A conceptual perspective on belief

[GliderGuider]

All experiences begin as a projection of sensory data into the brain. Then a minor miracle occurs, and that data becomes a perception. Then a second miracle occurs, and the perception enters our consciousness (the existence of consciousness being the biggest miracle of all). Once we are conscious of the perception we must interpret it to give it meaning. And it seems to me that's where the tangle of belief happens.

Interpretations are based on a combination of hard-wired instinctual responses (that we can't do much about) and learned patterns. Learned patterns can be thought of as chronologically layered piles of stored concepts. Each stored concept is formed of an earlier concept modified by a new cognitive response and an associated emotional charge. The emotional charge colors the concept, and filters each new perception that is passed through it. That coloration means that the perception is no longer neutral. The quality of the emotional charge determines whether our association with the concept is positive or negative, and the stronger that charge is the more attached we are to that concept. This is the mental raw material of beliefs.

Instinct is hard to avoid, but we can do something about the emotional coloration of our concepts. The process of relinquishing beliefs is precisely the process of identifying and either eliminating or short-circuiting the emotional charge associated with our stored concepts. The more we do that, the more accurate our perceptions become, and the less we will attach ourselves to them. The outcome is less bias, judgement, clinging and suffering.

There are of course more poetic ways of putting this...

[Gregorian]

1. I've been reviewing my old physics courses this week. Somehow this is related.

There are things that aren't intuitive. And that is where our perception and gut feeling fall flat on their face. I do see heated physics arguments. I saw one on a biking forum recently. And funnily enough I saw false information. So there they were, arguing with facts that were wrong. But what strikes me odd is that typically when it comes to things like physics, the arguments are not heated, and they tend to be resolved through experiments or mathematics. But when it comes to religion, much more often there is this charged emotional aspect. I'm embarrassed to reveal my true feelings on Christianity. I have tried to be agnostic, and I logically believe that it's foolish to cling to any belief. But the more I look into the makings of the universe, the more trouble I have in denying something magical is going on.

Somehow this ties in with an experiment I saw. If you take two solid cylinders of any diameter, and any mass, and roll them down an incline, they'll both reach the bottom at the same time. If you take a tube and roll it, it will be slower than any solid cylinder of any size or mass. It's independent of mass or size. It's only dependent on the moment of inertia. If we couldn't show this by experiment, then I suppose people would get in heated arguments. I'd swear the lighter cylinders would reach the bottom first. In fact, maybe religion is charged because we have little more than belief to go on.

I know this isn't really addressing your post. It's about perception, and clinging to belief in the absence of proof. Well, once again I don't have much of a clue. It's an interesting subject. One that no one may answer. After all, if we are created, and wired by a god, then I would suspect we have that god's fingerprints in us. And that would make it hard to abandon being emotional about this subject.

[GliderGuider]

2. I think you might like this

It's a 3-way discussion from 1995 between Terrence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake and Ralph Abraham. Say what you will about these guys, they can sure bring the magic alive.

[FarCenter]

8. Is there data that unemotional people have systematically different religous beliefs?

The degree of emotion experienced by people appears to vary widely, from flat affect to hysteria.

If religion is linked to the intensity of the emotional life of the individual, then it should be possible to observe some differences across the emotional spectrum.

[GliderGuider]

9. I don't know of any such research, but it would be interesting to do.

I'd expect less emotional people to simply care less about religion in general. Strongly emotional people can be attached on either side of the question - I've seen lots of emotion in both the religious and the anti-religious.

[tama]

3. Conscious interpretations

It's good to be conscious about interpreting. So that there is possibility of not staying attached to interpretations, of postponing interpretation, and having confidence in the "black box" of subconscious or whatwhenever where instinct most truly interpretes.

Benevolent interpretations are also a nice tactic, in terms of echo.

[GliderGuider]

10. "In terms of echo" - that's a nice way of putting it. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

4. My reaction to your first paragraph: Wow, your brain is really impressed with itself.

My reaction to your second paragraph: I like it, but why the term "emotional charge?" I get the emotional part, but not the charge. Do you mean an electrical charge to go along with the hard-wired metaphor?

My reaction to your third paragraph: Have you attempted to accomplish this goal? It sounds similar to the goals of critical thinking and nihilistic philosophy.

My reaction to your fourth paragraph: OK.

[GliderGuider]

5. It's all about reducing emotional reactivity

The term "emotional charge" refers to the emotional component of a thought or idea that remains attached to that idea when it's stored in memory - i.e. it doesn't dissipate over time. In that way it's much like an electrical charge. The term is usually used to mean a strong emotional component, but every concept has an associated "feeling-tone" of some strength, so it's reasonable to apply it as a general term, even to weaker emotional associations.

Yes, I've been working towards this goal for a few years now. It's indeed possible to achieve, at least to some useful degree. I find it reduces my reactivity in the face of situations that used to make me quite uncomfortable. It also makes it easier to see what's really going on with other people and in the world in general. I'm less likely to have knee-jerk reactions to situations and ideas. It's not nihilism. It's related to critical thinking, but with particular emphasis on the emotional, rather than the logical, component of thought.

[ZombieHorde]

11. I didn't say it was nihilism, I said it was a goal of philosophical nihilism:

to identify subjective thought; e.g., value.

[GliderGuider]

12. I didn't see it as nihilistic until just now when I looked up the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
[div class="excerpt" style="border:solid 1px #000000"]The philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological, metaphysical, or ontological forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that contrary to popular belief, some aspect of reality does not exist as such.
I've always used the word to mean existential nihilism, but in the sense that it negates the value of belief, which most people feel is a meaningful aspect of life, yes, it is indeed nihilistic.

I suppose it's actually metaphysical nihilism which is even out past solipsism. To a solipsist only the sense of personal existence is sure, while all else requires belief in order to seem certain. When I'm in just the right frame of mind, even the sense of self appears to be an illusion, and nothing at all is "real" in the way we normally use the word. This is a standard interpretation in non-dualist philosophies like Advaita, but isn't part of the normal Western perspective.

Thanks for prompting me to expand my understanding of nihilism.

[GliderGuider]

18. But of course the important point is that everything is real

while at the same time as being a complete illusion. The nothingness collapses into everything, and the everything into nothing - simultaneously. Perhaps that's the thing that makes belief the dance floor, the playground of existence. Or perhaps not...

[Thats my opinion]

21. Nihilism developed a century ago with the rise of the French existentialists.

But if you read them carefully, they hunger for a world where there is meaning and purpose. My favorite is Camus. Sisyphus never did get that rock to stay at the top of the hill, but he "died happy"

[link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus|

In "The Plague" there is no hope for anyone to survive the disease, but there were a couple of residents who simply did whatever was in front of them day after day--and that gave life meaning. I choose to live as if life had meaning and purpose. Otherwise to be caught in the web of meaninglessness is without any reason to go on. So I do what is before me at the moment, and that supplies all the purpose I need. And for me, I get the intrusion of purpose into life through my religious commitments. I am a Christian because I choose to be, and I find in Jesus an alternative to nihilism.

[GliderGuider]

22. "Nihilism" is a slippery word.

Most people interpret it to mean "existential nihilism", which where Camus and the boys came in. There are forms of nihilism that don't negate meaning and purpose. Advaita Vedanta, for example, doesn't presuppose that non-existence is all there is, though it recognizes that non-existence is one thing that is (insert sound effect of cerebral cortex slipping a gear). That leaves plenty of space for meaning and purpose.

"Nihilism" and "anarchy" are two words that have suffered grievous semantic injury at the hands of western civilization.

[Jim__]

6. I'm not sure I want to eliminate the emotional charge associated with life.

First, I disagree a little bit on where interpretation takes place. You say:

All experiences begin as a projection of sensory data into the brain. Then a minor miracle occurs, and that data becomes a perception. Then a second miracle occurs, and the perception enters our consciousness (the existence of consciousness being the biggest miracle of all). Once we are conscious of the perception we must interpret it to give it meaning. And it seems to me that's where the tangle of belief happens.

My take is that our perceptual systems have already done a lot of the interpretation of our perceptions before they ever get to our consciousness. Using the visual system as the example perceptual system, the Two_Streams_hypothesis holds that on exit from the occipital lobe, the ventral stream will identify the object. So, for instance, if we are looking at a tree, the visual system will already have identified the object as a tree during its unconscious processing of the perception. Now, there are further interpretations to be performed by the consciousness with respect to the larger context of our perception.

You continue:

Instinct is hard to avoid, but we can do something about the emotional coloration of our concepts. The process of relinquishing beliefs is precisely the process of identifying and either eliminating or short-circuiting the emotional charge associated with our stored concepts. The more we do that, the more accurate our perceptions become, and the less we will attach ourselves to them. The outcome is less bias, judgement, clinging and suffering.

Say we are looking at a tree, the tree branch is moving, and our other perceptual systems are feeding the information that the wind is blowing into our consciousness. So, we tie these perceptions together and we believe that the branch is moving because the wind is blowing. Is this what you mean by belief?

