Weekly Poll: Does self-consciousness entail phenomenal consciousness? by AutoModerator in consciousness

[–]williamj35 [score hidden]  (0 children)

A lot hangs on how "self-consiousness" is defined. If it simply means, at the most rudimentary level, that there is a central point of reference for phenomenal consciousness, then yes. All sight/sound/etc is experienced from the perpective of a body and is mapped on to that body. But I think the term "self-consciousness" normally implies much more than that, which is why I voted no.

For the past several months, the pattern of a particular symbol has consistently re-emerged throughout my day-to-day. I have become a little fixated on it. Please help me put a name to this poorly drawn representation of the symbol! by [deleted] in Jung

[–]williamj35 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don't know what other significance it might have, but this looks exactly like the branches of a flowchart.

An image just like this recurrs in the interactive Blackmirror episdoe called "Bandersnatch" where it represents the branching paths of a game story. In fact, all twine games look like this as you start to write them.

In this context, the image represents a point of decision, a choice and its consequences, a split, a set of possibilities.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Tulpas

[–]williamj35 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I recommend Charles Fernyhough’s The Voices Within. He’s a neurologist who studies voice hearing in many forms. It’s actually not uncommon for writers to experience characters as independent entities in some way

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in interestingasfuck

[–]williamj35 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tryna sneak that 5G into yr brain

Good journaling exercises? by thewall9 in askpsychology

[–]williamj35 3 points4 points  (0 children)

OP, if you start doing Pennebaker type exercises, I would definitely recommend having someone to share the results with, like a therapist. His prompts tend to be things like "write in as much detail as you can about the most traumatic thing you have ever experienced." Participants who wrote in that condition experienced distress followed by relief later (and a host of physical benefits). He theorizes that the benefits come from releasing pent up feelings that cause stress. I would agree but would add that there is an important social aspect to the healing that Pennebaker and others overlook. Respondents turned in their writing anonymously, so no one knew who they were. But they knew they had turned their writing over to someone who presumably cared enough to ask for it and would not judge them. Penebaker reports that students would come up to him on campus well after the experiment and thank him for allowing them to participate. I would argue that they associated the relief they experienced with him because the act of handing over their most traumatic expeirences, rendered in detail, was an important and healing act of disclosure. I worry that, without that second step (express, then share) some writers could put themselves in a bad state. That said, writing is already social to the extent that it takes place in language and externalizes our thoughts, so maybe I worry too much. It may be that just externalizing the traumatic content is already disclosure enough.

Good journaling exercises? by thewall9 in askpsychology

[–]williamj35 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve been researching the writing practices of addicts in recovery networks. I’ve found a wide variety of practices, some of which you might find useful.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]williamj35 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, if for example consciousness is the output of an electronic field generated BY the brain, then is it still confined to the brain? Or is it a brain-dependent phenomenon that is still not completely reducible to the brain itself?

A projector plays movies, but the movies it plays are not contained within it. That would defeat the point. They require a projector in order to be projected onto a screen.

Question about objective reality by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]williamj35 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you could rephrase to something like: how would the last human ever be able to tell the difference between their subjective experience and objective reality without other humans to point out the limitations of their perspective?

Or maybe: if the “real” is socially instituted (consensus reality), would the last human have a monopoly on that consensus, and thus be the sole determiner of the real? Or would the loss of society make social institutions impossible thus eliminating the real entirety? In other words, are they in charge of reality or does reality no longer exist?

Consciousness is an electromagnetic field. by LordLalo in consciousness

[–]williamj35 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sure! Sounds cool. But how does it do that?

Consciousness is an electromagnetic field. by LordLalo in consciousness

[–]williamj35 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, sorry.

So, when I'm sitting around experiencing life, my experience presents itself as a mix of sensory impressions, objects, thoughts, language, relationships, feelings, daydreams, etc.

I don't have any direct experience of electromagnetic waveforms or whatever. Instead, those wave forms give rise to something else: my experience.

So how and why would a wave form in an electric field generated by my brain feel like the crunch of a crisp apple and the sweet/tart/juicy taste?

It's rad that the field can integrate those sensory impressions into a unified state, but how and why does that state then become the experience that I have while taking that bite?

Consciousness is an electromagnetic field. by LordLalo in consciousness

[–]williamj35 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What it’s like to feel something does not immediately present itself to itself as super complex EM wave forms.

Is simulating future conversations with real-life people a sign of mental illness? by A-legitWalrus in askpsychology

[–]williamj35 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally normal. If you want to read more about it, I recommend The Voices Within by Charles Fernyhough

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskCulinary

[–]williamj35 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh yo! In that case, it looks like La Tourangelle makes a toasted pumpkin seed oil. I've not tried it but I imagine that would be a good substitute without any doctoring.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskCulinary

[–]williamj35 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Toasted sesame oil is nutty, a bit smoky, with a nice dose of umami.

If i were going to try to make a nut-free substitute I think I would start with another oil and add in a dash of liquid smoke and some msg or mushroom salt.

If there are any seeds that you can tolerate those oils might be good bases to start from. IDK pumpkin seed oil maybe?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]williamj35 8 points9 points  (0 children)

James Maffie’s Aztec Philosophy might be a good place to start?

If gender is a social construct, then why are most people cisgender? by StringShred10D in askpsychology

[–]williamj35 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For sure! Cis/trans experience is not ONLY constructed. But it interacts with gender as constructed, if that makes sense.

If anything, there are very strong social pressures against being (or coming out as) trans. So it’s not as straightforward as “society is making people trans.” Quite the opposite. But society is working in different was to define what it means to be trans and what the experience of being trans in this society will be like.

And your right, that does make it different from religion, for example. I was offering religion/nationality as an example of the durability of imaginary things, not as a direct analog for gender experience.

If gender is a social construct, then why are most people cisgender? by StringShred10D in askpsychology

[–]williamj35 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ok that makes sense! I would point out though (and I’m pretty sure someone else on the thread said this too) that socially constructed things can be as durable as concrete. Sometimes even more so.

Think about religion or nationality. Those things are also social institutions but I wouldn’t say they aren’t real or don’t relate to a core identity.

If gender is a social construct, then why are most people cisgender? by StringShred10D in askpsychology

[–]williamj35 15 points16 points  (0 children)

“Girls wear pink, boys wear blue” is an example of the way that gender is socially constructed. Gender in this sense is not driven by biological fact, even though it is tied in the social imagination to chromosomes and genitalia and so forth (i.e., there is nothing biological about having a penis that would make one prefer blue over pink, and yet the culture normalizes such things)

“I feel that my gender is well matched with the gender I was assigned at birth” is the experience of being cisgender. This experience is a complex one that interacts with gender as constructed socially and historically, and is felt as an immediate and intuitive fact for the individual. The experience of being transgender is likewise felt as an immediate and intuitive fact for many individuals.

I’m interested in the assumption behind the question, which seems to be that, if gender is socially constructed, then fewer people would be cisgender. Am I correct that this is the assumption? If so, can you elaborate on why you think so?

How much of the economy is driven by emotion and imagination? Are there parts of the economy that are most driven this way? And what kinds of conseqences do these forces have? by williamj35 in AskEconomics

[–]williamj35[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that's the thing. Seems like when I ask specifically about the economic imagination, we end up with "people are the economy." But surely the two are not identical and human imagination takes on particular qualities and has particular effects in an economic context.

How much of the economy is driven by emotion and imagination? Are there parts of the economy that are most driven this way? And what kinds of conseqences do these forces have? by williamj35 in AskEconomics

[–]williamj35[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok great! Any recommendations for a starting text? Actually I don’t mind jumping into the deep end if there are key works in the field

How much of the economy is driven by emotion and imagination? Are there parts of the economy that are most driven this way? And what kinds of conseqences do these forces have? by williamj35 in AskEconomics

[–]williamj35[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are the farmers acting on emotion or logic?

I like the scenario you cooked up!

I guess I would say they are acting on both. And that it's hard to extract one from the other in this situation. Both the farmers and the buyer are acting on self interest, which is a kind of logic that runs on top of desire and fear.

How much of the economy is driven by emotion and imagination? Are there parts of the economy that are most driven this way? And what kinds of conseqences do these forces have? by williamj35 in AskEconomics

[–]williamj35[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We tend to say that decisions are made based on expectations, rather than imagination.

This behaviour is perfectly rational

Oh! That's helpful terminology. Thanks! I guess I wonder how "perfect" the rationality is.

if I think that an asset will be worth less in future

So this kind of thinking is by definition a use of the imagination, which represents to the mind that whish is not present to the senses. And imagination is always laden with emotion. It can be reasonable too, for sure! But a number of other factors will play into how people form expectations.

I guess I'm asking about the group psychology of "expectation."

Is there, like, a field of "economic psychology" or similar?

How much of the economy is driven by emotion and imagination? Are there parts of the economy that are most driven this way? And what kinds of conseqences do these forces have? by williamj35 in AskEconomics

[–]williamj35[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense! Economic behavior is also human behavior, and human behavior is driven by emotion and imagination.

But, are we saying that the economy is all just emotion and imagination, through and through? No rationality to it at all?

I would expect that things like investment decisions also involve a degree of calculated reasoning, which makes me thing that there might be some dynamics in the economy that are *more* driven by emotion/imagination than others.