Agreed emphatically

"Believe" is a verb and is a frequent activity or an action of human brain cells. — Ken Edwards

I hope this is said jokingly, I mean "brain cells", right?

Janus you just said: "Anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed."

That statement is fundamental and sums up and modifies this entire conversation.

Anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed. — Janus

If it's not knowledge, such a frame of mind would result in at least two alternatives being tentatively entertained: at minimum, that of X being and that of X not being. How can acting out on any alternative not entail some type of belief that the alternative one acts out on is at least likely true?

As one concrete example, one sees movement in a very dark corner close to oneself outdoors. To one's momentary awareness the movement could at least either be produced by wind-blown debris, like leaves, or else by a small animal, like a rat. Both seem relatively reasonable to yourself and both can be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons; still, one does not know which alternative is true. If one then moves away from one’s position so as to avoid the possibility of contact with a small animal, how can this activity be accounted for in the absence of belief (to whatever extent conscious and/or subconscious) that the movement was likely produced by a small animal (rather than, for example, by wind-blown leaves)?

The same question would also apply to less time-sensitive instances of action in cases where knowledge is not held.

(BTW, I do get the often grave problem of unjustified belief treated as incontrovertible knowledge. But I so far take it that such isn’t equivalent to belief per se.)

Hi univereness. You sent me a big handful. Let m take them one at a time.

You say: "I appreciate what you mean but it's no different from your 'when I spoke to some of the German prisoners' memory. Did you know for sure that the comments expressed were supported by every prisoner in that group?

They were not supported by every member. They were denied by some. It was an issue among them and I got later reports from my interpreters.

But I have since noticed that believing the lies that are told to one or believing two different things at the same time or pretending to believe them or coming to believe ones own lies is, alas, very common every where. My God! - just look at the remnants of the republican party.

Incidently, about your words" "It's like that biblical story about sodom and Gomorrah. I mean really, that idiotic angel could not find any decent folks at all in either city! I for one, don't believe that biblical BS."

Did you ever stop to think that a major crime was commited by God? Anal sex is practiced or experimented with by millions everywhere but God burned to death an entire city including children and dogs in history's biggest single example of murderous arson. God is a major criminal and should receive tens of thousands of murder conviction.

You say "So what is it you mean or are implying when you use the phrase, "i believe in love.", if it's not that you believe that it exists."

I agree that when I use the phrase: "I believe in democracy" there is an implication that that I think the phrase exists but the thrust of my words is my attitude and feelings toward democracy.

Also, if I use any other word or phrase whatsoever or whenever I also imply that the phrase exists. All phrases. Examples. when I say -"I ate eggs for breakfast" I imply that the phrase exists.

Here you underline the message I am trying to send. That the use of the word "believe" is very tricky and should be carefully considered when used.

In your sentence you use two phrases - "believe in" and "believe". I hold that the meanings of these two are totally different. For instance to say "I believe in democracy is not, in the least, the same as saying "I believe democracy which is meaningless.

But several times in this discussion the two different statements seem to be used interchangeably.

I don't get it. Why should anyone joke about "Brain Cells". It is my own brain cells or, more correctly patterns and arrrangements of my brain cells that are typing these words.

(BTW,
You say:" I do get the often grave problem of unjustified belief treated as incontrovertible knowledge. But I so far take it that such isn’t equivalent to belief per se.)

I think that beleif per se would also apply to Justified belief.

You say:" I do get the often grave problem of unjustified belief treated as incontrovertible knowledge. But I so far take it that such isn’t equivalent to belief per se.)

I think that beleif per se would also apply to Justified belief. — Ken Edwards

Sure. Belief, in and of itself, would also apply to "justified true belief", which is the commonly accepted definition of descriptive knowledge. Which in turn would make belief and indispensable aspect of, at the very least, descriptive knowledge.

This, however, for example does not make "knowledge" equivalent to "unjustified belief treated as incontrovertible knowledge" - even though both make use of belief.

