[extropy-chat] Should we drop the "believe" word/concept/behaviour

[JDP]

(Was: Re: [extropy-chat] HISTORY:  Solv... Open the pod door pls Hal)

To clear up some potential mess and "home in on the nub" some more: if I 
speak of "believe", it will be the word; if I speak of <believe>, it 
will be the concept; if I speak of believing, it will be the behaviour. 
And if I want to use the <meme> concept, I will speak of the belief meme 
(whether this is the most fruitful concept to use we will see in the 
discussion). Sorry for <> which is slightly non standard, but we need 
adequate tools for this kind of linguistic stuff.

Also, I will kindly ask you not to modify my quotes, as quotes are, 
well, quotes. Feel free to comment however you like, but please leave 
what I said as I said it.


Brett Paatsch wrote:

 >> > 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)?


Yes, I am able to avoid to use the word.


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


OK, I will avoid using the word, except when talking about it on 
purpose. But, depending on what we talk about, I may still use the 
<believe> concept (identical to <having some confidence that something 
holds>), by using the clumsy synonyms you ask me to use instead (see "it 
is your judgement that" below). And, needless to say, I will keep 
believing some things (behaviour), i.e. having some confidence that some 
things hold.

Also, as your goal is for me to stop using this word, and as I contend 
this is not desirable, I cannot just stop using it without further ado, 
which would by complying with what I don't want. So, I will abstain from 
using the word for the time being to let you see that it is under my 
control, but I will add an asterisk(*), so that people reading this 
understand there is something weird and this is not what I would 
normally say.


 >> 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?


It is my judgement(*) that using "belief", and consequently the 
<believe> concept, is counter-productive in some propositions and some 
situations, yes. I will add that I can imagine, for ANY word/concept, 
propositions and situations in which it is counter-productive to use them.


 >> > > 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)?


I can if I do a hypothesis, yes.

But not otherwise.

Hypothesis is the only form of "judgement" (which I wouldn't call 
judgmeent, but, precisely, "hypothesis") that I can make without 
labelling it a belief in my own mind, because I cannot judge something 
to be true without having some confidence that it is true. It makes no 
sense if you are mentally healthy.


 >> 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')


It's a common trick of owners to suggest the company belongs to their 
employees, too ;-)


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


Good. Then there is a stake, at least for you, which is a good thing to 
have when one spends time arguing.


 >[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).


Agreed. Like any word/concept in some propositions and situations. So 
you should really reframe your initial advice not as linked to a 
particular word, but as: when expressing transhumanist ideas to new 
people, do not insist on the confidence you have in your visions, but 
provide evidence and facts that will influence people's judgments(*). I 
understand you mean much more than that, though, and I don't agree.


 > (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).


Any word can always be replaced by a synonym or a synonymous phrase. The 
important point here is that we cannot, and should not, dispense with 
the <believe> concept.


 > 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.


It's easy for you to see above how my restrictions on your premises make 
this conclusion false to me.


 >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.


I do and will spread the habit of questioning one's beliefs, and of 
basing one's beliefs on a good base, not the habit of using clumsy 
synonyms to "belief". ["belief" used on purpose in this sentence as this 
is what I am talking about]


 >(#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".


It's obvious enough that "see" and "perceive" are used here in a 
metaphorical way (or "abstracted" way) to mean something else, which, I 
contend, is the <believe> concept, for which the word "belief" is the 
most natural choice. "See" and "perceive" literaly refer to perception 
through sense organs, which is not what I want to express to Harvey.

So, this only makes sense if one judges(*) the WORD should be avoided at 
all costs, while still recognizing that the concept expressed by that 
word can and must often be used. This seems incoherent with what you 
suggested above, when you said "without labelling it in your own mind", 
which seems to refer to concept rather than word.

So, is your contention only about avoiding the word, while you recognize 
that the concept expressed by this word is useful in some propositions, 
and that the behaviour that it denotes is useful in some situations?


 > 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.


What I think is true here, is that you may be better off asking your 
security expert some kind of justification, rather than treating him 
like an oracle. But this is because the trust in his abilities, rigor, 
vigilance, honesty, etc., is limited. It is not useful otherwise. And 
using "believe" or "perceive" doesn't change anything, you have to ask 
him a report instead of just asking him his conclusion.


 >> 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.


I am sorry to say that you do make the previously mentioned confusion, 
or let us say "fusion" to use a neutral word. There is no opposition 
between reasoning and believing. A sound belief is the product of a good 
reasoning. That's how the concepts articulate. Belief and reasoning are 
not alternative, they are different stages of the process.

You can reason all you want, if you don't end up *believing* [used on 
purpose] something, then you will never DO anything. Belief is the way 
propositions make people do things. It is the vital connection between 
propositions and people. No belief, no behaviour.

Belief is a central behaviour (not really the right word, let's say 
mental state), <belief> is thus a central concept, and there is only one 
word reserved in the language to denote/express them, and that word is 
"belief".


 > By using belief as a
 >word you unnecessarily propagate it as a meme.


Do you promote buying stupid things by buying what you buy, and by 
saying it with the word "buy"? SHould we stop using the word "buy" to 
avoid people to buy stupid things? SHould we rather say: "Honey, did you 
exchange some of your money with some bread this morning?" Your 
suggestion seems as reasonable as this to me.


 >> 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.


This is a new evidence that you are not clear about whether you speak of 
the WORD "belief" or the CONCEPT <belief>. Please clarify.


 >> 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 tell me what you think is false in my account of trust in the 
previous paragraph.


 >> 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.


This is yet another evidence that you are unclear about whether it is 
the word or the concept (and the behaviour that correspond to it) you 
have a problem with.

To sum up:

If you are talking about the concept and the behaviour, then yes, 
obviously in some circumstances it is not what is required. If I ask 
Helmut (I figure Harvey might get tired to be in our argument :-)): 
"What makes you think that this is not a threat", and he answers, 
"Because I believe so", then this is not what is desired in the 
situation. Likewise for other situations / propositions, and it may 
possibly make sense to talk about such things, and give persuasion 
advice and such.

If you are talking about the word, thinking it's bad because it 
"reinforces the belief meme", meaning by this the beliefs based on thin 
air, in particular the belief in God, then my answer is that 1) I 
judge(*) this effect is not real except in some situations (discussions 
on this list being no such situation), 2) we need the concept, we have 
one word in our languages reserved for that meaning slot, and it is not 
desirable to remove the word, even on an individual and voluntary basis.


 >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.


And they say *I* am arrogant... :-)


Jacques