From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:25:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.152059.9791@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>> Hmm...is that a compliment or a criticism?  'Cuz I've got no problem doing
>> that right now.  My life is based on that ability, to a large extent.
>
>Well, I'd need you to elaborate a bit more before I could really comment
>on that. Are you saying that you can believe in anything you want to?

Given sufficient motivation, then yes, I am able.  Some things take more
motivation than others, of course.

>> Off the wall, but did you watch the STTNG double-episode, "Chain of
>> Command?"  Sometimes one might want very much to believe something, and
>> it becomes true.  Picard's closing line says it all.
>
>I saw enough of it to see that it was kind of a crude reworking of
>something Orwell did much better in _1984._  There are really two
>issues here: psychological effects of prolonged torture, 
>and what Sartre called "bad faith."  The weakness of the Star Trek show
>was that it confused the two.

For those who have no idea what we're talking about, I'll briefly describe
it.  Capt Picard was a prisoner of the Cardassians, and was being put
through some intensive torture.  A key point was that there were 4 lights
on the wall behind the interrogator, and he kept asking Picard how many
lights he saw.  Picard answered truthfully "4," and the interrogator
would torture him and yell "There are 5 lights!"  This happened several
times.  At the end, the interrogator said that Picard had a choice between
a life of comfort and pleasure, or a life of continued torture.  Picard
asked "What must I do?"  The interrogator said, "Tell me how many lights
you see."  (At this point, the Cardassian leaders who had come to release
Picard came in.)

Later, discussing this with Counselor Troi, Picard described the situation
and admitted that he was going to say that he saw 5 lights.  His closing
line: "The strange thing was...at the end there, I really did think I
saw 5 lights."  (Quoted from memory, but that's basically it.)

>these two processes. Orwell, on the other hand, makes it clear that
>prolonged torture can be used politically as a powerful motivator
>for the act of "bad faith."

Hmm.  I think that was what they were trying to point out with that
scene.  In what sense do you disagree?

>It's quite relevant to the subject at hand. "Bad faith" is the essence
>of much of Xian belief, but at the same time, for someone who is sophisticated
>enough, there is no such thing as "bad" faith. I wonder if this latter
>point is what you were getting at in your first remark above?

If I understand you, then yes.  The Discordian Law of Fives points this
out most accurately: "All things happen in fives, or are divisible by
or are multiples of five, or are somehow directly or indirectly
appropriate to five."  If you start out by believing this, and look
hard enough, you will find "evidence" that it is true.  Christians believe
in God, they see evidence of God everywhere.  Athiests don't, so they do
not see that evidence.  Hindus believe in reincarnation, they find cases
to support it.  "New Agers" believe in crystals, and it appears to work
for them.

>> Well, since I disagree with both of your previous statements, I'm gonna
>> have to disagree on this one too.  I have found belief to be very much
>> an act of will.  It is that realization that first drew me away from
>> traditional Christianity.  I can believe anything I _want_ to believe.
>
>It's going to take us a little while to sort this out, but I suspect
>we really don't disagree. For now, though, let me ask: can you believe
>that 2+2=5?

Yes.  However, because it turns out to be inconsistent with my other
beliefs at the moment, it is quickly modified to "fit in."

>> Realistically, I want to believe something that's going to fulfill me
>> more often than not.  Christianity didn't.  Satanism did.
>
>What do you mean "fulfill?"  And what do you mean by "Satanism?"

Good semantic questions.

By "fulfill," I mean generally allow me to do things which make me happy.
Give me a  sense of well-being, of pleasure and of (occasionally)
purpose.

By "Satanism," I mean a type of psychodramatic atheism that serves
several purposes: 1) I find it enjoyable, 2) it gets a lot of psycho-
logical garbage out of my system, 3) it's a way to meet people with
whom I usually have something in common, 4) it endorses the "natural"
emotions which Christianity condemns (eg, lust, hate, greed), and so
on.  The form I'm currently involved with is very much into self-
improvement and self-knowledge.

>Heh heh...this is it exactly. This is at a subtler level than Steve and
>I have been at, but I think I know what you're saying. Once you
>realize that belief is an act that one can _do_ or not do, it becomes
>clear exactly what beliefs are -- acts of imagination. And what
>is imagination? Reflections, images. Of what? Of the experiential world,
>for lack of a better term. 

Exactly.  Is a certain belief _useful_?  If so, then I define it as
true.  Otherwise, it is superflous and inconsequential.

To use your example from earlier, it is useful for me to believe that
2 and 2 does equal 4, in most situations.  Therefore, it is "true" for
me.  It is not useful for me to believe that I am the creation of an
omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient deity.  Therefore, I disregard
such nonsense.

>The natural result of this realization is that one becomes unconcerned
>with beliefs, at least in one's better moments. 

It is not that I become unconcerned with them, I merely cease believing
that they are absolutely and universally "true," and recognize that
they can and do change.

>> Yet you also believe that you're going to die.  Do you have any more
>> proof of this than you have of anything else?
>
>Actually, no. To a certain degree, I am speculating based on certain
>unprovable premises. I only do this for the sake of conversation,
>really. One of my many vices. Strictly speaking, the fear of death
>is an imaginative phenomenon also.

As long as you realize this.  I often do the same thing, and make
unverifiable assumptions in order to communicate.




-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan