Wednesday, July 22, 2009

The Belief-Machine

Suppose there were a belief-machine that could make you believe whatever you wanted to believe. There are sometimes cases where, intellectually, we find a particular claim compelling, but our "heart," as it were, isn’t in it, and thus we can’t bring ourselves to believe it. Thus, we have what William James called "a divided self." If we want to have religion, the belief-machine can give us religious conviction. If we want to believe that eating meat is wrong, we’ll really believe it. Weakness of will notwithstanding, the belief-machine would have the further effect of changing how we behave. So upon acquiring the belief that eating meat is wrong, we would have motivation to stop eating meat (like we never had before). One thing the belief-machine does not do is provide us with reasons for having these beliefs; they simply seem "natural" or "intuitive" to us. (That doesn't presumably prevent us from coming up with reasons for our beliefs later on.) My question is: would using the belief-machine be wrong? If so, why? (We say it is wrong for others to manipulate unwilling persons, but if I am willing to be manipulated, then what’s wrong with using the belief-machine?)

(Obviously, kudos to Robert Nozick for machine-type thought experiments of this sort.)

3 comments:

  1. "Suppose there were a belief-machine that could make you believe whatever you wanted to believe."

    I have three problems with the above statement. Something that makes me believe what I want to believe is just another form of brainwashing and what I want to believe may be a false belief and lastly it negates the freewill aspect of man.



    "There are sometimes cases where, intellectually, we find a particular claim compelling, but our "heart," as it were, isn’t in it, and thus we can’t bring ourselves to believe it. Thus, we have what William James called "a divided self."

    Thats true but this where human freedom is able to assert itself.



    "If we want to have religion, the belief-machine can give us religious conviction. If we want to believe that eating meat is wrong, we’ll really believe it. Weakness of will notwithstanding, the belief-machine would have the further effect of changing how we behave. So upon acquiring the belief that eating meat is wrong, we would have motivation to stop eating meat (like we never had before). One thing the belief-machine does not do is provide us with reasons for having these beliefs; they simply seem "natural" or "intuitive" to us. (That doesn't presumably prevent us from coming up with reasons for our beliefs later on.) My question is: would using the belief-machine be wrong? If so, why? (We say it is wrong for others to manipulate unwilling persons, but if I am willing to be manipulated, then what’s wrong with using the belief-machine?)"

    The fact that someone is willing to be manipulated does in no way justify the manipulation.

    I would say that any method whatsoever that deprives man of freewill is evil.

    I would much more desire the Truth Machine for it would always be up to the person rather or not he wanted to accept the truth.

    Whichever path that one did choose would in no way bring the heart along with it. The heart is not so easily open to factual truth only.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jack: I have several thoughts, but I'm going to reserve several of them for a follow up post.

    Briefly, "brainwashing" might be another name for this, and of course, "brainwashing" has a negative connotation, I take it because there's something involuntary involved. But as I'm imagining it, using the belief-machine would be voluntary.

    (Is the worry that, like "brainwashing", you wouldn't sufficiently know "what you were getting yourself into"? But it might be something really nice, like having optimistic beliefs. (Suppose you were a miserable pessimist and were tired of it...))

    On manipulation: sure, wanting the manipulation might not justify it. But what justifies not using it? The point about free will seems fishy because you are freely consenting to use the machine. (Does my drinking coffee make me less free? Possibly. A little. Is that ok? Where's the line?)

    On false beliefs: I'm with you here, but why? (Maybe we need to distinguish cases of our "heart not being in it" and wanting the belief for non-truth-aiming reasons...)

    I guess that wasn't that brief...

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Suppose there were a belief-machine that could make you believe whatever you wanted to believe"


    "But as I'm imagining it, using the belief-machine would be voluntary."


    "The point about free will seems fishy because you are freely consenting to use the machine."


    Matthew, this just seems way beyond the realm of anything that would have anything but a continuing sinister effect on mankind as a whole. Anything that could make one believe whatever one wanted to believe may be freely chosen but that would also be where freedom ended and indoctrination begins. We already have this sort of thing all around the world in all types of training camps and also within our schools of learning. However the difference is that one potentially still has the freedom to accept or reject the teaching as time goes on be it true or false teachings.


    "Is the worry that, like "brainwashing", you wouldn't sufficiently know "what you were getting yourself into"?


    Thats certainly one reason.


    " But it might be something really nice, like having optimistic beliefs. (Suppose you were a miserable pessimist and were tired of it...))


    I would rather use therapy or medicine or best of all a gradual transformation within my mind freely pursued all along the way.

    ReplyDelete