So, you didn't create nonbeliefism? — Banno

Irrelevant query.

It's not that I disagree with your idea of nonbeliefism, it's that I just don't see the reason for throwing out a term like that. Nonbeliefism sounds like you aren't believing things. But that's not true because you are still accepting claims so you are still believing by definition. People can believe things for a bunch of different reasons. Why don't you call. Science beliefism or something which implies that it is a type of belief that is only based off scientific thinking. Sort of like a subset of type of belief or something. — SonJnana

On the contrary, belief is defined such that people tend to generally ignore evidence, which contrasts nonbeliefism.

So humour me. Did you create nonbeliefism? — Banno

I don't detect the relevance of that query, especially given my earlier response.

Did you create nonbeliefism? — Banno

I don't detect the relevance of that query.

So you, yourself, and despite your own protestations, believe. — Banno

How so?

Indeed, you rather missed the point that belief is not optional. — Banno

Once more I don't detect the relevance of your comment;

• The OP, as well as the entire reason why I created non-beliefism, was particularly because belief is demonstrated to be sub optimal.

What do you make of this:

"Beliefs provide the basis for interacting with the world and are intimately involved in co-ordinating many other cognitive processes. Beliefs are also central to many social processes and provide the basis for identity, social cohesion, and social conflict". — Banno

1. I don't detect the relevance of your response above, because it is long stated on the very same research page, that belief is generally adopted by people (and thus prevalent in the lifes of said beings)
   
2. Notably, that some phenomena largely affects society, does not warrant that such a phenomena is required for beings to exist.
   

As some species get more intelligent. The keyword there is some. Intelligence is a favorable adaptation for some species. But those species aren't even the majority of life on this planet. Bacteria, plants, fungi, viruses and insects vastly outnumber mammals, birds and cephalopods. And they've been around for far longer.

So it's hard to see how intelligence is the end result of evolution. It's not even clear that it's a good long term adaptation for humans. We might go extinct because of our intelligence. — Marchesk

1. Why did you not bother to read the sources provided in my earlier response?
   
2. Anyway, see this same source from 1.b (from my earlier response), showing the non trivial connection between intelligence and evolution, contrary to your non evidenced opinions:

How is "optimising ways of contributing to the increase of entropy" selected for by evolution? — tom

See the source in (1.a).

This doesn't make sense. In your nonbeliefism you are still believing things by definition (accepting a claim). A belief doesn't require nonscientific thinking. You are accepting claims based off scientific thinking which is still by definition believing. That's the same thing as telling people not to hold beliefs that prioritize nonscientific thinking. It's accepting claims that are based off scientific thinking which is essentially believing only in things that are based off of scientific thinking. We don't need this nonbeliefism term at all. — SonJnana

1. Data shows that most of the time, belief permits ignorance of evidence.
2. Why would I select a model that most of the time, does not permit that evidence is prioritized, (i.e. belief) instead of one that generally permits priortitization of evidence (i.e. "non-beliefism")?
   
   • Alternatively, why would you select a model that most of the time, does not permit that evidence is prioritized, (i.e. belief) instead of one that generally permits priortitization of evidence (i.e. "non-beliefism")?

It's not whether AI can solve tasks performed by bacteria, it's the likelihood that bacteria will still be around long after the last machines rust away. All of human civilization is but a tiny blip in the history of life. — Marchesk

Why is the purpose of human life to create artificial general intelligence?



1.a) Evolution is optimising ways of contributing to the increase of entropy, as systems very slowly approach equilibrium. (The universe’s predicted end)

1.b) Within that process, work or activities done through several ranges of intelligent behaviour are reasonably ways of contributing to the increase of entropy. (See source)

1.c) As species got more and more intelligent, nature was finding better ways to contribute to increases of entropy. (Intelligent systems can be observed as being biased towards entropy maximization)

1.d) Humans are slowly getting smarter, but even if we augment our intellect by CRISPR-like routines or implants, we will reasonably be limited by how many computational units or neurons etc fit in our skulls.

1.e) AGI/ASI won’t be subject to the size of the human skull/human cognitive hardware. (Laws of physics/thermodynamics permits human exceeding intelligence in non biological form)

1.f) As AGI/ASI won’t face the limits that humans do, they are a subsequent step (though non biological) particularly in the regime of contributing to better ways of increasing entropy, compared to humans.

2) The above is why the purpose of the human species, is reasonably to create AGI/ASI.

You're taking skepticism and open-mindedness and renaming it "non-beliefism". — Harry Hindu

1. It is odd that people tend to bring up skepticism when I describe "non beliefism", because as an atheist, one would probably imagine that I had long encountered skepticism.
   
2. Anyway, skepticism does not underline belief's generally science opposing nature, contrary to "non beliefism".

If you don't have omniscience, then what do you have if not beliefs, or models of the way things are, (which according to your own definition of belief as a model means that you have beliefs if you have models, right?)? To say that you have non-beliefs is similar to saying that you have omniscience, or true knowledge. But I already showed you the problem of saying that you have knowledge. — Harry Hindu

Modeling the world does not necessitate belief.

• The simple difference between non-beliefism and belief, is that belief is a model that generally permits ignorance of evidence, whereas non-beliefism does not permit the general ignorance of evidence.
• A model that permits the general ignorance of evidence (i.e.
  belief) contrasts science, which heavily prioritizes evidence.

Knowledge is a model too. When we find that our knowledge was wrong, did we really possess knowledge or was it only a belief?

Many psychologists view belief as an unscientific term that deserves to be phased out. Contradictory and ambiguous definitions may be to blame for this attitude. However, knowledge is even less well defined. For example, a skeptic would claim that we can never know we know anything. If this is the case, then knowledge is merely a well-supported belief that we falsely ascribe the comforting notion of certainty to. — Harry Hindu

1. As non-beliefism had long underlined, one need not omniscience to avoid belief, and by extension, avoiding belief does not necessitate that one is correct on every matter.
   
2. Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence".
   
3. In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
   
4. In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis.

I don't really understand. Are you against the word "belief" because of the baggage it carries? I don't see how your nonscientism is any different than individuals deciding to hold only beliefs based on science. It's essentially the same thing. What difference would there be if I were to be a non-beliefist vs. someone who only believes with only scientific thinking. — SonJnana

1. How does "non-scientism" relate to the OP?
2. That people may believe in science, does not remove that belief generally permits the ignorance of evidence. (As long mentioned in the OP.)
3. Here is a graphical description comparing belief and "non-beliefism":

I think that's the idea. The guy's supposedly written some fancy A.I software and now he's answering all the questions as if he was a computer program. He's obviously getting his kicks out of imagining we're all slowly beginning to wonder if we're really talking to a human or not.

I suggest we don't humour him. — Pseudonym

I spoke in this manner long before I began to program...

Rather than complicating all of this, we can just encourage rational thinking and not believing things without good reason.

Belief is accepting a claim. When you say that belief generally permits ignorance of evidence, all you're saying is that people tend to accept claims while ignoring evidence. Rather than redefining the word belief, we can just be specific and say scientific beliefs or beliefs that are based on scientific thinking are the only types of beliefs people should have. Your term nonbelief is exactly the same thing. — SonJnana

Alternatively, the concept of belief could be discarded altogether, because it is a model that generally permits evidence ignorance.

• It's not "complicated" to see the above.

14 pages of discussion and no one has defined belief or knowledge. How can anyone even continue this discussion in any meaningful way when neither has been clearly defined? The reason why it has continued without any clear argument being made is because neither term has been clearly defined. As usual, philosophical discussions fail to get at anything useful because the terms haven't been defined in any useful way. — Harry Hindu

• Dictionary definitions (and research) had long been provided in the OP.
  
