We Don't Want To Believe - Because, If We Believe, Then...
This is based on the art of subjective acceptance (partial self-blindness) of which we humans are masters of.
So, there's this guy who claims to be able to read minds. He has a friend who claims to be able to transcribe normal speech into text. They undertake an experiment where they are both filmed performing their crafts on/for various men. By the by, upon processing of the data collected, it is seen that of the men engaged by the mind-reader, there was a lot of positive reviews concerning the ability to figure out their thoughts including close approximations. Overall, the mind-reader had an 83% success rate (a combination of exactness and close approximations) which translated to 69% of exactness and 14% of close approximations. On the other hand, the transcriber also got somewhat positive reviews with a 78% success rate which included 67% exactness and 11% of close approximations.
From that, it is clear none of them is the best at their asserted abilities. Later on, the videos are shown to a random selection of audience. The audience are then asked whether they believe in mind-reading and a clear majority (93%) answer in the negative. The remaining 7% state that their belief is tentative and is mainly based on their unwillingness to accept complete certainty. For them, the devil may exist, there may be gods such zeus and odin, and perhaps a race of people living beneath the earth's surface is possible, too. They can't not believe in things just as they believe in things but not completely. It is quite the balance. However, everybody believes in the transcriber. As to the lower scores, they believe that with practice the ability can be improved.
So, why don't the audience believe in mind-reading despite a video showing its occurrence? Some of the reasons given were, the video could have been staged, the targets could have been manipulated, mind-reading doesn't exist, if he could read minds why didn't he get everything right, etc etc. All genuine reasons and rationale were explored. However, nobody questioned the ability of the transcriber beyond the allocated scores. Nobody thought that the video could have been staged despite the fact that none of them read or even saw the actual transcripts. And, while 70% of them had never met a transcriber, they were sure transcribing was a valid capability because they had all gone through school and had sometimes taken notes in much the same way.
Then they were asked whether they had at any time in their lives guessed or approximated someone's/anyone's thoughts, moods, behaviour, character, etc. And they all answered to the positive because they had close relations with whom (friends and family), due to the closeness, there was a certain level of familiarity and understanding, which bestowed upon them the capability to approximate their thoughts, moods, etc and often correctly. Asked if it was possible for someone to gather and process such information as they used but in a quicker way, they had to concede that it was possible. Asked whether such didn't qualify as mind-reading, again the majority (79%) gave a definitive negative. The reason for why some of them changed their stance was given to be that, to them the definition of mind-reading was somewhat altered by that latter exposition. But the majority still gave the same reasons as earlier on why they maintained their stance.
Finally, these last group of the audience who refused to accept the possibility of mind-reading were asked why they didn't think it was possible since they had agreed to having read minds, moods, behaviour, etc. Their reply was that such was not mind-reading, instead it was just knowing stuff about people. They explained that mind-reading, if possible, would be something mystical/supernatural. Asked whether the mind was something mystical/supernatural, they conceded it was not. Asked whether since the mind was a natural and common phenomenon/faculty present in everyone, could it be engaged with just as our bodies? At this point a new argument arose which put a pause to the proceedings for fear of diverging too far from the premise. The new argument was that the mind was different from the body and could not be expected to be engaged with as an object/subject of practical investigation, that such an analogy was misleading.
So, what do you think?
So, there's this guy who claims to be able to read minds. He has a friend who claims to be able to transcribe normal speech into text. They undertake an experiment where they are both filmed performing their crafts on/for various men. By the by, upon processing of the data collected, it is seen that of the men engaged by the mind-reader, there was a lot of positive reviews concerning the ability to figure out their thoughts including close approximations. Overall, the mind-reader had an 83% success rate (a combination of exactness and close approximations) which translated to 69% of exactness and 14% of close approximations. On the other hand, the transcriber also got somewhat positive reviews with a 78% success rate which included 67% exactness and 11% of close approximations.
From that, it is clear none of them is the best at their asserted abilities. Later on, the videos are shown to a random selection of audience. The audience are then asked whether they believe in mind-reading and a clear majority (93%) answer in the negative. The remaining 7% state that their belief is tentative and is mainly based on their unwillingness to accept complete certainty. For them, the devil may exist, there may be gods such zeus and odin, and perhaps a race of people living beneath the earth's surface is possible, too. They can't not believe in things just as they believe in things but not completely. It is quite the balance. However, everybody believes in the transcriber. As to the lower scores, they believe that with practice the ability can be improved.
So, why don't the audience believe in mind-reading despite a video showing its occurrence? Some of the reasons given were, the video could have been staged, the targets could have been manipulated, mind-reading doesn't exist, if he could read minds why didn't he get everything right, etc etc. All genuine reasons and rationale were explored. However, nobody questioned the ability of the transcriber beyond the allocated scores. Nobody thought that the video could have been staged despite the fact that none of them read or even saw the actual transcripts. And, while 70% of them had never met a transcriber, they were sure transcribing was a valid capability because they had all gone through school and had sometimes taken notes in much the same way.
Then they were asked whether they had at any time in their lives guessed or approximated someone's/anyone's thoughts, moods, behaviour, character, etc. And they all answered to the positive because they had close relations with whom (friends and family), due to the closeness, there was a certain level of familiarity and understanding, which bestowed upon them the capability to approximate their thoughts, moods, etc and often correctly. Asked if it was possible for someone to gather and process such information as they used but in a quicker way, they had to concede that it was possible. Asked whether such didn't qualify as mind-reading, again the majority (79%) gave a definitive negative. The reason for why some of them changed their stance was given to be that, to them the definition of mind-reading was somewhat altered by that latter exposition. But the majority still gave the same reasons as earlier on why they maintained their stance.
Finally, these last group of the audience who refused to accept the possibility of mind-reading were asked why they didn't think it was possible since they had agreed to having read minds, moods, behaviour, etc. Their reply was that such was not mind-reading, instead it was just knowing stuff about people. They explained that mind-reading, if possible, would be something mystical/supernatural. Asked whether the mind was something mystical/supernatural, they conceded it was not. Asked whether since the mind was a natural and common phenomenon/faculty present in everyone, could it be engaged with just as our bodies? At this point a new argument arose which put a pause to the proceedings for fear of diverging too far from the premise. The new argument was that the mind was different from the body and could not be expected to be engaged with as an object/subject of practical investigation, that such an analogy was misleading.
So, what do you think?
Comments (142)
But I have been reading a not-very-good-book, Title: Gargoyles; author: Ben Hecht***; published: 1922. The set of Chicago characters are chock full of little self-deceptions of various kinds. They often find their words, actions, even their thoughts, to be problematic because they sense that if they are not careful of what they say, do, or think some ugly truth might be revealed to themselves or others.
One character, a widow, having recovered from grief (or at least the habit of living with a husband) has become ambitious. She engages in many charitable fund raising causes, because the fundraising activity serves as a means for her petit bourgeoisie self advancement. She is unusual in that she knows full well that she doesn't give a rat's ass (my phrase, not hers) about the prospective beneficiaries of her charitable work. She admits to herself that they are generally a disgusting lot. She doesn't particularly like the other women she must work with either, especially those who out-rank her socially.
But the widow is unusually honest with herself. Most of the characters engage in all sorts of petty self-deceptions to maintain their self-images. Those who aren't good at this game suffer.
"We Don't Want To Believe - Because, If We Believe, Then..." we might have to deal with inconvenient realities. We won't be honest with ourselves, usually. We may prefer to lead lives of sexual abandon, but don't want to admit it. Instead we maintain a front of sexual probity. Or, like one of the characters in Gargoyles, actually leads a life of sexual gluttony but not without various self-inflicted prevarications.
A lot of people (everyone?) play elaborate games to avoid the inconvenience of truth. Our image is more important than the raw facts.
***Gone with the Wind, Scarface (1983), Notorious (1946) and Spellbound (1945) are some of the movies Hecht wrote scripts for.
I agree with you (the story in the OP is just to serve as an example of how people work against inconvenient realities and such). Most people fight for their beliefs not because they understand them or on the merit of the belief's integrity but because they hope to convince themselves that they are right to believe. For most people beliefs have to be ultimate and incontrovertible even when they consider themselves fallible humans. These people, when they believe, they enslave themselves to those beliefs. Weirdly enough, being fallible should be one of the best things to happen to anyone. Because, they can undo and redo things. In some interesting way, being fallible means there are no real limits because they are temporary and soon to be undone.
Whenever I think of subjectivity, I'm always reminded of the scene in Fight Club: "You don't know where I've been, Lou. You don't know where I've been!!!
But how many people believe in that kind of 'magic'. To most people it's always a setup especially considering the other stuff that accompany such 'magic'. Anyway, one of my points is that, if humans are natural, then they cannot perform supernatural activities. Is there anything perceived by humans that is actually beyond the purview of nature? And, by what means would those people have acquired such information considering they are bound within the limits of the laws of nature?
My point is to challenge human belief because it seems we often misrepresent ourselves when we represent our beliefs.
Mostly, our "beliefs" are nothing but blind guesses which we call "beliefs" so that we do not have to acknowledge they are merely guesses.
I do not do "believing."
I do not do "doing". Oops, I did it. :snicker:
Don't you have any convictions, however simple or complex they are?
Don't you have a frame of reference for your information, perception, conception, knowledge and understanding?
The reason I ask is because even before we assert belief in the fantastic and preposterous, there is also a level of belief that is decent and natural in its application. What I'm saying is that, belief isn't necessarily something to do away with, rather it should be worked upon the way we would any other part of our faculty of consciousness.
Or they're just acceptance of experience.
Quoting BrianW
I think that the issue arises from an unnecessary segregation of things in to the categories of 'scientific' and 'magical'. A segregation that exploits the herd instinct.
As Arthur Clarke points out, such a segregation is based on misunderstanding.
How close is thought to belief?
Yes, I think so too.
My hypothesis would be that thought approaches belief as its [perceived] resultant outcome approaches certainty.
Mine would be that belief is the power of thought to express infinite possibility.
I think that this is something we could possibly discuss as civilized primates. :grin:
Yeah, I do. I call my convictions...my convictions. I do not disguise my convictions by calling them my "beliefs."
Yes, II do. I call my frame of reference for information, my perceptions, my conceptions, my knowledge and my understanding...my frame of reference, my perceptions, my conceptions, my knowledge and my understanding.
I do not disguise those things by calling them my "beliefs."
With all the respect in the world, I ask you to consider whether your use of the word "beliefs" for all those things are possibly just a disguise.
For instance, if one says, "I 'believe' (in) God"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that at least one god exists in the REALITY of existence?"
If one says, "I believe there are no gods"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that no gods exist in the REALITY of existence?"
Could be.
If they are guesses...we should call them guesses.
If they are "acceptance of experience"...we should call them "acceptance of experience."
Just my opinion.
What is belief other than those convictions and frames of reference in consciousness?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Belief is not absolute. Human understanding is not perfect therefore their beliefs cannot be measured by the absolute standard of truth. Our convictions can fail us; our frames of reference can be inadequate - yet they distinctly retain those identities and applications. That's why I said they should be worked on just as we work on scientific knowledge or any other aspect of our faculty of consciousness.
I agree.
Or we can just stick to beliefs.
As what even is a belief? A thought you are confident in.
The thought that you don't believe, is ironically a belief.
All our knowledge, guesses, experience - are also beliefs of sorts.
And I don't see why you attest that beliefs are blind guesses and leave yourself so distraught over it.
Because when you say "I DO NOT DO BELIEVING", all you're saying is "GUESSES AREN'T ENOUGH FOR ME"; which is fine.
@BrianW Pardon the derailing, buddy.
This may be a good working theory though I don't know if human beliefs which are relative and limited, can be used to relate to or express an absolute such as "infinite possibility".
Perception vs knowledge... I LOVE IT!!! :up:
??? Who wouldn't be able to do that if they're literate? Someone says, "Hey Joe--where you going with that gun in your hand?" You should be able to transcribe that to text.
Re the mind-reading stuff, since there are good reasons to believe that it wouldn't be possible, it would need to be tested in a controlled setting. If we had verifiable results in a controlled experimental setting, then probably people would be a lot more likely to believe it.
I'd have to see the video in question to assess it in any manner.
Others may believe mindreading is impossible because 1. they can't do it. & 2. it has never been confirmed that anyone can do it. & 3. When it has been investigated, it has been shown to be a trick.
Therefore a single instance of a person with this alleged power is insufficient to negate the prior belief. However, I would suggest that if the alleged mindreader were to read my mind, that would be entirely different. That could be convincing.
I don't know if this was your intent, but this is similar to discussions I've had with Christians about miracles. I believe it highly unlikely that miracles (violations of the laws of nature) occur. No allegged miracle has been objectively confirmed, and many have been shown to be false, and many believers have been shown to have been duped. On the other hand, if I were to personally experience an unequivocal miracle, I could change my mind.
Brian...what do I have to do to spell this out for you?
I DO NOT DO BELIEVING.
I do understanding; guessing; supposing; estimating...and all that kind of stuff that others call "believing."
But I call my guesses, suppositions, and estimations...guesses, suppositions and estimations.
I DO NOT EVER CALL THEM BELIEFS.
So...I do not do believing.
If you are wondering if I do guesses and suppositions and estimates and that sort of thing..
...YES, I do.
If you want to pretend you guesses are not guesses by calling your guesses "beliefs"...do it.
I don't.
Some people guess mindreading is possible; some guess it is not possible.
Both are guessing.
Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief."
What's in a name?
A rose by any other name...
As previously discussed. I use the terminology different than you. Note how I worded my belief: "mindreading is probably physically impossible".
My beliefs are not certainties, but they are justified- based on other beliefs. Happy to discuss, if you're willing to discuss in my terms or you can provide a lexicon for yours.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Pick up a good book on epistemology, and see if there's something that can't be covered using the common words. Or just ask what I mean in a given instance.
If you want to call a rose a rose...do so. It is what I would do.
If you want to make a blind guess and call it a "belief"...do so. You have a right to do that.
I prefer not to. I prefer to call my guesses...guesses. In fact, I no longer use the expression, "I believe..." anything...just to stay consistent.
That is why I say I do not do "believing"...because I don't.
Do you have a problem with that?
I never said or intimated that a "belief" has to be certainty.
In fact, I said that in some cases, it is nothing more than blind guessing being disguised.
We can discuss it if you like...but I do not want my position to be distorted.
No it isn't.
How so? For every X for which belief is an umbrella term that has been offered, you've responded that you call X not a belief but simply X - which you are free to do, but it doesn't change that X is a belief. Just like I can choose to call arms arms instead of limbs, but nevertheless, arms are limbs.
Definition of belief (Merriam-Webster)
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.
2 : something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed.
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
This are the common meanings expressed by term 'belief' and also what I'm referring to. So, either none of them refers to what you understand by belief implying that you have you own reference other than these, in which case, we are not talking about the same thing.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Sorry if I misinterpreted, but bear in mind that the only response you gave to my original post was a tangential comment about my terminology, and your repeat of your position that the word "guess" should be used. That was actually off-topic, and pointless since we've been through this before. If you want to understand my point within my own terminology then ask. If you want to make a case for using your terminology, start a new thread. Otherwise, please stop interjecting your dissatisfaction that everyone doesn't use your preferred terminology.
You originally said:
Quoting BlueBanana
I'd saying, NO it isn't.
A person saying, "I believe X"...is a person doing "believing."
A person saying, "It is my blind guess that X" is a person doing "blind guessing.
If you do not understand that...not much I can do to help you.
I do not do "believing."
I really do not understand why this is causing some of you so much trouble?
First, I'm not troubled, I find it quite interesting to see where this particular rabbit hole leads to.
Secondly, a person doing "X" and calling it "Y" is very suspicious, hence my interest.
What is your fucking problem?
I have never expressed dissatisfaction with people who use other terminology. In fact, I expressedly said it was okay with me...but that I did not do it.
You seem to be the one with a problem with my using what I want to use.
You made a post saying something to which I made an appropriate response.
If you don't like it...don't read it.
Quoting BrianW
No rabbit hole. Interesting topic...not a rabbit hole.
Precisely.
That, in essence, is my point.
If a person is making a blind guess that there are no gods...and says "I believe there are no gods" rather than "It is my blind guess that there are no gods"...ya gotta wonder why they are doing it.
Or, if a person is making a blind guess that there is at least one god...and says, "I believe (in) God" rather than "It is my blind guess that there is at least one god"...ya gotta wonder why.
That is my point.
Thank you for making it again.
Keep expanding. You haven't gotten wherever you are going yet.
Then why bring it up at all? As to what my problem is: I don't like getting trolled. To avoid a discussion on the semantics of "troll", read this: Internet Troll. FYI, I've been called on this myself, in other forums. Accept that it is a perception even if it was not your intent.
You post a lot of things I agree with, so I don't want to get on bad terms with you. Let's just move on. I'm not going to respond to you again in this thread, nor to future comments you make about semantics unless that is the topic of the thread.
This I have said so far: you have given and been given examples of things that fall under the umbrella term of belief (blind guess, acceptance of experience, etc.) and you refuse to use the umbrella term (seemingly claiming that apparently words referring to concepts are mutually exclusive, as if calling a guess a belief implies it's not a guess).
Furthermore, your choice of words does not reflect reality - if the word belief means (among other things) a guess, then guesses are beliefs regardless of whether one chooses to call them beliefs.
That's where I'm going and where I've gotten, if you claim it requires expanding tell me how so. "No it isn't" isn't a valid rebuttal of that.
This is a play at semantics. It's about the mode of expression instead of implied meaning. Also, the blind guess is still predicated by the law of "what goes in, is what comes out", input=output. This means the mind can only give an outcome based on the corresponding inputs. A sub-conscious process of mind is no less valid or meaningful than the conscious processes. For example, a person may choose to believe/disbelieve in god(s) for no other reason than they made a choice having been given that opportunity (no matter the name the process is designated by), and it would still be valid, meaningful and within his/her purview since he/she has such capabilities. I'm not arguing about the quality in how belief is achieved (low/high quality 'stuff' is still 'stuff'), I'm investigating what belief is and why people choose one instead of others.
Banana...I do not EVER say "I believe...ANYTHING."
I do not do believing.
I do guessing and estimating and supposing and things like that.
But I do not do "believing."
If that troubles you...that is your problem.
Brian...
...I do not do believing.
I do guessing and estimating and supposing and things like that.
But I do not do "believing."
If that troubles you...that is your problem.
I have explained that as best I can.
If you cannot accept it...that is a problem you must deal with.
It would read:
We Don't Want To GUESS - Because, If We GUESS, Then...
Now what in the hell would that be about.
If you want to guess on something you cannot know...there is nothing wrong with making a guess.
Why would it cause the kind of personal conflict suggested or implied in the title?
It wouldn't.
But "believe" (the disguise word for guess) does cause difficulties.
Think about that.
i agree with this. People don't like to be told they are wrong. I certainly don't like to be told i'm wrong.
"I won't die, I will just cease living. Thus, I'm immortal."
So you say.
Quoting Frank Apisa
which are 'obviously' worlds apart from the processes of belief... hmm, very curious :chin:
Quoting Frank Apisa
It certainly seems so.
Well, I shall question no longer. I accept.
No. If you cease living, you are not immortal. That was an even worse analogy than the other nonsense.
Calm down. Stop being so bothered by the fact that I do not want to disguise my guesses by calling them "beliefs."
If I do not use "believe"...I am not doing "believing."
In a discussion about the nature of the REALITY of existence...
...it matters, even if there are people too immature and ignorant to realize it.
True enough. Though quite surprising when it's just about a philosophical argument.
I do say that.
I don't think they are. To me...when a person says, "I believe (in) god" I think they are actually saying, "My guess is there is a god." When a person says, "I believe there are no gods" I think they are actually saying, "It is my guess there are no gods."
I do NOT see them as worlds apart. I do not use the "believe" form...because I see it as an attempt to disguise.
You seem to have a problem with that.
Why not talk about the problem you have with it?
Good.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
Do you have a point?
IF a person wants to use "believe" rather than "blindly guess"...it is fine with me. One has the right to do that.
It is my opinion that disguising a blind guess...can cause difficulties (often DOES cause difficulties.)
And if there are people too immature or too ignorant to realize those things...IT STILL MATTERS.
We can discuss it.
I am attempting to do so right here...in the context of Brian's OP.
But apparently I am not discussing it the way Brian wants me to.
You seem to have some deep-seated issues with the concept of believing.
You keep referring to it in the context of believing in a god or believing there is no god, you don't like people who say they believe in a god, presumably because they have caused you some suffering in some way? You don't want them to accept something as real if you don't have evidence of it and they can't show you evidence of it?
Belief is a word used to refer to various states of mind, but it doesn't reduce to a guess. When people say they believe there is a god they think and act as if there is a god, which is not the same as simply guessing. Sometimes they even see god.
You say you do not do what these people do, but you do, you just don't say it, and maybe you also don't realize it. Say a friend of yours comes visit you, and when you're with that friend you chat and have fun and let your guard down. Now it is not impossible that this person who has come to visit you is not your friend, but his twin he never told you about, or a clone, and that this person has come to hurt you. And yet you don't consider the possibility, you think and act as if this person has good intentions towards you, and that state of mind we call a belief. Now you can choose to not use that word, but that's the word we usually use.
Ahhh...practicing to be a psychologist by doing cyber-analysis.
I see.
Don't give up your day job, Leo!
When a person says, "I believe there is a god"...all they are doing is saying, "It is my blind guess that there is at least one god in the REALITY"...but they are pretending they are saying something else. They are disguising the fact that they are making a blind guess by calling it a "belief."
Same thing goes when a person says, "I believe there are no gods."
Did you have help constructing that abomination of a sentence...or did you do it on your own, perhaps while under the influence?
In any case, of course I do what others do. I take a dump in the morning before going to the golf course...and during the day I will make calculations, guesses, suppositions and the like. BUT I will call my calculations, guesses and suppositions...calculations, guesses, and suppositions. I will not call those things "beliefs." No need to disguise something like that.
I would choose not to use that word...and I do not much give a shit what word you, or anyone else, would use. I do not do "believing."
Anyway...cyber-friend to cyber-friend, Leo, I sincerely meant what I said earlier. Do not give up your day job.
Actually for now I'm guessing that you have some issues related to the concept of believing, that's not meant to be an attack that's an hypothesis as to why you react the way you do, and if you consider it seriously and do some introspection that might help you. But if you keep reacting like that this hypothesis might turn into a belief.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
There are so many things to focus on, yet you seem most focused on making other people know and accept that you "do not do believing". I have seen you do that on at least one other thread. When people disagree with you, you respond with passive-aggressiveness, or you attack them. It doesn't take a psychologist to notice that you fixate on it and you react very strongly to it. When people stop replying to you you consider you have them convinced, but really you're just driving them away.
Quoting Frank Apisa
It is not "all they are doing", because they also think and act as if this god exists, sometimes they feel him, they expect to meet him at some point, all that they wouldn't do if they were just blindly guessing.
Quoting Frank Apisa
In terms that you can understand, YOU DO BELIEVING, even if you don't say it, and even if you don't realize it.
I gave an example, in that example you hold a belief, the way belief is defined, so by the definition of belief you do believing. Now you keep saying that you do not do believing, but that's not in accordance with the definition of belief, because by that definition you do believing.
Leo...you are completely full of shit.
I do not do "believing."
If you are saying that I do guessing...you are correct. I do guessing. If you want to call your guesses (especially the BLIND guesses) beliefs...fine with me. BUT I DO NOT DO THAT.
When I guess...I guess; when I estimate...I estimate; when I suppose...I suppose
If you or anyone else wants to guess or estimate or suppose...and pretend it is something else by calling it a belief...fine with me. But I do not do that.
I do not do "believing."
Not sure what your problem is with that, but it is YOUR problem. Not mine.
If you are not bright enough to understand my point...or if you think you are the arbiter of what I do or do not do...
...that also is YOUR problem.
You might not call them beliefs--that's fine, but you're doing what I name "belief" when you assert things like "I do not do believing." You can call it something else. What we name it doesn't really matter. Many of us just happen to name "that thing" "belief."
Fine.
YOU do "believing."
I do not.
As to the immediate question of whether any gods exist or not...
...do you blindly guess there are gods or blindly guess there are no gods?
Me...I do not blindly guess in either direction.
You haven't addressed any of my points, you just keep repeating again and again that you "do not do believing". This type of behavior is precisely that of people who believe strongly in something. You believe strongly that you "do not do believing".
How did you arrive at this conclusion that you "do not do believing"? Look at the dictionary definition of belief, "confidence in something", "acceptance that something is true", do you never do that? When you are confident in something, by definition you believe in that thing. When you accept that something is true, by definition you believe in it. By definition you DO believing. You just don't like to call it believing, maybe because you don't want to see yourself and be seen on the same level as the people who believe in a god.
So ok you do not believe there is a god, and you don't believe there is no god, but you believe that you can't know either way, which is a belief by definition: you're confident that you can't know either way, you accept as true that you can't know either way.
However, some people have had experiences that they interpret as being in contact with god, as feeling god, so they're not blindly guessing, they're making an educated guess, they become confident that there is a god, and they choose to believe it, to accept it as true.
And to attempt to bring the topic back on track...
Quoting BrianW
My view is that beliefs offer a feeling of safety, they are something we hang onto in the chaos and unpredictability of existence. There are some beliefs we are willing to give away easily, and others that we want to stick to no matter what because without them we are lost. And when we believe in something strongly we aren't able to see it as a belief, we see it as reality, as truth.
There is a famous quote from the physicist Max Planck that says: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.". Many people live and die with their cherished beliefs and no amount of argumentation can make them change these beliefs, while young people who grow up while being influenced by specific beliefs can stick to them easily. It's like when we're young we stick to the system of beliefs that works best for us, and as we grow older and we're so accustomed to it we don't want to give it away.
But philosophy of science also shows how any belief can be made to fit with observations, with the scientific evidence, with the facts, these are just interpreted differently depending on the belief. We can have countless world views that are consistent with observations, some of them are just simpler than others, some of them allow to make more accurate predictions than others, some of them lead us to destroy ourselves more than others, ..., and when our world views are too different we just talk past each other and don't understand one another.
You do what-I-and-most-people-call-"believing" but what-you-idiosyncratically-call-something-else.
Re the question of gods, I know there are none, based on lots of different evidence.
I have explained my position as clearly as possible.
You simply want to insist that I consider my guesses, estimates, opinions, and the like to be "beliefs."
As I said, it is my opinion that you are full of shit.
My opinions...are my opinions. They are not my "beliefs", mostly because I do not do "believing."
My guesses...are my guesses. They are not my "beliefs", mostly because I do not do "believing."
My estimates...are my estimates. They are not my "beliefs", mostly because I do not do "believing."
Sorry you have so much trouble with that.
So you think it is idiosyncratic of me to call my blind guesses...blind guesses?
Really?
And you think it idiosyncratic for me to call my opinion, estimates, and suppositions...opinions, estimates, and suppositions...rather than calling them my "beliefs?"
Wow.
Get the hell off it...both you guys.
Grok what I am saying ...or stay under your rock.
Then what word (label) do you use to describe the things you think you know?
I would not use "a word" to describe the things I think I know, PC. I would say, "I think I know...x."
Two quick question for you, if I may:
Do you think it is idiosyncratic of me to call my blind guesses...my blind guesses rather than my beliefs?
Do you think calling my blind guesses "beliefs"...is a superior ethical position than calling them "blind guesses."
Your wish to describe wild guesses as wild guesses is commendable; admirable. But your insistence that you don't do believing leads only to confusion, I think, as it isn't 100% clear what you mean by that. Whoever said communication was easy? :wink:
Point made...and taken.
But I have done my best to describe why I say what I say.
I want to be precise. And even if that is not accepted...why would a substitute seem a better choice than using the word that precisedly describes what I am saying.
If I am making a blind guess about something there is no way for me to know (in any meaningful notion of THAT word)...why on Earth would it be better to describe it as "I believe..." rather than "I blindly guess...?"
We both "know" the answer to that. Right.
If a person says, "I blindly guess that there is a GOD"...that is not going to carry much weight. We would not have as many organizations (national and international) with the intention of "protecting" the right of people to blindly guess about gods.
Same thing for the person who says, "I blindly guess there are no gods." Who really cares if someone blindly guesses there are gods...or there are no gods?
The reaction to someone stressing such a thought would elicit a mild laugh...and something akin to, "Okay...but shuffle and deal. You are holding up the game."
So...rather than reject the notion of "I believe..." as a substitute for "I blindly guess (estimate, suppose, opine)" in conversations about gods/no gods...I have decided not to use "believe" for any of those things even when it comes to things like, "I believe I'll have that left-over chicken for dinner tonight."
Why are these other two guys so upset with that?
I acknowledge that I make guesses...I have opinions...I do estimating. What is the big deal?
It's idiosyncratic to not call them beliefs when it's something you'd assert. Whether they're conventionally blind guesses hinges on whether you have any supporting empirical evidence, logical argumentation, etc. for them.
Notice that you are the one getting upset.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Precisely because there is a difference between a belief and a blind guess. Why else would a belief carry more weight than a blind guess?
