Personally, I consider "belief" from a behavioral perspective: belief is the model of reality one actually operates from.

For example, when I walk on my kitchen floor, I don't have to tell myself: "the floor is structurally sound, it's safe to walk on it." I just walk.

The fact that I just walk can be used to infer an infinite number of implied bleiefs that I've never verbalized until this moment. For example, I believe that:

1. The floor can support my weight.

2. The tiles aren't made of toxic materials.

3. I don't pay $$ by the step.

4. Walking on the floor doesn't cause my wife pain.

5. The floor isn't lava.

To refine my definition: a belief is that which systematically and implicitly guides my expectations, reactions, choices, etc.

In her glass skywalk example, Gendler lays out the definitions roughly so:

1. "I know this skywalk is sturdy and safe" = Belief

2. The hesitancy to cross the skywalk = Alief

But to me:

1. "I know this skywalk is sturdy and safe" = knowledge

2. Hesitancy to cross it = actual belief.

That's why in my vocavbulary it's perfectly fine to say: "I know it. But I don't believe it."

Similarly, if someone says, "I totally believe that planes are safe, but I'm terrified of flying", then I will think to myself: "nope; you totally don't believe that planes are safe."

▲

mapontosevenths 2 days ago | parent [-]

That's an interesting perspective. It all starts to get a little too semantics oriented for my taste, but I think the basic idea you're proposing is that the beliefs live in what the neuro-folks would call the default mode network, where-as knowledge lives in some higher function part of the brain like the cortex.

Regardless of the mechanisms, I think we're agreed that it's important not just to examine your priors, but to be aware that there ARE priors in the first place.

	▲	gghackernewsgg 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I think we're agreed that it's important not just to examine your priors, but to be aware that there ARE priors in the first place. Yes, absolutely. And I think there's a practical extension to my framing that goes beyond semantics. When there's a seemingly irresolvable conflict between knowledge and belief, i.e. reason says “yes" while the heart says “no”, simply doing the thing a few times will often resolve the tension. That's the practical advantage I see in my framing: 1) In Gendler's framing, the cerebral and emotional aspects are presented as two different modes of cognition. Belief is thinking, while Alief is just another type of thinking about some other stuff. Taken too far or misinterpreted, this can encourage overanalysis. 2) In my framing, belief is fundamentally about how I operate. So when my reason has exhausted its arguments but I'm still not convinced, as long as my knowledge seems reliable, I know that forcing a behavioral change could be all that's needed to turn me into a believer.