TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Behaviour and beliefs

Behaviour and beliefs

Scenario I: Kurt was born in Germany, and knows German. Or, if he could, he'd claim to do so. But, he's mute, and that bothers him a lot. If you tell him, "Bitte Warten" (please wait), he knows you're asking him to wait. He knows what you expect from him, and what each word means. But, because he refuses to accept the fact that you can speak, and he can't, he pretends he doesn't know what you mean. He ignores spoken requests. There's no way you can tell he's faking it - you've never seen him obey anyone. But, inside his head he can even think "in German".

Suppose you're a friend of this really obnoxious person, and you believe Kurt doesn't understand German. Even if your belief is justified (no one has ever seen Kurt display the behaviour you'd expect from someone that understands German), are you really correct? If not, why?

Scenario II: Richard says he doesn't like Pepsi, and would rather drink Coke instead. As a matter of fact, when he's alone, he does drink Coke even if there's Pepsi available. But, all his friends like Pepsi better, and he drinks Pepsi when he's with his friends, for whatever reason that doesn't concern us here. He may want to fit in, or it's just more practical to order the same thing. That doesn't matter. The fact is that no one has ever seen him drinking Coke.

Now, if you say "Richard likes Pepsi", and you're one of his friends, your prediction will most likely be confirmed every time you see Richard order a Pepsi when he's with you. This belief helps you make accurate predictions about what Richard will choose to drink next time you guys hang out. But, Richard claims not to like Pepsi (though his dislike for Pepsi is not enough to prevent him from drinking it).

If you say "Richard likes Pepsi", are you wrong? Does it matter that he actually likes Coke if he behaves as if he liked Pepsi?

For some reason both scenarios reminded me how much I want a big bacon classic from Wendy's.

Re: Behaviour and beliefs

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Scenario I: Suppose you're a friend of this really obnoxious person, and you believe Kurt doesn't understand German. Even if your belief is justified (no one has ever seen Kurt display the behaviour you'd expect from someone that understands German), are you really correct? If not, why?

Ad-hominem approach in the beginning sentence. It doesn't matter if the individual is obnoxious or not. I just wanted to point out how fucking pointless that first line is.

ok let me tackle this; I am believing that Kurt my friend doesn't understand German and that right there shows me how subjective the belief is in and of itself.

I'd be neither correct nor incorrect i'd just be believing in myself.

Atheists aren't going to like this.

I could answer this, but I don't see the point.

Re: Re: Behaviour and beliefs

quote:

Originally posted by we_R_DNA Ad-hominem approach in the beginning sentence. It doesn't matter if the individual is obnoxious or not.

It's true, it doesn't

quote:

Originally posted by we_R_DNA I just wanted to point out how fucking pointless that first line is.

It's supposed to make the text sound more colloquial (and he's being rude, isn't he? ) - if I said he's 6 feet tall, it would matter nearly as much as his obnoxiousness

quote:

Originally posted by we_R_DNA ok let me tackle this; I am believing that Kurt my friend doesn't understand German and that right there shows me how subjective the belief is in and of itself. I'd be neither correct nor incorrect i'd just be believing in myself.

And the your beliefs aren't subject to truth values of any kind?

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 I could answer this, but I don't see the point.

Everyone has an answer to this, but that's beside the point

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Everyone has an answer to this, but that's beside the point

Yes, but I have the correct one.

Re: Behaviour and beliefs

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Scenario I: Kurt was born in Germany, and knows German. Or, if he could, he'd claim to do so. But, he's mute, and that bothers him a lot. If you tell him, "Bitte Warten" (please wait), he knows you're asking him to wait. He knows what you expect from him, and what each word means. But, because he refuses to accept the fact that you can speak, and he can't, he pretends he doesn't know what you mean. He ignores spoken requests. There's no way you can tell he's faking it - you've never seen him obey anyone. But, inside his head he can even think "in German". Suppose you're a friend of this really obnoxious person, and you believe Kurt doesn't understand German. Even if your belief is justified (no one has ever seen Kurt display the behaviour you'd expect from someone that understands German), are you really correct? If not, why? Scenario II: Richard says he doesn't like Pepsi, and would rather drink Coke instead. As a matter of fact, when he's alone, he does drink Coke even if there's Pepsi available. But, all his friends like Pepsi better, and he drinks Pepsi when he's with his friends, for whatever reason that doesn't concern us here. He may want to fit in, or it's just more practical to order the same thing. That doesn't matter. The fact is that no one has ever seen him drinking Coke. Now, if you say "Richard likes Pepsi", and you're one of his friends, your prediction will most likely be confirmed every time you see Richard order a Pepsi when he's with you. This belief helps you make accurate predictions about what Richard will choose to drink next time you guys hang out. But, Richard claims not to like Pepsi (though his dislike for Pepsi is not enough to prevent him from drinking it). If you say "Richard likes Pepsi", are you wrong? Does it matter that he actually likes Coke if he behaves as if he liked Pepsi?

Scenario I No, you are not correct. It simply isn't fact, despite the fact that there is nothing to prove otherwise.

Scenario II Obviously Richard likes Pepsi enough to drink it, but *prefers* Coke. So no, you are not wrong. If you were to say that he preferred Pepsi over Coke, then it would be wrong.

