We Don't Want To Believe - Because, If We Believe, Then...

BrianW

This is based on the art of subjective acceptance (partial self-blindness) of which we humans are masters of.

So, there's this guy who claims to be able to read minds. He has a friend who claims to be able to transcribe normal speech into text. They undertake an experiment where they are both filmed performing their crafts on/for various men. By the by, upon processing of the data collected, it is seen that of the men engaged by the mind-reader, there was a lot of positive reviews concerning the ability to figure out their thoughts including close approximations. Overall, the mind-reader had an 83% success rate (a combination of exactness and close approximations) which translated to 69% of exactness and 14% of close approximations. On the other hand, the transcriber also got somewhat positive reviews with a 78% success rate which included 67% exactness and 11% of close approximations.

From that, it is clear none of them is the best at their asserted abilities. Later on, the videos are shown to a random selection of audience. The audience are then asked whether they believe in mind-reading and a clear majority (93%) answer in the negative. The remaining 7% state that their belief is tentative and is mainly based on their unwillingness to accept complete certainty. For them, the devil may exist, there may be gods such zeus and odin, and perhaps a race of people living beneath the earth's surface is possible, too. They can't not believe in things just as they believe in things but not completely. It is quite the balance. However, everybody believes in the transcriber. As to the lower scores, they believe that with practice the ability can be improved.

So, why don't the audience believe in mind-reading despite a video showing its occurrence? Some of the reasons given were, the video could have been staged, the targets could have been manipulated, mind-reading doesn't exist, if he could read minds why didn't he get everything right, etc etc. All genuine reasons and rationale were explored. However, nobody questioned the ability of the transcriber beyond the allocated scores. Nobody thought that the video could have been staged despite the fact that none of them read or even saw the actual transcripts. And, while 70% of them had never met a transcriber, they were sure transcribing was a valid capability because they had all gone through school and had sometimes taken notes in much the same way.

Then they were asked whether they had at any time in their lives guessed or approximated someone's/anyone's thoughts, moods, behaviour, character, etc. And they all answered to the positive because they had close relations with whom (friends and family), due to the closeness, there was a certain level of familiarity and understanding, which bestowed upon them the capability to approximate their thoughts, moods, etc and often correctly. Asked if it was possible for someone to gather and process such information as they used but in a quicker way, they had to concede that it was possible. Asked whether such didn't qualify as mind-reading, again the majority (79%) gave a definitive negative. The reason for why some of them changed their stance was given to be that, to them the definition of mind-reading was somewhat altered by that latter exposition. But the majority still gave the same reasons as earlier on why they maintained their stance.

Finally, these last group of the audience who refused to accept the possibility of mind-reading were asked why they didn't think it was possible since they had agreed to having read minds, moods, behaviour, etc. Their reply was that such was not mind-reading, instead it was just knowing stuff about people. They explained that mind-reading, if possible, would be something mystical/supernatural. Asked whether the mind was something mystical/supernatural, they conceded it was not. Asked whether since the mind was a natural and common phenomenon/faculty present in everyone, could it be engaged with just as our bodies? At this point a new argument arose which put a pause to the proceedings for fear of diverging too far from the premise. The new argument was that the mind was different from the body and could not be expected to be engaged with as an object/subject of practical investigation, that such an analogy was misleading.

So, what do you think?

BC

I'm not interested in mind reading or minds separate from bodies. Have you ever noticed that fortune tellers never predict that one's life is going to be as boring in the future as it has been in the past? Bad for business.

But I have been reading a not-very-good-book, Title: Gargoyles; author: Ben Hecht***; published: 1922. The set of Chicago characters are chock full of little self-deceptions of various kinds. They often find their words, actions, even their thoughts, to be problematic because they sense that if they are not careful of what they say, do, or think some ugly truth might be revealed to themselves or others.

One character, a widow, having recovered from grief (or at least the habit of living with a husband) has become ambitious. She engages in many charitable fund raising causes, because the fundraising activity serves as a means for her petit bourgeoisie self advancement. She is unusual in that she knows full well that she doesn't give a rat's ass (my phrase, not hers) about the prospective beneficiaries of her charitable work. She admits to herself that they are generally a disgusting lot. She doesn't particularly like the other women she must work with either, especially those who out-rank her socially.

But the widow is unusually honest with herself. Most of the characters engage in all sorts of petty self-deceptions to maintain their self-images. Those who aren't good at this game suffer.

"We Don't Want To Believe - Because, If We Believe, Then..." we might have to deal with inconvenient realities. We won't be honest with ourselves, usually. We may prefer to lead lives of sexual abandon, but don't want to admit it. Instead we maintain a front of sexual probity. Or, like one of the characters in Gargoyles, actually leads a life of sexual gluttony but not without various self-inflicted prevarications.

A lot of people (everyone?) play elaborate games to avoid the inconvenience of truth. Our image is more important than the raw facts.

***Gone with the Wind, Scarface (1983), Notorious (1946) and Spellbound (1945) are some of the movies Hecht wrote scripts for.

BrianW

↪Bitter Crank

I agree with you (the story in the OP is just to serve as an example of how people work against inconvenient realities and such). Most people fight for their beliefs not because they understand them or on the merit of the belief's integrity but because they hope to convince themselves that they are right to believe. For most people beliefs have to be ultimate and incontrovertible even when they consider themselves fallible humans. These people, when they believe, they enslave themselves to those beliefs. Weirdly enough, being fallible should be one of the best things to happen to anyone. Because, they can undo and redo things. In some interesting way, being fallible means there are no real limits because they are temporary and soon to be undone.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!

Merkwurdichliebe

This is based on the art of subjective acceptance (partial self-blindness) of which we humans are masters of. — BrianW

Whenever I think of subjectivity, I'm always reminded of the scene in Fight Club: "You don't know where I've been, Lou. You don't know where I've been!!!

TheMadFool

↪BrianW

With the right amount of information we may be able to predict and know other people's thoughts i.e. read minds. Isn't that what stage magicians do? I thought this was common knowledge.

BrianW

Isn't that what stage magicians do? I thought this was common knowledge. — TheMadFool

But how many people believe in that kind of 'magic'. To most people it's always a setup especially considering the other stuff that accompany such 'magic'. Anyway, one of my points is that, if humans are natural, then they cannot perform supernatural activities. Is there anything perceived by humans that is actually beyond the purview of nature? And, by what means would those people have acquired such information considering they are bound within the limits of the laws of nature?

My point is to challenge human belief because it seems we often misrepresent ourselves when we represent our beliefs.

Frank Apisa

BrianW
723

Isn't that what stage magicians do? I thought this was common knowledge. — TheMadFool

But how many people believe in that kind of 'magic'. To most people it's always a setup especially considering the other stuff that accompany such 'magic'. Anyway, one of my points is that, if humans are natural, then they cannot perform supernatural activities. Is there anything perceived by humans that is actually beyond the purview of nature? And, by what means would those people have acquired such information considering they are bound within the limits of the laws of nature?

My point is to challenge human belief because it seems we often misrepresent ourselves when we represent our beliefs. — BrianW

Mostly, our "beliefs" are nothing but blind guesses which we call "beliefs" so that we do not have to acknowledge they are merely guesses.

I do not do "believing."

Merkwurdichliebe

I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa

I do not do "doing". Oops, I did it. :snicker:

BrianW

I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa

Don't you have any convictions, however simple or complex they are?
Don't you have a frame of reference for your information, perception, conception, knowledge and understanding?

The reason I ask is because even before we assert belief in the fantastic and preposterous, there is also a level of belief that is decent and natural in its application. What I'm saying is that, belief isn't necessarily something to do away with, rather it should be worked upon the way we would any other part of our faculty of consciousness.

Shamshir

Mostly, our "beliefs" are nothing but blind guesses which we call "beliefs" so that we do not have to acknowledge they are merely guesses. — Frank Apisa

Or they're just acceptance of experience.

So, what do you think? — BrianW

I think that the issue arises from an unnecessary segregation of things in to the categories of 'scientific' and 'magical'. A segregation that exploits the herd instinct.

As Arthur Clarke points out, such a segregation is based on misunderstanding.

Merkwurdichliebe

↪BrianW

How close is thought to belief?

BrianW

I think that the issue arises from an unnecessary segregation of things in to the categories of 'scientific' and 'magical'. A segregation that exploits the herd instinct.

As Arthur Clarke points out, such a segregation is based on misunderstanding. — Shamshir

Yes, I think so too.

BrianW

How close is thought to belief? — Merkwurdichliebe

My hypothesis would be that thought approaches belief as its [perceived] resultant outcome approaches certainty.

Merkwurdichliebe

My hypothesis would be that thought approaches belief as its resultant outcome approaches certainty. — BrianW

Mine would be that belief is the power of thought to express infinite possibility.

I think that this is something we could possibly discuss as civilized primates. :grin:

Frank Apisa

BrianW
724

I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa

Don't you have any convictions, however simple or complex they are? — BrianW

Yeah, I do. I call my convictions...my convictions. I do not disguise my convictions by calling them my "beliefs."

Don't you have a frame of reference for your information, perception, conception, knowledge and understanding?

Yes, II do. I call my frame of reference for information, my perceptions, my conceptions, my knowledge and my understanding...my frame of reference, my perceptions, my conceptions, my knowledge and my understanding.

I do not disguise those things by calling them my "beliefs."

The reason I ask is because even before we assert belief in the fantastic and preposterous, there is also a level of belief that is decent and natural in its application. What I'm saying is that, belief isn't necessarily something to do away with, rather it should be worked upon the way we would any other part of our faculty of consciousness.

With all the respect in the world, I ask you to consider whether your use of the word "beliefs" for all those things are possibly just a disguise.

For instance, if one says, "I 'believe' (in) God"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that at least one god exists in the REALITY of existence?"

If one says, "I believe there are no gods"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that no gods exist in the REALITY of existence?"

Frank Apisa

Shamshir
173

Mostly, our "beliefs" are nothing but blind guesses which we call "beliefs" so that we do not have to acknowledge they are merely guesses. — Frank Apisa

Or they're just acceptance of experience. — Shamshir

Could be.

If they are guesses...we should call them guesses.

If they are "acceptance of experience"...we should call them "acceptance of experience."

Just my opinion.

TheMadFool

↪BrianW

One doesn't have to break the laws of nature to mind-read. For example if I know you like carrots then I can predict that Bugs Bunny will make you hungry. This is a very simple example but we can always extrapolate that to more complex things.

BrianW

I do not disguise those things by calling them my "beliefs." — Frank Apisa

What is belief other than those convictions and frames of reference in consciousness?

For instance, if one says, "I 'believe' (in) God"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that at least one god exists in the REALITY of existence?"

If one says, "I believe there are no gods"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that no gods exist in the REALITY of existence?" — Frank Apisa

Belief is not absolute. Human understanding is not perfect therefore their beliefs cannot be measured by the absolute standard of truth. Our convictions can fail us; our frames of reference can be inadequate - yet they distinctly retain those identities and applications. That's why I said they should be worked on just as we work on scientific knowledge or any other aspect of our faculty of consciousness.

BrianW

↪TheMadFool

I agree.

Shamshir

Could be.

If they are guesses...we should call them guesses.

If they are "acceptance of experience"...we should call them "acceptance of experience."

Just my opinion. — Frank Apisa

Or we can just stick to beliefs.

As what even is a belief? A thought you are confident in.
The thought that you don't believe, is ironically a belief.
All our knowledge, guesses, experience - are also beliefs of sorts.

And I don't see why you attest that beliefs are blind guesses and leave yourself so distraught over it.
Because when you say "I DO NOT DO BELIEVING", all you're saying is "GUESSES AREN'T ENOUGH FOR ME"; which is fine.

@BrianW Pardon the derailing, buddy.

BrianW

Mine would be that belief is the power of thought to express infinite possibility. — Merkwurdichliebe

This may be a good working theory though I don't know if human beliefs which are relative and limited, can be used to relate to or express an absolute such as "infinite possibility".

TheMadFool

↪BrianW

There's a Buddhist tale about a competition between a clairvoyant and a Buddhist master (a scientist approximately). Each of them were asked to determin the color of the forehead of an unborn cattle. The clairvoyant went first and seeing white said the forehead was white. It was now the turn of the master and he, knowing biology well realized that the tail of the calf was curled onto the forehead, said the forehead wasn't white but the tail was. When the calf was born it turned out that the Buddhist master was right.

BrianW

↪TheMadFool

Perception vs knowledge... I LOVE IT!!! :up:

Terrapin Station

He has a friend who claims to be able to transcribe normal speech into text. — BrianW

??? Who wouldn't be able to do that if they're literate? Someone says, "Hey Joe--where you going with that gun in your hand?" You should be able to transcribe that to text.

Re the mind-reading stuff, since there are good reasons to believe that it wouldn't be possible, it would need to be tested in a controlled setting. If we had verifiable results in a controlled experimental setting, then probably people would be a lot more likely to believe it.

I'd have to see the video in question to assess it in any manner.

Relativist

The issue is that our evaluations are colored by our background beliefs. Established beliefs are not easily overturned. This is largely because our beliefs tend ti be interrelated. It is not just that I hold the belief "mindreading is probably physically impossible", as an isolated proposition. Rather, in mycase, my belief in that proposition relates to my beliefs about the nature of minds. For example, memories seem to be patterns in the neural networks of the brain. Even if the potentials of neurons in another's brain could be measured, these would not carry meaning.

Others may believe mindreading is impossible because 1. they can't do it. & 2. it has never been confirmed that anyone can do it. & 3. When it has been investigated, it has been shown to be a trick.
Therefore a single instance of a person with this alleged power is insufficient to negate the prior belief. However, I would suggest that if the alleged mindreader were to read my mind, that would be entirely different. That could be convincing.

I don't know if this was your intent, but this is similar to discussions I've had with Christians about miracles. I believe it highly unlikely that miracles (violations of the laws of nature) occur. No allegged miracle has been objectively confirmed, and many have been shown to be false, and many believers have been shown to have been duped. On the other hand, if I were to personally experience an unequivocal miracle, I could change my mind.

BlueBanana

↪Frank Apisa

That's similar to stating that I don't have limbs - I have arms and legs, and I don't need to disguise them as anything else by using hypernyms or umbrella terms.

Frank Apisa

BrianW
735

I do not disguise those things by calling them my "beliefs." — Frank Apisa

What is belief other than those convictions and frames of reference in consciousness?

For instance, if one says, "I 'believe' (in) God"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that at least one god exists in the REALITY of existence?"

If one says, "I believe there are no gods"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that no gods exist in the REALITY of existence?" — Frank Apisa

Belief is not absolute. Human understanding is not perfect therefore their beliefs cannot be measured by the absolute standard of truth. Our convictions can fail us; our frames of reference can be inadequate - yet they distinctly retain those identities and applications. That's why I said they should be worked on just as we work on scientific knowledge or any other aspect of our faculty of consciousness. — BrianW

Brian...what do I have to do to spell this out for you?

I DO NOT DO BELIEVING.

I do understanding; guessing; supposing; estimating...and all that kind of stuff that others call "believing."

But I call my guesses, suppositions, and estimations...guesses, suppositions and estimations.

I DO NOT EVER CALL THEM BELIEFS.

So...I do not do believing.

If you are wondering if I do guesses and suppositions and estimates and that sort of thing..

...YES, I do.

Frank Apisa

Shamshir
176

Could be.

If they are guesses...we should call them guesses.

If they are "acceptance of experience"...we should call them "acceptance of experience."

Just my opinion. — Frank Apisa

Or we can just stick to beliefs.

As what even is a belief? A thought you are confident in.
The thought that you don't believe, is ironically a belief.
All our knowledge, guesses, experience - are also beliefs of sorts.

And I don't see why you attest that beliefs are blind guesses and leave yourself so distraught over it.
Because when you say "I DO NOT DO BELIEVING", all you're saying is "GUESSES AREN'T ENOUGH FOR ME"; which is fine. — Shamshir

If you want to pretend you guesses are not guesses by calling your guesses "beliefs"...do it.

I don't.

Frank Apisa

Relativist
610
The issue is that our evaluations are colored by our background beliefs. Established beliefs are not easily overturned. This is largely because our beliefs tend ti be interrelated. It is not just that I hold the belief "mindreading is probably physically impossible", as an isolated proposition. Rather, in mycase, my belief in that proposition relates to my beliefs about the nature of minds. For example, memories seem to be patterns in the neural networks of the brain. Even if the potentials of neurons in another's brain could be measured, these would not carry meaning.

Others may believe mindreading is impossible because 1. they can't do it. & 2. it has never been confirmed that anyone can do it. & 3. When it has been investigated, it has been shown to be a trick.
Therefore a single instance of a person with this alleged power is insufficient to negate the prior belief. However, I would suggest that if the alleged mindreader were to read my mind, that would be entirely different. That could be convincing.

I don't know if this was your intent, but this is similar to discussions I've had with Christians about miracles. I believe it highly unlikely that miracles (violations of the laws of nature) occur. No allegged miracle has been objectively confirmed, and many have been shown to be false, and many believers have been shown to have been duped. On the other hand, if I were to personally experience an unequivocal miracle, I could change my mind. — Relativist

Some people guess mindreading is possible; some guess it is not possible.

Both are guessing.

Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief."

BrianW

Brian...what do I have to do to spell this out for you? — Frank Apisa

What's in a name?
A rose by any other name...

Relativist

Some people guess mindreading is possible; some guess it is not possible.

Both are guessing.

Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief." — Frank Apisa

As previously discussed. I use the terminology different than you. Note how I worded my belief: "mindreading is probably physically impossible".

My beliefs are not certainties, but they are justified- based on other beliefs. Happy to discuss, if you're willing to discuss in my terms or you can provide a lexicon for yours.

Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief." — Frank Apisa

Pick up a good book on epistemology, and see if there's something that can't be covered using the common words. Or just ask what I mean in a given instance.

We Don't Want To Believe - Because, If We Believe, Then...

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories