover to cover - feat which I have never acheived. Utter, utter genius.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:11 am (UTC)Oh, dearie me, I'm leaning to the right.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:12 am (UTC)*grin*
And, hey, I dislike that attitude too, but I don't think I am especially right wing, all things considered. It's OK to be annoyed by mindless consumption.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:12 am (UTC)Truly it is the mating call of the lefty.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 05:04 am (UTC)I'm not really sure how these calls differ to tell you the truth.
N.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 05:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 05:48 am (UTC)Hmmm, perhaps it's our methods that differ.
Mind you, I do loathe certain members of the leftie pinko hippie tree hugging scum community who choose to blame large organisations for everything while smoking roll ups of tobacco wrapped in rizlas combined with marijuana and drinking tea, none of which OBVIOUSLY are anything to do with globalisation or *oppression of the masses*, because all drug cartels care for the poor, and support green industry, and look after the whales... But I think that's not everyone on the left.
Ahem, mini-rantette over.
N.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:06 am (UTC)It can be argued that the aircon in my office has beliefs - it is too hot, too cold, or just right. Can simple physcial responses to environmental stimuli be counted as 'beliefs'? After all, if they aren't how does caitlins liking for food & warmth become one?
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 03:08 am (UTC)Instinct plus imagination becomes Gods and belief .
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 05:12 am (UTC)Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
- Bertrand Russell 1872 - 1970), Unpopular Essays (1950), "Outline of Intellectual Rubbish"
I suspect that the better quote would use Faith (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=faith) instead of Belief (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=Belief).
I could believe that the sun will rise in the morning.
I could believe that there are green cats living within the sun.
I can prove one, I cannot prove the other.
My definitions are closer to:
You have Faith in that which cannot currently be proven.
You have Belief in that which can currently be proven, even if you choose not to prove it personally or that current evidence is in favor of.
meh. lunch break over. continued later.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 05:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 08:50 am (UTC)One of those people who doesn't let language or clarity get in the way of an overbearing intelligence.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 08:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 01:34 pm (UTC)Believe, or believe in?
What level of reductionism are you using?
How pedantically are you defining "nothing"?
Do you think these make a difference?
f'r example, I believe *in* nothing when it comes to god (goddess, gods, etc), but that doesn't mean I'll believe anything.
I don't believe anythign *positive* about certain things, but that doesn't mean I'll believe *anything* negative.
I think, overall, that believing (in) nothing opens me up to believing anything, but it isn't a guarantee. I could end up still believing nothing.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 01:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 02:02 pm (UTC)