Carl-Richard

I like to think I'm onboard with this line of thinking, but I'm not sure if either 1. I keep forgetting about it or 2. if reading too much neuroscience is inherently poisoning my mind Your points about correlation being all there is has been my initial position for a while, but when I keep reading about the claims of causality, I start to wonder if maybe the distinction is useful (useful instead of "true", because like I said, I don't really believe in "true" causality). On the one hand, I believe I'm making these semi-nuanced distinctions about causality, but on the other hand, I think that maybe sometimes I can slip back into billard ball type thinking and start believing that the brain is actually causing stuff (hence being poisoned and hence my original question). So far I haven't been moved much away from embracing my old strategy, which is simply about being careful not to lose track of which paradigm is which (which again I'm suspecting becomes progressively harder the longer you immerse yourself in one), and that maybe over time, I will properly develop the sixth sense of system awareness . Anyways, thanks for the input

Maybe the problem lies in me letting the current scientific paradigm define what I perceive as reasonable and expecting there to be some resolution between two inherently incompatible paradigms. I mean... it's not at all reasonable from the perspective of infinite consciousness ?

Omg

It is, as are all distinctions. The question is about when or if it is ever warranted to distinguish between imaginary correlation and imaginary causation. It's true that predictability is a shaky concept. For instance, psychedelics used to have a very different effect on me a couple of years ago than today. If you were to take the neuroscientific perspective of causation, you would say that the drug predictably triggers the same receptors, leading to the same type of signalling cascades. If you were to explain the diversity of experience from this perspective, you would say that it's because the receptors are a part of larger variable system. But this variation is not limitless (if we're limiting ourselves to humans). After all, different people have a lot in common. I return to the word "reasonable". There seems to be a reasonable level of predictability. For instance, it wouldn't be reasonable to say that taking LSD turns you into a frog for the rest of your life, or that it is identical to the effects of something like Salvia Divinorum. In other words, the neuroscience seems reasonable to me; maybe not magically perfect (unlike reality), but just reasonable.

@Boethius Cool thanks Btw, I wasn't sure to post this in self-actualization or meditation/consciousness/spirtuality, because it clearly falls under "philosophy", but it also touches on all of those other topics ? Which is why I cheekily added "while using a reasonable definition of causation" at the end of the previous paragraph, with which I mean that in some ways I'm conceding to the materialists own definition or treatment of it. Let me also clarify again that consciousness as The Absolute is out of the picture (it's "uncaused"). I'm concerned about the "contents" of consciousness, of which the brain is included. I'm familiar with Hume's problem of induction and how causality is impossible to prove, but if we were to somewhat borrow Kant's critique: from a human perspective, causality seems to be a natural law, or atleast we treat it as such (not that materialists are transcendental idealists, but nevertheless, they seem to follow in the same footsteps, atleast out from how they treat it in language). If I only concerned myself with what is provided by my direct experience (beyond thought-laden perception), I would stop right at the very first paragraph, but here I am, talking about "the content of the dream" so to speak. I'm already aware of the silliness of it So in other words, granted the silliness of defining anything as causal, granted the reductionism and general lack of comprehensiveness of materialistic models, I do sympathize with pointing to the brain as a way to consistently predict some aspects of behavior or experience (as with any physiological apparatus) in ways that let's say exceeds the "common conception" of correlation and its limitations. You could say I'm trying to reconcile my "consciousness first" model with the question of "what does the materialists gain from making their distinction between causality and correlation, and can I have some of it?"

As I've been reading a little history of philosophy this year, I've concluded that I don't find it particularily helpful to apply Orange to pre-enlightenment societies. The time from classical antiquity throughout the middle ages was a messy mixture of theology and philosophy, mythic and rational thinking, concrete and formal operational cognition etc. There is a point in calling it the Dark Ages. I would say those 2000 years were a rough, complicated and slow transitionatory stage. If there really was any true Orange anywhere, it was very exclusive and not truly significant in the bigger picture. It's not this simple, but for instance, Stage Blue surely didn't reach its peak before the great empires fell and the nation states were established. That is just one example, but the point is that the seeds of Orange needed a vast selection of ideal conditions in order to bear fruit (as did any stage).

Why is population growth non-linear? Why is advances in data processing non-linear? All intelligent self-improving systems work this way. Once growth entails you becoming better at growth, growth becomes exponential.

Oh, I forgot to mention that each category of Big 5 can be divided into 6 facets as well (NEO PI-R). So in total, 5 categories with 6 facets each makes 30 different facets. There is support for various facets using the same statistical procedures as used on the initial 5 categories (Lexical approach). If we were to typologize/dichotomize each trait/facet continuum in the Big 5 (for example making orderliness-disorderliness into two types — O and DO), that would create 5*6*2 = 60 possible types. So which is the "proven" number for dividing personality? 5? 6? 30? 60? There is no reason to simplify it to that level.

Interesting.

@Village I can just imagine the long threads of denial under whichever place this was posted

Not to completely derail the discussion, but for me, this is the best argument for why there should be mandatory vaccinations for hypercontagious diseases. Letting them just run wild even if they're not very lethal is incredibly irresponsible considering the risk of lethal recombinants which could wipe out the entire planet.

My brother recently told me about an experience he had 2 months ago before he went to bed. He was really tired and ended up just staring himself in the mirror for 10 minutes, and after a while, he felt a so-called weird scary feeling and as if he was no longer looking at himself anymore. He snapped out of it quickly, but he thinks he had a brief moment of ego death. I've had similar experiences as a small child. One time, I was looking up at the night sky with my friend and got in touch with the infinity of the universe and felt a deep fear of dying. This kept happening many times as I was growing up. It probably ended when I was around 11, but then it came back really strong during the summer when I was 14. Then after that, it disappeared virtually for good, all up until I started meditating 5 years later. Now it's a daily occurence. It seems that these things are strongly influenced by inheritance, but I also think it can be just as strongly influenced by environment. Have any of you had any similar experiences from when you were young? What do you think about the nature/nurture debate? Are some just cursed with the wrong set of genes or is it possible for anyone to have these experiences?

The critical stance against typologies really doesn't matter to the lay person. Even if you follow Big 5 and learn that you're only 51% extroverted/introverted, people will still tend to call themselves "an introvert" or "an extrovert". If we look past the data compatibility argument (that for a typology to be representative of the data, a trait would need to follow a bimodal distribution and not a normal distribution in the population), personality psychologists aren't exactly averse to using discrete categories in the first place (all personality traits are discrete categories). Categories are supposed to simplify and summarize (that's the very reason you make categories and models). A type is just another way of categorizing and simplifying. As long as you're aware of this (or not, as in the case of the layman), it really doesn't matter what you call it (a discrete type or a continuous trait).

I mean... I guess that's one way to avoid having to be accurate; to only talk in hyperbole or irony

Falsification has a strict definition. It's not the opposite of verification. Dividing personality into 16 categories has not been "proven false". There is simply a lack of verification. Finding verifying evidence for one theory does not automatically falsify another. Big 5 only has more verification than MBTI. There is actually debate about there being a sixth category (HEXACO).

In what way has it been "proved false"?

I'm in this case using a very strict definition of science, but nevertheless, I would be careful not to compare something like MBTI with something like flat earth. You're losing a ton of nuance there. For a start, one is based on the genius of Carl Jung and the other is based on epistemic blindness.

MBTI maybe. Big 5 is pretty solid quantitatively speaking. There are many things science can't help you with within your own life. MBTI has helped many.

For me, somehow something like this feels completely genuine while a video of some professor dunking on mysticism feels like a parody. It's like somewhere along the line, Poe's law reverses itself, as if it's a type of horseshoe theory. It's so inherently ridiculous that it just has to be authentic. It goes beyond parody.

No what no?

Nice.

Wokeverine. Cmon, you made it way too easy

How normal people engage in internet conversations: Person 1: Makes points A and B by saying c d e f g. Person 2: "I disagree with A and B and I'm going to write it in a couple of sentences." How Orange debunk lords engage in internet conversations: Person 1: Makes points A and B by saying c d e f g. Person 2: "You didn't provide any evidence for your claim, therefore A is false." "B i'm not going to address because I'm going to gish gallop you with a bunch of tangentially relevant paragraphs without directly addressing the point, picking apart every little unimportant detail like some postmodern genius." "c is a logical fallacy." "d is not a valid authority." "e is pseudoscience." "f is not backed by peer reviewed studies." "g is irrelevant - my argument still stands." Of course you shouldn't expect anything when talking to these people in the first place purely based on psychology, but you can also make that conclusion by just looking at the structure (or shape) of the conservation. It's impossible to have a back-and-forth when all you get in return is a tedious deconstruction of 5% of what you're saying and endless tangents of self-important verbosity. This is one big reason why debates don't work. Even if the psychology allowed for people to change their minds, the format that arises and some people excacerbate the effects of just makes it impossible.

❤️ Nice Who would've thought that reductionistic behaviorist concepts like stimulus/response could be used for something this holistic Back at ya

Yeah. Using his logic, if we were to trust him as an authority, where is his PhD in mysticism? ?