Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

Again, if one says; "I believe that P", then this is obviously different than saying "I think that P" and "I know that P". We could even say that they are literally 'very different'.

This can be clearly SEEN and evidenced, just now. Just look at the words themselves and think about what they actually mean in regards to how one views things.

When you say; "I believe ...", "I think ...", and " I know ..." do you mean the exact same thing? Do these three obviously different words mean the same thing to you?

You're asking me a question where I just gave the answer in the post you're responding to.

Are you one of those people who would say that there are no synonyms?

No.

How many of "those people" are that that you know of that would say such a thing?

I haven't kept an exact count, but I've run into tens of them over the years. I've been talking about philosophy online since 1994. There is a ton of people with poorly thought-out, wacky views that they're eager to express online.

At any rate, what is the difference between saying "I believe that P" and "I know that P" on your view, where knowing that P implies an absence of believing that P?

[creation]

Again, if one says; "I believe that P", then this is obviously different than saying "I think that P" and "I know that P". We could even say that they are literally 'very different'.

This can be clearly SEEN and evidenced, just now. Just look at the words themselves and think about what they actually mean in regards to how one views things.

When you say; "I believe ...", "I think ...", and " I know ..." do you mean the exact same thing? Do these three obviously different words mean the same thing to you?

You're asking me a question where I just gave the answer in the post you're responding to.

But you said, "basically a synonym", where I have asked you to clarify, 'do you mean the exact same thing?'

What can be clearly seen is that they are obviously three different words. So, I am asking you, Do those three different words mean the exact same thing to you or not?

Once you answer and clarify this, then we can move on and proceed.

No.

How many of "those people" are that that you know of that would say such a thing?

I haven't kept an exact count, but I've run into tens of them over the years. I've been talking about philosophy online since 1994.

Okay.

When you say "synonym" what do you actually mean?

And, when they "synonym" what do they actually mean?

There is a ton of people with poorly thought-out, wacky views that they're eager to express online.

Is "a 'ton' of people" a well thought-out, non wacky view, in and of itself, especially when that is said in regards to people's view and just what they say?

Also, how many people are there in a 'ton'?

At any rate, what is the difference between saying "I believe that P" and "I know that P" on your view, where knowing that P implies an absence of believing that P?

So you want me to answer your clarifying questions, yet you do not even have the decency to answer my clarifying questions.

To me, BOTH 'thinking' that P, and, 'knowing' that P, does not imply an "absence of believing that P". Why did you assume that "knowing that P" implies an absence of "believing that P", especially when I obviously have not even said this, let alone even suggested such a thing?

If one was to read back through the actual words that I have been writing I have clearly said that, to me, 'thinking' some thing is different than both 'knowing' some thing and 'believing' some thing, which both of them are different in themselves as well.

The three different sayings mean three different things. This is because of the obviously three different words used. If there was absolutely no difference at all, then there is no use for three different words.

Now, what is also obvious is that I have also said that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. So, this means that I can still 'think' some thing, or, 'know' some thing, without having to believe any thing.

Now, any one can 'think' some thing, AND THEN 'believe' that it is true, just like they can also 'know' some thing, AND THEN 'believe' that that is true as well. But, what is absolutely obvious to me, but obviously not to others, is that it is absolutely and extremely possible to either, and/or both, 'think' some thing and 'know' some thing WITHOUT 'having to' 'believe' that it is true.

Now. if you want to 'believe' that 'thinking', 'knowing', and 'believing' are basically the same or synonymous, then so be it. I will let you be on your merry way with that belief of yours. You are absolutely free to believe whatever yo want to believe, and if that is what you want to believe that, then go right ahead.

However, the difference, to me, between saying; "I believe that P" and "I know that P" is that if I was to say "I believe that P", then I would be 'believing' that it is true, right, and/or correct, and if I am doing this, then I am NOT Truly open to anything other than that belief, itself. Obviously, if I was to 'believe' some thing, then I would only believe some thing that was true, right, and/or correct to me.

Do you believe things to be true, right, and/or correct, which are not true, not right, nor are correct, to you?

In fact, do you know of anyone who would believe some thing to be true, right, and/or correct, which is not true, not right, nor correct?

People only intrinsically believe things, which could not be otherwise. Why would anyone believe some thing that was not even true?

I do not say, "I believe that P". Whereas, if and when I say; "I know that P", then it is an unambiguous, irrefutable fact, which I would also have the evidence and proof for. Now, if you are at all interested in me expanding on this and knowing what my views are of when I say; "I think that P", then this means that I am not yet sure, but as of the current moment of saying this, then this is just my view on things, which have come from what i have observed up to 'now', which I am still very OPEN to being false, wrong, and/or incorrect.

To me, there is huge difference between the three, and depending on which one is said, this then influences how open, closed, or in between, one is in the way they look at, and then eventually see, discover, learn, and understand things.

[Terrapin Station]

The three different sayings mean three different things. This is because of the obviously three different words used. If there was absolutely no difference at all, then there is no use for three different words.

This is aka the "There are no synonyms" stance.

So that's something you do believe after all.

[creation]

The three different sayings mean three different things. This is because of the obviously three different words used. If there was absolutely no difference at all, then there is no use for three different words.

This is aka the "There are no synonyms" stance.

Why would you assume such a stupid and ridiculous thing as this? And then worse still, why would you jump to the conclusion that your own assumption is absolutely true, right, and correct?

What I wrote is NOT "aka" "There are no synonyms" at all.

So that's something you do believe after all.

This is one of the most absurd and ludicrous conclusions I have seen made. And, considering it is based solely on your own assumptions and beliefs, then this makes your own conclusion even more illogical.

I have NEVER said anything that would even suggest that I have the "There are no synonyms" "stance", let alone that I would ever "believe" such a stupid and irrational view.

If you want to believe different words do not have different definitions and meanings, then that is your prerogative, and/or if you want to believe that because different words can be synonymous with other words, then that is great also, to me. But, 'trying to' twist this around onto me and 'try' and make out I have some ridiculous "stance", and worse still "believe" that absurd "stance", then that just shows how far you will 'try to' go.

Obviously, the different words 'believe', 'know', and 'think' have different definitions and can mean different things. But, if you want to believe they mean the exact same thing, then go right ahead and believe this. If doing that is getting you where you want to be in Life, then I suggest you continue doing what you want. But, why are you 'trying' your hardest to fit me into some "stance", which supposedly some other people have had that you have talked with on philosophy forums but which I obviously do NOT?

I do NOT have that "stance", AND, I do NOT "believe" any thing.

[Terrapin Station]

Why would you assume such a stupid and ridiculous thing as this?

There's no assumption there. Another name for what you wrote is the "No synonyms stance." Hence me quoting that bit and saying that it's also known as the no synonyms stance.

[creation]

Why would you assume such a stupid and ridiculous thing as this?

There's no assumption there.

Yes there obviously was. You assumed I believed such a thing.

Another name for what you wrote is the "No synonyms stance."

What I wrote has absolutely nothing at all to do with some so called "No synonyms stance" that brought into our discussion, based upon some discussion you have had previously in your life with some other people.

By the way, how commonly known is this so called, "No synonyms stance", and what was the actual point of you bringing this into our discussion here?

To me, you bringing your past experiences with other people into our discussion appears to be another one of your distractions from me pointing out the absurdities of your beliefs here and for you not answering my clarifying questions.

Hence me quoting that bit and saying that it's also known as the no synonyms stance.

Who cares if that is known in another way, by you. It certainly has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING at all to do with with what I was actually saying, meaning, pointing out, and asking you. But, if you want to assume and/or believe that what I said as some actual thing to do with your "No synonym stance" conversations that you have had with others, then so be it. Go right ahead and believe whatever you want to believe.

I am telling you what I have said is NOT anything like a "No synonyms stance". Remember it is you with the very strongly held beliefs and stances, NOT ME.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes there obviously was. You assumed I believed such a thing.

Nope. I quoted what you wrote and said that it's also known as the "no synonyms stance."

Who knows what you believe relative to what you wrote? I was simply saying something about what you wrote.

[creation]

Yes there obviously was. You assumed I believed such a thing.

Nope. I quoted what you wrote and said that it's also known as the "no synonyms stance."

You also said something else, which can be clearly SEEN.

Who knows what you believe relative to what you wrote?

By now you should KNOW what I believe relative to what I write. The answer is NOTHING. I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

I was simply saying something about what you wrote.

You actually said more.

This is what you actually said, in bold:

"This is aka the "There are no synonyms" stance.

So that's something you do believe after all."

What can be obviously clearly SEEN here, in your second underlined sentence, is your ASSUMPTION. That assumption being; There is something you [me] do believe, after all.

Which, by the way, is just false, wrong, AND incorrect.

You can try as much as you like to be in 'denial' of your assumption, but thee actual Truth is it is here for all to SEE.

[Terrapin Station]

What can be obviously clearly SEEN here, in your second underlined sentence, is your ASSUMPTION. That assumption being; There is something you [me] do believe, after all.

If it's something you're stating, it's something you believe. I'm never going to say that you don't believe things, because that's nonsense. Just so you know that. You can't keep telling me that there's nothing you believe, but you're wrong. I'll keep explaining that you do believe things.

Here are some examples from what I quote above:

"What can be obviously clearly SEEN here, in your second underlined sentence, is your ASSUMPTION." <---this is something you believe.

"That assumption being; There is something you [me] do believe, after all. "<---this is something else you believe, that I'm making that assumption.

I'll go ahead and do this for the rest of your post, too:

"You also said something else, which can be clearly SEEN."<----this is something you believe.

"By now you should KNOW what I believe relative to what I write. "<---Guess what? This is something you believe.

"The answer is NOTHING." <---Also something you believe.

"I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing."<---Ironically, that's something you believe.

Guess what else you believe? That when you push the "y" key, it will produce a "y" on the screen. You also believe that when you push the "Shift" key, it will produce a capital rather than a lower-case "y." And then you believe that when you click on the "Submit" button, it will post what you wrote. And so on.

[Terrapin Station]

Oops: "You can't keep telling me that there's nothing you believe" should obviously read "You can keep telling me that there's nothing you believe"

[creation]

What can be obviously clearly SEEN here, in your second underlined sentence, is your ASSUMPTION. That assumption being; There is something you [me] do believe, after all.

If it's something you're stating, it's something you believe.

You are VERY stubborn and VERY wrong.

I can and DO state many things and NEVER believe any one of them. Full stop.

You can tell us about the thoughts within that head. But you do not know the thoughts within this head, unless of course I tell you what they are. And, I am telling you there are NO beliefs within this head. So, if you say there are, then you are obviously VERY WRONG.

I'm never going to say that you don't believe things, because that's nonsense. Just so you know that. You can't keep telling me that there's nothing you believe, but you're wrong. I'll keep explaining that you do believe things.

But you have NEVER explained how I do supposedly believe things. All you have done is express your BELIEFS. You do this by just saying that I do believe things.

Until you prove this true you will always be WRONG.

Also, so far all you are doing is just 'trying to' deflect away from the fact that I have SHOWN that you were making an assumption, which, again and by the way, was WRONG.

Here are some examples from what I quote above:

"What can be obviously clearly SEEN here, in your second underlined sentence, is your ASSUMPTION." <---this is something you believe.

NO IT IS NOT. This is only your assumption and belief.

Where is the actual evidence and proof that I believe this?

I have just said you have made an assumption, and then gave the proof and evidence of where, when, and how you did. I also, which can be clearly seen is, provided your actual assumption.

"That assumption being; There is something you [me] do believe, after all. "<---this is something else you believe, that I'm making that assumption.

Are you assuming this?

If no, then if this is not an assumption, then what is 'it' exactly?

By the way, I do NOT believe this. I just provided the evidence and proof for what I said.

I'll go ahead and do this for the rest of your post, too:

"You also said something else, which can be clearly SEEN."<----this is something you believe.

If this is something I supposedly believe, then SHOW how I actually believe it.

Why would I "need" to believe such a thing? Especially when I can just re-write what you wrote and just SHOW thee actual Truth of things.

See, unlike you, I can and DID show how you actually assumed something. I have also given you the benefit and opportunity to show the readers how that was not an assumption of yours. So, we wait to see what happens now.

"By now you should KNOW what I believe relative to what I write. "<---Guess what? This is something you believe.

I do NOT believe this at all. Because, you actually PROVE this WRONG anyway, on countless occasions, by the way.

"The answer is NOTHING." <---Also something you believe.

I do NOT believe this at all.

If, as you BELIEVE I do, then you SHOULD be able to PROVE this. Now, SHOW us that you can PROVE this.

"I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing."<---Ironically, that's something you believe.

You are completely and utterly distorted. This is because you believe things and so are completely incapable of seeing what the actual Truth of things ARE.

Guess what else you believe? That when you push the "y" key, it will produce a "y" on the screen.

I do NOT believe this. This is your BELIEF only. If I did, then I would NOT check, which is what I actually do DO.

I have informed HOW beliefs are NOT necessary at all, and HOW and WHY beliefs lead to preventing and blocking one from seeing the actual Truth of things. But, I have also explained WHY you are free to believe whatever it is that you want to believe is true.

You also believe that when you push the "Shift" key, it will produce a capital rather than a lower-case "y." And then you believe that when you click on the "Submit" button, it will post what you wrote. And so on.

I have already explained that I do NOT believe these things, and PROVEN WHY I do not believe these things. If I did believe these, then I would not check.

Also, and by the way, you have NEVER once explained HOW and WHY I supposedly believe these things. All you have done is just said, "You believe ...[these things]", which obviously is NOT saying much at all, other than just saying what you believe is true.

What I found far more helpful is if you are going to make a claim, then you have at least some thing to back up and support your claim. Just saying and re-repeating that "You believe [this or that] is NOT backing up and supporting your claim with evidence and/or proof. This is nothing more than just expressing your own belief, over and over, again and again.

[creation]

Oops: "You can't keep telling me that there's nothing you believe" should obviously read "You can keep telling me that there's nothing you believe"

Yes I CAN. This is because I KNOW the thoughts within this head.

You can TRY to tell another the thoughts within their head, but you do not have any actual evidence nor proof that what you say is true.

So, you have two choices here; You can either accept what they say, or just believe that you know better and what is actually true.

[Terrapin Station]

You are VERY stubborn and VERY wrong.

I can and DO state many things and NEVER believe any one of them. Full stop.

So if you do not believe that:

(1) I am very stubborn,
(2) I am very wrong,
(3) You can and do state many things and never believe any one of them,

then why would you state those things? You don't believe them.

Are you just making random statements for some reason?

[creation]

You are VERY stubborn and VERY wrong.

I can and DO state many things and NEVER believe any one of them. Full stop.

So if you do not believe that:

(1) I am very stubborn,
(2) I am very wrong,
(3) You can and do state many things and never believe any one of them,

then why would you state those things?

Because I am allowed to state the views that I currently have, which I have gained from my past observations.

If my views are false, wrong, and/or incorrect, then just prove it, do not just say they are.

I suggest you do what I do, and that is; Back up and support your views or claims with actual evidence and proof.

Just continually re-repeating your own beliefs is NOT actual evidence nor proof.

You don't believe them.

So what? I have also informed you that I neither disbelieve them as well.

Are you just making random statements for some reason?

I am making statements to express my views. Am I not allowed to express my views?

Why do you make random statements?

Because you believe everyone of them is true, right, and/or correct, or for some other reason?

Are you aware that while you believe some thing then you are NOT open to anything contrary to that belief, and, while you are believing some thing, then you are not fully open to learning and understanding more and/or anew in relation to that belief. As can be witnessed and proven here.

[Terrapin Station]

Because I am allowed to state the views that I currently have, which I have gained from my past observations.

Guess what another term is for "views you have"?

Are you aware that while you believe some thing then you are NOT open to anything contrary to that belief, and, while you are believing some thing, then you are not fully open to learning and understanding more and/or anew in relation to that belief.

Lord knows where you got this idea from. Is that (at least part of the reason why) you say you have no beliefs?

Say that I have a belief that my car is parked on Main Street. So when I leave where I'm at to drive somewhere I head to Main Street. This is only explainable if I believe I have a car, I believe my car is parked on Main Street, I believe that I can use my car to drive somewhere, etc.

Now, I may head to Main Street and discover that my car isn't there. Thus my belief will immediately change to the contrary: "My car is not parked on Main Street."

Why would you think that one would not be open to changing to a contrary belief when one has a belief? The above example shows how easy that is.