Building a belief system

[creativesoul]

This topic involves what is considered as a normal mental functioning human being and their belief system. By belief system I mean, everything that one comes to accept as true throughout their entire life.

How does one come to believe something is true?

Seeing how that is the foundational element in this line of thinking, I believe that question needs to be objectively addressed. I will do so by offering a premise which is necessarily true in all known cases.

1.) One's initial belief system is learned and starts simple.

To me this is self-evident, however that is contingent upon some other fundamental principles. A mature belief system is a complex mechanism. Seeing how an adult's personal belief system requires complex conscious correlations, I think that a child's must begin much more simply. It requires the ability to recognize simple correlations between actions and consequences, the mental recognition of cause and effect. The term simple is important here because children are necessarily - at first - simple minded. It is common sense that a child does not/cannot have an elaborate understanding of complex ideas before they gain the understanding of the more simple elements which combine to produce those more complex ideas. One does not just begin speaking about complex concepts, rather a child begins with simple utterances which mean simple things. We are born with a physiological nervous system. We have an innate ability to physically perceive the world around us. We do not need 'outside' help to be able to see, hear, taste, feel, and smell. We do not need to be able to recognize the world around us in order to physically percieve(sense) it. Without being able to identify that which is being perceived, we must conclude that a child cannot be born with a complex understanding of things which have yet to have been perceived or learned of.

It makes sense then, that a child first begins to realize through the unknowing use of the innate physiological nervous system that certain actions get certain results/consequences that amount to anything that feels 'good' and/or they like, such as being fed, held, talked to, etc. while others get others that amounts to anything that feels 'bad' and/or they don't like, such as being burned and the like. Through such a conscious correlation being made between behavior and reaction, the person begins to consciously identify cause and effect relationships through their recognition of consistency concerning these things amd thereby begins to accept things as being 'true'.

In much the same way, I believe that one also begins to learn to correlate specific vocalized sounds with specific objects of perception - one begins to have a working use of language. It makes sense to me that when one is first learning how to speak and/or effectively communicate they are beginning to accept things as being 'true' as well, but it is a slightly different kind of recognition in thought which is more like a realization that a specific words means something specific. They begin to believe not only that so and so word means this, or that so and so word means that, but also why that is the case through distinction from other words and their appropriated correlational objects. That constitutes reason to believe that one is taught not only what things are called, but by that they also learn to make conscious and vocal distinctions between things. They learn that things are not called something else. In this way, learning the names of different things necessarily comes first in regarding the language aspect of one's belief system.

That is all I will write for now. I am curious to see what kind of interest this generates. The topic has always fascinated me.

 

[borrofburi]

I think this is relevant, you may find it quite interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

 

[creativesoul]

Ah... of course. Thanks for the link, and epistemology is relevent, however not all belief systems include knowing that. Even though that covers and addresses all belief systems, it does so from an epistemological framework. Witt clearly established that all belief has at it's roots an ungrounded basis. His repeated use of the term hinge proposition intrigued me because I do not remember his ever having gotten to one.

Kant, Witt, Hume, Kirk, and Jung all have an influence upon my thinking here. In addition to that, there is the Gettier problem as well.



Worthy of discussion, I think...

 

[obsidianavenger]

while i agree with the general outline of your thought here it seems to me that you take a distinctly empiricist position here, assuming that the mind is something of a blank slate. forgive me if this is not your belief, as you did mention Kant... though i find he is wrong in particulars, his assertion that the mind comes, not with knowledge, but with a predisposition to take in and process information in certain ways was brilliance. the clearest example of course is how chomsky later came along and with his research on language learning proved that our brains are "wired" to learn it.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate.html

have i mentioned that i love steven pinker?

other studies have indicated personality traits such as introversion and sensation seeking a present from birth as well... all very fascinating.

cause and effect i am not sure.... we definitely has a predisposition to ascribe agency to things where no such agency exists... which would likely suppose cause and effect. i am not sure how to test that or speak of anything without the concept.. is that evidence!?

hehe anyways... interesting topic. i look forward to what other people have to day on the subject

 

[creativesoul]

obsidian wrote:

while i agree with the general outline of your thought here it seems to me that you take a distinctly empiricist position here, assuming that the mind is something of a blank slate. forgive me if this is not your belief, as you did mention Kant... though i find he is wrong in particulars, his assertion that the mind comes, not with knowledge, but with a predisposition to take in and process information in certain ways was brilliance. the clearest example of course is how chomsky later came along and with his research on language learning proved that our brains are "wired" to learn it.

I do in fact most often take an empiricist position when discussing the contents of a belief system. However, it does not necessarily follow that I believe that the mind is a blank slate. A blank slate does nothing. The empirical method of gathering/evaluating evidence does not necessarily exclude nor deny the existence of innate genetic predisposition. That has also been established and therefore determined empirically.

The biggest difference that I see in today's knowledge base compared to Kantian days regarding the brain lies in the saying 'Neurons that fire together wire together', and that is also empirically founded. There are well-known windows of opportunity for the physical development caused by certain thinking based activities. I find that the 'mind' is a function of the brain and comes by combining our innate ability/potential for logical inference with all belief, which is not necessarily knowledge as it is commonly defined by justified true belief.

While what I have read from Noam indicates that he is indeed brilliant, I am not so sure that our brains were previously wired to learn language as much as they have evolved to be able to do such a thing. It seems to me that they contain the necessary elements required to be able to do so as a necessary consequence of our developed vocal abilities and their continued use/wiring with our brains throughout human history.

other studies have indicated personality traits such as introversion and sensation seeking a present from birth as well... all very fascinating.

There can be no doubt that some personality features are innate. I question whether or not, or rather how much those features necessarily affect what one accepts as true.

cause and effect i am not sure.... we definitely has a predisposition to ascribe agency to things where no such agency exists... which would likely suppose cause and effect. i am not sure how to test that or speak of anything without the concept.. is that evidence!?

I think that mankind's history shows that ascribing 'agency' to inanimate objects of perception was a necessary consequence of ignorance in addition to being a product of becoming self-aware and relating things to ourselves from our own frame of reference which promoted our own survival as a species. Kant clearly showed that our recognition of cause and effect is the necessary foundation of all human knowledge, and is required in order for us to be able to function in this world with any kind of confidence in our assessments and/or decision making. Therefore, our need to understand the world around us is not a choice, per se, it is more like a requirement for our ability to function as a human being.

I think Kant's description regarding the faculty of judgment is brilliant and directly applies to belief systems.

hehe anyways... interesting topic. i look forward to what other people have to day on the subject

Thanks... as do I.

 

[Dialog]

Just a little logician's interlude ;-), but this is self-contradictory:

1.) One's initial belief system is learned and starts simple.

Anything that is fully learned, must have started from an absolutely empty system. However, simplicity implies the existence of structure. Not very complex structure, but some structure at least. Now maybe I am taking your words just a tad bit too literally, but there can be no structure in an empty sytem. There is no initial state for a system that is both fully learned, and simple.

Additionally, nothing can actually be fully learned.
Learning implies a translation of an input to an output. To do this, however, there need to be some rules for the dimensions of the input and output, and the translation rules of input to output. There must be some structure present, before a learning system can be set in motion.

Oh, and hiya forum ;-)

Dialog

 

[creativesoul]

creative wrote:

1.) One's initial belief system is learned and starts simple.

Dialog responds:

Just a little logician's interlude , but this is self-contradictory:

Anything that is fully learned, must have started from an absolutely empty system. However, simplicity implies the existence of structure. Not very complex structure, but some structure at least. Now maybe I am taking your words just a tad bit too literally, but there can be no structure in an empty sytem.

There is no such a thing as an absolutely empty system. That is self-contradictory. A system necessarily has structure, and the stucture of a belief system begins with the merging of two distinctly different kinds of learning, that which is learned through our innate perceptual faculty using our innate ability to logically infer, and that which is learned through a native tongue about that which is being perceived/inferred.

There is no initial state for a system that is both fully learned, and simple. Additionally, nothing can actually be fully learned.

Not that I completely agree with the implications here, but aside from that... Why did you use that particular adjective/qualifier in the beginning of this counter then? :roll: I would'n be a nuthin' with my head all full 'o stuffins and my heart all full 'o pain...

When comparing a very young child's belief system with an adult's - which is the only comparison available and applicable - the child's begins relatively simple. A belief system emerges from the use and application of a previously existing physiological nervous system and a learned language. Those are three completely different kinds of systems that are being necessarily interwoven. In light of our current knowledge regarding the early formative years of cognitive development in children, a belief system must begin with simple means and simple measures. This was briefly covered in the OP. Your use of the term fully is inappropriate to this discussion/construct. A belief system, as defined in the OP, is always changing - necessarily so - and therefore it is both always and never 'fully' learned, depending upon which two points in time are being compared to each other regarding the system's content.

Learning implies a translation of an input to an output. To do this, however, there need to be some rules for the dimensions of the input and output, and the translation rules of input to output. There must be some structure present, before a learning system can be set in motion.

It does... there does... there does? Who said that there was no previous structure present? Does that mean that a child cannot begin to recognize cause and effect all by itself through the implementation of the innate ability to logically infer conclusions from perception before knowing the translation, rules, and dimensions of a system?

I hate these kinds of false computer analogies. Computers cannot willingly change their mind according to that which is voluntarily and deliberately sought out and learned. Computers do not have emotion nor personal preferences which affect their thinking. Computers do not function like humans do. :roll: