Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Connection Between Being Bipolar And Newton's 3Rd Law Of Motion?


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#18 LeRepteux

LeRepteux

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 13 November 2014 - 12:51 PM

I use to say to whom wants to hear it that intelligence is about craziness, that every one of us is crazy. When I observe others, I always find a crack in their belief or behavior, a crack that I curiously don't have, and which is different for different people. If I am logic about that observation, it means that everybody finds a crack in me too, which means that we are all crazy. If everybody thought this way, we would stop being so serious about intelligence, and start searching for the cause of these observations in the brain. To me, this reason is the random process that I am talking about, which can improve greatly our learning capacities, but which can also develop curious ideas or behaviors, because to learn anything helpful to life out of a random process, we have to test our ideas before putting them into practice, and on the contrary, sometimes we discuss them before having done so, or even without thinking it is necessary to do so.

 

Incidentally, this idea has not been tested scientifically, and when I talk about it, I have a lot of resistance from scientists, but much less from the layman. It seems that the more you think you're intelligent, the less you can accept that your mind has a random process function. Could this process be the cause for some of the instabilities of the mind, like Bipolarity for instance?


Edited by LeRepteux, 13 November 2014 - 04:12 PM.


#19 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 13 November 2014 - 09:14 PM

 

I use to say to whom wants to hear it that intelligence is about craziness, that every one of us is crazy. When I observe others, I always find a crack in their belief or behavior, a crack that I curiously don't have, and which is different for different people. If I am logic about that observation, it means that everybody finds a crack in me too, which means that we are all crazy. If everybody thought this way, we would stop being so serious about intelligence, and start searching for the cause of these observations in the brain....

 

Incidentally, this idea has not been tested scientifically, and when I talk about it, I have a lot of resistance from scientists, but much less from the layman. It seems that the more you think you're intelligent, the less you can accept that your mind has a random process function. Could this process be the cause for some of the instabilities of the mind, like Bipolarity for instance?

 

In order for this to be considered a scientific hypothesis, it requires definition of the term "crazy," which you have not done. 

 

I do not believe you will find this a simple task, because the entire field of Psychology has been at work at it for some time, and has the rapidly expanding "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" to show for it's now centuries of effort.

 

What that means is that while you'd have enough of a problem assigning a numerical value to measure "craziness" if you had a single, agreed-upon definition of "crazy," But you have to deal with the fact that there are tens of thousands of already identified types and variations and indicators of "crazy" that many people will still argue with you about.

 

Oh, and we haven't even begun to deal with the raging arguments about what the meaning and nature of "intelligence" really is.

 

Using purely colloquial, non-scientific, "yah, he's crazy" "yah, she's smart" kind of estimations, I can honestly tell you that some of the whip smartest people I know personally, who range from CEOs of major corporations to professors at places like Berkeley and CalTech, they really form a pretty boring Bell Curve distribution across what we might call "crazy." Some are babbling, climb-the-walls types, some are so coldly calculating that there is not a single action they take that isn't logical, planned and reasonable, and then 90% of the rest of them are all over the place in between, mostly pretty darn normal and they misspeak occasionally and come up with mildly out-of-character suggestions from time to time.

 

So, I'd say if you want it to become a "scientific theory," work on those definitions for "crazy" and "intelligence" quite a bit more, and then come up with some possible experiments that might show the correlation between the two.

 

 

The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact, :phones:

Buffy


  • CraigD likes this

#20 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 14 November 2014 - 03:57 AM

I use to say to whom wants to hear it that intelligence is about craziness, that every one of us is crazy. When I observe others, I always find a crack in their belief or behavior, a crack that I curiously don't have, and which is different for different people. If I am logic about that observation, it means that everybody finds a crack in me too, which means that we are all crazy. If everybody thought this way, we would stop being so serious about intelligence, and start searching for the cause of these observations in the brain. To me, this reason is the random process that I am talking about, which can improve greatly our learning capacities, but which can also develop curious ideas or behaviors, because to learn anything helpful to life out of a random process, we have to test our ideas before putting them into practice, and on the contrary, sometimes we discuss them before having done so, or even without thinking it is necessary to do so.

 

Incidentally, this idea has not been tested scientifically, and when I talk about it, I have a lot of resistance from scientists, but much less from the layman. It seems that the more you think you're intelligent, the less you can accept that your mind has a random process function. Could this process be the cause for some of the instabilities of the mind, like Bipolarity for instance?

"Only the cracked let in the light"to quote a recent t-shirt design.  In other words new thoughts can only come from thinking outside the box or as a saying from Patrick McGoohan's TV series, The Prisoner, put it "Questions are a burden for others, answers a prison for oneself." Those we consider having airtight alibis (answers to life) are hemmed in by that certainty or defense system.  They can argue known facts but like everyone else, they are floored by the unknown which is never watertight. Pioneers fly by the seat of their pants and have no words to describe their experiences because being new there is no vocabulary to describe those experiences, unlike the certain past.  In other words, the future is the 'Undiscovered Country' which we cannot know except through direct experience, rather than intellectual speculation*.  This is where 'in-sight' and discoveries comes in as opposed to 'Jaw-jaw (vision over sound as a sense).'  Newton experimented on himself, to try to discover something new about reality and did, through those actions rather than inaction ('Here be dragons' / 'the ends of the world').  Idle speculation or direct observation? Genius on the cusp of insanity?  Perhaps because it is unexplored territory and means leaving 'home truths' behind as your mind wanders rather than settles.

 

*Smart people win arguments but only fools rush in and make new discoveries, if only to them (The purpose of education is to stop the reinvention of the wheel, not to try to stop exploration into what may be totally new territory). My personal 'insanity' has led to blundering over new ideas and made my life unstable (You cannot be settled and a pioneer but you can alternate the roles as a scout, bringing back information to those you left behind or act as a chemical messenger for the whole body).



#21 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 14 November 2014 - 04:07 AM

 

 
 

 

In order for this to be considered a scientific hypothesis, it requires definition of the term "crazy," which you have not done. 

 

I do not believe you will find this a simple task, because the entire field of Psychology has been at work at it for some time, and has the rapidly expanding "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" to show for it's now centuries of effort.

 

What that means is that while you'd have enough of a problem assigning a numerical value to measure "craziness" if you had a single, agreed-upon definition of "crazy," But you have to deal with the fact that there are tens of thousands of already identified types and variations and indicators of "crazy" that many people will still argue with you about.

 

Oh, and we haven't even begun to deal with the raging arguments about what the meaning and nature of "intelligence" really is.

 

Using purely colloquial, non-scientific, "yah, he's crazy" "yah, she's smart" kind of estimations, I can honestly tell you that some of the whip smartest people I know personally, who range from CEOs of major corporations to professors at places like Berkeley and CalTech, they really form a pretty boring Bell Curve distribution across what we might call "crazy." Some are babbling, climb-the-walls types, some are so coldly calculating that there is not a single action they take that isn't logical, planned and reasonable, and then 90% of the rest of them are all over the place in between, mostly pretty darn normal and they misspeak occasionally and come up with mildly out-of-character suggestions from time to time.

 

So, I'd say if you want it to become a "scientific theory," work on those definitions for "crazy" and "intelligence" quite a bit more, and then come up with some possible experiments that might show the correlation between the two.

 

 

The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact, :phones:

Buffy

 

Perhaps you could say intelligence is useful, where craziness is ungrounded and unfounded speculation, getting lost in the cleverness of the argument or the beauty of its form (beautiful hypothesis quote by you or where art meets science, or logic)?

 

So CEOs are the same as the rest of us but maybe more ambitious or lucky in their choices?  Once again we have both ends of the spectrum - the gamblers or the logical progressives (tight fisted or those that throw away everything on the toss of a dice).  Surely this is the polar opposites position on life, lovingly displayed? 

 

I think everything starts off as general awareness, general form but over time becomes more refined in its skills and knowledge as detail is sought and found (baby and adult / crude male and refined female?).

 

By the way, it might be clearer if instead of saying insane and sane, you said scientific or artistic (Tracey Emin's unmade bed or Damien Hirst's sheep in a tank).  To me it's taking things apart to understand them, versus putting them together to make them work:  You cannot know what you're doing (insanity) only what you've done (completed / understood), which is where conscience and conscious awareness come in.


Edited by pagetheoracle, 14 November 2014 - 05:21 AM.


#22 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 14 November 2014 - 08:44 AM

I use to say to whom wants to hear it that intelligence is about craziness, that every one of us is crazy. ...

Incidentally, this idea has not been tested scientifically, and when I talk about it, I have a lot of resistance from scientists, but much less from the layman. It seems that the more you think you're intelligent, the less you can accept that your mind has a random process function.

You appear to me to be confusing the psychological trait of adaptiveness with the mathematical one of randomness, LeRepteux.

