[What Came Before]

Mini-rant before bed! I'm not one to comprehend higher-level academic philosophy, or most of the "wank" on Three Pound Brain, but the apparent degree of relevance of the Dunyainic philosophy to the real-world is a bit disconcerting to me.

'The thoughts of all men arise from the darkness. If you are the movement of your soul, and the cause of that movement precedes you, then how could you ever call your thoughts your own? How could you be anything other than a slave to the darkness that comes before?'

Between all of the Dunyain stuff, Blind Brain Theory, etc., I've gone from believing in free will and the possibility of having unmanipulated thoughts to seeing how easily people are swayed and how difficult it is to think about the reasons why I think the way I do. It's like Inrilatas says:

'You cannot see the darkness that precedes your thoughts, but unlike most souls you know it exists. You appreciate how rarely you are the author of what you say and do…' He raised his shackled hands for a clap that never came. 'I'm impressed, Mother. You understand this trick the world calls a soul.'

Without sounding like a pompous person who feels enlightened compared to others, how does one go about life with this "knowledge"? Is it even worth knowing? Should I just pretend the Darkness doesn't exist and continue to "find meaning" like everyone else?

Does anyone else here think about this? Jeez, it's like I'm back in high school and having my first existential crisis  :lol:

[What Came Before]

It's certainly valuable knowledge, and the way Bakker frames it in his theory of consciousness framework is really interesting, but if you fixate on it (like with anything) you'll miss for the forest for the trees. Free will is nebulous. Determinism makes sense and doesn't. The nuts and bolts of consciousness are perhaps the most difficult thing to understand in the universe, because our only instrument to study it is what we are studying. So realize that people are sometimes full of shit, and sometimes not, and just live your life. Absolutes are anathema to an open mind <--- even this statement is an absolute. So what do you do? Chilllll bro

[What Came Before]

Like some sort of spooky wind chime, I would say thoughts such as these are the background music of this forum!

In terms of going about life I think A: the corporate/capitalist investment in manipulation techniques and B: the apparently happy go lucky way people dream about modifying their brains are huge speed bumps (and that's just within the frame of this question - outside that you have wage slaves, starvation, sex slaves, etc, but that's another (valid) topic)

Also it depends on how invested you were in the often passed on notions of free will. Kinda like a topiary, if you grews around that frame, it's hard to remove it without collapsing, sprawled across ground last met as a child (but without the prodigous brain growing powers (or charity of parents) of a young child to face it with).

Ultimately, we live in the first world and despite our common wage slave status, we live fat with peace. Were not used to drawing a line in the sand and holding that ground. So we look at meaning for the sake of meaning, meaning for it's own sake, instead of meaning for the sake of holding literal ground for survival.

I think a tracing of meaning down to literal grounds of survival, is a step. Find what backs meaning, like finding the gold that backs the meaning of money. Not that gold is used to back money anymore (the idea got too popular and it the meaning of money began to be able to sit upon it's own meaning. Err, okay, I digress again!)

Take a tomato from the fridge, take a seed from it, let it dry. Then take some soil in a discarded platic cup and plant it.

[What Came Before]

Welcome to the forum, Meyna

[What Came Before]

The most disturbing point Bakker makes, IMO, is that there seems logically to be no middle ground between either:

1) having faith in the existence of something beyond what science tells us exists; or
2) admitting the nihilists are right, which means that even the phrase "the nihilists are right" becomes completely meaningless.

The inescapable pull of logic seems to lead either to something that sounds suspiciously like 'God', or to logic's own self-annihilation.

[What Came Before]

The world sleeps...

+1 on Windchime Metaphor, Callan.

Welcome to the Second Apocalypse, Meyna. Cheers for adding script to our noosphere.

Considering its a psychology midterm and not a philosophy one, I probably should give this some more serious thought later - which I will.

For the moment, as I'm sidetracked by... academics for the majority of the day, I'll offer quick thoughts.

Even a cursory study of basic bias and heuristic, which itself is a study in its infancy, truly, reveals that human beings are living an illusion. I'm not an Eliminativist - people who think we should refer to everything, at all times, by its most reducible description - except by analogy but the explanatory styles we offer the Western Empire, even human society, are out and out deceptive. They really couldn't get farther - yet they are - from anything we might think helps, philosophically defined, quality decision making.

Now Bakker has pursued this to depths unknown philosophically and psychologically. So if you are looking for a practical, day to day, integrated use from this perspective, that others are asleep, while you are, by some measure, awake, a couple thoughts:

First, take a hit to the ego. We're all subject to those same heuristics and biases, though, may be able to leverage our awareness of them against them - I don't think Bakker's that optimistic - I figure he thought we might've avoided the path entirely at some point.

Secondly, and this is hugely irresponsible of me, with an audience of any number of people, but the world turns with or without me so... in the interest of comprehension, I sincerely hope that none of you experience psychopathy in your lives and I don't preempt such adventures now:

Basically, you decide to make people aware of these things and come off like PON - which turns away a certain... vocal readership. Or you use it to your advantage - whatever that may be.

For my part, I do a little of both. But I decided the other day that I too am obsessed with Becoming, which is a sweet metaphor. I actively live my life to accomplish things which will change my brain and change the way I literally, physically experience the world - aside, Leaf, I've long given up my experimental drug phase - so I might garner a novel perspective on our classic academics and how human interaction becomes the world issues we humans experience aspects of.

Cheers, Meyna, I don't think I've ever written or voiced that to anyone, ever, so succinctly. But then, forum aside, I rarely express myself.

+1 Second Apocalypse.

[What Came Before]

Chilllll bro

The best course of action 8-)

B: the apparently happy go lucky way people dream about modifying their brains are huge speed bumps

The frustrating part is that we are manipulated, either by our own biases and Darkness, or via the biases of others, yet guiding our own manipulation (in order to, for instance, take on a logical mindset or to improve one's self) is a lot of times an insurmountable task! How nice it would be to have the ability to direct our efforts towards following our own shortest paths to whatever goals we have. But, no, the countless ways that we are manipulated daily are chaotic in nature.

Welcome to the forum, Meyna

Thank you so much! 

The most disturbing point Bakker makes, IMO, is that there seems logically to be no middle ground between either:

1) having faith in the existence of something beyond what science tells us exists; or
2) admitting the nihilists are right, which means that even the phrase "the nihilists are right" becomes completely meaningless.

The inescapable pull of logic seems to lead either to something that sounds suspiciously like 'God', or to logic's own self-annihilation.

There is no hedging of bets, it's true. Yet, the Dunyain have strong convictions about their worldview; without achieving the self-moving soul, even they would have to admit that they might be wrong. They are demonstrably, however, a very successful people. "Close enough."  :lol:


Madness: I am preoccupied today myself, so I will think about what you've said and respond later on. Thank you so much for sharing, and thank you for the warm welcome.

[What Came Before]

They are demonstrably, however, a very successful people. "Close enough."

Kellhus would argue that the Dunyain are not "close enough". He has become "more", but from the Dunyain point of view, he is insane.

[What Came Before]

Take a tomato from the fridge, take a seed from it, let it dry. Then take some soil in a discarded platic cup and plant it.

Go to jail for the rest of your life because Monsanto says so.

[What Came Before]

The world sleeps...

+1 on Windchime Metaphor, Callan.

Welcome to the Second Apocalypse, Meyna. Cheers for adding script to our noosphere.

Considering its a psychology midterm and not a philosophy one, I probably should give this some more serious thought later - which I will.

For the moment, as I'm sidetracked by... academics for the majority of the day, I'll offer quick thoughts.

Thank you again for the welcome!

