Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[Speakpigeon]

Inaccurate. There are fundamental beliefs--such as our senses are not lying to us--that in turn allow us to infer that there is in fact a consistent objective reality that we all subjectively experience.

Saying, "all the evidence you have is entirely a part of your mind" in no way contradicts this. All sentient beings must first hold one, primary, fundamental belief (senses are not lying). After that, ALL OTHER BELIEFS, can be (and are) conditionally held beliefs, which are of a different category of beliefs.



It didn't. Einstein had Newton's theories to analyze and build upon and deconstruct and new evidence that Newton did not have to inform his own theory. It wasn't like Einstein came up with his own theory on a different planet.

Still, I will guess you think evidence is something outside your head, for all to see.

Don't guess, ask. Guessing almost always leads to tiresome strawmen.

If so, how come your brain knows this sort of evidence since it's inside your head.

Oh ffs.

All we will ever have is inference derived from our experiences (experiences that only "exist" inside our brains). This is a completely trivial fact of no real importance in light of utility and the 108 billion case studies that have walked this planet and literally every single one of the countless quadrillions of things that bombard us every nano-second that make up this universe.

Can we "prove" they exist to a 100% certainty? No, due exclusively to the fact that we are biologically limited to inference derived from our experiences (experiences that only "exist" inside our brains). So the fuck what? We evidently don't need to prove anything exists externally to a 100% certainty to nevertheless act as if it does.

This condition is unchanging and cannot ever be overcome, except through inference. This fact has been well established for thousands of years now.

Put down the bong and move beyond freshman year.

At the time of Newton, people believed Newton's theory described gravitation and then Einstein published his General Relativity and scientists just switched their belief from Newton's theory of gravitation to Einstein's General Relativity.

Scientists are looking for a new theory to replace both General Relativity and Quantum physics. It's all beliefs.

And of course, that there should be different categories of beliefs doesn't make the slightest difference to what I said.

And it doesn't make any difference to what DrZoidberg said:

Beliefs are metaphysical.

Please to read you again in the future if ever you wake up and find some argument to offer.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So what's your argument for that?

You said beliefs are metaphysical and science is a belief. At the time of Newton, people believed Newton's theory described gravitation and then Einstein published his General Relativity and scientists just switched their belief from Newton's theory of gravitation to Einstein's General Relativity. Scientists are looking for a new theory to replace both General Relativity and Quantum physics. It's all beliefs. Therefore, metaphysical, at least according to your premise that "beliefs are metaphysical".
EB

Anything measurable isn't metaphysical.

Sure, anything that exists isn't metaphysical. What is metaphysics is to believe the impression you have there is something measurable is evidence that there is something measurable.

Anything you can calculate also isn't metaphysical.

Sure, anything you can put in your pocket isn't metaphysical. What is metaphysics is to believe the impression you have there is something you can calculate is evidence that there is something you can calculate.

Metaphysics start once you venture into the unknown.

Exactly. You know the subjective impression that you are measuring and calculating, so that's no metaphysics.

But that there is indeed something you are measuring and calculating is definitely a belief and therefore metaphysics, as you say.

It's the stuff you can't really know but take for granted because otherwise your idea of the world won't hang together.

Seems to apply to our belief there's a material world and to our belief that science best describe this material world.

Still, I'm not motivated to pursue this debate. I don't plan on convincing you and I wouldn't anyway, even though my arguments are compelling. I think I said everything that needed to be said. And so did you.

Thanks for this proficient debate.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The sensation does not even tell of location.

That's right. It's a "trick" the brain plays on the generated self...

Well I guess so much for this then:

There are fundamental beliefs--such as our senses are not lying to us...

 

[fromderinside]

Please come down. I can't possibly write every words that's true just because you'll be peeved if I don't. So, sure, most beliefs are based on evidence. But people believe all sorts of false things based on evidence and that's because all the evidence you have is entirely a part of your mind. You should be addressing my point about Newton and Einstein and explain how the evidence led Newton to one theory and Einstein to another. So, where is your evidence? I can't see it because all I have is my evidence. Still, I will guess you think evidence is something outside your head, for all to see. If so, how come your brain knows this sort of evidence since it's inside your head. Simple answer is it doesn't. What it knows is indeed something inside your head, which may and may not be a correct representation of the world outside. But you prefer to ignore the fact that different people will have different beliefs about what the evidence is. I will guess you think all people who disagree with you about what the evidence is are most likely idiots or mad people. No, they're not. Some are, of course, but not all (not all Trump supporters are idiots or mad people). They just have a different evidence than you do. So, prove to me that evidence is something that exists outside our heads.
EB

"I heard" and 'self evidence' are not objective evidence. Unless you can reduce all science to either of the those I don't think you can justify your position.

