belief redux

so i made a post about belief and i want to clarify my position a bit. first i think there are two aspects of belief. i think either of these two aspects could be characterized in terms of the other but neither, individually, would do to fully explain just what a belief is. these are:

(1) the biological aspect
(2)the behavioral aspect

(1) would describe something that goes on in the mind/brain when we believe something. i'm no expert in neurophysiology but i assume this has something to do with nerves, chemical reactions, electrical impulses, structural elements of of the nerves themselves, and location in the brain.

(2) has two components itself: linguistic and non-linguistic. i also believe both of these are necessary, and both have some sort of connection to the biological aspect of belief. let me explain what i mean:

(a) linguistic behavior of belief: if i believe snow is white, i will be willing to do at least three things. assuming we're talking about english-speakers, i'd be willing to (i) say "snow is white", (ii) agree with someone who says "snow is white", and (iii) say of a statement "snow is white" that it is true. of course, all three of these behaviors imply that believing something is believing it to be true (something i wholeheartedly agree with). i think it's also possible that believing "y" to a lesser degree than "x" means that you place more probability of "x" being true than "y", but i haven't fully or formally figured out how to phrase what i just said. [NB: the connection between belief, statements, and truth is important. Tarski and Ramsey had a lot to say about this.]

(b) non-linguistic behavior of belief: if i believe friend C is a safe driver, and i also assume the car is dependable and the other drivers aren't particularly crazy this particular day (a pretty hefty assumption here in miami), then not only will i be willing to articulate all of these beliefs, but i will also be willing to let C take me to the bookstore if she's offering a ride and i want to go there. it seems that there has to be an action correlated to the belief.

i guess the most controversial part of what i'm saying is the non-linguistic behavior part. but really, here i'm mostly thinking of the hypocritical maxim. it says: "do as i say, not as i do." why would anyone be put in such a compromising position that they would have to say this? it's because this person is professing one thing while doing another (usually the opposite). so a more accurate indicator of what they believe is what they do. and if they were to profess what they did instead of something else, then the apparent contradiction inherent in hypocrites would disappear.

again, another way of interpreting this non-linguistic behavior is what i believe to be the risk you takes when you believe something. to genuinely believe something you are also putting yourself in a position where if what you believe happens to turn out to be false, you're at a disadvantage. at the very least, when a belief turns out to be false, there is an uneasy moment when you have to replace that belief by fixating on another (how you acquire this new belief is a different question altogether). so by believing something, you're risking your own butt by compromising yourself if you're wrong.