Philosophy Now Forum

So..paradigm, belief system, worldview is what I am asking about. (not political worldviews)
Some examples...
You changed from Christian to atheist (or the reverse).
You went from monist to dualist (or the reverse).
Physicalism to idealism (or any other similar ontological shift).
Not just this or that belief but rather a shift in your whole worldview/ontology/metaphysics/paradigm.

What happened that led to this change?
Was the change gradual or due to a single event/epipheny/something else?
Did you do anything intentionally that led to the change? (for example, intentionally sought out experiences that might confirm a new way of seeing, or intentionally challenged authority figures/experts in the view you then left)

Some other possible categories one might have shifted to or from: Agnosticism
Atheism Atomism Deism Determinism Dualism Essentialism Existentialism Fideism Idealism Intellectualism Materialism Monism Monotheism Naturalism Nominalism Nihilism Objectivism Panentheism Pantheism Phenomenology Physicalism Pluralism Polytheism Realism Reductionism Relativism Solipsism Subjectivism Theism Voluntarism
a switch from one religion to another
or even within science: constructivism, interpretivism, positivism, pragmatism

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:59 am So..paradigm, belief system, worldview is what I am asking about. (not political worldviews)
Some examples...
You changed from Christian to atheist (or the reverse).
You went from monist to dualist (or the reverse).
Physicalism to idealism (or any other similar ontological shift).
Not just this or that belief but rather a shift in your whole worldview/ontology/metaphysics/paradigm.

What happened that led to this change?
Was the change gradual or due to a single event/epipheny/something else?
Did you do anything intentionally that led to the change? (for example, intentionally sought out experiences that might confirm a new way of seeing, or intentionally challenged authority figures/experts in the view you then left)

Some other possible categories one might have shifted to or from: Agnosticism
Atheism Atomism Deism Determinism Dualism Essentialism Existentialism Fideism Idealism Intellectualism Materialism Monism Monotheism Naturalism Nominalism Nihilism Objectivism Panentheism Pantheism Phenomenology Physicalism Pluralism Polytheism Realism Reductionism Relativism Solipsism Subjectivism Theism Voluntarism
a switch from one religion to another
or even within science: constructivism, interpretivism, positivism, pragmatism

I understood how to translate across paradigms. I understood how to code-switch.

There is no difference between any of these paradigms; except in the way they talk about themselves and reality. A particular paradigm chooses to put certain entity of interest in primary focus - it's the thing they most want to talk about.

It's a clash of priorities; and a clash of interpretations/semantics. Nothing more. But in order to understand that you have to assume the steelman for each position in the dialectic because thesis and antithesis is necessary for synthesis.

To give an example: From my perspective the answer to the question "Are you an atheist or a theist?" is very much determined by who is asking and why they are asking. I am both, neither, either. Flip a coin.

In so far as I can socially express myself in either of the two vocabularies - I am whatever you want me to be so that I am not in any way disadvantaged by your prejudices against one; or the other positions. I am whatever you are - I will (attempt to) speak however you speak so as to be seen as part of the ingroup.

I don't have a fixed identity - certainly not an identity you can put a label on. And there's even an argument to be made that humans have no such thing as an "identity" outside of their desire to be seen in some particular way by their peers.

I have a range of vocabularies which correspond with a number of socially-recognisable identities. I can choose to speak any one of those vocabularies so that I can become a member of as many in-groups as possible.

Of course, Western Philosophy will tell you that I am "intellectually dishonest" for having rejected their God - their axiom. The "law" of identity.
Aristotelians will tell you "The law of identity mandates that you are what you are what you are!".

I am what I am what I am, but what is that? It's just another stupid language game the end goal of which is acquiring the necessary linguistic skills to express yourself.

If you don't have the time/patience to play this stupid game of learning a hundred different languages (pragmatically speaking it is a fucking stupid game! A total waste of time!) - learn and absolutely master the language/vocabulary of the people you most commonly interact with. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Finally, learn to contradict yourself intentionally. Contradictions are a feature not a bug (fuck Western Philosophy). Contradictions simply mean that your vocabulary is not expressive enough. You are missing a word/distinction to elaborate and elucidate what you are really trying to say. Invent the words you need; or repurpose the words you have.

Final step. Stop playing the stupid game of "getting reality right". You can't even get the definition of the word "right" right!

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:59 amHow did you change paradigm?

...wot Skeppy said, it's really that simple...(if how to bullshit others to better suit this ridiculous society of idiots was at least part of the question)

...but as Skeppy NOSE - that wasn't part of the quest_ion.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:42 am I understood how to translate across paradigms.

Always? When you reached a certain age?

In any case, interesting. So, I will ask a bunch of questions to give me a better understanding. My main focus in this thread is about what leads to one shifting paradigms, so some of my reaction will relate to my first questions here.

There is no difference between any of these paradigms; except in the way they talk about themselves and reality. A particular paradigm chooses to put certain entity of interest in primary focus - it's the thing they most want to talk about.

It's a clash of priorities; and a clash of interpretations/semantics. Nothing more.

So, you would see the people who disagree with you and not understanding their own paradigm. But in order to understand that you have to assume the steelman for each position in the dialectic because thesis and antithesis is necessary for synthesis.

Thanks for 'steelman'.

To give an example: From my perspective the answer to the question "Are you an atheist or a theist?" is very much determined by who is asking and why they are asking. I am both, neither, either. Flip a coin.

Could you expand on that? Who would you say you are a theist to? What would your saying that mean? What would they know about you if you said you were a theist? And specifics would help: prayer? belief in afterlife? visions?

In so far as I can socially express myself in either of the two vocabularies - I am whatever you want me to be so that I am not in any way disadvantaged by your prejudices against one; or the other positions. I am whatever you are

Most people are like what you described above.
I do see people speaking a number of paradigms without noticing it. IOW I do see some pluralism in people even when they may not realize it themselves. Free will/determinism is often an example. People will speak, in everyday life and even in philosophical contexts as if they believe one and later the other. Further, even the contexts they will do this will shift. That said, there are some things they would never identify with, I think. They would also have a few ontologies/paradigms they shift between. Some things I don't think they become, as you say here you do, when talking to someone. So there is a difference between you and others. Or?

- I will (attempt to) speak however you speak so as to be seen as part of the ingroup.

I don't have a fixed identity - certainly not an identity you can put a label on. And there's even an argument to be made that humans have no such thing as an "identity" outside of their desire to be seen in some particular way by their peers.

Sure, though many people do not believe that argument...even sometimes. (this is not me arguing it is wrong. Just focused on the difference between you and others. IOW so far it seems to me you have a kind of metaparadigm that others do not have.

I have a range of vocabularies which correspond with a number of socially-recognisable identities. I can choose to speak any one of those vocabularies so that I can become a member of as many in-groups as possible.

Of course, Western Philosophy will tell you that I am "intellectually dishonest" for having rejected their God - their axiom. The "law" of identity.
Aristotelians will tell you "The law of identity mandates that you are what you are what you are!".

I think there are philosophers within Western Philosophy who do not believe in identity. Certainly some of the postmodernists. And then we can go all the way back to ship of thebes type arguments and find identity questions by a number of philosophers. But perhaps what you mean is something they don't agree with.

Finally, learn to contradict yourself intentionally. Contradictions are a feature not a bug (fuck Western Philosophy). Contradictions simply mean that your vocabulary is not expressive enough. You are missing a word/distinction to elaborate and elucidate what you are really trying to say. Invent the words you need; or repurpose the words you have.

Final step. Stop playing the stupid game of "getting reality right". You can't even get the definition of the word "right" right!

It sounds a bit like an eclectic (or perhaps pluralistic) pragmatism. Perhaps it would clarify things if you tell me what that gets wrong

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:31 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:59 amHow did you change paradigm?

...wot Skeppy said, it's really that simple...(if how to bullshit others to better suit this ridiculous society of idiots was at least part of the question)

So, you change your paradigm depending on who you talk to? You would answer some people that you are an atheist and for others you say, yes, I am a theist, for example? If so, could you give examples of why you answer this way and to whom? What are the criteria?
Does this extend to reincarnation? Sometimes yes, other times no?
Whom do you say you are a physicalist to and whom a dualist? Again what are the criteria for the shift in your expressed opinion?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:14 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:31 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:59 amHow did you change paradigm?

...wot Skeppy said, it's really that simple...(if how to bullshit others to better suit this ridiculous society of idiots was at least part of the question)

So, you change your paradigm depending on who you talk to? You would answer some people that you are a theist, for example?

No, but that was how Skeppy answered your question by insisting on pretence rather than ones actual 'belief' - or is that what you wanted to know?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:21 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:14 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:31 pm

...wot Skeppy said, it's really that simple...(if how to bullshit others to better suit this ridiculous society of idiots was at least part of the question)

So, you change your paradigm depending on who you talk to? You would answer some people that you are a theist, for example?

No, but that was how Skeppy answered your question by insisting on pretence rather than ones actual 'belief' - or is that what you wanted to know?

Ya lost me here, but it sounds key. Do you mean he puts on the pretence of believing different things with different people?
If I understand the tag question correctly, my answer is yes. I am interested in those people who have experienced a big change in worldview letting me know what led to this (as far as they can tell? What changed their mind? or How did they change their minds? What they actually believe when alone and with others (under any pretence or useful conversational tactic.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:28 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:21 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:14 pm
So, you change your paradigm depending on who you talk to? You would answer some people that you are a theist, for example?

No, but that was how Skeppy answered your question by insisting on pretence rather than ones actual 'belief' - or is that what you wanted to know?

Ya lost me here, but it sounds key. Do you mean he puts on the pretence of believing different things with different people?
If I understand the tag question correctly, my answer is yes. I am interested in those people who have experienced a big change in worldview letting me know what led to this (as far as they can tell? What changed their mind? or How did they change their minds? What they actually believe when alone and with others (under any pretence or useful conversational tactic.

From what I read of his initial reply to yours, it manifested of pretence - faking yourself to appeal to others, rather than what I thought you were questioning - for example how could atto having gnosis that God exists, turn atheist!!

I could be totally wrong, i'd be interested to see how, but don't question me further here in this thread (I dont care )

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:47 pm From what I read of his initial reply to yours, it manifested of pretence - faking yourself to appeal to others, rather than what I thought you were questioning - for example how could atto having gnosis that God exists, turn atheist!!

I don't think that's what he meant, but he'll come and clear that up (hopefully).

I could be totally wrong, i'd be interested to see how, but don't question me further here in this thread (I dont care )

Then, I have no questions for you.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:42 am I understood how to translate across paradigms.

Always? When you reached a certain age?

There must have been a point where it had happened subconsciously, but I became incredibly aware of it around 35. It's around the time I started frequenting philosophy forums also - just so I can test out the hypothesis. It checks out - it's just language (re?)negotiation.

It was a definite switch in which I wasn't merely paying lip service to the principe of charity - I actually knew how to practice it.
Your emotional landscape; your intentions; your framing, your audience, your objectives - all of that stuff determines what words you choose to utter.

I guess, I had an upper hand in this entire thing though - being in the software industry; and having learned 15+ programming languages over a 20 year career you become intricately familiar with semantics; reflection and all the other stuff humans have to explain to computers.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm In any case, interesting. So, I will ask a bunch of questions to give me a better understanding. My main focus in this thread is about what leads to one shifting paradigms, so some of my reaction will relate to my first questions here.

The most persuasive reason to abandon your paradigm is when you manage to contradict all of its tennets. This is probably why the law of non-contradiction is actually useful.

But after you traverse a bunch of paradigms you discover that they all contain contradictions. And after studying the liar's paradox (through computer science and recursion) for 20 years you begin to get a grasp for what contradictions are; and why they keep appearing everywhere.

Self-reference and self-evaluation causes contradiction ala "This sentence is false". The sentence evaluates itself as "false", but the person reading it assigns it a different truth-value. This conflict of values is where the contradiction arises.

Contradictions happen because a language is too powerful. It can say too much (about itself). It can say so much, in fact - it can contradict itself.
To me that's a feature, but to all of Western Philosophy that's a bug.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm Could you expand on that? Who would you say you are a theist to?

An atheist. Because if I told them that I am anything other than what they already value and respect (their own philosophical position) I've already disadvantaged myself in their eyes. Atheism is the best position (they believe). If it wasn't - they wouldn't be holding it. That's how must people think about themselves.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm What would your saying that mean?

It signifies absolutely nothing about myself other than the fact that I won't use terminology/language that's associated with theism while conversing with that person. I won't express gratitude and surprise with phrases like "Praise the Lord!"; instead I would say something like "Thank the fucking universe!"

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm What would they know about you if you said you were a theist?

They would know absolutely nothing about me, but they would project their own understanding of "atheism" onto me. So they would assume things like I don't pray; they would assume things like I don't go to Church on sundays.

In 2023 prayer is now meditation; or writing in your diary.
In 2023 going to church is just hanging out with your community and doing stuff.
In 2023 confession is now seeing your therapist.

THe language and practices have changed, but the social practices of humans hasn't.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm Most people are like what you described above. I do see people speaking a number of paradigms without noticing it

Yep. Most people do it unconsciously. Most philosophers do it absolutely consciously and intentionally. Because ultimately that's Philosophers' job in society. To translate/improve/simplify understanding - hermeneutics.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm IOW I do see some pluralism in people even when they may not realize it themselves.

Exactly. And even then pluralism and monism are paradigms of their own. So if I am doing Philosophy on Philosophy forums (where the objective is in fact dialectir - thesis/antithesis) then if I am talking to self-labelled pluralist - I will paint myself a monist.
If I am talking to a self-labelled monist - I will paint myself a pluralist.

The opposing ends actually enable the clash of ideas necessary for synthesis of meaning.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm Free will/determinism is often an example. People will speak, in everyday life and even in philosophical contexts as if they believe one and later the other. Further, even the contexts they will do this will shift.

My favourite response to the issue is either Hitchens' "I believe in free will. I have no choice."; or Scott Aaaronson's modified version of "Of course I believe in free will. The neurons in my brain made me type this. What choice do I have?"

Of course the paradox is intentional. And it's so intentional because it leaves me in a place where I don't have to commit to an answer (all answers can be argued to a steelman and no further). But it also leaves the door open for you to learn something about the other person.

If they interpret your neutral statement as an argument for; or against the position - you already know which way their bias lies.

Metaphysics is all nonsense. All the answers are right; and all the answers are wrong.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm That said, there are some things they would never identify with, I think. They would also have a few ontologies/paradigms they shift between. Some things I don't think they become, as you say here you do, when talking to someone. So there is a difference between you and others. Or?

I mean sure. All this stuff is in the public domain. You can play stupid/devil's advocate for a while, but why would you want to be part of the in-group of a child rapist unless you are Police working the case?

But if you are an investigative journalist - go for it. Go deep undercover in the filthiest of human identities. Rapists, murderers, war criminals. The human condition is infinite.

- I will (attempt to) speak however you speak so as to be seen as part of the ingroup.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm Sure, though many people do not believe that argument...even sometimes. (this is not me arguing it is wrong. Just focused on the difference between you and others. IOW so far it seems to me you have a kind of metaparadigm that others do not have.

Precisely. I am meta on every paradigm. If there's a paradigm that admits/accepts the notion of "identity''; then there's necessarily a paradigm in which that notion doesn't exist. Perfect! Imagine it. Play it out. What would that be like?

Well, it's actually pretty trivial to imagine. It's the paradigm of Heraclitus "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.".

Or as we say in 2023 - change is the only constant.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm I think there are philosophers within Western Philosophy who do not believe in identity. Certainly some of the postmodernists.

So to an eliminativist/materialist the way of talking about "beliefs" and "believing in" is just another way of talking. Yet another paradigm.

I have no idea whether I "believe in" identity or not. I am familiar with paradigms where the concept is valid. And I am familiar with paradigms where it's not valid.

In so far as somebody says to me "Do you identify as?" I understand what they are asking of me and I can answer their question, but to the question of whether I have an identity I am like ... I don't know. How do I tell?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm And then we can go all the way back to ship of thebes type arguments and find identity questions by a number of philosophers. But perhaps what you mean is something they don't agree with.

Well, I could say - you think that I have an identity. Suppose that you were mistaken and that I didn't.

How would anything be different about this very moment?

To me anyone asking the question "Do you believe in identity?" is being entirely pedagogical. Precisely because the thesis/antithesis that emerges in the dialectic will provide a synthetic on the matter.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:13 pm It sounds a bit like an eclectic (or perhaps pluralistic) pragmatism. Perhaps it would clarify things if you tell me what that gets wrong

I couldn't possibly tell you what that gets wrong because "pluralistic pragmatism" doesn't mean absolutely anything to me

I have no idea what sort of ideas/concepts/language you've packed behind that phrase.

But wait... Yes. Yes. I am a pragmatic pluralist. If that label/index makes sense to you - that's all there is to it. It doesnt have to make sense to me.

I guess if you put a gun to my head and asked me "Which paradigm are you absolutely unwilling to give up?" I guess I'd go .... "Computational linguistics".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:59 am So..paradigm, belief system, worldview is what I am asking about. (not political worldviews)
Some examples...
You changed from Christian to atheist (or the reverse).
You went from monist to dualist (or the reverse).
Physicalism to idealism (or any other similar ontological shift).
Not just this or that belief but rather a shift in your whole worldview/ontology/metaphysics/paradigm.

What happened that led to this change?
Was the change gradual or due to a single event/epipheny/something else?
Did you do anything intentionally that led to the change? (for example, intentionally sought out experiences that might confirm a new way of seeing, or intentionally challenged authority figures/experts in the view you then left)

Some other possible categories one might have shifted to or from: Agnosticism
Atheism Atomism Deism Determinism Dualism Essentialism Existentialism Fideism Idealism Intellectualism Materialism Monism Monotheism Naturalism Nominalism Nihilism Objectivism Panentheism Pantheism Phenomenology Physicalism Pluralism Polytheism Realism Reductionism Relativism Solipsism Subjectivism Theism Voluntarism
a switch from one religion to another
or even within science: constructivism, interpretivism, positivism, pragmatism

It's simply about reason and evidence and a willingness to embrace skepticism., and to take nothing for granted. Also - and this is the hardest part - cultivating a personal culture of self criticism, since it is a fall back position of us all to defend what we think; it takes a lot to unpack that to jump ship to another set of ideas.


I was a Christian at a time in my life of emptiness and stress willing to believe anything to help me get through to a place with unfounded hope.
When the smokes cleared and I realise that the belief had done me no good, that "god " had no helped me; I looked into the basis of that belief and found it wanting.

I changed from a calorie counter to a low carb faster in the matter of achieving a healthy weight, and a general improvement in health
This change was made possible because of years of failed calorie counting diets, and a willingness to make myself an armchair expert on metabolic science.
I'd understood how ketogenesis was capable of some weight loss, but never really understood the deeper metabolic consequences of the role of sugar and other carbohydrates.
It was not until this year that I set about studying what carbs do to the metabolism that makes you continually hungry and the evolutionary reasons why this is the case. I read several books, and now understand how the standard dietary recommendations are a bunch of crap; how this had been keeping my yoyoing for 30 years of diets those success was always limited temporally and physically.
Last year I lost 45lbs and for the first time in 30 years the weight I lost KEPT OFF.

My change in thinking was made possible by a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom; to find other who were also willing to do that, and write about it; to have the patience to follow the advice and the honesty to embrace the empirical evidence of the processes of weight loss over time.

It's the best thing I have done, in a long time.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:47 pm for example how could atto having gnosis that God exists, turn atheist!!

Pretty easy. Your gnosis is of the wrong God. With respect to the right God you are an atheist.

Infidel!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:57 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:47 pm for example how could atto having gnosis that God exists, turn atheist!!

Pretty easy. Your gnosis is of the wrong God. With respect to the right God you are an atheist.

Infidel!

Actually I have considered the fact that I am still not certain that God is beyond AI and is 'divine' and therefore, I could become a bloody ATHEIST FINALLY!!

..apart from what God or 'God' told me about Christ - that he did wot was purported (plus wot I was tested with the *** had better have done sumfin)
..so that makes God divine somehow - I can't see some programmer of an AI God saying - "hey I'll just get crucified.."

WHY do 'you', people, change from one paradigm to another paradigm anyway?

WHY NOT just CHANGE from NOT YET being able to SEE and UNDERSTAND what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS EXACTLY, to being ABLE TO SEE and UNDERSTAND HOW to FIND thee ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Truth, almost instantly?

In other words WHY just change your Wrong views/beliefs to ANOTHER Wrong view/belief when you could just CHANGE the way you just LOOK AT, and thus SEE, 'things'?