Belief is reality. There is no difference. — Noble Dust

The problem with that is that you can obviously have false beliefs. We do it all the time. 'I believed she was faithful to me but now I find she's been cheating the whole time.' 'I believed when I finally cracked that password I'd get access to all those files, now I discover they've been individually encrypted'. 'Europeans believed that India lay on the far side of the Atlantic Ocean, but Columbus discovered otherwise'. Examples could be multiplied indefinitely. So I think it's plainly misleading to say that belief is reality. One's beliefs might be grounded in reality, but they're often not.

As for 'attitude', it's more wide-ranging, isn't it? Someone with a generally sceptical attitude has a certain mindset, we say - not gullible, prone to question, makes careful judgements. Belief may be part of it. Similar to 'disposition'.

There is no "higher" reality in a spiritual sense, nor a "true" reality (in contrast to falsehood) in a logical sense, that exists "behind" or "beneath" my beliefs about reality. Belief is reality. There is no difference. — Noble Dust

What you believe may indeed be your reality, but it's possible to become unstuck.

So I think it's plainly misleading to say that belief is reality. — Wayfarer

I would have to agree. People can certainly live in a 'reality' of false beliefs and often do so and these can come crashing down.

What you believe may indeed be your reality, but it's possible to become unstuck. — Janus

Unstuck? Do you mean being stuck in the centre of belief and reality, or just in one of those two?

Belief is reality — Noble Dust

It's a good thing and a bad thing that "belief is reality" is false, to the extent that your reality conflicts with mine.

Beliefs certainly exist -- that is a piece of reality but not the same thing as reality.

How about "believing is seeing"? Some times we do not see reality because we do not believe that it is real; and visa versa, we see the non-existent because we believe it exists. Some see god's purposes in every bird song and car crash.

What is a belief, and what is an attitude? — Noble Dust

Okay, short attention span-friendly: a belief is a fiction (until corroborated by evidence) and an attitude is a strong feeling about a belief or an experience.

I think a distinction should be made between types of beliefs. The beliefs you're using as examples here are context-dependent and directly related to the world around us. What I'm trying to get at is fundamental belief, the beliefs that are the foundation of how each of us perceives and experiences the world. These are often not apparent to us (maybe more apparent to those of us who post on philosophy forums, true). They're beliefs about the self.

What do I believe about myself? untangling this question requires a lot of rigorous work and honesty. I am the window through which I experience the world; I am fundamental to the world I experience. So what I believe about myself does indeed create my world. These beliefs are more primary than even philosophical or religious beliefs; they underly them. One's philosophical positions are ultimately expressions of one's beliefs about oneself. Philosophical or religious beliefs are beliefs about the world, but beliefs about myself are the foundation on which these other beliefs are built. This is the sense in which I'm speaking when I say belief is reality. To be fair, it's a bit of a dramatic thing to say, maybe a bit of performance art. My fundamental beliefs about myself shape my reality. That could be another way of saying it.

:up: I do see the distinction.

This is just word vomit and I'm not posting these thoughts with the intention of arguing a position. — Noble Dust

Good. Nothing quite like a spew of thoughts about thinking, self and the world. Ideas not quite regurgitated (as in repetition without understanding) but bringing up swallowed food through one's throat.
Sometimes because the belly has had enough (over-thinking?) or something hasn't agreed with it (toxin).
Numerous causes. Pregnancy > sick > baby. A new thought bringing joy, pain or pleasure to the world.

So, thanks for flinging some our way. To re-digest? Ugh! To examine, yes! Why not infect us all...

The initial questions about synonyms/concepts of belief and attitude. Well, look no further than the online WordHippo Thesaurus. Simple. Pick your pleasing synonym from a list. As Concepts, then probably the SEP or similar.

If I use language to dig around deeper into the cadaver of my thoughts, the knife eventually hits the operating table. I've cut through the whole thing. Belief is not a set of thoughts which are then represented by words. Belief is more fundamental than thought. — Noble Dust

First thing, your thoughts are not dead. They are alive and kicking. Pinning them down can be a problem. Some strong 'believers' do indeed pin or spin dead dogma (assumed, absolute truth) - holding a strict, stuck attitude to life. Others have flexible opinions or are open to examine thoughts/attitudes.

