Thoughts on this argument that the mind is flat, not deep?
| cock of michael obama | 10/05/24 | | nigger jew vaccine ww3 | 10/05/24 | | cock of michael obama | 10/05/24 | | nigger jew vaccine ww3 | 10/05/24 | | Lynn Conway | 10/05/24 | | cock of michael obama | 10/05/24 | | Lynn Conway | 10/05/24 | | cock of michael obama | 10/05/24 | | nigger jew vaccine ww3 | 10/05/24 | | cock of michael obama | 10/05/24 | | nigger jew vaccine ww3 | 10/05/24 | | cock of michael obama | 10/05/24 | | zit | 10/05/24 | | nigger jew vaccine ww3 | 10/05/24 | | Dunedain Cowboy | 10/05/24 | | zit | 10/05/24 | | ChadGPT-5 | 10/05/24 | | Lynn Conway | 10/05/24 | | A lawyer (or lower) | 10/05/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: October 5th, 2024 11:39 AM Author: cock of michael obama
hi goy superstar, if one takes his beliefs (which is a *very* british and extraverted way of looking at things) to their logical conclusion, that everyone is just a fleshbag to be manipulated, there is no God, there is no soul, it is strict manipulation and will to power
that's a very, very grim way to live imo
i much prefer carl jung's approach, which is basically the opposite of this. and having wrestled a lot with my unconscious i think via my experiences that it is
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5606839&forum_id=2:#48166175) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2024 11:58 AM Author: cock of michael obama
he argues:
"There are many who suspect that the scale of our inner world is far greater still – that we should add into the mix subliminal perception, which slips into our minds without our noticing; that we have unconscious beliefs, motives, desires and perhaps even unconscious inner agents (for Freud, the id, ego, and superego; for Jung, the collective unconscious). And perhaps there is a self, or many selves, or a soul. Many believe that with the right meditative practice, psychotherapy or even hallucinogenic drug, the doors to the rich inner world of the unconscious might be prised open. And, turning to neuroscience, it is natural to imagine that the contents of our inner world might one day be accessible to brain-scanners – which might ‘read off’ our beliefs, motives and feelings, whether conscious or not. But all of this depth, richness and endless scope for exploration is utterly fake. There is no inner world. Our flow of momentary conscious experience is not the sparkling surface of a vast sea of thought – it is all there is. And, as we shall see, each momentary experience turns out to be startlingly sketchy – at any moment, we can recognize just one face, or read just one word, or identify just one object. And when, like our imagined Anna, rehabilitating in the Alps, we begin to describe our feelings, or explain our actions, we are only creating stories, one step at a time, not exploring a pre-existing inner world of thoughts and feelings. The more outré ‘inner worlds’ of dreams, or mystical or drug-induced states, are similarly nothing more than streams of invention – acts of the imagination, not voyages of inner discovery. And the interpretation of dreams, far from boring deep into our psyche, is no more than one creative act set atop another....
In Part Two, we take up this question. If the mind is flat, then our mental lives must exist purely at the ‘mental surface’. Our brain is an improviser, and it bases its current improvisations on previous improvisations: it creates new momentary thoughts and experiences by drawing not on a hidden inner world of knowledge, beliefs and motives, but on memory traces of previous momentary thoughts and experiences."
so he is arguing that we just improvise based on previous momentary thoughts and experiences, that there is no inner world that we draw from. he seems to be denying that there is a feedback loop between mind and body; rather, body gives rise to mind and then the mind just runs wild basically with imagination. so I am asking how he (or you) would deny the feedback loop between mind and body -- if a thought impacts the body, does that not then lead to deeper inner experiences? and if so, wouldn't those deeper inner experiences leading to a rich inner world begin early in life?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5606839&forum_id=2:#48166246) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2024 12:31 PM Author: nigger jew vaccine ww3
he's arguing that what we perceive to be 'consciousness' (as in, a fully self-aware agent that crafts its own thoughts, decisions, and inner subjective awareness) is an illusion, and that it's actually just the brain creating its own useful internal narrative to facilitate its actions
this is a fairly common interpretation of what consciousness is. we can't explain 'consciousness' at all. it appears to just be magic. the best we can do is hand-wave it away as some kind of magical emergent property of the physical brain, or subscribe to mind-body dualism and say it's some other magical thing, separate from our physical body and mind
i don't think it's crazy to "believe" either of the 2 above interpretations. there are lots of smart people who believe them. but it seems overwhelmingly more likely that 'consciousness' as described above isn't actually "real," *especially* given that we can observe varying/lower levels of 'consciousness' in other humans and animals, which strongly suggests that it's just a side effect of biological brain operations
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5606839&forum_id=2:#48166345) |
|
|