We can add emotion to this situation. Suppose your mother died the week before you see this tree with its branches blowing in the wind; and your memory sends an image to your consciousness of a time when you were young and at a park with your mother when the wind was blowing and you saw a tree just like this one. The current scene can become emotionally charged by this recollection; and the recollection is really a form of belief - you may never have seen a tree similar to this one before, but your memory of past scenes becomes tangled with your current scene. So, you have created a new belief, the belief that one week after your mother's death, you came upon a scene that was similar to what you once saw with your mother. Would you want to eliminate the emotional coloration from this scene? You probably can; but I don't really see the advantage. You can say that there is less bias, judgement, clinging, and suffering, but I can say there is also less living. This memory, while not 100% accurate, can add richness and color to your life. Life is full of bias, judgement, clinging, suffering, joy, laughter, love, ... I'm not sure I want to avoid all of that. Actually, I pretty sure that I don't want to avoid all of that.

[GliderGuider]

7. It's OK, I doubt we can eliminate it all.

Last edited Thu Jan 26, 2012, 10:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Much of it happens at a level that we're not normally conscious of yet, as you point out.

Emotions will always be with us - we're human after all. I'm talking about a possible technique to reduce our enslavement by them, and allow us to perceive reality more clearly.

The possibility that we can become more conscious, push back the veil of awareness and in the process begin to decide for ourselves whether and how to react is intriguing to me. Such cognitive work offers the chance that we can choose not to be victims of our feelings.

In the case of the moving branch, belief is operating at a number of levels. On the most overt level there is the belief that the wind is blowing the branch. If one is an animist, there might be a belief that that the soul of the tree is greeting you. At a deeper level, there is the belief that there is a tree. Even below that there is the belief that there is an external world that "the tree" exists in. Of course, below that is the belief that there is a "me" who is having the experience in the first place.

It's just turtles, all the way down...

[westerebus]

13. This may or may not help.

I'll re-write a portion of your last paragraph.

The act of believing is precisely the process of identifying with the concepts we attach ourselves to on an emotional level.

[GliderGuider]

16. That's very good. Thanks! n/t

[westerebus]

19. The begining to preception is observation.

The most difficult task to master is observation without judgement. It is better to begin observing the natural world as opposed to persons. It lessens the possibility of reverting to the I of one's own nature. Detachment from judgement is a very difficult process. Nature has no right action or wrong action. Nature has no I with which to judge.

At some point a person may be able to observer their I. If a person remains in the process refered to as personal experience, colored by emotion and filtered by layers of concepts, they are not free to observe what restricts or directs them. When the I is judged, attachment is formed.

This is not a plan to compensate for morality or ethical consideration, it is a plan on how to observer one's I from which the authentic self may be discovered. Hopefully, the healing process goes forward and suffering is diminished. It is not a process everyone is capable of doing for themselves.

Just an observation about preception for those interested.

[GliderGuider]

20. Judgement and story are related.

"What is THIS moment like when I experience it without a story? Without checking with mind about what anything means or doesn't mean? Without going into past or future? Without trying to understand or get anything? What is the storyless NOW like? Only one way to find out..."

When I believe I am my story, the door opens for judgement - this part of my story is good, that part is bad. This part of ME is good, that part is bad... The moment I realize I am not my story, the judgement evaporates.

[westerebus]

40. Let's go fishing.

When the story is not the Me does the Me evaporate also?

[GliderGuider]

41. It seems to depend on how one thinks of the Me.

Last edited Sun Jan 29, 2012, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

One's story seems to be tied to the conventional sense of the "self". That sense of self may indeed evaporate as the story is given up. That's the "falling away of the self" that non-dualist practitioners report. However, if one finds validity in the concept of the Self (with an upper-case "S&quot , then that Self does not evaporate - in contrast it becomes more clear because it's no longer obscured by the turbulence of the conventional egoic self.

However, there's a wrinkle to all this. "Dropping the story" is just another part of the story...

Using the analogy of the potter, the potter is also the wheel, the pot and the act of potting. Their apparent separateness is an illusion, but is also apparently real. The separation collapses into oneness (or Nothing, if you prefer), which also collapses into separation at the same time. It is impossible to choose one or the other. All we can do is keep potting.

So yes, the Me evaporates - but it also remains.

Chop wood, carry water.

[westerebus]

42. Stokes hearth, boils water.

The uniqueness of the now, that moment wherein realization occurs, defines the difference between the ego and authentic self.

The ego, the me, is story dependent. The me of the ego owns the story. No wheel is spun without me to spin it.

This me looks backward in ownership of the story so far.

This is attachment.

In the now moment, the wheel, the potter, water and clay are one.

This is being.

The ego relinguishes its ownership when the authentic self acts as one in the now.

What comes from the potter's efforts remains to be realized.

[GliderGuider]

43. I agree. Not sure what Me thinks about it, though :-)

Yes, the present is the key to freedom. Attachment happens to the past and the future - "This will be the pot that makes everyone finally realize what a great potter I am!"

[westerebus]

44. Drops pot. Rejoices.

[GliderGuider]

45. Smokes pot. Chills out.

[cleanhippie]

14. You lost me at "miracle" then ditched me at "second miracle".

It's not a miracle, it's biochemistry. Sheesh.

[GliderGuider]

15. It would truly be a miracle

If you shared that point of view.

[cleanhippie]

17. I just did...and it wasn't a miracle.

Whats really a miracle is that you responded to me!

[GliderGuider]

23. There are miracles all over the place.

The issue with seeing them as such is getting around the emotional charge associated with the concept...

[darkstar3]

24. Or, you know, just finding what you look for.

[GliderGuider]

25. Yep. I love finding what I look for. That's why I look for fun stuff.

Like miracles and love and shit like that.

[cleanhippie]

26. Don't you think that finding a "miracle" when a perfectly plausible explanation exists...

is dabbling in self-delusion?

[GliderGuider]

27. Give me plausible explanations for the existence of:

Space (i.e. dimensionality)
Time
Matter
Energy
Consciousness
Life

Just to remind you, I'm an atheist, so I don't use the term "miracle" in any religious sense. The term "miracle" also has secular meanings: "a wonder or marvel", "any amazing or wonderful event", "an event seemingly inexplicable by nature", and its use is perfectly appropriate by anyone.

The appearance of a universe containing conscious life is an amazing and wonderful event, wouldn't you agree?

[cleanhippie]

28. You need to give me an example of a miracle first.

None of the things you listed are "miracles" at all.


Amazing and wonderful, yes, but hardly a miracle. (And I am using the definition of "miracle" as it is commonly used. Which is to indicate something supernatural.)

[GliderGuider]

29. In that case all we have is a semantic disagreement.

Both our usages are legit.

Got a plausible explanation for the origin of time?

[darkstar3]

31. Are they?

Something you cannot fully comprehend = miracle?

I don't find that usage legitimate.

[GliderGuider]

33. No, just the incomprehensible stuff that feels wonderful or amazing - it's a colloquial usage.

I'm not sure why atheists are insisting on the religious interpretation of the word, when there are accepted secular definitions available.

[darkstar3]

38. Because the words we choose reflect more than just what is on the surface.

The usage of a word with such strong religious overtones as a colloquialism reflects the continued insertion of religion into our daily lives.

[GliderGuider]

39. Language is funny that way.

We continually insert language from one activity into another. The language of warfare makes its way into colloquial business usage. Cybernetic and computer language is inserted into psychology. Culinary language is inserted into relationship discussions. The language of medieval torture gets used in casual conversation all the time. It's always necessary to be mindful of colloquial meanings that differ from the source usage.

We tend to notice this more when we are emotionally triggered by the original source concepts.

[cleanhippie]

32. Agreed. And yes, I do.

It's a human construct. Not only plausible, but quite probable.

[GliderGuider]

34. So if there were no humans, time would not exist?

Stars did not follow the main sequence before H. sapiens appeared on the scene?

Really?

Now that would be miraculous...

[cleanhippie]

35. What you are calling "time" is a human construct.

It's a measurement, nothing more.


Much like saying that if there were no humans, kilometers would not exist.

[GliderGuider]

36. Uh, no.

Last edited Sat Jan 28, 2012, 09:40 PM - Edit history (1)

It would be like saying that if there were no humans, distance would not exist. Units of measurement - seconds, hours, miles, kilometers, furlongs - are human, but time and distance are properties of the physical universe. Just ask Stephen Hawking...

Now, there is a school of thought that holds that the primordial property of existence is consciousness, and all else - space, time, matter, energy and life - arise from that, but I don't think that's what you're saying. Or is it?

[ZombieHorde]

37. *consults dictionary.com* Oh, you're right.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle

mir·a·cle  
noun
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
3. a wonder; marvel.
4. a wonderful or surpassing example of some quality: a miracle of modern acoustics.
5. miracle play.

[darkstar3]

30. ...and sexual innuendo in Disney art?

(sorry, couldn't resist. It really is the quintessential example.)