Beliefs have Hair

[luckyme]

Many viewpoints seem semantically derived. The most familiar one is the semantically induced Thinker in “I think, therefore I am.” A cousin of the ID fallacy.

There is a semantic element in the way we refer to beliefs. Because we can often state what we conclude the reality of a situation to be, we refer to it as ‘having a belief that X is true’. We then impose the semantics of the ‘have’ statement on the reality of the situation and are left with the concept that somebody ‘has’ belief X, similar to how they have a left arm or cross-eyes.

If you ask my girlfriend who she believes has the best chance to win the WSOP she’ll say “ Phil Ivey, ‘cause he has that lucky ring.” I may say “Phil Ivey. He has the best combo of technique, temperament and experience.”

We say “Debbie has the belief that Phil Ivey is the most likely winner.’
“Luckyme has the belief that Phil Ivey is the most likely winner.”
“Therefore they have the same belief.”

But beliefs have hair. ( wheeler claimed black holes were constructually indistinguishable). Unlike Wheeler black holes, beliefs have long tangled manes that are inseparable from the belief because the belief is formed from them. They are the belief.

Another approach : If X = Y then X –1 = Y – 1.

Yet, if Debbie and Luckyme both are told “Phil lost his ring.” Debbie no longer extracts the “Ivey will likely win belief” but Luckyme still does. Why? They never were the same beliefs. Different Hair all along.

There are two issues above.
What we mean by 'having a belief'.
What we mean by 'having the same belief'.

[bunny]

I would still say that you had the same belief, just that Debbie had now changed her belief.

I dont think this is contrary to how we use the word usually - I'm sure if you asked her she would say that she used to believe he would win but now doesnt believe it. I think you have the same belief but a different reason for believing it.

Do you think the distinction holds if you and I both believe that pythagoras' theorem is true in a particular geometry if we have both seen different proofs? The consequences of our beliefs are identical (mathematically at least)

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is contrary to how we use the word usually

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but because we always say "the sun rises in the morning." doesn't mean the sun is doing that. ( some version of that is one of my points ;-)

So, I told the guys I believed Phil would win and they all laughed and , "Yep, you and debbie, ho-ho, roflmao...".
"Hold it, you jerks, I don't believe the same thing Debbie does ... yadda yadda."

Are you saying I don't have a valid claim to NOT having the same belief Debbie does?

[bunny]

I think you both have the belief he will win. I think she believes his watch is the reason he will win and you dont share that belief - you have a different belief that the reason he will win is because he is the best (or whatever).

[vhawk01]

Bunny, I think you might be ending the sentence too early. Neither of you believe he will win. You believe he will win because of X. She believes he will win because of Y. These are different beliefs. You can't just end the sentence three words early and call them the same thing.

[madnak]

This is getting semantic. I agree that beliefs depend on their context. Bunny's belief in God isn't the same as Peter666's belief in God, clearly. At the same time, they both believe in God. How to represent this distinction linguistically is, in my opinion, not very relevant.

The OP makes a point that those in the same "camp" may believe what they believe for completely different reasons. I've always thought it much less important what a person believes than why they believe it. But many people seem to judge based solely on the "output."

[dogsbestfriend06]

That seems like a rather long-winded way to say that the same conclusion does not imply the same basis/assumptions. To which, the natural response should be "no [censored], sherlock."

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
That seems like a rather long-winded way to say that the same conclusion does not imply the same basis/assumptions. To which, the natural response should be "no [censored], sherlock."

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, maybe this pertains to this example specifically and isn't a very important point, but I don't think the two 'beliefs' in the OP ARE the same conclusion. I think the idea that they both think Ivey would win are the same side-effect of two wholly different beliefs. But I will admit that I may be arguing semantics at this point.

[Andrew Karpinski]

And blackholes don't...

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP makes a point that those in the same "camp" may believe what they believe for completely different reasons. I've always thought it much less important what a person believes than why they believe it. But many people seem to judge based solely on the "output."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more like 'beliefs are their context'.
Debbie sees a red fire truck go by ( or thinks she does).
Robbie sees a red Harley go by.

In our 'the sun rises' way of expressing things we may well state "they both believe something red went by." and, if I remember Chez's test, they'd both bet on it.

But in reality ( unlike in our semantic world) neither has a hairless belief that "something red went by." If we said "visualize what you saw."
Neither would visualize 'something red going by'.
Debbie would visualize a truck. Robbie a Harley.
If they took a picture as it went by, we wouldn't claim they have the same picture if one was a red truck and the other was a red harley.

