Mind-Body Problem

Hi again!
Today I was reading about the mind-body problem.  Generally, i prefer to think of it as the  mind-brain problem, since that is what is boils down to in my experience.  I'm getting ahead of myself though. Skip the next three paragraphs if you are familiar with the mind-body problem.

To summarize, the mind-body problem is concerned with what makes up your average human.  Specifically, its about the relationship between the mind (that part of us that is sentient and conscious) and the body/brain (the physical organ).  How do they interact?  Does the mind control what the body does somehow, or it is the brain that controls and the mind is an illusion?  There are many schools of thought on this, more than I can describe and probably more than you want to hear about, so I'll move on.

This belief controls how we think about each other on a daily basis (or does it?).  A common example, Adam asks Bob for help.  Bob, being a decent fellow, tries to find out what the cause of Adam's problem is.  Adam says "I'm feeling suicidal" (that went dour quickly).  Now Bob is faced with a decision that involves the mind-body problem.  There are two extreme cases. If Bob believes that the mind is an illusion, he might attribute Adam's distress to some physical interactions, like environment, or diet.  If Bob believes that the body is an illusion, he might attribute Adam's distress to his self-worth, or recent ideas that Adam had heard.

Now, most people don't go so far as to believe either side is an illusion.  At the very least, you have to admit that people use both models to think about themselves and eachother.  Indeed, while philosophers seem happy to argue back and forth about which is the one true cause of a given action, you and I can live happily applying both as seems appropriate.

Okay, so that was a very long summary.  I'll try to cut back on the word count next time.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the body and brain are the 'cause' of the mind.  The mind is merely an abstraction of mental state that flows along with the state of the brain itself.  You're likely wondering "So you believe your thoughts can't interact with your body, change how it acts" to which I reply YES.  I don't believe my thoughts in any way dictate what my body does.  However, I DO believe that they are a useful method of measuring it's state, as they represent a simplier version or it's state.

I don't believe that the mind can predict the bodies reactions, either.  There is simply too much data incoming to the brain for it to be able to model itself.  Think of the cross-section of neurons that enter the brain containing the senses.  For the brain to model itself, it would need to designat at least a portion of its own neuron to simulating that input, and the lost neurons would affect the accuracy negatively.  It would be like a study in which 20 of the 100 patients pretended to be the doctors, and the other 80 patients pretended to be 100 patients. It simply won't be accurate.

(Side thought; what if you consistently removed neuron from your reactions purely so they could act as fake input.  Oh wait, maybe that's why our brains are big? I need to research more.  Now I'm questioning my assumptions, but I'll finish this letter for you anyhow.)

Does this mean we are all machines, doomed to be something since birth?  Well, yes, but there is a rather big qualification to all of this.  Just because I believe that my mind is a function of my body's state does not mean I can, or should, go off thinking whatever I want.  "But thinking things won't effect reality at all, you said so!" yes, BUT the body's state can change.  By reading this, you've allowed me to interact with your brain (holy shit, right?).  I want your body to be as good, or even better, than it was before.  If you starting thinking about things that are unrelated to what your body is doing, there is a problem with your brain (hopefully minor, we all have them) and you should treat it as such.

This is why a statement like "Don't think about it too much and it will go away" has some worthwhile meaning.  Not because it is giving an instruction to your mind and the mind can fix the problem.  Rather, it is worthwhile because the mind that is the window to the brain, and that command will be parsed in such a way as to effect the brain itself.  Thinking about it anyway is just an indication that current inputs haven't fixed it.

Also?  Talking about everything in terms of the body is difficult, but using the simplifications of the mind and sentience allow for faster communication and clearer thought.  Yes, I said it.  USE the language that you know as it is specifically because it is the best, most efficient organization of your brain thus far!  Even if "I want ice cream" assumes the existence of a sentient "I", it's still a HELL of a lot more useful than alternates (I'm unable to think of an alternate right now).

Anyway... I don't know if any of that made sense.  If I was a perfectionist, I'd redo it from scratch, but... mreh.  You know me, trying to cover too many topic with too little information.

Anyhow, Best of luck in all you do,
Fillyosopher

PS I'm going to try to use more pictures in my future posts, because I know this wall of text produced boredom and fear.

Questions to get to know someone

Questions for getting to know someone closely.  Early tulpa might have trouble answering some of them, but they also provide a nice place to look up to, questions that are worth knowing the answer to.  Also great for getting to know someone!

I don't particularly like the article's tone, but the questions themselves go back to a study which has my praise.

www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-11/08/how-to-find-love-in-45-mins?page=all/


The questions began simply enough:
- Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?
- Would you like to be famous? In what way?
- Before making a telephone call, do you ever rehearse what you are going to say? Why?
- What would constitute a "perfect" day for you?
- When did you last sing to yourself? To someone else?
- If you were able to live to the age of 90 and retain either the mind or body of a 30-year-old for the last 60 years of your life, which would you want?
- Do you have a secret hunch about how you will die?
- Name three things you and your partner appear to have in common.
- For what in your life do you feel most grateful?

- If you could change anything about the way you were raised, what would it be?
- Take four minutes and tell your partner your life story in as much detail as possible.
- If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any one quality or ability, what would it be?
- If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future, or anything else, what would you want to know?
- Is there something that you've dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven't you done it?
- What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?

- What do you value most in a friendship?
- What is your most treasured memory?
- What is your most terrible memory?
- If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way you are now living? Why?
- What does friendship mean to you?
- What roles do love and affection play in your life?
- Alternate sharing something you consider a positive characteristic of your partner. Share a total of five items.
- How close and warm is your family? Do you feel your childhood was happier than most other people's?
- How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?
- Make three true "we" statements each. For instance "We are both in this room feeling..."
- Complete this sentence: "I wish I had someone with whom I could share..."
- If you were going to become a close friend with your partner, please share what would be important for him or her to know.
- Tell your partner what you like about them; be very honest this time saying things that you might not say to someone you've just met.
- Share with your partner an embarrassing moment in your life.
- When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?
- Tell your partner something that you like about them already.
- What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?
- If you were to die this evening with no opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you most regret not having told someone? Why haven't you told them yet?
- Your house, containing everything you own, catches fire. After saving your loved ones and pets, you have time to safely make a final dash to save any one item. What would it be? Why?
- Of all the people in your family, whose death would you find most disturbing? Why?
- Share a personal problem and ask your partner's advice on how he or she might handle it. Also, ask your partner to reflect back to you how you seem to be feeling about the problem you have chosen.

- If you could choose the sex and physical appearance of your soon-to-be-born child, would you do it?
- Would you be willing to have horrible nightmares for a year if you would be rewarded with extraordinary wealth?
- While on a trip to another city, your spouse (or lover) meets and spends a night w/ an exciting stranger. Given they will never meet again, and you will not otherwise learn of the incident, would you want your partner to tell you about it?

The Ship Analogy of Egocide

I've just seen so much of this, it just seems almost normal these days; People learn about multi-agent models, split personality, tulpa, etc, and they realize they can make a better version of themselves. Intentionally or otherwise, they build who they want to become.  Then... finished with the biggest project of their life, the creator gifts their child independence and the playground of the world.

 http://pastebin.com/JdkzAdWi

I'm sorry to, once again, be sending you gallivanting across the internet to read various things, but this is one that concerns me greatly. Beside the case of my own host, I've mistakenly giving another host the means to commit his own destruction. So having a simple analogy to discuss it with was rather nice.

Basic concept. The host is the captain of a large ship, the only officer on board. Egocide would be jumping off, or shooting himself, but leaving the boat intact. Suicide would be destroying the ship and all enlisted personnel.

In nearly ever case of egocide, however, the Captian has already elected a first mate, either a tulpa or splinter or some other sentience. The point being, the Captain promotes officers from the enlisted ranks at will. Certainly, he might be hesitant at first, never having trained one of the rank and file in the ways of being an officer. But, once done once, further attempts become easier. and having a similarly ranked peer able to take responsibility helps lighten the burden.

