What is more important for the future well-being of humankind: Faith or Reason?

[Willamena]

That others perceive a choice is irrelevant, it's justified (I experienced no sense of choice but rather a dissonance in my cognitive perception from organizing the picture into a cow beyond my control) true (as it was a direct experience and not a question of what exists I can be certain of its truth) belief that there was no choice involved, therefore it is reasonable.

Those who see it as a choice are importing more assumptions than they have to (that some people have the uncanny ability to see the cow but "choose" to ignore it and then lie that they don't see it), and furthermore as I pointed out it's insulting and baseless to accuse an opponent of essentially lying to you instead of trying to help them see the evidence.

This seems simple to me.

Sure, it's simple --all you have to do is move the goalposts. I wasn't denying that you'd not experienced a choice. This is a good thing.

Did you "reason" a cow, or did you rather realize it? If so, then the word "reason" is the one suffering for meaning here. The cow springs into being as a demonstration of realization, not reasoning. Realization does not require the importing of assumptions or the drawing of conclusions. It's knowledge through association, connecting the dots to draw a picture.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh, no I wasn't talking about senses. When I said 'eyes' I meant all the senses. So 'not seen' doesn't just mean 'not sensed'. In fact, you could very well be sensing all the evidence you need. You just don't see it.

This doesn't even make sense.

 

[PolyHedral]

If you do not see the possibility of the cow, you will not see a cow even if it was outlined for you.

Outline the cow, then.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

This doesn't even make sense.

What can I say? It's not supposed to.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Outline the cow, then.

I don't see a cow.

 

[Magic Man]

Lots of equivocation and definition-wrenching happening in many threads lately -- or maybe it always has and I'm just now noticing?

It has always happened here and there, but it has been more frequent and prominent lately, I think mostly because of the two threads about faith.

 

[Meow Mix]

The bold shows why you think the cow person's stance is asinine. It shows your stance, and the arrogance of it.

If you do not see the possibility of the cow, you will not see a cow even if it was outlined for you. I don't see the cow, so I'll admit there could be one. If someone else saw it, then it must be there.

But I do see the possibility of the cow (and I eventually did see the cow, which is now obvious to me when I look at the picture). Because I can see the cow, I have the power to take a sharpie and outline it so that anyone who hasn't yet seen it can immediately see it very clearly.

It would be breathtakingly asinine for me to instead say "Oh. You're deliberately making yourself blind, you're choosing not to see the cow. I can't help you." That's false, and I'm either delivering a cop-out (if I don't even really see a cow but assume it's there anyway) or I'm just being a jerk.

As for "if someone else saw it, then it must be there" I take it you believe in sphinxes, leprechauns, unicorns, goblins, and thetans?

You chose to be blind. You must to chose to see in order to see. Forcing you to see would not enable you to see.
I do not assume you are blind from the beginning. What you have said, and your stance says that you do not see, therefore you are blind.

Someone doesn't "choose" not to see the cow; some sort of cognitive dissonance prevents them from seeing it beyond their control. If they look at it long enough it might "click" and become apparent to them, but someone who does see the cow has the power to help anyone see it by simply outlining it.

That's the purpose of my analogy: why accuse someone of being a liar, of being deliberately blind instead of attempting to help them? It's a cop-out, it's rude, and it's baseless to just say "Oh, can't help you, you're deliberately blind." I'm sorry, but that's so offensive and ridiculous that I'm having trouble understanding why someone would actually believe that.

 

[Magic Man]

What can I say? It's not supposed to.

Good, but then why are you even on here if you're not going to try to communicate effectively? It's like going to play baseball, but instead of trying to catch a ball hit towards you, you run away from it. What's the point of playing the game at that point?

 

[Meow Mix]

Outline the cow, then.

I don't see a cow.

Wasn't that nice of me, instead of just accusing you of being deliberately blind?

 

[Willamena]

I don't see a cow.

Took me a minute to see it, too.

 

[Orias]

Oh, no I wasn't talking about senses. When I said 'eyes' I meant all the senses. So 'not seen' doesn't just mean 'not sensed'. In fact, you could very well be sensing all the evidence you need. You just don't see it.

I get it.

Like assuming that God exists, though you may not see or sense it.

The fact that divinity has been comprehended should be enough to say, it exists.

