Are beliefs a choice?
 

IMO beliefs are indeed a choice.

.................

I prefer to "believe" nothing. I execute, operate, perform, and act skeptically on things I decide are useful tentative hypotheses. I never allow "evidence" to force a choice in me to "believe" something. Why? Because I see people believing all sorts of nonsense.

And yes, obviously, if you harbor an a priori assumption about something, that would be a belief. However, to my mind, that is still a choice.

I don't see anything precluding our ability to choose not to "believe" things.

In so much as no one can force you to believe anything...then, yes, beliefs would be a choice. I may "choose" to "believe" those things that are placed before me with evidence supporting thier value, but that too, I could just as easily "choose" to ignore.
*sigh*
This isn't about Santa again, is it Art? I'm tellin' ya...he's real.

As long as only free will exists and no outside force is applied, then beliefs are a result of environmental and societal programming.

Art (or is it ART?) belief may be something that people choose to do, but belief in something specific is an acceptance of a certain model of existance. If the model fits a person's experiences and way of thinking, it has potential for being believed in, you can't choose to believe in something that doesn't match your own conception of how the world works.

As described, your own beliefs are based on your own experiences and perceptions, you hold an a priori assumption that things are not likely to fit any particular model, so you reserve judgement - it is still a belief of sorts - do you choose to think these things, or are they an integral part of you?

If you believe it is a choice, then you believe in choice. Are you able to change yourself such that you no longer believe in choice?

Certainly beliefs are a matter of choice, but it's not as if, in most cases, we can wake up one morning and starting believing something radically different. There's a 'stickiness' to beliefs.

Well, Bill O'Rights, probably the most difficult thing I do and would propose is to choose not to believe in "evidence".

As far as I can see, "evidence" is nothing more than an instance of something that exists as a phenomenon, appearance, sensation, event - that sort of thing.

To choose to believe in "evidence" is no different to me than choosing to believe in anything else - including Santa...

zen_tom, yes.
I have already framed by position of ontological skepticism by stating it is a preference - i.e. a choice.

Why would anyone prefer or choose differently?

Your preference suggests that you hold with the idea that instances of experience are (or at least have the capacity to be) totally unique and unrelated, that they don't necessarily form any pattern. This would suggest surprise when you wake up in the morning to find you are in the same place where you fell asleep, or that the faces of the people you recognise belong to the same people as they did yesterday, or that grass remains on the whole, green.

You may prefer to be constantly surprised at these things, but it would certainly be more practical to make some assumptions that help life become slightly less random and episodic.

To a point, I would agree. However, when I walk into the room, and my two year old is standing next to open desk drawer, merrily throwing it's former contents about the room...I tend to "believe", from the standpoint of that particular "evidence", that he got into the drawer and made a mess. I could choose to believe otherwise, but in this case I would be foolish to do so.

Sorry Art, I missed this part of your initial post - which manages to say in two lines what took me the same number of paragraphs.

In return I'd say that beliefs (things that we hold to be true) are the axioms of these models we build. The models we build provide a scaffold on which to hang our experiences, the better constructed the scaffold, the better inferences we can make about things we don't know - we can make educated guesses, and feel secure enough to take chances on them.

Of course, if our beliefs are wrong, our educated guesses are likely to be too, increasing the chances that our gambles in life are going to fail.

I am somewhat of a fence sitter as well. Believing nothing is sort of a belief in itself though.

Bill O'Rights, I see your point exactly.

However, as "belief" is such an infinitely problematic concept, I prefer to operate on a similar situation as you describe by acting on the basis of a tentative hypothesis.

It seems quite clear to me that this approach leads one into less nonsense than any other.

Hence, my true wonderment regarding why anyone would choose to operate upon "belief"

Art, you are operating upon belief just as much as anyone else. Or even anything else.

Is it nonsense for a bird to believe that it's capable of flight, or does it too make 'tentative hypotheses'?

Using a word like 'nonsense' suggests you have beliefs as to what has value and what does not. It suggests that there is such a thing as 'sense'.
So, you have so far expressed the following beliefs.

1) That certainty cannot be attained or inferred from experience
2) That free-will exists
3) That some things make 'sense' and other things are 'nonsense'
4) That forming beliefs falls into the 'nonsense' category
5) That people choose to believe whatever they believe in

Or are you using the notion of belief in a less general sense? If so, please specify.

I am operating on only one perspective, that of skepticism.

The discussion becomes mere semantics at exactly this point. Because we have created a concept which we call "belief" and because that concept can be used to undermine all positions, including those that reject the notion itself, does nothing more than indicate further that we have created an infinitely problematic concept.

The sensible solution is to either dispense with the concept of "belief" entirely or to circumscribe it as some others have done here.

For myself, I choose to dispense with the concept entirely, as it serves no useful purpose.

Semantic issues can be resolved by more precise definitions. That's why we must circumscribe, dispensing with the notion means we can't investigate it.

In geometry, there exist a set of axioms from which sprout the various laws and relationships that can be proven and tested against one another. However, the axioms must be taken on faith. There is no way to proove them. In fact it has been shown that it is impossible to proove them. Hence mathematics (geometry is a specific example, but the idea of axioms permeates throughout the whole of mathematics) is a field built entirely on faith.

