This is good, but I have one qualification for the belief in belief case (number 3).
Something that doesn’t come up much in map/territory discussions is the fact that the territory has no concept of a map. “Maps” only exist on other maps; the territory just contains gooey neuron stuff.
So if John says “I believe X”, we may be tempted to ask whether John really believes X, or whether he just believes that he believes X. But this is just asking whether an object is a blegg or a rube.
What we’re actually observing is:
John expresses belief X
John says and does some things that appear consistent with a belief in X, and others that aren’t
This is good, but I have one qualification for the belief in belief case (number 3).
Something that doesn’t come up much in map/territory discussions is the fact that the territory has no concept of a map. “Maps” only exist on other maps; the territory just contains gooey neuron stuff.
So if John says “I believe X”, we may be tempted to ask whether John really believes X, or whether he just believes that he believes X. But this is just asking whether an object is a blegg or a rube.
What we’re actually observing is:
John expresses belief X
John says and does some things that appear consistent with a belief in X, and others that aren’t
John is therefore exhibiting compartmentalization
To a greater or lesser extent, this may fit the “belief in belief” pattern.