Are these people giving you gifts trying to control your life or express their affection? If they cared about giving something you appreciated the most, they should have made sure to be appropriately informed. Why should you carry other people's burdens? What have other people's expectations to do with you?

Have children under, say 9 or 10 yrs, formed a proper ToM?

The reason I'm asking is because I thought part of the symptoms of most mental disorders were states like paranoia or psychosis reflected in behaviours akin to those witnessed in children, as stated by @Wallows. For example, children are likely to believe that ghosts from a horror movie are likely to attack them too. They have ideas like having the lights on or having someone else in a room would discourage the ghosts. For any reasonable adult, such notions often beg the question.
So, I'm thinking that instead of a personal/sub-personal divide, perhaps a rigid/fluid divide. Perhaps the mental states of schizophrenics have become as fluid as children's often are and have lost the rigidity which adheres to reason or determines the persona to be a distinct set of characters.
Perhaps the mental disorder affects the part which forms or adheres to ToM... ?

Suicide can be justified in some way. — Wallows

Yeah, for people whose life conditions no longer allow the extraction of utility from them. For them it's ok because we judge lives by the value they provide. People who are already useless through no fault of their own are entitled to suicide because their value has already been taken from them. So, in a way, it's not really suicide, just an end to their physical structure. This is why I think people who cause damage to their bodies or negate the utility of their lives should be considered suicides regardless of time frame.

Suppose someone dies after years of being in drug induced stupor, a drug problem caused by his own carelessness, even though the final cause of death is unrelated to his drug problem, ultimately, I believe it is still a suicide because he devalued his own life by his own actions. Other than disease (including aging) or acts of infringement upon one's will by another, I think the rest of the causes of death can be considered suicides. Some may be accidental but most, especially the ones with larger time frames are almost always deliberate to some degree.

I'm sure cessation of pain is one of the reasons. But the mode still remains by committing an act of destruction of self. There are many ways to alleviate pain, drug use is one of those ways, I'm just saying reasons don't change anything because the act of suicide is not justifiable unlike killing someone where self-defence is ok.

I wouldn't go as far and say that self-destructive behaviour is tantamount to wanting to commit suicide. Just my two pennies. — Wallows

Isn't self-destruction the very definition of suicide?

I'm still not understanding you here. Are you proposing that someone who unconsciously inflicts self-harm is tantamount to them slowly committing suicide? — Wallows

Yeah. I mean, most people already know the possible consequences of their bad-habits or careless acts. Also think of drunk drivers who end up dead, it's just as much a suicide.

You mean the unconscious desire to die? — Wallows

No, I mean people who kill themselves unconsciously through the many channels which are consequences of negligence, carelessness, bad habits, etc, etc. For example, people who develop liver problems through excessive consumption of alcohol and which leads to death. Isn't it suicide because it's self-inflicted.

What do you think? — Amadeus

I think there's a difference between reports or statements we are conscious of and states or conditions which we conform to.
Although, sometimes due to our impulsiveness, it is possible to mix them up.
Also, sometimes, we can deliberately choose to designate an undesirable state/condition to register solely as a report e.g. when we're in mourning, it is possible, through great determination, to disregard the grief, not often in the long-term, but usually for the sake of others, perhaps, our children when we want to spare them from the burden of our sadness or show them that it's possible to let go of theirs.
It's also possible to deliberately generate and conform to the necessary states/conditions derived from a report/statement.

Much about our minds and consciousness is complex while the greater part is still unknown.

How about unconscious suicides which lead to death through diseases and accidents which are consequences of negligence, carelessness, bad habits, etc. I think these are easier to address than a person who's already at the point of voluntary suicide after clear deliberation.

I was raised by a protestant mother and a catholic father, so you could imagine the drama. Anyway, they weren't strict about religion so I somehow managed to acquire a liberal view.

My idea of gods and such has changed quite a lot in the past 10 yrs or so. I still appreciate other people's perspectives but I'm more inclined to refer to what I call universal laws. For now, this just means I believe in vibrations and that our lives here on this little blue planet is a field of interaction between these vibrations, some higher, some lower, with respect to each other. For example, there are consciousnesses or intelligences whose nature is much higher than mine; there are those whose nature is much lower than mine; and there are those whose nature is closer to mine to negate any adverse confluences that may naturally occur. So, part of living, for me, means being able to recognise the nature of these vibrations and reacting accordingly.

