What is belief?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by creativesoul » Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:57 am

creativesoul wrote:
All belief consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between objects of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself. For a speaker to claim that s/he holds no belief is either to kid oneself, and/or have a gross misunderstanding of what counts as belief, for the very claim itself is nothing other than a statement of belief....
Londoner replied:
I do not think so. First, 'mental correlations drawn between objects of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself' begs the question. How can I ever know if, or how, my psychological/mental idea of X does correlate with the object X'? It would only be possible if I could perceive the X without it involving my own mind, such that I could say; here is the X in itself, here is my mental idea of the X, here are the areas where the two are correlated. But we can't, we can never see the X from outside our own heads and make that comparison.
Some much needed clarity is on order. The objection above is ill-conceived. To be clearer, it has the wrong target. What you're referencing("mental correlations...") is an ontological claim about what all belief(and thought for that matter) consists in/of. It's not about whether or not thoughts actually match up and/or correspond to reality(to the object X). Those are claims about the truth of correlations drawn. Whether or not they are true doesn't matter to the focus of this conversation.





Londoner wrote:
...To say 'I have no beliefs' would be understood as 'there is nothing about which I can be entirely certain'. That would not be a belief. It would not be a belief because it is analytic, it is saying that it is impossible to satisfy the description 'certain'.
Claims concerning the possibility and/or impossibility of satisfying the description of "certain" presuppose a criterion for what counts as being "certain".

Can you set that out here and now, prior to moving on?




While reminding others of certain situations that prove everyone forms and holds belief...

creativesoul wrote:

...Think about a lost item... One does not search in places that they do not believe it could be. We're not over at our neighbor's house looking through the wife's top dresser drawer. We're not looking on top of our roof. We're not looking in places like that, but we are looking. We are looking in places where we do believe the item may be.
Londoner replied:
I think this demonstrates how loose the meaning of 'belief' is. There is no suggestion of certainty.
What I'm saying is true is true of all senses of the term. Moreover, you're missing to respond to the point/argument I made...

You - the reader...

You've lost an item. Correct? You looked where you believed that it would/could be. Correct?

It cannot be the case that one has no beliefs if one has beliefs. Certainty doesn't matter yet. We all form and hold belief...

Correct?

:?:

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by creativesoul » Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:17 am

It is worth a bit of time to give some attention to the notion of intention. If intention is indicative and/or requires self-awareness, and/or thinking about one's own thoughts, then it requires metacognition. Cognition does not require metacognition. It only follows from this that cognition doesn't imply and/or require intention. Rather, it's quite the other way around. Cognition is thought/belief for metacognition is thinking about one's own thought/belief. If the terminological usage offends, I have no problem talking in longer form. Replace every instance where I wrote "cognition" with "thought and/or belief" and likewise do the same for "meta-cognition" and thinking about one's own thought/belief and we'll continue on without issue.

The point just argued for is this:Thought/belief does not require intention. Not all thought/belief is formed by a creature replete with what it takes to stand back and give pause to the situation. Not all belief is formed and held by creatures who are able to report upon their thought/belief. Those creatures who form and hold thought/belief but cannot report upon it cannot possibly be required to hold thought/belief about thought/belief. Not all of the thought/belief formed and held by creatures who can report on their own thought/belief was formed by using language.

That's enough...

A Human
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:01 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by A Human » Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:47 am

creativesoul wrote:Alright Human...

After re-reading our exchanges, it is clear to me that there are a couple of different things going on here. Stepping back and taking an account of the discussion and it's direction is on order. I have but one point to argue at the moment. Whereas it seems that you're arguing a succession of points, all hinging upon the first, I have been arguing one point all along.
Right, that point you make depends on itself with no support whatsoever.

That's the main issue with what you're arguing....it's just the point, not itself in relation to anything else.

You're repeatedly hollering 'my point is true because my point is true' instead of supporting your argument. Then, you go on to complain about me arguing a succession of points that provide support of mine.

If you wish to battle knowing this, attack my primary presupposition.

X causes Y is not enough to define a belief. An observer is needed or it does not have any sort of existence. An observer is required to punctuate the experience, to decide where X starts and where Y starts and then generate some meaning from the use of an epistemological knife in that situation....from the position of the knife wielder.

X causes Y does not exist without some particular observer making that distinction, period.

If you want to argue that, attack my starting position, prove to us where the X causes Y exists WITHOUT someone observing and communicating that.

(mind requires a difference, and an observation of that...you need three things to get a mind going...a difference, and something that can take that into account..it's easy to understand what's going on with minds when you understand how this works)

A Human
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:01 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by A Human » Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:55 am

creativesoul wrote:It is worth a bit of time to give some attention to the notion of intention. If intention is indicative and/or requires self-awareness, and/or thinking about one's own thoughts, then it requires metacognition. Cognition does not require metacognition. It only follows from this that cognition doesn't imply and/or require intention. Rather, it's quite the other way around. Cognition is thought/belief for metacognition is thinking about one's own thought/belief. If the terminological usage offends, I have no problem talking in longer form. Replace every instance where I wrote "cognition" with "thought and/or belief" and likewise do the same for "meta-cognition" and thinking about one's own thought/belief and we'll continue on without issue.

The point just argued for is this:Thought/belief does not require intention. Not all thought/belief is formed by a creature replete with what it takes to stand back and give pause to the situation. Not all belief is formed and held by creatures who are able to report upon their thought/belief. Those creatures who form and hold thought/belief but cannot report upon it cannot possibly be required to hold thought/belief about thought/belief. Not all of the thought/belief formed and held by creatures who can report on their own thought/belief was formed by using language.

That's enough...

Um, there's more than a bit of confusion here you're having regarding INTENTION and INTENTIONALITY.

Not to embarass you creativesoul, so totally, but here is the opening line from even a weak resource such as wikipedia

"Intentionality is a philosophical concept and is defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs".[1] The term refers to the ability of the mind to form representations and should not be confused with intention.


We here are talking about ABOUTNESS, not what you have the intention to do.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by creativesoul » Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:01 am

Perhaps a simple report upon everyday fact is better...

One can learn that fire hurts when touched without being able to communicate what's being learnt. One can learn that fire hurts when touched without ever being able to conceive of time. One can think about what's going on around them by virtue of connecting it to what's going on within them... and that, my friends applies to many many a beast. No language is necessary for doing that.

A creature learns that touching fire causes pain solely by virtue of drawing a mental correlation between it's own behaviour and the pain the follows. There is no need for the creature to think about the meaning of "X caused Y". Rather "X caused Y" is nothing more than a simplified representation of the target of our thoughts about causation. Causation itself doesn't need for us to take it into consideration in order for it to be a force in the universe which we humans learned to take into consideration. Likewise, we need not be able to say "fire hurts when touched" in order to touch fire, get burned, and draw a connection between what we just did(touch fire) and what we now are dealing with(extreme pain).

A Human
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:01 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by A Human » Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:12 am

creativesoul wrote:Perhaps a simple report upon everyday fact is better...

One can learn that fire hurts when touched without being able to communicate what's being learnt. One can learn that fire hurts when touched without ever being able to conceive of time"
then creativesoul says in total contradiction to his own argument
creativesoul wrote:A creature learns that touching fire causes pain solely by virtue of drawing a mental correlation between it's own behaviour and the pain the follows.
You said it, FOLLOW....X causes Y which means Z.

You said it, he observed the correlation between his own behavior and the pain [sic]the FOLLOWS.

A Human
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:01 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by A Human » Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:19 am

Here we go again:

When two things happen close together, that is an association that most creatures can puzzle out.

No belief is required, it's an association, even Aristotle was very familiar with this.

For a belief to form, there needs to be an x and y that are THEN considered and a meaning of that relation in relation to the observer to be made afterwords.

It's really that simple.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by creativesoul » Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:26 am

Hey! Hold on with the platter of red herring...

:roll:

Are you saying that a creature who cannot conceive of time cannot learn that fire hurts when touched?

As a matter of fact, the pain from touching fire follows the touching. We know that. A creature need not be able to conceive of time in order to touch fire and draw a correlation between it's behaviour and the pain that followed. The pain will follow the behaviour regardless of whether or not the creature has a conception of time. Time doesn't need to be conceived in order for those events to take place.

What are you disagreeing with here?

A Human
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:01 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by A Human » Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:31 am

creativesoul wrote:Hey! Hold on with the platter of red herring...

:roll:

Are you saying that a creature who cannot conceive of time cannot learn that fire hurts when touched?

As a matter of fact, the pain from touching fire follows the touching. We know that. A creature need not be able to conceive of time in order to touch fire and draw a correlation between it's behaviour and the pain that followed. The pain will follow the behaviour regardless of whether or not the creature has a conception of time. Time doesn't need to be conceived in order for those events to take place.

What are you disagreeing with here?
Right, you're now supporting completely what I have been explaining even though you argued against it previously.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by creativesoul » Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:38 am

Learning that touching fire hurts when touched doesn't require thought/belief in the form of 'X caused Y which means Z'. What I've just argued, and you've(oddly enough) since agreed with is an argument in support of that.

Here's the thing...

'X caused Y which means Z' is two beliefs in succession. The latter is about the former. In order for a subsequent belief to be about a prior belief, the prior belief has to have already been formed and held. Doing that much necessarily precedes thinking about one's own thought/belief. Thinking about one's own thought/belief requires language, for doing that much requires abstraction(symbolism/signification) replete with some symbol or other representing our mental ongoings(we use "thought" and "belief"). In other words, thinking about one's own thought and belief requires language for it is only done by virtue of a multi-stepped process. First, one must have mental ongoings(drawing correlations). Second, one must be able to take note of it's own mental ongoings. One can only satisfy the second step by recognizing one's own thought/belief, and subsequently isolating it with a namesake/symbol/signifier. One cannot do that without drawing a meaningful distinction between it's current mental ongoings and it's past. Thus, in order to take account of one's own thought/belief one must have both - language and a conception of time.

Your notion of what counts as belief requires both language and a conception of time. I have argued for exactly how that is ill-conceived. There are everyday events which clearly show that one can recognize and/or attribute causality without needing to have language or a conception of time in order to do so...

You are now claiming that we're in agreement.

Is this all acceptable to you?

A Human
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:01 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by A Human » Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:31 am

creativesoul wrote:Learning that touching fire hurts when touched doesn't require thought/belief in the form of 'X caused Y which means Z'. What I've just argued, and you've(oddly enough) since agreed with is an argument in support of that.
Of course! That's what I've been doing my best to explain to you, creativesoul.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by creativesoul » Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:01 am

Perhaps what follows is inhibiting my understanding of how it could be the case that we've reached agreement...
A Human wrote:
For a belief to form, there needs to be an x and y that are THEN considered and a meaning of that relation in relation to the observer to be made afterwords.

It's really that simple.
You see, I cannot agree with this, nor does it make sense in light of what I've been arguing...

The relation between X and Y is causal in the example I gave that you've agreed to. X is an actors behaviour(touching fire) and Y is an actors pain. Thus, it makes no sense to talk in terms of "that relation in relation to the observer" because that is in relation to the observer.

A Human
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:01 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by A Human » Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:14 am

creativesoul wrote:Perhaps what follows is inhibiting my understanding of how it could be the case that we've reached agreement...
A Human wrote:
For a belief to form, there needs to be an x and y that are THEN considered and a meaning of that relation in relation to the observer to be made afterwords.

It's really that simple.
You see, I cannot agree with this, nor does it make sense in light of what I've been arguing...
Right, it can't make sense in light of your own arguments, I agree with you on that.

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by creativesoul » Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:53 am

It is either the case that all belief follows the form 'X caused Y which means Z' or it is not the case that all belief follows the form 'X caused Y which means Z'. Human has claimed it is. I have levied many a valid objection to his/her claim. Human has now claimed to agree with the objections I've levied which negate his/her original claim that all belief follows the form 'X caused Y which means Z', and yet Human claims that my objections are in agreement with his claims; that my objections are what s/he's been trying to explain all along.

We're evidently reading two different threads...

:mrgreen:

creativesoul
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: What is belief?

Post by creativesoul » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:25 am

A Human wrote:...prove to us where the X causes Y exists WITHOUT someone observing and communicating that...
This is wrong-minded. My argument bears it's own burden, and does it quite well. The whole bit about "X causes Y" is yours. By my lights, it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about "where the X causes Y exists"...

It("X causesY") exists wherever it's been written and remains legible. It does not exist anywhere else.

"X causes Y" is an undefined formalized representation of belief; a logical statement using undefined variables. It's inception is utterly contingent upon thinking about thought/belief. Hence, it requires language. That is, "X causes Y" is the result of a metacognitive linguistic endeavor. Rudimentary thought/belief requires neither language, nor thinking about thought/belief. Thus, failing to draw and maintain consideration of that distinction ends in such ill-conceived criterions for 'proof'(scare-quotes intentional).

To successfully refute your claim, all that needs to be shown is that belief does not require thinking about meaning. I have successfully argued for exactly that, and have done so in more than one way. My showing that much refutes your claim about the purported form of all belief.

Since it's happened a few times already, something else ought be mentioned...

It's unacceptable, given the context, to focus upon the form of my responses to you. That is to conflate my reports with what I'm reporting upon. My reports require metacognition. What I'm reporting upon does not. Our ability to become aware of what I'm reporting upon requires metacognition. What I'm reporting upon does not. It does not follow from the fact that some of my reports could be said to follow your form that all belief does. It also does not follow from the fact that my reports include the use of "not" and "cannot" that all belief is required to be based upon, use, and/or be about what you've called the "digital" not.
Last edited by creativesoul on Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests