Can you make yourself believe something?

[Surlethe]

Reading through the thread, I see a common theme in replies that it would take a long time for me to deprogram myself from Christianity; and as I reflect, I think I'm equivocating on belief. I'm not sure what the alternative is, but when I say "switch on" or "switch off" beliefs, it's a conscious choice, saying "I believe/don't believe such-and-such". There may be a subconscious level of belief going on even while my conscious believes differently, but I'm not sure what to make of that, since I'm not consciously aware of it. Perhaps, instead of actually making the decision to believe in God, I'm really choosing to ignore the logical implications of lack of evidence.

As for emotions, it's not a matter of "switching them off"; it's a matter of ruthlessly crushing the undesired emotion until I've trained my mind not to bring it up. Of course, this would imply I have no emotional attachment to God, which I had never realized before.

[Pick]

I used to alter my beliefs often when I was younger, but not in regards to religion. Several times I convinced myself I could walk through trees, didn't live in the Willamette Valley, and was a dragon. No, these weren't idle fantasies. I was absolutely convinced that these things were true, but that I couldn't tell people because they wouldn't believe me in return. Needless to say, I don't really attempt these kind of metal shifts any more because they were a little fucked up, honestly, and more indicative of a nutcase than of someone with a gift.

[Superman]

Reading through the thread, I see a common theme in replies that it would take a long time for me to deprogram myself from Christianity; and as I reflect, I think I'm equivocating on belief. I'm not sure what the alternative is, but when I say "switch on" or "switch off" beliefs, it's a conscious choice, saying "I believe/don't believe such-and-such". There may be a subconscious level of belief going on even while my conscious believes differently, but I'm not sure what to make of that, since I'm not consciously aware of it. Perhaps, instead of actually making the decision to believe in God, I'm really choosing to ignore the logical implications of lack of evidence.

As for emotions, it's not a matter of "switching them off"; it's a matter of ruthlessly crushing the undesired emotion until I've trained my mind not to bring it up. Of course, this would imply I have no emotional attachment to God, which I had never realized before.

You might just be one of those types whose head governs his heart. Good for you.

Otherwise, you're a Borderline or a Sociopath. Good times.

[Spoonist]

So, am I an aberration, or in self-denial? Can you make yourself believe something?

Same thing here. If I put in the effort I can "switch" emotions and beliefs on and off. With love I've done it several times.
I can also "compartionalize" information, so that if someone tells me a secret I will not remember it unless that person is with me.

This of course is on a conscious level and I have no idea how my subconscious feels about it.


I think that most people do things like this but they are not aware that they do it. Like fashion. One day they claim to 'love' a certain color or cut, then they suddenly change. Or when people after being told that someone has feelings for them suddenly develop feelings back which didn't exist before.
The difference being that I'm usually aware that it is a choice and can ignore it, or go against it if I wish.

Also after doing a bit of psychology I'm convinced that any intelligent person can learn how to control their emotions. To the point of learning how to hate/love something for which they where neutral at first.

[wolveraptor]

Comparing it to fashion trends is stupid. Religion, if one is indoctrinated properly, is not so flippantly treated. Similarly, you can't just try to not love your wife who you've been with for 10 years. I dare anyone to try it. If they can supposedly switch such life-altering things back and forth, they can easily love their wife again, right?

[Winston Blake]

I've made decisions about religion in the past; I can "switch off" Christianity as I please (I've tried it before; I just say to myself, "Let's see what it's like not to believe in God", and do it), and turn it back on again; and I've made decisions about other emotional attachments, like love.

Speculation, skepticism and imagination aren't the same thing as actually changing yourself. Otherwise most people here would truly know exactly what it's like to serve in a scifi-verse's military. I can say 'Now if pigs could fly, reasons for why i would never have seen any because they're very rare, or there's a conspiracy hiding their existence. If i did see one i might avoid trying to capture it for those reasons'. It doesn't mean i temporarily believed that pigs can fly and that there is an anti-aeroporcine conspiracy.

OTOH, I think being in an altered state of mind, like very drunk, very insomnial [word?] or using hallucinogens can certainly make a person's truth (ie reality) waver. How many times have you woken up from a dream and been absolutely sure of certain things which you realised were absurd a minute later? Real doublethink would probably involve inducing a similar state permanently.

Regarding your 'switching off' love, it might be more a matter of stimulating yourself to replace a current emotion rather than changing your capacity to be stimulated. E.g. if someone tells a really funny joke, you can stop yourself from laughing by thinking of a very sad event. If you want to hate someone, then concentrating on remembering all times that person has been nasty disgusting, hateful, furious, etc can make your mood change for a while. However, the equilibrium point that you will end up returning to won't change.

[Spoonist]

Comparing it to fashion trends is stupid. Religion, if one is indoctrinated properly, is not so flippantly treated. Similarly, you can't just try to not love your wife who you've been with for 10 years. I dare anyone to try it. If they can supposedly switch such life-altering things back and forth, they can easily love their wife again, right?

Comparing it to fashion trends is a simple way for me to explain the concept to someone who doesn't understand, like you.

Not to love your wife happens all the time, ever heard of bad divorces where people transfer their love into hate with abandon?
It is a choice (conscious/subconscious) wether you take a particular argument to the next level and from there escalate it to anger and then to hate, people do it all the time.
If you would focus on all the bad things or the annoyances you'd soon grow angry at your spouse, from there if they react badly back it is easy to get into a fight, and when you are in a fight saying hateful things is easy, and from there hating is easy.
Going the other way focusing on what is good or what you like can make you forgive the argument, etc.
Now if you let yourself be aware of this, then suddenly you have a choice next time you have a grudge, will I turn this into an argument or not?


From your response I think that you have put an moral/emotional value in this that doesn't exist.

[Spoonist]

Religion, if one is indoctrinated properly, is not so flippantly treated.

Of course not. Your caveat "indoctrined" says a lot. Ever heard of "deprogrammers"?
Why it is possible to convert people at all is the same reason why it is possible to consciously change belief system. It might not be as strong as a fundies belief but the belief is still there.

When there has been paradigm changes in science you usually get a lot of people who can't keep up with the change and a lot of people who can. Again this is a choice.

[Zadius]

Just out of curiousity, what did Zadius have to say about all of this?

Well, here's some snippets of what I was saying on the other board:

I literally do not have control over my beliefs; only the introduction of new information can change my view.

In order for to convert me, one would have to point out flaws in my reasoning to my satisfaction or I would have to discover the flaws myself. But as long as the structure of my reasoning stands I cannot break through it to the other side.

[CoyoteNature]

You could make yourself believe in something, as along as you wanted and needed it hard enough.

The only thing that generally prevents you from believing it are social reinforcement, and perhaps a certain degree of stubborness.

A person stranded on a desert island would find due to loneliness believing a coconut is friend, or fantisizing that he or she wasn't really alone or a number of other things that otherwise would never believe in in the real world.

It just really depends on where you get your reality from.

[wolveraptor]

Comparing it to fashion trends is a simple way for me to explain the concept to someone who doesn't understand, like you.

That only works if the analogy is correct, which it isn't, since fashion is so much more casual than marriage (most of the time, anyways), so obviously tastes and preferences can be randomly changed, even then, they are rarely a conscious choice, i.e. "I'm going to like blue today and green tomorrow." Usually, some event, experience or person causes another person to like a particular fashion.

Not to love your wife happens all the time, ever heard of bad divorces where people transfer their love into hate with abandon?

Strawman. I never claimed that not loving your wife was impossible. I just claimed it wasn't a conscious choice.

It is a choice (conscious/subconscious) wether you take a particular argument to the next level and from there escalate it to anger and then to hate, people do it all the time.

