The Power of Belief

There are two significant problems with this:1. The thing you believe with conviction may simply have no technological solution. For instance: Perpetual motion or FTL travel. These may have have a solution or not. No amount of belief will change the universe so that it becomes possible.2. The thing you believe may have a technological solution, but no amount of belief will get you there. Jesus may have believed he could fly to the moon, but human knowledge and resources pretty much made doing so impossible regardless. Even if he worked really hard and figured out Newton's Laws of Motion, he'd still have to figure out something like Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant and find a way to produce enough of it. I agree that believing in something is useful. A lot of the time something new is invented and the inventor believed in it ahead of time. And that certainly helps in overcoming the psychological tendency to give up when presented with seemingly intractable problems.However, nobody had to believe that we could see a person's bones without injury or surgery in order for Roentgen to discover a way to do exactly that.And one might be compelled to work on a project beyond your belief in it. You might be doing it for a living, an engineer in an army being told to work on a new siege engine. Or an act of desperation, you don't believe it will work but it's all you have to go on. The Power of Motivation - which includes the motivation generated by belief. It does happen, but so does the exact opposite. What is important in this kind of thing is large numbers of examples and statistics. I've seen studies that swing both ways regarding the efficacy of 'positive thinking', but I'm prepared to believe that occasional people have a cancer that can be beaten with whatever it's being treated with coupled with a positive outlook. Or that a negative outlook is occasionally enough to push someone away from surviving. I'd like to point out the curious term 'your reality'. I don't have a reality. I have a model of reality. Reality is just what is and this cannot be altered based on my opinion of it.But my worldview is largely dependent on my opinion of it. I change my model of reality as my opinion on what is the better model of reality changes (give or take the inherent irrationalities of being human).However, if something is possible, and you have sufficient belief in it, you might have the tenacity required to realize that possibility. And this is probably a better way than relying on accidentally discovering things through undirected experimentation in many cases.And this applies even in more run of the mill lives: If I don't believe I can get a job I probably won't apply for it. But I can't get it if I don't apply for it.Not having a belief in something is sometimes a good thing though. If I believe in Time Cube, but if I invested time in trying to prove it - I'm guessing that's an investment that's going to be wasted.

The one I think I inhabit is dependent on my state of mind. The one I actually inhabit is completely independent of my state of mind. You can't change the future. It's as impossible as changing the past.All you can do is take actions that will alter your predictions about the future. I point back at some of the potential counter examples I raised before: FTL, perpetual motion and seeing bones under skin and flesh. The point was, it doesn't matter how much Jules Verne believed, he wasn't getting to the moon. We both agree that belief has utility.But some people believe things and no matter how strongly they believe it, they are never going to achieve it. This is in contrast to your OP

quote:

---

However, if I believe it with enough conviction then it does mean that I will eventually figure out how to build a plane.

---

No it doesn't. It just gives you a fighting chance of figuring it out.

In dualism mental objects are in some sense reflections of real things. Alternatively it might refer to the notion that there are two states of being, the physical and the spiritual (sometimes: the mental).
Just because I am identifying two things, it does not make it dualism.I am identifying a model of reality that exists within my brain, which is used to make decisions. This is in contrast to actual reality which is completely independent of the flawed model I have of it in my brain.There isn't a 'my reality'. There is a 'my model of reality' and 'reality itself'. Well what are you changing the future from and what are you changing it into?The future is what will happen.But you can change your predictions about the future. For instance, let us say 'I predict y, if I do not do x; I do not want y, therefore I will do x'. When you do x, it is now what was once 'the future' and it transpires that in the future you did x. Nothing you did changed the future, as the future was 'you do x', and you did in fact 'do x'. As I originally said, emphasis added:

quote:

---

The thing you believe with conviction may simply have no technological solution. For instance: Perpetual motion or FTL travel. These may have have a solution or not. No amount of belief will change the universe so that it becomes possible.

---

We cannot know for certain what is impossible, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that there are some things we can imagine, even believe in, which are in fact prohibited by the fundamental way in which reality operates. I used FTL and PM as examples to avoid sounding vague or over general. You have a certain capacity, a certain capability to perform a task. This is dictated to you by fundamental facts: Gravity, your muscle strength, oxygen content of the atmosphere, flexibility, intelligence, memories etc.Let us call your full capacity, c.Certain tasks require a certain level of capacity to successfully complete them. A cat is not going to write a play in iambic pentameter, it lacks the capacity. We'll call the required capacity, k.Then we have your present capacity, p. While Usain Bolt has the general capacity to run fast, he won't if he's tied to a truck. Again various factors come into play here, but the one of interest here is 'belief one has k'.p = c - xX is a variable which represent things which are for some reason hampering you from operating at full capacity.One might be able to reduce x, partially, by fostering a strong belief in your capacity to perform at k.However, if p < k and x=0 then no amount of extra belief is going to cause you to succeed.

Important to whom, and why do you ask?

Magritte is identifying two things. The pipe, and a picture of the pipe. He asserts that the picture of a pipe is not itself a pipe.Likewise, I'm simply identifying two things. Reality and the model of reality in my head. They are both made up of physical things (just as a painting and a pipe are both physical things), so it's not metaphysical dualism.I'm not suggesting that the model of reality exists spiritually. It exists physically - as a result of certain brain structures. Quite right. No, it's your personal assessment of the possibility of a thing that makes you believe in it. Your assessment may be erroneous. No, it was just to make it simpler to write it out. I just lumped all variables into a 'supervariable'. Me personally? Sure, but I don't think it is necessarily important to everyone. I would say it has altered your model of reality. The reality that you inhabit has not been altered (other than say, your brain).Just as if Magritte may have originally painted a hat, but then altered to into a pipe - all he is doing is altering his painting of reality - he has not actually transformed a hat into a pipe. He has changed a picture of a hat into a picture of a pipe.

Yes, that's the general idea. But it doesn't work entirely like that in practice. The human brain isn't quite good enough to do things that way. We'll consistently make the same kinds of mistakes as a result of the way our brain is set up, and no amount of learning will ever correct for that.Think about optical illusions as a type of mistake: Even if we learn that a particular instance is an optical illusion, it won't stop us from 'falling for' another optical illusion later, even one based on the same principles.We give too much respect to authority figures, we expect too much respect as authority figures. We detect agency where there is none, see patterns where this is randomness. And other assorted cognitive mistakes that we cannot completely learn to compensate for. Then I'm not sure why you raise that point. We are certainly in agreement that it is a variable - it's just not particularly significant that both the level of belief you have and the local gravity are variables. Exactly: And it doesn't matter what beliefs you have in your head about that picture in your mind - it won't alter the reality of the picture itself. If you are going to stand a chance at learning how to compensate for your cognitive shortcomings, you'll have to change this mental equivalence you have set up between 'the way things seem' and 'the way things are'. I know that you later indicate you acknowledge the equivalence isn't perfect. The point is that when our model does not correspond well with reality - we may harbour beliefs about what is possible that are false. And no amount of fervent belief is going to get us to our goal if it is not possible in reality.I agree it may be flawed, and it's the only one we have and that it is subject to change. My point is regarding those very flaws: If you have an erroneous model of the universe, you may erroneously believe in FTL. And even if you believe it with a faith that would make Abraham look like an atheist - it just ain't going to happen if it is in reality not possible. I agree that certain models of reality are more pleasant to believe than others. I could have a model of reality where I believe all humans are trustworthy and honourable. I'm sure that would be more comforting than the model I actually hold.I was really just pointing out that 'your reality' is a bit of a strange term. If I change what you said to

quote:

---

How would you define the extent of your ability to effect the nature of your model of reality simply by adjusting your opinion of it?

---

I'd say that it's almost tautological that by changing your opinion of your model of reality, you are having an effect on the nature of your model of reality. Your high opinions of human intellect are noted. But it may be possible, but the solution is so difficult to arrive at that humans never get there. Just like monkeys will never get Shakespeare (without significant changes to their brains), we may never get FTL. The thing is, you are giving belief a little too much power. Yes, it may even be a mandatory requirement for certain technological advances - but that doesn't mean with enough belief we can achieve anything that's physically possible. If we lack the required capacity, k, we simply will never get there - even if over time with large number of minds at work on it, if we can't get to k, we're out of luck.

I deliberately avoided quantifying anything, so I am not saying that belief is equally influential as gravity. I'm just saying that belief, like gravity, can vary in different situations. Actually , we're not that great. We're OK, sometimes we can be great. But when we're in normal mode, not thinking deeply about something, we make all sorts of assumptions.Even our visual experience is one big delusion. It really 'looks' like everything is in focus more or less, full colour. But sections are black and white, and most of it is really poorly focused, and there's bits completely missing. Your brain is doing huge heavy lifting and it takes lots of shortcuts to get the work done efficiently. It's these shortcuts that optical illusions exploit.It is quite good with things we come across naturally and commonly, things it's evolved to respond to. But really, once we're out of a comfort zone (and modern man is almost always out of his evolved comfort zone), we make all sorts of mistakes, and we're convinced we're not making them.There are industries for exploiting these cognitive shortcomings. Moving pictures, Con artists, religion, magic/mentalism and (although it might complicated to explain why) poker. Get someone to spread a set of cards out in front of you in a grid pattern. Stare at a central card and try to identify the other cards. I suspect it'll be trickier than it should be if they are all in focus and being displayed visually clearly, which is the way it seems to be.It might be difficult in practice, our eyes really want to dance around...it's how the illusion is maintained. A true depression isn't something that can be shaken off with thinking. It can be ameliorated through techniques such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. I say this only to try to tackle head on the stigma that depressed people just need to 'pull themselves together'. That might work here and there, in easy cases, but in a nightmarish descent into despair it's just going to make you feel guilty for being such a failure that you can't pull yourself together or think your way out of it.Ahem *Removes mental health advocacy hat, replaces it with philosopher's cap* The question is, in what order does the balance of chemicals change in your brain. Is it1. Think happy thoughts
2. Brain chemistry changes.
3. No more unhappiness.Or is it1. Brain chemistry changes
2. Think happy thoughts.
3. No more unhappiness.I'm not sure, but I'm placing my bets that it's sometimes, and I'd even believe 'often', the latter. Hmm, can't get it to work, could you paraphrase? I do like a bit of NDgT

In my experience its less impressive and potent than it is generally perceived to be. That's why popular books like The Secret indicate that people often give way too much power to belief.

Someone operating under the delusion they are superman/The Flash?

No, but I can picture such a thing.