What is Belief?

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is another case of stupidity.

OF COURSE my views are NOT grounded on justified true BELIEFS, nor any other BELIEFS for that matter. One would have to have any type of a BELIEF for their views to be grounded on ANY KIND of BELIEF, justified belief, justified true belief, or just plain old BELIEF.

I do NOT have any BELIEFS at all, whatsoever, always, ever. UNDERSTOOD?

My VIEWS, obviously, are NOT grounded on any type of BELIEF, justified or not. And, as long as I remain having NO beliefs, my VIEWS will, also very obviously, NEVER be grounded on any BELIEF whatsoever.

You are deluding yourself.
As long as you are human being you cannot escape from having beliefs as defined in the OP.

Can you prove that I have beliefs?

If so, then do it.

What are my alledged beliefs?

Scenario examples;

• If you are near the shore somewhere in Japan and heard a loudly announced warning that a tsunami is on its way, would you believe [as defined re OP] the warning and run to higher grounds?
  
  If there is a bottle of soft drink which is claimed to be contaminated with cyanide of unknown quantity, would you believe it is dangerous to drink and thus you will not drink it?

I can raised an infinite questions on 'believe' and belief similar to the above.

Here is one critical one,

• There is no certainty to anything.
  Do you believe you will wake up tomorrow?
  Surely this belief is inherent within your self.

You can reflect on the above.
I am not interested in a long drawn discussion re the above.

You have not and is a coward to declare your philosophical stance or you are just ignorant.
I believe you are into or have similarities to the RADICAL nondualist neo-advaita camp.

Neo-Advaita, also called the Satsang-movement[1] and Nondualism, is a New Religious Movement, emphasizing the direct recognition of the non-existence of the "I" or "ego," without the need of preparatory practice.
-wiki

The neo-advaita condemn others as sticking to perceptions, stories and beliefs, just as you claimed 'I have no beliefs'.

Neo-Advaitin teachers attempt to deny all of this, insisting upon the reality and only the reality – there is only ‘perception’ or ‘stories’; there is no one, no seeker, no doer and no path. There is nothing that could be done to lead a non-existent seeker towards something that already exists here and now.
https://www.enlightened-spirituality.or ... vaita.html

I have gone through the above extensively with another poster, i.e. DontAskMe [DAM].

[Veritas Aequitas]

Has any one any strong argument on there is no need for beliefs or no such thing as beliefs?

Is there ANY argument, at all, for there being no such things as beliefs. I wonder. You, veritas, are living PROOF that there are such a thing as beliefs.

However, if animals can live without beliefs, then there is no need for beliefs.

Animals can, and do, live without beliefs.
Human beings are animals.
Human beings, therefore, like ALL other animals, can live without beliefs.
So, there is NO need for beliefs.

Human beings, as a whole, evolve.
At some stage in human beings' evolution, or before, there were no beliefs.
Human beings evolved, or came, from a period where there were NO beliefs.
Human beings are existing now.
Therefore, there is NO need for beliefs.
(Unless of course it can be argued, and/or shown, that beliefs came into existence at the very moment that started existence itself, or beliefs have existed forever just like Existence, Itself, has).

Human beings, individually, evolve.
As some stage, from conception, in a human being's evolution there are NO beliefs.
Most human beings go on to survive.
Therefore, this is more evidence and proof, that there is NO need for beliefs.
(Unless of course it can be argued, and/or shown, that beliefs came into existence at the exact same time as each and every human being comes into existence, or beliefs were in the sperm and/or egg before that moment of conception).

If any one wants to "argue" that there is a NEED for beliefs, then WHEN did this NEED begin:
For human beings, collectively?
For human beings, individually?

And, WHEN did this BELIEF, that beliefs are NEEDED for evolution to keep on doing its thing, begin?

Also, IF beliefs are NEEDED, then what exactly do those BELIEFS entail?

This is very stupid.
Do you want to regress to be an animal?
In that case you should get a neuro-surgeon to get rid of the parts of the brain that made you human, i.e. a major part of the neo-cortex.

What is belief is a very complex process that involve the full range of the brain.



As in the above, the mechanism-of-belief by humans entailed the action, emotional and thinking brain and the higher conscious brain specific to humans. Humans are evolved with a more sophisticated self-conscious awareness to the extent we are aware we are believing animals.

The mechanism-of-belief by humans is also represented in all other animals with greater similarities in the primates. The only difference is that the higher human self-consciousness/awareness absent in non-humans.

Whilst we do not associate belief with animals, nevertheless, animals has a 90% mechanism-of-belief in terms of neural activities.
When a pet dog waits for its owner in a certain location and time for his food, that is a kind of belief, i.e. believing the owner will set out his food at that time and location. Such a 'belief' had evolved due to adaption for survival, i.e. imply a greater chance of food for survival.

Note this dog's "belief,"

Hachikō was a Japanese Akita dog remembered for his remarkable loyalty to his owner, Hidesaburō Ueno , for whom he continued to wait [in a train station for owner returning from work] for over nine years following Ueno's death [dog unaware of owner's death].

We may not identity the above 'devotion' of the dog as "belief", but brain and neural wise it is a form of 90%-human-belief in term of brain mechanisms and activities.

What you are ignorant of is the spiritual handling of beliefs.
Beliefs are critical for survival.
Humanity better "believe" [have more refined beliefs] they are capable to reaching and surviving in other planets for it is inevitable planet Earth will be inhabitable in time.

To be better humans, what is needed is we should not be a slave to our beliefs [especially the potentially negative ones], the worst being slave to the belief God exists in the future.

Beliefs are natural and inevitable, the task is to "optimize" such unavoidable beliefs in terms of our survival and well being.

[Walker]

Scenario examples;

If you are near the shore somewhere in Japan and heard a loudly announced warning that a tsunami is on its way, would you believe [as defined re OP] the warning and run to higher grounds?

I would identify the sound, assess the validity of the source, assess the validity of the sounding, then heed the warning if I assess the necessity. Tsunami’s are part of Japan. I have heard that there are high-water markers on hillsides so that the knowers who know that they are there, and the believers who follow the knowers away from danger, know when they’re high enough. The danger for the boy who hollered wolf, as assessed in relationship to the seriousness of the situation, would probably nip any wolf-hollering pranks in the bud.

If there is a bottle of soft drink which is claimed to be contaminated with cyanide of unknown quantity, would you believe it is dangerous to drink and thus you will not drink it?

I would assess the cost/benefit ratio to determine the danger and if the danger assessed as high and if I wanted to say the final goodbye, I would drink it, although I've heard that's a nasty way to go so I'd have to be like, totally gone to do something like that. If I did not want to say the final goodbye, that's because I know that my life is worth more than a soft drink, so in that scenario price outweighs the benefit. No belief involved.

You’re just playing around with the concept of belief.

Contemplate the distinction between inference and belief, Grasshopper.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Scenario examples;

If you are near the shore somewhere in Japan and heard a loudly announced warning that a tsunami is on its way, would you believe [as defined re OP] the warning and run to higher grounds?

I would identify the sound, assess the validity of the source, assess the validity of the sounding, then heed the warning if I assess the necessity. Tsunami’s are part of Japan. I have heard that there are high-water markers on hillsides so that the knowers who know that they are there, and the believers who follow the knowers away from danger, know when they’re high enough. The danger for the boy who hollered wolf, as assessed in relationship to the seriousness of the situation, would probably nip any wolf-hollering pranks in the bud.

If there is a bottle of soft drink which is claimed to be contaminated with cyanide of unknown quantity, would you believe it is dangerous to drink and thus you will not drink it?

I would assess the cost/benefit ratio to determine the danger and if the danger assessed as high and if I wanted to say the final goodbye, I would drink it, although I've heard that's a nasty way to go so I'd have to be like, totally gone to do something like that. If I did not want to say the final goodbye, that's because I know that my life is worth more than a soft drink, so in that scenario price outweighs the benefit. No belief involved.

You’re just playing around with the concept of belief.

Contemplate the distinction between inference and belief, Grasshopper.

Note the relationship between inference and belief, Cricket.

In both cases you have not known the final outcome, thus you can only believe the outcome based on personal or collective inferences.

A belief that is inferred by the individual is a personal conviction and confidence level restricted to the individual. This like Einstein who believed based on his personal proofs [inference] of his theory on paper.

An inference that is a personal conviction would be a justified true belief when tested and justified and agreed by a group of people.
When Einstein personal belief [inference] was tested and confirmed by others and agreed by the relevant group of Scientists, that is a justified true belief, i.e. scientific knowledge.

[Age]

Can you prove that I have beliefs?

If so, then do it.

What are my alledged beliefs?

I will give it a try....

I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

You believe that "you neither believe nor disbelieve any thing."

I am not sure what "any thing" means, to you, but, to me, when I use the words "any thing" in relation to the words "not believing" then that means there is absolutely 'NO thing' that I believe, which obviously entails EVERY thing. This, obviously, would then naturally also mean I neither believe in your "try" above.

If, however, you can prove otherwise, then I am OPEN to seeing it.

If you haven't yet noticed, me being OPEN to being proven, and shown to be wrong, is just more evidence that I do NOT believe any thing here, as you suggest I do.

[Age]

However, if animals can live without beliefs, then there is no need for beliefs.

Another belief you hold is that animals live without beliefs.

Besides the fact that I would NOT believe that, even IF I had written that, the VERY fact is I used the word 'IF', in relation to IF animals can live without beliefs, or not. The use of the word 'IF' even further implies that I would NOT believe such a thing. The actual use of the word 'IF' illustrates even MORE that I do NOT have a belief any way here. Surely this makes what I was saying even more OPEN. The word 'IF' infers that I am OPEN to hearing what "others" will say regarding this.

Obviously, you were unable to read that into what I wrote so I will now just ask the question;
Do animals live without beliefs?

[Logik]

Do animals live without beliefs?

I don't know. You are the one hypothesising.

I suppose the counter-argument is that IF animals can't live without beliefs then there is a need for beliefs?

[Logik]

I am not sure what "any thing" means, to you, but, to me, when I use the words "any thing" in relation to the words "not believing" then that means there is absolutely 'NO thing' that I believe, which obviously entails EVERY thing.

When you say EVERYTHING do you include or exclude the things you say?

Do you believe that you actually typed out the paragraph above?

[Age]

Age, have you ever stubbed your toe? Have you ever eaten? Slept? Gotten out of bed? Gotten a haircut? Or even imagined you did anything a human must?

Do you then believe you did any of those things, or believed to have imagined them?

Tell me what it is about this sentence that you do NOT understand; I do NOT believe any thing.

Now, can you understand that if I do NOT believe ANY thing, then that means I do NOT believe ANY THING, which OBVIOUSLY would include NOT believing I did any of those things, NOR, believing that I imagined them.

WHY would you ask me a question regarding what I believe, when I have specifically stipulated that I do NOT believe any thing?

Even a solipsist imagines he has mentally created the image, and believes he did it.

SO WHAT?

This has nothing to do with me and what I am talking about here.

Are you worse than a solipsist?

If you STOPPED assuming AND believing things, then you MIGHT stop asking these ridiculous, have nothing to do with me, type of questions.

[Age]

However, if animals can live without beliefs, then there is no need for beliefs.

Another belief you hold is that animals live without beliefs.

Oh, don't start with good reasoning, Logik...

I wonder if he believes he has posted in this forum? Or believes he has an email address and password that allowed him to gain access?

Why would you wonder if I believe some thing or another thing? Especially when I have clearly stated that I do NOT believe any thing.

Meh. Who knows.

[Age]

You are deluding yourself.
As long as you are human being you cannot escape from having beliefs as defined in the OP.

Can you prove that I have beliefs?

If so, then do it.

What are my alledged beliefs?

Scenario examples;

• If you are near the shore somewhere in Japan and heard a loudly announced warning that a tsunami is on its way, would you believe [as defined re OP] the warning and run to higher grounds?

No I would not.

I would do some thing different.

If there is a bottle of soft drink which is claimed to be contaminated with cyanide of unknown quantity, would you believe it is dangerous to drink and thus you will not drink it?[/list]

No I would not.

I would do some thing different.

I can raised an infinite questions on 'believe' and belief similar to the above.

So what if you can?

And, with each, of the infinite questions that you ask me regarding 'believe' and 'belief' similar to the above questions, then you will still probably NOT get the answer that you are ASSUMING you would get.

I asked you; Can you prove that I have beliefs?

You once again failed to answer this, clearly yes or no, question. You have also, have so far, failed to prove that I have beliefs.

AGAIN, If you can prove that I have beliefs, then just do it.

Here is one critical one,

• There is no certainty to anything.
  Do you believe you will wake up tomorrow?

No.

Do you find it very contradictory that you ask me question as though an answer is expected, and I answer them, (although obviously YOUR questions are NOT intended for me to answer because you ONLY ask them based on YOUR assumptions AND beliefs of what the answer WILL BE), but anyway, I answer your questions but you do NOT answer ANY of my questions to you.

Surely this belief is inherent within your self.[/list]

What "belief"? In case you have NOT heard me; I DO NOT HAVE ANY BELIEFS.

OBVIOUSLY, your ASSUMPTION about me is totally and utterly WRONG, AGAIN.

You can reflect on the above.
I am not interested in a long drawn discussion re the above.

You are NEVER interested in any thing that is in opposition to YOUR BELIEFS.

I have already TOLD you that you are absolutely and completely CLOSED OFF to listening to any thing other than your own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

You have not and is a coward to declare your philosophical stance or you are just ignorant.

WHAT???

I believe you are into or have similarities to the RADICAL nondualist neo-advaita camp.

As I have informed you, a few times already, you are FREE to BELIEVE whatever you so choose to BELIEVE.

Neo-Advaita, also called the Satsang-movement[1] and Nondualism, is a New Religious Movement, emphasizing the direct recognition of the non-existence of the "I" or "ego," without the need of preparatory practice.
-wiki

The neo-advaita condemn others as sticking to perceptions, stories and beliefs, just as you claimed 'I have no beliefs'.

If that is what you BELIEVE, then so be it.

Neo-Advaitin teachers attempt to deny all of this, insisting upon the reality and only the reality – there is only ‘perception’ or ‘stories’; there is no one, no seeker, no doer and no path. There is nothing that could be done to lead a non-existent seeker towards something that already exists here and now.
https://www.enlightened-spirituality.or ... vaita.html

I have gone through the above extensively with another poster, i.e. DontAskMe [DAM].

Again, so what? Talk about getting off track.

Did you forget what you are replying to here?

In case you have forgotten, then I will remind you;
Can you prove that I have beliefs?

If so, then do it.

What are my alleged beliefs?

(By the way, just because some people do not, YET, have to language to describe Thee Observer, then that does NOT mean that there is no one, no seeker, no doer, and no path. The people who you have those discussions with will readily admit that they do NOT have language to describe what it is that they are trying to describe. Therefore, is there really any use in using language to have a discussion with them?)

Anyway, back to the point of issue here; Can you prove that I have beliefs?

AGAIN, if you can, then just do it.

[Age]

Has any one any strong argument on there is no need for beliefs or no such thing as beliefs?

Is there ANY argument, at all, for there being no such things as beliefs. I wonder. You, veritas, are living PROOF that there are such a thing as beliefs.

However, if animals can live without beliefs, then there is no need for beliefs.

Animals can, and do, live without beliefs.
Human beings are animals.
Human beings, therefore, like ALL other animals, can live without beliefs.
So, there is NO need for beliefs.

Human beings, as a whole, evolve.
At some stage in human beings' evolution, or before, there were no beliefs.
Human beings evolved, or came, from a period where there were NO beliefs.
Human beings are existing now.
Therefore, there is NO need for beliefs.
(Unless of course it can be argued, and/or shown, that beliefs came into existence at the very moment that started existence itself, or beliefs have existed forever just like Existence, Itself, has).

Human beings, individually, evolve.
As some stage, from conception, in a human being's evolution there are NO beliefs.
Most human beings go on to survive.
Therefore, this is more evidence and proof, that there is NO need for beliefs.
(Unless of course it can be argued, and/or shown, that beliefs came into existence at the exact same time as each and every human being comes into existence, or beliefs were in the sperm and/or egg before that moment of conception).

If any one wants to "argue" that there is a NEED for beliefs, then WHEN did this NEED begin:
For human beings, collectively?
For human beings, individually?

And, WHEN did this BELIEF, that beliefs are NEEDED for evolution to keep on doing its thing, begin?

Also, IF beliefs are NEEDED, then what exactly do those BELIEFS entail?

This is very stupid.

Do you want to regress to be an animal?

Said like a true student, who has "studied" so called "philosophy".

Do NOT look at and respond to what is in front of you. Just call it all "stupid". AND, make up some ridiculous ASSUMPTION and THINK that I am saying some thing of which, if read properly, IS OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT I WAS SAYING AT ALL.

In that case you should get a neuro-surgeon to get rid of the parts of the brain that made you human, i.e. a major part of the neo-cortex.

Responding like a true so called "philosophy" student. Answer your own PRESUMED answers with an even more ridiculous statement.

What is belief is a very complex process that involve the full range of the brain.

What 'belief' IS is about as simple as simple gets; That is; If you BELIEVE some thing, then that IS a 'BELIEF'.

What do you propose could be, supposedly, "a very complex process" about that?

By the way: the 'belief' process is even more simpler than that. That is; a person WOULD ONLY BELIEVE some thing that they BELIEVED was True, Right, and Correct?

If you disagree with this, then please explain to the reader here WHY you would BELIEVE some thing, that you BELIEVED was NOT true, NOT right, or NOT correct.

As in the above, the mechanism-of-belief by humans entailed the action, emotional and thinking brain and the higher conscious brain specific to humans. Humans are evolved with a more sophisticated self-conscious awareness to the extent we are aware we are believing animals.

The mechanism-of-belief by humans is also represented in all other animals with greater similarities in the primates. The only difference is that the higher human self-consciousness/awareness absent in non-humans.

Whilst we do not associate belief with animals, nevertheless, animals has a 90% mechanism-of-belief in terms of neural activities.
When a pet dog waits for its owner in a certain location and time for his food, that is a kind of belief, i.e. believing the owner will set out his food at that time and location. Such a 'belief' had evolved due to adaption for survival, i.e. imply a greater chance of food for survival.

You can TRY to speak as if you KNOW what you are REALLY talking about, but I will just say; your words speak for themselves.

Note this dog's "belief,"

Hachikō was a Japanese Akita dog remembered for his remarkable loyalty to his owner, Hidesaburō Ueno , for whom he continued to wait [in a train station for owner returning from work] for over nine years following Ueno's death [dog unaware of owner's death].

We may not identity the above 'devotion' of the dog as "belief", but brain and neural wise it is a form of 90%-human-belief in term of brain mechanisms and activities.

Do you have the links, references, and supporting evidences for this? Remember, you have TRIED TO argue that this "stuff" is so, so VERY IMPORTANT.

What you are ignorant of is the spiritual handling of beliefs.

Am I?

Are you 100% absolutely SURE of this?

If so, then HOW, (in hell), would you KNOW?

Do you really BELIEVE that just because you add in some "fancy" word/s, then that makes you appear as though you do know what you are talking about?

If so, then you really would be better off NOT having those beliefs, at least.

Beliefs are critical for survival.

YES I KNOW that you have said this many times.

I ALSO KNOW that you have NOT yet proved this yet.

Humanity better "believe" [have more refined beliefs] they are capable to reaching and surviving in other planets for it is inevitable planet Earth will be inhabitable in time.

WHAT???

To be better humans, what is needed is we should not be a slave to our beliefs [especially the potentially negative ones], the worst being slave to the belief God exists in the future.

So your argument now IS;
Human beings NEED beliefs, for their survival.
But what human beings really NEED is not to be a slave to these, NEEDED for survival, beliefs.

I am glad you have cleared that up now, lol. The contradiction just in this one sentence I find truly hilarious.

I am also aware that you are going to TRY TO argue that SOME beliefs are negative ones, which would obviously be those ones that you do NOT have, and which would also obviously be the ones that are, quite coincidentally, in opposition to YOUR BELIEFS.

Am I correct?

Beliefs are natural and inevitable, the task is to "optimize" such unavoidable beliefs in terms of our survival and well being.

Why not just NOT have beliefs any more?

It is possible, you know?

[Age]

Scenario examples;

If you are near the shore somewhere in Japan and heard a loudly announced warning that a tsunami is on its way, would you believe [as defined re OP] the warning and run to higher grounds?

