Belief Formation-Initial thoughts

I recently found myself stuck on the idea of belief formation, and while i’ll spare you the details of how that conundrum came up, I will just express my initial thoughts about the issue.

In order to delve further into this issue, I will have to accomplish the monumental task of defining belief:

A belief, as far as I am using it here, is simply something we take to be true.

A belief I have would be “the sky is blue”, or “Coffee is an amazing elixir of life”, or even “cats are the most non-chalant creatures on this planet”. I believe all those sentences are true, and therefore are beliefs that I have. Hopefully that is satisfactory.

The problem i am trying to grapple with at this point is whether or not beliefs can be formed through some sort of authentic inspiration, or whether beliefs are only formulated through some sort of complex relation of already present beliefs coming together and formulating a new belief via some process.

Basically, the simple thing I am asking is whether or not this can exist:

(inspiration hits)-> new belief

or if the only way we can obtain a new belief is through a method similar to this:

(set of present beliefs)+some process-> new belief

The main roadblock in answering this question involves the fact that we aren’t exactly aware of our belief formation process. Every now and then we might get a belief through some sort of logical proof, but for the most part we just sort of formulate beliefs without being aware of how they came to be (which is where the idea of inspiration formulating belief comes from).

However, if most of our beliefs came from inspiration, then technically there should be occasions and times when we get beliefs that are completely unrelated to beliefs that we already hold, and that can contradict them greatly. I don’t know about the rest of you, but that hardly ever happens for me, which pushes me towards the idea that much of our belief formation comes through a complex process where our present beliefs come into play in the creation of a new belief.

Anyways, those are my initial thoughts about belief formation, I’m actually about to go read some theories on it, and hopefully gain some insight on it. CLEARLY i’m pretty ignorant on the whole field, so corrections and comments would be very helpful.

Edit:

I realized that this analysis is probably unhelpful in so far as describing what i’m talking about. So i’ll try to create an example: Say a person enters a house, he sees shoes (a belief that there are shoes there) and believes that someone took their shoes off and entered the house, therefore formulating a belief that there is someone else in the house.

Is this logical process the only method in which someone formulates a belief? Or are there cases in which there is no interaction of beliefs with the formulation of the new belief? (aka the inspired belief)

Edit 2:

A few things:

1. I take the point of this post to be bringing out a notion of “genuine inspiration” in the formulation of belief, and considering whether or not it is plausible. Otherwise, we only have a system of creating beliefs that builds off old beliefs. Which leads us to the next point…

2.The “genuine inspiration” idea is something like a miraculous belief formulating in your mind without any kind of apparent cognitive process involving beliefs bringing it about. For instance, perhaps something fantastically crazy happens with your brain and causes your brain to just generate a belief. Such a belief is formulated without the need to appeal to other kinds of beliefs.

I’ve returned…also, game theory.

Well, it’s been a while since I posted on this blog of mine. Upon the advent of thoughtfulapples.com, I primarily shifted my posting endeavors to that site. But alas, the site is no more, and now I have returned to this blog of mine (with no viewers at all).

Anyways, as such, I should probably announce a few things that have happened since I last posted (which was a while back): First of all, I graduated my undergrad and am not scrounging about looking for things to do.

I’ve actually tried to look into going into the criminal investigation circuit, as I have had an interest in criminal investigations for some time, but upon reading the procedure and what the job involves, I realized that my current state is not able to become the “great detective” I want to strive to be. So as such, I’m actually going back and reading about game theory and strategy in depth (it’ll make sense, just give me a second).

The fact is, I have brown a bit bored of some philosophical questions, and now my interest is heavily embedded in studying game theory and decision-making (which is actually highly philosophical if you study it in a specific way). What interests me in it, is that it provides a form in which we can model interactions between people, help understand how and why people make the decisions they do, and also find equilibrium points of which interactions will constantly return.

The unfortunate aspect is that game theory is not a psychic tool, and cannot predict things in whole. However, it is a useful tool if you know how to apply it, and specifically, if you know how to construct a game theory model out of certain situations. You have to be able to understand the choices offered to each of the actors, their utility, and the way they choose their choices (this might be a bit redundant, because traditional or classical game theory suggests that people will choose the choice with the highest expected utility, however, in the light of altruism and other qualities, I don’t think that is an adequate assumption). So while I won’t be able to use game theory on its own to masterfully predict how things will turn out or how people might behave, I believe that it is a useful tool in aiding me on the way.

In addition to game theoretic modeling techniques, I’m also looking into criminal profiling (which is admittedly on shaky ground as far as support goes), as well as gambits. By gambits, I am referring to tactics or strategies that employ small safe gambles that survey the situation and obtain more information. For instance, a gambit would be employing the “erronous conclusion” technique during an interview. Essentially, you make an erroneous conclusion as a sort of lure, and judging by the response you get, you can obtain information about the situation, REGARDLESS of the way the person responds (a non response also counts as a response). An erroneous conclusion would be to assert something that is clearly false about the interviewee, such as “you are from california.”, to which the interviewee would typically respond with a denial and a correction- netting you information at the cost of “looking like you are wrong” (which is a small cost in most circles, just look at Columbo). If the person does not deny it, you might be able to reach a few conclusions about that, such as the guess that they are uncooperative, don’t want to respond in one way or another…etc… The gambling part of the gambit is centered around the fact that it is a commitment to something which is not certain, or the results are vague. Gambits are a type of strategic employment.

Anyways, I meant this to be a sort of re-introductory post, but it turns out to be an exposition of methodology. I’ll stop for now.

Considerations: Analytic Philosophy and Warrior Thought

I’ve decided to take a long break from analytic philosophy for the moment being. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, analytic philosophy concerns itself with logical arguments and is the predominant form of philosophy taught in western universities.

It’s also ridiculously restraining, leaving very little space for any kind of creative input and really doesn’t allow too much space for other forms of thought.

I dunno why, but even though I love philosophy, I really can’t seem to fully appreciate the analytic style. It’s really not the type of philosophy that interested me in the subject to begin with, and really seems to constrict what I can do…. or even think.

In fact, sometimes I look at the 7 year PhD. program and wonder if I would enjoy it at all. I begin to wonder if there is something else I should pursue.

Which leads me to my next topic:

I started reading Gorin no Sho today. For those of you who don’t know what that is, it translates to “The Book of Five Rings” and is the magnum opus of legendary swordsman Miyamoto Musashi. Basically its a staple in understanding eastern warrior thought and a must read of warrior philosophy. In it, Musashi advocates a very buddhist and zen like approach towards life and battle.

Basically, this is another stream of philosophical thought that interests me, and this approach towards philosophy isn’t concerned so much with analytic arguments as it is concerned with a way to approach life. For example, lets take Musashi.

Zen and Warrior Philosophy has ALWAYS interested me. Unlike analytic philosophy which attempts to untangle riddles and clarify things, Warrior Philosophy always seems to address a sort of philosophical attitude or approach towards life. For instance, many warriors will perceive themselves as already dead in order to be able to maintain control of themselves or avoid the stress and panic that often accompanies going into battle or entering a duel.

But beyond finding a coping mechanism for dealing with troublesome tasks, these warriors often strove for Perfection. A Perfect Warrior cannot be one who just knows how to swing a sword, there is much more to a warrior than just being able to cut down an opponent. One must be able to be constantly aware of his surroundings, he must be able predict or be aware and be able to be ready for battle at any moment. In essence, a person who wishes to become a warrior must be a warrior at every moment: aware, with a fluid mind and have the ability to adapt to any situation.

For this, Musashi advocated those who followed his martial art to pursue all ways of art. That includes painting, poetry, writing, and other pursuits. One must be able to become an everyman, and should not constrain himself/herself to only one way of viewing life. And one cannot stop his mind and fixate on single instance, one must keep moving and keep his mind fluid. For if one were in a duel, the moment one’s mind stops and fixates on the sword swinging to cut him down is the moment one is slain.

Anyways, I might have went to town with this post. But this may be just a result of restraining my disgust towards some analytic philosophy for so long. Hopefully I’ll be able to find a way to learn more about it in the coming years, and not be trapped in the structured jail of analytic philosophy.

A response to my question at: http://thoughtfulapples.com/?p=45

1)Yes-Basically, this is necessity when it comes to responsibility. If you believe that no one is responsible for his actions (determined) we can’t even talk about these questions.

Then we have questions 1-2:
2)Yes-The idea behind this question is that you “change into a different person” when you drink. So if you are a different person, then you “shouldn’t be responsible for your actions”. Sort of like how Mr.Jekyll is a different person from Mr.Hyde. However, if you know the results of taking the potion (or drinking in this case) then you must be responsible for what follows. Knowledge of what will happen afterward is key in this case. As far as it goes for us though, the effects of alcohol are well known, so we do have an idea of what we are getting ourselves into when we drink.
3) Here’s where it gets tricky, in the second case the person is responsible because he knowingly drinks the potion causing him to act in a crazed way. In this scenario, he doesn’t even make that choice, he is just put into a different state of mind.

Consider this scenario: We have an animal that goes into a blind rage whenever it sees the color red. When it is in rage it can’t think or reason, it just goes wild and kills things. Of course, if we saw this in society, we would inevitably do something (blind it, colorblind it, imprison it). But that is to sidestep the question of responsibility.

To answer this question, we have to establish whether we judge someone based on their overall (drunk and not drunk) personality, or on their choices.

If we judge based on their overall personality, we would have to condemn Person A, because his personality in his drunken state led to killing someone. A repercussion his sober state has to deal with.

If we judge based on people’s choices (sober version). Well, in this scenario, his sober state had no weight on the choices of his drunken state. So i suppose we wouldn’t be able to say that he chose to kill that person, so we would have to let him go.

Aaaannnddd….sorry guys, I don’t think I have a good answer for this right now. I know I’m wimping away from the problem, but I feel like I could build upon this one much more.

4)Yes-This case seems to pull a “understandable action” sort of scenario. In this case, we can understand why Person A did it, we might even say that it’s perfectly understandable that he did it. However the fact is he did do it, and he did have the choice to do it. And a choice between two evils is still a choice, so he must take responsibility for that choice.
5)Person A wants to kill Person B. He drives out and is on his way to kill Person B, but is so nervous that his hands shake, and he lets go of the parking brake which in turn causes the car to roll down a hill and hit a person. That person happens to be Person B. Person B then subsequently dies.

Directly, No. Even though I want to say his intent to kill the guy should play a role in deciding responsibility, I can’t say that it IS what killed Person B. It may as well been a “lucky accident” for Person B to die. If anyone other than Person B was in that scenario (say Person C), you wouldn’t say that it was Person A’s intention to killed him, would you?

6)No-The idea here seems to be intention to kill someone. If there seems to be direct intent to kill, then clearly it would be person A’s responsibility. However in this scenario, it seems that Person A could have just been a construction worker working with dangerous equipment. Or perhaps a champion hole digger who laid out signs.
7)No- it’s not her responsibility. Here’s why. In that scenario every man in the area has to make a choice, and many choose not to. It feels like bad taste to use a good quote in a bad example… but: Even if there is an open door in front of you, you are the person who has to walk through it. The situation only “opens the door” its the man’s choice to walk through it.

2 topics I want to explore in the realm of philosophy

I have two topics/questions I want to explore or address in my study of philosophy.

1)The relation between the individual and the social world he lives in.

2)The structure or pathways we use to learn.

Troubled and becoming bitter?

I feel like i’m becoming increasingly bitter, and it really bugs me. After all, I would prefer to be optimistic and approach everything with a positive attitude. But I feel like it’s becoming increasingly difficult to do so.

Philosophy has begun to trouble me. I suppose this is the point where every philosophy major and every person has to look at what they are doing, and examine where they are and where they are going.

I can completely and wholeheartedly understand why people would seek direction in any form possible, because feeling lost is one of the more uncomfortable feelings you could have.

There are still plenty of things I want to do, and I haven’t reconciled them with my life. I don’t want my dreams and aspirations to fall into nothing either, so… what I should do is a difficult question at this point in time.

Philosophical Chaos

I feel like philosophy is a total mess until we obtain an understanding of higher level points of understanding.

It’s good to know how pieces of a particular philosopher’s thoughts work, but they don’t seem to resonate unless we have a comprehension about the way he structures his thoughts and how they relate to one another.

I feel like the idea of argument, once you are able to determine the good argument from the bad immediately, will be the road to higher level understanding in philosophical thought.

In order to know a good argument from a bad one, you must be able to understand why an argument is good, and why it is bad. You must be able to see the points where an argument hinges, which facts are most integral to the argument…etc… Basically, to know an argument, is to know it’s structural form, and knowing which points are the most important to it’s existence.

If you understand how those most important points matter, and how they move, then you can control the argument. These points are like the joints of the arm, if you can control the joints, then you can control the arm.

This doesn’t just apply to arguments of course, but to every sort of practice in existence. There are aspects in Karate or in Economics or in Politics which play larger roles than others. Since there are a limited number of ways you can conduct these practices, undeniably the most important aspects will be the ones you want to focus on.

Of course, it doesn’t seem to be an easy task. After all, you must be able to differentiate what is important from what is non-important. And then differentiate what is most important from that which is slightly less important.

It’s not an easy task, but it may be my road to comprehending much more than I do now.

An analysis of video gaming pt1.

I recently got back into playing some video games, as I received the New Super Mario Bros Wii (or Super Mario 3: 3D as I like to call it), the sequel to Shinobi on the PS2: Nightshade, and Final Fantasy XII.

The New Super Mario Bros Wii game was essentially just the way I remember super mario on the NES, and I ended up taking a trip down Nostalgia lane. Nightshade was an interesting ninja killing game, albiet its more of a time attack game compared to other ninja games such as Ninja Gaiden, and Tenchu.

Then came along the kicker, Final Fantasy XII. It was sorely disappointing for me to find that one of my favorite series (I played 1-9) had created a game that felt more like an interactive movie than game.

So I sat down and thought (as I often do). What is it about games that makes them games and not movies? I mean games like Metal Gear Solid 4 and the Xenosaga series are essentially just movies with gaming bits as well, but they have reached some high acclaim in the gaming industry. So what is it about a game that makes it game?

—————

With this in mind, Lets examine video gaming shall we?

First of all, we should all know that video games have a special quality that makes them different from movies, in that you can feel as though you are a part of them. When you beat a boss for the first time in Zelda, you can say “I beat the boss!”, while in the case of movies, when the boss gets taken down, it’s always due to the incessant gunblazing Action McBiceps or some hero with meatloafs stapled to their shoulders, or something like that.

It’s this immersion that typically makes games so engaging and satisfying. But how do they work?

When it comes to how video games work, typically, I see games working with a very crude form of satisfaction-quenching mechanic. Lets say you start playing a MMORPG, and you start going through the steps of any MMORPG: Take mouse, click monster, watch avatar attack, click monster again, use potion, use skill, click monster, rinse, and repeat.

Lets step away from your actual experience with video games, and read that description again. Sounds pretty bland huh? (if it sounds fun for you, you need a life), but then why do people even bother playing games? In the case of most MMORPG’s I’ve played (I’ve since sworn off them), the actual gameplay does not hold your attention for very long, and soon wears you out. But I keep playing it for other reasons, specifically for the sake of strengthening my character and accomplishing quests. Every time I finished a quest, I would often feel like I had completed something, and I would feel a slight sense of satisfaction. This is the quality that really draws players in.

Lets look at a different example, say the simple tasks of a game such as Zelda: OoT. Lets face it, the majority of quests and things you have to do in Zelda are pretty straightforward and lack any sort of real challenge. You see a giant boulder with the crest of royalty, and you know you are supposed to play Zelda’s lullaby. Mindlessly simple tasks, rather mind-numbingly simple, and yet they are satisfying. Why? Because it feels like we have accomplished something when the giant boulder/wall disappears and something happens in the world. The fact that we can have such a profound effect on what goes on in the world makes things more interesting to us as well, we feel like we are a part of it- which feeds into the immersion.

(continued in pt.2)

I meet weird people

A semi-autobiographical webcomic starting soon…

Philosophy podcast

I think it would be fun to run a philosophy podcast. That being said, it probably wouldn’t be a podcast which would require intensive philosophical debate and heavy inquiry with many sources and whatnot, because i feel as though that would 1)require enormous time commitment which i am unwilling to give out, 2) really thin out our audience, and 3) it wouldn’t be as fun.

Lets face it, philosophy students are generally the type that will seek out more of the primary source material (if they are super serious), and we probably aren’t going to be writing a summary of each philosopher without having that kind of expertise. The only way around that would be to write ridiculously long papers and do intensive research… with time that i don’t have.

We also cannot forget the important aspect of “audience”. I would prefer to appeal to a greater spectrum of people because i feel like that is what philosophy should be able to do. This isn’t just something that only one person can study, its something everyone can practice, so i don’t want it to be so high minded that only a few can follow the conversations.

Lastly, it wouldn’t be as fun to do something so serious all the time. I mean, as a full time student i’m going to be spending much of my time being serious with my studies. Using my spare time to do the same seems like a really lame idea, so i would at least like to interject a bit of humor and fun into my day. Maybe spice it up a little.

So, in conclusion. If this philosophy thing gets off the ground, i believe it should be one that can include humor, be about topics which people care about(while not necessarily being extremely serious or deep- ex. Bruce Lee’s philosophy of style, or the Video Gamer’s mindset). It will include analysis and thought, while including thoughts of other philosophers as well. It may even resemble those horrible philosophy and pop culture books (but hopefully we will do a better job without selling out).