Prediction precedes belief?
— praxis

A prediction is a belief. But we're not getting anywhere just disagreeing about definitions. What is the consequence of a distinction between that which we're aware of holding to be the case and that which we hold to be the case but are unaware that we do? Whatever word we give those two categories, how does their differentiation bear on the question? — Isaac

One consequence is in learning. If I’m reading you right, you seem to be saying that in everything thing we do, we always believe that we’re doing it correctly. If that were the case then we would not be able to learn.

For example, I could watch an expert basketball player shoot hoops perfectly. I could try it myself but I would fail to perform nearly as well. I would not believe that I was doing it correctly. Maybe some of the predictions that my mind made while trying were closer than others, but I would know that many were way off. I wouldn’t hold all of my predictions to be true or false. Comparing performance to goals seems to requires awareness.

… action precedes reflection.

Prediction precedes belief?

If a belief is a relation between a state of mind and a proposition, then it would seem, by definition, to require a mind. — Isaac

A mind is conscious, so it appears you’re drawing the line there and subconscious processes do not entail beliefs.

So if I'm walking down a flight of stairs and I have a propensity to act as if the next step is the same dimentions as the previous steps but I trip because it's not, did I have a mistaken belief or a prediction error?
— praxis

Both are the same thing. — Isaac

I’m curious where the line is drawn. If consciousness isn’t a prerequisite then it would be correct to say that my phone (specifically the calculator app) believes that two plus two equals four. If that’s correct then, following the rules of gravity, perhaps gold believes that it’s heavier than aluminum.

So if I'm walking down a flight of stairs and I have a propensity to act as if the next step is the same dimentions as the previous steps but I trip because it's not, did I have a mistaken belief or a prediction error?

About a propensity to act, why are we calling that a belief rather than, say, a conditioned response?

So almost but not perfectly. A shade of meaning.

Well, yes. It's just that it doesn't carry the connotations of certainty you read from it. "I believe God exists" could equally mean one is a fervent evangelist or a casual churchgoer. — Isaac

Us Yanks, well, one at least, see a difference between the the following statements.

"I think God exists"

"I believe God exists"

The former suggests consideration or thinking and the latter suggests more conviction or faith in the sense of accepting another's word as true. If someone had actually met God I think they would be inclined to say something like, "I know God."

Do you really see the statements as perfectly synonymous?

So we need to believe certain things are true if we are willing to kill based on it being true. — universeness

In a court of law, reasonable doubt gets an acquittal and reasonable conviction… gets a conviction. In this area there seems to be a moral imperative to ‘hold a conviction to be true’. It also helps to avoid the trouble of having to retry the case indefinitely, which would be impractical.

Oompa loompa …

If you’re not a returning banned member you will go far

Doompety doo!

Fact checking is a way to support personal beliefs. — universeness

If we’re not sure about something why would we need to hold it to be true?

Surprising, but I'll take your word for it. It suggests nothing of the sort to me. American vs English usage perhaps? — Isaac

They don’t say things like “I believe God exists” in Limey town?

Outside of that, there's no 'it' to be 'really' anything. — Isaac

So the mind constructs ‘it’.

"Having studied the subject a bit, I believe 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."

...wouldn't make any sense to you? It seems a perfectly normal sentence to me. — Isaac

It suggests more a commitment, that I will ‘hold it to be true’, when I would rather be more adaptive.

As ↪Banno has already clarified, that's what 'seeing' is. We don't 'see' the constructed screen (as if we could see the deconstructed one, but don't). Rather 'seeing' something is the process itself. Identifying edges, corners, texture, colour, size...naming it, remembering it, picturing it's use, imagining it's far side...these processes are what 'seeing' consists of. — Isaac

I know it’s beside the point, I’m just saying that the mind is constructing it in at least the sense that the screen is distinguished from everything else. Is it really separate?

The way to help stop people believing in and acting (sometimes lethally) based on false claims is to encourage everyone to fact check as much as possible, not encourage alternatives to the word or concept of belief. — universeness

Isn’t fact checking or verification the alternative to belief? If you’re opposed to holding something to be true then, if it matters, you must be for verifying that it’s true.

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.