Beliefs, in the sense I'm trying to convey, are not alternatives to proofs; they are fundamental, prior to proofs, and remain the 1st, the elemental, the condition of consciousness. Before proof there is belief; after proof, there is still belief; regardless of proof, there is belief. Consciousness is belief. This is not the sort of belief that is equated with a religious dogma or value system. WC
--- On Mon, 12/1/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Materiality > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 7:24 AM > I agree on the vital importance of beliefs. After that we > come to the > veridicality of beliefs, their usefulness whether valid for > others or not > and standards for proof. > Geoff C > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: RE: Materiality > >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:39:51 -0800 (PST) > > > >I'm not trying to win anything. I do ask that we > examine how we think and > >go as deeply as we can and I think we ultimately come > to belief. Belief is > >the fundamental level of conscious thinking or > awareness. It is the notion > >we act upon, rightly or wrongly. This is not my > idiosyncratic idea but is > >based, I think, in Husserl. In short, we believe and > then we "see". > >WC > > > > > > > > > >--- On Sun, 11/30/08, GEOFF CREALOCK > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: GEOFF CREALOCK > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: RE: Materiality > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 10:41 PM > > > William: Quite possibly I don't understand > what you mean > > > by belief. A belief > > > we hold we may believe is untrue. A belief you > hold may be > > > that > > > consciousness is not material. You challenge me > to prove > > > that your possibly > > > untrue belief is untrue. > > > It's too circuitous for me. If it helps, you > can win. I > > > would say it's a > > > mug's game. Your rules for what you believe > are > > > idiosyncratic and beyond my > > > knowing that I understand them (or not). > > > Geoff C > > > > > > > > > >From: William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Reply-To: [email protected] > > > >To: [email protected] > > > >Subject: RE: Materiality > > > >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:14:18 -0800 (PST) > > > > > > > >I don't think you understand what I'm > saying > > > when I say belief. I am > > > >saying that consciousness is actually a > belief in the > > > thoughts, etc., it > > > >apparently consists of. It does not require > that we > > > regard those beliefs as > > > >true. But even that's a still conscious > act, a > > > belief. We can believe that > > > >we hold untrue thoughts. We can believe that > we hold > > > true thoughts. Both > > > >rely on belief. > > > > > > > >If we can agree for a moment that only > material > > > existence, including > > > >consciousness, is actual and identifiable, > what is > > > lost? If mind or sould > > > >is immaterial, how can be be gained or lost > (to > > > consciousness)? > > > >WC > > > > > > > > > > > >--- On Sun, 11/30/08, GEOFF CREALOCK > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: GEOFF CREALOCK > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Subject: RE: Materiality > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 8:38 > PM > > > > > If, for you, belief is proof, then we > don't > > > agree on > > > > > basic > > > > > assumptions/axioms and then you'd > be right. > > > End of > > > > > discussion. (I respect > > > > > that you believe but that doesn't > equal proof > > > to me - I > > > > > wouldn't believe > > > > > it.) > > > > > Geoff C > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: William Conger > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >Reply-To: > [email protected] > > > > > >To: [email protected] > > > > > >Subject: RE: Materiality > > > > > >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 13:48:24 > -0800 (PST) > > > > > > > > > > > >What's true of noxious > stimulation is > > > true of any > > > > > stimulation, since neural > > > > > >activity is common to both. Absent > all > > > neural activity > > > > > and thus absent > > > > > >consciousness and even life. > It's > > > counterintuitive > > > > > to recognize that all > > > > > >thought is brain activity and all > brain > > > activity is > > > > > material but that's how > > > > > >it is, insofar as anyone can > demonstrate. > > > > > > > > > > > >We are saying the same thing when > we say > > > mind, brain, > > > > > spirit, soul. I'd > > > > > >prefer it be otherwise but I > can't find > > > anything to > > > > > truly justify it, > > > > > >excep-t, of course, belief. And > that's > > > where I > > > > > always end up, admitting > > > > > >that belief underlies all thought. > > > > > >WC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- On Sun, 11/30/08, GEOFF > CREALOCK > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
