We can't choose to believe?

[Quintessence]

Okie dokie. If it makes you feel better to ignore that I made valid points and chalk them up as unreasonable, have at it. It's not like I'm the only one here making these arguments or that no one is agreeing with me.

When people act as you have in the course of discussion I tend to not want to talk to them. Imagine that? If you want to believe that it has to do with me finding your points unreasonable (which I don't), go for it.

 

[Draka]

When people act as you have in the course of discussion I tend to not want to talk to them. Imagine that? If you want to believe that it has to do with me finding your points unreasonable (which I don't), go for it.

So you do find my points reasonable? Then why are you arguing this with me and maintaining that one can choose what to believe?

I thought my points were quite reasonable as well. I mean honestly, to believe in something is to accept it as reality or true. Doesn't mean it really is, but it is what one accepts as truth in their own mind. So if one can choose to believe, and choose to believe anything, then that would mean that they have a very loose grasp on reality as a whole. If one can choose to believe that 2+2=42, as you said you easily could, then that would mean an entire shift of the understanding of math concepts. Nothing would be what it is normally held to be. If someone believed that then that would mean that speed limits would hold no weight, one couldn't ever figure out cooking temperatures and times, and medication doses would be entirely messed up. If one could honestly choose to believe such they would probably die. Either by traffic accident, setting fire in their kitchen, or screwing up their medications and overdosing. When followed through with logic you can see the repercussions of such a change in belief. Which is, again, why I fail to believe that you could "easily" believe such. At all really. You may entertain an idea. Imagine. Play "what if" in your head, but you never truly believed. You didn't accept it as your reality. To believe is to accept as reality to you. Whether it is or isn't, it is what your mind perceives as real. If your entire concept of math isn't changed then you didn't actually believe. Because...you couldn't. It's not a choice. It is a thinking process and you don't control your brain's thinking processes themselves. You may decide to think about something, but you don't determine how your mind perceives what you are thinking about. Not a choice.

 

[paarsurrey]

We can't choose to believe?

Why? Please
We do so many things on our own and with our will on daily basis. Why one should not be free to believe if convinced. Human beings are social that entails that whatever is truth for us should be told to our brethren in humanity and the vice a versa. Nobody has monopoly on truth, so it should not be restricted to a specific race or people. Truth must be shared with others.

Regards

 

[Draka]

We can't choose to believe?

Why? Please
We do so many things on our own and with our will on daily basis. Why one should not be free to believe if convinced. Human beings are social that entails that whatever is truth for us should be told to our brethren in humanity and the vice a versa. Nobody has monopoly on truth, so it should not be restricted to a specific race or people. Truth must be shared with others.

Regards

No one has said you aren't free to believe something if you are convinced, but it is the convincing that is in question here. That is, it takes time and education and experience and so on for a person to become convinced of something, and becoming convinced of something isn't a choice, but just happens at a certain point when the brain has enough acceptable input to accept something as more "real" than something else. And, just because someone accepts something as real to them it doesn't mean that it really is real to everyone else. That it is compatible with actual reality. It is just what our mind can comprehend. So, if someone accepts something counter as real, believes in something fully that is contradicting in nature to what you believe, no amount of just "preaching" to them will be enough to make them believe. Because they can't just choose to do so. Their mind won't let them. Belief takes an internal effort of the reasoning and logic areas of the brain to sort out. That takes time, experience, education, and so on. It is not something done willingly. One can willingly entertain an idea. May be curious about something and decide to research it, but whether they actually end up believing in it or not is not a choice, but a process that they have no real control over.

 

[Quintessence]

So you do find my points reasonable? Then why are you arguing this with me and maintaining that one can choose what to believe?

Ironically, it has to do with what I've been mentioning from the start - paradigm shifting and see truths (plural) rather than truth (singular). Or put another way, choosing and shift what one believes at will. A reason I have a problem with your use of extreme examples is that it deliberately polarizes the conversation. That is not the angle I am taking on this. As has been said before, the relative ease in which one can paradigm shift depends on how attached someone is to a particular idea, or how fixed and entrenched one's thinking is about something. On the whole, I'm not the sort of person who is attached to sets of ideas; on top of that, my ontological philosophy is such to support ease of paradigm shifting. I've got my default maps of the territory like everybody else does, but I like giving other maps 'screen time' so to speak. I find exploring other ways of seeing fun and interesting. Hence, I can sit here, find your points reasonable (with respect to your map of the territory - the set of things you choose to believe), then still look at other maps and go "well this map says this, and I choose to believe this most of the time."

I thought my points were quite reasonable as well. I mean honestly, to believe in something is to accept it as reality or true. Doesn't mean it really is, but it is what one accepts as truth in their own mind. So if one can choose to believe, and choose to believe anything, then that would mean that they have a very loose grasp on reality as a whole.