Retinas and cochleas and most nerve endings are outside the head (brain) except possibly for scent receptors which might be part of the brain itself. Even there objective evidence can be separated from your notion of "in the head' simply by the facts that such evidence is operational (connected materially to other objective evidence) and repeatable. How about you jump off that self evident or "it heard" aspect of your argument and get to the principle that makes science science.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Anything measurable isn't metaphysical.

Sure, anything that exists isn't metaphysical. What is metaphysics is to believe the impression you have there is something measurable is evidence that there is something measurable.

I think you're interpretation is too extreme. To pick a metaphor. The actors on the stage is reality, even the backdrop. The theatre itself is metaphysics. It's always pure conjecture and part fantasy.

Anything you can calculate also isn't metaphysical.

Sure, anything you can put in your pocket isn't metaphysical. What is metaphysics is to believe the impression you have there is something you can calculate is evidence that there is something you can calculate.

I'd say, what's metaphysical is that it matters what you have in your pocket.

It's the stuff you can't really know but take for granted because otherwise your idea of the world won't hang together.

Seems to apply to our belief there's a material world and to our belief that science best describe this material world.

The reason it's boring to listen to children tell stories is because they just list facts. That's what science does. What children lack is the ability to inject the glue that connects the facts into a coherent story. Metaphysics answers, "why does it matter?"

Another good way to look at it is that metaphysical "truths" always project off into eternity. They're never limited. That's why you can have turtles all the way down in a metaphysical model. It's a good rule of thumb to identify what's metaphysics and what's more down to earth stuff.

Still, I'm not motivated to pursue this debate. I don't plan on convincing you and I wouldn't anyway, even though my arguments are compelling. I think I said everything that needed to be said. And so did you.

Thanks for this proficient debate.
EB

And thank you. Always nice to chat.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Please come down. I can't possibly write every words that's true just because you'll be peeved if I don't. So, sure, most beliefs are based on evidence. But people believe all sorts of false things based on evidence and that's because all the evidence you have is entirely a part of your mind. You should be addressing my point about Newton and Einstein and explain how the evidence led Newton to one theory and Einstein to another. So, where is your evidence? I can't see it because all I have is my evidence. Still, I will guess you think evidence is something outside your head, for all to see. If so, how come your brain knows this sort of evidence since it's inside your head. Simple answer is it doesn't. What it knows is indeed something inside your head, which may and may not be a correct representation of the world outside. But you prefer to ignore the fact that different people will have different beliefs about what the evidence is. I will guess you think all people who disagree with you about what the evidence is are most likely idiots or mad people. No, they're not. Some are, of course, but not all (not all Trump supporters are idiots or mad people). They just have a different evidence than you do. So, prove to me that evidence is something that exists outside our heads.
EB

"I heard" and 'self evidence' are not objective evidence.

I didn't say "I heard", which would make no sense in the context.

Unless you can reduce all science to either of the those I don't think you can justify your position.

Oh yes, I can, and it's pretty obvious. The epistemological value of all evidence is that of self-evidence. Your impression that there is a scientific community, with a consensus on what is scientific evidence, is necessarily subjective and therefore necessarily reduces to self-evidence.

Retinas and cochleas and most nerve endings are outside the head (brain) except possibly for scent receptors which might be part of the brain itself. Even there objective evidence can be separated from your notion of "in the head' simply by the facts that such evidence is operational (connected materially to other objective evidence) and repeatable. How about you jump off that self evident or "it heard" aspect of your argument and get to the principle that makes science science.

Again, "heard" is not a word I used.

I understand science as well as you do if not better and we don't need science to understand the idea of objective evidence. People not idiots have understood the notion for centuries. However, even without going into the notion of qualia and of subjective experience, people not idiots can also understand that any cognitive system is ultimately fundamentally limited to self-evidence. Obviously, we can understand how a population of cooperating cognitive units would develop a reasonably accurate consensus, objective model of the world around them. However, each unit in this population would ultimately and fundamentally remain limited to self-evidence. The result is that each unit would believe the consensus without any possibility of knowing it is true. And something you don't know is true may be false.

Your inability to understand this very simple point after all those years of private tuition is positively disheartening.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Metaphysics answers, "why does it matter?"

Then we don't agree on what is metaphysics.
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The sensation does not even tell of location.

That's right. It's a "trick" the brain plays on the generated self...

Well I guess so much for this then:

There are fundamental beliefs--such as our senses are not lying to us...

You can't possibly be that obtuse, all evidence to the contrary. First of all, that's precisely why I put trick in quotes; secondly, the location of the damage is being correctly imbued in the analogue self. The fact that information takes milliseconds to travel through the nervous system to the brain where it is then processed and the originating location of the signal confirmed does not constitute a fooling of the analogue self (i.e., as in a "trick;" to make the self think the opposite or differently about what has happened to the leg than what actually occurred).

This is the problem when you look at the trees not the forest. Category error.

So, I tell you what. Let's flip this pointless foray into ancient tautologies that provide us with no knew information and go to the logical extremes that necessarily obtain from your position.

"You" cannot directly experience anything and "you" cannot know/prove/confirm that anything you think you have experienced you did in fact experience (as all of that could likewise be a lie that is merely imbued into "you" by whatever it is that generates "you"). All "you" can do is hold a fundamental belief that you are the part of the (presumed) body that experiences.

That's it. Nothing else. You can't use inference to help you navigate. You can't use "experience" for anything, since you can't ever know whether or not you have actually experienced something, as opposed to being fooled into thinking that you've experienced anything.

All "you" can do is sit and desperately repeat over and over, "I believe I am the experiencer, I believe I am the experiencer." Full stop and even that must be called into question, just as the calling into question must be called into question, just as the calling into question calling into question must be called into question, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

 

[untermensche]

You don't know what you're talking about.

The brain is not playing tricks.

The brain is mistaken.

It thinks something is wrong with the leg.

The brain is wrong. There is nothing wrong with the leg.

And we haven't even talked about referred pain.

The sensations are not reliable evidence. They are certainly not empirical evidence.

They are something experienced by a subject.

Evidence is something you can show me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You don't know what you're talking about.

The brain is not playing tricks.

The brain is mistaken.

It thinks something is wrong with the leg.

The brain is wrong. There is nothing wrong with the leg.

And we haven't even talked about referred pain.

The sensations are not reliable evidence. They are certainly not empirical evidence.

They are something experienced by a subject.

Evidence is something you can show me.

Evidence is whatever will be accepted as evidence. Perhaps you're thinking of "empiricism". Empirical evidence is anything we can experience. So even if we narrow it down to that it's still a pretty wide definition. We rank evidence based on reliability. But even bad evidence is evidence of something.

 

[untermensche]

You don't know what you're talking about.

The brain is not playing tricks.

The brain is mistaken.

It thinks something is wrong with the leg.

The brain is wrong. There is nothing wrong with the leg.

And we haven't even talked about referred pain.

The sensations are not reliable evidence. They are certainly not empirical evidence.

They are something experienced by a subject.

Evidence is something you can show me.

Evidence is whatever will be accepted as evidence. Perhaps you're thinking of "empiricism". Empirical evidence is anything we can experience. So even if we narrow it down to that it's still a pretty wide definition. We rank evidence based on reliability. But even bad evidence is evidence of something.

If somebody tells me they were abducted by aliens last night is that empirical evidence?

Empirical evidence is something a person can experience, but it something more than one person can experience.

Strictly personal experience is not empirical evidence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You don't know what you're talking about.

The brain is not playing tricks.

The brain is mistaken.

It thinks something is wrong with the leg.

The brain is wrong. There is nothing wrong with the leg.

And we haven't even talked about referred pain.

The sensations are not reliable evidence. They are certainly not empirical evidence.

They are something experienced by a subject.

Evidence is something you can show me.

Evidence is whatever will be accepted as evidence. Perhaps you're thinking of "empiricism". Empirical evidence is anything we can experience. So even if we narrow it down to that it's still a pretty wide definition. We rank evidence based on reliability. But even bad evidence is evidence of something.

