We can't choose to believe?

[Acim]

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.

Some beliefs may encapsulate a worldview. An example might be: I believe that Love is all there is (to reality). Due to plurality, I agree that in many instances that an individual is more likely to have a set of beliefs that make up their worldview. But belief alone may not be what constitutes one's worldview. Then again, it may.

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.

I have read your definitions and shown how your Bayesian link states that some beliefs are voluntary. If you wish for a particular definition to be made front and center, I'm most willing to work with it. I get that you have defined beliefs as "proposition which is held to be true." Some propositions are clearly chosen. You are choosing to hold true that a previous statement I made displays a basic misunderstanding (for you). And through the magic of projection, holding the proposition to be true about me / my understandings. You could choose otherwise, and it wouldn't need anything from me (going forward) to update that proposition.

 

[Acim]

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

..or so you choose to believe.

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

Because some choices are said to be made subconsciously (i.e. instinct), then it may be said that choice / choices have subsets. Conscious choice would be a subset of choice.

Perhaps instinct isn't good example for what is commonly understood as a behavioral response (action) to stimuli (phenomenon). In my previous statement, where I said:

Beliefs that are chosen and turn out to be wrong (in some fashion) are mistaken beliefs. Doesn't mean they were not consciously chosen.

I was speaking to mistaken beliefs in a general sense. But also thinking of a particular sense that I find rather significant. As in, I may choose to believe I am my body, that whatever I am is perhaps only defined/described by my body. What follows from this may be an entire set of beliefs and even (perception of) reality. If instead, the actual reality is that I am in a body, but it is not who I really am, then it would be a mistaken belief to say "I am my body." Anything else I say here along that tangent would probably have me becoming long winded. Though I will just note that this would be the type of (fundamental) belief that I choose between daily, if not way more often than that. The proposition (which I hold to be true) that asserts I was born into this body I now occupy, does not strike me as a conscious choice. Though even that gets convoluted for me, within the context of this type of topic. For surely, I can choose to not believe the past, my past, is reality. Some of the time, I choose to believe the past is real. As I sit here and ponder that, I do not fully know if that choice is made consciously, or not. I lean toward the idea that it is always consciously made.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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:

*Bold emphasis mine.

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

I already acknowledged explained that in the post you quoted. The "beliefs" that it is referring to as binary beliefs aren't "beliefs" by the conventional definition. It is a label they created for the purpose of the article, which is attempting to explain and differentiate between the notion of belief and belief *in* belief. By the conventional definition, "binary beliefs" aren't beliefs, as they are defined as actions - not as propositions which we hold to be true (which is what "beliefs" are defined as). The article explains hows a person can still act in accordance with, or claim, a belief without still necessarily making a "choice" to believe, and it does so by explaining that beliefs (for the purpose of the article defined as "Bayesian beliefs") aren't chosen.

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.

You keep saying that some beliefs are chosen, but I have yet to encounter a single example of a belief that has been "chosen", nor what you think "choosing beliefs" actually entails.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Disagreed. What each player believes about each move is relevant to that move and relevant to the outcome of the game.

That's ultimately irrelevant to the outcome of the game regardless. A player can make every move with the intention of winning and still lose. You cannot merely win as an act of intent.

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.

Again, you're labouring the metaphor. It is meant to be a simple illustration of a basic mental process.

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

A belief is any proposition that is held to be true. You can look it up in almost any dictionary. If I have an idea for a sandwich made out of charcoal, that isn't a belief.

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.

Then you don't understand the metaphor (or, at least, the game of chess).

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.

No it doesn't, if you actually understand what the definition of beliefs are and how the article explains the subject. You cannot "choose" propositions that you hold to be true.

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

No it isn't. Nobody has presented an example. That's not a choice.

 

[Acim]

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.

Me wonders why you asked, if you already had this notion in place?

So, if I decide right now that tomorrow I will go and vote for Trump, and tomorrow I go to cast my vote, you are saying that entire process occurred unconsciously (without my realization of it occurring or may occur)?

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

I think of it as both. In an attempt to dispel notions that the past is unreal, I may rationalize that decisions happened in the world that led to certain phenomenon which is still manifest (i.e. how did this newspaper come to be on my table, if the past is unreal?). Conversely, decisions today that I make, both in conception and in choice, either are made consciously or strongly suggest they are. Following the scientific method would be a series of choices and actions that I believe are all consciously made. If not, science has some 'splainin' to do.

Furthermore, if actual reality is that I am not my body, even while I believe I am in a/my body, then the world would plausibly be a reflection of consciousness.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

And you saying you can doesn't prove it either. What we do understand is the definition of beliefs, and the definitions of "married" and "bachelor", and how these definitions are mutually exclusive. If you understand the definition of belief, you should understand how you can't "choose" them, just as if you understand the definitions of "married" and "bachelor" you should understand how you can't be both.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Some beliefs may encapsulate a worldview. An example might be: I believe that Love is all there is (to reality). Due to plurality, I agree that in many instances that an individual is more likely to have a set of beliefs that make up their worldview. But belief alone may not be what constitutes one's worldview. Then again, it may.

Nope. World views are the sum total of our beliefs, experiences and perspectives. You cannot have a world view that is merely comprised of "beliefs" or "a belief", since beliefs themselves require experience and perspective. All three together constitute your world view.

I have read your definitions and shown how your Bayesian link states that some beliefs are voluntary.

I have already explained this. It's just equivocation.

If you wish for a particular definition to be made front and center, I'm most willing to work with it. I get that you have defined beliefs as "proposition which is held to be true." Some propositions are clearly chosen. You are choosing to hold true that a previous statement I made displays a basic misunderstanding (for you).

No I am not. There was no voluntary act of will that lead to be "choosing" that position. That position is the conclusion of the information and experience that I have had.

And through the magic of projection, holding the proposition to be true about me / my understandings. You could choose otherwise, and it wouldn't need anything from me (going forward) to update that proposition.

I can't simply "choose" to think that you understand something that you have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of.

 

[Acim]

I already acknowledged explained that in the post you quoted. The "beliefs" that it is referring to as binary beliefs aren't "beliefs" by the conventional definition.

Your rationale, right? Cause in the linked piece, it says:

The binary beliefs are what we usually think of as beliefs

...hence it is the conventional definition. 'Conventional' being defined as: based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.

It is a label they created for the purpose of the article, which is attempting to explain and differentiate between the notion of belief and belief *in* belief. By the conventional definition, "binary beliefs" aren't beliefs, as they are defined as actions - not as propositions which we hold to be true (which is what "beliefs" are defined as). The article explains hows a person can still act in accordance with, or claim, a belief without still necessarily making a "choice" to believe, and it does so by explaining that beliefs (for the purpose of the article defined as "Bayesian beliefs") aren't chosen.

Again, I see all this as your rationale, and not supported by the linked piece. You stating 'by the conventional definition - binary beliefs aren't beliefs,' is not stated in the link. Anywhere. Instead, the pieced I linked from LessWrong is stating that binary beliefs and Bayesian beliefs co-exist. Binary beliefs depend on choice and Bayesian beliefs rely on evidence, is how I read that piece. Thus, some beliefs (binary ones) are chosen. And the article notes them to be what we usually think of as beliefs.

You keep saying that some beliefs are chosen, but I have yet to encounter a single example of a belief that has been "chosen", nor what you think "choosing beliefs" actually entails.

Well, I guess the first part (above) has to be worked out before addressing this second part. I would like you to expound on your rationale, which I realize you've done in this thread, but also which I've responded to. I fully believe you have seen examples of chosen beliefs, and that you choose beliefs yourself. Yet, that might forever show up as nonsensical to you if you are stating that binary beliefs are not (really) beliefs and must never be understood as beliefs by anyone.

 

[Acim]

That's ultimately irrelevant to the outcome of the game regardless. A player can make every move with the intention of winning and still lose. You cannot merely win as an act of intent.

And a player can make every move with the intention of winning and win. So, it is relevant. Plus, if observed acutely, I believe it could be shown that the beliefs for each move determined the outcome. And that outcome may not only be with regards to that particular game. Yes, this stretches the metaphor, but I find 'winning' to be under defined in the metaphor. IOW, the assertion of beliefs as outcomes is under explained and, IMO, needs to be stretched or elaborated upon to decide if it is actually an attempt to pigeon hole all forms of belief into a particular, and incredibly limited definition of beliefs.

