I think you need to include duration, or some other modification of common meaning of “believe” or “accept” in order to make this model coherent, let alone true.
It is ridiculous, given common usage of “belief”, to simultaneously believe contradictory propositions. If I say “2+2=4“ then a moment later,”2+2=3”, what do you predict you’ll believe after another second or two?
That doesn’t mean the spinozan model is not useful—minds seem capable of parallel beliefs and very fast switching, so if the process of evaluating a proposition includes experiencing some amount of temporary compartmentalized belief, so be it.
But it does NOT follow that we need to guard our inputs to prevent experiencing these falsehoods. It just means we should (as in other models) become adept at not integrating them into our long-term reflective beliefs.
Yes, duration and the specifics of the model are important to understand. What I want to know is if the supporting research was conducted in an effective way and can be trusted as a sufficient bolstering of the model.
To be fair, if the models of belief involving encapsulation are true, then one can technically hold contradictory beliefs as long as these beliefs aren’t activated at the same time. Is it possible that dissonance occurs when two contradictory beliefs are activated and held simultaneously? In other words, imagine some stimulus prompts two contradictory beliefs to be activated and for them to encounter one another. This would result in confusion and by the model of dissonance, the creature would seek to resolve this contradiction.
This assumes that dissonance is a real thing.
Back to the Spinozan model, the issue of simultaneously believing contradictory propositions is not an issue for the model, but an issue for the model of beliefs in general.
To address this ” If I say “2+2=4“ then a moment later,”2+2=3”, what do you predict you’ll believe after another second or two?”, we simply need to acknowledge that the conscious mind OR other beliefs override the clearly faulty belief of 2+2=3. The process of automatic acceptance is more subtle (according to the model). Both beliefs are automatically held as true, and then whether through conscious change or interaction with previously held beliefs, the apparent false belief is rejected.
The premise of the model is that ACCEPTANCE COMES FIRST AUTOMATICALLY, and THEN, rejection is a process coming after this in time, possibly from a part of the brain that evolved secondarily.
“But it does NOT follow that we need to guard our inputs to prevent experiencing these falsehoods. It just means we should (as in other models) become adept at not integrating them into our long-term reflective beliefs.”
I agree with this on the basis that guarding inputs would be far too complicated and may not even be a net positive thing for the system in question.
MORE TO INVESTIGATE: - How would a situation such as simultaneous exposure to 2+2=4 and 2+2=3 be resolved in the mind?
I think you need to include duration, or some other modification of common meaning of “believe” or “accept” in order to make this model coherent, let alone true.
It is ridiculous, given common usage of “belief”, to simultaneously believe contradictory propositions. If I say “2+2=4“ then a moment later,”2+2=3”, what do you predict you’ll believe after another second or two?
That doesn’t mean the spinozan model is not useful—minds seem capable of parallel beliefs and very fast switching, so if the process of evaluating a proposition includes experiencing some amount of temporary compartmentalized belief, so be it.
But it does NOT follow that we need to guard our inputs to prevent experiencing these falsehoods. It just means we should (as in other models) become adept at not integrating them into our long-term reflective beliefs.
Yes, duration and the specifics of the model are important to understand. What I want to know is if the supporting research was conducted in an effective way and can be trusted as a sufficient bolstering of the model.
To be fair, if the models of belief involving encapsulation are true, then one can technically hold contradictory beliefs as long as these beliefs aren’t activated at the same time. Is it possible that dissonance occurs when two contradictory beliefs are activated and held simultaneously?
In other words, imagine some stimulus prompts two contradictory beliefs to be activated and for them to encounter one another. This would result in confusion and by the model of dissonance, the creature would seek to resolve this contradiction.
This assumes that dissonance is a real thing.
Back to the Spinozan model, the issue of simultaneously believing contradictory propositions is not an issue for the model, but an issue for the model of beliefs in general.
To address this ” If I say “2+2=4“ then a moment later,”2+2=3”, what do you predict you’ll believe after another second or two?”, we simply need to acknowledge that the conscious mind OR other beliefs override the clearly faulty belief of 2+2=3. The process of automatic acceptance is more subtle (according to the model). Both beliefs are automatically held as true, and then whether through conscious change or interaction with previously held beliefs, the apparent false belief is rejected.
The premise of the model is that ACCEPTANCE COMES FIRST AUTOMATICALLY, and THEN, rejection is a process coming after this in time, possibly from a part of the brain that evolved secondarily.
“But it does NOT follow that we need to guard our inputs to prevent experiencing these falsehoods. It just means we should (as in other models) become adept at not integrating them into our long-term reflective beliefs.”
I agree with this on the basis that guarding inputs would be far too complicated and may not even be a net positive thing for the system in question.
MORE TO INVESTIGATE:
- How would a situation such as simultaneous exposure to 2+2=4 and 2+2=3 be resolved in the mind?