Belief (The human delusion)

[AntiChrist]

Is this advertisement true?

[disillusioned]

I've never had coffee from 7 Eleven, so I can't say...

[AntiChrist]

38 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

I've never had coffee from 7 Eleven, so I can't say...

I have, it's what you'd expect for a dollar.

But my argument is not with the coffee itself, it is how belief can be used in any situation to convert people. I don't think it is religion itself that causes suffering, I think it's the propensity to believe that causes suffering. (Religion is not the cause of beliefs, beliefs are the cause of religion)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Define what you mean by "true" in relation to the advertisement.  Is it true that there's coffee at 7-Eleven?  Is it true that it costs only a dollar?  What are you asking about "true"?

[AntiChrist]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Define what you mean by "true" in relation to the advertisement.  Is it true that there's coffee at 7-Eleven?  Is it true that it costs only a dollar?  What are you asking about "true"?

Simply. Is it true that tasting is believing? If I eat a strawberry, I will know what the strawberry tastes like due to my sense of taste. But if I tack on a belief to the sensory information traveling to my brain, what am I telling my brain about the strawberry itself?

 

 

[MOHO]

20 minutes ago, AntiChrist said:

Simply. Is it true that tasting is believing? If I eat a strawberry, I will know what the strawberry tastes like due to my sense of taste. But if I tack on a belief to the sensory information traveling to my brain, what am I telling my brain about the strawberry itself?

 

 

 

Hmmmmmmm...

You mean like associating, or tacking on, a belief in a deity to really uplifting, happy, upbeat music? Kinda like Pavlov's dogs?

[midniterider]

Richard Dawkins, Matt Dillahunty and I all concur that 7-11 coffee is awesome.  If you're even the slightest bit logical you will go to 7-11 right now and get a cup. 

 

[AntiChrist]

1 hour ago, MOHO said:

 

Hmmmmmmm...

You mean like associating, or tacking on, a belief in a deity to really uplifting, happy, upbeat music? Kinda like Pavlov's dogs?

(Let's go with associating, that communicates much better I think)

 

I would say at this point that a typical belief a person associates with incoming sensory information is either positive or negative in form. A deity is not required for such sensory traffic, but it is evident that deity's are set up under those two primary conditions. I can say with a fair amount of confidence that making these types of associations are purely emotional based, since a person has to feel positive or negative about what their senses are telling them (Although emotions are not recognised as a sense) So if we disregard emotions in this thought experiment, we only have the 5 senses (But how can any of those senses tell a person there should be a positive or negative association?)

[florduh]

"Belief" is one of those weasel words. There is belief without evidence and then there is belief as a conclusion reached by evidence. You may be emotionally drawn to a belief in a god or a holy book but you may also have a belief that your plane will land safely due to the fact that they almost always do and are statistically safer transportation than a car. They should really be two different words, IMO.

[mwc]

 

 

     I don't drink coffee but if I did I imagine that if I went to 7-11, spend my $1, and tasted a cup that I would believe it.  I don't know why I would doubt it.  I don't think this is the point of the ad though.  There's no reason to advertise things that people can just do at home like "Go get a drink of water from the tap and see if you believe that you did it."

 

     I think we're supposed to infer that we'll believe the coffee tastes good and is a good value once we give it a try.  That's generally what ads are about.  It's a subjective truth not an objective truth.  Why spend $8 over there when you can get pretty much the same thing for $1 here.  Why spend more if you can't taste the difference?

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 hours ago, AntiChrist said:

Simply. Is it true that tasting is believing? If I eat a strawberry, I will know what the strawberry tastes like due to my sense of taste. But if I tack on a belief to the sensory information traveling to my brain, what am I telling my brain about the strawberry itself?

 

 

No.  Tasting is not believing.  Tasting provides further information which can be known.

[disillusioned]

Believing, as far as I'm concerned,  is just thinking that something is true. So if I eat a strawberry, and taste something, I will be led to believe that the strawberry tastes like that, and I may begin to believe that I like or dislike the taste of strawberries, as the case may be. These kinds of beliefs are reinforced with repetition. It's possible that the first strawberry I taste is rotten, in which case I might believe that I don't like strawberries, when in actual fact I haven't yet tasted a properly ripe strawberry, so I can't really say. Nevertheless, with enough repetition of experiences like these, I think our beliefs tend to solidify into what we commonly call knowledge. I say I know that I like strawberries, but it is still possible that every strawberry that I have ever tasted has been off, and that I don't actually have the faintest idea what strawberries are "supposed to" taste like.

