5
   

How is this definition of "belief"?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 12:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

To go one step further, I wonder how they have planned for their education and what they believed to be the best way to "make a living." If there was no belief they could accomplish anything in life, how did they survive? After all, they are only "assumptions and guesses." We're not talking about the possibility of success or failure; only that they have pursued something they believed they could accomplish by making any choice of the the many options available to the individual (with the obvious constraints).

If they pursued those things from assumptions and guesses, I guess there's nothing I can do to explain the idea of "belief." NOTHING.


Try just not using the word "believe" in all that, ci...and the mystery will clear up...even for you.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 12:32 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I like you, Frank; you're a funny guy, not terribly coherent but indeed frank, and that's an important value for me. I would love to get to know you more, and I don't enjoy the current level of acrimony between us.

This being said, are you looking for a fight?

I'm new here and don't know the etiquette yet. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) this place was less about fights and more about discussions, so have been trying to keep things cool and not react to your insults. But just because I am new doesn't mean I can get cowed that easily, so if you really want a fight and if that's not against the local rules, I'd be glad to get dirty.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 01:12 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I like you, Frank; you're a funny guy, not terribly coherent but indeed frank, and that's an important value for me. I would love to get to know you more, and I don't enjoy the current level of acrimony between us.

This being said, are you looking for a fight?

I'm new here and don't know the etiquette yet. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) this place was less about fights and more about discussions, so have been trying to keep things cool and not react to your insults. But just because I am new doesn't mean I can get cowed that easily, so if you really want a fight and if that's not against the local rules, I'd be glad to get dirty.


I do not want to fight, Olivier…of that I can assure you. I want to discuss…and to hear why your opinions differ from mine and others so that refinements can be made.

I’ve been in this forum and the one from which it grew for 15 years…and have steadfastly presented my views on a number of subject…this being one of the prime ones. You have had cyber-contact with me for a week or so…and you have presumed to assess what I am able to do and not do during my frequent periods of introspection…and you have presumed to tell me that I am being less truthful and less principled than others because I want to characterize my guesses to be guesses and my suppositions to be suppositions rather than beliefs.

Do you see why I might possibly be less than enthusiastic about dealing with you on a respectful, reasonable level?

All that aside…I am totally willing to start completely fresh, because I do want for things to be less volitile between us. Let’s see where this leads.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Olivier…I see you have just joined us here on A2K. It is a lively group of people with interesting ideas and opinions…and from my initial readings of your comments, I am willing to bet you will fit in nicely and enjoy yourself. Occasionally, as with damn near every Internet forum, things get heated, but most of the people are willing and able to cool down and get back on the straight and narrow.

Here in this thread we are discussing the word “belief.” It is a subject I have discussed dozens upon dozens of times in threads started by me and by others.

I’d be interested in your take on things…so allow me to mention one area that comes up often.

When discussing the true nature of REALITY (what actually IS…whatever that is)…I prefer not to make any guesses. I do not know if a GOD exists; I do not know if gods exist; I do not know if there are no gods; I do not know if (what we consider the universe) is an illusion; I do not know if naïve realists are correct that it is what is seems to be; I do not know if there is an afterlife; I do not know if lives I cannot access preceded this one…

…in short, I do not know almost anything with any certainty about REALITY.

On most of these matters, the evidence is so ambiguous I cannot use it to make a meaningful guess…so I refrain from doing so.

I see other people making guesses about the essential matters…often using the word “belief” to describe their “take” on the unknown. I often mention that I have no “beliefs” on these issues, because I see those “beliefs” to be guesses…and as I said, I see nothing upon which to base a meaningful guess.

How do you feel about these things? And I hope our interaction on this issue leads to future meaningful discussions of other issues.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 01:13 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) this place was less about fights and more about discussions

For most of us, it is.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 02:08 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I do not want to fight, Olivier…of that I can assure you. I want to discuss…

Ok, then let us keep the language as neutral as possible and let's not assume too much of one another. Indeed we don't know one another. While I totally accept criticism re. my arrogance, weak communication skills or conceptual fuzziness, I kinda take exception on insinuations that I am not frank or shying away from anything. And while I often don’t respond in kind to insults, I can get as dirty as anybody if I decide to.

I also expect others to be able to take some amount of criticism without calling me “abject” or other names.

This being clarified, let’s see where that discussion leads us.
Quote:
When discussing the true nature of REALITY (what actually IS…whatever that is)…I prefer not to make any guesses. I do not know if a GOD exists; I do not know if gods exist; I do not know if there are no gods; I do not know if (what we consider the universe) is an illusion; I do not know if naïve realists are correct that it is what is seems to be; I do not know if there is an afterlife; I do not know if lives I cannot access preceded this one…

I see two distinct issues here. One is whether stuff EXIST. The other is what is their ESSENCE. To me, the “true nature of REALITY” sounds like you are talking about the essence of reality/things. You also used the expression "the essential matters".

I agree that the true essence of things is totally beyond our grasp. That's the Kantian distinction between phenomenon and noumenon. We can only access the former, not the latter.

However, whether material or mental stuff EXIST (irrespective of their “inner nature” or “true essence”) is another ball game. Based on logic and experience, I personally concluded a long time ago that the universe exists. I don’t know what matter is, what energy is, and what thought is. But I believe they all exist, because I generally trust my senses and logic.

If these things didn’t exist, we obviously wouldn’t be discussing the issue in the first place.

As for the term "belief", to me it is perfectly fine element of the English lexicon, and I see its referent as a necessary element of our psyche, just like hydrogen is a necessary element of water. I further think that deconstructing our psyche is a risky endeavor, in as much as we're not sure to be able to reconstruct it later. It's like putting apart a mechanical clock: fun to do but you often lose the clock as a result.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 02:09 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
For most of us, it is


Good to know.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 02:37 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
But I believe they all exist, because I generally trust my senses and logic.


That is up to you. In my opinion, our senses can fool us...so I do not put quite as much trust in them as you do. Wouldn't want to trust my senses, for instance, on what is going on with the sun and the moon...or the shape of the place we live on. I am withholding judgement on "existence" and its nature.

Quote:
If these things didn’t exist, we obviously wouldn’t be discussing the issue in the first place.


I disagree. This entire thing I call "the universe" could be an illusion of my mind...or of a combined minds of which I share a part. No way I can tell for sure...and it certainly does not seem impossible to me. So...I do not do "believing" on that possibility. In any case, it may exist only in an illusion...and we could easily be having a discussion in an illusion. Jury is still out for me. Lot's of non-dualists here would probably take a position quite near mine in this matter.



Quote:
As for the term "belief", to me it is perfectly fine element of the English lexicon,


Fine. Continue to use it. But if you could find it in your heart not to be dismissive of me because I find it objectionable...that would facilitate more "friendliness" between us.


Quote:
...and I see its referent as a necessary element of our psyche, just like hydrogen is a necessary element of water. I further think that deconstructing our psyche is a risky endeavor, in as much as we're not sure to be able to reconstruct it later. It's like putting apart a mechanical clock: fun to do but you often lose the clock as a result.


I do not understand this. If there is a point you do want me to see here, you'll have to break it down for me. As I said...I am not the sharpest tool in this shed.

Olivier...I think this is going rather nicely. There is no reason why we cannot become friendly cyber participants. I really think you ought to fill out a profile though. I'd like to know a bit about you. You certainly can read mine.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 02:42 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
For most of us, it is


Good to know.


I would be cautious about thinking that you "know" it. Information of this sort is only as good as its source.

Not being snarky here, Olivier. Just a friendly reminder that on the Internet, all often is not what it seems. You might have noticed that Joe here had a problem with the word "we" earlier. I have a the same problem with his "us" in this sentence as he had with the "we" when it was used earlier.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 02:59 pm
@Cyracuz,
Isn't that what "belief" is? That we can adjust our beliefs depending on what transpires to revise or correct it.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 03:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Isn't that what "belief" is? That we can adjust our beliefs depending on what transpires to revise or correct it.




Quote:
be·lief
/biˈlēf/
Noun
An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.


Quote:
guess (gs)
v. guessed, guess·ing, guess·es
v.tr.
1.
a. To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.


I don't know, ci...but it seems to me that "guess" fits that "adjusting depending on what transpires to revise or correct it" better than "belief."

Don't you think so also?

0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 03:13 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:
How is this definition of "belief"?

I don't believe in defining terms myself. I just look them up in a dictionary, usually Webster or the American Heritage Dictionary. In this case, I accept American Heritage's definition: "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something".

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

That's not a definition of what belief is. At best, it's a description of what you think believing individuals do. I can imagine several counterexamples to invalidate your proposal as a definition of the term "belief": For instance, consider the selfish-gene theory in evolution, homo oeconomicus in economics, and the legal fiction that corporations are persons. These are all conceptual frames; millions of reasonable, intelligent people use them every day. But only a negligible number among these people would say they actually believe in them. This is consistent with the dictionary's definition, and inconsistent with yours. Hence, your definition is certainly idiosyncratic and probably wrong.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 03:21 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Saying "I don't believe in the existence of X" is the same as saying "I believe in the non-existence of X."

What if someone asked you if you believe there exists intelligent life in the Orion Nebula, and you felt you didn't have enough evidence to form a belief either way? Are you positive that "I do not believe in its existence, nor do I believe in its non-existence" would be an invalid answer?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 03:28 pm
U-oh. Frank and I think the same thought at the same time independently. Something must wrong with Frank, if not the universe.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:12 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

U-oh. Frank and I think the same thought at the same time independently. Something must wrong with Frank, if not the universe.


Miracles happen!

Joe usually is much more logical than he was in that comment.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:20 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
our senses can fool us...so I do not put quite as much trust in them as you do. Wouldn't want to trust my senses, for instance, on what is going on with the sun and the moon...or the shape of the place we live on.


Our senses can indeed fool us, they are not perfect and they have their quirks and blind spots, but IMO thet usually serve their 'purpose' pretty well. 'Purpose' not in the finalist, intelligent design sense, but in the Darwinian sense of bringing a survival edge. And the only thing you need to do to see with your own eyes that the earth is round is to take some altitude. From any airliner, the thing looks pretty round to me... From space even more. Not that I've been there myself but I tend to trust scientists and astronauts, generally.

(disgression: that's another assumption or belief of mine: 'the scientific method is the most reliable method we presently know of for understanding our universe.' You can debate and pierce philosophical holes in that statement until it looks like a bad guy in a Tarentino movie, I will still believe in it. Call me naïve.)

Quote:
Olivier: If these things didn’t exist, we obviously wouldn’t be discussing the issue in the first place.

Frank: I disagree. This entire thing I call "the universe" could be an illusion of my mind...or of a combined minds of which I share a part. No way I can tell for sure...and it certainly does not seem impossible to me. So...I do not do "believing" on that possibility. In any case, it may exist only Fin an illusion...and we could easily be having a discussion in an illusion. Jury is still out for me.

Technically, if the universe was an illusion, EITHER you OR I would 'dream' it, including dreaming the other debater. So it would be you and your dream of me, or (I should rather think) I and my dream of you discussing. Not you and I in the traditional sense, i.e. not 'we'.

But that's a technicality. If I was 'dreaming' you and the rest of the world, I would be shocked beyond words by my creative abilities. The world is a masterpiece, really. And I can't build an Ikea bookcase in less than 5 hours? What gives? I would also find it quite lonely in here...

If I believed the Matrix was feeding me a virtual reality, I would try to wake up to join Neo and learn Kung Fu. I would jump from the Empire State Building for instance... :-)

If I believed in the universe, I would be in owe at its beauty. I would be able to have loads of fun (and then less fun) in it... I would like it a lot. And then sometimes less. But there would be so much learnibg to do...

I don't technically know what option is 'true'. I just chose to believe in the third one because the other two sound very very speculative and very very unlikely to me.

Quote:
Lot's of non-dualists here would probably take a position quite near mine in this matter.

Non-dualist? I am a monist, if that's the same thing.

Quote:
O: ...and I see its referent as a necessary element of our psyche, just like hydrogen is a necessary element of water. I further think that deconstructing our psyche is a risky endeavor, in as much as we're not sure to be able to reconstruct it later. It's like putting apart a mechanical clock: fun to do but you often lose the clock as a result.

F: I do not understand this. If there is a point you do want me to see here, you'll have to break it down for me.

Glad to.

I see SOME beliefs -- you call yours assumptions or ideas or guesses but I rush to say there's a category of assumptions that defines or describes our world view, our frame of reference would say Cyracuz, and that we care more deeply about them and they are more deeply ingrained in us than the usual random guess, and sorry but I need a word for these more fundamental assumptions -- as built in us, in our psyche. I call them mind axioms. Like the idea that the universe exists, that time exists, or trust in our senses. These are inate traits, coded genetically not only in humans but also in many animals, IMO. and the mind cannot function well without them, which is why they are in us in the first place. It's like bits and pieces of our operating system. Don't tamper with your mental OS too much.

I further posit that other types of belief (strongly held assumptions) also serve a purpose. Think of it in terms of the definition proposed at the root of this thread. Our mind is like a legal system. There is a constitution, a framework that changes very slowly (i.e. the 'belief' or paradigmatic level) and within it, there are laws that can be approved or annulled easily (ideas or assumptions). The framework level provides structure and a modicum of stability, necessary for the whole system to function.

In short, mind axioms should not be tampered because you're gona break your own mind. And other beliefs may well serve a valid function in structuring our mind.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:34 pm
@Olivier5,
Oliver...way too much to treat in one response.

Let me start with a question so that I am sure of what you are saying:

Are you saying that what we call “the universe” definitely is not an illusion…and that naïve realism is the REALITY?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:54 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Are you saying that what we call “the universe” definitely is not an illusion…and that naïve realism is the REALITY?


I believe the universe exists. I cannot say that my perception of it is the 'real thing' aka the thing in itself. It is most certainly not the real thing, only a mental image of it constructed inside my bain based on light vawes and sound waves etc. as picked up by imperfect senses. Phenomena are reflections of reality, not reality itself. We do, in actual fact, live in a virtual reality built up by our brain, but it refers to something that (I believe) exists.

I further say it is unwise to doubt the existence of the universe. It leads straight to schyzophrenia. But we should IMO remember that it's essence, and all the essential questions ("what is time, really?"), will always remain a mystery to us. We're not wired for that, I guess.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 05:05 pm
@Thomas,
You wrote,
Quote:
That's not a definition of what belief is. At best, it's a description of what you think believing individuals do.


Well stated; I like the idea that it's a "description." It's a conceptual process.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 06:20 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Are you saying that what we call “the universe” definitely is not an illusion…and that naïve realism is the REALITY?


I believe the universe exists. I cannot say that my perception of it is the 'real thing' aka the thing in itself. It is most certainly not the real thing, only a mental image of it constructed inside my bain based on light vawes and sound waves etc. as picked up by imperfect senses. Phenomena are reflections of reality, not reality itself. We do, in actual fact, live in a virtual reality built up by our brain, but it refers to something that (I believe) exists.

I further say it is unwise to doubt the existence of the universe. It leads straight to schyzophrenia. But we should IMO remember that it's essence, and all the essential questions ("what is time, really?"), will always remain a mystery to us. We're not wired for that, I guess.


Olivier...is that a "yes" or a "no?"
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 06:39 pm
@Frank Apisa,
A cautious yes.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 03:39:12