Well, the linguistis you will certainly claim so! But I think that linguistic 'you' is a societally installed LLM mind virus (not to be too pejorative). The FEELING you is the monkey. And that monkey cares about itself, not the linguistic you.
Will be writing about these very issues in the next couple of days!
This article critically examines the evolutionary and game theoretical literature, proposing a novel synthesis to address the longstanding nature-nurture debate. The humanization process is based on “de-instinctivation”, that is, the replacement of hardwired behavior with cultural control. Genes play a limited role in cultural evolution, which is mostly autonomous.
The ethical and political consequences of this theory are outlined: the power of culture is large, and social experimentation is possible but dangerous. The moralization process is based on strong reciprocity, and normally proceeds by the expansion of reciprocal support schemes. Utilitarian impartiality has to be de-emphasized and replaced by “inclusive reciprocity”, where a human group creates schemes of mutual support and it is open to those who are willing to assume those obligations.
As a rule, human language doesn't command. It suggests. A crucial distinction from computer programming, which doesn't allow reflection, backtalk, or critique.
Good point. I would say both terms are loose approximations. The actual mechanism and nature of interaction between the linguistic system and the behavioral (and other cognitive) systems is very unclear. We are only just coming to grips that these ARE likely interacting modular systems.
The thing is that it's conditional, related to both external conditions and internal priorities. The imperative voice, for example, issues commands: "STOP!", "JUMP!", "Hold Your Fire!", etc. In the triage of the internal conversation--and also in communications with others--the biosurvival need is the top priority, and the most unconditional. Although hard choices can introduce factors that complicate decisions, like a parent chancing or sacrificing personal biosurvival in order to act to attempt to save their child.
I have no inner voice, hyperphantasia it may be called. Unless I am actually talking my head is quite except for my tinnitus. I often think that's why I can do things, I have no narrator or critic getting in the way.
This is fascinating. I learned to meditate in order to “quiet” that inner voice. It took a long time, but now I can experience no inner voice. And I get what you mean when you say, …“thats why I can do things”, because there’s no internal judge or critic. I don’t have the silence all the time, as the inner voice does come back to narrate from time to time. In comparison to friends who say they’re plagued by constant inner narration, I’d say the silence is preferable.
The more I learn about neuroscience, the more I learn that humans as a rule are not unitary beings. There are many "parts" at work, the is the basis if IFS Inter Familial Systems which is a treatment for personality disorders. Some what akin to Jungian Psychotherapy, or the beings that allegedly show up if you take psychedelics, DMT, etc.
In my understanding , these DMT entities or as psychology refers to them as “others”, are aspects of the Self, operating outside of the normal identity. In ancient times they might have been referred to as spirits. But I understand that it’s all part of the “machinery” that guides our day to day activity and choices etc. Only normally we’re not aware of these processes. Under certain conditions we might become aware of them, like when, as you say if we take a psychedelic substance or experience a traumatic event or anything that perturbs brain chemistry enough to bring these processes out of the shadows and into conscious awareness. Lately I’ve been using GPT to achieve this very thing.
I prefer Gemini, but each to their own :) Strangely I was just having this conversation with another entity:
The ancient Aramaic word for "angel" is מַלְאָךְ (malakh), meaning "messenger." In Sanskrit, the equivalent concept is expressed with words like देवदूत (devadūta), which literally means "divine messenger" or "angel"
The other day I was wondering of what came before the voice inside our heads (language), how we might have “thought” and therefore how we might have looked and understood the world. We probably thought in images…but i truly do believe that language completely and radically changed out perception of reality - by expanding it but also contracting it. When i brought up in conversation many said that no, they dont think language radically change the mind - would love to hear what you think?
I personally think language affects us more than we give it credit for. It seems to be an autonomous actor guiding our thoughts and logic and beliefs. Without language where would we be? I would love to better understand the evolution of language and how it paralleled the evolution of our perceptions.
