It makes no sense to talk about observing unconscious deceit in oneself. — creativesoul

IT makes perfect sense to me. I believe I have seen it in action, both in myself and others in many diverse ways. When it is observed of course it ceases to be unconscious. For example, the woman who knows subconsciously that her husband is cheating on her, but who cannot face the reality, so does not allow this realization to come to consciousness.

There is no distinction between belief about the ineffable and the ineffable. — creativesoul

That is really no different than saying that there is no distinction between belief about anything and the the thing the belief is about.

You might object that the ineffable is not an empirical phenomenon, so the distinction between belief and the 'thing' the belief is about does not apply. But the same applies, to give a few examples, to personal freedom, immortality, the soul or self, God, the origin of the universe, causation and determinism, consciousness and so on. The list is long and "the ineffable" is on it. We cannot say anything determinate about the ineffable but we can say many, many things that take is as their subject.

It makes no sense to talk about observing unconscious deceit in oneself. — creativesoul

IT makes perfect sense to me. I believe I have seen it in action, both in myself and others in many diverse ways. When it is observed of course it ceases to be unconscious. — Janus

Because it makes no sense to say otherwise.

There is no distinction between belief about the ineffable and the ineffable.
— creativesoul

That is really no different than saying that there is no distinction between belief about anything and the the thing the belief is about. — Janus

Looks different to me... quite actually. As you note below...

You might object that the ineffable is not an empirical phenomenon, so the distinction between belief and the 'thing' the belief is about does not apply. But the same applies, to give a few examples, to personal freedom, immortality, the soul or self, God, the origin of the universe, causation and determinism, consciousness and so on. The list is long and "the ineffable" is on it. We cannot say anything determinate about the ineffable but we can say many, many things that take is as their subject.

Looks we're effin' 'em... Not sure what you're attempting to show here aside from perhaps putting forward some category or other. What do all those things have in common, because it most certainly is not being ineffable.

Are you saying that there is no distinction to be drawn and held between all of those things and belief about those things? Surely not.

Well, if one bullshits and later comes to believe it, then they didn't believe it at first. They were aware of the fact that they did not believe what they were saying - at first. If they later come to believe the bullshit, they are not aware that they once believed otherwise. Lying is deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought/belief. So, in the case of the bullshitter who later comes to believe his/her own bullshit - after they've come to actually believe it - they are no longer lying. That holds good regardless of whether or not what they say is false/true. — creativesoul

You are nitpicking. Noone cares what THEY are aware of. What matters is that WE are aware of that the beliefs that they currently hold to be true were formed with the aim to deceive other people. That they forgot the origin of their beliefs does not change what the origin of their beliefs is. In fact, it strengthens it, since being unaware of your own lies makes it easier to effectively lie.

Well, if one bullshits and later comes to believe it, then they didn't believe it at first. They were aware of the fact that they did not believe what they were saying - at first. If they later come to believe the bullshit, they are not aware that they once believed otherwise. Lying is deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought/belief. So, in the case of the bullshitter who later comes to believe his/her own bullshit - after they've come to actually believe it - they are no longer lying. That holds good regardless of whether or not what they say is false/true.
— creativesoul

You are nitpicking. Noone cares what THEY are aware of. What matters is that WE are aware of that the beliefs that they currently hold to be true were formed with the aim to deceive other people. That they forgot the origin of their beliefs does not change what the origin of their beliefs is. In fact, it strengthens it, since being unaware of your own lies makes it easier to effectively lie. — Magnus Anderson

One cannot unknowingly or inadvertently deliberately misrepresent his/her own thought/belief.

This tangent on self-deception began with Janus asking how we could know when we are deceiving ourselves after describing talking to those who hold contrasting positions as falling into a "pit of vipers" or words to that effect/affect.

Deception includes deliberate intent. Self-deception is a non-starter. It renders the notion of deception meaningless. It is a notion which will add only confusion. The irony of it all...

The opinions of deceivers were formed with the goal to deceive other people. Self-deception is when these opinions that were formed with the goal to deceive other people OVERWRITE those that were formed with the goal to map reality. That's EXACTLY what deception is. The only difference is that this kind of deception is unconscious in the sense that the deceiver is not aware that he's deceiving other people. That's the only difference.

