[extropy-chat] HISTORY: Solv... Open the pod door pls Hal

[Brett Paatsch]

Jacques wrote:

>> > "I believe that X" allows .. [one] to express some degree of
>> > confidence that X holds: nothing more, nothing less.
>> >  If the audience doesn't give a damn about .. [one's] level of
>> > confidence  that X holds, then using this concept is not useful in
>> > that particular situation.
>> >
>> > Thus, it is true that in debates, and if .. [one is] unknown
>> > to  the audience, .. [one] might as well not use that word at all,
>> > and only provide facts and arguments for other people to
>> > consider and form their own belief
>>                                             [#1 !!!!]
>>[Brett]
>> - I think you mean opinion or  judgement here do you not?
>> -or are you in fact inadvertly presuming the outcome of our
>> inquiry 
>> - I think that may make my point about the danger of the
>> belief meme - .i.e. if *you* can't hold the-matter-under-
>> inquiry (belief) separate  from the inquiry process itself !!
>> (No criticism of you - I think the belief meme critter is really
>> that slippery - especially for those who think it is harmless).
>>
>> > But that is not a problem with the word "belief". It is
>> > simply that in this situation, no one cares about [the speaker's
>> > /writer's] "level of confidence".
>>
>> No as I indicate above it is also that the word is used to 
> >prejudice inquiry. It slips past the guard of those that use it.
> > It is a very, very slippery meme. I think it just slipped past
> > your (Jacques') guard above at #1 did it not?
>
> Not, it did not. I am not trying to avoid the use of the word
> "believe", as it seems to me to be (as I said) a perfectly
> well-defined and useful concept.

There is no point my trying to persuade you that (1) it behoves
you to choose not to use the 'belief' word because (2) that 
would be better for us *if* you are *unable* to stop using it 
even for the purposes of exploring that possibility. For all I can
tell from my position you might be *enthralled* to the meme
and I may not be able to do anything to help you. 

Are you *able* to stop using it whilst it is itself the matter at
issue (ie. under our joint exploration)?

Are you *willing* to whilst it is itself the matter at issue 
(ie. under joint exploration)?

If the answer to either of these is no - then there is little I can
do to persuade *you*. 

> What I said above is that in some situations, it may (sic) be
> appropriate to avoid referring  in any way to what you believe,
> and to only provide facts and arguments for other people to
> consider and form their own belief, i.e. so that they form
> some picture of reality in which they put some confidence.

[Please note that "may" above is NOT a judgement on point.]
Is it your present judgement that it can be counterproductive
to use the word 'belief' in some situations then?

> > > Suppose that in such a debate, one guest is a famous 
> > > and respected Nobel Prize [winner]. Her use of "belief"
> > > is going to matter, because people (rightly or wrongly,
> > > doesn't matter here [in this contention]) are interested
> >> in her level of confidence that X holds.
> >
> > So you think that people (generally) make judgements 
> > not on evidence but on the perceived authority of the 
> > presenter ? - On the whole I think this is true but this is 
> > part of my point - It hurts the cause of shared-truth-
> > discovery to encourage this natural human tendency to
> > laziness though. And the Nobel Prize winner does the
> > audience a disservice if she deliberately engages in
> > persuasion by appeal to authority (ie. if she uses
> > the statement 'I believe X') rather than ('the evidence
> > indicates X') by appeal to reason.
>
> I might (sic) agree with this, too, depending on the context.
> If someone's belief is based on evidence and theory that
> he can readily explain, or at least usefully point to, to his
> audience, it's probably better to do that. But it's often
> not possible, and in certain situations, stating .. [one's]
> belief can be a useful thing to do.

["Might" is ambiguous - please resolve the ambiguity by
answering the question] 
Can you make a provisional judgement without labelling
that process a belief (even in your own mind)?

> If I hire Harvey to manage the security of my network,
> and th[en] I hear about some threat, I may tell him: 
> "Harvey, do you believe this threat is a concern for our
> network"? I don't necessarily want him to explicate all 
> the evidence, the experience, the theory, etc. he has. 

I'd keep a watch on that hypothetical Harvey as you 
hired him to secure your network and now it belongs
to both of you. (Just joking. You said 'my' then 'our') 

> ... You are not just arguing about some linguistic thing
> for the sake of linguistics, ....

True. I'm not. 
..

[Jacques  - [] are Brett's]

> >  -- namely that if ..[one is]  in a hostile situation, and
> > .. [one] need[s] to convince people, .. [one] may as 
> > well give up on any explicit belief self-attribution, as 
> > people may seize the occasion to think, "oh, this is just
> > a belief, then".
>
> That is pretty close to my contention yes. Except to push it
> further the *belief* meme is SO SLIPPERY that they may
> not even need to formally think the sentence "oh, this is just
> a belief, then" - they may do that or they may not even be
> *that* aware.
>
> Good. I understood your point then, and I agree with it. Are
> you sure you want to extend it so that I cannot agree? :-)

Actually I let you through with a 'pretty close' and that did
neither of us a service. I should not have let your confounding
(in the sense of confounding the inquiry) use of the word
belief go through. We can't explore 'belief' as a meme until it
is clear than you are at least free enough from it to keep it out 
of the process of exploration itself. 

To answer your question. No I don't want you to not agree 
- I respect your right not to be coerced and I hope to persuade
you one free mind to another. 

What I want is to get your agreement that (a) belief is a word
that is harmful (at least sometimes would probably do -and
I think you and I are at that point already - by your comment
below #2). (b) belief is a word that can *always* be replaced
by you with no loss of ability to communicate should you so
choose. (I don't see that you agree with this point yet). And
therefore (c) you should freely choose not  to use it in the
interests of better communication and to avoid propagating a
bad meme that competes with the reasoning meme and is 
harmful to both of us. 

Finally (d) if I can persuade you, I'd like you to pass the 
innoculation service on to someone you respect at the 
appropriate time. Eventually it may be possible for even 
the least experienced meme-warriors amongst us to look
at any towering ediface of baloney and spot the weaknesses
by the conspicuous 'hanging thread' use of  'belief'-meme. Then
we may home in on that weakness without having to worry 
about hitting a mis-guided friendly talking loosely and allowing
the BS-artists and enthrallers to hide behind our desire not to
hit our friends.   That's pretty much what I want.

(#2  ? ) [Jacques]
> > > I can also agree that when bringing new ideas (like
> > > transhumanist ideas) into society, we may often find
> > > ourselves in such situations, and hence it may (sic)
> > > sometimes be preferable to avoid the use of "belief".

> Now to answer your question, yes, I can think of instances
> when it should be used, and instances when it should not be
>  used. I gave above  examples of the former (asking my
> security expert, "do you believe this threat should be a 
> concern  to us?") and of the latter (useless to talk about 
> your beliefs qua beliefs if the audience doesn't give a 
> damn about the level of confidence with w[h]ich you think 
> that something holds).

The example you gave was NOT good. You could have
used alternate words. You could (presuming you are not
en-thralled to the belief meme) have also said: 

"Harvey, do you [see] this threat [a]s a concern for our
 network"? 

Or if you didn't like "see". "Perceive". Harvey might understand
posit very well but not regard it as a better word than "see" or 
"perceive". Even if you get the desired outcome from Harvey
using "believe" that wouldn't mean that you had chosen well
not to use another word like 'see' or 'perceive'. Because in 
using those words instead you would not be propagating the
believing meme and getting you and hypothetical Harvey 
over-comfortable with a way of speaking that might one day
trip you and him or both of you up. And I think you have
agreed that sometime the belief-word can trip folks up.


> You seem to be making a confusion between two things,
> the belief on one hand, and on the other hand the way it was
> formed, and what it is based on.

On the contrary I am concerned with the ramifications of the
propagation of the view that believing as opposed to reasoning
is a better way of operating in a social and *political* world where
believers and reasoners get one vote each. By using belief as a 
word you unnecessarily propagate it as a meme. To the extent
that the rest of your discourse is sensible you give intellectual 
credit by association to the belief-meme to others who are not
yet fully innoculated against it. 

> The fact that some people have silly beliefs is far from being a
> sufficient reason to discard the concept of belief, which is
> actually  absolutely essential.

You have not demonstrated that it is essential. 

I think I have shown to your satisfaction that sometimes its use
is harmful. The only reason I am not sure I have shown that
is because you prefix your sentences with 'may' or 'might' 
rather than make a provisional judgement - at least so far. 
 
> In fact, it's exactly the same with trust. Trusting some guru 
> that you should commit suicide to see the light is bad. Does
> that make trust a bad thing? Of course not. Trust may be a 
> very good thing. And it's necessary in many circumstances,
> we couldn't do much without it. Trust in the others, trust in
> oneself. You just need the trust to be based on something solid,
> or else it's risky. Same with belief.

Your conception of trust differs from mine too. But your concept
of trust is less dangerously propagated than the belief-meme. 
 
> > Please demonstrate your contention that the word belief is
> > useful by giving an instance where you think it better (than 
> > any alternate word) conveys meaning between people.
> 
> I believe I did that above in a way that should match your
> expectation. If not, tell me more precisely what you want 
> and I will try to deliver.

I know you did not do that for the reasons I gave. 

> Let me add one thing, to make my point even more clear: 
> every time you say "I think that X", you may feel safer 
> and more rational by refering to thought rather than to 
> belief, but  what you really mean is actually that you 
> *believe*  that X.  

This is a little worrying. This is the implication of "believers"
everywhere. That they can only believe and so that is all
that is available to everyone else as well. This is part of what
makes believing as a meme so dangerous. Reasoners invites
the other to look at what is unsettled between them. Believers
(and bs-artists) make unsupported assertions and act on their
beliefs and try to get others too. By using their word you 
actually help them. 

> What else could you mean? 

If you stop using the word belief whilst we step through
the arguments together you may be able to see what I mean.
 
> But again, I understood your original point about avoid this
> word in certain situations, and I agree with it.

I am not yet convinced that you did understand it. Perhaps
you will (or do). Perhaps you don't and wont. Perhaps you
can. Perhaps you can't. 

Regards,
Brett