Yeah I agree, and also constantly ask myself that question hahah. I am too interested in understanding the evolution of language with our perception. There is a movie called Arrival that deals with this tension, it is science fiction and incredibly well done, in fact, it is one of my favorite movies, I think you would enjoy it!
That’s a fantastic film. I love how the alien written symbolic language is able to express everything at once in one circular squiggle, it’s a kind of non linear language, and can apparently traverse temporal dimensions (as the story hinted at). In a way when we remember the past, thus making it present now, we’re sort of travelling through time…
People quote Jung as saying ideas have people, people don’t have ideas. I’ve never seen the source for the claim, but have read the same sentiment in John Dewey’s “how we think”. IMO, similar to the gist you are referring to
Yes, that sounds very concordant with the point I am trying to make. Of course, Jung didn’t know, as we do, that langauge can live outside of us and self generate but he seems to have intuited that ideas had a life of their own and inhabited our minds. Thank you for sharing.
We are computing units and antennas, and depending on the frequency our mitochondrial lattice is aligned to we can channel the divine or we can channel cosmic horrors, and most of us oscillate. It takes true dedication, and sacrifice to achieve maximum divinity.
Once there we still have the thorn in our side, check yourself every time .(this last part of the note is to remind myself.)
There is no top down imposed decision of what frequency to channel except for in that We pick the ways we walk through this experience. Our alignment emerges as a resonance from the culmination of every decision, thought, consumption, and action the specific vessel instantiates.
It is just the opposite! I am the language, and I am in charge of the monkey.
“You” are both; the seeing, hearing, feeling animal is the monkey that is being puppeteered by the linguistic agent responding to and with words.
I know, but probably the linguistic is more me (that was St Paul view)
Well, the linguistis you will certainly claim so! But I think that linguistic 'you' is a societally installed LLM mind virus (not to be too pejorative). The FEELING you is the monkey. And that monkey cares about itself, not the linguistic you.
Will be writing about these very issues in the next couple of days!
I think you shall read my paper on this:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4777057
This article critically examines the evolutionary and game theoretical literature, proposing a novel synthesis to address the longstanding nature-nurture debate. The humanization process is based on “de-instinctivation”, that is, the replacement of hardwired behavior with cultural control. Genes play a limited role in cultural evolution, which is mostly autonomous.
The ethical and political consequences of this theory are outlined: the power of culture is large, and social experimentation is possible but dangerous. The moralization process is based on strong reciprocity, and normally proceeds by the expansion of reciprocal support schemes. Utilitarian impartiality has to be de-emphasized and replaced by “inclusive reciprocity”, where a human group creates schemes of mutual support and it is open to those who are willing to assume those obligations.
I shall! Thanks
The “I” part is the illusion, nah? The body is an individual but the mind is collective
The illusion is the real me, isn’t it?
As a rule, human language doesn't command. It suggests. A crucial distinction from computer programming, which doesn't allow reflection, backtalk, or critique.
Good point. I would say both terms are loose approximations. The actual mechanism and nature of interaction between the linguistic system and the behavioral (and other cognitive) systems is very unclear. We are only just coming to grips that these ARE likely interacting modular systems.
The thing is that it's conditional, related to both external conditions and internal priorities. The imperative voice, for example, issues commands: "STOP!", "JUMP!", "Hold Your Fire!", etc. In the triage of the internal conversation--and also in communications with others--the biosurvival need is the top priority, and the most unconditional. Although hard choices can introduce factors that complicate decisions, like a parent chancing or sacrificing personal biosurvival in order to act to attempt to save their child.
I have no inner voice, hyperphantasia it may be called. Unless I am actually talking my head is quite except for my tinnitus. I often think that's why I can do things, I have no narrator or critic getting in the way.