The concept is problematic, but it is also self consistant. If you accept that faith is necessary for mathematics, life and anything else (it is the hidden axiom if you will), then you solve the paradox, the problem becomes null and avenues hitherto shut open themselves up for exploration.

What then becomes important is not the concept of belief itself, but what you believe in and how closely that belief matches reality.

Art you are starting to sound like the man who rules the universe, so I have to ask you, do you believe you have a cat? ;)

ART -- I'm a little confused about your position. Exactly what is it you mean by the word belief?

I think that I have made myself clear.
And to simply say that my rejection of belief is a belief is not productive in any way, in terms of addressing the extent to which belief itself is far different than operating on tentative hypotheses, for example.

I have laid out a path of negating concepts in their reified, ossified, delusion-inducing state - the state that folks who proclaim belief in things adhere to.

It is a far different thing to go around claiming belief than it is to state that beliefs are infinitely problematic and should be avoided as much as possible. And the extent to which it is possible to avoid belief is far more than those who would simply argue that these are all just other beliefs will allow, it seems. I repeat that is semantic nonsense, useless, and undemonstrable.

I am no less in amazement now than I was before I started this thread. Why would anyone choose to believe anything?

Beliefs are what allow one to function at the next level of thought. Beliefs may be flawed, or 'the truth' but without them you are constantly a new born and everything would be a wonder.

Yes. I am constantly born anew and filled with wonder.

As to whether or not I believe I have a cat: no, I do not believe I have a cat.

I act as if I have a cat until it is no longer sensible to do so.

This is not the manner in which beliefs are typically executed.

the question of beliefs about the world, about the subject or "individual" in that world, is something that i find most useful to think about within the purview of the classical conception of the political.

maybe this is why i have some trouble with the question as it is posed--it seems to assume that what is at stake is a free-floating individual, unconditioned by socialization, and what that individual comes to understand about his or her relation to this theater called the world.

within this, it sounds like you want to oppose experience to a metaphysics.
but your viewpoint seems nontheless to recapitulate aspects of metphysics in the way you frame your opposition--the isolated individual, for example, is a metaphysical concept; the notion of experience as such is as well.
the idea of rejecting reified concepts: how is that other than an inversion? what does it actually entail? what kind of assumptions about your embeddeness in the world have to be in place for this operation to get thought about, not to mention started?


in general, i think zen-tom poses an interesting way of going about thinking on this matter of belief--that axioms are not demonstrable from within a proof that presupposes them--yes, well there you are---but if you map this onto the social, then the question does not seem to operate well within the purview of belief--rather it seems on a different register, more political in nature. one could counter a given set of arguments about the world with another set of arguments....people could find one set of arguments preferable to another, for any number of reasons. i am not sure how the question of belief as such would function in this space.

i guess i am cloudy on what is actually being discussed here.

Thanks, roachboy.

The original question is still, I think, the most significant one to pursue...

Are beliefs a choice?

If not, then what are they?

I can't even believe this!

God or NoGod

It's an option, there are two alternatives. Alternatives suggest choice, but they don't require it. I can choose to point to the first option or the second one.
But can I choose to believe the first or the second one just as easily?
Can I really choose to believe the first or second option at all?

How do I choose to believe something? I might want to believe, but can I really choose to?

I can decide whether to walk into a Church or a Mosque or a Synagogue, I can choose to wear the appropriate dress and I can choose to read the appropriate books. But my belief develops naturally, I can't choose it.

A stream doesn't choose to flow downhill. Our worldview or beliefs are shaped by our environment, we can choose to change the environment, but we can't choose what we believe.

Are beliefs a choice?

Hmm, I have two primary objections to this question. First, it fundamentally presupposes that we do indeed have “choice”. Second, even if we grant that we do have “choice”, this question is still a “chicken or the egg”, which comes first beliefs or choice?

After carefully weighing all sides of the argument concerning freedom of choice I find myself “believing” (note, this isn’t by choice, it is an honest belief) the theory of “psychological egoism” to be correct. For those of you not familiar with psychological egoism, this theory claims that every “choice” one takes is made because one believes it to be in one’s own personal self best interest. This does not necessarily mean that one does in fact always act in one’s own best interest, because one it liable to have mistaken beliefs about what one’s best interest may be, just that one does in fact hold a belief that a particular action was made or will be made to that effect. Therefore, all of one’s “choices” are based off of one’s “belief” that the decision reached will be in one’s own personal self best interest. Notice, by following this line of reasoning “belief” comes before “choice”.

Now lets take this a step further. Under this theory, the vast majority of beliefs one has are nothing more then mere impulses. You have an impulse to eat food, therefore you “believe” you are hungry, which leads you to “choose” a particular food to eat. Of course, you didn’t really “choose” anything, you “felt” like eating a particular food item and so you did. (Example, your at a nice restaurant with your SO and the dessert cart comes around. You looked it over trying to make your “choice” of dessert, and you ask yourself, “hmm what do I feel like eating tonight?”. After examining all of your “choices” you make a selection based upon what you “felt” most like eating. So there was actually no real “choice” involved, you simply acted out of desire.) While this example may seem to some to be a little overly simplistic, if you follow it out to its logical conclusion you can see where almost all human action is based off of nothing more then “mere impulse” and there is no real “choice” involved.

