Why do you live? Thank you.
359 views
Skip to first unread message
Donner
Sep 17, 2014, 7:52:37 AM9/17/14
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
I've been struggling a lot with existential questions along with being intertwined with the dilemma that I'm just this brain interacting with my environment. However what makes it harder to cope with is the fact that the dominant social systems set up as a playground for my brain to play in are shallow and baseless, which naturally leads to the increased nurturing of shallow and baseless components within humanity not to mention levels of resentment and anger in those that are disgusted by some of its implications. So not only am I the make up of chemical switches and wires that operate cohesively to provide me with a delusional sense of self and identity that stands as a meaningless spec of sand in a larger cosmos which shows seemingly no care for our humble existence, the tiny beach that my spec of sand is in happens to be riddled with sea serpents that dictate ocean waves that work counter to any humble chord, let alone anything close to a Michio Kaku's (as an example) actualized human race.
These are some of the resources that I've tried so far, otherwise I'd like to find out, not from morons please (sorry, I'm just speaking reality, the more idiotic you are the more prone you are to drinking through a straw that meets a cup full of cognitive bias'), why it is you choose to continue living. Thank you.
http://philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/Excerpts%20&%20Passages%201.htm#Einstein%20On%20God%20&%20The%20Good%20Life
http://philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/Excerpts%20&%20Passages%202.htm#Modern%20Human%20Relations
---> I've watched and taken notes on all of the episodes.
---> I've watched and taken notes on all the episodes.
http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/17/george-lucas-meaning-of-life/
http://listverse.com/2014/08/16/10-different-views-on-the-meaning-of-life/
http://sivers.org/ml
These are some of the resources that I've tried so far, otherwise I'd like to find out, not from morons please (sorry, I'm just speaking reality, the more idiotic you are the more prone you are to drinking through a straw that meets a cup full of cognitive bias'), why it is you choose to continue living. Thank you.
http://philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/Excerpts%20&%20Passages%201.htm#Einstein%20On%20God%20&%20The%20Good%20Life
http://philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/Excerpts%20&%20Passages%202.htm#Modern%20Human%20Relations
What We Still Don't Know - Are We Alone (Episode 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqArGW6k5gc---> I've watched and taken notes on all of the episodes.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life. [HD] 720p. Episode 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VV3vjNSG10---> I've watched and taken notes on all the episodes.
http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/17/george-lucas-meaning-of-life/
http://listverse.com/2014/08/16/10-different-views-on-the-meaning-of-life/
http://sivers.org/ml
Brandon Woodson
Sep 17, 2014, 12:09:07 PM9/17/14
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
I think it helps to realize one major assumption about reality at play:
- That the brain manufactures consciousness.
Given the fact that it's so widely regarded as unimpeachable truth, I wouldn't be so surprised if our insistence in absence of compelling evidence is regarded by later humankind as the biggest, most precarious misconception of the 20th/21st century. It seems so asinine to criticize that notion to both to scientist and layperson alike; but no keen thinker can refute that it isn't proven, but mere taken for granted by the masses.
There is a still weak but stronger case that the contrary is true, in fact. And to my eye, the case for the refutation of this popular notion is steadily growing.
If a reversal in thought truly is warranted, then any worries predicated on the notion that we're organic automatons completely and implacably determined by neural activity fall by the wayside.
----------------------------------------------------
Since the premise question is existential, any fitting response would naturally to salve the underlying qualms by sidestepping the question and eradicating the individual's hunger for substantive answers, or it would at least attempt to grasp the issue by its horns and provide a reasoned response to questions currently outside the public purview. Responses like, "we just can't possibly know the answer to that" or "there probably isn't an answer to that", whether true or not, are good examples of the former.
