How is this definition of "belief"?

@igm,

igm wrote:

What happens if it is not a lie but a mistaken belief... what would your response be? The person heard a voice and believed it was God and now believes that God exists. Is that a guess or a mistaken belief?

The person heard a voice...and guessed it was the voice of GOD...and as a result now guesses that GOD exists.

Something seems illogical there. Why would the person guess the voice was the voice of GOD if he/she had not already guessed that GOD exists? Seems to me that the only way the person could guess it was the voice of GOD is if he had previously guessed that a GOD exists. The intermediate step is not necessary to that.

In any case, if not a lie, I would call it a wrong guess...or more exactly, a series of wrong guesses. Wouldn't you?

But once again...why not get off this since I have acknowledged that this is one of two exemptions from my general statement.

Give me a couple of examples outside the area of the exemptions...or acknowledge that you are only talking about the area within the two that I exempted...and we can discuss only that facet.

But I want to explore all the areas outside those two exemptions first...so let's do that.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

What's magic about everything not being permanent...

If you think you can change totally from one second to the next (and become another person, say become a woman if you are a man), and that bucket can also change totally, and the water can change totally (say, into whine), you rely on magic thinking.

0 Replies

Miss perceiving or miss understanding is not guessing...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Ok.
But the assertion that 'there is a state of affairs no matter what we can tell about it' is a belief. Do you agree?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Nop... because that assertion only says there is a state of affairs, that it doesn't matter if we can say much so long we can say there is a state of affairs, which we can. Its not a belief its a fact that we can say for sure there is a state of affairs even if we can't say anything more then that.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

The assertion "there is a state of affairs" is a fact.

But the assertion "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it" is a belief. We cannot know that there is a state of affairs that is unrelated to our experience. It might be that perception is a vital part of the state of affairs, and that without it, without us, there would be no state of affairs.
We simply cannot know, and I'd say it's pretty obvious why.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

The assertion "there is a state of affairs" is a fact.

But the assertion "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it" is a belief. We cannot know that there is a state of affairs that is unrelated to our experience. It might be that perception is a vital part of the state of affairs, and that without it, without us, there would be no state of affairs.
We simply cannot know, and I'd say it's pretty obvious why.

Then wouldn't that BE the "state of affairs?"

I do not see the distinction you are making.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

The assertion "there is a state of affairs" is a fact.

But the assertion "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it" is a belief. We cannot know that there is a state of affairs that is unrelated to our experience. It might be that perception is a vital part of the state of affairs, and that without it, without us, there would be no state of affairs.
We simply cannot know, and I'd say it's pretty obvious why.

The only thing perception needs correctly to say is that there is a state of affairs which is what the full sentence is implying..."it doesn't much matter what we can know" to state with certainty that THERE IS a state of affairs ! We are recognizing a state of affairs as a valid base assumption and not as a full description of WHAT that state might be...
For all that I care we may not be able to say anything more then that...
I think Frank explained this earlier on and you accepted it...what ever it is the case to be true is true, reality IT IS what IT IS. that intends to mean exactly what I said in the sentence:
"there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it"

I hammered this issue for years now I don't know what else needs to be said on it...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I think Frank explained this earlier on and you accepted it...what ever it is the case to be true is true reality IT IS what IT IS. that intends to mean exactly what I said in the sentence:
"there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it"

I agree with Frank's assertion. But read what he wrote after, agreeing that "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it" is an assertion about something unknowable.

Like I said, "there is a state of affairs" is a fact. I agree. There IS something going on. But I can't say with certainty that there would be anything at all going on if there were no creatures with perception. No humans. You see the problem? We can never verify any assertion about "what would be if there were no one to verify anything", or "no matter what we can know about it".
Call it what you want, just not a fact.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I think Frank explained this earlier on and you accepted it...what ever it is the case to be true is true reality IT IS what IT IS. that intends to mean exactly what I said in the sentence:
"there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it"

I agree with Frank's assertion. But read what he wrote after, agreeing that "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it" is an assertion about something unknowable.

Like I said, "there is a state of affairs" is a fact. I agree. There IS something going on. But I can't say with certainty that there would be anything at all going on if there were no creatures with perception. No humans. You see the problem? We can never verify any assertion about "what would be if there were no one to verify anything", or "no matter what we can know about it".
Call it what you want, just not a fact.

But the sentence Cyr is not saying what you thinking is saying...i've tried to explain you this over n over...the sentence is saying that to assume a state of affairs you don't need to do anything else other then to say there is a state of affairs which is to mean, you don't need to know anything else (you might you might not but you don't need) other then there is a state of affairs to say that there is a state of affairs !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...In this case the very assumption works as proof because to assume whatever at least 1 thing is needed, A REALITY !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

But the sentence Cyr is not saying what you thinking is saying...

It is, actually. It might not be the part you emphasize, but it is still part of the meaning of that sentence.
What you mean to say is that there is a state of affairs. I get that, and I agree.
But that is not what your assertion means.

It does more than assert that reality is. It asserts that there will always be a state of affairs, even if we are only vaguely aware of it, or completely aware of it. Or not at all.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Take out the "not at all" part please...we certainly must know there is a state of affairs when claiming there is a state of affairs, that's precisely what I am saying...if we say nothing, because we don't exist, then there might or might not be a state of affairs, I don't know, and taking a position would be guessing...what we actually can't do is to say that to claim there is a state of affairs there is some sort of belief involved...there isn't ! Its not even a guess its a wrong assumption.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Its not even a guess its a wrong assumption.

I wouldn't go that far, but it's nice of you to admit that.
It is not up to me to take out anything. It is up to you to choose your words so that it's not in there in the first place.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Its not there Cyr...i've told you and by now its proven !

0 Replies

The sentence states:
There is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it.

1 - It assumes a state of affairs as true.
2 - WHAT we can know about it is not relevant to state that there is a state of affairs.
3 - The only thing which we must know is that there is a state of affairs which does not qualify as any relevant information in relation to the first half...that is to say, no WHAT is needed, to state there is a state of affairs, except that there is a state of affairs.

PS - ...on the contrary to state that this FACT is a belief is itself a belief which by the way is wrong...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

It says "no matter what we can know about it".

That means that our knowledge is irrelevant to there being a state of affairs. We can not know this. I completely understand what you indend to assert.

In this thread about defining the word "belief" I just wanted to ask you how you would classify the assertion "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it". Fact, guess or belief?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It says "no matter what we can know about it".

That means that our knowledge is irrelevant to there being a state of affairs. We can not know this. I completely understand what you indend to assert.

In this thread about defining the word "belief" I just wanted to ask you how you would classify the assertion "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it". Fact, guess or belief?

Just want to get my two cents in:

The way it is stated here:

...how you would classify the assertion "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it". Fact, guess or belief?

IT IS A FACT!

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I did this earlier on Cyr...its a fact !

The sentence you aiming which is not what my sentence states is:

There is a state of affairs no matter if we know about it.

Mine focus on the what not on it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The way it is stated here:

...how you would classify the assertion "there is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it". Fact, guess or belief?

IT IS A FACT!

I am surprised. If this is a fact, then it is also true that if I know nothing of it, there is still a state of affairs.
Fair enough, if it had said "you", but it says "we", which I can only take to mean collectively all humans.
In that case, the assertion means that if no humans knew anything about any state of affairs, there would still be a state of affairs. But we can not know that. It is an assumption, not a fact.

For the record, though. I consider the assertion "there is a state of affairs" a fact. It's easily verifiable by all of us.

0 Replies

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know