I rarely change my mind through discussion that criticises my strong beliefs.

My emotionally anchored biases, convictions, or if you like, my 'world view' through which I filter all information, ensure little change.

I automatically fish for information that confirms my opinion and resist information contrary to my belief system.
Yet it is disagreement that allows me, if I let it, to expand my horisons.

In theory, I know that no one has a monopoly on truth and I am lucky if I can get even a glimpse of it.
In theory, I believe in a kind of thesis (my view), antithesis (the other's view) and then synthesis which would combine apparent truths in each other's views to replace flaws in my own position.

For that I need fact-checking, which I do not always try or even if I wanted to, sometimes a point of view is a value judgment, the validity of which, cannot be factually verified.
Yet such topics, often including ethics, are the most important to me to help me to be clearer about the 'meaning' of my life.

I keep coming back to 'unconditional love', Agaphe, as such central meaning.
But if anyone opposes this meaning I tend to get my back up, that is, I do not show love, let alone the unconditional kind.

To practice what I preach, I wish, I could listen more, put myself in the shoes of other people who oppose me, be more critical about my own position than anyone else, but be open minded about the other's view:

To take the contrary view on board first with an open mind before I form a judgment about it.
As Gandhi says, love is when I can even love those who hate me or whom I distrust. This requires much more humility than what I normally feel.

So then what is the point in exchanging contesting point of views?

Well, if I can learn to listen better and avoid attacking those who attack me and still not reject them and continue the dialogue, then I think I may still learn something.

Dear Andris,

Thank You for this discussion.

Can discussions change our minds?

Sometimes - definitely. Depending on the subject.

Some topics will always be controversial and
things won't always go smoothly, but they don't
have to go badly. What we need is more discussions
where no one is demonized, shamed, and both sides
are open to changing their minds.

That happens rarely. Most of the time we're all
so sure that we're right. We end up doing
everything wrong. The harsh stuff (personal
attacks) don't actually work. It just makes enemies
more vicious.

How many of us are really respectful to each other?
How many of us really listen to the other side, or
try to understand things from another's point of view?
How many of us know that we can't control the behaviour
of others, only our own? We all fall into traps - where
we should have known better.

I've found that unexpected kindness, not restraints and
insults changed minds - or at least instilled doubt into
arguments.

Today to have a reasonable discussion seems
almost impossible. The world is increasingly so
polarized that having a civil conversation is so very
rare.

However, it's all a learning experience. I've been forced
to look in the mirror so many times on this forum. I
may not admit it but I've been forced to go and take another
look at myself by the most unexpected of posters here.
And it's done me the world of good. I think I've become a
better person as a result.

Anyway, I'm still a work in progress. I'm no pundit, or
saint, but I am willing to learn and grow - given the chance.

Yes, I have had strong views but debating has made me see things from a different perspective. Where I haven't changed my views is on personal experiences & observation.

Long question, short answer: NO. The proof is here every day on OLO.

FOXY thank you for your wise words.

Have I told you how much I like the Serenity Prayer?

It goes: 'God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change what I can
and the wisdom to know the difference.'

To this I added:

God grant me the serenity to know that I cannot change anyone else,

the courage to change myself and

the wisdom to remember this.

My late best friend used to say that the human personality is like a sculpture whose rough bits needed to be chiselled away right until one's demise.

INDIVIDUAL, I am glad that you learn from different point of views, but then you conclude:

'Where I haven't changed my views is on personal experiences & observation.'

Yes, I also find it change my ideas contrary to these.

There is an assumption about the ultimate importance of personal experiences and observation for making up one's mind.

Yet, sometimes I realised belatedly that I misperceived something and the personal experience I swore by today seemed absurd tomorrow.

For example, I could have sworn that I knew a close friend well after two years.

But then I was shocked to find out that I was wrong.

I now think that self-deception is an ever present possibility.

Andris,
When I have experienced something & then others think they, without having witnessed my experience, claim to know better, is where I won't, can't & should not need to have to change my view.
This is the great divide that separates people living, working & seeing reality from those who live, work & see only what others put before them for whatever agenda they may have !

INDIVIDUAL.

I value a third way.

To surrender to the power higher than me and others.

As if rising up to a satellite view from where I have an all embracing panorama; where I am neither trapped in my ego or in others' views, yet I care for both equally.

That power is not just high up but it surrounds me and everyone all the time.

I open myself to that power's love and will. 'Thy will be done.'

And then I am filled full with love that connects me with me and others.

And in that loving connection there is the answer, which when properly perceived, is always a 'no loser' solution.

We both win, because we realise that our separation is a delusion and neither of us can win at the other's expense, because the other, all the others, are my, every my's, other half.

Individuality in the sense of a separate me is a delusion.

I can only be completely UNIque if I am also UNIversal-that is connected with all.

Ultimately we either both win or we both lose.

For all to win is possible on the spiritual level, where there is no scarcity, only an abundance of all inclusive love.

Every one is loved as a unique and as extra special winner without this leading to anyone becoming a left-out loser.

There everyone's UNIqueness is synergetically connected with everyone's UNIversality so that we all feel one.

I tried to explore the above here:

https://startsat60.com/stories/opinion/its-all-one-and-the-same

and here:

https://startsat60.com/stories/opinion/bliss-in-abyss

and here:

https://startsat60.com/trending/opinion/only-

Andris,
I've had my suspicions !

Not all questions can be answered.

" What's he got that I haven't got?"

"Awareness!"

"What's that?

Many of us have a strong drive to hold on to
pre-existing beliefs and convictions which
keep us anchored in the world. Therefore when
your stance on controversial issues both cements
your group identity and plants you in opposition
to perceived enemies, changing your views can
exact a high personal toll.

When you begin to think and behave in ways that
separate you from members of your close community,
you're likely to experience some level of exclusion.

For example if you begin to question the religious
beliefs on which you were raised or the political beliefs
of your family and community, or any other issue that
may not have concerned you earlier - you will find that
even questioning previously held beliefs may bring you
into disrepute with other people.

Changing your mind for most people is not easy - and often
its simply a safer option not to advertise your views
openly - but rather maintain your views privately and
not give too much away.

What do we really know about the posters on this
forum? Are they really who they say they are?
We can only take them at face value on a public
forum such as this one. Some are here to simply
stir. Others have to always be right, and others
have their own agendas - religious or political,
or whatever else they may be. Do discussions change
our minds? I guess it depends on who you are -
and what you are prepared to accept or reject and the
evidence presented, if any. But even then, it may be
difficult if your views and beliefs are set in concrete
so to speak.

INDIVIDUAL

I am not surprised.

Our ways of approaching reality are different, stemming from the different paths we travelled.

For example, a critical source of learning for me has been 45 years of training in and practice of Yoga.

Much of what I am saying from my experiences may sound all Greek to you and you dismiss that what you have not experienced.

FOXY

Wise words again.

If only one person hears what I am saying and we can dialogue, then I have not wasted my time.

I am not the one who will give up.

Aciu.

Hi Andris,

You would make a good teacher.

You are patient, kind, and have something to say.

Rare qualities.

a critical source of learning for me has been 45 years of training in and practice of Yoga.
Andris,
My sources of learning for me were seeing reality by living in reality & surrounded by it ! Real people good & not so good !
I practised work in essential service industry ! At times my work was as contorted as some Yoga positions due to insipid bureaudroids & mostly child engineers being dumped on us !

Hi Andris,

Thanks for the discussion,

Throughout life we change our minds a million times over. Its through learned experience in the form of discussion and reasoning, through contact with others, influenced by teachers, writers, scholars, friends, family, acquaintances, public figures, a whole myriad of sources that influences use and thus results in a "change of mind". Unless one lives in isolation one can not help but be influenced, even in isolation a person will learn from "doing" and change their mind. Communication through the spoken, written, and these days the electronic word, serve to influence our views and opinions. Often we purposely seek knowledge from others through "education" so we can hopefully better understand, other times it comes upon us by accident, and sometimes from very unlikely sources. Not that all such influences are for the good, they can be very destructive as well.

Ignorance through irrational preconceived ideas is a danger, it can lead to mistakes being made in life, bigotry, hatred, violence etc on a micro and sometimes a macro scale, from the individual level to the whole of society. These mistakes are often the result of ignorance and irrational opinions, purposely peddled by some to satisfy their agenda of influencing others to their way of thinking.

mistakes are often the result of ignorance and irrational opinions, purposely peddled by some to satisfy their agenda of influencing others to their way of thinking.
Paul1405,
Yes, such as ideology & its failure to overrule natural instinct !

The only thing that could or should change my views on anything is new data, new facts.

So a discussion or series o discussions might change my opinion on this or that issue if it elicits new information or, more interestingly, if the discussion reveals new ways to look at or understand already known facts.

For example, back in the 1990s I was really quite well versed in the facts and data around climate change. But it was a book called "The Greenhouse Trap" by a great Australian named John Daly, which looked at that same data in a ways I hadn't considered or seen before that started me on a path of a new understanding of the science and my current views on AGW.

A discussion can also help to refine your own view. Often putting pen to paper, so to speak, causes you to critically analyse views that you've formed but which are perhaps somewhat vague.

That is why I inhabit sites like this. Firstly to look for gems of new information or new ways at looking at known information. Second, as a means to record and formalise my opinions on this or that issue. And finally as a means to keep track of the changes in my views. I have a searchable database of every post I've put up here, in this site's previous iteration and in similar sites via which I can check my past writings and understandings and compare and contrast with my current views .

The following link is an interesting read:

http://www.nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/facts-dont-change-peoples-minds-heres/16242/

Yes, we've seen plenty of instances in this site where people are utterly immune to the facts. Indeed I've often stated here that people can't be reasoned out of an opinion that they weren't reasoned into. We've seen plenty of examples of people forming an opinion and then looking for confirmatory data. And if that data is discredited, the opinion doesn't change, because the opinion wasn't reliant on the data in the first place.

I was simply talking about my own attitude toward the facts or data and my own need to base all opinions on what I'd consider the most reliable or pertinent facts of the issue.

But it needs to be understood that there are competing data on most issues. As per Foxy's link, the author felt that he had the facts on climate change and that simply imparting those would cause a change of mind. But he fails to realise that others have other facts that they find more reliable or pertinent.

Facts change a lot in our lifetimes. It's absurd
that we'd believe the same things at 50 that we
believed at 15. I guess it comes with life experience
and education that we often begin to see things in a
different light at times. I know how I used to feel
about transgender and gay people until I got to
know some of them and realized that they are human
beings and the damage that ridicule and censure can
do. I used to be pro feminism - until I got to know
some die-hardliners who definitely got up my nose.
The same went for political parties - and religious
institutions.

So we can change our minds on issues - and reserve
the right to also change back again.

I remember someone asking me - "Why did you change your
mind on that?" And all I could think of saying at that
time was - "My mood changed!" There you go.

Facts change a lot in our lifetimes.
Foxy,
When something is fact nothing can change it !

individual,

New facts can, and do.
Look at medicine, science, new technologies ...
and so on. The only constant in life is change.

New facts can, and do.
Foxy,
They're new facts then, but the former facts don't change !

individual,

The former facts simply get replaced. That's
how change occurs.

Individual is right in that raw data facts cannot change. However, if there is a fault in the way the original data is collected then the data can be replaced by new correct data. So it seems as though the facts have changed, but in this case the original data weren't valid so technically were never facts. What changes is whether we consider the original data to be true facts or not, but this it doesn't mean that they were ever actually true.*
Another thing that can change about something that we measure is the precision that we measure to and the confidence that we have about the measurement. In science all measured data must be accompanied by a statement about these. Eg., if you see length measurement it will commonly look something like this: 1.230 +- 0.002 m, this tells you that it was measured to four significant digits and the true value of the length is between 1.228 to 1.232 meters.
But, if you correctly measure something once and then measure it again with better equipment and get more precise data then the original data facts are still just as true as they were before because they are true with respect to the precision of the method of measurement.

-- continued below --

-- from above --

However, foxy is sort of right also, because derived "facts" can sort of change. For example, imagine you had a chook that lays eggs. If the true daily egg count was the sequence 1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0 but you sampled it on the first day and then every second day after then the derived fact of the average number of eggs per day that it lays would by 1 egg a day. However, if you sample it on second day and then every second day after the average egg count would be 0. Here the derived fact of the average is dependent on the sampling regime. Now technically these are two separate and distinct derived facts so there really is no change, but typically when people use words like "average" they would use it in a sense where these two cases are the same thing. The true average of course is 1/2 an egg a day, but to obtain this we needed 100% of the chook's laying data. This happens in real-life, we state derived "facts" on incomplete data, and these facts appear to change when more data becomes available.

A perceived fact can be a complete falsehood, at one time many believed the Earth was flat, but the overwhelming evidence has dispelled that and its no longer a fact in most peoples minds, except of course in the minds of a few old Forumites and Donald Lovers.

Some people like to state a truism as fact, others see their subjective opinion as fact, and finally some through total ignorance see something as fact. AND that's a FACT!

Two people can observe the same data and draw different conclusions, eg The ancient Greeks believed consuming alcohol meant accepting evil spirits into the body. Well we still call it spirits but we know it is not a spirit being influincing our behaviour. The data is the same but the conclusions are different. The facts have not changed but the information to form a conclusion has.

A fact is a verifiable piece of information that
does not alter or waver under any circumstances.
Any piece of information that is verifiable by
any one at any time is a fact. If a piece of information
does not meet this standard it is not a fact.

Facts are not "decided upon." They are discovered.
We did not get together and decide the earth was round.
We proved it. Anyone, anywhere can recreate the
experiment and get the exact same results.

No one performing an experiment accurately will get an
alternative result.

Some people seem to value belief/opinion or feelings over
truth/facts.

A fact can be a fact and then cease to be a fact anymore.
There is always more to learn.

This to-ing & fro-ing re facts reminds of the colours of coral & the subsea environment in general.
We see documentary films that show the colourful underwater world's kaleidoscope. What most people see is the effects of artificial lighting that makes the human eye see the colours which we couldn't see without such lights !
So, which is the real fact here ? Are the colours real or are they not ? ;-)

A fact is always a fact. It never changes and is never wrong.

But...

What we perceive as a fact might be wrong because its not indeed a fact but a mere belief. Many people thought that it was a fact that the sun went around the earth. But that wasn't a fact but merely erroneously believed to be a fact.