Fact is fact, regardless of how something is perceived.

Re: Behaviour and beliefs

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Scenario II: If you say "Richard likes Pepsi", are you wrong? Does it matter that he actually likes Coke if he behaves as if he liked Pepsi?

When it comes to a having a subjective bias based upon physical events that take place one can only be mislead to believe in them. Again one's subjective bias of not knowing what someone likes comes into play here.

"What the eyes see and the ears hear the mind believes" ~ Swordfish

For all we know Richard is a spy coke ass ninja and to assume otherwise is to assume Richard likes pepsi.

Given that Richard is actually a ninja and no one ever sees Richard drink Coke; I think Richard is a bad ass Coke loving Ninja!!!!

This is the problem with distinguishing "justified belief" from "true justified belief." You can always stipulate a situation in which it's simply impossible to separate the JBs from TJBs, like questions about what someone "really thinks." The only time the distinction arises in argumentative discourse anyway is when a new piece of evidence arises that turns a belief you thought was "justified" into a non-justified belief -- since the old belief no longer looks justified in relation to newer options, you conclude that it must have been "false" all along. The "truth" component of "true justified belief" is always indeterminable when you really consider all the possible ways you could be wrong, which is why it's really just better to talk about justification rather than truth. But everyone prefers the term "truth" because it's snappier and sounds more powerful and certain.

Re: Re: Re: Behaviour and beliefs

quote:

Originally posted by Lira It's true, it doesn't

I'm glad you can see how an ad-homniem approach is rather inane to the whole approach of asking a question.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And the your beliefs aren't subject to truth values of any kind?

Past that my beliefs are subjected to anything and everything of any kind of any flavor each and ever time I share something. Don't get me wrong I am not trying to say my belief's are not capable of being understood by logic. . .I am not some person on high; i'm just some person.

"I Think there for I am" ~ Descartes

but I am a lil'drunk

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Atheists aren't going to like this.

Why specifically atheists? What if someone was pretending to be religious to his friends but was actually an atheist?

Lira to be honest those questions are kind of silly.

To paraphrase:
"If you see someone doing one thing but they actually like doing the opposite then is your perception correct?"

That question sounds kinda silly but with a lot of extra words it could seem less silly. Obviously the truth is that the person likes doing what they like. We can always be tricked to perceive the opposite. Are you trying to make a statement about something?

It all depends. Do Richard and Kurt wear sneakers with suits?

I think behaving as if you like or understand something is different from your personal perception of whether you like or understand it.

For all you know, the two people are zombies who have been programmed with only the instructions needed to display a certain behavioral response for the exact situations that you have observed them in, and nothing more. Would you then say that one 'understands' German and the other 'likes' Pepsi? I would say no, simply because of the lack of any internal perception of whether one likes or understands. Then again, you could argue that the the very instructions that determine the behavior amount to understanding or liking, but then you're up against Searle's Chinese room argument. Just my thoughts...

Eh ofcourse behaviour doesn't always follow beliefs/attitudes. In a classical social psychology study conducted in the 50s (or 60s) in the USA, a psychologist called various motel owners and asked them (through telephone) if they would accept a chinese couple. For some reason, prejudice was high in the states for chinese people during that period and as a result, around 70-80% answered "no". When the same researcher had actually send a chinese couple to visit the same motels, most of these motel owners have accepted them.



But maybe i don't get what you say lol.

quote:

Originally posted by coroknight Why specifically atheists? What if someone was pretending to be religious to his friends but was actually an atheist? Lira to be honest those questions are kind of silly. To paraphrase: "If you see someone doing one thing but they actually like doing the opposite then is your perception correct?" That question sounds kinda silly but with a lot of extra words it could seem less silly. Obviously the truth is that the person likes doing what they like. We can always be tricked to perceive the opposite. Are you trying to make a statement about something?

Thats what i understood, but maybe he is trying to tell that observations-no matter what or how many-are not capable of unveiling/justifying the truth?

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN When the same researcher had actually send a chinese couple to visit the same motels, most of these motel owners have accepted them.

Prejudice has a hard time standing up when cold hard cash beckons in the other direction.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Prejudice has a hard time standing up when cold hard cash beckons in the other direction.

exactly!



Which poses the question of how much of our behaviour is accounted by our attitudes/beliefs and how much by the given context and instances.


Ofcourse both contribute and interact in complex ways. Its just that those interactions are very complex lol

I. Yes
II. No

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Thats what i understood, but maybe he is trying to tell that observations-no matter what or how many-are not capable of unveiling/justifying the truth?

That's more like it, as Jive kind of pointed out. But, rather then point out and say "Look, this is not enough to justify the belief", I was wondering whether anyone would feel this limitation.

I just came back from an awesome night, and can't really say anything meaningful right now (nor I think I'd wish to ). But, my real question is - what if, in those cases, you were the one whose behaviour was being interpreted? How autonomous are you to give meaning to your own behaviour and attitudes? If you claim to like/want/do something, how much authority can others have to tell you otherwise (like in Richard's case).

That's an interesting reference to Searle's work, Tachobg... I'm going to get some rest and I will think about it in the morning.

By the way, Coroknight, I don't expect these questions not to be silly (it's a curiosity, really). And, no, Renzo, they're not Brazilian

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.