= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
entirelyuseless comments on Non-communicable Evidence - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (49)
This is certainly what most people do in fact, but it is a bad idea, because it means that normally a person who hears something he disagrees with simply ignores it, even when there are good reasons not to do so.
In the moment where I hear someone I consider to be a programming expert saying that 'programming needs system I to be done well', beliefs in my brain shift pretty automatically in that direction without any direct intervention. I don't think I have even the option to not let it affect my beliefs.
Fine, but that could be because you had no strong opinion on the matter in the first place opposed to that, or because you are unusual.
I don't think so. It's very normal human process that beliefs change when you hear a person you consider authoritative making an argument.
Beliefs get mostly changed by system I and we don't even have system II direct write access to them.
I disagree; I think we have direct write access to nearly everything that matters about our beliefs.
If that would be true a person with social anxiety could simply overwrite the beliefs that make them uncomfortable because they think other people are judging them.
Yes, it's a learnable skill. Stage hypnotists exist.
In stage hypnosis people don't change their beliefs themselves but get lead by another person to change their beliefs.
More to the point, I wasn't focused on what's theoretically possible but what we do in day to day interactions. In day to day interactions we don't simply write new beliefs directly into our minds.
Let's suppose that you had reason to believe that the sky is blue, but found yourself believing that it was green. This would not stop you from telling people, "I found out that the sky is blue," and giving the reasons that show that it is blue (since we are assuming you had reason to believe that it is blue.) Likewise, suppose someone comes up to you and says, "I would like to bet you $100 that the sky is green and propose the following test..." No matter how you feel about the color of the sky, you are perfectly free to accept the bet and win if the sky is blue.
So in other words, as I said, you have direct write access to pretty much everything that matters about a belief: you can say it is true, argue for it, and act on it.
"perfectly free" basically supposes that you have free will. In practice human's like to believe that they have free will but they don't behave that way in experimental settings. As long as you think about thought experiments with your usual intuition that presupposes free will you don't get to the substance of the argument and understand how beliefs work in practice.
So, you pick an example with no emotional valence. But let's suppose instead that I have reason to believe that I'm perfectly safe, but find myself believing that someone is going to kill me in my sleep. This would not stop me from telling people I'm perfectly safe, or from giving the reasons that show I'm perfectly safe, or from accepting a similar $100 bet. It might, however, prevent me from getting a good night's sleep.
Is that not a thing that matters about the belief that I'm safe?