What is a belief? Who is believing?

[j000rmas]

From the dictionary; “An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.”

Who or what has the capacity to believe something? Is it the separate I the one that is believing? Or is consciousness playing the game of believing it's a finite separate entity?

Is it organised thoughts appearing as a belief and then the separate entity is imagined simultaneously as a believer? As in there is no difference between a thought pattern of belief and the believer of it?

[Soul_of_Shu]

What is known beyond any doubt whatsoever whether it is believed or not, other than being aware? Beyond that, everything is provisional. I'd suggest that in alter-mode the ideas that appear less provisional would be immanent 'M@L'-generated ideas, whereas a metacognitive alter's ideas ~ e.g. the idea of a segregated self ~ are highly provisional ... believe it or not

[Eugene I]

Is it organised thoughts appearing as a belief and then the separate entity is imagined simultaneously as a believer? As in there is no difference between a thought pattern of belief and the believer of it?

Right, something like this. Perhaps plus a thought-belief that the "believer" is a "real separate entity". It's a complex of thought-pattern beliefs of the "naïve dualistic realism".

[Soul_of_Shu]

Further contemplating the question of 'Who is the believer?', if one believes in BK's belief in M@L, then it is none other than M@L in alter-mode ~ yes, that means us ~ that is the believer in its immanently conjured up subject><object dynamic for the sake of this relational experience. Dispel that belief, and what remains?

[lorenzop]

A belief is a thought that at the moment of consideration, we find pleasing or satisfying, it doesn't necessarily mean anything more than that. Interesting question re WHO is the believer, because we can find thoughts such as 'I believe such and such , , , ', but can we find a believer independent of any thought? Can we find the believer, or only thoughts re beliefs and believing?

[AshvinP]

Under idealism, you can have inaccurate beliefs but not "unreal" beliefs. Mental activity is mental activity, regardless of which agency it is tied to (and it is always tied to an agency) and regardless of whether it seems to originate within us or from without. The question then becomes what beliefs are True, which then makes the question what is Truth? The dictionary definition of Truth will say it is a statement which corresponds to a set of independently existing facts 'out there', but that is untenable under idealism. Sets of facts only exist in relation to a Subject experiencing them and aiming towards specific goals. The latter gets us to the pragmatic definition of Truth - that mental activity which orients us best towards achieving specific goals. If we are not able or willing to specify a goal, then we are lost in a sea of uncertainty with no land in sight. If the goal is something like "reuniting with our Source", which tends to be the highest possible goal we can imagine (as we also see in all long-lasting spiritual traditions), then mere belief itself becomes the main obstacle; belief at the expense of genuine seeking through thoughtful activity. Belief becomes untruth.

[Soul_of_Shu]

The question then becomes what beliefs are True, which then makes the question what is Truth? The dictionary definition of Truth will say it is a statement which corresponds to a set of independently existing facts 'out there', but that is untenable under idealism.

Under idealism, what do we make, let's say, of the constant speed of light? Or is that too ultimately provisional?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Another curiosity ... Due to certain early experiences I was never really able to believe in materialism, which failed to account for those experiences. However, those I know who do fully believe in materialism are not inclined to have such experiences. So how much does that belief determine their experiences, or lack thereof?

[Eugene I]

If the goal is something like "reuniting with our Source", which tends to be the highest possible goal we can imagine (as we also see in all long-lasting spiritual traditions)

Not necessarily. What is exactly understood as the Source: is it one of many conscious activities (but of a high order and creative capacity) that created this particular universe, or is it the the Cosmic Consciousness itself, of which such creative activity is only one of the alters? The uniting with a pearticular creator and uniting with Consciousness itself are quite different goals, and there may be other goals too. There would be nothing wrong with "reuniting" with such Creator-source, but to say that this is a single universal goal of all conscious beings would not be true, because there can be other spiritual goals, form which perspectives the "truths" (that facilitate such goals) might be different. If one particular alter-creator created a world with one particular goal does not mean that this goal must apply to the whole infinity of Consciousness.

[AshvinP]

If the goal is something like "reuniting with our Source", which tends to be the highest possible goal we can imagine (as we also see in all long-lasting spiritual traditions)

Not necessarily. What is exactly understood as the Source: is it one of many conscious activities (but of a high order and creative capacity) that created this particular universe, or is it the the Cosmic Consciousness itself, of which such creative activity is only one of the alters? The uniting with a pearticular creator and uniting with Consciousness itself are quite different goals, and there may be other goals too. There would be nothing wrong with "reuniting" with such Creator-source, but to say that this is a single universal goal of all conscious beings would not be true, because there can be other spiritual goals, form which perspectives the "truths" (that facilitate such goals) might be different. If one particular alter-creator created a world with one particular goal does not mean that this goal must apply to the whole infinity of Consciousness.

Let me put it this way - the highest possible goal for any individual is that which satisfies their deepest spiritual needs. So if we were to take a survey and ask individual humans to specify those needs, and we assume everyone is self-aware enough to know their deepest needs and honest on the survey, then the satisfaction of whatever they write down is the highest goal. They don't have to be exactly the same for everyone (which should address your democratic concerns). But, I have a feeling every human's list would end up looking very similar to each other.