[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]

/oat/ - General

For most everything pony and non-pony.
Name?

This field is optional. You can choose any name you want, or you can post anonymously by leaving this field empty.

Tripcodes are a way to identify yourself between posts without having to register with the site. To use a tripcode, enter your name as ‹name›#‹key›.You can choose anything you want as the key—it is private and will never be shown to other posters or stored on the server. For example:

Rarity#bestpony → Rarity!.4PK7yxdII

If you want a tripcode containing specific words, you can download a program designed to search for tripcodes, such as Tripcode Explorer.

Email
?

Entering an e-mail is optional.

There are also code words you can enter here which perform certain actions when you submit your post.

  • sage — lets you post without bumping a thread.
  • nonoko — uses the original post behavior to redirect to the board index.

These can be used at the same time as an e-mail address by typing ‹email›#‹action›.

You can also use Skype names in place of an e-mail. The notation is the same as a link to a username on skype itself, which is skype:‹username›

Subject
Comment?
Giving emphasis
[b] Bold [/b] Ctrl + B
[i] Italic [/i] Ctrl + I
[u] Underlined [/u] Ctrl + U
[s] Strikethrough [/s] Ctrl + R
Hiding text
[?] Spoiler text [/?] Ctrl + S
[h] Hide block of text [/h] Ctrl + H
Special
[rcv] Royal Canterlot voice [/rcv] Ctrl + K
[shy] Fluttershy voice [/shy]
[cs] Comic Sans [/cs]
[tt] Monospaced [/tt]
[d20], [4d6] — Dice rolls
URLs and linking
Link to a post on the current board
>>1234
Link to another board
>>>/pony/
Link to a post on another board
>>>/pony/1234
Hypertext links
[url=https://www.ponychan.net/] Ponychan [/url]
File
Flag
Options
Password?

This field is for editing and deletions.


File: 1543893377492.png (476.53 KB, 1500x1252, 1543770595614.png)

AnonymousCountry code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 42069921

Would it be correct to say that every single person in the world lives off of faith? I feel that there is a disconnect between the world/reality and humanity that none can get through in order to ascertain that something is the way it is without it falling into being "faith".
Lately I've found myself thinking more and more that a rational or even coherent worldview acts more as a coping mechanism for the absurd amount of uncertainty and randomness that surrounds us than as a way of "explaining" the world.
Certainty and uncertainty can be scary for sure, but the fact that certainty is something that only humans are capable of possessing (and therefore it is a merely human thing) and that outside of our minds reality seems to be a clusterfuck of things makes one feel lost.
>Chaos was the law of nature. Order was the dream of man.

AnonymousCountry code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42069924

Sensory data is still mechanically processed and perceived by the mind in a passive mental state, and so no conscious faith goes into believing that.
Denying one's sensory experiences is what requires mental force of will, rather than the acceptance and experience of them, and so some form of what we call physical reality continues to exist to the mind no matter what, whether or not it continues to believe in or "think" anything in the way we normally conceive to be higher-order thought.

Faith may be required to infer all connections one claims to notice in one's environment. The application of formal rules of logic in the way we think of them only makes sense to the mind that's working with higher-order concepts and should not be treated as self-evident to the brain that passively absorbs sensory data. It is much easier to deny rules of logical correlation than sensory data because they are not something reality imposes on you by default, only something that arises if you're especially paying attention to your surroundings.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRoCountry code: ponies-twilight.png, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1  42069931

This confuses multiple definitions of faith to assert that any worldview is as equally good as any other, and that any form of logic itself is a spook.

Faith, in a far more religious sense, would be accepting a given framework as absolutely true, as a terminal point in any successful quest for truth. A worldview which accepts that it may be shown incorrect, and which should be refined or abandoned if shown as such, merely acts provisionally and is ultimately compatible with far more possible realities.

The world is not chaotic in-itself, merely that our finite and imperfect minds cannot be aware of everything, or even always correctly model what it has observed, thus producing the impression of events that originate out of nowhere. If the world had no sense at all, this implies it would have no properties, as any definite relations or features observed requires an existence in which some statements are either true or false, not both, even in the contexts of dreams, hallucinations or simulations.

NoonimCountry code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42069933

File: 1543930034101.png (172.94 KB, 560x618, 1458246150412.png)

>>42069921
First off, that's adorable as fuck. This little drago is so cute.

Anyway; Faith is ultimately a requirement if you really break down things simply because life is not so crystal clear and ultimately for a lot of our 'known' things, we're going off of what other people say rather than what we experience. I don't know if that's necessarily something to concern one's self, however, as it's simply a matter of logistics, when you start getting in to the amount of people who'd have to directly experience things in order to prove them to be true

AdmiralCountry code: ponies-lyra.png, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1  42069940

We're social creatures in an uncertain world. We have to have faith in our fellow man to remain consistent in order to function normally.

Country code: ponies-octavia.png, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1  42069943

File: 1543950635970.png (23.18 KB, 133x151, 33.png)

>>42069921
>Would it be correct to say that every single person in the world lives off of faith?

No. It would not.

solstice !0tLNb5gc/.Country code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42069945

LisbonCountry code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42069946

>>42069945
:o is that really you?

solstice !0tLNb5gc/.Country code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42069947

>>42069946
I think so yes

solstice !0tLNb5gc/.Country code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42069949

Pontificating_ProcyonCountry code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42069976

>>42069921

It's true that some rational people live off of faith without knowing it. Faith isn't always blind. Science is a rational faith because you base your faith on your own, direct experiences of, well... experiments. Blind faith is the alternative, which is where you just believe anything anyone tells you. And some people just deny faith altogether, but these people lack awareness.

a lost pony !piNKiEPie.Country code: ponies-derpy.png, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1  42070046

File: 1543987484575.jpg (366.3 KB, 939x1515, 1535962611390.jpg)

>>42069976
Science is faith based, yes because its entire capability is to extrapolate answers from assumptions without regard for accuracy.

Accepting science as fact leads to fallacies like concluding absence of evidence is proof there is none and unprovable things like there is no God.

Realizing science is faith based opened the door for me to explore things science cannot solve, but is substituted for anyway.

>>42069921
Where there is belief, there is faith. Where there is childlike awe and wonder, there is still mystery and potential for discovery.

AnonymousCountry code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42070065

File: 1543990472803.png (178.8 KB, 1000x1000, 266931.png)

I would say that we are generally starting from a fundamentally flawed point. Most people seem to be jumping to a value judgement of faith, which I would say is misplaced in answering the question. All it shows is if you want OP's assertion to be true or not. I believe the correct approach would be to declare what is faith, what role does faith play in reasoning, and is reasoning possible without faith.

OP is clearly not going in a theological direction, so I'll limit myself to reasoning. I would start by making a distinction between faith and assumption. I'd say that an assumption is more like a theory, which exists to be challenged and proven, while faith is more axiomatic and is held to be true regardless of evidence or the lack thereof. In other words, an assumption comes after observations and are changed by them while faith comes before observations and is rigid.

So what role do inflexible beliefs play in reasoning? Of course they play other roles in life but I don't believe that is the question OP asked. One could say it gives you a solid footing to ask questions from. But then, is it still faith if you allow those questions to be questioned, and is it possible to reason without doing so? That's getting rather frivolous and we'll get nowhere examining it more so I'll drop it so this post actually finishes, but I think it's worth considering. I'll say that there is a use, similar to a mathematical axiom. Things that we cannot prove but can be reasonably certain are true, and that once we reject them then it is impossible to reason anything. Am I imagining everything? Is causality real? So on.

That these questions have been discussed in rigorous ways would suggest to me that reasoning without faith is possible, but that isn't necessarily the case. I would say to have that discussion faith is even more important to reasoning, if the effort is wasted or not. Without some core assumptions paradox quickly happens. But that's still somewhat misrepresenting what OP said.

To be more faithful to the post. Is it reasonable to function through all that uncertainty that would come with the lack of axioms? I'd say certainly, yes. The main role that an axiom plays is in certainty in reasoning to enable examination. It is difficult to critically examine multiple items unless they can be linked, so a limit must be put on uncertainty in unrelated affairs. But such analysis is not essential. But does it have a utility beyond personal and societal enrichment? The best value for examination I can think of is removing uncertainty, and the best value I can see for removing uncertainty is because it is scary.

Which leaves a question which I think I'll leave unanswered because of the length of this. Can one face uncertainty without removing it and without fear or anxiety?

AnonymousCountry code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42070078

File: 1543993636694.gif (187.68 KB, 540x603, 1543887586997.gif)

OP here.
I'll try to be more specific because I didn't quite wrote down what I wanted, although I appreciate all replies and this is all going in a very interesting direction.

I guess that what I was trying to say is that despite how people talk about how we don't know everything there is to know and how we mock and deride the few who come out saying they do know everything, we are all still 100% sure of what we believe at this right moment, even those with a more open mind and that are willing to accept challenge to their ideas still operate under the impression that they are 100% representative of reality, because otherwise how the hell would we function at all?
And I don't mean in a "dude what if my weed disappears if I close the door?" or "dude what if life is the dream of some dude smoking weed?" way, I mean in the total sum of knowledge that composes our impression and definition of the world.

Say for example that there is a pessimist that argues that life is shit, simply shit. No concessions or if's or but's, life is so shitty we should just kill ourselves right now. And he claims this is the ultimate truth and that any attempt at denying or shutting him up is mere denial. He's the ultimate nihilist that KNOWS there is no meaning behind anything and no faith in anything. There is of course no way to prove this through science and he is not omniscient, but of course he has his arguments and is literally against every single living human being in that he KNOWS better than the rest. Does this count as an act of faith? Something like informed faith? Since there is no physical science to study this, does it become something less "real" and more imagined by people? Are the people arguing against him also acting on a different kind of faith?

Maybe some other example I could think of is how literally everyone believes they will continue to be alive until their somewhat distant deaths. And I'm not even speaking of political ideas or life-long goals. You can make plans for your week or even think of what tomorrow will bring or even just think of going somewhere in 10 minutes or in an even more extreme case think of finishing typing a sentence because, despite the fact that we could all die literally at any moment, we never doubt our continued existence and we don't feel threatened by the ever present danger of death (even though it is deeply ingrained in our instincts and in our human minds), we would be insane if we did, and yet it is something that rarely (if ever) stops us.

I'm a pleb at all this philosophy/logic game, but from what little I have read I have come to understand that people always live in denial of other ideas while holding their own as absolute truths (sometimes unconsciously), that maybe everyone is unable to come to a conclusion without emotion and visceral feelings., and that maybe either "the truth" is something that does not exist (truth is a thing that humans invented, and it may not necessarily exist in an inhuman universe? (or something)) or that is beyond mankind's grasp.

Pls no bully, I just want to understan

Country code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42070083

File: 1544003773263.png (7.16 KB, 264x323, zz10.png)

>>42070078
Faith is believing the sun will rise every morning.

Those without faith simply gamble that there is a 99% chance the sun will come up every morning.

The difference here is that people with faith like to believe things are true, and will always be true regardless of circumstance. Those without faith work on practical assumption, which is a different thing. Practical assumption is basically knowing that statistical likelihood of something occurring the way we predict it will is so high that it is functionally 100%, even though technically it isn't. At that point, the chance that there will be a different occurrence can pretty much be discarded. Facts are not things that are 100% true. They are simply things that are so likely to conform to a standard pattern that its impractical to concern yourself with them doing anything but what we assume they will.

I do not have faith in anything. I work off of statistical probability.
This post was edited by its author on .

AustroSpikeCountry code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42070100

>>42070083
From a neurological point of view, I wouldn't be surprised if the faith-thing and the gamble-thing burn down to the same thing, once you get past faith's self-persuasion.

Macaroni !RevGiOKgRoCountry code: ponies-twilight.png, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1  42070102

>>42070100
Gambling can either be deliberated or completely self-convinced though?

AustroSpikeCountry code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42070107

>>42070102
Self-convinced to the point some may call it faith?

Noa!Suy79kFgQICountry code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42070108

File: 1544042449296.jpg (78.91 KB, 620x310, crop2_american_gods_gen1.jpg)

AdmiralCountry code: blank.gif, country type: ponyflag, valid: 1 42070144

>>42070078
>even those with a more open mind and that are willing to accept challenge to their ideas still operate under the impression that they are 100% representative of reality
Surprised to read this. Reality, from the perspective of my head, operates as a series of probabilities, and none of my ideas are so set in stone to call them 100%, let alone all of them. Our ideas get challenged and proven wrong so often, to assume that your unchallenged ideas are sound is foolish.

The suicidal pessimist is overly spooked.


Delete Post [ ]
Edit Post
Posts on this board may be edited for 2 hours after being made.
[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]