How so?

Simply because it was within man to allow and indulge in such fantasies and perceptions.

You can't deny ones intuition, if one believes in God, God is obviously within them.

Even if one denies God, it is in their nature to accept their own being as well.

 

[Orias]

Wasn't that nice of me, instead of just accusing you of being deliberately blind?

I see a skull, and a few continents and an ocean. I see a forest, the face of some partially bald guy wearing a tie and suspenders. I see the head of a horse, and the face of an old woman.

Theres more than a silly cow

 

[Meow Mix]

Took me a minute to see it, too.

My point though is that even if you were still at the point where you can't see it, someone could outline it for you and make it immediately obvious.

It's asinine for someone to say "Oh you're deliberately being blind, I can't help you." If the evidence is there, even if it's jumbled and hidden by extraneous stuff, you can always outline it for someone rather than just insult them by assuming they're intentionally being nescient. "You're choosing to be blind" is about as civil as saying "I would tell you but you're simply too stupid to understand."

 

[Willamena]

Someone doesn't "choose" not to see the cow; some sort of cognitive dissonance prevents them from seeing it beyond their control.

To many people, the same would be called a choice. Take for instance the guilt a person lays upon themselves because they failed to act in a situation that resulted in tragedy. Guilt comes from an assumption of responsibility, and responsibility is assumed because of the knowledge of alternatives. It is the presence of alternatives (alone) that represents a "choice" in the picture (so drawn).

 

[Meow Mix]

I see a skull, and a few continents and an ocean. I see a forest, the face of some partially bald guy wearing a tie and suspenders. I see the head of a horse, and the face of an old woman.

Theres more than a silly cow

Edit: Well, in light of your edit I agree that someone can perceive more there. And I bet people could see what you're talking about if you outlined those for them, too.

 

[Meow Mix]

To many people, the same would be called a choice. Take for instance the guilt a person lays upon themselves because they failed to act in a situation that resulted in tragedy. Guilt comes from an assumption of responsibility, and responsibility is assumed because of the knowledge of alternatives. It is the presence of alternatives (alone) that represents a "choice" in the picture (so drawn).

So now we're going to change the definition of "choice" so that it doesn't involve conscious decision?

Are there any English-only forums I can start posting in to avoid this kind of stuff?

 

[Willamena]

So now we're going to change the definition of "choice" so that it doesn't involve conscious decision?

Not at all. The image I drew above does very much involve a recognition of conscious decision after the fact.

 

[Orias]

My point though is that even if you were still at the point where you can't see it, someone could outline it for you and make it immediately obvious.

It's asinine for someone to say "Oh you're deliberately being blind, I can't help you." If the evidence is there, even if it's jumbled and hidden by extraneous stuff, you can always outline it for someone rather than just insult them by assuming they're intentionally being nescient. "You're choosing to be blind" is about as civil as saying "I would tell you but you're simply too stupid to understand."

You can give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day, you can teach a man to fish, and he will eat for the rest of his life.

I think your missing her point however...

Some people are too stupid to understand.

Yes you can outline and provide you perception of the cow, however, even if you had outlined it, turning the picture sideways proves that its not a cow anymore.

Its like going into a debate without accepting the possibility that the Opposition may be correct.

Its called being narrow minded.

In this situation, you both provided great logical points, and face it, you won't win, she won't win. Simply because its a basis of perception.

Your arguing redundant points.

You could point to a star in the sky and outline it, yet some people may not see what point or star you are trying to make evident.

Faith is evident as reason, simply because there is reason for faith to exist.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

My point though is that even if you were still at the point where you can't see it, someone could outline it for you and make it immediately obvious.

If you had outlined that shape and asked me what it was, I don't think I would have said cow. I don't think I would have seen anything.

And whether you accused me of being blind or not, I was. I did not see the cow, nor did I think to look at it like that in order to see the cow. Eventually, I would have because I was open to possibility of the cow.
So were you. I don't see the problem here.

It's asinine for someone to say "Oh you're deliberately being blind, I can't help you."

I didn't say you are deliberately being blind. You are choosing to be blind. In the case of the cow picture, you did not chose to be blind. You just didn't see(in terms of eyesight). You are confusing the two.

 

[Willamena]

It is not the use of words that does the English language a disservice, it's the bottling of them.