To believe something is to accept it as true. This might be time-constrained, or otherwise constrained, but the basic core is acceptance.

To believe something is to accept it as true. — Pattern-chaser

But I wouldn't say I ever do that with fictions.

But I wouldn't say I ever do that with fictions. — Terrapin Station

Then you may be getting less from your reading (watching too?) than others do? :chin:

Then you may be getting less from your reading (watching too?) than others do? — Pattern-chaser

Well, or something different. I just enjoy fantasizing/imagining things. Other people are somehow thinking they're true and not fantasy/imagination, which is different.

If you truly immerse yourself in a story, and its world, you might start to think in terms of the story and its environment being real, and what the consequences might be. You can sometimes make connections that you might miss otherwise. You can recognise perspectives that are helpful to you in other matters. It may be fiction, but it isn't necessarily unhelpful in understanding some aspects of the real world. Flexibility of thought. Just one of many tools.

If you truly immerse yourself in a story, and its world, you might start to think in terms of the story and its environment being real, and what the consequences might be. — Pattern-chaser

You can just do that via imagination, without thinking that it's real.

Again, I'm just curious about what you have in mind.

It seems like maybe we're using "belief" differently. — Terrapin Station

Of course it's belief. It's acceptance of the story, and the world wherein it takes place, for the duration of that story. This is NOT worth disputing to this degree. It's a side-point of a side-point. Let's leave it here. — Pattern-chaser

As many philosophers have already pointed out (Kendall Walton for example) you don't actually believe fiction you're engaging with. If you did, then watching The Green Slime would send you screaming from the room, seeking help and safety.

Walton also points out, that (for example) when you're playing monster with a little kid, you can tell the moment they forget they're just imagining, because they go from smiling and laughing and shrieking in pretend terror to crying and being actually upset.

If you truly immerse yourself in a story, and its world, you might start to think in terms of the story and its environment being real, — Pattern-chaser

That's how we wind up with stuff like Scientology.

As many philosophers have already pointed out (Kendall Walton for example) you don't actually believe fiction you're engaging with. — Artemis

I wouldn't doubt that maybe some people actually believe fictions in some way. It just seemed unusual to me, so that's why I was trying to figure out just what it amounted to, but pattern-chaser took me to be wanting to argue with him rather than trying to understand his experiences, his point of view.

That's something else I hate about the "arguing culture" of boards like this. It can make it almost impossible to have an exchange with someone where they don't figure that you're trying to debate with them.

That's how we wind up with stuff like Scientology. — Artemis

Not all the ideas resulting from a creative excursion are good ideas. :wink:

So, then, as Cosmic and Biological evolution was not instant, but rather took such a long time, the supposed Deity or Theity couldn't create all at once, as well as it being problematic that He could foresee and seed all the developments that would lead toward life, this in addition to the quandary of a Mind System being able to precede all else, given that systems always have parts.

I wouldn't doubt that maybe some people actually believe fictions in some way. — Terrapin Station

In what way?
Sure, some people who read Tolkien might believe theoretically in magic or elves or stuff like that, but do they believe LoR is a historical account of a real world?

Not all the ideas resulting from a creative excursion are good ideas. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Not when you believe fiction to be a true account of history.

In what way? — Artemis

It would best be described by someone for whom this is the case. Pattern-chaser seemed to be saying it's the case for him.

Pattern-chaser seemed to be saying it's the case for him. — Terrapin Station

Just cause he says it, doesn't make it so.
I think he's confusing imagination, suspension of disbelief and actual belief.

I've lost some of my ability to defend myself from attacks on my atheistic beliefs. — Purple Pond

Finally, the dialog comes to an end:

So, my friend, how is 'God' standing now?

He is teetering on the edge of non-existence, given that complexity can't be Fundamental/First; I cling to the notion somewhat less, I guess.

What would the Fundamental basis really be like, given not anything could have gone into it?

Random, such as QM suggests.

Indeed, Anton Zeilinger has confirmed that randomness is the bedrock of reality to several sigma. Now what?

The Fundamental cannot be anything in particular. God cannot be random; God has faded.

It was a nice wish—for whatever good would have come out of it.

Yeah.

Sure, some people who read Tolkien might believe theoretically in magic or elves or stuff like that, but do they believe LoR is a historical account of a real world? — Artemis

Straw man. No, of course they don't.

Not when you believe fiction to be a true account of history. — Artemis

Straw man.

I think he's confusing imagination, suspension of disbelief and actual belief. — Artemis

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: You could be right, but I don't think so. Instead of creating nonsense to counter, why not read what was said?

Whenever we think with the aims of discovery and exploration, there is an imaginative phase where we deliberately suspend disbelief. Edward de Bono's hats describe this well. [ And yes, there is a more formally critical hat [ Black ] that succeeds the imaginative one [ Green ], so there's no need to point this out. ] — Pattern-chaser

[Additions in bold.]

Flexibility of thought isn't easy to learn, if you're not used to it. And its utility is limited: it only applies when you're seeking something new. This might be discovery, where we're just looking to understand something new, or whatever. But more often it's when we have a problem to solve, one that hasn't been solved before; a new problem.

What de Bono has published in recent years isn't new, but he was the first to gather this stuff together, stuff that creative thinkers have worked out over many years, structure it and write it down for others to benefit from. He deserves the praise.

Flexible thinking - which could be called creative thinking, and which de Bono calls "lateral thinking" -
is what we do when we're looking to create something new. I spent my professional life doing this, as a firmware designer. So techniques that others rarely used, I employed all the time. I have a lifetime's training in flexible thinking, for which I am immensely grateful.

So, returning to the story example, I do believe the story, its world and its other premises, while I read it. In traditional language, I "suspend disbelief". When I'm not reading it, there is no thought in my mind that (for example) Tolkien's elves are part of the space-time universe! No-one has asserted, or even suggested, such nonsense! To suggest otherwise is a trivial straw man, as I commented above.

If one is not a designer, or a member of another creative profession, flexible thinking might seem foreign; odd. To someone like an analytical philosopher, who has worked very hard to develop a formal and rigid understanding of things, flexible thinking can be so alarming that some might be tempted to dismiss such 'twaddle' with straw men, and the ridicule that concludes the straw man sequence.

But I think it's the case that sometimes flexible thinking is the order of the day, while at other times, some structure or rigour is more appropriate. For (mental) voyages of exploration and discovery, flexible thinking will get you there. To determine if the results of flexible thinking are usable in practice - to evaluate a Green hat idea - we need a formal critique, for which we don the Black hat.

If you can imagine a style of thinking, you can probably also imagine a situation where it might be the most appropriate tool for the job. Rigid and rigorous thinking has its place, but so does flexibility. There is no One Tool for all jobs, so I don't understand the resistance I'm seeing here to what is, in the end, just a way of thinking. There is no need to act as if this new way of thinking is offered to replace existing ways! It is not. Such an offer would contribute nothing. If you give me a screwdriver, I won't immediately throw my hammer away. I'll keep both, and use both, as the job requires.

More specifically, where are the 'old-fashioned atheists' nowadays who can provide me with the intellectual tools to reinforce my atheistic beliefs? — Purple Pond

There is an old-fashioned atheist that once rebelled, and was cast out and unto the Earth. Perhaps he may advise you?

Though I wonder what would ensue if you took out the theism from atheism?
Anarchy? Apathy? What do you think?

So, returning to the story example, I do believe the story, its world and its other premises, while I read it. — Pattern-chaser

So, while you read it, do you believe "theoretically in magic or elves or stuff like that"?

Oh no, I believe in practice that magic and elves exist. For the duration of the story.

So the sticking point was just his word "theoretically"?

No, I can't see a sticking point, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's actually believing something ... and then setting it aside. Temporary belief is the problem, would you agree?

No, I can't see a sticking point, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's actually believing something ... and then setting it aside. Temporary belief is the problem, would you agree? — Pattern-chaser

Ummm . . . hmm--I don't think I understand what you're asking. :confused:

You mentioned a sticking point. I wondered if it was that the belief I describe is temporary? :chin:

When I read a story - a good story; a poor one simply doesn't captivate as a good one does - I immerse myself in it. I accept its 'reality' and its magic. And I don't mean the magic of Gandalf, I mean the glamour of a good story. When I've finished, so is my belief in the world and the characters of the story. But while I'm within the story, I believe. I can't believe that's unique among readers? :chin:

So how do you explain not running from the Green Slime when watching a horror movie? If you, even temporarily, believe the Slime to be real, then you'd run for the hills, or smash your tv with a baseball bat, or some other safety maneuvers rather than sit their and munch your popcorn.

Because suspension of belief is what it says. Although I believe the story, there are limits. So I remain aware, in your example, that the Green Slime isn't actually threatening me. Let's not get too formal about this. Suspending disbelief is a pretence, after all. And the distraction you mention is a downside. You can't disbelieve everything, which may be why many readers say they prefer a book to a film. As a reader, I might comment that the colour is better in a book than a film - :smile: - but it may be that a film is more likely to eject you from the 'reality' of the book and its story, as you describe, detracting from the story and our enjoyment of it. :chin:

So you don't actually fully believe the story you're reading. You just mildly believe it? Or semi-believe it? Or almost believe? Or only kinda believe?

Getting back to your original contention: thus I was perfectly correct in stating that I even as a child never actually believed illogical things without losing the ability to imagine them, because those are two entirely different forms of belief (if you want to stick with the word belief, which I still think is wrong, but we can call it "semi-belief" for the sake of the argument).

Even better: pretend belief. I'm only pretending to believe for the duration of the book.

Why do people cry during films if there isn't some element to where you actually believe that the film is happening? If temporarily believing that the film is actually happening is delusional, shouldn't you say to someone who is crying at the climax of The Titanic, "You must know that Jack is not a real person, he's played by the actor Leonardo DiCaprio who is not currently descending to a watery abyss and who, I am sure, is alive and well and probably working on another feature film." I missed a decent portion of this debate, but don't know that you can really say that you don't epheremally believe in the media that you engage with whilst doing so. Zizek has this thing about Scanners about how you are who you pretend to be. There is no difference between the Self that you are and the roles that you enact. I don't quite know how I feel about that, but I feel like you really do believe that the film is happening while you watch it if you engage with the media in the manner in which you are intended to. Some film, of course, is intended to considered abstractly.