throwing in random jabs at me does not make you look mature, rational, or calm headed.

So my conclusion is not “belief”, nor “a belief”—I am convinced. I do not have faith in my judgment; I have faith in you. I have now given you my trust; I treat you as genuine. — Antony Nickles

Understood. In fairness to you, I likely jumped on my own interpretation of the word because the latter "fit." Fair clarification.

Ok, and I can't remember the pith of our most recent exchange. But with respect to trusting your own mind, the clarification doesn't alter my current thinking. I wonder if
a "deconstruct" as the following might better illustrate my current belief (that their is no Mind and no Trusting; that your mind moves autonomously as signifier chains/clusters/structures triggering feelings, in turn triggering more chains, ultimately triggering the feeling/action we call belief). Tracing backwards and extremely simplified:

1. You treat me as genuine. Because
2. You [r mind] have given [the object] me your trust. Because
3. A Signifier having surfaced (projected into the "world") to "signify"/trigger settle upon (believe) "trustworthy" (to be "true") Because
4. Trustworthy fits best Because
5. Following a dialectical process (in this case speedy but not lightning speed) structured by the autonomously driven projections of signifiers competing near the surface for projection into the world, a competing process structured over time by a conditioning response process involving the Organic feelings drives and actions to arrive at the most functional response. Because
6. Mind emerged that autonomous process over History and for each individual as having been input and processed through individual time. (And all of the signifiers input onto you, that individual, over time, aligned to trigger trust in the end)

The point being, the end result. Trusting me, though not predetermined, was not a choice made by an individual being, but rather one superimposed upon an individual being by a process both embodied and external, but not structured by atoms or cells, rather structured by the empty code triggering reconditioned responses. I.e. the experience is (in the) emptiness and not the being. The being feels intricately varying degrees of feeling, leading to given actions, but the experience is the Fictional story written in signifiers and believed as a final step in that process.

I would say that judging whether someone is earnest does take “deliberation”. — Antony Nickles

Me too. But as you can see above, for me "deliberation" is autonomous and so "trusting" your mind is almost absurd, "you" are your mind and have no choice. The question arises because we falsely believe there is an " I " centrally deliberating, when " I " is just that mechanism which evolved to connect that process with its organic host, the "real" you displaced and held captive by the process.

So then what is “trusting your own mind”? If it is “all just movements of [our] mind” then we are left with the fact Benj96 started with: “Everyone can be rash, everyone can be stupid, misinformed or otherwise malpracticing adequate reason.” Which is to say, how can we trust our self? — Antony Nickles

And that's where we're funny. How can we trust our hearts to beat? It is the process we trust. Whether we trust it or not is built in. Trust me. We trust it. We have no choice. We just think we do. Even thinking we do is a part of that process. A glitch which evolved, like the Subject, as fit for purpose. Mind would have collapsed early in its evolution if we weren't fooled by it.

And logic cannot help us figure out the truth because logic is part of the process. Another evolved mechanism which promoted Mind's prosperity. So the logic of, if we can't trust our minds we can be rash and stupid cannot address the truth of the process because it seem so much like we indeed can [/b]choose[/b] to be rash
But even choosing to be rash is a settlement arrived at following that dialectic. Someone inside this conversation will be equipped with the signifiers from history to so choose. Someone outside may never so choose because they were not input with this trigger (way oversimplified).

Ultimately, can I trust my mind? No, it's lying to you, it's not who you think you are. Yes, you have no choice. You are trusting your mind incessantly.

If I may, I think he was referencing your position that we may be permitted stupidity if. . ., not you personally. But you might know that and we're joking

I think he was referencing your position that we may be permitted stupidity if — ENOAH

I don't recall saying anything like this. Can you clarify what you think my position along these lines is?

Sorry, seemed pretty straightforward. I must have just made up that interpretation.

I have no idea what you're talking about at this point.

If I may, I think he was referencing your position that we may be permitted stupidity if. . ., not you personally. — ENOAH

No, he nailed it. I made it able to be understood without needing to stretch one’s worldview.

I have no idea how any of these words relate, at all, to anything I said in this thread. This whole conversation seems beyond absurd. What in the world did I say that has you two replying to me like this? I don't get it.

I have no idea what you're talking about at this point. — flannel jesus

You don’t have to admit it. I know.

why are you doing this? If you want to reply to me, then please tell me what the hell you're even talking about. If you don't want to make it clear, please don't reply to me again.

I have no idea how any of these words relate, at all, to anything I said — flannel jesus

Step away from the philosophy.

you have decided, for god knows what reason, to just start saying rude things to me. I don't understand what the context is for you to be speaking to me like this, it feels really bizarre and kinda crazy. You aren't explaining yourself, you're just continuing with this weird cruelty. Is that the point of this? Is this some sort of weird conversational gaslighting for the purpose of cruelty?

why are you doing this? — flannel jesus

Because you think your way of looking at things is obvious and mine is nonsense, like the world revolves around you. Because I spent my valuable time trying to explain myself to you and you didn’t even try. Because you think I can just “tell” someone like you what it would take years of study for you to even start asking question that weren’t arrogant and mean, like: “what the hell are you talking about?”. You don’t care, go away. You’re in the deep end.

This is a thread about trusting your own mind. I linked to a Reddit thread about a dude who was having trouble figuring out how to trust his own mind. This, bizarrely, has led you to start talking to me very cruelly, and I don't think it makes a lick of sense. You don't have any reason to direct your cruelty at me.

just start saying rude things to me — flannel jesus

Not self-aware either! I think the start of that might be the dizzying part for you. It was me who started saying rude things? (Your miss-using “context” BTW).

If you believe I was cruel to you first, please show me where

If you believe I was cruel to you first, please show me where — flannel jesus

Is cruelty the level of insult it would have to rise to? Really? Not just dismissive, mocking, superior, flippant… you’re gonna have to give me a minute. Oh wait, did you actually want to know?

yes.

If you perceived me saying some post of yours read like a non sequitur to me as rude, just know, the point of me saying that is not rudeness or cruelty but to express that I don't understand how your reply to me makes sense given what I was saying. The correct response to that isn't for you to decide to start being cruel to me, the correct response is to either spell out why your reply does make sense, or to just disengage.

I was not actively trying to be cruel or rude to you, you were making posts directed at me that didn't make sense to me so I expressed that. There's nothing malicious in that.

yes — flannel jesus

Oh please. Get over yourself. I shouldn’t have wasted my time trying to explain philosophy to you; I’m gonna be able to convince you how you’re a jerk? Do you know what a troll is?

If you perceived me saying some post of yours read like a non sequitur to me, the point of me saying that is not rudeness or cruelty but to express that I don't understand how your reply to me makes sense given what I was saying. The correct response to that isn't for you to decide to start being cruel to me, the correct response is to either spell out why your reply does make sense, or to just disengage. — flannel jesus

Well, I guess I am (bait took!). This is exactly your problem in a nutshell. I did not “perceive” you saying that; you said it. Which is straight arrogant and rude. Still, if you don’t understand something you don’t judge it. The whole point of not understanding is not that you don’t grasp “how your reply to me makes sense given what I was saying”, but to imagine the possibility that you just do not understand what I am saying! which you skip over as if what others say is simple and easy to immediately understand, or, if it isn’t, that it should be! To be respectful, try (humbly) to make some sense of it on its own terms (not in relation to you). Ask a question to clarify a distinction, to understand terms, to develop implications; paraphrase; ask for an example; etc. My responsibility is to answer, not to make what I’m saying fit into your box. And definitely not to put up with something like this:

I really don't know what you're on about anymore. — flannel jesus

I don't need to you explain philosophy to me. If you want to talk to me, what I need you to attempt to make clear is your own thoughts - you didn't do that. You took a post I made that literally had 0 political content, started ranting about how it's "political", and didn't make any effort to make clear how it's political - and then you decided to start being cruel to me when I said I don't know what you're on about.

If you don't have any desire to make clear what you think, I don't know what point there is for you to use language at all. What point is there to it, if not to make your thoughts clear?

What point is there to it, if not to make your thoughts clear? — flannel jesus

You mean clear to you. Picture instructions are clear to everyone; do you want me to draw you a map? What words should I use? What dichotomies do you accept? Can I get you a beverage too?

I honestly just want you to accept that, in a thread where the title is about trusting your own mind, it's on topic for me to link to a Reddit post about a guy who doesn't trust his own mind.

You're writing paragraphs and paragraphs and how is "political", but it's really simple: it's on topic in literally the most straight forward possible way. The dude doesn't trust his own mind.

Oh… you just wanted to point out something clever? Well done you.

point out something clever? No... I tried to contribute something straight forward to the thread, a data point of interest. I thought people interested in this thread would be interested in an actual case study. It's not particular clever, but it's hopefully interesting.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/899246

Does it look like I'm trying to be clever?

It was, just not only in the way it wanted to be, so just be a little less judgey and bullying, yeah?

I don't even know what you're talking about, judgey and bullying. You've been judging and bullying me for the last page. I just wanted to offer a link that's on topic in a straight forward way and you took that as an invitation to judge and bully me.

I really enjoy reading your posts. They're very broad and you've taken the time to ruminate over several possibilities that we - as interlocutors - have proposed. And further to combine them into a sort of affront - here is how you guys see it and here is how each of your views differs.

Just wanted to take this time to commend you style of contribution to the discussion. Its very refreshing and takes great skill, but most importantly its engaging.

here is how you guys see it and here is how each of your views differs. — Benj96

Thank you for the understanding and appreciation. I should try to remember to phrase it that: “this is how I am taking what you are saying”, as what I am actually doing is a provisional paraphrase, which should be presented as the question “is this the sense in which you mean this”? but I find that most people are more than ready to respond that that’s not what they meant if clarification is needed. Unfortunately some times people don’t acknowledge any further implications of what they have said even when there is evidence and context to make the connection.

