Can You Choose What You Believe?

[Koldo]

A lot of people are idiots, especially when it comes to artifice, because we don't teach anyone anything about it in our schools. But the artists that create it usually take that into account. That doesn't mean you and I have to join in the idiocy, or correct the idiots. If they need/want to "believe in" Santa Claus to participate in Christmas, so be it.

REDUCED to art?? Hardly. Artifice is how religions express transcendence. How they conveys the inconceivable. Without artifice religion couldn't function.

Apparently, art is your god. I am afraid it is as I have stated.

 

[PureX]

Just to make it clear:

What if someone was shown evidence that their spouse is cheating them, and despite not wanting that to be true, despite having their life wrecked if that was true, still believes in the evidence. In what sense would you say that they are believing in what works for them ?

They can choose to deny the evidence, because that's what works best for them. Or they can choose to accept the evidence, but forgive the cheating, anyway, because that's what works best for them. Or they can choose to accept the evidence and blame/divorce the wife, because that's what works best for them. AND they can change their minds at any point for any reason they choose.

 

[Koldo]

They can choose to deny the evidence, because that's what works best for them. Or they can choose to accept the evidence, but forgive the cheating, anyway, because that's what works best for them. Or they can choose to accept the evidence and blame/divorce the wife. AND they can change their minds at any point for any reason they choose.

But assume this person didn't deny the evidence. How would you say that accepting the evidence worked best for them ? It is in the best interest of this person to deny the evidence because of all consequences and yet this person believes in the evidence. In what sense would you say that it works best for them to believe the evidence?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So what was it that convinced you and made you believe what you've said above is true?

I'm sure the answer is different possibly for everyone. I'll try to answer.
The church taught me Earth to be destroyed.
Science class taught me Earth to be destroyed.
Back in the 60's while my friend attended college in New York City I played chess with a Russian Jewish atheist.
To my surprise he was a Bible reader and asked me questions.
He took me to tour the United Nations and wanted me to explain the Isaiah Wall at the UN plaza. (Isaiah 2:4)
I never even heard of the Isaiah Wall besides what was written on it.
So, because of this atheist I went and purchased as study cross-reference Bible.
As I read I became uneasy about church teachings. It did Not match what I was reading.
Then, one day I met an older gentlemen who simply said, " I have good news for you ".
He opened up a Bible and read me from Ecclesiastes 1:4 that "Earth abides forever".
Now, I was at a crossroad. Is the church right about Earth's destruction, is known science right about Earth being destroyed.
I simply wanted to know more, and to me the more I read and learned to me the Bible is the correct understanding.

An inquiring mind wants to know.
I don't want to make this longer, but there were many signs posted in Greenwich Village.
I enjoyed reading those uplifting signs. However, there was one sign in particular that I wondered about.
It read to be satisfied is to be dead. I thought how odd.
Then, over the years I notice that once a person gets an answer that satisfies them, then that is the end of any more searching, the end of digging or thinking any deeper for more information.
So, when an answer satisfies me, I don't accept that at face value but continue to thirst for more information.
This way I freely choose not only what to believe but why I believe it.

 

[night912]

Of course you can, at any point, and for any reason.

Care to explain how? Or was that your answer after choosing to explain but couldn't?

 

[Windwalker]

If it's conditioned, by definition it isn't a choice.

Something that is conditioned to respond a certain way, is still a choice, ultimately. If it were not a choice, then we could never choose anything other than that. But we do. That conditioning may indeed heavily influence that choice, which it does. But it is not solely deterministic. We can choose to not following the conditioning.

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.

No they aren't. The subconscious makes decisions all the time for us, such as "fight or flight". That's a choice, and it it not made by the conscious mind. It is instinctive responses in decision making. It is also making thousands of choices out of sight of the conscious mind in determining what should go where in terms of values of right and wrong, good or bad, etc.

All those are of course influenced by our conditioning. But as I said before, that is not deterministic. We can choose to change the criteria that the subconscious mind draws from. That's the whole point of raising one's level of conscious awareness. Greater choices, rather than limited, habituated subconscious choices.

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.

I think you are confusing things together here. Of course, yes, there is a choice that we can make to set aside our beliefs and truly try to see through another perspective. Most of us simply choose to not make that choice and try to see outside of our own perspectives and belief systems. And that itself is also a choice. As I said, it's all choices, include the choice to not examine the programming, happening at the unconscious level, influenced or 'conditioned' by other factors such as the sense of security feeling threatened.

I am of course not the only person who recognizes this. The Existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre said, "In one sense choice is possible, but what is not possible is not to choose. I can always choose, but I must know that if I do not choose, that is still a choice." So as I've been saying, simply doing nothing and letting the program run unexamined, is a choice. To not consciously choose an alternative, is to subconsciously continue to choose what you have.

But to your point about evidences, which I consider separate to this. Of course, one can't if someone can't find any support whatsoever, they are not going to be able to genuinely choose to believe that thing if their mind finds flaws in the support structure of that belief. That is precisely why I left the religious group I was part of, tried as hard as I did to make it work for me. I could not simply choose to believe something which created conflict for the mind as well as the heart. The supporting evidence simply was not sufficient for me.

But someone without the criteria I had for supporting truth, could comfortably live with the evidences they saw. Shoddy as they were to me, they were just 'sufficient' enough for them. And that really comes back to the choice thing. Just how strong those evidences or supports needs to be, is entirely relative to the individuals requirements. This is not a case where the human mind is either making true/false choices of what to believe, like some dispassionate calculating device. Choices of what to believe, are really subjective, not objective. We may like to believe we are truly rationaly, truly being objective, but we simply are not, no matter how much we want to believe that.

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.

Are you trying to say all our choices are deterministically programmed, and there is no real act the will at all? That the will is a servant to the programs, and the only way we make the choice to attempt to see beyond our own biases, is itself not a choice at all but the program determining that outcome? If so, then really we aren't capable of self-transcendence at all. We are fated to believe the things we do, without choice. Is this what you believe is true?

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.

And this is a phenomenon I run into again and again with others in discussions like this. There is not one place I have ever said that we are completely in control of our knowledge of truth through choice. I have never said that. And that does not represent anything I have said in this discussion. I have been very clear that while those choices are heavily influenced by the programming, they are not fated outcomes - ultimately.

At any point along the way, we could chose to not let the program basically choose for us. We can say "stop" at any point we choose. Which is not say that that choice comes easily. Not at all in fact. But when we are not saying "stop" we are implicitly choosing to just keep letting the program run. And therefore, both choosing to let the program run, or choosing to say stop, are choices of the will. Choosing to be idle consciously, is choosing to be unconscious in our choices.

Just like those proverbial turtles, it's choices all the way, and choices all the way down.

LOL how?

How do we choose to be more willing? I can say the answer is easy, but doing it is not. Humility. That's how. Saying "I don't know" is the beginning of wisdom. But most of us are "convinced", and not willing. That too is a choice of the will to not be willing. Willingness is a choice to be open. Unwillingness is a choice to be closed off.

And just to avoid a previous confusion, being willing to see through another perspective, does not mean you automatically "believe" it. You need to find sufficient support for yourself in order to have a belief in it. Believing something without any support, is meaningless. It has no value. It cannot be integrated into one's life.

Emotions are not chosen, either. So one's emotional sense of security is not a choice.

In a sense, yes they are. We can control our emotional responses. We can change our emotional responses. So the will and choice most certainly are a part of what those will be. People go to therapists to learn how to change their emotional responses to situations every day. Some of those responses are deeper, more primal reponses, but we can in fact even influence and control the lizard brain responses, through training.

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.

It is consistent that they are subconscious choices. Those are real. We subconsciously make decisions continuously throughout the day. But my point has been that by not consciously challenging those, the choice is made to let them run unchallenged. Not voting, in this case is a vote for the status quo.

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 am in agreement with you. The impetus to move to the point to be willing to consider other options is a force of evolution, of sorts. There has to be some crisis of faith, so to speak. Some pressure upon the person, either internally or externally driven tests the limits of the currently held belief structures. At this point the will of the higher conscious kicks in for the sake of survival. Adaptation.

Otherwise, prior to the will of the higher conscious mind kicking in in order to preserve one's survival, the will of the current "normal" conscious mind typically chooses to protect and preserve the current structure. It's choice is to run the program. It's only when it eventually runs out of steam and had enough pain from "kicking against the pricks", or the edges of that structure, that it let's go of choosing that "normal" course, and seeks for a larger size shoe, so to speak.

In other words, we choose what is working for us, until it no longer works, and then we choose change. It's choices all the way up, and choices all the way down.

 

[Windwalker]

(sorry for the length.... )

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.

The complexity of humans beings how have vastly more complex systems of conscious and subconscious choices, does not compare. We can override those choices. We can commit suicide, for instance. I don't think plants can do that.

If you want to make a comparison to that of plants, then basic cell division in our bodies would be an area I'd be comfortable in saying there is no choice, relatively speaking. But at a cellular level, I'm sure "choices" are made all the time within the mechanisms of those systems. I suppose you could call that a "proto-consciousness". Choices all the way up, and all the way down, in other words.

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.

Largely this is true, but higher consciousness can choose to see beyond the program. This is how we grow and develop, first as individuals, and then collectively once a certain threshold of influence is reached, a "tipping point", as it's called.

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.

"What we are, that only can we see," is consistent with what I am saying. In the absence of other information, we choose the current views. In the absence of another option, we choose the current one. Always. Every day, all day. We choose the system we have. Our organism, chooses to run it because it's working "well enough". This is how life survives through the mechanism of evolution.

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.

We choose to use the beliefs that we've been programmed with. The fact that we can choose to not believe those, shows that choice is in fact present the whole time. Not knowing another option, does not mean you aren't choose your beliefs. You are. You're choose them because they serve you. You do it subconsciousnessly.

 

[Left Coast]

Something that is conditioned to respond a certain way, is still a choice, ultimately. If it were not a choice, then we could never choose anything other than that. But we do. That conditioning may indeed heavily influence that choice, which it does. But it is not solely deterministic. We can choose to not following the conditioning.

Again, this depends on the programming.

No they aren't. The subconscious makes decisions all the time for us, such as "fight or flight". That's a choice, and it it not made by the conscious mind. It is instinctive responses in decision making. It is also making thousands of choices out of sight of the conscious mind in determining what should go where in terms of values of right and wrong, good or bad, etc.

All those are of course influenced by our conditioning. But as I said before, that is not deterministic. We can choose to change the criteria that the subconscious mind draws from. That's the whole point of raising one's level of conscious awareness. Greater choices, rather than limited, habituated subconscious choices.

So this gets to a pivotal misunderstanding here. You're using the word "choice" in a completely different way than I am (and frankly, in a different way than I think the vast majority of people use it in everyday conversation). When I talk about choosing, I'm talking about a conscious process of intentional selection. If you're talking about "choices" that we can make subconsciously, ie we can make choices and not even be aware we're making them, then you're talking about some completely different mental process than the standard usage of the word "choice." I think this explains quite a bit of the discrepancy between what we're saying.

I think you are confusing things together here. Of course, yes, there is a choice that we can make to set aside our beliefs and truly try to see through another perspective. Most of us simply choose to not make that choice and try to see outside of our own perspectives and belief systems. And that itself is also a choice. As I said, it's all choices, include the choice to not examine the programming, happening at the unconscious level, influenced or 'conditioned' by other factors such as the sense of security feeling threatened.

I am of course not the only person who recognizes this. The Existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre said, "In one sense choice is possible, but what is not possible is not to choose. I can always choose, but I must know that if I do not choose, that is still a choice." So as I've been saying, simply doing nothing and letting the program run unexamined, is a choice. To not consciously choose an alternative, is to subconsciously continue to choose what you have.

Further indication that we're talking about two very different kinds of "choice."

But to your point about evidences, which I consider separate to this. Of course, one can't if someone can't find any support whatsoever, they are not going to be able to genuinely choose to believe that thing if their mind finds flaws in the support structure of that belief. That is precisely why I left the religious group I was part of, tried as hard as I did to make it work for me. I could not simply choose to believe something which created conflict for the mind as well as the heart. The supporting evidence simply was not sufficient for me.

Great, good example of precisely what I'm talking about. We cannot choose to accept something as true, ie believe it, if we don't see convincing evidence for it. Not won't, but can't. This suggests that you actually are, at least sometimes, employing the definition of choice I am. It involves a conscious consideration of alternatives, between which a selection is made. That is simply not how beliefs work.

But someone without the criteria I had for supporting truth, could comfortably live with the evidences they saw. Shoddy as they were to me, they were just 'sufficient' enough for them. And that really comes back to the choice thing. Just how strong those evidences or supports needs to be, is entirely relative to the individuals requirements.