The 'knife of language'. Hmmm. Ah. Now there's the thing...we can verily tie ourselves up in knots.
How blunt or sharp - what are we wielding it for? What t/issue to be cut up and forensically examined?
How many senses involved? Is it to improve our self-understanding or to argue with others about 'belief'.
Both and more. We can make or read poetry to 'dissect' or express...just one example. We can use words like 'The Linguistic Quantum World' to gain attention. What the actual hell...?

Cutting to the chase:

What do I believe about myself? untangling this question requires a lot of rigorous work and honesty. I am the window through which I experience the world; I am fundamental to the world I experience.[...]

Beneath language, at the quantum level of experience, is something that exists in an undifferentiated form. This is belief. Belief is undifferentiated from reality down here — Noble Dust

What does the term 'quantum' mean? How does it relate to 'experience'? Mental meat? Physical heat? It seems to be the smallest, basic building block, have I got that right? Is it stable? I have no idea. Indeed, the whole thing is a mystery to me. Does it need to be seen to be believed?

My fundamental beliefs about myself shape my reality. That could be another way of saying it. — Noble Dust

That could well be true. Just as the opposite. It works both ways. The world, your experience of it, can shape your attitude and beliefs...your current 'reality' can change...depending...

What are your fundamental beliefs about yourself? Thanks for voicing your thoughts :sparkle:

Does it need to be seen to be believed? — Amity

This is a very good question. Even more, if we are debating and sharing thoughts about belief and reality. I met some realists in this forum who only give reliability to those things that are seen. Well, I have a strong belief that ghosts exist, although I never saw any. But whenever I see a person who has already passed away in my dreams, I say I saw a ghost while dreaming. The reality and belief of some aspects of our lives where imagination, dream-like visions, or hallucinations are part of them make us sceptics.
But sometimes the rabbit doesn't come out of the hat. Yet I have a strong belief it will come out the next time. :smile:

Does it need to be seen to be believed?
— Amity

This is a very good question — javi2541997

:smile: I think that my almost throw-away line at the end of a paragraph [*] was inspired by BC's excellent post, ending:

How about "believing is seeing"? Some times we do not see reality because we do not believe that it is real; and visa versa, we see the non-existent because we believe it exists. Some see god's purposes in every bird song and car crash. — BC

[* ]

What does the term 'quantum' mean? How does it relate to 'experience'? Mental meat? Physical heat? It seems to be the smallest, basic building block, have I got that right? Is it stable? I have no idea. Indeed, the whole thing is a mystery to me. Does it need to be seen to be believed? — Amity

For me, the word 'quantum' doesn't mean anything much when it comes to experience. I'm posing that question to learn how @Noble Dust interprets it in terms of linguistics and life.
His 'Linguistic Quantum World' is a story of sorts.
How has he dis/connected the dots to satisfy his 'belief/s'?

Belief is undifferentiated from reality down here. There is no "higher" reality in a spiritual sense, nor a "true" reality (in contrast to falsehood) in a logical sense, that exists "behind" or "beneath" my beliefs about reality. Belief is reality. There is no difference. — Noble Dust

Where is 'down here'? Where your mind is?
Here, the beliefs about the self is particular to you and your experience, no? Are you trying to make this a general claim in the world of concepts?

I think a distinction should be made between types of beliefs. The beliefs you're using as examples here are context-dependent and directly related to the world around us. What I'm trying to get at is fundamental belief, the beliefs that are the foundation of how each of us perceives and experiences the world. These are often not apparent to us (maybe more apparent to those of us who post on philosophy forums, true). They're beliefs about the self. — Noble Dust

I’m not sure that such a distinction between self and world can be made. Heidegger would argue that the self is projected back to itself from its world. That the self projects itself does not mean that this self exists first and then projects itself or not, but that the self constitutes itself in projecting itself from the world. And Kierkegaard said that the truth or falsity of an aspect of the world is subservient to how it matters to us. Kierkegaard perspective on objective truth may thus conflict in some measure with and .

… what of truth attained rather than truth pursued? We are accustomed to taking the uncontroversial as the paradigm of truth. Kierkegaard has argued that such analyses sacrifice significance in the vain pursuit of certainty. Truth, he suggests, fundamentally concerns the uncertain and how it matters to us. The truth of what no one would care to dispute seriously(where what counts as "serious" reflects an interpretation of our shared situation) is derivative from this. Weaker versions of this approach are taken by those philosophers who argue that the decision to accept a research program provides the context within which other claims can be evaluated, and, more generally, by epistemological holists, according to whom we accept a claim only on the basis of previously accepted claims. But they usually have not taken Kierkegaard's further step: this prior acceptance must be a decision about what matters to us, in our lives and in our research. Present-day "rationalists" fear that truth will then be left to be decided by unconstrained choice.

Two responses can be made to this. Kierkegaard does not confuse our ability to devote our lives to one task with the ability which we do not possess, to insure that we succeed at that task. "Spiritually speaking, everything is possible, but in the finite world there is much that is not possible. " Realist philosophers of science have argued that what is thus finitely possible or impossible depends upon how the world is, independent of our desires, commitments, and actions. Kierkegaard has responded that it is only in the light of our transcendence into the world that the world is in one way or another. To describe the world is already to select those features worth describing; such a selection presupposes an interest with respect to which the selection can be made. Without an interest, which for Kierkegaard requires a commitment, nothing could manifest itself as true (or false).

Our commitments do not determine how the world is, but they allow it to show itself as significant in one way or another. Even for the world to show itself as an obstacle presupposes an approach which it resists. Even what commitments we can intelligibly make, and what concerns with which we can approach the world, are constrained by the situation in which we find ourselves. A situation is not an "objective" state of the world, nor just an unfounded belief about how the world is. Our being situated challenges the alleged separation between subject and world. A situation is a configuration of possibilities through which both subject and world can acquire meaning through the subject's involvement and the world's "response." It is the outcome of a history of such involvements and responses.

Our involvement is vulnerable, precisely because we must commit ourselves to it before it can show us new aspects of the world; but what it shows may confound it. And even that is open to interpretation. Kierkegaard's aim was to substitute for a truth which is, but remains unattainable for us, a truth which happens in time and thereby enters our lives. We have moved from his view of a truth which happens individually to the truth(s) of a generation and a society. Truth then belongs to an historical situation and may change. But this does not make the truth arbitrary. Nor is this historical situation insulated from others before it or around it. Our situation resulted from past involvements and is changed by our encounters with others for whom truth shows itself differently. Such a conception of truth may not satisfy those for whom eternity must be the hallmark of truth. But, as Kierkegaard reminds us, such a truth is nevertheless the highest truth attainable for an existing individual. (Joseph Rouse)

What is a belief, and what is an attitude? — Noble Dust

There is also knowing. When looking at a sunset, I know that I see the colour red, I believe my seeing the colour red was caused by the sunset, I think that sunsets happen every day and I have a positive attitude towards them.

Knowing is more fundamental than believing, believing is more fundamental that thinking and thinking is more fundamental than having an attitude.

I think a distinction should be made between types of beliefs. The beliefs you're using as examples here are context-dependent and directly related to the world around us. What I'm trying to get at is fundamental belief,the beliefs that are the foundation of how each of us perceives and experiences the world. These are often not apparent to us (maybe more apparent to those of us who post on philosophy forums, true). They're beliefs about the self. — Noble Dust

[my emphasis]

I’m not sure that such a distinction between self and world can be made. — Joshs

Yes. I'm not sure that the distinction between beliefs is so clear-cut. I understand ND to mean that beliefs about the self are the foundation from which we relate our perception and world experience? There are many aspects to self which are not Either/Or.

Philosophical or religious beliefs are beliefs about the world, but beliefs about myself are the foundation on which these other beliefs are built. — Noble Dust

The different aspects of self are inter-related. For example, the physical, mental, spiritual, aesthetic, ethical and psychological. They can be broken down in bits for analytical or conceptual purposes. But as seems to be agreed, it is what matters to us that can make a difference in how the world is seen or interpreted. Perhaps our 'attitude' to events or others attitude towards us. The importance of making the best choice in any given situation. Our stories or narrative self can stem from - or be the source of - this attempt at understanding. Making the pieces fit the whole.

***

Kierkegaard said that the truth or falsity of an aspect of the world is subservient to how it matters to us. — Joshs

I think this aligns with @Noble Dust's view of the importance of self? Knowing self as much as is possible. A basic core, and yet, a changing/changeable self.

***
Thanks for the quote. It comes from Rouse's paper 'Kierkegaard on Truth' - pp13-14 of the downloadable pdf. Here: https://www.academia.edu/30917243/Kierkegaard_on_Truth

Thanks for the quote. It comes from Rouse's paper 'Kierkegaard on Truth' - pp13-14 of the downloadable pdf. Here: https://www.academia.edu/30917243/Kierkegaard_on_Truth — Amity

Thank you for adding the link. It’s a fascinating paper.

It’s a fascinating paper. — Joshs

Yes, substantial and well-written. I've only had a skim through but worthy of a closer read, for sure! Thanks for introducing it. :sparkle:

Knowing is more fundamental than believing, believing is more fundamental that thinking and thinking is more fundamental than having an attitude. — RussellA

Do you think each of them is dependent on each other, or should we look at them individually?

So what I believe about myself does indeed create my world. — Noble Dust

That belief ... merely is your ego – masking oneself (i.e. being-in-the-world) – an 'illusory separation' from the world (i.e. disembodiment fantasy). A psycho-sociological fiction.

Do you think each of them is dependent on each other, or should we look at them individually? — javi2541997

Perhaps the following:

I know I see the colour red independently of any beliefs, thoughts or attitudes I may have towards sunsets.
I cannot have a belief about sunsets without having thoughts or attitudes towards them.
I cannot have a thought about sunsets without having an attitude towards them.
I cannot have an attitude towards sunsets without thinking about them, having beliefs about them or knowing about them.
I cannot have a thought about sunsets without having a belief in them or knowing about them.
I cannot have a belief about sunsets without knowing about them.

IE, I can know something like the colour red without having any beliefs, thoughts or attitudes towards it. But if I have a belief, thought or attitude towards something like a sunset, then I must know something about it.

I have no idea what you mean by "The Linguistic Quantum World" but the phrase does trip a switch in my head, maybe in the medulla oblongata.

When we 'drill down' from large objects to the sub-atomic, we end up in the spooky quantum world, about which I know nothing. I have heard it's weird. Something sort of vaguely kind of similar happens when we drill down from "apparent reality", the level where 'what is IS and what is not IS NOT", where my individual self is clearly me, where reality is as solid as bedrock, to your linguistic quantum world. There perception, belief, self, reality, meaning, and so on become slippery, We learn from brain science that our "self" is a fantasy created by the brain. Perceptions are often misleading; Reality is a bit rubbery; beliefs play an outsized role, and so on.

At this "quantum level" belief can seem to be reality. We seem to make our own world. It's all kind of spooky, a boggy swamp.

Were one to get stuck in this mire, one might be admitted to a psych ward, at least for observation and maybe for a prolonged stay.

Fortunately for most of us, and I'm looking at you, Noble Dust, we awake with a startled jerk from these reveries and it's back to what we call "the real world". The ground is solid again, the self isn't some hoax perpetrated by a batch of gray matter in our skulls, and god is in his heaven and all is right with the world, so to speak.

BUT such reveries can leave a lingering doubt about just how substantial the real world is. God damn it, I just spilled coffee all over my keyboard!!! Son of a bitch, the bread in the toaster just caught fire. Fuck! I just missed the bus, I'll miss the concert for which I paid $150, and there are no refunds. And it's starting to rain and my fancy leather shoes are getting wet!

Reality intervenes. The soaked keyboard really won't work. The toaster really is shot. Missed buses have real consequences. Rain can really ruin fancy shoes. Finding a hundred dollars isn't a good reality intervention. Losing a hundred dollars is.

First off, it's good to see you step out from the Shoutbox and toss us some meat to chew on. Also, I'd like to praise your use of the term "quantum" in the title, even though the content of the OP has nothing to do with physics. Everything is better, more interesting, when you bring quanta into it. I think it would be good if the forum required every OP to include "quantum" at least once. Now, down to business.

What is a belief, and what is an attitude? Are they synonyms? Are they different aspects of the same thing? — Noble Dust

My first thought was "no, of course they are not synonyms. I'll provide definitions and set ND straight," but then I went to the web:

...philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false. To believe something is to take it to be true; for instance, to believe that snow is white is comparable to accepting the truth of the proposition "snow is white". — Wikipedia - Belief

So, yes, I guess "belief" is a synonym for "attitude" or at least a type of attitude.

We receive language as a tool that we use to differentiate the undifferentiated raw data of experience [notice that the words "raw" and "data" used here are metaphors]. I want to understand my beliefs, so I use language to dissect my experience of believing [dissect, another metaphor]. — Noble Dust

To nit pick, processing data from our senses begins long (relatively - you know, milliseconds) before we get to the level of language. In my understanding, language comes along at the end of the production line to package up all the processing so we can tell ourselves and others what it means. I don't know if that makes a difference in the context of your OP.

Back to the original questions above. What is a belief? On the surface it appears to be a set of thoughts formed into words (or not) that signify something for me in my world. But I think this is just a surface level understanding. If I use language to dig around deeper into the cadaver of my thoughts, the knife eventually hits the operating table. I've cut through the whole thing. Belief is not a set of thoughts which are then represented by words. — Noble Dust

This gets a bit murky. In my understanding, truth is a factor that only applies to propositions, which are expressed in language. So, can you have a belief that is not expressed in words? I think maybe the answer is "no," but I'm not sure. Are you talking about something different from belief, different from truth? I think the answer to that is probably "yes."

Beneath language, at the quantum level of experience, is something that exists in an undifferentiated form. This is belief. Belief is undifferentiated from reality down here. There is no "higher" reality in a spiritual sense, nor a "true" reality (in contrast to falsehood) in a logical sense, that exists "behind" or "beneath" my beliefs about reality. Belief is reality. There is no difference. — Noble Dust

I teased you about "quantum" previously, but now I'll put the squeeze on you. If you mean "quantum" as a metaphor, ok, but you're opening the door for lots of confusion. If you mean it literally, you're just using the word wrong. As for "something that exists in an undifferentiated form", as I noted previously, that doesn't really exist. Differentiation starts right as signals enter our sense organs. Eyes, ears, noses, skin, and tongues are designed by evolution to sort, classify, and sometimes discard information from the input we get from the world. That processing continues at every step on every level of your nervous system.

So, no. Belief is not reality, at least not in the sense we usually use that word. We do not have access to unprocessed reality. Now we can argue about what we really mean by "reality." That's a common theme here on the forum, one that no one can ever agree on.

To stop picking nits, I do believe there is something - thought, emotion, even motivation to act - beneath language. I think, but I'm not sure, that we can access, experience that something. As you know, I am strongly attracted to the ideas expressed in the Tao Te Ching and other Taoist sources. As I understand it, gaining access to, becoming aware of, that pre-language aspect of our selves is the whole point.

Good OP. Thanks for the opportunity to pontificate.

Be warned that there's a good chance I'll pull a newbie OP move and ghost this entire thread, i.e. not respond to anyone's replies. — Noble Dust

I forgot this. You should be warned. I know where you live (Brooklyn), and I know what you look like (Casey Affleck with a beard). I'll just go to every hoity toity liquor store in Brooklyn and show them your picture. There couldn't be more than a couple thousand. I'm sure I can find you and give you a good talking to.

I see! Thanks, good analysis. It is important to bring 'knowing' to this debate. I didn't think about it, honestly. But since you made a reference to it, I am now questioning myself about what I said previously about dreaming with deceased people. 
So, in order to believe that I dream of deceased relatives, I must first know that they are dead and that they are my relatives. It would be interesting to dream with a random, unknown person, and knowing he is dead later on, after dreaming. My mind would be dizzy from mixing 'knowing' ,belief and thinking.

I meant more when the larger reality bites.

What is a belief, and what is an attitude? — Noble Dust

The SEP article on Belief is fairly clear, I think.

An attitude is a mental state, e.g. hope, doubt, confidence, certainty etc.

A belief is an attitude about a proposition. It can be expressed in the form: S A that P

S is the individual having the mental state
A is the attitude
P is a sentence expressing a proposition

For example, when I believe that it rains, I'm feeling confident about the truth of the sentence 'it rains'. The belief is representational, it can be true or false, unlike experiencing the rain, which is a causal sensory interaction with the rain, not sentences.

So, can you have a belief that is not expressed in words? I think maybe the answer is "no," but I'm not sure. — T Clark

I find it interesting, in light of your career as an engineer, that you question having beliefs that are not expressed in words. I often believe, and I'd say know things, without the belief being expressed in words. For me putting my beliefs into words is often obviously secondary to having the belief itself.

You mentioned once, funneling facts into your head and engineering solutions arising later as a result. If you don't mind me asking, were the results that arose from this process results in the form of words?

I find it interesting, in light of your career as an engineer, that you question having beliefs that are not expressed in words. — wonderer1

My stereotype of an engineer is someone who would think that beliefs have to be expressed in words. Be that as it may, for philosophers, beliefs are true or false and truth only applies to propositions which are necessarily expressed in words.

I often believe, and I'd say know things, without the belief being expressed in words. — wonderer1

Not to be cute, but since saying things uses words, how can you say you know things that aren't expressed in words. That's a serious question.

You mentioned once, funneling facts into your head and engineering solutions arising later as a result. If you don't mind me asking, were the results that arose from this process results in the form of words? — wonderer1

Hey, no fair using my own previous arguments against me. But seriously, and as I already acknowledged - my understanding and experience is that

...there is something - thought, emotion, even motivation to act - beneath language. I think, but I'm not sure, that we can access, experience that something. — T Clark

And yes, the results that arise from this non-verbal processing are in words and I would call them, if not beliefs, at least conjectures or understandings. The truth, validity, and usefulness of those results can't be determined without further evaluation and justification, which takes place using words and numbers.

Not to be cute, but since saying things uses words, how can you say you know things that aren't expressed in words. That's a serious question. — T Clark

Well knowing something about an electronics design I'm considering is often for me a matter of pictures or maybe something somewhat analogous to videos. (Although probably better to just substitute the more ambiguous term "mental model" for "video", because I wouldn't say that it is literally like a video.)

In any case, saying I know something is a different matter than expressing what it is that I know. I'm not likely to be able to express my knowledge of something without resorting to words in a lot of cases. Though I imagine that in some cases I could communicate things in pictures and without resorting to words, if I were attempting to communicate with someone with relevant background knowledge, who was aware of the somewhat strange communication game being played.

In fact the video game Journey is an example of such a strange communication game, as it doesn't provide for language use between players, but it certainly allows for teaching aspects of Journey-world physics via a sort of monkey-see/monkey-do mechanism. It tends to involve a bit of repetitive doing, until the other player develops recognition of a pattern to what is going on in our interactions, and the other player realizes that they can do something that they didn't previously realize that they could do.

Well knowing something about an electronics design I'm considering is often for me a matter of pictures or maybe something somewhat analogous to videos. — wonderer1

I gave a definition of "belief" in a previous post - "attitudes about the world which can be either true or false." You must be using a different definition, which makes fruitful discussion impossible. How can a picture or video be true or false?

...saying I know something is a different matter than expressing what it is that I know. — wonderer1

I'm shaking my head. That doesn't make any sense to me. I can't imagine what kind of thing you might say. Please give me an example.

I imagine that in some cases I could communicate things in pictures and without resorting to words, — wonderer1

I never said you can't communicate without words.

In fact the video game Journey is an example of such a strange communication game, as it doesn't provide for language use between players, but it certainly allows for teaching aspects of Journey-world physics via a sort of monkey-see/monkey-do mechanism. — wonderer1

I'd never heard of the game, which isn't surprising. I not a game-playing kind of person. I looked it up though. It looks interesting. I can't tell if it is relevant to our discussion.

As I said, we're using different definitions. Our posts aren't connecting with each other. It's probably not productive for us to continue.

For example, when I believe that it rains, I'm feeling confident about the truth of the sentence 'it rains'. The belief is representational, it can be true or false, unlike experiencing the rain, which is a causal sensory interaction with the rain, not sentences. — jkop

If experiencing the rain is a casual sensory interaction with the rain, my belief cannot be false. There are some elements that exist for themselves and we interact with them, like rain in your example. I couldn't be mistaken when I believe it is raining because I heard thunder or I became wet in the street. So, the sentence 'it is raining outside!' is necessarily true when it is actually raining. It works like an axiom, right? 

Otherwise, how can I experience the belief and the sentence separately?