Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CaptainAsshat t1_jat0u9k wrote

Reply to comment by kevinzvilt in Our emotional experiences reveal facts about the world in the same way our sensory experiences do. Trusting in either requires a leap of faith to some degree. by IAI_Admin

Is that faith, or is it just an estimate using probability? Do I have faith that I can steal candy from a baby, or do I just suspect the chances are good?

To me, I don't have faith that my sensory experiences are reporting what is "real", I have just noticed if I try to impact the environment around me, it usually has a noticable effect.

To support this, think of a worm. They likely do not have a concept of faith, or the mental faculties to have faith. But they get sensory information that they use. Not because they have faith that their senses are reporting the truth, but because it their senses are the only source of ostensibly outside information that they have available, and they seem to be working correctly.

From a personal side, I had a giant retinal tear in each eye that made it look like tiny dot-like gnats were flying everywhere at all times (it was actually lots of floaters). While it was obnoxious, it did not shake my faith, I just learned to ignore the inputs that didn't seem to be correct. Then, when I actually came across a cloud of gnats, I relied on my other senses to confirm that they were, in fact, real. I didn't have to change my faith at any point, I just reacted to the inputs.

2

kevinzvilt t1_jatv3ib wrote

So, just to recap a little here. The principle of induction is a principle that animals have as well as humans and it is precisely that we trust or believe that if things happened a certain way repeatedly, then they will continue to do so in the future. There is not really a "reason" to expect that but there is the fact that when things happen repeatedly, we expect them to keep happening the same way.

1

CaptainAsshat t1_jau5edl wrote

That's an expectation derived from evidence. Thus, at least using the definitions I use, it is an antithesis of faith. Faith requires a belief in spite of a there being a lack of evidence or contradictory evidence.

The difference being, if a repeatable phenomenon does not repeat, a person's expectations simply change as the new evidence is included. This is based in proof, not faith, as faith requires some sort of apprehension or trust in something beyond the evidence. Thus, for a person using probability to influence their expectations, their understanding of the world is far more robust and flexible than one using faith.

I don't get on an airplane because I have faith in the pilot. I do it because the repeated phenomenon of planes landing safely allows me to adjust my expectations accordingly. I'd a plane crashes somewhere in the world, I would still probably be willing to get on a plane the next day, as the probability barely changes. If I had faith that airplanes don't crash, that faith would be far more shaken, as it seems that they do.

Similarly, I do not have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, as I understand that the sun is a celestial object that could be subject to any number of extremely rare astrological phenomenon that would destroy it. I do, however, expect the sun to rise, as I understand the probability of such an event is low.

1

kevinzvilt t1_jauexea wrote

>Similarly, I do not have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, as I understand that the sun is a celestial object that could be subject to any number of extremely rare astrological phenomenon that would destroy it.

Yes, but why do you expect astrological phenomenons to be the same tomorrow? Why do you expect gravity to function as it functions today tomorrow?

2