As to whether there are gods or not, I think just as humans are awe-inspiring to animals, it is probable that there are beings whose nature is just as awe-inspiring to humans. I don't think their names matter as long as we understand what we're referring to.
Do I believe in an absolute being? No, because the very idea of being means a kind of limitation or relativity. However, I believe in an absolute unity, harmony and freedom - which is the nature of reality as a whole. For beings like us, absolutes are targets we aim for through progressive states of development. I can grow to experience more unity, harmony and freedom but there doesn't seem to be an ending to such growth.

I don't know much about Jesus, or any other person, being a god, but I know what to expect when such an intelligent person finds themselves greatly outnumbered by lesser intelligent people. Unfortunately, we still live in conditions where we expect some person we designate as 'leader' to determine the fortunes of our lives. So, inevitably, there will be a lot of chaos or conflicts in our associations. How we are affected, I think, is determined by how we position ourselves through all these interactions.

Usually, I don't know whether I'm spiritual or not but the pendulum has been known to swing both sides. Please share your thoughts... ?

I think to understand the bible we need to know how people thought back in the day. — Athena

I'm a big advocate for this. I've always thought that if psychology was a part of our considerations in reviewing religious teachings then perhaps most of the present misunderstandings could be alleviated because we would have a better context of what the predominant thought was back then and how to relate to it through the passage of time to the present.

I think it also takes an open-minded person to accept that religious teachings are not as indisputable as most people think and that perhaps a constant search for better interpretations is always worth the trouble to improve our understanding.

Thanks. It's always good to meet another investigative mind especially with respect to religions.

The idea that hell is a 'place' of restitution is a feature of esoteric teachings, spiritualism, spiritism, some factions of hinduism, etc. It is also more in line with a God whose love is as expressed in 1Corinthians 13:4-8 (love is patient and kind... it forgives all things, does not keep a record of wrongs,... ).

There are arguments that the eternity of hell for sinners is often misinterpreted owing to the deficient translations from the original hebrew or aramaic. The supposedly correct way of understanding it is that, 'hell is constant for sinners'. Unfortunately, the word 'constant' can be replaced with synonyms such as continuous, eternal, infinite, etc, which may, outside of the original context, give different interpretations. I don't know what the original statements in the Bible are, but I prefer the version where hell is a place of restitution. It is the more intelligent version, for me.

I think, ultimately, it depends on what a person wants from a religion. Personally I abstain from them. I do study religious teachings but only because there's great wisdom in them. But, I can't reconcile an absolute God with the idea of picking a side in any of the religions. I much prefer the idea of a person deciding one's own fate.

Buddha

Salvation can only come through one's own efforts. Buddhas only point the way.

Krishna

In whatever way people come to Me, in the same way I receive them. For the paths by
which people come to Me from all sides are My paths.

There's this idea, especially prevalent in esoteric spiritualism and in teachings of the likes of Emanuel Swedenborg, where the typical notion of hell is said to be misunderstood by most adherents of the judeo-christian-islam religions.
The typical understanding is that,

sinners must suffer in hell for all eternity.

This makes hell an eternal circumstance. That is, once in hell, there's no way out.

However, the proposed correct way of understanding it should be,

sinners must, eternally, suffer in hell.

This latter rendition, to have the meaning that, for as long as there are sinners, they, the sinners, must endure suffering in hell. It then further explains that, hell is a 'place' of restitution and is also transitory. That is, it provides the opportunity to expiate one's sins and, having accomplished said expiation, one is no longer a sinner and therefore progresses out of hell and into further, more suitable and beneficial, territories of the spiritual realms.


From my perspective, the second version is more aligned with a loving God. However, how many people are willing to accept the possibility of a misinterpretation regardless of how intelligent the latter seems?

Also, none of this has anything to do with atheism. If one doesn't believe in a God, why bother with anything He supposedly does.

I think there's less of the mental-dependency/independency factor and more of the kind of influence at play. A stone by itself cannot affect any breakable object though it has the potential to. I think the same applies to the God religion's project to us. As far as I can tell, God's influence is specifically tailored to affect our mental circumstances the same as a narrative. However, if we are not acquainted with God through any narrative, I suspect there would be little influence, if any.
I think it's the same for the stone, once its physicality is projected towards a breakable object, the inevitable effect takes place. And just as, not all breakable objects break the same, so also, not all people are influenced the same by the influence of a God narrative.

Therefore, I think that God exists. However, that existence is, as far as we can manifest it, limited to our mental circumstances and its consequent effects upon them.

Yes, I would think so. But still a big if.

I like the idea of (3) being everpresent. I'll try and see what it would mean for the other states of consciousness.

Allow me to give a little analogy to give context to my question,

A book exists. The white pages of that book exist, too. The letters, in black ink, on the pages also exist. So do the words, the sentences and the paragraphs.

My question is,

Does the narrative given in the book exist?

My answer was 1 and 3.

I think it's a combination of the sub-conscious and the conscious. By this I mean, that while my consciousness was below the state we call wakeful, that is, in the sub-conscious state (which still implies the presence of consciousness), there were mental processes which were active and which generated memories which engraved such deep impressions that they intruded to the conscious state. — BrianW

Also, where are you going with this? I am interested in what you think peoples answers will be relevent to. — DingoJones

This is just a little mental exercise. For example, take my answers for instance, sub-conscious usually means instinctive or residual consciousness, so how can a dream which exhibits signs of intellect or thought process be sub-conscious? Perhaps, a better answer would be a combination of the super-conscious (intuition) and the conscious. Unfortunately, for me, the degree of intelligence exhibited in dreams is not usually higher than that in our conscious state. So, I'm rather skeptical about that combination. Even though I have an answer, there's a probability of it being wrong just as it could be right.

However, whatever answers people give, they reveal something about the consciousness that is somewhat a product of analytical investigation. I think that is a little helpful.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm only trying to say what I think is better than a drug based approach to mental health. In my statement, both psychologists and psychiatrists can analyse the psyche, therefore, they both cover the psychoanalysis part. However, psychologists are often more inclined to solve mental issues via cognitive behavioral therapy (cbt) and are therefore complementary to psychiatrists who seem more inclined to pharmacotherapy. This is especially so in modern times when the distinction between a psychologist and psychiatrist has been exceedingly contrasted, unlike in the past.

What I'm saying is that both drug therapy coupled with an understanding of one's mental situation (via cbt) is a better approach to solving problems than one solely based on drug therapy.

I think the key is discovering what the patient needs and when. If cbt alone can work then, the better. But, if drugs are needed, as is sometimes the case, then it should as well be coupled with cbt. The personal participation in one's recovery or therapy is of paramount import.

Can you give a definition for the states you mention, 1-4? — DingoJones

1. Conscious - Voluntary awareness/response. The state we would designate as wakeful or alert.

2. Unconscious - Devoid of any awareness/response.

3. Sub-conscious - Involuntary awareness/response which is inherent in our functioning e.g. the awareness/response of some physical processes like digestion, cellular respiration, etc. Also, residual awareness/response beside voluntary activities.

4. Super-conscious - Heightened awareness/response and may be partly involuntary and partly voluntary. This is often used to designate intuition or some aspects of the creative processes.


* The difference between the sub-conscious and the super-conscious is only for those who would like to differentiate between the degree of intelligence expressed. Even when both seem to be involuntary, the sub-conscious is more mechanical in its working compared to the acuity of the super-conscious. Also, the super-conscious seems to manifest beyond the level of normal consciousness. That is, it manifests higher intelligence or better application of the intelligence possessed.

Great! In respect of the part that is right, it must be right in that part, to be right. Tell us then, what part is that, and how is it right in that part? — tim wood

It is right to find ways to quell the internal conditions of a disturbed person. It does not mean that it's the ultimate solution but it's a good standby option. For the moment, mental problems are harder to diagnose and so there's a lot of dependence on a trial and error basis of progression.

Psychiatry is partly right and partly wrong. There's something wrong with a human who manifests a response to antagonism by being harmful to oneself thus causing their own suffering. Unlike caged animals, we have the capacity to think and work our way out of problems. However, it is also true that usually, our problems stem from our conditioning (both internal and external) and, to some significant extent, from our interpretations of those conditions.

