Live data from Hacker News

Our brain is a storyteller, not a reporter from an inner world

nautil.us

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: Our brain is a storyteller, not a reporter from an inner world

#31

"What happens is not what happens. What happens is the story that we tell ourselves about what happens." A contrived example: Adult is home with parents. One of the parents asks her to clean up her dishes. She reacts quickly with a knee-jerk "I was going to do it! Ugh!". What happened was that the parents wanted to clean up the table. However, since the adult has this shifting narrative in her head about 'my parents…

>However, since the adult has this shifting narrative in her head about 'my parents don't treat me with respect', she immediately interpreted the simple request as proof or evidence that 'they are not treating me with respect' and emotionally reacted. Kind of like a vicious circle.

It's not what you say, but how you say it. If that woman knows her parents, which I suppose she does, she would have heuristics to derive the intentions of her parents from how they're saying it.

People who know each other just develop their own history of interaction and "hierarchy", and this can be weird if outsiders are involved who are much more "even" with that person.

Re: Our brain is a storyteller, not a reporter from an inner world

#32
post #12

"What happens is not what happens. What happens is the story that we tell ourselves about what happens." A contrived example: Adult is home with parents. One of the parents asks her to clean up her dishes. She reacts quickly with a knee-jerk "I was going to do it! Ugh!". What happened was that the parents wanted to clean up the table. However, since the adult has this shifting narrative in her head about 'my parents…

> telling them how she feels they are treating her without respect and working with them to "co-create" a new reality. You also have to be wary of people who know this as well. People are often able to hide equally shitty behaviors in the language of compromise and help. I've been told by someone that it was rude that I was texting them because they were out with someone catching up. Not that I knew that, but whateve…

One of my roommates used to accuse me of making them uncomfortable all the time because I never talked to them (for instance, when I would walk into the kitchen and quietly wait for them to get out of the way.)

It turned into an argument one day, and I just said "I hear what you're saying, but can't really change my behavior, because I just don't have anything to say to you and/or am thinking about something else." The absurd thing was that I wasn't doing anything noteworthy. Just in my head trying to map out what I wanted to do.

If you're the person who 'throws the first stone', then it's pretty easy to make it look like the other person is at fault. Maybe they were uncomfortable for reasons that have nothing to do with my behavior? Maybe they don't have any reason to try and force me to be on the defensive? That makes me uncomfortable, and surely if I were more engaged I could have found some way to blame them for being in my way all the time rather than just spending time in my own thoughts. But who really wants to turn something boring and innocent into an outright conflict?

People are fookn weird.

Re: Our brain is a storyteller, not a reporter from an inner world

#33
post #12

"What happens is not what happens. What happens is the story that we tell ourselves about what happens." A contrived example: Adult is home with parents. One of the parents asks her to clean up her dishes. She reacts quickly with a knee-jerk "I was going to do it! Ugh!". What happened was that the parents wanted to clean up the table. However, since the adult has this shifting narrative in her head about 'my parents…

> telling them how she feels they are treating her without respect and working with them to "co-create" a new reality. You also have to be wary of people who know this as well. People are often able to hide equally shitty behaviors in the language of compromise and help. I've been told by someone that it was rude that I was texting them because they were out with someone catching up. Not that I knew that, but whateve…

Regarding your texting example: I think we all do these double standards justifications to a certain extent and it takes effort and maturity to realize and correct for it.

Re: Our brain is a storyteller, not a reporter from an inner world

#34

More people should meditate. Especially the people that make these kinds of arguments or study these kinds of things. Most of what he says is pretty good. But this part puts the lie to his whole argument, that the unconscious cannot form thoughts: > But think about the brain processes involved in even realizing that the song is familiar; or recognizing that the singer is David Bowie. We have no introspective access t…

This short and brief response is also to @bena,

I have struggled with this a lot. I can completely understand the notion to discount such experience. My conclusion is that this seemingly can not be "proven" in the traditional sense as it's a construct of the mind and not something external. It's sort of like me trying to prove that the way I see "red" in my mind is the same way you do. It's just not doable. Thus, I think this is something limited to the experiential. This used to bother me, now I just enjoy it.

A few anecdotes from my brain:

I have experienced deeper consciousness where instead of being from my normal 1st person view, it has been from a lower point of view. As metaphor, Imagine you are dreaming and there are 10 people in your dream, including yourself. As normal you are viewing the dream through your eyes and the 10 people seem to be functioning on their own. But then within the dream something happens and I realize the arbitrariness of my perspective and I suddenly become aware that I am actually simultaneously looking into my dream world from all 10 people's perspective at once and a lower level consciousness, which now becomes my conscious perspective, is omni-aware of this fact. It's also very strange as it sort of makes me question which viewpoint is really "me." Particularly when my consciousness shifts between the various perspectives.

I've also had things happen like when I am talking to someone sitting in front of me, I lose my 1st person perspective and my perspective moves to a lower external level where I can now see how my brain is "drawing" both myself and the person I'm speaking to, and the "onion" layers of thought that built those images of us and our environment as well as the sounds of our words.

Even as far as how when we say a sentence of words, I've had perspective where I can see the words expanding to other concepts and deeper meaning of the word. It's usually a very visual and emotional process, but quite interesting. So the words "tasty" "apple" start as two peaks of two mountains, but as the brain unpacks the concept of "tastiness" and "appleness", the thoughts expands outwards, just as the peaks of mountains expand outwards to their base. It's when the bases overlap that I can see the relation of the terms and how they interact with each other. But then imagine that for entire sentences, or stories, or any thought/concept.

When you can shift your consciousness from the peak to the base, it's interesting because you can see these larger concepts. For example, you can "see" taste, or sexuality, or redness, or anything-ness. Very fascinating.

I've also had interesting experiences where starting a an object, say my garage floor, I've been able to see layers of overlapping patterns that my brain seemed to have used to draw the floor. When I see it from the top, I see a floor. But when I move to the side, It's layers of different patterns.

I don't usually shares these on a public forum as I have already spent enough time questioning my own sanity as I rarely hear others talking about this sort of thing. Self diagnosed conclusion: I'm sane. :)

Re: Our brain is a storyteller, not a reporter from an inner world

#35
Most "cognitive scientists" seems to conflate the world with their simplified models. For a field with one of the lowest replication rates (and which won't get better) they seem to take their conclusions more seriously than scientists in hard sciences.

This interview is painfully self contradictory, "there is no inner truth but there is no easy way of solving this", almost in self denial.

"What happens is not what happens. What happens is the story that we tell ourselves about what happens." well, yes

And of course the brain tell stories, and "a deep truth" might not be so deep, but past events and how we handle them ourselves do have an effect (though it might not be so obvious).

In a fundamental level, is the brain chaotic ("deterministic " but unpredictable due to millions of different variables) or does it have a random component (and how much is that)? And what abstractions emerge from the brain's complexity?

Re: Our brain is a storyteller, not a reporter from an inner world

#36
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, it still sounds like woo. There is a correct answer. You can't wave your hands and say we may not ever really know and that's that, be happy with the mystery. That you'll believe what you believe and I can believe what I want to believe. That's not actually solving anything. That's not answering the question. It's avoiding the question. If I ask you to prove your claim, saying "it doesn't need a resolution…

You are turning my experience into an attack on your worldview. I would engage with materialists more if they didn't have the nasty tendency of doing that. Of course there's a correct answer. But there's no way to find out without using tools with a greater resolution than the ones we have. And even that wouldn't dispel all of the mystery. I'm avoiding questions because there's no way to prove anything. If you want t…

I mean, whether you're right or not has direct bearing on your initial statement.

You said the author was wrong and used this tulpa as evidence for the depth of mind.

If the tulpa is not real and nothing more than an elaborate fantasy you've created for yourself, then your conclusion that he's wrong is suspect.

I'm sorry, you don't get to protect your claims while simultaneously offering them as proof that another's claim is wrong.

I had a tulpa at one point too. I investigated my beliefs, an I realized it was just an imaginary friend I concocted to help me work through issues and project things I wasn't ready to deal with onto. See. Words are easy. Now you're an ex-materialist and I'm an ex-tulpaist. Where does that leave us? We've both investigated our beliefs. We've come to opposite conclusions. This is why third party objective verification is important. You don't get to opt out.

You are the one who feels attacked and I understand, it's frustrating to have people question your claims when you have no actual evidence to provide.

Re: Our brain is a storyteller, not a reporter from an inner world

#37
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying you have two consciousnesses, one which can inspect the other? Can it inspect itself? Generally, assuming a single consciousness, it's just tautology that unconscious processes can't be inspected. That's why we call them "unconscious", because we are not conscious of them. If you are conscious of them somehow, then they are not exactly unconscious processes any longer.

If it wants to. But I presume it already has done all that and there's no real reason for it to anymore. Have you ever watched the show "The Black Mirror?" There's a famous episode in which one person's consciousness gets planted into another person's mind. The plot focused on the fact that one person had all the agency and control, and the other person didn't, and at first you think that it's hell, no way could that…

> If it wants to. But I presume it already has done all that and there's no real reason for it to anymore.

You're kind of saying you don't know here, ie you (the you in this comment thread) are in fact are not conscious of this. Does the tulpa inform you somehow of things it becomes conscious of, and thus makes you conscious of those specific things? How strong of an identity does this tulpa have?

> And the line at which unconscious processes become conscious is fuzzy and not at all distinct. Another thing that becomes utterly clear when you meditate.

Ok I get what you're saying about fuzzy consciousness. I've only meditated to the point where I became more conscious of my body, but not of my own thinking processes, which I would like to get to. But there is a level that seems like it would be hard to penetrate in our subconscious processes. Eg, can you say you are conscious of the neural spiking compression your retina ganglia cells are doing to compress input it's getting from their photonic receptors? Seems quite unlikely. So there is a whole gamut of different levels of processing in our brains, and I'm sure it's possible to get a deeper consciousness of some of that, but there's obviously a limit somewhere.

Re: Our brain is a storyteller, not a reporter from an inner world

#38

More people should meditate. Especially the people that make these kinds of arguments or study these kinds of things. Most of what he says is pretty good. But this part puts the lie to his whole argument, that the unconscious cannot form thoughts: > But think about the brain processes involved in even realizing that the song is familiar; or recognizing that the singer is David Bowie. We have no introspective access t…

This short and brief response is also to @bena, I have struggled with this a lot. I can completely understand the notion to discount such experience. My conclusion is that this seemingly can not be "proven" in the traditional sense as it's a construct of the mind and not something external. It's sort of like me trying to prove that the way I see "red" in my mind is the same way you do. It's just not doable. Thus, I t…

> for example, you can "see" taste, or sexuality, or redness, or anything-ness.

I've never heard before that Synesthesia can be induced. Did you not have Synesthesia before meditation (assuming meditation is your method)?

Re: Our brain is a storyteller, not a reporter from an inner world

#39

"What happens is not what happens. What happens is the story that we tell ourselves about what happens." A contrived example: Adult is home with parents. One of the parents asks her to clean up her dishes. She reacts quickly with a knee-jerk "I was going to do it! Ugh!". What happened was that the parents wanted to clean up the table. However, since the adult has this shifting narrative in her head about 'my parents…

Mind revealing the full name of the org? That example resonates, but I have no idea what L____H is.

Re: Our brain is a storyteller, not a reporter from an inner world

#40
post #33
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> telling them how she feels they are treating her without respect and working with them to "co-create" a new reality. You also have to be wary of people who know this as well. People are often able to hide equally shitty behaviors in the language of compromise and help. I've been told by someone that it was rude that I was texting them because they were out with someone catching up. Not that I knew that, but whateve…

Regarding your texting example: I think we all do these double standards justifications to a certain extent and it takes effort and maturity to realize and correct for it.

I mean, it even expands out to larger arenas. Like whenever someone points out Politician R is doing something wrong, there's the flood of people who point out Politician Ds who did something wrong and vice versa. It's a mindset of your opinion of the person and not the action.

I notice some people just naturally gravitate towards one or the other. Some are more people-centric and some more action-centric.

I would like to think I'm one of the more action-centric ones. But that's because it seems like the "better" one. The one that leads to less hypocrisy. I can't imagine electing to be the kind of person who bases their opinion of an action on the person who did it. So I imagine everyone thinks they're criticizing actions rather than people. It does worry me and I try to watch out for when I may be excusing an action because I like the person.

Post reply on HN