How is this definition of "belief"?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's not a "closed mind," Frank. It's simple English. As for closed minds, you fit the definition - in English.

You believe I have a "closed mind." That's a belief.

I do not "believe" you have a closed mind, ci. Damn near every post you make causes me to suppose that you do. If it causes you great joy to consider my "supposition" to be a "belief"....you are welcome to it.

I know I have no beliefs.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

But we have good reasons to believe that the human mind actively resists introspection

We have strong indication that one of the things our culture does very effectively is to actively distract the human mind from introspection. These days, the only thing introspection leads to is a diagnose. I feel curse words are in order.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You wrote,

Quote:

There are actions (estimates, guesses, predictions, etc.) that I take every day of my life. I am totally happy with anyone who wants to assign the word "belief" to them...to do so if it makes them happy.

What makes you think trying to prove you wrong makes us "happy?"

You contradict yourself so often, it's not a matter of trying to show you why you are wrong. You repeat yourself often, but it doesn't have any factual truth in them - and in of itself, those "estimates, guesses, predictions, etc." are beliefs. They were established by your own subjective beliefs. If they were not beliefs, you wouldn't be able to function from day to day.

I'm otta here; it's a useless pursuit.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, you say, "I know I have no beliefs". Surely you are making a joke: otherwise that's a blatant contradiction which is not like you. Do you mean to say that you subscribe to no doctrines (no doctrinal beliefs)?

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Frank doesn't recognize his own contradictions. That's a FACT.

1 Reply

@igm,

You stated "all phenomena are like this." Is that a non-belief?

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

When it depends on and is attached to its antecedent... yes.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote,
Quote:
There are actions (estimates, guesses, predictions, etc.) that I take every day of my life. I am totally happy with anyone who wants to assign the word "belief" to them...to do so if it makes them happy.

What makes you think trying to prove you wrong makes us "happy?"

You contradict yourself so often, it's not a matter of trying to show you why you are wrong. You repeat yourself often, but it doesn't have any factual truth in them - and in of itself, those "estimates, guesses, predictions, etc." are beliefs. They were established by your own subjective beliefs. If they were not beliefs, you wouldn't be able to function from day to day.

I'm otta here; it's a useless pursuit.

Don't let the door hit ya.

Hey, aren't "useless pursuits" your specialty, ci?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank doesn't recognize his own contradictions. That's a FACT.

Well...so much for being outta here!

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, you say, "I know I have no beliefs". Surely you are making a joke: otherwise that's a blatant contradiction which is not like you. Do you mean to say that you subscribe to no doctrines (no doctrinal beliefs)?

There is no contradiction there whatsoever...except to someone who equates "belief" with "know."

So tell me, JL...if someone "believes" the notion non-duality is abject bullshit...does that mean that the notion of non-duality actually is abject bullshit?

I'm not one of those people, by the way.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not really consider them "beliefs", mostly because I think the word is torturously abused.

I agree completely about that. Either abused to the point of torture, or perhaps by turtles.

What do you think about the definition of "belief" in the OP? I was thinking of "belief" as including anything you can form an opinion on, as long as the opinion is not based on fact or definite knowledge.
Seeing them as conceptual frames kind of makes them a method of perception, to my mind.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

I do... thanks...

I see his next reply to you is further twisting.

That is what you will get from him from this point on. His comment was shown to be absolutely false...and without logic. So rather than just own up to it...he apparently will resort to his usual "well...how about such and such."

He pretends he has me on ignore...so you are regularly in the batters box.

I would be going back to the absurdity of his "x" and "non'x" sillygism....and just keep going back.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

When it depends on and is attached to its antecedent... yes.

To clarify, I said:

I don't however believe there is a truly existent car... there appears to be but when examined it cannot be found... all phenomena are like this.

The meaning is:

I have an absence of belief in a truly existent car and also the same absence of belief in all phenomena.

That does not mean I can't use conventional language based on the beliefs of others.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

When it depends on and is attached to its antecedent... yes.

Come on! You're playing games... quiet day?

0 Replies

Quote:

And it's also irrelevant. Saying "I don't believe in the existence of X" is the same as saying "I believe in the non-existence of X." You're not stating a non-belief, you're stating a belief.

This is total nonsense, everyone.

Joe probably doesn't have the strength of character to acknowledge that it is...but it is.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

I have an absence of belief in a truly existent car and also the same absence of belief in all phenomena.

Nope, that's not what you meant. You meant that all phenomena are like this -- i.e. there appears to be something but when examined it can't be found.

Run from what you said as much as you want, you still can't run from your beliefs. As Sartre noted, not to choose is to choose. In the same way, not to believe is to believe.

igm wrote:

That does not mean I can't use conventional language based on the beliefs of others.

Only if you want to be a complete hypocrite.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Name three...or stop the nonsense.

Stop the insulting / denigrating / condescending BS. That only proves how insecure you feel about yourself and your own ideas.

Only the first four I can think of:

1. you believe the world exists and your own senses can tell you something relevant and somewhat trustworthy about the world - in other words you believe you don't live in 'the Matrix', and that's quite obvious because if you thought you lived in the Matrix, you wouldn't post here or buy groceries for your aunties, you would try to wake up from the Matrix and join Neo
2. you believe you can totally and thoroughly explore your own mind and conclude as a result of this thorough exploration: "I know for a fact that there ain't anymore beliefs in me than bananas in my shoes"
3. You believe beliefs are bad bad bad
4. and this I am less sure of, but from what I can see, you believe you are entitled to treat believers like **** because you're so much smarter and lucid than they are

1 is probably true and a very useful belief to have, but it can't be proven empirically since it is a required belief for any experience-based learning. 2, 3 and 4 are just some of your delusions.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
I have an absence of belief in a truly existent car and also the same absence of belief in all phenomena.

Nope, that's not what you meant. You meant that all phenomena are like this -- i.e. there appears to be something but when examined it can't be found.

Run from what you said as much as you want, you still can't run from your beliefs. As Sartre noted, not to choose is to choose. In the same way, not to believe is to believe.

igm wrote:
That does not mean I can't use conventional language based on the beliefs of others.

Only if you want to be a complete hypocrite.

No joe, you cannot tell me what I meant; especially if my interpretation is valid and can be reasonably derived from that quote... which it can. Therefore the rest of your post given my justification of the meaning - which only I can know and you cannot - does not follow.

How does using the beliefs of others in order to communicate using language mean that I must want to be a complete hypocrite? Again, it doesn't have to be the case... and it isn't.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

No joe, you cannot tell me what I meant; especially if my interpretation is valid and can be reasonably derived from that quote... which it can. Therefore the rest of your post given my justification of the meaning - which only I can know and you cannot - does not follow.

If you were actually trying to communicate with me, then I most assuredly can tell you what you meant. I can also tell you that you're attempting -- very badly, I might add -- to cover your tracks here and deny something that you clearly said. Pretty juvenile, really, but there you are.

igm wrote:

How does using the beliefs of others in order to communicate using language mean that I must want to be a complete hypocrite? Again, it doesn't have to be the case... and it isn't.

You want to use concepts that you don't accept in order to say something that you don't mean. That's rather hypocritical, if you ask me. But then only I know what I mean and you don't, so you have no basis for telling me I'm wrong.

1 Reply

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know