I think the best solution would be psychology and psychiatry working together to determine as much of the causes of mental suffering as possible and where the environment (external conditioning) cannot be changed, perhaps, the individual (internal conditioning) must.
One of the prevailing symptoms of our primitivity is that, the human collective or society, still demands that we sacrifice individuals for its sake. The society has not yet learnt how to take care of all its members and their distinct proclivities. Thus, we must endure this collective madness a while longer.

I think this is one of those unique cases because, by asleep, we usually mean being beyond the range of normal consciousness. And yet, by creating memories, it seems to imply a kind of participation by our normal consciousness. Well, this is not that strange considering the interaction between our conscious and sub/super-conscious states of awareness are often interacting with each other, for example, in ideation.

However, consider this phenomenon of generating memories and its implications and try to relate it to people who are supposed to be completely unconscious, perhaps due to trauma, anaesthesia, etc. Some of them are still known to generate memories from mental processes and they have been designated as unconscious.

I'm using this thread as a kind of mental exercise on the probable explanations of the nature of our consciousnesses. Currently, my thoughts are, we are never completely unconscious (without consciousness) until death. That, it is possible for our consciousness to range in activity from being very engaged and interactive with others to being very quiet and subtle as to elicit no recognition from others, even though it were still present.
Also, I think it is possible to shift awareness through all the levels of consciousness from normal to sub/super states just as deliberately and smoothly as they seem to happen instinctively.

I would like to hear more of your thoughts concerning this.

I think it's a combination of the sub-conscious and the conscious. By this I mean, that while my consciousness was below the state we call wakeful, that is, in the sub-conscious state (which still implies the presence of consciousness), there were mental processes which were active and which generated memories which engraved such deep impressions that they intruded to the conscious state.

Here is one of the more common steps thought to be key to the creative process. Various investigators seem to have different ideas though they seem to match in terms of sequence.

From https://smallbusiness.chron.com/5-steps-creative-process-model-10338.html


5 STEPS IN THE CREATIVE PROCESS MODEL

Creativity does not just happen. It is a cognitive process that produces new ideas or transforms old ideas into updated concepts, according to Brussels Free University psychology professor Liane Gabora. Scientists such as Jacques Hadamard and Henri Poincaré studied the creative process and contributed to the Creative Process Model, which explains how an individual can form seemingly random thoughts into an ideal combination or solution, according to the website The Information Philosopher.

Preparation
During the preparation step of the creative process model, an individual becomes curious after encountering a problem. Examples of problems can include an artistic challenge or an assignment to write a paper. During this stage, she may perform research, creates goals, organize thoughts and brainstorm as different ideas formulate. For example, a marketing professional may prepare for a marketing campaign by conducting market research and formulating different advertisement ideas.

Incubation
While the individual begins to process her ideas, she begins to synthesize them using her imagination and begins to construct a creation. Gabora states that during this step, the individual does not actively try a find a solution, but continues to mull over the idea in the back of her head.

Illumination
As ideas begin to mature, the individual has an epiphany regarding how to piece her thoughts together in a manner that makes sense. The moment of illumination can happen unexpectedly. For example, an individual with the task of putting together an office party may have an idea for a theme while driving home from work.

Evaluation
After a solution reveals itself in an epiphany, the individual then evaluates whether the insight is worth the pursuit. He may make changes to his solution so it is clearer. He may consult with peers or supervisors regarding his insights during this step before pursuing it further. If he works with clients, he may seek a client’s input and approval before moving on to the next step.

Implementation
The implementation of an idea or solution in the creative process model is when an individual begins the process of transforming her thoughts into a final product. For example, during this step, a painter may begin outlining shapes on a canvas with charcoal before applying oil paints to the medium. According to Gabora, an individual may begin this step more than once in order to reach the desired outcome. For example, a graphic designer may open a new digital canvas if he did not have the scale calculated correctly on a previous work, and he will continue to implement his ideas and make adjustments until he reaches a pleasing final product.

References (3)
1. Cogprints.org ; Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying the Creative Process; Liane Gabora; 2002
2. Dictionary of Creativity; Stages of the Creative Process; Eugene Gorny; 2007
3. The Information Philosopher: Jacques Hadamard


Hope this helps.

I understand your point of view and am partially supportive of it. However, I'm still thinking,

What is it that is known, sometimes even learnt, that makes a person adequate at formulating solutions?

By learning the many rules and directives which are governed by reason, we unwittingly also realize how to exceed those limits. However, even when we exceed the limits, we still find ourselves withing certain other limits. As chaotic or random as we like to think the creative process can be, I think it is still largely constrained within certain bounds of reason. Sometimes the only evidence for this is found in the purpose of a creation's existence or in its inherent utility. The specific conditions or character of a creative endeavour may determine it to be less random than we often suppose.

I don't know, even though creativity seems to work in the subconscious planes of our minds, there seems to be, at least, mental guidelines which the process follows. There seems to be something common, reliable and replicable about our creative process that makes it less random or chaotic.

I must also concede that, as confounding as I find creativity to be, I have not given any reason why it could be scientifically reprogrammed. So, perhaps, mine is purely a mental exercise. Though... (something puzzling about it which I can't seem to put my finger on)

The various arts sure are close enough to creative endeavours. But, I'm talking about the process of creation itself. Learning arts doesn't teach you the creation process comprehensively, for example, how would learning music teach you about painting? What I'm trying to understand is if we could make creation a scientific discipline such that no matter the field of art or science, one could create whatever they desired without the current limitations.



Ideas and concepts may not be empirical but our knowledge of them may be said to be objective shared in the sense that we all acknowledge having them and characterize them quite similarly. Considering they are a significant part of our experiences, perhaps we could deal with them more intelligently and seek to understand them further especially in how and why they come to be.

Thanks guys for the feedback.

I’m here thinking of the maxim that from nothing comes nothing. — javra

This is true. Something must be conceived from something.


Let's not get caught up in how we categorize phenomena (this is my fault for including that controversial statement) and focus more on the question at hand, which is, can we learn to generate concepts, ideas, etc,?

Some would say we don't need to learn because the process is inherent in our minds. But, I find it to be too crude and ill-governed as it is presently and I wonder if we could develop it further into a scientific process that can be designated as creation or conception?

Can we take the little we know of this mental process and develop it into a scientific discipline?

Can anyone think of a perspective that makes life/reality or the world a moral and desirable state of affairs? — Andrew4Handel

How about metempsychosis (reincarnation), cause and effect (also reflected in the idea of heaven and hell), evolution, atman (the divine self), etc, are just a few points of view that come to mind and which seem to justify morality.

When I say that by creativity I mean generating a distinct concept which can be characterized independently of its source material, I refer to something like an animal, in the sense of, the animal kingdom. While an animal is composed of the same basic organisation which is fundamental to everything else, let's call them atoms in this case, the distinct characteristics which make them animals begin at a further degree of complexity. By this I mean genetics. The genetic material of animals, being protein in nature, is already a few degrees more complex in scale and structure than the atoms. So while the atoms may be part of the fundamental make-up, the animal character seems to rely on the more complex configuration of genetic material for its expressions. This is the perspective I have when I refer to creativity or creations.

So, is it possible to create a phenomenon so distinct as to be indistinguishable from natural phenomena? And, to arrive at such capabilities, shouldn't we train our creative abilities of conception/imagination?

Sorry about the incoherent statement. It should have read,

Mathematics may seem like a new creation until we realise that all of its relations are derived from natural phenomena which would still exist without our knowledge of mathematics.

I think mathematics is a way of expressing our concepts, ideas, etc, without the bias of how they are generated. So far, as I've seen from my experience, most of what we call creative is largely a combination of imitation and synthesis of elements borrowed from nature or the laws of nature. I'm not against referring to such as creations, but I wonder whether by developing a discipline in creativity, we can better understand how nature does it and perhaps, maybe someday in the future skip the middleman. That is, instead of imitating nature, we could generate something as unique in its characteristics as if it were a natural phenomenon itself.

I'm not denying the fact of new representations. For example, a new model of a car is still just a car. A new-born human is just a human. By creativity, I mean generating a distinct concept which can be characterized independently of its source material. This is why I consider most creations as a synthesis. However, admittedly, you're right, they're just as much creations.
It seems to me that, outside of nature, there's very little 'pure' creativity, so to speak. Even the mechanism of human reproduction is not distinctly generated by our mental capabilities. The whole process works in the same way it does for most animals and only because it is a part of nature.