Without going into my full long spiel about how free-will does arise, let me briefly say that I do find that we have some, albeit very limited, ability to make real “choices”. To do so, however, one needs to undertake much thought, inner reflection, and meditation on the matter before a true “choice” can be reached free of (or at least shielded against)preexisting beliefs and impulses. It is then, and only then, that a belief could be reached by “choice”, but this outcome is very rare and an undertaking that most people are lucky to take more then a handful of occasions (if ever) in their lifetime.

I do think this is a "yes or no" question.

Fascinating explanations are great.

I'd like to know if there are some folks out there who are able to answer "yes" or "no" to the question and elaborate...

Thanks.

I think beliefs are a part of the human brain. I think some people are wired so that believe in things easier and some believe in things less.
A mix of both is what helped humans evole. Belief in what is taught help keep people safe and belief in less helps us learn new things.
Like how people believed the world was flat. This belief keeped people from going out the sea to never to be seen from again. If there wasn't people that didn't believe then we would be all in one place to never venture out.
So I think belief keeps us safe but stupid and non belief makes us smarter but die faster.

I chose to believe that EVERYTHING you do is a choise. You recieve ann impulse from your brain telling you that you are lacking osething, and therefore form the desire to relieve yourself of the feeling of need. you chose to relieve yourself of the need. If you fast, and your body is sending impulses of hunger, although the need for food is there, and there is food to be had, you chose not to eat, and instead to fast. You can chse weather you are going to get out of bed or not. Even if you know that you have to go to work in 20 minutes. You examine the alternative, and when you see that if you do not go to work today, you may be fired, you chose that you would rather kep your job and keep all the other things associated with having a job (good or bad) as well. Therefore, although you have the relative need to go to work, you still make a choise weather to stay home or to work.

Yes of course; beliefs are choices...as opposed to? Instincts?
What else could they be? :hmm:

There are beliefs and there are values. I think values are a choice, and it follows that beliefs are a choice as well.

Short Answer: Yes.

Elaboration:

It seems to me that focusing on the concept of beliefs centers around making asserations about that which cannot be known in some way or another. Coming from an existentialist standpoint that existing is absurd, and most everything we're confronted with is absurd because there is no ultimate <b>known</b> reason for it to be there, I am left in a similar state of skepticism.

I have values, and reasons behind my values, but I always try to back those values up with empirical evidence of some kind. And I can demonstrate that with choices in how I live and intrepret my life:

1) The feeling of love is something that I have and it demonstrated to me through actions, not merely through my mental imagination of what I think others feel about me.

2) The concept of believing in God, or not believing in God doesn't change the absurdity of existence - so, for me personally, the question is moot. I can't make assumptions about what a God would or wouldn't want, so I look for other clues in my existence for how to live my life.

3) Fundamentally, I am constantly looking for cause-effect relationships in deciding what I prefer. For instance, talking about whether something is fundamentally right or wrong doesn't interest me as much as what I would prefer or not prefer for myself or society, or anything else.

Example: the question of being pro-life or pro-choice - I don't find abortions desirable because they pose some risk to the mother, it places many in undesirable personal ethical and moral dilemmas, and in general it seems that it would be better to not get pregnant then to get pregnant and then decide that one didn't want to be pregnant. However, we live in a complicated world, there are plenty of people everywhere, and most importantly - there is always going to be people that put themselves in situations where they desire abortions. Abortions happen whether it is legal or not. So, my response to the abortion debate is that I think abortion should be legal to keep the practice safe, and that if we really want to decrease the numbers of abortions we should do that through education, more availability of contraceptives, etc.

4) I'm always attempting to analyze whether I am being confronted with fact or opinion. When confronted with opinions, I typically try to break down the foundations of those opinions to determine if they're based on something that I can logically understand and agree with, or not. There are cases when I disagree with people even though their logic is sound, and there are cases when I disagree with people because their opinions seem to have a nonsensical foundation to it.

5) I avoid superstition.

OK willbjammin, you've expressed a very logical, straightforward, no-nonsense take on the world, much as Art has. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you hold dear the ideas of scientific method, not jumping to conclusions, simplest explanation etc

To you, the idea of a higher power is a non-sensical one, it's surplus to requirements, it *may* be true, but you're not ready to throw your money down on one side or the other, and you remain skeptical on this and many other unknown areas of life.

So that's your worldview, those are your 'beliefs' - Now you and Art are also saying that you've chosen those beliefs. Let's try a thought experiment.

Do you think you could ever decide to throw up this view of the world and start believing whole-heartedly in a god or gods, or spirits etc? If someone offered you a hundred million dollars to completely convert to Catholicism (or some other arbitrary huge reward and equally arbitrary religious faith. - If you are reading this from a religious viewpoint, imagine embracing the logical/scientific model that the non-religious among us adopt) could anyone honestly train themselves to do that?

Let's say you had 3 months to convert and then had to stand in front of a group of people and convince them that you believed in The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost. Could you do it? Maybe you could convince them, but would you have honestly convinced yourself?

I really don't think it's possible, and this is why I'm saying that No, beliefs are most definitely not a matter of choice.

If beliefs are a choice, then both you and Art are saying that you would be capable of changing those beliefs should a sitation arise like the one described.

is belief a choice? no. it is a requirement of life.

are beliefs a choice? yes. so far as the operation of our free will is not interfered with, we are capable of chosing between different beleif systems.

art, i see no fewer value judgements, biases, and leaps of faith in your reasoning than anyone else. sorry, but i don't buy the "relentless" skeptic. your mind is made up on a great deal of things, some of which defy rational explanation to a person such as myself. your theory on language in particular is amazingly faith based. well thought out, and a show of your beliefs. but it's not provable, nor less conditioned on assumptions than any faith i've got.

honestly, we are belief filled creatures. we see patterns to help us survive, we fill in data to make our lives easier, we think in lines when there are only dots. you seem to believe it's a weakness. i think it's one of our strengths...

Everything is a belief; even the choice not to believe in something is still a belief. It is absolutely impossible to be a sentient being without having some sort of beliefs. The choice not to believe in something is not an absence of belief, it is just a "negative" belief toward that concept.

Now, for a bit of a tangent.

They, like everything else, are a very limited choice. Basing this scientifically, you are born with genetic dispositions to certain cognitive attributes. Then, you are raised and socialised in a way that further affects the way in which you are most likely to perceive things. There are variations within the framework provided, but it essentially dictates the boundaries within which your beliefs will fall.

I don't personally subscribe completely to the scientific view of it, but it's the one that I suppose could be argued to be the most credible.

If there is a higher power, I have no access to it. Because of that, I see no reason to alter how I live my life based on what a higher power would want. To change my life based on what a higher power would want would mean that I'm making assumptions about the nature of God, and I don't feel like I'm in a position to do that.

If you notice, this is your second reference to money. You're making an assumption that I care more about money than living well. The idea of changing beliefs as proof that beliefs are chosen is also non-sensical. If I have reasoned out why I have formed an understanding of this thing or that thing, or disagree with this thing or that thing, then I would need a catalyst of some sort to prompt the change in my worldview. Money as a reward is not a catalyst for me, it is meaningless. I don't think that I'm necessarily as "belief-less" as Art, at least in how I describe my existence. The reason for this is my propensity to observe the world and exist on metaphorical terms.

Starting with a basis of absurdity and an understanding of the inherent abstractedness of living in a world of thought, I know that directly interpreting anything as the thing-in-itself is impossible. Forming thoughts into words is a type of mediation of reality. On top of that, we are living in a mediated age. Most of what we know is a result of mediation of some sort, often being filtered through several sources before reaching us.

This discussion of the nature of my understanding of reality is important, because that factor shapes my ability to be skeptical and choose my views. My point is that education-level and being interested in honest living are huge factors in the ability to actively choose. Regardless, everyone does choose in some way or another, whether they know it or not.

So, to get back to your hypothetical questions - I couldn't just randomly change my views, and beliefs (as you call my views) aren't chosen in a vacuum.

I couldn't do it in an intellectually honest manner.

Giving a false choice, such as using money as the only reason to change your views upon something, does not disprove anything.

No, our views can be changed by being given compelling reasons to do so.

Excuse my over-use of monetary terms - I was trying to think of a cheap way of putting my point across. Note that I did concede "or some other arbitrary huge reward" meaning something which has value for you. I don't want to get into what has value and what doesn't, what I do want to do is determine where choice gets involved in the development of belief.

So yes, using money might be a 'false choice' as you put it, how about some other reason. What reason would make for a valid choice?

Anyway, you got the idea - and as you say at the end of your piece views can be changed by being one being given 'compelling reasons to do so'. Note that being compelled to do something suggests lack of choice (from Websters: Compel: To force to yield; to overpower; to subjugate.)

You've stated that your views are more important than money. So what, if anything might compell you to change your views?

I hope you don't think me rude for asking questions like this, I really mean no offense at all - and hope none is taken. But I honestly don't understand this idea of being able to conciously choose what I believe in.

In response to those who would have us accept that a procedure that moves through a succession of tentative working hypotheses is the same thing as a system of beliefs, I state that simply typing something doesn't make it so.

To recognize the difference between beliefs and working hypotheses requires more than some are willing to offer, it seems.
To say two clearly different things are the same thing is a fascinating opinion and nothing more...

Well, to say that belief is purely a choice is a fascinating opinion and nothing more as well. It's not like anyone here is speaking in objective terms here. A working hypothesis is based in some form of a belief. If one doesn't at least partially believe something to be true, why would one form a hypothesis on it?

The working hypotheses I employ have nothing to do with "truth" - which is another concept I do not espouse.

I employ them as long as they are provisionally useful.

To go back to Ustwo's question to you ART regarding whether you believe you have a cat, and you stating that, no, you don't believe it so, you only act as if you have a cat until it strikes you as nonsensical to act otherwise. This is a fascinating point of view, yet I am struggling to understand it. Is the point here to take emotion out of the thought process entirely? To proceed based soley on an intellectual basis? Some other basis? If I have this correct, how do you (in any capacity) reconcile the inherent emotional nature of man with an outlook of pure logic?

When you say you don't 'believe' in anything, I understand this to mean not that you don't place value on anything, but that your values aren't based on emotion. Are you refuting the existence of emotion in your thought processes entirely?

To proceed more constructively, this understanding might make things clearer to all involved.

Are beliefs a choice? Yes and No.
Yes you can choose to believe fire would not hurt you.
No, when you stick your hand in the fire you no longer have a choice.

