That's what I've been getting at: Seemingly conscious and rational decisions actually being made on a subconscious level. Lets take an example: Say a professor is studying a new scientific theory to decide whether he thinks it's correct or not. After studying it he concludes that it's not true. Now you'd think that he has made a conscious choice but he actually hasn't. See to him all his research can only lead to the conclusion that the theory is false. From his point of view there's only one answer that makes sense so their is no choice involved.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I find psychology fascinating. I think though that a fair amount of what you're talking about depends greatly on life experience and personality type as well. You can't just tie it up in a pretty bow in a one-size-fits-all box (not that you were at all suggesting that you could). Lots of people grow up with certain beliefs and keep them, just as many grow up and decide they're not for them. Some things you DO consciously change because you have to, for health, for a better life, etc. Even things you don't want to, and eventually you become somewhat like a pavlovian dog and you just have to do it. Doing anything else seems unnatural. Like eating healthy, quitting smoking, etc. The same can be true for nearly all things. It does greatly depend on personality though I think as to how you get there. Such as to change my beliefs (say, to make me beat a child) you could hold a gun to my head. Nope not gonna do it. You can tell me that I can't say that because if I haven't been in that situation I don't know, and I'll tell you that you haven't lived my life and I can tell you unequivocally that I wouldn't do it even with a gun to my head. Now hold a gun to the head of someone I love and you may very well get a different answer. Does that make me a hypocrite? In some peoples eyes it may. That's fine. What it means though is that I know ME beyond a shadow of a doubt and what I am and am not capable of and having someone else die because of my actions is not one of them. I will beat someone (yes, even a child though it would shatter me no doubt) so that someone else will live and I myself will die to not beat someone who is innocent. Most people don't know themselves that well.
There is a difference between the unconscious having an impact on the decisions we make and, OTOH, being the sole determinant of those decisions. Sometimes we consciously override a decision our unconscious has made. Modern literature is strewn with stories that deal with variations on those two themes.
So if I say 2+2=4 is true, there is only one answer, I've already subconciously decided and that's the end of it. Never mind that if I lay 2 apples to my left and 2 apples to my right then move them together and count again it adds up to 4? I'm brainwashed?
Well exactly. You could still beat the child, but it wouldn't make you think it was right. Just as if I went to church I wouldn't become a christian. There's a difference between the face we show to the world and our true selves and it's the latter that matters when it comes to this debate.
Psychology is truly fascinating. You just pluck what you want out of whatever it is I say....... Did you miss the part about pavlovian dogs? You can be conditioned. Enough of beating the child and it would seem normal. I used healthy examples in what I said but I think throughout history there have been enough examples of unhealthy ones. You can be made different by external forces with correct motivation. Good people can become monsters. I am no better than anyone else. I think you missed the point this time. With the right motivation, the right circumstances, anything can eventually become normal and leave anyone a mere shadow of themselves.
Yes, and I think that life experience shapes that. In the case of religious beliefs, I think that is certainly true. I also think intellectual growth has something to do with it, but not in a way that can be predicted with any kind of reliability. For example, in my own case, I grew up with certain religious beliefs, later rejected many of them, and still later came back to embrace some of them again. I would like to think that in my adulthood, my intellect and my faith have grown together. That's life experience (possibly combined with a sense of self-preservation ). I would probably not make the Pavlovian connection, since Pavlov's work was all about being conditioned by someone else, which is the exact opposite of choice. I would expect that anyone with an ability to be a writer - that is to say, with an ability at observation and understanding of people - would have that kind of self-knowledge, at least once they have grown to maturity. So, I'm not surprised that you do.
Well that's still a subconscious decision isn't. There wouldn't be a point where you said "ok child beating is ok now" it'd just gradually become ingrained into your subconscious that it was right. Also not sure what you were getting at with the apples. I'll admit that I genuinely did miss the point with that post.
you guys are a little off topic LOL and neither one is going to....change their beliefs...on the spot...heheehe so here is what we have so far for after life options: what you believe is where you go you go to heaven or you go to hell you end up in a life long dream created by chemicals in your brain you cease to exist I'm adding another one because a lot of people believe it: reincarnation- where you soul is reborn into another body.
Absolutely untrue. Many people choose to believe something contrary to their knowledge and experience. In your example, the professor could just as easily decide, "Well, the empirical evidence certainly indicates the theory is false, but perhaps the evidence is not complete and we need to test further." The weighing of his research, knowledge and experience is all part of making what is ultimately a conscious and rational decision.
RE: Apple Post - You said a scientist would go in to subconciously disprove a theory. It wouldn't change the facts in front of him would it? Not to say that there aren't unethical scientists who skew results, but the ones who take their jobs seriously would just be shocked when it didn't work out the way they expected. You can't change tangible facts. It's conditioning and I suppose it could be termed subconcious, but I don't think it can because you would know you didn't like it and would resist for a long time (one would hope). At some point it becomes automatic and harder to resist, not anymore right or wrong. Like salivating at the sound of a bell. @ Ed- I disagree with pavlov not being relevant. You can condition yourself the same way pavlov conditioned the dogs. You still get an automatic response to an external stimulus (whether that's an alarm going off, a tv shutting off, a certain ring tone on your phone, the church bell down the street).
That's not really believing something contrary to knowledge and experience. He would still believe the theory was untrue, he'd just be looking for more information that might change that. If he does find some then suddenly the only sensible option to him might be that it's true. But there's still only a single option that makes sense. And what if the theory is for some radical new medicine which can cure all disease. Obviously any decent person would want this to be true. But just because he wants it to he might find a flaw in it which means he doesn't believe. The thing is I know it's impossible for someone to choose their beliefs consciously because I know I can't do it, and my neurological structure is the same as everyone else pretty much. I've tried several times while posting this to see if I can believe in god. I can't.
About the scientific theory example. We're talking about, well a theory here so it's not factual is it. This means it can be interpreted differently. So if someone looks at the data and believes the theory is false they believe this because to them it's the only thing that makes sense. So from their point of view thre is only one option (after all who would believe something they thought was nonsensical.) so no choice is involved. And if someone can't come to a conclusion from the results, to them the only option is that it is neither proven nor dis-proven. Still no choice.
Umm... no I was talking about a scientific theory. Very sorry if I said facts anywhere, I meant data. Theories aren't factual. They can be interpreted differently. Although it's not really relevant it's only the choice the scientist makes that was the focus.
Theories are supported by data which consists of facts that are added up to support or go against said theory. The data (facts) either support it or don't. You can gather more, use different groups, etc. but you can't change the data (facts) you already have.
There is a difference between unproven and untrue. Unproven simply means that, as yet, there isn't enough data on which to make a rational decision. Untrue means that it would have been proven to be untrue. In either case, a conscious decision is required. Maybe someone would make it without carefully reviewing and judging the facts, but that would be one individual. But you state it as a general rule that must be true, which is contrary to anything I've ever read on the subject. You have anything objective to offer? No, your neurological structure may be quite different from everyone else. Some people are obsessive-compulsive, and therefore have greater difficulty working their conscious wills. Some people are manic-depressive. Some people are addictive. Some people are schizophrenic. Some are passive-aggresive. Personality traits, you say? Yes, but all rooted in neurological processes that we still don't completely understand. Moreover, your upbringing and life experiences are bound to be different from at least a large percentage of "everybody else's". In the end, you have decided that just because you don't believe in God, you can't, and because you can't, it must be the result of unconscious factors ONLY, and therefore it must be that way for everyone else. It could be for some, but it isn't for all.
I think that this argument has all become rather convoluted. Basically Trish is saying somebody can choose what they believe. I think this is absurd because I've tried several times during this conversation to choose a belief in god. If what Trish said was true I'd be able to become a Christian on the spot and then switch back. I can't, so to me at least Trish is wrong. Furthermore she's failed to give a straight answer on whether she can do it, instead talking about conditioning and stuff when a simple one sentence answer could solve the entire thing.
Manny pepole can do things others can't, as for you not being able to, the reason is you made a choice to, as you said about the "theory" he has no choice but to change his mind, or so you think, your believe is if you find something may not be true the rest is wrong er go you find something "wrong" with the bible two things that don't go together (trust me your miss reading it or you just believed what someone else told you) As such YOU made a decision to not follow God so in other words you did make a desicsion on the fly and your still sticking to it I have switch form following Good many times back and forth almost spur of the moment Of course you won't change your mind in a blink of an eye but thats true of everything Two friends say the other broke your bike you may believe one or the other, now most of the time you would pick the one you like more or trust more but it don't mean you cant pick the other one and it dose not mean its subcon decisions at all
Okay, to you, I'm wrong. Fair enough. You don't understand what I'm trying to say. That's okay. You don't really seem to understand what Ed's trying to say either since you responded to him (as he explained how your nuerological processes differ from other peoples) about me instead of about what he was trying to say..... And for the record I don't consider this an argument at all. I thought it was just a discussion about beliefs. And also in the interest of trying to steer it back on topic I'll reassert that my personal belief is that we just cease to exist.... (and that I don't think I'll care if I'm wrong cause I'll be dead and stuff )
But I never made a conscious decision to be an atheist. Never did I ever say to myself "I am now an atheist." To me it's all be subconscious. I've never to my memory made a conscious decision on what I believed or how I felt. I just felt that way or believed something like that. I've never said "Ok this guy has made a racist post, I will become angry." I'd just get angry. A decision might have been based on conscious research but at the end of the day it'd be subconscious. So seeing as I've never done any of that my whole life I don't believe it can be done, because when it comes to the bare bones of it people's neurological structure is the same. All those conditions are tiny fluctuations when put into perspective. For me at least belief is not a conscious choice. Apologies for sort of rambling on a bit there. I sort of only answered your question in the first part of your post wolfi. The rest was just a general statement.
The reason I answered to Ed about your post was because I thought that it had really become to convoluted. I didn't think that a discussion on OCD and stuff would further the argument but I have just now posted in reply somewhat.
Okay here is the problem, you think the thinking progress is like that when its not, no one thinks like that (they have one "thought" on top at a time) , even when getting angrry the brain dose not work that way when it comes to beliefs and emotions, but it is a conscious choice after all you can get mad at someone for doing something nice for you, or for trying to help ect but you dont think "Oh I'm mad" (while you can you dont have to think that to be mad) But no you dont "hear" your mind talk about it But you do make a decision Dose not mean its not a conscious choice Another thing the "at the end of the day" not true, cazn you exspalin to me what subconscious is? I think the problem is you think if you dont "hear" the brain think about it it must be subconscious which is not true Not even close, the brain is like a muscle and it gets stronger, weaker and expands certing parts of the neurological thing all the time its why we are so deferent also once again i think you dont know what it means to have a conscious or subconscious thgougts
Okay I admit I'm no neuro-scientist so I'm probably wrong about the brain thing. But lets take the example of me getting angry. When I get angry I can't decide to be happy. I can put up a facade of happiness until I cool off but I'll still be fuming inside. Just as I can't change religion whenever I want. As for what subconscious is it's kind of hard to pin down an exact meaning (which is probably a major source of confusion here.) But it's basically just mental processes I'm not aware of when they happen.
Just because you didn't, or don't think you can do it, doesn't mean that it is automatically universal. And neither Trish nor I said that it could be done "on the spot", or that one can "switch back". In fact, once having decided to embrace a belief, it SHOULD be difficult to switch back. The act of belief is a commitment of the intellect to faith, and they make a powerful combination. I made a conscious, rational decision to embrace my faith as an adult, and I can, if I so choose, list and describe my reasons for doing so. Trish has made a conscious, rational decision to reject faith as an adult, and it appears that she, too, could list and describe her reasons for doing so. So, the two of us prove the falsity of your statement that all such choices are and must be unconscious, beyond the control of conscious intellect.