In taking to the latter, I think it might help to look toward the unerring motive behind all rational human behavior to get a sense of what makes us happy, and perhaps what we should set as the mark toward which to aim in our personal lives.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that any rational person wants to do and has ever wanted to do - whether he or she realizes it or not - is to learn, to learn everything there is to know. Many people have reduced the scope of that aspiration to include some narrow domain of learning. I know a great many persons who spectate with complete disdain, consternation, and resentment as others engage in seemingly inane and frivolous recreation. ("Reality TV" would be an ironic but suitable example.) But most people would be able to see that a great deal of learning is taking place if they only stop to further examine the activity itself in context and objectively. It's one reason that most people are constantly feeding the novelty machine, so to speak: they have little use for any particular pleasure after they've "learned", in some sense of the word, as much from it as they (believe they) can.
I mention "rationality" above because humans who are constantly beholden by stress usually aren't functioning as rationally as they could; they are searching for emotional homeostasis. If and when this homeostasis is achieved, they resume their quest for learning in some manner, however remote their personal quest for learning may appear to a casual observer. I think I can tentatively explain the reasoning behind this and the dynamics behind why stress builds in the first place more in-depth if needed. But it might touch on the nature of truth, verisimilitude, the concept of the "soul", and so on. Provocative and controversial subjects, but well worth getting acclimated to since their ramifications in future scholarly discourse, and w.r.t. many matters of emotional and mental health, are most likely inescapable.
In any case, it's my personal opinion that, with a clear picture of one's true life purpose firmly in mind, nurtured by a basic rationally-based "spiritual" framework conspicuously absent from popular thought, life becomes so much more approachable - and even, dare I say, pleasant.
--Brandon
- That the brain manufactures consciousness.
Given the fact that it's so widely regarded as unimpeachable truth, I wouldn't be so surprised if our insistence in absence of compelling evidence is regarded by later humankind as the biggest, most precarious misconception of the 20th/21st century. It seems so asinine to criticize that notion to both to scientist and layperson alike; but no keen thinker can refute that it isn't proven, but mere taken for granted by the masses.
There is a still weak but stronger case that the contrary is true, in fact. And to my eye, the case for the refutation of this popular notion is steadily growing.
If a reversal in thought truly is warranted, then any worries predicated on the notion that we're organic automatons completely and implacably determined by neural activity fall by the wayside.
----------------------------------------------------
Since the premise question is existential, any fitting response would naturally to salve the underlying qualms by sidestepping the question and eradicating the individual's hunger for substantive answers, or it would at least attempt to grasp the issue by its horns and provide a reasoned response to questions currently outside the public purview. Responses like, "we just can't possibly know the answer to that" or "there probably isn't an answer to that", whether true or not, are good examples of the former.
In taking to the latter, I think it might help to look toward the unerring motive behind all rational human behavior to get a sense of what makes us happy, and perhaps what we should set as the mark toward which to aim in our personal lives.
As far as I can tell, the only thing that any rational person wants to do and has ever wanted to do - whether he or she realizes it or not - is to learn, to learn everything there is to know. Many people have reduced the scope of that aspiration to include some narrow domain of learning. I know a great many persons who spectate with complete disdain, consternation, and resentment as others engage in seemingly inane and frivolous recreation. ("Reality TV" would be an ironic but suitable example.) But most people would be able to see that a great deal of learning is taking place if they only stop to further examine the activity itself in context and objectively. It's one reason that most people are constantly feeding the novelty machine, so to speak: they have little use for any particular pleasure after they've "learned", in some sense of the word, as much from it as they (believe they) can.
I mention "rationality" above because humans who are constantly beholden by stress usually aren't functioning as rationally as they could; they are searching for emotional homeostasis. If and when this homeostasis is achieved, they resume their quest for learning in some manner, however remote their personal quest for learning may appear to a casual observer. I think I can tentatively explain the reasoning behind this and the dynamics behind why stress builds in the first place more in-depth if needed. But it might touch on the nature of truth, verisimilitude, the concept of the "soul", and so on. Provocative and controversial subjects, but well worth getting acclimated to since their ramifications in future scholarly discourse, and w.r.t. many matters of emotional and mental health, are most likely inescapable.
In any case, it's my personal opinion that, with a clear picture of one's true life purpose firmly in mind, nurtured by a basic rationally-based "spiritual" framework conspicuously absent from popular thought, life becomes so much more approachable - and even, dare I say, pleasant.
--Brandon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
jotaro
Sep 17, 2014, 3:16:11 PM9/17/14
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
why do i choose to keep living?
I DONT it happens automatically on its own by biology.the choice was pre made for us, so there is nothing to choose really.
jotaro
Sep 17, 2014, 4:46:04 PM9/17/14
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
I think I can tentatively explain the reasoning behind this and the dynamics behind why stress builds in the first place more in-depth if needed.
brandon i want to hear your side on the issue.
Brandon Woodson
Sep 17, 2014, 7:52:31 PM9/17/14
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Considerations, my friend. If I may borrow the term "game" from Scientology without borrowing their definition or any of their ideology, then all troubles ever had by anyone is the result of a "failed game", or a lack of control.
Most people engage in innumerable games throughout their lives. Some intelligent, some unintelligent. Almost everyone at some point or another involves themselves in the latter, an unintelligent game, or a game which requires too much skill, knowledge, or intelligence to succeed. Everyone who has lived long enough to make decisions, that is.
Any game we can play which is too easy is usually ditched and replaced with a game of the appropriate level of difficulty; any game we play which is too challenging is often ditched only *after* it has caused us much grief - heck, if ever. Some of us play games which are too difficult our entire lives.
To have a reasonable game, we would ideally be equal parts cause and effect in that game. Balance between us being agents of cause and effect would allow us to play without excessive control, in which game we would be too much cause, which would result in predictability and boredom; or insufficient control, in which game we would be too much the effect to other causes and which would result in loss and subsequent negative emotions. Anytime a person has a grievance of any sort, s/he can always trace it back to an unsuccessful try at a game, even if s/he has forgotten the moment during which s/he entered the game and/or that s/he is playing.
If we overstate our ability or carelessly enter into a game without thoughtful consideration of whether we want to participate or assessment of our ability to succeed in it, we will likely lose and experience a negative emotional reaction.
Our minds are in many ways like physical reality, miniature replicas, or microcosms, if you'd like. "Nature abhors a vacuum" should be revised as "Nature abhors inconsistency" - which is a statement that encapsulates the former by its generality - because that is exactly what is happening when we lose a game: inconsistency. When this happens, to clarify, our mental model is in some way out of accord with objective reality. There is an inconsistency between the subjective and objective. We aren't playing by the rules of objective reality and therefore are unhappy. While we aren't expropriated of our free will by any agent of any game within the confines of a particular game, we are certainly unhappy if we defy the reality of things!
Now how to fix this? Because the outcome of any given game utterly depends on two sets of conditions (those of objective reality and those of a person's subjective reality), there are two variables we can change to affect the outcome, and thereby create happiness: we can change the subjective which is always amenable (such as the decision to participate in any given game to begin with), or we can influence the objective within the parameters of what is unfixed and hasn't already been considered on a meta-level, which is/are the rule(s) of the game and/or any action(s) by other players.
Considerations, the whole of which makes up a player's subjective reality, can be as mundane and innocuous as the unnoticed decision that you'll make another person fall hopelessly in love with you and you'll ride away into the sunset. That you'll ride to work in your automobile without troubles. It might be an inherited morality. A set of norms. Or your own personal identity; considerations about who and what you are as a person. These often have the apparency of realness on par with that of objective reality. But all considerations can be identified and modified.
Surely if a breakup occurs in the romantic relationship described above, either by decision of one or more of the players or by a meta-level decision (e.g., non-suicidal death of the other player), that player might experience grief, rage, or bereavement - all appropriate reactions to such a significant game, which we decided to play, to live interminably and happily ever after. Whose fault is it that one or both of the players was/were indoctrinated with such romantic notions as everlasting love in childhood (courtesy of Disney)? That relationships always work? That people are always ethical? Or kind? Or the acceptance of the consideration that death is always (or ever) a lugubrious occasion, a time for mourning?
It's worth noting that sometimes we even participate in two or more games which are mutually exclusive - i.e., a win in one (or more) necessarily equates to a loss in one or more other games. Playing two incompatible games is a decidedly unintelligent thing to do, which always results in poor consequences. Nature abhors inconsistency - whether it's because of your own considerations clashing against each other or one or more of your considerations clashing up against a meta-level consideration (a rule), such as trying to control that which is controlled by another player and therefore out of personal control.
Of course, we can improve our influence over the objective, but that means we must constantly learn or uncover the rules and actions of other players (other humans, reality, etc.)
(To be clear, I don't always mean "external" when I say "objective", which is an entirely different distinction, but objective as in the reality of things. A person who, say, hates brussels sprouts does consider that brussels sprouts are terrible, which is subjective, a consideration, a decision. But the fact that s/he hates them is objective because it refers on a meta-level to a consideration that brussels sprouts are bad.)
One should always have a healthy awareness of what is objective and what is subjective, and exclude assumptions. Because any consideration or action we take belongs to a subset of possibilities determined on a meta-level, sometimes considerations about reality become personal reality. It either collides with meta-level constraints or limits them.
Now it should be apparent what the game plan is for remedying any situation of unhappiness: identify the game(s) being played and all associated considerations and make the appropriate adjustments. A person is only as happy is s/he is free to shift her or his subjective reality. He or she only needs to be able to change their mind.
Most people engage in innumerable games throughout their lives. Some intelligent, some unintelligent. Almost everyone at some point or another involves themselves in the latter, an unintelligent game, or a game which requires too much skill, knowledge, or intelligence to succeed. Everyone who has lived long enough to make decisions, that is.
Any game we can play which is too easy is usually ditched and replaced with a game of the appropriate level of difficulty; any game we play which is too challenging is often ditched only *after* it has caused us much grief - heck, if ever. Some of us play games which are too difficult our entire lives.
To have a reasonable game, we would ideally be equal parts cause and effect in that game. Balance between us being agents of cause and effect would allow us to play without excessive control, in which game we would be too much cause, which would result in predictability and boredom; or insufficient control, in which game we would be too much the effect to other causes and which would result in loss and subsequent negative emotions. Anytime a person has a grievance of any sort, s/he can always trace it back to an unsuccessful try at a game, even if s/he has forgotten the moment during which s/he entered the game and/or that s/he is playing.
If we overstate our ability or carelessly enter into a game without thoughtful consideration of whether we want to participate or assessment of our ability to succeed in it, we will likely lose and experience a negative emotional reaction.
Our minds are in many ways like physical reality, miniature replicas, or microcosms, if you'd like. "Nature abhors a vacuum" should be revised as "Nature abhors inconsistency" - which is a statement that encapsulates the former by its generality - because that is exactly what is happening when we lose a game: inconsistency. When this happens, to clarify, our mental model is in some way out of accord with objective reality. There is an inconsistency between the subjective and objective. We aren't playing by the rules of objective reality and therefore are unhappy. While we aren't expropriated of our free will by any agent of any game within the confines of a particular game, we are certainly unhappy if we defy the reality of things!
Now how to fix this? Because the outcome of any given game utterly depends on two sets of conditions (those of objective reality and those of a person's subjective reality), there are two variables we can change to affect the outcome, and thereby create happiness: we can change the subjective which is always amenable (such as the decision to participate in any given game to begin with), or we can influence the objective within the parameters of what is unfixed and hasn't already been considered on a meta-level, which is/are the rule(s) of the game and/or any action(s) by other players.
Considerations, the whole of which makes up a player's subjective reality, can be as mundane and innocuous as the unnoticed decision that you'll make another person fall hopelessly in love with you and you'll ride away into the sunset. That you'll ride to work in your automobile without troubles. It might be an inherited morality. A set of norms. Or your own personal identity; considerations about who and what you are as a person. These often have the apparency of realness on par with that of objective reality. But all considerations can be identified and modified.
Surely if a breakup occurs in the romantic relationship described above, either by decision of one or more of the players or by a meta-level decision (e.g., non-suicidal death of the other player), that player might experience grief, rage, or bereavement - all appropriate reactions to such a significant game, which we decided to play, to live interminably and happily ever after. Whose fault is it that one or both of the players was/were indoctrinated with such romantic notions as everlasting love in childhood (courtesy of Disney)? That relationships always work? That people are always ethical? Or kind? Or the acceptance of the consideration that death is always (or ever) a lugubrious occasion, a time for mourning?
It's worth noting that sometimes we even participate in two or more games which are mutually exclusive - i.e., a win in one (or more) necessarily equates to a loss in one or more other games. Playing two incompatible games is a decidedly unintelligent thing to do, which always results in poor consequences. Nature abhors inconsistency - whether it's because of your own considerations clashing against each other or one or more of your considerations clashing up against a meta-level consideration (a rule), such as trying to control that which is controlled by another player and therefore out of personal control.
Of course, we can improve our influence over the objective, but that means we must constantly learn or uncover the rules and actions of other players (other humans, reality, etc.)
(To be clear, I don't always mean "external" when I say "objective", which is an entirely different distinction, but objective as in the reality of things. A person who, say, hates brussels sprouts does consider that brussels sprouts are terrible, which is subjective, a consideration, a decision. But the fact that s/he hates them is objective because it refers on a meta-level to a consideration that brussels sprouts are bad.)
One should always have a healthy awareness of what is objective and what is subjective, and exclude assumptions. Because any consideration or action we take belongs to a subset of possibilities determined on a meta-level, sometimes considerations about reality become personal reality. It either collides with meta-level constraints or limits them.
Now it should be apparent what the game plan is for remedying any situation of unhappiness: identify the game(s) being played and all associated considerations and make the appropriate adjustments. A person is only as happy is s/he is free to shift her or his subjective reality. He or she only needs to be able to change their mind.
"I think I can tentatively explain the reasoning behind this and the dynamics behind why stress builds in the first place more in-depth if needed"
I realize that the initial statement that I'm explicating (directly above) describes a two-fold partition between the causes of stress (unhappiness) and the reasoning behind "this" (quoted from above), which actually refers to the nature of truth, verisimilitude, and the "soul". To avoid making this dreadfully long post any longer, I'll withhold speculations about the second group of subjects until some unknown time in the future.
--Brandon
--Brandon
Brandon Woodson
Sep 17, 2014, 7:55:56 PM9/17/14
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
"why do i choose to keep living?
I DONT it happens automatically on its own by biology.the choice was pre made for us, so there is nothing to choose really."
Hypothetically speaking, suicide is a viable option, but I would highly advise against that for almost anybody. Most problems can be fixed.
--Brandon
--Brandon
jotaro
Sep 18, 2014, 8:02:11 PM9/18/14
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Brandon, it was good post by you.
the idea isnt new , but its depth was indeed more then what i am familiar with.Brandon Woodson
Sep 19, 2014, 8:21:54 AM9/19/14
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Yeah, a lot of the ideas are familiar. I just hoped to tie them together in a way which is fairly exhaustive, addressing all of the purely mental contributors of stress and general solutions at once from the fundamental ideas that many might already know.
No, no, not at all - I don't pretend to know the current mindset of anyone here with such little information. That last post was completely hypothetical, just stating the options.
--Brandon
No, no, not at all - I don't pretend to know the current mindset of anyone here with such little information. That last post was completely hypothetical, just stating the options.
--Brandon
whoisbambam
Sep 21, 2014, 11:01:51 AM9/21/14
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
I have almost 'died' 3 times....the last time was extremely close.
The primary reason I choose to continue to live......is for 'others'....that provides enough 'purpose'.
When I look inward and think about only myself, I cannot find logical reasoning to continue to 'live'.
Supposedly it is some sort of sign of weakness/deficit to choose to live for 'others'; but it is the only logical reason for myself.
Donner
Sep 22, 2014, 11:45:12 PM9/22/14
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Josh
Sep 23, 2014, 3:00:53 AM9/23/14
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Over and over again I have said that there is no way out of this present impasse. If we were wide awake we would instantly be struck by the horrors which surround us. ...We would drop our tools, quit our jobs, deny our obligations, pay no taxes, observe no laws, and so on. Could a man or woman who is thoroughly awakened possibly do the crazy things which are now expected of us every moment of every day?
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
--
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages