![]()
No, that's just a very strong case of belief, based on the fact that you define color as what you see and you conclude that there's nothing obscuring your vision. I agree that the sky is blue, but my point holds.
Few mathematicians believed that Fermat's Last Theorem
question would be solved in their lifetime. But Andrew Wiles overcame that doubt and discouraging situation, and managed to prove it. That's case 1: not believing what you're pulled to believe.
Euler believed that his generalization
of Fermat's Last Theorem would hold, despite not being able to prove it. But it was disproved. That's case 2: believing anyway when you're not sufficiently convinced.
edited 3rd May '12 12:31:26 PM by abstractematics
Now using Trivialis handle.I could. That would make my belief system contradictory, which is less than useful; but I could certainly psych myself into thinking that what I believe is not affected by conscious choices.
edited 3rd May '12 12:32:27 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Context:
Fermat's last theorem was an exceedingly difficult problem to solve, despite having a simple form. No one could prove/disprove it for 300 years, despite utilizing almost all known mathematical techniques. People had multiple reasons to be discouraged.
A layperson would believe that "this problem is intractable." Andrew Wiles didn't give in to that, and he succeeded.
On the flip side: Euler, while trying to prove it early on, conjectured a generalization of the theorem. He couldn't prove it, but saw it likely and coined the conjecture anyway. Now by mathematical standards, this is not "sufficient convincing", and indeed it was proven false. But that didn't stop him from claiming that it would be likely.
Now using Trivialis handle.What does that have to do with anything? Certainly there are examples of things that don't meet the general test of evidence, but that eventually end up being correct. It is entirely possible that there is an invisible unicorn in my room-and what that means is that there is a finite non-zero chance, so yes, in the aggregate, taken enough of these non-zero chances, some of the things that don't meet the test for evidence will end up being true.
Reasonable thinking is occasionally wrong. It doesn't make it not reasonable thinking however.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove.
All I'm saying is that belief is a choice.
Despite all the evidence and whatnot, it's up to you to say whether you accept the conclusion drawn from the evidence, or not. It may not be rational or smart, but it's still a choice.
Now using Trivialis handle.And I'm pointing out that there's a distinction between saying I accept a conclusion, and actually believing-that is being convinced-by it.
For instance, I can say "Gee Abstract, your argument is sound and I agree that belief is a choice" but that doesn't make it true. I'm not convinced by your argument, and I can't simply choose to be convinced by it.
By the same point-I'm an atheist (of sorts) when I approach things rationally, but I'm aware that my own intuitive sense of what happens post mortem aren't Cessastion Of Existence.
edited 3rd May '12 12:40:09 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Well, yes, I can. As in, I can take the statement "I don't choose my beliefs" and see what else I would reach from it, or how such a belief would affect my behaviour. Now, if I decided — and that's an entirely conscious choice — to behave as if that statement was true, that would be for all intents and purposes equivalent to me believing it true; but I see little point in doing that.
It seems to me that you are taking "belief" to be some sort of instinctive phenomenon. In my mind, at least, it's not at all like this; true, there are some statements that I have accepted for a long, long time and that come more naturally to my mind than others, but that's more a matter of habit than a matter of belief. If I choose to behave as if X was true, then for all intents and purposes I believe that X is true.
edited 3rd May '12 12:44:59 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Carc: I'm pretty sure that definition is just flat-out wrong, but if it's the definition you're going with, in the context of that definition, you have a point.
From the standpoint of myself, I can't discern between whether you believe X or are just acting as if you believe X, so they're non-distinct phenomenon. But that only works if I'm a solipsist.
Oh shit, I am. Well okay then.
edited 3rd May '12 12:43:28 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Well, what does it mean when you say "I believe that X"? As for me, as I said, if I choose to behave as if I X was true, then for all intents and purposes it seems to me that it can be said that I believe in X.
edited 3rd May '12 12:47:20 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas."And I'm pointing out that there's a distinction between saying I accept a conclusion, and actually believing-that is being convinced-by it. "
Being convinced is only partial, not complete. In fact I can be convinced in both directions, sometimes even in equal measures. For instance, with that visitor example, one might worry that the visitor deliberately misled the person, just forgot, something beyond the visitor's control happened, or is simply late. The person may feel convinced that any of those may happen. The person can also, for instance, choose to trust that the person is loyal enough not to break the promise of visit.
Thus, when I'm talking about belief, I'm not talking about whether it seems to be convincing to a person.
edited 3rd May '12 12:47:05 PM by abstractematics
Now using Trivialis handle.It means that my consciousness holds a statement to be true. This is separate from my consciousness holding that I SHOULD hold the statement to be true.
For instance, a Christian believing he should believe in God is an entirely different thing from actually believing in God. Isn't that what a crisis of faith is all about? He wants to believe, but doesn't.
edited 3rd May '12 12:50:14 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Then a practical example. As an atheist, I can say "with my death, so ends me." This is what I "know" to be true. However, if I am lying in bed late at night thinking about death, my immediate thoughts go to recurring ideas of what happens after I die. These thoughts are indicative of my actual beliefs-thoughts and feelings on the issue-but are not necessarily based off of rational process.
Now, I can't know your consciousness, so maybe this is specific only to me. But it's pretty clear that, at least for my consciousness, I can't simply "choose" what to believe. What I believe is not a decision. It is the result of an arbitrarily complicated series of cognitive development occurances.
Well, if I think about death in abstract, my consciousness may come up with all sorts of images. But whatever image comes to my mind will be under many aspects pre-rational, and, while it may be of some use to indicate my feelings about the matter, I don't see in which sense it would be more relevant than what my conscious thought decides to accept as the most likely hypothesis.
edited 3rd May '12 12:58:16 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Screw it, just read the Wikipedia page on belief, I have class readings to do :P
I never said that your beliefs are more relevant than your conscious thoughts on the issues. They are what they are. I don't hold people responsible for beliefs that they cannot change-I hold them responsible for how they act on beliefs.
Sociopathy is effectively a lack of a belief that other people are important. I don't blame sociopaths-it's a medical condition. Likewise, people's beliefs can be changed through blunt trauma to the head.
edited 3rd May '12 12:59:55 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
I have a feeling that we're just talking about different things, coming down to semantics.
I mean, we have one thing here, an argument seemingly convincing that influences a person, which is involuntary. And then we have the choice of accepting or rejecting that argument, which is voluntary. We're calling the latter "belief".
Now using Trivialis handle.No, to hold something true is the voluntary action of accepting, not simply being tempted to sway one way or another.
Again, semantics.
Now using Trivialis handle.Holds. You can't hold it if you reject it. And that's a matter of defining terms anyway. We're talking about what we mean by belief, and you said yourself that it's voluntary.
Now using Trivialis handle.But I agree with abstractematics, all of this is semantics. Let me say instead that belief, in your sense, is in my opinion rather irrelevant. Much more important is the set of the propositions which an individual consciously accepts as true, and which he consciously uses in order to direct their behaviour.
edited 3rd May '12 1:08:01 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Holds does not have that implication here.
Look, if you're going to use your own dictionary, you can prove whatever you want to be true to be true.
Now, the question is, "how is this relevant to the topic?" And the answer is, if there's a distinction between belief and belief in belief (as I'm positing), then I should think that's a pretty big issue as it pertains to religion. People that believe they're Christian, for instance, but don't actually believe in God. And they can't simply choose to believe in God, because belief doesn't work that way.
Belief in the sense of "I actually think this is true" rather than just acting like it's true. The whole crisis of faith thing.
The real issue is "BELIEVE IN GOD OR GO TO HELL!" where the question then becomes "Okay, so, what is meant by that statement?"
edited 3rd May '12 1:09:44 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I never understood the "you don't choose what you believe" argument. In my experience, I definitely do so. Given an argument, I can choose to accept it as true, or to refuse it; and by "choosing to accept it as true", I just mean that I put its conclusion in some sort of mental list of true statements which I use to direct my behaviour and to prove additional statements.
The procedure is more complex than this, of course, and it involves degrees of confidence, and it is a bit informal too; but to me, it is entirely conscious. I could literally choose to believe that 2+2=5. That would not even require much effort on my part. But I have reasons not to do that — for example, that given 2+2=5 and the Peano axioms of arithmetics, it is easy to prove that n=m for all integers n and m, and that makes the whole arithmetical system rather useless for my purposes.
edited 3rd May '12 12:27:36 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.