Which came first? The idea or the belief?

[The Engineer]

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.

Yes, we can interpret what we see, but before we even have the chance to react consciously, our brain has already recognized certain patterns. If it's a familiar pattern, you don't even have to identify it consciously; your subconscious has already done the trick. If you see a television, you don't have to think before you know what it is. You just know it.

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.

Our brain recognizes two different patterns, it's just that we can choose which one we accept. That doesn't mean we can interpret the picture any way we want. We can just choose between two different ways to interpret it, and these two ways are dictated by the ideas we have of certain things.

It is true, this interpretation seems to have been unconscious at the outset.

It was unconscious at the outset. You first need those two interpretations before you can switch between them.

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.

Those predispositions are not by choice, either. If you see lots of snakes, your brain learns to recognize them, and you can't control learning, either. You can influence it, but not control it.

Why? Well, firstly you would not "recognize" a snake that isn't there; only the illusion of one.

You don't recognize the snake, you recognize the pattern of a snake. That's a difference.

What is the cause of this illusion?

False-positive pattern-recognition in an optical stimulus.

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:

You recognize the pattern of a snake, you think it's a snake. This has nothing to do with a conscious choice.

it is the belief in seeing something that lays the foundational groundwork for assuming a certain thing to exist.

But prior to the belief in seeing something, you must have an idea of what this thing is. Before you can believe you saw a snake, you must have an idea of what a snake is.

Choice IS something we do all the time!

All the time, yes, but not about everything. You can't choose whether your heart stops beating, or whether you want to see or not. In the same vain, you can't choose whether you want to recognize something or not. It's an automated function of your brain.

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....

You talked about seeing snakes, and you claimed that one can choose whether he sees a snake or not. Well, I'm telling you, you can't choose whether you see snakes or not, you just see them.

Entirely moot points.

No, they aren't. I intended to demonstrate to you that just because you do something doesn't mean it's your choice.

I must admit, my citation of you was a bit misleading.

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.

Yes, we are always questioning, but how does that support your point?

You claim the belief came before the idea, but how can you believe something if you have no idea what it is? According to you, we would have to consciously make the choice to believe something before we could get an idea what it is, but how can you choose to believe in something if you don't know what it is, i.e. if you have no idea what it is?

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

Yes, interpretation is choice, but before we can consciously interpret something, we need an idea. How can you interpret two intersecting rectangles as a cross if you have no idea what a cross is?

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.

Wait, how can a choice lend itself into a projection?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with bodily functions.

I was trying to tell you that the desire to be, i.e. self-preservation, can't be directly controlled, merely influenced.

My point may have been true, but I think I responded to the wrong part of your post, or something. Sorry for that.

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

I hope I made myself clear this time.

 

[Paradoxum]

ADWAITA.

A type of Hinduism you mean?

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

No, I just think the world exists and I have little reason to think otherwise. I wouldn't say I'm afraid.

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

That must make thinking about what you believe rather difficult.

Not that simple.

Didn't think it would be.

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!

We may have to agree to disagree.

 

[WonderBeat]

Yes, we can interpret what we see, but before we even have the chance to react consciously, our brain has already recognized certain patterns. If it's a familiar pattern, you don't even have to identify it consciously; your subconscious has already done the trick. If you see a television, you don't have to think before you know what it is. You just know it.

You believe you know it. And that is where conscious choice comes in.

Our brain recognizes two different patterns, it's just that we can choose which one we accept. That doesn't mean we can interpret the picture any way we want. We can just choose between two different ways to interpret it, and these two ways are dictated by the ideas we have of certain things.

Choice still exists.

It was unconscious at the outset. You first need those two interpretations before you can switch between them.

Actually, though we were not aware of it, we already made a choice as to how to see the picture. One needn't be prevented from making a choice, just because he or she does not know the alternative. Just like one may pick one present over the other even though one doesn't know what is inside the other. Choice is ingrained in the very act of interpretation. And yes, we can't interpret any which way because our field of choice is limited. But, to the degree we have the capacity to choose in any sort of direction, there is choice.

Those predispositions are not by choice, either. If you see lots of snakes, your brain learns to recognize them, and you can't control learning, either. You can influence it, but not control it.

The predispositions themselves are not by choice, but they *condition* our choices. And in a way that is the point.

You don't recognize the snake, you recognize the pattern of a snake. That's a difference.

Yes. But what prompted you to assign this pattern to that of a snake as opposed to that of a rope or a worm? Prior disposition, which had a bearing on... guess what! CHOICE!

False-positive pattern-recognition in an optical stimulus.

Which itself is caused by belief: which is a choice.

You recognize the pattern of a snake, you think it's a snake. This has nothing to do with a conscious choice.

It does. Why should you prefer the idea of a snake over any other thing? It's because you choose that interpretation beforehand.

But prior to the belief in seeing something, you must have an idea of what this thing is. Before you can believe you saw a snake, you must have an idea of what a snake is.

My whole point really is the negative feedback loop constructed by belief. You have the belief in a snake, firstly, and that then augments and confirms the appearance of a snake with all its concomitant features. This then looks real and feeds into the perception of a snake. Which causes greater belief and thereafter greater projection.

All the time, yes, but not about everything. You can't choose whether your heart stops beating, or whether you want to see or not. In the same vain, you can't choose whether you want to recognize something or not. It's an automated function of your brain.

When it comes to INTERPRETATION, not sense perception, everything is a choice. You can see a sideways square as a sideways square or a diamond. It is always your choice as to how to perceive reality. Always.

You talked about seeing snakes, and you claimed that one can choose whether he sees a snake or not. Well, I'm telling you, you can't choose whether you see snakes or not, you just see them.

And I am telling you that, regardless what your sense inputs "tell" you, you can interpret those sense inputs in a different way.

No, they aren't. I intended to demonstrate to you that just because you do something doesn't mean it's your choice.

Nope, still moot. Projection makes perception. It is not having to do with the senses impinging on the mind but your own attitude about the mind.

Yes, we are always questioning, but how does that support your point?

I should also say we are always interpreting. In that, there is a constant questioning going on.

You claim the belief came before the idea, but how can you believe something if you have no idea what it is? According to you, we would have to consciously make the choice to believe something before we could get an idea what it is, but how can you choose to believe in something if you don't know what it is, i.e. if you have no idea what it is?

In short, we made it up.

Yes, interpretation is choice, but before we can consciously interpret something, we need an idea. How can you interpret two intersecting rectangles as a cross if you have no idea what a cross is?

We confabulate one.

Wait, how can a choice lend itself into a projection?

"You are stupid!" We keep telling ourselves this until we believe it.

I was trying to tell you that the desire to be, i.e. self-preservation, can't be directly controlled, merely influenced.

It's not about desire again. It's about will. Conscious, reflective, choice.

I hope I made myself clear this time.

You did your best, I suppose. And I realized myself, that I should try harder to elucidate exactly what I mean. So, thank you.

 

[Gottservant]

Which are you most likely to get a compliment for?

 

[WonderBeat]

A type of Hinduism you mean?

Quite.

No, I just think the world exists and I have little reason to think otherwise. I wouldn't say I'm afraid.

Deep down, we all are or were. Otherwise we wouldn't be projecting.....

That must make thinking about what you believe rather difficult.

Actually, it simplifies everything to ONE. All you have to do is peel the onions then.

Didn't think it would be.

In a way it is and it is not. The key is SURRENDER.

We may have to agree to disagree.

I see no reason to disagree with something that is an illusion. Like arguments.

 

[quatona]

An idea is something we regard as being in reality.

Personally, I don´t.

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

Well, yes, possibly you can say some level of existence depending on how much you stretch the definition of "existence".
Anyway, since I was seeking clarification about your distinction between ideas and beliefs, I´m even more confused when you tell me that an "idea is somthing we believe...".

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

I don´t think that I conceive of ideas. That´s wordsalad. Ideas are conceptions of reality.

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.

Ah, I think I understand a bit better which distinction you are trying to make. Personally, I don´t seem to have use for such a distinction. It doesn´t fit anywhere in my ideas/beliefs.

For further clarification: This model of yours about ideas having more existence than beliefs - would that be an idea or a belief in your terminology?

 

[WonderBeat]

Personally, I don´t.

Well, yes, possibly you can say some level of existence depending on how much you stretch the definition of "existence".

If ideas were not in reality, there would be no way to discover (remember) them.

Anyway, since I was seeking clarification about your distinction between ideas and beliefs, I´m even more confused when you tell me that an "idea is somthing we believe...".

We believe ideas into existence. People have it the other way around. It's all a projection.

I don´t think that I conceive of ideas. That´s wordsalad. Ideas are conceptions of reality.

You have it backwards. Reality conceives of ideas.

Ah, I think I understand a bit better which distinction you are trying to make. Personally, I don´t seem to have use for such a distinction. It doesn´t fit anywhere in my ideas/beliefs.

That's fine. I'm just giving you this skeleton key to unlock the truth, as is.

For further clarification: This model of yours about ideas having more existence than beliefs - would that be an idea or a belief in your terminology?

If we regard it a certain way it is a belief. The actual content is the idea.

 

[quatona]

If ideas were not in reality, there would be no way to discover (remember) them.

Well, I don´t think of ideas as something we discover, I think of them as something we create.

We believe ideas into existence.
[...]
You have it backwards. Reality conceives of ideas.

Not sure what it is you want to say here. The two statements seem to say the opposite of each other.

That's fine. I'm just giving you this skeleton key to unlock the truth, as is.

That´s very generous of you, great master of the truth! I'm proud you consider me worthy of being your student.

If we regard it a certain way it is a belief. The actual content is the idea.

I still can´t seem to make sense of this terminology/distinction.

 

[WonderBeat]

Perhaps another illustration will better represent what it is I am saying!

Do the ears hear? Does the tongue taste? Do the eyes see? Is it the case that they serve as mechanisms purely of input? Our is it rather that they project what we hear ear, see and taste? In other words, things are actually reversed. It is not that there is a world "out there" that we are accessing through our senses. Rather, our senses themselves project us into a world of the senses.

"I believe, I think, I feel" notice the primacy of the 'I' in all these matters. Without this eye, there would be no subject to feel, to gather input. My point is, this subject does not gather input. He projects it, and in the current of projection, experiences it in the form of a negative feedback loop based on belief.

 

[quatona]

Perhaps another illustration will better represent what it is I am saying!

Do the ears hear? Does the tongue taste? Do the eyes see? Is it the case that they serve as mechanisms purely of input? Our is it rather that they project what we hear ear, see and taste?

I see no reason to think they aren´t "purely" the first nor "purely" the latter.

It is not that there is a world "out there" that we are accessing through our senses. Rather, our senses themselves project us into a world of the senses.

Then the world "senses" would be poorly chosen to describe this scenario.

"I believe, I think, I feel" notice the primacy of the 'I' in all these matters. Without this eye, there would be no subject to feel, to gather input. My point is, this subject does not gather input. He projects it, and in the current of projection, experiences it in the form of a negative feedback loop based on belief.

I think I understand what you are trying to say (although not necessarily agreeing: I fail to see how "there is nothing out there" follows from the - undisputed - fact that our perception plays an active part in what our sense tell us, and how they shape the input). What I still don´t seem to understand is: How does that allow for your assertions that "ideas" exist beyond ourselves? Actually, your scenario suggests the opposite. Also, the differenciation between "ideas" and "beliefs" seems to become ever less convincing the more you elaborate on your worldview.

 

[Davian]

You believe you know it. And that is where conscious choice comes in.

Choice still exists.

Actually, though we were not aware of it, we already made a choice as to how to see the picture. One needn't be prevented from making a choice, just because he or she does not know the alternative. Just like one may pick one present over the other even though one doesn't know what is inside the other. Choice is ingrained in the very act of interpretation. And yes, we can't interpret any which way because our field of choice is limited. But, to the degree we have the capacity to choose in any sort of direction, there is choice.

The predispositions themselves are not by choice, but they *condition* our choices. And in a way that is the point.

Yes. But what prompted you to assign this pattern to that of a snake as opposed to that of a rope or a worm? Prior disposition, which had a bearing on... guess what! CHOICE!

Which itself is caused by belief: which is a choice.

It does. Why should you prefer the idea of a snake over any other thing? It's because you choose that interpretation beforehand.

My whole point really is the negative feedback loop constructed by belief. You have the belief in a snake, firstly, and that then augments and confirms the appearance of a snake with all its concomitant features. This then looks real and feeds into the perception of a snake. Which causes greater belief and thereafter greater projection.

When it comes to INTERPRETATION, not sense perception, everything is a choice. You can see a sideways square as a sideways square or a diamond. It is always your choice as to how to perceive reality. Always.

And I am telling you that, regardless what your sense inputs "tell" you, you can interpret those sense inputs in a different way.
...

Have you, or anyone you know, ever suffered from motion sickness? Was that a choice?

 

[WonderBeat]

Have you, or anyone you know, ever suffered from motion sickness? Was that a choice?

Yes. The choice is about the mind. We are responsible for all we experience and feel.

 

[Davian]

Yes. The choice is about the mind. We are responsible for all we experience and feel.

I have never met anyone, including myself, who could consciously choose to experience or not experience motion sickness.

Why did you choose to experience motion sickness? Can you choose not to, when the conditions might warrant it?