Simply that things, like the location of keys, can be accepted and entertained without feeling sure about them. We can also feel certain about the location of keys. Further, we can have irrational beliefs about the location of keys.

It's common to treat things as true, even though we might be wrong. I believe the keys are in the tray, even though I might be wrong. — Banno

The keys could be in many places that you could think of, all of which would be reasonable places for them to be. You can't feel sure that they are in every reasonable place.

anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be believed provisionally for pragmatic reasons. — Banno

You're saying that all reasonable unknowns can be believed (accepted as true; feel sure of the truth of) provisionally. If I've forgotten where my keys are, how can I believe that they are in every reasonable place that comes to mind?

That's just wordplay - All it says is that anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be believed provisionally for pragmatic reasons.
— Banno

That means that we are forced to hold all reasonable unknowns to be true. That we are forced to feel confident in them. That doesn't make sense.
— praxis

How does this "force" you to do any such thing? — Banno

Say that I forgot where my keys are. There are many many reasonable places where they could be. According to you, I must have confidence (beleive) that they are in every reasonable place that comes to mind. How does that make sense?

That's just wordplay - All it says is that anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be believed provisionally for pragmatic reasons. — Banno

That means that we are forced to hold all reasonable unknowns to be true. That we are forced to feel confident in them. That doesn't make sense.

If you told me that you're wearing a green shirt I would certainly accept and entertain your claim. There would be nothing unreasonable about it. I would not hold it to be true, however. If someone asked I'd probably say something like, "Banno said he's wearing a green shirt."

Meh.

And it is not the same as "There is a place of balance between credulity and skepticism". — Banno

Were is this ballance then?

There is a place of balance between credulity and skepticism. — Banno

Indeed, and I think Janus described it most succinctly.

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

It's [explicit expression of belief] not required. Not sure why that is relevant. — Banno

It's relevant because shared belief is the heart of the OP and the reason we're discussing this.

It is the case that Bob believed the keys were in his pocket, yet his belief was false. — Banno

Is it a matter of belief or was he simply misremembering their location? If he reached for his pocket in effort to use his keys, does that count as an explicit expression of belief? When a plant bends towards the sun is that an explicit expression of belief that the sun is in a particular location?

I think that my car keys are currently in the car but I'm not sure. I accept and entertain that's where they are provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed.

What this shows is that we need the notion of "belief" in order to make a basic distinction between what we think is true and what is actually true. — Banno

Jane asks, "Where are the keys?"

Bob replies, "The keys are in my pocket."

"Are you sure? Please check."

Bob probes his pockets and says, "Huh, I must have left them in the car."

-----

Bob thought the keys were in his pocket but they were actually in the car. :chin: Or perhaps they were not in the car either. Maybe after searching for a while Bob remembered that he put the keys on the upstairs dresser.

It would seem that Bob never needed to declare his belief or hold any location of the keys to be actual or true. It would be rather odd and unhelpful if he did insist that the keys were in any of the places that they weren't, actually.

I can't think of any situation where a declaration of belief is required.

How might postmodernism be helpful in determining how we should/could live? — Tom Storm

Undermine the powers that be.

:rofl:

Let’s be honest.

1. Sexbot

I don’t get how experience-based predictions can be anything other than inferences based on some experience. — javra

The rain in Spain falls mainly on the mountains
- My Fair Lady

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you just might find
You get what you ask for
- Rolling Stones

A penny saved is a penny wasted
- Benjamin Franklin

Between these three examples I think it’s likely that you’ve just experienced at least one prediction error. The error didn’t occur because of good or bad reasoning but simply because the examples don’t follow a pattern that you’ve been conditioned to recognize.

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. — javra

I guess the example is unclear because it lacks specificity. The unknown critter is referred to as both an experience-based prediction and also an inference. In the example, I assume that something in the environment, some pattern of sense data, subconsciously resulted in a prediction that a small animal may be present, even though it couldn't be verified visually or otherwise. After the prediction was conscious it could then be consciously considered or reasoned with. At that point, other information may come to mind, like that there's been an increase in rat sightings in the area because of a nearby construction project, for example. That may favor the conclusion that there is a small animal. IN ANY CASE, there's no reason to "hold it to be true." More evidence to the contrary conclusion, all things being equal, would not be resisted.

common to all three types of belief is some variant of “the attribution of reality to”. — javra

I think belief is all about the 'holding to be true', which is really about holding to shared meaning and identity. We can provisionally accept and entertain both knowledge and fiction for pragmatic reasons, but we don't need to maladaptively hold to them.

Example:
We provisionally accept and entertain the fiction that a $100 bill has value beyond its physical properties, but under different circumstances, like if we were stranded on a desert island with a group of goofy castaways, we would no longer accept or entertain the fiction.

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.

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’.

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.

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

TRUTH!

Sure, that's just a projection of what I stated. If you have your own foundational beliefs established within then you can start to try to figure out others using that reference. I am not suggesting your own foundations should be utterly chiseled in stone but you have to have some strength in your foundations. — universeness

I’m suggesting that it’s not a personal foundation but a group foundation. We don’t need to believe ourselves, do we???

Not mystical, I was just goofing. It was an interesting experience though.

How can you build who you are without some kind of foundational beliefs? — universeness

Rather, I think the question is how can you build who we are without some kind of foundational beliefs.

What does it mean to confirm one's uncertainty? Confirm that you are uncertain? Attempt to eliminate the uncertainty? There are many things about which I am uncertain for which the uncertainty cannot be eliminated. Some of those things seem to be more likely to be true than others. — Fooloso4

If I accept or trust or think or estimate or conclude or predict that you're telling the truth does that mean that I believe (hold to be true) you're telling the truth? A definition of believe includes the sense of 'feeling sure of'. Does that refer to intuition, the feeling that you're telling the truth but not an assessment based on reason? If that's the case then I could simply say that, that I feel like or intuit that you're telling the truth. It seems the only other way to 'feel sure of' is to hold you as a truth-teller or to have faith in you, to trust you implicitly. I imagine there could be circumstances where I would be forced to trust someone because it's not possible to verify their veracity, but that could be against my will and wouldn't be really 'feeling' or 'holding' their claims.

First, you say that believing expresses uncertainty and knowing expresses certainty, but then say that believing can express certainty.
— praxis

The latter is the result of the failure to make the distiction of the former. — Fooloso4

I think you're wrong about this. If we're uncertain about something do we need to confirm this uncertainty, or 'hold it to be true', to ourselves? No.

The expression of belief is nothing more than a sign of solidarity with fellow "believers", and a shared uncertainty is a leash, allowing yourself to be led like a dog.

Is this not an expression of what you believe about believing, that is is better to avoid believing?

To believe is used in distinction from to know. What I believe may turn out to be wrong. It expresses a tenuousness, a lack of certainty. It differs from a claim of knowledge.

It is when this distinction is not made, when one equates believing with being absolutely, indubitably certainty, that believing becomes dangerous. — Fooloso4

First, you say that believing expresses uncertainty and knowing expresses certainty, but then say that believing can express certainty. There is also the fact that what we know can turn out to be wrong, and in those cases are we actually only believing when we think that we're knowing?

Wow, that’s heavy, and I thought Trump supporters were a bad enough exemplar to justify the condemnation of belief.

Non-fossil energy is only a fantasy if you're demanding that our current way of life (hollow materialism) remains the same.

As Banno said... the problem is not that we believe, but rather it is what we believe. So, seems better to examine how we come to believe the things we do, and what sorts of belief are best to have/hold rather than make an attempt to convince ourselves that we ought not believe anyone or anything. — creativesoul

If I accept or trust or think or estimate or conclude or predict that you're telling the truth does that mean that I believe (hold to be true) you're telling the truth? A definition of believe includes the sense of 'feeling sure of'. Does that refer to intuition, the feeling that you're telling the truth but not an assessment based on reason? If that's the case then I could simply say that, that I feel like or intuit that you're telling the truth. It seems the only other way to 'feel sure of' is to hold you as a truth-teller or to have faith in you, to trust you implicitly. I imagine there could be circumstances where I would be forced to trust someone because it's not possible to verify their veracity, but that could be against my will and wouldn't be really 'feeling' or 'holding' their claims.

And how is your "model of the world" different to what you hold to be true? — Banno

I’m not sure how to answer because I’m not sure what you mean by ‘hold to be true’. What exactly do you mean by that?

So isn't it the case that in order for you to be able to act, you must hold certain things to be the case? — Banno

Not at all, much of what I do is subconscious. Also, my dog never declares his beliefs to anyone and yet he seems to manage just fine.

I act according to my model of the world and the model is being continually updated. You seem to be suggesting that I need to have faith in this model. I don't see why faith is needed because I only have my model and no other.

What difference does it make?

Rather, I'm confident that I can put thoughts together, speak English, and type out a message that can be shared online. I also have reasons to think that my messages will be read and responded to. I understand that there are standards for posting on this forum. I can judge good and bad conduct.

I know about clay and stuff.

People commonly don't actually believe what they claim to believe, and in those cases, expressing belief can merely be a sign of solidarity with fellow "believers". This is why I endeavor to abandon the term. I don't hate it, and I don't hate "believers", it's just that I'm not a blind follower. I do not follow blindly, if I can help it.

I understand the folk psychology of “influence”. — NOS4A2

Actually, the work of Robert Cialdini is backed up by numerous empirical studies.

@NOS4A2 be ghost'n. :razz:

So there I was, nervously entering the floatation tank like a virgin bride on her wedding night. I know that simile doesn't make sense but bear with me. First, there was the gentle caress of the salient warm water. Did I say salient? I meant that it's salty, really salty. It's like almost burning your skin salty. Next, there was silence and darkness as the tank door closed. Finally, I was set adrift in a sea of sensory deprivation. After a while, my mind starved for sensory input, and not finding any it began to generate its own reality. I was sliding off of emptiness. Falling further and further into the depths of blackness. Then I heard a beeping sound. Was it God? No, it was the alarm set to notify me that my time was up.

They are crimes according to some species of legalism, but they wouldn’t be if people refused to do what they were ordered. So despite the legal theories the fact remains: whether people obey or disobey an order is not determined by the words. — NOS4A2

People will obey some words but not others, so obedience is certainly partly determined by the words.

According to Pew Research, about 3% identified themselves as atheist in 2014, so I imagine that antitheists (opposed to religion) must be less than 1%. Around half reported that religion was important to their lives. Unknown what portion of this demographic may be anti-atheists. That’s about all I can say offhand.

No examples?

What I’m saying is that the dynamic driving ongoing discussions about separation of church and state in the US is in trying to resolve this distinction - drawn up as anti-theism vs anti-atheism - in a way that differs from the UK and Aus. — Possibility

I don’t see what you’re saying. Can you give examples that illustrate this difference?

The US is not anti-theist or anti-atheist, though it contains citizens of both.

1988 Movie - "They Live" - where aliens come to earth and control everyone, which has been often commented as a metaphor for how similar it is to how the uber-rich/powerful and corporations already control everything. — dclements

The fight scene is a perfect metaphor for this topic, folks fighting with NOS to put the ideology critique glasses on his face.

As I have said several times, I encountered Watts decades ago and loved his roadshow of ideas. He considered himself an entertainer and many of us got our start in metaphysical religious thinking through him. Even today I'll listen to him on youtube - to actually hear his resonant voice is a buzz. The charisma leaps from my headphones. And he's often thought provoking. — Tom Storm

Pretty much the same story for me and I actually really like Watts. His ideas were ‘off-the-rack’ but he had charisma and was an excellent preacher man. His words gave me comfort and meaning in a difficult time, as I recall.

‘To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don’t grab hold of the water, because if you do, you will sink and drown. Instead, you relax and float’ ~ Alan Watts. — Wayfarer

Shame that he couldn’t loosen his grip on the bottle.

And yet the battle lines between secularism and religion are drawn, and the argument on both sides cites ‘separation of church and state’ as their basis. This is what I meant by ‘struggle’ - not an incapacity, but an unresolved and open debate. — Possibility

You seemed to be claiming that the US struggles to recognize the difference between ‘freedom of’ and ‘freedom from’ religion. The separation of church and state facilitates both.