Seems you are getting the idea. — Banno

My agreement with the spirit of the OP hasn’t changed, though I think that I’ve benefited from the discussion in exploring the nature of belief.

You mean this part:

I, personally, "believe in" many noble things including such things as "Love" or "Democracy", etc but, in contrast, I believe nothing whatsoever.

I, personally hate and despise the action of "believing". — Ken Edwards

It certainly appears contradictory. I would have put it differently, and sort of the other way around. I may believe things but I'm very cautious about using the term 'believe' because of the social implications. I would rather not have faith in institutions but accept and entertain them provisionally for pragmatic reasons. Matters of the heart are irrational by nature.

Faith also has a sense of loyalty or reliance, like being faithful to one's family or fulfilling obligations.

Anyway, I don't think that I've suggested it's wrong to believe anything.

I don't know why I would hold something to be true to myself. If I had an idea about something and it turned out to be wrong it would cause me no loss in social standing of any kind. Maybe denial to avoid uncomfortable feelings?

One believes some statement when one holds it to be true.
One is certain of some statement when one does not subject it to doubt.
One has faith in a statement when one believes it regardless of the evidence. — Banno

Can't a person believe a religious truth and not doubt it regardless of the evidence?

Sure, you can imagine stuff. But you are looking at your screen now; you are not looking at a model of your screen constructed by your brain. — Banno

It's constructed in at least the sense that the screen is distinguished from everything else.

Of what? — Banno

Parsing statements into actions on purpose.

I still don't see the significance.

Btw, we still have mental representations that are internal and in that way we can 'see the model'. For example, I can imagine a ten legged horse, and can play blind chess. Actually, I can't play blind chess, but I could with training.

I can't decide which is worse, the tie designs or the ad message.

I think there's a difference between expressing a degree of certainty and expressing an intention to hold something to be the case.

Take these two statements for instance:

"Having studied the subject a bit, I think that Democracy is the best form of government for the people that I know of, at least when it has adequate supporting institutions, checks on power, etc."

"I believe in Democracy."

The latter statement seems more like an expression of faith.

Slavoj Žižek seems to have a better grasp of it, in my inexpert opinion. Desmet seemed almost comically biased.

People may be divided, but governments have largely chosen the side of force, ergo lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc.

And it directs the narrative accordingly. — Tzeentch

Trump was againts lockdowns, as I recall. Granted he wasn't much of a leader.

Perhaps the term "totalitarian" suggests as much, but what Desmet is describing is a tendency towards, and not a state of totalitarianism. — Tzeentch

It's a scary term though, you have to admit, and fear motivates. He said so himself in the video, if I'm not mistaken.

the state immediately jumped onto vaxxing bandwagon — M777

It's cute when Lauren Boebert (American Republican representative) says that no one's gonna make her get the Fauci Ouchie, and there's plently more like her in office.

you could have seen lots of ... LGBT, anti-gun or pro-abortion riots going on. — M777

Where do you get your news???

That's not very unusual for any discussion around here, actually.
— praxis

Sadly true. Where it differs is when the very same insecurity that moves individuals to behave that way manifests in crowds - mass formation. — Tzeentch

Again, I've only heard of anti-vax protests. I haven't heard of vax protests or riots.

My point is that making a case for individual rights is by no means an extreme position. So why does it elicit an extreme response?

Because it deviates just slightly from the narrative. Enough to imply that the desired carte blanche on the use of power has moral borders.

And the individuals in the mass are subconsciously aware how their moral borders are fading.
Which they are, as evidenced by reactions like these: — Tzeentch

It concerns the spread of serious diseases like polio, smallpox, and the like, and you don't expect people to be up in arms about it???

Anyway, getting back to Desmet's totalitarianism, if the country is divided over something like COVID then how can the state be considered to be in complete control, or even directing the narrative?

Instead of normal discussion, an immediate escalation to personal attacks, accusations, strawmans, and projection. — Tzeentch

That's not very unusual for any discussion around here, actually.

You should've seen the reactions I got when on this forum I dared to imply that human beings have a right to bodily autonomy, and therefore should be allowed to choose whether to be vaccinated or not. — Tzeentch

With freedom comes responsibility. I'm fond of saying that.

Vaccination is another one of those great examples where people seem to show radical intolerance for dissent - mass formation at work. — Tzeentch

How is this radical intolerance expressed? I haven't heard of any vax riots. I've heard of anti-vax protests.

Yes, so it seems to help against dying if you are in the risk-group, but does relatively little if you are relatively healthy to begin with. — M777

Is your inner thought police making you understate the facts? Internal blockages of this nature are not healthy.

10 died, roughly 8 of whom were unvaccinated, 2 vaccinated. So some effect here. — M777

Roughly an 80% death rate for the unvaccinated compared to 20% for the vaccinated. Hmm, that isn't rather limited in effectiveness.

radical vaxxers — M777

I'm afraid to ask what that is.

"Rather limited" is a bit vague. Could you be more specific and/or say how you've arrived at this conclusion?

Don't let your internal thought police stop you from being specific.

:lol: Hilarious. Can't answer a simple question of whether or not you believe the vaccines work.

While looking at the data and seeing that vaxed and unvaxed people were getting Omicron at pretty much the same rate and being not at risk for any complications choosing to not to vaccinate, might be a reasonable decision. — M777

Are you saying this as a hypothetical or do you actually believe that the vaccines don't work?

I don't think it was the antivax side who displayed a stunning intolerance for conflicting views. — Tzeentch

Bear in mind that antivaxers died for their views, in many cases. That’s commitment, or perhaps paranoia. I recall Desmet mentioning paranoia, don’t you?

It's a symptom of totalitarianism.

I would highly suggest watching some interviews with Mattias Desmet, a Belgian psychology professor, who explores this same phenomenon (closely related to the concept of mass formation) in the context of the covid-19 epidemic.

Here's a link (changed it because I think this one is more interesting): — Tzeentch

I watched 20 minutes of the video and what struck me is that ‘mass formation’ was occurring in the pandemic with antivaxers and the like, people who literally died from groupthink. If we can’t escape ideology at least we can try to go along with the least stupid ideology.

Having read your post to Banno, you appear to have a wildly different conception of belief than I do.

I suppose the point is that a construct can be seen as a construct and be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed.

Any chance that could be translated into English?

Putting the anal back into analytic. — Banno

:snicker:

we can 'hold something to be true'... despite our own propensity to act as though it were true.
— praxis

How would you know? — Isaac

Weren't we just talking about pro-lifers getting abortions? I suspect the inverse also occurs, pro-choicers not getting an abortion because it feels immoral, like murder.

If belief is merely a social construct then we can abandon it should the need arise... at the risk of being abandoned by the social group.

... a belief is a belief that... So, in my terms, a propensity to act as if some state of affairs were the case ... — Isaac

I afraid this doesn't pan out, simply because we can 'hold something to be true' despite evidence, despite reason, and despite our own propensity to act as though it were true.

So our 'pro-lifer' can hold the belief that all life is sacred and also hold the belief that some life is not sacred — Isaac

Rather, they can 'hold something to be true' (life is sacrid) and fail to act as though it were true.

The curious thing is that you appear perfectly willing to count emotions as social constructs but not something like beliefs.

To abandon belief is to abandon the influence of a social construct and essentially an effort to abandon tribalism. Belief died with God, in other words.

No. They were a pro-lifer and now they are not. A change of mind. — Banno

Or perhaps they never had a tendency to act according to their "beliefs".

If they have an abortion does that mean that they never actually believed in the pro-life movement? It would appear so.
— praxis

They changed their mind. — Banno

How exactly did they change it?

I was thinking of what Isaac said in relation to the location of lost keys and how one could have an equal propensity to act in multiple ways. In the keys scenario, I figured that long term memory would be a key factor. If long term memory indicated that the keys were equally likely to be in two different locations there would be a moment of indecision. Otherwise, one would readily check the most likely location first. Therefore, one way to manipulate ourselves or others would be to alter our long term memories.

Is that how you’re suggesting the pro-lifer can change their mind? To somehow make themselves forget that they are a pro-lifer?

Interesting you put it like this. Does the plant not move towards the same direction each time and if it must have beliefs, could it not feel it has been moved? :razz: — Tom Storm

Hmm, maybe we should switch to people beliefs and try to come up with a real-life scenario where a person has an equal propensity to act in contradictory ways.

Say there's a person who is pro-life and this person has the propensity to act in ways that are in line with the pro-life movement. This person becomes pregnant and due to circumstances that are out of their control they desire an abortion and therefore have the propensity to act in ways that are contrary to the pro-life movement. If they have an abortion does that mean that they never actually believed in the pro-life movement? It would appear so.

If the pro-life belief was fake then what purpose did it serve? I propose that it functioned to help bind a group with shared "beliefs".

Can you give an example?
— praxis

Not really no. The comment was on the presumption of this distinction Janus was making between a mental state and an expressed belief. A belief as a mental state has no barrier to being contradictory. Beliefs here are simply propensities to act as if some state of affairs were the case and such a propensity is carried in the brain by dynamic networks. Since these are stochastic and unstable, it's perfectly possible to hold contradictory beliefs (propensities to act as if two contradictory states of affairs were the case). In fact, it's quite a normal state.

If you thought to yourself 'now, where's my keys' the image or concept of their location that comes to you would be the result of a resolution of that network at the state it's in at the time.

As for 'feeling sure'... Feelings are all post hoc narratives invented after the event. One could 'feel' anything which makes some sense of what just happened. It tells us absolutely nothing beyond our abilities as storytellers. — Isaac

Maybe I can help provide a real-world scenario, if I'm following you correctly.

A plant has the propensity to bend towards the sun. With mirrors, or simply turning the plant around if it's in a pot, the plant can be made to bend in different directions. One day at a particular time we can make it bend to the East and the next day at the same time we can make it bend to the West.

One day the plant believes (has a propensity to act) that the sun is in the East and the next day it believes the sun is in the West, dynamically adapting to the circumstances of the moment.

Yeah, this turn of events from Janus has surprised me too. I've never heard of "I believe" being equated with "I'm certain" "I feel certain", it seemed out of the blue. — Isaac

Perhaps you're misconstruing what was said.

I could not believe (feel sure) that they were in all three of the places that I imagine.
— praxis

You absolutely could. It's perfectly possible to believe (even to feel sure of) two contradictory things at once, people do it all the time. — Isaac

Can you give an example?

What one can't do is act on both beliefs, but one can hold both beliefs. Were it not possible, each alternative would have to be completely modelled from scratch in the brain as an when it was needed.

In my example, there is one set of keys and three places that are imagined they could be located. How could someone feel sure that they are in all three places?

Obviously, we can imagine all sorts of things without believing them.

"credit upon the grounds of authority or testimony without complete demonstration, accept as true" is belief without certainty, which I do not see as problematic. — Banno

Take the 2020 American presidential election, for instance. Trump was a leader and an authority figure who made a claim that his supporters 'felt sure' was true, despite a lack of supporting evidence. This sort of thing is characterized as a "big lie". You're cool with big lies? This directly relates to Ken Edwards's experience in WW2, btw.

I could not find a dictionary that equated "belief"with "certainty", only with trust, confidence and so on. Nothin to support the idea of belief implying certitude. — Banno

Have I claimed otherwise?

What I find most problematic with belief is its meaning as described in the etymology: "be persuaded of the truth of" (a doctrine, system, religion, etc.) is from mid-13c.; meaning "credit upon the grounds of authority or testimony without complete demonstration, accept as true"

The etymology appears neck deep in theology.

believe (v.)
Old English belyfan "to have faith or confidence" (in a person), earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (West Saxon), from Proto-Germanic *ga-laubjan "to believe," perhaps literally "hold dear (or valuable, or satisfactory), to love" (source also of Old Saxon gilobian "believe," Dutch geloven, Old High German gilouben, German glauben), ultimately a compound based on PIE root *leubh- "to care, desire, love" (see belief).

Meaning "be persuaded of the truth of" (a doctrine, system, religion, etc.) is from mid-13c.; meaning "credit upon the grounds of authority or testimony without complete demonstration, accept as true" is from early 14c. General sense "be of the opinion, think" is from c. 1300. Related: Believed (formerly occasionally beleft); believing.

Perhaps like God, the term is dead.

I'm not surprised. — Banno

There's no reason to be surprised, and many reasons not to be.

@Banno

Having lost my keys, I can imagine them being in three different locations without feeling sure about them actually being in any of the different locations that I imagine. I could not believe (feel sure) that they were in all three of the places that I imagine.

I say this to point out that considering different locations is entertaining the possibilities and not believing them.

If I were to look for the keys and found something that gave me a clue to their location, like a note to myself that read "you're getting close", I might be more sure of the location that was nearest to me at that point. Even so, I don't think that I would feel sure at that point. I know myself and I can be pretty unreliable.

If out of nowhere I heard my car being driven away I would feel sure that the keys were in the car, even though I couldn't confirm it.

If at some later date I was reunited with my keys, holding them in my hand I would feel certain of their location.

You're not being clear. Also, I revised the post a couple of times.

"If the keys are not in the car then they must be everywhere somewhere else". — Banno

Fixed.

They could be in various places. I can entertain thoughts of where they might be. I can't feel sure or certain about every place that I imagine, can I?

Simply that things, like the location of keys, can be accepted and entertained without feeling sure about them.
— praxis

I don't disagree. Indeed, the grammar proposed here makes it clear that one can believe without being certain. — Banno

I still don't understand how that can be the case, and for some reason when I ask about this you do not answer.

I can't believe (feel sure) that my keys are in various places at the same time. Rather, I can entertain the thoughts of them being in various places.