Can You Choose to Believe?

[Polymath257]

I'd say it requires much more effort to choose to accept the evidence. It requires no real conscious effort to reject that which conflicts with your beliefs.

We are never neutral when preexisting beliefs come into contact with new information, but have strong cognitive biases against that which conflicts and in favour of that which confirms.

This affects us all, without exception, as we only have limited rationality.

Overall I agree. But I also have 'flags' on my beliefs where I note what they are based on and what could negate them. When a new idea affects the flag, I look closer to evaluate what is going on.

 

[Augustus]

That's certainly NOT my experience. In general, when I hear an idea, I put it in a type of 'holding cell' where I evaluate it. If anything, I start out skeptical and am moved to belief if the idea fits well with other, previous beliefs that are related. So, if anything, I find it far easier to disbelieve than to believe.

See for example:

You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read

ABSTRACT

Can people comprehend assertions without believing them? Descartes (1644/1984) suggested that people can and should, whereas Spinoza (1677/1982) suggested that people should but cannot. Three experiments support the hypothesis that comprehension includes an initial belief in the information comprehended. Ss were exposed to false information about a criminal defendant (Experiments 1 and 2) or a college student (Experiment 3). Some Ss were exposed to this information while under load (Experiments 1 and 2) or time pressure (Experiment 3). Ss made judgments about the target (sentencing decisions or liking judgments). Both load and time pressure caused Ss to believe the false information and to use it in making consequential decisions about the target. In Spinozan terms, both manipulations prevented Ss from "unbelieving" the false information they automatically believed during comprehension.


http://www.danielgilbert.com/Gilbert et al (EVERYTHING YOU READ).pdf

 

[Mock Turtle]

See for example:

You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read

ABSTRACT

Can people comprehend assertions without believing them? Descartes (1644/1984) suggested that people can and should, whereas Spinoza (1677/1982) suggested that people should but cannot. Three experiments support the hypothesis that comprehension includes an initial belief in the information comprehended. Ss were exposed to false information about a criminal defendant (Experiments 1 and 2) or a college student (Experiment 3). Some Ss were exposed to this information while under load (Experiments 1 and 2) or time pressure (Experiment 3). Ss made judgments about the target (sentencing decisions or liking judgments). Both load and time pressure caused Ss to believe the false information and to use it in making consequential decisions about the target. In Spinozan terms, both manipulations prevented Ss from "unbelieving" the false information they automatically believed during comprehension.


http://www.danielgilbert.com/Gilbert et al (EVERYTHING YOU READ).pdf

It is true that the Spinozan view does not portray people as especially capable skeptics, but neither does it portray them as relentlessly gullible automata. The hypothesis suggests that people are instantly reprogrammed by the assertions they encounter, but it also suggests that they can do something to restore themselves to their previous state. Three things are required for such "self-reprogramming" to occur (see Gilbert, 1993 ). First, a person must have a set of rules for the logical analysis of assertions. If one does not understand that the assertions "Smith is X" and "Smith is not X" cannot both be true of the same Smith at the same time, then no amount of cognitive work will enable the person who has heard both of these assertions to unbelieve either one of them. Second, a person must have a set of true beliefs to compare to new beliefs. To some extent, all mental systems work by coherence (i.e., they evaluate the veracity of new ideas by comparing them with old ones and measuring the fit). If the system mistakenly believes that Smith is a woman, then it cannot reject the assertion that Smith is pregnant on purely logical grounds. Finally, a person must have the desire and capacity to perform work, that is, the motivation and ability to use the rules of logical analysis to compare new and old beliefs. If people are unable or unwilling to analyze an assertion (because, e.g., they are rushed or are currently attending to some other task), then the possession of logical skills and true beliefs may not matter.

Hence the use of the word 'people' might sensibly be changed to 'some people' throughout the text. If in doubt, keep it out.

 

[Audie]

We often choose without any ''evidence.'' I could believe that the tree is real, from afar...without ever having to see it.

Isnt "assume" your word, rather than "choose"?

 

[Audie]

People choose based on what they believe. While beliefs can and do change, it isnt a matter of choice.

Edit: sorry if this post is duplicated, I'll fix it in a second.

Um, in other words, they dont choose.

 

[Audie]

It might be more accurate to ask whether we can choose what not to believe. We can't choose what to believe as we believe everything (at first anyway).

Our brains initially interpret that which we can comprehend as being true, and disbelief is the effortful action.

As to whether we can choose to believe something we have deemed to be false, over time we probably could convince ourselves by force of will. Pretend something for long enough and it becomes natural.

I dont see any difference in choosing what to believe, and what not to believe.

As for pretending long enough, I think that is what
religious belief is. AKA self deception.

I think the only ones here who will come out saying
that of course you choose to believe will be
religious ones, of a fundamentalist sort.

 

[Windwalker]

Suppose there are different ways of knowing and/or believing something. Say, one way to believe something is to become intellectually convinced of it through reasoned argument, but another way to believe something is to experience it.

The difference between believing the tree in my back yard is real because I told you it is, and one night stumbling into it.

So, can you choose to believe?

Suppose there are multiple ways to perceive something as true, each with its own supporting evidences to convince the mind of its truth. Now you have a choice of what to believe. Which do you choose, and why, is the really interesting question.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Suppose there are different ways of knowing and/or believing something. Say, one way to believe something is to become intellectually convinced of it through reasoned argument, but another way to believe something is to experience it.

The difference between believing the tree in my back yard is real because I told you it is, and one night stumbling into it.

So, can you choose to believe?

That is how sports teams function and political parties. "We are a team!"

 

[Deidre]

Isnt "assume" your word, rather than "choose"?

?

 

[Augustus]

Hence the use of the word 'people' might sensibly be changed to 'some people' throughout the text. If in doubt, keep it out.

That passage was talking about the process of correcting that which is initially comprehended as true. It was not saying that this negates the initial comprehension as true.

Hence no need for the

 

[Audie]

Suppose there are multiple ways to perceive something as true, each with its own supporting evidences to convince the mind of its truth. Now you have a choice of what to believe. Which do you choose, and why, is the really interesting question.

I dont think so. If you choose, it is not real.
It is pretending.

Why you choose to pretend is where your
more or less interesting question comes in.

No two things will have equal evidence, but if they
are close, I wont "choose" either. Might have to
act on one, but that isnt choosing to believe, it
is choosing to risk itl

If A has a small amount of poor evidence, and B
is abundantly supported, I dont choose B.

 

[PureX]

Suppose there are different ways of knowing and/or believing something. Say, one way to believe something is to become intellectually convinced of it through reasoned argument, but another way to believe something is to experience it.

The difference between believing the tree in my back yard is real because I told you it is, and one night stumbling into it.

So, can you choose to believe?

I think that once we understand that "knowing" is a limited and relative cognitive experience, we can choose to believe or not to believe what we think we know to be so. Once we understand that just because we've been told there is a god, and then we experienced something that we presumed to be that god, doesn't mean that we know there is a god beyond our own limited and subjective knowledge and experience.

Most of us don't understand this. We think that once we have learned OF a phenomena, and then experienced that phenomena for ourselves, that we must then be in possession true knowledge of that phenomena. And therefor we feel obliged to convince everyone else, as we have been convinced. And we don't see how or why we could or should possibly think differently. But in reality, we humans tend to experience things as we have been taught to expect them to be. We identify what we experience through the cognitive framework of what we have experienced, before, and what we have been told other people have experienced, before us. And that's a big, built in bias that we then use to define everything we experience going forward.

However, we can choose not to presume this biased and limited understanding of things to be a universal truth, even though it appears to be the truth, to us. Which means we can choose not to insist that everyone else understand things the way we do. Or that the way we understand things is the only right way to understand them. Few of us will gain this insight in life, however, because most of us will resist it based on ego, even if we are intellectually capable of grasping it.

 

[Audie]

?

Sorry-ah, I dont know how to be more clear.

 

[Audie]

I think that once we understand that "knowing" is a limited and relative cognitive experience, we can choose to believe or not to believe what we think we know to be so.

We all know you cant get all the facts on anything.
And-
Nope, it aint a choice. You either actually believe, or dont.
Any choice involved would be a whether to indulge
in self deception.

 

[PureX]

We all know you cant get all the facts on anything.
And-
Nope, it aint a choice. You either actually believe, or dont.
Any choice involved would be a whether to indulge
in self deception.