No it doesn't, if you actually understand what the definition of beliefs are and how the article explains the subject. You cannot "choose" propositions that you hold to be true.

I understand the dictionary definition(s) and the article. You can clearly choose propositions you hold to be true.

 

[Acim]

And you saying you can doesn't prove it either.

Sure it does. A stated belief of choice, establishes that it is a choice. Otherwise, how might we establish that anything was ever chosen? By our observations of another parties actions (only)? As in, "obviously poor people choose to be poor, based on their actions and behaviors. We don't need to ask them if it is their choice, because it is self evident in the way they behave."

What we do understand is the definition of beliefs, and the definitions of "married" and "bachelor", and how these definitions are mutually exclusive. If you understand the definition of belief, you should understand how you can't "choose" them, just as if you understand the definitions of "married" and "bachelor" you should understand how you can't be both.

Again, notions that are mutually exclusive doesn't mean that individuals can't claim to believe in them. It does mean that if they are asked to back up the belief with evidence, they may not be able to readily do so. In the case of a married bachelor, I would find it very interesting to see how that is attempted to be backed up. I currently believe it cannot be substantiated. Still, if one wishes to believe that married bachelors exist, that is their choice.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

I'm sorry you think I've been trying to "obfuscate," but as I said way back here, I'm at a loss for how to communicate this to others. I've tried. Multiple times. Doesn't matter how I frame it, or how many times I explain it, certain people (you being one of them) just don't get it. It also doesn't help that I've generally gotten few to no questions that are indicative of active listening and a true attempt to understand my perspective. Carlita did, way back here, but nobody else has that I can recall. It's mostly felt like people trying to beat me over the head with their perspective to convert me to it, rather than active listening to try and understand me. That makes the communications problem even worse, because I don't like this, I don't like debate, and I'm not inclined to have a lengthy conversation when the other person's intentions are... well... conversion, basically.

 

[Acim]

Nope. World views are the sum total of our beliefs, experiences and perspectives. You cannot have a world view that is merely comprised of "beliefs" or "a belief", since beliefs themselves require experience and perspective. All three together constitute your world view.

So, you're saying 'nope' to - "then again it may be beliefs by themselves that constitutes one's world view." That's fine. We possibly disagree on this, but seems trivial to me.

I have already explained this. It's just equivocation.

IMO, you have under explained this. It may be equivocation by your rationale, but not by the dictionary definition, the linked piece or what I'm saying.

No I am not. There was no voluntary act of will that lead to be "choosing" that position. That position is the conclusion of the information and experience that I have had.

You do not use discernment when choosing to understand things? I see it as choice you are making, you are claiming it is (lack of) information and experience. I'm okay if we see it different. I see that some beliefs are chosen, others perhaps not. The linked piece you provided states this. Up to you to decide whether you wish to see it or not. Your choice.

I can't simply "choose" to think that you understand something that you have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of.

...in your opinion. Feel free to devise a test and we'll see if I pass it. Right now, it is just an opinion you are choosing to hold. Again, I'm very okay if you choose to hold it. It truly is not on me, but is your choice for how you wish to see it.

 

[Acim]

I have no idea what you're trying to imply, but I have no reason to think you're being dishonest. I just think you are perhaps operating under a misunderstanding about what beliefs are what they entail. You're not the only one. People seem to equate "choosing to believe" with "choosing to see from a different perspective" or "changing a belief" a lot in this thread. A belief is the destination a particular methodology leads you to - it is the conclusion of the intellectual process of assessment.

I clipped out the rest of this post as it uses the chess metaphor. This post is stating a definition of belief as: destination a particular methodology leads to, or conclusion of the intellectual process of assessment. Previously, in post #310 of this thread, we were given 8 links which provide a definition of "belief." None of them use the terms 'destination' or 'conclusion,' or even 'outcome' when defining that term. Like nowhere on the page can those words be found. There are in my estimation around 30 definitions being provided in those links (variations of belief) and not one of them use these words.

So, is it possible that @ImmortalFlame is operating under a misunderstanding of what beliefs are?

