I wonder how Cotard delusion patients make sense of the contradiction inherent in their condition. — TheMadFool

It's not a contradiction if they are in the afterlife. :P

We could just ask someone with cotard's delusion what it is like to be dead.

Yep but that was my point. Since the mind can't experience death, it can't conceive of death. — TheMadFool

So also, your mind cannot conceive of dreamless sleep. :P (Our use of language is annoying.)

We can't concieve of mind death. — TheMadFool

Don't you mean we can't experience mind death (ie. the absence of a mind). We can conceive of "mind death" as the absence of a mind, if we infer that a mind exists to begin with. But we sleep and sleep is always bracketed by what isn't sleep/unconsciousness (the qualia horrorshow).

Can we, has anyone, conceived of nonexistence/death? — TheMadFool

Yes. When something is dead it no longer alive and from a qualitative outlook of being in the world and seeing death, beings that have decomposed and personalities that have disappeared, we understand what is generally understood with relation to these deathly experiences. :P

Deep sleep is just like death because death is presumably just the absence of the 1st person view (zero qualia). Since time only passes for the living, you'll be awake far too soon after your dead... but it won't be you because you will have died. You'll be something, either Jane or John Doe, or something very weird but natural.

Edit: The metaphorical/mythic me wants to conceive of the "birth of death" as the act of bringing death(from life) into the world, the cloaked figure fond of drinking coffee, waiting to meet you at the right time and right moment with an accident or a mutually planned meeting.
The white cloaked figure, counterpart, refractable into any color of the rainbow, is getting you into non-fatal life accidents.

All these Koans are interminable and exhausting.

Did you mean Paul Noth ? — Amity

Yes, sorry, I should've linked the cartoon at least. An Army Lines Up for Battle

Have always liked Paul North's Duckrabbit War.

Two opposing armies converge on a battlefield, strangely with same banner, Duckrabbit. Someone on the ground shouts: "There can be no peace until they renounce their Rabbit God and accept our Duck God."

The vast entries of the subreddit, "I'm Sorry Jon" are hilarious(ly disturbing). It's basically the creep of cosmic horror into the Garfield comic. Garfield became a cosmic entity, a Lovecraftian god, which would haunt and terrorize Jon until the end of time.

Do folks born with the inability to feel pain suffer as much psychologically as normal folks? I wonder how much the "ouchie" kind of pain shapes the ability/capacity to feel embarrassed or guilt or are such pathways to suffering more functionally independent in the human person, related to an absence of desire. Are the "pains" of hunger completely unconditioned/unrelated to "ouchie" pain.

Assuming a person was indestructible, more like robot built to be super tough, and could not feel pain, like a toaster, they would not suffer at all compared to a normal person.

Maybe we as humans are to be the nociceptors and sex organs of the machine world.

You're not allowed to repost and link the entire internet randomly in the Lounge. It might cause an embarassing tear in the fabric of space time.

Topping this thread for fun and because I'm strolling through McGilchrist book at 30 minutes a day.

The metaphor of the map and the territory is apt for the McGil's division of the modes of each hemisphere. The Left hemisphere deals with things as represented, reduced to what is known/habituated, to what can be reproduced and manipulated. The Right plays attention to what is "presencing" which in a way always defies capture by its phenomenal multivalence, even if one is focusing on a point.

The author J.L. Borges plays with these oppositional modes in his stories. Reading McGil, I'm reminded of Funes, who after falling off a horse and injuring his head is cursed with a torrential edetic memory.

Because Funes can distinguish every physical object at every distinct time of viewing, he has no clear need of generalization (or detail-suppression) for the management of sense impressions. The narrator claims that this prevents abstract thought, given that induction and deduction rely on this ability. This is stated in the line "To think is to forget a difference, to generalize, to abstract. In the overly replete world of Funes, there were nothing but details." — Wikipedia: Funes the Memorious: Generlization

Funes is in some sense trapped in the excessive fullness (unbounded infinity of) what "presences" even though he can still name/recall any and all particulars.

Any strange Hondurian "birds" we ought to know about. You've Toucans down there.



Keel-billed toucan
(Photo Credit: Andy Morffew, Wiki)

Birds don't have spirit animals. You know that. :P

(Photo Source: Wikipedia)

Our true spirit bird is probably the broiler chicken. Or maybe it is the counterpart to the fanciful "spirit" bird, call it the mattering bird.

Behind every spirit bird is a matter bird, that does physical work of pleasing philosophers the most. The bird that "matters" in sandwiches and fry baskets.

If we're allowed to be more goofy and ignore whatever the proper context is...

Life is work, so if nobody wanted to work, we'd all be antinatalists or dead.

Woman should just refuse to reproduce and go on a sex strike to close the pay gap. Of course this is a collaborative impossibility, just like everything else in life. Unions are "evil" unless they are the unions that are allowed to be united... behind closed doors and on the boss' desk.

A war of the sexes might ensue though and we know what half of the species would enslave the other half, with their guns and dicks. Just watch the Handmaid's Tale.

Why not start the question with enslavement of humans (or animals) instead of robots. We treat classes of humans like shit which are much more likely to be sentient than whatever constitutes a "robot".

European Starling (Credit: Tim Felce, Wiki)

They have fancy iridescent and gold-lined black suits, they act like a superfluid in their murmurations and they produce a kind of guano rain that is the bane of Rome.

Eh, get out o here Mike. The mods are probably looking for you.

It's your new social credit score.

Don't let it go negative or you won't be allowed passports, inter-domestic transport, loans and use of other public/private services. Big brother is watching you.

Continue, oh seeker, supreme authority of misanthropic paradox, sensitive to the slightest gestures of of a benign skepticism.

You didn't even clarify whether you accept you're making a naturalistic fallacy.

If everything of and by man is to be rejected, and you are a man, then whatever you are peddling, by your own admission, ought to be rejected. Why do you get a special exemption? Perhaps because of the immense esteem/hubris your grant yourself. You're permitted to insult but cannot stand any reciprocation of insults, even if it is a kind absurd light-hearted play. Chill out dude. You're just like everybody else. You eat, shit, and use up a lot of energy for the sake of farting around. You clitty clack on a keyboard/computer manufactured in China. You pay your bills and your taxes. You read stuff written by others and write back because you're looking for somekind of bond/connection. You have time to kill.

Same old song and dance.

"It seems y’all are deluded in your worth. Let me clarify in a simple way, your value is less than TP for OP. So unfortunately, OP doesn’t care to prescribe anything to anyone. He hasn’t seen anyone worth that trouble."

~Skyblack

But such an investigation into the possibility of the sacred isn't within the filed of thought. Which means such an investigation isn't possible in, or by, anything man has created. Because everything man has created is born of divisive thought and it's fears/neurosis. — skyblack

Did a man create these paragraphs? Do we conceptualize these sentences? Does the blanket statement apply to the author's creation, as special authority for others to follow?

So if we're being prescribed a non-conceptual invitation to pure experience, or meditative sense awareness, what more?

Why isn't the divisive, demeaning, confrontational tit-for-tat, to and from the author, an indicator of fears/neurosis all around.

But in order to inquire and find out if there is anything that is sacred at all, one must have to abandon everything that isn't sacred. Which is everything that man has created. — skyblack

Is it obvious what man has created aside what nature has given us. How does one draw the line between man and nature? Why not conceive everything that man is as purely an outpouring of nature in its wild pluralistic rhizomatic effusions.

The Saudis chop heads off in Deera Square for trivial crimes, while the brutal winter culls all sorts of animals in far Northern latitudes.

Why isn't the conceptual distinction "corrupt" (a naturalist fallacy) out of the gate?

I saw brown bear scat at Polychrome Pass in Denali National Park. It consisted entirely of blue berries and reminded me of jam. Because it was not made by man, presumably, it must be sacred. I just wish I didn't see it through the color-corrupted lens of jam memories and toast remembrance.

If (wo)men are made by (wo)men and are thus (wo)man-made, the only way out I guess is through suicide. Hopefully it is a kind of metaphorical suicide... like I hunt the bear that is my doppelganger and eat his blue berry heart.

Your article link is useful because it is a study of the way the hemispheres function. — Jack Cummins

Actually I've no real clue as to the implications of that paper other than TMS caveats, as iterated in a few other articles. We should all be a bit wary as to drawing any conclusions. McGilchrist's thesis could still be a fanciful expansion of left/right brain myth. The split brained stuff is really fascinating though.

If brain balance is related to education and going along with McGilchrist's schema of disembodied/abstract learning versus embodied learning, we see a real deficit of the latter in U.S. education systems. Kids are turned off from learning because it has become too disembodied... one sits in a chair most of the time, writing with a pencil, staring at a screen, answering fragmentary questions (not connected to a larger project of applicability). Boring as hell, suited for robots only.

Approach Motivation in Human Cerebral Cortex

The Sword and Shield hypothesis is an example of functional lateralization. Supposedly your dominant hand is associated with approach motivation neural circuitry and your non-dominant hand is associated with avoidant motivation neural circuity, generally. So if you ever go to get transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy (TMS) to improve your approach/avoid motivation habits, have them target the correct side based on your handedness.

I can definitely vouch that my brain is imbalanced with respect to approach motivation. I'd like to run away from just about everything.

In predatory birds and animals, it is the left hemisphere that laches on, through the right eye and the right foot, to the prey. — Iain McGilchrist, Master and His Emissary

Unless the bird is left-talon dominant or ambidextrous.

Check out alien hand syndrome.



Tell that non-dominant hand to shut up and shut down. It's just a self-lefteous kill joy. I can do what I want. :P

The cosmic sheet is neither dead or alive.

Twist/fold into whatever shape you'd like, supposing you can. What old narrative (origami story) must we contextualize the question with.

There is also the modular theory of mind, that functions can be lateralized to certain areas of the brain. If we cut the bridge of our hemispheres, we may be dealing with two minds. V.S. Ramachandran has a funny story about a split-brain patient whose hemispheres responded oppositionally when asked whether they believed in God. The left hemisphere was atheist and the right was theist, if I remember correctly. In a person with a sustained corpus callosum, the same opposition might be quenched by functional inhibition of one side.

Seems if we push the metaphysics that denies the self, the boundary layer of "our mind" might be as problematic as the boundary layer of a self. A mind requires the totality of what a mind requires, which includes the world external to the mind that comes to fruition through mind.

This is a question which applies on an individual level and on a social level, the extent to which we are destruction towards ourselves individually and towards others, and other lifeforms. — Jack Cummins

Joseph Campbell said myth had to help us psychologically reconcile an unavoidable fact, that life feeds on life. We're very hungry animals for all kinds of things, whether food, sex, love, status, types of experience, types of knowledge and the list goes on. Such things require energy/mass conversion which might generically be framed as a kind of destruction for the sake of renewal/maintenance.

Getting the balance right such that one person's consumptive acts aren't t by the standard of "do unto other as you would have them do unto you" undesirable is challenge. But this is a particular stance which can differ from person to person. We also might get off in a battle to the death (zero sum) of the winner eats the loser. Come (e)at me bro...

If the advertisement cannot act upon the human body, how can it shape minds? — NOS4A2

Isn't this comparable to saying words that form concepts in the minds of people have no possible effect on the actions of those people. Language does not shape minds? Neither can visual stimuli move us. Specific orchids can not dupe wasps (mindlessly) to mate and therefore disperse their pollen?

You don't think a young child, who has had a McDonalds Happy Meal and a toy, would not see a giant McDonalds billboard and then start crying out for McDonalds. But yet this advertisement does not cause anything to happen? What is advertising for if it doesn't do anything.

Advertisement is not a force, though. It cannot push people to this or that outcome, whether good or bad. It cannot create anything, let alone demand or waste or an impact on someone’s health. — NOS4A2

Advertisement, as appearances (eg. sexual selection), might have shaped more species than we can count. Don't advertisers hands/minds shape advertisements?

Sight/perception does not mediate action (force) of choice? It has no bearing on whether you bump into a pole or fall down a well, whether you go to grocery storer #1 or #2.

Is a colorful fig in some jungle an advertisement for the animals who eat figs?

Maybe it works like karma. For every troll action there is a troll reaction, like waves on the surface of a pond slowly diffusing. If the reactionary amplifiers quiet, we might be able to hear something else.

Did I just amplify the amplifiers? Are they like the borg, entities of a collective one? What is really going on, beyond the fun or tedious drama is a mystery.

Would anyone be willing to pay that amount for something like that? Why? — gikehef947

You know why. If you have more money than god you can diversify your asset basket in all kinds of fun luxuriant ways. Maybe you can own a few fractions of something stupid yourself, like a piece of energy devouring void (NFT), as a hedge against inflation... because fear tells you to diversify to keep up with the Joneses. There is never enough and you have to run to keep up. Or the heart wants what the heart wants.

Are you not a collector yourself? What is hiding in your closet? What blips and dots of an equity monster is writhing in your retirement account, squeezing the blood from human like organisms? A piece of the Amazon... Why spend $1000 dollars on a sofa when you can sit on the floor. Why spend $800 on a mattress when you could just sleep on a futon? Why rent a house for $3000/month when you can assemble a tent under an overpass on the urban outskirts.

Germany's Bizzare Obession with Polar Bear Photos

It's inane stuff but this is the Lounge.

Teddybär A 200 page limited edition book of photographs of Germans posing with Bear (suit). SOLD OUT

What would that look like? Nuances as in...? — TheMadFool

:razz: Well, you've presented an ideal mathematical scenario (neat nuance) which may have helped form Malthus' original argument. But is it the case that food production is always arithmetic or that population growth is always exponential (can one model the numbers otherwise)? Did Malthus look at empirical data also and does the same relationship pan out that way?

Would we call the Irish Potato Famine an example of a Malthusian trap?

I guess my question boils down to, how the output (population) can outpace the input (food)? — TheMadFool

I think an answer to this is still pretty basic, as any case of famine would show. The demand for food overtakes the supply (which cannot catch up) and a threshold is reached were folks (animals) begin to die off.

Photograph Caption:

This is an old black and white photograph of a group of what looks to be whitish Europeans, 20 or so folks, dressed very respectably in suits, dresses and top hats. Maybe mid 1900s. They look like members of the business/elite class. The women are holding flowers. The setting is snowy. There is a polar bear wearing a top hat standing upright the middle of the photo, who has smile of a Golden Retriever.

Obviously something is wrong. They all look happy and festive and yet there is one of the most intimidating/aggressive species of bear in their midst, rubbing shoulders. There is obviously something wrong. What kind of bear can sport a smile that is so doglike?

I guess my question boils down to, how the output (population) can outpace the input (food)? — TheMadFool

It can't. Food is a limiting reagent of population. There is probably more nuance to Malthus argument.

Malthus observed that an increase in a nation's food production improved the well-being of the population, but the improvement was temporary because it led to population growth, which in turn restored the original per capita production level. In other words, humans had a propensity to utilize abundance for population growth rather than for maintaining a high standard of living, a view that has become known as the "Malthusian trap" or the "Malthusian spectre". Populations had a tendency to grow until the lower class suffered hardship, want and greater susceptibility to famine and disease, a view that is sometimes referred to as a Malthusian catastrophe. — Wikipedia: Thomas Malthus

The difference between humans today and animals that exploit an existing food source (which might cause a boom and bust population cycle) is that we have very sophisticated ways of growing the food supply. We also can decide to not have children and save more cake for ourselves. As to whether these sophisticated ways can weather the future is still a question.

In the bigger picture you can't grow if someone is gaining more than your growth. — Tiberiusmoon

The big picture is way too complicated. It's about competitive advantage of businesses (or just individuals) on a global/local field and the matching patchwork of national constraints upon those businesses/people. Which governing entities have leverage over which other entities from policy to natural resources?

It is easier to focus on our individual growth (or just survival) as we find our place by luck and effort in the jungle of our local economies, the big picture be damned(?).

There are forces at work (like our fondness for the taste of fruit, beef and other luxuries) that favor naive ignorance about the conditions and trade-offs which create those luxuries. Crude exploitation of labor on one hand can lead to great gains. Businesses can get hand outs at the level of policy because those making the policy have great stakes in the growth of business.

But I'm not sure how relevant my response is to what you are asking. Our well being is all inextricably linked together and hopefully we can manage to respond in a way that doesn't cause a collapse of the national system, so to speak.

Maybe global sustainability is the word (and hope) rather than growth.

The American economy seems to be rife with shady business practices. Just the other day the internet bill for my parent's jumped from something like $140 to $500+. The sales person gets you a special 1 year deal but what is the likelihood that you are told upfront what you will pay when it ends. Then somehow, because you get to argue with them on the phone, you magically get to reinstate the special deal and you have to do this every year. Why don't they just say: "No! Your cheap rate has ended. Pay or fuck off."

Then there was Wells Fargo insanity a while back. Employees were opening extra accounts for customers without their knowledge just so they could incur extra fees. All the while, if you have substantial money in the bank, it's being rented out for the bank to make money. So we get to pay fees for others to loan our money out.

From the point of view of the customer we're being swindled but from the aggregate cost of mass consumerism we see, what we think is good for us (cheap goods or the compound growth of accumulated dollars loaned for growth) is presenting us with global problems, like climate change, pollution, labor exploitation and resource depletion.

Aw, that's no fun. You haven't seen any bears recently then, eh?