>>11001799Good post.
>When you're thorough in scrutinizing this topic you'll realize every single instance of what you believe is evidence you're "experiencing" something in some profound way that goes beyond ordinary physical explanation can be phrased as "you believe X happened."...and belief can (you believe) be explained away as a certain kind of behaviour. But doesn't this prove too much? You say my belief that X isn't really evidence for X, because it's only a belief. But imagine a barrister trying to undermine an eyewitness by saying
>When you're thorough in scrutinizing this topic you'll realize every single instance of what you believe is evidence you [witnessed X] is can be phrased as "you believe X happened."...and are thus inadmissible. If you're right, no witness statements count for anything.
Pointing out my only evidence for X is my belief I witnessed X is hardly evidence against X (if anything, it's evidence *for* X). You can only do this if you've already decided X didn't happen. If it's true people experience
>something in some profound way that goes beyond ordinary physical explanationthen the only evidence they're going to be able to give will be descriptions of their beliefs. Dismissing such descriptions in advance is question-begging.
I wonder how consistent you are. You say a belief is nothing more than a predisposition to behave 'as though' something were true. But, in the absence of something like 'awareness', what is there that justifies such behaviour? Is it only a happy coincidence that the proposition I behave as though were true is, in fact, true? I couldn't have 'known' its truth, because that would be to admit the existence of a mental state. If behaviourism were true, how could we 'know' it?
When you say
>you'll realize every single instance of what you believe...what do you mean by the word 'realize'?
