We can't choose to believe?

[Acim]

It really is quite simple. A belief is "any proposition which we hold to be true". You cannot, as a voluntary act of will, simply "decide" to hold a given proposition as true. You can choose to SAY you hold a given proposition as true, you can even choose to ACT as if you hold a given proposition as true, but you cannot simply "choose" what propositions you accept and what propositions you reject. They are a result of evaluation, perspective and experience - not of simple, voluntary will.

This paragraph demonstratively establishes that beliefs are chosen. As I've stated elsewhere, they aren't only chosen. So, not an either-or proposition. But even accepting of that proposition is a choice. The whole thread strikes me as a discussion that demonstrate beliefs are chosen. You decide to validate an assessment or reject it, or parse it, or whatever. You/we are choosing this in a continuous process of visible dialogue, that is this thread.

This quote says 'I cannot choose what propositions I accept and what propositions I reject. (Instead) it is a result of evaluation, perspective and experience.' The evaluation part is the choosing among a set of judgments and/or beliefs. Perhaps, it is purely (and only) semantical in how the terms are being conveyed. I choose to believe it is not entirely semantical and invite further discussion, but reserve the right to choose to reject my self imposed belief that it is not entirely semantical.

Perspective can and will be updated based on the beliefs I choose to accept (or reject).

I would gladly provide an example (already have in this thread), but I honestly cannot think of a plausible example where beliefs are not chosen. Especially when realizing that some beliefs may be (knowingly or unknowingly) mistaken.

 

[Acim]

And I am a married bachelor until you can disprove it too.

I choose to believe that married bachelors exist. Can you disprove that I have made this choice?

 

[Acim]

Then this is where we are going wrong. Beliefs are not a worldview, they are positions which are held to be true. They are the conclusions, not the method.

A worldview is not a method, and is a conclusion (or belief) about the world and/or one's self within their own world. Therefore, some beliefs may actually be a worldview.

You can choose to believe what I just stated is accurate, or reject it. I choose to believe you will do one or the other. Possibly both.

 

[Acim]

If you're in charge of convincing yourself to believe then you could choose to believe anything, at any time, with no reason at all. If I told you to convince yourself that you could breathe sand, could you?

Absolutely.

Would you lie face down on the beach, face buried in the sand, and willingly take a big breath in?

I may. But what does what I choose to believe have to do with how I may choose to act? Asked rhetorically. I get how they connect, but the discussion is focussed (I believe) on whether beliefs are chosen in the first place or not chosen and that our beliefs are instead involuntary and have no input from our conscious will. I still find the latter humorous to even consider. Not saying I've never done it (perhaps I do it often) but am saying that if I do it, or see it being done within a philosophical debate, it humors me that my mental processes would go in that direction and pretend I had no choice in the matter.

Or, are you claiming that you have beliefs and you convince yourself that they are right? That seems more like trying to deal with cognitive dissonance than anything else. It's not that you choose your beliefs, you are trying to choose to ignore information which proves those beliefs to be wrong in order to cling to them for emotional reasons. That is called denial. It is also a part of beliefs you did not choose. You emotionally become invested in particular beliefs you have formed because, along with those beliefs, you have picked up a more encompassing belief about those beliefs that they must not be interfered with. Like a house of cards. Each card you have represents a belief and all together they have formed this precarious house. If you encounter something which may remove or somehow affect one particular card (belief) then it can have an avalanche effect on the rest of the cards. So you protect your house. You try to consciously turn a blind eye to or reason away anything that may endanger your house. Eventually this will fail. This is an effort to be ignorant of certain information in order to retain deniability.

All fine and good. Still doesn't take away from the notion that some beliefs are chosen. Some beliefs might be my/our undoing, leading to horrible things (if you choose to believe it is horrible). Mistaken beliefs might have 'bad' repercussions. Doesn't mean they aren't chosen, consciously.

 

[Acim]

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.

What would be an example of this in this thread, recently?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How can one make a move without any prior knowledge? Doesn't knowing what moves are constitute prior knowledge?

Prior knowledge of any intended result. For example, if the player has three possible moves they can make, then they number each move 1, 2 or 3, then they use a random number generator to determine which move they make. It's got nothing to do with something being "truly" random - it's just random in the sense of the outcome and impact of the decision relating to the benefit or detriment of the game.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

No worries. Thank you very much for the apology, and I also apologize for any judgement I made of you. Kudos!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Choosing to do something and believing in a particular outcome are not the same thing. This was covered in the post you quoted: one is a position which can be decided upon. You may decide to climb out of your window - you may even try to act as if this is a reasonable thing to do - but you cannot change your belief in the result of this action by a simple act of voluntary will.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Beliefs are not just "ideas". A belief is a proposition which is held to be true. For the purpose of my metaphor, beliefs are represented as the outcome of the game (i.e: winning or losing). What you believe about each move is irrelevant to whether or not the outcome of the move results in winning or losing.

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.

Again, I feel you're stretching my metaphor in directions it is never intended to go. The game simply represents the mental processes, some involving voluntary will, while the outcome of the game represents the resulting belief. It's merely intended to illustrate how the process of choosing can influence your mental process without being a direct influence on the outcome (the belief) and hence beliefs are not chosen.

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.)

I have yet to see a particularly convincing example of a single belief that has been consciously chosen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I choose to believe that married bachelors exist. Can you disprove that I have made this choice?

Yes, because you can't choose to believe something that is necessarily internally contradictory.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A worldview is not a method, and is a conclusion (or belief) about the world and/or one's self within their own world. Therefore, some beliefs may actually be a worldview.

Beliefs are PART of a worldview, but beliefs don't constitute worldviews themselves. It's no different to saying houses are made from bricks, but a brick is not a house.

You can choose to believe what I just stated is accurate, or reject it. I choose to believe you will do one or the other. Possibly both.

I don't "choose" either, because I believe that your above statement is inaccurate and displays a basic misunderstanding of the definition of the words "belief" and "worldview", at least as far I have been defining them in this thread.

 

[Willamena]

What would be an example of this in this thread, recently?

I'm still waiting for it.

 

[Willamena]

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.

That's justification of winning. That's something other than believing yourself into a win.

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.)

How does "conscious choice" differ from "choice"?

 

[Willamena]

This paragraph demonstratively establishes that beliefs are chosen. As I've stated elsewhere, they aren't only chosen. So, not an either-or proposition. But even accepting of that proposition is a choice. The whole thread strikes me as a discussion that demonstrate beliefs are chosen. You decide to validate an assessment or reject it, or parse it, or whatever. You/we are choosing this in a continuous process of visible dialogue, that is this thread.

This quote says 'I cannot choose what propositions I accept and what propositions I reject. (Instead) it is a result of evaluation, perspective and experience.' The evaluation part is the choosing among a set of judgments and/or beliefs. Perhaps, it is purely (and only) semantical in how the terms are being conveyed. I choose to believe it is not entirely semantical and invite further discussion, but reserve the right to choose to reject my self imposed belief that it is not entirely semantical.

Perspective can and will be updated based on the beliefs I choose to accept (or reject).

I would gladly provide an example (already have in this thread), but I honestly cannot think of a plausible example where beliefs are not chosen. Especially when realizing that some beliefs may be (knowingly or unknowingly) mistaken.

Decision happens unconsciously. Becoming aware of a decision (i.e. in consciousness) is becoming aware of something that is actual (i.e. it has already happened). Else, there is nothing yet to be aware of.

Edit: To reiterate, decisions don't happen in consciousness. Consciousness is a reflection of the world. Decisions happened in the world.

 

[Willamena]

How can one make a move without any prior knowledge?

If knowledge is true, as in the JTB definition, then yes, it's kind of a given that you won't know the outcome.

 

[Willamena]

All very possible to choose to believe in. And simultaneously believe in alternate notions that provide 'answer' to the hypothesis.

"Choosing to believe in" it (i.e. pretend to believe) and choosing belief in it are different things.

