Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Is it soup yet?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                                                     

Monkeys as method of human birth control

  (+5)
(+5)
  [vote for,
against]

Building on the ground breaking research* which proves that the number of humans went up as the number of dodos declined, it must be something to do with the number of souls available, and (a minor point) there is a problem with the fungibility of souls.

Regrettably and obviously it's a bit too late to start a crash breeding program of dodos to empirically assess the ratio.

So, I'm thinking breed more monkeys, as our nearest relatives, as being likely to have souls.

If, as I suspect, with a greatly increased monkey population mopping up the souls, then the level of human children being born should go down.

Whether this would affect Buddhist countries more is open to speculation.

* I looked it up on wikipedia.

not_morrison_rm, Oct 06 2015

Dodos: extinction, conversion and existence of dodo souls http://biblioklept....s-gravitys-rainbow/
already touched upon in, yes I'm still going on about it, Gravity's Rainbow [calum, Oct 06 2015]

Soul clearing house soul_20clearing_20house
shameless plug [Voice, Oct 07 2015]

Aah Soul! http://nured.info/r...ot-future/aah-soul/
Wot I did today. [Ian Tindale, Oct 09 2015]

Neurotic & Character Disorder http://counsellingr...isorder-self-image/
[LimpNotes, Oct 10 2015]

Learned Helplessness https://en.wikipedi...earned_helplessness
[LimpNotes, Oct 16 2015]

[link]






       I would suggest that there’s a specific number of heels, not soles. After all, a housefly knee joint is exactly the same as a human knee joint, a budgie knee joint, and a fish knee joint — even in colour, size and price. Therefore, there’s no more ways available to make a knee, or foot — we’ve used them all up, much like coal mining.
Ian Tindale, Oct 06 2015
  

       Yes but there was a good reason that all the budgies were used up in coal mining - they were used to warn of poisonous gases.
hippo, Oct 06 2015
  

       This idea is so much less bad than it could have been.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 06 2015
  

       I would suggest breeding spiders. They have more heels and soles, and might start cutting down on the population if the right variety were found.
RayfordSteele, Oct 06 2015
  

       // This idea is so much less bad than it could have been.   

       Indeed, I was scared to read it.
tatterdemalion, Oct 06 2015
  

       What is this Guph?   

       I think the word you're looking for is "guff". ("Guff" is a term from the paper-making industry, and refers to the small wood fibres which are washed out to leave behind the longer fibres for paper-making. It's also the name for a flimsy, low-quality paper made from this waste material. More generally, it's a term for nonsense, or worthless speech or writing.)
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 06 2015
  

       Setting aside the question of whether or not souls are in limited supply, and the related question of fungibility with respect to the differences between human and monkey souls, this idea produces no benefit.   

       If we're aiming to reduce the amount of resources required to sustain the combined population (there would be no point letting them die and release the soul for re-homing) then the substitute species ought to be something that consumes very little and requires little space. A tortoise consumes little, takes up very little room and hangs on to an allocated soul for many decades.   

       Can anyone suggest how we might test fungibility between human and tortoise souls?
Tulaine, Oct 06 2015
  

       // I think the word you're looking for is "guff". //   

       Nope.
In Jewish mysticism the Chamber of Guf (also Guph or even Gup) Hebrew for "body", also called the Otzar (Hebrew for "treasury"), is the Treasury of Souls, located in the Seventh Heaven
According to the Talmud, the Messiah will not come until the Guf is emptied of all its souls.
  

       //This idea is so much less bad than it could have been//
FlyingToaster, Oct 07 2015
  

       //Chamber of Guf//   

       Ah, right. As you were, then.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 07 2015
  

       so, stop the badger cull NOW
po, Oct 07 2015
  

       Why do you think they call them "monkey bars" at the playscape? BECAUSE THEY ARE AWAITING THE MONKEY SOULS! Yes.
blissmiss, Oct 07 2015
  

       // the substitute species ought to be something that consumes very little and requires little space //   

       Mexicans ?   

       Why not dogs ? Dogs have souls. More puppies = doubleplusgood.
8th of 7, Oct 07 2015
  

       Considering that the human population has continued to go up despite lack of available dodo souls, it means the new humans are consuming souls which might otherwise have inhabited Stellers sea cows, passenger pigeons and the like.   

       Thinking about the fits-and-starts gradual ascent of souls thru mutliple reincarnations to nirvana I think one would see that the total soul allocation would tend to become top heavy over time. I would think that the lowest creatures would be first to go: oysters, worms and the like.   

       The last humans would be in an empty world but might be so enlightened that this would be ok. If plants dont have souls they would be company. This short story just writes itself.
bungston, Oct 07 2015
  

       Hang on just a second here.   

       I'm a bit vague on the whole souls business, but I'm pretty sure that they're supposed to leave the body at or about the time of death (or the award of an MBA, whichever is sooner).   

       So, as population levels out, there ought to be enough used souls to go around. Once we start downsizing towards a more reasonable population, there should be a surplus of souls.   

       This surplus could, perhaps, be stored as a reserve against future population expansions. For instance, if we colonise Mars and start reproducing there, souls will have to be supplied from Earth.   

       However, I suspect that, once souls come into surplus, the wealthy will start buying them up. This would enable them to have one or two souls in reserve.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 07 2015
  

       Enlightened souls are not used again but become one with the Godhead. They just pack right in there; sing probably. Probably through the efforts of the UN there will be lots more enlightenment and so more Godhead joining. But there are plenty of souls in nonhumans that the humans can use; the species will be ok.   

       The colonist question is interesting: at what distance from Earth can souls still be found to occupy newborn babies? On a distant alien world might there be no unused souls handy? What could the colonists use instead?
bungston, Oct 07 2015
  

       I've managed for many years by filling the void with strong liquor. It seems to work quite well.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 07 2015
  

       // the wealthy will start buying them up //   

       No change there, then.   

       What is the going rate for a soul ? It probably depends in how tarnished it is.   

       Is this an opportunity to establish a new commodity futures market ?
8th of 7, Oct 07 2015
  

       HB is so last year... I keep looking for the like button and keep counting the letters... :-)
po, Oct 07 2015
  

       Last year is the new now.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 07 2015
  

       Good thing I kept my pants!
bungston, Oct 07 2015
  

       Let's get this into robotics. I'm certain that an ensouled cell phone would be emotionally, ethically and empathically superior to the soulless automacomms that we carry about nowdays. Then, we can expand into ensoulment for automobiles, aircraft, microwaves, toasters, electricity meters, juke boxes, legislators, hair dryers, alarm clocks, urinal flushers, and flash drives. Eventually we'll get into a shortage, and then... uhh...   

       I've heard some really weird Siri conversations. I'm trying to imagine somebody trying to talk their cell phone into reincarnation so they can have a not-soulless baby.
lurch, Oct 07 2015
  

       // Let's get this into robotics //   

       Isaac Asimov would be so proud ...
8th of 7, Oct 08 2015
  

       But hang on. There is no soul. There’s no such thing as a soul. There’s not even a definition of it. It’s just some stupid primitive figment of abstraction formulated by the pre-enlightened to describe an effect by encapsulating it in personification. There isn’t a soul, there isn’t even a self. You don’t exist.
Ian Tindale, Oct 08 2015
  

       Fine, fine, not a problem. Since by inference you don't exist either, is it OK if we rent out your nonexistent house to some theoretical tenants, and keep the hypothetical money ?
8th of 7, Oct 08 2015
  

       Money doesn’t exist.
Ian Tindale, Oct 08 2015
  

       I was going to prove you wrong, but I don't have any evidence.
lurch, Oct 08 2015
  

       He's definitely wrong, [lurch].
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 08 2015
  

       There is no single unified central ‘thing’ that you can accurately identify as ‘you’. There is no single place in the brain that plays the experiences you consider to be your consciousness. And even if there was, who do you think is sitting there watching it? There is no actual temporal point at which you experience anything in real time. There is no system in the brain or body that acts as a single store of memory of sensory experiences. There is no unified self at all, either systemically or temporally. You don’t exist.
Ian Tindale, Oct 08 2015
  

       [Ian], if I were to take a run-up and deliver you a kick in the bollocks, would that go some way to convincing you that the ideas of "you", "me" and "bollocks" were concepts worth noting? I should emphasize that I would only do this in the interests of experimentation.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 08 2015
  

       I'm not so sure, [bigs]. In a nullipsist philosophy, who would you kill?
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 08 2015
  

       I think it's the uncertain users you need to worry about.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 08 2015
  

       In all seriousity, the sensation of being kicked in the bollocks, or footballs hitting the face, or going to the dentists, is purely a complex overload of noise. Pain is more signal than we are expecting to be able to cope with at once, but it can be perceived in detail if we don’t flee away from it. Ultimately, pain doesn’t actually matter. It’s strange when people think they should kill something that is in pain, like a wounded animal or a person dying painfully. After the death, there’ll be no memory of the pain, just as there wasn’t before the death. We don’t actually remember pain itself. We remember that it hurt, but we can’t re-experience the pain from memory. After the death, there’s nothing to accept sensory information, nothing to process the relationships, nothing to recognise labels identifying it, nothing to store short term memory of what the meaning is, and nothing to place it into consciousness. There’s none of that mechanism or apparatus working any more, so nothing is perceived, and certainly nothing is remembered, not even the present. There’s nothing to do it with. Then there’s nothing.   

       People wonder what happens when they die. The same thing that happened before they were born. They don’t exist. They didn’t then, they won’t after. The life bit in between seems like we have persistence and purpose and integrated perception, but not even that is what it seems, it’s a set of processes, not one ‘conscious’ process. It’s mainly memory of what is happening and if you’re lucky, what just happened. There’s no actual me. Or you. There’s nothing after, just as there was nothing before. While we’re perceiving and memorying and labelling, there’s minute-to-minute or day-to-day persistence, or so it seems.
Ian Tindale, Oct 08 2015
  

       Well, yes. Next?
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 08 2015
  

       I forgot.
Ian Tindale, Oct 08 2015
  

       OK, [Ian], I think I get you. We don't exist now, because we didn't exist pre-birth (absence of evidence being evidence of absence, after all) and we don't exist after death, which again BBQED, and therefore we didn't, don't, and won't.   

       However, that doesn't work for all of us. I, for example, have a halfbakery account, and therefore have evolved in simultaneity with the universe.   

       If you're not here, it seems the least you could do is stop arguing about it.
lurch, Oct 08 2015
  

       I think he's saying this idea won't work.
LimpNotes, Oct 08 2015
  

       You mean, like two guys fall off a boat; as they're splashing around, one says "Oh, no! Sharks!" and the other says "Don't worry, there's no water, so there can't be sharks." I get that.   

       Actually, no, I don't....
lurch, Oct 08 2015
  

       Just because we can't remember a time before we were born doesn't mean that we were nothing Ian. Who knows what dimensions we inhabit before coalescing in the fourth?   

       More like everything is part of a big machine. The guys, the boat, the water, the shark; all mechanizations. That each operates according to it's designs, which in some components, includes faculties that result in an abstraction called consciousness, but with no real distinction between the boat, the water, the shark, or the guys. Any distinction exists in the faculties that make up the consciousness, and when that is gone, so are the distinctions, and therefore any knowledge of reality. When there is nothing left to perceive reality, it cannot be known to exist. A soul may carry on some knowledge, but he is arguing the soul doesn't exist. The shark may be envied in that it has no opinion in this regard.
LimpNotes, Oct 09 2015
  

       //When there is nothing left to perceive reality, it cannot be known to exist.//   

       This assumes that time is linear. If it turns out that time itself is static or crystalline and consciousness briefly inhabits 'slides' as it passes through them, then souls would be necessary to explain individual consciousness. What the exact definition of soul would be is up to interpretation, fragments of a whole, facets of a crystal... who knows?... but something for certain. Not a no-thing.   

       ...there I go dividing by zero again   

       Because the universe is infinite, the questions are ... is it full of souls? and can those souls swapped locally? The probability shows that there are a fair few souls we haven't met yet.
wjt, Oct 09 2015
  

       I don't want to throw a monkey wrench into your idea, but I'm personally described as soulless.
AusCan531, Oct 09 2015
  

       That much is obvious.   

       // When there is nothing left to perceive reality, it cannot be known to exist. //   

       That's just the Copenhagen Interpretation - reality is created by observation ; there is no deep reality.
8th of 7, Oct 09 2015
  

       Just because we lack the time, patience and ability to count the universe doesn’t mean it is infinite. Of course it is not infinite — how can it be? Nothing is infinite.
Ian Tindale, Oct 09 2015
  

       What I’m saying is that a certain category of person likes the primitive idea that there is such a thing as a “soul”, which wraps up all the presently undefinable and mysterious and inexplicable aspects of the self into one bag. Then, the same train of thought that makes the concept of the “self” so precious and valuable extends the span or duration of the self to beyond the existence of the body itself, and the logical conclusion is that the self continues after the body, and it becomes or is a “soul”. This is bollocks.   

       There isn’t a soul, and there isn’t even a self. You aren’t even your identity. You have senses, a way to identify the sensory input, a kind of persistent storage by linking and strengthening those labels, and attaching a ‘meaning’ to them, using ‘importance’ as the motive or selector. However, there isn’t a single “mind” orchestrating all of this, and then sitting back and watching it. It might seem like there’s a unified self, but in reality there isn’t a single thing that can be pointed to as the self.   

       That the memory system barely gets us from one moment to the next is impressive enough. What on earth would be the point of persisting it beyond what the body and brain and nervous system itself can support? There’s no advantage, evolutionarily or otherwise, to having awareness beyond death, or before life, or in any way unattached to the body. There’s no means to do anything with the sensory information, and no memory with which to do anything with. There’s no point at all in thinking there’s anything after death, other than the fear of death being a great big nothing forcing people to concoct stupid fairy stories of the soul and consequently even believing in the self while we’re still alive.   

       The notion of the soul is saying there’s more to us than we think. I’m saying there’s less to us than we think. Far less.
Ian Tindale, Oct 09 2015
  

       The soul question is if there is a heaven. Currently above the clouds we only found the stratosphere.   

       But any reason which will cause people to adopt helping species close to extinction to multiply and thrive in a natural habitat is a good one.
pashute, Oct 09 2015
  

       I would argue that the "self" auto-construction is an important element in the self-preservation part of the programming that runs the machine. That the "self" is just as a valid part as say a hand or an eye. I would argue that the "self" part assumes control of certain things and incorporates them into it's "identity". The body of course, but also other people through attachment and empathy, the environment, and even rules for behaving and social structures.

When one of these elements of identity is attacked or lost, there is pain, stress, and grieving. Preserving the self becomes preserving the body and other attachments, also a natural working of the machine. In thinking about the future, preservation based cognitions inevitably run into the reality of death and the "soul" construct alleviates the anxiety of this certainty, so I would say it is a real part of the programming as well.

The "self" is not a certainty though. In some circumstances, another "self" exerts so much control on a developing "self" that the developing "self" becomes stunted and the "identity" developed is as an extension of another being. In some cases this manifests as something like co-dependence where the "self" needs another "self" to serve, and in others as something like narcissism where a false-self is constructed and needs constant validation. In other cases there is something like the Schizoid where the self is neither strong nor needy and in other cases the "self" is shaken as a result of great loss, and is followed by an abandonment of the attachment mechanism in order to avoid the pain of grief.

In any case, to say that the "self" auto-construction is nonexistent or unimportant seems erroneous to me.
LimpNotes, Oct 09 2015
  

       // any reason which will cause people to adopt helping species close to extinction to multiply and thrive in a natural habitat is a good one //   

       Even the reason that they just taste so damned good when cooked ?
8th of 7, Oct 09 2015
  

       If it is not nonexistent, it’s an effect. But not caused by an actual ‘self’, but rather, by a system, a network, an aggregation, a collection, an interaction, but not a single thing that is the self that we have the impression that there is. Like all other techniques, algorithms, strategies or processes, it’s merely a trick.
Ian Tindale, Oct 09 2015
  

       //Ultimately, pain doesn’t actually matter.//   

       ... as long as it's happening to someone else.
8th of 7, Oct 09 2015
  

       //The "self" is not a certainty though. In some circumstances, another "self" exerts so much control on a developing "self" that the developing "self" becomes stunted and the "identity" developed is as an extension of another being. In some cases this manifests as something like co-dependence where the "self" needs another "self" to serve, and in others as something like narcissism where a false-self is constructed and needs constant validation. In other cases there is something like the Schizoid where the self is neither strong nor needy and in other cases the "self" is shaken as a result of great loss, and is followed by an abandonment of the attachment mechanism in order to avoid the pain of grief.//   

       That's friggin deep, and totally true as far as I've been able to determine.
So... what does it mean when your imaginary childhood friend winds up being way smarter than you and teaches you stuff?.. I'm just asking, y'know, for a friend.
  

       I don't really know [2 Fries] but I'll offer an opinion. I think in the circumstances you are referring to, the developing "self" of a youth is subjected to over-controlling other "selfs" in the same manner as results in a codependent. But with a codependent, the rules of servitude are static and once learned, the codependent is left alone, and even rewarded, as long as they continue to serve the "self" of the other.

In the situation you mention, the rules of servitude are not static, that is the rules are in constant flux. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. In these instances, the developing "self" does not really attach to the domineering "self" because it recognizes the domineering "self" is unstable, it resigns to compliance, but attaches instead to a fiction which the "self" may construct or adopt, either a fictional inner (imagined, video games, sci-fi, fantasy) world or perhaps a fictional friend.

Additionally, as the cognitive functions attempt to find some rhyme or reason so as to better understand cause and effect and thereby exert some control on the world, they are thwarted by the domineering "self" which offers no rewards and only punishments... without reason. This I think pushes the cognitive functions, which insist there must be some rhyme or reason, to capabilities that are well beyond what is found in your average person and the end result is a highly intelligent person who has a fantastic inner world and may suffer from poor reality checking. Something approaching schizophrenia and in cases where the intelligence is unable to rationalize itself clear, actually resulting in schizophrenia.
LimpNotes, Oct 10 2015
  

       I’ve did a video the day that is yester, and there is linkage.
Ian Tindale, Oct 10 2015
  

       hmm, don't know about souls. Some energy animates us, and since energy can not be created or destroyed only converted, then our animate energy becomes something else after we die, and was something else before we were born.   

       //in cases where the intelligence is unable to rationalize itself clear, actually resulting in schizophrenia.//   

       Interesting. I have a different theory but it's mighty close to that.
When my younger brother had his psychotic break he was home for close to a week in that condition before being hospitalized and I got a real close-up view of the workings of an un-medicated newly schizophrenic mind.
I knew him extremely well before this happening and have become (almost) convinced that the consciousness who emerged from that episode was his subconscious mind. He couldn't comprehend why he couldn't seem to control reality, it was almost as though he'd recently thought of himself as God and could in fact write his reality just a short time ago, (as it recently would have been able to do in the dreamscape).
His memories seemed intact, and yet could also be re-written on-the-fly if they became un-desirable.
I imagine that the consciousness I knew as my brothers' (self) is now chained and running his back-house while his subconscious has been running around out here in his skin ever since that day.
They've inverted.
  

       In the case of bi-polar disorder, I observed a very similar God-persona emergence when my step-son went through a psychotic break, and although his conscious mind now has a less tenuous grip on reality, his subconscious mind took over his skin for a while too.   

       It is my opinion that lack of recognition of this entire (other) self we all possess is a leading cause of mental illness in society.
Our children are fed to it so that society as a whole can pretend it does not exist so as to not have to face it themselves.
In the case of my friend, that recognition came at a very early age indeed, and the acknowledgement of this other self allowed for an emergence without an inversion.
It is my opinion that this other self is capable of things our conscious minds can not yet comprehend as it's computational ability can be likened to an ocean on which our consciousness minds are merely hand-made rafts of twigs.
  

       There is a good reason why genius, (the old-school term not what the kids are calling it nowadays), is so closely tied to madness... it's a really Really big ocean out there.   

       Interesting [2 Fries]. I'm going to link an article on neurosis vs. character disorder. These are two ends of a spectrum. I am of the opinion that the psychotic break and the God-like impression are a result of the neurotic abandoning other selves and reclaiming their own self but having to swing the pendulum over to character disorder in order to do so. I am wondering if the pendulum were to swing between the two extremes, whether it would lose magnitude, and be brought to a stable position at a healthier location in the middle. Or would that just be someone who is bipolar?
LimpNotes, Oct 10 2015
  

       It's hard to say.
If I understand the article correctly, a previous sense of self-worth, whether inflated or lacking, plays a huge roll in psychosis.
In the cases of god-persona mental breaks I've seen, the individuals had a previous inflated sense of ego, (unable to ignore their own reflection, need for constant spotlight etc.) and a moral code they were in the process of abandoning.
I think that when the conscious and subconscious minds begin to differ too strongly, a schism appears, the pendulum swings, and lack of knowledge of the consequences causes an inner overcompensation which overturns the little raft of twigs and the two distinct minds invert. Not surprisingly, the previous strong moral code seems to reassert itself once the new consciousness settles in.
  

       With the socio/psychopaths I've had the... privilege to meet and still talk about, the overriding subconscious drives are centered entirely around schadenfruede for them, or taking pleasure from the misfortune of others.
The pleasure centers of their brains are only activated when someone's suffering elevates their sense of self worth. It's the only thing which puts that little glint in the corner of their eyes.
  

       When my own, er, I mean my friends... mind tried.
Yeah, alright, like you didn't know there was no friend?
When my own subconscious tried to overwhelm me there was certainly a schism between the inner self I knew I was and the outer self I was being conditioned to think of myself as. That pendulum you're talking about 'can' be stopped once it's started swinging, but... your ride then goes from an automatic transmission to a manual transmission and you have access to both minds simultaneously without ever having lost touch with reality in the first place.
  

       I don't know what label is given to that condition but I don't think bi-polar fits. Not sure it even has a label yet.   

       It feels whole... like I'm the only one I know with scuba gear while everyone else I've met clings to their little ocean-going twig-rafts.   

       ...   

       ...and that may be the most conceited thing I've ever uttered...   

       If you look down, [2 fries], you may see some of us trudging along the bottom in lead boots and big brass helmets. That one waving is me.
pertinax, Oct 11 2015
  

       As one gets older, the more the outside world through embedded media impresses that we’re supposed to lose our senses and that our facilities are supposed to get worse. Bullshit. It doesn’t. What happens is that we stop believing our own lies which we furnished our reality with when we were younger. Our vision is not what we think it is — it’s not the continuous stream of frames that comes in and gets analysed and stored somewhere. It’s nowhere near that amount of data. It’s very patchy, presenting only just enough of an impression of continuity, and a lot of it isn’t focused properly. Our hearing is never good at discriminating single sounds or voices when combined with other conflicting sounds. And so on.   

       When we’re young we believe in straight lines, continuums, and binary distinctions. We believe that we can see clearly, we believe we’re taking in reality and only selecting parts of it, but the rest of it is all in there somewhere if we needed it. We believe we can hear clearly, and we believe we can distinguish conversations within and against competing louder sounds. I propose that we never did, never could, and only believed we did because we lacked the finesse and gradation to know what we were really perceiving or not.   

       As we get older, we generally don’t tolerate much bullshit from anyone or anything else, and I’m finding this occurring in the total sensory framing too. I’m really hearing what I’m hearing, which is amazingly bad at separation and discrimination. I’m really seeing what I’m seeing, which is hardly in focus, and requires more light than I remember it used to. But that’s all because I’m not deceiving myself into thinking that it’s all so real, so intense, so accurate, so continuous and so integrated. It’s not, and never was.   

       Maybe the senses themselves had finer edges that are now worn, but what I’m proposing is that they were never as complete as we thought, but we were deluding ourselves into experiencing a total seamless gapless vivid reality because it’s too scary to imagine otherwise. Now we’re older, we don’t tolerate such bullshit, and as a result, all our sensory capture processes seem to fall apart. It was always like that.   

       A similar thing going on is that of agency: the effect I have on the perception of reality. I perceive reality, model it increasingly accurately* and initiate actions which I by now expect to occur as I imagined. I hate it when things drop on the floor or don’t move when I push them or don’t take the expected effect when I had done all that is necessary to make a thing happen. These little demonstrations of lack of agency are infuriating, but maybe life was always like that, and we have no power over the model of the outside reality.   

       Again, the bullshit was that we are in some control of our world, our actions, and more ridiculously, the actions of others. As soon as others are allowed any control, power is removed from my own reality. Take a job interview, for example — a very good illustration of the total lack of agency that reality conflicts with ones own initiatives. What is supposed to happen, doesn’t happen. This goes on through life and by the time you reach our age, there realisation that a job interview is purely a futile demonstration of things not happening the way they are supposed to, is clear. There’s no point.   

       Look for other ways to enforce control over the other in the model of reality, by all means, but most of it won’t work, because it never did. There is never a satisfactory experience in life, unless we simply give up and surrender that life is just pushing us along rather than we exerting any control. There’s nothing to control. Nothing.   

       * Though never actually reaching totally accurate of course, for that I’d need total knowledge, and for that I don’t need a time dimension, it’d all be there at once with no discovery or learning, because I know it all. This is clearly not the case, and I do have time, and I thus require discovery, and consequently, I need stupidity for diversity.
Ian Tindale, Oct 11 2015
  

       //There is never a satisfactory experience in life, unless we simply give up and surrender that life is just pushing us along//

I can see how someone would find some solace in this philosophy but I see a bit of paradox in it as follows: If the "self" is an algorithm, it's design is to provide for the survival of the organism and this philosophy seems very much like resignation. If we look at a wild creature we see that it doesn't resign its "self" until it is firmly clenched in the jaws of another. The difference with a wild creature is the lack of rules which it must obey, the survival nature of its existence, and the lack of intelligence is has compared to humans. Domesticated animals are more resigned, they have more restrictions, but still find several things to enjoy. But if you've ever seen an animal caged in an old-time zoo, the resignation is almost complete, or the creature paces the cage in madness... less so now that providing toys and entertainments has become common place.

So I guess the point is if we allow ourselves to crystallize into set routines and habits, then yes, resignation of the "self" is the outcome. To avoid this, simply change up the game, break a rule, leave the comfort zone, do something that scares you, do something crazy. Get out of the head-space and into circumstances that demand attention of the senses. Cultivating the "self" is not a bad thing.

Interestingly, the philosophy of non-existence may be shared by both the neurotic and the disordered character. Where the neurotic says "I don't exist, so what does it matter?" the disordered character says "You don't exist, so what does it matter?" I don't think those in the middle hold that opinion.
LimpNotes, Oct 12 2015
  

       For a while, Sturton was convinced that he was a water buffalo that didn't exist. He's been wary of exotic herbs ever since.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 12 2015
  

       //Exotic Herb's//

Plants no doubt. Not that transgender guy I met in Vegas, with the lotion?
LimpNotes, Oct 12 2015
  

       No, what I mean is that we try and convince ourselves that we are in control and that our agency will always have the effect, to the point where we really really strive for control all our lives — in jobs, relationships, everything. I’m saying, we’re not in control and never were, so sit back and enjoy.   

       This topic is something I’m writing up to do with the mechanism involving the distance or vector between our formulated future expectation and the result of our agency. Expectation is our bit, and it’s mostly fiction, until we make it sew.
Ian Tindale, Oct 12 2015
  

       Groovy. Let the chips fall where they may and then pick them up.
LimpNotes, Oct 12 2015
  

       [Ian], you misunderstand agency. It's "want", not "get".
lurch, Oct 12 2015
  

       Same thing.
Ian Tindale, Oct 13 2015
  

       A million monkeys pounding on a keyboard cannot write prose. The internet proves otherwise. (Not Mine)
pashute, Oct 13 2015
  

       Haven't seen bottom yet [pertinax] home-made scuba doesn't go that deep... nice to virtually meet you. <waves in general downward direction>   

       //But supposing the subconscious mind is disconnected from the conscious mind ? You might get situations where the subconscious mind actually understands parts of the world by reading a little harder into information, but the conscious self completely disagrees with it.//   

       Yes. Alright here's a question for you, does the subconscious mind perceive reality through our senses in the same way that the conscious mind does?
If the subconscious and conscious minds were to disconnect and... overlap, (I want a better word, can't think of one), how would this cause reality to look to the conscious mind?
Would neurological perception physically change to reflect this overlap?
  

