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? — T Clark

I was thinking about a mental model of an electronic circuit, with "picture" or "video" being words used to try to roughly convey a sense of what it is like for me subjectively to consider such a mental model.

By "true" in this case I mean that my mental model has a correspondence (or isomorphism) with what is going on within the physical system being mentally modeled. That correspondence (or lack thereof in the case of my mental model being false) is not dependent on whether I have attempted to convey my mental model using language.

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 — wonderer1

So, it's a different kind of 'reality' produced for what purpose? Not to show that language isn't required or that there is no attitude. Because the players must be involved and believe there is something of benefit within the game. They have a mental attitude, perhaps hope, as did the programmers. This intrigues me. A different way of connecting. A belief that it is possible - not a case of true or false as in a propositional belief. To be challenged by not an Either/Or - black and white attitude - but something new. It relates to a narrative of wonder and a 'journey' of self, along with others.

The game is intended to make the player feel "small" and to give them a sense of awe about their surroundings. The basic idea, as designed by Chen, was to create something that moved beyond the "typical defeat/kill/win mentality" of most video games [...]

The developers designed Journey like a Japanese garden, where they attempted to remove all the elements that did not fit, so the emotions they wanted to evoke would come through. This minimalism is intended to make the game feel intuitive to the player, so they can explore and feel a sense of wonder without direct instructions. The story arc is designed to explicitly follow Joseph Campbell's monomyth theory of narrative, or hero's journey, as well as to represent the stages of life, so as to enhance the emotional connection of the players as they journey together. [...]

The multiplayer component of Journey was designed to facilitate cooperation between players without forcing it, and without allowing competition. It is intended to allow the players to feel a connection to other people through exploring with them, rather than talking to them or fighting them. The plan was "to create a game where people felt they are connected with each other, to show the positive side of humanity in them".

The developers felt the focus on caring about the other player would be diluted by too many game elements, such as additional goals or tasks, as players would focus on those and "ignore" the other player. They also felt having text or voice communication or showing usernames would allow players' biases and preconceptions to come between them and the other player. — Wiki - Journey 2012 Video game

[my bolds]

I love the emphasis on exploration rather than fighting. To connect. With minimal bias.

Philosophers have different approaches to 'Belief'. There is no one size fits all, as you might expect!
I've picked out one, using game-playing as an example:

Philosopher Lynne Rudder Baker has outlined four main contemporary approaches to belief in her book Saving Belief, related to common-sense:
4. Our common-sense understanding of belief is entirely wrong; however, treating people, animals, and even computers as if they had beliefs is often a successful strategy.
Daniel Dennett and Lynne Rudder Baker, are both eliminativists in that they hold that beliefs are not a scientifically valid concept, but they do not go as far as rejecting the concept of belief as a predictive device.
Dennett gives the example of playing a computer at chess. While few people would agree that the computer held beliefs, treating the computer as if it did (e.g. that the computer believes that taking the opposition's queen will give it a considerable advantage) is likely to be a successful and predictive strategy.
In this understanding of belief, named by Dennett the intentional stance, belief-based explanations of mind and behaviour are at a different level of explanation and are not reducible to those based on fundamental neuroscience, although both may be explanatory at their own level. — Wiki Belief

[my bolds]

In a way, we all play games as we interact with others. Verbal language usually the main element. But non-verbal can say just as much, if not more, if particularly sensitive to a frown or smile. Interpretations can be right, wrong or a mix.

The Journey uses music. Isn't that a kind of universal language?

Unlike many games, where different songs have different themes for each character or area, Wintory chose to base all the pieces on one theme which stood for the player and their journey, with cello solos especially representing the player. Wintory describes the music as "like a big cello concerto where you are the soloist and all the rest of the instruments represent the world around you".
The cello begins the game as "immersed in a sea of electronic sound", before first emerging on its own and then merging into a full orchestra, mirroring the player's journey to the mountain. Whenever the player meets another person, harps and viola are dynamically incorporated into the music

Thanks for sharing :sparkle:

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

OK. This needs to be clarified. An explanation of what is meant by 'at the quantum level' might help. Unless it is simply a fanciful use of language...being creative...pulling readers in...

I don't know why the focus is solely on 'belief' as a building block of world experience, if that is what you mean? There is a lot of noise and confusion surrounding this. Including the 'self'. All at distracting complex language level. Apart from simple definitions but even they are contested. As is to be expected in philo.

There is more than 'belief' to consider. Why not put mind into neutral and listen to music. Or silence. Find peace there, away from the jungle of talking apes. Feel rather than think. For a moment. Just be. Isn't that the starting point?

Follow up to previous post: 'Is music a universal language?'. Why do some dislike songs, music with words? And can only bear to hear instrumentals, excluding the voice as instrument. Don't they like the human connections made - sometimes disturbing? Escape into a melody...emotion without verbals. A world of your own making or sensing.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201507/is-music-universal-language

Being quiet now. :sparkle:

Thanks for sharing :sparkle: — Amity

Something Journey related I posted in another thread recently, that I think will give you a sense of how deeply affecting the game can be:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/924182

A generous and lovely communication of a special experience connecting.

:sparkle:

If experiencing the rain is a casual sensory interaction with the rain, my belief cannot be false. — javi2541997

Why not? You can separate your belief from the fact that it rains by ignoring the fact, or by doubting or dismissing the splashing sounds of rain as "fake".

But you can't separate the splashing sounds of rain that you hear from your awareness of their presence (or whatever causes your awareness). Even if it's just water from a garden hose, or a stipulated hallucination, the experience is inseparable from the conditions from which it arises.

That's what makes illusions possible: you experience something but believe it's something else. It's the belief that goes wrong, while the experience is a fact that arises under whatever conditions that satisfy it

how can I experience the belief and the sentence separately? — javi2541997

Because they are separate. Physically, the belief is a mental state, whereas the sentence is a string of symbols expressing a proposition. Logically, the belief is about the sentence.

you experience something but believe it's something else. It's the belief that goes wrong, while the experience is a fact that arises under whatever conditions that satisfy it — jkop

So, because belief can lead to mistakes, I tend to have a distorted view of reality because what I believe when I experience rain is frequently wrong. But 'it rains' as a preposition is the truth. Therefore, the latter will help me see reality in a correct manner rather than through belief. Am I right, or am I missing something?

Logically, the belief is about the sentence. — jkop

But if they are separate, why is belief about the sentence?

By "true" in this case I mean that my mental model has a correspondence (or isomorphism) with what is going on within the physical system being mentally modeled. — wonderer1

Before you were using a non-standard meaning for "belief." Now you're using a non-standard meaning for "truth." This is not just a nit-picky linguistic argument. As I understand it, the thought processes you and I are in disagreement about are different neurologically, psychologically, and philosophically.

Nuff said.

So, because belief can lead to mistakes, I tend to have a distorted view of reality because what I believe when I experience rain is frequently wrong. But 'it rains' as a preposition is the truth. Therefore, the latter will help me see reality in a correct manner rather than through belief. Am I right, or am I missing something? — javi2541997

From 'belief can lead to mistakes', it doesn't follow a tendency to have a distorted view of reality, nor frequently wrong beliefs.

The sentence 'it rains' expresses a proposition. That alone doesn't make it true, nor does your belief. It needs justification. But also justified beliefs can lead to mistakes. Hence the classic definition: justified true belief.

I have no idea what you mean by a "correct manner" to see reality. Unlike beliefs which, indeed, can be more or less correct, any manner of seeing reality is correct. None of them could be incorrect, just like there is no correct manner for rain drops to fall. They fall exactly as they are under such and such conditions.

But if you assume that you never see reality, only your own representation of it, well... that will inevitably lead you to doubt whether your manner of seeing reality is correct.

I have no idea what you mean by a "correct manner" to see reality. — jkop

I meant seeing reality in an objective way, because belief is subjective and we already discussed that it can lead me to error. Let's say I believe it is raining because it sounds like a splash on the ground, I hear thunders, etc. With the aim of being more sure about my belief that it is raining, I stick the TV on and the news says: It is raining heavily, so there is a big traffic jam in Madrid. What do I need more to not allow my beliefs to cheat me? The only correct manner to experience reality is using external factors.

But if you assume that you never see reality, only your own representation of it, well... that will inevitably lead you to doubt whether your manner of seeing reality is correct. — jkop

No, I am not assuming anything. I actually wonder if there is a possibility to see the representation of reality without being cheated by my own beliefs.

I meant seeing reality in an objective way, because belief is subjective and we already discussed that it can lead me to error. — javi2541997

Belief in scientific facts is not so subjective...

What is an example of an objective or subjective way of seeing reality? Perhaps a Sunday painter might try to depict an object in some "subjective" way of seeing it, like a drunken poet might think that reality looks more "subjective" through a foggy glass of beer? Others might look for "objective" ways of depicting things, e.g. photo realistically. But does reality look like a photo? Of course not. Would you be seeing reality in a more "objective" way if you could make reality look more like a high-definition photo? No, seeing reality is not like depicting reality.

There's something wrong with the idea that there are such ways of seeing reality. I think the root cause is the metaphorical idea that seeing things is like seeing a picture inside your head. But sensory experiences are not representations, they are presentations.

No, I am not assuming anything. I actually wonder if there is a possibility to see the representation of reality without being cheated by my own beliefs. — javi2541997

You assume that there exists such a thing as the representation of reality. I'd say that's what keeps you away from the possibility of seeing things as they are.

Imagine, what could such a representation look like? Is it flat or in 3D, does it contain all the visible colours and shapes all at once? No, the idea of seeing as representational is based on a simple but fatal misunderstanding of the nature of observation.

The Journey uses music. Isn't that a kind of universal language? — Amity

I'd have to say, that a more useful language for the companions is dancing. :grin:

a more useful language for the companions is dancing. — wonderer1

OK. Well, I am waiting for our dance companion, Noble Dust, before I twirl one more circle.
Until then...
Chubby Checker - Let's Twist Again (lyrics)

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. — 180 Proof

And what about this belief of yours?

First off, it's good to see you step out from the Shoutbox and toss us some meat to chew on. — T Clark

Thanks, and thanks for the reply. I'm not sure how much of it I'll get to.

So, can you have a belief that is not expressed in words? — T Clark

What I'm trying to get at is that what I'm calling "core beliefs" seem to exist in a pre-linguistic way. That's what I'm getting at with the idea of a "linguistic quantum world". It's admittedly a sloppy metaphor. I think there are layers to belief, and if you continue to strip them back, things do indeed get murky until you uncover something pretty raw in the core of your being. It's such a deeply private and personal concept that I literally cannot even attempt to describe with language what's there or what it is because it's most likely different for every person, and it's a place to which many people seem unwilling to go. Is this philosophy? I don't know.

???

Your post I quoted is a belief of yours. Is it subject to its own rules?

I don't see the relevance to the OP or to my reply to it. I didn't exoress a "belief" so much as a conceptual description / interpretation of [/i]your[/i] "what I believe about myself" in the context of the post from which its quoted.

@Noble Dust - Responding to your recent clarification.

I think there are layers to belief, and if you continue to strip them back, things do indeed get murky until you uncover something pretty raw in the core of your being. It's such a deeply private and personal concept that I literally cannot even attempt to describe with language — Noble Dust

Re - 'layers of belief' and 'stripping them back' to a 'raw' basic, sense of self in a 'core' being:

For you, this 'concept' is so deeply personal that words seem to fail you. However, as a concept there's plenty to be considered. I think you mean it is what we might discover about ourselves if we dig beyond the superficial. What is important to us in the attitude we take towards life and living. And that sometimes takes time and effort to work out. And not always reliable, given our usually subjective and already biased perspective. On TPF, there's plenty of theory and pontification to be challenged. What's important to me are the implications. The practical consequences. Do we walk the talk?

Here's one psychological approach which outlines, explains 3 layers of belief. Although separate, they are interconnected. They form a cognitive belief system which might help navigate life and situations arising:

'The cognitive-behavioural therapist understands how these three layers of cognition operate as a system and is skilled at discovering hidden or unconscious automatic thoughts, and intermediate and core beliefs. Only by being aware of the most deeply held beliefs, a person can start challenging those that are unrealistic and unhelpful.'

https://psychologytherapy.co.uk/blog/core-beliefs-and-attitudes-rules-and-assumptions-in-cognitive-behavioural-therapy-cbt/

***
So, we can all think of practical, perhaps spiritual, implications of holding certain ways of looking at life, can't we? Each appraised as being more helpful or beneficial to wellbeing. This 'judgement' can become part of our 'core' self. Our deepest values unchanging...until perhaps something happens to shake our very foundations....

What I'm trying to get at is that what I'm calling "core beliefs" seem to exist in a pre-linguistic way. That's what I'm getting at with the idea of a "linguistic quantum world". It's admittedly a sloppy metaphor. I think there are layers to belief, and if you continue to strip them back, things do indeed get murky until you uncover something pretty raw in the core of your being. — Noble Dust

In another thread I recently had a similar discussion where I got all hard-ass and philosophical about what a belief really is. Now I've started down that same path with you, but I'm not sure that is the right way to go about it. As I acknowledged in my previous post on this thread, I recognize layers of thought, consciousness, experience, or whatever you want to call it that come before language. That is at the heart of what the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu are about. Becoming aware of how this all fits together is why I am interested in philosophy.

In another thread I recently had a similar discussion where I got all hard-ass and philosophical about what a belief really is. — T Clark

Are you sure it wasn't this thread? :cool:

Are you sure it wasn't this thread? :cool: — wonderer1

I'm old. You'll have to make allowances.