On Nov 18, 10:49 am, kedra marbun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 18, 8:04 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 17, 6:57 pm, kedra marbun <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 17, 8:26 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Take a dream for example. You can believe that you are > > > > late for a train when in fact there is no evidence, no memory, no > > > > perception, no testimony, etc. I think that belief is part of the > > > > phenomenology of cognition, just a relatively fixed semantic > > > > orientation from which thought can be projected out from. The belief > > > > in the dream train is implicit as your feelings of anxiety and > > > > thoughts of racing to catch it, disappointment in missing it, etc are > > > > the active sensorimotive experiences. > > > > isn't this an example of psychologically caused belief? > > > How can you tell the difference subjectively, and why would it matter? > > well for this particular case i simply deduce it from your premises > 1. "no evidence, no memory, no perception, no testimony, etc" > 2. "The belief in the dream train is implicit as your feelings of > anxiety and thoughts of racing to catch it, disappointment in missing > it, etc". i take it as desire
That wouldn't be subjective, it would be omniscient and voyeuristic. The subject doesn't know the cause of the belief or even that there is a belief necessarily. > > but, as i've already said i see your point that causality of belief is > complex That's not really my point though. My point is that causality of belief is irrelevant. > > but, classifying the methods in which beliefs are formed & in which > justifying evidences are acquired, into at least reliable & not, is > important because otherwise i'd not be able to differentiate between > evidentialism & reliabilism Focusing on belief formation and reliability may obscure the truth about belief as much as it reveals. Once we understand that belief can and does manifest spontaneously in hindsight, with no evidence or reliability, we can see it as a sense phenomenon and it's epistemology is self-authoritative. The task then becomes understanding how sense works, and how factual experience can be derived through fiction. Evidentialism & reliabilism to me are just two different forms of pattern recognition, no more valid than intuition, perception, emotion, etc. depending on the context. > > i think an easy way out of this discussion is presenting your > interpretations of the 2 ism, particulary the definition of 'evidence' > according to evidentialism Which 2 ism? I think that defining terms in linguistic accord with a theory is (sorry) a waste of time. I'm really only interested in reality. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