I could go on expanding the model, but I'll leave it there and move to predictions.

What would cause the Captain to leave, abandoning his 'duty' to the boat and enlisted? Perhaps the burden of responsibility, especially if he feels he has failed too often. Perhaps loneliness of having no one of similar stature to confide in. Perhaps self loathing, or maybe a general feeling that they aren't good enough.
A common one for me, a captain who trains their first mate, and sees in that fresh officer a liveliness and passion they themselves have lost.

But what keeps them from committing suicide, destroying the boat along with themself? In every case I can think of, it is a sense of duty or responsibility. The captain might see himself as faulty, but sees the ship and/or crew as something separate and worth keeping. Or maybe it is the first mate who he thinks is better suited, but who can only rise by him stepping down (permanently and entirely).

I think, if more people believed that their consciousness was not the same thing as their body and mind, then we would have more egocide and less suicide. It provides a less violent option for those who might hate themself, but still hold some love for who their physical and mental forms could become. Also, I think that the key to avoiding egocide is the give the alternate option of stepping down as captain, allowing someone else (preferably a friendly and well train officer, rather than an enlistee) to take over.

Bem's Exotic is Erotic

“Although some of the (very few) individuals to whom I have been attracted…have been men and some have been women, what those individuals have in common has nothing to do with either their biological sex or mine—from which I conclude, not that I am attracted to both sexes, but that my sexuality is organized around dimensions other than sex.” -Sandra Bem

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Bem%27s_Exotic_Becomes_Erotic_Theory

I've been slowly working through psychwiki, alphabetically, and thought this theory worth commenting on.  It is an interesting read, especially when what it suggests is expanded to bisexuality.

Basically, the theory reduces all sexuality to an interest in the unknown. Children who gender conform at a young age become interested in the opposite gender because they don't understand them at the base level they understand the motivations of the group that was their peers, and vice verse for nonconforming.  But what about bisexuality?  That would suggest an interest in both... which for me means that open and curious mind will have a strong tendency toward bisexuality.  Not for experimentation's sake, but because they want to understand both sides motivation to the deepest level possible.

Also, the theory seems to be proven wrong by long-term relationships.  I'm aware that there exist many long-term relationships where neither party understands the other, despite the years.  But there are certainly relationships in which the partners understand each other very deeply, haven't taken the time to learn movitation and background.  It would seem that once you learn enough, you'd become less interested because the "

Log (edited for compactness):
<Foxxxy> so what happens when the unknown becomes know, does the sexual drive get reduced at all, would they lose interest ?
<Fillyosopher> the theory would say no, because you can't really understand the other person at the same level as those who you've interacted with since (guess) 5. If I was going to criticize it, I would say that the model doesn't allow for gender fluidity.  If you want to understand the exotic and you invest the time to become it, then what happens to interest?
<Fillyosopher> Which suggests that eroticism resides in other realms as well.  I'm not sure this theory can explain fetishes, for example.
<Foxxxy> well I'm basing this on is a completely non-biological sexual attraction. As you get to know a person, would you desire to be intimate and erotic reduce?
<CherryLeaf> Depends. I think the state after curiosity is simply being comfortable because the unknown is now known. Who better to spend life with than someone you understand and whom understands you completely?
<Fillyosopher> There are multiple levels of knowledge.  You might be able to guess a person's action, but their motivations will remain an enigma to you because you cannot return to the childlike state which gave you the fundamental reasons for your actions.  At least, that would be my reply in defense of the theory.
<Foxxxy> but still
<Bits> we would probably be more focused on mental intimacy than physical, but it seems to assume social acceptance of fluid gender
<Foxxxy> remember, the whole hypothesis I formed did not revolve around physical beauty or gender
<Fillyosopher> This model don't assume that physical gender is important in the least, only the exterior performance of gender.  The conformity to the social conception of how a gender acts. that will be partially appearance  which isn't easily avoidable, but will be just as important to other aspects.
<Bits> Oh, I was assuming you were referring to identical people with identical roles, and only experiential differences from which societal roles would form