We can't choose to believe?

[Draka]

People are assuming that because they can't do a thing no one can. This is completely normal, happens all the time.

Choosing what one actually believes is not completely normal and does not happen all the time. It may happen with a few, but it tends to be a symptom of schizophrenia. Having such a loose grasp on reality itself, not knowing what is real and what isn't to such an extent that one can actually have their beliefs so malleable as to change at will is an indicator of mental instability or disorder.

Those who honestly think that belief is a matter of choice either truly are mentally unstable, or do not know the difference between belief and pretend, or think that they believe so correctly and like the idea that they are somehow so smart that they came to their said beliefs through an act of will via intelligence and that if other people were as smart as them they would choose the same. So it boils down to insanity, ignorance, or ego. And only the one with first reason can actually choose.

 

[Augustus]

Choosing what one actually believes is not completely normal and does not happen all the time. It may happen with a few, but it tends to be a symptom of schizophrenia. Having such a loose grasp on reality itself, not knowing what is real and what isn't to such an extent that one can actually have their beliefs so malleable as to change at will is an indicator of mental instability or disorder.

Many/most beliefs don't relate to anything 'objectively real' though. In a situation where belief relates to subjective preference or the perception of ambiguous evidence why can't you change what you believe?

"She loves me... she loves me not... she loves me..."

 

[Draka]

Many/most beliefs don't relate to anything 'objectively real' though. In a situation where belief relates to subjective preference or the perception of ambiguous evidence why can't you change what you believe?

"She loves me... she loves me not... she loves me..."

Why oh why oh why do people want to insist that saying that one doesn't choose their beliefs is the same as saying they don't change? Yes, beliefs change, all the time, but not suddenly and not on a whim. It takes information, experience,...INPUT

The mind will weigh the input, the evidence, and come to a conclusion as to what is more likely. What is more logical. What is. You don't really choose that. It is a subconscious thing. Happens without you even trying. Happens even if you don't want it to. Hasn't anyone else believed one thing and then were disappointed to find out it wasn't that? But you can't change back to believing if what you did now that you know differently. Even if it isn't what you desire. If you could choose beliefs then everyone would believe the things they want most in the world regardless of if those things were PROVEN to them that they weren't true. If you believed that the Earth was flat (yes there are some that actually still believe this) and you were taken up into a space shuttle and saw for yourself that the Earth was indeed round, do you think you could still choose to believe it was flat? Even though your mind has now received incontrovertible evidence to the contrary? Your mind was changed, your belief was changed, by no will of your own, by no desire of your own, and you could not change it back willingly.

In the case of subjective things, like love, it is still based upon evidence. How a person acts, what their reaction to you or others may be, how they present themselves, their body language, their words. All this is constant input. You may believe that someone loves you, but if they say that they don't, they never did, and want your punk *** out of their life are you still going to choose to believe that they love you? No. You can't. Not without being mentally unstable and ending up some whacked out stalker or something.

Beliefs can change, but it is not a willing decision.

 

[Kueid]

Choosing what one actually believes is not completely normal and does not happen all the time. It may happen with a few, but it tends to be a symptom of schizophrenia. Having such a loose grasp on reality itself, not knowing what is real and what isn't to such an extent that one can actually have their beliefs so malleable as to change at will is an indicator of mental instability or disorder.

Those who honestly think that belief is a matter of choice either truly are mentally unstable, or do not know the difference between belief and pretend, or think that they believe so correctly and like the idea that they are somehow so smart that they came to their said beliefs through an act of will via intelligence and that if other people were as smart as them they would choose the same. So it boils down to insanity, ignorance, or ego. And only the one with first reason can actually choose.

I'll ignore the arguments in the first paragraph cause clearly you didn't understood what I said.

Despise the fact that your arguments are full of beliefs that obviously you didn't choose I'll say this, I am mentally unstable, I really don't know the difference in belief and pretend, I don't think my beliefs are so correct and I like the idea that I came to some of my beliefs (not all of them, I do have beliefs that I didn't choose) through an act of will but I don't think that if other people were as smart as me they would choose the same, there must be people equally smart and more that didn't choose it. I am insane, ignorant and egoistic, that's a fact. The last part I didn't understand, sorry for not be THAT smart.

Do you wanna know more?

 

[Augustus]

If you could choose beliefs then everyone would believe the things they want most in the world regardless of if those things were PROVEN to them that they weren't true. If you believed that the Earth was flat (yes there are some that actually still believe this) and you were taken up into a space shuttle and saw for yourself that the Earth was indeed round, do you think you could still choose to believe it was flat?

I wasn't talking about situations where there is clear and observable proof, just situations in which our belief is a result of subjective perception and preference (which is often the case).

Given that I choose which information to value over others, and given that I know this to be the result of subjective preference, why then can't I consciously change my beliefs and then change them back again?

"She loves me... she loves me not... she loves me..."

Beliefs can change, but it is not a willing decision.

Don't some psychological therapies rely on you being able to consciously change your beliefs [e.g. self-image, future prospects, etc]? This would work both ways, you could change them back again if you wanted. Is this not choosing what to believe?

 

[Draka]

I'll ignore the arguments in the first paragraph cause clearly you didn't understood what I said.

Despise the fact that your arguments are full of beliefs that obviously you didn't choose I'll say this, I am mentally unstable, I really don't know the difference in belief and pretend, I don't think my beliefs are so correct and I like the idea that I came to some of my beliefs (not all of them, I do have beliefs that I didn't choose) through an act of will but I don't think that if other people were as smart as me they would choose the same, there must be people equally smart and more that didn't choose it. I am insane, ignorant and egoistic, that's a fact. The last part I didn't understand, sorry for not be THAT smart.

Do you wanna know more?

Sure. Do you write stereo instructions as well?

 

[Draka]

I wasn't talking about situations where there is clear and observable proof, just situations in which our belief is a result of subjective perception and preference (which is often the case).

Given that I choose which information to value over others, and given that I know this to be the result of subjective preference, why then can't I consciously change my beliefs and then change them back again?

"She loves me... she loves me not... she loves me..."

I addressed that. It's below the obscenely large pic I didn't realize was going to be so large. It still depends on may factors you experience. You are led to believe things due to your experiences, what your given input is. Still not really a choice, just an internal examination of the factors at hand. You can also just not know something. That point at which your mind hasn't been able to conclusively make a decision one way or another. Which is why one may waffle back and forth and constantly want more...input. When you don't understand something, when your mind doesn't have enough to go on one way or another, when something can literally go either way, then you are left consciously questioning. However, when you receive enough evidence one way or another then you actually form a belief, you just "know", and that is not a decision, but an act of your mind clicking upon a certain threshold of acceptable input in a particular direction.

Don't some psychological therapies rely on you being able to consciously change your beliefs [e.g. self-image, future prospects, etc]? This would work both ways, you could change them back again if you wanted. Is this not choosing what to believe?

When in therapy the goal is to change a belief about oneself, yes, but not a matter of just choosing. If it were that easy then one wouldn't need therapy. Therapy is a process in which the input is purposely directed a certain way in order to modify the balance of evidence within oneself to believe a particular thing. If the therapy stops, if the input then reverts to what it was (often a matter of where one is or who they are around), then the beliefs attained in therapy may indeed change back. Again though, it isn't a complete matter of choice at all. One can choose to invest themselves in therapy or not. One can choose to not go back to where they once lived or who they associated with or maybe they will choose to go right back to where they were thinking that now that they have changed things will be different. And they may be, but there is a good chance they may not as well depending upon the kind of input they were getting there in the first place.

