Pastor AIO:

Ah! Perhaps you failure to get anything I'm saying is rather a negative reaction to the opening post than a reaction to anything I've said since. Trust me, I'm no threat to you so you don't havee to attack anything I say irrationally.

Um, no. First, by "the op did you no favours", I didn't mean it effected a negative reaction in me, I meant that it wasn't thought through and the its premise was faulty. Essentially, it was a terrible place to start any discussion as it fell apart within the first couple of serious responses

Second, looking through the thread, it's certain that I have been getting what you've been saying, so alluding to not getting your point is bizzare.

Finally, I haven't been attacking anything you said irrationally.

From what You've said above you seem to think that awareness is a result of the sophistication of an entity. So the more sophisticated the more likely to be aware. I refute this.

What? No. For crying out loud, I even gave an indication of its level in my brief explanation of what I mean by awareness. Here: "It is cognizance at a most basic level."

Are we talking about consciouness or awareness? What aspect of conscious is your referent point? I'll come back to this if necessary.

I'm beginning to suspect that you're just doing this to tease me. I thought you just defined consciousness as self awareness. so consciousness is awareness but in specialised form. what difference does it make whether I was there talking about broad awareness or just consciousness?

I said consciousness implies self-awareness, but I guess that's semantics at this point of the discussion. In any case, consciousness and awareness should not be conflated. Awareness, like I indicated is a basic form of cognizance and may be simply conceived as a realisation of a happening. Consciousness is different. Further, one can be demonstrated over the internet, the other can't.

An entity realising and that realising implicating a response would be a sign of awareness.

Please can you tell me what you said above again in plain english.

Sure. To claim that an entity is aware, the entity has to realise that something is happening, .i.e. know in itself about an occurence, then that realisation is what causes a reaction.

Have you heard of 'The Ghost in the Machine'. check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Machine

The ghost in the machine is British philosopher Gilbert Ryle's derogatory description for René Descartes' mind-body dualism. The phrase was introduced in Ryle's book The Concept of Mind, written in 1949, to highlight the perceived absurdity of dualist systems like Descartes' where mental activity carries on in parallel to physical action, but where their means of interaction are unknown or, at best, speculative.


Bodily processes and states can be inspected by external observations. Thus a person’s bodily life is as much a public affair as are the lives of animals. But minds do not exist in space, nor are their operation subject to mechanical laws. The workings of the mind are not witnessable by other observers; its career is private. A person therefore lives through two collateral histories: one consisting of what happens to and with the body (public); the other consisting of what happens to and in the mind (private).

Yes I've heard of the ghost in the machine concept. What now? I'm not sure I see what your argument through the quote.

This: "I disagree, consciousness can be demonstrated and raised in argument. For the most part it would be human-centric, but it can be shown. In any case, that's another topic as consciousness wasn't my point."

is a long shot from this: "
It wasn't an argument to prove my awareness, it was an argument for my awareness. What clever Japanese robots have not only demonstrated the skills mentioned earlier, and, further, awareness of an "I"?

The experience isn's subjective as a demonstration of the factors that implicate awareness are presentable and have been presented in this thread."

Not really, no.

It's either an argument to prove (demonstrate) your awareness and you are capable of presenting such an argument, or it's not.

Proof is for maths and alcohol. I see where the confusion lays on this particular point. I wasn't trying to prove as science doesn't do proof, so mypointing out that it wasn't an attempt to prove, caused confusion.

Anyway, I have made the arguments for awareness and it demonstrates itself.

The experience isn's subjective as a demonstration of the factors that implicate awareness are presentable

Then please present them, for God's sake. Demonstrate to me that you are an aware being. Demonstrate to me how you will prove that a clever AI is an aware being.

I did. Read my posts.

Let's start from the beginning of this sub-section

A part of my definition of being is awareness towards; and awareness was defined as an ability to realise happenings

I later pointed out that: 'So, no, awareness is not a "totally subjective experience [that] cannot be communicated to another." You know I'm aware because I'm acknowledging your ideas, parsing them, and responding accordingly.'

A claim that's easily understandable, as I need to be aware to display those skills. I pointed that out when I wrote: "To acknowledge something as complex and abstract as the factors in your arguments, then to parse those ideas and appropriate them and then respond accordingly, is certainly indication of awareness."

Alas, "Just to be clear, no AI can do the same at this point in time."

Pastor AIO:

ps: When you hear a hard saying, instead of just jumping into reactionary mode it is more beneficial to ask what the hell the person means by such a statement. This is not a Catechism or a Dogma class. I expect to be challenged for what I say and I don't expect you to either accept or reject on 'blind faith' but rather to question it all.

Was this post addressed to me or yourself? I'm leaning towards the latter - if several of your posts in this thread are anything to go by.

O boy, let's just leave it. I don tire.

Pastor AIO:

O boy, let's just leave it. I don tire.

That's no problem. Thanks for your time.

i ve been observing silently for some time now
the only point i want to make is that i am of the opinion that consciousness is a totally subjective phenomena,

simmy:


i ve been observing silently for some time now
the only point i want to make is that i am of the opinion that consciousness is a totally subjective phenomena,

Of course it is! That guy is the first person in the world that I've met that disagrees and worse considers what he presented as an argument to be appropriate proof. In a way that merely confirms for me that, though we are potentially spiritual, in fact many of us have that part of us so fast asleep that it is practically nonexistent. Subsequently I am sure that he is not being wicked or teasing but is in fact assured of his arguments.

I'm so glad that someone else is interested in the thread. Just for the record I would like to take a quote from the Bhagavad Gita. This book is a conversation between a warrior called Arjuna and the diety Lord Shri Krishna in Hindu religion.

From the Chapter called Bhakti Yoga:

Arjuna asked, "My Lord! Which are the better devotees who worship thee, those who try to know Thee as a personal God, or those who worship Thee as impersonal and indestructible?"

Lord Shri Krishna replied, "Those who keep their minds fixed on Me, who worship Me always with unwavering faith and concentration; these are the very best.
"Those who worship Me as the indestructible, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the primeval, the immutable and the eternal; . . . "

I think that the evidence abounds that the Ancient traditional peoples were happy to consider their dieties both as Personalities as well as 'Forces' that influence the world. And they did not see any incongruity. If people today are unable to get their heads around the dichotomy that is due to their lack of sophistication and they should not try to project their intellectual limitations on other people.

A quotable quote on consciousness:

"When asked the question, what is consciousness; we become conscious of consciousness.
Now, it is this consciousness of consciousness that we take to be consciousness. This is wrong"


======================
Source => "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"

simmy:


i ve been observing silently for some time now
the only point i want to make is that i am of the opinion that consciousness is a totally subjective phenomena,

I agree; however, it is demonstrable and can be raised in an argument, which was one of my points.

Pastor AIO:

Of course it is! That guy is the first person in the world that I've met that disagrees

Wait, could you show me where I disagree with consciousness being a "subjective phenomenon"?

and worse considers what he presented as an argument to be appropriate proof.

Again, if you bother to read my posts, you'll notice that I have not claimed a proof (in fact, I've had to set you straight on the matter of proof). Further, if you're certain that my argument(s) was/were not appropriate, you can always do what I have done so far in this thread: rebutt and refute.

In a way that merely confirms for me that, though we are potentially spiritual, in fact many of us have that part of us so fast asleep that it is practically nonexistent. Subsequently I am sure that he is not being wicked or teasing but is in fact assured of his arguments.

The refutations say it all

I'm so glad that someone else is interested in the thread. Just for the record I would like to take a quote from the Bhagavad Gita. This book is a conversation between a warrior called Arjuna and the diety Lord Shri Krishna in Hindu religion.

From the Chapter called Bhakti Yoga:

Arjuna asked, "My Lord! Which are the better devotees who worship thee, those who try to know Thee as a personal God, or those who worship Thee as impersonal and indestructible?"

Lord Shri Krishna replied, "Those who keep their minds fixed on Me, who worship Me always with unwavering faith and concentration; these are the very best.
"Those who worship Me as the indestructible, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the primeval, the immutable and the eternal; . . . "

I think that the evidence abounds that the Ancient traditional peoples were happy to consider their dieties both as Personalities as well as 'Forces' that influence the world. And they did not see any incongruity. If people today are unable to get their heads around the dichotomy that is due to their lack of sophistication and they should not try to project their intellectual limitations on other people.

That's nice, but no where have I said that it is impossible for a deity to be perceived as possessing dual characteristics. I have, however, had to correct your misconceptions of Heraclitus' Logos and your constant equivocations to support a flimsy argument.

Like you said, so far I've been willing "to make a distinction between Logic and Conjecture. Because Conjecture too easily passes for logic." Perhaps you'll do what you set out to do too.

I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. The 2 very people I've resolved to ignore are the only ones responding to this thread. Should I release Barabbas or Jesus?

eeny meeny miiny moo . . . .

imhotep:

A quotable quote on consciousness:

"When asked the question, what is consciousness; we become conscious of consciousness.
Now, it is this consciousness of consciousness that we take to be consciousness. This is wrong"


======================
Source => "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"

The very essence of consciousness is the awareness of consciousness. Consciousness of Consciousness IS consciousness and there is no other Consciousness but the Consciousness of Consciousness. It is the ultimate self referential thing.

This is best explained mathematically, I think (I hope). I wonder if you remember Set Theory in mathematics. ' Set theory is the branch of mathematics that studies sets, which are collections of objects. Although any type of objects can be collected into a set, set theory is applied most often to objects that are relevant to mathematics.' Taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

For example the set of all knives with contain all the knives that ever existed. A set is basically a collection. Any object can be put into a set. The set of all things Steel will contain all the steel in the world. There will be some overlap between the set of Steel and the set of knives because many knives are made of steel. Some sets are big and have many objects in them and others are small and contain one or two objects. and some sets might contain nothing. Like the set of Honest nigerian leaders.
Please excuse me if you find this obvious and banal, but I just want to make sure that it's covered in case it was many years since you were in secondary school.

Now what about the Set of All Sets? If a set is an object and you collect all the sets in the world and put them in a set, how many sets will be contained therein. Well, the Set of all sets must contain itself for it is itself a set. This is a self referential/ self containing event. To try to figure how many sets are contained will only end in Paradox. If you stick the set of all sets in a set along with every other set that exists it is still not complete because you have yet to include the set. and so the process goes ad infinitum. The human brain cannot go there.

So it is with consciousness. It is also a self referential event in essence. Perception percieving itself.

This same paradox is where anti-creationists falter when they consider the creator. They end up asking, 'but who created the creator?' and dash their brains to pieces against the rocks of Infinite regress. Since we are so accustomed to things being created by some other thing the idea of Self creation boggles the brain. Who created God? God created God. But what was God before he created God? He was God.

Yes a single entity can be a function of itself and it is paradox to the human brain but it is not Unrealistic. The human brain has limitations. Consciousness is Consciousness of Consciousness. What is consciousness conscious of? Answer: Consciousness. If you find it hard to understand an observation that is not of one thing unto another that is a limitation of your human brain.

Pastor AIO:

I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. The 2 very people I've resolved to ignore are the only ones responding to this thread. Should I release Barabbas or Jesus?

So much for my resolutions.

pastoraio:
Consciousness of Consciousness IS consciousness and there is no other Consciousness but the Consciousness of Consciousness.

Does this mean that your consciousness dies in a dreamless sleep?

A dreamless sleep is a dream in which you don't remember on waking.

Pastor AIO:

A dreamless sleep is a dream in which you don't remember on waking.

Does this "lack of consciousness" of Consciousness imply the non-existence of Consciousness?

imhotep:

Does this "lack of consciousness" of Consciousness imply the non-existence of Consciousness?

i never said you lack consciousness of consciousness. If I have memory loss due to say an accident. And I lose memory of myself and even of the accident. Not remembering doesn't mean that the accident didn't happen. Or that I didn't exist. Whatever happens in dreamless sleep, the fact is I don't remember. I've often woken up from what I believed was a dreamless sleep only to remember a couple of hours after awakening that in fact the sleep was full of dreams.

But most importantly I want to say that this fact does not actually have anything to do with my argument. Or at least I don't see what it has to do with my argument. if there is a connection please be forthright and tell me.

Remember I have said that consciousness is the awareness of consciousness. If at any time I don't remember being conscious or even if it is demonstrated that consciousness dies or whatever it doesn't change what consciousness is.

you've got lack of consciousness in quotation marks " . . .". Did I anywhere say anything about[b] lack of consciousness[/b]?

fyneguylink=topic=137750.msg2365347#msg2365347 date=1213293862:


The logic of this world is foolishness unto God

So worldly logic is quite different from 'supernatural logic'

Worldly Logic involves the use of conjecture. It is a way of arriving at knowledge previously unknown via the consideration of facts already known. It usually follows the form if A is true and B is true then it follows that C must be true. A and B in this case are called propositions. They are taken to be axiomatic and they have to be factual.

For example if as I approach my home after a long day at the office I spy my best friend leaving my home and doing up his zip as he leaves wearing a very satisfied smile on his face, and I then enter my home to find my wife there when she was supposedly at work, would it be reasonable to conclude that she has just been playing me.

In other words, what is the difference between Worldly Logic and sophisticated Guesswork?

Things have become so twisted and perverted! Look at what now passes for rational, Intelligence, Reason, Logic. People take Conjecture and call it Logic. I wonder what Plato would have thought about the present day uses of these terms that have such a high status in western culture because of his use of them.

Let us look at how Plato used these terms in Timaeus. I quote from the prelude.

We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes (ie. the eternal) from that which is always becoming but never is (the temporal). The one is apprehensible by INTELLIGENCE with the aid of REASONING, being eternally the same, the other is the object of opinion and irrational sensation, coming to be and ceasing to be, but never fully real. . . . . Thus a description of what is changeless, fixed and clearly intelligible will be changeless and fixed - will be, that is, as irrefutable and incontrovertible as a description in words can be; but analogously a description of a likeness of the changeless, being a description of a mere likeness will be merely likely; for being has to becoming the same relation as truth to belief. Don't therefore be surprised, Socrates, if on many matters concerning the gods and the world of change we are unable in every respect and on every occasion to render consistent and accurate account. You must be satisfied if your account is as likely as any, remembering that both I and you who are sitting in judgement on it are merely human, and should not look for anything more than[b] a likely story[/b] in such matters.

So you see, the person that is recognised as the father of western philosophy acknowledges that conjecture can only tell you what is likely to be the case. It is probabilistic. However Intelligence, Reason, Logic will show you with your koro koro eye the way things are. Logic is for apprehending the eternal, the divine. It is a different faculty altogether. Logic will reveal TRUTH to you. Conjecture and Sensible processes will reveals FACTS to you and not completely but rather what is likely to be the fact.

Pastor,

Let's start by asking " who are the Christians" ? From that definition you can then see if logic is exclusive or not to that faith.

Only christians can be logical indeed, look at Convenant University (Oyedepo) and tell me were you see logical reasoning.

Please could any one show me where Ghandi said he hated blacks 'cos from what I saw, he reconsidered this position later besides, India has a native population of black skinned people.
By the way, the pastor and his fellows should know that due to the fact that religion is based on faith, it therefore cannot be logical since faith is not logical.

thehomer:

By the way, the pastor and his fellows should know that due to the fact that religion is based on faith, it therefore cannot be logical since faith is not logical.

What do you mean by Logical, because I don't think we are referring to the same thing when we use that word.

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven. - Wikipedia
For a thought process to be logical, it should be consistent, sound and complete. - Wikipedia

For one to say that only a Christian can be logical, this means that all non Christians are illogical.
For it to be that only a Christian can be logical, one must first prove that Christianity is the only truth and that all others are false. (Fails consistency e.g can gays get married in church? It's being allowed in some churches)

Fails soundness e.g Noah's ark was to be built for maintaining the species how was the ark able to contain all the pairs? Were sea creatures included? Plus all the food required by both the humans and animals.

Fails completeness e.g God destroyed "all animals that had the breath of life in them" but shortly after Noah's children came out of the ark, Ham proceeded to commit a sin. This would imply that the aim of destruction of all life on the planet failed.

Christianity is one faith/belief system among many others. A question:
Does this belief apply to all sects of Christianity?

I'd like to know what you are referring to when you use logical.

@thehomer

My definitions are as follows:

Christian: Someone who is a follower of Christ. Christ means the Anointed one. Someone who therefore adheres to the Life that has been Appropriated for him.

Logic: I will refer to my previous post which you might not have read. Is this a common habit in Nairaland to respond to threads without reading them. Anyway, this is what I wrote above again.

Pastor AIO:

Things have become so twisted and perverted! Look at what now passes for rational, Intelligence, Reason, Logic. People take Conjecture and call it Logic. I wonder what Plato would have thought about the present day uses of these terms that have such a high status in western culture because of his use of them.

Let us look at how Plato used these terms in Timaeus. I quote from the prelude.

We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes (ie. the eternal) from that which is always becoming but never is (the temporal). The one is apprehensible by INTELLIGENCE with the aid of REASONING, being eternally the same, the other is the object of opinion and irrational sensation, coming to be and ceasing to be, but never fully real. . . . . Thus a description of what is changeless, fixed and clearly intelligible will be changeless and fixed - will be, that is, as irrefutable and incontrovertible as a description in words can be; but analogously a description of a likeness of the changeless, being a description of a mere likeness will be merely likely; for being has to becoming the same relation as truth to belief. Don't therefore be surprised, Socrates, if on many matters concerning the gods and the world of change we are unable in every respect and on every occasion to render consistent and accurate account. You must be satisfied if your account is as likely as any, remembering that both I and you who are sitting in judgement on it are merely human, and should not look for anything more than[b] a likely story[/b] in such matters.

So you see, the person that is recognised as the father of western philosophy acknowledges that conjecture can only tell you what is likely to be the case. It is probabilistic. However Intelligence, Reason, Logic will show you with your koro koro eye the way things are. Logic is for apprehending the eternal, the divine. It is a different faculty altogether. Logic will reveal TRUTH to you. Conjecture and Sensible processes will reveals FACTS to you and not completely but rather what is likely to be the fact.

My final definition is for faith: I do not believe that Faith is suspension of disbelief or critical thinking. No, Far from being synonymous with gullibility I hold that Faith is a faculty by which we can perceive and evidence things that we cannot see with our physical senses. It is a gift of the spirit.

Refined conjecture can be found to be consistent, sound and complete, but alas that is not enough to know anything for certain. Still all it leaves you with is the LIKELY STORY. It is probabilistic. It will tell you what most likely happened or will happen but it can never tell you for sure, 100 per cent certainty.

I did read the post. It said what intelligence and reasoning were for but you did not say what logic was.

"Worldly logic" is based on fact or truth not conjecture.

e.g
Proposition A: A light bulb requires electricity to function.
Proposition B: This light bulb before me is glowing.

Fact: Electricity is flowing across the bulb.

Conjecture is reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Faith is belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven.

You had already stated that the propositions have to be factual. How can something be factual and still be conjecture?
A fact is either true or can be verified to be true.

From your definition of faith, it seems that only Christians can have faith. But it would also apply to any
other group of people who believe in a supernatural being.

Also, if a christian traveling on a bus has faith that he will not have an accident,
but does what happened?
Did he not "perceive and evidence/prove" that he would have the accident?

In other words, your definition of faith is belief in a conjecture and is therefore not logical.

thehomer:


"Worldly logic" is based on fact or truth not conjecture.

Hi thehomer.  "Worldly logic" is based on facts, not truth.  There is a distinction between facts and Truth.  Facts occur in the temporal world and Truth is Eternal.  This is even obvious from the Etymology.  Fact comes from Factorum  which is a Done thing.  the French call it Fait.  Which is also the past participle of To Do.  A fact is something that had occurred at some point in time.  It is temporal.  Something that hasn't yet occurred cannot be called a fact.  It is not a fact that you will wake up at 8am tomorrow morning, though it may be a fact that you woke up a 8am yesterday morning. 

try:
1con·jec·ture
Pronunciation:
\kən-ˈjek-chər\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjectura, from conjectus, past participle of conicere, literally, to throw together, from com- + jacere to throw — more at jet
Date:
14th century
1obsolete a: interpretation of omens b: supposition
2 a: inference from defective or presumptive evidence b: a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c: a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

A conjecture is when you arrive at a piece of information by following the implication of at least 2 other bits of information that you accept as fact.  It is impossible to arrive at a certain summary using this method because human sensory experience is limited.  We can never know all the factors that are brought to bear on determining any event. 

For example:  I come home early from work one evening to find my best friend walking out of my house and doing up his zip with a satisfied grin on his face.  I've spotted this from afar and by the time I actually arrive at the front door he has left.  I enter the house to find my wife in a state of dishevelment and worse still, she is not supposed to be at home.  She told me that she had a very important meeting that afternoon at the other end of town. 
It doesn't take a conjectural genius to put the pieces together and realise that the two people i trust the most in my life are playing me.  I pull out my shot gun and end her life swiftly.  Was that a reasonable reaction?  Was my conclusion a certain fact?  Or was it just the Likely story?  Isn't that just what, based on my experience of these things, most probably happened?
Imagine after I've killed my wife and the police are investigating it transpires that my little daughter was ill and so my wife had to abandon her meeting to tend for her.  the child's condition was so critical that she had to call for my best friend who is a doctor.  My wife had been soo worried and stressed that her hair and clothes became disheveled.  Luckily my friend was able to stabilise my daughters condition.  He then seized the opportunity to use the toilet to relieve himself as he had been holding back the call of nature for the last 2 hours.  After using the toilet he left.  It was at that point that I spotted him from afar doing up his zip and looking satisfied. 
Can you not see how easy it is to get the wrong end of the stick?  Any attempt to build a picture of what happened based on information recieved by the senses can only lead to the likely story because the senses cannot and can never get the whole picture.  We are limited to PERSPECTIVE.  Our evidence is not PANORAMIC enough.  Just consider sight.  We see such a limited range of lightwaves in the atmosphere.  We don't see ultraviolet we don't see InfraRed.  To the extent that these frequencies of light come to play upon determining an event I will be unaware of the outcome. 
To make an absolutely accurate conjecture I will need to know absolutely every detail of facts that will come to play in determining the event.  That is impossible.

e.g
Proposition A: A light bulb requires electricity to function.
Proposition B: This light bulb before me is glowing.

Fact: Electricity is flowing across the bulb.

By the way, this is called a syllogism.  It is not logic but is an aspect of the study of 'logic'.  There are other 'logical' systems.Today, some academics claim that Aristotle's system is generally seen as having little more than historical value (though there is some current interest in extending term logics), regarded as made obsolete by the advent of sentential logic and the predicate calculus. Others use Aristotle in argumentation theory to help develop and critically question argumentation schemes that are used in artificial intelligence and legal arguments.
Taken from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Conjecture is reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

Clap for yourself!  Now tell me, When has Perspective ever produced Complete evidence?

You had already stated that the propositions have to be factual. How can something be factual and still be conjecture?

Indeed the propositions are facts.  Therefore I'll have to correct you when after siting propositions A and B above  which indeed ought to be evidential facts, you then present the inference as a Fact.  No!  The inference is not the facts but the Likely Story based on the Facts we are aware of.  Conjecture is the procedure of taking facts and coming up with a likely story by methods of inference.

A fact is either true or can be verified to be true.

Nope!  A fact is simply something that has happened.  There are many things that have happened in history which cannot be verified, though they are true and that is because it is impossible to verify from our PERSPECTIVE.

From your definition of faith, it seems that only Christians can have faith. But it would also apply to any
other group of people who believe in a supernatural being.

Not merely believe in a supernatural being but have experience of a supernatural being.  Faith is the faculty that allows you to experience and act in the supernatural world. 

Also, if a christian traveling on a bus has faith that he will not have an accident,
but does what happened?
Did he not "perceive and evidence/prove" that he would have the accident?

If a christian sees spiritually that he will not have an accident.  eg if he has had a vision of himself safely at his destination then he has faith and can trust that he will not have an accident.  If however he just read a book and talked to his pastor who assured him that he will not crash, and by sheer effort of wishful thinking he convinced himself that he would not crash, then he is taking a chance.  More of a chance than the person who is using a more critical form of conjecture. 

In other words, your definition of faith is belief in a conjecture and is therefore not logical.

Non! Non!! Non!!!  I repeat that Faith is a faculty of perception just like the senses are faculties of perception but it is primed at another reality, not the physical natural reality,  But rather a supernatural reality.