Are you in control of your own thoughts, actions and decisions?

[plaamook]

[avasopht]

If you're so in control of your thoughts, tell me, ... what are you going to think next?

[plaamook]

Whatever he wants to think I’m sure.

But it’s interesting because most of what we experience as ourselves is involuntary. Physical processes, reactions, emotional tendencies, habitual thought patterns, etc...yet we claim this little part of it and say I’m doing it all.
Yes...you can change many of these things seemingly volitionally but then where did the impetus to change come from? Or the particular direction of change? Same place as everything else...from the outside.
A conversation, documentary, art, music, book, bla bla bla. Which all gets ground up, mixed with a load of stuff that was put in there years ago, then vomited out with this special veneer call Me. ‍♂️

[bxbrkrz]

There is one thing we can't control: we can't stop asking existential questions we know we can't answer. Can we even escape this reality?

[plaamook]

I hope not. I’m having a ball!

[bxbrkrz]

Is the ball more real than the spoon?

[plaamook]

Why wouldn’t it be?

[avasopht]

Well ... people wouldn't have intrusive thoughts if they were in control of them.

No to mention Dissociative Personality Disorder - or any personality disorder for that matter.

Self-deception or cognitive dissonance could happen.

[plaamook]

Well ... people wouldn't have intrusive thoughts if they were in control of them.

No to mention Dissociative Personality Disorder - or any personality disorder for that matter.

Self-deception or cognitive dissonance could happen.

Yeah. There’s loads if this kind of thing. It’s the psychiatric god of the gaps. Self of the gaps. More and more gets attributed to a non-volitional cause but everyone clings to this flimsy feeling like they exist as an autonomous entity.

[bxbrkrz]

Do you cease to exist if you end up alone on deserted island, or are the dolphins looking at you (the observers) stop you from becoming a true autonomous entity, since you also look back at them, you becoming an observer too?

Simply put: do you need the existence of other lives to validate your own existence?

The spoon was a pop culture reference from a cool movie most people loved way back when

https://mindhacks.com/2009/01/12/remote ... -disorder/

[plaamook]

don’t need dolphins.
Subjective experience carries its own weight.
Dong think youl get out of it quick.
If there’s no autonomous awareness you don’t need anyone to see you. It all happens In the expanse of reality. Like a kind of magic. Xx

Sorry for the typos. Bit sozzed.

[bxbrkrz]

I exist as an autonomous entity as I need no one else in this magical reality we all share to believe that I am.

[avasopht]

I exist as an autonomous entity as I need no one else in this magical reality we all share to believe that I am.

"Man can do whatever he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

[bxbrkrz]

I exist as an autonomous entity as I need no one else in this magical reality we all share to believe that I am.

"Man can do whatever he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

The definition of Life.

[plaamook]

I exist as an autonomous entity as I need no one else in this magical reality we all share to believe that I am.

I agree. That’s what I meant. All we really have is the experience of existing and everything else follows that. Even the experience that there are other beings around us at all is secondary to that.
Which is why I find this whole topic amazing. Notions of causality don’t line up with the most basic aspect of what we are.
It’s wild.

[plaamook]

]

"Man can do whatever he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

Hence my hangover...

[bxbrkrz]

I exist as an autonomous entity as I need no one else in this magical reality we all share to believe that I am.

I agree. That’s what I meant. All we really have is the experience of existing and everything else follows that. Even the experience that there are other beings around us at all is secondary to that.
Which is why I find this whole topic amazing. Notions of causality don’t line up with the most basic aspect of what we are.
It’s wild.

Is it that wild, or is it just your personal experience and interaction with the topic? Some of us had experiences beyond the topic. Then the topic does not become wild, nor boring. The topic is an alternate vibration of reality. One becomes more comfortable asking questions with no answers, less attached to the illusion of materialism as the ultimate will, if you will , of consciousness.

The ultimate will is Love, not self love.
Can we machine_learn Love?

[avasopht]

I agree. That’s what I meant. All we really have is the experience of existing and everything else follows that. Even the experience that there are other beings around us at all is secondary to that.
Which is why I find this whole topic amazing. Notions of causality don’t line up with the most basic aspect of what we are.
It’s wild.

Is it that wild, or is it just your personal experience and interaction with the topic? Some of us had experiences beyond the topic. Then the topic does not become wild, nor boring. The topic is an alternate vibration of reality. One becomes more comfortable asking questions with no answers, less attached to the illusion of materialism as the ultimate will, if you will , of consciousness.

The ultimate will is Love, not self love.
Can we machine_learn Love?

Maybe we're all nothing but machines learning love

Asking questions in philosophy are misunderstood. It's not that they just want to ask questions without answers. The questions point to where we may eventually find answers.

It's easy to take all the technological advances we were born into for granted. But they all arise from philosophy. It's why pretty much every subject progresses towards a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy).

Recent discoveries in psychology have confirmed utility of some of the most elusive thought experiments and philosophical conundrums. Things like Maya or the evil demon thought experiment are played out in both normal people's perceptive distortions, extreme delusions and conditions such as hyperphantasia (where they can find it difficult to differentiate whether they're interacting with the real world and their extremely vivid imaginations).

[plaamook]

Is it that wild, or is it just your personal experience and interaction with the topic? Some of us had experiences beyond the topic. Then the topic does not become wild, nor boring. The topic is an alternate vibration of reality. One becomes more comfortable asking questions with no answers, less attached to the illusion of materialism as the ultimate will, if you will , of consciousness.

It's not the most wild thing I can think of but I think it's out there...relative to the world view we inherited.
I feel pretty bendy when it comes to ideas about 'Reality', but what's the most far out thing you can think of or have experienced is probably a different thread.

[bxbrkrz]

Is it that wild, or is it just your personal experience and interaction with the topic? Some of us had experiences beyond the topic. Then the topic does not become wild, nor boring. The topic is an alternate vibration of reality. One becomes more comfortable asking questions with no answers, less attached to the illusion of materialism as the ultimate will, if you will , of consciousness.

The ultimate will is Love, not self love.
Can we machine_learn Love?

Maybe we're all nothing but machines learning love

Asking questions in philosophy are misunderstood. It's not that they just want to ask questions without answers. The questions point to where we may eventually find answers.

It's easy to take all the technological advances we were born into for granted. But they all arise from philosophy. It's why pretty much every subject progresses towards a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy).

Recent discoveries in psychology have confirmed utility of some of the most elusive thought experiments and philosophical conundrums. Things like Maya or the evil demon thought experiment are played out in both normal people's perceptive distortions, extreme delusions and conditions such as hyperphantasia (where they can find it difficult to differentiate whether they're interacting with the real world and their extremely vivid imaginations).

Can the same exact extremely vivid imagination be distributed across the minds of multiple observers at the same moment? The answer should logically be no.
We ask questions so we can find answers. We should also be at ease knowing someone else will solve the puzzle, but it is hard to let go.

The Mechanical Universe had enough free will to will itself into reality.

[avasopht]

Can the same exact extremely vivid imagination be distributed across the minds of multiple observers at the same moment? The answer should logically be no.

I'm not quite following how that relates? Nobody was suggesting this implies reality is a distributed illusion or anything.

[bxbrkrz]

Can the same exact extremely vivid imagination be distributed across the minds of multiple observers at the same moment? The answer should logically be no.

I'm not quite following how that relates? Nobody was suggesting this implies reality is a distributed illusion or anything.

People share stories about things that cannot be explained, as of yet of course. Since everything we interact with is created in our mind via our senses, does that mean an illusion can be distributed?



This is not related to my question. I didn't want to create a separate post

[avasopht]

People share stories about things that cannot be explained, as of yet of course. Since everything we interact with is created in our mind via our senses, does that mean an illusion can be distributed?

Not entirely, but to a significant enough extent that it can shape societies.

[bxbrkrz]

People share stories about things that cannot be explained, as of yet of course. Since everything we interact with is created in our mind via our senses, does that mean an illusion can be distributed?

Not entirely, but to a significant enough extent that it can shape societies.

I don't know if there are cases of societies created by humans not shaped first by an illusion or a belief. As long as the majority accepts the illusion as real, then the illusion becomes truth. Then that society fails, being replaced by another illusion. The History of Us.

But my question was specifically about an observable phenomenon seen by multiple humans. In that case the phenomenon would pre exist the 'illusion'. I understand all cases will be rejected, no matter the size of the sample of the observers.

Since Evolution never stop, what would be its raison d'être to mold us, the only species who invented the concept of a PhD, into becoming more and more like machines?
It feels like Devolution to me, or a way to justify a path to a conclusion already pre established.

[avasopht]

Since Evolution never stop, what would be its raison d'être to mold us, the only species who invented the concept of a PhD, into becoming more and more like machines?
It feels like Devolution to me, or a way to justify a path to a conclusion already pre established.

I mean, what if our subjective experience was that of a machine learning to love?

What if all of this that we experience is what is required for a machine to learn to love? And we are those machines?

So instead, it's that evolution is molding us more and more to be like loving beings (that we now know as humans)?

But my question was specifically about an observable phenomenon seen by multiple humans. In that case the phenomenon would pre exist the 'illusion'. I understand all cases will be rejected, no matter the size of the sample of the observers.

Depends entirely on the phenomenon and the pre-existing beliefs.

We're not short of examples today where people can be divided on what is happening, even when watching the same recorded video or assessing the exact same stats.

It's why members of a jury may disagree, despite seeing the same evidence.