Which came first? The idea or the belief?

[WonderBeat]

Akin to the riddle of the chicken and the egg, I submit the notion of idea and belief as being on a par....

Most of us think that we derive our beliefs (a type of mental assent to "matters-of-fact") from ideas. After all, if ideas did not first exist, from what could we fashion our beliefs? From whole-cloth? I say: "why not?"

Hardly does it occur to us that the situation could well be reversed. From what do we derive our ideas from? Why, our beliefs of course! It is because we first subscribe to various ideas, that we then say, on the basis of those subscriptions, that they exist! This may not appear intuitive to most people. However, an example from Vedanta will make this point more easily graspable.

Take the seeing of a rope and mistaking it for a snake. One sees a thing and immediately regards it a certain way. Why does a person regard it a certain way? Is it because the snake approaches the level of a snake, by having certain conditions of 'snake' met like length, contour, shape and so on? Or is it rather because the belief in 'snakeness' itself confers on the rope the identity of a snake, and causes one to therefore look at these other symptoms of 'snake' in a secondary and tertiary mode of awareness, as justification, as some might even put it, an 'excuse?' Indeed, had one not been on edge before at seeing a snake, then one would never have been so bamboozled at the appearance of one, but would instead have clearly seen at the outset the clear outline of a rope.

In other words, seeing the snake was itself a choice the mind made. Why? In an attempt at self-preservation, or caution, at not being bitten. In an attempt at vigilance, the thought of a snake was pre-emptively projected outward so that, had a real one been located, it would have easily been warded off. However, this form of belief has at its basis no foundation, because there is nothing factual, nothing identifiable or in the way of a concrete idea supporting it.

It is, in a word, a projection. Nothing else.

And it is only the projection itself, the illusion itself, which causes one to be in a sustained mood of believing the snake to be real. For the features of the snake, while they partake of the real, are supported only by the underlying premise that these are, in fact, snake features and not mere rope features, and this 'supposing' of snake features alone, this conscious willed choice alone, is what makes the snake, and in a broader sense this entire universe, appear real and factual and concrete and so on.....

The belief in the world's existence comes first. Not the idea that it is real in the first place. That is error one from which all other misconceptions (delusions) proceed.....

And it is all a choice. All a projection. One without beginning....

But it does have, an end....

 

[quatona]

Just so I have a better chance of understanding you:
Since you are contrasting "idea" and "belief", could you please give the definitions in which you use these terms so that I get an idea how exactly you distinguish between the two?

 

[toLiJC]

the first is the Word of God i.e. the process of "decompression" in the beginning of eternity by which God has grown to His mature form

John 1:1-2 "n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.",

Mark 4:30-32 "Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom(ie the origin) of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth(ie at the very beginning of eternity), is less than all the seeds that be in the earth(ie in the universe): But when it is sown(ie but already at the very beginning), it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs(or: and receives power over all things/beings), and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air(ie so that many holy angels) may lodge under the shadow of it."

 

[Blayz]

It's not a conscious willed choice, it's a subconscious pattern match, it's not sustained, for me it lasted about 1 second, and as such the premise

"this conscious willed choice alone, is what makes the snake,"

is false and the conclusion
"and in a broader sense this entire universe"

invalid.

EDIT to add: The snake wasn't bamboozling, though your choice to end the last four sentences with ellipses was...

 

[Paradoxum]

You make the jump from snake to universe too quickly. You need to explain yourself more.

Also I'm not sure how the snake thing works. I mean, if you see something which looks like a snake does your subconscious cause you to believe it is a snake, then you jump back, or do you realise it could be a snake (an idea) and then your subconscious causes you to act as if it were the worst possible circumstance (you accept the idea it is a snake)?

From what i have heard from you before you don't believe the universe is real at all, correct? But in that case it is different from the snake analogy because with the snake there is actually something you see that gets interpreted. If there is no universe there is nothing to interpret incorrectly.

It seems we do experience something, and it is probably true that when we are young we believe that the world is real until we find reason to question it. But this isn't a misinterpretation of senses like the snake scenario.

 

[WonderBeat]

It's not a conscious willed choice, it's a subconscious pattern match, it's not sustained, for me it lasted about 1 second, and as such the premise

Underlying the "subconscious pattern match" is a conscious willed choice. This choice emerges from a desire for self-preservation. One has to choose to be on guard in a situation such as this - and hence pre-emptively strike with belief.... If you look closely, you do have the power to suspend your vigilance in a circumstance as this, it just isn't easy.

As for it being sustained, for the sake of my argument it doesn't matter if it is sustained for one second or one hour. My point still holds it is a sustained phenomenon due to the feedback loop caused by belief and the projection which makes for perception.....

"this conscious willed choice alone, is what makes the snake,"

is false and the conclusion
"and in a broader sense this entire universe"

invalid.

EDIT to add: The snake wasn't bamboozling, though your choice to end the last four sentences with ellipses was...

The conscious willed choice is, at the outset, what allows the subconscious pattern match to become initiated. It all extends from a choice. From the desire to be, and acting on it.

And yes, the snake was and is bamboozling. So is this entire universe in case you haven't noticed.....

 

[WonderBeat]

You make the jump from snake to universe to quickly. You need to explain yourself more.

Actually, I don't think I do. If it is essentially the same phenomenon, why should I be the one burdened with upholding the misunderstanding?

Also I'm not sure how the snake thing works. I mean, if you see something which looks like a snake does your subconscious cause you to believe it is a snake, then you jump back, or do you realise it could be a snake (an idea) and then your subconscious causes you to act as if it were the worst possible circumstance (you accept the idea it is a snake)?

Here is the answer: belief is inextricably connected with choice. If you had not gone out that night with the willingness to see snakes, as an act of pre-emptive strike against the possibility of tripping over snakes, than the belief would not have had any efficacy, and would therefore not have sustained the illusion, even for a second. As such though, it did. The fact that, on the basis of vigilance, you chose to see snakes in an act of self-preservation, caused you to project the illusion. And this, I submit, is exactly on a par with everything we think we see in existence. Everything.

From what i have heard from you before you don't believe the universe is real at all, correct? But in that case it is different from the snake analogy because with the snake there is actually something you see that gets interpreted. If there is no universe there is nothing to interpret incorrectly.

The universe does not exist, you are correct. But there is One thing that exists. That is Being, that is God, that is the Substratum.

Like a blank canvass on which our beliefs get projected, is what exists. You are right that without the canvass, not even our illusions could be construed as being real. This is the rope.

It seems we do experience something, and it is probably true that when we are young we believe that the world is real until we find reason to question it. But this isn't a misinterpretation of senses like the snake scenario.

What we experience is Being. The misinterpretation is that it comes in multi-forms instead of just One thing.

 

[The Engineer]

Underlying the "subconscious pattern match" is a conscious willed choice.

No, there isn't. You can't just turn your pattern-matching on and off as you like.

It all extends however from a choice. From the desire to be.

The desire to be is not a conscious choice. Even nematodes have it.

In fact, neuroscientists even know where it is located: In the amygdalas. Remove them, and self-preservation stops.


I agree with Paradoxum on the issue. First you need an idea before you can accept an idea, turning it into a belief.

 

[jacks]

If all is illusion it is just as much snake as rope.

 

[WonderBeat]

Just so I have a better chance of understanding you:
Since you are contrasting "idea" and "belief", could you please give the definitions in which you use these terms so that I get an idea how exactly you distinguish between the two?

An idea is something we regard as being in reality. It may be "actual" or "fictitious" but it is something we believe has some level of existence. If it hadn't, after all, how could you conceive of it?

On the other hand, beliefs have no such existence, but instead are ABOUT the things that exist: they merely express our relationship with ideas, but are not themselves ideas minus the narrow category of 'beliefs'. Beliefs only exist insofar as they are beliefs, not because they themselves are ideas. They are reflections (or in this case, projectors) about ideas: thus have even less existence than even ideas.

What I am arguing is that it is these ineffectual seeming beliefs that actually, inexplicably, give rise to all or most of our ideas. And the snake/rope example is what I think illustrates this quite well.

 

[WonderBeat]

No, there isn't. You can't just turn your pattern-matching on and off as you like.

I am speaking about choice in a narrower sense. The point remains, that when you went out that night you had the suspicion of snakes, and therefore had the willingness to "look out" for snakes. This is choice. It is not in other words coerced. Had you yourself not been on board with it, why couldn't you then have simply questioned your instinct? The fact is, your will and your instinct were alligned.

The desire to be is not a conscious choice. Even nematodes have it.

In fact, neuroscientists even know where it is located: In the amygdalas. Remove them, and self-preservation stops.

Again, it is irrelevant to appeal to such instinctive, ingrained things if they have nothing to do with your own will, with your own power of choice. What might be confusing is how these things run parallel to each other. But the fact is there is a difference. One has higher and subordinate faculties of will and desire. Sometimes, in the case of suicide, they do not run in tandem with each other. The point is, choice was made in accordance with desire. And on that choice, is the illusion founded. Had it been all blind instinct, what would be the how and why of treating any conscious experience seriously?

I agree with Paradoxum on the issue. First you need an idea before you can accept an idea, turning it into a belief.

And I will implore you to actually convince me of this, as I see no such necessity. It appears quite reversed, in truth.

 

[The Engineer]

An idea is something we regard as being in reality.

No, it isn't. It's merely something we can conceive of.

It may be "actual" or "fictitious" but it is something we believe has some level of existence.

If it is fictitious, then it doesn't exist in reality.

If it hadn't, after all, how could you conceive of it?

By composing it out of different objects which do exist in reality.

 

[WonderBeat]

No, it isn't. It's merely something we can conceive of.

In so far as it is a conception, it has existence as such a conception. In other words, in the class of ideas, it has reality.

If it is fictitious, then it doesn't exist in reality.

Perhaps it doesn't correspond to "physical reality" but, again, in the class of ideas, it is also real.

By composing it out of different objects which do exist in reality.

Philosophically, this is actually much harder than you think. If there is not already some class of thing within reality, how could the necessary and sufficient conditions be pulled together to instantiate said thing?

 

[WonderBeat]

If all is illusion it is just as much snake as rope.

The rope is real. What is illusory is the snake projected onto the rope.

 

[The Engineer]

I am speaking about choice in a narrower sense.

In which sense, if I may ask? How can you willingly switch essential brain functions on and off?

The point remains, that when you went out that night you had the suspicion of snakes, and therefore had the willingness to "look out" for snakes.

If I weren't suspicious of snakes, I would still recognize one.

This is choice.

No. It's something you simply do, all the time. You can increase your awareness of certain things, but you can't just switch pattern-recognition on and off.

It is not in other words coerced.

As I said, it's something you do. Can you turn your heartbeat off? No, you can't. It's a bodily function. So is pattern-recognition. The fact that it comes from your brain doesn't change that.

Had you yourself not been on board with it, why couldn't you then have simply questioned your instinct? The fact is, your will and your instinct were alligned.

It doesn't work that way.

Again, it is irrelevant to appeal to such instinctive, ingrained things if they have nothing to do with your own will, with your own power of choice.

What do you mean by that? Is this another objection about pattern-recognition being automated, or did I miss something?

What might be confusing is how these things run parallel to each other. But the fact is there is a difference. One has higher and subordinate faculties of will and desire. Sometimes, in the case of suicide, they do not run in tandem with each other.

Self-preservation still isn't a choice. One can overcome self-preservation, yes, but it can't be turned off.

The point is, choice was made in accordance with desire. And on that choice, is the illusion founded. Had it been all blind instinct, what would be the how and why of treating any conscious experience seriously?