The trick in understanding the world around us is being able to discern what are facts and what are merely perceived to be facts. In thinkabit's egg example, it is a fact that the chook lays an egg every other day. But depending on how the data is gathered and evaluated it could be perceived as factual that the chook never lays an egg or lays one every day. The trick is being able to look at the data and the way its gathered to see that what is perceived as factual may not be so and then assigning probability to each based on other facts or one's experience.

There are too many people in general who see a 'fact' as presented by an 'expert' and decree that it unassailably true. It rarely is.

“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of our own ignorance.” – Thomas Sowell

Some people consider the Bible to be a fact.
It makes no sense to believe that, or that
the world is only a few thousand years old
but there are people who are SURE of it.

A fact as stated earlier can be a fact
and then cease to be a fact anymore.
There is always more to learn.

Can discussion change my mind? No, but it can send me off on a line of study that can.

Like most I simply believed the story of global warming caused by the villain CO2. Then came Watergate, & we saw that many of the so called scientists were lying & conniving activists. Many leading the argument really were con men.

That did not convince me of anything, but sent me off on a mission to learn the truth. It took 3 months to get my long disused math back up to where I could follow the equations, but once there, the truth was obvious. CO2 can not do what it is blamed for. Then along comes Covid, & these so called vaccines. This has proved even more strongly that so called scientific opinion is most definitely NOT to be trusted, with out sound proof. What ever your opinion, science is now totally discredited, & not to be blindly trusted.

There have been other subjects where a single opinion has sent me off looking for the facts before I form my opinion. Once formed however, I am very unlikely to be swayed, except by some new evidence. Mere opinion will never do it.

There are other subjects, such as Black Lives Matter or homosexuality, where there is no right or wrong opinion. There is not even a single reason for people to hold their opinion. No amount of conversation will effect my opinion on these subjects. Nor do I expect to change the opinion of others. Ones life experience will dictate their opinion on such things.

So today the worm has turned, I don't accept any opinion without personally researching the subject. This applies most strongly to bits of bumph published by academics driven by publishing & grant seeking requirements.

Facts are there to be discovered and opinions are to be debated, and always will be. Non tangable ideas are always open to debate or discussion depending on the passion of the idea held.

Foxy said: "Some people consider the Bible to be a fact.
It makes no sense to believe that". That is her opinion not based in anything that opinion. What is written in the Bible was observed by ancients and interpreted in thei understanding. The facts did not change but our understanding of the facts did.

The beliefs are fact, what is believed in is questionable !

Having witnessed the intellectual and moral change in people brought about by accepting Christ as Lord of their life over many years. It is not merely discussion that changes minds, it is moral revelation. The fact of their guilt is revealed and a better way and truth and life is revealed.

From Peter a devout Jewish Zealot and fisherman to accepting God is the Saviour of all men and nations to him becoming a martyr for this new revelation. The Apostle Paul a intellectual Jewish scholar arresting Christians to be put to death for religious heresy to becoming one by revelation that God was not just God of the Jews but Gentile nations also. These were the beginning of change, that God was the God of Agape love and forgiveness of his enemies and Christ Jesus antagonists. There are literally millions of Christians in the world today that have found God not by debate or cohersion but by personal freedom and thought and revelation.

Pick up a Challenge Magazine and read the stories of change in lives and thinking. http://www.challengenews.online/australia/

"Some people consider the Bible to be a fact."

The fact that they think their beliefs are fact, doesn't make their beliefs factual.

I've just read the story of Alice Cooper in Challenge available online, it is this type of revelation that puts lives right.

Mhaze the facts observed by the Bible characters were facts, their understanding or interpretation is not as we understand today. This does not make the facts false nor even their understanding. For instance they believed disease was caused by evil spirits, we know it is caused by bacteria. That fire and water washings removed evil spirits from diseased persons ot buildings. They both work in removing bacteria.

"Mhaze the facts observed by the Bible characters were facts,"

Moses separated the waters of the Red Sea to allow his people to cross over and escape the pursuing Pharaoh.

Fact?

Noah built a boat to hold two of every creature alive.

Fact?

Read the exodus account, the timing appears at the same time as the massive eruption in the Mediterranian causing a tsunami. The water receedes and comes back as a wall.

http://wyattmuseum.com/chariot-wheels-in-the-red-sea/2011-669

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Chariot+Wheels+in+the+Red+Sea+Hoax&form=IRIBIP&first=1&tsc=ImageBasicHover

http://apologiaway1.wordpress.com/2021/06/13/chariot-wheels-found-at-bottom-of-red-sea/

Noah's Boat referred to animals in an area east of Mesopotamia, a local area of the total known area of the world. Though primitive tribes around the world have ancient flood stories.

http://curiosmos.com/5-epic-ancient-flood-stories-that-predate-noahs-great-flood-and-you-probably-never-heard-about/

The facts is observed, the interpretation is how they saw the fact.

Of course we have people who want to change the facts because it does not suit their opinion.

World wide floods coincide with the last Global warming and the melting of the last Ice age.

Josephus,

Just because there was a flood doesn't prove there was a Noah.

Just because there was tsunami doesn't prove there was a Moses. Struth there isn't even any evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt let alone rescued by a member of the royal household.

These bible stories were just copied from other cultures. Noah is Gilgamesh. Moses is Sargon. The Pentateuch was written while the Jews were captive in Babylon and are Babylonian stories expropriated from their overlords.

Greeings to one and all,

I found your contributions educational, diverse and enriched by lots of continued dialogues.

I am particularly impressed with the absence of badmouthing of others with opposing views.

I think to change mind we need to win each other over, rather than trying to win over each other.

But given that non-verbal communication counts most in a discussion, here we are handicapped by written communication only.

This makes it harder to connect with people with opposing views without getting their back up by the content of our writings.

There may be the need to first positively connect with each other, before many of us can even listen to a contrary view.

So we could start with what we agree with in the others' writings, rather than starting with criticising.

So that we could develop a good-will bond, based on our common humanity that brings us together more than the possible divisiveness of contesting views could set us against each other.

Also maybe we should put forward an argument not in the first person, but in the third, to avoid competition with our opponent.

For example, instead of saying 'I argue', we could say 'it is argued.

Converely, instead of saying: 'You are wrong', we could say 'There are are facts and arguments which seem to contradict the view that such and such...'

But the greates barrier to changing mind may be the difference in different people's dimensions of consciousness.

If a person is exlusively a materialist, that person may have no experiential awareness of the existence of the spiritual dimension, even though such plane may even be more real than the transient world of material reality.

It requires an experiential awareness of the spiritual dimension of reality to discuss spiritual matters meaningfully but when a person is wedded to the material dimension exclusively, spiritual matters may seem nonsense to such person.

Now, mhaze so you are agreeing universal floods and land crossing of the Red sea is not the issue but the Noah and the Moses is the falacy.

The Chinese ancient history tells of Nukua and the five colours of the rainbow. "Dr. John Morris points out that many of the language groups migrating from Babel “took with them technological knowledge which they put to use in their new homelands. History documents the fact that several major cultures sprang into existence seemingly from nowhere at about the same time— the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Phoenecians, the Indians, as well as the Chinese— and each possessed a curious mixture of truth and pagan thought, as would be expected from peoples only briefly separated from Noah and his teachings as well as the star- worshipping, pyramid- building heresy of Nimrod at Babel.” http://www.orthodox.cn/localchurch/200406ancientcnhist_en.htm

http://www.cogwriter.com/news/old-testament-history/chinese-evidence-of-the-great-flood/
The last article identifies the fact of 8 persons surviving = to Genesis 6: 10; 7: 13; 8: 18; 9:18.

The ancient Chinese language has symbols that represent the same stories as the flood and pre flood creation account remembered long before Babylon.
Was there a Noah who built a boat to save his family and animals? According to many ancient histories YES!

Josephus,

So you believe that Noah died 350 years after the
flood at the ripe old age of 950?

Wow!

Was there a Moses, in Egyptian means son
http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/moses-0012411

If one accepts the biblical dating of Solomon’s time , we know that he started building his famous temple in 960 BC, and the text of 1 Kings 6 v1 states that this was 480 years since the Exodus .
Thus, we can fix a date for the Exodus of 1440 BC, when Moses was 80 years old. This would mean that he was born around 1520 BC and is an adult in the court between 1500 and 1480 BC.

Where Does the Name Moses Come From?
1500 – 1480 BC is the time of the pharaoh Queen Hatshepsut, and she had a close confidant, described by the well-known Egyptologist Joyce Tyldesley in her book on Hatshepsut, as the ‘Greatest of the Great’.

The father of Hatshepsut was Thutmose l , and his name means ‘son of Thoth’, the god of wisdom, ‘mose’ meaning ‘son’. This is a common use of the word ‘mose’ as in ‘Ra meeses’, son of the sun god Ra, etc.

The biblical text tells us that it was the pharaoh’s daughter who named Moses. Exodus 2 v 10 states that, “she called him Moses because she said, ‘I drew him out of the water’”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRr538aPIfk

Before the flood the human genome was more resilliant and protected by an upper atmosphere creating a green house effect. From the time of the flood since human life has shortened.

During the 1,000 years following the Flood, however, the Bible records a progressive decline in the life span of the patriarchs, from Noah, who lived to be 950 years old, until Abraham at 175 In fact, Moses was unusually old for his time 120 years. Although psalm 90: 10 attributed to him, when he reflected on the brevity of life, he said: “The days of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years.

11 Shem 600 Genesis 11:10–11
12 Arphaxad438 Genesis 11:12–13
13 Shelah 433 Genesis 11:14–15
14 Eber 464 Genesis 11:16–17
15 Peleg 239 Genesis 11:18–19
16 Reu 239 Genesis 11:20–21
17 Serug 230 Genesis 11:22–23
18 Nahor 148 Genesis 11:24–25
19 Terah 205 Genesis 11:32
20 Abraham 175 Genesis 25:7

Andris says: "If a person is exlusively a materialist, that person may have no experiential awareness of the existence of the spiritual dimension, even though such plane may even be more real than the transient world of material reality.
It requires an experiential awareness of the spiritual dimension of reality to discuss spiritual matters meaningfully but when a person is wedded to the material dimension exclusively, spiritual matters may seem nonsense to such person."

The problem with claims of a spiritual dimension is that there is no way to measure/detect it by an independent means. We don't have a spiritually detecting machine. So what this leads to is the situation were you can make a claim about the "spiritual dimension" based on your personal beliefs and I can make an opposing claim and we've no way to determine who is making a truthful claim.

Eg: I could say that a particular tree has a spiritual dimension to it and it is of particular importance to my belief system because this tree is the source of Mogomaka (don't google this- I just made this word up) and the Mogomaka effuses peace and happiness to anybody who sits under it and contemplates the meaning of life and the universe. But on the other hand you could say that, while it is true that the tree is the source of Mogomaka, Mogomaka is actually associated with death, pain and destruction and all that meditate near it shall surely have an immediate painful death. So, in a case like this where the two claims contradict how are we to decide which is right?

-- continued below --

-- from above --

Now in the real world when two claims contradict we may perform an experiment were we take meausrements/observations (these measurement can also be independently verified by a third party) to determine which (if any) is correct. But you can't do that here because the measuring procedure is dependent on a human mind which cannot be not independently scrutinized. So for the above example if I sat under the tree and meditated and didn't die then I can claim that I've disproved your claim. However, you can counterclaim that you have no proof that I actually did any meditating and I've no way to refute your counterclaim.

However, once people make claims about real events or real phenomena (ie: stuff we can actually measure) we can then do proper investigations with determinable facts. For example: in the case of Josephus claims about human longevity all the evidence to date, accumulated via archeological techniques and also via modern molecular biology observations in the lab, lead us to the conclusion that they are completely unsupported. There is no evidence that any people, deep past or present, anywhere in the world have ever lived longer than about 120 years. We've never dug up a single skeleton that indicates such ages and our knowledge of cellular senescence (eg: the Hayflick limit- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit ) contradicts such claims. He is the one making the claim so until he can provide some hard real (physical/tangible) evidence his claims should be treated as speculative BS.

Thank you THINKABIT.

I feel deeply indebted to you for your persistence to insist on rationality and then conducting long rational explorations.

It reminds me so much of my long entrapment in my rationality, of my nearly always 'chattering' mind that insists on controlling my consciousness and which hates to go silent for even a minute.

https://startsat60.com/stories/opinion/how-did-we-lose-the-plot

Because when I manage to silence it, magic happens.

As if the turbulent thought waves which muddy the waters of my mind ceased and as the surface became smooth I could see deep down and get at least some glimpses of truth that my chattering surface mind is so good in preventing me from seeing.

So thanks again THINKABIT.

Please keep it up. I have much to learn from you.

We have all learned of living things that have lived for hundreds of years and it is common knowlege, but we fail the realise change has occurred that limits cell life. We can accept a tree being 1500 years old even live today, and they are limited to the soil and environment they exist in .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organisms

Andris, I think you've got it a bit the wrong way round. My mind isn't always chattering about these issues- because any claims about spirituality are for me vacuous until proven otherwise. In my world view, the burden of proof for any claim is on those making any claims- not me. I spend hardly any time worrying about spiritually and the like in my spare time. But I do suspect that you do spend a lot of time devoted to such matters.

The only time I get interested in them is when someone else makes claims about such subjects because I'm curious to know how they backup their claims. And so far each time I've pressed people for explanations of exactly how they know anything about such things they've always fallen well short of giving sensible explanations. To date every time they I have investigated such a claim it turns out to either involve meaningless/undefined concepts or the claim doesn't entail any observable effect* on the real world. I'm getting on towards 50 years old, and over that fifty years I've never heard any claim that at is worth getting excited about.

*: the perfect example of this are claims that use the word "supernatural". By definition it is that which doesn't have a natural existence- ie. it is not of the physical world. This means that if something like a ghost or a spirit, which are typically considered to be supernatural entities, ever was verified to exist by some undeniable observation, then it would no longer be supernatural. Instead it would just another thing among the gazillion of others that has a real world existence. For me, the observation of a ghost wouldn't be a mind blowing event that fundamentally changes how I determine truths about the world. It would just be another thing that exists, just like say a tree or an animal or a rock. But what its physical existence does mean is that we can do experiments/take measurements to determine its properties.

-- continued below --

-- from above --

For example, we could see if it in reacts with light, if it has mass, etc.. And this scientific exploration is what would actually be interesting. It could lead to new a understanding of nature (eg: new physics). But not only that, after the scientists have had a go at poking, prodding and zapping it and they have determined some of its properties then the entrepreneurs and engineers can figure out if any of those properties could be used to produce something useful that can be sold. eg: can we use it to make faster computers, improve transport, make better toothpaste, or whatever.

Thank you THINKABIT.

Quantum science has verified that creation is about something emerging from the nothing of no-thing which the ancients' perennial wisdom has always claimed.

The non-locality of consciousness to the brain has been empirically proven by hundreds of near death findings.

Two scientific books for your attention which give lots of empirical evidence for the existence and primal causal nature of the spiritual substratum from which material reality emerges and returns to are:

Ervin Laszlo: 'What is reality; The New Map of Cosmos and Consciousness'

and another book based on vigorous scentific evidence:

Dean Radin: Supernormal

(Science, Yoga and the evidence for extraordinary psychic abilities.)

You say THINKABIT that you are nearing 50.

My experiences of expansion of consciousness began gradually when I started Yoga 45 years ago.

I am now over seventy and I say with Socrates:

'I know nothing.

All I know is love.'

It sounds to me that Socrates knew what is perennially important.

Thinkabit- Of course you're comments are basically Descartes "I think therefore I am."

But perhaps there are things that exist that you can't prove either way- Thinkabit seems to acknowledge this.

Perhaps there is a deeper form of truth- there is a comment from somewhere "artists use lies to teach the truth, politicians use lies to cover it up".

Some artists are politicians.

Conscious awareness is an interesting example of something everyone believes is true but can't prove.

Sometimes all you can rely on is tradition- it's better than nothing.

Things that aren't true can still have value- and is perhaps a form of truth.

Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris had an interesting discussion on a similar topic over five sessions.

Quantum Theory and the boundaries of physical reality are somewhat uncertain- scuse the pun- see TED talk on Cellular Automa- the universe is a cellular phenomena. But I enjoy that at least we have an island of understanding- but every direction seems to lead to mystery.

Rationalists and empiracists view the world differently to existentialists- but you can get rational and empirical existentialists I suppose

If you are looking for ghosts or spirits in the physical Universe or hearing messages from the dead, you will never see or hear them. They do not exist in the physical, but there is evidence of the unknowable being revealed.

Attention JOSEPHUS,

This article below may be of interest to you. Just on Google news today.

It shows that in ancient times days could have been as short as 18 hours.

Hence, creatures with a long lifespan then could have been seen as indeed having lived much longer than today, even if by nothing else but by the years then being shorter.

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEGXd-EzqvfX1bZO9M9-Pj7cqFQgEKg0IACoGCAowrqkBMKBFMMGBAg?hl=en-AU&gl=AU&ceid=AU%3Aen

CANEM, I agree with these comments of yours:

'Thinkabit- Of course you're comments are basically Descartes "I think therefore I am."

But perhaps there are things that exist that you can't prove either way- Thinkabit seems to acknowledge this.

Perhaps there is a deeper form of truth- there is a comment from somewhere "artists use lies to teach the truth, politicians use lies to cover it up".

Some artists are politicians.

Conscious awareness is an interesting example of something everyone believes is true but can't prove.'

I would also like to add that the introspective scientists, the ancient and current rishes, have been proving for thousands of years what conscious awareness is.

For example, they enshrined the 4 levels of consciousness in the
symbol: OM.

Any advanced Yogi can verify their findings through awakening these levels.

But those who can't go beyond the last of these levels, the most superficial, the awaken state of rational level, are unable to verify the others and they mistakenly assume that the deeper states cannot be verified.

JOSEPHUS, I agree with you about this above comments of yours:

'If you are looking for ghosts or spirits in the physical Universe or hearing messages from the dead, you will never see or hear them. They do not exist in the physical, but there is evidence of the unknowable being revealed.'

Yes, and the existence of the spirit testifies for a deeper and even more real substratum reality than the surface transient physical reality.

New, integral science, now sees spiritual reality as the matrix source of physical reality that emerges from and dies back to it.

See the two important books on this which I gave the references for in my last comment above to 'thinkabit'.

CANEM, I agree with most of these comments of yours:

'Thinkabit- Of course you're comments are basically Descartes "I think therefore I am."

But perhaps there are things that exist that you can't prove either way- Thinkabit seems to acknowledge this.

Perhaps there is a deeper form of truth- there is a comment from somewhere "artists use lies to teach the truth, politicians use lies to cover it up".

Some artists are politicians.

Conscious awareness is an interesting example of something everyone believes is true but can't prove.'

Except, I would also like to add Canem, that the introspective scientists, the ancient and current rishes, have been proving for thousands of years what consciousness is, even though current conventional physicalist, material science, cannot define it or create life, not even a blade of grass.

For example, the ancient seers enshrined the 4 levels of consciousness in the symbol: OM.

Any advanced Yogi can verify their findings through awakening these levels.

But those who can't go beyond the last of these levels experientially, the most superficial, the awaken state of rational level, are unable to verify the others.

They then may mistakenly assume that the deeper states cannot be verified.

JOSEPHUS, I agree with you about this above comments of yours:

'If you are looking for ghosts or spirits in the physical Universe or hearing messages from the dead, you will never see or hear them. They do not exist in the physical, but there is evidence of the unknowable being revealed.'

Yes, and the existence of the spirit testifies for a deeper and even more real substratum of (spiritual) reality than the surface transient physical reality.

Much of it can be communicated through authentic revelations.

New, integral science, sees spiritual reality as the matrix source of physical reality that emerges from and dies back to it.

See the two important books on this for which I gave the references in my last comment above to 'thinkabit'.

Canem Malum: "But perhaps there are things that exist that you can't prove either way- Thinkabit seems to acknowledge this."

But every time I've heard someone make a claim related to such things it has so far always turned out to be ill defined, or logically contradictory, or vacuous (by vacuous I mean that it entails no observable consequence on the real world)

For me, if something can't interact with the real world (ie: it doesn't cause observable change in something so it can't be measured) then it is not of the real world, it has no real existence.

The ONLY thing that so far I know of that at least on first glance appears to raise questions here is consciousness (and by consciousness I mean the stream of thoughts I assume people have- and I can only assume here because I personally can't detect them in others, the only awareness I can truly say that I'm aware of is my own). But on closer examination and deeper reflection even this turns out to be a false lead, because I've no real tangible hard evidence that my stream of thoughts can cause my body to move and do stuff. I struggle to even begin to conceive how I can demonstrate/prove that it is my consciousness that causes my body to do stuff. Indeed, recent investigations into this with brains scans hints that it is the opposite case- people have already "decided" to do stuff before they themselves become aware of their own decision so.

So for me consciousness is a non-real thing (ie: something that can't interact with the real world) that is the emergent phenomena of a very real brain. It's the real world that creates consciousness and not the other way around as some claim. In other words, consciousness doesn't cause any observable change in the real world but instead is caused by it.

-- continued below --

-- from above --

This is what makes it different from all other emergent phenomena that don't involve a human mind because every other emergent phenomenon is a real phenomenon. ie: the phenomenon has an observable impact. For example, the properties of water emerging from a collection of individual water molecules, here the properties of water are real (eg: the property that water is a liquid that fills available space is this real because it is a testable observable effect).

By-the-way: When I use the word "prove" in a statement referring to the real world is for me a claim about the confidence I have in something. I'm claiming that I have extremely high confidence in the veracity of the statement. However, I can never be 100% certain of any statement about the real world - there is always some uncertainty in the data we collect as well as the way we manipulate it or infer from it. For example, I'm not truly 100% certain that the sun will raise tomorrow, but I'm certain enough to bet my life on it

thinkabit, do you dream? can others verify your dreams other than your rapis eye movement? Dreams reveal a deeper consciousness of the mind and do have a message for us that needs interpretation. The reality of the dream is fantacy and not real. Though I've had dreams that have revealed future events and prepared me for them. The facts of the dream at the time had no reality, but events changed to create the reality.

Thinkabit- I empathize with your position and your argument. And you've presented it in an exemplary way. At one time I would have agreed completely with you. I've been listening to Jordan Peterson and he also has some convincing arguments. His argument- if I get it right- is certain topics have no correct answers- but some answer is required in order to function- so tradition and culture is the answer- religion is part of tradition.

I found the discussion between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris on youtube made me see certain "truths" differently- but in some ways I always knew it.

In some movies deathbed confessions of faith have perhaps created the impression that religion and religious practitioners take advantage of the desperate- maybe maybe not.

There are also those contemporaries that wish to socially engineer society.

You've argued your point very well.

Also you argued that consciousness is perhaps an immerging property of matter- Roger Penrose, The Emperors New Mind- talks about the philosophy of the mind and the possibility that self awareness is a quantum phenomena- I'm not going to argue any particular view here- but just to mention that there are other views Property Interactionism, Epiphenomenalism, Parallelism, and of course Materialism.

You are probably aware of these different views- but I thought I might make it explicit

Can the Bible identify future events? Revelation 18: 23 speaking of the future says " For thy merchants were the great ones of the Earth: for by sorcery have all the nations been deceived". The Greek word translated "sorcery" literally means an enhancer with drugs.

Never before have ALL NATIONS been involved in Great Merchants and their parmasutical supplies.

From Ancient Origins magazine.
"The latest study published in the Plos One journal found evidence of hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborns (HDFN) in Neanderthal DNA. And this blood disorder, which they got from breeding with modern humans, led to Neanderthal extinction. (OpenStax College / CC BY 3.0 )

Neanderthal Extinction From Homo Sapiens Blood Condition
This ironic thesis emerged from an important discovery made by a team of genetic scientists from the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and Aix-Marseille University in France. These scientists analyzed the blood types of three Neanderthals, whose DNA had been successfully recovered and sequenced from fossilized bone samples. These Neanderthals did not live together but were born at different times and at different places."

Could it be that Neanderthal man lived for hundreds of years and is spoken of in Genesis 6.