I feel it depends on circumstance as well. Let's say you had the shittiest day in the world. Your corrupt asshole boss fired you because the company couldn't keep you and his flagrant raise. Some punk bashed your windshield out, and your insurance company cancels its policy because your last payment was late (even though this was the post-office's fault). You come home, step in dog shit and get in the face with a snowball by your the bratty kid that lives next door and slip and fall on black ice. Finally, you step inside, hoping for some relaxation when your wife complains that the trash stinks and that you need to take it out. You explode and "take the argument to the next level". Would you contend that this is a conscious choice, or simply a hostile reaction to multiple woes piled upon you? A lot of these problems will continue through the next few months, so there won't be make-up sex for quite a while, so this could easily lead to divorce, especially if you did something really regrettable like hitting someone.

If you would focus on all the bad things or the annoyances you'd soon grow angry at your spouse, from there if they react badly back it is easy to get into a fight, and when you are in a fight saying hateful things is easy, and from there hating is easy.

People only tend to focus on all the bad things if A) they are a pessimist by nature, or even clinically depressed or B) they've gotten a lot of shit piled on them, and naturally react with hostility to the slightest offense. Either way, it isn't a conscious, rational choice the way Surlethe describes his religion switching

Going the other way focusing on what is good or what you like can make you forgive the argument, etc.
Now if you let yourself be aware of this, then suddenly you have a choice next time you have a grudge, will I turn this into an argument or not?

This is usually what happens when besides this argument, life is okay. Again, most people just react to their environment. They can consciously try to view the world another way, but this doesn't occur unless the new world outlook wasn't disagreeable with the old, or faith in the old was shaken by something.

From your response I think that you have put an moral/emotional value in this that doesn't exist.

Did you just seriously suggest that there's no emotional value in love and marriage.

I fully concede that eventually, divorce is a choice (the other choice being marriage counseling), but I disagree that you can, through completely rational and conscious thought, come to the point of seriously considering divorce. Other uncontrollable factors must come into play.quote="Spoonist"]Of course not. Your caveat "indoctrined" says a lot. Ever heard of "deprogrammers"?
Why it is possible to convert people at all is the same reason why it is possible to consciously change belief system. It might not be as strong as a fundies belief but the belief is still there. [/quote]Well, sure, if you are a casual religionist, you won't have too much trouble deconverting yourself, because your practice of religion was a choice in the first place. Fundies never had a choice in whether to believe in god; they were indoctrinated as children, or as adults with the emotional vulnerability of children. Therefore, they rarely have a choice in deconversion.

When there has been paradigm changes in science you usually get a lot of people who can't keep up with the change and a lot of people who can. Again this is a choice.

How is that comparable to religion and love, two things that can't be objectively reasoned towards (God is irrational and preferences, especially physical, for some human beings over others are often baseless, though not always), unlike physics.

[Spoonist]

Comparing it to fashion trends is a simple way for me to explain the concept to someone who doesn't understand, like you.

That only works if the analogy is correct, which it isn't, since fashion is so much more casual than marriage (most of the time, anyways), so obviously tastes and preferences can be randomly changed, even then, they are rarely a conscious choice, i.e. "I'm going to like blue today and green tomorrow." Usually, some event, experience or person causes another person to like a particular fashion.

Why the analogy usually works when I explain this to people is because there is plenty of examples of people changing their feelings for inanimate objects. And in psychology it is a very easy experiment to set up to see if people can consciouosly change their feelings towards the object.
Now the problem being that feelings are subjective so it is very hard to measure from the outside. So unless you have experience such an experiment/event it is very hard for me to "prove" it to you.
Why fashion is rarely a conscious choice is because people let it be just that. Clothes in human culture usually defines/shows your persona, like status. Most people therefore subconsciously buy clothes that associate them with something they wish/believe they are. Actors use this consciuosly to get into character, sometimes so successful that you can see that the character has had an effect on the actor.

Not to love your wife happens all the time, ever heard of bad divorces where people transfer their love into hate with abandon?

Strawman. I never claimed that not loving your wife was impossible. I just claimed it wasn't a conscious choice.

My point was that since "not loving your spouse" is a choice and is possible, it is just a question of making it consciuos instead of subconscious, which only takes a little training.

It is a choice (conscious/subconscious) wether you take a particular argument to the next level and from there escalate it to anger and then to hate, people do it all the time.

I feel it depends on circumstance as well. Let's say you had the shittiest day in the world. Your corrupt asshole boss fired you because the company couldn't keep you and his flagrant raise. Some punk bashed your windshield out, and your insurance company cancels its policy because your last payment was late (even though this was the post-office's fault). You come home, step in dog shit and get in the face with a snowball by your the bratty kid that lives next door and slip and fall on black ice. Finally, you step inside, hoping for some relaxation when your wife complains that the trash stinks and that you need to take it out. You explode and "take the argument to the next level". Would you contend that this is a conscious choice, or simply a hostile reaction to multiple woes piled upon you?

I claim that it can be a consciuos choice, not that it necessarily is. Most people have never thought about this and will therefore never even try to control their reactions to certain stimuli. This is what couples therapists do all the time. Make you conscious of all the subconscioues nagging/bitching/venting that effects the relationship.
So when you have had a bad day you have the 'tooling' to seek consolation instead of confrontation.

Again, most people just react to their environment. They can consciously try to view the world another way, but this doesn't occur unless the new world outlook wasn't disagreeable with the old, or faith in the old was shaken by something.

Of course, we are not talking about how most people live their life. What I'm saying is that everyone of average intelligence can be trained to make a whole lot of their emotional choices consciously.
Athletes do it all the time, they use enforcement techniques to turn negative feelings into positive ones.

From your response I think that you have put an moral/emotional value in this that doesn't exist.

Did you just seriously suggest that there's no emotional value in love and marriage.

Love and marriage was your example.
What I'm saying is that your subconscious choices doesn't have to be subconscious, and that has no moral/emotional value since it like any tool can be used in both directions.
Then in your example I respond that yes you can consciously change your emotions for your spouse if you wish. But if you are happy, then why would you?

I fully concede that eventually, divorce is a choice (the other choice being marriage counseling), but I disagree that you can, through completely rational and conscious thought, come to the point of seriously considering divorce.

You can, but unless you are disfunctional you wouldn't.
So I agree that unless some other circumstance enters the picture you would not even think about it.
There are many examples of people ending/starting their feelings for economic reasons.
Usually this outer factor is the community you live in or spend time with.

Of course not. Your caveat "indoctrined" says a lot. Ever heard of "deprogrammers"?
Why it is possible to convert people at all is the same reason why it is possible to consciously change belief system. It might not be as strong as a fundies belief but the belief is still there.

Well, sure, if you are a casual religionist, you won't have too much trouble deconverting yourself, because your practice of religion was a choice in the first place. Fundies never had a choice in whether to believe in god; they were indoctrinated as children, or as adults with the emotional vulnerability of children. Therefore, they rarely have a choice in deconversion.

I agree fully.
Also if you have lived in a one belief community then your ability to anylize the belief would be severely hampered.

When there has been paradigm changes in science you usually get a lot of people who can't keep up with the change and a lot of people who can. Again this is a choice.

How is that comparable to religion and love, two things that can't be objectively reasoned towards (God is irrational and preferences, especially physical, for some human beings over others are often baseless, though not always), unlike physics.

Because of how the human mind and culture works you will see the same type of behaviour in science.
We invest emotionally in certain things that we hold for true. That emotional investment may then make us do irrational things in the name of that truth.
Take the uproar after Einstein claimed that Newton was wrong as an example.
Many scientists had such an emotional investment in the old system that they refused to even consider the new system and dismissed it as nonsense.
Why I use science as an example is because it shows the difference between the conscious/rational response and the subconscious/irrational response.
The rational response being to test an idéa to see if it is feasable, but during the history of science it is more common to just ignore new ideas that doesn't fit the picture or in some cases refuse to test certain idéas because if they are proven right then the current paradigm would be false.

[Zadius]

You could make yourself believe in something, as along as you wanted and needed it hard enough.

Despite your assertions I am quite convinced that I cannot.

The only thing that generally prevents you from believing it are social reinforcement, and perhaps a certain degree of stubborness.

Huh? If anything is "stubborn" it is disregarding logic and reason in order to make yourself believe something. There is nothing stubborn at all about being directed completely by the evidence.

A person stranded on a desert island would find due to loneliness believing a coconut is friend, or fantisizing that he or she wasn't really alone or a number of other things that otherwise would never believe in in the real world.

As long as I am healthy, a coconut will always be a coconut.

It just really depends on where you get your reality from.

Exactly. And I'm not one who constructs my reality in my mind.

[wolveraptor]

My only point is that you can't make yourself believe something that is highly objectionable to your current state of mind. Like believing in a pink elephant that flies; I challenge you to make yourself believe in that through rational choice alone (remember, no spirits, wines, liquors or any other mind-altering substance; that's cheating ).

To go back to the divorce example, spouses who deeply love each other cannot consciously choose divorce in anything but a facetious manner because it runs contrary to their current deeply held belief (which is that they should stay together).

[Spoonist]

My only point is that you can't make yourself believe something that is highly objectionable to your current state of mind. Like believing in a pink elephant that flies; I challenge you to make yourself believe in that through rational choice alone (remember, no spirits, wines, liquors or any other mind-altering substance; that's cheating ).

Which of course is a challenge that I wouldn't take.
Especially since 'rational' and 'pink elephant that flies' in the same sentence has a detrimental effect on my ability to convince myself.
Bit give me a while of social interaction with believers in said creature and I would probably have the ability to turn on that belief in that setting.

To go back to the divorce example, spouses who deeply love each other cannot consciously choose divorce in anything but a facetious manner because it runs contrary to their current deeply held belief (which is that they should stay together).

Ah, but people even though they subjectively love eachother can chose to take actions knowing that the action will hurt their partner and their relationship, which is the 2nd most common reason for divorce. The only thing you need is an excuse that convince yourself. For most people who do not have control of their urges/wants/primal emotions it is very easy to give themselves an excuse to do something which is hurful to a loved partner.
"flirting isn't cheating"
"cybersex isn't cheating"
"a few beers more doesn't matter"
"I will just loan the money and pay it back before it's noticed'
"if he/she really loves me then he/she will forget me"
"my abuse is my business"

While someone who is consciuos of their emotional decisions has a much better ability not to hurt the relationship (unless they actually want to).

[wolveraptor]

Consciously choosing an action that leads to divorce isn't the same thing as switching off your love. In fact, it's completely adventitous to the original point.

Bit give me a while of social interaction with believers in said creature and I would probably have the ability to turn on that belief in that setting.

I doubt that. You'd have to grow up in a world where everyone believed in such a thing. Some social interaction with such people would only lead to you think they're nutcases.

[Spoonist]

Blast I wrote a whole answer and by accident clicked 'back'...
So this answer will be shorter than I wanted.

Consciously choosing an action that leads to divorce isn't the same thing as switching off your love. In fact, it's completely adventitous to the original point.

Quite true but I answered this statement:

spouses who deeply love each other cannot consciously choose divorce

Which people do all the time. There are plenty of cases of mutual love where they select divorce anyway for external reasons.

But for the sake of argument back on topic. Yes it is possible to 'switch' of love. But unless you are disfunctional you wouldn't do it without a reason.
I have myself done this over night because I disagreed with a certain action unrelated to me, without any remorse or lingering feelings.
But I will not do that again because I disliked the person I could have evolved into. So nowadays I do not use that 'tool' in my personal life and instead go through the grief and sorrow like everyone else.
Now what we could argue is if it is a percieved or a real effect. I could just be dilusional or in denial...

Bit give me a while of social interaction with believers in said creature and I would probably have the ability to turn on that belief in that setting.

I doubt that. You'd have to grow up in a world where everyone believed in such a thing. Some social interaction with such people would only lead to you think they're nutcases.

Yes I'd probably think they where nutcases. But if the point of the exercice is to believe in what they believe I would change my 'feelings' towards the belief and I would change my 'acceptance of outer input' (without quesitioning).
This is an effective technique used by under cover agents and other operatives. The biggest drawback being that if you are good at it or do it for a long period of time you would need help to get deprogrammed. Becasue after a while your mind would start rationalising your new belief.