On 01/06/2013, at 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > All humans have many beliefs. A genuine scientist just know that those are > beliefs, and not knowledge (even if they hope their belief to be true). So > they will provides axioms/theories and derive from that, and compare with > facts, in case the theory is applied in some concrete domain. > >
Beliefs relate directly to needs. This is seperate to the issue already largely explored here as to whether belief and knowledge are the same. In general, all humans have "needs". These needs range from the obvious (fuel ie food/drink, shelter etc) to less obvious things like respect, admiration from some other human or humans, a mission in life and a sense of achievement in relation to that mission. If our deep needs are not satisfied at least partially, we wither and dry-up like any plant. Possibly because these less-obvious needs are such deep motivators of human activities on just about every level, it is rather boring (or sometimes frankly embarrassing) to talk about them or indeed to own-up to the fact. Freud's great achievement was that he got humans to fess-up to their needs and to stop bullshitting each about them. Even Einstein the Great was able to say "I don't have any special talent. I'm just insatiably curious." Or words to that effect. Thus, his whole life was about satisfying his *personal need* to know stuff. That's fine; we all benefitted from his attending to his own needs in that regard. Beethoven wrote great music. Not because it was an expectation of others put on him that he tried to live up to, but because he perceived entities existing in a realm that can only be experienced in the mind via musical compositions. In fact he was exploring Platonia - as you do when you write great music or do great science. Please don't get out the Thor's Hammer of reductionism to clout me with because this is not reductionism. This is HONESTY. In Edward de Bono's framework for Parallel Thinking "The Six Thinking Hats" the Red Hat is donned for the expression of feelings, hunches and intuitions. In other words, with the Red Hat on, everybody gets a chance to spruik their beliefs about something. There is no requirement that these be rational or even logical. You can spit the dummy if you want to, or, out a "gut-feeling" about the issue under consideration. No one can be criticised for having a bit of a rave or a rant under the Red Hat because that's the essence of "Parallel Thinking": everyone wears the same-coloured hat at the same time and the result is that the neurotransmitters for that mental operation (beliefs, needs, emotions etc) are optimised. Later on, we take off the Red Hat and put on the Yellow Hat which is about everyone in the room optimising the neurotransmitters associated with positive thinking. If you cannot see anything positive or beneficial about an idea or an issue, (like John Clark in relation to Bruno's comp theory) then you are merely advertising the fact that you are an excellent Red Hat thinker but a lousy Yellow Hat thinker. There are benefits to everything. The trick is, to be able to see them. Then there is of course the Black Hat, which is the "Logical Negative". Don't confuse the Red and Black Hats. The Red Hat has everything to do with needs and beliefs and nothing at all to do with logic. The Black Hat has everything to do with logic. Under the Black Hat, you must judge an idea as unworthy for the following logically-demonstrable reasons: a) - b) - c) etc. Indeed, you may BELIEVE and FEEL that an idea is just fine, but the logical operation of isolating and identifying faults and systemic errors may trump belief. In fact, it usually does. The existence of the Red Hat is an acknowledgement of Freud's primary insight: that the core of the human self is a set of needs that will not go away and which it is absurd to try and rationalise as something else somehow (usually by some fancy "logical" discourse). The default mode of human "thinking" (so often observed on this and related lists) is to smuggle back in one's needs-based beliefs under the disguise of "reason" and "evidence" as Bruno is clearly saying in the quote, above. If you "believe" an idea will not work, or is dangerous in some regard, you may well be right, but then you may well be wrong. We cannot yet know. You can however, now be respected for having that belief because clearly you have a deep-seated emotional need to believe that. Only a fool would assert that their beliefs are purely rational and based only on reasoned evidence. As Camus said: "which of the sun or the earth turns around the other is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. The only philosophical question worth considering is whether life is worth living." This was an attempt (in "Le Mythe de Sisyphe") to understand the supreme logic of suicide. Cheers, Kim Jones ============================ Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: [email protected] Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
