What is spirituality and how do I get involved in it?

knowledge is a nuanced cross section of beliefs

yes or no?

 

I wish I was able to see this sooner, It's late at night (or early morning) here and I was surprised to see everything. After the first person's post, I grew a bit disheartened that nobody would have interest in this topic. I knew that it would get a bit rough because of the subject matter, but hopefully some good will come out of it.

I haven't been able to read through everything that was posted here, but so far, it has been informative and enthralling. Some familiar concepts, and some strange! But I still have so many questions that I need to save for tomorrow lol (otherwise I'll be up all night)

 

I don’t think it’s irrelevant at all. This sounds like an example of somebody knowing something isn’t true, but trying to believe it anyway. I would hope that it’s an unusual situation, as it seems to come from desperation - “I know there’s no god, but I can’t cope with the idea of a world without one, so I’m just going to tell myself there is one.” It’s almost like people who continue in unhappy relationships; they know the relationship isn’t working, but they want to believe it does. That kind of cognitive dissonance can’t be good for you, and as you say does suggest that somebody is emulating other people’s expressions of belief in the hope that they will convince themselves.

I don’t actually see how it is possible to convince yourself to believe in anything. Belief requires either evidence or faith. To believe something spiritual, you presumably need to have experienced, or have faith in, something which you can only attribute to the spiritual. And you have either had those experiences, or have that faith, or you haven’t.

No disrespect intended to your mum. I hope she found what she was looking for.

 

kick1
kik/
verb

1. 1.
   strike or propel forcibly with the foot.
   "police kicked down the door"
   synonyms: boot, punt, drop-kick;
   informalhoof
   "she kicked the ball over the fence"
   • 
     
2. 2.
   informal
   succeed in giving up (a habit or addiction).
   synonyms: give up, break, abandon, end, stop, cease, desist from, renounce; More
   

noun

1. 1.
   a blow or forceful thrust with the foot.
   "a kick in the head"
   synonyms: boot, punt
   "that kick landed the ball across the street"
2. 2.
   a sudden forceful jolt.
   "the shuttle accelerated with a kick"

do you have measurements of the force I used to move the ball from point a to b, proving my action was a kick? Also please provide the peer reviewed standardized chart of forces defining the upper and lower limits of forces applied by a human foot to a ball from which we can categorically determine the term kick. Currently I am unsure if I kicked the ball or not, but my own perception is saying I did not use enough force for it to be considered a kick. Therefore I will go with ... no I did not kick the ball, and leave it to you to scientifically prove the amount of force I used quantifies it as a kick.

besides based on the current definition I have I can honestly say it wasn't forceful at all, more like I lightly bumped into the ball.

it's all in the box

 

I really hope your trolling me.

I feel it would patronizing to explain this in further detail. Though I suppose I am not above that.

You are just dancing with words at this point. I hope you knew what I meant. Kick in the sense of your foot connecting with the ball. If you would refer I rewrote the sentence as.

If you touched the ball with your foot in a light way(1) or with tremendous force(10) you touched the ball with your foot in either case. So in either case of the sliding scale, you are in the binary positive.
Heck you could even reverse this perfectly. I tried to kick the ball with a huge or light amount of force, but I missed. So negative cuz you didn't touch the ball even if it was your intension. Again binary.

 

if you read what i said you would see

I agree with your definition wherein it defines the end state

what I am pointing to is knowing something or believing you have knowledge of something is much more than just the end state

what I feel you trying to argue is the end state is the knowledge and how it got there is irrelevant

very much in the sense of a lawyer asking the question

did you kill him?
yes but ...
yes or no
he was coming at ..
yes or no is the victim dead?
it was self ...
that's not the question answer yes or no
i punched him wrong
so you admit to killing him
I guess so

I mean seriously screw the nuances WE KNOW the kid is a murderer, it's plain as day he killed someone. everything else is quite irrelevant... why the hell would we want to complicate matters with degrees of knowing what happened

I mean after all end state is all that matters

is the victim dead --- yes
did the kid kill the victim -- yes

case closed this all we need to know...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

knowledge is a nuanced cross section of beliefs

yes or no?

if you want to understand the difference fine if not then oh well enjoy...

 

I figured you would respond this way, since it appears we are shooting for precision and all.

how about the end state is not knowledge it is however a decision made regarding the review of knowledge acquired. the decision I agree is binary.

---------------------------------------------------------------

knowledge is a nuanced cross section of beliefs

yes or no?

 

I don't really understand what you are getting at.

 

maybe someone else can explain it better than i can...

 

So you’re acknowledging that you either kicked the ball, or did not kick the ball. Any amount of force below whatever the threshold is would not be considered a kick. Wherever that threshold is, and whatever term you use to describe what you did to the ball, is either considered kicking or not kicking. You don’t need a peer reviewed standard. It’s perfectly fine for one person to think something was a kick and another not to. The point is not what it was. The point is what you believe it was, or what you claim to know it was.

Now go back and replace the words “kicked” with “believe in”, “ball” with “god”, “force” with “belief”... you get the idea. You have basically conceded that an action or a state is binary. You either kick, or you don’t kick. You either believe, or you don’t believe. You either know, or you don’t know. It makes no difference how you describe what you did do in the absence of kicking, belief or knowing. The point is that you either did, or didn’t.

With respect, I think you’re being argumentative now. I’ve tried to respond rationally to the statements you have posited, and have posited my own in return. Unless you’re prepared to respond to the statements I have made (such as the tables I provided illustrating our differing positions) then I think this conversation, from my perspective, is over.

 

You tell me. You’re the one claiming that knowledge is non-binary.

No. I have already explained how knowledge and belief are independent. The fact that you can believe something without knowing for sure is evidence of that. (Also the other permuations I have already explained.)

 

where does knowledge come from, and how would you acquire it?

you know something one day and the next day it becomes obsolete, how much do we really know anyway... how much of what we consider to be knowledge is just belief? does the material world around you even exist?

 

Through observation.

I have state repeatedly that the theist/atheist position related to claims to knowledge. It doesn’t matter whether you are right or wrong about what to claim to know. The point is that you either claim to know it or you don’t. I really don’t know how else I can explain this.

I had a feeling you would bring up solipsism at some point. By the strictest definition, no we cannot actually know that anything exists beyond our own consciousness. But that is still a binary state. We either claim to know, or do not claim to know, that an environment exists outside our own minds. This situation does not negate the truth of the fact that this is either something which we can know, or not know. And I don’t think this is a useful position to take in a discussion like this, as if you’re going to take the solipsist position then I don’t even exist to discuss it with you and this conversation is a product of your own mind.

 

then we are on the same page of light waves colliding into each other perceiving something that never existed to begin with including the light waves we somehow believe give us this ability to be conscious .

 

how did you convert this observation into a piece of knowledge?

 

That's what you're claiming, not me. I never stated we are light waves colliding into each other. I also never stated that we are perceiving something which doesn't exist. Both of those things are claims to knowledge. And I said that I don't know.

Through rational thought, and comparison of my perceptions with those of others. Now, I know that you're going to bring solipsism in again here, and tell me that I don't know that the other people with whom I communicate are real. But even if that were true, even if I were just a brain in a jar and the whole universe as I perceive it were a simulation, that doesn't change anything. I'll explain why.

A claim to knowledge and a claim to belief are states within a mind. Inside my mind, I have multiple states of claims to knowledge (things I claim to know to be true, or false, or existent etc.), and multiple states of claims to belief (things I believe to be true, or believe to be false). It makes no difference whether those things are correct, or incorrect, or even real. The fact remains that within my own consciousness, I can evaluate things as being things that I either know or do not know, or things that I believe or do not believe. Whether those things are real or true is not relevant to the nature of the claims about them.

Lets look at an example. In the movie The Matrix, Neo believed that the world was real. He believed that the people he talked to were real, and that the objects around him were real. If asked, he would probably state that he did not believe that fairies were real, perhaps because he had not observed them in the environment. If asked "do you know that your friends are real", he would probably say yes. A positive claim to knowledge. He was making a binary decision. He either believed in the reality of the world, or he didn't. He either believed in fairies, or he didn't. He either claimed to know that people are real, or he didn't.

After Neo was unplugged from the Matrix, he knew that his previous beliefs and claims to knowledge were false. He was wrong about all of it. But that does not change anything with regard to the positions he held at the time. He still made a binary decision about what he thought he knew, and what he believed.


Now, this really is my last reply to this thread unless you actually respond to the questions I have asked in previous posts. This is supposed to be a conversation, not an interrogation. I will gladly debate this with you, but that is only going to happen if you actually respond to what I have said rather than just coming back with more arguments for your own position.

 

that's the thing about this masher I am NOT challenging you on whether the decision made is binary I know it is binary

-----------------------------------------

my challenge to you is and remains how did decision come about? --- how did this knowing come into fruition?

my challenge to you is the decision is not the knowledge and the actual knowledge which created this knowing has multiple facets.

you might use this decision in later analysis but it is at its core a representation of the underlying knowledge leading to this decision.
If the underlying data and information changes and causes changes to various aspects of the acquire knowledge then the decision itself may end up being modified. This can be one or more pieces of knowledge affecting decision end state.

Exploring Knowledge Creation and Transfer in the Firm: Context and Leadership
https://ubr.universia.net/article/download/896/1022

while on one side explicit knowledge is easily codified, the other side which is tacit knowledge is not easily codified. Tacit knowledge is acquired thru experience i.e how much pressure to put on a paint brush to get the desired effect in a painting, or even which paint brush to use. practice, trial an error, observing other painters, muscle memory.

to that end explain to me how knowing the amount of pressure to apply across the entire paint stroke is binary ... what you are arguing is either you know this or you do not know this.

why thank you I would not have known this -- it was completely beyond my grasp and comprehension

.... now transfer the knowledge from person A to person B what needs to occur? from your own personal opinion just how nuanced is this knowledge? is the knowledge being transferred really binary or something entirely different?

 

You're being far, far more respectful of my mother than I usually am.

I'm drifting farther afield from the religion/spiritualism discussion here. I think that a lot of people--a lot of people--have a fairly loose grip on the idea that there is such thing as an objective reality.

I assume that your view about unpleasant things would be, roughly, "What's the reality? OK, how do I cope?" My parents' view would be more like, "What's the thing claiming to be true? Do I find it acceptably pleasant? No? OK, here's my replacement." And that's far from unique to my parents. (I'm not saying that they weren't dysfunctional. I'm saying that no element in their catalog of dysfunctions is rare.)

My understanding is that small children engage in "magical thinking", to the extent that a very small child arguably cannot lie. The classic example is that if you ask them if they broke the expensive thing, and they say no, they can't distinguish between the fact that they wish they hadn't, and the fact that they nevertheless did. They think that the wish will determine the reality. So developing an understanding of objective reality outside one's brain is a development stage, and I think that some people achieve it more successfully than others.

I'm suddenly remembering Barbara Ehrenreich's Bright-sided, which describes, among other things, a really alarming volume of people who seem to support the idea that a positive attitude alone can change reality--to the point of blaming the victims of horrible things for the fact that they were insufficiently positive.