What is Belief?

[Logik]

Unless OF COURSE you can prove otherwise.

If you can, then just do it.

I did. It's called proof by contradiction.

From a contradiction anything follows. Principle of explosion.

[Walker]

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

If that’s the way things are, then belief requires more than extrapolation from memory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.
...

Perhaps this is the main point that escape you.

But the WHOLE POINT, which you obviously keep missing IS;
you as a human being is programmed via evolution to 'believe' whether you like it or not.
Believing is an inherent and intrinsic human nature to facilitate survival.
This is represented by the inherent activities of the various parts of the whole human brain and 90% [?] of the higher animals.

There are three main types of beliefs, i.e.

• 1. Activated spontaneously deep from the brain
  2. Naturally activated beliefs
  3. Consciously deliberated but influenced subconsciously

As for 1. there is no question of choosing to believe because the initiation of such believing [beliefs] is beyond one's conscious control.
Therefore such an inherent process of believing is embedded in the brain and it can only be suppressed by choice if one is capable of understanding it.

• Note in the distorted face image illusion experiment, the person who is unaware of the truth will "believe" inherently there are two normal faces. What he believed is merely an assumed truth until he is informed to the greater truth of the distorted face.
  There is no question of choosing to believe in this case, it is inherent and spontaneous.
  This is what is happening with believing in a God which is actually illusory but theists ignorantly believe God is real.

Re 2. A person has to believe if he cannot know for certain of the real truth. Thus the person has to believe an assumed truth [belief as in OP] based on basic inference, trust, faith or gut feelings.
E.g. when you respond to the weatherman predictions in anyway, you are actually believing him.
Since you are not doing the experiments and proving, you have to believe in the scientific theories presented by various scientists.

Re 3. A person can choose to believe after some conscious deliberation of various choices of alternative or when presented with certain information. If a group of people prophesied the end of the world will happen on 25th December 2020, you can choose not to believe it.
Note;
10 Failed Doomsday Predictions
https://www.britannica.com/list/10-fail ... redictions

The point is your thinking is too shallow and narrow in addition you are straight-jacketed by confirmation bias.

Note in all my responses to you, I have given you tons of theories, research findings, evidences and arguments for a wide range of sources.

On the other hand you provided no such things as the above except to claim;

• 'I do not have any beliefs' and
  'I am not a human being'.

As a non-human you are a pervert!

[Walker]

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.

An inferred extrapolation from memory applied to current circumstances naturally balances income with outcome, just as naturally as cold meeting hot makes rain puddles to leap over, Glasshopper.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

An inferred extrapolation from memory applied to current circumstances naturally balances income with outcome, just as naturally as cold meeting hot makes rain puddles to leap over, Glasshopper.

Not sure of your point.

But my point is, whatever is inferred on a personal basis has to be a belief.
Therefore you cannot escape believing as a human being in this case.

The wise thing to do is not to be a slave to one's beliefs but just ..
Chop Wood Carry Water.
https://zenrevolution.wordpress.com/201 ... rry-water/

[Walker]

Not sure of your point.

But my point is, whatever is inferred on a personal basis has to be a belief.
Therefore you cannot escape believing as a human being in this case.

The wise thing to do is not to be a slave to one's beliefs but just ..
Chop Wood Carry Water.
https://zenrevolution.wordpress.com/201 ... rry-water/

I’ve observed cognitive development from infancy onwards in more than one person, and from what I’ve observed I think that you’re making a case for the inherent human capacity to infer, rather than a case for an inherent capacity to believe.

A toddler learns that the stove is hot by touching the stove and experiencing pain. The next time that the stove is within reach, the toddler does not touch the stove because of the inherent capacity to infer based on past experience, even at that age. This supports your theory of organic origins, but does not require belief.

At a toddler’s level of development it cannot yet imagine a future, so it learns to navigate the world by extrapolating from memory of past experience. At some point self-consciousness develops in the child and imaginative beliefs form from that, and then knowledge of probability becomes inseparable with evaluating the immediate environment, via a combination of inference and imagination.

However, once the illusion of grounding is revealed to a mature mind, then belief becomes the servant and not the master. (chop wood, carry water)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not sure of your point.

But my point is, whatever is inferred on a personal basis has to be a belief.
Therefore you cannot escape believing as a human being in this case.

The wise thing to do is not to be a slave to one's beliefs but just ..
Chop Wood Carry Water.
https://zenrevolution.wordpress.com/201 ... rry-water/

I’ve observed cognitive development from infancy onwards in more than one person, and from what I’ve observed I think that you’re making a case for the inherent human capacity to infer, rather than a case for an inherent capacity to believe.

A toddler learns that the stove is hot by touching the stove and experiencing pain. The next time that the stove is within reach, the toddler does not touch the stove because of the inherent capacity to infer based on past experience, even at that age. This supports your theory of organic origins, but does not require belief.

At a toddler’s level of development it cannot yet imagine a future, so it learns to navigate the world by extrapolating from memory of past experience. At some point self-consciousness develops in the child and imaginative beliefs form from that, and then knowledge of probability becomes inseparable with evaluating the immediate environment, via a combination of inference and imagination.

However, once the illusion of grounding is revealed to a mature mind, then belief becomes the servant and not the master. (chop wood, carry water)

Note in general philosophy,

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences. Charles Sanders Peirce divided inference into three kinds: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular premises to a universal conclusion. Abduction is inference to the best explanation.

Human inference (i.e. how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology; artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference.
-wiki

The point is there are beliefs [crude] prior to any inferences process and there are beliefs after inferences [convictions or justified true beliefs].

A toddler will form beliefs that a stove is hot more often from the warnings from trusted parents and other humans rather than from direct painful experiences [rarely].

[Age]

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.
...

Perhaps this is the main point that escape you.

But the WHOLE POINT, which you obviously keep missing IS;
you as a human being is programmed via evolution to 'believe' whether you like it or not.

But WHERE is the actual proof for this?

Believing is an inherent and intrinsic human nature to facilitate survival.

WHY do ONLY human beings, supposedly, NEED to 'believe', for their survival, IF other animals do NOT?

I have asked you BEFORE, which you will NOT answer, something similar to:
At what age does this TO 'BELIEVE', which you say is "inherent and intrinsic human nature to facilitate survival", kick in?

Is it before birth, at birth, or after birth? WHEN exactly do you start to 'believe'? And, WHAT do you start TO 'BELIEVE'?

I asked you BEFORE and if you will NOT answer now, then what you are saying is just your BELIEF, of which you have absolutely NO support of nor no thing to back it up with, at least from what I have seen here.

This is represented by the inherent activities of the various parts of the whole human brain and 90% [?] of the higher animals.

Do NOT quote figures and speak in a way in which you may think or believe makes you sound like you know what you are talking about. You clearly do NOT. Once again, you started a thread stating that 'supporting evidence', links, references, et cetera ARE a critical necessity. Now, WHERE are these things. WHERE is there any link to the rubbish that are saying here. For example, define 'a higher animal'?

And, PLEASE do NOT think that human beings are a higher animal. There is ENOUGH sufficient evidence existing, right now, when this is written to SHOW just how stupid the human animal IS.

There are three main types of beliefs, i.e.

• 1. Activated spontaneously deep from the brain
  2. Naturally activated beliefs
  3. Consciously deliberated but influenced subconsciously

LOL. Once again TRYING TO appear as though you know what you are talking about. The Truth is very easy to SPOT and SEE.

Whether TO 'BELIEVE' or NOT TO 'BELIEVE' is a choice one makes. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As for 1. there is no question of choosing to believe because the initiation of such believing [beliefs] is beyond one's conscious control.
Therefore such an inherent process of believing is embedded in the brain and it can only be suppressed by choice if one is capable of understanding it.

• Note in the distorted face image illusion experiment, the person who is unaware of the truth will "believe" inherently there are two normal faces. What he believed is merely an assumed truth until he is informed to the greater truth of the distorted face.
  There is no question of choosing to believe in this case, it is inherent and spontaneous.
  This is what is happening with believing in a God which is actually illusory but theists ignorantly believe God is real.

