An argument for being agnostic

[tommo]

reposted from oot

Self Awareness is the reason I am agnostic. I find it extremely hard to
believe that any algorithm could create self awareness, or become self aware. I
find this to be a huge hurdle for atheism because if algorithms cannot create self
awareness then how does our brain create self awareness?

If we totally understood how our brain works would we understand how it creates
self awareness?

If the answer is yes then I have no problem with atheism. In fact I would
be a supporter. However, I find it extremely difficult to understand how
any algorithm could create self awareness.

If the answer is no then self awareness must be contained somewhere outside of the brain.
It is this entity that I might refer to as a "soul".

This concept opens up an entirely new array of questions such as:

1) is computer self consciousness possible? If an algorithm can do it a computer should be able to.

2) is there life after death? If self awareness exists outside the brain why should it expire when the brain does?

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
Self Awareness is the reason I am agnostic. I find it extremely hard to
believe that any algorithm could create self awareness, or become self aware. I
find this to be a huge hurdle for atheism because if algorithms cannot create self
awareness then how does our brain create self awareness?


[/ QUOTE ]


This is not so much dumb as incoherent. Rephrase if you must, preferably in some way that allows for a distinction between human beings and algorithms. Your school has many experts on these topics, take some classes. Or read the last 200 posts on this forum to get for background on brains and consciousness.

[tommo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Self Awareness is the reason I am agnostic. I find it extremely hard to
believe that any algorithm could create self awareness, or become self aware. I
find this to be a huge hurdle for atheism because if algorithms cannot create self
awareness then how does our brain create self awareness?


[/ QUOTE ]


This is not so much dumb as incoherent. Rephrase if you must, preferably in some way that allows for a distinction between human beings and algorithms. Your school has many experts on these topics, take some classes. Or read the last 200 posts on this forum to get for background on brains and consciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry to have been incoherent. I'm a math and physics major at my school and have done some studying into neural networks and learning algorithms.

As I understand it you are saying that the mind does not work like any algorithm.

As I have learned through my studies into information theory the mind is usually considered to be a very complicated neural network.

A neural network can be considered a learning algorithm. The point I made in your quote is that I don't see how any algorithm could create self awareness.

Feel free to direct me to places this has been discussed before, or ask me to clarify anything you don't understand in my post. Please don't just call me dumb.

[vhawk01]

Does your math and physics training include anything about "Arguments from Incredulity" and how they are a poor basis for any sort of worldview?

[tommo]

It is poor reasoning to say that replicating self awareness in an algorithm isn't possible just because I can't understand how it would happen.

Maybe I should have put it this way:
Nobody has thought of any way to replicate self awareness within an algorithm. It is feasible that it is impossible to replicate self awareness within an algorithm.

It is this feasability that makes it necessary for there to be the possibility for a different explanation for self awareness.

Thus it is possible that self awareness is contained within the brain. If this were true it would be evidence supporting the theory of atheism.

If it is not true then perhaps (as an alternative explanation) self awareness is contained in a soul.

[bunny]

I dont think that it is inherently impossible for an algorithm to create self-awareness. It's true I cant write one but that is neither here nor there. I think the trouble with this argument is that nobody really has a good idea of what self-awareness actually is (other than trivially true statements) so it is hard to evaluate the claim. Perhaps it is a killer argument, perhaps not. The limits of algorithms and the underlying basis for self-awareness are such big unknowns that it is pretty much undecidable at the moment imo.

[tommo]

[ QUOTE ]
The limits of algorithms and the underlying basis for self-awareness are such big unknowns that it is pretty much undecidable at the moment imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

isn't this why this is an argument for agnosticism?

[tommo]

please note that I did not say that it is impossible for an algorithm to create self awareness

[bunny]

I've always taken agnosticism to mean "Does God exist is an unanswerable question. We cannot know from within the universe what happens outside it (in space or time)"

Your claim seems to be more an argument that we are currently ignorant and so cant know whether theism/atheism/something else is true - it doesnt follow that we always will be. I seem to be hair-splitting today, so I wouldnt pay much attention to me...

