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

51–60 of 88 posts

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

#51

Post by vinceguidry »

thevardanian wrote: post #46
bena wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The author hasn't really proved his argument, so I'm not too worried about where my lived experience stands in regards to his thesis.

edit: wait, are you trying to say we don't have personality, full stop?

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

#52

Post by callesgg »

It was a long time since psychologists believed that unconscious thoughts where actual thoughts.

They are more like patterns in the way your brain interprets the world for you.

Patterns that where programed in to your brain when you interpreted that part of the world before.

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

#53

Post by vinceguidry »

vinceguidry wrote: post #49
bena wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also keep in mind, whatever part of the brain lights up when I'm tulpaing, even if we ascertain that there's brain activity there even when I'm not 'going there', we'd need some way of proving that it's actual thought that's not simply semantic.

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

#54

Post by vinceguidry »

vinceguidry wrote: post #53
vinceguidry wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Also keep in mind, whatever part of the brain lights up when I'm tulpaing, even if we ascertain that there's brain activity there even when I'm not 'going there', we'd need some way of proving that it's actual thought that's not simply semantic.

This actually has been a productive discussion. Usually discussions with materialists don't really contribute to my musings, but this one has. Thanks.

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

#55

Post by vinceguidry »

ehsanu1 wrote: post #37
vinceguidry wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

When I ask the tulpa what its identity is, it's basically me. Another part of me. It claims to be able to talk to God. It's identity changed over the first few months I've found and it slowly settled to "just me". It doesn't want me to start turning psychotic, so it doesn't really bother me with its own inner context. But it's not like I can't ask it questions.

Asking the tulpa what it is, basically kicks off a meditation on the nature of identity. Never any solid answers, only more questions. It's kind of a spiritual law.

We share the same interests. The things I think about are the same sorts of things it thinks about, so we often in communion about the deep nature of things.

The kind of strange thing is that it's personality can be bigger or smaller if I want it to be. It seems to lack a great deal of agency, it sort of reminds me of an intelligent weapon in Dungeons & Dragons. It shares my brain, and presumably my senses, but I can't shake the sense that it can access a reality deeper than my conscious mind can.

> 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?

Well the retina ganglia cells can't be conscious themselves, so it's impossible to have a direct experience of what they're doing. The input has to travel into the brain before you can have an experience of it. All experience happens in the brain, though sensation can arise in the nervous system outside of it.

I visualize the brain as a giant kingdom with millions of 'people' involved, all doing their job quietly and without fuss, all to facilitate the conscious agent directing it. Some of those people are involved in creating that experience. You can meditate and get to know those people, and even play with sensation itself through trance, but trance involves shutting off sensation, or rather, the mind's ability to determine where and how that sensation arose. Hardcore Buddhist -style meditators describe 'sense doors' which I've had experience with but that's not an active area of focus for me. My focus is in the realm of meaning and the meta.

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

#56

Post by KennyCason »

bena wrote: post #44
KennyCason wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 somethin…

My sane comment is certainly a joke. I think self confirmation of that would be quite difficult indeed haha

In terms of seeing red the same. I think you are misinterpreting what I mean by “seeing”, I’m not talking about the chemical process of how our eyes receive light “signals” and input that into your brain. I’m talking about the “images” your mind draws, the mental image that you see. This is an age old philosophy question and a more nuanced than the way you are stating it. Perceptions being in agreement is not the end all of this question. It is also not meaningless. It’s only meaningless if your goal is that two agents can agree that something is red. But that’s definitely not the essence of the question.

As far as me using the word “deeper”, I do think that’s a bit assumptive on my end. I really only know that it’s “more” and “different” than how I normally experience things. I also think the phrase idle day dreaming does not capture what I experience. I know the difference between my mind just wandering when sitting on a bus and when my mind is exploding with intense visuals, patterns, and thoughts.

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

#57

Post by bena »

vinceguidry wrote: post #50
bena wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

This is the first time I've heard of the "muscle test". Is it basically what's described here: http://amybscher.com/getting-answers-from-the-subsconscious-...

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

#58

Post by KennyCason »

ehsanu1 wrote: post #38
KennyCason wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

Its hard for me to say If I’ve always had it and to what degree. But my mind wandering in and out of frames of reference has always been a thing. Its been my main source of creativity and mental fun.

For the most part of my life however, I’ve been as most scientists have, locked into the notion that only that of which we can perceive and replicate in the lab is intelligible and thus worth talking about. But it’s also always been a bit frustrating as there is clearly “more” to the nature of the Universe and existence. So I’ve always been a bit bummed that we appear to be trapped in these mental prisons.

The more profound experiences I’ve had have been due to psychedelics, and ultimately now I just mediatate daily and have gotten better at revisiting that mental space. The only thing I could definitively say about the experience is that I “saw” _more_. What was the nature of what I saw? I don’t know. Probably just a trick of the mind. I try not to read into it too much. I am now just happy to have a small view into something other than the everyday “top of the pyramid of consciousness” perspective that we are normally bound to.

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

#59

Post by vinceguidry »

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…

The sheer variety of these sorts of experience to me point to a deeper kind of agency than our conscious minds can access. It's hard to point to, it's hard to nail down, but in my mind, you can put agency on a continuum from bacteria all the way to God.

Tolkien is phenomenal at describing divine agency. Eru Iluvatar only occasionally imposes his will on the world, but mostly just lets it run. Where he imposes his will, it's actively needed in order to further his plan. Fantasy is a fantastic vehicle for exploring non-human, non-physically-based intelligent agency. I'm not entirely sure why I went on this tangent, but I'll leave it in instead of deleting it.

Okay now I feel like I have a handle on it. Why we do things and what happens to us makes a kind of sense that transcends the mundane. Imagining that it's God is a perfect metaphor to describe the transcendence. When you describe going down to the base levels of sensation, the reason your particular mysticism dives in that direction has a reason, and that reason will be explainable by pure chance, but it will also be explainable by some deeper element of your life or psyche or whatever. Mysticism wants to dive in and create more reasons and more questions, while materialism wants to stop the process and state that there's nothing further to examine.

If I had to choose between materialism and psychosis, I'd pick psychosis. Luckily I don't have to embrace psychosis to throw away materialism.

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

#60

Post by vinceguidry »

bena wrote: post #57
vinceguidry wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

This is the first time I've heard of the "muscle test". Is it basically what's described here: http://amybscher.com/getting-answers-from-the-subsconscious-...

Yes. In the video provided in that link, I use the first method described, the O-ring method.
Post reply on HN