There are choices we make in life that do affect our beliefs, yes, but honestly, the beliefs themselves are not truly under our control. We can control things in our lives to better ourselves, but that first comes with the self-realization that we should change. And that, as well, is based upon some kind of input. Something to give us that desire.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, statements of belief are generally not considered propositions (or predicates in the sense of predicate calculus). They are mental state predicates, and enter into logic via e.g., possible world semantics or modal logic for a reason: if they are treated according to classical propositional or predicate logic, we can derive paradoxes or other nonsense. This is primarily because of how "is" and similar copulas work in classical logic vs. how they do when we have mental state predicates. If I cay Superman is Clark Kent, then I am saying that I can replace any instance of either Clark Kent or Superman with the other and the statement will remain true. This is generally the case: Clark Kent (Superman) has X-ray vision, Superman (Clark Kent) works at the Daily Planet, etc. This falls apart with mental state predicates. It is true to say that "Lois Lane thinks/believes/knows Clark Kent works for the Daily Planet", but NOT true if we substitute "Superman" for "Clark Kent" in that sentence. Grammatically, mental state predicates function as epistemic qualifications of propositions/predicates. They give the speaker's degree of belief, epistemological commitment, certainty, etc., in the proposition/predicate that follows. They are not themselves propositions.

I'm not familiar with beliefs as predicates of mental states. I'll read about it, try to wrap my brain around it, and get back to you on that. (PS, I've no learning in classical or modal logic.)

The Superman/Clark Kent example works where truth is in the picture, but the appearance of truth (belief) is not truth. The bigger picture, from a perspective where Superman "is" Clark Kent, isn't in the picture.

I'll address the rest after work.

 

[Kueid]

Sure. Do you write stereo instructions as well?

No, what's that?

 

[Draka]

No, what's that?

NVM

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Given that I choose which information to value over others, and given that I know this to be the result of subjective preference, why then can't I consciously change my beliefs and then change them back again?

It seems like you're assuming that "subjective" implies "arbitrary". Generally, people have reasons for their conclusions, even if those reasons are rooted in their own individual perceptions and values.

I gave some examples before of ways we can consciously influence our beliefs over time, but it's gradual, and there are limits.

For instance, I hate bananas. This is largely because even the smell of them makes me gag. Now... maybe there's some Manchurian Candidate-type process out there that could brainwash me into not gagging at the smell of bananas, but that gag reflex is a physiological phenomenon that I can't just choose to turn off, and my dislike of bananas flows from this.

 

[leibowde84]

Beliefs and creeds are a significant part of many world religions. Some groups engage in attempts to convince various sides that they have the right beliefs, while others do not. Regardless, the act of preaching or proselytizing is predicated on the notion that we can, on some level, choose what to believe. However, to what extent is this a choice? Here's a perspective for consideration (edit for clarification - these are NOT my words, they are quoted from the *source* linked to beneath the quote):

"Whether you believe in libertarian free will or not, it is immediately obvious that what you believe in is not a choice. If you disagree – are you sure that you could simply choose out of the blue to genuinely believe in something ? 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.

Our belief-forming mechanisms operate subconsciously. You can of course change your mind on things, by reading, hearing new arguments, seeing new evidence, discussing it with others and so on – but you can´t just choose one of your beliefs, and start to genuinely believe in its negation out of the blue."
*source*​

Do you agree with this perspective? If so, why? If not, why not?

Agree completely. In order to change what we believe we must be convinced by external sources.

 

[Willamena]

To say "I believe X" tells you the truth about my belief in the truth of X.

Provided I believe you. Mostly, it tells me that you think X is true (other contexts of 'believe' notwithstanding).

It is a statement whose truth value depends upon my beliefs, not upon X. The truth of X doesn't depend upon my beliefs, but the truth of "I believe X" does.

Truth value and truth aren't equivalent. Let P be some proposition I don't believe in. There is all the difference in the world between asserting ~P, and "I believe ~P".

Agreed, for the most part. It is a statement whose truth value is determined, unconsciously by you, and it has informed your beliefs. Believing it doesn't make it true, but that's a statement for the objective observer; while you believe it, it has the appearance of truth. One of the better descriptions of "believing" that I heard painted it as "the attitude of truth." So, while you assert "~P," I, on my side of things, hear you say, "(I believe) ~P (is true)" and understand that ~P has the appearance of truth for you.

If someone asserts that Der Schnee ist weiß, and I assert that "snow is white", have we asserted different things? Can one be false and the other true?

The German phrase, if it's not understood, can have no truth value. It is neither believed nor disbelieved.

In general, it doesn't. Such determinations usually involve a complex set of cognitive processes and neurobiologically speaking involve not only regions from the PFC and frontal cortex but sensorimotor regions. This is certainly the case when it comes to determining beliefs.

Are you conscious of these cognitive processes?

You are equating beliefs with subjective assignments of truth values? First, many beliefs aren't simply aren't propositions. Second, beliefs are dynamic and not subject to a binary truth assignment (e.g., "I believe that's what happened", "I believe that's true", "I believe in you", "I believe that's possible", etc.). Third, what appears true to me changes as I consider options, choices, evidence, etc. In general, I choose what appears to be true by choosing how I feel (what I believe) about the nature of the evidence.

I recognize that there are other contexts for use of the word "believing," such as trusting, conjecture, and (yes) feeling. My interest is in the context of "the attitude of truth," such as declaring belief in something, which is, I believe, the intent of this thread.

I am effectively equating the assignment of truth value with belief, yes. Truth values are assigned and reassigned as information about the world changes and grows, or is forgotten. I don't believe we have control over that information, or the process of assigning the truth value.

Who or what "gives it to" you?

Nothing does; nothing can. By that phrase, I meant that I don't allow that that be the case. The language of "choosing" doesn't fit that role for me.

Is there any mental state that you have that is not wholly determined, that you play more than a purely passive role in?

That's a leading question, and a discussion for another day.

Except that beliefs are internal, and predicated upon internal determinations of the external. They are "mental state" predicates for a reason: the predicate the external.

Beliefs are given to be internal; but ultimately, it's all information--neither internal or external.

 

[Kueid]

Sorry to barge in but..

Nothing does; nothing can. By that phrase, I meant that I don't allow that that be the case. The language of "choosing" doesn't fit that role for me.

Aren't you "choosing" to "not allow", as opposite to "allow", or that is not a process that "you" have a voice in? Cause I read it like it was your choosing to "not allow".

 

[Willamena]

Sorry to barge in but..

Aren't you "choosing" to "not allow", as opposite to "allow", or that is not a process that "you" have a voice in? Cause I read it like it was your choosing to "not allow".

Yes. But that's a far cry from choosing a belief.

 

[Kueid]

Yes. But that's a far cry from choosing a belief.

OK, if you can "choose" to "not allow", you can "choose" "to allow", right? My question is, what happens when you do that, "to allow"? Is that possible for you?

 

[Willamena]

OK, if you can "choose" to "not allow", you can "choose" "to allow", right? My question is, what happens when you do that, "to allow"? Is that possible for you?

That I "don't allow" that it be so is just a reflection of my beliefs. It's a way of expressing rejection.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, statements of belief are generally not considered propositions (or predicates in the sense of predicate calculus). They are mental state predicates, and enter into logic via e.g., possible world semantics or modal logic for a reason: if they are treated according to classical propositional or predicate logic, we can derive paradoxes or other nonsense. This is primarily because of how "is" and similar copulas work in classical logic vs. how they do when we have mental state predicates. If I cay Superman is Clark Kent, then I am saying that I can replace any instance of either Clark Kent or Superman with the other and the statement will remain true. This is generally the case: Clark Kent (Superman) has X-ray vision, Superman (Clark Kent) works at the Daily Planet, etc. This falls apart with mental state predicates. It is true to say that "Lois Lane thinks/believes/knows Clark Kent works for the Daily Planet", but NOT true if we substitute "Superman" for "Clark Kent" in that sentence. Grammatically, mental state predicates function as epistemic qualifications of propositions/predicates. They give the speaker's degree of belief, epistemological commitment, certainty, etc., in the proposition/predicate that follows. They are not themselves propositions.

Well, I've read a bit about mental state predicates, and I can see either proposition or mental state predicate working well to describe belief. The predicate, as what the belief is about, has the appearance of truth, and as such, the world is either affirmed or denied by the holding of it (proposition).

 

[Kueid]

That I "don't allow" that it be so is just a reflection of my beliefs. It's a way of expressing rejection.

Interesting. Let me ask you something, do you believe you have freewill?

 

[Willamena]

Interesting. Let me ask you something, do you believe you have freewill?

Yes, though what "free will" looks like to you, as you ask me that, I cannot say. I believe in free will as the agency of a conscious being.