Still, you might have a definition of knowledge in mind which does not make use of belief. In which case, the just mentioned wouldn't apply, granted.

But I have since noticed that believing the lies that are told to one or believing two different things at the same time or pretending to believe them or coming to believe ones own lies is, alas, very common every where. My God! - just look at the remnants of the republican party — Ken Edwards

Just in case you are not already aware of this Ken. If you highlight text typed by another member, a small tag appears on the left called 'quote,' this allows you to quote what someone else has typed that you wish to reply to, It saves having to copy/paste etc.

I agree that trying not to be duped by fake news or what is said by nefarious people who pretend to be good people is difficult. It does not turn me away from establishing my own personal belief system it just reminds me to check all sources carefully and be always willing to challenge my own even deeply held beliefs, if new evidence informs me I must, by virtue of its empirical strength.
I have identified my political position as socialist and humanist since my teenage years.
I remain so and consider Tories in the UK or republicans in the USA, political opponents.

God is a major criminal and should receive tens of thousands of murder conviction. — Ken Edwards

If it existed then I would agree it is a monster but lucky for it (god), I, as an atheist am 99.9% convinced that it never has existed. Humans must stop scapegoating gods. The bad things that humans do are down to us, not gods.

That the use of the word "believe" is very tricky and should be carefully considered when used. — Ken Edwards

I agree that 'I believe' indicates a strong level of conviction but you agreed earlier that you must have a very strong conviction towards a particular viewpoint such as freedom or democracy, if you are willing to kill other humans who try to remove it by force. I would fight against fascism to the death. I would also fight against autocracies/aristocracies/plutocracies/cults of celebrities etc. I would do so because I believe them to be unjust systems.

As one concrete example, one sees movement in a very dark corner close to oneself outdoors. To one's momentary awareness the movement could at least either be produced by wind-blown debris, like leaves, or else by a small animal, like a rat. Both seem relatively reasonable to you and both can be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons; still, one does not know which alternative is true. If one then moves away from one’s position so as to avoid the possibility of contact with a small animal, how can this activity be accounted for in the absence of belief (to whatever extent conscious and/or subconscious) that the movement was likely produced by a small animal (rather than, for example, by wind-blown leaves)? — javra

Prediction, to put it succinctly. This happens whether we like it or not. Our minds are constantly looking for patterns and making predictions.

Maybe you're suggesting that our beliefs correspond to our conditioning, that if we tend to react in a particular way it indicates a belief of some kind. An irrational fear of rats, for instance, means that a person believes that rats are dangerous. This goes against the sense of "holding to be true", however, because there is little if any control over the phobia. Irrational fear is not something that is desirable, and indeed is something that most would rather not hold.

If it's not knowledge, such a frame of mind would result in at least two alternatives being tentatively entertained: at minimum, that of X being and that of X not being. How can acting out on any alternative not entail some type of belief that the alternative one acts out on is at least likely true? — javra

Given what is already pragmatically accepted and entertained as what seems most plausible, then one or other of the alternatives will in turn seem the more plausible. All this against the background of what we always already pre-reflectively know, our "know-how", as embodied beings in a world. This latter kind of knowledge, in distinction to "knowing-that", it makes no sense at all to be skeptical about; any such skepticism is a feigned intellectual posturing in a state of separation from life. This is how it seems to me, in any case, and I accept and entertain it provisionally, until and unless an understanding which seems more plausible comes along.

Janus you just said: "Anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed."

That statement is fundamental and sums up and modifies this entire conversation. — Ken Edwards

:cool: Cheers Ken.

:up:

Sure. Belief, in and of itself, would also apply to "justified true belief", which is the commonly accepted definition of descriptive knowledge. Which in turn would make belief and indispensable aspect of, at the very least, descriptive knowledge. — javra

I don't see why the formula could not be: knowledge consists in justified true ideas. If I have an idea that such and such seems to be the case, and I accept that idea as a provisional guide to action, why could that not be counted as knowledge if the idea is both true and justified? Does anything here depend on the psychological fact of my either believing or not?

