(September 4, 2013 at 4:39 pm)Whitey Wrote: It have often wondered, why can't he/she/they see how CRAZY that idea is! No doubt others have thought the same about my thinking.

I once heard a partial theory to explain this sort of weird disconnect. It was this: our brains are such (almost said designed - whooo) that likely as a scheme to aid thinking we classify items partially as to their "truthiness". Some items or ideas get the gold standard and get the "fact" file designation, while most get descending reliability designations. Finally without proper deep and hard to come by authority, these designations, especially the "fact" ones can't be changed. What do you think?

This doesn't seem to hold water. Do you have an example you would or could use to clarify what you are saying here.

I know that I can change my mind facts and all. Nothing is stone except maybe death. I can't even prove 100% of us die. All data points to yes but the experiment is still in action so to speak.

Our minds are far more complex than this hypothesis seems to allow for. It says nothing for how so called truth is determined or why it could not be changed later.

I am not the same person in some ways that I use to be but I have changed many things about me over the years. I did this. I had the choice not to and decided I would anyway. I have changed my thinking and how I think over time. I am not stuck in one idea or even many. I will use anything and everything around me to determine what I will for myself.

In many ways there are no facts to me which is why I have never believed in religion gods deity or the whole ball. One can spread facts all over and for the most part I can probably find someone who can prove the opposite at the same time.


I decide what I call fact not some intangible thought process that doesn't seem to exist.

(September 6, 2013 at 7:49 am)gall Wrote: I decide what I call fact not some intangible thought process that doesn't seem to exist.

And how have you come to this conclusion? How would you be able to know that a subconscious mental process was not affecting your conscious mind when it came to changing your opinion?

I think this is a simple answer with a complex set of variables. A person will not change his mind until a stimuli of equal or greater effect to stimuli that made him adopt his state mind happens.

And good for you, gall. But you haven't dissuaded me from my (well somebody's) hypothesis. Think of all the folks who cling to racial stereotypes. I once saw a father on Dr Phil who completely disowned his daughter because she dated a Hispanic guy. There are still large groups of people in the south who "know" that Lincoln was a criminal and evil because of his role in freeing the slaves, and until quite recently it was still illegal to marry outside your race, (and to marry within your gender even now).

Also, most of us were indoctrinated as to the truthfulness of a particular faith early on. Those who were the authorities in our lives made sure that we believed as fact that premises of their religion. And most of us are never able to change those "facts" for the rest of their lives.

(September 6, 2013 at 9:27 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(September 6, 2013 at 7:49 am)gall Wrote: I decide what I call fact not some intangible thought process that doesn't seem to exist.

And how have you come to this conclusion? How would you be able to know that a subconscious mental process was not affecting your conscious mind when it came to changing your opinion?

I don't know this but it sure seems like people are tossing opinions as fact around here. I am saying that I can neither prove nor disprove.

Do you have some data that points towards these sub-con processes you refer to?

Until someone can say for certain that something else is in control of our reasoning functions I would say I decide for myself what is fact and not. I can even choose to be totally ignorant and say a fact is so when others can clearly prove it is not. Sure that is totally retarded but I have that choice and watch others around me do that every single day in public and at work.

I can't prove anything more than anyone else can I am not trying to run over anyone's opinion and hope that my statements for myself personally don't come across as me saying it is universally so. Who can really say. We know so little of the sub-con mind that I would venture no one can actually answer that.

Maybe we don't control what we find to be fact but I can say for a fact that I would never agree that the world is flat like the flat earth society members will even though they will say that their flat world is a "fact". I can use data and even go to space to prove it is not. In that way I cannot prove what I have said I guess I just want to in some way feel like I control what I think and until I see real proof otherwise I am going with that.

---

(September 6, 2013 at 11:24 am)Whitey Wrote: And good for you, gall. But you haven't dissuaded me from my (well somebody's) hypothesis. Think of all the folks who cling to racial stereotypes. I once saw a father on Dr Phil who completely disowned his daughter because she dated a Hispanic guy. There are still large groups of people in the south who "know" that Lincoln was a criminal and evil because of his role in freeing the slaves, and until quite recently it was still illegal to marry outside your race, (and to marry within your gender even now).

Also, most of us were indoctrinated as to the truthfulness of a particular faith early on. Those who were the authorities in our lives made sure that we believed as fact that premises of their religion. And most of us are never able to change those "facts" for the rest of their lives.

But I in fact do not believe in the premises of their religion never have once. they do not decide how I feel or think about THEIR religion. It is not mine that is for certain.

maybe I missed your point. If you feel you cannot change the way you think or facts that you can accept I don't really know what to say other than I do not think like you and have a different opinion and in no way does that make yours less valid.

I wasn't through with my thoughts, but my stupid ass phone won't let me return to the end of the post if I move up to correct something. I'll still leave it at that.

---

Didn't mean to imply that there were no outliers. Clearly you see your brain working in a different manner. But how do you explain the fact that more folks end up belonging to and apparently believing the tenets of their parents religion than go their own way?

(September 6, 2013 at 11:24 am)gall Wrote: I don't know this but it sure seems like people are tossing opinions as fact around here. I am saying that I can neither prove nor disprove.

Do you have some data that points towards these sub-con processes you refer to?

Until someone can say for certain that something else is in control of our reasoning functions I would say I decide for myself what is fact and not. I can even choose to be totally ignorant and say a fact is so when others can clearly prove it is not. Sure that is totally retarded but I have that choice and watch others around me do that every single day in public and at work.

I can't prove anything more than anyone else can I am not trying to run over anyone's opinion and hope that my statements for myself personally don't come across as me saying it is universally so. Who can really say. We know so little of the sub-con mind that I would venture no one can actually answer that.

Maybe we don't control what we find to be fact but I can say for a fact that I would never agree that the world is flat like the flat earth society members will even though they will say that their flat world is a "fact". I can use data and even go to space to prove it is not. In that way I cannot prove what I have said I guess I just want to in some way feel like I control what I think and until I see real proof otherwise I am going with that.

I was just wondering how one would go about determining that a subconscious process wasn't involved at any moment. It's not as if it's something you can feel.

And I think your belief that we are in control of what we determine are facts or not doesn't take into account how the brain constructs its model of reality and the depths it will go to maintain its current model. Here is a good list of defense mechanisms, many of which are done subconsciously(or unconsciously, whichever you prefer). The first one, denial, is the one I think applies here, and here is a blurb from that link...

Quote:In the long run, however, denial can prevent you from incorporating unpleasant information about yourself and your life and have potentially destructive consequences.

This is the kind of subconscious process that controls whether or not we can consciously acknowledge something as a fact. A person that has grown up indoctrinated into creationism may feel that they are rejecting evolution based upon a conscious and rational decision, but in fact, their brain subconsciously refuses to accept new information that would bring their current worldview crashing down. It's the anxiety and fear that would result from that worldview crashing down that the brain wants to avoid and it does so without the person truly being aware of it.

That's not to say we can't override our defense mechanisms. Quite the contrary, but I'm presenting that as an example that what we accept as fact isn't entirely determined by conscious processes.

Faith no more. I wish I had said that. I think you have a pretty good explanation for what I, too, see as some sort of general clinging to our current world view. No doubt most would likely say: "not me", and it seems to me that many really do have an easier time adjusting to new input.

The discussion about evolution is a good case in point. To me, the evidence is so overwhelming that not seeing seems almost intentionally blind

One of the things I have been pondering for a while now is whether or not indulging in conversations with theists is a complete waste of my time and theirs.

It is extremely rare that you actually change someone's mind - I did it once and it scared the bejesus out of me (as I thought I had left the unfortunate guy suicidal).

Basically faith is not based on evidence. In fact you can argue that faith is a denial of evidence, as in:

God demands faith.
Faith is meaningless in the face of definite proof.
Therefore faith denies evidence.

At the same time confronting a theist with evidence to the contrary of God's existence is usually greeted with a "My faith is being tested" shield.

Now it appears to me that most "true believers" have some sort of personal experience that they ascribe to the intervention of their deity.

Personal experience is a powerful support.

On the flip side as an atheist I am not expecting to get a personal experience of God and thus far I have to report it hasn't happened.

As faith denies evidence I am equally unlikely to come across something that can only have come from a God. I can always find another, usually more plausible explanation.

Of course this does make you wonder what the likes of William Lane Craig think they are doing. If they do find incontrovertible evidence of God then it must be of a fairly incompetent God.

I read or heard once that one side of our brain works at keeping our model of the world consistent and stable, while the other works at integrating new information into the model. The stabilizing side being the dominant of the two. I find the notion rather simplistic and unlikely given what I know about the brain, unfortunately I don't recall the source, so I can't determine what it was based on. If true, it could have important ramifications.