Choice and will have no say on bodily functions. They can influence them, but can't exert direct control over them.

And I will implore you to actually convince me of this, as I see no such necessity. It appears quite reversed, in truth.

Ideas are less complex than beliefs, and as I said, it only makes sense that you must have an idea before you can turn said idea into a belief.

 

[WonderBeat]

In which sense, if I may ask? How can you willingly switch essential brain functions on and off?

It isn't about switching brain functions on and off. It is changing your mind about the input that is being brought to bear to cognition, and how, on your own reflection, you come to a conclusion about what you see. This is influenced entirely by choice. Why? Because you have the decision as to how to interpret what is being brought to bear to your senses and mind's eye.

We may see a single picture that appears to be either of two things. The classic example is of an old woman and a young woman. Our mind sees one thing, but this is due in part to a prior, previous interpretation. This interpretation is a choice, and this is easily proven by the fact that we can switch on and off this perception of seeing either the old or young woman once the illusion is brought to bear. It is true, this interpretation seems to have been unconscious at the outset. But that is because our choice was induced by a former predisposition. In other words, we already made the choice prior to seeing. In the same way the fact that we choose to see snake in one situation, is because our predisposition is to fear snakes, and this colors our perception by making us choose one option over the other. After all, that long body laying on the floor *could* be a rope.

If I weren't suspicious of snakes, I would still recognize one.

Why? Well, firstly you would not "recognize" a snake that isn't there; only the illusion of one. What is the cause of this illusion? In a word, belief, formed by a certain context which demands a certain verdict, a choice. It isn't "recognition" of anything which makes you see anything: it is the belief in seeing something that lays the foundational groundwork for assuming a certain thing to exist.

No. It's something you simply do, all the time. You can increase your awareness of certain things, but you can't just switch pattern-recognition on and off.

Choice IS something we do all the time! I am not talking about "pattern recognition" per se. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here. This is about a willful interpretation of a thing, foisted by a certain context....

As I said, it's something you do. Can you turn your heartbeat off? No, you can't. It's a bodily function. So is pattern-recognition. The fact that it comes from your brain doesn't change that.

Entirely moot points.

It doesn't work that way.

It always works that way. We are always questioning. Only when we are mindless, when are not interpreting, is when we are being blindly led by automated sense-perceptions which, by the way, don't mean anything.

What do you mean by that? Is this another objection about pattern-recognition being automated, or did I miss something?

Interpretation = choice. Forget about "pattern-recognition" - that is completely beside the point.

Self-preservation still isn't a choice. One can overcome self-preservation, yes, but it can't be turned off.

What I mean is that self-preservation is the motive for a certain choice. And that choice lends itself in the interpretation of the given phenomenon: a projection.

Choice and will have no say on bodily functions. They can influence them, but can't exert direct control over them.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with bodily functions.

Ideas are less complex than beliefs, and as I said, it only makes sense that you must have an idea before you can turn said idea into a belief.

Nothing you have as yet said makes me inclined to this line of thought. But, alas, you may continue hacking away.

 

[Paradoxum]

Actually, I don't think I do. If it is essentially the same phenomenon, why should I be the one burdened with upholding the misunderstanding?

Because it is possible to dispute that it is the same phenomenon and because the view you present isn't very common, so if you don't present a good case people might assume you have little worthwhile to talk about.

Here is the answer: belief is inextricably connected with choice. If you had not gone out that night with the willingness to see snakes, as an act of pre-emptive strike against the possibility of tripping over snakes, than the belief would not have had any efficacy, and would therefore not have sustained the illusion, even for a second. As such though, it did. The fact that, on the basis of vigilance, you chose to see snakes in an act of self-preservation, caused you to project the illusion. And this, I submit, is exactly on a par with everything we think we see in existence. Everything.

I'm not sure that is always how it works though. I a video on youtube where a little girl was dressed a bit like you might expect a demon girl in a scary film and then place in an empty corridor of a hotel with her hair covering most her face. The joke was that people would walk past a freak out a bit. It is very unlikely any of them were thinking of possessed little girls, but nevertheless many people instantly reacted by jumping back or screaming. For a brief amount of time they believe that something bad could be going on. So the belief or idea isn't necessarily a choice.

The universe does not exist, you are correct. But there is One thing that exists. That is Being, that is God, that is the Substratum.

Like a blank canvass on which our beliefs get projected, is what exists. You are right that without the canvass, not even our illusions could be construed as being real. This is the rope.

So why do we think this world exists?

 

[WonderBeat]

Because it is possible to dispute that it is the same phenomenon and because the view you present isn't very common, so if you don't present a good case people might assume you have little worthwhile to talk about.

The view I present is very common. At least, common from where I am coming from.

I am trying my best to show that it is the same phenomenon, but when I have to deal with what I think is undue skepticism, simply questioning for the sake of questioning, I get a little frustrated.

Seriously, if the default position is that this world is a delusion, why should I try to make compromise and bolster the DELUSION by taking ammo from it? That is simply playing into the mind's game and into this whole game of PROJECTION.

So, your criticism basically falls flat and does not even make logical sense.

I am trying to awaken people from the illusion. And getting on board with other people's prejudices, or there own view to what is "reasonable" is the last thing I should be interested in since that only bolsters THEIR misconceptions!

Truth cannot be disputed. Not from the standpoint of truth itself. Only illusion.

I'm not sure that is always how it works though. I a video on youtube where a little girl was dressed a bit like you might expect a demon girl in a scary film and then place in an empty corridor of a hotel with her hair covering most her face. The joke was that people would walk past a freak out a bit. It is very unlikely any of them were thinking of possessed little girls, but nevertheless many people instantly reacted by jumping back or screaming. For a brief amount of time they believe that something bad could be going on. So the belief or idea isn't necessarily a choice.

Belief in bad is the source of all bad.

So why do we think this world exists?

It is what we have always believed! How could ever depart from this cherished belief, one that we identify with so keenly!

We have gotten in this fake self-identity of believing we are the body!

 

[Paradoxum]

The view I present is very common. At least, common from where I am coming from.

Where are you from?

I am trying my best to show that it is the same phenomenon, but when I have to deal with what I think is undue skepticism, simply questioning for the sake of questioning, I get a little frustrated.

I question because I don't believe what you are saying is true.

Seriously, if the default position is that this world is a delusion, why should I try to make compromise and bolster the DELUSION by taking ammo from it? That is simply playing into the mind's game and into this whole game of PROJECTION.

So, your criticism basically falls flat and does not even make logical sense.

I am trying to awaken people from the illusion. And getting on board with other people's prejudices, or there own view to what is "reasonable" is the last thing I should be interested in since that only bolsters THEIR misconceptions!

Is rationality part of the illusion?

Belief in bad is the source of all bad.

So if we thought it was ok to kill innocent people then people wouldn't do it?

It is what we have always believed! How could ever depart from this cherished belief, one that we identify with so keenly!

We have gotten in this fake self-identity of believing we are the body!

If the universe doesn't exist I'm not really sure why we would believe it does exist. If we have always believed it then why have we always believed it?

 

[WonderBeat]

Where are you from?

ADWAITA.

I question because I don't believe what you are saying is true.

No, you question because you are afraid that what I am saying is true.

Is rationality part of the illusion?

Everything in duality is false. That includes our rational concepts.

So if we thought it was ok to kill innocent people then people wouldn't do it?

Not that simple.

If the universe doesn't exist I'm not really sure why we would believe it does exist. If we have always believed it then why have we always believed it?

We are eternal beings, who have been forever enchained by ignorance. Go back to the snake and rope example. Why is the rope regarded as a snake? Because of projection. What is the cause of this projection? A choice made due to circumstance. What is the circumstance in our case? BEGINNINGLESS IGNORANCE!