Re 2. A person has to believe if he cannot know for certain of the real truth. Thus the person has to believe an assumed truth [belief as in OP] based on basic inference, trust, faith or gut feelings.
E.g. when you respond to the weatherman predictions in anyway, you are actually believing him.
Since you are not doing the experiments and proving, you have to believe in the scientific theories presented by various scientists.

Re 3. A person can choose to believe after some conscious deliberation of various choices of alternative or when presented with certain information. If a group of people prophesied the end of the world will happen on 25th December 2020, you can choose not to believe it.
Note;
10 Failed Doomsday Predictions
https://www.britannica.com/list/10-fail ... redictions

All moot as this does NOT have to do with the fundamental aspect of BELIEFS.

The point is your thinking is too shallow and narrow in addition you are straight-jacketed by confirmation bias.

If that is WHAT you want TO BELIEVE, then I am more than happy for you to continue BELIEVING this.

If fact, the MORE you BELIEVE, then the BETTER for Me.

ALL I have said is I do NOT believe any thing. I am NOT "trying to" fight/argue for any particular position like you are. Therefore, who would have a more biased position to confirm? For example, if I said, I do NOT work any job, then that is ALL I have said. However, if you BELIEVE that you must have to work BECAUSE it is an "inherent and intrinsic human nature to facilitate survival", then who would have the biased position to confirm?

1. I am just stating WHAT I DO. There is nothing to confirm because I KNOW what I do and/or do NOT do. I am also NOT arguing for any position.
2. You, however, have a BELIEVE, which is a biased opinion of things. You, naturally, WANT to confirm your biased opinions as true, which is WHY you are strongly arguing for that position. You HAVE TO confirm your biases, otherwise what you BELIEVE is true, could completely fall apart. Just like you are now.

Note in all my responses to you, I have given you tons of theories, research findings, evidences and arguments for a wide range of sources.

LOL If you so BELIEVE.

Your words and Mine are here for ALL to SEE. They can and WILL judge if you have done such thing.

On the other hand you provided no such things as the above except to claim;

• 'I do not have any beliefs' and

Exactly RIGHT. Claiming, I do NOT have any beliefs, is ALL I have done here.

You BELIEVE that it is NOT possible for a human being not to believe, therefore, your continual ATTEMPTS at trying to disprove this.

You have YET to prove your BELIEF.

By the way, WHAT could I provide, other than My word, of what I do do or do NOT do?

'I am not a human being'. [/list]

This is your assumption.

I NEVER wrote this. Unless of course you can point to the readers WHERE I have.

As a non-human you are a pervert!

So, are all donkeys, monkeys, and dolphins 'perverts'? Oh, or any thing else that is non-human also?

[Age]

Unless OF COURSE you can prove otherwise.

If you can, then just do it.

I did. It's called proof by contradiction.

Did you?

Name one thing that I believe?

From a contradiction anything follows. Principle of explosion.

[Age]

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

If that’s the way things are, then belief requires more than extrapolation from memory.

Yes, belief does require more than that. Memory, of course, plays are part, but to have a 'belief' requires one to also make a conscious choice whether to believe or disbelieve some thing.

I choose NEITHER to believe nor disbelieve some thing.

Obviously some choose otherwise, and, they are FREE to make this choice.

The reason WHY some find this so hard to understand is because of the BELIEF they maintain regarding BELIEFS?

[Age]

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.

An inferred extrapolation from memory applied to current circumstances naturally balances income with outcome, just as naturally as cold meeting hot makes rain puddles to leap over, Glasshopper.

Not sure of your point.

But my point is, whatever is inferred on a personal basis has to be a belief.

What EVIDENCE do you HAVE that 'whatever is inferred on a personal basis' HAS TO BE a belief.

I would suggest and say that 'whatever is inferred on a personal basis' IS an inference, AND does NOT have to be a belief.
But, in saying that, I would also add that 'whatever is believed on a personal basis' HAS TO BE a belief.

Can you SEE the difference?

If you did NOT spot the difference, then just divulge, and then I would be more than happy to point it out for you.

For an example, on a personal basis i have inferred that you will continue TRYING TO argue that BELIEFS are an INHERENT and NECESSARY part of human beings survival. But that does NOT have to be a belief. This, obviously, means that I do NOT have to believe it to be true. Actually I will NOT believe, that personal inference, to be true, BECAUSE;

1. You might just stop replying.
2. You might just give up.
3. You might actually SEE differently.
4. You might drop dead of a heart attack before you could respond.
5. A plane might crash land on your house, trapping you under the wing, and your fingers might now be able to reach the keyboard to respond back. Or,
6. There a billions of other things that MIGHT happen, which would prevent what i inferred, on a personal basis, from actually happening, and thus being true.

So, I NEITHER believe, nor disbelieve, any thing as being true, right, and/or incorrect BECAUSE it MIGHT just NOT be true, right, and/or correct, after ALL.

I much prefer to just remain OPEN to ANY and ALL things, that is; EVERY thing instead, always. Is this really such a "crime" to do? Surely, this can NOT be that hard to comprehend and understand?

Therefore you cannot escape believing as a human being in this case.

LOL. This is YOUR "conclusion", which YOU reached, from YOUR one premise above;

P1. whatever is inferred on a personal basis HAS TO be a belief.

This is NOT necessarily true. Until you provide the EVIDENCE for it, it is just your point, which is based solely on YOUR BELIEF alone, and that is ALL it is.

By the way, I escaped 'believing' a few years ago. So I can do it, and for your information, it was one of the most simplest and easiest things to do.

The wise thing to do is not to be a slave to one's beliefs but just ..
Chop Wood Carry Water.
https://zenrevolution.wordpress.com/201 ... rry-water/

There are even more wiser things you CAN DO. For one, do NOT have any beliefs at all.

1. They are unneccessary.
2. They do not just prevent you from SEEING the Truth of things, they can completely distort the Truth and STOP you from SEEING the Truth of other things also. As you have so well illustrated here for me, in this forum.

Also, and once again, you show the actual truth about BELIEFS and how destructive they can be, yet you still want to insist that they are necessary part for human beings survival.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.
...

Perhaps this is the main point that escape you.

But the WHOLE POINT, which you obviously keep missing IS;
you as a human being is programmed via evolution to 'believe' whether you like it or not.

But WHERE is the actual proof for this?

I have already provided proof and explain in detail many times.

Note this face illusion example.
The fact is a person who is not informed on the truth will believe there are two normal faces in this picture. The uninformed person will insist perhaps with 100% confidence of his empirical evidence without the knowledge he has been deceived by his mind.

Believing is an inherent and intrinsic human nature to facilitate survival.

WHY do ONLY human beings, supposedly, NEED to 'believe', for their survival, IF other animals do NOT?

I have also explained this many times.
What is believed involved a complex process say X from lower to middle to higher brain.
In the perspective of beliefs, animals up to the higher primates share 90% of process X.
It is just that non-humans do not have the self-awareness of their beliefs as a concept of beliefs for deliberate rationalization.

I have asked you BEFORE, which you will NOT answer, something similar to:
At what age does this TO 'BELIEVE', which you say is "inherent and intrinsic human nature to facilitate survival", kick in?

Is it before birth, at birth, or after birth? WHEN exactly do you start to 'believe'? And, WHAT do you start TO 'BELIEVE'?

I asked you BEFORE and if you will NOT answer now, then what you are saying is just your BELIEF, of which you have absolutely NO support of nor no thing to back it up with, at least from what I have seen here.

I have explained the above as well in various ways.
Babies has the potential for self-awareness but that is realized around 2-3 years thereabout and later years to cognize their inherent beliefs as concept of beliefs.
In this case, the belief process-X by babies would be same as the higher primates in that they are not very self-aware of their beliefs until they are > 3-5 years old.

[Age]

Not sure of your point.

But my point is, whatever is inferred on a personal basis has to be a belief.
Therefore you cannot escape believing as a human being in this case.

The wise thing to do is not to be a slave to one's beliefs but just ..
Chop Wood Carry Water.
https://zenrevolution.wordpress.com/201 ... rry-water/

I’ve observed cognitive development from infancy onwards in more than one person, and from what I’ve observed I think that you’re making a case for the inherent human capacity to infer, rather than a case for an inherent capacity to believe.

A toddler learns that the stove is hot by touching the stove and experiencing pain. The next time that the stove is within reach, the toddler does not touch the stove because of the inherent capacity to infer based on past experience, even at that age. This supports your theory of organic origins, but does not require belief.

At a toddler’s level of development it cannot yet imagine a future, so it learns to navigate the world by extrapolating from memory of past experience. At some point self-consciousness develops in the child and imaginative beliefs form from that, and then knowledge of probability becomes inseparable with evaluating the immediate environment, via a combination of inference and imagination.

However, once the illusion of grounding is revealed to a mature mind, then belief becomes the servant and not the master. (chop wood, carry water)

Note in general philosophy,

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences. Charles Sanders Peirce divided inference into three kinds: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular premises to a universal conclusion. Abduction is inference to the best explanation.

Human inference (i.e. how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology; artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference.
-wiki

The point is there are beliefs [crude] prior to any inferences process and there are beliefs after inferences [convictions or justified true beliefs].

My point IS: OF COURSE there ARE beliefs prior to and after inferences, in some people.
My OTHER point IS: There does NOT have to be.

A toddler will form beliefs that a stove is hot more often from the warnings from trusted parents and other humans rather than from direct painful experiences [rarely].

Are you actually serious, or joking, here?

How many actual children have NOT, and do NOT, touch something hot, including even fire itself, even AFTER being told; "Do NOT touch. It is hot"?

The same applies with adults and a sign with "WET PAINT" written on it.

How many actual adults have NOT, and do NOT, touch something wet, including even paint itself, even AFTER being told; "Do NOT touch. WET PAINT"?

YOUR confirmation biases are really working overtime on this one.

[Age]

Perhaps this is the main point that escape you.

But the WHOLE POINT, which you obviously keep missing IS;
you as a human being is programmed via evolution to 'believe' whether you like it or not.

But WHERE is the actual proof for this?

I have already provided proof and explain in detail many times.

Note this face illusion example.
The fact is a person who is not informed on the truth will believe there are two normal faces in this picture.

But if that is what you call "proof", then I have just PROVED otherwise.

I certainly did NOT believe there are two normal faces in this picture each and every time I have looked at it, which by the way is MANY TIMES now. Also, BEFORE you respond, even the FIRST time I saw that picture I did NOT believe there are two normal faces, also.

What I did instead was just remain OPEN.

In case you are completely missing the mark here. When I say: I NEITHER believe nor disbelieve any thing, that actually means WHAT IT SAYS.

By the way, that picture IS NOT proof that human beings HAVE TO believe things. That picture just proves that some people SEE things that are NOT actually the case, or the Truth of things. Also, some people obviously only THINK they are seeing some thing different, from what is actually the case, instead of BELIEVING that they are seeing some thing different. This is because they are OPEN, and are remaining OPEN, to what COULD possibly BE the Truth. These people do NOT have to BELIEVE things.

The uninformed person will insist perhaps with 100% confidence of his empirical evidence without the knowledge he has been deceived by his mind.

Once again you are talking like you actually BELIEVE that you actually KNOW what you are talking about here.

If some one INSISTS, perhaps with 100% confidence, then that is because of BELIEFS.

You are living proof of ONE who does this consistently.

The obviously fact that you have been, and are being deceived, by the brain, from the BELIEF-system, speaks loudly and can be seen clearly here. Your words speak for themselves.

Believing is an inherent and intrinsic human nature to facilitate survival.

WHY do ONLY human beings, supposedly, NEED to 'believe', for their survival, IF other animals do NOT?

I have also explained this many times.
What is believed involved a complex process say X from lower to middle to higher brain.
In the perspective of beliefs, animals up to the higher primates share 90% of process X.
It is just that non-humans do not have the self-awareness of their beliefs as a concept of beliefs for deliberate rationalization.

WHAT???

You really do BELIEVE that you really do KNOW what you are talking about, am I right veritas?

Crocodiles have survived millions of years. Do they have BELIEFS?

Are you aware that humans evolved from other things, going back BEFORE even animals existed at all?
If yes, then great. WHERE did this BELIEF that human beings NEED beliefs for their survival come from?
Human beings are here now, and surviving right?
If yes, then great.
Human beings, like ALL the other things that have came into existence and have survived up to now, when this is written.
Therefore, FOR SURVIVAL 'beliefs', themselves, are NOT necessary.

(As for what beliefs are helpful for, is another completely different issue. What we have been discussing here is; if beliefs are inherent and a necessity for survival?)

I have asked you BEFORE, which you will NOT answer, something similar to:
At what age does this TO 'BELIEVE', which you say is "inherent and intrinsic human nature to facilitate survival", kick in?

Is it before birth, at birth, or after birth? WHEN exactly do you start to 'believe'? And, WHAT do you start TO 'BELIEVE'?

I asked you BEFORE and if you will NOT answer now, then what you are saying is just your BELIEF, of which you have absolutely NO support of nor no thing to back it up with, at least from what I have seen here.

I have explained the above as well in various ways.
Babies has the potential for self-awareness but that is realized around 2-3 years thereabout and later years to cognize their inherent beliefs as concept of beliefs.

Besides the fact that this appears as absolute gibberish, to me, if babies have the potential for self-awareness or not, or if and when they realize this or not, has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about here.

Saying, human beings in "later years" cognize 'their inherent beliefs', as 'concept of beliefs' is NOT proof that BELIEFS are 'an inherent and intrinsic human nature to facilitate survival'.

I asked WHEN does the FIRST belief appear in human beings, and, WHAT is that belief exactly?

In this case, the belief process-X by babies would be same as the higher primates in that they are not very self-aware of their beliefs until they are > 3-5 years old.

Are you at all aware there is NOT even one of you human beings who is self aware, yet?

Unless of course you KNOW of one that can answer the question; Who am 'I'? properly and correctly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I’ve observed cognitive development from infancy onwards in more than one person, and from what I’ve observed I think that you’re making a case for the inherent human capacity to infer, rather than a case for an inherent capacity to believe.

A toddler learns that the stove is hot by touching the stove and experiencing pain. The next time that the stove is within reach, the toddler does not touch the stove because of the inherent capacity to infer based on past experience, even at that age. This supports your theory of organic origins, but does not require belief.

At a toddler’s level of development it cannot yet imagine a future, so it learns to navigate the world by extrapolating from memory of past experience. At some point self-consciousness develops in the child and imaginative beliefs form from that, and then knowledge of probability becomes inseparable with evaluating the immediate environment, via a combination of inference and imagination.

However, once the illusion of grounding is revealed to a mature mind, then belief becomes the servant and not the master. (chop wood, carry water)

Note in general philosophy,

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences. Charles Sanders Peirce divided inference into three kinds: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular premises to a universal conclusion. Abduction is inference to the best explanation.

Human inference (i.e. how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology; artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference.
-wiki

The point is there are beliefs [crude] prior to any inferences process and there are beliefs after inferences [convictions or justified true beliefs].

My point IS: OF COURSE there ARE beliefs prior to and after inferences, in some people.
My OTHER point IS: There does NOT have to be.

A toddler will form beliefs that a stove is hot more often from the warnings from trusted parents and other humans rather than from direct painful experiences [rarely].

Are you actually serious, or joking, here?

How many actual children have NOT, and do NOT, touch something hot, including even fire itself, even AFTER being told; "Do NOT touch. It is hot"?

The same applies with adults and a sign with "WET PAINT" written on it.

How many actual adults have NOT, and do NOT, touch something wet, including even paint itself, even AFTER being told; "Do NOT touch. WET PAINT"?

YOUR confirmation biases are really working overtime on this one.

Your above is a strawman.
My point with Walker was the inherent tendency of all humans to believe.
Walker insisted the child not touching a hot stove is based on inference.
My argument is, in the case of a child not touching a hot stove is based on belief not inference.
It is not about a child despite warnings will still touch a hot stove which could be due to some other psychological problems due to some abnormalities.