Justification for Foundational Belief

[jonb]

And that is exactly what leads us astray. Our emotions

You are so wrong it hurts.
Here is Dr Richard Feynman TV prog 'Fun to Imagine' look at his face emotions are our driving force. Get rid of either or its understanding both and more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhh32JYkQ...playnext=2

[genkaus]

And that is exactly what leads us astray. Our emotions

You are so wrong it hurts.
Here is Dr Richard Feynman TV prog 'Fun to Imagine' look at his face emotions are our driving force. Get rid of either or its understanding both and more.

Read the argument again and come up with a more pertinent counter.

[jonb]

Read the argument again and come up with a more pertinent counter.

No, I don't want to, sharnt don't feel like it so there yar boo sucks.

[mralstoner]

Our emotions and feelings are not tools of cognition. They do not provide us knowledge. Any beliefs gained by pursuing emotional goals would, by their nature, be unreliable...

Yes, of course, but that's not what I said. You have confused beliefs and values.
Beliefs/truth/knowledge should not, as you mention, be swayed by emotion.
Values, on the other hand, are not questions of fact, but matters of desire/preference/want. And these are matters of feeling.
Reason informs, and emotion moves. Both are necessary and interdependent for human activity.
We should, as you say, pursue truth and thereby find reliable beliefs. But no beliefs are ever certain. That was my point.

[jonb]

Our emotions and feelings are not tools of cognition. They do not provide us knowledge. Any beliefs gained by pursuing emotional goals would, by their nature, be unreliable...

Yes, of course,

Do you honestly think the only understanding is academic, dispassionate, fitting things in boxes?

Why would emotions have evolved if they are not a useful means of making sense of what is around us. The eye can be fooled, but that is no reason to cut it out. Feynman was such a great scientist because it had an emotional charge for him, and we gained by him pursuing his emotional goals.
What is reliable? You are programmed to seek meaning.

[genkaus]

Our emotions and feelings are not tools of cognition. They do not provide us knowledge. Any beliefs gained by pursuing emotional goals would, by their nature, be unreliable...

Yes, of course, but that's not what I said. You have confused beliefs and values.
Beliefs/truth/knowledge should not, as you mention, be swayed by emotion.
Values, on the other hand, are not questions of fact, but matters of desire/preference/want. And these are matters of feeling.
Reason informs, and emotion moves. Both are necessary and interdependent for human activity.
We should, as you say, pursue truth and thereby find reliable beliefs. But no beliefs are ever certain. That was my point.

If both are necessary and interdependent, then how do you classify one of them as foundational?

---

Yes, of course,

Do you honestly think the only understanding is academic, dispassionate, fitting things in boxes?

Why would emotions have evolved if they are not a useful means of making sense of what is around us. The eye can be fooled, but that is no reason to cut it out. Feynman was such a great scientist because it had an emotional charge for him, and we gained by him pursuing his emotional goals.
What is reliable? You are programmed to seek meaning.

Ready to hear a relevant argument anytime now....

[mralstoner]

If both are necessary and interdependent, then how do you classify one of them as foundational?

I classify feelings as foundational values because they are the end goals which motivate behaviour: all other behaviour is instrumental towards achieving those emotional goals.
But if you try and find foundational beliefs, well, that's probably a quick trip to the loony bin. I don't think there are any. The brain only seeks reliable beliefs, not absolute truth.

[jonb]

Ready to hear a relevant argument anytime now....

Oh, no your not.

[mralstoner]

The brain's threshhold for 'certainty' is repeatability/reliability. If we can reliably repeat something, the brain takes that as certainty.
Or, if we are repeatedly told something is true, we might just believe it via brainwashing.
How does this happen? Repetition makes the brain generate a feeling of certitude.
So, repeatability is all the brain asks for to pass the threshhold, and that's why I think it's futile to search for absolute truth: because the brain is not geared to find it.
Watch this video by atheist psychologist Valerie Tarico:
Can we Know Anything? --Christianity and Cognitive Science 3
"As scientists learn more about how our brains work, certitude is coming to be seen as a vice rather than a virtue".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNjnD7QMB8Y

[genkaus]

I classify feelings as foundational values because they are the end goals which motivate behaviour: all other behaviour is instrumental towards achieving those emotional goals.

If you go to the very foundations, you'll find that the goals our behavior is motivated towards are biological, not emotional, in nature. Hunger, physical comfort, safety - these are the goals we seek to fulfill at the most basic. The emotional goals come afterwards and thus cannot be considered foundational.

But if you try and find foundational beliefs, well, that's probably a quick trip to the loony bin. I don't think there are any. The brain only seeks reliable beliefs, not absolute truth.

Given that foundational beliefs have been stated and pointed out multiple times in this very thread - maybe you should read through them and tell us why those aren't really "foundational beliefs" and why believing in them is insane.

---

The brain's threshhold for 'certainty' is repeatability/reliability. If we can reliably repeat something, the brain takes that as certainty.
Or, if we are repeatedly told something is true, we might just believe it via brainwashing.
How does this happen? Repetition makes the brain generate a feeling of certitude.
So, repeatability is all the brain asks for to pass the threshhold, and that's why I think it's futile to search for absolute truth: because the brain is not geared to find it.
Watch this video by atheist psychologist Valerie Tarico:
Can we Know Anything? --Christianity and Cognitive Science 3
"As scientists learn more about how our brains work, certitude is coming to be seen as a vice rather than a virtue".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNjnD7QMB8Y

The problem with using outliers to determine what forms normal brain functioning is that outliers, by definition, do not come under the norm. The fact that repetition, in its various forms, can lead to certitude, does not mean that repetition is the only way by which the brain attains certainty. And examples of outlying brain functioning where reason and logic fail to provide certitude is not evidence that brain is incapable of reaching certainty through them.

In fact, if you watch the video, you'd realize that the the psychologist is arguing in favor of using reason and logic as tools of gaining knowledge - instead of plain repeatability - which implies that there are better ways of attaining knowledge than the "feeling of certitude by repetition".

There is a difference between "the brain is geared towards" and "the brain is hardwired towards" certainty by repetition. In the former case, it is possible to change that gearing - as evidenced by atheists who were previously religious. In which case, repeatability would not be the only thing the brain would ask to pass the threshold and the search for absolute truth would not be futile.