I find it quite problematic to look at every conception of the term belief as a means for 'understanding the concept'(scare-quoted intentionally). It's almost as if you're planting the seeds of equivocation. Sure, all the different uses need to be looked at in order to understand all the different accepted usages(sensible conceptions; language games; linguistic constructs; conceptual schemes). — creativesoul
The individual who has the belief holds that the proposition is true.
This is, if you like, the significance of a belief statement. It follows from Moore's paradox, in which someone is assume to believe something that they hold not to be true. For example:
"I believe the world is flat, but the world is not flat".
While this is difficult to set out as a clear contradiction, there is something deeply unhappy about it. The conclusion is that one thinks that what one believes is indeed true.
Note that Moore's paradox is in the first person. "John believes the world is flat, but the world is not flat" is not paradoxical - John is just wrong. "John believes that the world is flat and John believes the world is not flat" - John is inconsistent.
The perforative paradox comes about only when expressed in the first person. — Banno
So they saw the same movie, but had different experiences, meaning they had distinctly different phenomenal states as the result of observing the same object. Whose phenomenal state best represented reality? — Hanover
There are statements. These are things we do with words. We invent propositions so that we can talk about statements in French as expressing the same thing as statements in English, and statements in your mouth saying the same thing as statements in my mouth, and so on. Breaking that down, one is left with a bunch of statements with the same truth conditions. Any of these can be taken as the corresponding proposition. — Banno
There's so much here that is muddled, much of the muddle caused by equating different experiences with different phenomenal states, while trying to maintain that phenomenal states are both open for discussion and yet ineffable. — Banno
If they are ineffable, how could you know this? — Banno
There's so much here that is muddled, much of the muddle caused by equating different experiences with different phenomenal states, while trying to maintain that phenomenal states are both open for discussion and yet ineffable. — Banno
I find incoherent the idea that there is a direct stream of data entering my conscious, unaffected by the mechanisms of my mind, which include anything from visual distortions, personal biases, mood, and perhaps even affected by what I ate for breakfast. That being the case, I have every reason to believe that my internal state varies from yours. — Hanover
I also fully understand that language is a very limited way of expressing oneself and what goes on in one's mind. I know this because I compare the words I speak to what I'm actually thinking and I realize that what I say is a limited sketch of my full thoughts. — Hanover
And contrasting true belief against false belief allows us to enter into language games that correct errors.
If the world were transparent in such a way that we never made statements that are false, we would have no need for beliefs. — Banno
It also varies from itself. If it is so unique that you cannot speak of it, then it is only because you've yet to find the words for doing so. — creativesoul
Look to others, for despite the fact that our states vary from each other and themselves, we all have the same ones. — creativesoul
The more refined one's ability to talk about their own thought and belief, the more refined one's thought and belief become... It's a funny thing about the affect/effects of language on thought and belief. — creativesoul
It doesn't follow from the fact that we do not speak aloud all our thoughts that we could not. — creativesoul
It also varies from itself. If it is so unique that you cannot speak of it, then it is only because you've yet to find the words for doing so.
— creativesoul
It can be done, but it just never has been done? I could start describing my phenomenal state now, looking out the window, hearing the rain, smelling the smells, thinking various thoughts, have various stresses, etc. and after thousands and thousands of pages, I'd still have left something out and you would not experience my experience. You'd just sort of know about it. — Hanover
Look to others, for despite the fact that our states vary from each other and themselves, we all have the same ones.
— creativesoul
How do you know what their beetle looks like? — Hanover
But I do agree that the more we think about something, the more we understand it. That's how thought works, but I'm not committed to the idea that all thought must be performed by the tool of language. — Hanover
I can't quite tell whether you have a genuine disagreement or whether you're just talking past each other. — Sapientia
If all our belief were true, there would be no need to discriminate between true/false belief. But... not all our belief is true. — creativesoul
Creatures with the ability to think about their own thought and belief - and those without - are capable of having true and false belief. Only the former can become aware of it. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.