[tommo]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always taken agnosticism to mean "Does God exist is an unanswerable question. We cannot know from within the universe what happens outside it (in space or time)"

Your claim seems to be more an argument that we are currently ignorant and so cant know whether theism/atheism/something else is true - it doesnt follow that we always will be. I seem to be hair-splitting today, so I wouldnt pay much attention to me...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I just checked out the definition of agnosticism and it appears you are correct. My bad. Anyways, you are completely correct in your assessment of what my argument actually is.

I guess I'll just have to start calling myself unsure...wish I had a better word for that. But I like this as an argument for being between atheism and theism.

[Scotch78]

First, there is absolutely no evidence that the subject and object of "self-consciousness" are identical, which on a practical level should negate most of your rational objections. Second, we don't even have adequate explanations of artistic creation, let alone the creation of things like our universe, so why does the fact that we cannot explain the creation of self awareness strike you as peculiar? It seems more probable to me that the "problem" lies as much or more with our understanding of creation.

Scott

edit: PS I just read some of the responses and noticed your background in math, so here's an answer that might make more sense to you. Depending on the specific system of logic (classical, intuitionistic, relevant, etc.) one employs, the set of provable theorems varies; however, every system can disprove false theorems. Imagine consciousness as a second order logic in which quantification is possible, but which only has the power to disprove false theorems. That is, it's set of provable theorems is empty. And as the last bit, try to imagine that all first order theorems are reducible to the law of noncontradiction.

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Self Awareness is the reason I am agnostic. I find it extremely hard to
believe that any algorithm could create self awareness, or become self aware. I
find this to be a huge hurdle for atheism because if algorithms cannot create self
awareness then how does our brain create self awareness?


[/ QUOTE ]


This is not so much dumb as incoherent. Rephrase if you must, preferably in some way that allows for a distinction between human beings and algorithms. Your school has many experts on these topics, take some classes. Or read the last 200 posts on this forum to get for background on brains and consciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I explicitly did not call your post dumb. Roger Penrose is not dumb, but he has soime wacky ideas about he mind. Take a philosophy of mind or cog sci class at your school--it's one of the best in these areas. The idea theat the mind is an algorithm is a very controversial proposition and should not serve as the basis for any inferences re supreme beings or just about anything else. Neural newtworks approximate certain activities of the brain, but it's a biological system with billions of neurons organized in very complex systems and subsystems that constantly interact with the environment through the senses, biochemistry, etc. You assume too much too easily and then rely on your assumptions to reach some grand conclusions. As I said, reading prior trheads would be a good place to start, a conclusion supported by your originally posting this in OOT, and without even including links to pics with hot women.

[bunny]

It is a good argument for fence-sitting if self-awareness is something you want atheism/theism/whatever to explain. It seems to me that theism explains it but offers no objective evidence (and I'm sure to an atheist doesnt really explain it but replaces it with a conveniently untestable mystery) - atheism promises an answer eventually but doesnt provide much illumination currently.

[tommo]

[ QUOTE ]
First, there is absolutely no evidence that the subject and object of "self-consciousness" are identical, which on a practical level should negate most of your rational objections.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

could you explain to me what you mean by this?

If the "subject" is my body are you saying that there is no reason for me to believe that my self-consciousness and my body are identical?

I can see why that would be true. However, I don't see why it negates the argument.

In fact it just seems to argue that there is a possibility that there is a distinct entity from my body that makes up my self awareness. This is the entity I refer to as a soul.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
could you explain to me what you mean by this?

If the "subject" is my body are you saying that there is no reason for me to believe that my self-consciousness and my body are identical?

I can see why that would be true. However, I don't see why it negates the argument.

In fact it just seems to argue that there is a possibility that there is a distinct entity from my body that makes up my self awareness. This is the entity I refer to as a soul.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just edited my post, so maybe that will help things.

Scott

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'll just have to start calling myself unsure...wish I had a better word for that. But I like this as an argument for being between atheism and theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to point out that you don't have to be "sure" about anything to be an atheist. It's generally enough to simply not believe in any form of supernatural theism (some would put it stronger, but very few atheists actually claim to be absolutely certain).

If you feel the word "atheism" implies being certain that no god exists and therefore makes you uncomfortable (I used to feel this way), you can always call yourself a "non-believer".

Finally, there is no continuum between agnosticism and atheism. It's perfectly feasible to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.

[Lestat]

The brain can do many things that computer/machines are not yet capable of, sentient thoughts among them.

Personally, I think sentience comes with a higher order of intelligence.

Our ancestors developed intelligence/self-awareness as a survival mechanism through natural selection.

[MidGe]

There are a number of things wrong with the assumptions of your first post.


1) as as been said already, it is a great (and imo incorrect) assumption to identify mind process with an algorithm

2) conssciousness could be an epiphenomena. As systems get more complex they display attributes that are not evident or present in their components.

3) self-awareness is a nice word, but I am not sure what you mean by it. Self observation may revise your position there. It is obvious that consciousness is discontinuous, fragmentary and sometimes incorrect. An algorithm konwledge of some of its internal states, at some times, is a trivial exercice in software engineering.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Self Awareness is the reason I am agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agnostic is not a belief position. If you think you 'are' agnostic, then you are most certainly an atheist.

[chezlaw]

I can't see why self-awareness is such a big deal.

Experience of sensations, seems a big deal. No algorithm is ever going to result in the experience of blueness when you look at the sky.

None of this makes any difference to whether one should believe in god.

chez

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
reposted from oot

Self Awareness is the reason I am agnostic. I find it extremely hard to
believe that any algorithm could create self awareness, or become self aware. I
find this to be a huge hurdle for atheism because if algorithms cannot create self
awareness then how does our brain create self awareness?

If we totally understood how our brain works would we understand how it creates
self awareness?

If the answer is yes then I have no problem with atheism. In fact I would
be a supporter. However, I find it extremely difficult to understand how
any algorithm could create self awareness.

If the answer is no then self awareness must be contained somewhere outside of the brain.
It is this entity that I might refer to as a "soul".

This concept opens up an entirely new array of questions such as:

1) is computer self consciousness possible? If an algorithm can do it a computer should be able to.

2) is there life after death? If self awareness exists outside the brain why should it expire when the brain does?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is worth looking at. Focused on intelligence rather than conciousness but this may respark your faith in a self-awareness algorithm:

http://www.numenta.com/Numenta_HTM_Concepts.pdf
http://www.stanford.edu/~dil/RNI/DilJeffTechReport.pdf

[tommo]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see why self-awareness is such a big deal.

Experience of sensations, seems a big deal. No algorithm is ever going to result in the experience of blueness when you look at the sky.

None of this makes any difference to whether one should believe in god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

it isn't actually self awareness that is a big deal in and of itself. It is how the brain could create a state of self awareness that is a big deal.

[tommo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
reposted from oot

Self Awareness is the reason I am agnostic. I find it extremely hard to
believe that any algorithm could create self awareness, or become self aware. I
find this to be a huge hurdle for atheism because if algorithms cannot create self
awareness then how does our brain create self awareness?

If we totally understood how our brain works would we understand how it creates
self awareness?

If the answer is yes then I have no problem with atheism. In fact I would
be a supporter. However, I find it extremely difficult to understand how
any algorithm could create self awareness.

If the answer is no then self awareness must be contained somewhere outside of the brain.
It is this entity that I might refer to as a "soul".

This concept opens up an entirely new array of questions such as:

1) is computer self consciousness possible? If an algorithm can do it a computer should be able to.

2) is there life after death? If self awareness exists outside the brain why should it expire when the brain does?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is worth looking at. Focused on intelligence rather than conciousness but this may respark your faith in a self-awareness algorithm:

http://www.numenta.com/Numenta_HTM_Concepts.pdf
http://www.stanford.edu/~dil/RNI/DilJeffTechReport.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll spend some time looking at these links later today.

The HTM introduction leads me to believe that it is mainly focused on the subject of teaching computers to perform cognitive tasks. Although I don't immediately see the connection to self-awareness it seems plausible that this a part of the program itself.

Is it an argument for an algorithm being self aware in that it alters its own sense (its code) to change its understanding of a system?

The second paper seems to be approaching cognitive tasks (such as sight) in a bayesian network manner. I'm somewhat familiar with these but don't see how it relates to self-awareness (except in the same way that I already mentioned). However it does seem like a very interesting paper.