I would identify the sound, assess the validity of the source, assess the validity of the sounding, then heed the warning if I assess the necessity. Tsunami’s are part of Japan. I have heard that there are high-water markers on hillsides so that the knowers who know that they are there, and the believers who follow the knowers away from danger, know when they’re high enough. The danger for the boy who hollered wolf, as assessed in relationship to the seriousness of the situation, would probably nip any wolf-hollering pranks in the bud.

If there is a bottle of soft drink which is claimed to be contaminated with cyanide of unknown quantity, would you believe it is dangerous to drink and thus you will not drink it?

I would assess the cost/benefit ratio to determine the danger and if the danger assessed as high and if I wanted to say the final goodbye, I would drink it, although I've heard that's a nasty way to go so I'd have to be like, totally gone to do something like that. If I did not want to say the final goodbye, that's because I know that my life is worth more than a soft drink, so in that scenario price outweighs the benefit. No belief involved.

You’re just playing around with the concept of belief.

Contemplate the distinction between inference and belief, Grasshopper.

Note the relationship between inference and belief, Cricket.

In both cases you have not known the final outcome, thus you can only believe the outcome based on personal or collective inferences.

But the WHOLE POINT, which you obviously keep missing IS; you do NOT have to BELIEVE. Of course you may choose to BELIEVE, if you so wish. BUT, you do NOT have to, BELIEVE.

A belief that is inferred by the individual is a personal conviction and confidence level restricted to the individual. This like Einstein who believed based on his personal proofs [inference] of his theory on paper.

Just adding the word 'einstein', as though it has some real relation here, does NOT give your BELIEF more weight.

An inference that is a personal conviction would be a justified true belief when tested and justified and agreed by a group of people.

The words WOULD BE are NOT true. 'WOULD BE' infers no other choice, when the Truth IS, there is always a choice to BELIEVE or NOT TO BELIEVE.

When Einstein personal belief [inference] was tested and confirmed by others and agreed by the relevant group of Scientists, that is a justified true belief, i.e. scientific knowledge.

It is ONLY a BELIEF if people choose to have it as a BELIEF.

Some may choose to just remain OPEN because they KNOW that that so called "justified true belief" is not the end all.

[Age]

Do animals live without beliefs?

I don't know.

So, you do not know. Does that mean you have to either BELIEVE or DISBELIEVE some thing?

If yes, then WHY?
If no, then that is all that needs to be said.

You are the one hypothesising.

I am not exactly hypothesizing, as I am only querying some thing, obviously, in a truly OPEN manner. As you have so well shown below.

I suppose the counter-argument is that IF animals can't live without beliefs then there is a need for beliefs?

EXACTLY.

By the way, posing a obviously clarifying question is NOT arguing nor making an argument.

You, human beings, have evolved to have this terrible habit of thinking/assuming that just because a question is posed then that means one is stating some particular thing.

Look again at my question, as you have so rightly pointed out, it could have been asked in the opposite way AND still remained the same type of question, that is; a truly OPEN clarifying question, posed for a Truly OPEN and HONEST answer.

I am NOT arguing for, nor against, any thing here. I am also NOT hypothesizing any thing here. ALL I am doing here, in this thread, is just stating what I do do, that is; I do NOT have any BELIEFS.

[Age]

I am not sure what "any thing" means, to you, but, to me, when I use the words "any thing" in relation to the words "not believing" then that means there is absolutely 'NO thing' that I believe, which obviously entails EVERY thing.

When you say EVERYTHING do you include or exclude the things you say?

Do you believe that you actually typed out the paragraph above?

What is it with you?

If a carrot does NOT believe any thing, then it does NOT believe any thing.

If an elephant does NOT believe any thing, then it does NOT believe any thing.

If a new born human baby does NOT believe any thing, then it does NOT believe any thing.

If I do NOT believe any thing, then I do NOT believe any thing.

Unless OF COURSE you can prove otherwise.

If you can, then just do it.

Now, I do NOT know if a carrot, an elephant, or a new born human baby believes any thing or does NOT believe any thing, and for all that matters is I really do NOT care. But what I do KNOW is if I believe some thing or if I do NOT believe some thing.

I will tell you again. I KNOW for a FACT that I do NOT believe a thing, some thing, nor any thing.

How is that so hard for you to comprehend and understand?

I KNOW why, but do YOU?