You didn't answer my questions: how many awakened individuals have you met? How would you know they are awakened? More to the point, how would you know if you were awakened? — Janus

I do not know of any; but, I do know that those claiming that they are awakened are most likely not.

Such thoughts are likely exaggerated in those who have neurotic or depressive personalities. — Nils Loc

Why is that so?

It seems like "disqualifying the positive" would apply to me more often than it should. Being depressed all I tend to see is the negative. Life is like being stuck within the rhythms and flows of an impersonal and brutal bureaucratic slave-driving machine but I fail to have a perspective grounded in true hell (genocide, poverty, failed states and war). — Nils Loc

How can you appreciate the positive more? Can you stop disqualifying the positive?

Am reading J. Goldstein's explanation of the Sattipathana Sutta (foundation for mindfulness meditation). Being mindful of the mind's automaticity in regards to sensation is important to freeing ourselves from bad habits of cognitive distortions. — Nils Loc

So, mindfulness meditation is the key, here?

Just a note to the moderators, I will be trying to post about all the cognitive distortions in separate threads and how to address them.

I hope this is allowed.

Thanks.

It is available here:

https://academiaanalitica.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/kripke-saul-a-naming-and-necessity-cambridge-harvard-university-press-1981.pdf

Just saying ... — I like sushi

And I agree. Where have we left off at?

Kudos for the great quote there.

Thanks for sharing that!

Weren't you considering majoring in philosophy? — Noah Te Stroete

I am. But, I don't know how to deal with my apathy and anhedonia. It's a deep issue of ADHD also. I can't focus for shiet.

It's been years since I've read it myself, and I don't remember his arguments any more, but I DO know that you would be well-served reading Kripke if you truly want an understanding of the topic. — Noah Te Stroete

I'll give it a try. Thanks.

I have considered reading that book but don't have the ability to read long books. Can you summarize what you think is pertinent to this topic with respect to that book?

Nothing. I'm merely noting that we are talking about different issues. — Ying

Yeah, if a sufficiently enough complex computer were to come about, then I'm not aware of any laws of physics prohibiting a simulation of reality that is sufficiently complex enough from occurring.

Ah, never mind. I think you're talking about scifi "simulations" in virtual reality or something. I'm talking about scientific models on supercomputers. — Ying

Yeah. What's wrong with that sort of thinking this issue through?

So you're saying that chaos theory is irrelevant when discussing simulations of the world? K. I think you and I are done talking about this topic then. — Ying

No, I'm saying that it's irrelevant because of the state space of a computer simulation being self-referential.

There's a reason why weather forecasts become increasingly unreliable the further one goes into the future. And that's just the weather. This problem becomes even worse when you try to simulate the entire world. — Ying

But, that irrelevant because the state space of a system is enclosed within that system itself. So, variances would arise; but, independent of any external factor.

Speaking about the future, do you think this in some manner or form proves that technology is progressing at every greater rate in being able to simulate the world itself?

i. "Cum ipsi (majores homines) appellabant rem aliquam, et cum
secundum earn vocem corpus ad aliquid movebant, videbam, et
tenebam hoc ab eis vocari rem illam, quod sonabant, cum earn vellent
ostendere. Hoc autem eos veile ex motu corporis aperiebatur: tamquam
verbis naturalibus omnium gentium, quae fiunt vultu et nutu oculorum,
ceterorumque membrorum actu, et sonitu vocis indicante affectionem
animi in petendis, habendis, rejiciendis, fugiendisve rebus. Ita verba in
variis sententiis locis suis posita, et crebro audita, quarum rerum signa
essent, paulatim colligebam, measque jam voluntates, edomito in eis
signis ore, per haec enuntiabam." (Augustine, Confessions, I. 8.)


What does this mean? Starting this reading group with a quote from Augustine. Hehe.

I'm fine with that. Anyone else?

The ant just does. It doesn't think. Blasphemy?

The ant doesn't care about anything apart from it's role as a worker. It is a very Kantian creature and communist in nature or even totalitarian.

The ant doesn't care. It doesn't give two shits. It simply does.

Does the little worker ant make sense apart from its colony? — macrosoft

The single ant is a solipsist.

Valentinus started the reading group here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4520/philosophical-investigations-reading-it-together

I welcome all interested participants to join us in that thread for the reading group.

Thanks!

Hurray! Praise @Valentinus!

Again, I'm very apprehensive about leading anything here. I'm liking the anarchic manner in which we are discussing the Investigations. Please start a thread however you see fit for the matter.

Thanks.

As far as I'm concerned this reading group has already started. I don't mind the lack of organization. A discussion is what's most important.

So, bombs away!

But also do check out Jules Evans' current OP. — Wayfarer

Will do. Do you think philosophy is awash with too many existential questions for its own good?

What can be said about philosophy, then?

Years ago I did some powerful group-work, awareness training, where we went through a similar process to that. It actually is a very difficult thing to get training in, in our culture. It's not even recognised as being important. — Wayfarer

Please expand.

What's the difference between consciousness and simulated consciousness anyway? — jorndoe

Hi jorndoe. :)

None, as I see it.

Well, I don't want to turn this thread into one about depression; but, if that's what it leading to then I oblige.

by persuading you to identify with them. — Wayfarer

How do you stop this process? I already elaborated on it in my Disidentification thread.

Cognitive distortions can overlap and attain different affective states on a subject. I'm quite interested in the psychoanalytic aspect of their differing severity or level of overlap on one another.

As an example, I think the prime suspects in the state known as "depression" are personalization>hasty generalizations>emotive reasoning>jumping to conclusions and selective abstraction. They all work with one another to produce the unease of depression.

What are your thoughts? I'm just using 'depression' as an example here.

Therefore, I ask. How do cognitive distortions reinforce themselves in one's mind?

So, if philosophy is therapeutic, then why all the disagreement? I'm reminded of the saying that philosophers are mad people.

I think, perhaps egotism and its many contributory factors. Like, arrogance and over-ambition or an inordinate fixation towards something (a kind of addiction), which then causes a person to exhibit impulsiveness or less caution than if they had the presence of mind to at least consider the variables. — BrianW

Yes, I think you are right about this. I also think it may be due to the identification of the self with respect to something. This is at least one form of cognitive distortion, such as personalization.

There also seems to be a level of deficiency in perspective which could explain personalisation and which I think falls on the passive side of egotism. Does any of this make any sense? — BrianW

Yes, I think that such cognitive distortions can all work in tandem with another. Such as, I am lousy because, XYZ. Or I am depressed because I feel that way. Because because because...

I feel like it's a bit cyclic. Can there be understanding without agreement and consensus. — BrianW

I think so. I just asked this question prior to addressing your post. So, I think we can have understanding without agreement; just, that it is hard to be non-biased and non-judgemental in that regard.

The 'dialogue' solution is a great one but, I think, it works for people willing to find a solution. How would it work on someone who's unwilling to self-reflect earnestly? — BrianW

Yeah, that's a big issue. The discerning of intent, verifying 'understanding' and such.

No. First order is always understanding, I think. — unenlightened

So, how do you understanding something without agreeing on it? Is this another cognitive distortion of being biased or judgemental? Another issue is cognitive dissonance wrt. to this.

I think very often it is in that 'why it is being said?' Typically, it seems to me that a philosophical position presents a solution to some problems, and problematises some other solutions. — unenlightened

Doesn't that imply judgement on one's part to ask that question? At least some form of judgement at least.

When we talk about "dialogue" then should agreement and consensus building take first order or of utmost importance? How about if we talk about philosophy and the dialogues of Plato or the dialectical manner in which philosophy has progressed since Plato and Aristotle. Why the disagreement if we adhere to sound deductive, inferential, and abductive reasoning?

Systematic errors. — unenlightened

So what about them makes them "systematic" as you say? Ontologically how do you pinpoint them, as false beliefs?

Well, I don't know what to make of your discussion on the PI. I'm somewhat confused about what both of you mean by "meaning" here. Do you want to lead the reading group? How about you, @Terrapin Station? Or maybe someone else? I don't know.

Personally I'm a bit of an anarchist on such matters. I'd suggest that people just bring up passages and interpretations and let the conversation rip --let it go where it goes. — macrosoft

Sounds like a good strategy. But, we do need some narrative, don't we?

Do we need a leader? If so, why not you? — macrosoft

I'm not quite up for the challenge. We could do without a leader; but, someone needs to organize how we proceed, I think.

I can't shake the impression that 'cognitive distortions' are errors in the reasoning of beliefs?

Is there some metaphysics involved in the term 'cognitive distortions'?

All sources of gratification fulfill a need. Maslow's Heirarchy would assert that a person's motivation is based on fulfilling needs that are physical, psychological, social, creative, etc., Physical needs are precedent. If physical needs are met, we approach a new set of goals for gratification. — Brianna Whitney

Hmm, I can see how physical needs are mandatory. But, I don't know so much about psychological needs.

I'm not a fan of stoicism. — Brianna Whitney

Why's that?