I couldn't agree more that a child goes along and believes whatever s/he is told during that time in mental development. That is the very reason why it cannot be considered a conscious agreement. As I mentioned earlier it is faith in the purest of senses.





I would concur. This relates to massage's earlier mentionings. I am happy to say that I had temporarily overlooked that aspect in my tunnel vision.





Yes! The child uses the language as a means to an end. The end is based upon the child's own personal preferences/wants. The child can come to know that the word 'banana' is somehow accociated with that thing that the child remembers liking.

Again, I would concur that a child does not have to know language in order to begin rudimentary reasoning. There are numerous games, puzzles, and and the like which show that that is clearly the case, however, that kind of reasoning was not in question. Reasoning has a direct correlation with understanding cause and effect. Good reasoning is a necessary consequence of correctly associating cause and effect, having good perception of spatial relationships, pattern recognition, etc. Those are some of the innate tendencies I mention sometimes.

If you insist upon calling it an 'agreement', then that is your personal choice, however there is no evidence that I can see for calling it that. A conscious agreement is a deliberately chosen thing, and there are conscious reasons for making that choice to agree. The example is more like a blind agreement - one without thought.

I almost want to agree with you though JB, to be honest here. It certainly is plausible - even makes sense in many ways - that a child can begin to agree without knowing that it is doing such a thing.

I am being reminded of one of my favorite all time books by don Miguel Ruiz called The Four Agreements.



My first memories are from the ages between 1 1/2 and 2 years old. I believe that I was already speaking though. I would have to ask my living parent, and trust her memory to verify that. However, I know that false memories exist, and I also realize that one cannot possibly distinguish their own, therefore there really is no way to verify it.

I would not even begin to categorize all people in the west under one umbrella. I simply do not have enough confidence in my own knowledge base to be able to draw such a conclusion.



Is that so? Who is they? Are you still referring to everyone in the west?

It seems that we have a distinct difference in understanding regarding objectivity and subjectivity. You see, to me at least, an objective truth is a fact, can be shown as such, and it does not depend upon the mind for it's existence. Whereas a subjective thing, such as an opinion, is completely contingent upon the mind for it's existence. In other words, if you remove the mind you remove the existence of that opinion and all that grounds it. Personal likes/dislikes come to mind, it is sorta like this...

Objective...

That is ice cream.

Subjective...

I like peach ice cream best.



Again, this is a very large blanket statement which, to me at least, cannot possibly apply to all western thinking, nor eastern thinkers/philosophers.

Yes there is no way to verify a memory, it is a personal experience. Some may be false. The truth is, in how a memory effects your life, whether it is false or not makes no difference.

When I spoke of the child's 'agreement' I did not use the term "conscious agreement." Consciousness comes in degrees and when we are children we may not be as conscious as we are when we reach adulthood. Even adults are not fully conscious most of the time. But an agreement is still an agreement regardless of how 'conscious' it is. (You may think you are fully conscious, but you aren't.) If you were fully conscious, you would probably have perfect recall or photographic memory.

One of the reasons you have to be 18 or older to sign legal agreements or documents entering into contracts, or have consensual sex is because of the idea that a younger person is not fully aware or "conscious" of what is going on or of the consequences of his or her actions. But young people still make decisions and agreements, regardless of how conscious they are.

Just for the record here I want to say that while I can see how a false memory can affect a person, I would not say that the truth is in how a memory affects a person, moreover I would say that the truth is that the false memory can affect the person. How is not determined by nor constitutes truth. How is a fact. That fact can be determined by an untruth.

Regarding the rest, rather than framing the discussion in terms of consciousness why not talk in terms of critical thinking skills? Reasoning grounds all understanding.

The fact that humans have behaviors on an unconscious level does not make humans not fully conscious.

The aspect regarding children possibly taking things upon faith and faith alone interests me greatly. I think that there is a difference between that and a conscious and deliberate agreement. Identifying that distinction would grow this conversation and increase understanding. I am less and less inclined to deny the proposition that children agree before realizing what that is.

It wasn't intended as a judgment. Nor was it intended to apply to any "individuals". It was intended as a general observation of cultural tendencies. Moreover, it's not even a personal opinion, this has been recognized by philosophers for centuries, if not millennia. The western "world" tends to think objectively. It's hardly a secret. It was this type of thinking that gave birth to the scientific method of inquiry.

However, from a philosophical point of view it's circular thinking.

It basically goes like this: "Assume a premise that the world is objective and we can show that this leads to a conclusion that the world must be objective."

However, it doesn't work this way in science. The greatest scientists have all concluded just the opposite:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

(objective analysis ultimately leads to the conclusion that the world is an illusion)

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman

(the greatest scientists know that there is no objective reality to know and thus scientists are ultimately truly ignorant)

"Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe." - Erwin Schrodinger

(the greatest scientists have realized that the reductionistic approach to reality leads to a conclusion of holism)

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck

(the greatest scientists have recognized that there is far more going on behind the scenes than objective investigation can ever hope to reveal)

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? - Stephen Hawking

(again, the greatest scientists have recognized that there is far more going on behind the scenes than objective investigation can ever hope to reveal)

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg

(objectivity can never be free from subjectivity)

The greastest irony of all is that any objective approach to reality will always lead full circle back to subjective reality. There's no getting around it. Reality is necessarily subjective.

So even the greatest of the western thinkers have ultimately come to the same conclusions as the sages from the east. That's just an observation, not a judgment of any kind.

Taking it on faith is an agreement. Its probably the best kind of agreement. An innocent child has no reason to believe otherwise.

Cultural tendencies? Not a judgment? Ok.



The opinion of many does not change the fact that it is an opinion. Not all people in the west - and that is how it was originally worded - think alike.



Your right, neither does it begin nor work that way in science.



Interesting how you determine who the greatest scientists are. Are you aware that most of those had well known strong religious convictions based in pantheism or 'God'?



We are smart to enough to realize that the world exists independently of our subjective minds. That does not make reality necessarily subjective. It makes our interpretation of it so. That is the point in maintaining as objective a method as possible.



Pulling random quotes completely out of their contextual environment and applying them to a different conversation, which may or may not be applicable does not truly show anything...

Does it?





How does the above support what you claim? It definitely shows that nature itself exists independent from our observation. Objective.

I appreciate your persistence, this time especially!

I am going to have to gladly agree with your claim here JB. Because the act of accepting another's point of view is an agreement, a child necessarily agrees with their teacher(parent, friends, family, etc.) during the earliest years of cognitive development. I think it was the way you described how the child was thinking that was the issue. Be that at it may, I agree that a child has no reason to doubt the parent. If the child had a reason it would then also necessarily have the ability. That ability to doubt requires prior belief which contradicts that which is in doubt.

EDITED TO ADD:

Again, just for the record, I do not agree that agreeing on faith and faith alone is the best kind of agreement. It is blind acceptance, which can easily be established as not such a good idea. A child has no choice at first, though.

So a child is necessarily a blind follower of that which is being taught by the early teachers, whomever they may be. As already shown a child also uses the innate sense of logical reasoning(associating cause and effect with the world around them and with themself) which we are all born with and continuously use in order to function.

If a belief system is to be considered as everything which one comes to accept as true, then logically speaking, the only way for one to change their belief system is for one to either accept something which contradicts that which they have come to believe or keep fortifying that which is already accepted through how it is being framed in one's perception.

Is there anything inherently illogical in this?

The judgment of what is "Best" would depend on whose perspective you are talking about. From the child's perspective, if deceit is involved, it might not be 'best' for the child.. if it is not in the child's best interest.

But from the perspective of a person who wants to convince someone, the best (or most successful) job of convincing will be done on a young person or a child who believes and respects and accepts authority.

The military is a good example. They take young minds and mold them to what they want. The Hitler youth program took very young minds to mold them. Terrorists are trained from a very young age too. These are the 'best' subjects.

in many cases there may be a "BEST" option regardless of whose perspective you are talking about.

not all approaches are equivalent. therefore a difference can be measured. therefore they can be ranked based on criteria. therefore an optimum can be found. the optimum is best.

In order to utilize logic, there must be at least two data to compare, and a standard of some sort that can be used to measure them (which may be one of the perceptions/data).

So at the point where the very first perception/datum is received, it is not possible to either reject it as false, or accept it as true, because there is no second datum to compare it with. It is only after a second perception/datum is received that any comparison can be made. So there can be no belief system until there have been at least two perceptions/data received.

But even at this point, there can be no logical reason for assigning truth or falsehood to either perception/datum. There must (eventually) be some completely arbitrary decision made.

However, the way you defined "innate sense of logical reasoning" makes it dependent upon time. That is, there is a cause, and following that, there is an effect. But then how are the cause and the effect asssociated with each other? The simply observation of two events happening at different times does not necessarily indicate any inherent connection between them. So there must still be an arbitrary decision made (association of cause and effect if you will) in order for there to be any belief system at all.

The bottom line here is that one must make a decision of some sort, (and that decision cannot be anything but arbitrary) before there can be a belief system. Thus, there is nothing in a belief system that is not ultimately based (either directly or indirectly) on an arbitrary decision. And since the belief system is created by a decision, it seems reasonable to assume that it can be changed (or even "uncreated") by a decision.

Creative saidWhat about "unconscious/subconscious agreement"? (Which I consider to be different from faith.)

Are belief systems necessarily composed strictly of conscious agreements?

If so, then what of the unconscious/subconscious? Does it have any part in belief systems? (Basically I'm just saying that from a practical standpoint, subconscious agreements can have just as much effect on one as conscious agreements.)

Fundamentally, a belief system (as you've defined it) contains simply an aggregate of ideas that are "true/false because _________."

Now even if something is considered true/false because of an unconscious agreement, it still fits the definition of a component of a belief system.

So it seems to me that unconscious mechanisms can affect one's belief system, which seems to be borne out by observation of such things as instinct and intuition.

This may be true in a strict sense, but this 'first piece and second piece of data' scenario doesn't necessarily apply to, say, toddlers. Even in the womb, fetuses are receiving information, and as soon as they open their eyes they are swamped with data.

Very early on they experience phenomena such as: believing the toy is in their parents hand, and discovering that it isn't.

The basic process of sorting data and understanding it on a basic level is so complex and dependent on development which takes months or years that by long before the child can even speak they have gone way past the 'first two pieces of incompatible data' scenario.



There may be an arbitrari-ness to the decision in the earliest stages, and even adults confuse correlation with causation; but with time and the ability to learn from mistakes, sane children can come to learn that there is such a thing as 'cause and effect', and thereby be better equipped to influence and predict events in their surroundings.



You set out a chain of logical reasoning which, if valid, would only apply to the first pieces of data and 'beliefs' (to use the term loosely, so we can include the earliest ways of relating to data).

Lets not mistake chronology with logical dependency. Of course fetuses and newborns are ill-equipped to make sound decisions on how to interpret data. Long before a human can make statements about the world, the sane ones have learned quite a lot through their interactions with reality.




I am in complete agreement with this statement (substituting 'decisions' for 'decision'), but the two kinds of decisions are not equal...for adults, having belief systems brings comfort; the decisions we use to build them tend to make us more comfortable, while the decisions we use to "uncreate" them tend to make us uncomfortable.

I strongly agree; in fact, for most people, most of the time, I think the unconscious mechanisms are the true determiners of our belief systems, and we constantly delude ourselves to think otherwise by rationalizing our beliefs.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said here. But I was trying to look at the genesis of the belief system, not how it functions once it is already in place.

Once you start talking about anything after the first two bits of information and the necessarily arbitrary decision that must be made before a belief system can exist, you're talking about a fully functional system, not the mechanism or process which brought that system into being.

In short, there was a point in time when the belief system did not exist, and there is a later point in time where a belief system does exist. What I'm looking at is what happened in between those two times.

As I see it, in order for a belief system to come into existence at all, there had to be:
1) at least two data
2) at least one arbitrary decision regarding those two data.

And the making of that initial arbitrary decision marks the creation of the belief system. Also, it is recognized that the initial decision that creates the belief system does not have to be made based on only two data. That decision could be postponed until many data are received. But in any case, per Creative's definition of "belief system" it is that initial, arbitrary decision that marks the point at which the belief system came into being.

I do think that I understood that; though I wonder if we are both thinking of the same 'level' of involvement or complexity or seriousness of the 'belief system'. What I'm was trying to say, in response, is that the first of these states (which you describe as an 'early fully functional belief system') is appropriately lost in the shuffle of sorting out the ongoing onslaught of sensory data, and that this line of reasoning (though it may be valid) might not have any significance when looking at how a person forms beliefs or impressions at 6 months or a year.



Is this an abstract argument, or something which might apply in real life? Since this hinges on 'the first pieces of data, the first decisions, and the first beliefs', I am focused on a imagining when and how this might happen with an actual human....and I just don't think this has much to do with actual humans. If we were talking about machine intelligence, I might see this differently. Within the first few months there might be billions of pieces of data that have passed through the child's perceptions; and there may be thousands of opportunities to (unconsciously) compare one's (unconscious) impressions against new data. What is the line that divides impressions from beliefs? It seems to me that there would be a tremendous if somewhat messy backdrop of experience/data for the earliest 'more solid beliefs'.

I think another reason I'm not so sure of the applicability of this reasoning is that it is based on a linear, serial approach to processing information, making decisions, forming beliefs; which may be why I thought of machine intelligence. I'm not convinced the serial/linear model is the best one for a detailed examination of how humans for beliefs - and a detailed examination is necessary for the situation you are presenting.

On building a belief system:

I don't think it is done completely with the (conscious) mind.
There is some information that I personaly draw upon that is probably from the subconscious or even from the collective mind. Some people call it a "hunch."

After the experience of learning that not everything people say or claim is the gospel truth, and after having heard both true things and untrue things, and hype, and spin, one develops a feel for what is true or, (for the skeptic) one develops a feel for what they will personally accept as being true.

When people speak to me on a day to day basis, I assume they are telling the truth because I naturally feel that there is no advantage to telling lies. But if they are telling a lie, a little bell sort of goes off in my head... or I somehow pick up clues that this is a lie. Then I take everything they say with a grain of salt. I don't discard is as 'all lies' but I don't take is as all truth either.

I don't listen to or engage in gossip and I have no respect for people who do. Endless stories about the private details of other people's personal lives don't interest me. Neither do I care about people who lie or gossip about me. It is none of my business what other people say or think.

If any of that false information does interfere with my life, I will deal with it face on. If someone says they heard certain things about me, and these things are not true, I will inquire from whom did they hear these things. If they will not give me the names of real people, then I tell them that they are spreading untrue gossip and I would appreciate it if they would stop.

Back to belief systems:

If I have information that I do not know is true or not, I simply consider the information knowing that there is probably some truth in it somewhere and I will find it using 'feeling' and common sense.

If part of the information is a lie and part truth, which is usually the case, I will find the truth and separate if from the lie.

But don't toss the baby out with the bath water. If there is a lie, don't discard the entire body of information. The truth is in there somewhere.

This is true in interrogating criminal suspects too. The trick is to be a strainer or filter that can find the truth in the muck of all the lies.

What we eventually decide to believe, becomes our belief system. It takes experience to develop right discrimination in determining what you will accept as true and what you will doubt or decide is not true. But all of this is a personal skill and decision. It is not just the way we have been programed.

A person that just accepts beliefs from others without developing the skill of right determination is just mentally lazy or not very conscious.

Jeannie said