Age: "I do NOT have any beliefs"

[TimeSeeker]

All conscious actions [ even apparently instinctive or spontaneous ones ] will be preceded by thoughts that will make them happen
These thoughts may not not be as fundamental as those of belief but the law of cause [ thought ] and effect [ action ] still applies

And all conscious actions which, given the same input (stimuli from environment), produces the same output (behavior) is FUNCTIONALLY equivalent.

Even though you narrate your mind's contents differently to an observer - there's no difference. This is the basic principle behind the Black Box.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box

[Veritas Aequitas]

Point is you cannot deny you dont have beliefs because all human beings have been programmed to
have beliefs to facilitate survival especially in case of doubts that are likely to be a threat to ones life

This argument is fallacious because there are currently no beliefs that I need to have in order to protect my life
I survive perfectly well without any at all so they are from that perspective and any other entirely unnecessary

One example;
When the weatherman warns of potential dangers with the weather forecast, you have to believe it. It is the same with warnings of earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, and other dangers which may or may not happen. In many cases these forecasts do not turn out to be true.

There are so many examples of having to exercise believe within one's life especially with what is likely to happen in the future in relation what may be a threat to your survival.
You may not have beliefs in certain thoughts and propositions BUT what you have is an inherent faculty of believing in your brain that will be instantaneously when the situations warrant.

Btw, you are now in a state of belief [albeit of high credibility] that the Sun will rise tomorrow because you cannot have absolute certain knowledge on that point.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Point is you cannot deny you dont have beliefs because all human beings have been programmed to
have beliefs to facilitate survival especially in case of doubts that are likely to be a threat to ones life

This argument is fallacious because there are currently no beliefs that I need to have in order to protect my life
I survive perfectly well without any at all so they are from that perspective and any other entirely unnecessary

One example;
When the weatherman warns of potential dangers with the weather forecast, you have to believe it. It is the same with warnings of earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, and other dangers which may or may not happen. In many cases these forecasts do not turn out to be true.

There are so many examples of having to exercise believe within one's life especially with what is likely to happen in the future in relation what may be a threat to your survival.
You may not have beliefs in certain thoughts and propositions BUT what you have is an inherent faculty of believing in your brain that will be instantaneously when the situations warrant.

Btw, you are now in a state of belief [albeit of high credibility] that the Sun will rise tomorrow because you cannot have absolute certain knowledge on that point.

That's not using the word in the same sense and you know it.

[surreptitious57]

you are now in a state of belief [ albeit of high credibility ] that the Sun will rise tomorrow

The Sun has another five billion years of life to go yet so it is not going to die within the next twenty four hours. But even if I did not know
this I would simply THINK it would still be there tomorrow [ it doesnt actually rise ] rather than BELIEVE it would be. Thinking something is
going to happen and believing something is going to happen are not the same. As I have already said I have zero need for belief of any kind

[Veritas Aequitas]

This argument is fallacious because there are currently no beliefs that I need to have in order to protect my life
I survive perfectly well without any at all so they are from that perspective and any other entirely unnecessary

One example;
When the weatherman warns of potential dangers with the weather forecast, you have to believe it. It is the same with warnings of earthquakes, volcano eruptions, tsunamis, and other dangers which may or may not happen. In many cases these forecasts do not turn out to be true.

There are so many examples of having to exercise believe within one's life especially with what is likely to happen in the future in relation what may be a threat to your survival.
You may not have beliefs in certain thoughts and propositions BUT what you have is an inherent faculty of believing in your brain that will be instantaneously when the situations warrant.

Btw, you are now in a state of belief [albeit of high credibility] that the Sun will rise tomorrow because you cannot have absolute certain knowledge on that point.

That's not using the word in the same sense and you know it.

Note the concept of "belief" as in this model;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief



For more details, note;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

[Veritas Aequitas]

you are now in a state of belief [ albeit of high credibility ] that the Sun will rise tomorrow

The Sun has another five billion years of life to go yet so it is not going to die within the next twenty four hours. But even if I did not know
this I would simply THINK it would still be there tomorrow [ it doesnt actually rise ] rather than BELIEVE it would be. Thinking something is
going to happen and believing something is going to happen are not the same. As I have already said I have zero need for belief of any kind

Note the concept of 'belief' in my above post.

"THINK" is a very loose term for the oozing of thoughts.
Opinion is very disorganized thinking thoughts.
'Beliefs' are more organized thinking and thoughts.

That you think the Sun will rise tomorrow [not a fact yet] is a type of belief i.e. a Justified Belief [not yet true or false] of a reasonable high degree based on various empirical knowledge.

What about the weatherman forecast and the many other examples I have given plus the inherent faculty of 'believing' within the brain? What is your argument against this point?

[surreptitious57]

That model is fundamentally flawed because knowledge and belief are mutually exclusive
Knowledge can be demonstrated whereas belief cannot so they should never be conflated

[Veritas Aequitas]

That model is fundamentally flawed because knowledge and belief are mutually exclusive
Knowledge can be demonstrated whereas belief cannot so they should never be conflated

It is not totally subsumed nor totally conflated.

Note the reality is thoughts ooze [emerge] from the brain/mind and the degree of credibility of these thoughts are organized within a continuum from opinions, beliefs and knowledge via various processes of justification.
Within this spectrum beliefs and knowledge are not mutually exclusive. Beliefs are the basis of knowledge, i.e. Justified True Beliefs [subject to Gettiers'].

If you can prove the above wrong I will nominate you for the Nobel Prize in Literature [philosophy].

[surreptitious57]

What about the weatherman forecast and the many other examples I have given plus the
inherent faculty of believing within the brain ? What is your argument against this point ?

My argument is a very simple one : I do not use the words BELIEVE / BELIEF in any circumstances at all
There are things that I know or think I know but nothing that I believe as I have absolutely no reason to

[Veritas Aequitas]

What about the weatherman forecast and the many other examples I have given plus the
inherent faculty of believing within the brain ? What is your argument against this point ?

My argument is a very simple one : I do not use the words BELIEVE / BELIEF in any circumstances at all
There are things that I know or think I know but nothing that I believe as I have absolutely no reason to

I believe you are referring to a very narrow definition of belief i.e. most likely theistic beliefs, irrational beliefs or something similar. If you qualify to this, then I can agree that you do not have certain specific beliefs which are irrational.

Regardless of whether you use the word 'believe' or not, the fact is your brain/mind is processing data in a manner as what I have defined and described as 'believing'.
If you don't accept any term as 'belief' then I can label that thinking process as 'FEILEB" or whatever name for that "rose" you are comfortable with.

Or are you arguing there is no such thinking processes in the brain/mind that I [and all credible philosophers] have described and labelled as 'belief' or if 'feileb' or whatever.

[surreptitious57]

Note the reality is thoughts ooze [ emerge ] from the brain / mind and the degree of credibility of these thoughts
are organized within a continuum from opinions and beliefs and knowledge via various processes of justification

Within this spectrum beliefs and knowledge are not mutually exclusive . Beliefs are the basis of knowledge
i e Justified True Beliefs [ subject to Gettiers ]

If you can prove the above wrong I will nominate you for the Nobel Prize in Literature [ philosophy ]

It is not a question of proving it wrong but rather of me simply having no reason for beliefs of any kind
And so the definition of knowledge as justified true belief is therefore not one that I myself would use

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the reality is thoughts ooze [ emerge ] from the brain / mind and the degree of credibility of these thoughts
are organized within a continuum from opinions and beliefs and knowledge via various processes of justification

Within this spectrum beliefs and knowledge are not mutually exclusive . Beliefs are the basis of knowledge
i e Justified True Beliefs [ subject to Gettiers ]

If you can prove the above wrong I will nominate you for the Nobel Prize in Literature [ philosophy ]

It is not a question of proving it wrong but rather of me simply having no reason for beliefs of any kind
And so the definition of knowledge as justified true belief is therefore not one that I myself would use

If you do not want to use that name [JTB] for the 'rose', do you disagree with the concept and real thinking mental processes I had described and named as "belief" and 'justified true belief'?
E.g. if you do like like the term 'dick' but you cannot deny that real thing [whatever the name] that is sticking out between the male's groin.

[surreptitious57]

Regardless of whether you use the word believe or not the fact is your brain / mind
is processing data in a manner as what I have defined and described as believing /

Processing data is not the same as believing which is unjustified subjective interpretation of the data
And the reason it is unjustified is because there is insufficient evidence or proof for any such position

[surreptitious57]

If you do not want to use that name [ JTB ] for the rose do you disagree with the concept and
real thinking mental processes I had described and named as belief and justified true belief ?

Since I do not do belief of any kind then I cannot accept the Gettier definition of knowledge
My own definition would therefore be not justified true belief but justified objective truth

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you do not want to use that name [ JTB ] for the rose do you disagree with the concept and
real thinking mental processes I had described and named as belief and justified true belief ?

Since I do not do belief of any kind then I cannot accept the Gettier definition of knowledge
My own definition would therefore be not justified true belief but justified objective truth

justified objective truth is a truism, i.e. a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.

Note truth,

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard.[1] Truth is also sometimes defined in modern contexts as an idea of "truth to self", or authenticity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Before we arrive at a truth conditioned upon a framework and system, there must be thoughts/data that must be processed, justified and verified.

The thoughts and data that arise from the brain/mind must be processed via various processes to establish their veridicity.
One stage in the processing is what I had labelled as 'beliefs'.
The point is you cannot ignore this process, which I labelled as 'beliefs' which are definitely not truths.