Philosophy Now Forum

I do not do belief. Sometimes I may regard believe and think as interchangeable but I do not use believe to mean an article
of faith. Without evidence or proof I can not accept anything as true. Even if it is actually true. The reason for it is because
I have no way of knowing that. I also try to avoid holding dogmatic opinions for exactly the same reason. Although I have to
accept that by virtue of being a human being I could easily and inadvertently have dogmatic opinions at any particular time

surreptitious57 wrote:I do not do belief. Sometimes I may regard believe and think as interchangeable but I do not use believe to mean an article of faith. Without evidence or proof I can not accept anything as true. Even if it is actually true. The reason for it is because I have no way of knowing that.

That is great. But why do you appear to accept wholeheartedly that it is impossible for human beings to rid themselves of biases?[/quote]

surreptitious57 wrote: I also try to avoid holding dogmatic opinions for exactly the same reason. Although I have to
accept that by virtue of being a human being I could easily and inadvertently have dogmatic opinions at any particular time

Which is exactly what you appear to be having now regarding this issue about being able to rid one's self of emotional and subjective biases.

You appear to have the dogmatic opinion that it is impossible to rid one's self of biases.

I have already admitted that I agree totally that to being a human being is to gain views/perspectives/opinions subjectively (from a personal bases) and that they inadvertently come from emotions also. A 'human being' is made up of the physical visible human body and the invisible thoughts and emotions within it. To not have these three things is to not be a human being. But to not be able to rid one's self of the biases that can come attached with those personal thoughts and emotions I suggest is possible, and very easily done in fact, once you know how to do it.

Just because human beings know how to rid themselves of biases does not mean they actually will. And until there is evidence of just one human being doing this I cannot accept it. To accept a truth claim without any evidence to support it would be wrong simply because there would be no good reason to do so. Were there any evidence to support it then I would but since there currently is not my position has to be one of scepticism

surreptitious57 wrote:Just because human beings know how to rid themselves of biases does not mean they actually will. And until there is evidence of just one human being doing this I cannot accept it. To accept a truth claim without any evidence to support it would be wrong simply because there would be no good reason to do so. Were there any evidence to support it then I would but since there currently is not my position has to be one of scepticism

But I provided how I did it. What is it about what I said that you do not accept?

I asked you to question what I wrote but you did not do that? Why not?

ken wrote:The path that I was led down revealed that by the use of the very word of 'believing', then the biases will always remain. Remove the word 'believe/belief' and the views now become just exactly what they are, that is a view, which one could be biased towards or not.

Not so easy. Removal of a word does not remove the belief. One cannot simply choose to unbelieve certain things. The choice to do so must come from the part of you holding said belief.

You have used the magic words of "I don't want to be free of them" to reveal why you believe you can not be free of them. Human beings do not try to do/achieve what they do not want.

I didn't say I wanted it. I hold the biases. Why would I want otherwise?

Just because a person does not want to do some thing this does not mean that thing is not possible to do or achieve.

I agree it is possible.

It is very possible to easily remove biases and still function,

Heh... for what to remove biases and still function? The wording of that statement seems to make no sense without the biases. Sure, I know what you mean, but only because I hold the biases required to do so.

Thank you, that is a very open and honest remark. Very refreshing.

Now that it is out here a few questions arise;
WHY do you think you hold on to that belief?

No choice in the matter. One's deepest beliefs, the ones that make a thing fit to survive, are not subject to alteration by a secondary tool like rational thought. I've studied for years the apparent disconnect between various layers of myself. They don't communicate as much as I'd like, and it is interesting when do, and what they hold back from each other. Stress for instance often seems to have a source beyond conscious reach. I sometimes don't know what's stressing me out, and cannot ask. Driving is another interesting example, done almost entirely by those lower layers. I'll be sitting at some intersection because the autopilot doesn't know where to go and I can feel a mental hand come up and slap my attention back.

Why have the belief in the first place?

To be fit. No, a deep one is not an obtained view. The ones obtained are pretty trivial and don't so much matter. Religion is mostly obtained, but I also feel it makes one more fit to a point. It is the sort of thing that one can choose one view or the other, but since it makes one somewhat more fit, there is probably a low level bias towards it.

Would it severely affect anything if what was being believed to be true was not actually true?

Big time.

Could you provide an example of a biased belief that you know is false and yet you still hold on to it, so that we could look into this better?

The free will question is a nice place to start. Not so worried about if it exists, but how it is defined, especially the parts nobody questions like what is it that is proposed to have it nor not. The "why am I me" question bothered me for years. The search for that led to a short list of plausible self-consistent views. My biases are not self consistent. They're obviously false.

I found it quite enlightening and awakening when I discovered how to be able to easily rid myself of ALL (core) beliefs.

How nice. Being open to alternatives is not the same thing.

You would have to be psychologically assessed to determine the validity of your claim
You merely saying it is not good enough since the bar for evidence is set much higher

surreptitious57 wrote:Just because human beings know how to rid themselves of biases does not mean they actually will.

Of course that is true.

What is also true is the amount of time they will do it for will vary when they do do it. Knowing how to be truly open at least then provides the ability to do it. But if a person chooses to actually be open, and for how long for, is another matter.

surreptitious57 wrote: And until there is evidence of just one human being doing this I cannot accept it.

There is evidence, but you are not open to it. Based on your logic that a person can not be truly open then obviously this type of person, which to you is all people, would not be open to it actually being possible. The contradictory nature of this is the only barrier human beings have to their own full potential. The belief that they can not be open prevents them from actually being open to learning more.

What evidence could be provided or shown to you?

If as you say, every single opinion expressed is an example of subjective
or emotional bias, then there is absolutely NO thing that any human being could say that could be evidence. In fact the opposite actually happens. Whenever any person says some thing, then that is more evidence in support of what you already BELIEVE is true, right, and correct.

surreptitious57 wrote:To accept a truth claim without any evidence to support it would be wrong simply because there would be no good reason to do so.

Again, to you there really is NO evidence whatsoever that could support the claim that it is possible to rid one's self of subjective and emotional biases, is there?

To you there is absolutely NOTHING in the Universe that could show you other than what you already accept is true.

To Me, by the way, it is simply wrong to accept a truth claim even with ALL the evidence in the Universe because to accept it as being true would NOT leave Me open to anything else. Obviously later on more or new evidence may come to light to a newer or further truth, which if I were NOT open to it, then I will not be able to notice nor see it. Instead of accepting any thing as being true, right, and/or correct, I just accept I have obtained a(nother) view, which may or may not be, or be partly, true, right, and/or correct. By doing that I WILL always be remaining truly open.

surreptitious57 wrote: Were there any evidence to support it then I would but since there currently is not my position has to be one of scepticism

There is evidence you are just UNABLE to see it, YET.

I have already suggested that the reason you are unable to see it yet is because of your definitions of some words. But like everything else here you fail to question anything. You persist with what you accept is truth and are NOT open to anything else, which is totally understandable considering you also accept that it is impossible to be truly open anyway. You certainly will NOT try anything that would dismiss what you already accept (believe) to be true.

surreptitious57 wrote:You would have to be psychologically assessed to determine the validity of your claim
You merely saying it is not good enough since the bar for evidence is set much higher

Would you like to provide the psychologist to assess Me? If I was to provide the psychologist, and thus then the psychological evidence, you may then say that would be a biased outcome.

By the way it will be discovered that a psychologically assessment is NOT needed in order to determine how open or not a person is. The very words people use, and the way in which they use them, automatically determines and shows how biased, if at all, the views and opinions are that are being expressed.

Noax wrote:

ken wrote:The path that I was led down revealed that by the use of the very word of 'believing', then the biases will always remain. Remove the word 'believe/belief' and the views now become just exactly what they are, that is a view, which one could be biased towards or not.

Not so easy. Removal of a word does not remove the belief. One cannot simply choose to unbelieve certain things. The choice to do so must come from the part of you holding said belief.

If I state, "I believe the sun revolves around the earth" then this is much different from if I state, "I have gained a view that the sun revolves around the earth, but I know where I have gained this view from, which was from everyone else who believes this and says it is and must be the truth, but I actually can not prove this to be true, as well as I do not have any actual proof of this, so from the view I have now the sun revolves the earth but I will never accept nor believe that to be because if I did, then I would not remain open to that this may not actually be true, right, and/or correct." A bit long winded but I prefer to remain open then state things that close Me off to learning newer or truer things. Saying, "In my view ...", instead of "I believe ..." leaves Me far more OPEN. By removing the word "believe" and changing it with "view" changes my whole outlook. The words we use and say have far more of an effect on us than we realize, that is until we realize just how much the words we say and use actually do influence us.

Can you provide an example of some thing that you allege one can not simply be chosen to unbelieved?

I found once I learned and knew how to do to neither believe nor disbelieve anything, then it is a very extremely easy thing to do.

Learning and/or discovering who you think you are, as well as learning and/or discovering who the I is in the question who am 'I'?, and how the two are separate and how this is how the Mind and the brain actually work, then being able to separate completely away from that part holding the belief is a really simple, easy, and quick thing to do.

Noax wrote:

You have used the magic words of "I don't want to be free of them" to reveal why you believe you can not be free of them. Human beings do not try to do/achieve what they do not want.

I didn't say I wanted it. I hold the biases. Why would I want otherwise?

But you did say you do not want to be free of biases. You said, you came to realize that you cannot be free of biases, and that you also do not want to be free of biases.

I was saying if you do not want to free of biases then you never will be. Obviously if you do not want some thing, then you will not try to obtain it.

Why would any person want to be free of biases is so that they can let go of the shackles that are holding them back from learning and discovering new things. Biases promote beliefs and beliefs are the very thing from stopping human beings moving forward and progressing far more intellectually than they are now.

Noax wrote:

It is very possible to easily remove biases and still function,

Heh... for what to remove biases and still function? The wording of that statement seems to make no sense without the biases.

Where are, and what are, the biases?

Noax wrote: Sure, I know what you mean, but only because I hold the biases required to do so.

What does 'biases' mean to you?

Maybe I have a totally different definition for 'biases' than others do and that is why there seems to be some confusion about what I am trying to say here.

Noax wrote:

Thank you, that is a very open and honest remark. Very refreshing.

Now that it is out here a few questions arise;
WHY do you think you hold on to that belief?

No choice in the matter. One's deepest beliefs, the ones that make a thing fit to survive, are not subject to alteration by a secondary tool like rational thought. I've studied for years the apparent disconnect between various layers of myself. They don't communicate as much as I'd like, and it is interesting when do, and what they hold back from each other. Stress for instance often seems to have a source beyond conscious reach. I sometimes don't know what's stressing me out, and cannot ask. Driving is another interesting example, done almost entirely by those lower layers. I'll be sitting at some intersection because the autopilot doesn't know where to go and I can feel a mental hand come up and slap my attention back.

But all adult human beings DO HAVE a choice in what they think and feel. So their is a choice whether to believe or not to believe.

Can you provide some examples of these so called deepest beliefs that you have, the ones that make you fit to survive, so we can decipher them to see if they can be altered with and by rational knowledge? If you do not provide any examples then I can only guess what "deepest beliefs" you are actually talking about. I think I know what you are talking about and those "beliefs" are held within genes, which obviously can not be altered by any thought. We will have to wait and what it is you are actually talking about.

The rest of what you here is just telling us about what you do.

Noax wrote:

Why have the belief in the first place?

To be fit. No, a deep one is not an obtained view. The ones obtained are pretty trivial and don't so much matter. Religion is mostly obtained, but I also feel it makes one more fit to a point. It is the sort of thing that one can choose one view or the other, but since it makes one somewhat more fit, there is probably a low level bias towards it.

Okay so we agree an obtained belief, is pretty trivial and does not really matter. Do you agree that these ones can be gotten rid of completely?

Noax wrote:

Would it severely affect anything if what was being believed to be true was not actually true?

Big time.

HOW and WHY exactly?

When I discovered that the things that I used to believe, like for example "We need money to live" was not true at all, did not affect me severely in a bad way. It it affected Me greatly in a good way. I was able to see much clearer and obtained a much bigger and truer view of Life in general. I was able to see things much better.

Noax wrote:

Could you provide an example of a biased belief that you know is false and yet you still hold on to it, so that we could look into this better?

The free will question is a nice place to start. Not so worried about if it exists, but how it is defined, especially the parts nobody questions like what is it that is proposed to have it nor not.

I could not quite follow in this example the biased belief part that you know is false and yet you still hold onto it. But we can at least start here now.

What exactly is the free question you are talking about?

To Me, 'free will' is just defined as the ability to choose.

Very simply the parts of a human being that has free will is the part that allows choice to take place, this i would take a guess to say is in the brain. Obviously every adult human being can make choices. To Me, it is not a question of does free will or determinism exist but that they both exist equally. Every adult human being can choose what to think BUT they ALL are limited upon the selection to choose from. What a human being can think is pre-determined by the thoughts that already exist within the brain. So, every human being has the freedom, or the free will, to choose, but the limited choices they have to choose from determines what they can actually think, and thus can then do. What behaviors human beings do is determined by what limited thoughts that they have within them, but they certainly have the free will to choose between those choice of thoughts.

Noax wrote:The "why am I me" question bothered me for years. The search for that led to a short list of plausible self-consistent views. My biases are not self consistent. They're obviously false.

Why are your biases obviously false? Is it possible that some of them could be true?

Noax wrote:

I found it quite enlightening and awakening when I discovered how to be able to easily rid myself of ALL (core) beliefs.

How nice. Being open to alternatives is not the same thing.

What is the difference?

Not having beliefs allows Me to being OPEN to ALL things, including alternatives.

ken wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The simple fact that this conversation can happen between ken and surreptitious means that ken can't be right.

Knowledge cannot be the preserve of a single subject, but can only be calculated by the collective collaboration between subjects. Surreptitious allows for this whilst ken is blind to the simplicity of that truth and insists that the meanderings of his own mind are truthful regardless of the world unfolding around him.

ken is stuck in the solipsism of his embryonic mind, and the only thing that can change his mind is an abortion in to the world of complexity.

So, I say what could be possible, whereas I am being told forever more it is impossible, and I can not be right..

What is nonsense is not possible.

How can a person not have beliefs? It's impossible not to hold any.

Dalek Prime wrote:How can a person not have beliefs? It's impossible not to hold any.

Depends on how you define belief.

I choose to make a pragmatic distinction between knowledge and belief.
I take belief to the a thing taken as true, without rigorous support.
And I take knowledge as a thing taken as true with rigorous support.

For me, I don't give a rat's arse for belief, and have no respect for another's belief when it is used as if it were the same as knowledge.

I don't believe.

However, as for ken, who claims to believe nothing, what he takes to be true is so obviously false it's palpable.

ken wrote:If I state, "I believe the sun revolves around the earth" then this is much different from if I state, "I have gained a view that the sun revolves around the earth, but I know where I have gained this view from, which was from everyone else who believes this and says it is and must be the truth, but I actually can not prove this to be true, as well as I do not have any actual proof of this, so from the view I have now the sun revolves the earth but I will never accept nor believe that to be because if I did, then I would not remain open to that this may not actually be true, right, and/or correct." A bit long winded but I prefer to remain open then state things that close Me off to learning newer or truer things. Saying, "In my view ...", instead of "I believe ..." leaves Me far more OPEN. By removing the word "believe" and changing it with "view" changes my whole outlook. The words we use and say have far more of an effect on us than we realize, that is until we realize just how much the words we say and use actually do influence us.

You seem to have left out the general case that you don't consider the sun's procession across the sky each day a thing that needs to be believed or not. Your long winded description describes someone who has already listed the thing as something to be doubted.

It is also a poor example. Belief in the orbiting sun is not something that matters. You assume it will be light tomorrow, and that's all you need to be fit, unless you're in charge of steering your own spacecraft to some destination, in which case you had better be knowledgeable about orbital mechanics if you expect to live. The truth makes you more fit in that case. Pick an example where lies make you more fit.

Can you provide an example of some thing that you allege one can not simply be chosen to unbelieved?

Yes, but you won't believe it. You must work it out. I can say my Avatar is not yellow. Would you believe that? OK, you can choose to not believe that since it doesn't really matter. Bad example. How about choosing to believe you cannot make a decision that can benefit or hurt yourself? You can rationally believe that, but not not truly hold that belief at your core since it matters.

Noax wrote:I hold the biases. Why would I want otherwise?

But you did say you do not want to be free of biases. You said, you came to realize that you cannot be free of biases, and that you also do not want to be free of biases.

Let me clarify then. I don't want to be free of certain biases, despite knowing they are wrong.

I was saying if you do not want to free of biases then you never will be. Obviously if you do not want some thing, then you will not try to obtain it.

That's right.

Where are, and what are, the biases?

What still functions without those biases? I'm asking what you are. You will give a biased answer.

What does 'biases' mean to you?

In this context, beliefs that I hold without even knowing that they are even beliefs, or that I hold despite rational demonstration of inconsistency. So not counting say political biases where I think this side is more correct than the other one. I'm talking about beliefs that are in your DNA and not just learned.

Maybe I have a totally different definition for 'biases' than others do and that is why there seems to be some confusion about what I am trying to say here.

But all adult human beings DO HAVE a choice in what they think and feel. So their is a choice whether to believe or not to believe.

Sounds like a statement not open to debate. Are you biased about this assertion or might you consider being wrong about it?

Can you provide some examples of these so called deepest beliefs that you have, the ones that make you fit to survive, so we can decipher them to see if they can be altered with and by rational knowledge? If you do not provide any examples then I can only guess what "deepest beliefs" you are actually talking about. I think I know what you are talking about and those "beliefs" are held within genes, which obviously can not be altered by any thought. We will have to wait and what it is you are actually talking about.

The rest of what you here is just telling us about what you do.

Okay so we agree an obtained belief, is pretty trivial and does not really matter. Do you agree that these ones can be gotten rid of completely?

One can recognize them, but still hold them. Be open to alternative but still have a preferred opinion. I don't think that is getting rid of them. Would reduce you to being an opinionless rock.

HOW and WHY exactly?

See example above. If I believed I could not make a choice to benefit myself, I'd have no reason to draw breath. I'm quite programmed to want to draw breath. The rational part of me is just plain not in charge of such things.

When I discovered that the things that I used to believe, like for example "We need money to live" was not true at all, did not affect me severely in a bad way. It it affected Me greatly in a good way. I was able to see much clearer and obtained a much bigger and truer view of Life in general. I was able to see things much better.

To Me, 'free will' is just defined as the ability to choose.

And how would that differ from un-free will? What is the entity doing the choosing here? A lot depends on you philosophy of mind here. A simple machine has free will by your definition. A (classic example) thermostat chooses to turn on the heat when it gets cold enough. Do you envision yourself in similar terms to that example? If not, what's the difference?

To Me, it is not a question of does free will or determinism exist but that they both exist equally.

They are different views of the same thing, and they are contradictory views. It is a clue that there is a biased belief somewhere in there even if you can't identify the bias.

Every adult human being can choose what to think BUT they ALL are limited upon the selection to choose from. What a human being can think is pre-determined by the thoughts that already exist within the brain. So, every human being has the freedom, or the free will, to choose, but the limited choices they have to choose from determines what they can actually think, and thus can then do. What behaviors human beings do is determined by what limited thoughts that they have within them, but they certainly have the free will to choose between those choice of thoughts.

Nice description of a self driving car. Can choose, but has limited choices.

Why are your biases obviously false? Is it possible that some of them could be true?

Some, not all. That I am some thing with numeric identity that persists through time is clearly contradictory. That I find myself to be this top-of-intellectual-food-chain entity is beyond improbable. Why am I not a more probable blade of grass or a rock in some more ordinary place? Clearly there are biases to discover by noting such things.

ken wrote:

Noax wrote:

ken wrote:The path that I was led down revealed that by the use of the very word of 'believing', then the biases will always remain. Remove the word 'believe/belief' and the views now become just exactly what they are, that is a view, which one could be biased towards or not.

Not so easy. Removal of a word does not remove the belief. One cannot simply choose to unbelieve certain things. The choice to do so must come from the part of you holding said belief.

If I state, "I believe the sun revolves around the earth" then this is much different from if I state, "I have gained a view that the sun revolves around the earth, but I know where I have gained this view from, which was from everyone else who believes this and says it is and must be the truth, but I actually can not prove this to be true, as well as I do not have any actual proof of this, so from the view I have now the sun revolves the earth but I will never accept nor believe that to be because if I did, then I would not remain open to that this may not actually be true, right, and/or correct..

Your belief is false, obviously; the sun does not revolve around the earth. It's not even as if you can see that.
Belief is irrelevant.
You can even support belief with observations.
Knowledge, however, allows for other possible interpretations, and is contingent on a continuous correspondence with the facts.
Even if you believe what is indeed the case that it is the earth which moves; your belief in it is still useless, because belief is empty and is not required to correspond to facts.
Believe what you like; knowledge takes effort.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:How can a person not have beliefs? It's impossible not to hold any.

Depends on how you define belief.

I choose to make a pragmatic distinction between knowledge and belief.
I take belief to the a thing taken as true, without rigorous support.
And I take knowledge as a thing taken as true with rigorous support.

For me, I don't give a rat's arse for belief, and have no respect for another's belief when it is used as if it were the same as knowledge.

I don't believe.

However, as for ken, who claims to believe nothing, what he takes to be true is so obviously false it's palpable.

Yes, that was in reference to ken's statement. He goes beyond belief based on knowledge. That's just silly.