I mentioned this in a previous post but you didn't address it. When someone believes that there is a god, they think and act as if this god exists, sometimes they feel him, they expect to meet him at some point, all that they wouldn't do if they were just blindly guessing. By the very definition of belief, they are confident of the existence of a god, they accept the existence of a god as true, which is not what they would do if they were blindly guessing.
Do you still use the word "confident", as in you're confident such or such thing is going to happen? Are you sometimes confident of something? If so, you do believing, again by the definition of belief.
For some reason you want to equate "belief" with "blind guess", and again they are not the same thing, but I suppose you're going to evade this point once again and reply for the 25th time that you "do not do believing".
So...if I know them to be blind guesses...you think it to be idiosyncratic for me to call them blind guesses rather than to use "believe????????????????????????????"
That condescending bullshit did cause me to react rather strongly.
Good for me.
But you and the other guy are the ones telling me that I should call my guesses "beliefs" for no good reason.
On the question of whether there are any gods or not...any "belief" expressed is NOTHING but a blind guess.
If you want to kid yourself into thinking differently...fine with me. I love a joke.
Sure they would. And do.
Because that is all they are doing...blindly guessing there is a god.
I do use "confident" the way you are suggesting, but I know there is a bit of bullshit involved. Bottom line, I only use it in situations where who cares. I am confident the GIANTS made the right moves; I am confident that my short game will come around. That kind of thing.
]quote]For some reason you want to equate "belief" with "blind guess", and again they are not the same thing, but I suppose you're going to evade this point once again and reply for the 25th time that you "do not do believing".[/quote]
They are the same thing when dealing with fundamental questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...like, "Are there any gods or not?"
They are nothing but blind guesses.
Guys like you call them "beliefs" in order to pretend they are something more.
I'll give you this: You are doing a good job of kidding yourself.
I think we share similar lines of thought with respect to what belief is. However, I have this question I've wanted to ask someone, so here goes - often we try to reconcile knowledge in such a way that it matches that of others, for the most part, about a particular object/subject. So, is belief something that we should also attempt to reconcile? Or, is subjectivity one of the main aspects of belief and therefore they must remain isolated from those of others regardless of any commonalities.
You can call your guesses guesses, but you're mistaking yourself if you 'believe' that you have no beliefs. Again, look at the dictionary definition of belief.
Quoting Frank Apisa
This is false. One who has felt god has their belief based in part on subjective evidence, so it is not a blind guess.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Their belief may be based on a blind guess or on their education or on what they want or on their past experiences, but you can't reduce all they are doing to "blindly guessing", there is much more to it than that. People don't dedicate their life to a blind guess. Their belief shapes their whole life and how they see the world, they live by their belief every passing moment, you can't reduce it to a blind guess like blindly guessing the result of the next football game.
Quoting Frank Apisa
It is customary to use the word belief in these cases too, "I believe they made the right move", "I believe it will come around". And you're not only using it in situations where it is inconsequential. Say you're crossing the road and you see a car racing towards you, you may be confident that if you run forward you will avoid it, but if you're wrong you die.
Or say you lived at a time where it was commonly accepted that the Sun revolved around the Earth, you would see the Sun move across the sky and you would be confident that the Sun revolves around the Earth, you would believe that, by the definition of belief. Today you may accept as true that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which is by definition a belief.
So if you are confident about things, or you accept things as true, you do believing, by the definition of belief.
Quoting Frank Apisa
People who have felt god do not base their belief in a god on a blind guess.
If you consider that the people who feel god blindly guess that the feeling they experience is that of god, then if we go down that rabbit hole it is a blind guess that other people have a consciousness, it is a blind guess that there is an external world that exists independently of you, so why do you focus on people who believe in a god or not?
Besides I have no problem with people basing their belief on a blind guess, or on whatever, the problem is when they try to force their belief onto others.
I see Frank is still trying to rationalise his escape from the Church ministry by brandishing his simplistic shield emblazoned with the word 'Guess' at all antagonists,. It is indeed a pity that, after all these years,he does not seem familiar with the plethora of epistemological literature available.
fresco.
I think that knowledge is not independent of belief. Knowledge about a particular object/subject will be formulated in a framework that depends on the beliefs of the person formulating that knowledge. So for instance, in one framework the Sun can be described as a giant ball of incandescent plasma heated by the nuclear fusion in its core that has such and such properties, while in another framework the Sun can be described as a God with such and such characteristics.
And then when we try to reconcile knowledge with that of others, isn't it that we're fundamentally already attempting to reconcile beliefs?
I KNOW what the dictionary definition of "belief" is. But I do not do "believing"...because I do not use the word to disguise a guess, estimate, opinion, or supposition.
Bullshit. Any assertion that "there is a god" or "there are no gods" is nothing but a blind guess. It might as well be based on a coin toss...as the "subjective evidence" you pretend exists.
There is nothing wrong with making blind guesses. I have made them...just as almost everyone has.
But make no mistake about it...guesses about whether there are gods or not...ARE blind guesses.
Yeah, it is a tough one to deal with for people like you. But is something you ought to do anyway.
It may be customary...BUT I DO NOT DO IT. I DO NOT DO BELIEVING.
I would "accept it as so." Yes...and today there are things I "accept as so." BUT I REFUSE TO USE THE WORD "BELIEVE" TO DISGUISE WHAT I AM DOING. I USE "I ACCEPT IT AS SO."
That is because I do not do "believing."
Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You understand that I am saying that I do not use the word "believe" to mask the true nature of what I am doing. I am either guessing, supposing, opinion, suggesting, accepting...or any of those other things.
I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED IN ANY WAY THAT I DO NOT DO THOSE THINGS. I have acknowledged that I do all those things.
But I insist that I do not disguise what I am doing by saying, "I believe..."
I have explained why I consider this important.
You want to be stone-headed and insist I cannot do that...when it is obvious that I can and do.
So...you are turning this thread into a discussion of me...rather than its intention...
...which is, "We Don't Want To Believe - Because, If We Believe, Then..."
Read the OP...and take a look how this one poster uses the word "believe" in what he has to say.
The use of the word is what makes the issue nonsense. Each time he could have used "do you guess or suppose"...and everything could have been clearer.
Bullshit.
I could not care less about blind guesses.
When it comes to whether gods exist or not...I prefer not to make them.
I could not care less about whether you or anyone else does.
But I am going to call attention to the fact that it is more ethical to call blind guesses...blind guesses than to call them "beliefs."
Still up to this kind of crap, Fresco!
Okay. I guess I easily still get under your skin.
Good to see ya.
No need to "reconcile" "beliefs"...if one stops using the disguise "belief."
The notion that the "truth" of what IS...must be "reconciled" with what creatures like humans think and guess about it...is an absurdity.
Quoting Frank Apisa
So you agree that you do what people do when they say they "believe" something. And you agree that they do believing. So logically, you do believing, you just don't call it that.
Why get so worked up about the word "belief", what is the terrible thing that would happen if you used that word?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Subjective evidence exists to the people who experience it. A blind person will have no idea what the color blue is like, but surely that doesn't imply you don't see colors. So just because you have not experienced god, doesn't imply others haven't.
Quoting Frank Apisa
If you know the dictionary definition of "belief", then you know that belief is not identical with a guess, or an estimate, or an opinion, or a supposition. So why do you keep attempting to equate belief with them?
Confidence in something, or the acceptance of something as true, is not a guess, nor an estimate, nor an opinion, nor a supposition.
Quoting Frank Apisa
If you attempt to replace belief in what the OP says with something else, you're changing what the OP says.
The concept of belief is useful, you have the right not to use it, but stop saying there is no need to use it because you believe that it is the same as a guess or a supposition.
You're even contradicting yourself, because if to you "believe" means the same thing as "guess", then it would be as clear to use the word "believe" than to use the word "guess", yet you say that everything would have been clearer if "guess" was used instead of "believe".
If you agree that "believe" and "guess" are not the same, stop saying they are the same. And if you consider that "believe" and "guess" are the same, stop saying that it is clearer to use "guess" rather than "believe".
You have an internal conflict about the word "belief", I'm not being condescending it's just what transpires through your posts, as shown by the self-contradiction above. And I believe that you need to engage in some introspection to find out why that is.
I do not do "believing."
I do not use the word "believe" to disguise the fact that I am accepting, or supposing, or guessing. So I do not do "believing."
You seem to be getting worked up over the notion that I will not substitute a word that makes what I am doing seem less clear.
Deal with that.
Okay...so let's use the opposite...let's use "I believe there are no gods."
Can you acknowledge that "I believe there are no gods" HAS TO BE A BLIND GUESS?
If you can, see if you can extrapolate from that...the notion that "I believe there is a GOD" is a blind guess also.
Because when a person says, "I believe there are no gods"...that person IS expressing a blind guess. And so are the ones who say, "I believe there is a GOD."
If you are saying there are people who KNOW there is a god...that can be discussed. We can do it here or elsewhere.
Often it is.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I have never said anything about "believing" anything...and you know it. That is the point of this discussion.
And...there is no need to use it.
That doesn't make enough sense to get a response beyond...that doesn't make sense.
You do not get to tell me what I must stop doing.
Secondly, you are distorting what I have been saying.
BOTTOM LINE: I do not do "believing"...and I am getting a kick out of you being so bothered by that. Try to get control.
"Internal!" You have not been paying attention!
I am telling you that I do not use the word "believe" to disguise the fact that I am blindly guessing...when I am blindly guessing.
Not sure why that bothers you so much...but it has gotten to the point of being entertaining.
Yeah, you really have been condescending. And my guess is you will continue to be.
Aha...there you go again. As I guessed.
You are a joy to play with...although you ought really to sharpen your game.
LAST THOUGHT: I do not do "believing."
And as long as others are prepared to play games with you about your ridiculous belief that 'you don't do believing' that's their problem.
Have fun !
If you're really making blind guesses about something, how about spending some time rationally analyzing the issue at hand, and then examining empirical evidence, logical argumentation, etc. as appropriate?
Actually...a good idea.
And that is what I do.
But if the subject is: What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and can we exclude gods or must we include gods...
...then all I come up with is: Toss a coin.
It is a blind guess on those things...nothing more valuable than a blind guess.
Do you actually disagree with me on that?
I'm asking as nicely as I can, Terrapin. Do you actually disagree with me on that?
Yes. Obviously I disagree with you on that.
You do not believe that there would be any evidence or logical argumentation or rational facts, etc. that would suggest one answer versus another?
Well, I definitely do not do any "believing"...so obviously I do not "believe" that there would be any evidence or logical argumentation or rational facts on those things. You are correct that I 'DO NOT" believe those things.
If, however, you are asking if I am of the opinion that there are NO facts which substantively and unambiguously point to "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods"....
...that most assuredly IS my opinion.
Can you name one fact that substantively and unambiguously points to either "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods?"
I cannot even conceive of one that points to "there are no gods"...and the only one I can conceive of for "there is at least one god"...is if the god unambiguously revealed itself. I have seen no unambiguous evidence of that.
That's not what I'm asking. You don't need "substantively and umabiguously" for something not to be just a blind guess. For it to not just be a blind guess it simply has to be based on some support--some evidence, some logical argument, etc.
There is nothing upon which anyone can do other than to blindly guess if there are any gods or not.
That's not correct though. We can base our assertions on evidence, rationality, etc.
There is absolutely nothing upon which you can make a meaningful guess regarding the existence or non-existence of gods.
The guess...and it will be a guess...is completely blind. You can just as logically, reasonably toss a coin...and use HEADS for "there is at least one god" and TAILS for "there are no gods."
Which way are you guessing, by the way? Perhaps we can approach our discussion better if that information is shared.
As for me...I am not making a guess...although if you want me to, I will gladly flip a coin.
I don't know why you're changing to a focus on "meaningful."
At any rate, one example of something you can base an assertion on is whether nonphysical existents are coherent.
You're mistaking compassion for condescension.
I am not bothered, I am not in a competition to win and get pleasure out of it as if you were my enemy, I am just trying to make you see your mistake. At best I am a bit annoyed that you keep misinterpreting and misrepresenting my intentions and thoughts, and I wish you would spend a little more effort in attempting to understand what I try to convey to you.
Do you consider that a belief is the same thing as a guess?
If so, why do you insist on not using the word belief, why is it less clear to use the word belief?
If not, what is to you the difference between the two?
Because a guess that is not "meaningful" is pretty much a blind one. I certainly can make a guess...I could, for instance, flip a coin to determine that guess. But it would not be meaningful, Terrapin.
I remind you of my personal agnosticism...which I have posted several times:
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
So the "meaningful" is not new...it has been part of my position for the last thirty years.
The question I would ask myself is: Can what we humans call "non-physical beings" exist?
My answer would be: I do not know. It certainly is possible. (I can't see any reason to assert it being necessary or to assert it being impossible.) And I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...so I probably wouldn't.
No, I am not. And that sentence was particularly condescending.
Well...you certainly are acting as though you are.
I am not mistaken on this point. I do not do "believing."
(Just shakes his head and sighs at this nonsense.)
I think a guess is a guess. At times some people hide the fact that they are making a guess by calling their guess a belief...as in "I believe (in) God" or "I believe there are no gods."
I do not do that. If I make a guess...I call my guess a guess.
See above.
A guess that is called a "belief" is being disguised.
I prefer not to do that.
I do wonder why that bothers you so.
Yes you are mistaking my compassion for condescension, and no saying that I have compassion for you is not objectively condescending, that's your own subjective interpretation.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I would be bothered if I was fighting with you and I wanted you to admit defeat, which seems to be your interpretation of what's going on here. But I'm not fighting, I'm just trying to help you see something you fail to see.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Now this is much more objectively condescending. It is not nonsense to state that you misinterpret and misrepresent my intentions, I should know because I know what my intentions are.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Quoting Frank Apisa
You didn't answer my question. Do you consider that a guess and a belief are the same thing? Yes or no?
If you say that calling a guess a belief is disguising a guess, that means you consider that a belief is not a guess right?
And then what is the difference between a guess and a belief? What is a belief to you?
You are mistaking your condescension for compassion. I suspect (only suspect) that is because along with being condescending...you are also being an asshole.
Baloney.
Anyway...allow me to help you see a mistake of yours. Your paragraph was written in the conditional subjective mood...so it should have started, "I would be bothered if I WERE fighting..."
No need for any thanks.
It absolutely was condescending...and meant to be so. I was echoing your condescension. I suspect (just suspect) that either you are lying...or that you do NOT know your intentions.
I responded to your question. If you do not consider it an answer...so be it. You can infer my answer from my response.
Okay...yes or no.
I made a response to your question that was clear...and gave you more than enough information to ease this bother and trauma you are enduring because of my position.
Use it. Or consult your physician for a drug that will help you cope.
I am sure you meant..."what is the difference" as I see it.
To me, a "guess" is a word used to denote an assertion (of sorts) that lacks sufficient information to be reasonably certain. Guesses seem to range from "informed guesses" to "totally blind guesses."
