The freedom to be aware of one's own slavery, and other philosophical absurdities

[motherengine]

two questions concerning the "freethinking" community.

 

if one is to hold off all beliefs until evidence provides reason than what of the fact that no one can even reason without taking multiple things for granted? example: i must assume that the evidence aquired by those who investigate the variables of a thing be acurrate to an asumed system of measurment of an assumed reality before i can even begin to formulate an opinion concerning it.

 

from the evidence i have personally been exposed to (neurological testing, memory research and chemical analysis) it seems that all human thought may be predetermined. if reliance on evidence is required for a belief than, as a freethinker, would i not have to admit to being anything but a freethinker?

 

just wondering.

[InfiniteNow]

huh? :hihi:

[motherengine]

huh? :eek2:

 

if one is to hold off all beliefs until evidence provides reason than what of the fact that no one can even reason without taking multiple things for granted? example: i must assume that the evidence aquired by those who investigate the variables of a thing be acurrate to an asumed system of measurment of an assumed reality before i can even begin to formulate an opinion concerning it.

 

from the evidence i have personally been exposed to (neurological testing, memory research and chemical analysis) it seems that all human thought may be predetermined. if reliance on evidence is required for a belief than, as a freethinker, would i not have to admit to being anything but a freethinker?

[InfiniteNow]

from the evidence i have personally been exposed to (neurological testing, memory research and chemical analysis) it seems that all human thought may be predetermined.

Correction... your "interpretation" of the evidence...

 

if reliance on evidence is required for a belief

It's not though... look at religion. There is no evidence, yet intense belief.

 

 

than, as a freethinker, would i not have to admit to being anything but a freethinker?

Are you asking something like "If I am human don't I have to admit that I'm not human?" or "If I am human, can I also be something besides just human?"

 

Insert "freethinker" for "human."

 

Anyway, you seem to be speaking of determinism and with a fatalistic belief, which is fine, but is philosophy and personal choice. The study of neurobiology, chemo-electricy, and/or memory (which itself is still poorly understood) do nothing but offer a foundation from which to make, yep, you guessed it... an interpretation.

 

 

Cheers. :eek2:

[Wondering]

I think we need evidence so we can feel that something is true. Maybe when we use our senses with something we can hold on to the thought better. We can think whatever we want but those thoughts would be lost without the evidence of them. Is that what you're talking about?:eek2: lol

[Boerseun]

Huh?

 

Are you saying that we have to assume the results of research in X, where we are ourselves doing research in Y, using the results of X as a part of our attempt to prove Y, without ever having investigated the evidence of X for ourselves?

 

If that's the gist of what you're asking, it's a valid point. However, history has proven that that's the best way to go.

 

I can't design a new gearbox for an electrical car if I first have to verify the functionality of a specific gearset (that has been proven over the last hundred-odd years) or have to check whether we really do get electricity to turn a motor. This has been proven, and I will build on it in my design. I have no reason to doubt it.

 

Following the above line of reasoning, I would have to reinvent the wheel first in order to build my super-advanced electric hybric vehicle.

 

The good thing is that we are free to believe in the validity of proven concepts, or not. In some instances, scientists might try to dupe us into believing phony results for shady research (if they are getting huge grants for it, and need to fabricate at least some results to keep the investors happy). But then, the way science works, is that experiments have to be repeatable and testable in labs all over the world. The peer-review process will ensure that fake science results will soon be shown to be just that, because scientists with no interest in the results will show it to be fake. In which case you don't have to use those results!