Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

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

#41

Post by ehsanu1 »

bena wrote: post #36
vinceguidry wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the point is, there are things that we have a hard time dealing with right now scientifically, just because we don't have the tools/theory/whatever. In these cases, you're right that we can't know truth from falsehood. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss such things and share knowledge about our experiences. Non-scientific discourse (meaning, outside of science, not anti-science) is still discourse that may be worth having, especially given something as subjective and experiential as the mind.

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

#42

Post by bena »

Retra wrote: post #32
bena wrote: 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…

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." T…

They didn't realize that they were trying to turn their hangups into your problem.

Having you stand there waiting probably made them self-conscious about what they were doing. They were feeling judged despite you likely didn't care what they were doing. And that made them uncomfortable.

But that's not your fault technically.

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

#44

Post by bena »

KennyCason wrote: post #34
vinceguidry wrote: post #21

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…

They say only sane people question their sanity. Insane people are convinced they are sane.

Why do you think all of that is "deeper" consciousness?

Also, you say we may never know if you and I see red the same, but we do know. We know that color is simply a reflection of light along certain wavelengths, we can demonstrate this. We know how our eyes receive and interpret this information. We know that there's something missing from the middle and it's all upside down and that our brain corrects for this. We even use this information to create optical illusions.

I know you're thinking "But what if what I see as 'red' you see as what you would consider 'blue' and vice versa". That's meaningless. If I hold a red pen and say "This is a red pen" and you agree that it is a red pen, then we are both perceiving that to be red. Our perceptions are in agreement.

The rest sounds like idle daydreaming. I mean, nothing you've described sounds really all that out there and I have done plenty of that as well. It's a good way to pass the time during my commute.

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

#45

Post by bena »

ehsanu1 wrote: post #41
bena wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the point is, there are things that we have a hard time dealing with right now scientifically, just because we don't have the tools/theory/whatever. In these cases, you're right that we can't know truth from falsehood. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss such things and share knowledge about our experiences. Non-scientific discourse (meaning, outside of science, not anti-science) is still discourse that ma…

But there's a line. It's fine and all to promote your tulpa, but the minute you use it as evidence, you have to actually demonstrate that it does exist. Or else it is not evidence. And you can't say with any certainty that the author is wrong.

I mean, it's not non-scientific discourse when you're disagreeing with the hypothesis in a book about science.

And I said that in his case, not only do we have tools to map his brain while he tulpas and that it could provide answers, but there is a test that could be conducted if we could find a way to implement it.

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

#46

Post by thevardanian »

bena wrote: post #25
vinceguidry wrote: post #21

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…

That's a real easy claim to make and a real hard claim to prove. You can't legitimately prove you have a completely internal personality separate and distinct from your own. The difference between the non-existent and untestable is surprisingly nil. You have your best defense in that you claim that no one can even challenge your claim unless they meditate and probably meditate correctly. If they don't find their own…

You need to first prove you have a personality, before you can compare and contrast and label something distinct to it.

So already we are an order of magnitude more complex from even arriving at any sort of conclusion about "personality". We actually have very little idea as to what it actually is, how it's influence, etc.

The Indic traditions, imo, provide far greater insight into the processes of the mind than the current sciences do.

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

#47

Post by bena »

deltron3030 wrote: post #31
wallflower wrote: post #9

"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…

Yeah, but her heuristics could also be wrong. We think we know ourselves and our subtexts a lot better than we do. Often neutral third parties can shine a lot on our biases.

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

#48

Post by vinceguidry »

bena wrote: post #36
vinceguidry wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The argument the author of the book made is that the brain can't think non-conscious thoughts. The very existence of the tulpa invalidates that argument. I don't think you even have to go that far to invalidate the argument. I think psychosis itself invalidates it. But we'd need a better understanding of what psychosis actually is and how it operates before we can make that determination.

But on the face of all of this, this is just a guy making these arguments. You're agreeing with him because his arguments agree with your world view, but his arguments should be given the same skepticism as anybody's. I agree with 90% of what he's saying. It's that other 10% that's the problem. Yes, most of the time consciousness is flat. It's not always flat though.

> 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.

They're not just words. They're lived experience. They're just words to you because you didn't live my experience. But I can instantly tell that you just concocted that string of words up together because there's no rest of the story to tell. Oh you had a tulpa too? When I had one I asked it to direct me through a neighborhood. Did you ever do anything like that? What was the outcome?

I can already tell you what the outcome was likely to be. Because I've had the experience. If your experience was different than mine then I can make follow up questions to tease out the difference. Then I can go and ask my tulpa, which is still there, if we can explore this aspect.

You're assuming I didn't ask rigorous questions. You're wrong, I did. They won't satisfy you though. With my tulpa, I've explored questions that dive all the way down to the very nature of existence, including stuff like multiple universes. Remember, I didn't think it was a tulpa at the time but rather my "Higher Self."

It can give me an answer for any question I ask, but I've long ago determined that the purpose behind any answer is to get me to question a little more deeply. The only satisfaction I'm ever really going to get is after I die.

You're right, it is frustrating to have no evidence to point to, only words. But you have to understand, there is no way to dispel the mystery, other than to simply state that it doesn't exist.

But I know for certain that thoughts can be unconscious, though they aren't normally. I can't prove it, but I can raise questions.

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

#49

Post by vinceguidry »

bena wrote: post #45
ehsanu1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is, there are things that we have a hard time dealing with right now scientifically, just because we don't have the tools/theory/whatever. In these cases, you're right that we can't know truth from falsehood. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss such things and share knowledge about our experiences. Non-scientific discourse (meaning, outside of science, not anti-science) is still discourse that ma…

But there's a line. It's fine and all to promote your tulpa, but the minute you use it as evidence, you have to actually demonstrate that it does exist. Or else it is not evidence. And you can't say with any certainty that the author is wrong. I mean, it's not non-scientific discourse when you're disagreeing with the hypothesis in a book about science. And I said that in his case, not only do we have tools to map his…

If anybody wants to foot the bill for any of these tests, I'd be happy to take them.

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

#50

Post by vinceguidry »

bena wrote: post #45
ehsanu1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is, there are things that we have a hard time dealing with right now scientifically, just because we don't have the tools/theory/whatever. In these cases, you're right that we can't know truth from falsehood. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss such things and share knowledge about our experiences. Non-scientific discourse (meaning, outside of science, not anti-science) is still discourse that ma…

But there's a line. It's fine and all to promote your tulpa, but the minute you use it as evidence, you have to actually demonstrate that it does exist. Or else it is not evidence. And you can't say with any certainty that the author is wrong. I mean, it's not non-scientific discourse when you're disagreeing with the hypothesis in a book about science. And I said that in his case, not only do we have tools to map his…

I'd really love to see which part of the brain lights up when I'm interacting with it.

Over the years, though, I've 'integrated' it into my normal thought patterns. I used to interact with it through what's called the muscle test. That's how I discovered it in the first place. Over the course of about a year and a lot of muscle tests, I've slowly come to be able to predict what a particular test is going to respond with before I do it. Eventually I quit using the muscle test. Slowly the tulpa receded from my life, but any time I want to interact with it, it's only a muscle test away, I can also simply 'go to that place in my head' where I know it'll respond.

I've come to realize that this is the same process people who "have a personal relationship with Jesus" go through. It's a kind of imaginary friendship. But I think it requires at least a little bit of mental 'depth' in order to achieve.

Post reply on HN