Can people choose to change their beliefs, or do beliefs choose people — Scarecow

No, but they can learn new things and question the things they believe. If enough information comes in to convince them, they will change their belief. Bonus: if a person has gone through that process once, they're more likely to keep questioning and learning.

For example, let's say that I received a cancer diagnosis. If denial helps me process, then, is it still irrational for me to go into denial — Scarecow

No. That will kill you.

@Vera Mont
Maybe that was a bad example. But what about more generally? Do you think that denial can be helpful? And if so, does that make denial rational under some circumstances?

Do you think that denial can be helpful? — Scarecow

For a while, maybe. Depends what you're denying.
"Mom's not dead, she just went to visit Grandpa in heaven" is good for a few days.
"No, that's not smoke, probably just my sneakers I'm smelling" Not more than a minute.
Most things you don't want to acknowledge have to be dealt-with sooner or later.

I don’t think denial is ever truly helpful or something you should do even if not denying something makes you feel worse. Ugly truth is always better than a comfortable lie.

@Captain Homicide

What if somebody is in their last moments of life. If denial makes those last moments better, then wouldn't it be good? IDK, that one's kind of an edge case.

Here's a case. You hate yourself. You want to die. Everything in your life is horrible, no one will miss you, and there is no rational reason for you to keep living. And yet you decide to anyway.

Here's another. You live in an oppressive society. And yet you decide to fight. Rationally, you have almost no chance of winning. You could simply leave the country and go someplace nicer. But this is your home.

I leave you to judge.

What if somebody is in their last moments of life. — Scarecow

What would they have left to deny?

Can people choose to change their beliefs — Scarecow

Most philosophers seem to agree that we can't directly control our beliefs, only indirectly, so the answer is no.

If you cannot choose your beliefs, then is it rational to believe anything, even if that belief is irrational? — Scarecow

Whether a belief is rational I think is more about whether the evidence is weighted well and conflicted with other pieces of information.

Is it rational to hold an incorrect belief that helps you cope with pain and suffering? — Scarecow

Justifiable and perhaps wise. But not rational, by definition.

Is it rational to hold an incorrect belief that helps you cope with pain and suffering? — Scarecow

Rationality isn't about helpfulness. It's about fashion. It's about adhering to justifications that are deemed proper by society in general.

Is it rational to hold an incorrect belief that helps you cope with pain and suffering? — Scarecow

Case 1 doesn't interest me much, I think it boils down to a semantic argument, but case 2 does. I'm not sure where I stand on that.

Most philosophers seem to agree that we can't directly control our beliefs, only indirectly, so the answer is no. — Lionino

You can't change a belief when new evidence is presented? For example, I'm driving to work, thinking my house is fine. My neighbor calls me and tells me it's on fire. I now have a new belief that my house is not fine. I didn't change my belief in that case? What happened then?

You can't change a belief when new evidence is presented? For example, I'm driving to work, thinking my house is fine. My neighbor calls me and tells me it's on fire. I now have a new belief that my house is not fine. I didn't change my belief in that case? What happened then? — RogueAI

Your neighbor changed your belief.

Your neighbor changed your belief. — wonderer1

My neighbor can only change my belief if I let him. For example, I could conclude that I was being scammed somehow, someone was using an Ai to imitate my neighbor's voice, and my house was really fine. My neighbor only changes my belief if I choose to believe he's on the level.

In order for evidence (e.g., my neighbor testimony) to change a belief, one has to be able to decide whether the evidence is good or not.

My neighbor only changes my belief if I choose to believe he's on the level. — RogueAI

I'd think it would be much more realistic to say, "My neighbor only changes my belief if my intuitions about my neighbor are such that I trust him in this circumstance." However, those intuitions were themselves likely caused (to some extent) to be as they are by your neighbor.

I think your talk about choosing to believe isn't a realistic description of how such things happen.

You can't change a belief when new evidence is presented? — RogueAI

You can, it is just not voluntary. The proof of that is that you can't will into believing the Sun is smaller than the moon, you can lie to yourself, but you won't believe it.

You can, it is just not voluntary. The proof of that is that you can't will into believing the Sun is smaller than the moon, you can lie to yourself, but you won't believe it. — Lionino

If we can't voluntarily choose whether a piece of evidence is good or not, how can we be sure we're updating our hypotheses correctly? How could science get done? Are you saying the process of choosing beliefs is reliable and involuntary? That it's happening below our awareness but still giving good results?

I'd think it would be much more realistic to say, "My neighbor only changes my belief if my intuitions about my neighbor are such that I trust him in this circumstance." However, those intuitions were themselves likely caused (to some extent) to be as they are by your neighbor.

I think your talk about choosing to believe isn't a realistic description of how such things happen. — wonderer1

Take the Gettier case for example. In the first case, he sees the clock and assumes it's telling the right time. He doesn't see anything obviously wrong with the clock.

Now imagine he sees the clock and the glass is cracked and sparks are flying out of it. He's obviously not going to think it's a reliable clock. He's going to update his prior belief on the reliability of the clock based on the new evidence that the clock looks broken. He's going to conclude he doesn't know what time it is. I don't see where intuition comes into play. Clock used to be reliable>clock looks broken>therefore, unsure of time. You think that's unrealistic?

If we can't voluntarily choose whether a piece of evidence is good or not — RogueAI

I said we don't voluntarily believe, not that we don't judge evidence.

If we can't voluntarily choose whether a piece of evidence is good or not, how can we be sure we're updating our hypotheses correctly? — RogueAI

"Voluntarily choose" makes it sound arbitrary. Rather, some people aim to have their rational facilities set up so that they HAVE to accept genuinely good evidence. Changing their beliefs in the face of strong evidence becomes less of a choice and more of a mental compulsion - this evidence is so good that I MUST update my views, I'm not just Willy nilly choosing it

I don't believe the stuff I believe because I want to, I believe it because the combination of my life experiences and reasoning capacity make those beliefs the natural consequence.

I said we don't voluntarily believe, not that we don't judge evidence. — Lionino

How do we judge evidence if it's not happening consciously? You think it's going on "under the hood"?

I said we don't voluntarily believe, not that we don't judge evidence. — Lionino

One way or another, when new evidence comes in a belief is formed about that evidence: either the evidence is good or bad or I have to reserve judgement. If that belief about the evidence does not happen voluntarily, how is it happening involuntarily? How does that involuntary process give reliable results? Why does it seem like a conscious choice to believe in x or y is being made?

Case 2:
Is it rational to hold an incorrect belief that helps you cope with pain and suffering?
For example, let's say that I received a cancer diagnosis. If denial helps me process, then, is it still irrational for me to go into denial? — Scarecow

I think possibly. If the objective is happiness and not truth, then it's not irrational to hold to a false belief. If the decision does not ultimately lead to greater unhappiness, then you are being rational in holding to your belief.

If your denial hastens your death because you avoid treatment, then your denial would be irrational because it would not serve its purpose of increasing your happiness.

An example: Suppose you are deaf and so you promote the deaf community as equals and even superior in certain ways due to the closeness in their bonds to one another. While objectively it is better to hear, it might make a deaf person happier to accept this postive mindset.

Suppose then that you've thrived in this deaf community for years and a doctor one day determines he has a cure for your hearing. I would argue you should accept the cure and that if your mindset keeps you from accepting the cure, then your denial of reality is not rational.

Your denial is not rational because you no longer have a reaon for holding to your false belief. That is, your reason for holding to the false belief was to promote your happiness, but now holding to that false belief will not brinig you happiness. In fact, it will lead to greater unhappiness because it stands in the way or your hearing and better experiencing the world.

That is to say, sometimes your false belief can be rational and sometimes not and it can change from being rational to being irrational.

"Voluntarily choose" makes it sound arbitrary. Rather, some people aim to have their rational facilities set up so that they HAVE to accept genuinely good evidence. Changing their beliefs in the face of strong evidence becomes less of a choice and more of a mental compulsion - this evidence is so good that I MUST update my views, I'm not just Willy nilly choosing it

I don't believe the stuff I believe because I want to, I believe it because the combination of my life experiences and reasoning capacity make those beliefs the natural consequence. — flannel jesus

Sure, there can be a compulsion to update beliefs based on new evidence, but is the updating process itself involuntary? Suppose I'm flipping a coin and it keeps coming up heads. At some point, you're going to conclude it's not a random process. Let's say by the tenth toss, you're sure something fishy is going on. Wasn't there a conscious choice on your part to make that conclusion?

If it was a choice, was there a conscious choice to make that choice?

If it was a choice, was there a conscious choice to make that choice? — flannel jesus

In the coin flipping case, it seems like you just reach a point where you're sure it's not random. It's a gradual process. In the case where your neighbor calls you and tells you your house is on fire, it seems there's a conscious choice whether to believe him or not, and then the conviction/updated belief that your house is burning, and then a conscious choice to turn around and drive back to your house.

Right, but not a choice to make that choice. So... you made a choice to do some thing, but you didn't make a choice to choose to do that thing. The choice just kinda... happened to you?

Right, but not a choice to make that choice. So... you made a choice to do some thing, but you didn't make a choice to choose to do that thing. The choice just kinda... happened to you? — flannel jesus

Can you choose to become a cult member, or does it just sort of happen to you? It seems a lot of this is subconscious and the end result of the subconscious deliberative process percolates into our consciousness.

I'm not sure what the "cult" thing is about. In any case, if you're not choosing your choice to change beliefs, then it's like that change just happened

I'm not sure what the "cult" thing is about. In any case, if you're not choosing your choice to change beliefs, then it's like that change just happened — flannel jesus

I'm wondering about cultists. Does the cultist ever make a conscious decision to join a cult, or does it just gradually take over your life? I doubt anyone ever says to themselves "I think I'll join a cult today". Same with leaving the cult. Is there a conscious decision to leave, or do you just reach a point where the nonsense is overwhelming? Of course, there are emotional factors at play with cults that aren't present with flipping coins and burning houses.

in any case, the choice to leave a cult usually comes after a realisation that the teachings aren't true. I'm not sure that realization is usually a "choice"