Mr. Sammi

If I were to forget for a moment the exact source of beliefs and concentrate on the existence of beliefs and their effects then I see the possibility of a belief being in such a state that it causes further thought.

Thinking I saw a pussy cat flashing across my eyes usually leads me to wonder if it were a black cat AND also if I am embarking on any fly-by-night schemes which may be black-catted. This is a dumb example but today the belief that you disbelieved what I wrote caused me to think further but no smart thoughts came forth today.

As I was leaving my home today I saw the makings of rain and reached for my hat.

* * *

The belief which causes us to think I believe is a belief which pushes us further to understand the concept of the belief-in-action(the belief currently instantiated).

The belief which pushes us to act is the belief which is EITHER secure or not secured. The resulting act was an act which was a result of the secure belief or to further comprehend the nature of the not secured belief.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Keith Russell

Sammi said:
"The belief which causes us to think I believe is a belief which pushes us further to understand the concept of the belief-in-action(the belief currently instantiated)."

Keith: Well, Sammi, do you believe the above, do you think the above, or do you think you believe it, or believe you think it, or...? ('Cause it all seems silly to me, as I tried to indicate before.)

Sammi said:
"The belief which pushes us to act is the belief which is EITHER secure or not secured."

Keith: Sammi, if security is not a factor vis a vis belief, why do you mention it?

Sammi:
"The resulting act was an act which was a result of--

Keith:
You could have simply said 'the act results from'

Sammi:
"--the secure belief--"

Keith:
You said it could be either secure or insecure. So, which is it?

Sammi:
"--or to further comprehend the nature of the not secured belief."

Keith:
Did you really say 'the act results from the secure belief, or to further compherend the nature of the not-secure belief?'

What could that possibly mean?

Sincerely questioning, hoping to understand,
Keith.

Skepticos

Kim writes:

"Personally, though, I would go a bit further with the definition of knowledge. As far as I see it, knowledge is a set of externalized beliefs. By 'externalized' I mean shared with and validated by others. So while belief is personal and private, knowledge is public and is based on consensus."

Kim - But if we restrict knowledge to the realm of consensus, we cannot apply it to those circumstances in which a plurality is absent. For example, think of a person stranded on a deserted island for many years. Since there are no others present to provide a consensus concerning beliefs, we could not say that this person really KNOWS where the best fishing hole is located. Even though he has examined every square foot of the island and compared all the fishing holes.

Yet would we say that this guy BELIEVES, but does not KNOW, that the best fishing hole is located on the north side of the island? Even though he has examined every one? I don't think so. Thus, I do not think a consensus is required to achieve knowledge.

- Skepticos

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

Yes, that's a valid objection. But our guy on the desert island has other means of externally validating his belief of which is the best fishing hole. He could, for example, keep a tally of how many fish he has caught in each location. And if he does so, he has come up with an objective test for his personal beliefs. However, if he didn't test fishing holes in any objective way and just chose his favorite fishing hole intuitively, we would probably say that this was just his belief, rather than his knowledge.

So perhaps I can go for a slightly more abstract definition than the one I originally put forward:

Knowledge is a set of beliefs that have external justification.

In this way, we can allow for both consensus, and for other forms of external verification, like scientific tests.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kim o' the Concrete Jungle ]</p>

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

Well there you go, we both (eventually) came to the same conclusion.

John Page

Fun stuff, great posts.

I believe I am 100% correct in saying I know that one can never be absolutely sure whether one's beliefs constitute certain knowledge.

For example, are we just dogs in an epistemic maze seeking truth as our Pavlovian bell rings?

Cheers, John

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Skepticos

John writes:

"I believe I am 100% correct in saying I know that one can never be absolutely sure whether one's beliefs constitute certain knowledge."

I see that you were careful here, John! You state that you BELIEVE that you are 100% correct in saying that one can never be absolutely sure whether one's beliefs constitute certain knowledge. Of course, your statement presupposes a certain meaning of the term "knowledge". What is your meaning here?

- Skepticos

Oxymoron

This needs careful analysis. One must separate "I saw a squirrel in the park" (a stored perception), "I believe I saw a squirrel in the park" (uncertainty as to what the perception was) and "there was a squirrel in the park" (a belief backed up by previous perceptions of squirrels).
Our conscious processes, not to mention our crude language, tend to blur these statements pretty instantaneously.

So, to define "belief" (right off the top of my head, so feel free to debate!): a statement mapping an element of our internal representation of the world to external reality.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Is there a difference (in kind, not just in quality) between these two types of statements of belief?

1. I saw a squirrel in the park yesterday.

2. Capitalism is the only moral ecnomic system.

Keith.

Skepticos

Keith Russell writes:

"Is there a difference (in kind, not just in quality) between these two types of statements of belief?

1. I saw a squirrel in the park yesterday.
2. Capitalism is the only moral economic system."

Keith - I am going to venture an armchair answer to your question.

I would say that there is a difference in kind between the two statements. The first statement concerns a belief concerning an instance of perception. You see a squirrel in the park, you automatically and invariably form a belief concerning the perception ("there was a squirrel in the park"), and you also form a belief about the perception itself ("I saw a squirrel in the park").

The second statement introduces the notion of morality, which, in my opinion, is not based upon perception, but sentiment. Although both statements are concerned with belief, the first derives from perception, whereas the second does not.

- Skepticos