Why I don't preach anymore - Page 2

Exactly my point. Their not certain.

Well then nothing we say is certain, so I might as well never speak to anyone about anything because everything I say is uncertain.

Well there is no such thing as 'wrong' or 'right'. After all what we base as 'true', is only a perception.

What we base as 'true', is only a perception. Probability is only an interpretation. We identify probabilities with degrees of confidence or partial beliefs.

Of course, we must ask what makes a belief 'suitable'. Yet what is suitable for one individual may not be suitable for another. Preaching, yes has its benefits, yet the problem lies with the preacher's beliefs, ethics and intentions.

so you do or you don't agree that what we base as 'true', is only a perception. That probability is only an interpretation. And that we identify probabilities with degrees of confidence or partial beliefs.

quote:

---

The supposed "differences" in methods of processing this data are not due to the differences in perception or interpretation... they are the result of different stored information that the observer simply isn't aware of.

---

So if you don't believe probability is an interpretation, then you think it is "different information that the observer isn't aware of"?.....and what would this information be? Information is an interpretation. To say probability isn't an interpretation is to deny that there are three distinct notions of probability: one quasi-logical, one objective, and one subjective. Probability, however, seems to lose the objective content of the idea of chance; probability becomes mere opinion (or an interpretation). Two different preachers might attach different probabilities to the outcome, yet there would be no criterion for calling a preacher "right" and the other "wrong." It is personal belief that governs probabilities. For example: If our event is "Joe will get an A in this class", then my opinion about the likelihood of this event is probably different from Joe's opinion about this event.

"Many idle controversies involving the nature of expectation could be avoided by recognizing at the outset that man's conscious actions are the reflection of his beliefs and of nothing else." Roegen.

Is what a preacher interpretes as a belief, a reflection of their context? Yes. For example, what 'preacherA' believes to be true comes from area1 however 'preacherB' disagrees because they come from area2. Probability is a human constructed interpretation. All human constructs are an interpretation.

I understand Decius that probability is a good way to live life but what about the spiritual aspect. How can we figure that through math?

Decius: I don't think you read Summit's post correctly. Summit's arguement is that opinions do differ between all (and including preachers a-z) because they come from different contexts. Summit's post is valid (and well thought out), because it indicates that preacherA obtains different information from that of preacherB. This is what an openminded intellect is aware of. To be caught up in all of quasi-logical probability, ignores the subjective point of view.

JackerJones: good question. Spirituality is a natural phenomenon within people. However people have created religions that are outside the box of math (usually illogical). Probability applies to interpretation (as Summit stated well).

Well I guess this thread should be unwanted preaching. It's a little different when someone asks someone to tell them their beliefs.

I don't buy it though decius. That my whole life everything in it can be interpreted. Sure there's instances where i predict the future through assessing the probability of something happening but when i role three dices the odds of three sixes coming up is slim, but it can happen. So what i'm saying is that your theories are definitely accurate but how do you make them exact?

Decius: Probability is a measure of the degree of belief that any well-defined proposition (an event) will turn out to be true. I recommend you to read into Bayesian probability and/or subjective probability. Which states that the mathematical theory of probability applies to the degree of plausibility of a statement. This also applies to the degree of believability contained within the rational agents of a truth statement. You can get an idea from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability#Bayesian_data_analysis


In regards to a situation such as the toss of a coin, yes the more information known about the conditions the more certain you are. Yet probabilities are really a measure of the lack of knowledge about the conditions which might affect the coin toss and thus merely represent our beliefs about the experiment. "If the real probability reasoning is followed out to its conclusion, it seems that there is `really' no probability at all, but certainty, if knowledge is complete". Knight.

quote:

---

With enough experience and effort, one learns the ability to take information from the other person and absorb it as true pure information without filtering it. Summit's post is not relevent because I am speaking only of those that are able to do that.

---

Decius: ??. I don't buy it Decius. thats nonsense bs. Now your just Gobbledygooking. You haven't made any reference to that I was correcting your observation. Your either ignoring or you haven't read Summit's post correctly. Or maybe you have realised that you misinterpreted his post, and that he is correct. Summit's arguement is that opinions do differ between all (and including preachers a-z) because they come from different contexts. Summit's post is valid (and well thought out), because it indicates that preacherA obtains different information from that of preacherB. This is what an openminded intellect is aware of. To be caught up in all of quasi-logical probability, ignores the subjective point of view.

your funny. This is not a sarcasm contest however. Your whole last post, although is assumed true, you have digressed. You have provided new material into the discussion. Why? because you misinterpreted the situation at hand. All I was saying was that opinions do differ between all (and including preachers a-z) because they come from different contexts. Which indeed you now admit you agree on. Simple as that.

Yes that is simply what I was saying. It was important to note that because pretty much all religious problems occur with two conflicting beliefs. That many preachers assume they are right over the other. If people could understand that our beliefs, truths, ideas and knowledge are contextually specific, then confusion would settle more. Its that simple.