 

So is tasting believing? No. But tasting will likely lead to certain beliefs.

[AntiChrist]

33 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

Believing, as far as I'm concerned,  is just thinking that something is true. So if I eat a strawberry, and taste something, I will be led to believe that the strawberry tastes like that, and I may begin to believe that I like or dislike the taste of strawberries, as the case may be. These kinds of beliefs are reinforced with repetition. It's possible that the first strawberry I taste is rotten, in which case I might believe that I don't like strawberries, when in actual fact I haven't yet tasted a properly ripe strawberry, so I can't really say. Nevertheless, with enough repetition of experiences like these, I think our beliefs tend to solidify into what we commonly call knowledge. I say I know that I like strawberries, but it is still possible that every strawberry that I have ever tasted has been off, and that I don't actually have the faintest idea what strawberries are "supposed to" taste like.

 

So is tasting believing? No. But tasting will likely lead to certain beliefs.

I have noticed with my own sensory experience in eating a piece of fruit that at times has been unpleasant, I react to it as an emotionally bad experience. From that point I could begin building a negative case about why the fruit was unpleasant. My taste only warned me it was unpleasant, but my emotional reaction believed my experience of that taste was negative in form. From that basis I can assume all kinds of negative ideas, and eventually take a physical stance along the same lines of those ideas.

 

(Although if the fruit tasted really good, the problem would simply be reversed)

[disillusioned]

11 hours ago, AntiChrist said:

I have noticed with my own sensory experience in eating a piece of fruit that at times has been unpleasant, I react to it as an emotionally bad experience. From that point I could begin building a negative case about why the fruit was unpleasant. My taste only warned me it was unpleasant, but my emotional reaction believed my experience of that taste was negative in form. From that basis I can assume all kinds of negative ideas, and eventually take a physical stance along the same lines of those ideas.

 

(Although if the fruit tasted really good, the problem would simply be reversed)

 

I'm afraid I don't quite follow this. When you eat something unpleasant, it causes you emotional discomfort. Fine. But then you say that you then need to build a case for why the fruit was unpleasant. This is where you begin to lose me. It seems to me that the fruit in your example was unpleasant specifically in virtue of the fact that it tasted bad. I don't think your taste "warns" you that it is unpleasant; for it to be unpleasant is simply for it to taste unpleasant to you. Your taste might warn you that it is rotten, but not that it is pleasant or unpleasant. "Pleasant" and "unpleasant" are just ways we have of describing taste, in my view. Perhaps I've missed your point entirely. Please feel free to explain it again.

 

Now, of course, we can acquire tastes for things which are unpleasant to us at first. I do think that belief plays a role in taste in this way. The first time you taste a very sharp cheese you might find it unpleasant. But over time, if you continue to eat it, you may grow to like it. Your tastes will change, and now you will find it pleasant. So initially you believed that it tasted bad and now you believe that it tastes good.

 

I think we need to be a bit careful to distiguish between the actual physical stimulus and our qualitative experience of the stimulus. "Taste" is a bit ambiguous as a term because it is commonly used to mean both. In my first post I was referring to the physical stimulus, whereas here I have been referring more to the conscious experience. I think that the conscious experiences involved in taste do have to do with beliefs, but the physical stimulus leads to the formation of beliefs. I don't know if that's clear or not, but there it is.

[AntiChrist]

On 6/11/2020 at 9:07 PM, disillusioned said:

 

I'm afraid I don't quite follow this. When you eat something unpleasant, it causes you emotional discomfort. Fine. But then you say that you then need to build a case for why the fruit was unpleasant. This is where you begin to lose me. It seems to me that the fruit in your example was unpleasant specifically in virtue of the fact that it tasted bad. I don't think your taste "warns" you that it is unpleasant; for it to be unpleasant is simply for it to taste unpleasant to you. Your taste might warn you that it is rotten, but not that it is pleasant or unpleasant. "Pleasant" and "unpleasant" are just ways we have of describing taste, in my view. Perhaps I've missed your point entirely. Please feel free to explain it again.

 

Now, of course, we can acquire tastes for things which are unpleasant to us at first. I do think that belief plays a role in taste in this way. The first time you taste a very sharp cheese you might find it unpleasant. But over time, if you continue to eat it, you may grow to like it. Your tastes will change, and now you will find it pleasant. So initially you believed that it tasted bad and now you believe that it tastes good.

 

I think we need to be a bit careful to distiguish between the actual physical stimulus and our qualitative experience of the stimulus. "Taste" is a bit ambiguous as a term because it is commonly used to mean both. In my first post I was referring to the physical stimulus, whereas here I have been referring more to the conscious experience. I think that the conscious experiences involved in taste do have to do with beliefs, but the physical stimulus leads to the formation of beliefs. I don't know if that's clear or not, but there it is.

Like that cheese that smells like a foot? What's that chesse called? (Bluvain or something) I have had numerous encounters with that cheese, only because other people have bought it. So I do understand your questioning here, but that's because I used the word "Unpleasant" I was going to say off, but I couldn't use that word due to the subject being fruit. Had I used steak as an example, we'd be having a whole different discussion.

 

So anyway back to the topic at hand. 

 

There is a volume of evidence that believing is essentially an illness itself. But demonstrating how it is, is a  process that I can explain in countless ways (Like a dot to dot scenario) that inevitably end up mapping out one complete picture. One piece of evidence (A big piece) Is found by examining bipolar disorder under the condition that belief is the cause of that disorder. When theorising that beliefs are primarily positive or negative in form, the effects of bipolar make a great deal of sense. If a person is inclined to adopt a polarised attitude when examining the reality around them, then the incoming sensory information is going to create a mental landscape heavily saturated with positive and negative electrical pathways. This does explain the ups and downs they have (Positive one day, negative the next) It also explains why the use of electro shock treatment has some effect on those types of electrical currents.

 

[disillusioned]

2 hours ago, AntiChrist said:

 

There is a volume of evidence that believing is essentially an illness itself. But demonstrating how it is, is a  process that I can explain in countless ways (Like a dot to dot scenario) that inevitably end up mapping out one complete picture. One piece of evidence (A big piece) Is found by examining bipolar disorder under the condition that belief is the cause of that disorder. When theorising that beliefs are primarily positive or negative in form, the effects of bipolar make a great deal of sense. If a person is inclined to adopt a polarised attitude when examining the reality around them, then the incoming sensory information is going to create a mental landscape heavily saturated with positive and negative electrical pathways. This is does explain the ups and downs they have (Positive one day, negative the next) It also explains why the use of electro shock treatment has some effect on those types of electrical currents.

 

 

In certain cases I suppose believing could be said to be symptomatic of menal illness, but I don't think it can be said that believing itself is essentially an illness. This would be self-defeating, because to believe it to be true that believing is essentially an illness would then be a symptom. We all believe lots of things, and most of these things do not indicate mental illness. If they all did, then everyone would be ill, which would make it not an illness after all: it would just be part of being human. It's not an illness that we can't fly. We just can't fly. And it isn't an illness that we can't do without beliefs. We just can't.

[AntiChrist]

13 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

In certain cases I suppose believing could be said to be symptomatic of menal illness, but I don't think it can be said that believing itself is essentially an illness. This would be self-defeating, because to believe it to be true that believing is essentially an illness would then be a symptom. We all believe lots of things, and most of these things do not indicate mental illness. If they all did, then everyone would be ill, which would make it not an illness after all: it would just be part of being human. It's not an illness that we can't fly. We just can't fly. And it isn't an illness that we can't do without beliefs. We just can't.

/Updated - Concept needed improvement.

 

I do understand where you are coming from, but a single question arises in my mind. How does a person distinguish which belief will lead them down a mentally sane path? Or which will lead them down a mentally insane path?

 

(Is it even possible to fact check a belief before the facts are there to prove or disprove your belief?)

[disillusioned]

6 hours ago, AntiChrist said:

I do understand where you are coming from, but a single question arises in my mind. How does a person distinguish which belief is mentally sound or which is mentally insane?

 

(Is it even possible to fact check a belief?)

 

This is a deep question. How can we be sure that our beliefs are not delusions? This is the essence of the famous problem of skepticism. I've tried to solve this at some length over here, but I'll try to sketch a path to an answer much more briefly now.

 

It's correct, on my view, to say that we can't be certain of anything except for perhaps our own existence as conscious beings. Pretty much everything else depends on sensory data and experiences, all of which could be illusory. If we are looking for a foundation for our beliefs, in other words, we will need to start by making some assumptions. On the basis of our assumptions we can then reason about our experiences, about the world, about what is delusional, and so forth.

 

Now. The assumptions are also beliefs. So we can't be certain that they are correct. The trick is to try to choose assumptions which we find that we simply cannot do without. They also need to be non-contradictory, and they should be useful. From the assumptions, we then ought to be able to reason about what we observe and about what we should expect to observe. This leads to the formation of other beliefs. Then we can go and check whether our actual observations match what our models predict. If they do, then our beliefs are strengthened, in some cases up to the point where I think we can begin to call them "knowledge".

 

Beliefs which do not meet these criteria can be called delusions, and may be symptoms of mental illness. Assumptions which are not useful, or which contradict each other, or in some cases which are not properly basic can, and should, be called into question. Other beliefs which do not follow from "good" assumptions, or which do not match the available evidence are similarly suspect. So it is sound for me to believe that granite is solid at standard temperature and pressure, but not sound for me to believe that water is solid at standard temperature and pressure. It is sound for me to believe that my wife exists, but not sound for me believe that Jehovah exists. And so on.

[AntiChrist]

22 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

This is a deep question. How can we be sure that our beliefs are not delusions? This is the essence of the famous problem of skepticism. I've tried to solve this at some length over here, but I'll try to sketch a path to an answer much more briefly now.

 

It's correct, on my view, to say that we can't be certain of anything except for perhaps our own existence as conscious beings. Pretty much everything else depends on sensory data and experiences, all of which could be illusory. If we are looking for a foundation for our beliefs, in other words, we will need to start by making some assumptions. On the basis of our assumptions we can then reason about our experiences, about the world, about what is delusional, and so forth.

 

Now. The assumptions are also beliefs. So we can't be certain that they are correct. The trick is to try to choose assumptions which we find that we simply cannot do without. They also need to be non-contradictory, and they should be useful. From the assumptions, we then ought to be able to reason about what we observe and about what we should expect to observe. This leads to the formation of other beliefs. Then we can go and check whether our actual observations match what our models predict. If they do, then our beliefs are strengthened, in some cases up to the point where I think we can begin to call them "knowledge".

 

Beliefs which do not meet these criteria can be called delusions, and may be symptoms of mental illness. Assumptions which are not useful, or which contradict each other, or in some cases which are not properly basic can, and should, be called into question. Other beliefs which do not follow from "good" assumptions, or which do not match the available evidence are similarly suspect. So it is sound for me to believe that granite is solid at standard temperature and pressure, but not sound for me to believe that water is solid at standard temperature and pressure. It is sound for me to believe that my wife exists, but not sound for me believe that Jehovah exists. And so on.

Belief is very much one of those weasel words as @florduh mentioned.

On 6/11/2020 at 6:04 AM, florduh said:

"Belief" is one of those weasel words. There is belief without evidence and then there is belief as a conclusion reached by evidence. You may be emotionally drawn to a belief in a god or a holy book but you may also have a belief that your plane will land safely due to the fact that they almost always do and are statistically safer transportation than a car. They should really be two different words, IMO.

I personally think what you are describing in your post is dissimilar to true belief itself (The blind type that you are encouraged to surrender your rational mind to) That type is a powerful destructive force when groups of people believe along the same blind eye.

 

Here is one fantastic example.

 

Take two competing soccer teams in battle for the cup. Each side having two of the biggest fan based supporters in the league (Both sides also having a very large fanatical following, who assume that their side always wins no matter the odds) Even if statistically it has been proven that both teams have dropped in their overall performance within the lifetime of these diehard fans, they will disregard those facts in favour of their beliefs. But what happens when one team comes out victorious over the other team? (Don't these diehard fans react by protecting their beliefs the same as the religious do?)

 

 

[disillusioned]

1 hour ago, EnaUnited said:

Belief is very much one of those weasel words as @florduh mentioned.

I personally think what you are describing in your post is dissimilar to true belief itself (The blind type that you are encouraged to surrender your rational mind to) That type is a powerful destructive force when groups of people believe along the same blind eye.

 

Here is one fantastic example.

 

Take two competing soccer teams in battle for the cup. Each side having two of the biggest fan based supporters in the league (Both sides also having a very large fanatical following, who assume that their side always wins no matter the odds) Even if statistically it has been proven that both teams have dropped in their overall performance within the lifetime of these diehard fans, they will disregard those facts in favour of their beliefs. But what happens when one team comes out victorious over the other team? (Don't these diehard fans react by protecting their beliefs the same as the religious do?)

 

Yes, this is correct, except that I disagree with your classification of blind belief as "true" belief. This is not to say that I think those who hold blind beliefs don't really hold their beliefs, or that blind faith isn't seductive and powerful; rather, it is to say that I think this is clearly not the only kind of belief that people have. And also, in many cases, blind beliefs turn out to literally not be true. So to refer to these as "true beliefs" is misleading, in my view.

 

You are very much correct, though, that I'm describing a different kind of belief than you are. This is because you asked me how we can distinguish between sound and unsound beliefs. What I've done is describe how I think we arrive at sound beliefs, and how we can tell if beliefs are sound. You are very much correct that people hold all kinds of beliefs which are not sound. Some of these are truly signs of mental illness. Some are just intellectual laziness. Others are the result of strong desires, like those of the diehard sports fan in your example. This is all fine. But it doesn't at all follow that all belief is unsound.

[AntiChrist]

8 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Yes, this is correct, except that I disagree with your classification of blind belief as "true" belief. This is not to say that I think those who hold blind beliefs don't really hold their beliefs, or that blind faith isn't seductive and powerful; rather, it is to say that I think this is clearly not the only kind of belief that people have. And also, in many cases, blind beliefs turn out to literally not be true. So to refer to these as "true beliefs" is misleading, in my view.

 

You are very much correct, though, that I'm describing a different kind of belief than you are. This is because you asked me how we can distinguish between sound and unsound beliefs. What I've done is describe how I think we arrive at sound beliefs, and how we can tell if beliefs are sound. You are very much correct that people hold all kinds of beliefs which are not sound. Some of these are truly signs of mental illness. Some are just intellectual laziness. Others are the result of strong desires, like those of the diehard sports fan in your example. This is all fine. But it doesn't at all follow that all belief is unsound.

What is belief exactly, and under what conditions does it operate? Science has discovered that beliefs are connected to the emotional side of the brain, and that maybe so because people do form very strong opinions based on what they feel.

 

However, attaching emotionally charged chemicals to sensory input is not going to assist the brain in processing and storing sensory information the way it would natively. There will be confirmation bias attached to the sensory information that's delivered, and then thoughts arising from that sensory perspective will jeopardize the continuity of overall rationality.

 

[disillusioned]

2 hours ago, EnaUnited said:

What is belief exactly, and under what conditions does it operate?

 

Belief, on my view, is just the phenomenon of people thinking that propositions (or statements, if you like) are true. Nothing more, nothing less. I believe that it will get dark soon precisely because I actually think that it will in fact get dark soon. Belief operates whenever we think something is true.

 

2 hours ago, EnaUnited said:

 

Science has discovered that beliefs are connected to the emotional side of the brain, and that maybe so because people do form very strong opinions based on what they feel.

 

Yes, people often form beliefs on the basis of feeling.

 

2 hours ago, EnaUnited said:

However, attaching emotionally charged chemicals to sensory input is not going to assist the brain in processing and storing sensory information the way it would natively.

 

I don't know what this means. The brain operates as it does. This includes the chemicals that are attached to emotion. What do you mean by "natively"? I'm not sure that there is another way that the brain might operate. It is as it is.

 

2 hours ago, EnaUnited said:

 

There will be confirmation bias attached to the sensory information that's delivered, and then thoughts arising from that sensory perspective will jeopardize the continuity of overall rationality.

 

 

Yes, there will always be concerns regarding confirmation bias and the like. This is why I'm very careful to never claim certainty. This is why I hold that all knowledge reduces to firmly held belief. But this does not mean that all beliefs are on an equal footing. That just doesn't follow. Yes, some beliefs are not sound. But that doesn't imply that all beliefs are unsound. We have good reason to believe many things. And most of us believe many things without good reason. These two statements are not at odds with each other.

[AntiChrist]

8 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

(A) Belief, on my view, is just the phenomenon of people thinking that propositions (or statements, if you like) are true. Nothing more, nothing less. I believe that it will get dark soon precisely because I actually think that it will in fact get dark soon. Belief operates whenever we think something is true.

 

 

(B) Yes, people often form beliefs on the basis of feeling.

 

 

(C) I don't know what this means. The brain operates as it does. This includes the chemicals that are attached to emotion. What do you mean by "natively"? I'm not sure that there is another way that the brain might operate. It is as it is.

 

 

(D) Yes, there will always be concerns regarding confirmation bias and the like. This is why I'm very careful to never claim certainty. This is why I hold that all knowledge reduces to firmly held belief. But this does not mean that all beliefs are on an equal footing. That just doesn't follow. Yes, some beliefs are not sound. But that doesn't imply that all beliefs are unsound. We have good reason to believe many things. And most of us believe many things without good reason. These two statements are not at odds with each other.

/Edited for clearer communication.

 

(A) Exactly! You believe it will get dark when late afternoon arrives (I'm supposing) because your visual cortex has previously registered that information in your brain (So what's the belief part for?)

 

(B) Does having a positive or negative emotional reaction to raw data and the evidence that precedes from it change the facts themselves? (Like homosexuality occuring in animals)

 

(C) I am suggesting overall that the human brain does not require any beliefs about anything to function. A newly born infant will have zero beliefs, and zero ability to form beliefs. Until they learn to accept what adults believe is good or evil (Right and wrong) 

 

(D) You're right, we have to be careful when entering into unknown areas of knowledge.

 

[disillusioned]

I'm enjoying this, and I'll respond to each point individually in a moment, but first I want to note that we almost seem to be brushing up against eliminativism here. I personally think eliminativism is hopeless. Hopefully my responses below will illuminate why. If this turns out not to be relevant, so much the better. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong.

 

4 hours ago, EnaUnited said:

(A) Exactly! You believe it will get dark when late afternoon arrives (I'm supposing) because your visual cortex has previously registered that information in your brain (So what's the belief part for?)

 

Yes, I have previous experiences to draw upon here. Every other time that late afternoon has arrived, it has then gotten dark, so when late afternoon arrives today, I infer that it will get dark again. Further, I can infer that late afternoon will arrive every day for the rest of my life, and that night will continue to follow day every day for the rest of my life. And I can go even further. On March 23, 2146, I will be dead, and night will come. On March 23, 1900 I did not exist, and night came. These are purely statements of belief on my part. I have no visual data about these dates, and I can have no visual data about these dates. Nevertheless, I think my statements are true. I believe them.

 

That we think that certain things are true is not arguable, in my view. We obviously do. That's all that I mean when I speak of beliefs. Therefore, we really do have beliefs. What are they for? What role do they play? They help us to make sense. We can't make sense of anything without beliefs. We can't do anything without beliefs. Yes, beliefs are often the result of repeated experiences involving physical stimuli. That does not mean that beliefs don't exist, or don't serve a purpose. It just means that they are not primary.

 

4 hours ago, EnaUnited said:

(B) Does having a positive or negative emotional reaction to raw data and the evidence that precedes from it change the facts themselves? (Like homosexuality occuring in animals)

 

I don't think it does. Beliefs formed purely on the basis of feeling are generally unsound, in my view.

 

4 hours ago, EnaUnited said:

(C) I am suggesting overall that the human brain does not require any beliefs about anything to function. A newly born infant will have zero beliefs, and zero ability to form beliefs. Until they learn to accept what adults believe is good or evil (Right and wrong) 

 

The paranthetical at the end of this roughly describes my reaction to it: I think it is both right and wrong. That the human brain does not require beliefs in order to function is right in the sense that it is possible for the brain to run the body in a comatose state without beliefs, provided that someone else is providing sufficient nutrition. I think it is wrong in pretty much every other respect.

 

Newborn babies have no beliefs, but they obviously have the ability to form beliefs since they grow into adults who do have beliefs. It does not take the concept of right and wrong for beliefs to be formed. A newborn very quickly makes the move from crying reflexively when hungry/uncomfortable to crying to get what it wants. It begins to realize thay crying produces certain results which it likes. This is a primitive belief. The baby begins to think "if I cry, I will get x". They don't have the vocabulary to phrase it this way, but they think it is true that crying will produce the desired result. They believe it, in a primitive sense. As they grow, they will lose this belief and replace it with others. My daughter is now almost two, and she currently believes that saying "please", sometimes several dozen times, will get her what she wants. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for her to rethink that particular belief.

 

The acceptance of a moral framework, even a simplistic one imposed upon us by an authority, is itself an act of belief. It must, therefore, be possible for the brain to form beliefs without prior beliefs about good and evil.

 

It is not possible to think without beliefs. That we are conscious itself entails that we have beliefs. This is what I meant when I said we were brushing against eliminativism. If beliefs don't exist, then consciousness doesn't exist either. But we are conscious. We do have beliefs. And inasmuch as thinking is a part of the brain functioning, it isn't actually possible for the human brain to function without beliefs.

[AntiChrist]

On 6/14/2020 at 10:08 PM, disillusioned said:

I'm enjoying this, and I'll respond to each point individually in a moment, but first I want to note that we almost seem to be brushing up against eliminativism here. I personally think eliminativism is hopeless. Hopefully my responses below will illuminate why. If this turns out not to be relevant, so much the better. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong.

 

 

Yes, I have previous experiences to draw upon here. Every other time that late afternoon has arrived, it has then gotten dark, so when late afternoon arrives today, I infer that it will get dark again. Further, I can infer that late afternoon will arrive every day for the rest of my life, and that night will continue to follow day every day for the rest of my life. And I can go even further. On March 23, 2146, I will be dead, and night will come. On March 23, 1900 I did not exist, and night came. These are purely statements of belief on my part. I have no visual data about these dates, and I can have no visual data about these dates. Nevertheless, I think my statements are true. I believe them.

 

That we think that certain things are true is not arguable, in my view. We obviously do. That's all that I mean when I speak of beliefs. Therefore, we really do have beliefs. What are they for? What role do they play? They help us to make sense. We can't make sense of anything without beliefs. We can't do anything without beliefs. Yes, beliefs are often the result of repeated experiences involving physical stimuli. That does not mean that beliefs don't exist, or don't serve a purpose. It just means that they are not primary.

 

 

I don't think it does. Beliefs formed purely on the basis of feeling are generally unsound, in my view.

 

 

The paranthetical at the end of this roughly describes my reaction to it: I think it is both right and wrong. That the human brain does not require beliefs in order to function is right in the sense that it is possible for the brain to run the body in a comatose state without beliefs, provided that someone else is providing sufficient nutrition. I think it is wrong in pretty much every other respect.

 

Newborn babies have no beliefs, but they obviously have the ability to form beliefs since they grow into adults who do have beliefs. It does not take the concept of right and wrong for beliefs to be formed. A newborn very quickly makes the move from crying reflexively when hungry/uncomfortable to crying to get what it wants. It begins to realize thay crying produces certain results which it likes. This is a primitive belief. The baby begins to think "if I cry, I will get x". They don't have the vocabulary to phrase it this way, but they think it is true that crying will produce the desired result. They believe it, in a primitive sense. As they grow, they will lose this belief and replace it with others. My daughter is now almost two, and she currently believes that saying "please", sometimes several dozen times, will get her what she wants. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for her to rethink that particular belief.

 

The acceptance of a moral framework, even a simplistic one imposed upon us by an authority, is itself an act of belief. It must, therefore, be possible for the brain to form beliefs without prior beliefs about good and evil.

 

It is not possible to think without beliefs. That we are conscious itself entails that we have beliefs. This is what I meant when I said we were brushing against eliminativism. If beliefs don't exist, then consciousness doesn't exist either. But we are conscious. We do have beliefs. And inasmuch as thinking is a part of the brain functioning, it isn't actually possible for the human brain to function without beliefs.

I haven't found any compelling evidence that the human brain needs or uses beliefs to assist with transitioning from the unknown to the known. Although the brain does have the capacity for imagination and fantasizing, but it does know all along that those types of thoughts are not real.