Epistemic Misalignment

The potential for misalignment between one's epistemological commitments and their pragmatic behaviors is an interesting phenomenon that can occur in individuals' belief systems. This disconnect arises when a person's professed beliefs (epistemological commitments) do not seem to align with their actual behaviors or actions (pragmatic expression).

The principle of "seeming as if" in justifying belief or action holds that if something is pragmatically useful or beneficial, if it seems as if it is "true enough" or true insomuch as it applies to practical purposes, then one may act as if it is true, even if they don't hold a firm epistemological commitment to its truth.

While such misalignments may qualify as expressions of self deception, It's essential to recognize that humans are complex beings with multifaceted motivations and influences. The misalignment between beliefs and behaviors is not uncommon and can be seen in various aspects of life, and in various contexts. It's crucial to approach individuals with empathy and understanding, recognizing that their actions may not always perfectly align with their stated beliefs.

Furthermore, just because we can classify this misalignment as self deceptive doesn't necessarily mean it is an expression of intrapersonal incompetency or wholly without utility. Some pragmatically justified false beliefs may serve as useful and even morally orientating. One such self deceptive life hack may have played a significant role in the development of theistic thinking.

Acting "as if" you're being watched at all times, whether by members of society, or Big Brother, or an all seeing deity can help one orientate themselves in the world and steer their behavior toward more morally and ethically satisfying outcomes.

This type of heuristic or mental trick, where an individual imagines being watched at all times, is akin to the "panopticon" concept, a model of social control and surveillance proposed by philosopher Jeremy Bentham.

In this scenario, the person might intellectually understand that they are not constantly under surveillance, but they choose to act as if they are being monitored. This imaginary surveillance serves as a self-imposed mechanism for accountability and self-regulation. It can be seen as a form of psychological trickery that influences their behavior in a way that aligns with certain values or standards they wish to uphold.

The parallel with theistic behavior is compelling. Many theistic religions propose the idea of an all-knowing and ever-present deity, which leads believers to think that they are constantly being observed and judged. This belief can influence their actions and moral choices, as they strive to align themselves with the expectations of their higher power.

In both cases, the individuals' pragmatic behaviors are guided by a sense of accountability, whether to an imaginary surveillance state or a higher power, and regardless of whether the antagonizing factor is ultimately true. While the epistemological commitments might differ significantly, the behavioral impact shares some common ground – a sense of being held responsible for one's actions.

For some people, this mental heuristic might provide a useful and motivating framework for self-improvement and ethical behavior. It can help them stay disciplined and focused on their goals.

However, for others, it might create unnecessary stress or paranoia.

In any case, this example serves as a reminder of the complexity of human cognition and the various ways we use imagination, beliefs, and heuristics to navigate life. It also highlights that the relationship between belief and action is not always straightforward and can be influenced by a myriad of factors, including psychological, cultural, and social elements.

Ultimately, examining and reflecting on this misalignment can lead to a deeper understanding of oneself, one's beliefs, and the complexity of human nature. The corrective lens of pragmatism serves as instructive in such examination.

Pragmatism is open to pluralism and the idea that multiple perspectives may be useful in understanding complex phenomena. Instead of seeking a single, definitive solution or account capable of guaranteeing that our expectations about future practice will prove exacting enough, pragmatism views epistemological language use as a toolkit for explaining behavior and action.

The instrumentalism inherent in pragmatism views theories and beliefs as tools or instruments for predicting and explaining observable phenomena, rather than being true representations of reality. Pragmatists view contradictory beliefs as different useful instruments for tackling various aspects of a complex problem.

Pragmatism acknowledges that beliefs should be open to revision based on new evidence and experiences. If contradictory beliefs lead to different practical outcomes, pragmatists might be open to adjusting or replacing beliefs when it becomes apparent that a more effective approach is available.

Pragmatists generally accept fallibilism, which means that all beliefs are subject to doubt and potential error. Embracing contradictory beliefs with an awareness of their fallibility allows pragmatists to navigate uncertainty and still make practical decisions based on the best available information. Pragmatic pluralism acknowledges that there may be multiple valid perspectives, explanations, or theories that can be useful in understanding complex phenomena, even if they seem contradictory. In the context of justifying beliefs that face contradiction in practice, pragmatists would focus on the practical consequences and utility of holding those beliefs rather than trying to reconcile the contradictions on a purely theoretical level.

Pragmatism emphasizes that beliefs and actions should be evaluated in their specific contexts and situations. In some contexts, a particular belief or theory might be more useful and relevant, even if it contradicts other beliefs in different contexts. The key is to assess the practical consequences and effectiveness of a belief in a given situation.

Pragmatists recognize that knowledge and understanding are continuously evolving. Instead of seeking an all-encompassing, definitive solution to a complex problem, they might accept that progress can be achieved by embracing multiple perspectives and gradually refining their understanding over time.

Pragmatism is deeply concerned with problem-solving and achieving practical outcomes. If adopting a belief that appears contradictory in some ways helps to address real-world issues or provides workable solutions, pragmatists might justify holding that belief based on its practical value.

This supposed misalignment between our epistemological commitments and our behaviors takes on a different character when we recognize theories as tools, designed to task, and appropriate for various different applications depending on situational context.

The character of this phenomenon shifts from being so clearly self deceptive to the inevitable result of fumbling through one's toolkit, frantically searching for solutions to the problematic tasks one might face in practice.

Not only is this apparent disconnect between episteme and techne oftentimes inevitable, it may indeed be a fundamental condition of human experience as we know it.

For instance, while our subjective introspective conscious experience appears as a "stream of consciousness" we don't experience the present moment directly in its absolute immediacy due to the time it takes for sensory information to reach our brains, the concept of the present still plays a crucial role as a reference point in our thinking and action.

From a neurological perspective, the brain does not experience the present moment directly. The brain processes sensory inputs from the external environment and even internal bodily sensations, but there is a slight delay between the time these stimuli occur and the time they are processed and interpreted by the brain.

For example, when you touch something, there is a small delay between the moment you touch it and the moment your brain processes the sensation of touch. The same is true for other senses like vision, hearing, taste, and smell. This processing delay is due to the time it takes for neural signals to travel through the nervous system.

Furthermore, our brains also rely on memory and prediction to construct our experience of the present moment. The brain constantly integrates information from the past to make sense of the current situation and predict what might happen next.

So, while we have the illusion of experiencing the present moment as it happens, in reality, our perception of the present is constructed through a combination of sensory processing, neural delays, and memory. It's a fascinating aspect of human cognition and consciousness.

This "stream of consciousness" often gives the impression of depicting real-time experiences, even though it is not an exact representation of the immediate present. It is an illusion of real-time experience created by the continuous flow of thoughts, perceptions, and feelings that make up our conscious awareness.

The term "stream of consciousness" made famous by William James, refers to the continuous and unbroken flow of thoughts, emotions, and sensations that occur in our minds. It is as if our conscious experience is an uninterrupted and seamless flow, just like a river that keeps flowing without breaks. However, in reality, our conscious experience is constructed based on a combination of current sensory inputs, recent memories, and ongoing cognitive processes.

The brain processes information at different speeds, and there are inherent delays in sensory perception and cognitive processing. For example, it takes time for light to reach our eyes, for neural signals to travel through the brain, and for information to be integrated into coherent conscious experiences. Yet, our mind synthesizes these inputs and creates the illusion of a continuous "now" or present moment.

This sense of real-time experience in the stream of consciousness is essential for our ability to navigate the world effectively. It allows us to respond to immediate stimuli and make quick decisions. The illusion of real-time experience is functional and adaptive, even if it is not a perfect representation of the actual present.

Pragmatically, this illusion serves its purpose by allowing us to engage with our environment and make decisions in what feels like real-time. It aids in our interactions with the world and enables us to respond promptly to changing circumstances. Regarding the present tense as a reference point allows us to make sense of the world and interact with it effectively. It serves as a dynamic and ever-changing point of focus for our experiences, thoughts, and decision-making processes.

When we consider the concept of the present tense, we might focus on how the concept of the present affects our actions, understanding, and experiences in daily life, rather than dwell on the philosophical implications of the fact that the experience of the present tense is ultimately illusory. Instead, we might concentrate on how our perception of the present influences our behavior and decision-making.

We might also recognize that cognition and inquiry are future-oriented activities. We use past experiences and "present" information to make predictions and plan for the future. In this way, the concept of the present serves as a crucial reference point for our actions and decisions.

Given that there is no direct, unmediated experience of the present, we might not be overly concerned with the ontological nature of the present. Instead, we might focus on the pragmatic utility of the concept and how it helps us navigate the world effectively. Epistemic misalignment with our pragmatic behaviors, the adoption of pragmatically justified false beliefs, and certain "self deceptive" tendencies may not be wholly problematic after all, but are often times inevitable and even fundamental to human experience. Our sense of the present moment which situates our very streams of consciousness depend on such misalignment and even our moral and religious tendencies are often facilitated and reinforced by epistemic commitments that may not align ideally with practice.

Produced by Clint Warren - Aided by ChatGPT