And of course I am not trying to hijack your thread to say there are not legitimate concerns about how we can anticipate ways in which our conclusions are untrustworthy or how to recognize when we are wrong. I only wanted to point out that we have recourses so the anxiety to find truth does not hinge solely on finding a way to never make a mistake.

there is no Mind and no Trusting… your mind moves autonomously — ENOAH

Well, yes, the brain/body does things on its own, or there are “empty code triggering reconditioned responses”. We may make a “snap judgment”, be unconscious of our reasons (even subconscious ones), even be responding to the body’s implicit biases (out of fear) (as in #5&6), or mindlessly adopting the judgments of others or society, but “our judgment” is more than a function or sense or instinct or conformity, because afterwards it is “our” decision (rather than a reaction, a prejudice, or “trigger”)—as I take you to say, “to be rash is a settlement arrived at following that dialectic” (emphasis added). But the outcome is ours; we are responsible for its failings and reasons. We can make explicit, or draw out, the evidence applied to the criteria for, say, trusting, even if it is to say, “I didn’t like the look of his face”. And we can say something was “poor judgment”, which is maybe more than it was wrong, but that it was hasty, not having considered everything, or perhaps not thought through it at all. This is not the (casual, choosing) “I” that you rightly remove from the equation, but, in a sense: me, as in: not you; not blaming something else for my claims and evaluations. It is the functioning of “judgment” that I must take ownership, with the alternative being that I try to slide out of it.

Ultimately, can I trust my mind? No, it's lying to you, it's not who you think you are. Yes, you have no choice. You are trusting your mind incessantly. — ENOAH

Yes, we are subject to our brain, our body, our culture. And to imagine we are fated to it seems a curse, but underneath that, we want it; it’s a relief. As I previously said, one way of wanting to avoid a decision being “our judgment”, is to wish to rely on knowledge. Thus “trusting your mind” turns our duty into an intellectual problem, such as: whether the outcomes are right or wrong, real or illusion, rational or emotional, etc. So if we can solve this manufactured problem—e.g., an outcome could be “known” to be right—then it would not be my judgment. Knowledge answers for it, not me. Thus our desire to “trust” in something (say, our mind) so that we can give up our continuing responsibility. Our disappointment with knowledge is because we are left holding the bag.

We may make a “snap judgment”, be unconscious of our reasons ( — Antony Nickles

I'm suggesting (and in no way forcefully, presenting for commentary) that "unconscious of our reasons" is only obvious to us at the (may I call it?) Pavlovian "level" of the brain triggering responses. Im suggesting (and this is highly simplified To paraphrase Huineng, if I were to tell you the whole story it would take a lifetime) all organic behaviour operates in that Pavlovian way, from hearts beating, to designing the Eiffel tower; and that uniquely for humans, that process has reached such complexity and sophistication that it seems to involve what we call intent, will, deliberation (iwd). But each step in those processes (iwd) if traced, involves the autonomous movement of "code" (not code; simplified) leading ultimately to what receives signifiers like choice attached to them. It is, like our blood flowing, not chaotic nor random, but a beautifully ordered system. Thinking we have free will emerges out of same. Of course it is trustworthy; but it's not your mind. There's no your, no you.

But the outcome is ours; we are responsible for its failings and reasons — Antony Nickles

And I both respect that, the profundity of it, and its truth, but only for that "system" which has been autonomously constructed over time and which we rightly look at as "us". That's why I'm also suggesting, that while from the perspective of the "products" of those autonomous process (as in from "our" perspective) the organism is real; from the organism's perspective (hypothetical; it has no "perspective" when used as "opinion") the products are Fictional; they come and go; they are empty "code" etc etc. But that is where the human organism lives its life; not in the natural Pavlovian reactions to nature; in the Fictional world we have constructed (and the "we" constructed thereby). I am definitely not judging it "bad" nor nihilistically justifying ignoring our responsibility in that world. Quite the opposite. We made our beds, or, rather, our beds are made...I'm just pointing out what I think the mind is, and why trusting it is not the question. The question (which I won't take the time here) is more like, how can I ensure I am input with the coding which will yield the most functional results for that very system (which I share with all minds) and for my body and my species? But every "choice" you make, even if you chose to employ that question, was only because it was triggered by something (like, and its much more of a microscopic analysis than I'm depicting, but, like you reading that question triggered you to employ it--for example).

Thus “trusting your mind” turns our duty into an intellectual problem, such as: whether the outcomes are right or wrong, real or illusion, rational or emotional, etc. So if we can solve this manufactured problem—e.g., an outcome could be “known” to be right—then it would not be my judgment — Antony Nickles

I apologize. I'm overcomplicating what I now realize your intent might have been. Yes I agree--within this "system of code" Im stubbornly fixating on--we have duties, and the analysis of right and wrong, to put it simply, is a commendable process, and at the end of it, whether or not you feel this way, you have trusted your mind. Now, if minutes later you are doubting, you are again trusting your mind. But even if you doubted, that process will take place and you will trust it (as a doubt), and any subsequent process, all of them, your mind weighing code and triggering feeling/action, all based on prior triggering, and so on.