If you believe you don't have a choice, and you insist on maintaining and protecting that belief, then you won't have a choice, because you will have denied it to yourself. Congratulations, you get to be unquestionably "right", then. And you can go tell everyone else how right you are, and how wrong they are should they disagree with you. The ego has won, and you have no choice on the matter.

 

[Thief]

Suppose there are different ways of knowing and/or believing something. Say, one way to believe something is to become intellectually convinced of it through reasoned argument, but another way to believe something is to experience it.

The difference between believing the tree in my back yard is real because I told you it is, and one night stumbling into it.

So, can you choose to believe?

it seems Moses chose to believe before climbing the mount
and having found what he sought....
the event made him stammer
(so I heard)

hey ......do trees hit back when you run into them?

seems they jump out in front cars now and then

 

[Thief]

We all know you cant get all the facts on anything.
And-
Nope, it aint a choice. You either actually believe, or dont.
Any choice involved would be a whether to indulge
in self deception.

many will say.....Lord! Lord!
but He knows them not

I suspect believing is only the starting point

 

[Thief]

oh....and if I cut down your tree......it will make a sound

you might be around to hear it

Thief is ninja!

 

[Audie]

If you believe you don't have a choice, and you insist on maintaining and protecting that belief, then you won't have a choice, because you will have denied it to yourself. Congratulations, you get to be unquestionably "right", then. And you can to tell everyone else how right you are, and how wrong they are should they disagree. The ego has won, and you have no choice on the matter.

Ah yes, makelup silly things to say about me,
in your effort to defend the indefensible.

 

[Windwalker]

I dont think so. If you choose, it is not real.
It is pretending.

Once upon a time, I believed that too. But the basis for me saying this is not on religious or spiritual grounds, but practical psychological grounds. I'll explain....

Why you choose to pretend is where your
more or less interesting question comes in.

In reality, if we assume say a choice of believing "I am a worthless human being," or "I am a unique and beautiful human being," both in their own right are "pretending", as you put it. With both choices of belief, you will find plenty of supporting evidences for either position. And how that happens is quite fascinating.

In "pretending", assuming a position and then holding it as truth, we actually create its reality for us. It becomes a self-amplifying feedback system. "I believe I am ugly and undesirable socially". Start with that belief, and yes, you will look in the mirror and see ugliness. You will walk out in public with your head hung low. Others will then avoid you because you exude negativity from your person. You become unpleasant to be around.

You have now all the evidence you need to reinforce the truth of that belief you chose out of other options. You then experience that worthlessness you believe, thus validating its truth in your own eyes, and to be told, "No, you are beautiful", is in fact a pure fiction in your eyes, because "reality" for you says everything but that! You know you are undesirable, because look, nobody wants to be around you!

One of the basic concepts in the Cognitive Behavioral Sciences is how our choice of beliefs, what we tell ourselves is true, creates the reality of that belief for ourselves in either negative, or positive feedback loops. The set of eyes we use to see evidences are colorized by our chosen perspective, or choosing what to believe about a given situation, or at a deeper level, the truth of ourselves. Say what one will about the effectiveness of CBT treatment therapies, there are core truths to what it says.

In reality, all "reality" is "pretend". We collectively choose a perception of reality that works for us in one way or another. Reality, such as it is for us, is nothing other than perception of truth. A metaphor for truth. We take basic "openness", create a metaphor to describe aspects of it, an "as if" statement, and then invest our ideas and beliefs, our meaning-making aspects of our mind into that image, that model, that "as if" statement as what it is. It then becomes that, a lived, and experienced reflection of that projection of our individual and collective truths upon that openness.

Reality is a reflection of our beliefs. And the result is we literally inhabit different realities, even though we share the same physical spaces together. What becomes truth to us, begins with a choice in belief, either explicitly chosen, or simply adopted slipping in through programming of beliefs through culture and society. Not all choices in belief, are overt choices. A great deal of depression can in fact be effectively treated by choosing to believe positive ideas instead.

There is equally as much evidence to support those, as there was the depressing views. One can be looking straight at evidence which contradicts that view, and literally be unable to perceive it because beliefs create a structure that disallows other perceptions of reality. It is in a way kind of a cosmic joke, that all our realities begin and end with "pretending".

If A has a small amount of poor evidence, and B
is abundantly supported, I dont choose B.

You do if you're motivated to.