Do unbelievers get you mad?

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

the problem becomes one of what information is accessible. Most of us know even from being in the world that some types of information are restricted and/or restructured in a potentially manipulative fashion.

It doesn't matter how good your ability to reason is. If you you are denied access to basic information to reason around, you simply can't reason effectively.

But at the same time if you don't even know information has been denied the next step is to assume you can reason effectively after you are able to make some small effect on your surroundings. Which can be just as bad a thing to have happen to you as if you couldn't reason at all, because with the kudos you are getting from yourself and others you won't be likely to care any more about how rational you are. Unless of course you want to get prideful about it... but that is another issue altogether.

• you realize that you don't know
• you realize that you can't know
• you have the confidence to acknowledge those to others.

Originally Posted by inavalan

... are you saying that JC's ascension passes your "rational" test, but those Gates' ascension doesn't? With what percentage?

Well, that is not a question that can be answered as it is not a question that has been adequately defined. And I hesitate to answer anyway as in the past you have been one who is willing to dismiss all of science, and who seems to believe his intuition should be given equal weight in argument. But for the sake of discussion, I will make an irrational decision here to go ahead and make some assumptions to better define your question, and make an attempt at an answer.

We will define the Heaven's Gate decision to be made as:
A) Commit suicide
B) Don’t commit suicide

From there we would need to look at the arguments for and against A and B. Of course we would as a part of that look at the relative consequence of getting the decision wrong and adjust the amount of weight we would require for each. We could go on for page after page of pulling apart and presenting bits and pieces of evidence for each, estimating how much credence each should get, and then summing them up to see how they all add up. However, I don’t think that would be welcomed, all that much useful to anyone here, and I don’t think it would carry any real weight in your mind against your intuition anyway. So I will jump to the end of that process, and say I think if I were to do all this, my numbers would add up rather highly weighted toward decision option B. The HGer of course came to option A. Why? Well I would speculate because they assigned inordinate amounts of weight to what their leader said. Which is not surprising as it was a suicide cult after all. This relying heavily on what their leader says as a way to discern reality is not at all limited to religious cults. We see it all the time with political leaders and political cults as well. One who does not follow that leader and who does not place great weight on what they say will come to a drastically different conclusion then those who do.

Now, since you brought up the JC ascension story, I will ask you to narrow down what about it you would like to put to a weighted evidence test, including any assumptions going into it, and any consequences for getting said decision wrong.
For example: Assuming Jesus was the son of God, did he ascend into heaven in his human body.
Or
Would we have to start by first deciding whether Jesus was an actual historical figure or just a myth, and work our way up from there.

And, is my immediate death associated with choosing either option.

To close, let me put your question back onto you. Are you saying that Christians believing in the story of Jesus ascending into heaven is equally rational as committing suicide assuming an unseen UFO is hiding behind a comet and will scoop up your soul and whisk it off to heaven?
Is that what your intuition, that intuition you hold as superior to science and reason, tells you is the case?

.

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Should be interesting what the percentages on such beliefs as, is Jesus God vs Jesus is the son of God. Or better yet, what are the percentages for the belief there is a God vs the belief there is not a God.

I would be interesting. What percentages would you use if you had to come up with some?

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

the problem becomes one of what information is accessible. Most of us know even from being in the world that some types of information are restricted and/or restructured in a potentially manipulative fashion.

It doesn't matter how good your ability to reason is. If you you are denied access to basic information to reason around, you simply can't reason effectively.

But at the same time if you don't even know information has been denied the next step is to assume you can reason effectively after you are able to make some small effect on your surroundings. Which can be just as bad a thing to have happen to you as if you couldn't reason at all, because with the kudos you are getting from yourself and others you won't be likely to care any more about how rational you are. Unless of course you want to get prideful about it... but that is another issue altogether.

And yet, decide we often must. Commit suicide, or get kicked out of the cult? Decisions decisions. It is true that the completeness and quality of information and evidence we have access to will always be limited and variable. Which is why it is always important to be willing to assess ones decisions if new information is discovered.

But it is not true, IMO, that how good ones ability to reason is does not matter. For example, if ones ability to reason is bounded by the condition that I can't come to any conclusions my leader does not support, then that boundary condition will matter a great deal. IMO, 'what leader says must be true', does not make for a good ability to weigh all the available evidence, regardless of how much evidence one might have. Just as would the boundary condition of saying my own intuition must always trump all available evidence to the contrary.

Intuition is an important function, and in truth is often arising from subconscious processes the are incorporating evidence, but it is not the ultimate arbitrator of truth either. Like anything, sometimes it gets it right and other times it gets it wrong.

Originally Posted by inavalan

• you realize that you don't know
• you realize that you can't know
• you have the confidence to acknowledge those to others.

• you realize that you don't know
• you realize that you can't know
• you realize that you are faced with making a decision anyway
• you realize that you should try to do your best to weight the evidence and hope your decision turns out well.

Or I suppose one could reason that since one can't know, any decision is as good as any other.
But IMO, that is not a good way to reason.

.

Originally Posted by ketzer

And yet, decide we often must. Commit suicide, or get kicked out of the cult? Decisions decisions. It is true that the completeness and quality of information and evidence we have access to will always be limited and variable. Which is why it is always important to be willing to assess ones decisions if new information is discovered.

But it is not true, IMO, that how good ones ability to reason is does not matter. For example, if ones ability to reason is bounded by the condition that I can't come to any conclusions my leader does not support, then that boundary condition will matter a great deal. IMO, 'what leader says must be true', does not make for a good ability to weigh all the available evidence, regardless of how much evidence one might have. Just as would the boundary condition of saying my own intuition must always trump all available evidence to the contrary.

Intuition is an important function, and in truth is often arising from subconscious processes the are incorporating evidence, but it is not the ultimate arbitrator of truth either. Like anything, sometimes it gets it right and other times it gets it wrong.

The HGers went out and bought a $3,600 telescope for the purpose of getting a glimpse of the UFO trailing Hale-Bopp. Upon failing at that and instead of coming to the conclusion there was no UFO they took up the position the telescope was faulty, returning it and demanding a refund.

It's my opinion no amount of evidence contrary to the belief advocated by the cult's leaders would have been sufficient to dissuade them from their ultimate action. Perhaps the UFO was using stealth technology to mask itself from pesky unbelievers or it was phase-shifted into a dimension only the cult's leaders could perceive and the only way for them to discern it was taking the ultimate plunge.

In any case I don't see how this is several dozen people having the exact same intuition and coming to the same conclusion that suicide was the rational course of action. It's more probable and by orders of magnitude they were vulnerable people brainwashed and manipulated by those they looked to for meaning in their lives. It's so unbelievably sad.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The HGers went out and bought a $3,600 telescope for the purpose of getting a glimpse of the UFO trailing Hale-Bopp. Upon failing at that and instead of coming to the conclusion there was no UFO they took up the position the telescope was faulty, returning it and demanding a refund.

It's my opinion no amount of evidence contrary to the belief advocated by the cult's leaders would have been sufficient to dissuade them from their ultimate action. Perhaps the UFO was using stealth technology to mask itself from pesky unbelievers or it was phase-shifted into a dimension only the cult's leaders could perceive and the only way for them to discern it was taking the ultimate plunge.

In any case I don't see how this is several dozen people having the exact same intuition and coming to the same conclusion that suicide was the rational course of action. It's more probable and by orders of magnitude they were vulnerable people brainwashed and manipulated by those they looked to for meaning in their lives. It's so unbelievably sad.

That first paragraph is funny in a rather morbid sort of morbid way.

I suppose it is easy for us who are not under the spell of the cult leader to look at how ridiculous it was, but then they do say no one is immune from getting sucked in. That is what is scary, to know the subconscious mind is really where the action is, and if it goes in for it, the so called rational thinking mind will set itself to the task of rationalizing the decisions being made by the subconscious mind. In this case the subconscious mind coming to faulty conclusions is the intuition that must be rationalized up in the cerebral cortex.

The leader says the UFO is there, the leader can't be wrong, so if the telescope doesn't show the UFO, ergo, the telescope must be wrong. The logic is sound, it is only one of the premises that is flawed.

I think that cerebral cortex can offer some defense against getting sucked in as I believe the subconscious mind does put value on what it tells it. But if that thinking cortex does not understand what logic is, how to use it, how to evaluate and weight those premises, or just refers back to the intuition of the subconscious mind anyway, it's ability to offer protection against the misinformation coming in, or illogical conclusions bubbling up, will be inhibited.

Finally, a dozen people holding the same irrational thought doesn't make it a rational thought, but it does make it much easier to believe it anyway, and if one values their position in that group, it may offer a strong incentive to do so as well.

.

Originally Posted by ketzer

That first paragraph is funny in a rather morbid sort of morbid way.

I suppose it is easy for us who are not under the spell of the cult leader to look at how ridiculous it was, but then they do say no one is immune from getting sucked in. That is what is scary, to know the subconscious mind is really where the action is, and if it goes in for it, the so called rational thinking mind will set itself to the task of rationalizing the decisions being made by the subconscious mind. In this case the subconscious mind coming to faulty conclusions is the intuition that must be rationalized up in the cerebral cortex.

The leader says the UFO is there, the leader can't be wrong, so if the telescope doesn't show the UFO, ergo, the telescope must be wrong. The logic is sound, it is only one of the premises that is flawed.

I think that cerebral cortex can offer some defense against getting sucked in as I believe the subconscious mind does put value on what it tells it. But if that thinking cortex does not understand what logic is, how to use it, how to evaluate and weight those premises, or just refers back to the intuition of the subconscious mind anyway, it's ability to offer protection against the misinformation coming in, or illogical conclusions bubbling up, will be inhibited.

Finally, a dozen people holding the same irrational thought doesn't make it a rational thought, but it does make it much easier to believe it anyway, and if one values their position in that group, it may offer a strong incentive to do so as well.

.

Another point.

1 - Intuition informs me there's a UFO trailing Hale-Bopp so it must be true.
2 - Intuition informs me suicide is the means to board the UFO so it must be true.
3 - Intuition informs me to buy a telescope to see the UFO so it must be true until I don't see the UFO so it's false.

If the lesser and least consequential intuition is wrong why take action on the far greater and much more consequential intuitions?

I can't prevent my subconscious from cooking up all sorts of notions, some valuable and others absolute nonsense, however I can train my conscious mind to be aware of what's bubbling up from the subconscious and to an ever decreasing proximity the more I practice. It's my opinion that's where true free will can be exercised, before a tiny wisp of a ludicrous thought transmogrifies into a runaway and irresistible freight train of thought.

Furthermore it's likely in addition to the conscious neural circuitry some aspects of the subconscious neural circuitry are rewired by contemplative practice through mechanisms of neuroplasticity.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Another point.

1 - Intuition informs me there's a UFO trailing Hale-Bopp so it must be true.
2 - Intuition informs me suicide is the means to board the UFO so it must be true.
3 - Intuition informs me to buy a telescope to see the UFO so it must be true until I don't see the UFO so it's false.

If the lesser and least consequential intuition is wrong why take action on the far greater and much more consequential intuitions?

I can't prevent my subconscious from cooking up all sorts of notions, some valuable and others absolute nonsense, however I can train my conscious mind to be aware of what's bubbling up from the subconscious and to an ever decreasing proximity the more I practice. It's my opinion that's where true free will can be exercised, before a tiny wisp of a ludicrous thought transmogrifies into a runaway and irresistible freight train of thought.

Furthermore it's likely in addition to the conscious neural circuitry some aspects of the subconscious neural circuitry are rewired by contemplative practice through mechanisms of neuroplasticity.

Same argument applies to various forms of Eugenics. Some consider Eugenics 'wrong' and some consider Eugenics to be 'okay' whereas some accept some of the Eugenics concepts and dismiss the rest.

[BigJohn]

The 5 basic religions teach 'we don't really die' when we die......