You cannot erase history with the simple act of forgetting. All you can do is you can erase your memory of it. Do you understand this? When you forget that you are lying you do not stop lying. You merely convince yourself you are not lying. Which is a part of deception. By being unaware of the fact that your opinions were formed with the goal to deceive other people, you make sure your duplicity is well hidden.

Your claim that self-deceivers are not lying is MORONIC given the fact that their opinions were formed precisely with the aim to deceive others. Noone cares that they are no longer aware of this fact. That does not change a thing.

The opinions of deceivers were formed with the goal to deceive other people. Self-deception is when these opinions that were formed with the goal to deceive other people OVERWRITE those that were formed with the goal to map reality. That's EXACTLY what deception is. The only difference is that this kind of deception is unconscious in the sense that the deceiver is not aware that he's deceiving other people. That's the only difference. — Magnus Anderson

Rubbish. The opinion of a deceiver is not what he wants others to believe.

...When you forget that you are lying you do not stop lying....

When one believes what they say they are not lying.

When one believes what they say they are not lying. — creativesoul

That's not true. Beliefs that have been formed with the aim to deceive others are lies regardless of whether the deceiver believes in them or not. That's what a lie is: it is a belief that has been formed with the aim to deceive others.

The idea that lies are only lies if you don't believe in them is a tactic used by liars in order to fool others into thinking they are not liars. It's a very powerful tactic. What you're doing in this thread is you are trying to make it even more powerful by means of sophisticated pseudo-intellectual activity.

Every belief has an origin. Some beliefs are formed with the aim to map reality. Some beliefs are formed with the aim to deceive other people or to prevent one's own brain from being rudely motivated. Forgetting the origin of your beliefs does not change their origin. Believing your own lies does not change the fact that they are lies. Your mistake is that you ignore the history of a belief. You ignore its genealogy. You ignore HOW and WHY a belief is created. You focus TOO MUCH on what is in the present.

I've already told you that an intent is said to be conscious if the organism to which it belongs is conscious/aware of it. That's all it means. Not every intent is conscious because not every organism is conscious/aware of all of its intents. There are organisms with intents whether or not anyone is aware of them. Consciousness isn't all there is.

When one believes what they say they are not lying.
— creativesoul

That's not true. — Magnus Anderson

So then, we're at odds.

Let's take a gander at our respective notions of a lie. On my view, a lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of what one thinks/believes. That is the criterion, which when met, that counts as being a lie. I compare/contrast that to being honest, which is to not misrepresent what one thinks/believes. More simply put, a liar does not believe what they say, and an honest speaker does. It could also be talked about in terms os being a sincere speaker and/or being an insincere speaker. Speaking sincerely is precisely what one is doing when they're being honest, and vice-versa.

So... that's my take. What about yours? What exactly is the criterion, which when met, that counts as being a lie, and moreover how does it relate to being honest?

You ignore HOW and WHY a belief is created. — Magnus Anderson

This made me chuckle a bit, given the position I've been arguing for and/or working the bugs out of for over a decade...

That's not true. Beliefs that have been formed with the aim to deceive others are lies regardless of whether the deceiver believes in them or not. That's what a lie is: it is a belief that has been formed with the aim to deceive others. — Magnus Anderson

'Beliefs' that have been formed with the intent to deceive others are not beliefs of the liar. They are statements that the speaker does not believe. That's what makes them deceitful. Assuming sincerity in speech, a speaker believes what they say. The liar tricks one into believing something that the liar doesn't.

You're not making any sense here.

Let's take a gander at our respective notions of a lie. On my view, a lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of what one thinks/believes. That is the criterion, which when met, that counts as being a lie. I compare/contrast that to being honest, which is to not misrepresent what one thinks/believes. More simply put, a liar does not believe what they say, and an honest speaker does. It could also be talked about in terms os being a sincere speaker and/or being an insincere speaker. Speaking sincerely is precisely what one is doing when they're being honest, and vice-versa.

So... that's my take. What about yours? What exactly is the criterion, which when met, that counts as being a lie, and moreover how does it relate to being honest? — creativesoul

That's a horribly shallow understanding of what a lie is.

What is a lie?
Any declared description of reality that has been formed with the purpose to manipulate something (e.g. one's brain) or someone (e.g. one's neighbour.)

If I want person A to kill his friend person B all I have to do so is invent a reason for A to be motivated to kill B. For example, I can tell person A that his wife cheated on him with his friend person B. It does not matter whether I believe this myself or not. The point is that this alleged description of reality is formed with the sole purpose to motivate person A to kill person B. It wasn't formed with the aim to map reality.

What is not a lie?
Any declared description of reality that has been formed with the purpose to map reality.

That's also the difference between honesty and dishonesty.

What is a lie?
Any declared description of reality that has been formed with the purpose to manipulate something (e.g. one's brain) or someone (e.g. one's neighbour.) — Magnus Anderson

I declare to the love of my life that she is the love of my life for the sole purpose of manipulating her mind into believing and/or knowing it, because she doesn't.

According to your (mis)conception of what counts as a lie, I am lying...

I declare to a group of people who do not know that person A is a thief, that s/he is as a means to change the way those people think about person A.

Again, according to your (mis)conception, I am lying...

All motivational speech are lies according to you. There is also the problem of being both, a mapping of reality and aiming to manipulate the world and/or others...

Assuming sincerity, a speaker believes what they say. An insincere speaker does not. The former is honest, and the latter is not. The former is not lying, the latter is.

It's that simple.

I declare to the love of my life that she is the love of my life for the sole purpose of manipulating her mind into believing and/or knowing it, because she doesn't.

According to your (mis)conception of what counts as a lie, I am lying... — creativesoul

It is according to your misconception of my conception of what counts as a lie. In your example, you are describing reality before proceeding to use that description to manipulate a woman's mind. That's not a lie. It's not a lie because your description wasn't formed with the aim to manipulate a woman's mind. It was formed with the aim to map reality.

Assuming sincerity, a speaker believes what they say. An insincere speaker does not. The former is honest, and the latter is not. The former is not lying, the latter is.

It's that simple. — creativesoul

It's not.

I declare to the love of my life that she is the love of my life for the sole purpose of manipulating her mind into believing and/or knowing it, because she doesn't.

According to your (mis)conception of what counts as a lie, I am lying...
— creativesoul

...That's not a lie.. ...because your description wasn't formed with the aim to manipulate a woman's mind. — Magnus Anderson

And yet... the declaration's sole aim was to change her mind.

So, let's relate this back to the topic...

If someone thinks/believes that another is lying simply because they intend to change another's mind about something or other, then perhaps they are beholding a mental construct when witnessing motivational speech...

So this has turned into a debate on lying? These metaphysical disputes take the most curious twists and turns during the longer running threads.

Well, it began with a refutation of idealism. I'm attempting to get it back on topic. If we hold that perception is equivalent to how one 'interprets' the world/others, then we would conclude that one's perception of a lie is a mental construct.

that's interesting because we only see what our eyes perceive. i believe that our eyes act as an observer that send the messages of light to the brain to create the image that we are seeing. It's all information, our eyes aren't seeing what is there, it is receiving light and colors and our brain acts accordingly. The imagine you are seeing is a mental image but that's how we experience the universe. the same with ears, you're detecting audio signals and your brain allows you to experience the audio. this is why you have those parts of your brain for those parts of your body other wise they would act by themselves.

so the fact that every signal has to reach the brain before it is experienced is strange because that would suggest that what we seeing and hearing is just what the brain has created as a result of the signals it received. People who suffer from schizophrenia can hallucinate images and audio and what they see is a mental image. but they cant tell it apart from reality so it works the same way only their brain makes up images or audio without receiving the signals that would cause that.

A mental construct of what?

Don't we then need to say we behold a 'mental construct' of a chair, of a chair 'out there'.

But what does a 'chair out there' even mean stripped away from our own understanding of it as a phenomenal object. It's a mental construct of nothing we can coherently talk about. Even atoms and forces are mental constructs.

I think the phenomenal world just imposes itself upon as, as a sort of brute force 'hereness'. As in, there is no direction to our perception. There is no body -> out there perceiving an external world. Nor is there an internal body taking in data and creating an internal representation of an external world.

The entirety of our phenomenal experience is just brute force present. Perception doesn't really exist, in terms of sense organs and neurons. The world around us, our bodies, our sense organs, they're all in there entirety just presented as a cohesive whole. Nothing senses the other.