In most of the definitions provided, it says "held to be true" or "accepted to be true." Thus a verb (or action) about an idea (or feeling, or proposition - depends on which source you go with). Thus, in general, one might ask if any of us have a choice when it comes to holding/accepting something? Such as, "do you accept the notion that married bachelors do not exist?" To which someone has a choice in that proposition. And a fair response is, "no, I do not accept that. I believe they exist." A person may hold that belief. It is plausible. If asked to back up that belief with evidence, they may fail, and then realize it is a mistaken belief. Still a belief. Still even something they may wish to hold onto. Or they may choose to abandon that belief, not hold or accept that married bachelors exist. It is their choice.

 

[Willamena]

Me wonders why you asked, if you already had this notion in place?

I asked, because I'm not the only person with interesting ideas.

Our ideas sound somewhat similar, but I believe that consciousness is passive. This takes me in a different direction.

So, if I decide right now that tomorrow I will go and vote for Trump, and tomorrow I go to cast my vote, you are saying that entire process occurred unconsciously (without my realization of it occurring or may occur)?

Realization would kind of be necessary. That the decision happens unconsciously doesn't mean you remain unaware if it--on the contrary, it's not your decision until you become aware of it.

I think of it as both. In an attempt to dispel notions that the past is unreal, I may rationalize that decisions happened in the world that led to certain phenomenon which is still manifest (i.e. how did this newspaper come to be on my table, if the past is unreal?). Conversely, decisions today that I make, both in conception and in choice, either are made consciously or strongly suggest they are. Following the scientific method would be a series of choices and actions that I believe are all consciously made. If not, science has some 'splainin' to do.

Furthermore, if actual reality is that I am not my body, even while I believe I am in a/my body, then the world would plausibly be a reflection of consciousness.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your rationale, right? Cause in the linked piece, it says:

...hence it is the conventional definition. 'Conventional' being defined as: based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.

Taking a single line of text out of context is dishonest. The article clearly states that they are statements of beliefs. Emphasis mine:

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.

At the same time, human beings have quasi-Bayesian beliefs. These are true degrees of belief like probabilities, never really becoming absolutely certain of the truth or falsity of anything, but sometimes coming very close. These are internal estimates of the mind, and are basically non-voluntary. Instead of depending on choice, they actually depend on evidence, although they are influenced by other factors as well. A person cannot choose to increase or decrease this estimate, although he can go and look for evidence. On account of the flawed nature of the mind, if someone only looks for confirming evidence and ignores disconfirming evidence, this estimate in principle can go very high even when the objective state of the evidence does not justify this.

The author clearly makes a distinction between actions and accepted estimates of truth. The former, referred to as binary beliefs, are defined by action. The latter, Bayesian beliefs, are defined by what is held to be true. This is the LITERAL definition of beliefs. The author invented the prior term purely for discussing the theoretical "belief in belief".

Again, I see all this as your rationale, and not supported by the linked piece. You stating 'by the conventional definition - binary beliefs aren't beliefs,' is not stated in the link. Anywhere.

Because the article is using its own definitions. I really don't see why you're so hung up on the article when I clearly explained that it was merely an interesting way of looking at the subject, and at no point stated that the article provided binding definitions.

Instead, the pieced I linked from LessWrong is stating that binary beliefs and Bayesian beliefs co-exist. Binary beliefs depend on choice and Bayesian beliefs rely on evidence, is how I read that piece. Thus, some beliefs (binary ones) are chosen. And the article notes them to be what we usually think of as beliefs.

Except binary beliefs aren't literal beliefs by the definition of beliefs. Look up the definition of beliefs if you don't believe me. Believe it.

Well, I guess the first part (above) has to be worked out before addressing this second part. I would like you to expound on your rationale, which I realize you've done in this thread, but also which I've responded to. I fully believe you have seen examples of chosen beliefs, and that you choose beliefs yourself. Yet, that might forever show up as nonsensical to you if you are stating that binary beliefs are not (really) beliefs and must never be understood as beliefs by anyone.