Even a cursory study of basic bias and heuristic, which itself is a study in its infancy, truly, reveals that human beings are living an illusion. I'm not an Eliminativist - people who think we should refer to everything, at all times, by its most reducible description - except by analogy but the explanatory styles we offer the Western Empire, even human society, are out and out deceptive. They really couldn't get farther - yet they are - from anything we might think helps, philosophically defined, quality decision making.

At times it seems that the illusion is so definitively human. Where do we even want to go on an individual and societal level, anyway?

Now Bakker has pursued this to depths unknown philosophically and psychologically. So if you are looking for a practical, day to day, integrated use from this perspective, that others are asleep, while you are, by some measure, awake, a couple thoughts:

First, take a hit to the ego. We're all subject to those same heuristics and biases, though, may be able to leverage our awareness of them against them - I don't think Bakker's that optimistic - I figure he thought we might've avoided the path entirely at some point.

This gets to the meat of it, I think. First, I have to ask questions about myself and the world around me. What are my goals? What direction do I want to see existence go in? To what degree do I want to participate in that effort? To what degree can I participate in that effort? Perhaps I can answer those questions, however, if I were to ask a million people those same questions, I would get a million different answers, to say nothing about the accuracy of those answers.

If I look at this from an evolutionary standpoint, I have to wonder how we will fare as a species (measuring success from an evolutionary standpoint, that is) as time goes on. Would decreasing the Darkness be an advantage, and thus, will evolution naturally bring us down a Dunyain-like path without us even knowing it? If so, would it do any good at this point, when we may not yet have the ability as a species to make any progress against the Darkness, to acknowledge it and to struggle against it? Would that struggle be in line with the answers to my questions in the previous paragraph? Perhaps, for some people.

Knowing that the illusion exists certainly changes things, though. It would be like playing a game where most people think that the outcome is random, but you realize that there is in fact strategy involved. You can't not look at the game differently, even if a) you don't know the strategy, and b) you don't know if the strategy is even learnable.

Secondly, and this is hugely irresponsible of me, with an audience of any number of people, but the world turns with or without me so... in the interest of comprehension, I sincerely hope that none of you experience psychopathy in your lives and I don't preempt such adventures now:

Basically, you decide to make people aware of these things and come off like PON - which turns away a certain... vocal readership. Or you use it to your advantage - whatever that may be.

I try to resist ingroup bias, "good old days" bias, what have you, when interacting with others; the advantage being that arguing my biased preferences is rarely advantageous. I don't think that I fall towards the psychopathic end of the spectrum!

For my part, I do a little of both. But I decided the other day that I too am obsessed with Becoming, which is a sweet metaphor. I actively live my life to accomplish things which will change my brain and change the way I literally, physically experience the world - aside, Leaf, I've long given up my experimental drug phase - so I might garner a novel perspective on our classic academics and how human interaction becomes the world issues we humans experience aspects of.

Again, I try to comprehend why I have the thoughts and preferences that I have. That's asking a lot. Every experience, even sitting and doing "nothing," changes one's brain and their perception of reality. Can one get better at directing that process, so that brain changes complement the attaining of one's goals? How would such an ability fit in on a societal level? Are we all heading in that direction anyway?

Cheers, Meyna, I don't think I've ever written or voiced that to anyone, ever, so succinctly. But then, forum aside, I rarely express myself.

+1 Second Apocalypse.

Likewise -- I'm glad I'm here! Cheers!

[What Came Before]

They are demonstrably, however, a very successful people. "Close enough."

Kellhus would argue that the Dunyain are not "close enough". He has become "more", but from the Dunyain point of view, he is insane.

It will be interesting to see what Kellhus has become.

But the Dunyain: they seem, at times, to abhor certitude.

"Set aside your conviction," Moënghus said, "for the feel­ing of certainty is no more a marker of truth than the feeling of will is a marker of freedom. Deceived men always think themselves certain, just as they always think themselves free. This is simply what it means to be deceived."

Would this not also apply to the Dunyain themselves? Until absolute success in their experiment, they might concede that they might be wrong. On the other hand, Dunyain out in the world are so darn successful, that they must be on the right track, which could be enough to remove doubt in their system.

[What Came Before]

B: the apparently happy go lucky way people dream about modifying their brains are huge speed bumps

The frustrating part is that we are manipulated, either by our own biases and Darkness, or via the biases of others, yet guiding our own manipulation (in order to, for instance, take on a logical mindset or to improve one's self) is a lot of times an insurmountable task! How nice it would be to have the ability to direct our efforts towards following our own shortest paths to whatever goals we have. But, no, the countless ways that we are manipulated daily are chaotic in nature.

Depends - how do you distinguish between biases and goals?

[What Came Before]

B: the apparently happy go lucky way people dream about modifying their brains are huge speed bumps

The frustrating part is that we are manipulated, either by our own biases and Darkness, or via the biases of others, yet guiding our own manipulation (in order to, for instance, take on a logical mindset or to improve one's self) is a lot of times an insurmountable task! How nice it would be to have the ability to direct our efforts towards following our own shortest paths to whatever goals we have. But, no, the countless ways that we are manipulated daily are chaotic in nature.

Depends - how do you distinguish between biases and goals?

Ah, indeed. Without understanding at some level why we think the way we do, any goals that we strive for come from the Darkness, too. I suppose it's not an issue of distinguishing between biases and goals, but rather to understand the bias and motivations behind any goals that we set.

[What Came Before]

At times it seems that the illusion is so definitively human. Where do we even want to go on an individual and societal level, anyway?

There are arguments that the increasing complexity of our human manifestations - in this case, culture, society, and their institutions - will outrun our ability to actually solve the issues they cause. I'm reminded of the biological cascades, where a single trigger can cause an entire series of reactions.

I'm of the persuasion that we don't use our existing form effectively at all - I would advocate that we embody our bodies first. To me it sounds redundant but our first priority as a species should be to find some kind of homeostasis in the balance of individual and collective welfare while achieving the same with our environment - though it is, again, arguable that we've outgrown the biosphere's capacity already.

This gets to the meat of it, I think. First, I have to ask questions about myself and the world around me. What are my goals? What direction do I want to see existence go in? To what degree do I want to participate in that effort? To what degree can I participate in that effort? Perhaps I can answer those questions, however, if I were to ask a million people those same questions, I would get a million different answers, to say nothing about the accuracy of those answers.

I'd offer that you can only really decide the first three for yourself and integrate the last as constant rhetoric. If you want to personally engage, I think there will always be a constraint as to the degree that you, however your social station defines you in real life, can even participate in any social effort.

If I look at this from an evolutionary standpoint, I have to wonder how we will fare as a species (measuring success from an evolutionary standpoint, that is) as time goes on. Would decreasing the Darkness be an advantage, and thus, will evolution naturally bring us down a Dunyain-like path without us even knowing it? If so, would it do any good at this point, when we may not yet have the ability as a species to make any progress against the Darkness, to acknowledge it and to struggle against it? Would that struggle be in line with the answers to my questions in the previous paragraph? Perhaps, for some people.

Knowing that the illusion exists certainly changes things, though. It would be like playing a game where most people think that the outcome is random, but you realize that there is in fact strategy involved. You can't not look at the game differently, even if a) you don't know the strategy, and b) you don't know if the strategy is even learnable.

I could envisage "knowledge of ignorance" being another heuristic, which our consciousness might develop to leverage information. However, in research that has been done, we're already seeing, say, metabiases emerge from "leveraging biases with your knowledge of biases."

I don't really think these scenarios make it to an evolutionary stage. My guess is that we'll be dealing with the ramifications of neurocosmetic surgery and nootropics as socially acceptable in under ten years. Also, we've probably already derailed evolution significantly - think of how many people are alive today, that would have died without medical intervention, that "evolutionary mechanism" would have discarded, and how commonplace breeding with these "defectives" is - hell, I am "defective" as I'd probably have died at seven without antibiotics. Not giving us many adaptive advantages.

In a sense, attempting to think rationally, is an inadvertent attempt to be Dunyain?

Sorry, if these seem nonsensical, I'm simply writing stream of consciousness for the most part.

I try to resist ingroup bias, "good old days" bias, what have you, when interacting with others; the advantage being that arguing my biased preferences is rarely advantageous. I don't think that I fall towards the psychopathic end of the spectrum!

Lol, I was hoping to avoid advocating nihilism or complete utilitarianism .

I know that committing to a type of mental hygiene alienates a certain percentage of people and the possibility of interacting or even relating to others - I think, in some ways, this is Bakker's ultimate fear, that the loss of social recognition due to novel biological divisions in form and thought will cause irrevocable chaos.

But in lesser ways, the more we can't relate to those around us, the more we cannot interact with them. It's a crucial balance in my opinion and the chief psychological issue of the Hero's Journey (which is a narrative of every person's psychological path through life, as far as they journey) - how to communicate the revelations, the lessons, of your journey to the society you left behind? How do you communicate what you've become to what you once were?

But then do you want/need to relate? The recluse, the hermit as a commonplace way of life is a relatively new historical occupation - no longer simply for exiles and madmen.

Again, I try to comprehend why I have the thoughts and preferences that I have. That's asking a lot. Every experience, even sitting and doing "nothing," changes one's brain and their perception of reality. Can one get better at directing that process, so that brain changes complement the attaining of one's goals? How would such an ability fit in on a societal level? Are we all heading in that direction anyway?

I can't speak for everyone, Meyna. I know that my philosophies are already antiquated. Few will want to train, to practice, to exert effort to attempt directed neuroplasticity, in order to cultivate greater pattern recognition, anymore than they already do - in the sense, that few people are musicians or bilinguists, let's say. It's my thought that our cognitive supremacy is a product of some innovation like our opposable thumbs and the requisite increased cortical definition and density.

It's an interesting time to say the least. As the first species - as far as we know - able to leverage their nervous system in this fashion, there really aren't limits of integration once we start augmenting our forms. The first prosthetic connecting to our nervous system and willed by our volition is already a thing - next will come the integrating of novel sensory apparatuses (which, actually, is already being done). And this is public... Neil is fucking out there - somewhere - in a brightly lit NSA lab... laughing.
 
I'd hazard that these symptoms, which Bakker's chosen as a focus, are incidental to the Blind Brain problem though. It arguably implies that if we are blind to the actual functions of our brains - as we process only a sliver of the total information is receives and are using this to leverage knowledge about the actual functions of our brains - we shouldn't dive brain first into progress and begin changing the hardware based on the minimal understanding we do have, least we lose this original "human" configuration forever.

People are lazy. This forum, Bakker fandom in general, is a rare anomoly in the expression of mental rigor as are all scientists as distinguished by actually ascribing to the scientific method. And worse to consider that there is a portion of society using neuroscientific knowledge to get you to buy "anything you want" - the self-evident catchphrase of the 21st Century. Except you'll no longer have to buy Product-X to be happy, you can just buy "Happy" in pill form - the exact neuroprofile of a mother's joy after childbirth or some such nonsense.

Lol. +1 for Thoughts, Meyna.

[What Came Before]

Ah, indeed. Without understanding at some level why we think the way we do, any goals that we strive for come from the Darkness, too. I suppose it's not an issue of distinguishing between biases and goals, but rather to understand the bias and motivations behind any goals that we set.

Perhaps some idea before even setting such goals! Then again that might undercut certain already present drives to create. So I'm not sure.

Hope the forums reasonably fun so far! The books give alot of ideas to turn over.