How is this definition of "belief"?

Forums: Belief, Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It just occurred to me, so I don't really know if it will pass closer scrutiny.

Belief - a conceptual frame in which an individual arranges his perceptions.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 58,864 • Replies: 1,787

[+3] - Fil Albuquerque - 06/02/2013[quote]The Koreans are every bit as goofy as the Portuguese--and that goes for people who just live there, too. [/quote] [quote]Norwegians, too . . . [/quote] Guess who was the author JL......
[+3] - Olivier5 - 06/04/2013Jesus! It's not like I am in a position to deny you the right of using any word you'd like, right? The point I am trying to make is that this choice of yours will reduce your capacity to...
[+3] - Setanta - 06/05/2013Actually, it's a wise position. We live in a complex, rich environment about which we don't even know a significant fraction. Even the gabbling, philosophical word merchants recognize that people...
[+3] - Cyracuz - 06/17/2013If I managed to get either Fil or Frank to admit to the mistakes they've made in this thread, I would be able to think of them as persons of integrity, and I could trust their intellects. As it...
[+3] - Frank Apisa - 06/17/2013[quote="Cyracuz"] [quote]Cyracuz...there is no way REALITY can be anything but objective...because whatever IS...simply IS.[/quote] This demonstrates that you have misunderstood the...
[+3] - JLNobody - 06/19/2013Frank, when we assert that whatever actually is...actually is, or whatever tastes salty actually tastes salty, or whatever is expensive is actually expensive or whatever I see as beautiful...
[+3] - cicerone imposter - 06/19/2013I had to laugh when you wrote, [quote] that he knows nothing for sure[/quote]. Frank argues HPOV veciferously - as if he knows for sure! LOL This is the same guy who doesn't have beliefs.

@Cyracuz,

That's the best kind of OP (proposition for examination) if you ask me. We submit a provisional thesis and see how our fellow A2Kers help to test and refine it.
Belief, as you use it, is a basis for the"arrangement of perceptions" (it is supposed to be heuristic). In addition it is more of a "working" proposition, a matter of opinion as opposed to knowledge which we generally think of as settling opinions.
I use the term, faith, as a measure of attitude; I do not understand ultimate Reality but I have faith in its ultimate "rightness" or OK.ness.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Belief, as you use it, is a basis for the"arrangement of perceptions" (it is supposed to be heuristic).

Perhaps that is the difference between a belief and a delusion. If you believe something and it is proven wrong, you either adjust your beliefs or become delusional.

If we refer to beliefs as conceptual frames, we can refer to facts as conceptual identities. Together they form knowledge. A theory would be conceptual identities set in a conceptual frame. Frames support identities, but identities can also be frames. In the event of conflict between the two, identity cancels frame, or in other words; if a frame and an identity offers conflicting information about the same phenomenon, the identity should take precedence.

I don't know.. maybe I am just substituting words, not really bringing anything new. Still, when we think about it this way, we see that the only reason to have a conceptual frame is that the corresponding conceptual identity doesn't exist.

3 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I believe it depends on what your belief is about. We all have different experiences and subjective perceptions of what we believe are our reality.

There are some things in this world that most of us can agree upon as to belief.

I think where it gets muddled the most is primarily in the areas of religion and politics.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Very good.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

If we refer to beliefs as conceptual frames, we can refer to facts as conceptual identities. Together they form knowledge. A theory would be conceptual identities set in a conceptual frame.

Yes, that's what a theory always is, although 'entities' would be better than 'identities'. They don't need to all have an ID.

Any mathematic theory has an axiomatic core which serves to structure the space or entities being talked about. Likewis, any scientific theory has a philosophic core. Science itself is based on humanism and other philosophies, including religious (eg in Islam).

All our knowledge is based on assumptions. The key is in reducing the number of assumptions to what you really need, and remaining aware of them to be able to test and update them, but not strip yourself of important features and structures.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I went with 'identities' because a fact is essentially an identification of something, while anything you might believe about that something prior to identifying it conclusively, is conceptual framework.
Take water, for instance. We know a number of facts about the substance known as water. We can identify the substance by observing the facts we have.
Water boils at around 100°c. Any liquid that doesn't boil at that temperature does not share that identifying trait, and does not have the same identity.

Quote:

All our knowledge is based on assumptions. The key is in reducing the number of assumptions to what you really need, and remaining aware of them to be able to test and update them, but not strip yourself of important features and structures.

Yes, and it is also based on facts. But I have been wondering about this method. The ideal of having as few assumptions as possible stems from a time where people thought it was actually possible to have no assumptions at all. But if you can never really eliminate assumptions completely, is there a point in minimizing them?
Wouldn't it be better then to have more assumptions, and even assumptions that contradict each other? That would decrease the risk of your assumptions being mistaken for facts, and if you are using your assumption to shape the questions you ask, having contradictory assumptions may help against being misled by getting good answers to the wrong questions.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Belief - a conceptual frame in which an individual arranges his perceptions.

And/or preferred delusions.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I think where it gets muddled the most is primarily in the areas of religion and politics.

In the case of religion, beliefs are validated simply by the emotional reward of believing in them. If we call 'god' a conceptual frame, it is pretty clear that there is no corresponding conceptual identity. When that is the case, it is a matter of pure imagination.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Delusion - keeping a conceptual frame even after it has been demonstrated to contradict the identities it supports, or even obscure them.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Sure, you see it all the time in relationships. There was a long-running thread entitled something like "He's abusive, but i know he loves me." Oh . . . really? If i love Lyla the Violet Virgin, and she treats me like dog sh*t, i can only convince myself that, deep down inside, she loves me by deluding myself.

0 Replies

Maybe an as-yet unproved truth claim made about phenomena or states?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I went with 'identities' because a fact is essentially an identification of something, while anything you might believe about that something prior to identifying it conclusively, is conceptual framework.

It obscures rather than enlight, IMO. Facts are just phenomena; some can be used to identify or characterise entities, others not. But more importantly, not all entities are necessarily identified for the conceptual framework to work. Think of Eucledian geometry as the framework and of points as entities.

Quote:

The ideal of having as few assumptions as possible stems from a time where people thought it was actually possible to have no assumptions at all. But if you can never really eliminate assumptions completely, is there a point in minimizing them?

I suppose the idea is that, keeping tabs on one's assumptions, and being able to differentiate facts from assumptions, allows one to "know how much you don't know" and change one's assumptions when they are contradicted by facts. People who are not aware of their own beliefs or mistake them with facts are slave to them.

Quote:

Wouldn't it be better then to have more assumptions, and even assumptions that contradict each other? That would decrease the risk of your assumptions being mistaken for facts, and if you are using your assumption to shape the questions you ask, having contradictory assumptions may help against being misled by getting good answers to the wrong questions.

Whatever works for you but being savvy and careful is choosing assumptions seems important to me.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Facts are just phenomena; some can be used to identify or characterise entities, others not.

I would say that facts are bits of information relating to phenomena.
In the case of geometry, I would say that the connection you perceive between the math and the actual phenomenon you seek to describe is the conceptual framework. The points are just markers. Geometry itself is like language; a tool to translate between the language of shapes and sizes to the language of numbers and values.
Another consideration is that through the use of geometry you can find mathematical identities.

1 Reply

@FBM,

But that doesn't cover beliefs that correspond to neither phenomena or states, but rather to an intuitive, perhaps instinctive need to feel connected.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You wrote,

Quote:

Whatever works for you but being savvy and careful is choosing assumptions seems important to me.

That would depend on each individual's subjective perception; especially on subjects based on religion and politics.

I think math and science offers more objective results, but there are people who question them too!

It's a choice we make from our own viewpoints of what works for us.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I would say that facts are bits of information relating to phenomena.

Indeed.

Quote:

Geometry itself is like language

That it is, but it is also a basic world view if you wish: how we see space and its properties. All humans I know see space as a 3 dimensional euclidean space, which is only one among many of the varied 3D geometries that our mind can create, but the only one we can truly visualize.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

That would depend on each individual's subjective perception; especially on subjects based on religion and politics.

I think math and science offers more objective results, but there are people who question them too!

Yes, it's all very subjective. But I never understood why some people views of beliefs was so negative. IMO, the virtue of the original definition of belief by Cyracuz at the root of this thread, is that it does not demonize beliefs but shows how they can be useful.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Of coarse beliefs are useful. It helps with self-preservation, motivation, and association with other humans and animals.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

IMO, the virtue of the original definition of belief by Cyracuz at the root of this thread, is that it does not demonize beliefs but shows how they can be useful.

That might be because I chose words that have no emotional associations to them. Frame and identity.
This seems like a point in favor of the word identity, rather than entity, as you proposed, since that word has a sort of supernatural ring to it, at least in my mind. It's also more vague. An entity can be so much. An identity points to something very specific, which a fact is.

1 Reply

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know