Re: THEORY: Are commands to believe infelicitous?

Hello, Ray.  Thanks for writing.
As you can see, I did not read your posts in the order in which you
posted them.  I apologize for that, if it turns out to matter.

Hello, ConLang-List.
There are parts of this conversation where both Ray's contribution
and my response seem likely to me to be On-Topic for this list.  I
have handled them first.

There are other parts that I wonder might be Off-Topic, whether
beginning with my response, with Ray's contribution, or earlier.  I
have tried to postpone those parts to after a "marquee" made of
doubled asterisks -- I'm sure you'll be able to see it.  Skip that
part if you don't want to take the chance it could be On-Topic after
all.

Thanks for writing, and for reading, to all contributors to this
thread.

--- Tom H.C. in MI

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Ray Brown <ray.brown@F...> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Absolutely! trust and faith. The words for belief & trust are
> > > related in
> > > some languages.
> >
> > Interesting point.  Which languages?  Related how?  Which words?
>
> Greek, for a start.
> _pistis_ (noun) = trust [in another person], good faith,
trustworthiness,
> assurance, confidence.
> _pisteuein_ = to trust, rely on, put faith in, believe.
Thanks, Ray.
I had heard that "Hagia Pistia" (="Holy Faith") is/was supposed to be
the name of the Angel who was assigned the task of placing the
Serpent in the Garden of Eden.  But I didn't know about the "trust"
angle in Greek.

Other contributors also had variations of "believe"'s "semantic
spread" (I'm not sure what the technical term really is) in other
languages, not all related to the "trust/faith" pair.  I thank them
as well.

> [snip]
> I can see the color of the screen. That is not a matter of belief -
it is
> a matter of knowledge.
What is the difference between belief and knowledge?
In particular;  If Person A thinks Person B "believes" statement S,
but Person B thinks Person B "knows" statement S, does it make sense
for Person A to "command" Person B to believe statement "not S"?

> [snip]
> decide [act of will]
Here you bring up a facet of what I have been trying to get at,
although perhaps I have not been as clear as I, or maybe you, could
wish.
In "deciding", to what degree, and at what "points" along the "path"
to decision, is the "will" involved?

> [snip]
*******************************************
*******************************************
**   Herewith follow the                 **
**   possibly Off-Topic                  **
**   parts of our conversation:          **
*******************************************
*******************************************


--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Ray Brown <ray.brown@F...> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 11, 2005, at 05:38 , Tom Chappell wrote:
>
> > Hello, the list.  Hello, Ray; thanks for writing.
>
> You're welcome.
Thanks!  I appreciate being welcome.  In case you were wondering, I
welcome you, too.

>
> > [snip]
> [snip]
> > Many people consider this world to be the only world, and all
effort
> > and resources spent on any other "world" a sinful waste.
>
> That rather depends upon what one means by 'this world'.
> And any such ban
> on teaching about an afterlife would be dictatorial &
> contrary to freedom
> of speech.
Cases before the U.S. Supreme Court often involve balancing (that is,
choosing between) rights guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights, the
first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  These cases
frequently involve conflicts in which one such right can be upheld
only if another is withheld (in that particular case).

My "story idea" (which my never become a "story", alas) specifically
incorporates such a conflict:  and, no clear majority resolves it in
any particular way.

I just thought that one reasonable response to the hijackings of
September 11, 2001, and the kami-kaze attacks on buildings with
thousands of occupants using airliners with dozens of unwilling
passengers, would be, "Well, this is just the natural result of any
philosophy that teaches that there is a heaven!"

The OTL U.S. of America is the most religious nation in the modern
West *here*.  Immigrants here say you can't get the full American
experience unless you get some of it through your religious
organization.  You're pretty free to choose which religion, but you
pretty much have to have one instead of none.

Nevertheless only about 44% of modern U.S.Americans say they are
very "religious".  I thought, what if the other 56% felt some of the
above feeling?

To get a constitutional amendment would require a majority in each of
two-thirds of the congressional districts and each of three-fourths
of the states.  Ain't gonna happen.

Everyone wants to be able to train their own children in their own
religion, if they have one.

Nobody likes any kind of ex-post-facto law.

But, as the so-called "Patriot Act" proves, it is possible to get
legislation passed, and ruled constitutional, that does not guarantee
to non-citizens not technically in the U.S. all the civil rights
citizens have in the U.S.

That's why I made the Alternate U.S.A. pass the regulation:
"No alien can be re-admitted to the U.S. if it can be shown that,
since their first admission and since 9/11/01, they have taught to
any person of military age or younger, other than their own custodial
children, a doctrine of life-after-death".

You bet your sweet bippy (as Rowan and Martin used to say) it
violates freedom of speech, and freedom of religion as well.  My
Point-of-Departure would be that 60% of the Senate and a majority of
the House and a majority of the Supreme Court and the President might
all agree that it was O.K. to limit the freedom of some aliens who
weren't in the country yet, to limit their freedom to recruit more
people to such a philosophy as might make them willing to commit such
acts as those of September 11 2001.

I'm not recommending it.  I'm certainly not saying it wouldn't cause
a lot of conflict -- I expect marital discord between parents, plus
families who feel that the best instructor-in-their-faith for their
children happens to be a non-citizen, etc.

> [snip]
> Greek, for a start.
> _pistis_ (noun) = trust [in another person], good faith,
trustworthiness,
> assurance, confidence.
> _pisteuein_ = to trust, rely on, put faith in, believe.
Do you remember a story, set before World War I in German-speaking
Central Europe, in which the angel Hagia Pistia rescued a young boy
named Adi, who had wandered off into the woods while ill?  The boy
recognized the angel's name, and knew that Hagia Pistia had been the
one who placed the Serpent in the Garden.  "Yes, I did", said the
angel, "but I was only following orders."  And then the angel led Adi
back to the Schiklgruber household.

> [snip]
> > Many people (me often among them) disagree that belief is an act
of
> > will.
>
> Then you and I simply do not mean the same things by the
words 'believe'
> and 'belief'.
Is "act of will" incorporated as part of the definiens in your
definition of "believe" and "belief"?  Or is it something you deduce
from what is so incorporated?

> [snip]
> >> Look at this screen:  What color do you see it?  Now will it
> >> otherwise; Does it change color?
>
> Why should I will the screen to change color!!!!! That is silly.
This is dodging the question.
The question is not why you should will the screen to change color;
the question is whether willing it can make it change.

Incidentally, Joseph Bridwell apparently has what are to him very
convincing reasons why he should will things he sees to change color.

So, the three of us, at least -- Ray Brown, Joseph Bridwell, and Tom
Chappell -- are in a three-way disagreement here.
Joseph B. thinks there may be good reasons to will one's perception
of color to change, and that it is possible.
Tom C. thinks there may not be any good reasons to will one's
perception of color to change, and that it should not be possible
for "healthy" persons.
Ray B. thinks there are probably no good reasons to will one's
perception of color to change, and that therefore it is uninteresting
to ask or answer the question of whether or under what circumstances
it is possible.

> I can see the color of the screen. That is not a matter of belief -
it is
> a matter of knowledge.
What is the difference between belief and knowledge?
In particular;  If Person A thinks Person B "believes" statement S,
but Person B thinks Person B "knows" statement S, does it make sense
for Person A to "command" Person B to believe statement "not S"?

I know the partial definition of "know" that starts
off "epistemology".  I know that "epistemology" starts out with
dividing investigators between "skeptics" and the rest.  (Unlike
other philosophical uses of the word "skeptic", which usually apply
to investigators who doubt a commonsense notion.)  To "know"
something, one must "believe" it, and it must be "true".  Non-
skeptics accept every true belief as "knowledge".  Skeptics insist
that to "know" something, one must not only believe it, and have it
be true -- one must also have "sufficient reason" for believing it.

My questions on this thread are really not so much about that
epistemological difference between "belief" and "knowledge", as about
the question I asked in the paragraph before the previous paragraph.

>
> Now if I were blind, I would not know the color of the screen.
> I would have to
If you "would have to", would it be a matter of your will?

> rely on/ put my trust in some one else. If several people told me
> different colors,
> I would have to
Sim: If you "have to", how much willingness is involved?

> decide [act of will]
Here you bring up a facet of what I have been trying to get at,
although perhaps I have not been as clear as I, or maybe you, could
wish.
In "deciding", to what degree, and at what "points" along the "path"
to decision, is the "will" involved?

> which person I
> considered most trustworthy. I would believe that person.
I might not believe anybody.

> [snip]
> >> Some people would say your belief and your will are related as
your
> >> color vision and your will are.
>
> That doesn't make sense - see above.
I tried to explain it again in a reply to a later post.  (But the
reply was posted earlier.)  Read it again, and see if it still
doesn't make sense.  Or if it at least makes more sense.  Or if at
least it is a more organized and clearer kind of nonsense.

> [snip]
Thanks, very much, for writing, Ray, Joseph, and everybody.

-----

Tom H.C. in MI

Reply