So, I think the question still stands, can we learn to generate concepts, ideas, etc, perhaps even imitate nature?

I disagree. If this were the case, then nothing new could have ever been thought up. But clearly subjects like mathematics demonstrates that all sorts of new stuff is thought up all the time. Also, consider dreaming. I don't know about you, but in my dreams I see all sorts of new things which are clearly not a synthesis of existing elements from my memory. They are new creations.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, we do figure out a lot of new stuff. But, they are only new to us. Mathematics may seem like a new creation until we realise that all of its relations are natural phenomena which could still exist without mathematics. Even the symbols used in mathematics themselves seem to be derived from observed phenomena though over the years they have been refined into higher levels of simplicity or complexity depending on their application.
I don't know much about dreams but I think that it's impossible for them to contain elements which are not borrowed from memory or derived from perception. To me, even the fantastic in dreams seems just as much a montage of objects/subjects of our perception as well as other already formed concepts.

How would we go about this? — JupiterJess

I think, first, we imitate the already existing methodology used in scientific investigations. This is because, fundamentally, they are based on utility and are directed to or validated by empiricism. For example, how science investigates the unknown. It begins with the known, then formulates patterns of association with as little deviation as possible from the known mean. In this way, whatever is achieved, has a higher probability of manifesting empirically than otherwise. An example of this would be our ideas of mutants or enhanced humans. Some of those ideas are based on improved natural mechanisms already manifest in humans such as body-builders who can lift 1000 pounds by using certain enhancements.
Anyway, my aim is to question the significance of such a progression. I am in no way qualified to determine such a system of practice. I would just like to hear what your thoughts are on this and what possible ramifications could arise if conception was, to a degree, made scientific?

And my question is: do you think you understand the process of creation, and imagination, well enough to map out such a "system of practice"? My personal view is that you don't, as demonstrated by your question, and by the way you express it. But there is much to creativity, and very little to my understanding of it, so.... :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Personally, I'm not adept at the processes of mind but I'm trying to figure out whether it could be a valid course of investigation. For example, science has its methods of investigating dark matter/energy. However, the basic hypotheticals of what or how they could be are based on mental conceptions which are adequately informed and guided by reason and empiricism. Therefore, though it's a venture into the unknown, every step forward seems to be grounded in a high degree of probability if not certitude.
I'm just wondering whether we could do the same and come up with a way in which our imaginations could contribute to the knowledge we already possess instead of largely being relegated to the domain of fiction.
Is it possible to determine how to give utility to our processes of conception/imagination?

I think our conception of God is largely defined by the limits we attribute to ourselves. For example, omni-potence/science/presence is in comparison to the relative power, intelligence and presence we possess.

In simpler terms all assumptions are points of origin and progress to further axioms while cycling back to the assumption to prove whether the assumption is correct or not. — eodnhoj7

Your axioms originate from assumptions. Well, no wonder they make no sense.

And, by the way, there's a difference between a postulate and and an unfounded assumption. Your incoherent statement proves the latter.

:lol: :rofl:

The cycling of axioms, whether abstract, empirical or both, is addressed in the above laws. — eodnhoj7

Axioms only cycle in your imaginary universe.

If the laws are not connected to the phenomena then are they really laws? If the definition is not connected are the laws really true? — eodnhoj7

Laws are connected to the phenomena they govern. But, that connection does not give them the attributes of those phenomena. There is a difference between laws and phenomena.

The laws progress to further laws with these laws cycling back to other laws (example can be the definition of mass, volume and density as laws in physics). — eodnhoj7

Again, this is your misinterpretation. A definition is not a law (in physics or other).


You are trying to cook up too much stuff. What you're explaining is neither science nor logical.

However even my reasoning for this (fast car = death) would not be certain. I could, in theory, be standing in front of the car believing there is no danger and a clever demon making it seem otherwise. — Kranky

You think 'a fast car could kill if it hits you' is less real than a demon?
You should be afraid. Be very afraid.

Suppose everything is uncertain, why would it cause you anxiety? Anxiety would mean you have interpreted something as certain within all the uncertainty that your life is. Why?

Reason suggests that, if everything is uncertain then what you've been learning about and interacting with throughout your life so far is that very uncertainty. So the only certainty you have is that you know this uncertainty. And if you know it, why be anxious?