To me, a "belief" is a word used to denote an acceptance of something as true...without having the evidence to actually establish it as true. It also is a word that people use to disguise some guesses, mostly, it seems to me, because they do not want to acknowledge the guesses to be guesses.
(Neither of these are all encompassing definitions...but they give a good taste of my feelings about both.
We've been through this.
Frank is here on a self validatory mission regarding his agnosticism. This involves ignoring all usual epistemological objections because his personal sacrosanct word magic of 'guessing' has replaced the word magic of 'holy writ' he rejected. He of course dismisses this contextual observation as 'crap', but
but that's is actually all there is to it.
Yeah, a bit of that.
Also to help people too involved with themselves...
...to kick the habit.
It is okay to make blind guesses...and pretend they are something more by calling them "beliefs."
I actually get a kick out of watching people do it.
"We can" - "we are able to". Yes, mostly, or at least often, we are. But often we are not. Rationality is not something we always can, or do, do. ... Perhaps especially when we're thinking about God?
Unless you're using "meaning" in some very odd manner, why couldn't a blind guess be meaningful to someone?
Quoting Frank Apisa
If the very notion of nonphysicality is incoherent, you can know.
I don't think that people often make blind guesses about things. And when they do, they usually announce it; often they're rather apologetic about it.
That doesn't imply that someone else is going to think that the empirical stuff, the rationality behind an assertion that's not a blind guess is "quality," but that's a very different issue.
I actually was being sincere, and in return you were fully condescending towards me.
English is not my first language by the way, hence the occasional grammatical errors.
But since you suspect that I am lying and/or that I don't know my own intentions, there is no point in talking to you about myself, so I'll stop doing it.
Finally you said it: guess and belief are not the same thing.
Now I'm going to point out the thorn that bothers you.
Quoting Frank Apisa
You want to know why people who accept something as true don't say it is a guess? Because when they accept it as true, it becomes the truth to them.
It bothers you that people who believe in something don't acknowledge that their belief is a guess, but in order to acknowledge that it is a guess they would have to stop believing. So fundamentally it bothers you that people believe in something.
You say you do not believe in anything, but I presume there are things you accept as true because you consider you have the evidence to establish them as true? Do you have some examples of that?
Sounds as though it could be meaningful to you.
But I am talking about someone seriously considering questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.
To someone considering questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence..."beliefs" based on what essentially are coin tosses...ARE NOT MEANINGFUL.
I'll stick with the truth.
I do not know if what humans call "non-physical beings" exist.
My guess is you don't either.
But apparently you are going to pretend there is a way for you to know...by pretending we humans can declare the very idea to be "incoherent."
Hey, no problemo.
You are allowed to do that.
If someone assigns meaning to something, it's meaningful to them.
"Meaningful" is always to an individual.
Re the other part, what does it conventionally imply (in a philosophical context) if something is incoherent?
Your wording is careless. Are you actually saying you don't think people often make blind guesses...or are you actually saying you think people do not often make blind guesses.
Those are two different things...and in a philosophy forum, that should be considered.
Anyway, I will assume sloppy wording...and further assume you meant that you think people do not often make blind guesses.
Wow!
Every person on this planet who has ever made a statement like, "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods"...
...IS MAKING A BLIND GUESS.
Damn near everyone (excepting agnostics) make blind guesses about that question.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Lewis Carroll.
It's not careless if you're used to conventional conversational English. The two are saying the same thing.Quoting Frank Apisa
No, they're not. Almost everyone is basing that on some sort of evidence, some sort of intuition or feeling that isn't identical to the claim, some sort of reasoning, etc. Almost no one actually makes a blind guess about it.
Whether you think the evidence, the reasoning, etc. is quality, is apt, etc. is another issue. That's irrelevant to whether it's a blind guess.
It is my opinion that you were not sincere when you said you were not being condescending toward me.
I am returning the condescension.
I understand and I will not call other errors to your attention. The reason I called that one to your attention was because you were calling what you consider a mistake to mine. It was not a mistake.
Okay...we move on. I hope no condescension comes from either of us from this point on.
No you are not. And to suppose you can do that...is fucking condescension.
Let's get away from that!
I do not care why they don't call it a guess. I suspect they don't for a variety of reasons.
But the fact that it "becomes the truth to them"...DOES NOT MAKE IT THE TRUTH.
It doesn't bother me.
If they want to kid themselves and suppose their "beliefs" on these issues are more than just blind guesses...that is fine with me. Their lives might be upset without that pretense...and no way I would want to talk them out of something that helps them live a more comfortable life.
I would never do that.
So what in hell are you talking about?
I imagine there are...but I am a rather thorough agnostic and I seldom make a big deal of taking anything (of the nature we are talking about) as true the way some people do "there is a God" or "there are no gods."
I accept without the slightest doubt one thing said right here in this exchange...with no real evidence other than your word, namely that English is not your first language. You are very, very proficient...and I could doubt that, but I am totally willing to accept it as true without any investigation.
I would not say, "I believe you"...I would say, "I accept that as true."
I simply do not ever use the word "believe" as a substitute for "accept" or "suppose" or "estimate" or "guess."
I just do not do it.
Which is why I truthfully say, I do not do "believing."
[NB The Eprime movement in philosophy attempted to ban using the word 'is' ]
Okay...thank you for that, Fresco.
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
In a philosophy forum...one expects greater care with wording.
If you are not up to it...no problem.
No they are not. They are making a totally blind guess...pretending they are not making a totally blind guess...and furthering the pretense by using "believe" rather than "blindly guess" to describe what they are doing.
It is a blind guess.
But the pretense seems important to you...so stick with it.
That was terrible.
In fact, it was worse than terrible.
But you said previously: "To me, a "belief" is a word used to denote an acceptance of something as true...without having the evidence to actually establish it as true".
And by your own admission you do not have the evidence to actually establish as true that English is not my first language.
So in accepting as true that English is not my first language, you are believing, by your own definition of "belief". You are not saying it of course, but you are doing it.
What point are you trying to make quoting Jabberwocky ?
Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) was a logician interested in semantics. Are you claiming expertise in this area ?
No...I am specifically NOT doing that.
I am accepting it.
Right along I have said that I do all the other things people do who say about those things, "I believe...!
But I do not use the "believe" denotation.
I accept; I guess; I estimate; I suppose; I presume; I assume; I assess...just like everyone else. I have never said anything about any of that...EXCEPT THAT I DO THOSE THINGS.
And when I do, I say, "I guess..."; "I suppose..."; "I presume..."...and all the rest.
But the one goddam thing I do NOT DO...
...is to say, "I believe."
So I do not do "believing." I do guessing; I do supposing: I do presuming...BUT I DO NOT DO BELIEVING.
Not sure how to get that through the concrete screening your brain input...but I am relentless, so I will keep making attempts.
By your own definition of belief, you are believing. If I see you drink water and you say that you DO NOT DO DRINKING, I will let you say that if that's so important to you, but I will still say that you drink water.
It's not a lack of care with wording. You can't parse speech like a robot. You won't understand a huge percentage of what people say if you do that.
Quoting Frank Apisa
If they say, "Flowers are evidence that God exists. Flowers couldn't be as they are without there being a God," then that's not a blind guess. It's based on evidence. If an assertion is based on evidence, it's not a blind guess.
Try to get over it, Leo.
I do not do "believing."
I make guesses...and call them guesses.
I estimate things...and call them estimates.
I suppose things...and call them suppositions.
Some people do all those things...and then substitute the word "believe" for guess, estimate, and suppose.
You seem so bothered by the fact that I do not do that.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Some people say, "I do not believe any gods exist"...and actually mean, "I believe there are no gods."
That is sloppiness in a discussion in a philosophy forum.
It is blind guess...no matter what.
In any case, IF there is a creator GOD...then flowers are evidence that there is a GOD. Shit also would be evidence of that GOD. So would everything else that exists.
IF a GOD exists.
Easy enough concept. You should be able to get it.
You do believing...and you don't call it believing.
Earlier you gave a definition for "guess": "an assertion (of sorts) that lacks sufficient information to be reasonably certain".
You say that you make guesses, because you make assertions that lack sufficient information to be reasonably certain, which fits your definition of "guess".
Then you gave a definition for "belief": "an acceptance of something as true...without having the evidence to actually establish it as true".
You accepted something as true (English not being my first language), without having the evidence to actually establish it as true, which fits your definition of "belief". And yet you will not say that you do believing.
There is zero conceptual difference between the two cases, do you not see that? If something you do is described exactly by the word "believing", as defined by you, why won't you use that word? Why do you do that for that word and not any other?
I do not do "believing."
First, allow me to repeat that I do not do "believing"...which, in many contexts, is using the word "believe" to disguise a guess, supposition, estimate...and that stuff.
When I make a guess...I call that guess a guess. I see no reason to pretend it is something else; no reason to disguise the fact that I am making a guess.
Some people do. Apparently you are one of them...and for some reason, you want to insist that everyone must do it also.
Well...I do not.
What difference does that make?
I do it for that word.
Most of the time, as I have mentioned many times...it does not matter. I can easily say, "I believe the GIANTS will win their first game" or "I believe Donald Trump is the most disgusting human being ever to hold high office in the United States" or "I believe I will take a dump before going onto the golf course."
But I don't...because I would prefer to be consistent on this issue.
Just as easy for me to say, "I think the GIANTS will win their first game"; "I consider Donald Trump to be the most disgusting human being ever to hold high office in the United States"; or "I'm gonna take a dump before leaving for the course."
Why does any of that bother you so?
No, it isn't. "Blind guess" implies that it's not based on any evidence or reasoning.
"Blind guess"implies it is not based on any unambiguous evidence or reasoning.
Any blind guess about whether there are any gods or not...
...is not based on any unambiguous evidence or reasoning.
It is based on a blind guess.
Give me any unambiguous piece of evidence that a god exists (or that none exist)...and the "reasoning that supports it.
P1:
P2:
C: Therefore at least one god exists.
All you have to do is fill in the P1 and P2.
"Blind guess" implies it's not based on any evidence or reasoning period.
"Ambiguous"/"unambiguous" is relative/subjective. It depends on the meaning, if any, an individual assigns any evidence or reasoning.
Bullshit.
Any assertion made that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist...
...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS.
And when people say, "I 'believe' (in) God" or "I 'believe' there are no gods"...
...all the are doing is sharing a blind guess...and disguising the fact that it is a blind guess by calling it a "belief."
To make things even funnier...they argue that their blind guesses are due respect...
...because they call them "beliefs."
See through this nonsense, Terrapin. You will be the better for it.
Do you think there is any significant conceptual, as opposed to a merely terminological, difference between "I think that I know x" and "I believe that I know x"
A significant difference, Janus.
One uses the word "believe"...the other does not.
So...if I think that I know X and say, "I think that I know X"...I have described the situation to the max.
If instead I say, "I believe I know X"...I have muddied the waters a bit...FOR NO GOOD REASON.
Saying "I think I know X" works just fine.
Aside: This is not something I actually would do. If I were saying, "I think I know X"...what I am actually saying is that I am unsure...which means I do not KNOW it.
If I actually KNEW X...I would say, "I know X."
A merely terminological difference, so we can leave that aside, since it wasn't about that I was asking.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I can understand what you are saying (since it written in a language I am fluent in) but I cannot understand why you are saying it. Can you provide some explanation of your reasoning?
But we agreed that a guess and a belief are not the same thing, and you gave different definitions for them. So surely, when you do something that fits the definition of guessing you are making a guess, and when you do something that fits the definition of believing you are doing believing right? I honestly do not get what you don't understand about that.
Your definition for "believing": "accepting something as true...without having the evidence to actually establish it as true".
I gave you an example of something you do that fits exactly your own definition of "believing".
You have the right to not use the word "believe" or "believing" to describe something you do that fits your definition for "believing". But do you at least agree that you do things that fit your own definition of "believing"?
Quoting Frank Apisa
In what context do people use the word "believe" to disguise a guess? When people say they believe in a god, by your definition they accept as true that there is a god, without having the evidence to establish it as true, and we agreed that this is different from making a guess, so they are not disguising a guess.
I've done that several times here, Janus.
For whatever reason, nobody here wants to accept (buy into, if you prefer) it.
The use of the word "believe" to disguise blind guesses about whether or not gods exist...and about the nature of any gods that are blindly guessed to exist...
...is at the heart of much of the trouble endured on planet Earth.
I simply have chosen to leave that behind in my personal life.
That seems to upset some people.
Nothing I can do about that.
If you have some specific questions...ask them and I may respond further.
Leo...we have discussed this to death...and you apparently have decided you will not accept my take on things.
Fine.
Go do your "believing."
I will not do any "believing"...although I will continue occasionally to make guesses (which I will call guesses); occasionally make suppositions (which I will call suppositions); occasionally make estimates (which I will call estimating)...and the world will continue to rotate on its axis and continue to travel around the sun.
Okay. I take it you quoted Jabberwocky in the misguided view that since Lewis Carroll concerned himself with 'nonsense' then his significant observation about 'power' regarding meaning should be ignored. (The fact that Carroll was perhaps linguistically ahead of his time in recognizing the significance of syntax for semantics, of course deflates the simplistic label 'nonsense poem' but such analysis would do your mission no favours, woud it ? :wink: )
Yeah...all that, plus one of my favorite places on this planet is the statue of Alice in Central Park. I visit Alice each time I go to the park...and all around her are Jabberwocky quotes.
ALICE (one of the truly great statues of this world):
[IMG]http://site.familyinnewyork.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/alice-in-wonderland-central-park14.jpg[/IMG]
The plaque...(notice the misspelling of borogoves):
Must. Repeat. The. Mantra.
At the end of the day you do what you want. I just find it peculiar that you react this way with believing and not with any other concept. If you say that you bring a glass of water to your mouth and swallow the water, I would say well you drink water, but if you insist that "NO I DO NOT DO DRINKING" then I wonder, why this reaction?
Don't you see that you accepting as true that English is not my first language, without having the evidence to establish it as true, is you believing, precisely because this is how you defined believing?
If you say that there are things you believe, but you never say "I believe", I can understand. But if you insist that you do not believe anything, while we have proof of the contrary, then I don't understand your point of view.
As to the idea that beliefs are guesses in disguise, to believe is to assert something as true (while not having sufficient evidence), while to guess is to assert something without claiming it is true. I agree with your idea that beliefs are sometimes based on guesses, and I agree that it is wrong to claim that something believed is objective truth, but I don't agree that a belief is a guess in disguise, because believing something is seeing it as subjective truth, which is definitely not the same as guessing.
It is soQuoting leo
One...I do not do "believing."
Two...any "belief" about whether gods exist or not...is nothing but a blind guess.
Three...I do not do "believing."