Viser arkivet for stikkord belief
There are a number of fundamental things that stop people from supporting, in this example, rejuvenation biotechnology. None of the fundamental things can be the rejuvenation biotechnology in itself. The problem lay in the brain of the people (I’m not saying they’re braindamaged), because even if we make them into rejuvenation biotechnology experts they will still have things that will exert energy in their mind, exerting a mental force which pushes them from supporting rejuvenation biotechnology. Meanwhile none-experts like myself do not need to be an expert to support it.
I can explain it in terms of a discussion about free will. It is a topic I have spent close to a thousand hours on and when I explain it, others do not always understand what I say to such an extent they learn something. Most of the time we are two unchanging arguments being sent again and again toward each other. Unless my words and expressions are exactly right and about exactly the right thing which stops them from accepting my conclusion, they still disregard the information I give them and still conclude their view is the correct one. Out of a thousand comments, only a rare few, like ten or twenty, actually conveys information. The others are like one saying “we do not have free will” in pages of words, and the other party going “we have free will” in lots of pages of words. Neither side gets a real reason to reexamine their position.
One in a thousand comments find out the problem, in this case the problem is usually that free will is something we see when the cause of events are not easily apparent. If the billiard ball is bounced around on a table with lots of other billiard-balls, its easy to see there is no free will because we can see exactly what causes all the movements of the billiard ball. If however the table and the other billiard balls are invisible and give no sound, the billiard ball we can see bouncing around appears to have free will and we feel the same as when we see a human deciding to do something.
Until the cause of the argument being rejected is found, it exerts such a powerful force on the mind of the person that he/she does not accept the other argument regardless of its quality. In this case the person still thinks “but I see free will, I feel free will, when I see someone decide between options, this supercede your arguments against free will even though your arguments are without fault”. Regardless of the quality of the arguments I use to prove there is no free will, the only argument that works is usually the one which shows how free will is an illusion.
When people experience to see and feel like it is free will when a human decide which road to take to work, but to see determinism at work when a ball rolls down a hill, they do not take the now obvious-to-us route and ask “why do a ball not look like free will but a human does look like he/she has free will?”. The common thing to do without this piece of idea is to invent lots of arguments, many rational and good and sane arguments, that try to prove to the person that free will exists, to rationalize the delusional observation. The reason for the arguments are inherently to rationalize delusional observations (the observation of free will in humans, the lack of free will in the ball is an observation that fits with reality) and thus these rationalizations are unable to truly explain what free will is to such an extent we can put free will in a ball, or laptop, or other products.
I think we should look for what similarly keeps people from wanting rejuvenation biotechnology. It is probably not rejuvenation biotechnology which is the problem. It is probably none of the arguments for and against rejuvenation biotechnology that is the real problem.
If you ask someone “what keeps you from wanting rejuvenation biotechnology?”, their answer will probably not be the correct one. Their answer will be based on the true answer, like in my experience with free will. When I asked them “what prevents you from accepting that free will does not exist?” they were not able to put into words that they “feel like” they see free will when the causes of events are not easily apparent to us. They invented another answer based on feeling like they see free will when the causes of events are not easily apparent to them.
I arrived at my insight into free will by trying a new way to argue it does not exist every time, making a point to try to not repeat previously made arguments, but it took several months of discussions with those who firmly believed in the existence of free will, before I gained the ultimate insight into why they refused to accept free will does not exist.
Somehow, someway, there’s something that supercede arguments in our minds, something first-hand that we experience which makes us think the arguments must be false even in circumstances where there are no faults in the arguments.
Even though the arguments are not at fault (they’re not experienced as wrong or irrational), this first-hand experience forces us to disregard the arguments in favor of some anti-argument stance. We must figure out what it is and how it works, so we can explain why we get this first-hand experience under certain circumstances while not under other circumstances where we are happy to accept the arguments. Similarly to how we experience some groups of atoms have free will under certain conditions but are perfectly happy to accept the arguments for determinism for other groups of atoms.
I think this shall be the “first-hand bias”. A bias that pushes us to disregard arguments however perfect when they conflict with first-hand experience. Most often without recognizing that we irrationally use first-hand experience in place of arguments, we then experience the delusion of being rational by disregarding the arguments that conflict with first-hand experience. No doubt this has its dosage of chemicals in the brain and certain neurological activity.
Type One: Two people using first-hand biases to disregard the other’s arguments will ultimately result in mostly irrational illogical arguments and fail to resolve anything.
Type Two: Then there is when one person who uses first-hand bias to argue against another which does not use this first-hand bias. This will ultimately lead to one side making irrational illogical arguments and the other will spend much time disproving them but not swaying the other party to accept the arguments from the none-biased party.
Type Three: Then there is the beautiful argument when two people without the first-hand bias trade arguments. Almost never bred in captivity its a rare creature to encounter.
Most day-to-day discussions between two none-experts in a subject are of the first type. Politics, facebook-arguments, etc, are type one arguments more often than not. When an expert discuss with a none-expert it is usually type two, and when two experts in the same subject discuss their expertise subject they can occasionally fall into type three discussions.
If you have an experience that tells you otherwise than the argument made, that your experience is that first-hand experience only very rarely makes us disregard arguments, then you are sort of proving my point.
When I do something, it is because my brain somehow assign most value to that choice. When I choose 2 slices of bread over 3, somehow, 2 slices of bread is of the higher value to my brain.
This affect everything we do, also religion and views about the world.
The most logical argument in the world presenting the best evidence in existence can not convince anyone of changing their minds if their current belief is after the argument still considered more valuable than the belief being offered in the argument. In essence, if you want to convince someone that God does not exist, you just have to provide the feelings/value believing God exist provides, and the belief in God will fall away as a superfluous dry piece of skin. If, to make the example simple, the belief in God provides only the feeling of security, then all you need to provide in your argument against the belief in God, is security without God. In reality, we probably get between half dozen and a dozen feelings (or naturally occurring chemical highs as they are on a neurochemical level) from each world view and belief. We also on a neurological level get a high from various neurons firing more or less, but that is another article.
I get value from having agnostic views, just like an atheist and theist get value from having their atheist or theist views. It is a comfort to me that I can know something if we really work at measuring it, and that purpose of mankind is not imposed upon us from the outside, but that it is something we ourselves can decide from within humanity. It is a comfort and value to me that what is right and wrong has evolved in most if not all species (rats give away 30% of the food they find, even if they’re still hungry, and humans pay taxes, apes usually don’t kill members of their own group, humans usually don’t kill members of their own group, and this without imposed law or morals). It holds meaning to me that for us to exist today, 4 billion years of evolution had to happen, stars had to explode, new solar systems had to form, every single dice had to land just right. It is meaningful that we’re standing on the top of a house of cards that took 13,7 billion years to stack, which fell down wholly or partially several times. When I understand one more thing about humans, like experimental results from behavioral economics, it enrich humans. It makes humans more than just a free-will-entity-that-does-whatever-it-wants-because-it-wants-to-do-what-it-does. It means something grand to me that we do not have free will, but act in such a complex way still, almost as if we had free will. When you as a theist look at atheists/agnosticists you should know our path without theism makes us feel just like you feel because of theism, the only difference is, if we really want to, we can measure that our path exist and we can measure that our path is as we think it is (I am perfectly able to take back that statement if any theist can provide something for us to measure, that measures the existence of their described God (If you can measure God, you also have to be able to measure that it is not a God from another religion, but the God from your religion)). But equally, atheists and agnostics must realize that theists, atheists and agnostics have their beliefs because it gives value. In order for someone to reject their own beliefs in favor of new beliefs, the new belief need to offer the value the old belief offers, and more.
A bad argument you realize has value is accepted even if it is a bad argument, but a good argument you do not see the value in is not accepted even if the argument is perfect. When you wish to make peace in the middle east, or cure the aging process, it is about conveying the value of what your argument tries to convince them of, not about trying to convince them that your argument is correct or not. When you convince someone to cure aging, you convince them that living forever young is indeed good. When you convince people to go to the moon, you convince them that the result of doing it is good. When you convince Israel and Palestine to once and for all stop shooting each other, they will do it because they know the value of not shooting each other (They shoot each other because it gives them value. The belief that they are correct, revenge feelings, politicians win elections by using the “I will provide security/revenge”-card etc. And they believe not shooting each other will provide less value because very few if any have ever provided them with the full list of value present in not killing their neighbor).
PS: If you misunderstand my use of “value” as it works in your brain or something else, that’s on you. Don’t put meanings in my mouth that you extrapolate or interpolate from my words and what you think my use of the words meant. Ask me if anything is unclear or deemed negative by you.
The Monty Hall problem is when you have 3 doors, behind two are goats, behind one there is a car. You do not know which door have the car behind it, but the gameshow host knows. See this video for an explanation.
Now, given n number of doors, each with a belief behind it (christianity behind one, islam behind another, string-theory behind another, M-theory behind another, that the superbowl is on a sunday etc, all beliefs a human can hold). If you choose lets say door X, and another door is opened behind which the theory is disproven (lets say Newtons theory of gravity which is indeed not entirely correct), it will increase your chances of having the correct belief (door), if you choose another door. This holds true for every time a belief is disproven and a door is opened. Regardless of what belief there is behind your door (You don’t know the belief is correct, you simply believe it has not been disproven). If we have lets say 10 doors, we choose one door, the odds of having the right belief is 1 in 10, if another belief is disproven (lets say we find a flaw in one sentence in the bible that simply is not true), and we choose another door, then our chances of having the correct belief goes up, if we then do this until we only have two doors left, and switch all the time, the chances of having the correct belief is 9 out of 10, instead of 1 out of 10 if you never switch belief. Switching doors every time makes sure your chances of having the right belief goes up every time a belief is disproven. If there’s a million doors, there’s a 999 999 in 1 000 000 chance of having the correct belief if you always switch, and only a 1 in 1 000 000 chance to have the correct belief if you don’t switch (and we manage to disprove 999 999 beliefs in a lifetime).
I wonder when the Monty Hall religion turns up in the Facebook choices of faith.