When does thought transition to belief?

[Mr Walker]

9 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I think Jay would do circles around you on any given day or era when it comes to charming women, based off this post.

And, I don’t think you would need to make up a whole lot about his life. 

I would have to, as he just said that the  true details are not for publication   

Believe as you will.

At any given age in our lives I think we would have had more similarities than differences, although he is more naturally practical than i, who was forced into learning many practical skills while running a small farm.  He is one of the posters here i most  admire and respect even though we disagree on many things.  i suspect we are both basically country boys, with the skills and experiences one has to gain while living in the country 

I like his personal  style and  approach to debate.

I would think he would have  been a great help when i was stripping down and repairing farm machinery or windmills,  shearing, fencing, and putting in water systems on the small farms we owned  .  

Edited September 12, 2019 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

19 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

He never suggested that my life consisted of imagined adventures at all.

If he has a point, it is that I  am glad I lived my life fully and vicariously, and even dangerously at  times.

It DOES  give me something to look back on as I get too old  for such physical feats  as abseiling, cave exploration, and a variety of sports  

However i continue to face and enjoy new challenges every day.

Most are not as strenuous as they once were, but  they keep my mind active and young.   (and are often part of my life with younger people, from kids to young adults) 

 

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The bolded bit is your belief and your opinion.  It happens to be wrong   It is just as real as you are .

All the rest of your criticism follows from  your  disbelief that this is possible.

What is real is real.

While we establish reality personally, from evidences, those evidences are usually not transferable.

And one person cant really prove anything to another who was not there at the time

I would really love to have you have such an experience where all the evidences proved it was real to you, but you couldn't convince anyone else it happened     

I can be convinced with evidence, the problem is you don’t have it because it s a woo story that you believe/ think is reality. 

But, this is not news to you.

I think we have invested enough time on this topic. Moving on.

[+Sherapy]

23 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I would have to, as he just said that the  true details are not for publication   

Believe as you will.

At any given age in our lives I think we would have had more similarities than differences, although he is more naturally practical than i, who was forced into learning many practical skills while running a small farm.  He is one of the posters here i most  admire and respect even though we disagree on many things.  i suspect we are both basically country boys, with the skills and experiences one has to gain while living in the country 

I like his personal  style and  approach to debate.

I would think he would have  been a great help when i was stripping down and repairing farm machinery or windmills,  shearing, fencing, and putting in water systems on the small farms we owned  .  

Glad you like him, we all do. 

[eight bits]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

A person is innocent until proven guilty.

No. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. A presumption in law is similar to a working assumption. A proof in law might be any sort of evidence. In context, the phrase is discussing sufficient proof to defeat the presumption, that is, the prosecution's burden to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Note also that the presumption doesn't imply that the accused person is treated just the same as a non-accused person. The accused might be confined in a jail awaiting trial, or if released, there might be conditions on that release (bail, but also things like prohibitions against associating with certain people or drinking, loss of passport or driver's license,  ...).

Those restrictions, by the way, are also examples of trade-offs. The purpose of preventing the state from infringing somebody's liberty based on mere accusation conflicts with the purpose that the accused show up at trial. So, some infringement is practiced, despite the presumption.

By misquoting the principle, you have substantially changed its meaning.  Tsk, tsk.

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

No. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. A presumption in law is similar to a working assumption. A proof in law might be any sort of evidence. In context, the phrase is discussing sufficient proof to defeat the presumption, that is, the prosecution's burden to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Note also that the presumption doesn't imply that the accused person is treated just the same as a non-accused person. The accused might be confined in a jail awaiting trial, or if released, there might be conditions on that release (bail, but also things like prohibitions against associating with certain people or drinking, loss of passport or driver's license,  ...).

Those restrictions, by the way, are also examples of trade-offs. The purpose of preventing the state from infringing somebody's liberty based on mere accusation conflicts with the purpose that the accused show up at trial. So, some infringement is practiced, despite the presumption.

By misquoting the principle, you have substantially changed its meaning.  Tsk, tsk.