• And contrary to your claim, apart from the sources provided in the OP, definitions (and research) were underlined several times throughout the duration of this debate.
  
• Advice: You need to actually observe the OP and the 14 pages you claimed to have read, before "confidently" posting invalid responses.

But-
1. All men are ignorant of something even in their fields of expertise.
2. There is no science that has exhausted knowledge of its subject.
3. Therefore there is no science that can be more than belief. It is simply a matter of degree. Firm belief vs. weak belief. — Daniel Smith

1. That a scientist may be ignorant of something in his/her field, does not suddenly warrant that said scientist generally contacts a model that permits typical ignorance of evidence. (i.e. belief)
   
   • In fact, for example, one fails to do computer science, if one generally fails to follow or prioritize evidence.
     
     • i.e. Computer science generally consists of evidence (rather than not).
2. Belief permits the very opposite of scientific endeavour; instead of rigorous evidence prioritization, belief generally permits that evidence is typically ignored, which clearly contrasts the scientific method.
   
   • "Non-beliefism" underlines that:
     
     • "One need not be genius nor omniscient to do scientific thinking, as belief typically enables large evidence ignorance, in contrast to scientific theory or scientific hypotheses, for which genius is not required, and crucially, for which evidence is defined to be prioritized".

Define "knowledge." How can you know what you say is true without believing it? — Hanover

I don't detect the relevance of that question.

• That query does not alter the reality, that science obtains, whether or not anybody chooses to believe in science.

Really? That's ok, just answer it and I'll draw the conclusion afterwards to make it easier for you. — BlueBanana

Are you theistic?

• Your answer will help me to define how many steps I should use in my responses to you in particular. (After I awake from slumber)

1. Thus far, throughout the discussion, I have not detected any novel information from the responders here (no sensible input from a majority of responders here).
2. Thus, I shall underline a summary below, until I return in roughly 10 hours, after sleeping.

1. Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence".
   
2. In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
   
3. In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis.

1. Model i - belief:
   
   • Permits belief in science or evidence.
   • Also permits ignorance of evidence, but not only that, it generally permits ignorance of evidence. (i.e. frequent ignorance of evidence)
2. Model ii - Non-beliefism:
   
   • Underlines that science prioritizes evidence.
   • Does not permit general ignorance of evidence.

Dear lord...I feel like I'm talking to a malfunctioning A.I. — JustSomeGuy

In others, you are unable to present evidence for your claim.

• Embarrassingly, you failed to detect that proof and evidence were synonyms, even when shown valid data.
• Or perhaps English isn't your first language?

You just avoided the whole "and even if I didn't" thing. Even if the words were synonyms, they would have drastically different meanings for this discussion.

But fine, let's forget the synonym topic and all that mess, and see the question from another angle. Do you admit the difference between the concepts of evidence and proof? — BlueBanana

I don't detect the relevance of that question, wrt to the OP.

You were using the terms to mean the exact same thing. I demonstrated multiple times that they do not mean the exact same thing. Now, it seems you have changed your argument, claiming that you only ever said they were "synonyms" (which is not what you did, you demonstrated their meanings through use) and that synonyms can just be words that are similar or the same, and you are apparently using the former definition of the term. — JustSomeGuy

Can you present where I supposedly presented 'proof' and 'synonym' to be exactly the same?

• Advice: You won't find any such quote of mine.
• It's better to admit you were wrong by falsely stating that "proof" and "evidence" were not synonymous. (Although your errors are visible, whether or not you admit it)

We are all aware of the things you have said, the claims you have made.

The point is that you are wrong

The flaws in your reasoning have been demonstrated many times by many people. Your refusal to acknowledge them is irrelevant. — JustSomeGuy

I have seen, read and acknowledged your URLs, and I refuse to recognize the authority of them. And even if I didn't, the words might be similar in colloquial use, which wouldn't have any weight in this topic. And even if it did, it would only mean they'd be similar, not the same. — BlueBanana

Your refusals to acknowledge evidence that contrasts your false pre-conceived notions reminds me of Ken Ham; he tends to express that nothing can change his mind regarding his faith, even if contrasting evidence occurs.

• Advice: Don't be like Ken Ham.

A claim is not a valid response to its own counter. The only thing it implies is that you either didn't read or understand my reply.

Similar words are synonyms. The two words are not similar. Therrefore the two words are not synonyms. — BlueBanana

I had advised you many times, and provided definition urls, which you ignored.

• So here's a clear screenshot showing clearly that proof and evidence are synonyms. contrary to your strange claim above:

False. Belief does not prioritize proof. — BlueBanana

The OP, along with many many responses of mine here, underline that belief does not prioritize evidence.

• Whether or not you admit it, such is the case.

Explain how scientism underlines and how belief takes the possessive. As best I can decipher, you believe science ought be relied upon and not faith. Your view might be different but your writing is poor. — Hanover

Whether or not anybody believes science is to be relied upon, is irrelevant; for science is demonstrably thus far mankind's best tool, regardless of what anybody believes.

Its relevance is that science is a belief (with the exclusion of mathematics). Therefore you must reject science in the name of non-beliefism. — BlueBanana

I detect that it is sub-optimal to further respond to you, given that you garner that belief (something that does not prioritize evidence) equates with science (something that does the very contrast, i.e. prioritize evidence).

#1 - that it tires you is unresponsive and irrelevant. #2- is an incoherent comment. It offers nothing and means nothing. — Hanover

Is English your first language?

And what exactly counts as similar? Synonym is a grammatical term, and your OP does not concern grammar. In the context of this discussion proof and evidence have huge differences, so whether they're concidered synonomous by dictionaries is irrelevant. — BlueBanana

1. As prior mentioned, whether or not you like or oppose or admit it, synonyms are words that are either similar or the same in meaning.
2. Notably, you are demonstrating a common symptom of belief; if it was I that was shown to be wrong, I would have long admitted it; in contrast to your scenario, where you proceed to deny valid data that clearly contrasts your false pre-conceived notion. (As demonstrated in this reference)
   
   • This is what "non beliefism" underscores:
     
     • Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence".
       
     • In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
       
     • In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis.

Summarize this for me. As far as I can tell, "belief" is being used to mean "faith," which is being used to mean "reliance upon something other than empirical evidence." And as a result of conflating belief with faith, 12 pages have been spent trying to explain how you can't have an epistemilogical system without belief.

Did I get it right? Is the OP just a butchered form of scientism, both unaware of its existence and of its limitations? I ask because I didn't find the text of the OP or the explanations of PGJ at all helpful. — Hanover

1. It is somewhat tiring when people bring up scienticism when I describe "non beliefism", because as an atheist, I had long encountered scienticism.
   
2. Anyway, scienticism does not underline belief's generally science opposing nature, contrary to "non beliefism".

If it's supposed to be a counter to 3, I'll answer by fixing my argument into the form: "there're no proofs in science, excluding mathematics, only evidence". — BlueBanana

I don't detect the relevance of your response above, wrt the OP.

Because it's more technically correct than what you claim. I oppose calling words with similar but not the same meaning synonyms. — BlueBanana

1. Whether or not you like or oppose it, synonyms are words that are either similar or the same in meaning.
2. So, no, it was not "more technically correct", and saying they were not synonyms was quite invalid, and thus the question remains:
   
   • Why don't you instead focus on critiquing JustSomeGuy on that matter, who claimed that they supposedly weren't synonyms at all?
   • Is comradery with JustSomeGuy causing you to fail to analyse his errors, and instead causing you to focus on "correcting" my demonstrably valid corrections of his errors?

Proof and evidence are not exact synonyms.

1.2 Stop writing your arguments in numbered lists, using screenshots of dictionaries and copypasteing your previous arguments. Dictionaries are not exact, often using colloquial meanings of words. And your comments are unpleasant and inpractical af to read.

2. Thinking anything unproven to be true or false is a belief.

3. There're no proofs in science, only evidence.

4. Thus science is belief. — BlueBanana

1. I don't detect the relevance of your initial point, for I had not said that those meant exactly the same thing.
   
   • Why don't you instead focus on critiquing JustSomeGuy on that matter, who claimed that they supposedly weren't synonyms at all?
   • Is comradery with JustSomeGuy causing you to fail to analyse his errors, and instead causing you to focus on "correcting" my demonstrably valid corrections of his errors?
2. Your third point at (2) is invalid; mathematical proofs may be demonstrated to be true.
3. I don't detect the relevance of your point at (3), especially given my reference in my point above.
4. I detect that if you've read up to this point, you'd figure out that your conclusion does not follow from your trivially demonstrably invalid prior points.

Also Popper said something about letting our theories do our dying for us.

In short, unbeliefism seems like old news. As I understand it, it has its charms. But what's offensive is the lack of awareness of its lack of novelty. I feel like I'm being told the sky is blue. It is more or less the common sense of secular/negative philosophers, which is why they tear one another's fancy theories to shreds. They self-consciously subject their beliefs to more criticism than non-philosophers. Their criticism-enduring views are more reliable, more trustworthy, weightier. That's their ideal virtue. They are less full of shit than the average bear. Or that's at least one guiding ideal as I understand it. But there is also the Dr. Pangloss archetype. I suppose actual philosophers tend to be both negative and system-building. They slash and burn to clear space for the system that finally gets it right and conquers time and chance. — dog

1. Fallibism, like some other theses, does heavily scrutinize belief.
2. However, fallibism permits the concept of belief under particular constraints, contrary to non-beliefism.
3. Here are three degrees of fallibism:
   
   • a) No beliefs can be conclusively justified.
   • b) Knowledge does not require certainty.
   • c) Almost no basic (that is, non-inferred) beliefs are certain or conclusively justified.
4. From item (c) it is observable that fallibism permits the concept of belief, although under particular constraints, similar to scientism.
   

1. Thus far, throughout the discussion, I have not detected any novel information.
   
   • Please recall that I am busy working on:
     
     • My book: "Artificial Neural Network for kids".
     • My model: The "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".
2. Thus, I shall underline a summary below, until I return in roughly 12 hours.

1. Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence".
   
2. In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
   
3. In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis.

1. Model i - belief:
   
   • Permits belief in science or evidence.
   • Also permits ignorance of evidence, but not only that, it generally permits ignorance of evidence. (i.e. frequent ignorance of evidence)
2. Model ii - Non-beliefism:
   
   • Underlines that science prioritizes evidence.
   • Does not permit general ignorance of evidence.

Hey, you have to give him more than that! I remember him substituting "believe" with at least two more words besides "prioritize". "Garner", "observe" etc; he's built a whole arsenal of synonyms! :) — Πετροκότσυφας

Where did I supposedly substitute belief and prioritize?

• Please provide evidence for your claims, and try to avoid the symptoms of the concept of belief. (including failure to provide evidence for claims.)

If you agree that not all beliefs are false, then you also agree that some beliefs are true or you do not know what the fuck you're talking about. I'd like to think that you do know what you're talking about to some degree or other. I'm trying to provoke answers which bear witness to that. Your answers are evidence. It has not been forthcoming.

Do you agree that not all belief is false? — creativesoul

Refer to the sequence below:

1. Model i - belief:
   
   • Permits belief in science or evidence.
   • Also permits ignorance of evidence, but not only that, it generally permits ignorance of evidence. (i.e. frequent ignorance of evidence)
2. Model ii - non-beliefism:
   
   • Underlines that science prioritizes evidence.
   • Does not permit general ignorance of evidence.