In my literature experience, practically no 20 century+ psychologist and related scientists believe that human behavior, normal or abnormal, requires a “random process function”. To the contrary, all experimental evidence shows that human and other animal behavior is very predictable, and that it can be explained by various useful principles (for example, Maslow's hierarchy of needs). Humans are very bad at generating strongly random data: for example, when asked to give sequences of random numbers (without using tools, such a dice or coins), people tend to give numbers that “look strange”, but cluster around a small subsets of the numeric domain. When asked to judge number sequences as more or less random, people judge specially generated less random sequences as more random than mathematically more random ones (sources: "Effective generation of subjectively random binary sequences", 2009, Yasmine B. Sanderson, "Generation of random sequences by human subjects: A critical survey of the literature", 1972, W. A. Wagenaar)

I find a vague theme asserting randomness is necessary to explain human behavior in the work of earlier scientists and pre-scientific philosophers, but equated with the problem of free will, which while a rich subject, is predominantly a religious, not scientific, and not, I think, what you mean in this thread.
 

... the random process that I am talking about, which can improve greatly our learning capacities ...

Animals, especially humans, are capable of great feats of learning. However, the mental and gross physical behavior involved in learning is not, AFAIK, random. Rather, we are able to recognize when repetition of a narrow range of behaviors is ineffective, and try new ones until finding more effective ones.

This is known as adaptive behavior. Behavior inadequate in it is known as maladaptive behavior. Maladaptive behavior, especially extremely non-adaptive behavior known as stereotypical, is one of the primary criteria for diagnosing mental illness.

In this sense, “crazy” people can be considered less, not more, “random” than non-crazy people, the opposite of your speculative assertion that craziness is caused by too much mental randomness.
 

Could this process be the cause for some of the instabilities of the mind, like Bipolarity for instance?

I not aware of any evidence, scientific, or personal anecdotal, that people diagnosed with bipolar disorder are more “random” in behavior or thinking than people who are not, so I think the answer to questions like “is bipolar disorder caused by an abnormal mental random process function?” is no. Also, as I explain above, I don’t believe an important “random process function” has been show to exist in human or animal thought.

A strong hereditary predisposition for bipolar disorder has been shown, strongly suggesting it’s caused by physical brain abnormalities. Attempts to find the responsible genes, however, have had little success. (source: Causes section of its Wikipedia article)
  • Buffy likes this

#23 LeRepteux

LeRepteux

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 15 November 2014 - 10:22 AM

Buffy,

 

Of course, the word crazy was a teaser. What I really meant is that we are all different, and when we talk to others, we find that some of these differences look like craziness. For instance, I like the way Pagetheoracle thinks, because up to a certain point, he thinks like me, but I am sure to find a crack in his reasoning with time, a crack that I surely don't have because if I had, I would not interpret it as a crack. These differences appear because we can talk, otherwise we could only see differences in characters, which are never interpreted as craziness unless they are huge.

 

Since I think that mind had to develop a random process to cope with the randomness of its environment, I thus define craziness as what happens when we express our ideas without having had the time to check them out thoroughly, as for the one I am expressing actually. If you feel bad without a cause, it is because you have been imagining bad things and that you did not check them out before beginning to feel bad. If you think that you are being menaced while you are not, it is because you did not check that it was true in the beginning. If you hear or see things that are not there, it is because you think that you didn't have to check them out at fist. These three examples corresponds to the three main mental disorders: depression, paranoia, schizophrenia.

 

If we really use a random process to imagine things, then we have to check them out as soon as possible, otherwise we might get caught in a mental trap, from where it might be difficult to come out, because we get used to what we think, whether it was random or not.

 

 

 

Craig,

 

I define the randomness that I am talking about as the impossibility to predict an outcome. If our ideas were only about facts, then there would be no way of changing them, and it would always be possible to predict their outcome, which is not the case. With a random process, we could change part of them, and try them out to see if they work. If we change them too much, it is going to hurt when we try them, but if we don't try them and still believe they will work, then we can let them drift so far away from reality that we cannot get back to it after a while. The necessity to verify our ideas before going on developing them might be one of the reasons why we cannot generate strongly random data. The other reason could be that we cannot give a sequence of words without the following one having a link with the precedent one in some way, though after a few words, it is nevertheless impossible to fin the link between the first and the last word. To me, this observation means that our ideas are linked together, but that the direction they will take is unpredictable, thus depending also on a random process.

 

What a better way to explain free will than the randomness that I am talking about, which has to be associated to the way we verify our ideas to be useful. Yes we are free to imagine anything we want if it is a random process, but watch out those who will not verify what they think before harming others.

 

This is known as adaptive behavior.

We observed adaptive behaviors in species too, and we discovered that they needed mutations to do so. Why would the adaptive behavior of mind be so different as to always be predictable? Could this impression be an illusion?

 

In this sense, “crazy” people can be considered less, not more, “random” than non-crazy people, the opposite of your speculative assertion that craziness is caused by too much mental randomness.

I do not think that mental disorders are more random than normal, but that some of it is due to an evolution process that ends out of reality because of the randomness gaining ground with time when we do not verify our ideas or our feelings.

 

Also, as I explain above, I don’t believe an important “random process function” has been show to exist in human or animal thought.

Even for what we call creativity? Even when realizing that life is so uncertain?

 

A strong hereditary predisposition for bipolar disorder has been shown, strongly suggesting it’s caused by physical brain abnormalities

We are all different from one another, so it is quite normal that some of us are more subject to let their ideas wander, whereas others are inclined to control them, nevertheless, we all face the same uncertainties, and we all have to take risks, which means to me that we all necessitate a random process going on in our brain, otherwise like the species, we could not adapt to our changing environment.


Edited by LeRepteux, 15 November 2014 - 10:29 AM.


#24 LeRepteux

LeRepteux

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 15 November 2014 - 10:47 AM

My personal 'insanity' has led to blundering over new ideas and made my life unstable

Mine too, but if we survived, its because we are no that insane, and because our environment has permitted it, which is the same process as for species evolution.



#25 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 16 November 2014 - 03:14 AM

You appear to me to be confusing the psychological trait of adaptiveness with the mathematical one of randomness, LeRepteux.

In my literature experience, practically no 20 century+ psychologist and related scientists believe that human behavior, normal or abnormal, requires a “random process function”. To the contrary, all experimental evidence shows that human and other animal behavior is very predictable, and that it can be explained by various useful principles (for example, Maslow's hierarchy of needs). Humans are very bad at generating strongly random data: for example, when asked to give sequences of random numbers (without using tools, such a dice or coins), people tend to give numbers that “look strange”, but cluster around a small subsets of the numeric domain. When asked to judge number sequences as more or less random, people judge specially generated less random sequences as more random than mathematically more random ones (sources: "Effective generation of subjectively random binary sequences", 2009, Yasmine B. Sanderson, "Generation of random sequences by human subjects: A critical survey of the literature", 1972, W. A. Wagenaar)

I find a vague theme asserting randomness is necessary to explain human behavior in the work of earlier scientists and pre-scientific philosophers, but equated with the problem of free will, which while a rich subject, is predominantly a religious, not scientific, and not, I think, what you mean in this thread.
 
Animals, especially humans, are capable of great feats of learning. However, the mental and gross physical behavior involved in learning is not, AFAIK, random. Rather, we are able to recognize when repetition of a narrow range of behaviors is ineffective, and try new ones until finding more effective ones.

This is known as adaptive behavior. Behavior inadequate in it is known as maladaptive behavior. Maladaptive behavior, especially extremely non-adaptive behavior known as stereotypical, is one of the primary criteria for diagnosing mental illness.

In this sense, “crazy” people can be considered less, not more, “random” than non-crazy people, the opposite of your speculative assertion that craziness is caused by too much mental randomness.
 
I not aware of any evidence, scientific, or personal anecdotal, that people diagnosed with bipolar disorder are more “random” in behavior or thinking than people who are not, so I think the answer to questions like “is bipolar disorder caused by an abnormal mental random process function?” is no. Also, as I explain above, I don’t believe an important “random process function” has been show to exist in human or animal thought.

A strong hereditary predisposition for bipolar disorder has been shown, strongly suggesting it’s caused by physical brain abnormalities. Attempts to find the responsible genes, however, have had little success. (source: Causes section of its Wikipedia article)

Very good post Craig, very logical.  This convinces me I'm not crazy after all!



#26 LeRepteux

LeRepteux

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 16 November 2014 - 08:42 AM

It is impossible to observe objectively our own craziness. If we try, we will always find excuses for our behaviors or our ideas. On the other hand, observing that others are really crazy might mean that we really are, because whether we are really crazy or not, we instinctively take for granted that the world rotates around us.


Edited by LeRepteux, 16 November 2014 - 08:45 AM.


#27 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 16 November 2014 - 02:05 PM

I define the randomness that I am talking about as the impossibility to predict an outcome.

Because we’re a math and science forum, and because the term “randomness” is such an important and central one in these disciplines, I’m wary of using it too loosely in informal, philosophical contexts like this thread, especially in mathematical-sounding phrases like “random process function”.

Key distinctions to make here are
  • Whether by “impossible”, you mean
    • “prohibited by physical law”
    • “more difficult than humans will ever be able to do”
      or
    • “more difficult than humans can currently do”.
  • What you mean by “an outcome” – for example, a behavior such as “travel from your workplace to your home” rather than “travel from your workplace to a public bar”, a much more detailed description of a behavior, or an internal neural state
  • What you mean by “predict” – for example, predict with certainty, or be able to assign precise probabilities to a range of outcomes.
Depending on these distinctions, psychologist describe the behavior of individual humans as anything from “very predictable” (such as in the papers I linked to in my previous post, or this 2010 university press release, which describes human behavior as “93 percent predictable”), or practically unpredictably.

The definition of “impossible” used is ontologically and epistemologically critical. If you chose “prohibited by physical law”, you’re in or near the “mysterion” camp. If not, you’ll likely need to make use of the late 20th century idea of chaos – “critical sensitivity to initial conditions” – to help understand why it’s difficult to predict the behavior of complicated, yet deterministic, systems such as humans.

A couple of key notes:
  • It’s easy to make simple, entirely deterministic systems that produce strongly mathematically random output. The pseudorandom number generators present in most computers’ calculator programs are ubiquitous examples.
  • No biological organism is strongly random in a mathematical sense. Each subsequent state of a functional, surviving biological organism is chosen from a relatively small, very constrained subset of all physical state. A much larger subset of states results in the organism being dysfunctional, in the extreme, dieing.
We’ve had a lot of discussion at hypography around this family of ideas. Inthis 2008 post I refer to what I think you mean, LeRepteux, as a “pragmatic definition of free will”. In this one and this one, I try to outline the major schools of thought on the subject, including the “new mysterion” school.
 

It is impossible to observe objectively our own craziness.

I disagree.

Many to most effective psychotherapeutical approaches involve helping people to acknowledge and recognize their disorder. For example, in “12 step” addiction/compulsion therapies, the 1st step includes essentially “admit you have a problem”

Though usually necessary for effective therapy, I think Mark Vonnegut put it well in his 1975 memoir The Eden Express: A Memoir of Insanity:

“Knowing that you're crazy doesn't make the crazy things stop happening.”

(here are some more quotes from Vonnegut’s book, one of my favorites)

I think it’s important to keep in mind that this psychology thread is about manic-depressive (bipolar) disorder, a mainly psychiatric (having to do with helping people), not psychological (having to do with studying the mind) subject.

The great threat, and too often, tragedy, of depressive psychiatric disorders like bipolar is that to causes people – often people who are unusually, wonderfully good for themselves and others, such as Abbie Hoffman and Mitch Snyder – to kill themselves. Preventing these suicides is IMHO more important than creating interesting metaphors describing the disorder.
  • Buffy likes this

#28 LeRepteux

LeRepteux

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 16 November 2014 - 10:48 PM

I compare the randomness of ideas' evolution to that of species' evolution. To me, mutations are completely random, and they are useful because future is unpredictable, otherwise they would always be rejected, and no evolution would happen. Since the apparition of mankind, social evolution has accelerated, and it is absolutely impossible to predict its outcome. Moreover, it is not because we can detect and measure a change that we will be able to overcome it. This is presently the case for climate change: we cannot predict how it will evolve, and we cannot predict the solutions that we may find either.

 

Following one of your links, I read that you were in the Hard Al camp, that you describe hereafter:    "Hard AI – those who believe that human behavior can be arbitrarily well emulated by digital computers (von Neumann machines) of sufficient processing power and programming. This school denies OFW (objective free will)."    You don't let me the choice, I have to say I'm of the other school, the one that you call Mysterian there and Mysterion here, but I contest that name, because it refers to the word mystery, and I don't think that the process of mutation/selection is mysterious. Being from two opposite schools, I doubt that we can convince each other, but I don't mind crossing swords with you about the way we think.

 

You deny objective free will, but in the same token, you think that we can observe objectively our own craziness, saying that "Many to most effective psychotherapeutical approaches involve helping people to acknowledge and recognize their disorder". I think that we change our behavior only when we know it will have consequences if we don't, which means to me that our own thoughts are never objective, no matter if they are crazy or not. The same thing happens with what we call empathy: yes we can be empathic, but only if it fits our own needs, only if we can imagine a benefit, whether it would be right now or later.

 

I read a lot of SF when I was 35, and Kurt Vonnegut was one of my favorites. My position on mental disorder is close to that of his son Mark, that I did not know, and even if I don't consider myself as really crazy, because I never had to follow a cure or take any medication, I recognize my thinking in his quotes.

 

This thread is about bipolarity, but it is also about its connection with the laws of motion, and what I say here about mind is linked to what I have to say about motion here. To me, the laws of thinking are similar to the laws of motion, which are also similar to the laws of evolution. To me, a better understanding of these laws should lead us to a better understanding of mind disorders, that should lead us to better cures or prevention.


Edited by LeRepteux, 16 November 2014 - 10:52 PM.


#29 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 17 November 2014 - 01:39 AM

Fear acts like gravity in that it creates internal pressure from withdrawal:  Tension crushes you.  Gravity crushes the Earth.  As the planet shrinks, it puts pressure on the crust - forcing out volcanic lava and creating earthquakes as the plates adjust.  Tension released in the body is felt equally as energy coming to the surface, I believe (bellows effect of sucking things in and blowing them out).  Gravity equates to depression, looked at this way and momentum or action equals the dynamo effect or energy generation, creating elation or positive emotion.



#30 LeRepteux

LeRepteux

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 17 November 2014 - 09:23 AM

Hi Page,

 

Your analogy with gravity describes your feelings, but how does it help us to understand mind, which is important to understand how it develops its feelings? If we want to understand mind, I think that we have to be more precise. Here is more precisely how I think mind works, and how this work has to do with motion.

 

What I think about depression is that, the same way it can take its intuitions for facts, mind can take its feelings for facts and avoid to check them out for a while. When it does that for intuitions, we become more and more schizophrenic, and when it does that for its feelings, we become more and more bipolar. On the other hand, if it never does that, we become paranoiac, because we cannot try to adapt to the changes from our environment, thus relying only on our automatisms, and becoming refractory to any change.

 

To me, feelings can be invented out of a random process by the mind the same way ideas can, and usually, these changes only serve to precede those from our environment in case they would coincide to them, what permits us to learn faster and invent new tools. But if we invent new feelings for nothing, or if it is impossible for us to check if what we think coincides to reality, then we might develop an automatism that has no use, because it is accompanied by no action.

 

To voluntarily learn or to voluntarily develop new tools, mind has to imagine a new way to execute some of its automatisms, but to check if the new action works, it also has to imagine the good feeling it will produce, this way, when executing the new action for the first time, it can compare the imagined feeling to the real one. If it hurts, it means that the new idea was not as good as it thought, but if it doesn't hurt, then it can reproduce the action until it is automated, adjusting constantly the real feeling to the imagined one while it tries to ameliorate the action randomly. To me, thinking is about imagining the future, but since the future is unpredictable, only a trial and error process can help us to invent new stuff.

 

This time, the analogy with motion is direct: the trial and error process occurs on our automatisms, that do not change if they are not forced to, like a massive body, but that keep the sense and the importance of the change when they are forced to, like inertial motion.


Edited by LeRepteux, 17 November 2014 - 12:51 PM.


#31 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 20 November 2014 - 04:17 AM

If I don't reply to individual points here it is because I'm off for a few days and am too busy packing and finding things to concentrate on the ideas but may do when I get back.

 

I think speed of thought equals simplicity of thought (no depth).  It leads to generality of awareness because to see things in detail, we need to slow down and observe.  It is also why we need to avoid interfering in what we're trying to pay attention to as much as possible (the observer effect / watching birds in a hide).  I think speed increases our sense of well being because of this (dynamo effect)as we lose all sense of responsibility through motion and lack of awareness (not being grounded) and this explains inaccurate ideas about reality and incorrect actions based upon this narrow range of thought.  Depression, its opposite state, makes aware of what exists but leaves us feeling hopeless because of its immensity (Giant Despair in Pilgrims Progress and The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy scene, where people are confronted by the monstrous size of the universe, via some kind of simulation, which deflates their ego or is meant to).  Depression is where we give into gravity and sink deep inside ourselves, where levity is shooting off at the speed of light, with momentum driving us (the joy of the journey):  He who travels fastest, travels alone (or lightly - no baggage, physical or emotional i.e. no conscience / consciousness).

 

I like your point about inertia as this connects with this in that to change your mind, you have to stop and observe, rather than just continue shooting around, avoiding things (You can stay and change your mind or run away and take your prejudices with you - evolve, based on changed circumstances or refuse to accept them).