The point was related to law and discussion of our legal system not whether a person is actually innocent or guilty   In law  a man is not guilty until proven so. Thus he is innocent in law (although not necessarily  in actuality)

Presumption merely refers to the  legal necessity of choice, of either presuming a person guilty or not guilty and  the  western legal system (unlke say the Chinese) goes with presumption of innocence   

Originally most  charged people WERE allowed to be free until trial and this is still often the case  but in modern societies, with their complexity and social anonymity, this can create problems, so the laws were adapted to allow people to be held both without charge for a time, and also without trial.

i didn't misquote the principle I used it within the context of the law A person IS innocent (in law)  and presumed so, until the y are found guilty.  

and yes because the presumption is of innocence, guilt must be proven..

In some legal systems guilt is presumed once a person is charged, and they must prove themselves innocent.  eg in France 95% of people charged with a crime are found guilty. In china the rate may be even higher, because once a person is charged, the presumption is of guilt 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Mr Walker

[+Liquid Gardens]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Nothing in your post said you KNEW the film was faked and i dont think you  could have Thus you gained no new knowledge 

False.  I gained the knowledge of Patterson's background.  Just a heads-up, this stuff is very straightforward and uncomplicated.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I maintain that knowledge cant change a belief although it may inform one. 

Of course it can change a belief; that's exactly what happens in, and is the purpose of, both the scientific method and law.  You are using a very weak tense of 'inform' if this 'informing' can't actually change anything, essentially you are saying that since it can't change a belief that it is irrelevant.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

That is because beliefs are constructed and maintained when there IS no knowledge

Not 'are', you mean 'can be'.  Again, you are getting confused because you are just using 'belief' and 'knowledge' in isolation, specify what is being believed and what is 'known' when you type it out and maybe it will help you understand.

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

In law  a man is not guilty until proven so. Thus he is innocent in law (although not necessarily  in actuality)

That is a blatant false dichotomy. The opposite of guilty is not innocent, but the much more expansive situation of being not guilty (of some specified offense), and in some jurisdictions, the prefered phrase is not proven guilty (again, of some specific offense).

Innocence is the province of infants and the mentally challenged.

Thank your shiny gods that we don't live under systems where somebody must be innocent in order to avoid punishment.

(ETA: Yes, as stated in the first of my posts of this series, I am discussing "English" systems of civilian criminal law. Since the original issue between us was your explanation of your hopefully hypothetical vote as a juror in an "English" system, that seemed to me to be the relevant kind of system to discuss.)

Edited September 12, 2019 by eight bits

[XenoFish]

Congratulations folks. Another Walker thread.

[Aquila King]

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

That is a blatant false dichotomy. The opposite of guilty is not innocent

I'm becoming ever more convinced that the most common fallacy of mankind is having a black and white view of the world.

[Mr Walker]

On 9/12/2019 at 10:24 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

False.  I gained the knowledge of Patterson's background.  Just a heads-up, this stuff is very straightforward and uncomplicated.

Of course it can change a belief; that's exactly what happens in, and is the purpose of, both the scientific method and law.  You are using a very weak tense of 'inform' if this 'informing' can't actually change anything, essentially you are saying that since it can't change a belief that it is irrelevant.

Not 'are', you mean 'can be'.  Again, you are getting confused because you are just using 'belief' and 'knowledge' in isolation, specify what is being believed and what is 'known' when you type it out and maybe it will help you understand.

I see it differently. I can see your pov but don't agree with it. I   cant see how the knowledge you gained about the film makers actions could  change your belief in bigfoots existence.  But i believe that you believe it did    The way i see it is this  You had no more knowledge about  either big foots existence or the filmmakers honesty, so you cant claim that any knowledge changed your belief. It was your new  beliefs about the filmmakers intent which changed  your old beliefs but you had no knowldge to inform that change 

[Mr Walker]

On 9/12/2019 at 10:40 PM, eight bits said:

That is a blatant false dichotomy. The opposite of guilty is not innocent, but the much more expansive situation of being not guilty (of some specified offense), and in some jurisdictions, the prefered phrase is not proven guilty (again, of some specific offense).

Innocence is the province of infants and the mentally challenged.

Thank your shiny gods that we don't live under systems where somebody must be innocent in order to avoid punishment.

(ETA: Yes, as stated in the first of my posts of this series, I am discussing "English" systems of civilian criminal law. Since the original issue between us was your explanation of your hopefully hypothetical vote as a juror in an "English" system, that seemed to me to be the relevant kind of system to discuss.)

In law it is black and white The opposite of guilty is innocent and if one is found to be either he cannot be the other (in law) The reality is not always discovered or got correct by the law  A person may be guilty in fact, but is not so. in law. if found innocent 

innocence is the state you are presumed to be in( and thus ARE in) according to law, until proven guilty 

 I believe that UNLESS a person is innocent, he or she should reap the consequences of their guilt

This should also apply to law, and generally does so.

But in law  (except for a few specialised areas) a person must be proven guilty before they can be punished    I think we DO live in a legal system   where a person must be proven guilty to be punished and cannot  be punished if found to be innocent  

[Mr Walker]

On 9/13/2019 at 2:49 AM, Aquila King said:

I'm becoming ever more convinced that the most common fallacy of mankind is having a black and white view of the world.

My  wife would argue tha t our greatest failing is NOT having enough of  a black and white view. She often tells me i see things in too many shades of grey. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You had no more knowledge about  either big foots existence or the filmmakers honesty,

I had knowledge concerning the question, 'is the filmmaker honest'.  It's called 'motive', and is knowledge that changes beliefs all the time in courts.

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

so you cant claim that any knowledge changed your belief. It was your new  beliefs about the filmmakers intent which changed  your old beliefs but you had no knowldge to inform that change 

False.  Knowledge increased my belief that the filmmaker may not be honest, and that belief change concerning the filmmaker's honesty increased my belief that the film is not real, which changed my belief that Bigfoot actually exists.  None of that occurs without knowledge, and clearly informs every belief change along the way.  This is so basic.

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I can see your pov but don't agree with it.

I can see that your pov is inconsistent with how these terms are used in law, science, and philosophy, as well as in general conversation, so I'm pretty satisfied with the lack of foundation for your disagreement.  This is more of the absurd ones I have to note, I guess it's at least always interesting though to gain another piece of evidence against the idea that your reality checkers always operate properly, which affects other beliefs I have about other claims of yours.

[quiXilver]

Naive Realism is a tough one to let go of...

That deep seeded propensity to assume one's perceptions are the accurate, whole picture of reality and not the slim reflection of an interpretation of a partially glimpsed corner of what exists.

[Mr Walker]

19 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I had knowledge concerning the question, 'is the filmmaker honest'.  It's called 'motive', and is knowledge that changes beliefs all the time in courts.

False.  Knowledge increased my belief that the filmmaker may not be honest, and that belief change concerning the filmmaker's honesty increased my belief that the film is not real, which changed my belief that Bigfoot actually exists.  None of that occurs without knowledge, and clearly informs every belief change along the way.  This is so basic.

I can see that your pov is inconsistent with how these terms are used in law, science, and philosophy, as well as in general conversation, so I'm pretty satisfied with the lack of foundation for your disagreement.  This is more of the absurd ones I have to note, I guess it's at least always interesting though to gain another piece of evidence against the idea that your reality checkers always operate properly, which affects other beliefs I have about other claims of yours.

You see i dont consider that to be knowledge. but opinion or belief  You offered no evidence that the filmmaker WAS dishonest  You IMPUTED a motive, which he may or may ot have actually had 

 However I am prepared to concede that, on your terms, you are correct 

It goes like this  A person with no knowledge can have no beliefs. But as we accrue some knowldge we use that to build beliefs, where  the knoldge is inadequate As we gain more knowledge it shapes what we believe (about what we do not know) 

However i continue to maintain that one can not  simultaneously hold knowledge, and a belief construct pertaining to that knowledge. Ie once you KNOW something, you cant believe in it or disbelieve in it 

One can only use knowledge to alter  a belief that lies outside  what we know  

Which terms are you referring to ?

 justified true belief is often substituted for knowledge. I only accept what we know from personal  experience  as actual knowledge ,not what is a justified true belief.

There is a lot of opinion on both sides of that argument

 A belief  (including disbelief) is a construct of the mind created for a purpose, such as explaining an unknown and unknowable thing, or to give us comfort and security.

Such a belief (or disbelief) can not logically be constructed and maintained, once we have knowledge pertaining to the question.  ie once you truly know anything you can no longer believe in it nor disbelieve in it. 

(Thus, if you KNEW the film maker was dishonest, you could not believe in him  nor disbelieve in him ) 

Maybe i am missing something, but in your posts you didn't offer or claim any actual knowledge about the film makers intent or honesty. You based this on opinion and belief.   Another  person might have come to an entirely different opinion in the same circumstances,   BECAUSE there was no actual knowledge  

Edited September 15, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

15 hours ago, quiXilver said:

Naive Realism is a tough one to let go of...

That deep seeded propensity to assume one's perceptions are the accurate, whole picture of reality and not the slim reflection of an interpretation of a partially glimpsed corner of what exists.

We are evolved to rely on a very accurate perception of reality  for our survival.

It is not perfect, but if it wasn't very good we could not survive in the environment around us.

Modern people don't really learn to look carefully, or think deeply about their environment,  because their survival no longer depends on doing so.

But we remain capable of learning to have almost perfect observation and perception of our environment. Our eyes and other sensory  organs, and our minds, are evolved for that purpose,    to give us the best chance for survival

[quiXilver]

this arises as one of my current beliefs. 

a thing is more precious, having been broken and healed/repaired with skill and care.

 

 

Kintsugi, or kintsukuroi:  to repair pottery with precious metals.

interpretation:  upon being repaired, the once broken piece/human is experienced/recognized as more precious having been broken and repaired/healed with skill and care, than it would have been, had it never been broken at all.

 

 

This conversation has been percolating steadily in the underlayment of awareness since it started.  I'm deeply grateful for everyone who has taken their time to share... contentious or not, matters not, I only seek authenticity.  And I find it here, in abundance.  *bow of repect* to all.

Recently, (this morning), kintsukuroi, rang out in awareness like a bell ringing... this image arose as an example of one of my current remaining beliefs... when most others have dwindled or dissolved over the years.

 

kintsukuroi from the moment I first encountered it has been a steady analogy i've identified with through the process of the last eight years of life.  Life filled with extremes, loss of both parents, over a dozen friends, more lost marriages, more than one friend uncovering/discovering molestation of their children... two close calls with my own death.  passing and reviving half dozen times over the course of a week last year alone.  And the complete and utter spiritual/mental/physical collapse of my wife of thirty years upon the remembering of long repressed, extreme childhood trauma.

 

My wife has since recovered.  Some of my friends have not.  I have been foundationally altered in the experience of sharing in the trauma of my friends and those I love most intimately.

 

In my wife's case. the transformation is so complete, it shakes my paradigm.  Caterpillar to Butterfly.

What is there in the caterpillar, that lends any notion to the butterfly it will become?

 

Her resilience now, having processed, accepted and ultimately let go of, her traumatic experiences have rendered a human who now, radiates a simple shining joyful embracing of anything life may bring, be it welcome, or uncomfortable.

 

Her broken bits, now shine with her resilient processing of an understanding that the universe does not happen to her, but through her.  She dances through life in a manner that was not possible before the 'breaking'.

 

Reflected in this, is me.  Through her.  Through my instinctive love of her and my full acceptance of her, (even when she felt she had to leave in order to find peace).  Reflected in this is me, broken and shattered, yet in time, with care and some skill... healed and present.  Aware.  and more connected now, after enduring and experiencing all that has transpired...

 

it's all more precious.

 

even the most simple, mundane moment... shines with preciousness as never before...

 

as I type this, she sits opposite our 13 year old son, working out the criteria of an english assignment... she reading as he rests his head on his arm in homework despair.

 

To have this... this one simple, real, boring moment... is a gift beyond measure.

Would I have this experience of appreciation had I not been through the process of breaking and dissolution.

I believe not.

 

and this belief, is welcome and one of the few that endures, in spite of all life has expressed around, and through me.

 

peace and love to you all

 

this is it

what else?

 

[quiXilver]

Quote

There is a crack... a crack... in everything.
That's how the Light gets in...

Leonard Cohen

 

when notions are shattered...

where the cracks develop...

the light seeps in

 

or it spills out

 

either manner of perceiving...

it seems it's in the cracks comes the light

from the cracks in the assumed

spills the light of what lay beneath notice/awareness before...

Edited September 15, 2019 by quiXilver
eliminated a spellin goblin

[quiXilver]

ring the bells, that still can ring.

forget... your 'perfect offering'.

there is a crack, in everything.

that's how the light gets in...

[+Sherapy]

On 9/13/2019 at 6:12 PM, Mr Walker said:

My  wife would argue tha t our greatest failing is NOT having enough of  a black and white view. She often tells me i see things in too many shades of grey. 

Tell her on UM, you are consistently, dependably, and committed to only black and white. 

