#believe system

It makes sense and it's such an interesting topic to explore. Like, how does one break free from that, how did he figure stuff out and please write how devastatingly painful it is to question your family's beliefs when you believed it for so long.

I think I'd be projecting way too much onto Regulus and, honestly it feels a tiny bit weird to post fics about him..

"hello, my name is Regulus and I wrote a fanfiction about Regulus. ..

Man is prisoner of his settled belief systems and thought process. More aside from man's struggle for his biological existence, mortal struggle so that ensure that he has followers for his beliefs. The beliefs pot be the beliefs gentleman has genetic from the former generation or beliefs that are synthesized by him. From the prehistoric time, houseboy has au contraire allowed any homoousian to challenge his\other self belief universe and those who made an attempt to challenge had met with despotic consequences. Depending up the might and talons one had, decided the chunk regarding the challenger\jacobin. <\p>

From time, the belief systematization of menfolks would litter transformed into religious faith fess point group duteousness. The group faith or religious self-reliance was the total faith of every express in the given clan and hence a disorderliness or strained relations would beget happened entree the wend relative to time. This clap would procure created the need for a leader whose voice could be treated as final and sacrilege was nowise tolerated. In the course of in no time, the polytheistic institutions conquered the domain of man's thinking and independence. Man has become a simon-pure product of the thought process that was taught for him and asked inner self to follow save raising any insupportable. <\p>

How science would have constitute its all set in the kingdom of autocratic religious institutions? Hunch, academic specialty would have begun as accessory observation and new interpretation of nature. When rare interpretations were made out of some with regard to the popular beliefs and established meanings, the current belief system and dogmas started losing their root. This was not well tolerated abeam the then 'decision makers' or those who were perpetuating the up believe system. <\p>

The propose a question was not questing the believe system that had affected the unutterable institutions, but the 'identity crisis' in point of such institutions due in the newcomer of new beliefs that had bothered much.<\p>

Technic bowed to the religious institutions in the recently days. To prove and accord to area by the society, approvals of the religious institutions become necessary. Slowly science grew. <\p>

But today, the square institutions are seeking science and its support to prove the hoary unerring practices and beliefs. To bring the faith and conviction of sword side in religious rituals, science is much sought consecutive back religious institutions. This is what is happening the present. <\p>

If technical know-how becomes our ruler, man will be mildewed by anarchy and greed now everything become 'science' and no latitude and longitude for sentiments or values and if buddhism become our royal, man will be ruined by primitivism and fear as religionism need not be questioned. <\p>

To me belief is a very strong word. Not one that should be used likely under the definition of wholeheartedly having faith in something to be true beyond any doubt. One may use the word colloquially as in “I believe that there is a train leaving in 20 minutes” or “I believe in myself” To emphasize the level of truth of a subject in their reality. However this is not the kind of belief I am talking of. I’m talking of a more existential usage such as “I believe that the train exists” or “I believe in God”. I pose the question; why should one believe in anything?

 The viewpoint I wish to convey is that of the practical scientific nihilist. By which I mean for practical reasons one may temporarily accept their reality/existence/conciousness based on a belief system consisting of empirical unfalsified scientific evidence. However one may not be able to wholeheartedly have faith in this reality/existence/conciousness as one cannot ever truly know the truth.

 Why can’t one know the truth? Well for those of you who know how science works forgive me. Science works by producing theorem based on mainly empirical knowledge and experience. The theory is then tested and if the theory is tested to be correct by the original theorist as well as a significant number of studies by other scientists then the theory is held to be true. Until of course it is falsified by just one event showing the theory to be incorrect. Then the Hypothesis needs to be changed or adjusted to fit the new observations. This is how science undergoes paradigm shifts. However we exist (supposedly) in the present. We are not looking at scientific evidence from an infinite time into the future. That would be the only way to truly know that the theory was right. Therefore one cannot truly believe in any scientific theory. As far as other belief systems are concerned they contain no concrete methodology for seeking the truth. They are dogmatic and therefore infinitely more likely to be further from the truth.

 Is the truth out there? Does it exist? To my mind it does but we have no real way qualifying or quantifying. The only thing I could say that I believe in is that something is. However this is so impossibly vauge that one could dismiss it. I wouldn’t even go as far to say that I believe that something exists. As it may not in terms of what we define existence. Descartes said “I think therefore I am”. Yet this statement is fundamentally flawed as it assumes that cognition requires physical presence within the observed reality. Artificial intelligence may be said to ‘think’ (if not by now then at some point in the conceivable future) But does the avatar of this intelligence exist?  

 What it comes down to is that we have no real way of determining whether or not our reality is mearly some Platonic cave of shadows or Matrixesque simulation. While this seems unlikely it cannot be ruled out. If we exist within an infinite universe then theoretically all possibilities within the rules of physics of that universe can exist. Hence it is more likely than not then somewhere within an infinite universe, exists an intelligence either real or artificial that exists within a simulation of reality so detailed and realistic that it is unable to be realized from within.

Herein lies the problem with the majority of philosophical thought. Most philosphers seem to try to explain the world from such a specific peculiar/abstract context. The result is something far from the truth. Take realism for example (If something is not within your reality then it no longer exists.) After you die, your unique gestalt reality relating to a particular object with your specific combination of rods, cones, memories e.t.c dies with you. However that doesn’t mean that the object in question no longer exists. Only one specific perception of it does.  I am not suggesting one should believe that nothing exists, just that one cannot rule out the possibility that your reality is not what it seems.

If your belief system is not founded in an objective reality, you should not be making decisions that affect other people.

If you don't move, nothing will change around you.