BELIEF is not complicated. (Introduction)

by Cary Cook , Saturday, May 31, 2008, 06:58 (5809 days ago) @ dhw

>you define pleasure as "a part or subset of emotion or a category of mind in itself when stimulated sensually". (Why not intellectually as well?) - Good point! I'll make that correction.
-------------------------------------
>On this general basis, I agree with you. However, I would say exactly the same if there IS an afterlife. - If there is an unjust afterlife, the only thing that would change is duration of existence.
If there is a just afterlife, ethics become necessarily and highly relevant, because they not only affect, but are the basis of one's received pleasure/displeasure ratio. Duration of life will necessarily be sustained until all just payments are made ... both rewards & punishments.
------------------------------------------
>I would argue that harmful actions will only produce (subjectively) ethical pleasure if the person concerned is, at least to a degree, a masochist or sadist. - I agree on sadist. Masochist carries some implied paradoxes, and should probably be disregarded until we get the more general rules straight. The rules of the system must take all types into account and disburse a just pleasure/displeasure ratio accordingly.
----------------------------------------------
>I don't see why judgment of probability is involuntary. - Judgment of probability is involuntary in rational people, but possibly not in people who are sufficiently irrational. i.e. If you are rational and you think X is probable, you can't voluntarily choose to think otherwise.
Your judgment at any point in time is based on your memory of the data that you have perceived up to that time. Deliberate cogitation on data + logic may change your mind. Any new piece of incoming data may change your mind. But no matter how long and strenuously you process the info you have, your judgment at any point in time will be based on evidence & logic (and possibly intuition), but not on your will. You may choose to act contrary to your probability judgment, but that is a subsequent and separate event. - Having said that, I will admit that irrational people often to try to think contrary to their natural probability judgment for emotional reasons. If they claim to think what they in fact don't think, they are simply liars. But maybe they actually succeed in fooling themselves. Your next question fits right in. - >Can you consciously will yourself to think something is true even though reason tells you it's not? - Maybe self-deception is possible. I can't claim to know either way. I only know that I was not successful at it when I tried to believe-1 what I was told about God & Scripture.
-------------------------------------------------
>If belief 1) and 2) are in opposition, how do we separate them yet reach one conclusion? - I don't know how to say it any more clearly than this:
Recognize belief-1 as an involuntary mental act of probability judgment.
Recognize belief-2 as a voluntary decision to act with or against your judgment of probability.
Belief-1 gives you your mental conclusion. i.e. X is probable or improbable.
Belief-2 is a decision to act. If you want to call that decision a conclusion, then recognize it as a subsequent and separate conclusion. - If that doesn't do it for you, I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. If you have more questions, I'll try to answer them, but my answers are likely to be repetitious. It may be helpful if you can identify what you find unsatisfactory about the answers I've given. - Or possibly some of you other guys can help one of us.