If I concern myself with thinking in terms of believing, and thus let skepticism or doubt come in, and they always come in as the alter-ego of the spectre of belief, then I can never know, in any absolute sense, whether any idea I entertain about the world is true, and even worse, I can never know whether it is justified either. Yet my never being able to know such things is of no concern if I don't concern myself with believing. and remain satisfied with entertaining.

Prediction, to put it succinctly. This happens whether we like it or not. Our minds are constantly looking for patterns and making predictions. — praxis

In the example provided, the mind predicts two conflicting alternatives are possible: wind-blown leaves or a small animal. Also given is that you do not consciously know which alternative is real. To consciously act on either is not prediction: the predictions of if-then are already embedded in each alternative. So prediction as stipulated does not account for why one chooses to act on one alternative but not the other.



Prior to addressing what you’ve stated, I think it's best that we agree upon what terms signify. I’ll start by providing some working definitions of what I understand by “belief”:

-- a belief (a noun) is an instantiation of the activity of believing (a verb)
-- believing can occur in the form of “believing that [the given clause]” or “believing in [the given noun]” or else “believing [the given agent(s)]
-- to believe that [the given clause] is to trust (i.e., hold confidence) that [the given clause] is real and, hence, is to attribute reality to [the given clause] (e.g., I believe that tomorrow will be like today)
-- to believe in [the given noun] is to attribute reality to [the given noun] (e.g., he believes in UFOs), else to [the given noun]’s moral standing or preferability (e.g., she believes in not burning flags), or else to [the given noun]’s ability to accomplish (e.g., I believe in Bill (e.g., in Bill’s ability to finish the marathon)).
-- to believe [the given agent(s)] is to attribute truthfulness to [the given agent(s)]’s claims and, hence, to attribute reality to what [the given agent(s)] claim (e.g., he believed her).
-- hence, common to all three types of belief is some variant of “the attribution of reality to”.

Do you disagree with these definitions, and, if you do disagree, what do you instead recommend?

Anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed. — Janus

Indeed, but only after already having a belief system intact. Suspending one's judgment is a metacognitive endeavor. Metacognition is existentially dependent upon pre-existing belief.

Thanks universeness. I did not know that.

We seem to have almost identical political positions. Mine date from the 40's. But I have lived in Mexico and Guatemala since 1955 which experiencec vastly reenforced the validity of those same positions and, of course, taught me many things about the ways and day to day practices of their mild despotism.

For instance upper class Mexicans and the upper levels of the rare middle class are never tortured but the lower classes are routinely and impersonally tortured without exception when they are arrested. The arrests are rarely the results of a police report . but usually result from a denunciation. The reason for torture is that torture is the only information retrieval system that they know of.

I bacame a "Born again athiest at the age of 17

Yet my never being able to know such things is of no concern if I don't concern myself with believing. and remain satisfied with entertaining. — Janus

I think you are splitting hairs. Do you believe the words you typed above are correct?

For instance upper class Mexicans and the upper levels of the rare middle class are never tortured but the lower classes are routinely and impersonally tortured without exception when they are arrested. The arrests are rarely the results of a police report . but usually result from a denunciation. The reason for torture is that torture is the only information retrieval system that they know of.

I bacame a "Born again athiest at the age of 17 — Ken Edwards

I am encouraged by the thought we would most likely be united in opposition against those who behave the way the Mexican police you describe above, behave.
We will wait in forlorn hope, for an eternity, if we wait for gods to relieve/prevent/stop human suffering and injustice. Only other humans can achieve that.
People of the world, UNITE!

