That would be true. And you don't have the same criteria as them. It is a selective lens that sees what it will see. It is conditioned, and ultimately is a choice.
If it's conditioned, by definition it isn't a choice.
One can either follow the conditioning, by implicitly or subconsciously choosing to continue to follow it, or to make a conscious choice to examine it and challenge its presumptions, or basic lens it sees the world through.
You're making an assumption that one's conditioning even allows for the possibility that it can be questioned or overcome. This isn't a given. You're also employing a weird sense of the notion of the subconscious. If things occur subconsciously, then by definition they aren't chosen. Choices are conscious decisions, by definition.
Yes, but at the gate is a choice to be made. "Could it be that my perception is not allowing me to see something because of my conditioning? Can I set that aside and truly try to see through a different perspective?"
Again, no, there isn't a choice to be made. I am constrained, by definition, to believe what I am convinced is true. Given certain other unchosen beliefs, I could make the choice to investigate other belief systems to determine if they are true. But I can't choose to believe any of them until I am presented with a convincing reason. If I'm not presented with such a reason, my belief will not change. I have no power to consciously change it, in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Now, while someone can say yes to that, because we like to believe we are so self-aware and full of integrity, there are many layers to that. We may be willing to bend a little, to see another's perspective on something. But if that perspective seems far too much of a bend, then we are not so willing, as that now pushes over into emotional comfort zones, senses of security, etc. So at each one of these vectors, is a choice. And that choice, will absolutely determine the outcome of what can or cannot be seen.
So choice, sticking again with my metaphor of the faucet, is the opening and closing of the amount of what that is allowed to flow in, so as to not disrupt the system too far. Each incremental opening, is again a matter of choice, which is determined by signals of threat to its own well being, or sense of security in the world.
The degree to which we are willing to entertain alternative beliefs is, again, not chosen. It is a function of our unchosen beliefs about our own fallibility or lack thereof.
Point being, we are not nearly so rationally driven and in control of truth of knowledge as we'd like to believe!
I agree, but that conclusion is much more consistent with my belief than yours! You're arguing that we are completely in control of our knowledge of the truth - it's a choice. My whole point is, that's not accurate.
But actually, yes. You can choose to be more willing. Absolutely yes.
LOL how?
That's where one's emotional sense of security comes squarely into play.
Emotions are not chosen, either. So one's emotional sense of security is not a choice.
Fear, is a major motivator to make one retract into "safe spaces". In the case of having one's sense of reality utterly thrown upside down, then they will instinctively, through evolution, protect that at all costs. Violently if necessary in extreme cases, such as terrorists.
I agree. And that's consistent with my contention that their emotions, informing their beliefs, aren't chosen. They are automatic, almost instinctive. That's not consistent with your belief that these things are all choices.
If someone through emotional development is able to find that sense of security in themselves, without their ideas of reality absolutely needing to be right or they will be lost, that person is much more willing to be challenged. It's all a matter of how tightly one holds on to that need for their views to be safe for them, that will determine how evidence is seen and received. All of that is the program, and choice to follow or break the program is made every step of the way.
Individuals don't emotionally develop in the way you're talking about unless they are given tools to do so. Unless they are given convincing reasons to be less afraid and more willing to consider the opinions of others. That doesn't happen unless something happens to them. And once it happens, they have no choice but to become less afraid and more open-minded.
I would liken it to a plant that grows in the right conditions. If a plant has sufficient water, and sunlight, and good soil, it's going to grow. There's no choice involved. It happens automatically, organically. Our belief systems are similar. They are the natural outgrowth of the conditions we've been placed into through the accident of our birth and history to this point in our lives.
You're close. Yes, they cannot just turn that off, because it is the program that informs their worldviews, which creates the filter through which all other information must pass, and then be sorted into the structures of that worldview's framework. Therefore, that which threatens it, or they can't "bend" enough to allow a different perspective through, will disallow everything that you see and celebrate as true.
All of which is consistent with the view that their beliefs are...not chosen. And all of which is inconsistent with the notion that they choose that state of affairs. Look at the language you're using. It's not the language of choice.
It's the proverbial round peg into a square hole, in other words. "What we are, that only can we see", said Emerson. That's it right there. And those are choices, at a subconscious level to continue the functioning program, perceived as necessary for survival.
I'm sorry, but you're saying things that are contradictory here. If "what we are, that only can we see," that tells us that we can't see that which we aren't, ie that which we see is not chosen. Think through the language here. If I can't do x, then do I have a choice whether or not to do x? No.
Oh absolutely, I agree with this. Perhaps, maybe the will is more subject to our desire for a sense of security? A desire to know love? At a really deep level, that is probably true.
Glad we agree. So how does that jive with your previous statement that, "The will is the Master at the helm of all of it, and everything the will directs, is a choice of the will." If we're agreeing that the will is heavily constrained by many different factors, than it seems erroneous to identify the will as some sort of autonomous "Master" that chooses our beliefs. It's much more consistent with the notion that we don't choose our beliefs.
Last edited: