I find it amusing that in this article, you are advocating the use of deliberate self-deception in order to ward yourself against later deliberate self-deception.
That said, I feel the urge to contribute despite the large time-gap, and I suspect that even if later posts revisit this concept, the relevance to my contribution will be lower.
“I believe X” is a statement of self-identity—the map of the territory of your mind. But as maps and territories go, self-identity is pretty special, as it is a map written using the territory, and changes in the map can affect the territory as a result—though not necessarily in the exactly intended fashion. So even if deliberate self-deception isn’t possible, then some approximation of it probably is.
Moreover, I’d like to question the definition of ‘belief’ in the context. If we place an emphasis, in the concept, of a belief as something that affects one’s actions, then there is such a thing as a false belief that someone holds: that is to say, an assumption someone intentionally makes, regardless of its’ truth or falsehood, that they use to guide their behavior for external reasons.
That is to say, acting, or role-playing.
I’m rather a believer in cognitive minimalism—that our brains are very uncomplex. So I would assert that the same system that we use to model others’ behavior—or to play others’ roles—we use for our own self-identity. So when you say, “I believe X”, you’re effectively saying, “I act as if X is true”. And if we use the same system to act like ourselves, to model our own behavior, as we do to model or act like anyone else, then that’s most of what the practical impact of a belief is.
What I’m trying to say is that the only difference between acting a certain way and believing a certain thing is that you only do the acting under certain practical conditions—the belief, insofar as a belief is different from an act, is acting in a certain way all the time, for any reason.
Replace “I believe X because...” with “I act as if X is true because...” and I don’t think it’s confusing anymore. Self-identity modification as a tool is pretty important to human cognition, not just for trying to convince yourself that what you don’t think is true, is.
Edit: Actually, I want to amend that last part now that I think on it. I would assert that there is no difference whatsoever; that all reasonable beliefs are contingent. In fact, a big part of acting rationally is about making your beliefs contingent on the truth or falsehood of the object of the belief. Beliefs that aren’t based on accuracy are still contingent, just on things like, “This is beneficial to me in some way.” And really, a rational belief is similar, it just goes, “I believe X because it is accurate,” with the implied addition, “and accuracy is good to have in a belief,” so that boils down to a practical reason as well.
I find it amusing that in this article, you are advocating the use of deliberate self-deception in order to ward yourself against later deliberate self-deception.
That said, I feel the urge to contribute despite the large time-gap, and I suspect that even if later posts revisit this concept, the relevance to my contribution will be lower.
“I believe X” is a statement of self-identity—the map of the territory of your mind. But as maps and territories go, self-identity is pretty special, as it is a map written using the territory, and changes in the map can affect the territory as a result—though not necessarily in the exactly intended fashion. So even if deliberate self-deception isn’t possible, then some approximation of it probably is.
Moreover, I’d like to question the definition of ‘belief’ in the context. If we place an emphasis, in the concept, of a belief as something that affects one’s actions, then there is such a thing as a false belief that someone holds: that is to say, an assumption someone intentionally makes, regardless of its’ truth or falsehood, that they use to guide their behavior for external reasons.
That is to say, acting, or role-playing.
I’m rather a believer in cognitive minimalism—that our brains are very uncomplex. So I would assert that the same system that we use to model others’ behavior—or to play others’ roles—we use for our own self-identity. So when you say, “I believe X”, you’re effectively saying, “I act as if X is true”. And if we use the same system to act like ourselves, to model our own behavior, as we do to model or act like anyone else, then that’s most of what the practical impact of a belief is.
What I’m trying to say is that the only difference between acting a certain way and believing a certain thing is that you only do the acting under certain practical conditions—the belief, insofar as a belief is different from an act, is acting in a certain way all the time, for any reason.
Replace “I believe X because...” with “I act as if X is true because...” and I don’t think it’s confusing anymore. Self-identity modification as a tool is pretty important to human cognition, not just for trying to convince yourself that what you don’t think is true, is.
Edit: Actually, I want to amend that last part now that I think on it. I would assert that there is no difference whatsoever; that all reasonable beliefs are contingent. In fact, a big part of acting rationally is about making your beliefs contingent on the truth or falsehood of the object of the belief. Beliefs that aren’t based on accuracy are still contingent, just on things like, “This is beneficial to me in some way.” And really, a rational belief is similar, it just goes, “I believe X because it is accurate,” with the implied addition, “and accuracy is good to have in a belief,” so that boils down to a practical reason as well.