Overall Ken, I think we would be on common ground in many of our viewpoints but I do disagree with your concern over the term 'believe,' regardless of the context of its use.
I am concerned about what people do, not what they think they might do based on their personal beliefs.
It is very important to have adequate checks and balances within our society to prevent any nefarious b****** from gaining power and influence and be able to remove them easily if they become such. All people must be educated to as high a standard as possible, at no cost to them. Money must be removed as the controlling factor for individual lives.
We must insist on equality of status and value for all humans and we must protect all ecological systems. If we achieve that then I think the human race could become a benevolent interstellar species, which exists on many planets. If we don't, then I fear for our survival.
I for one remain confident that humans will continue to improve.

Janus you just said: "Anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed."

That statement is fundamental and sums up and modifies this entire conversation. — Ken Edwards

"Anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons;" is what it means to believe anything. All you've done is show that you can't escape believing anything.

And you're avoiding the question I posed to you earlier about it means to "believe in" things.

All you're doing is moving goal posts. :sad:

I don't get it. Why should anyone joke about "Brain Cells". It is my own brain cells or, more correctly patterns and arrrangements of my brain cells that are typing these words. — Ken Edwards

Oh, sorry. I was almost sure that you used "brain cells" in a humoriys way. I could never think that somenone would say seriously that bain cells actually "believe". But now I do. Esp. after your claiming that your brain cells dictate to you what to type and, in fact, force you to do it.

BTW, by saying "my brain cells" I believe you mean that you own --you are the owner of-- a brain with cells, right? Have you ever thought who is that owner?

In the example provided, the mind predicts two conflicting alternatives are possible: wind-blown leaves or a small animal. Also given is that you do not consciously know which alternative is real. To consciously act on either is not prediction: the predictions of if-then are already embedded in each alternative. So prediction as stipulated does not account for why one chooses to act on one alternative but not the other. — javra

You asked: “If one then moves away from one’s position so as to avoid the possibility of contact with a small animal, how can this activity be accounted for in the absence of belief (to whatever extent conscious and/or subconscious) that the movement was likely produced by a small animal (rather than, for example, by wind-blown leaves)?”

If a mind accurately predicts the presence of a rat then moving away from it, assuming the rat is rabid or whatever, is a good and adaptive prediction. Otherwise it’s a prediction error.

If there were time to think before acting, the musophobic could consider their options, to fight or flee, or come up with some other plan, all the while fully realizing that there may not be a rat rustling in the leaves. Again, it’s not necessarily an idea or prediction that’s ‘held to be true’.

Anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed.
— Janus

Indeed, but only after already having a belief system intact. Suspending one's judgment is a metacognitive endeavor. Metacognition is existentially dependent upon pre-existing belief. — creativesoul

Beliefs are ‘held to be true’, which means that experience or evidence that may disprove a belief is resisted. We don’t necessarily resist new information, clearly. The shared knowledge and fictions that bind us can be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed.

I agree wholeheartedy. I think the general failure of members of the republican party to do as you say preceded Trump and is as responsible as he is for the present wreckage of the republican party

I agree with every single word you said. My concern about believing is irrelevent here I think.

You asked: “If one then moves away from one’s position so as to avoid the possibility of contact with a small animal, how can this activity be accounted for in the absence of belief (to whatever extent conscious and/or subconscious) that the movement was likely produced by a small animal (rather than, for example, by wind-blown leaves)?”

If a mind accurately predicts the presence of a rat then moving away from it, assuming the rat is rabid or whatever, is a good and adaptive prediction. Otherwise it’s a prediction error. — praxis

While it may not have been the best example I could have offered, you’re still overlooking a key ingredient that was stipulated from the beginning: lack of knowledge. You do not know what caused the movement in the dark corner. You haven’t clearly seen anything but a movement; you haven’t seen a small animal, never mind seeing a rat. But you’re mind inferentially predicts that the movement might either have been caused by wind-blown leaves or by a small animal (but not both). Which one is real is to you not known, and hence not a psychological certainty.

-----

BTW, I’ll ask that you also comment on the working definitions I’ve provided of belief in my previous post – which culminate in stipulating that all forms of belief in one way or another consist of “the attribution of reality to”. This so as to arrive at a common understanding of terms.

Going by what was so far offered, if one attributes reality to the contents of a prediction, then the given prediction will by default be believed - thereby constituting one form of belief. Otherwise one deems the prediction fallacious and, by the same count, does not believe - i.e., does not attribute reality to - it.

Then, going back to the example of the two alternative predictions - that of either wind-blown leaves or of a small animal (to make this explicit, which are to be understood as mutually exclusive) - it's to be understood that they cannot both be real. And again, one does not know which one is real. If one acts accordant to one of the two predictions - thereby evidencing via action that one attributes reality to the prediction’s contents and, hence, believes the prediction’s contents - then one at the same time dispels the other prediction's validity (here, at least momentarily disbelieving the other prediction’s contents).

… I'm thinking this holds unless you find the offered definitions of belief to be fallacious. In which case, what do you instead recommend?

(Note: “X is held by S to be true” is equivalent to “X is held by S to be conformant to what is real” which to my mind in turn is equivalent to “S attributes reality to the contents of X" - this example being just one of many variant forms of belief.)

This stuff about a joke about brain cells is all mixed up. Let me try to figure it out.

First remember that I, AM my braincells.They are me. Oops, not completely so. I am lots more. I am also a person with feet, knees head and shoulders as well as a brain. My brain contains brain cells that combine and recombine into patterns that produce electrical currents . We call that combining activity. "THINKING" or "Cogitating". That's what thinking is. It is an action, an activity performed by my greasy brain cells.

But my conscious mind, my word mind, which is that part of the brain located just above my eyes has created another me, a WORD ME, that only exists as words. Where does my word mind find those words? It finds them In my "vocabulay" which is stored just above my eyes in a vocabulary storage bunch of brain cells that function like a trunk in the attic.

And that "word me" right now, is typing these words that are being sent to you using the internet.

You are an equivalent "Word You". Please sit up straight and listen. But to do that typing I have to have fingers and the fingers have to be directed and controlled muscularly by another, non-word using part of my mind called the "subconscious mind".

Got it? I hope so because I don't.

Search Results
Web results

I agree with every single word you said. My concern about believing is irrelevent here I think — Ken Edwards

I can't ask for more than that Ken. :blush:

You say: "Still trying to work out who those millions were, and why "Belgiums", especially considering that Belgium is actually a country."

I don't remember the history very well and I might make some mistakes but here is the way I remember it.

In the first world war, Germany attacked France with its army. Belgium is a very small country that is located partly between France and Germany. In order to get to France Germany attacked and occupied Belgium.

During the subsequent occupation it was reported internatioally, perhaps falsly, that Germany was very cruel to Belgium citizens and mistreated or murdered many.

As individuals, Germans liked and admired Belgiums. In order to maintain the moral of German soldiers the German government tried to convince Germans soldiers and citizens thst Belgiums were very bad guys and did very bad things like killing babies.

I hope I got it right.

'Someone's belief' is not correct grammar, especially for someone believing. 'It's my belief'- nor 'I have a belief', make sense; rather 'I believe', or 'have belief'. You can say, 'I believe in', but believe must be understood as the determiner of 'in' and what comes after. There is a slight pause. If you say it without pausing, it shows that you misunderstand the nature of believing or having belief. In the case of belief, there is no 'a belief'. If I have a belief, how does that represent something I'm believing and not something I believe in.

I know(enough information), thus I believe(in the universe). It is belief that! — Varde

Germany was very cruel to Belgium citizens and mistreated or murdered many. — Ken Edwards

I hope you will forgive my small correction Ken. Feel free to call me bad names if you want as I feel I am being a bit cheeky in correcting a 97-year-old on a relatively unimportant contextual/spelling issue, when what is important, is the historical example you are using to illustrate your point.
Anyway It should read 'very cruel to Belgian citizens'. People from Belgium are called Belgians not Belgiums. I hope you will forgive my impudence!