I don’t choose to disbelieve you–all the evidence I have forces me not to believe you.
I don’t know if you’re a liar or not–you may have some pedagogical purpose for your untrue statements, for example–but telling the truth you ain’t.
Since you’re not being truthful with me, my argument isn’t really for you anymore. It’s for anyone reading the conversation–without making claims to others about what we can or can’t do, we all know, when we actually introspect, that we can’t just decide at will to believe something we don’t believe. The ludicrous character of your claim that you’re doing so only serves to highlight this intuitive truth for anyone listening in.
I think, via a kind of mental gymnastics, we can trick ourselves into “believing” something we don’t really “believe” – like the Red Queen believing seven impossible things before breakfast… You can use a kind of self-hypnosis (or drugs!) to bypass the conscious level of rationality.
This is, for instance, why ghost stories around the campfire are so effective. We don’t believe that Bloody Mary is going to appear once we chant her name – but we still shiver with goose-bumps and cling to each other and shriek in terror when some wag breaks a twig.
There isn’t a single thing called “belief,” but a whole bunch of complicated mental states.
Heck, I don’t “believe” that human beings actually build skyscrapers. I drive downtown, and look at those 35-story pinnacles, and I simply can’t make myself believe that puny little human beings like me – me, who can’t build a backyard rail fence! – could erect such marvels. Yes, I know that they are built by human labor, using machines to do the heavy lifting. I know it’s true. But at the deep core level of emotional faith, I do not believe it.
That’s the level we don’t have entire control over.
I know that I am unable to change my thinking on believing that people exist one moment to believing that people do not exist for a while and then changing the belief back. I don’t know of anyone who is mentally sound who can control what they see as truth so casually. Wouldn’t one have to be delusional to deceive one’s self in such a way?
I don’t intend offense to anyone, but this goes against everything I’ve learned in abnormal psychology classes, psychology 101, and developmental psychology classes.
When you are a child, you can “will” the truth to go away sometimes. (“No, Mommie, I was not playing in your makeup.” And you believe that you are speaking the truth when you have lipstick and rouge all over your face.) But after the age of about four, the ability to do that goes away unless you are abnormal.
It’s a skill that can certainly be learned; it’s the basis of Koro. Whether it’s something that can be controlled or not, I have no idea. I suspect that if you hypnotized a group of people, asking them to believe that they are a dog, and then asked them afterwards which ones actually believed themselves to be a dog, versus acting like it because they were told to, that some percentage of those who actually believed it could be taught to self-hypnotize themselves similarly.
ALthough that’s not what I claim to do; simply that, I choose beliefs that seem more or less probable to me. I don’t have to go with that, however, and can change what I believe. I also choose not to do this, becaue it is… disturbing.
I’m charitably assuming you don’t intend, ultimately, to decieve. I’m assuming that though you’re deliberately saying something untrue, you either don’t expect anyone to believe it or you intend for people to learn something from having believed it (a “pedagogical lie” which is not really a lie in the “you’re a liar” sense).
Charitable assumptions and careful attention to connotation in the service of accuracy are far from sophistry.
Yes, it is a great argument–its premises are true, and known to be so by everyone, and the logic is valid.
Try to believe something you don’t presently believe, by a simple act of will. You can’t.
Everyone who I say this to notices they are indeed unable to do so.
The premise is true, then, and its truth is obvious to everyone. They may have disagreed with the conclusion prior to this thought experiment (as you did and as you’re emphasizing here that people might do), but having gone through with the attempt, they now see clearly that the premise of the argument is true. The argument is a good one because of the truth of its premises, and because its structure is such that any rational person who believes the premise should believe the conclusion.
I think – I believe – that you’re oversimplifying a bit… You seem, also, to be arguing from definition: a belief is something that cannot be changed, ergo, beliefs cannot be changed. Not quite a “True Scotsman” approach, but similar to it. For one thing, what exactly is the difference between “habituation” and “a simple act of will?” Why should the former be disqualified as a means of belief-alteration?
I hold with a more nuanced view, that “belief” covers a wide spectrum of mental states, from “total conviction” to mere “suspension of disbelief.” I and others have also pointed out the power of self-hypnosis in altering one’s own mental state.
Memories are remarkably fallible; who here has not experienced a “false memory” incident? The mind is quirky, rubbery, sloppy, and operates as much by association as inference. (Probably more!)
Trinopus (I believe in reality…whatever that means…)
I didn’t disqualify it–I explicitly said it is possible to change your beliefs through habituation. Both are means of belief-alteration, but only one is actually possible.
I’m not arguing from a definition. I’m simply pointing out something we all know once we’ve thought about it for a second. Pick a belief, any belief, that you think you believe by choice. Now—stop believing it. In this instance, by an act of will, don’t believe it anymore.
You can’t do it.
If someone really, really really wanted to insist they were doing this, then we could find them out by having a debate with them in conversation or something. We would discover their utterances are much more compatible with the view that they’re pretending to believe something than with the view that they actuall believe it. So my claim has empirical content in that sense. Unfortunately there’s no way to test it practically speaking on a forum like this one.
And really, there’s no need–we all know that I’m right, anyway.
I don’t think any of the above is relevant to what I’m saying. I don’t much care what you’re calling “belief.” So long as you’re using the term in its normal English sense, however messy that might be, I’m certain you can’t stop believing something by a simple act of will. You can entertain alternative hypotheses, you can pretend to be less certain than you are, etc etc. But you can’t stop believing it just because you want to.
Why do you believe, or want to believe, that you are not in control of your beliefs?
Is it the last part of your question? That you don’t want to be held accountable for your actions?
The opening post seems more like a rephrasing of a Calvinist Christian postion to me..
That you can only believe if God gives you the ability to believe.
I believe what I believe, because I choose to believe it. As do all of you. It may be based on evidence outside of my own experince thus trusting the word of others. It may be only based on my own anedotal evidence. But nomatter how I come to my belief I choose to believe it.
A wife chooses to believe that her husband is not cheating when all signs point to it, why? The truth is too emotionally painful so she chooses to believe what the evidence tells her isn’t so.. Thus she believes and acts as if something that isn’t true is true..
The truth hurts and so pain, emotional pain is a strong factor in what we choose to believe..
Ah, but I didn’t say- (hurredly checks his previous posts)
As I was saying, I didn’t claim and do not claim it is an act of pure will. At no point did I state or even imply that in anything I wrote, unless I’m completely missing something.
I said we choose our beliefs. I did not say this was a matter of concentrating really hard. Belief is a matter of practice. Faith in anything, from anaesthetic to anabastism, is largely a matter of forming good habits, of thought as well as action. All the evidence in the world cannot convince anyone of anything, unless they accept many fundamental truths first. And yes, there are those who don’t, and you can’t convince them because their fundamental assumptions about the world are a great deal different.
You have, however, put an inadvertent strawman up. BY inserting your assumption that I was talking about whim or sheer willpower, you confused the act of belief (which strengthens with practice) with a poor mental copy.
From the beginning (my post #10) I have been explicit about what I meant. I used the phrase “simple act of will” in that and most subsequent posts.
And I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make in your latest post, but in this thread you have explicitly claimed that you were able, instantly, to switch, at will, from believing “there are other people besides me” to believing “there are no other people besides me.” You made this claim explicitly in post number 15 in response to my post number 14.
