I am baffled, please explain

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pallas_Athene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PumpkinCookie said:
If we can choose our beliefs, then why do we experience surprise or shock?
Click to expand...
Because some beliefs are wrong. 🤷

To wit: you were wrong when you embraced this belief–I believe I won’t have a surprise birthday party today.
 
PRmerger said:
Because some beliefs are wrong. 🤷

To wit: you were wrong when you embraced this belief–I believe I won’t have a surprise birthday party today.
Click to expand...
Right, but how can we know we are wrong if our beliefs are directly under the control of our wills? Why wouldn’t I just have continued up the stairs in my belief that I wasn’t having a party if it was my will to believe that? I believed it before because I had no evidence to suggest that there was going to be a party. My beliefs were changed due to the change in evidence. Our beliefs should correspond to what we perceive as reality right? If they didn’t, and only responded to our wills, then it would seem like a drastic change in evidence wouldn’t surprise us at all.
 
PumpkinCookie said:
If we can choose our beliefs, then why do we experience surprise or shock?

Consider: I believe I won’t have a surprise birthday party today. Upon coming home, I walk in the door to hear “SURPRISE!!!” coming from all of my friends and family, there is a birthday cake on the table, and confetti everywhere. I experience surprise because my belief * has been violently and suddenly undermined by the overwhelming evidence that I am in fact having a surprise birthday party today. I don’t have the freedom to insist that I am not having a surprise birthday party because the evidence forces me to believe otherwise.

The evidence for Leprechauns has no such force. Therefore, I do not believe in them. If a Leprechaun were to suddenly appear in front of me, I would have no choice but to believe in them. Obviously, there are various degrees of evidence between no evidence at all and direct observation, and our beliefs are formed accordingly with corresponding certitude.

I have a strong belief in God because I have a strong amount of evidence that is convincing to me. I am unable to disbelieve this proposition: “God exists,” because the evidence is compelling. However, I also acknowledge that it is possible that not everyone has been presented with the same evidence. Therefore, I would submit that they are unable to believe. Not “unwilling,” but unable.

Doxastic voluntarism seems likely to be a false epistemological theory. It has been refuted by many of the greatest philosophers, and is contrary to common sense, in my opinion.*

Your example is exactly correct we choose to change our minds when evidence contrary to what we currently believe becomes evident to me.

I did not believe that there was anything like partial pressures of oxygen participating in my respiratory system until I studied both the physiology and the physical chemistry necessary to believe in them. I just thought air came in, moved around in our bodies and the air came out until those months of studying were completed.

Sometimes we chose to change our minds gradually with learning and sometimes the realization forces us to change our minds suddenly as in your example above. eithery way the choice is ours.

Some people wish to persist in thinking that the air goes in and the air goes out.
Click to expand...
 
PumpkinCookie said:
If we can choose our beliefs, then why do we experience surprise or shock?
Click to expand...
This simply proves you chose to believe something which happened not to be true and were surprised by having your chosen belief dispelled so unexpectedly.

I am not clear how surprise or shock disproves that we choose at least some of the beliefs we hold.

No one has been claiming we fully choose to hold every belief we, in fact, do. Certainly, there are many that are assented to voluntarily and some, even, entirely within our full control.
 
DCNBILL said:
Walking is absolutely nothing like the mind, please do not resort to absurdities, they are not conducive to an intelligent conversation.
Click to expand...
Nothing absurd about “activities”. The analogy is
brain - mind
legs - walking.

In general format:
ontological object - activity of the ontological object.

A basic summary of metaphysics: There is physical existence and conceptual existence. A physically existing object has “attributes” and “activities”. More than one physical object can have “relationships”. There is no such thing as ontologically existing “red”. “Red” is an attribute. There is no such thing as “thinking”. “Thinking” is an activity. There is no such thing as “behind”. “Behind” is a relationship, which needs two ontological objects and an observer, all positioned on a straight line with the observer on one end. In that case object “A” is “behind” object “B”.

A conceptual existence is an abstraction. There is no physical “triangle”, triangle is an abstraction. A concept can have referents in the physical world (“horse”), or it can refer to nonexistent objects (“Loch Ness monster”), or it can refer to other concepts. Concepts are not “active”, they cannot interact with the physical world. So the two kinds of “existence” must be differentiated.

So if you ask if the “mind” exists or not, the answer is: “yes, it does as an activity, and no, it does not as an object”. Better have precise questions, so you can get precise answers.
DCNBILL said:
Can you prove the existence, (however you wish to define that term,) of your mind to me?
Click to expand...
The word “mind” also needs to be defined. 🙂 I presented my definition: “the activity of my brain”. By putting it simply, the thoughts I express a diametrically different from your ideas, so they cannot come from you. They come from me. They come from my thought processes, which are the activities of my brain. That is the simple fact, or proof.
 
Pallas_Athene said:
Nothing absurd about “activities”. The analogy is
brain - mind
legs - walking.

In general format:
ontological object - activity of the ontological object.

A basic summary of metaphysics: There is physical existence and conceptual existence. A physically existing object has “attributes” and “activities”. More than one physical object can have “relationships”. There is no such thing as ontologically existing “red”. “Red” is an attribute. There is no such thing as “thinking”. “Thinking” is an activity. There is no such thing as “behind”. “Behind” is a relationship, which needs two ontological objects and an observer, all positioned on a straight line with the observer on one end. In that case object “A” is “behind” object “B”.

A conceptual existence is an abstraction. There is no physical “triangle”, triangle is an abstraction. A concept can have referents in the physical world (“horse”), or it can refer to nonexistent objects (“Loch Ness monster”), or it can refer to other concepts. Concepts are not “active”, they cannot interact with the physical world. So the two kinds of “existence” must be differentiated.

So if you ask if the “mind” exists or not, the answer is: “yes, it does as an activity, and no, it does not as an object”. Better have precise questions, so you can get precise answers.

The word “mind” also needs to be defined. 🙂 I presented my definition: “the activity of my brain”. By putting it simply, the thoughts I express a diametrically different from your ideas, so they cannot come from you. They come from me. They come from my thought processes, which are the activities of my brain. That is the simple fact, or proof.
Click to expand...
Please note that mind is a noun.

Legs > walking
Mind > thinking

That you believe that your mind springs somehow magically from your brain is not proof of the existence of your mind, which I see precisely no proof of, therefore why should I believe that you have anything like a mind?
 
PRmerger said:
He changed his belief, Son.
Click to expand...
No, he changed his action. I am contending that deep within himself, he must not have believed slavery was right as he perceives truth. He didnt choose to feel that it was not right, that is beyond his control.

Whereas, a practicing slaveowner may not perceive that same truth. Perhaps this slaveowner’s truth is that its okay, and based on how he perceives his own truth he acts accordingly. But no one chose their truth, thats just the lens in which they view life based on a lot of factors, none of them including a conscious, personal choice.

No one chooses who their parents are, but they choose how to deal with the set of parents that brought them into existence.
 
SonOfMan said:
AKA what I perceive to be reality and truth. So yes. Everyone makes a decision Chooses to act believe based on what they perceive, but they dont and cannot choose their perception.
Click to expand...
This last part is correct
 
DCNBILL said:
Please note that mind is a noun.

Legs > walking
Mind > thinking

That you believe that your mind springs somehow magically from your brain is not proof of the existence of your mind, which I see precisely no proof of, therefore why should I believe that you have anything like a mind?
Click to expand...
Egg-zactly.

I like that–“springs somehow magically from your brain”. 😃
 
DCNBILL said:
Your example is exactly correct we choose to change our minds when evidence contrary to what we currently believe becomes evident to me.
Click to expand...
It does not happen like that. The acceptance of the evidence is not a volitional act. Most of our thinking happens to be in the sub-conscious, and we have no volitional control over it. “Deep down”, below the conscious level you compare the evidence provided with the previous model of reality. If there is a discrepancy, you can do two thing: 1) accept the new model of reality, or 2) stick to the old model, and try to rationalize the evidence away.

This second one happens when the acceptance of the new reality is so troubling and frustrating that the reflex of denial will take over. Just one example: when a mother is unable to accept that her wonderful little son is actually a sadistic rapist and murderer. The final result is sometimes a total withdrawal from reality, a catatonic state - in other words, an insanity.
 
SonOfMan said:
No one chooses who their parents are, but they choose how to deal with the set of parents that brought them into existence.
Click to expand...
Umm…ok.

This is quite the nonsequitur, but it’s true nonetheless.
 
PRmerger said:
But his belief was changed, Son.
Click to expand...
it is impossible to change belief. When I stick my hand through a flame, it burns. It doesnt matter how many times I change my mind and tell myself that it feels good, the flame will still burn. I can choose to stop sticking my hand in the fire, though. 😃
 
Pallas_Athene said:
It does not happen like that. The acceptance of the evidence is not a volitional act. Most of our thinking happens to be in the sub-conscious, and we have no volitional control over it. “Deep down”, below the conscious level you compare the evidence provided with the previous model of reality. If there is a discrepancy, you can do two thing: 1) accept the new model of reality, or 2) stick to the old model, and try to rationalize the evidence away.

This second one happens when the acceptance of the new reality is so troubling and frustrating that the reflex of denial will take over. Just one example: when a mother is unable to accept that her wonderful little son is actually a sadistic rapist and murderer. The final result is sometimes a total withdrawal from reality, a catatonic state - in other words, an insanity.
Click to expand...
In other words chose to change your mind or not. I agree.
 
SonOfMan said:
it is impossible to change belief. When I stick my hand through a flame, it burns. It doesnt matter how many times I change my mind and tell myself that it feels good, the flame will still burn. ** I can choose to stop sticking my hand in the fire, though. ** 😃
Click to expand...
You had better for you will loose the use of that limb, and possibly your life due to the possible infection resulting from the burns.😃
 
SonOfMan said:
it is impossible to change belief. When I stick my hand through a flame, it burns. It doesnt matter how many times I change my mind and tell myself that it feels good, the flame will still burn. I can choose to stop sticking my hand in the fire, though. 😃
Click to expand...
I know that you don’t believe this, otherwise you wouldn’t be here trying to change my belief.
 
PRmerger said:
I know that you don’t believe this, otherwise you wouldn’t be here trying to change my belief.
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to change your belief, just trying to illustrate mine.

Here is another example that came to mind:

A person can believe that pornography is inherently sinful, yet they can fall and take pleasure in the very thing they are against.

Their belief is still the same: It’s wrong and sinful. Clearly, this demonstrates that it was the action that changed, not the belief.

Now if a person indulges in pornography so much they begin to rationalize that it isn’t wrong, then I would contend that they’ve always felt that way deep inside and tried to delude themselves that they believed it was wrong, which is may be why they continually fell for it numerous times. Still, we don’t see belief changing, only actions.
 
PRmerger said:
I know that you don’t believe this, otherwise you wouldn’t be here trying to change my belief.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that you believe that he believes that…dangat I forgot where I was goin with this…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top