For ex: because you believe that a pillar of light talks and performs magic doesn’t qualify you as a thinker who thinks in shades of grey. what you do well is redefine the wheel and then try and persuade us your perception is reality, 15 years you have used this strategy to no avail, I’d say this is about as black and white as you can get.  I suggest you try critical thinking, but  I am sure you think you are a cognitively flexible wizard and will predictably tell me all about in black and white terms. 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

On 9/13/2019 at 6:10 PM, Mr Walker said:

In law it is black and white The opposite of guilty is innocent and if one is found to be either he cannot be the other (in law) The reality is not always discovered or got correct by the law  A person may be guilty in fact, but is not so. in law. if found innocent 

innocence is the state you are presumed to be in( and thus ARE in) according to law, until proven guilty 

 I believe that UNLESS a person is innocent, he or she should reap the consequences of their guilt

This should also apply to law, and generally does so.

But in law  (except for a few specialised areas) a person must be proven guilty before they can be punished    I think we DO live in a legal system   where a person must be proven guilty to be punished and cannot  be punished if found to be innocent  

Let’s hope you never need this system, people who are innocent get convicted a lot. 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You offered no evidence that the filmmaker WAS dishonest 

From my perspective I did though. Evidence doesn't have to prove, it can just suggest and still be called evidence.  I had a belief position about his honesty, I found evidence that suggests a motive for being dishonest, and my belief position moved away from him being honest as a result.  To me that counts as evidence that the filmmaker was dishonest; what else can it be, it's definitely not evidence that he's honest of neutral, and it's not irrelevant.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I only accept what we know from personal  experience  as actual knowledge ,not what is a justified true belief.

That's fine as far as personal experience, as long as it's understood that it's not the only definition and has issues of its own.  I haven't read much on where 'justified true belief' came from but it's a little difficult for me to parse, including 'true' just seems to avoid defining what needs defining.  I'm not sure why we can't just say, 'knowledge is something that is true', aren't all 'true' things 'justified' by definition?  Noting it's a belief adds some clarification, but including 'true' in the definition is just kicking the can down the road.

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Such a belief (or disbelief) can not logically be constructed and maintained, once we have knowledge pertaining to the question.  ie once you truly know anything you can no longer believe in it nor disbelieve in it. 

Again, I think this is where you've created a needless maze that is simply a result of how you've subjectively chosen to define these concepts.  Is the above something that anyone else argues or notes, any philosophers or psychologists or scholars of any type point out this distinction you've made?  You mention this a ton, but to me it seems a pointless distinction that is irrelevant.  The reason 'once you truly know anything you can no longer believe in it nor disbelieve in it' is true is because you specifically have chosen to define a belief as not overlapping with something we are 'certain' about, whatever that means.  It is equally true that once you know something it is acceptable to say also that you believe in it, I just use 'know' for 'very certain belief' personally, and I find it superior to your definition as I don't have to pretend there is some objective threshold let alone any way to measure when a belief becomes 'knowledge'. 

Anyway all of this is besides the point, in my view it's been besides the point and irrelevant every time I've seen you bring it up to be honest.  Other than to let people know how you narrowly define these words, although I don't know what purpose this distinction of yours serves.

[+Sherapy]

25 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

From my perspective I did though. Evidence doesn't have to prove, it can just suggest and still be called evidence.  I had a belief position about his honesty, I found evidence that suggests a motive for being dishonest, and my belief position moved away from him being honest as a result.  To me that counts as evidence that the filmmaker was dishonest; what else can it be, it's definitely not evidence that he's honest of neutral, and it's not irrelevant.

That's fine as far as personal experience, as long as it's understood that it's not the only definition and has issues of its own.  I haven't read much on where 'justified true belief' came from but it's a little difficult for me to parse, including 'true' just seems to avoid defining what needs defining.  I'm not sure why we can't just say, 'knowledge is something that is true', aren't all 'true' things 'justified' by definition?  Noting it's a belief adds some clarification, but including 'true' in the definition is just kicking the can down the road.

Again, I think this is where you've created a needless maze that is simply a result of how you've subjectively chosen to define these concepts.  Is the above something that anyone else argues or notes, any philosophers or psychologists or scholars of any type point out this distinction you've made?  You mention this a ton, but to me it seems a pointless distinction that is irrelevant.  The reason 'once you truly know anything you can no longer believe in it nor disbelieve in it' is true is because you specifically have chosen to define a belief as not overlapping with something we are 'certain' about, whatever that means.  It is equally true that once you know something it is acceptable to say also that you believe in it, I just use 'know' for 'very certain belief' personally, and I find it superior to your definition as I don't have to pretend there is some objective threshold let alone any way to measure when a belief becomes 'knowledge'. 

Anyway all of this is besides the point, in my view it's been besides the point and irrelevant every time I've seen you bring it up to be honest.  Other than to let people know how you narrowly define these words, although I don't know what purpose this distinction of yours serves.

If it is any consolation to you, you made Bigfoot more interesting then I ever would have bothered with before.

Bigfoot is on par with ghosts for me, give me something sheesh, kudos to you for giving the filmmaker a fair shake in the first place. I commend you. 

It is the kind of subject one simply apologizes for being wrong about and calls it a ay in the obscure event Bigfoot or ghosts happen to pan out. 

Where is Habit?

Edited September 15, 2019 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

From my perspective I did though. Evidence doesn't have to prove, it can just suggest and still be called evidence.  I had a belief position about his honesty, I found evidence that suggests a motive for being dishonest, and my belief position moved away from him being honest as a result.  To me that counts as evidence that the filmmaker was dishonest; what else can it be, it's definitely not evidence that he's honest of neutral, and it's not irrelevant.

That's fine as far as personal experience, as long as it's understood that it's not the only definition and has issues of its own.  I haven't read much on where 'justified true belief' came from but it's a little difficult for me to parse, including 'true' just seems to avoid defining what needs defining.  I'm not sure why we can't just say, 'knowledge is something that is true', aren't all 'true' things 'justified' by definition?  Noting it's a belief adds some clarification, but including 'true' in the definition is just kicking the can down the road.

Again, I think this is where you've created a needless maze that is simply a result of how you've subjectively chosen to define these concepts.  Is the above something that anyone else argues or notes, any philosophers or psychologists or scholars of any type point out this distinction you've made?  You mention this a ton, but to me it seems a pointless distinction that is irrelevant.  The reason 'once you truly know anything you can no longer believe in it nor disbelieve in it' is true is because you specifically have chosen to define a belief as not overlapping with something we are 'certain' about, whatever that means.  It is equally true that once you know something it is acceptable to say also that you believe in it, I just use 'know' for 'very certain belief' personally, and I find it superior to your definition as I don't have to pretend there is some objective threshold let alone any way to measure when a belief becomes 'knowledge'. 

Anyway all of this is besides the point, in my view it's been besides the point and irrelevant every time I've seen you bring it up to be honest.  Other than to let people know how you narrowly define these words, although I don't know what purpose this distinction of yours serves.

Its simple.

The definitions of knowledge and belief are mutually exclusive 

For example. It is impossible for you to  logically construct a belief or disbelief  that you have a mother,  because you KNOW you have a mother. It is impossible for you to believe or disbelieve that you can breathe earth's air because you KNOW you can.  Only a non functioning mind can construct  belief which opposes direct evidences and knowledge 

My views come from university philosophy, university cognitive studies, and an understanding of the correct semantic use of the English language  

One must first understand the nature of belief as a cognitive construct, and the reasons and purposes for beliefs,  before engaging deeper on thought in this area 

Ps to me it  is a critical point.

Many people confuse  their belief with knowldge. Others claim knowldge, based on sources which they have not personally verified.

In today's age of mass media it is even more critical to be able to discern what you believe, from  what you know as correct fact,  and to question ALL sources of knowledge, but especially those you are taking on faith in their honesty and accuracy. 

ps read up on Gettier and  "the Gettier problem"  

quote

Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? EDMUND GETTIER Edmund Gettier is Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. This short piece, published in 1963, seemed to many decisively to refute an otherwise attractive analysis of knowledge.  (ie that it is indistinguishable from a justified true belief)  It stimulated a renewed effort, still ongoing, to clarify exactly what knowledge comprises.

http://fitelson.org/proseminar/gettier.pdf

Edited September 16, 2019 by Mr Walker

[onlookerofmayhem]

23 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

For example. It is impossible for you to  logically construct a belief or disbelief  that you have a mother,  because you KNOW you have a mother.

What if, hypothetically, you never knew your parents and were told you were created in a lab by scientists with advanced technology that didn't need a sperm and an egg.  They actually made and coded the DNA somehow.

At that point, could you logically construct a belief that you have no mother?