       I ask because, if it does, and if my perception of reality is a reflection of this disconnection/overlap, then... this way I see things seems to be kinda spontaneously happening to more and more people across the planet in the middle of their lives and they don't have the pathways to deal with the sensory overload.
As we speak there are a whole lot of parents freaking out about their three to five year olds grabbing at things that don't seem to be there, and six to twelve year olds trying to describe the 'sparkles' only they can see to their parents. These kids won't suffer from their perception, far from it, but they are currently being tagged as neurologically diseased and brain-dysfunctional due to overreaction of a medical community about to be bombarded by individuals at all levels of society suddenly seeing like they are on LSD for the rest of their lives.
  

       it really is the dangdest thing...   

       //Asperger's... subconscious... control... global policies... schizophrenia//

I think it's all tied together. My earliest memory is of my mother becoming extremely jealous (based on an emotion that briefly crossed her face) when some stranger was coochie-coochie-cooing me as a baby. Her solution was to covertly pinch me, quite hard, which alienated the stranger and drove them away when I started screaming. She gave all superficial pretenses of consoling me with a fake smile and a socially approvable level of fuss before finally putting me into the car, closing the door, and continuing her conversation with the stranger. I learned early on that one does not compete for attention with mom and not to trust non-verbal emotional displays. My dad was not as malicious but equally damaged, emotionally needy, and jealous of attention. He mostly just used me as a verbal punching bag for loads of displaced aggression. He was a model of neurotic behavior. Neither was terribly keen in showing any of the genuine affection they were so clearly lacking in their own lives.

I think emotionally damaged or emotionally immature parents program youth into taking on responsibility for the emotional states of their parents. As they get older and identifiable triggers are recognized, this sense of responsibility carries over to managing the triggers, and then the triggers of the triggers, and so on. Even when there is nothing that can possibly be done the youth feels its their responsibility in classic co-dependent style. Hence the increased cognitive ability and adult-like nature of the communication style.

Consequently a lot of mental attention is given to issues that shouldn't concern a kid. Finances, domestic issues, principles of justice, and the like. This forced level of maturity then affects these kids when they enter school or are expected to interact with others their own age and fail, because they are mentally far more mature than even some adults. This easily explains away the Auspie's "little professor" attitude and apparent social problems.

With this sense of responsibility, culpability even, programmed into the subconscious, there is a desire for control and this is what I think [Ian] is addressing in his conclusions. At first this need for control makes itself apparent in organizing things, keeping set schedules and routines, controlling the immediate environment, and if the youth is capable of learning, hyper-focus and excellence in some rather advanced subjects. As the youth/young adult takes on responsibility for problems, without the ability to set boundaries, they may attract others to them who are keen to place blame and the abusive programming may continue. This sense of responsibility may become so grand that it may eventually branch out into <exaggerated inflection here> "plans to take over the world" in an effort to relieve this self-blame.

And this is where social issues and the anxiety that results in schizophrenia may come into play. When you think everything is your responsibility to fix, and the media (or even a single abuser) portrays everything that's going wrong, life is basically telling you that you are failing. The anxiety and shame that comes from this can be immense, resulting in the symptoms of schizophrenia and paranoia, and that is where the psychotic break comes in.

The psychotic break, I think, causes an individual to throw off two emotions related to their sense of responsibility, fear and guilt. Keeping in mind these individuals have been operating under excessively high levels of these two emotions for their entire lives, carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders as it were, a TREMENDOUS level of perceived freedom is realized.

With fear, guilt, and the covert desire for control gone, there is no anxiety, no concern for consequences, no sense of empathy, not a care in the world. They sleep like a baby for the first time in their lives and they may go on a rampage. The feelings of injustice remain. Or they may go off running down the street naked. But for those who don't take that extreme, for once in their lives, they can say, I am not responsible for that, I will define boundaries, I will throw off the abusive people that I have collected, I will not feel guilty for things I can't control, I will not listen to the people who complain the loudest because I have my own priorities now and those priorities are me, and I will move forward with my life. And with time, assuming no irreparable incidents, the appropriate levels of fear and guilt return, and the individual is capable of having healthy boundaries and resulting healthy relationships.

The trick, I think, is figuring out how to do this without the snap, and the turmoil, and casualties that comes with it. But the ability to look at a headline without feeling any sort of grief or discomfort, because honestly there is nothing you can do about it anyway, and the ability to have meaningful and mutually gainful friendships, is rather rewarding.
LimpNotes, Oct 15 2015
  

       // ...a world that has spun off on a tangent and no longer makes sense.//

I have a friend who spent considerable time complaining about her boyfriend. How he doesn't do this or is always doing that. One time I asked her: "sooooo...... why do you keep going back?"

The question shocked her a bit. "But no you don't understand...."

I cut her short. "You keep going back because you love him?" she nodded, "but the reality is that you love the fantasy that you want him to be, rather than the him that he actually is." She thought about it, and eventually accepted the reality and they broke up.

My point is, love it or hate it, its easier if its just accepted for the reality it is, rather than the fantasy we would like it to be. A lot of peace can come from that right there. Not always an easy thing to do.
LimpNotes, Oct 15 2015
  

       //I'm talking about how the current setup messes with peoples heads subconsciously.//

I get it and I agree. What I am saying is why do people keep going back? I solve all of these problems each day by turning off the TV. It's not my job to save the world. I am not responsible for others' behavior or actions. If I want to form an opinion I do, but its not out of guilt or feelings of overwhelming social responsibility. Naturally there is no anxiety. These codependent directives were programmed during upbringing and instead of focusing on their own lives, everyone is suffering from one massive collective guilt trip, prioritizing social strife over their own happiness. As long as someone somewhere is calling foul, these codependent types will feel the need to save the day at the expense of their own internal discord and used up lives. What I'm saying is it doesn't have to be this way. Just disconnect.
LimpNotes, Oct 15 2015
  

       All true.
LimpNotes, Oct 15 2015
  

       That's amazing [LimpNotes] that you can remember so far back. My memories only stretch back to three years old.   

       ////Alright here's a question for you, does the subconscious mind perceive reality through our senses in the same way that the conscious mind does.////   

       //I would say it does.//   

       I would have to question that.   

       Imagine...   

       The subconscious mind perceives reality as it actually 'is' through our senses and then filters out extraneous information so our conscious minds can deal with the here and now without paralysing minuitae.
For a person to spontaneously perceive reality as it really is without that filter for even one sense only, say vision, would completely overwhelm them.
You would be suddenly aware of the blinds-spots and vein-pulse in your eyes. The vitreous humor itself would become visible along with any bits of detached retina. The individual firings of the cones and rods, and sometimes even the true inversion of images before being flipped by the brain would assert themselves, as well as all of the entoptic phenomena, and whatever lingering after-images it focusses on etc...
  

       and that's just one sensory input...   

       add in conscious awareness of all subconscious auditory and tactile sensation, while every nerve ending in your body is supplying its feedback continuously, 'And' it would also be aware of everything the conscious mind is thinking and perceiving as well.   

       No. I'm pretty certain that the subconscious mind does not perceive reality as the conscious mind does.   

       Yep, pretty sure.   

       There isn’t a conscious mind. There’s the mind (no need to call it subconscious). The mind is not a single centralised thing but an orchestration or network of activities, and does the stuff you expect the mind to. Then there’s an additional feature that we have that we consider to be ‘consciousness’. Not all animals could be said to exhibit consciousness. We do, we know that. It’s not a mind, though, it’s simply a feature of what our mind does, for some reason, and we’re really not sure at all why it does this, or whether it really needs to.
Ian Tindale, Oct 16 2015
  

       //we’re really not sure at all why it does this, or whether it really needs to.//

Oh oh. What if.

The "subconscious" mind just does its thing and the "conscious" mind is an conglomeration of rules to avoid "learned helplessness"... as a survival mechanism. I'll link the wiki on learned helplessness that mentions a few experiments and observations.

So think of this: Babies have an instinct to cry when hungry. Each time they cry, they are fed. But if they are not fed one of the times they cry, this creates a irregularity. This irregularity goes against current programming so the senses take in new information, compare it to old and find that mommy was in the room each time past but is not currently. A new rule is constructed. Several strategies are tried and it is found that mommy comes back into the room if crying is louder. So a conscious rule is registered. Cry louder. Learned helplessness would cause the child to stop crying which also sometimes happens.

Fast forward a bit, and we have a child who has learned to cry louder when it wants mommy. It's time for bed and the child has been placed in its crib in its own room, but they want mommy. So they cry loud. As long as mommy comes, the rule sticks. But if mommy doesn't come, or comes with a paddling, again there is an irregularity, and again an inventory of sensory information is taken and compared to old. This comparison constructs a rule that when its dark out and I'm in the crib, crying doesn't work. Learned helplessness may kick in and the child resigns to going to sleep, but lets try some other strategies first. The child may learn to climb out of the crib.

The rules that work are collected and the the agglomeration is the beginning of what we call the conscious mind.

After billions of these irregularity, comparison, rule making cycles, you've begun a personality and philosophy about life. A "self". This collection begins to recognize that much of what happens in life is controlled by mommy who has been incorporated into the identity of this new self. So say, the child sees a cookie on the counter and tries to take it, and mommy snatches it away and smacks the little hand, the child may learn to seek approval from mommy before taking actions. Mommy is the primary regulatory part of the child's self construction and the child feels it is essentially smacking its own little hand. Perhaps this is where guilt comes from.

The child may eventually learn that if mommy isn't watching, a cookie may be snatched and eaten, and this is where I think an identity split occurs. The child is still attached to mommy but no longer identifies mommy with the self as strongly. It is possible to operate contrary to mommy's control, just not when she is around. What else can we do when mommy is not around?

As this collection of rules for avoiding learned helplessness grows, and divisions that separate the self from others form, we get an entity capable of making self-directed policy. The guilt mechanism ensures that the entity follows certain rules as a result of attachment to familial group, and other rules of society as some identity still finds itself there. And verbal or written communication, as a means of policy-sharing allows the self to examine the policies of others through meta-level constructions of sensory data that we would call words and ideas, most enjoyable those that already have a majority of shared rules in place. This meta-level processing of sensory data and rules results to form the consciousness we think of as the "self".

What happens when the "conscious" mind no longer associates a set of its own rules with it's self identity? The schizm perhaps? What happens when the "conscious" mind completely discards a giant block of its own rules? Maybe the break?
LimpNotes, Oct 16 2015
  

       I don’t think it works that way — accumulating rules, etc. I mean, that happens, and it’s a part of what we experience, but it’s not the core thing.   

       Imagine we have attention. Like consciousness, that’s another thing we have experienced all our lives all the time, and we think we know what we mean when we refer to it. Turns out we have absolutely no idea what consciousness or attention actually are, how they work, what they’re for and so on.   

       Now, it’s frequently agreed that we don’t interact with reality directly, and on a macro level, we work through a world model which is always flawed and inaccurate, but will trend toward further correctness (hopefully) as we live and learn. I know how to get from my house to the bus stop, but one day I might uncover a short cut that was not apparent before, and now my model of the world has had to be revised. The short cut was there in reality all along. My understanding didn’t have it in there, though. Now it does, so it’s a different understanding, and trending toward the common understanding that is out there available to us.   

       In a typical day to day segment of activity, we pay attention to things and not to other things. I say, we ‘pay’, because attention is expensive, and this is what some people theorise the purpose of a consciousness is — a sort of attention economy. But further than that, we pay attention to some stuff, and are rewarded by outcomes. This is that rule mechanism you refer to.   

       We learn rules or relationships and remember them and refer back to them when a bit of reality evaluates to a certain ‘meaning’ and that meaning is stored with a label (the name) which forms an understanding that we can get access to in a relational way (the network that we host that is language).   

       The understandings are potentially highly diverse. Everything means something, and mostly, they’re all different. Each understanding forms a component of our knowledge (all the new stuff in our head that wasn’t there when it was made) and really the only efficient way we can sort through stuff to get to other stuff is by attaching “importance” to our understandings.   

       That’s a fairly simple mono-planar dimension, a thing is either more or less important. A relationship with another thing is either more or less important. A whole concept, an entire topic, is either more or less important. An entire way of life, a belief system, a career, a virtue system, a purpose in life, is either more or less important. It’s a fairly simple scale. The important stuff motivates our action, the stuff that isn’t so much, doesn’t so much.   

       Now, in the case of people who have become bonkers, fit for the loony-bin, or just plain mental, they are paying a lot of attention to what is important to them. Again, this is related to the rule thing you mention. If you adjust the crazy person’s action and speech-act territory so that it transgresses what they consider to be an important thing, or even a rule, they go up the wall — of course — it’s important. Sometimes it’s bloody important. Sometimes it’s so important they’ll go get a gun or other hairy quadruped and fire it at other people who are less important than what’s going on.   

       Most of what we do is to follow the important stuff, according to our learned scale of what is important, and that’s the way our mind works. The conscious bit is essentially a part of the giant connected component (but not necessarily all of it, nor even central to it) that simply illuminates what is considered to be important by shouting quite loudly over the top of other attention networks that it is important. The consciousness is the attention network that constantly wins and dominates over the others, since we were first born. That’s all.   

       It’s not an entire mind, or a subset of the mind. It is simply the loudest rudest most dominating network, and usually a part of the network aided by the efficiency short-cuts of using the components of the network we use for language to abstract across the tops of other more detailed networks of attention (that aren’t winning the consciousness competition).
Ian Tindale, Oct 16 2015
  

       I wouldn't disagree with that in the slightest, but it doesn't address the "self" concept or mechanisms of self. A good way to look at it is to examine situations where the self construction thinks it was wronged, which you've done. When certain of the person's learned rules for behavior are not reciprocated by reality there is turmoil and feelings of injustice. The self concept stems in part from the presence of this collection of rules, and when that collection is violated by someone else in the living of their own life, there is turmoil. They broke the rules! The more ingrained and basic the rules, the deeper the sense of injustice. And when the rampage happens it is in "defense" of these rules and not necessarily because there is any real danger to the person themselves. It's the "self" just the same but the resources of attention were allocated to the rule. The break occurs, they shrug off rules about not killing, and attack to "defend" whatever rules they feel are more important. All in line with what you are saying.

With other things that have been incorporated into the identity of the self, there is a similar response too. So when a foreigner is murdered overseas is is sad, when a fellow citizen is murdered lets get the pitchforks, and when a family member goes, oh the humanity, why god why? When danger threatens our non-rule-based attachments, the response depends on the level of identity invested, to the extreme of killing. But much of this is culturally justified as self defense or defense of others.

The resulting turmoil is actually a call to either reinforce or reprogram the rules. On the one side is anger and restorative action and the other learned helplessness and resignation. The depth of identity invested in the rule determines the amount of energy that may be invested in the response. Those with "weak rule" identities are regarded as easy going, adaptable, and non-judgmental while those with "strong rule" identities are seen as moralistic, easily offended, and judgmental.

In regards to the schism and break, these I think happen in several scales of magnitude. If I imagine an apple I do not identify with it even though it is a construction in my own mind. There is a schism there. If I want to learn to ride a bike, and need to abandon a rule of not getting hurt, there is a break. Psychosis could simply be a wrong or incomplete set of rules, over-identification with them, and possibly an inability, stubbornness, or inexperience in reprogramming... that is... failure in developing new and different strategies and rules. All in line with codependency, also all in line with what you are saying about expectations and control.

Honestly I think we are on very close to the same page. But where you are examining the mechanics, I am looking at the emergence.
LimpNotes, Oct 16 2015
  

       And I've got a very nice G&T.
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 16 2015
  

       //There isn’t a conscious mind. There’s the mind (no need to call it subconscious).//
//It’s not an entire mind, or a subset of the mind. It is simply the loudest rudest most dominating network, and usually a part of the network aided by the efficiency short-cuts of using the components of the network we use for language to abstract across the tops of other more detailed networks of attention (that aren’t winning the consciousness competition).//
  

       There is a need to define the two though. Even though one is a small sub-set of the other, that sub-set of an entire mind thinks it is the whole enchilada for a majority of the population and it just ain't so.   

       //I wouldn't disagree with that in the slightest, but it doesn't address the "self" concept or mechanisms of self.//   

       'That' is the point I was trying to get to. It's all well and good to learn and discuss these topics late in life.
They need to be heard by the age group they will have the most effect on, and that's not a university level age group.
If every one of us is required to build our little twig-rafts... then the very least that should be done in grade school is to teach the kids how to tie decent knots.
  

       Right?   

       Yeah sure [2 Fries]. I had one male teacher in grade school who set a perfect example of secure, nonjudgmental, confident male behavior, which was exactly what I needed at the time. I think he understood the struggle, and recognized it in myself and some others, and that certainly helped. There was another teacher in high school who had the same traits. Now that I think about it, this may be an issue largely specific to men. Very few women go postal.
LimpNotes, Oct 17 2015
  

       women have chocolate.
dentworth, Oct 18 2015
  

       ^ : )   

       I think abstinence works better in this case.
travbm, Oct 29 2015
  

       It certainly worked for your parents. Oh wait.
Ian Tindale, Oct 29 2015
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle