We can't choose to believe?

[Willamena]

I'd like to point out that in response to this "new information" you had a variety of options:

1) Ignore it and dismiss it wholesale
2) Assimilate portions of the new information
3) Accept it and adopt it wholesale
4) Do more than one of of the above​

And from there, the changes to your worldview could be anything from:

1) Stalwartly maintaining your previous worldview
2) Making limited adjustments to your current worldview to shift to a somewhat revised worldview
3) Throwing out your previous worldview entirely and starting from scratch
4) Do more than one of the above​

Do you feel these options did not exist?

Actually, since the "new information" had (and still has) the appearance of truth, most of those are not options. I cannot ignore truth--the world is. Any "portion" would be different information, not the new information. I can but accept it, because that is what "it's true" means: that I've accepted it.

In this, I am a willing and active participant in the world.

 

[Willamena]

To me, a worldview isn't something you design. It's something you have.

 

[Quintessence]

To me, a worldview isn't something you design. It's something you have.

That is such a strange notion to me.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But nothing about my beliefs has changed by doing that.

Yet you chose one belief over another.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'd like to point out that in response to this "new information" you had a variety of options:

1) Ignore it and dismiss it wholesale
2) Assimilate portions of the new information
3) Accept it and adopt it wholesale
4) Do more than one of of the above​

And from there, the changes to your worldview could be anything from:

1) Stalwartly maintaining your previous worldview
2) Making limited adjustments to your current worldview to shift to a somewhat revised worldview
3) Throwing out your previous worldview entirely and starting from scratch
4) Do more than one of the above​

Do you feel these options did not exist?

Sure, these options exist, but that has no real relevance to whether or not the beliefs that result from those choices lead to a "choosing" of beliefs. Again, I refer you back to my chess analogy (which even I'm getting sick of at this point...): when your turn comes, you can make a variety of moves based on countless options in your head. For example, you could:

1) Make a move which will result in, or ultimately aid, winning in the game.
2) Make a move which will result in, or ultimately aid, losing in the game.
3) Make a move which has no significance in either winning or losing the game.
4) Make a move at random.

You can have a whole spectrum of motivations behind each and every one of these moves. Competitiveness, pride, apathy, boredom, impulsiveness, creativity, playfulness, humour, humility, kindness, politeness. These things all play a role in how we determine which move we make.

However, none of these decisions are the same as simply choosing to win or lose the game. The winning or losing is determined by the outcome of the moves, and that alone. You could play a game with every intention of losing, and yet still somehow end up winning. You could play a game at random and end up beating a chess grand master. Your choices factor into how you play the game, but they ultimately do not factor in to how the game ends. Obviously, someone who goes into a game with the intention of winning will stand a far greater chance of winning than someone who is playing at random, but the decision to play to win does not equate to a decision to win.

With beliefs, you can ignore new information - for whatever reason - or you can choose to accept and accommodate new information - for whatever reason. But these choices do no mean the same thing as "choosing to believe" or not. Ignoring information or accepting information may or may not be negligible factors in the beliefs that result, just as choosing to make a good move in chess or making a bad move in chess may or may not be negligible factors in winning the game. The beliefs, the things that we hold to be true as a result of our individual world views and experiences, are the result of this process. They are not in any way tied to the voluntary will we have, but are the end result of innumerable, largely subconscious, mental processes.

 

[Quintessence]

If you're sick of your chess metaphor, please feel free to stop using it. I have ignored it because it isn't at all accurate with respect to the angle I take on this topic. I don't agree with it, and the equivocations you drew misconstrue what I was getting at there to the point that they don't apply to what I was saying. If you insist upon thinking about this as a "game," then the game *I* am playing not only lacks rules entirely, there is no winning or loosing. The framework you're drawing does not apply to how I approach things.

 

[Willamena]

Yet you chose one belief over another.

I held both beliefs. Which is active is circumstantial.

Edit: Belief is here and now, in the present moment. If I implement a change, such as putting glasses on, while that may be presented as "choice," that choice has no impact on what I believe. What I believe is the world through my natural vision as well as the world filtered through corrective lenses--both are correct propositions about the world.

 

[Shad]

A concept for the physical you an attribute to the primordial you.

Physical is real not conceptural

Actually it comes from a philosophy. Should there be something which acts on the physical world then it is essential.

No it doesn't.

So, I can assume that you only believe in present physical universe?

You could remove present since this is a timeframe reference which is unnecessary. So far that is all we have evidence for. I do not entertain speculation be it M-theory or other metaphysics from either side as solid grounding for any point of view.

 

[Shad]

Humans.

I follow soft determinism, compatibilism, in which free will can function. However the will can be overridden by physical and mental variables such as rage, depression, etc.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

4) Make a move at random.

What does this mean?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What does this mean?

Making a move with no prior knowledge to any intended result.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you're sick of your chess metaphor, please feel free to stop using it. I have ignored it because it isn't at all accurate with respect to the angle I take on this topic. I don't agree with it, and the equivocations you drew misconstrue what I was getting at there to the point that they don't apply to what I was saying. If you insist upon thinking about this as a "game," then the game *I* am playing not only lacks rules entirely, there is no winning or loosing. The framework you're drawing does not apply to how I approach things.

I have repeatedly asked you to explain what you mean, and all you presented was vague statements about shifting perspectives that didn't even hint at the notion of actually choosing beliefs. If you don't like my metaphor, fine. If you think it doesn't apply to you, go ahead and think that. But don't act rude and dismissive when someone explains how your statements don't contradict the notion of beliefs not being chosen. Simply saying "I can choose my beliefs" and being unable to explain exactly how or why, or provide any reasonable argument to support that position, is not constructive to this debate. At least my metaphor is an attempt to simplify and elucidate the meaning of the topics at hand rather than obfuscate them.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Making a move with no prior knowledge to any intended result.

How can one make a move without any prior knowledge? Doesn't knowing what moves are constitute prior knowledge? More importantly, in the spirit of full disclosure, I asked because
1) I find that these sorts of discussions often involve the use of notions like "random" which are used as if the term were formally defined but are in fact defined in terms of common use (informally) and thus problematically.
2) It is extremely difficult to make a random move, as shown by the fact that it is impossible to program a random generator that is actually random. Therefore, it seems that if one could make a move at random one has to choose to do that which cannot be done according to any stepwise, algorithmic procedure.
However, I don't want to make any arguments, claims, or points based upon a casual use of metaphor, hence my request for a definition. Thanks!

 

[allfoak]

I would like to make a public apology to @ImmortalFlame
I am sorry for judging you the way i did.

 

[Acim]

I really tried to read the whole thread before respond. I truly did. But just couldn't hold back.

Clearly beliefs can be chosen, and not all beliefs are chosen.

Many beliefs are not fixated. They are updated. They exist within a plurality of a set (which is also constantly updated).

It is both possible and plausible to believe in diametrically opposed notions on the same topic. With regards to how I read OP, it would be possible to genuinely believe 2 (or more) different outcomes of a stated proposition. Once plurality in choices is accepted, and once beliefs are understood as not fixated, I find it challenging to understand how anyone could reason that beliefs are not open to choosing. In my observations, science is continuously embracing this notion. Though perhaps not the best paradigm to help establish the point I'm raising. Just one where reason clearly comes into play and where it may have more practicality in understanding the notion rather than dealing only with (ahem) make believe. Essentially, science continuously has competing theories that may simultaneously exist or, more likely, once existed (still make sense) but have been updated and replaced with an alternate explanation. That's all fine and good within the rigidness of science, but it results in different adherents to the (various) scientific explanations. And some (individuals) may choose to believe both / all (or neither/none) are valid.

Some of what I am getting from the OP and throughout this thread is the notion that beliefs are fixated / unmovable. As in:

Are you sure that you could just decide to genuinely believe that the moon is made out of green cheese? Are you sure that you could just decide to genuinely believe that 2+2=42? Are you sure that you could just decide to genuinely believe that Elvis Presley was resurrected from the dead? You can´t. Try it if you don´t believe me.

All very possible to choose to believe in. And simultaneously believe in alternate notions that provide 'answer' to the hypothesis. Plus possible to believe in none of them. I find it humorous to think beliefs are fixed in one direction or another and are stuck there by something outside of our/my control. I can genuinely believe Elvis was resurrected from the dead, while simultaneously believing Elvis was not resurrected, and also believing Elvis never died, and also believing Elvis likes (or liked) peanut butter and banana sandwiches. I throw in the last item, because beliefs really do work a lot like that. It's not an either-or proposition. I can believe that when 2 and 2 are put together, it equals 22. I genuinely believe this. I also genuinely believe 2+2 =1. And I genuinely believe 2+2 =4. So I genuinely believe 3 different outcomes about 2+2=. Perhaps depending on where I'm at and what my purpose is for enacting that particular belief, I may choose to conform to what I understand to be the 'popular' answer. Then again, I may not. But the fact that I think 2 exists and can be added to another 2 helps to realize I really do think plurality exists right now.

 

[Acim]

Bayesian Beliefs, on the other hand, are entirely involuntary. Bayesian Beliefs relate to the actual assessed probability we hold for given propositions in our minds, and this is not something that we can simply decide to change as a voluntary act of will. To use my previous metaphor, while you may choose to say your bedroom window is a good method to leave your house, and you may even choose to step out of your window if you really want to, no amount of will can alter the notion in your head that throwing yourself out of that window will not result in you falling several feet and likely hurting yourself. Without information altering your assessed probability, you cannot simply choose to believe that you are more likely to simply walk out of your bedroom window without falling than you are to walk out of your bedroom window and fall to the earth.

We can alter how we act to the world in accordance with personal desire, but we cannot voluntarily choose the propositions that we actually hold to be true as a matter of assessment, probability or personal acceptance. These beliefs are necessarily subconscious and involuntary, as we cannot simply choose to alter that which we feel we have already assessed, or the probability we hold for a given proposition. We may change how we assess or we may change the probabilities we assign to particular propositions, but the beliefs that result from these alterations are still a matter that decided subconsciously by the process utilised. Beliefs are the destination reached via given assessments of the information we have, and as such cannot be said to be beholden to our conscious will.

Bayesian beliefs strike me as instinct rather than beliefs. If they are technically beliefs, then I would argue that my dreaming self is constantly challenging these beliefs through what appears to me to be conscious choosing. I have thrown myself out of the proverbial bedroom window many times, by choice in the moment, and not been hurt. I could do so in waking reality and would rationalize that I would likely be hurt, but that doesn't change the belief that I could (choose to) do this.

Perhaps there is a more practical example of Bayesian beliefs that would help make clear how the set of beliefs are not open to voluntary choosing, and yet are still actually beliefs.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I held both beliefs. Which is active is circumstantial.

Edit: Belief is here and now, in the present moment. If I implement a change, such as putting glasses on, while that may be presented as "choice," that choice has no impact on what I believe. What I believe is the world through my natural vision as well as the world filtered through corrective lenses--both are correct propositions about the world.

No, but it changes your perceptions and as your perceptions change so can your beliefs. Didn't we go over this?

 

[Willamena]

No, but it changes your perceptions and as your perceptions change so can your beliefs. Didn't we go over this?

And I asked "How?" My glasses example obviously isn't working, but then it wasn't presented to show how this works, but how it doesn't.

 

[Willamena]

Some replies here seem to make no distinction between "choosing to believe," as in the OP, and choosing a belief. I am making a distinction (in favour of the former). In the one context, you are allegedly "choosing" the truth of what you understand. I'm trying to get a grasp on how people are using another context.

 

[Acim]

No you don't. You win the game as a result of the moves you and your opponent make - you cannot simply "choose" to win a game. You may "choose" to make winning moves, but that doesn't change the fact that the win or loss is a result of how the game is played, not the fact that you somehow "chose to win".

It can be both. You can choose to win a game of chess (though winning may have different meanings to different people) and you can win a game a result of moves made by both players. Each move would be predicated on the idea (belief) that it would lead to a desired outcome. That outcome (in the moment the move is made) may not equate to 'winning' as defined by the many. It may be 'winning' over the course of either many games with the same opponent or different opponents or own self definitions of winning. How the game is played is a matter of belief. That belief may be very popular, perhaps even universal. That one chooses to win by capturing (or putting into check) an opponent's king, is a matter of observable moves that can be recorded and replayed, but each of those moves is predicated by the notion of various beliefs.

Beliefs that are chosen and turn out to be wrong (in some fashion) are mistaken beliefs. Doesn't mean they were not consciously chosen. (Not saying this necessarily follows from the previous paragraph, but is another point I'm seeing as underemphasized in the ongoing discussion.)