If somebody tells me they were abducted by aliens last night is that empirical evidence?

Empirical evidence is something a person can experience, but it something more than one person can experience.

Strictly personal experience is not empirical evidence.

Have you asked David Hume about that? I think you're thinking about Witgenstein's falsibility and replicability requirement? But that's pretty modern scientific notions. Scientific theory has been going longer than that. Metaphysics is an old Greek concept. You've got your philosophical timeline all screwed up.

Yes, a witness statement is evidence. Certainly empirical evidence. That's why witness reports are acceptable in a court of law. But physical evidence trumps it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

At the time of Newton, people believed Newton's theory described gravitation and then Einstein published his General Relativity and scientists just switched their belief from Newton's theory of gravitation to Einstein's General Relativity.

Again, no, they did not. That is wildly inaccurate. Just go to Wiki ffs (in text emphasis mine):

Newton's description of gravity is sufficiently accurate for many practical purposes and is therefore widely used. Deviations from it are small when the dimensionless quantities φ/c2 and (v/c)2 are both much less than one, where φ is the gravitational potential, v is the velocity of the objects being studied, and c is the speed of light.
...
Observations conflicting with Newton's formula

Newton's Theory does not fully explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbits of the planets, especially of planet Mercury, which was detected long after the life of Newton. There is a 43 arcsecond per century discrepancy between the Newtonian calculation, which arises only from the gravitational attractions from the other planets, and the observed precession, made with advanced telescopes during the 19th century.

The predicted angular deflection of light rays by gravity that is calculated by using Newton's Theory is only one-half of the deflection that is actually observed by astronomers. Calculations using General Relativity are in much closer agreement with the astronomical observations.
In spiral galaxies, the orbiting of stars around their centers seems to strongly disobey Newton's law of universal gravitation. Astrophysicists, however, explain this spectacular phenomenon in the framework of Newton's laws, with the presence of large amounts of dark matter.

Iow, Newton, having no sophisticated equipment at all and centuries before it would be developed was pretty spot on in many respects and his formulae are still used for measuring the macro world. Wiki continues (again, textual emphasis mine):

Newton's reservations

While Newton was able to formulate his law of gravity in his monumental work, he was deeply uncomfortable with the notion of "action at a distance" that his equations implied. In 1692, in his third letter to Bentley, he wrote: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."

He never, in his words, "assigned the cause of this power". In all other cases, he used the phenomenon of motion to explain the origin of various forces acting on bodies, but in the case of gravity, he was unable to experimentally identify the motion that produces the force of gravity (although he invented two mechanical hypotheses in 1675 and 1717). Moreover, he refused to even offer a hypothesis as to the cause of this force on grounds that to do so was contrary to sound science. He lamented that "philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain" for the source of the gravitational force, as he was convinced "by many reasons" that there were "causes hitherto unknown" that were fundamental to all the "phenomena of nature". These fundamental phenomena are still under investigation and, though hypotheses abound, the definitive answer has yet to be found. And in Newton's 1713 General Scholium in the second edition of Principia: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses.... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies."

In short, he knew he was close, but something was still missing from his observations (such as dark matter, which obviously he couldn't see) and he freely acknowledged these facts. He saw beyond his own calculations, iow, and essentially predicted both dark matter and a quantum "micro" realm, though of course had no clue what either entailed. Just that something additional was at work.

Now enter Einstein (hundreds of years later):

Einstein's solution

These objections were explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity, in which gravitation is an attribute of curved spacetime instead of being due to a force propagated between bodies. In Einstein's theory, energy and momentum distort spacetime in their vicinity, and other particles move in trajectories determined by the geometry of spacetime. This allowed a description of the motions of light and mass that was consistent with all available observations. In general relativity, the gravitational force is a fictitious force due to the curvature of spacetime, because the gravitational acceleration of a body in free fall is due to its world line being a geodesic of spacetime.

In short, no one "switched their belief" from one to the other. Einstein took Newton's own misgivings and went the extra step (thanks to centuries of additional information) to better explain celestial interaction.

It's all beliefs.

BASED ON the evidence.

And of course, that there should be different categories of beliefs doesn't make the slightest difference to what I said.

Yes, actually, it does. In one category, you have obstinate beliefs; beliefs held in spite of the evidence that contradicts them. In another, you have conditional beliefs; beliefs held based upon the evidence that supports them.

They are fundamentally and diametrically opposite categories and only the second category allows for inference.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You don't know what you're talking about.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The brain is not playing tricks.

I didn't say it was. Do you not understand what putting a word in quotes means?

The brain is mistaken.

Your ontology does not allow for you to state such a belief.

It thinks something is wrong with the leg.

No, the constructed self thinks there is something wrong with the "leg." The brain most likely knows, at the very least, that there is a pinched nerve inside the left leg (and probably more specifically, at location X321, sub-section VB543 or the like).

The brain animated self is wrong. There is nothing wrong with the leg.

Fify. And, once again, CATEFUCKINGGORY ERROR. The problem is the pinched nerve inside the leg. So, yes, to the animated self there most certainly is a problem with the general category of "left leg" or "left calf" or the like.

The actual cause of the sensation may not be known (or provided) to the animated self, but the optimally operating brain most likely knows where the sensation originated--and likely the specific area and problem-- but it only needs to imbue the animated self with a general indication in order to effect investigation and thereby solution/repair.

And we haven't even talked about referred pain.

By all means, let's.

The sensations are not reliable evidence.

In what context?

They are certainly not empirical evidence.

They are unquestionably empirical evidence that damage has (most likely) been inflicted and should be investigated (i.e., action state).

They are something experienced by a subject.

Which is the literal definition of the word "empirical."

Evidence is something you can show me.

Aside from being an idiotic statement all on its own, your ontology does not allow for you to state such a belief.

 

[untermensche]

You don't know what you're talking about.

You babble it.

I prove it.

I didn't say it was. Do you not understand what putting a word in quotes means?

Yes.

The brain is mistaken.

Your ontology does not allow for you to state such a belief.

Babble.

My view of the circumstances we find ourselves within certainly allows the brain to function.

It can respond to stimulation.

The brain does not know the nerves can be compressed within the spinal foramen.

It translates compression of the nerve at the lumbar spine as something wrong with the leg.

It is mistaken. There is nothing wrong with the leg.

It thinks something is wrong with the leg.

No, the constructed self thinks there is something wrong with the "leg."

You mean the mind as distinct from the brain is wrong?

No it is not.

The mind is experiencing pain in the leg. The mind is correct about what it is experiencing.

The brain most likely knows, at the very least, that there is a pinched nerve inside the left leg (and probably more specifically, at location X321, sub-section VB543 or the like).

This is absolute bullshit pulled from your ass.

I'm tired of smelling whatever shit you decide to pull from your ass.

Babble!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I prove it.

Your ontology does not allow for you to state such a belief.

My view of the circumstances we find ourselves within certainly allows the brain to function.

Strawman.

The brain does not know the nerves can be compressed within the spinal foramen.

Your ontology does not allow for you to state such a belief.

It translates compression of the nerve at the lumbar spine as something wrong with the leg.

Your ontology can only allow for this claim to be made of the animated self. It necessitates that the brain is capable of inference and direct knowledge and that the body objectively exists (and the brain and the leg and the nerves) for it to make such an objective mistake.

It thinks something is wrong with the leg.

No, the constructed self thinks there is something wrong with the "leg."

You mean the mind as distinct from the brain is wrong?

You ontology cannot allow for any such "distinction."

The mind is experiencing pain in the leg. The mind is correct about what it is experiencing.

Equivocation that requires the brain once again to be capable of inference, not the mind, thus further rendering the animated self to never move beyond impotence while at the same time instantiating a necessarily existing objective reality, thereby reducing your ontology to a matter of trivial importance.

This is absolute bullshit pulled from your ass.

Your ontology does not allow for irony.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Again, no, they did not. That is wildly inaccurate. Just go to Wiki ffs (in text emphasis mine):



Iow, Newton, having no sophisticated equipment at all and centuries before it would be developed was pretty spot on in many respects and his formulae are still used for measuring the macro world. Wiki continues (again, textual emphasis mine):

Newton's reservations

While Newton was able to formulate his law of gravity in his monumental work, he was deeply uncomfortable with the notion of "action at a distance" that his equations implied. In 1692, in his third letter to Bentley, he wrote: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."

He never, in his words, "assigned the cause of this power". In all other cases, he used the phenomenon of motion to explain the origin of various forces acting on bodies, but in the case of gravity, he was unable to experimentally identify the motion that produces the force of gravity (although he invented two mechanical hypotheses in 1675 and 1717). Moreover, he refused to even offer a hypothesis as to the cause of this force on grounds that to do so was contrary to sound science. He lamented that "philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain" for the source of the gravitational force, as he was convinced "by many reasons" that there were "causes hitherto unknown" that were fundamental to all the "phenomena of nature". These fundamental phenomena are still under investigation and, though hypotheses abound, the definitive answer has yet to be found. And in Newton's 1713 General Scholium in the second edition of Principia: "I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses.... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies."

In short, he knew he was close, but something was still missing from his observations (such as dark matter, which obviously he couldn't see) and he freely acknowledged these facts. He saw beyond his own calculations, iow, and essentially predicted both dark matter and a quantum "micro" realm, though of course had no clue what either entailed. Just that something additional was at work.

Now enter Einstein (hundreds of years later):

Einstein's solution

These objections were explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity, in which gravitation is an attribute of curved spacetime instead of being due to a force propagated between bodies. In Einstein's theory, energy and momentum distort spacetime in their vicinity, and other particles move in trajectories determined by the geometry of spacetime. This allowed a description of the motions of light and mass that was consistent with all available observations. In general relativity, the gravitational force is a fictitious force due to the curvature of spacetime, because the gravitational acceleration of a body in free fall is due to its world line being a geodesic of spacetime.

In short, no one "switched their belief" from one to the other. Einstein took Newton's own misgivings and went the extra step (thanks to centuries of additional information) to better explain celestial interaction.

Sorry, I fail to see where this would contradict my point.

It's all beliefs.

BASED ON the evidence.

You just happen to believe there is something which is "THE evidence" and that you have a magical power to access it and recognise it. this is a metaphysical view. I already explain my position, which is entirely empirical. Evidence is something you know and if you know it it's because it's inside your mind (whether it's in your brain as you say is something your mind doesn't know). As something which is inside your mind, it's not known as such by other people. They know the evidence that's inside their own minds and I fail to see where we could share the evidence we know as knowledge. All we can do is look at our own evidence. Whether the evidence we know is accurate of something outside our mind is anybody's guess. This view is logically consistent with the evidence I have. The kind of evidence you're talking about is of a different nature and it's contradictory in nature. On the one hand, you say our scientific beliefs are based on evidence, on the other you fail to explain how the evidence in question could possibly be something else than a belief. And if a belief, then a belief based on evidence is just a belief based on other beliefs.

And of course, that there should be different categories of beliefs doesn't make the slightest difference to what I said.

Yes, actually, it does. In one category, you have obstinate beliefs; beliefs held in spite of the evidence that contradicts them. In another, you have conditional beliefs; beliefs held based upon the evidence that supports them.

They are fundamentally and diametrically opposite categories and only the second category allows for inference.

"Beliefs held in spite of the evidence that contradicts them"?! Suppose someone believes in God. How could you possibly know that his belief in God is "held in spite of the evidence that contradicts them"?! I'm sure it will contradict the evidence you know, and that of zillions of atheists. But what could you possibly know about the evidence this guy knows that it should be contradictory to his own beliefs? I'm sure some people are like that but mostly I expect at least some believers to have some evidence for the existence of God even if they are the only ones to have it. And if they can be fooled about their beliefs, what about you? What about everybody being fooled?
I we're all similar beings there's no reason to think we can suffer from the same metaphysical delusions. In fact, science itself says we do.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What about this Grendel guy?! Heard of him?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Your ontology does not allow for you to state such a belief.

Alright.

You have quit but must babble on.

Have a nice life.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing shows the dumb brain as opposed to the smart mind more than sciatica.

The dumb brain senses pressure or some other irritant to the nerve at the level of the lumbar spine as a problem with the leg. It creates the sensation of an injured leg.

Not back pain. Severe leg pain.

The dumb mechanical brain fails in it's duty to inform the mind in this instance.

While of course the smart mind figures out what is really happening.

With an MRI machine that no brain even knows exists.