 

[Willamena]

A worldview is not a method, and is a conclusion (or belief) about the world and/or one's self within their own world. Therefore, some beliefs may actually be a worldview.

You can choose to believe what I just stated is accurate, or reject it. I choose to believe you will do one or the other. Possibly both.

He chooses to believe what you just stated is accurate or not based on his worldview. His worldview isn't by choice, though. It's what he actually thinks.

 

[Acim]

Choosing to do something and believing in a particular outcome are not the same thing.

Agreed. One choice is about action, the other outcomes. You are not (in this post) stating what a belief is.

This was covered in the post you quoted: one is a position which can be decided upon. You may decide to climb out of your window - you may even try to act as if this is a reasonable thing to do - but you cannot change your belief in the result of this action by a simple act of voluntary will.

In the previous post, and in the link to LessWrong (which you don't provide directly, but which I find here), it clearly states that some beliefs are chosen/voluntary. Here is a selected quote from the link I provided:

It seems that human beings have two kinds of beliefs: binary beliefs and quasi-Bayesian beliefs. The binary beliefs are what we usually think of as beliefs, simple statements which are true or false like "Two and two make four," "The sun will rise tomorrow," "The Messiah is coming," and so on.

Binary beliefs are basically voluntary. We can choose such beliefs much as we can choose to lift our arms and legs. If I say "the sun will rise tomorrow," I am choosing to say this, just as I can choose to lift my arm. I can even choose the internal factor. I can choose to say to myself, "the sun will rise tomorrow." And I can also choose to say that the sun will NOT rise. I can choose to say this to others, and I can even choose to say it to myself, within my own head.

Of course, it would be reasonable to respond to this by saying that this does not mean that someone can choose to believe that the sun will not rise. Even if he says this to himself, he still does not act as though the sun is not going to rise. He won't start making preparations for a freezing world, for example. The answer to this is that choosing to believe something is more than choosing to say it to oneself and to others. Rather, it is choosing to conform the whole of one's life to the idea that this is true. And someone could indeed choose to believe that the sun will not rise in this sense, if he thought he had a reason to do so. If he did so choose, he would indeed begin to make preparations for a dark world, because he would be choosing to conform his actions to that opinion. And he would do this voluntarily, just as someone can voluntarily lift his arm.

*Bold emphasis mine.

I do not take the article as gospel, and find it questionable/debatable.

As I stated elsewhere, some beliefs are chosen, others are not. If some are, then it would be a counter position to both the article and what I'm stating in this thread, to say beliefs are never chosen.

Your move.

 

[Acim]

Beliefs are not just "ideas". A belief is a proposition which is held to be true. For the purpose of my metaphor, beliefs are represented as the outcome of the game (i.e: winning or losing). What you believe about each move is irrelevant to whether or not the outcome of the move results in winning or losing.

Disagreed. What each player believes about each move is relevant to that move and relevant to the outcome of the game. Also what each observer believes is also relevant. That a game of chess was played, or exists now (somewhere) or will one day be played will not be impacted by individual beliefs.

And yes, beliefs are ideas. As are propositions. As are assessments.

Again, I feel you're stretching my metaphor in directions it is never intended to go.

Perhaps by you, it was not intended. I believe using a game of chess serves as one of many examples to show how some beliefs are chosen.

The game simply represents the mental processes, some involving voluntary will, while the outcome of the game represents the resulting belief. It's merely intended to illustrate how the process of choosing can influence your mental process without being a direct influence on the outcome (the belief) and hence beliefs are not chosen.

So, your metaphor is the debatable part (for me) in this thread. It is pigeon-holing some beliefs that may or may not be chosen and then, if I follow your rationale, is suggesting therefore (all) beliefs are never chosen. None of them. This contradicts what LessWrong says about (some) beliefs.

I have yet to see a particularly convincing example of a single belief that has been consciously chosen.

...which would be another example that beliefs are consciously chosen.

 

[Acim]

Yes, because you can't choose to believe something that is necessarily internally contradictory.

Sure you can. You saying one can't choose this doesn't dispel the notion that one can choose to believe something that is (inherently) contradictory.