rigorousintuition.ca

No worries. It was very conscientious of you to attempt the reply! Your paraphrase of the first question did somewhat alter its meaning, though. So if you feel like answering it, I'd appreciate the response.

Right. No, I agree, it did alter it.
I knew I was forgetting something about that question.

Is it your position that thoughts don't inherently exist?

Hmmm...well, what do you mean by "position"?

Like...Jesus died for our sins and now bunny rabbits lay colorful eggs in my backyard, position?

or

1+2=3, position?

I meant:

As has the term "mind", which is nothing but a thought about a thought.

So how can one control something that does not inherently exist?

Are you saying that thoughts don't inherently exist?

Are you saying that thoughts don't inherently exist?

Oh, okay.

Yes, that's what I am saying.

How do they make things happen, then?

barracuda wrote:How do they make things happen, then?

They, thoughts, don't make things happen.

Your believing in them... does.

They, of themselves, have no life or power intrinsically.

We vest them with life and power by our believing in them.

Just watch a stage hypnosis show as evidence of that.

I was having a talk with a friend just yesterday about this. The topic of DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder aka Multiple Personality Disorder) came up, and I was quite surprised to hear my friend (who is currently getting her masters is psychology) say that she didn't believe in DID. I had just read a clinical paper on DID which suggested that in fact many psychologists didn't believe in DID, but the reason behind the disbelief for many of them was in fact an inability to wrap their minds around something as disturbing as that (kinda like 9/11 for many people). When I brought this up, my friend admitted that this was actually the case for herself. She said that she had a somewhat dissociative personality herself, and was afraid to admit the extent of the possibilities.

operator kos wrote:I was having a talk with a friend just yesterday about this. The topic of DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder aka Multiple Personality Disorder) came up, and I was quite surprised to hear my friend (who is currently getting her masters is psychology) say that she didn't believe in DID. I had just read a clinical paper on DID which suggested that in fact many psychologists didn't believe in DID, but the reason behind the disbelief for many of them was in fact an inability to wrap their minds around something as disturbing as that (kinda like 9/11 for many people). When I brought this up, my friend admitted that this was actually the case for herself. She said that she had a somewhat dissociative personality herself, and was afraid to admit the extent of the possibilities.

Personally, I don't view disassociating from your identities (we have more than one) as a dis-order or dis-ease.

If anything, it's the Rx for what currently ails us.

23 wrote:They, thoughts, don't make things happen.

Your believing in them... does.

That's a nice knot you've tied there.

n0x23 wrote:

Are you saying that thoughts don't inherently exist?

Oh, okay.

Yes, that's what I am saying.

By what process did you ascertain and articulate that?

If it was by thought, but electively, since thought does not inherently exist, on what basis did you opt for that alternative? (IOW, what recommended thought to you as the process of choice?)

Also, under the same qualifications, what are the alternatives you didn't choose?

If no thought was involved, of course, then the question is just:

By what process did you ascertain and articulate that?

But the notion of cause-effect is still a thought. A perception.

Yes, a thought.
So, from your explanation, if cause and effect are a thought, how can they be perceived, as you claim?

Cause-effect supports the notion, too, of time. Something that Einstein posited isn't real either.

But how can an intrinsically empty notion support another intrinsically empty notion?

Any perception of a perception only strengthens the perceived reality of perceptions.

Just as the eye can not see itself, nor can the ear hear itself...how can a perception perceive itself?

And as long as there is a perceiver who perceives himself to be real, his perceptions will appear to be real as well.

Again, how can a perceiver perceive it's own perception?

Is this RI? Ooops, thought I'd wandered into one of my smoking-pot-right-after-Philosophy-101 threads. Whoooah. Thoughts aren't real.

The little animals my schizophrenic friend sees aren't real, yet they come unbidden and unthought-about.

How do they make things happen, then?

It is the erroneous sense of self that gives the impression of intention, volition and the illusion of conscious action(s).

And irrespective of those answers, is there any way in which your post was not at least an ill-considered minimization and at most a denial of the reality to which the OP and lbo referred? And if there is such a way, how was your observation relevant to the OP?

ON EDIT: My apologies, I didn't see that you had replied. Thanks for responding. I'm out for a bit, but will address your responses later.

By what process did you ascertain and articulate that?

Yes, I am well aware of the inherent contradictions when speaking conceptually (objectively), about pure Subjectivity, but such are the limitations of Language.

If it was by thought, but electively, since thought does not inherently exist, on what basis did you opt for that alternative? (IOW, what recommended thought to you as the process of choice?)

I do not know the origin of Consciousness.

Also, under the same qualifications, what are the alternatives you didn't choose?

Choice, is misrepresentation, the concept that there is a thinker, thinking thoughts, exercising volition, will and discretion and then acting on those casual and dependent occurrences, is erroneous and flawed.

If no thought was involved, of course, then the question is just:

By what process did you ascertain and articulate that?

By the phenomenon of consciousness.

operator kos wrote:I was having a talk with a friend just yesterday about this. The topic of DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder aka Multiple Personality Disorder) came up, and I was quite surprised to hear my friend (who is currently getting her masters is psychology) say that she didn't believe in DID. I had just read a clinical paper on DID which suggested that in fact many psychologists didn't believe in DID, but the reason behind the disbelief for many of them was in fact an inability to wrap their minds around something as disturbing as that (kinda like 9/11 for many people). When I brought this up, my friend admitted that this was actually the case for herself. She said that she had a somewhat dissociative personality herself, and was afraid to admit the extent of the possibilities.

That's the case with most things, not just including DID/MPD, and MC, but 99% of the things discussed in this forum. People don't want to see or believe. I believe that's a self-protective mechanism.

On the other hand, when you see so much horror in the world that can not be denied, how can you not believe in the horrors that create DID/MPD or the possibility that humans are so fucked up that some of them would do outrageous things to others which would cause such a protective mechanism to exist.

Also, Hollywood sucks and does not help.