star ark

But you only really want it if a bunch of stimuli out of your control makes you want it.

Fear of worm food is god It is the only logical answer to the question of experience God is why the chicken crossed the road

There is a timeline to reactivity and the first step is always subconscious pattern recognition. Even if you feel like you are reasoning between alternatives the decision is not yours, another pattern is recognized and you apply the label of reasoning to that instinctive decision you make. What feels right to you is just subconscious maths - the likelihood for success is greater if i take this path - so you are not supposed to do anything. Your actions may be completely against another persons and they are just doing what they feel to be right.

There is no mastery Not everyone likes the same thing so there is no mastery You can master the masters tour (golf) because it has a clear winner You cannot master self expression Do you want to be an exact copy of something else that is famous and makes lots of money? Then fuck off, we don't need another copy cat Do you want to master your self? Then you already are doing it

I can't use music for meditation. I'm a music teacher and before that a musical instruments salesman, I like music too much to be able to listen to it and drift off. I'm very envious of people who can use it to meditate. Most days once or twice I sit and do nothing and usually breathe into my aches and pains. That might be vipassana style. I also walk every day and use a few meditations tricks: I try and feel the exact moment my feet leave the ground and that starts me off on a whole string of ideas. Eventually I can become a floating camera and everything happens on instinct, I watch myself look both ways before crossing the road even on roads that are dead ends with no cars, basically I can end up watching myself as I go into auto pilot. And for almost a month I have done yoga most days for about 15 minutes. Books recommend an hour a day but I find even 15 minutes is great but it is more for aches and pains. It does calm the mind but right now I am still focusing on getting the poses right. It's harder than it looks. Also the shower is a great place for a short meditative moment.

Bicameral Mind book I'm reading says judgement is the first reaction, logic does not exist (it is merely the consciousness of the judgement of the nervous system) and then what we call consciousness is aware of the consciousness of logic. Not sure I believe it but this book would be suggesting judgement is just noticing your instinct and that the only way to change judgement is to change that instinctive pattern recognition. So that just comes down to no free will, your surroundings and the people you hang around with/grew up with influenced you and vice versa, even if you decide to meditate you did not choose that as patterns have been recognized subconsciously. You must have recognized patterns of emotions in yourself, patterns of emotions in others, your logic in hindsight realizes it has recognized a pattern that you are unhappier than most and have been for a longer time, your pattern recognition system recognizes the patterns of benign treatments, you try decide to meditate over heroin to be more happy but that decision was never yours, your logic is an illusion and your decisions can never truly be yours. But to judge? That's like the patterns you have recognized subconsciously don't match someone else's

I'm pretty dense when it comes to the hefty scientific stuff but has this idea being put forth? I've read the idea many times that reality may not be 3d and our eyes are creating the illusion of 3d from a pair 2d images. To me this does not prove anything. If i take a picture with a camera of the real 3d world then that picture is 2d. But it is a 2d picture of the 3d world. So why is one human eye expected to be able to see 3d in the first place? Maybe I'm missing a big point in the argument but I never understood this one.

The author needs to argue that language and even human civilization itself did not require self reflection to be created. Otherwise his timeline of around 3000 years ago doesn't work. He uses many examples to prove consciousness is the last in the timeline of reactivity, with instinctive pattern recognition first and then reasoning second. What is the next symbol ? x o x o x o x o x ? When then answer came to you how did it arrive at that answer? Did you use reasoning? Or did an instinctive pattern recognition system inherent to you figure it out, then in hindsight it felt like you "reasoned" the answer and then in hindsight you are conscious of this chain of events? or You need to determine which of 2 objects is heavier. You pick them up. You don't use reasoning or consciousness for this task. You are conscious of the sensations involved, the tangible qualities of the items in hand, the appearance of the items, maybe scent, they may be very expensive items - you could be conscious of nervousness - but you are not conscious of the mechanism that identifies the heavier object. Your nervous system and that inherent system in all of us gives us the answer, reasoning is not involved in a single step problem and consciousness does nothing. Consciousness never does anything. Reasoning is just the inherent pattern recognition in hindsight. So problems can be solved without consciousness.

I tried to search for this topic and was surprised it has not been brought up, please remove if it has and I am just beating a dead horse. From wikipedia: "Bicameralism (the philosophy of "two-chamberedness") is a hypothesis in psychology that argues that the human mind once assumed a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a bicameral mind. The term was coined by Julian Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind,[1]wherein he made the case that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous state of the human mind as recently as 3000 years ago. The hypothesis is generally not accepted by mainstream psychologists." The argument is that originally humans heard orders in their heads and just followed them as if they were directions from the gods - we had no consciousness. It theorizes that we still talked, grieved, celebrated etc however it was not consciously. It gets too out there for me when it uses the old testament as an example of this "Bicameral Mind" still in effect and that the authors of the old testament still had no consciousness. The writing style of the old testament is very strange I admit, it has no emotion, no internal thought, no suffering, god was more like Zeus, the forces of natures etc, constantly people act on visions of god and everyone else believes every vision. He uses this quote about an ancient war where he claims the Romans had developed consciousness and they claimed to fight "Noble Automatas" - people who still operated under the Bicameral Mind and not sentience. He suggests mass population increase and the joining of groups of people all worshiping different gods was the catalyst for sentience. He claims a schizophrenic or religious person having a genuine vision of the divine to be the last remains of the Bicameral Mind. India definitely has the strange deities reputation and that would be another example of the Bicameral Mind. The theory is out there, but looking into it many people have been using his Bicameral Mind theory to come up with less out there theories. It seems to give examples of the ego and the observer, but then the pure awareness is still not explained. I was loving the theory until the time frame of only 3000 years or so ago we actually developed consciousness. It does explain a hell of a lot about the thousands upon thousands of gods and why every ancient structure serves no real practical purpose other than worship.

4:50 wow We have some sort of instinctive awareness and then a different form of awareness is aware of that instinctive awareness and finally logic or consciousness is aware of the awareness of the instinctive awareness. So it could be argued that we do know things with that instinctive awareness just via instinct alone and then our awareness of the instinct fools itself into thinking it didn't know the answer until it became aware of the instinctive awareness. I'm juggling the actual book and now other videos on the Bicameral mind. It seems to come down to "I am therefor I think"

Ego could definitely come back You could become enlightened out in the woods You walk home but your house is now a mansion!!! You inherited a long lost aunts fortune and now you are wealthy beyond your wildest dreams and that chick you always had the hots for is waiting with keys to your new mansion!!!! She's gonna suck your cock while her indentical twin sister does what ever you could possible imagine!!! Somehow your friends witness this through a window - they wanna check out your new pad. They congratulate you on your house, your wealth and your new Charlie Sheen lifestyle. Does your ego come back? Anything could happen outside of yourself that sparks the ego. You must be vigilant and watch out for any peeps of the ego

^ I'm trying to get there, but it's not just a matter of finding more discipline for me. I think my issue is I am terrified of not finding the 1 absolute and when others speak of their experiences it does not 100% fit with mine. Intellectually I understand the absolute, but my intuition or ego or whatever refuses when I see interpretations. Ridiculous I know, everything contains nothing contains the one absolute, I could pass a university exam on the topic but I would only believe it on an intellectual level.

Cool, I do believe you in a way I'm a very absolute kinda guy I think there is the "truth" and the "TRUTH" and I get confused when come across other more positive souls. I cannot comprehend pure disassociation for 10 minutes before work and then just dusting myself off and being back in the right frame of mind to do anything other than ponder.

um? i don't get it

not to be rude but that sounds like you feel your body

Honestly I believe that is everybody's goal here. I suspect even after a lifetime of meditation we would only catch very fleeting glimpses of this.

Wow nice post! Also in my minds' eye I don't create 3d objects instinctively, when I imagine the object it is 2d until I try really hard to imagine it 3d and even then it's not quite the same. Just look at your surroundings, close your eyes and imagine those exact surrounding and then open your eyes again. My mind has a very hard time reaching the level of 3dness my open eyes do.

Sorry I didn't mean the pain of a broken leg or anything like that I meant the pain of passage of time. I assumed animals won't feel bad about themselves, they won't feel sorry for their appearance and how it change with time, won't feel anxious if they haven't squirelled away enough resources for their old ageetc But I just had a second thought on the matter. I see time is a concept of even insects understand, a spider's web is only effective in time. Even if it is instinctive time is the major player. Other animals can lay a trap, stalking prey for hours knowing it will have more energy and eventually pounce. I was clearly wrong on the matter but it's still a grey area in that time is being utilized but perhaps it is pure instinct.

I strongly believe some games are so incredible that it is high conscious. Ever seen, heard and experienced Blood Borne?

This book is fantastic. It has very flowery prose so some rigid scientist logical types would immediately stop reading. The basic argument so far could be summarized as "Right at this moment, you are not conscious of how you are sitting, of where your hands are placed, of how fast you are reading, though even as I mentioned these items, you were. And as you read, you are not conscious of the letters or even of the words or even of the syntax or the sentences and punctuation, but only of their meaning. As you listen to an address, phonemes disappear into words and words into sentences and sentences disappear into what they are trying to say, into meaning. To be conscious of the elements of speech is to destroy the intention of the speech. For in speaking or writing we are not really conscious of what we are actually doing at the time. Consciousness functions in the decision as to what to say, how we are to say it, and when we say it, but then the orderly and accomplished succession of phonemes or of written letters is somehow done for us." or "Most people will identify with a struggling worm. But as every boy who has baited a fish hook knows, if a worm is cut in two, the front half with its primitive brain seems not to mind as much as the back half, which writhes in 'agony'. But surely if the worm felt pain as we do, surely it would be the part with the brain that would do the agonizing. The agony of the tail end is our agony, not the worm's; its writhing is a mechanical release phenomenon" Still not convinced the old testament was written by bicameral minds yet . Lack of emotion in old testament could simply be due to writing still being so primitive or perhaps out of respect for the lessons it contains.

that is a very good point right there....

Thank you might mouse, you really did come and save the day!

Knowing that you have a problem is half the solution. Force improvement with strict dietary changes and heavy exercise. If you cannot find the motivation to try even that then you are not ready for any other "crazy" solutions, just wear yourself out and eat right. See what happens with that and then move onto more niche stuff like meditation, gluten/lactose/dairy/ free, vegan, yoga and so on. If you don't try the diet and exercise first just give up. You're searching for the easy way out otherwise and you need discipline first.

You should feel genuinely bad to criticize because you emphasize with the person suffering, as well as not getting off on an ego trip of being right.

I believe that the Bicameral Mind theory explains this. I only heard about this theory yesterday and have been reading everything I can. It's very intriguing.