Since lying is deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought and belief, and it is always done in situations when the speaker believes that they ought not allow others to know what they think and believe, it seems to me that one cannot lie to oneself
— creativesoul

What if we are of two thoughts?

I believe something good about myself. I know that it is false. These are in conflict with one another. — Moliere

Knowing that 'X' is false makes it impossible to believe 'X'. I believe 'X' about myself. I cannot do both, know that 'X' is false(about myself) and believe that 'X' is true(about myself).

As soon as we become aware that 'X' is false, we cannot possibly believe otherwise. That holds good in cases where 'X' is true, but we believe 'X' is false. If we believe 'X', then we believe 'X' is true; is the case; corresponds to fact/reality; is the way things are; etc. We cannot do both, believe 'X' and know that 'X' is not true; is not the case; does not correspond to fact/reality; is not the way things are; etc.

If we are of one mind then I don't think we could lie to ourselves. I agree with that -- that's why I thought unenlightened made a good point in saying we'd have to have a divided mind in order for us to lie successfully, and not just be delusional or some such. — Moliere

Well, strictly speaking 'one' who has two minds is two... not one. We cannot be of two minds, strictly speaking... aside from having some sort of multiple personality disorder. These are common is cases of tremendous childhood trama. It's a coping mechanism. Since the facts are too much for the one individual to bear, the one 'creates' an alternative persona as a means to 'split up' the burdens...

I see nothing wrong with saying that people of one mind can hold contradictory beliefs. I would wager that everyone does, at least during some period of their life. Some become aware of this and choose. Others become aware and suspend judgment. Others become aware and struggle to grasp what's going on, and thus chalk it up to being normal, or some other ad hoc explanation. Others never become aware.

There is some tremendous difficulty involved in becoming aware of one's own false belief, assuming one wants to correct the situation.

It is also quite common to be uncertain about something or other. These latest situations I've mentioned are often spoken of in terms of "being of two minds", and that makes perfect sense in everyday parlance.

...when one holds that lies are always false.
— creativesoul

At least in a general sense I'd say that's what lying is -- to tell someone a falsehood while knowing it is true in order to deceive them. So I'd say that in the case of telling someone about my own thoughts then I'd be lying if I told them something I do not really think -- that this is a particular case of lying, but that lying doesn't have to be about my own thoughts. It could also be about whether I have the money for the bill. — Moliere

I think you mean to say that lying is -- to tell someone a falsehood while knowing it is false.

If you believe you have the money for the bill, and you state otherwise, then you've deliberately misrepresented your own thought and belief. If you do not believe that you have the money for the bill, and you state otherwise, then you've deliberately misrepresented your own thought and belief. Both are cases of lying.

Those lies could be true. Here's how...

You could be wrong about how much money you have. Thus, if you believed you had enough, and stated that you did not, you would be lying. Now, if by chance, you had forgotten how much money you'd spent over the past weekend, you would have less than you believed. So, the belief that you had enough would be false, and yet the statement(the lie) that you did not would be true.

Lying has less to do with truth, and more to do with thought and belief. That is, lies themselves consist of statements that can be either true or false, but the lie is always told by someone deliberately misrepresenting what they think and/or believe.

Lying, as simple as it seems and as young as we learn how to do it, is actually a really complicated behavior. — Moliere

It's not that complicated. One always know when they have just said something that they do not believe. An honest speaker will immediately correct themselves in an authentic accidental situation of misspeaking. The dishonest speaker will not, and claim that they had misspoke if and when another calls them on it at a later date...

What must be the case in order to successfully lie to yourself? — Moliere

I think most people's favorite method is convincing themselves, persuading themselves that they know something which they do not. (Second place is probably convincing themselves that they do not know something which they damn well do.) I'd count that as lying.

What must be the case in order to successfully lie to yourself?
— Moliere

I think most people's favorite method is convincing themselves, persuading themselves that they know something which they do not. (Second place is probably convincing themselves that they do not know something which they damn well do.) I'd count that as lying. — Srap Tasmaner

When someone believes that they know something that they do not, they hold false belief about themselves. Holding false belief is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a lie. Being convinced that one does not know something when they do, is - once again - being mistaken about oneself. Again, not dishonest or insincere, but rather just plain 'ole being mistaken... holding false belief.

You missed the process part. Sometimes you cherry-pick the evidence, and you know you're cherry-picking, and you know you shouldn't, but you do it anyway. A sort of cognitive akrasia. With others, it's easier: you just say something you know to be false. With yourself, it usually takes a more sustained effort.

Yeah, I'm at a loss...

It's a foreign notion. Could you elaborate, so I can know more about this notion of how one can deliberately misrepresent their own thought and belief to themselves?

Sometimes you cherry-pick the evidence, and you know you're cherry-picking, and you know you shouldn't, but you do it anyway... — Srap Tasmaner

I do not see how this is anything other than one who knows that they are doing something that they should not. Eventually... what? They deliberately trick themselves into thinking it's ok?

They deliberately trick themselves into thinking it's ok? — creativesoul

Yes. People, for instance, buy lottery tickets.

Yeah, I'm not following you...

What counts as a lie? What is the criterion which, when met, counts as being a lie?

What counts as a lie? What is the criterion which, when met, counts as being a lie? — creativesoul

I agree, you must define what you mean by lying and in what context to be clear.

Allow me to present for your consideration, the notion of affirmations.

One is encouraged in some psychological quarters to seek to change the way one thinks. "Say to yourself, 'every day in every way, I'm getting better and better.'". By repetition, the theory goes, one becomes convinced of something one did not believe.

A sportsman will psyche himself up in this sort of way - 'I am the greatest', and it works, at least to an extent. Perhaps philosophers can do the same - try saying to yourself, "I am such a deep thinker, I can even appreciate unenlightened's posts." It might take a lot of repetitions, and it won't actually make either of us smarter, but don't tell yourself this, tell yourself that it really works, because it really works.

Hmm, but there is evidence that affirmations can help produce a better self-image, and greater self-confidence, so long as they end up replacing negative thought patterns, as opposed to merely supervening on top of them.

Since lying is deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought and belief, and it is always done in situations when the speaker believes that they ought not allow others to know what they think and believe, it seems to me that one cannot lie to oneself. — creativesoul

Forgetting is very real. When a person represents to oneself a memory, which is not really a memory, but something imagined, because the real thing has been forgotten, then that person is misrepresenting one's own thought and belief. This is actually very common, that a person represents something imaginary to oneself as a memory. And the person doing the "remembering" very quickly overlooks, and forgets the division between the aspects of the memory which are real, and which are imagined.

That is why two people can both say "I remember the event this way", when the two ways are contradictory. The two people will both argue sincerely that it must be my way because I remember it that way, when it is impossible that both ways are correct because they are contradictory. Are you married?

Hmm, but there is evidence that affirmations can help produce a better self-image, and greater self-confidence, so long as they end up replacing negative thought patterns, as opposed to merely supervening on top of them. — Agustino

There is evidence that lying on your CV can get you a better job, as long as you don't get found out.

But my point is that there is a self-image, positive or negative, and the image acts. This is demonstrated by the fact that when my self-image changes, my actions change. Affirmations work! And they work in exactly the same way as compliments or insults coming from others do. They build an image and the image acts.

But to have an image that acts is to have a divided mind; it is to be running a simulation of oneself and letting that run one's life. One performs one's identity.

But to have an image that acts is to have a divided mind; it is to be running a simulation of oneself and letting that run one's life. One performs one's identity. — unenlightened

How does one stop acting from the image?

By being yourself. You have a self-image, we all do, but it is not you, and it cannot and does not compel you to act. You take note of things that happen, and things that are said, and sometimes your way of behaving (acting) changes as a result. But it is you who decide to change, and it is you, not your self-image, that acts.

Just my two pennyworth. :wink:

Deliberately misrepresenting is not forgetting...

Bearing in mind that you're asking me, unenlightened (surely a foolish move?), I think it is a matter of identification. — unenlightened

Heh. Well, I'm not exactly the wisest so I don't mind. :D

I suppose I'm trying to understand the notion of a split mind -- so I'm looking for something to contrast it with to make sense of it.

So, for example, there are facts about where I was born and what kind of passport I have, and then there is the identity of 'Englishman'. Or there are facts about what I have read and studied and thought over, and then there is the identity of 'philosopher'.

Identity is somehow more than the facts; it is a commitment to the facts; an investment in the significance of the facts. And this creates a separation, of a central self in the mind - I am an English philosopher. Something to protect against, well everything, including whatever else might be the facts of what I am. — unenlightened

So a whole mind would be one without an identity, without a commitment to certain facts. It would accept all the facts about itself as relevant to itself, or would be committed to no facts about itself at all. A person with a whole mind would not have an identity to protect or project.

But confabulation is a little of each.

You know how it's impossible to walk any great distance** if your stride with one leg differs slightly from your stride with the other? Now tell yourself at each step that it's only a little different, and that can't make much difference. It's like that: you relax your cognitive standard just a bit, and indeed it does not make the inferential step you're taking invalid, but if you keep compounding this little compromise you end up in the wrong place. I'd call this a kind of lying to yourself and it's incredibly pervasive.

** in a straight line

Deliberately misrepresenting is not forgetting... — creativesoul

I didn't say that. I see, as usual, you didn't read my post, responding just to an out of context word.

I said that filling in the blanks with imagination, where memory leaves things out, and representing this to oneself as memory, is misrepresenting one's own thought. In recalling distant memories it is difficult to distinguish aspects of "true memory" from imagination because "the memory" changes over time. If one represents this to oneself as "true memory" when there are aspects of imagination which have been mixed in over time, this is misrepresentation.

If you didn't say that, then your example is irrelevant, a lie is deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought and belief.

But confabulation is a little of each.