Again, this is not a conscious "choice" of any kind. It's interesting that you recognize this when applied to your own life, but apparently not others. Yes, criteria are individual. But that doesn't make them chosen.

Are you trying to say all our choices are deterministically programmed, and there is no real act the will at all? That the will is a servant to the programs, and the only way we make the choice to attempt to see beyond our own biases, is itself not a choice at all but the program determining that outcome? If so, then really we aren't capable of self-transcendence at all. We are fated to believe the things we do, without choice. Is this what you believe is true?

I genuinely don't know if all human action is deterministic. I think our degree of agency, and this whole notion of "free" will, is massively over-stated if not outright wrong (especially in the more individualistic Western cultures). I don't know what "self-transcendence" even means, much less if we're capable of it.

{quote] And this is a phenomenon I run into again and again with others in discussions like this. There is not one place I have ever said that we are completely in control of our knowledge of truth through choice. I have never said that. And that does not represent anything I have said in this discussion. I have been very clear that while those choices are heavily influenced by the programming, they are not fated outcomes - ultimately. [/quote]

Right here in this very response, you said, "It's choices all the way up, and choices all the way down." What in the world does that mean, if it doesn't mean we completely choose our beliefs?

At any point along the way, we could chose to not let the program basically choose for us. We can say "stop" at any point we choose. Which is not say that that choice comes easily. Not at all in fact. But when we are not saying "stop" we are implicitly choosing to just keep letting the program run. And therefore, both choosing to let the program run, or choosing to say stop, are choices of the will. Choosing to be idle consciously, is choosing to be unconscious in our choices.

So again, you're sort of toggling back and forth between two different definitions of choice. "Choices" in your mind can be conscious or unconscious. This to me just invites confusion (can you blame me for not understanding what you're saying?).

How do we choose to be more willing? I can say the answer is easy, but doing it is not. Humility. That's how. Saying "I don't know" is the beginning of wisdom. But most of us are "convinced", and not willing. That too is a choice of the will to not be willing. Willingness is a choice to be open. Unwillingness is a choice to be closed off.

And just to avoid a previous confusion, being willing to see through another perspective, does not mean you automatically "believe" it. You need to find sufficient support for yourself in order to have a belief in it. Believing something without any support, is meaningless. It has no value. It cannot be integrated into one's life.

So again, to reiterate your statement in bold: if it is necessary to see convincing evidence of something in order to believe in it, that means logically that if you don't see convincing evidence of something, you...can't believe in it. If you can't do something, it is meaningless to call it a "choice."

In a sense, yes they are. We can control our emotional responses. We can change our emotional responses. So the will and choice most certainly are a part of what those will be. People go to therapists to learn how to change their emotional responses to situations every day. Some of those responses are deeper, more primal reponses, but we can in fact even influence and control the lizard brain responses, through training.

You're conflating experiencing emotions with how we act on our emotions. I can't control if I spontaneously feel a feeling. I can learn to control how I respond to those emotions. I'm comparing beliefs to emotions, not responses to emotions.

I am in agreement with you. The impetus to move to the point to be willing to consider other options is a force of evolution, of sorts. There has to be some crisis of faith, so to speak. Some pressure upon the person, either internally or externally driven tests the limits of the currently held belief structures. At this point the will of the higher conscious kicks in for the sake of survival. Adaptation.

Otherwise, prior to the will of the higher conscious mind kicking in in order to preserve one's survival, the will of the current "normal" conscious mind typically chooses to protect and preserve the current structure. It's choice is to run the program. It's only when it eventually runs out of steam and had enough pain from "kicking against the pricks", or the edges of that structure, that it let's go of choosing that "normal" course, and seeks for a larger size shoe, so to speak.

In other words, we choose what is working for us, until it no longer works, and then we choose change. It's choices all the way up, and choices all the way down.

Again, the only way this process can be described as "choices all the way up and choices all the way down" is if you employ a totally non-standard definition of "choice" that involves mental processes that occur completely outside of our awareness. I have no doubt that mental processes occur outside our conscious awareness, I simply don't think it's helpful or clear to refer to these things as "choices."

 

[Left Coast]

The complexity of humans beings how have vastly more complex systems of conscious and subconscious choices, does not compare. We can override those choices. We can commit suicide, for instance. I don't think plants can do that.

It's an analogy. Yes, I'm aware my succulents can't do calculus. I'm making a comparison to the organic, environmentally produced way that beliefs naturally develop and emerge in us.

If you want to make a comparison to that of plants, then basic cell division in our bodies would be an area I'd be comfortable in saying there is no choice, relatively speaking. But at a cellular level, I'm sure "choices" are made all the time within the mechanisms of those systems. I suppose you could call that a "proto-consciousness". Choices all the way up, and all the way down, in other words.

So again, we see that a large part of the misunderstanding here is your non-standard use of words. You want us to describe individual cells in our bodies as "proto-conscious" things that make "choices?" This just strains language to the point of meaninglessness. The only way this "choices all the way up and down" model works is if "choice" means something totally different than how "choice" is used in ordinary English contexts.

Largely this is true, but higher consciousness can choose to see beyond the program. This is how we grow and develop, first as individuals, and then collectively once a certain threshold of influence is reached, a "tipping point", as it's called.

I don't know what "higher consciousness" means.

"What we are, that only can we see," is consistent with what I am saying. In the absence of other information, we choose the current views. In the absence of another option, we choose the current one. Always. Every day, all day. We choose the system we have. Our organism, chooses to run it because it's working "well enough". This is how life survives through the mechanism of evolution.

Species survive through the evolutionary process of natural selection, but that "selection" should not be conflated with a conscious decision-making process.

 

[night912]

I think you are confusing things together here. Of course, yes, there is a choice that we can make to set aside our beliefs and truly try to see through another perspective. Most of us simply choose to not make that choice and try to see outside of our own perspectives and belief systems. And that itself is also a choice. As I said, it's all choices, include the choice to not examine the programming, happening at the unconscious level, influenced or 'conditioned' by other factors such as the sense of security feeling threatened.

I am of course not the only person who recognizes this. The Existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre said, "In one sense choice is possible, but what is not possible is not to choose. I can always choose, but I must know that if I do not choose, that is still a choice." So as I've been saying, simply doing nothing and letting the program run unexamined, is a choice. To not consciously choose an alternative, is to subconsciously continue to choose what you have.

How can you choose what is not there?

Example:
Morpheus offers Neo two options, take the red pill or the blue pill. Neo chose the red pill. So did Neo also choose to not take the blue pill and green pill?

 

[PureX]

But assume this person didn't deny the evidence. How would you say that accepting the evidence worked best for them ? It is in the best interest of this person to deny the evidence because of all consequences and yet this person believes in the evidence. In what sense would you say that it works best for them to believe the evidence?

For some people, thinking they are right is more important than being honest. For others being honest is more important than thinking they are right. Some people will choose the 'evidence' that serves their ego, while others will choose the 'evidence' that serves their heart. Others still might choose the evidence that serves their wallet, or their vanity, or their paranoia, or whatever else. But in any case, it's always about choosing whatever 'works' for them, according to their own chosen criteria of what that means. So what we're really talking about is changing that criteria. And that is certainly possible, though it's often not easy. And it will take insight and courage to do it.

 

[Koldo]

For some people, thinking they are right is more important than being honest. For others being honest is more important than thinking they are right. Some people will choose the 'evidence' that serves their ego, while others will choose the 'evidence' that serves their heart. Others still might choose the evidence that serves their wallet, or their vanity, or their paranoia, or whatever else. But in any case, it's always about choosing whatever 'works' for them, according to their own chosen criteria of what that means. So what we're really talking about is changing that criteria. And that is certainly possible, though it's often not easy. And it will take insight and courage to do it.

So the criteria can be anything. When did you get to choose yours and why have you chosen the way you did?

 

[Windwalker]

It's an analogy. Yes, I'm aware my succulents can't do calculus. I'm making a comparison to the organic, environmentally produced way that beliefs naturally develop and emerge in us.

I think you may have missed the first part of my two-part post as the most salient points about subconscious choice was not addressed in your response. You may wish to review this: Can You Choose What You Believe?

As to the above, yes of course I understood your analogy. What I am talking about does naturally emerge in us as well, but the major difference that is overlooked in this reduction is that of agency.

We have agency, and therefore the choices we make, whether consciously, subconsciously, or unconsciously (the collective unconscious programs) directly affect the environment and the nature of what emerges. In other words, we can fertilize our own soil we grow in, or urinate on it, as the case may be for many. A plant doesn't do any of that, to the best of my knowledge, aside from creating composite for itself by dropping its leaves.

So again, we see that a large part of the misunderstanding here is your non-standard use of words. You want us to describe individual cells in our bodies as "proto-conscious" things that make "choices?" This just strains language to the point of meaninglessness. The only way this "choices all the way up and down" model works is if "choice" means something totally different than how "choice" is used in ordinary English contexts.

It's good when discussing things of a philosophical nature to not be a dictionary purist. That is the very last place you go to look for an in depth understanding of just about anything.

That the "common" use of the word choice doesn't touch into these areas, is wholly understandable. It is also irrelevant. Dictionaries, are not philosophical works. What we are talking is beyond "common" understandings. Why should we take the average understanding, as the better understanding? That makes no sense to me.

I'm not married to the term "proto-consciousness", I just pulled out to try to describe something. In fact, I probably mean something much more akin to Alfred North Whitehead's "prehension", which he defines as, an "uncognitive apprehension". Which is what I was trying to get at about "choices" happening down at the molecular level.

In fact "proto-consciousness" would not be really accurate to my thinking anyway, as like Whitehead, I tend to see consciousness itself exists in everything. The forms that that takes in us as humans, is the human manifestation of that. But it didn't begin with us. It begins in nature, and is merely adapted to our form in the way that it expresses itself.

And that leads to the whole idea of "choice". As I pointed out already in the other post, which I think you missed, choices are not always cognitively made. That is they are not necessary "consciously aware" choices. Subconscious choices are happening constantly throughout our daily lives. "Fight or flight", is one simple example of the "lizard brain's" "uncognitive" choices. Those are choices that you in your waking mind did not process cognitively.

And so, we can also extend this to choices being made all the way down the cellular level. Choices most certainly are being made as to what it should do or not do for the benefit of the organism. "Don't eat that crap! It's bad for you!", might be how we might project what we might say consciously to ourselves into the "mind" of the cell, or whatever.

So, what we see in ourselves, is simply a higher developed expression of that basic "choice" that you see going on all the way down, and all the way up that "great chain of being" as philosophers have noted throughout the ages. It didn't begin with the human brain. The human brain just takes it to another level. And that is all I was trying to say.

I don't know what "higher consciousness" means.

I'm trying to avoid using that in the more "mystical" usage, though it certainly can go there. How I am using it needs to be explained a little further.

Obviously, our minds are very, very complex systems. There are systems, and systems of systems within systems going on in there. In our ordinary states of consciousness, we basically just run programs all day long. Our default "choice" is to let the programs run and do their jobs, without us have to stop to think about those choices consciously. We encounter something threatening to us, and our internal systems take the fast track to decision making, bypassing cognitive processing. We don't stop to think, "should I run"? We just instantly take flight, without thinking about it. Right?

But the "higher conscious mind", is one that can override those lower level choices. We can choose to not choose fight or flight, for instance, overriding those more primitive, basic choices. We can literally, reprogram ourselves to make other choices. The "what" is that which chooses, is obviously higher than, above, outside of, the program that is being run. So we make choices from inside the system, or the current framework or structure, and we can, if we are aware enough of ourselves, to make choices from outside of it, to change the structure itself.

That makes it "higher" as opposed to "lower". We all have that in us, as it is responsible for radical shifts in our entire habitual natures. The "will" of the ordinary mind, has the job to maintain the system. It chooses to stick with the status quo, and make minor adjustments when necessary. But the "will" of the higher mind, makes the more difficult choice to overhaul or replace the entire system itself.

The "ego" of the ordinary mind, does not like it when that happens, as your basically removing its job function. You threaten its existence, and therefore the higher mind which wishes radical chance, is resisted tenaciously. This is why most people find a certain level of these structures of consciousness, and settle into them for the rest of their lives. As we both agree, it takes something rather powerful to want to change that. But when that happens, that is when the higher mind kicks in and starts the hard work of cleaning house, so to speak.

Species survive through the evolutionary process of natural selection, but that "selection" should not be conflated with a conscious decision-making process.

Why shouldn't it be? It depends on the level of consciousness, and where it's happening. Even if we aren't "thinking" about it, those lower levels are most certainly still making decisions all the time. Those are conscious decisions down at that particular level of consciousness itself.

We have many levels of consciousness in our bodies. The lizard brain being just one of those. The cell is certainly aware of its environment and what is going on, in the "mind" of a cell, such as that may be to the cell. It is living and aware, and making choices, as basic and primitive as those may seem to us. Just because we aren't aware of it with the cognitive mind, does not mean it isn't happening.

 

[Windwalker]

How can you choose what is not there?

Example:
Morpheus offers Neo two options, take the red pill or the blue pill. Neo chose the red pill. So did Neo also choose to not take the blue pill and green pill?

Green pill wasn't a choice. He did however chose to take the red pill, as well as choose to not take the blue pill. Or did he?

 

[Left Coast]

I think you may have missed the first part of my two-part post as the most salient points about subconscious choice was not addressed in your response. You may wish to review this: Can You Choose What You Believe?

Ironically, I think it's actually you who missed my first of two replies to your two posts. Check post #108 in this thread.

I'll wait to give you an opportunity to read and respond to that before responding further. The only other point I think it would be helpful to respond to right now is:

It's good when discussing things of a philosophical nature to not be a dictionary purist. That is the very last place you go to look for an in depth understanding of just about anything.

That the "common" use of the word choice doesn't touch into these areas, is wholly understandable. It is also irrelevant. Dictionaries, are not philosophical works. What we are talking is beyond "common" understandings. Why should we take the average understanding, as the better understanding? That makes no sense to me.

The point isn't about certain definitions being "better" or "worse," it's about communicating ideas as clearly as possible. When you use non-standard word definitions, you're inviting confusion on the part of people you're trying to communicate with. Let's say I tell you I have a dog, and you come over to my house and there is no dog to be found, but I walk you over to a birdcage and show you my pet cockatoo and say, "See? This is my dog Fido." Understandably, you're going to be quite confused and want some clarification. Clarification resulting from confusion that could have been totally avoided if I used the standard definition of the English word, "dog."

So when we talk about "choice," it's more than a little confusing for you to jump into a conversation about whether we choose something and say, "oh yeah we totally do, choices all the way top to bottom," but then when we ask follow up questions we find that by "choice" you mean something completely different than what most people mean when they use the English word "choice."

See the problem?

 

[syo]

Can you choose what you believe?

Yes.

 

[PureX]

So the criteria can be anything. When did you get to choose yours and why have you chosen the way you did?

My criteria, like anyone else's, depends on the circumstances of the moment. As a limited being, I don't presume that I can know the 'truth of things'. The best I can do, like any of us, is choose what is probably true according to my limited experience and understanding of things, and/or choose what I hope to be true, and then act as if it is true to see what results from it. If the results are positive, I'll likely choose to continue that process. If not, I'll likely look for some other possible 'truth', and try that.

 

[Koldo]

My criteria, like anyone else's, depends on the circumstances of the moment. As a limited being, I don't presume that I can know the 'truth of things'. The best I can do, like any of us, is choose what is probably true according to my limited experience and understanding of things, and/or choose what I hope to be true, and then act as if it is true to see what results from it. If the results are positive, I'll likely choose to continue that process. If not, I'll likely look for some other possible 'truth', and try that.

I don't quite understand how that works because:

1) Do you always choose what to believe based on what you want to be true and/or what you consider to be true ? That would then be your criteria. When and how did you get to choose to believe that is your criteria ?

2) How do you figure the results are positive ? I am not even getting into what positive entails to you personally. It is more like: On what basis do you choose to believe the result is positive or negative ? On what basis do you choose to believe something that you regard as positive actually happened?

 

[Thief]

Can you choose what you believe?

To be clear, I'm not asking if you can choose your religion or if you can choose what to label yourself or your views.

Can you choose what to believe or disbelieve? Or are such core convictions or biases inherent in the individual based on experiences? Or are they based on something else? If so, what?

yes....you choose your beliefs

and you can be disappointed

 

[PureX]

I don't quite understand how that works because:

1) Do you always choose what to believe based on what you want to be true and/or what you consider to be true? That would then be your criteria. When and how did you get to choose to believe that is your criteria?

How do we choose what we need/want in life? By past experience. By imagination. By intuition. By the desire to repeat some of these, and to avoid others.

2) How do you figure the results are positive? I am not even getting into what positive entails to you personally. It is more like: On what basis do you choose to believe the result is positive or negative ?

Same as any cognitive entity; via pain or pleasure, via potential for freedom, autonomy, security, and opportunity.

On what basis do you choose to believe something that you regard as positive actually happened?

It (the positive value) will have happened to me.