Edit:
sorry, just noticed that you said "focused on intelligence rather than self-awareness". Both are excellent links for helping to understand mathematical simulation of intelligent thought. I see what you mean by rekindling hope.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Agnostic is not a belief position. If you think you 'are' agnostic, then you are most certainly an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't see why self-awareness is such a big deal.

Experience of sensations, seems a big deal. No algorithm is ever going to result in the experience of blueness when you look at the sky.

None of this makes any difference to whether one should believe in god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

it isn't actually self awareness that is a big deal in and of itself. It is how the brain could create a state of self awareness that is a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a big deal. the brain models objects in the world and how they interact with each other. A common set of objects and interactions form the group it thinks of as humans. From seeing its limbs/torso/its reflection the interactions between other humans and itself etc. it models another human. Its a special human becaus it can be controlled and things that happen to it cause direct effects on the brain (pain, pleasure etc).

There's no biggie here from an algorithm point of view. Pain - now that's a biggie.

chez

[Wubbie075]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to point out that you don't have to be "sure" about anything to be an atheist. (some would put it stronger, but very few atheists actually claim to be absolutely certain).

[/ QUOTE ]

I would just like to go on record as an atheist who is absolutely certain of his position /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

Not a lot in this world thats more foolish, IMO, than certainty. Usually 'best available' works just the same, and without the nasty side-effects.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agnostic is not a belief position. If you think you 'are' agnostic, then you are most certainly an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Theism is a belief position. It's a positive belief statement. Atheism is a negative belief statement (so completely unworthy to denote), which is thus also the default position. Either you belief something or you don't. Agnostic means skeptic towards knowledge, so clearly not a positive belief towards religion, and thus: atheistic.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Theism is a belief position. It's a positive belief statement. Atheism is a negative belief statement (so completely unworthy to denote), which is thus also the default position. Either you belief something or you don't. Agnostic means skeptic towards knowledge, so clearly not a positive belief towards religion, and thus: atheistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose this is a possible method of delineation, although in philosophy I have usually taken atheism to mean anti-theism. Regardless, I don't see why theism/atheism can't have subjective degrees of belief.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to point out that you don't have to be "sure" about anything to be an atheist. It's generally enough to simply not believe in any form of supernatural theism (some would put it stronger, but very few atheists actually claim to be absolutely certain).

If you feel the word "atheism" implies being certain that no god exists and therefore makes you uncomfortable (I used to feel this way), you can always call yourself a "non-believer".

Finally, there is no continuum between agnosticism and atheism. It's perfectly feasible to be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easy, and convenient, to use various labels interchangeably. I'm a "hard agnostic" and thus, by definition, a "soft atheist." I also believe spirituality is an important component of life, although I don't believe there's necessarily anything supernatural about spiritual experience. As a result, I can call myself an agnostic, an atheist, or a "spiritual person" as the situation warrants.

To me this just illustrates how arbitrary many of the labels are. Those of us who don't fit solidly into a rigid ideological camp have to make do.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Of course, the better argument for not being agnostic is that there's absolutely no way there's a God.

Self awareness is probably just a natural conclusion of self modifying complexity.

[Wubbie075]

[ QUOTE ]
Not a lot in this world thats more foolish, IMO, than certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

not for me... if I am certain about something I am not ashamed to say so... and if facts or other evidence come to light that proves me wrong or at least make me reevaluate my position then I will do so... but I see absolutely nothing wrong with certainty on its own terms

there are no proofs regarding the existance of God... everyone on either side of the debate (whether they choose to admit it or not) is merely expressing their opinion... some people feel more strongly than others... personally, there is little in this world I believe as certainly as "God does not exist"... if you feel the need to hedge your beliefs, then that is up to you...

[ QUOTE ]
Usually 'best available' works just the same, and without the nasty side-effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

what "nasty side effects" do you refer to?

[vhawk01]

Certainty implies rigidity in thinking and conservatism (not in the political sense.) Certainty leads humans to reject new sources of information that are potentially contradictory, since 'the matter is obviously solved.' You seem to be implying that this isn't a problem for you, and if thats the case, kudos I guess. Although I don't really think we have the same understanding of 'certainty.' In other words....science certainly does NOT deal in certainties.

[Wubbie075]

[ QUOTE ]
Certainty implies rigidity in thinking and conservatism (not in the political sense.) Certainty leads humans to reject new sources of information that are potentially contradictory, since 'the matter is obviously solved.'

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily agree that any of the above are implied. I'd say those are traits of the individual, rather than how certain they happen to be about a specific subject. But, overall I see where you are coming from. I can be certain about anything I like and still be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be implying that this isn't a problem for you, and if thats the case, kudos I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]
thanks I think

[ QUOTE ]
Although I don't really think we have the same understanding of 'certainty.' In other words....science certainly does NOT deal in certainties.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize we were discussing science here... I kinda figured that atheism and agnosticism would fall more under the Philosophy section of "Math, Science, Philosophy"

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Certainty implies rigidity in thinking and conservatism (not in the political sense.) Certainty leads humans to reject new sources of information that are potentially contradictory, since 'the matter is obviously solved.'

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily agree that any of the above are implied. I'd say those are traits of the individual, rather than how certain they happen to be about a specific subject. But, overall I see where you are coming from. I can be certain about anything I like and still be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be implying that this isn't a problem for you, and if thats the case, kudos I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]
thanks I think

[ QUOTE ]
Although I don't really think we have the same understanding of 'certainty.' In other words....science certainly does NOT deal in certainties.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize we were discussing science here... I kinda figured that atheism and agnosticism would fall more under the Philosophy section of "Math, Science, Philosophy"

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded part seems nonsensical to me, and appears to lie at the heart of our disagreement on this matter. How can there be a 'scale of certainty?' How can you be more certain about one thing than another? Certainty implies 100%, doesn't it?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
not for me... if I am certain about something I am not ashamed to say so... and if facts or other evidence come to light that proves me wrong or at least make me reevaluate my position then I will do so... but I see absolutely nothing wrong with certainty on its own terms

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're certain of something, then how can new evidence change your view? Obviously you're not that certain... Certainty isn't a matter of "I think this is probably true," certainty is a matter of "I know this is true." Which is idiotic, we're human beings and there's always a margin of error.

[vhawk01]

not for me... if I am certain about something I am not ashamed to say so... and if facts or other evidence come to light that proves me wrong or at least make me reevaluate my position then I will do so... but I see absolutely nothing wrong with certainty on its own terms

If you're certain of something, then how can new evidence change your view? Obviously you're not that certain... Certainty isn't a matter of "I think this is probably true," certainty is a matter of "I know this is true." Which is idiotic, we're human beings and there's always a margin of error.

Yep, thats exactly what I meant to say.

[Wubbie075]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're certain of something, then how can new evidence change your view?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because I am certain about something it doesn't mean I am actually correct. I admit to occasionally making mistakes.

I think we are entering the tedious realm of semantics here.

[madnak]

I think you're right. I'd say that if you acknowledge you may be mistaken in anything then you're not 100% certain of anything. At any rate, my opposition is to those who claim to know things beyond any shadow of doubt. Ironically, most of them contradict one another, so only a handful can possibly be correct even in the ideal case.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're certain of something, then how can new evidence change your view?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because I am certain about something it doesn't mean I am actually correct. I admit to occasionally making mistakes.

I think we are entering the tedious realm of semantics here.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not semantics, at least not yet. Your comment here misses the point. Whether you are correct or not has no impact on your certainty, that I will grant you. But if you are certain, then wrong or not, I don't see how you can possibly change your mind. You can be wrong, but since you are 'certain' you will NEVER learn what is really correct.

I think if you dispute this, or this doesn't apply to your version of 'certain' then you are using a different version of the word than is commonly used. I still stand by my statement that certainty is basically foolish and commonly dangerous.

[aeest400]

Definitely semantics.

To clarify: I'm as certain as I am of just about anything that there is no God in any traditional sense of the term. The idea strikes me as absurd, though I am not as certain of its falsity as I am of my own existence. Further, despite my certainty, my view is open to revision based on encountering evidence that I expect, based on numerous other beliefs, never to encounter. In another sense, I am certain of it in the sense that it is confirmed by multiple streams of independent evidence, and any something that caused me to changed my mind would have to be sufficient to counter them. Fixing the the meaning of 'certainty' as referring indefeasible beliefs doesn't conform to the way the term is often used and doesn't advance the discussion.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Definitely semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok fine, but when someone is using a word in a way that is almost completely opposed to its common meaning, isnt it worthwhile to take a little time to clear it up?

[aeest400]

So now we are both native speakers of english with different senses of how "certainty" should be used. That's semantics. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Wubbie075]

[ QUOTE ]
if you are certain, then wrong or not, I don't see how you can possibly change your mind. You can be wrong, but since you are 'certain' you will NEVER learn what is really correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really do not understand why someone who is certain about something is prohibited from EVER reevaluating their position once other information is learned??

Let's say I am certain about topic X... through new information I later realize that perhaps I was incorrect.. now I am no longer certain about it... then after further reflection I realize that I was completely out of my mind about topic X...

why is this sequence of events so troubling to you??

see there is a cool thing in this world.. something I am quite fond of to be honest.. it is called "learning"... and just because I believed something to the point of certainty at one time... does not mean my mind completely shuts down... further.. I do not believe that admitting on a philosophical level that I might be incorrect about something makes me any less certain of it in a practical sense...

we're just going around in circles here because we have a fundamental disagreement about what it means to be certain about a matter of opinion... I reject that it means you are never able to change your mind

at any rate... I think it is pointless to continue with this hijack... perhaps a new thread on the nature of "certainty" is appropriate

[vhawk01]

Right. Except, if you are CERTAIN of something, 'new information' is a meaningless concept. You are CERTAIN. It doesn't matter what possible new information you could encounter. But I agree, this is a pointless argument at this point.

By the way, the definition of certain is basically: Definite, fixed. Also, we would accept "Established beyond doubt or question, indisputable." Are these the phrases you would use to describe your beliefs in...well, anything?

[Wubbie075]

[ QUOTE ]
Right. Except, if you are CERTAIN of something, 'new information' is a meaningless concept. You are CERTAIN. It doesn't matter what possible new information you could encounter.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said before, I reject that assertion.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, the definition of certain is basically: Definite, fixed. Also, we would accept "Established beyond doubt or question, indisputable." Are these the phrases you would use to describe your beliefs in...well, anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

From Dictionary.com: 2: having or feeling no doubt or uncertainty; confident and assured

This describes my beliefs on the topic very accurately.

[vhawk01]

That definition says nothing about the fluidity or malleability of your beliefs. And, taken with my previous two definitions, I think you are using the word in a very misleading way. Evidence being the responses to your use of it in this thread.

That being said, you can feel free to use the word however you want. But the point of language and communication isn't to 'be right.' Its that your audience understands you and you convey your message. Using a word in a different way than most of your audience will interpret it seems like a foolish choice. Do you usually have to go through like a 5 minute exchange with someone after you tell them you are "Absolutely certain" of something, explaining that you might feel differently in 5 minutes?

[Wubbie075]

I think you are really twisting my meaning here... if I declare myself "certain" about something I don't just go and flip flop on a whim... it would take compelling evidence for me to do so...

and more specifically... what started this entire discussion was that I said I am certain that God does not exist... and when I have had this discussion with people, to illustrate how strongly I feel about it, I have said it would pretty much take a sit down dinner with Jesus where he looked me in the eye and said "Well here I am, I guess you were wrong"... it is not the wishy washy thing you are making it out to be...

[ QUOTE ]
the point of language and communication isn't to 'be right.' Its that your audience understands you and you convey your message.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny that you chose this example to make your point... because I would say that my use of the word "certain" much more accurately conveys the message of how I feel about the rare subjects for which I would choose to use this word... and I would rather avoid a 5 minute exchange explaining "well, according to the information we have at hand, the best guess we can make on the matter would be that xxx is the case, but naturally you know it is foolish to have a strong enough opinion about something to believe it to a point of certainty, since that would railroad you into holding that position for the remainder of your days regardless of whatever new information came to light"