I don't really know what you meant by this, but if you mean that awareness, intellect, knowledge, memory, instinct etc. don't influence human behaviour/human actions, then you surely cannot be serious.
What I mean is, those things are just resources, from which the production of "belief" maybe made.
It doesn't matter how often you care to repeat this, it will remain wrong.
Likewise, no matter how long you refuse to recognize it,
does not make it wrong.
The fact of the matter is, that which is an unestablished principle or method, as far as objective evidence, can only
be established through the exercise of belief.
Since it does not exist as of yet, that is the only motivational reality, that can be attributed to it.
The only exception to this, of which I am aware, is accidental discovery.
However, most of the time this can also be attributed to belief.
Now if that is wrong, you need to explain how it is, not just claim that it is.
Similarly to what Danoff has pointed out with many of your previous statements, you appear to undermine your own point here. I am not dismissing any evidence as valueless. What I am saying is that subjective evidence can be considered valuable, but it requires non-subjective evidence in order for that value to be determined. The fact that you have just said "it could easily represent an absolute truth" is telling, as it clarifies my point succinctly. As I've said before, subjective evidence might be completely accurate and totally valid, but that accuracy and validity can only be described in relation to objective evidence. The very terms 'accurate', 'valid', 'truth' etc. are referential terms. You inadvertently acknowledge this by using the word 'could' in the sentence above. Yes, subjective evidence could represent (an accurate reflection of) the truth, but the question is how would you know its really the truth, and how might you go about demonstrating/describing that truth to anyone else, other than saying what is so often repeated in this thread, which is 'take my word for it, as I know it to be true'. Sorry, but that ain't good enough. It never was and never will be.
Unfortunately, for many such as yourself, that maintain such a high evidential threshold, in a single category,
it is not easy to convince them of a otherwise discoverable truth.
The best rational argument for it, I can make is of the reality in dimensional differences.
Just as we live in many categorical dimensions, some of which, have little in common with Science,
and the most important, practically none.
Those are of a relational nature.
I think I mentioned this earlier, but actually, its really not up to me to convince you.
Only point it out, or testify to it.
Thats what I am charged with.
If you expect anybody else to be able determine its truthfulness independently of your experience, then yes it does.
I don't no for sure about anybody else, but some sure fit that category.
Regarding your response to Danoff's post(s):
By jove I think he's got it.
Of course, this doesn't sit well with your view that belief must be applied all the time...
No. Danoff is being completely clear here. It is your insistence that belief is required at all times that is creating the paradox here. Danoff (and most other participants in this debate) are of the singular point of view that, in the Russian Roulette scenario depicted by Danoff, it is not possible to say whether the belief 'the gun will fire on the next shot' is either true or false, therefore your claim "You either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false." must be wrong.
The only reasonable view is that which Danoff is adhering to, which is that 'I think it is unlikely to occur but could occur', which you have classified (totally against your own argument) as a position of 'no belief'. Correct. It is a position of 'no belief', and it neatly explains how the paradox you have created for yourself is resolved. But, if this state of 'no belief' exists, which it self-evidently does, then your statement about having to believe something is true or false is wrong - or at the very least, it is incomplete. To be complete, it ought to read "You either believe that something is true, or you believe it is false, or you do not apply belief at all."
Yes, Danoff went off course with my intent.
The statement of either or, is in force if one is "in belief" regaurding the subject.
It does not apply to "no belief".
I'll maybe edit this post to address this later if I get the chance.
I'm also expecting to be busy tonight with GT6... believe it or not!
On that, believe it or not, I can believe. 👍