I agree that it's rarely more valuable 'what' and the critical part is the 'why', but I seem to be claiming that the 'what' doesn't even exist in this case because most beliefs aren't hairless and don't become so just because we say "the sun rises", or "something red went by."
[ QUOTE ]
This is getting semantic. I agree that beliefs depend on their context. Bunny's belief in God isn't the same as Peter666's belief in God, clearly. At the same time, they both believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]
We say " they both believe in God" but since the god refered to is not the same one ( because he has different characteristics) then it would be an equivocation fallacy to claim they have the same belief in this case. In the 'red' case, we can grant that they both have the same understanding of 'red'.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny, I think you might be ending the sentence too early. Neither of you believe he will win. You believe he will win because of X. She believes he will win because of Y. These are different beliefs. You can't just end the sentence three words early and call them the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they believe each of these things as well. The trouble with your argument is that it is arbitrary where you end the sentence. You may say luckyme believe he will win because he is the best player. I could then require you to extend to "and the best player will win" and then to "and he wont suffer a heart attack before the event" and ... you get the idea.

In my view there are a bunch of statements we can make which all paint an incomplete picture of the world. We believe some but dont believe others. I think the "He will win statement" is one they both believe "He will win because of X" is a different statement that debbie believes and luckyme doesnt. "He will win because of Y" is a third statement that luckyme believes and debbie doesnt. I dont see why this conception is problematic.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In my view there are a bunch of statements we can make which all paint an incomplete picture of the world. We believe some but dont believe others. I think the "He will win statement" is one they both believe "He will win because of X" is a different statement that debbie believes and luckyme doesnt. "He will win because of Y" is a third statement that luckyme believes and debbie doesnt. I dont see why this conception is problematic.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that neither of them holds the belief we claim they do, or even that they claim they do.
I like apples, so I like something red.
Hortense likes strawberries, so he likes something red.
"They both like something red, therefore they have the same like."
But neither of them liked 'something' red. Their likes have Hair, there are distinguishing features of them, we can tell them apart, therefore they aren't the same 'like' in reality even though we can truthfully state " they both like something red". We can't impose semantics on reality.
I don't know why this isn't unanimous ;-)

[bunny]

*shrug* I think they do both like something red - I also cant see why it isnt unanimous /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Perhaps instead of "they have the same like" I would say "they have a like in common, though they have other likes that are different".

I dont see this as any different to saying he's 6 foot 10 and he's six foot eleven - they are both tall. Here, there are a variety of ways of satisfying the tall criteria, similarly there are a variety of ways of satisfying the "likes something red" criteria.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont see this as any different to saying he's 6 foot 10 and he's six foot eleven - they are both tall.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try this on, see if it helps me.
Claiming 'they have the same belief' is like claiming "they are the same height".
"Tall" is a fuzzy, generalization and nobody in reality has that height ( "tall").
"Are they the same height?"
"Yes, they are both tall"

not perfect but it has a useful ring to it.

[dogsbestfriend06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That seems like a rather long-winded way to say that the same conclusion does not imply the same basis/assumptions. To which, the natural response should be "no [censored], sherlock."

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, maybe this pertains to this example specifically and isn't a very important point, but I don't think the two 'beliefs' in the OP ARE the same conclusion. I think the idea that they both think Ivey would win are the same side-effect of two wholly different beliefs. But I will admit that I may be arguing semantics at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ivey will win because A & B.

Ivey will win because C & D.

Are you suggesting these may imply different beliefs? I'll reiterate "no [censored], sherlock."

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bunny, I think you might be ending the sentence too early. Neither of you believe he will win. You believe he will win because of X. She believes he will win because of Y. These are different beliefs. You can't just end the sentence three words early and call them the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they believe each of these things as well. The trouble with your argument is that it is arbitrary where you end the sentence. You may say luckyme believe he will win because he is the best player. I could then require you to extend to "and the best player will win" and then to "and he wont suffer a heart attack before the event" and ... you get the idea.

In my view there are a bunch of statements we can make which all paint an incomplete picture of the world. We believe some but dont believe others. I think the "He will win statement" is one they both believe "He will win because of X" is a different statement that debbie believes and luckyme doesnt. "He will win because of Y" is a third statement that luckyme believes and debbie doesnt. I dont see why this conception is problematic.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good post. I agree with this, and this is a much better and more complete way of looking at it than my quoted post.