Because "binary beliefs" is a term invented by the writer of the article to define a specific phenomenon. That term in no way reflect on the general definition of "beliefs" - it is purely an idea used to illustrate the difference between the beliefs we STATE or ACT in accordance with, and the position of ACTUALLY HOLDING SOMETHING TO BE TRUE. Trying to twist this to mean something other than what the author intended is dishonest.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And a player can make every move with the intention of winning and win. So, it is relevant.

You really don't seem to understand. If a person can make every move with the intention of winning and still lose, or if someone can make every move with the intention of losing and still win, or if someone can make every move randomly and still win, the decision to play to win does not translate into a decision to win.

Plus, if observed acutely, I believe it could be shown that the beliefs for each move determined the outcome. And that outcome may not only be with regards to that particular game. Yes, this stretches the metaphor, but I find 'winning' to be under defined in the metaphor. IOW, the assertion of beliefs as outcomes is under explained and, IMO, needs to be stretched or elaborated upon to decide if it is actually an attempt to pigeon hole all forms of belief into a particular, and incredibly limited definition of beliefs.

Beliefs are positions which are held to be true.

We arrive at beliefs as a result of our understanding and perspective of the world. We do not "choose" them in the sense that when presented with a number of viable options we can voluntarily "decide" which one we find to be true - just as you cannot, as a voluntary act of will, decide which foods you enjoy, what shape the sun is, or the outcome of a game of chess. We can influence the outcome of these mental processes to a degree, but this does not mean we influence the outcome in the same way. You cannot voluntarily recalibrate the extent to which you find a given proposition truthful, but instead this is done with adjusting of perspective and new information or experiences. As such, beliefs are not simply "chosen" as a voluntary process, but are the result of largely subconscious mental processes.

I understand the dictionary definition(s) and the article. You can clearly choose propositions you hold to be true.

That is false. You're welcome to prove me wrong by choosing to believe that sandwiches are hats.

 

[Acim]

Taking a single line of text out of context is dishonest.

At least I was the first to quote from the piece. So, let's work with the entire quote.

The article clearly states that they are statements of beliefs. Emphasis mine:

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.

At the same time, human beings have quasi-Bayesian beliefs. These are true degrees of belief like probabilities, never really becoming absolutely certain of the truth or falsity of anything, but sometimes coming very close. These are internal estimates of the mind, and are basically non-voluntary. Instead of depending on choice, they actually depend on evidence, although they are influenced by other factors as well. A person cannot choose to increase or decrease this estimate, although he can go and look for evidence. On account of the flawed nature of the mind, if someone only looks for confirming evidence and ignores disconfirming evidence, this estimate in principle can go very high even when the objective state of the evidence does not justify this.

The author clearly makes a distinction between actions and accepted estimates of truth. The former, referred to as binary beliefs, are defined by action. The latter, Bayesian beliefs, are defined by what is held to be true. This is the LITERAL definition of beliefs. The author invented the prior term purely for discussing the theoretical "belief in belief".

Except binary beliefs aren't literal beliefs by the definition of beliefs. Look up the definition of beliefs if you don't believe me. Believe it.

Binary beliefs fit within the definition of beliefs. The article says they are the usual form of beliefs. They aren't the only form. You are the only one suggesting they are not. The definitions have already been noted. Again, the definitions don't use the same terms you do to assess what a belief is, or is not.

Because "binary beliefs" is a term invented by the writer of the article to define a specific phenomenon. That term in no way reflect on the general definition of "beliefs" - it is purely an idea used to illustrate the difference between the beliefs we STATE or ACT in accordance with, and the position of ACTUALLY HOLDING SOMETHING TO BE TRUE. Trying to twist this to mean something other than what the author intended is dishonest.

I observe you doing the same, in your own way. You use the terms "outcome" and "conclusion." None of the links you provide share in that terminology. Thus, your chess metaphor either doesn't apply or is a DISHONEST attempt to re-define what beliefs are and then hold everyone else to YOUR LIMITED DEFINITION.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sorry you think I've been trying to "obfuscate," but as I said way back here, I'm at a loss for how to communicate this to others. I've tried. Multiple times. Doesn't matter how I frame it, or how many times I explain it, certain people (you being one of them) just don't get it. It also doesn't help that I've generally gotten few to no questions that are indicative of active listening and a true attempt to understand my perspective. Carlita did, way back here, but nobody else has that I can recall. It's mostly felt like people trying to beat me over the head with their perspective to convert me to it, rather than active listening to try and understand me. That makes the communications problem even worse, because I don't like this, I don't like debate, and I'm not inclined to have a lengthy conversation when the other person's intentions are... well... conversion, basically.

I see where you're coming from (for proof, see the last few pages of this thread - people "just not getting it" happens regularly to me), but I honestly don't see what I'm not getting. I believe I understood your perspective as you explained it, and I also believe I asked you very specific questions as to how your position differed from several others examples I mentioned. Keep in mind, this thread was not started by you ruminating on the subject, but it was a response by you to what somebody else had said which you later argued against. I think it was important to understand where the original argument came from, and the understanding of beliefs held by that person - whom I happen to agree with. From what I read, you seemed to have a very different definition of these things, which made you arguing against their position somewhat of a matter of talking past each other. I simply agreed with the original statement, and I never found your stated position to contradict it, perhaps largely owing to the fact that you were stating different things from two wildly different definitions of the topic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, you're saying 'nope' to - "then again it may be beliefs by themselves that constitutes one's world view." That's fine. We possibly disagree on this, but seems trivial to me.

Somewhat, but I feel definitions have to be clarified across parties in discussions like this. There's no use both arguing about beliefs or world views if one other of us has a wildly different definition of what constitutes one or the other. I prefer concise, dictionary definitions.

IMO, you have under explained this. It may be equivocation by your rationale, but not by the dictionary definition, the linked piece or what I'm saying.

You would know this is false if you knew the dictionary definition of belief.

You do not use discernment when choosing to understand things?

Where did you get that idea?

I see it as choice you are making, you are claiming it is (lack of) information and experience. I'm okay if we see it different. I see that some beliefs are chosen, others perhaps not. The linked piece you provided states this. Up to you to decide whether you wish to see it or not. Your choice.

No it isn't. It is not "my choice" to accept it as it is, and accept as true those things that have convinced me of their truth.

...in your opinion. Feel free to devise a test and we'll see if I pass it. Right now, it is just an opinion you are choosing to hold. Again, I'm very okay if you choose to hold it. It truly is not on me, but is your choice for how you wish to see it.

You keep asserting this, and it's meaningless. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that we don't choose the things that are convincing to us?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This post is stating a definition of belief as: destination a particular methodology leads to, or conclusion of the intellectual process of assessment.

I didn't say that was a definition of belief. I simply said that's something that beliefs are. They aren't necessarily defined by that, prescriptively.

Previously, in post #310 of this thread, we were given 8 links which provide a definition of "belief." None of them use the terms 'destination' or 'conclusion,' or even 'outcome' when defining that term. Like nowhere on the page can those words be found. There are in my estimation around 30 definitions being provided in those links (variations of belief) and not one of them use these words.

Because I never said that was the definition. You are clearly being dishonest here, as you already understand my definition of belief is "a proposition which is held to be true".

So, is it possible that @ImmortalFlame is operating under a misunderstanding of what beliefs are?

Nope. Just that you operate under dishonesty.

In most of the definitions provided, it says "held to be true" or "accepted to be true." Thus a verb (or action) about an idea (or feeling, or proposition - depends on which source you go with). Thus, in general, one might ask if any of us have a choice when it comes to holding/accepting something? Such as, "do you accept the notion that married bachelors do not exist?" To which someone has a choice in that proposition.

They don't have a choice as to whether or not they personally find the proposition convincing enough to determine it either true or false.

And a fair response is, "no, I do not accept that. I believe they exist." A person may hold that belief. It is plausible.

It's plausible they could SAY it, but it's not plausible for anyone who understands that "married" and "bachelor" are mutually exclusive terms to genuinely accept the proposition as true.

If asked to back up that belief with evidence, they may fail, and then realize it is a mistaken belief. Still a belief. Still even something they may wish to hold onto. Or they may choose to abandon that belief, not hold or accept that married bachelors exist. It is their choice.

No it isn't, it's the consequence of their experience and understanding that leads to beliefs changing or being adjusted. It is not "choice".