You know how it's impossible to walk any great distance if your stride with one leg differs slightly from your stride with the other? Now tell yourself at each step that it's only a little different, and that can't make much difference. It's like that: you relax your cognitive standard just a bit, and indeed it does not make the inferential step you're taking invalid, but if you keep compounding this little compromise you end up in the wrong place. I'd call this a kind of lying to yourself and it's incredibly pervasive. — Srap Tasmaner

Are you talking about cases where someone changes some standard they hold?

It's not forgetting which is deliberate misrepresentation of one's own thought and belief, it is remembering which can be such. This is the case when aspects of the event which has been remembered, have been forgotten and replaced by the imagination. These things which have been produced by the imagination are deliberately misrepresented as memories.

Looks like rhetorical muddle.

Which part is thought and belief?

I remember hearing years ago that it's common for emergency rooms to have a spike in admissions just before dawn. The explanation was people lying awake all night telling themselves "It's nothing" and eventually accepting that something was terribly wrong.

Are you really not familiar with any of these phenomena?

It's not so much that I haven't heard of such reports, it's that I'm questioning the reporting itself. I do not see how any of it qualifies as deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought and belief to oneself.

Yes, I understand that as far as you're concerned the phrase "lying to yourself" is just a contradiction. But it's a phrase we all use, so what are the options?

• It's just an idiom and the word "lying" is not meant literally.
• People do literally deceive themselves, even though you, and maybe none of us, don't quite understand how that's possible.
• Your criterion for lying is too narrow and leaves out this case and perhaps others, like "lying by omission".

Stage magic and storytelling both include techniques that rely on our capacity for self-deception. Sometimes the magician, instead of trying to hide how a trick is done, can get the audience members themselves to dismiss the solution, and this is much more effective. A movie can present a character that's a little "off" but not make a big deal about it, and the viewers will mostly decide not to worry about him, until the third reel when it turns out he's the killer.

You could say these are cases of deception, but really it's just giving us the opportunity to deceive ourselves and most of us are generally quite prepared to do so.

Self-deception - which I presume is the focus of this thread - is perhaps best not modelled on the binary relation of A deceiving B (even where A and B are the same person). After all, I could deceive myself without engaging in self-deception - an example, suppose I am in the army on a shooting range, and I am charged with camoflaging targets. I do the job so well that even I cannot tell the targets from the bushes. I've deceived myself, but it's not a case of self-deception. Someone earlier in this thread mentioned the idea that self-deception (lying to oneself) is more akin to giving yourself bad reasons for not pushing yourself to the end of a chain of reasoning that will definitively reach a conclusion you do not like. That seems right to me and doesn't involve too much metaphysical nonsense about split selves etc.

Yes, I understand that as far as you're concerned the phrase "lying to yourself" is just a contradiction. But it's a phrase we all use, so what are the options?

It's just an idiom and the word "lying" is not meant literally.
People do literally deceive themselves, even though you, and maybe none of us, don't quite understand how that's possible.
Your criterion for lying is too narrow and leaves out this case and perhaps others, like "lying by omission". — Srap Tasmaner

These options offer little more than unnecessary and unhelpful restriction to the considerations here.

My notion of what counts as a lie need not exhaust all other sensible notions/uses of "lying" in order for it to be able to correctly and irrefutably set out that which we all agree is - most certainly - a lie(an insincere speech act).

It is humanly impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood. Deception - in and of itself - comes in many forms. One of which is lying to another. One cannot deceive oneself. That's pure unadulterated nonsense. Being tricked requires not knowing your being tricked. Tricking another requires knowing you're tricking. One cannot both know they are tricking themself and not know that they're being tricked.

People say that it is possible to deceive ourselves. So what? Saying that that happens doesn't make it so. People use the term "truth" as a synonym for one's worldview(people conflate truth and belief). That has no bearing upon how we assess a much more disciplined and sensible use.

Calling a criterion for lying 'too narrow' implies that there are some lies that that criterion cannot account for. That's quite the specious claim. Looks strong until it is given some serious thought.

All the different conceptions sharing same name fail in some way or other to be able to account for the others. That is precisely how we arrive at different ones. That is not a flaw in my argument about lies. Rather, it is a necessary feature of all such arguments.

...it's a phrase we all use, so what are the options?

Self-discipline?

How does one stop acting from the image? — Evil

Well, who's asking? If it is not the image asking, then you have already stopped. So it must be the image asking how not to act, and then it is obvious that there is absolutely nothing that the image can do that is not the acting of the image. I think if one ( it ought to be two, really) could completely grasp that the image can do nothing to help in this situation, that one is completely helpless, then one simply does stop. One gives up.

Stage magic and storytelling both include techniques that rely on our capacity for self-deception. Sometimes the magician, instead of trying to hide how a trick is done, can get the audience members themselves to dismiss the solution, and this is much more effective. A movie can present a character that's a little "off" but not make a big deal about it, and the viewers will mostly decide not to worry about him, until the third reel when it turns out he's the killer.

You could say these are cases of deception, but really it's just giving us the opportunity to deceive ourselves and most of us are generally quite prepared to do so. — Srap Tasmaner

Being intentionally led by another to believe something is not self-deception.