‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

Dzogchen/Emptiness criticism of Waking Up

 
Ground
 
Avatar
 
 
Ground
Total Posts:  78
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
09 August 2018 02:12
 
nonverbal - 08 August 2018 11:03 AM
Ground, to nonverbal - 08 August 2018 10:16 AM

1. “Do beliefs necessarily rely on false evidence?”
No because there are people who do not even know or accept that a fact statement has to be supported by evidence. E.g. there are people who believe things because the belief causes pleasurable feelings.
Also the question would be what makes an alleged evidence a “false” evidence in a given case. The cause of error may be a faulty sense, irrational/illogical thinking and/or not knowing the language that is used for communication.

2. “Does knowledge rely only on empirical evidence?”
In the sphere of applied rationality: yes.
Outside of the rational sphere some people do call belief or strong belief “knowledge” or they do not challenge what others sell them as “knowledge”.

1. You seem to be saying that not all beliefs are false. Am I reading your words correctly?

What I am saying is that fact statements (assertions) have to be based on empirical evidence and if a fact statement is not based on empirical evidence then it actually is a statement of belief.
your question was “Do beliefs necessarily rely on false evidence?” and my answer just meant that there are beliefs that do not rely on any alleged evidence at all.
Now if you would be asking if a belief might - regardless of whether the believer claims alleged evidence or not - conincidentially correspond with a fact that is based on empirical evidence and that is known by someone who applies rationality but is not known by the believer then this would be a speculative question which would have to be rejected in the sphere of rationality.

nonverbal - 08 August 2018 11:03 AM

2. What about knowledge achieved by visual artists, musicians, designers, and others who create? Do all the the things those people know rely on empirical evidence?

What knowledge do you mean? The knowledge how to perform the art? Basically the products of creative people can be seen, heard etc. so there is empirical evidence of their performance.

nonverbal - 08 August 2018 11:03 AM

As an aside, I find the concept of belief fascinating but—at least in the primary definition of belief we’ve so far addressed—to be useless for me in my interactions, and even thoughts. That is, I tend not to use the word other than to examine its uses.

Belief may play a significant role in everyday communication especially in certain contexts like politics or philosophy. Verbal interactions can be influenced by some form of beliefs mainly in the form of habitual but ungrounded premises people aren’t aware themselves. It is a matter of awareness and mindfulness not to slip into the trap of such irrational habits. And of course it all starts with thought. Irrationality tends to pervade all uncontrolled thoughts. One is conditioned to think irrationally from early age, conditioned by parents and all the “truths” one encountered during cultural socialization.

nonverbal - 08 August 2018 11:03 AM

So, what’s the secondary definition I’m thinking of? Care to guess?

Maybe it is actually not far from the first. Kind of “having an opinion but being not sure” or kind of “best guess”.or “hypothesize”

[ Edited: 09 August 2018 02:23 by Ground]
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1391
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
09 August 2018 06:43
 
Ground - 09 August 2018 02:12 AM

. . .

Belief may play a significant role in everyday communication especially in certain contexts like politics or philosophy. Verbal interactions can be influenced by some form of beliefs mainly in the form of habitual but ungrounded premises people aren’t aware themselves. It is a matter of awareness and mindfulness not to slip into the trap of such irrational habits. And of course it all starts with thought. Irrationality tends to pervade all uncontrolled thoughts. One is conditioned to think irrationally from early age, conditioned by parents and all the “truths” one encountered during cultural socialization.

Thanks for the clarification, Ground.

The problem I have with using belief is that it’s a word that seems to have been hijacked by religions—corrupted, in a sense. The resulting effect arrives as doubt that gets ignored. Belief has a tendency to soup things up inappropriately, in my opinion.

The secondary definition I had in mind describes belief in its most common prepositional-verb form—“belief in.” Plenty of people find the phrase to be useful as a way to describe something that’s commonly encountered. Other word choices might be more literally precise, but, frustrating as it might be, lots of idiomatic examples of common word choices can be found in everyday communication.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15216
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 August 2018 08:37
 
nonverbal - 09 August 2018 06:43 AM
Ground - 09 August 2018 02:12 AM

. . .

Belief may play a significant role in everyday communication especially in certain contexts like politics or philosophy. Verbal interactions can be influenced by some form of beliefs mainly in the form of habitual but ungrounded premises people aren’t aware themselves. It is a matter of awareness and mindfulness not to slip into the trap of such irrational habits. And of course it all starts with thought. Irrationality tends to pervade all uncontrolled thoughts. One is conditioned to think irrationally from early age, conditioned by parents and all the “truths” one encountered during cultural socialization.

Thanks for the clarification, Ground.

The problem I have with using belief is that it’s a word that seems to have been hijacked by religions—corrupted, in a sense. The resulting effect arrives as doubt that gets ignored. Belief has a tendency to soup things up inappropriately, in my opinion.

The secondary definition I had in mind describes belief in its most common prepositional-verb form—“belief in.” Plenty of people find the phrase to be useful as a way to describe something that’s commonly encountered. Other word choices might be more literally precise, but, frustrating as it might be, lots of idiomatic examples of common word choices can be found in everyday communication.

Interesting that Ground appeals to “awareness” and “mindfulness” since those are precisely the capacities that systems such as Dzogchen develop and yet he holds that Dzogchen is nonsense. Admission: While I’m experientially familiar with several systems of meditation and other forms of consciousness development, Dzogchen is not one of these and so my knowledge of it is only theoretical and analogical.

Belief in, also belief that…, having reasons in support of a conclusion but recognizing that there is some degree of probability associated with those reasons. As in: I’ve I’ve interacted here with Brother Mario for a number of years and so believe that if I post something critical of Catholic dogma his response will be ad hominem; or, The weather prediction for tomorrow is for sunny skies; or, Gary tends to bluff under these conditions, I’ll assume that he is bluffing now. And so on. There is also belief grounded on acceptance of authority: The Bible says so; or, Cosmologists tell me that the universe began with a ‘bit bang;’ or, Almost all climate scientists agree that humans are contributing substantially to global warming. And then, there is Socratic belief: I choose to believe such and such a myth of an afterlife because I like it.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1391
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
09 August 2018 13:48
 
burt - 09 August 2018 08:37 AM

. . .

Belief in, also belief that…, having reasons in support of a conclusion but recognizing that there is some degree of probability associated with those reasons. As in: I’ve I’ve interacted here with Brother Mario for a number of years and so believe that if I post something critical of Catholic dogma his response will be ad hominem; or, The weather prediction for tomorrow is for sunny skies; or, Gary tends to bluff under these conditions, I’ll assume that he is bluffing now. And so on. There is also belief grounded on acceptance of authority: The Bible says so; or, Cosmologists tell me that the universe began with a ‘bit bang;’ or, Almost all climate scientists agree that humans are contributing substantially to global warming. And then, there is Socratic belief: I choose to believe such and such a myth of an afterlife because I like it.

Just to clarify, Burt, are the belief situations you typically experience accompanied by some degree of noticeable doubt? This is a rhetorical question, but also a genuine one.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15216
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 August 2018 14:26
 
nonverbal - 09 August 2018 01:48 PM
burt - 09 August 2018 08:37 AM

. . .

Belief in, also belief that…, having reasons in support of a conclusion but recognizing that there is some degree of probability associated with those reasons. As in: I’ve I’ve interacted here with Brother Mario for a number of years and so believe that if I post something critical of Catholic dogma his response will be ad hominem; or, The weather prediction for tomorrow is for sunny skies; or, Gary tends to bluff under these conditions, I’ll assume that he is bluffing now. And so on. There is also belief grounded on acceptance of authority: The Bible says so; or, Cosmologists tell me that the universe began with a ‘bit bang;’ or, Almost all climate scientists agree that humans are contributing substantially to global warming. And then, there is Socratic belief: I choose to believe such and such a myth of an afterlife because I like it.

Just to clarify, Burt, are the belief situations you typically experience accompanied by some degree of noticeable doubt? This is a rhetorical question, but also a genuine one.

In general, yes, in a practical way (to quote the mathematician Georg Polya, “do not believe anything, but question only what is worth questioning.”) I usually don’t bother doubting my belief about the next days weather, but in cases where immediate decisions are required, some thought is also required. E.g., I may believe that Gary is bluffing but need to analyze the immediate situation as well. My main default is suspension of judgment.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20857
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
09 August 2018 17:01
 

Belief always has an element of doubt because it is not knowledge - or at least it should have an element of doubt. You can have a belief, but you should concurrently realize that you could be wrong. We can be mistaken, deceived, deluded, misled, tricked, etc. Not to mention stupid.

 
Ground
 
Avatar
 
 
Ground
Total Posts:  78
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
10 August 2018 00:14
 
nonverbal - 09 August 2018 06:43 AM
Ground - 09 August 2018 02:12 AM

. . .

Belief may play a significant role in everyday communication especially in certain contexts like politics or philosophy. Verbal interactions can be influenced by some form of beliefs mainly in the form of habitual but ungrounded premises people aren’t aware themselves. It is a matter of awareness and mindfulness not to slip into the trap of such irrational habits. And of course it all starts with thought. Irrationality tends to pervade all uncontrolled thoughts. One is conditioned to think irrationally from early age, conditioned by parents and all the “truths” one encountered during cultural socialization.

Thanks for the clarification, Ground.

The problem I have with using belief is that it’s a word that seems to have been hijacked by religions—corrupted, in a sense. The resulting effect arrives as doubt that gets ignored. Belief has a tendency to soup things up inappropriately, in my opinion.

The secondary definition I had in mind describes belief in its most common prepositional-verb form—“belief in.” Plenty of people find the phrase to be useful as a way to describe something that’s commonly encountered. Other word choices might be more literally precise, but, frustrating as it might be, lots of idiomatic examples of common word choices can be found in everyday communication.

I do not see a difference between “belief” in religious context and “belief” in a non-religious context.
Also, “belief in” or “to believe in” from my perspective matches my understanding of “belief” since “belief in sth or so” is taking as fact that something wanted will happen or be in the future through the power of that sth or so although there is no empirical evidence. What is different here is that empirical evidence is impossible a priori because that what is wanted refers to the future.

[ Edited: 10 August 2018 00:16 by Ground]
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1391
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
10 August 2018 06:43
 
Ground - 10 August 2018 12:14 AM

I do not see a difference between “belief” in religious context and “belief” in a non-religious context.
Also, “belief in” or “to believe in” from my perspective matches my understanding of “belief” since “belief in sth or so” is taking as fact that something wanted will happen or be in the future through the power of that sth or so although there is no empirical evidence. What is different here is that empirical evidence is impossible a priori because that what is wanted refers to the future.

As long as you understand that words commonly evolve beyond their original definitions and that words are remarkably different from numbers and other math symbols, you might find it possible to speak politely to Burt and others.

 
Ground
 
Avatar
 
 
Ground
Total Posts:  78
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
12 August 2018 00:55
 
nonverbal - 10 August 2018 06:43 AM
Ground - 10 August 2018 12:14 AM

I do not see a difference between “belief” in religious context and “belief” in a non-religious context.
Also, “belief in” or “to believe in” from my perspective matches my understanding of “belief” since “belief in sth or so” is taking as fact that something wanted will happen or be in the future through the power of that sth or so although there is no empirical evidence. What is different here is that empirical evidence is impossible a priori because that what is wanted refers to the future.

As long as you understand that words commonly evolve beyond their original definitions and that words are remarkably different from numbers and other math symbols, you might find it possible to speak politely to Burt and others.

Neither do I write politely nor impolitely. Words are concatenations of linguistic sounds or signs as sentences are concatenations of words. There is no meaning in words from the outset and there is no difference between words and numbers or math symbols in this regard. The eye sees signs or the ear hears sounds and then the processing in the brain starts. And when this processing starts there may be rationality governing the process or irrationality. If rationality governs the processing then it is easy to distinguish thoughts arising from words that can be directly linked to the conventional meaning of the words seen or heard from thoughts arising from words through means of conditioned association that cannot be directly linked to the conventional meaning of the words seen or heard. If there is no rationality then thoughts arising from conditioned associations are imputed to the words seen or heard although these words do not support those associated thoughts at all considering their conventional meanings.
On the side of the speaker or writer thoughts are expressed by means of linguistic signs that do not have any inherent meaning. So the speaker or writer has to associate a priori meaningless signs with the thoughts that he intends to express in speech or writing based on his knowledge of the conventional use of the language.
There is no evidence for conformity of the thoughts intended to be expressed by the speaker or writer by means of the meaningless signs used for expression and the thoughts that result from the processing of the meaningless signs by the hearer or reader.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1391
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
12 August 2018 08:40
 
Ground - 12 August 2018 12:55 AM

. . . Words are concatenations of linguistic sounds or signs as sentences are concatenations of words. There is no meaning in words from the outset and there is no difference between words and numbers or math symbols in this regard. The eye sees signs or the ear hears sounds and then the processing in the brain starts. And when this processing starts there may be rationality governing the process or irrationality. If rationality governs the processing then it is easy to distinguish thoughts arising from words that can be directly linked to the conventional meaning of the words seen or heard from thoughts arising from words through means of conditioned association that cannot be directly linked to the conventional meaning of the words seen or heard. If there is no rationality then thoughts arising from conditioned associations are imputed to the words seen or heard although these words do not support those associated thoughts at all considering their conventional meanings.

Out of curiosity, are you a linguistic prescriptivist in general, or only regarding meanings of certain choice words?
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0208.xml

Ground - 12 August 2018 12:55 AM

On the side of the speaker or writer thoughts are expressed by means of linguistic signs that do not have any inherent meaning. So the speaker or writer has to associate a priori meaningless signs with the thoughts that he intends to express in speech or writing based on his knowledge of the conventional use of the language.
There is no evidence for conformity of the thoughts intended to be expressed by the speaker or writer by means of the meaningless signs used for expression and the thoughts that result from the processing of the meaningless signs by the hearer or reader.

You could win an award with that last sentence, Ground.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15216
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 August 2018 14:35
 
nonverbal - 12 August 2018 08:40 AM
Ground - 12 August 2018 12:55 AM

. . . Words are concatenations of linguistic sounds or signs as sentences are concatenations of words. There is no meaning in words from the outset and there is no difference between words and numbers or math symbols in this regard. The eye sees signs or the ear hears sounds and then the processing in the brain starts. And when this processing starts there may be rationality governing the process or irrationality. If rationality governs the processing then it is easy to distinguish thoughts arising from words that can be directly linked to the conventional meaning of the words seen or heard from thoughts arising from words through means of conditioned association that cannot be directly linked to the conventional meaning of the words seen or heard. If there is no rationality then thoughts arising from conditioned associations are imputed to the words seen or heard although these words do not support those associated thoughts at all considering their conventional meanings.

Out of curiosity, are you a linguistic prescriptivist in general, or only regarding meanings of certain choice words?
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0208.xml

Ground - 12 August 2018 12:55 AM

On the side of the speaker or writer thoughts are expressed by means of linguistic signs that do not have any inherent meaning. So the speaker or writer has to associate a priori meaningless signs with the thoughts that he intends to express in speech or writing based on his knowledge of the conventional use of the language.
There is no evidence for conformity of the thoughts intended to be expressed by the speaker or writer by means of the meaningless signs used for expression and the thoughts that result from the processing of the meaningless signs by the hearer or reader.

You could win an award with that last sentence, Ground.

He’s a solipsist, unless he believes in the existence of other minds.

 
Ground
 
Avatar
 
 
Ground
Total Posts:  78
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
13 August 2018 02:20
 
nonverbal - 12 August 2018 08:40 AM
Ground - 12 August 2018 12:55 AM

. . . Words are concatenations of linguistic sounds or signs as sentences are concatenations of words. There is no meaning in words from the outset and there is no difference between words and numbers or math symbols in this regard. The eye sees signs or the ear hears sounds and then the processing in the brain starts. And when this processing starts there may be rationality governing the process or irrationality. If rationality governs the processing then it is easy to distinguish thoughts arising from words that can be directly linked to the conventional meaning of the words seen or heard from thoughts arising from words through means of conditioned association that cannot be directly linked to the conventional meaning of the words seen or heard. If there is no rationality then thoughts arising from conditioned associations are imputed to the words seen or heard although these words do not support those associated thoughts at all considering their conventional meanings.

Out of curiosity, are you a linguistic prescriptivist in general, or only regarding meanings of certain choice words?
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0208.xml

Ground - 12 August 2018 12:55 AM

On the side of the speaker or writer thoughts are expressed by means of linguistic signs that do not have any inherent meaning. So the speaker or writer has to associate a priori meaningless signs with the thoughts that he intends to express in speech or writing based on his knowledge of the conventional use of the language.
There is no evidence for conformity of the thoughts intended to be expressed by the speaker or writer by means of the meaningless signs used for expression and the thoughts that result from the processing of the meaningless signs by the hearer or reader.

You could win an award with that last sentence, Ground.

Not knowing the meaning of the expression “linguistic prescriptivist” and not being interested in its definition: I have already clarified that it is a matter of rationality to rely on empirical evidence only. And there is empirical evidence for characters/signs and words since these can be seen or heard. What cannot be seen or heard is the conventional meaning to be associated with these meaningsless linguistic signs. Also, this meaning can’t be smelled, touched, tasted either. So where does it come from? The brain synthesizes the meaning. And since your brain does your synthesis and my brain does my synthesis there is no evidence for conformity of our thoughts even if we use the same words.
Now one can look up the conventional meanings of words in dictionaries. But what do we find there? Again meaningless linguistic signs and as a rule every single word has several definitions representing different connotations. Again every individual brain has to synthesize its meanings based on the meaningless linguistic signs in dictionaries.
Now one may wonder: Considering all that how then is communication possible at all? A speculative answer can and should be neglected.  Why? Because there is empirical evidence that there are areas in human life where communication works fine and other areas where communication entails trouble, misunderstanding and/or quarrrel. The former is the area of empirical evidence, i.e. impressions of the five senses, where seeing and hearing are dominating, that is the area of science and rationality, and the latter is the area of mere ideas and beliefs.
Eg “dog” is a meaningless linguistic sign but it rarely of even never happens that two people using English language quarrel about whether what they both are seeing should be called “dog” or “tree”.
Or: Both, a buddhist and a christian may succeed to work together in natural science because in natural science one relies on empirical evidence and they have to discipline their thinking and linguistic expressions rationally when doing scientific work. But after work they may again slip into irrationality and start discussing about the existence or non-existence of the christian god and they won’t come to an agreement because they are discussing something which isn’t worth a thought since there is no empirical evidence for it.

Whatever thoughts your brain will be producing seeing my words there cannot be any evidence that your thoughts will conform with those that I have expressed. Anyway it cannot be categorically excluded that iteratively your thoughts may come close to the concept “rationality” in the context of communication and - as stated earlier - communication actually is the only area where rationality becomes empirically effective because as long as we do not express out thoughts using meaningless signs there is no empirical evidence that we have thoughts at all.

[ Edited: 13 August 2018 02:25 by Ground]
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1391
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
13 August 2018 07:39
 

Thank you, Ground. I’ve enjoyed talking with you. I hope this thread hasn’t been derailed.

 

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15216
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
13 August 2018 08:27
 
nonverbal - 13 August 2018 07:39 AM

Thank you, Ground. I’ve enjoyed talking with you. I hope this thread hasn’t been derailed.

I guess he’s never encountered the skeptical arguments against sense impressions.

 
Ground
 
Avatar
 
 
Ground
Total Posts:  78
Joined  16-07-2017
 
 
 
13 August 2018 14:43
 
burt - 13 August 2018 08:27 AM
nonverbal - 13 August 2018 07:39 AM

Thank you, Ground. I’ve enjoyed talking with you. I hope this thread hasn’t been derailed.

I guess he’s never encountered the skeptical arguments against sense impressions.

*lol*

the sense impressions caused by food are empirical evidence that food is food. everybody with sound senses knows how to satisfy hunger by means of food. you know someone who chose to starve because of skeptical arguments against sense impressions caused by food?

*lol*

 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 >