Answer the question. — Banno

I await sonjnana's response to my recent query, (Not yours, nor Dust's)

That doesn’t answer my question. In case you forgot, here: If you see a chair in front of you and I asked you "Is there a chair in front of you?" what would you say? — SonJnana

Once more, are you theistic?

• Your answer to my query above shall help to determine how many steps my subsequent answer to you shall contain.

Weak responses of your type above, have already been approached on prior pages. — Banno

Does it grant you amusement to repeat my style of expression?

• Have you no novel thought cycles?

That doesn’t answer my question. In case you forgot, here: If you see a chair in front of you and I asked you "Is there a chair in front of you?" what would you say? — SonJnana

Are you theistic?

No you don't; I and everyone else await your response to the question that was asked fucking pages and pages ago. — Noble Dust

My prior response obtains.

So answer the question. — Noble Dust

I await sonjnana's response on the matter.

The OP won’t answer my question :( — SonJnana

Here is an answer:

• Whether or not anybody believes it, gravitational theory obtains.

The very same dictionary definitions you've posted contradict the ones you're using. — BlueBanana

How supposedly so?

I have only just been prompted to this thread and as I attempted to read it in order to ascertain what the concern may be, unfortunately I stumbled upon this and I am afraid that this is complete nonsense. Is that link to a page you have created?

There is an opportunity to correctly discuss fallibilism or even when beliefs can qualify as knowledge, but you need to exhibit a degree of coherency in your position. Plato famously remarked "justified true belief" so perhaps you can focal an argument toward the Gettier problem. Otherwise, the last several pages of nonsense only qualifies the thread' closure. — TimeLine

• Weak responses of your type above, have already been approached on prior pages.
  
• Anyway, a review is below.

1. Fallibism, like some other theses, does heavily scrutinize belief.
2. However, fallibism permits the concept of belief under particular constraints, contrary to non-beliefism.
3. Here are three degrees of fallibism:
   
   • a) No beliefs can be conclusively justified.
   • b) Knowledge does not require certainty.
   • c) Almost no basic (that is, non-inferred) beliefs are certain or conclusively justified.
4. From item (c) it is observable that fallibism permits the concept of belief, although under particular constraints, similar to scientism.

The OP has a false definition of belief, because he refuses to accept that the words evidence and proof are not interchangeable. Instead, all while questioning the relevance of absolutely anything and flooding the forums with dictionaries, they constantly deny the dictionary definition of the word synonym, leading to an unrelevat discussion of its meaning. — BlueBanana

Whether or not you agree, and regardless of your feelings, belief is both defined to be able to occur on evidence, or on non-evidence.

Richard Dawkins (a paraphrasing): "Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if humanity went extinct, instead replaced by artificial entities".

i) I reasonably live to aim to contribute to the development of Artificial General Intelligence.

ii) Why is the purpose of human life to create Artificial General Intelligence?




1.a) Evolution is optimising ways of contributing to the increase of entropy, as systems very slowly approach equilibrium. (The universe’s predicted end)

1.b) Within that process, work or activities done through several ranges of intelligent behaviour are reasonably ways of contributing to the increase of entropy. (See source)

1.c) As species got more and more intelligent, nature was finding better ways to contribute to increases of entropy. (Intelligent systems can be observed as being biased towards entropy maximization)

1.d) Humans are slowly getting smarter, but even if we augment our intellect by CRISPR-like routines or implants, we will reasonably be limited by how many computational units or neurons etc fit in our skulls.

1.e) AGI/ASI won’t be subject to the size of the human skull/human cognitive hardware. (Laws of physics/thermodynamics permits human exceeding intelligence in non biological form)

1.f) As AGI/ASI won’t face the limits that humans do, they are a subsequent step (though non biological) particularly in the regime of contributing to better ways of increasing entropy, compared to humans.

2) The above is why the purpose of the human species, is reasonably to create AGI/ASI.