I, for one, am not saying that belief and the ideal system you describe are the same.

what i am saying is that it cannot be done. i've seen no evidence to the contrary...and as has been said many times on this board, logic is not compelled to consider possibility of the impossible.

Whatever you do, it must be based in belief, as I said earlier. I wasn't saying that your "working hypotheses" are beliefs.

It might first help if you tell us exactly what you define "belief" as, in this context. It's pretty useless to discuss something when I'm not even sure exactly what the concept being discussed is.

You're living in a theoretical world that I can't really respond to. I would imagine I'm more likely to form wildly different beliefs out of a response to living in severe crisis. As for discussing "beliefs", I suppose I should go further and say that what I have that I would consider to be "beliefs" rather than "values" or "views" are more along the ways of asthetically approaching life, rather than concrete/literal "beliefs".

I'm afraid that I could adopt certain new beliefs if I was faced with a life crisis, or if I began suffering from a fit of rebellion from my own identity for some reason. I'm not likely to form much in the way of "beliefs" now due to my education, experiences, and decisions I have already made in the past. A good person to ask would be one of those former drunkards you find that tell you that they used to be atheists and then became Born Again and found Jesus and now everything is wonderful. There is a classic example of someone choosing a belief.

If you showed me that my foundation for interpreting reality was totally false, I would have to re-evalute many things including how I feel about beliefs.

And, isn't that the point? To change beliefs, one would have to have a serious change of heart which doesn't come from nowhere. That doesn't mean that you don't have a choice whether to change or not, it means that you felt that you had a good reason to. Many people struggle with their beliefs, see contradictions, and continue to hold on tightly to those beliefs anyway because they choose to hold on to those old beliefs that has become strongly meshed with their identity. I have worked hard to avoid getting into such identity crises by avoiding putting myself in situations where I have beliefs that can put me into existential dilemmas about my identity.

Again, at this point, I can think of no reward for such a thing. Only a mental breakdown of sorts is likely to get me there now.

Well, it isn't easy often, esp. since we find it easy to just take what we've been given or what we've figured out and hold onto it. But when I think back to my first efforts into deciding how I felt about things like God and reincarnation in middle school, I was making some active choices about what I believed and didn't believe. It went back and forth until I had some philosophical breakthroughs, and I feel now that I have little need to change my "beliefs". You're getting me at a point in time that leaves me with the ability to make choices about what I belief, and yet no desire to change. This certainly isn't true for everyone, and it may not always be the same for me, but I can clearly remember making choices about beliefs and why I made those choices. And every day I reconsider those choices on some level - and because of thise continuing re-evaluation I am choosing on a conscious level all of the time.

Question: Are beliefs a choice?

My Straight yes or no answer: Of course they are a choice.

My Why: Wether or not the choice is a conscious one, it is still exactly that, a choice. As humans, we have the power of choice. Some people are free to weild that power as they may, these people think for themselves and not necessarily for society. Others still choose belief, but they dont have the will power to resist pressure from the politcal correctness of the modern society. Thus they choose to not make a genuine choice of thier own, and to not put any serious decision making thought process into what they believe in. Personally, I search for answers. Until I get legitimate answers to the unanswerable questions of this world, then I will not believe. Many people are afraid to make choices becuase of things like regret, wrong decisions, etc. But I think it is a virtue to be able to have the power to control all of your choices, which is why no matter what I chose in life, I stand behind it 100%, because as a human, I have the power to control my own choices, and I admire the fact that I am able to make such choices. I guess my answer is partially along the lines of ART's in his first post, but it runs on a little bit of a different parallel and perspective.

MY belief in my religion was forced on me . I did not have a choice on whether I wanted to believe in the same religion that my parents believed in, or whether i wanted to follow some other religion. The point is that despite the fact that I was not given a chioce, my belief in my religion is extremelely strong. The answer to the question depends on the situation and circumstances. For example, you can choose to believe that man did indeed land on the moon, on the other hand you may have reasons to believe that it was a hoax.

This is a good point - We know how some people as you say have their beliefs (or non-beliefs) strongly meshed with their identity. In fact, it might be difficult to define the point where ones identity begins and the way one approaches life (based on certain ideas which are held to be true or untrue) ends. We interpret ourselves and our experiences within the bounds of some set of tenets or (a priori assumptions) that we believe have some (if only working) value.

Some people are unlucky enough to have belief systems that are either self-contradicting, or at least fail to stand up to the evidence their experience provides. Hanging on to a belief system such as this because it defines what that person feels themselves to be - despite the evidence, can cause them to develop elaborate explanations, and in advanced cases, paranoia, split-personalities or delusions of persecution.

The archetypal Psycho who failed to accept the death of his mother (on whom perhaps he built-up a highly parochial world-view on which was based the sense of his own identity) is a good example instance.

A worldview is built, life events are sorted, measured and placed into the scaffolding that worldview provides, building it and developing it further. Then suddenly something on which the worldview is based on is kicked away, bringing everything else with it.

In the case of Norman Bates, he's unable to deal with this inconsistancy, and in times of stress, he takes on the role of his mother, required by his worlview to keep up the scaffold of his life.

Has Norman Bates chosen to believe his mother is still alive despite all the evidence to the contrary? Has Norman chosen to be a psycho?