Ah, here's one of the rubs, I think. What is reality? Do you believe you're holding the territory, or are you grasping a map?

If one can choose to believe that 2+2=42, as you said you easily could, then that would mean an entire shift of the understanding of math concepts. Nothing would be what it is normally held to be.

Wow! That's how you approached this? No wonder you've taken to examples that are ridiculous and extreme to me! You presumed that this paradigm shift requires altering one's entire understanding of math, or one's "grasp" on "reality" (whatever that is)? Really? Wow. That is not how I read it at all.

Brings up an important point: the difficulty in paradigm shifting is very much dependent on the assumptions one brings to the table or how one approaches the map of the territory. Also depends on things mentioned earlier, and some things not mentioned yet (probably).

 

[paarsurrey]

No one has said you aren't free to believe something if you are convinced, but it is the convincing that is in question here. That is, it takes time and education and experience and so on for a person to become convinced of something, and becoming convinced of something isn't a choice, but just happens at a certain point when the brain has enough acceptable input to accept something as more "real" than something else. And, just because someone accepts something as real to them it doesn't mean that it really is real to everyone else. That it is compatible with actual reality. It is just what our mind can comprehend. So, if someone accepts something counter as real, believes in something fully that is contradicting in nature to what you believe, no amount of just "preaching" to them will be enough to make them believe. Because they can't just choose to do so. Their mind won't let them. Belief takes an internal effort of the reasoning and logic areas of the brain to sort out. That takes time, experience, education, and so on. It is not something done willingly. One can willingly entertain an idea. May be curious about something and decide to research it, but whether they actually end up believing in it or not is not a choice, but a process that they have no real control over.

I don't agree with you.
One could get convinced with a sign without preaching.
Regards

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Brings up an important point: the difficulty in paradigm shifting is very much dependent on the assumptions one brings to the table or how one approaches the map of the territory. Also depends on things mentioned earlier, and some things not mentioned yet (probably).

How is paradigm shifting distinct from merely imagining an issue from another perspective? Can you definitely state that your beliefs between paradigms actually change? If the beliefs that you can choose depend partly on that belief not being heavily contingent on on deep-set ideological positions or frameworks, then aren't you just taking a belief that is largely perfunctory anyway and therefore can easily be imagined otherwise? For example, you obviously couldn't paradigm shift out of disbelieving in gravity, but you could paradigm shift out of believing that "daffodils aren't technically flowers". To what extent does paradigm shifting actually change your beliefs if you accept that some beliefs are too ingrained to be simply "chosen"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It may go without saying that as a hard determinist I agree that all "choice" is illusory.

What I take issue with is that the writer apparently isn't too familiar with people who can easily paradigm shift or hold multiple (and perhaps contradictory) perspectives. I suspect he's a sort of "one true truth" type of person, but I don't know. Reading that challenge quoted above in the first paragraph, I went "wait... was that supposed to be hard? And you're telling me I can't do what I just did with barely any effort? Really?"

Wait... so you think we can't really choose anything, so this means we can choose beliefs? This makes no sense.

 

[paarsurrey]

We can't choose to believe?

If we can choose our carrier; why we cannot choose a good belief from a bad belief.
Regards

 

[Willamena]

So for the people who choose to believe this...

... what do you think about personal accomplishments, then? Would that phrase be an oxymoron, since no accomplishments (or deeds of infamy) could be personal? Everything you are is a mere result of system inputs, right? Hmm. Then one also has to wonder... if this is the case... how does one justify locking people up in jails? Why do we have a legal system that is predicated on the assumption of free will, and that there is a choice? Why do we have a culture that celebrates individual accomplishments, under the assumption of individual choices leading to success or failure? Hmm.

Personal choices happen, just not in the case of what is believed.

 

[Willamena]

We can't choose to believe?

If we can choose our carrier; why we cannot choose a good belief from a bad belief.
Regards

The good beliefs are the ones with the appearance of truth. We don't "choose" what is true and what isn't.

 

[Quintessence]

How is paradigm shifting distinct from merely imagining an issue from another perspective?

It has to be distinct? How would one go about determining such a distinction, if it exists? And if we could, in what way would that matter? When has imagination been "merely?"

Can you definitely state that your beliefs between paradigms actually change?

What do you mean "actually" change? If you think one thought in one moment and another thought in another moment, how is that anything other than a change? How can thinking differently - if even for a moment - not be a change?

It occurs to me that perhaps folks are making this more difficult than necessary. If folks want to look at it as "merely" using their imagination, then go for it.

For example, you obviously couldn't paradigm shift out of disbelieving in gravity

Oh, that's an easy one too. There are otherworlds where gravity doesn't apply; been there and done that multiple times already. There are hard ones for me, but that is definitely not one of them. A hard one for me would be believing in gender, because I hate those social constructs with a burning passion.

Wait... so you think we can't really choose anything, so this means we can choose beliefs? This makes no sense.

Good! You're starting to get it, perhaps? Those who see truths (plural) rather than truth (singular; also known as The Truth™) have to be comfortable with paradox and (apparent) contradiction. It's how one keeps many maps of the territory on file. You've gotta be able to do the both-and thing, not limit to the either-or thing. The trick is you don't (usually) use multiple maps at the same time... it's like hats!

 

[Quintessence]

Personal choices happen, just not in the case of what is believed.

Yeah, I'm still not getting that. Sorry. Draka couldn't explain it to me either in a way that I could understand. All this political campaigning and marketing is a total waste of time since personal choices can't happen with beliefs... makes one wonder why so much money is spent on it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It has to be distinct? How would one go about determining such a distinction, if it exists? And if we could, in what way would that matter? When has imagination been "merely?"

Because you're describing paradigm shifting as fitting the definition of "choosing beliefs". From what you have said so far, it doesn't sound like it is - it sounds more like simply imagining things from another perspective. That's not the same thing as choosing beliefs, so I was asking you in what way is paradigm shifting distinct from simply changing perspective, in that it counts as "choosing" beliefs.

What do you mean "actually" change? If you think one thought in one moment and another thought in another moment, how is that anything other than a change? How can thinking differently - if even for a moment - not be a change?

I was asking whether or not BELIEFS changed, not whether or not any change has occurred whatsoever. Does changing paradigm actually constitute or result in a change of what you actually consider to be true?

It occurs to me that perhaps folks are making this more difficult than necessary. If folks want to look at it as "merely" using their imagination, then go for it.

This is why I asked the questions. I want to know in what way you can explain how paradigm shifting is distinct from simply adopting a change of perspective, because imagining things from a different perspective is completely different to actually choosing a belief.

Oh, that's an easy one too. There are otherworlds where gravity doesn't apply; been there and done that multiple times already.

Erm, no. Gravity exists everywhere in the Universe, but to varying degrees.

There are hard ones for me, but that is definitely not one of them. A hard one for me would be believing in gender, because I hate those social constructs with a burning passion.

So are you saying that you can choose to believe that gravity doesn't exist?

 

[Draka]

Ironically, it has to do with what I've been mentioning from the start - paradigm shifting and see truths (plural) rather than truth (singular). Or put another way, choosing and shift what one believes at will. A reason I have a problem with your use of extreme examples is that it deliberately polarizes the conversation. That is not the angle I am taking on this. As has been said before, the relative ease in which one can paradigm shift depends on how attached someone is to a particular idea, or how fixed and entrenched one's thinking is about something. On the whole, I'm not the sort of person who is attached to sets of ideas; on top of that, my ontological philosophy is such to support ease of paradigm shifting. I've got my default maps of the territory like everybody else does, but I like giving other maps 'screen time' so to speak. I find exploring other ways of seeing fun and interesting. Hence, I can sit here, find your points reasonable (with respect to your map of the territory - the set of things you choose to believe), then still look at other maps and go "well this map says this, and I choose to believe this most of the time."

Ah, here's one of the rubs, I think. What is reality? Do you believe you're holding the territory, or are you grasping a map?

Wow! That's how you approached this? No wonder you've taken to examples that are ridiculous and extreme to me! You presumed that this paradigm shift requires altering one's entire understanding of math, or one's "grasp" on "reality" (whatever that is)? Really? Wow. That is not how I read it at all.

Brings up an important point: the difficulty in paradigm shifting is very much dependent on the assumptions one brings to the table or how one approaches the map of the territory. Also depends on things mentioned earlier, and some things not mentioned yet (probably).

I think an assumption made upon your part may be how people define belief itself. I mean, of course that's how I approached it. To have a belief is to actually hold something as true or real. To be convinced of it. It becomes something which one bases their perception of reality upon. You seem to be thinking that imagining, considering, entertaining a thought for pondering, is the same as changing a belief and it isn't. It isn't the same thing at all. Which may be why you tend to be facing this argument with more than just me. I can entertain many ideas. I can imagine and play "what if" scenarios in my head and think "huh, that's a different way of looking at things", but it does not ever mean that I actually sincerely believe those things to be real and true. To believe something is to make it your personal perception of reality. You can't choose that. It just is.

 

[Quintessence]

Because you're describing paradigm shifting as fitting the definition of "choosing beliefs". From what you have said so far, it doesn't sound like it is - it sounds more like simply imagining things from another perspective. That's not the same thing as choosing beliefs, so I was asking you in what way is paradigm shifting distinct from simply changing perspective in that it counts as "choosing" beliefs.

You can look at it however you'd like. I suppose since I've read various occult works that reference "simply" using imagination as a tool for making change, I don't see the sharp distinctions you might be seeing here. One of the things occultists practice is being responsible for what's inside their own heads by more mindfully constructing their worldviews. I guess this is kind of a foreign thing outside of those circles? One of the classic tools for this is active imagination. No that I think anybody in this thread will go out and read this, but it's the stuff that books like this go into, just to give an example.

I was asking whether or not BELIEFS changed, not whether or not any change has occurred whatsoever. Does changing paradigm actually constitute or result in a change of what you actually consider to be true?

What if you already consider multiple perspectives (or perhaps all perspectives) to be true? Remember one of my criticisms of the blog excerpt is that this guy ignores people who see truths (plural) instead of truth (singular). As an extension of this, the writer of that excerpt also seems to believe one has to choose a belief - that it's an either-or proposition. I'm saying it doesn't have to be that way.

Erm, no. Gravity exists everywhere in the Universe, but to varying degrees.

I wasn't talking about the universe. By "otherworlds" I didn't mean "other planets in this universe." I meant the otherworlds. I suppose the closest analog in your worldview would probably be "parallel universe" or "imaginary fantasy land."

 

[Quintessence]

I think an assumption made upon your part may be how people define belief itself. I mean, of course that's how I approached it. To have a belief is to actually hold something as true or real. To be convinced of it. It becomes something which one bases their perception of reality upon. You seem to be thinking that imagining, considering, entertaining a thought for pondering, is the same as changing a belief and it isn't. It isn't the same thing at all.

Eh, that's fair. Trouble is, when one considers everything true or real in some sense or another, this entire line of thinking becomes... well... let's just go with the word "different." Still seems as if the author of the article hasn't considered "gee, what if people see many truths and realities instead of just one?" I'm hardly the only person on the planet who does this...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can look at it however you'd like. I suppose since I've read various occult works that reference "simply" using imagination as a tool for making change, I don't see the sharp distinctions you might be seeing here. One of the things occultists practice is being responsible for what's inside their own heads by more mindfully constructing their worldviews. I guess this is kind of a foreign thing outside of those circles? One of the classic tools for this is active imagination. No that I think anybody in this thread will go out and read this, but it's the stuff that books like this go into, just to give an example.

I don't think it has anything to do with any particular distinctions, but with the simple fact that what we believe, i.e that which we have assessed as being true, cannot be said to be a matter of voluntary choice.

What if you already consider multiple perspectives (or perhaps all perspectives) to be true? Remember one of my criticisms of the blog excerpt is that this guy ignores people who see truths (plural) instead of truth (singular). As an extension of this, the writer of that excerpt also seems to believe one has to choose a belief - that it's an either-or proposition. I'm saying it doesn't have to be that way.

But whether you view multiple perspectives as true, or whether you view truth as not being singular, doesn't matter with regards to whether or not you actually choose to believe them. If you accept multiple truths, then you cannot simply choose to reject those things you hold to be true - even if you can justify them from differing perspectives. Operating from multiple points of view does not mean you choose what you accept as being true, it just establishes personal truth values regarding approaches to a particular issue.

I wasn't talking about the universe. By "otherworlds" I didn't mean "other planets in this universe." I meant the otherworlds. I suppose the closest analog in your worldview would probably be "parallel universe" or "imaginary fantasy land."

So you can imagine a place where gravity doesn't exist, therefore you can choose to believe that gravity doesn't exist?

 

[Draka]

Eh, that's fair. Trouble is, when one considers everything true or real in some sense or another, this entire line of thinking becomes... well... let's just go with the word "different." Still seems as if the author of the article hasn't considered "gee, what if people see many truths and realities instead of just one?" I'm hardly the only person on the planet who does this...

Ah, but do you see "many truths and realities" as all absolutely true and having an effect upon this reality in which you live, or do you merely entertain the idea that they may be true outside of this reality? That is, when given an idea to consider, such as the lack of gravity, does your pondering of what it would be like actually make you sincerely believe that such a world actually exists OR do you just think it could possibly exist? If it is possibly then you are not believing in the reality it, you are entertaining the idea of a possibility of it. Much like being agnostic, you don't believe, but you don't discount entirely and are willing to say "hey, it's possible".

There is a difference here between actual held beliefs and ideas which you ponder upon and find interesting.

 

[Willamena]

Yeah, I'm still not getting that. Sorry. Draka couldn't explain it to me either in a way that I could understand. All this political campaigning and marketing is a total waste of time since personal choices can't happen with beliefs... makes one wonder why so much money is spent on it?

I choose a political party based on beliefs I have. I don't choose the beliefs.