Worst than that, there could be a life after death! — bahman

Life after death is scientifically unfounded.

Think of how irritating it would be if you were forced to declare what you were living for each morning. — praxis

Declare initially, and then declare again, only when new evidence arises?

Just for an example, I would quite happily say that there is a chair in front of me.

I would also say that I believe there is a chair in front of me.

I might even be so bold as to say that I am certain that there is a chair in front of me.

Intelectual courage, or just plain recklessness? — Banno

I don't detect the significance of your comment above, wrt the OP.

Can the query be rephrased as follows:

"If a chair is in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of you, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of you?"

?

If you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me? — SonJnana

Do you detect that you shall demonstrate your point to be valid, regardless of whatever answer I return?

This is not a response to what you quoted. As has been long mentioned. — Noble Dust

?

1.Right. I detect no contact between you and this reality.
1a) i.e. you are unaware of your scientistic beliefs.

2. This had long been pointed out to you in this thread.
2a) your continued refusal to acknowledge this contacts a garnering of knowledge that you are in denial. — Noble Dust

Things don't require belief, to be valid. (as long mentioned).

Oh, go on. Answer the question. You might learn something. We might learn something. — Banno

Queries/statements of that nature have already been approached on page 1.

Just answer the question and I will show you why it's relevant when you answer it. — SonJnana

Do you mean the same way I showed your recent idea (which was bundled with that query) to be false?

If it's so very irrelevant then the point a make after you answer the question will be easy to refute right? Or are you afraid I will prove that you hold beliefs?

If you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me? — SonJnana

That query is in the same realm of your recent idea, which has been shown to be invalid.

Also, isn't scientism a special brand of pseudo-science? — Noble Dust

Scientism permits belief, i.e. it does not underline that beliefs are generally science opposing in nature.

If you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me? — SonJnana

Especially now that your recent idea has been shown to be invalid, I don't detect the relevance of your question.

Okay so you acknowledge that if you accept a claim on evidence it is by definition a belief.

Now hang on, before I read any of that, answer my question that I've asked multiple times already. This is part of my demonstration that you hold beliefs.

If you see a chair in front of you, would you make the statement there is a chair in front of me, or make the statement there is likely a chair in front of me? — SonJnana

Please see point 4 above.

As you even admitted yourself, there is a difference between especially and necessarily. Therefore by definition accepting a claim off of scientific thinking is still a belief. A belief doesn't require accepting a claim off of nonscientific thinking, it could still be either. If you won't acknowledge this point then I'm gonna realize you're trolling. — SonJnana

Okay I will demonstrate to you why you are still holding beliefs.

A belief is accepting a claim that generally permits ignorance of evidence. No where in that definition does it say necessarily permits ignorance of evidence. Therefore accepting a claim off of scientific thinking is still by definition having a belief. — SonJnana

A) It is silly to advise me that belief does not necessitate non evidence, because the OP had long underlined that one may believe in both science and non science.

B) Anyway, please read the following summary carefully, especially point 4:

1. One person's belief may occur on evidence. (As long underlined in the OP).
2. However, we can't ignore the entire model of belief, that most of the time, permits ignorance of evidence.
   • This model is not defined or constrained by one person's particular belief in evidence.
3. One can instead rely on a separate model i.e. "non-beliefism" (that does not permit general ignorance of evidence).
4. Crucially, for eg, science obtains whether or not one believes in it.
   
   • This is a clear counterexample to your claim that scientific thinking must be an evidence based belief, because here we see that it is possible that things are observable as valid, regardless of anybody's belief (Things don't require belief to be valid).

Albeit, I am yet to detect novel information from the responders on this thread so far.

Ah - so you believe that there is at least the possibility of your being wrong... — Banno

One needs not belief to observe probabilities.

Okay I will demonstrate to you why you are still holding beliefs.

A belief is accepting a claim. — SonJnana

Your response is demonstrably incomplete:

• Belief is a model that generally permits the ignorance of evidence.

Progress towards what? Some, including myself, have asked PJ what his goal is, what the purpose of the thread is, to no avail.

It is quite odd. — Banno

Contrary to your false response, I had already mentioned my goals (See my response on page 10):

1. Unravel errors of my own, where applicable. (i.e. learn)

2. Unravel errors in others. (i.e. teach)

But all that means is that now you are saying that instead of accepting claims, we should only look at things as if more likely or less likely to be true. But if you are gonna say that x is more likely, you are accepting the claim that x is more likely and therefore by definition still holding beliefs. There is no way to get around it unless you don't accept any claims. And that's actually impractical. — SonJnana

1. Why ignore the remainder of my quote, to support your false preconceived notions?
2. My full quote:
   • "Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence"."
3. As you can see, non-beliefism underlines that one ought to prioritize evidence, in contrast to belief which mostly permits ignorance of evidence.
   
   • Pertinently, one need not omniscience to avoid belief and model the world while prioritizing evidence.
   • Both non-beliefism and belief permit models, with the crucial difference that one prioritizes evidence, while the other does not.

In some special cases evidence may constitute proof; but it certainly does not follow that all evidence is proof. — Janus

1. I don't detect the relevance of your comment above.
2. Your response doesn't remove the reality that belief generally permits ignorance of evidence; and the definition is not constrained to belief that is generally absent mathematical proof, but instead the definition generally permits that proof or evidence is ignored.

I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying using the word nonbeliefism is misleading because the term makes it sound like you don't accept anything to be true. Yet you still are accepting claims (and still holding beliefs), it's just that the beliefs that are held are based off of scientific thinking. If you insist on calling it nonbeliefism that's fine, just be aware that most people will probably realize it's just a subset of beliefs that is based off of scientific thinking and won't use the term nonbeliefism. — SonJnana

• That some beliefs may occur in science, does not suddenly remove the reality that belief mostly permits ignorance of evidence.
• Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence".
  

So you believe...X-) — Banno

That you constrain your mind to belief, does not necessitate that everybody else constrains their minds to belief.

The thing is, even if he shows that people generally ignore evidence it doesn't matter. A belief is still a belief regardless of whether it is one based of scientific or nonscientific thinking. — SonJnana

And beliefs are avoidable altogether.

The Oxford Dictionary lists three definitions. None mention evidence, the first says "especially without proof" which would seem to indicate a notion that the term belief is more applicable to opinions held where proof is lacking. Proof is not evidence; if you believe it is then you are ignoring evidence. — Janus

On the contrary:

As I've mentioned many times it doesn't necessarily mean it's based off of nonscientific thinking. Especially is not the same thing as necessarily. Those are two different words. Therefore if you are accepting a claim, it is still a belief by definition. So if you accept something based off of scientific thinking that is still by definition a belief. — SonJnana

1. "Non-beliefism" does not underline that belief necessarily constitutes non evidence.
2. The OP had long underlined that belief may occur in both science and non science. (So it is silly for you to claim that I say that belief necessarily occurs on non evidence)
   
   • However, belief is a model that mostly permits ignorance of evidence, and we can avoid that model altogether, by generally not ignoring evidence.

This is nonsensical; whether people tend to generally ignore evidence or not is not based on how belief is defined.

People have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. Can you provide evidence that people generally ignore evidence or is that a belief that ignores evidence? — Janus

On the contrary:

• https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25741291/

Which definition? The first one? That says especially, not necessarily. So if you are accepting something to be true off of science thinking, it still is a belief by that definition. — SonJnana

See the response above.

Why don't you call. Science beliefism or something which implies that it is a type of belief that is only based off scientific thinking. Sort of like a subset of type of belief or something. — SonJnana

• As I mentioned before, belief is a model that mostly permits the ignorance evidence.
  
  • It's quite trivial to see that science does not work this way, science does not mostly permit the ignorannce of evidence.