On less extreme ground, this is often seen to be the reason for a personal or mental breakdown. The basis on which someone has built their life is etched away by experience until it no-longer is able to support someone's operation. During this period the person is trying to reconcile their beliefs with experience.

At this point, the option is to continue to hold the belief, or to allow it to slide.

- and then, like a house of cards, the system breaks down. The person has to somehow re-interpret their life-history and daily experience without anything solid as a foundation. Without doing so makes it difficult to assign any meaning or value to new experience.

I agree the process of forming, holding and then rejecting beliefs is one that we are conciously aware of. Maybe some of us can choose what to believe, but there are certainly others who would appear to have no choice at all.

Thanks for the good discussion.
I think we covered the territory pretty well.
The dictionary is good enough as far as definitions go.
I don't engage semantic questions.

I think folks have fleshed out the various aspects of the original question and there's some ongoing discussion that continues. Personally I wanted to pose the question. I've done that.

Thanks again.

i really do not see how the opposition between bellief and experience works, outside of a totally unjustifiable empiricist framework.

your experience is heavily mediated--obviously--from the categories you use to bundle data to the assumptions you inhabit with reference to the nature of space, of movement, of time....are these assumptions amenable to being formalized? to an extent yes....does that formalization mean that you are somehow stepping outside them, and by doing that are able to work out the extent to which they are simply beliefs? not really, because you would build elements of that register into your analysis itself.

does the fact that your field of vision presents you with what appears to be an "objective" view of the object world mean that you in any way have unmediated acceess to that world? well no, because as you focus your attention on any given object and make judgements about that object--what is this thing---you enter directly into the space of explicit mediation--and your field of vision is itself constituted across a whole series of assumptions.....

if you cannot claim that experience provides you with immediacy, then on what basis could you oppose it to questions of belief? it seems more logical that your experience is simply another register across which your beliefs are deployed.

montaigne was at least consistent about this--what he looked to was not the object world, not individual experience, but rather history in that for him history was the result of a kind of collective working-out of relations to the world...for montaigne, however, the question of history was not a gateway to immediacy, which to an extent it was for his conservative epigone, edmund burke....both of these positions explain why i understand this question of belief as being properly political....because it involves a shift in relation to history and arguments about the nature and meaning of that shift.

questions of religion are easier to address, but for that are (to me at least) less interesting.

No, roachboy, there is nothing objective about my experience.

I don't explain things beyond my ability to do so. I think the current language that is in common usage is sufficient to address current experience. I attempt to use it to negate or short-circuit itself as much as possible - to create unanswerable questions, to report as best I can on the mysterious thing I'm calling my experience. It is mysterious to me because I can not explain it. Ultimately, I do prefer that situation.

So I type what I think can be handled with common language and am content to leave things as they are - unresolved and even unresolvable. By raising questions I think I am doing something significant in itself.

As for the manner of proceeding conceptually through a process of negation - I am aware of the cognitive notion that by negating a frame one calls the frame up for cognition (thereby short-circuiting the process of negation - at least conceptually), however - , there is enough of a historical and philosophical history of employing it, including Vedic and Buddhist methodogogies and other instances of the via negativa that I think this procedure is comprehensible enough to suggest it. The fact that it doesn't seem many are familiar with proceeding through concepts by a process of negation doesn't deter me from putting it out there as an example of how what I propose differs from the "scientific method"...

In other words, it is neither "this" nor "that"...

it seems to me its only a one-off situation.

there are two possible ways of structuring reality, imo.

meaninglessness and confusion
questions of perception of reality (possibly marred by proximity to meaningless and over-deconstruction)
questions of interpretation of reality
ultimate reality

or

ultimate reality
questions of perception of reality
questions of interpretation of reality (possibly marred by proximity/reliance on empty conceptional frameworks)

confusion and meaninglessness

each proceeds from micro to macro. i'd say "simple to complex" but i think that may not clarify what i'm saying. to me, it's more important to be self-critical at the point of interpretation. i can see the world, but what does it mean. am i chosing to look away from some things? should my attention be here or there? what is the nature of things, put together?

i see you saying that it's more important to question the perceptual level. do you see the world as it is? is the sky blue? what is nature of things, taken apart?

each is an aesthtic, a worldview. i don't see how either is some how more "pure" than the other in terms of assumptions made, or beliefs held. we have proof that neither is more important. to chose one over the other is an act of faith.

If experience and explanations of experience were the same thing - or even remotely equal to each other - these discussions would have ultimate value and significance.

IMO, discussions are a means toward indicating the limits of what is discussable...nothing more.

I disagree with the former, and am unhappy about the latter, but that's just how it goes.

I don't know about that, I'm still trying to figure out whether you have a cat or not. ;)

reading this again, i think i can see why you insist the "map isn't the territory"

a refusal to engage in a discussion of definitions and a faith that the dictionary is a self-interpreting text that merits no discussion...that would pretty much entail the map not being the territory.

That's correct.
I think we can only go so far in using words to examine words.

I'm always aware of those limits. And I think it would be most useful for us to accept a simple list of definitions. Hence, my preference for "common usage"

Just to help out, the following comes from Websters Online Dictionary:

Of course that would be most useful, but no one operates on the same premise as everyone else. One can have a two hour long argument and be agreeing with the other party, all based on a semantic difference of a concept.

which begs yet another question.

of all the possible deployments of language, why choose "common usage" which is a standardized (by one authority) version of a language that some odd fraction of the world's population speaks? what faith prompts the belief that that particular deployment is best, and is beyond criticism?

if you're so convinced that language is the limitation of thought, why chose to narrow the language?

It's just an arbitrary choice.

Easy to look up and cross-reference.

The alternative is to spend the rest of our lives in endless circular discussion and never really proceed beyond setting out terms.

There are many who will find those endless circular paths interesting. I'm just not one of them.

They're only circular if people are stubborn about it.

to add to that, it's only circular if people don't learn from each other. that's a whole problem unto itself. static definitions don't solve it, they just confine it to a different place.

I'm open to other definitions of belief, or anything else. I just don't have anything to discuss about how words are defined. I'll accept your definition as "your definition" and if I am asked for a definition myself - I refer the questioner to the dictionary.

How would you prefer to define "belief" and "choice" then?

Art, these are some of your more fascinating responses during this discussion (which by the way appears to have derailed itself now) You use circular arguments, then deride those who find them interesting, you state that you prefer to use common language, then you state that you like to negate and short circuit it. It ends up coming across as highly contradictory, almost belligerent. I know you don't mean to do this, but it would help keep things on track if you avoided making vague and unusual statements and then getting all stroppy when people reasonably request clarifications or start pointing out inconsistencies with your curious ideas.

There is a complete absence of derision in those statements.

Period.

There is no "almost" belligerence in those statements either.

Period.

I conduct philosophical discourse by negation, contradiction, and short-circuit for the reasons I have already stated above. To restate the essential reason in its most simple terms: words are the problem. Once a philosophical discussion devolves toward a discussion of words it is no longer interesting to me.

OK thanks Art - Sorry if I appeared belligerent myself. For me I find that once a topic goes into semantic mode, it can be useful to step back, and try to find a common thing on which to agree before going forward again. The best discussions should be a vehicle for the shared exploration of ideas and it is often possible to negotiate the semantic hurdles that stand in the way of everyone's mutual understanding by adopting a flexible outlook.
If a topic devolves into a circular discussion of words it can be beneficial to sit it out for a while untill a shared consensus emerges. Stating a lack of interest can be less disruptive if it's done implicitly by not posting.

Your previous posts to me required responses, did they not?

Indicating a lack of interest in certain directions does seem appropriate. I'll await any new submissions of working definitions and then respond accordingly.

Thanks...

i was trying to figure out how the notion of choice functioned if you cannot seperate yourself from what amount to (from the subjective viewpoint at least) arbitrary committments.

via negativa helped--we are in a purely nominalist problematic.

so the preference you express--that beliefs in general are functions of choice--is about a desire to assert a degree of autonomy at some level. it is starting point rather than result. as such, the question of defending the position gets shifted away from problems of method/standpoint (which would assume it was result) to a more slippery place---i can see why they would derail/develop into semantic debate....which by the way, i am not at all hostile to, primarily because they usually provide me an excuse to wander away into the curious world of the oed, which means that they are ends in themselves.....better dictionaries for better digression.

so i think i have an idea of where this starts from--yes?

yes exactly. we're on the same page. I was driving down to my local convenience emporium this morning forming and reflecting upon this thought:

If belief is not a choice then we are automata.

As you know, In general, I do think we are automata.

However, I think there is also a scant, slight, very small, and very rare possibility for "free" execution. Therefore, I think it's necessary for me to create constructions that allow for that possibility.

Hence the assertion that belief is a choice...

Thanks, roachboy.

Your beliefs are made based on your examination of things around you. Many people tend to live their life without examining it, so they take on the beliefs of their culture, society, or parents. Of course, as Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

If you have a strong enough mind you can believe in whatever you want to believe in. But having a strong mind does not necessarily mean having a wise mind.

I do not think that belief is a choice, nor do I think that this makes us automata. Belief is a fundamental dimension of sentient cognition, but there is still the ability to choose within that framework, as to how one wants to formulate and focus one's beliefs.

if you won't have anything to say, then i won't have anything to say either.

my whole point is you're shorting an important conversation. you're naturalizing your own assumtions, and placing others in opposition to that.

you don't have to use my definition...this i realize. but your definition does have to be in conversation with others. when you talk about belief, you're bringing in a whole set of assumptions, decisions, working hypothesii (sp).

but what i'm trying to convey here is that the dialouge has to be comprehensive. ultimately, the translation from another brain to mine isn't going to be perfect. quite simply, if you aren't going to try to define terms, i don't know how much you're going to be able to say.

the negotiation of meaning is not an optional part of communication. normatizing a single deployment of language is a barrier to discussion.

Well here is a scenario concerning beliefs:

Say you just saw a scary movie and went to bed. You hear a noise in your room and your imagination starts running wild. Your heart rate goes up, your senses sharpen and your breathing becomes shallow. Your body certainly thinks that there is something going on.

Now you tell yourself that you are being silly and to go back to sleep, yet feel like you are lying to yourself. What if you are wrong, what if it’s real? Doubt is still there and then you hear another noise. At this moment your mind stop doubting the validity of your fear and you end up cautiously listening for something. For a few seconds you “believe” in something and you really don’t care if the evidence is bogus or not.

You can blame this on our instinctive autopilot but the mind was never shut off, in fact it was assisting in accessing the possible threat.

Now one has to wonder just how often our instincts and emotions make us believe things we would not in a normal mental state. How many times have we convinced ourselves that we wont be able to make it though the day if we don’t hit snooze on the alarm clock? How many times has our sex drive got the better of use and made us say or do things that are against our values? There are many forces out there that can apply pressure on the mind to make it think in one way or another. Some of those forces are even created by the mind itself, such as habits.

This goes down to nature vs. nurture. Look up Rousseau, Descartes, and some other enlightenment thinkers - they've all gone over this subject quite thoroughly, and it's also a good read.

ART, this is a very odd thread.

I agree that we can choose our beliefs.

Your idea of not believing in anything is intriguing but I feel that it is nothing more then semantics. Replacing “beliefs” with “useful tentative hypotheses” doesn’t change much. We wont end up poking our cup of tea every morning to make sure that it is in fact what we believe it is.

“Beliefs” are not always “laws” or truths. Yet though the act of faith we treat certain “beliefs” as truths because doing otherwise would make life very difficult. Evidence generally re-enforces faith. Yet evidence itself also has to be based on faith. There are concrete beliefs though. Things we can be sure off. Existence and experience are two firm concepts we can believe in.

In the end it is my opinion that beliefs are a useful tool. I am aware that they can complicate things or even cause grief but everything comes at a price. The key is not abstinence but education and caution.


I am afraid that will not happen. Your choice to denounce beliefs is based on fate. Your life experience determined that you would reach such a choice.

Mantus, evidently my assertions do not work for you.
They work well for me.

Thanks for your views.

What about the Norman Bates question? If all people can choose what they believe, then are they responsible if they act on those beliefs? If they are responsible, then is it logical to remove the legal distinction between the sane and the insane for the purposes of punishment vs treatment?

I'd say by definition, the insane do not choose their beliefs.

Ah now that is interesting.
So beliefs ARE a choice, but not for the insane.

So the next hypothetical question is; What is it in the make-up of someone suffering from delusions (and who therefore has had NO choice in what they believe) that's different from someone who is perfectly sane (and HAS chosen what they believe)

And how does one tell which group one falls into?

I'm satisfied with current psychological definitions of insanity. I'm not a professional psychologist. I am also aware that insanity is a culturally defined parameter. So I am talking about definitions of insanity that are culturally appropriate to the case in question.

Which would follow that the question of whether beliefs are a matter of choice is also a culturally defined parameter.

No. In my opinion that does not "follow"

Let me walk you through my thought process, and perhaps you can point out where I'm going wrong.

So according to this statement. The sane choose their beliefs, and the insane do not.

According to this statement, sanity/insanity is a culturally defined parameter.

So if sanity can be used to describe which people choose their beliefs and which do not, and if sanity is a culturally decided phenomenon, then why doesn't it follow that choice in belief is not also a culturally decided phenomenon.

There must be a link here that I'm missing.

It conditions the assertion, it doesn't refute it, as you may be intending to do.

The assertion regarding beliefs as a choice is cross-cultural for me. The fact that insanity is a culturally defined phenomena does not negate it.

I'm quite satisfied with the distinction that the inability to choose beliefs is a symptom of insanity. I was never talking about how the insane process the world.

Does that mean that you do accept the logic, just not the intention?

By saying that something follows, I mean that the inference is logically consistent. We haven't got to the question of whether the inference can be used to condition or to refute the assertion that beliefs are indeed a choice. We are simply exploring the boundaries of that assertion, and looking into what accepting it might imply so as to better understand and if necessary, to better define the notion.

As I indicated, I'd be happy to restate the assertion in these terms: The inability to choose belief is a symptom of insanity. This applies no matter what cultural context is being discussed.

I understand it to be a more contentious assertion when put that way. However, I'd employ it to illuminate the immediate context here.

Additionally, I'm not terribly interested in "logical consistency" as I don't see it describing anything besides logic itself.

And I should restate here what I've stated elsewhere many times. I'm not interested in "debating" things. I state my views and I am interested in the views of others. I don't see debates or even extended discussion as illuminating anything other than a collection of words - especially when conducted by only two or three people. Instead, I see these forums, for example, as a place for stating one's views and engaging in some limited discussion. I'm aware others see it quite differently. This is my own view.

Sure, I respect that. Excuse my persistance. As you can probably tell, I'm one of those who sees these things differently. I respect your stance and will try to avoid engaging you in extended discussion in the future. And I thank you for your time, thoughts and patience.

The Norman Bates question is still one I'd be interested to hear other's views on, especially from those who have said that belief is a matter of choice.

No problem. I've attempted to respond because it has been interesting.

Thanks.

Yes. Simply put, as a human I am able utterly reject reality and am able to hold any belief I am willing to go as far as necessary to secure the validity of.

To believe or not to believe is a choice. Sometimes our choices are more important than our beliefs, or lack of.

Well, I believe that NOT believing is a choice. But, for me anyway, belief is a little bit out of my control. I find it difficult to force myself to not believe in something that I believe in. I can look at things objectively, but the belief itself is already there, and unless something comes along to show me otherwise, well then there is nothing there to change my belief for me, or give me a reason to believe something else.