Where our beliefs begin
 

While reading an article that challenged my beliefs, a few thoughts occurred to me; how do we frame our beliefs? Of course, from our first hand experiences, and from what we have been told. We consider the evidence and the source and we cast our beliefs from that mold.

Quick question: When the first Europeans arrived in the Americas, they brought disease which spread through and devastated the native population. Do you believe that's true and accurate? Ok, good: now before you go scrambling off to Google, how did you acquire that belief? Do you remember the day you heard that theory? Do you recall the exact form of information? Was it a lecture by a professor or an article in a journal? Was it in school or on a BBC website?

So, let's say you believe this. Certainly you must have been introduced to this theory, you considered it, accepted it, and stored it away in your consciousness, and when the subject arises, you trot out this as something you believe, right?

When you eat food, it is an alien object in your stomach. Not before digestion has done its part, split it up into molcecules, these molecules being entered into your physiologicla processes and finally endling up as fully implemented ingredients of your cell structure etc, you are really able to live of your food.

With beliefs and knowledge it is quite similiar, comparable. Knowledge is not fully known knowledge as long as it is not fully assimilated by the intellect, and the belief system of somebody just defines a framework inside which this process takes place. Thus, it can have a highly manipulative effect, may it be good or bad. All our experiences as well form our biography and history and make us the person that we are, but then, there also are geneticla precondtions that influence our personality and character. It is not en vogue these days, but I am quite convinced that even intelligence is a trait that gets defined in upper and lower boundaries that are genetically preset, and inbetween these the individual'S life and expriences decide whether the full individual potential for intelligence in this individual gets realised or not, by supporting it or not.

It is not so meaningful at all, maybe, if we cannot show an index where we have noted each and every source and origin of influx we "suffered" from and link it to a source and origin. If these inputs were such separte objects that we still list them individually, they probbaly would not form us to the degree they do when they have been fully assimilated and thus are now part of not themselves, but part uf what we call "us", our "self". I exlcude acamdeic paper contexts of course, and scientific processes. Here, strict control of variables and all influencing inputs is of the essence.

We can sometimes perceive the difference I make there, when we get the impression of somebody being "authentic" or "not authentic, but artificial". Somebody who pretends to be something on grounds of such inputs he has not fully assimilated, will often not be convincing to us. We note that he wears a mask, plays a role, is not himself, does not show his real self and personality.

And then, there is the hormonal apparatus in ou bio-hardware, and I think that its influence on us decides us and our behaviour far more than most of us feel comfortable with to admit and to realise. Genes, hormons - we may be far more predetermined and unfree in will, than we would like to know.

Neither of you bloviators answered Neals question! :)

I believe that I first heard of European diseases affecting native populations in my 30's through a TV documentary. That would have been in the 1990's and yes I believed it and still do.