A Choice

[Iamblichus]

Alright. I suspect this is going to be a rather disorganized mess of thoughts. So I'm going to try and install a little order into it. First off, I said yes. Belief is a choice. And I believe that suggesting anything else is absurd.

Things to note.

One, choice must be a matter of actually choosing something. Most people can assume a choice for the purpose of an argument. However we are discussing a true choice here. As in someone actually deciding something.

Two, I postulate the concept of free will as being real. If you don't believe we have free will, good for you. You'll disagree with parts of my post.

Three, a persons actions in the world are a result of his or her beliefs. Specifically a hierarchy of beliefs. Example. Belief in Christ -> Possible Action: Evangelism; Belief in the importance of welfare of self at the top of the hierarchy. Action: Stop evangelizing if threatened.

Alright so I'm going to start with a religious (ish) argument for why belief must be choice. Then move into a secular argument, in which all the afore mentioned concepts are likely to come up.

Gird your loins

If belief cannot be chosen, and instead all we have is a series of situations in which if any individual is placed in them, they will always turn out with a set belief than free will must not exist, and thereby our fates must be pre-ordained. If fate is pre-ordained, than G-d creates some people with only the capacity for failure. Suggesting that He is not benevolent. And thereby cruel/imperfect. Which if He is in fact G-d, is an impossibility. Thereby belief must be something which can be chosen, so we are free to succeed or fail. So that we may turn to love Him of our own free will, so that such love may be reciprocal.

The secular argument addresses what you mean by choice. You assume that a choice will lead to instant gratification. A result will spontaneously appear. However the results of our choices are only occasionally apparent in such a way, typically even when a result seems to appear immediately there are many effects that only become apparent later. There is no switch that you click from one belief to another by choice. Instead a choice is an active thing, constant and recurring. If I were to choose to believe in God. The transition would be a slow one, in which I would begin to see His work in my day to day life, in places where I previously overlooked it. The result of such a choice would not be a sudden "belief" but instead a shifting of perspective on the world.

Finally on the matter of actually choosing you address its supposed impossibility. I mentioned true choice, and this is where that concept is really important. In every instance where such a choice is unable to be made there a reasons for desiring the opposite to be true. If you aren't fully committed to a choice (of belief specifically) all one can do is speculate. Your own difficulty is choosing to believe in God or Christ (If you think of it as a difficulty) stems from your desire not to believe.

For a choice of this sort to be made you have to will it completely and freely. Else you aren't making a true choice.

I had another point I was going to make relating to the actions from beliefs thing. Namely that because actions are an expression of a person's beliefs, if a person can't choose what they believe they can't choose how they act, if they can't choose how they act, than a person is no more than a blob of predictable reactions. If you think society would be the same with a bunch of robots in the place of humans, fine. But I'll be over here disagreeing. (On sexuality, not a belief, thereby irrelevant to the discussion, same deal with pain. To say they are simply beliefs, is to deny reality.)

If you made it this far, thanks for reading. Consider it and please try not to be offended by anything I've said. I don't mean it in an offensive way, I just tend to argue bombastically.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Alright. I suspect this is going to be a rather disorganized mess of thoughts. So I'm going to try and install a little order into it. First off, I said yes. Belief is a choice. And I believe that suggesting anything else is absurd.

Thanks for voting! I will do my utmost to either a) rebut your every word, or b) eat mine

Things to note.

One, choice must be a matter of actually choosing something. Most people can assume a choice for the purpose of an argument. However we are discussing a true choice here. As in someone actually deciding something.

Agreed, with the caveat that we're not excluding the possibility of those unconcious, feels-like-a-choice-but-never-actually-was 'decisions'.

Two, I postulate the concept of free will as being real. If you don't believe we have free will, good for you. You'll disagree with parts of my post.

To quote a woman in politics, you betcha'

Three, a persons actions in the world are a result of his or her beliefs. Specifically a hierarchy of beliefs. Example. Belief in Christ -> Possible Action: Evangelism; Belief in the importance of welfare of self at the top of the hierarchy. Action: Stop evangelizing if threatened.

Eeeeeh, I kind of agree. Beliefs certainly influence actions, and you can trace certain actions back to core beliefs, but not all actions are rooted in belief - most (if not all) unconscious actions (such as reflexes) aren't based in belief, and I daresay some concious ones (such as a choice of meal or deciding when to poop) aren't necessarily rooted in any beliefs. So, I'll assume you mean that some actions are caused by belief, which I heartily agree with.

Alright so I'm going to start with a religious (ish) argument for why belief must be choice. Then move into a secular argument, in which all the afore mentioned concepts are likely to come up.

Gird your loins

If belief cannot be chosen, and instead all we have is a series of situations in which if any individual is placed in them, they will always turn out with a set belief than free will must not exist, and thereby our fates must be pre-ordained.

I disagree - what about the illusion of choice? We could have the illusion of choice, and come to the conclusion that we really do have choice, but all along our choices are, well, illusory.

If fate is pre-ordained, than G-d creates some people with only the capacity for failure. Suggesting that He is not benevolent. And thereby cruel/imperfect. Which if He is in fact G-d, is an impossibility. Thereby belief must be something which can be chosen, so we are free to succeed or fail. So that we may turn to love Him of our own free will, so that such love may be reciprocal.

Well, that makes some assumptions about God, namely that he must be loving, etc. I believe Calvinists of the hard variety believe in the sovereignty of God above all else, that salvation by the grace of God is really by the grace of God, not our works or faith.

The secular argument addresses what you mean by choice. You assume that a choice will lead to instant gratification. A result will spontaneously appear. However the results of our choices are only occasionally apparent in such a way, typically even when a result seems to appear immediately there are many effects that only become apparent later. There is no switch that you click from one belief to another by choice. Instead a choice is an active thing, constant and recurring. If I were to choose to believe in God. The transition would be a slow one, in which I would begin to see His work in my day to day life, in places where I previously overlooked it. The result of such a choice would not be a sudden "belief" but instead a shifting of perspective on the world.

Then what does it mean to say you 'choose to believe'? The thing you're deciding isn't belief, it sounds like the slow process of deliberately forgetting prior beliefs and then taking on new ones.

So what happens when you make this choice?

Finally on the matter of actually choosing you address its supposed impossibility. I mentioned true choice, and this is where that concept is really important. In every instance where such a choice is unable to be made there a reasons for desiring the opposite to be true. If you aren't fully committed to a choice (of belief specifically) all one can do is speculate. Your own difficulty is choosing to believe in God or Christ (If you think of it as a difficulty) stems from your desire not to believe.

That makes the assumption that any such desire exists. I couldn't care less either way, I simply see no evidence. But, if you showed me evidence, I'd have no choice but to believe.

For a choice of this sort to be made you have to will it completely and freely. Else you aren't making a true choice.

I had another point I was going to make relating to the actions from beliefs thing. Namely that because actions are an expression of a person's beliefs, if a person can't choose what they believe they can't choose how they act, if they can't choose how they act, than a person is no more than a blob of predictable reactions. If you think society would be the same with a bunch of robots in the place of humans, fine. But I'll be over here disagreeing.

Well, if humans have no free will, that doesn't preclude humans from acting as if we had free will - the complex biochemical algorithms that inexoriably lead to one action and one action only (amidst a myriad of other, simultaneous actions within and without the body), lead to behaviour as if that entity had free will. Doesn't mean we do, but if we act as if we do, then we act as if people are at fault, and make courts and things.

Ironically, we create justice where none ought to exist. Hurrah for the robots!

(On sexuality, not a belief, thereby irrelevant to the discussion, same deal with pain. To say they are simply beliefs, is to deny reality.)

Agreed.

 

[Iamblichus]

"Agreed, with the caveat that we're not excluding the possibility of those unconcious, feels-like-a-choice-but-never-actually-was 'decisions'.

So, I'll assume you mean that some actions are caused by belief, which I heartily agree with.

Agreed on both counts.

"I disagree - what about the illusion of choice? We could have the illusion of choice, and come to the conclusion that we really do have choice, but all along our choices are, well, illusory."

If our 'choices' are illusionary, we don't actually have choices. Our path is equally pre-determined, as if we had no choice in the first place. So there should be little boxes we can put people in, which will make them always turn out a certain way.

Well, that makes some assumptions about God, namely that he must be loving, etc. I believe Calvinists of the hard variety believe in the sovereignty of God above all else, that salvation by the grace of God is really by the grace of God, not our works or faith.

Perhaps I shouldn't broach a religious argument at all, I am not knowledgeable enough to back it up with scripture. Yes, the Calvinists believe differently. I think that their beliefs are wrong. But being unable to address such concerns I move that we drop my religious argument entirely and focus on the secular one.

Then what does it mean to say you 'choose to believe'? The thing you're deciding isn't belief, it sounds like the slow process of deliberately forgetting prior beliefs and then taking on new ones.

So what happens when you make this choice?

The act of choice, is a matter of changing your perception, a small internal shift. That is my point. A decision on what you believe isn't made, so much as it is developed. The act of choice is simply a matter of choosing which path you follow. The idea of a switch which abruptly changes a persons beliefs is absurd. Belief arises over time, so the choice, will simply be the beginning of the process.

What happens when a choice is made varies, but most of the effects will be of the sort the arrive slowly as the choice develops, rather than at a specific moment. You will have snap conversions but those will be in rare instances, and often the person will have already been ready/held most of their "new" beliefs.

That makes the assumption that any such desire exists. I couldn't care less either way, I simply see no evidence. But, if you showed me evidence, I'd have no choice but to believe.

I picked the example at random, but this supports what I'm saying perfectly. That to choose something you must desire it. If you do not desire to change your way of thinking, you won't. As for evidence, it is simply a matter of making the new belief desirable. People generally desire to be correct, if presented with evidence they typically will change their beliefs to the correct ones. However I recall reading a thread lately in which Christians were asked if given undeniable proof God didn't exist would they still believe. More than one person said they would. Is that not evidence that a person can choose their beliefs despite evidence or lack thereof. (For example conspiracy theorists )

Well, if humans have no free will, that doesn't preclude humans from acting as if we had free will - the complex biochemical algorithms that inexoriably lead to one action and one action only (amidst a myriad of other, simultaneous actions within and without the body), lead to behaviour as if that entity had free will. Doesn't mean we do, but if we act as if we do, then we act as if people are at fault, and make courts and things.

Ironically, we create justice where none ought to exist. Hurrah for the robots!

If you deny the existence of free will, and determine it to be simply the illusion of free will. Than choice is a meaningless concept, because the entity isn't truly choosing, it's actions are determined. Even if they appear not to be.

In which case there is no purpose to asking the original question. Because if there is no way to choose anything, of course you can't choose a belief.

So for the sake of this thread, do you mind if you agree that it is possible to make a choice.

 

[Ken-1122]

If belief cannot be chosen, and instead all we have is a series of situations in which if any individual is placed in them, they will always turn out with a set belief than free will must not exist, and thereby our fates must be pre-ordained.

That would only be the case if everybody thought the same. Everybody thinks and comes to conclusions differently; also each person chooses differently how they will react to that which they believe.

If I were to choose to believe in God. The transition would be a slow one, in which I would begin to see His work in my day to day life, in places where I previously overlooked it. The result of such a choice would not be a sudden "belief" but instead a shifting of perspective on the world.

As I said before, you can choose to look for evidence for one side while neglecting to consider evidence to the contrary, and believe because of the evidence you chose to find, but that is not the same as choosing to believe.
As I said before, if Bill Gates offered to pay you a billion dollars to believe you can fly like a bird, could you choose to believe it? I think not.

Namely that because actions are an expression of a person's beliefs, if a person can't choose what they believe they can't choose how they act,

I disagree; a person may not always be able to choose how they believe, but they always have a choice on how they react to those beliefs.

Ken

 

[Iamblichus]

That would only be the case if everybody thought the same. Everybody thinks and comes to conclusions differently; also each person chooses differently how they will react to that which they believe.

And why do people think/come to conclusions different. There are three possible reasons two of which are the same. The first reason is a supposed genetic pre-disposition towards a particular type of thought. People with different pre-dispositions will think differently. Fine. However that means if you take two people with similar pre-dispositions and run them through identical situations they should turn out identical beliefs, if choice is not a factor. Second, a person's experiences shape how one thinks. Third, a person's beliefs shape how one thinks. If we discard beliefs, because we are discussing how one arises at beliefs from a situation. This leaves us with just experiences to tackle. If our way of thinking arises from experiences this means that everyone with the same experiences should think the same way.

Essentially what I'm saying is all we need is a bigger box. Sure people think differently but if you expand this mode of thought to cover all formative experiences, they should arrive at the exact same conclusions from a situation. Unless they are able to choose the conclusions they reach...thus choosing their belief.

Even genetic twins with very similar formative experiences will make different choices. "Lisa (never depressed) and Leslie (depressed), interviewed at age 53, were identical twins... they were together constantly as children, but described their personalities as somewhat different from the start... " (Can't post the link because my post count is too low. )
Act different, and arrive at different beliefs from a very young age. With the factors of experience and genetics out, it suggests at some level a choice in how they look at the world.

As I said before, you can choose to look for evidence for one side while neglecting to consider evidence to the contrary, and believe because of the evidence you chose to find, but that is not the same as choosing to believe.

You misunderstand me. I'm not speaking of choosing based on evidence in this case, but finding evidence based on your beliefs. The order is reversed. Your beliefs may then be further shaped by that evidence. But the initial choice does not require it.

As I said before, if Bill Gates offered to pay you a billion dollars to believe you can fly like a bird, could you choose to believe it? I think not.

Once again you're missing my point. I re-iterated it clearer in my second post. That is because I have conflicting desires. I can't choose to believe that because I don't fully want to. Parts of me do. But other parts, the part that can't stand being wrong, for example. Despises the idea. So I am unable to make the choice. This is because choosing how to think, and view the world require a much more complete commitment, than simply choosing what kind of drink in a fast food line, you must make the choice again and again day in day out, because the act of choosing is a process not a snap single moment decision. Nor does it have a snap single moment effect.

I disagree; a person may not always be able to choose how they believe, but they always have a choice on how they react to those beliefs.

I never said they didn't. Just that action stems from belief. I believe choice is integral at every step of the profess.

 

[Ken-1122]

And why do people think/come to conclusions different. There are three possible reasons two of which are the same. The first reason is a supposed genetic pre-disposition towards a particular type of thought. People with different pre-dispositions will think differently. Fine. However that means if you take two people with similar pre-dispositions and run them through identical situations they should turn out identical beliefs, if choice is not a factor.

Correction: If you take two people with SIMULAR pre-dispositions and run them through identical situations, they should turn out with SIMULAR beliefs.

This leaves us with just experiences to tackle. If our way of thinking arises from experiences this means that everyone with the same experiences should think the same way.

That would only be the case if their genetic pre-disposition towards thought were identical rather than just similar. But let’s face it; for their thought process to be identical would be impossible.

You misunderstand me. I'm not speaking of choosing based on evidence in this case, but finding evidence based on your beliefs. The order is reversed. Your beliefs may then be further shaped by that evidence. But the initial choice does not require it.

That is what I said! Choosing to find evidence based upon your beliefs is the same as looking for evidence that supports your beliefs but neglecting to look for evidence that contradicts it.

Once again you're missing my point. I re-iterated it clearer in my second post. That is because I have conflicting desires. I can't choose to believe that because I don't fully want to. Parts of me do. But other parts, the part that can't stand being wrong, for example. Despises the idea. So I am unable to make the choice.

You can’t stand to be wrong, even for a billion dollars? Really??!!!
Okay how about somebody else of sound mind; do you think an average person who wouldn’t mind being wrong just this once; for a billion dollars can choose to believe they can fly like a bird for a billion dollars?

I never said they didn't. Just that action stems from belief. I believe choice is integral at every step of the profess.

I believe actions often stem from beliefs but your exact words were;
" because actions are an expression of a person's beliefs, if a person can't choose what they believe they can't choose how they act,”
With that I disagree. A person can always choose how they act; no matter what they believe.

K

 

[Iamblichus]

Correction: If you take two people with SIMULAR pre-dispositions and run them through identical situations, they should turn out with SIMULAR beliefs.

You won't though which is exactly why I quoted the twin example. Twins who despite going through virtually identical formative experiences viewed the world differently from a young age. You may get a similar belief but you may not. This occurrence I claim is a result of choice.

That would only be the case if their genetic pre-disposition towards thought were identical rather than just similar. But let’s face it; for their thought process to be identical would be impossible.

Thus identical twins. Which as a case study show either the possibility of another factor, or the opportunity to choose. I suspect it is the later.

That is what I said! Choosing to find evidence based upon your beliefs is the same as looking for evidence that supports your beliefs but neglecting to look for evidence that contradicts it.

No. You're missing the point once again. Belief is a way of seeing the world, and you can choose how you see the world. The evidence isn't what is convincing you of your belief. But a result of belief. IT may reinforce it but it isn't required for forming a belief

You can’t stand to be wrong, even for a billion dollars? Really??!!!
Okay how about somebody else of sound mind; do you think an average person who wouldn’t mind being wrong just this once; for a billion dollars can choose to believe they can fly like a bird for a billion dollars?

There will be some people with the mental disciple to alter there thoughts for a passing desire. I require more desires to be lined up to change the way I think.

I believe actions often stem from beliefs but your exact words were;
" because actions are an expression of a person's beliefs, if a person can't choose what they believe they can't choose how they act,”
With that I disagree. A person can always choose how they act; no matter what they believe.
K

Poorly phrased perhaps but the point was, as actions stem from belief, if belief is something a person can't choose. Actions will also be something which a person doesn't really have any effective control over.
Example: person one believes aliens are real, person two believes they aren't.
Each belief comes with a set of actions one can take from it.
Ie. Person one might: Do nothing, create flyers welcoming aliens, suspect that aliens are already landed and are being covered up.
While person two might: Do nothing, demand that all discussion of aliens be banned etc.

I'm was only trying to say it limits actions. If that came across poorly fine. But that's what I meant. Hope its clearer now.

 

[Ken-1122]

You won't though which is exactly why I quoted the twin example. Twins who despite going through virtually identical formative experiences viewed the world differently from a young age. You may get a similar belief but you may not. This occurrence I claim is a result of choice.


Thus identical twins. Which as a case study show either the possibility of another factor, or the opportunity to choose. I suspect it is the later.


No. You're missing the point once again. Belief is a way of seeing the world, and you can choose how you see the world. The evidence isn't what is convincing you of your belief. But a result of belief. IT may reinforce it but it isn't required for forming a belief


There will be some people with the mental disciple to alter there thoughts for a passing desire. I require more desires to be lined up to change the way I think.


Poorly phrased perhaps but the point was, as actions stem from belief, if belief is something a person can't choose. Actions will also be something which a person doesn't really have any effective control over.
Example: person one believes aliens are real, person two believes they aren't.
Each belief comes with a set of actions one can take from it.
Ie. Person one might: Do nothing, create flyers welcoming aliens, suspect that aliens are already landed and are being covered up.
While person two might: Do nothing, demand that all discussion of aliens be banned etc.

I'm was only trying to say it limits actions. If that came across poorly fine. But that's what I meant. Hope its clearer now.

So let me see if I’ve got this straight; We agree everybody thinks and believes differently, we just disagree on why everyone thinks and believes differently.
You believe everyone chooses to think differently (which would suggest if they wanted to, 2 people can choose to believe and think the exact same) and I believe other factors such as genetic make-up, experiences etc. forces us to believe and think differently, which would suggest even if they wanted to, 2 people cannot choose to believe and think the exact same.
Am I right so far?

Also concerning choosing to believe you can fly like a bird, I guarantee you; nobody of sound mind has the mental discipline to be able to choose to believe they can fly like a bird. They might be able to pretend they can, they might even be able to convince you and everyone around them that they believe such a lie but deep down inside they will know they are lying; otherwise they could be coached into suicide by being offered the money then being asked to prove it by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge! That can never happen to someone of sound mind.

Ken

 

[dogs4thewin]

yes it is. If it was not then we would need proof for EVERYTHING and some people still do not believe.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

yes it is. If it was not then we would need proof for EVERYTHING and some people still do not believe.

Can you choose to believe that the Moon is made of Cheddar?

 

[WonderBeat]

Is belief a choice? If a posit a claim, can you decide, there and then, that you believe it?

Yes, and for that very reason belief has nothing to do with the truth... Truth is choiceless! You do not have to will yourself to believe anything. It convicts you. In that given moment, you know for a face what you know and cannot deny what is in front of you.....

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, and for that very reason belief has nothing to do with the truth... Truth is choiceless!

Well, yes, but most people try to suss out what the truth is. The veracity of a claim is unrelated to who believes it.

You do not have to will yourself to believe anything. It convicts you. In that given moment, you know for a face what you know and cannot deny what is in front of you.....

It's a rather elementary facet of epistemology that this isn't the case. Truth is truth, but we humans are bound by logic and empiricism - beyond pure mathematics, we can't know if any given claim really is true or not. At best, we can accrue huge quantitites of evidence and be 99.99999999...% sure - which is really good, let's face it. But the fact remains that we'll never be 100% certain.

So, to say that we become imbued with some metaphysical qualia is... incorrect.

 

[WonderBeat]

Well, yes, but most people try to suss out what the truth is. The veracity of a claim is unrelated to who believes it.


It's a rather elementary facet of epistemology that this isn't the case. Truth is truth, but we humans are bound by logic and empiricism - beyond pure mathematics, we can't know if any given claim really is true or not. At best, we can accrue huge quantitites of evidence and be 99.99999999...% sure - which is really good, let's face it. But the fact remains that we'll never be 100% certain.

So, to say that we become imbued with some metaphysical qualia is... incorrect.

I am not talking about any claim of "truth." See, you guys are still so caught up in particular instances of "truth" that you do not know the Truth as it actually is - not "of" anything besides it itself. This we have complete absolute certainty and knowledge of simply for the fact that we exist......

There is actually no such thing as evidence when it comes to the truth in and of itself. When you mix the truth with something else (like a claim) then you have this merri-go-round of uncertainty and doubt and cringing......

BE the Self you actually are.....

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am not talking about any claim of "truth."

The topic is that of beliefs. What else would you be talking about?

See, you guys are still so caught up in particular instances of "truth" that you do not know the Truth as it actually is - not "of" anything besides it itself. This we have complete absolute certainty and knowledge of simply for the fact that we exist......

There is actually no such thing as evidence when it comes to the truth in and of itself. When you mix the truth with something else (like a claim) then you have this merri-go-round of uncertainty and doubt and cringing......

Indulge us. What is the Truth™.

BE the Self you actually are.....

See, if you're going to say things like that, it's no wonder no one understands you.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, and for that very reason belief has nothing to do with the truth...

So if Bill Gates offered you a million dollars to believe you can fly like a bird, you claim you can choose to believe it? I think not. You cannot choose to believe something; reason and logic must demand you believe it

Truth is choiceless! You do not have to will yourself to believe anything. It convicts you. In that given moment, you know for a face what you know and cannot deny what is in front of you.....

Sounds like you just contradicted yourself. First you say you can choose to believe something (even if it’s false) then you say you cannot deny what is in front of you; which is it?

Ken

 

[SithDoughnut]

So if Bill Gates offered you a million dollars to believe you can fly like a bird, you claim you can choose to believe it? I think not. You cannot choose to believe something; reason and logic must demand you believe it

Not really. Belief is not a choice, but that doesn't mean it has to be logical, or even rational. As I understand it, it is actually possible (if difficult) to trick your own brain into believing things.

 

[Ken-1122]

Not really. Belief is not a choice, but that doesn't mean it has to be logical, or even rational. As I understand it, it is actually possible (if difficult) to trick your own brain into believing things.

Can you give an example of a rational person tricking his brain into believing something he knows is untrue?

K

 

[SithDoughnut]

Can you give an example of a rational person tricking his brain into believing something he knows is untrue?

Relaxation exercises. You know you're stressed, you know that there are many problems to be stressed about, yet it is possible to relax your mind and hold contradictory feelings to what you know the situation demands. That's probably not what you're looking for, but the question you asked doesn't actually make much sense. We know that all our beliefs are true, regardless of whether they are actually true or not. We can simultaneously hold the (possibly contradictory) belief that our beliefs may be false, but we still "know" they are true.

People are not naturally logical, or even rational. In fact, I think the belief that you are a rational person is a good example of holding a belief that you really know isn't true.

EDIT: Just went through new videos from my Youtube subscriptions, and found another example: Lying (The exact part you'll want to watch - although the whole thing is worth watching - is around 4:20)

 

[Ken-1122]

Relaxation exercises. You know you're stressed, you know that there are many problems to be stressed about, yet it is possible to relax your mind and hold contradictory feelings to what you know the situation demands. That's probably not what you're looking for, but the question you asked doesn't actually make much sense.

That’s because your claim that we can trick our brains into believing something we know isn’t true, doesn’t make sense.

We know that all our beliefs are true, regardless of whether they are actually true or not. We can simultaneously hold the (possibly contradictory) belief that our beliefs may be false, but we still "know" they are true.

Humm... sounds like you are starting to agree with me.

Ken

 

[SithDoughnut]

Humm... sounds like you are starting to agree with me.

No, I'm still saying the same thing. Perhaps we never really disagreed?