Heaven & Hell Thread. Naw, Just Fecking Hell.

[faraway saint]

25 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

If you cut out the patronising mainsplaining, cut out these ridiculous attempts at meaningless soundbites which add no value at all to any discussion you take part in and actually open up and properly contribute, you'd maybe find that people would engage with you more.

Just some constructive advice bud.

You should stop wasting your time. 

Just some constructive advice bud.  

[Wendy Saintss]

As I've said, to prove me wrong all you have to do is CHOOSE to change your belief (or non-belief) in something.

 

Done it yet?

 

Would it be possible to change my belief that Scottish independence isn’t best for the country?

 

I could just choose to do that couldn’t I?

 

I’m liking your argument on this btw.

[St.Ricky]

41 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

If you cut out the patronising mainsplaining, cut out these ridiculous attempts at meaningless soundbites which add no value at all to any discussion you take part in and actually open up and properly contribute, you'd maybe find that people would engage with you more.

Just some constructive advice bud.

You are so funny. You don't mean to be, but you are. Just some constructive comments. I get many a smile at the "intellectual" content of your posts. Most, straight from a textbook with little originality. 

[stlucifer]

3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

7 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

You are clearly committed to your view. Fair enough. Others don't share it. Also fair enough. You believe that your argument makes sense. Others, or at least a number of them, believe that it doesn't. People do change their minds. That at least is a fact. 

Nobody has said that people don't change their minds.

No. Just that they don't choose to. It's forced on them I suppose.

[Wendy Saintss]

Yes.

No.

Thanks.

Many people choose their support of independence or otherwise based of things like fitting in with friends or a partner or their football team.

Once they make that choice then they interpret the evidence to believe that it’s best for the country in order to fit in with their choice?

[St.Ricky]

3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

I know you are probably being sarcastic but I think I will.

You cannot consciously choose to believe something. To choose, there has to be an at least two options. If the evidence convinces you then you believe, otherwise you don't, there are no options.

You continue to rely on the word "evidence", 

[St.Ricky]

Who would have thought that a discussion on religion would be so popular? 

[stlucifer]

1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:

5 hours ago, stlucifer said:

I know. It's getting to the stage I think I'm going round in circles and debating with King Cnut. That's Canute to the uninitiated. 

You are aware that Cnut was deliberately demonstrating that he didn't have the power to turn back the tide, aren't you?

Sorry. Have you actually been serious?

[St.Ricky]

21 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

7 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Thank you for mansplaining my day job to me. 
Are you also posting as Ricky? 

It wasn't for your benefit, it was for others.

Lol. Oaky needs it more than most. A man trapped by the limits of his knowledge if there ever was one. He has yet to discover the truth that, the more you know, the more you realise there is to learn. Once he masters that then great. 

[BuddieinEK]

I know you are probably being sarcastic but I think I will.

You cannot consciously choose to believe something. To choose, there has to be an at least two options. If the evidence convinces you then you believe, otherwise you don't, there are no options.

Choose to believe...
Choose not to believe...

Seems like a choice to me!

[Wendy Saintss]

That's not choosing to believe something, though.

I think it is. You choose to believe that independence is best for the country.

[stlucifer]

4 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Of course I'm serious.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_tide

I wasn't referring to Canute. 

[St.Ricky]

24 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

44 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

You continue to rely on the word "evidence", 

What's your point? What word, other than "evidence", am I supposed to use when I'm talking about "evidence"?

You will know well, without the need for me to explain, that evidence is often disputed for a whole variety of reasons. Scientific evidence in particular. One way or another you appear to be making a choice (and you are perfectly entitled to do so) based on what you take as fact. Others might dispute them or they may be proved to be unsafe or untrue. Nothing to stop myself or others doing the same with information available to us.. Is there? 

[Bud the Baker]

I was born a Snake Handler, and I'm gonna die a Snake Handler.....🐍

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

What the f**k are you gibbering about?

Whether the evidence is disputed or not, it's still evidence, it's just the value of it that's disputed.

Now you are being evasive. 

It's a really simple proposition. 

In theory... 

We all have access to the same information / evidence. 

But 

We make different choices. 

 Nothing wrong or unusual there. 

So what could be different for each? 

Their ability to interpret the info. 

Or

The reliability of the info. 

Take your pick. 

 

 

 

[BuddieinEK]

I never said "choose" to believe or not believe though, did I?

Why not though?
You can, can't you?

[BuddieinEK]

Or do you believe, one way or the other, because the evidence convinces you.

I am presented with the same "evidence" but choose to believe differently. Is that not a choice?

[BuddieinEK]

"You can" what?

Did your Mammy not teach you that it is bad manners to answer a question with a question?

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

Evasive??? I'm being perfectly clear, forthright and logical.

Let's play the game though.

"In theory, we all have access to the same evidence/info" - OK, I'll go with that for the sake of argument.

"We make different choices" - About what? About what flavour of ice cream to have? You'll need to be more specific.

"Nothing wrong or unusual there" - Depends on the previous bit.

"So what could be different for each? Their ability to interpret the info, or the reliability of the info. Take your pick." - Either. Both. Neither. Something else. You're presenting a false dichotomy.

Be a bit clearer and we can possibly get somewhere.

 

It was clear enough. I think you get it but are happy to obvoscate. 

 

[oaksoft]

12 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

I know you are probably being sarcastic but I think I will.

You cannot consciously choose to believe something. To choose, there has to be an at least two options. If the evidence convinces you then you believe, otherwise you don't, there are no options.

OK so if that's your core point, do you have scientific evidence of that or is this your opinion?

I actually wasn't being sarcastic at all. I was completely lost.

Edited September 9, 2019 by oaksoft

[Wendy Saintss]

Or do you believe, one way or the other, because the evidence convinces you.

Not in my example I don’t think. The choice has already been made and you believe something to fit that choice.

The evidence of the benefits of independence doesn’t convince me one way or the other. I can easily see both sides. So I think you could choose which way to believe.

So I’m not entirely sure I believe you....

Then again, I might.

I’ll choose later [emoji12]

[faraway saint]

46 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

At least I know how to spell "obfuscate". 

Phew, his version was really unintelligible. 

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

At least I know how to spell "obfuscate". 

Ah well. There you go

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

I don't think that there would be a way to scientifically test it as you would have to rely on people telling you that they have/haven't been able to choose their belief.  There are no scientific tests, that i know of, that would be able to prove if they are being honest.  The only person that you could test would be yourself - have you tried it yet? 

It's more of a philosophical question where it is described as doxastic voluntarism (being able to choose) and doxastic involuntarism (not being able to choose). 

"The consensus seems to be that DV is untenable and thus doxastic involuntarism is the standard position. This shows in the use of the technical term, which is employed – in a similar way to "relativism" and other fighting words – as ultimate objections in arguments ("Position X implies DV and is therefore untenable")."

You know, it's probably the case that both DV and DI are in practice in humans. I might be persuaded on that point.

Some decisions I make are based on gut instinct (if you want to call this DV I might be inclined to agree) and some are based on creating a PROS and CONS chart and balancing what is on those lists.

It's definitely not true that all decisions are based on DV and I can certainly list dozens of examples from my own perspective to convince myself that I am right on that (see what I did there?). There are also many occasions where I feel driven by a gut instinct to choose one path but deliberately and consciously choose another. Choosing not to have an affair when severely tempted and vulnerable, choosing not to have another drink because I know I need to drive the next day (although I don't drink alcohol much now anyway), not to eat certain foods which taste amazing but are bad for me, not to buy a brand new car when a perfectly good second hand on is cheaper but MUCH less sexy, wanting to buy the house of my dreams but realising I might not be able to afford it in 20 years time and so opting for a smaller house, overcoming the strong desires to give into ANY addiction .... the list is endless.

In my opinion and those of Steve Peters (Chimp Paradox author that Jack Ross and a stream of top athletes name check), describes this well. The gut instinct is driven by the automatic part of your brain and it requires effort to control it. Failing to control it leads to all sorts of problems. That's the closest I can come to providing some backup for my view.

I think your viewpoint is too narrow and too extreme and the evidence doesn't support it.

There you go @St.Ricky. That is how you add meaningful content to a discussion without pissing people off.

Edited September 9, 2019 by oaksoft

[faraway saint]

33 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You know, it's probably the case that both DV and DI are in practice in humans. I might be persuaded on that point.

Some decisions I make are based on gut instinct (if you want to call this DV I might be inclined to agree) and some are based on creating a PROS and CONS chart and balancing what is on those lists.

It's definitely not true that all decisions are based on DV and I can certainly list dozens of examples from my own perspective to convince myself that I am right on that (see what I did there?). There are also many occasions where I feel driven by a gut instinct to choose one path but deliberately and consciously choose another. Choosing not to have an affair when severely tempted and vulnerable, choosing not to have another drink because I know I need to drive the next day (although I don't drink alcohol much now anyway), not to eat certain foods which taste amazing but are bad for me, not to buy a brand new car when a perfectly good second hand on is cheaper but MUCH less sexy, wanting to buy the house of my dreams but realising I might not be able to afford it in 20 years time and so opting for a smaller house, overcoming the strong desires to give into ANY addiction .... the list is endless.

In my opinion and those of Steve Peters (Chimp Paradox author that Jack Ross and a stream of top athletes name check), describes this well. The gut instinct is driven by the automatic part of your brain and it requires effort to control it. Failing to control it leads to all sorts of problems. That's the closest I can come to providing some backup for my view.

I think your viewpoint is too narrow and too extreme and the evidence doesn't support it.

There you go @St.Ricky. That is how you add meaningful content to a discussion without pissing people off.

TBH, this  is more meaningful than the majority if his posts.