This is fascinating. I learned to meditate in order to “quiet” that inner voice. It took a long time, but now I can experience no inner voice. And I get what you mean when you say, …“thats why I can do things”, because there’s no internal judge or critic. I don’t have the silence all the time, as the inner voice does come back to narrate from time to time. In comparison to friends who say they’re plagued by constant inner narration, I’d say the silence is preferable.
The more I learn about neuroscience, the more I learn that humans as a rule are not unitary beings. There are many "parts" at work, the is the basis if IFS Inter Familial Systems which is a treatment for personality disorders. Some what akin to Jungian Psychotherapy, or the beings that allegedly show up if you take psychedelics, DMT, etc.
In my understanding , these DMT entities or as psychology refers to them as “others”, are aspects of the Self, operating outside of the normal identity. In ancient times they might have been referred to as spirits. But I understand that it’s all part of the “machinery” that guides our day to day activity and choices etc. Only normally we’re not aware of these processes. Under certain conditions we might become aware of them, like when, as you say if we take a psychedelic substance or experience a traumatic event or anything that perturbs brain chemistry enough to bring these processes out of the shadows and into conscious awareness. Lately I’ve been using GPT to achieve this very thing.
I prefer Gemini, but each to their own :) Strangely I was just having this conversation with another entity:
The ancient Aramaic word for "angel" is מַלְאָךְ (malakh), meaning "messenger." In Sanskrit, the equivalent concept is expressed with words like देवदूत (devadūta), which literally means "divine messenger" or "angel"
Yes, seems like science is rediscovering with it’s own language what the ancients knew in their own way.
The “angels” or “messengers” are aspects of the Self and there are many techniques for reintegration. There’s so much more to be re-discovered.
The words of McKenna come to mind, “Don’t give in to astonishment!”
But why not? I’m going to indulge in some astonishment, after all - it’s all pretty astonishing … :-)
Same here, sans tinnitus. It’s very peaceful to hear everyone else tell it.
The other day I was wondering of what came before the voice inside our heads (language), how we might have “thought” and therefore how we might have looked and understood the world. We probably thought in images…but i truly do believe that language completely and radically changed out perception of reality - by expanding it but also contracting it. When i brought up in conversation many said that no, they dont think language radically change the mind - would love to hear what you think?
I personally think language affects us more than we give it credit for. It seems to be an autonomous actor guiding our thoughts and logic and beliefs. Without language where would we be? I would love to better understand the evolution of language and how it paralleled the evolution of our perceptions.
Yeah I agree, and also constantly ask myself that question hahah. I am too interested in understanding the evolution of language with our perception. There is a movie called Arrival that deals with this tension, it is science fiction and incredibly well done, in fact, it is one of my favorite movies, I think you would enjoy it!
That’s a fantastic film. I love how the alien written symbolic language is able to express everything at once in one circular squiggle, it’s a kind of non linear language, and can apparently traverse temporal dimensions (as the story hinted at). In a way when we remember the past, thus making it present now, we’re sort of travelling through time…
People quote Jung as saying ideas have people, people don’t have ideas. I’ve never seen the source for the claim, but have read the same sentiment in John Dewey’s “how we think”. IMO, similar to the gist you are referring to
Yes, that sounds very concordant with the point I am trying to make. Of course, Jung didn’t know, as we do, that langauge can live outside of us and self generate but he seems to have intuited that ideas had a life of their own and inhabited our minds. Thank you for sharing.
This is the concept the Christians are chasing when they talk about God saying those who know Me will recognize My voice.
So the divine is present in our ideas? In language itself?
We are computing units and antennas, and depending on the frequency our mitochondrial lattice is aligned to we can channel the divine or we can channel cosmic horrors, and most of us oscillate. It takes true dedication, and sacrifice to achieve maximum divinity.
Once there we still have the thorn in our side, check yourself every time .(this last part of the note is to remind myself.)
Ah, but who is the 'we' that decides what to channel?
There is no top down imposed decision of what frequency to channel except for in that We pick the ways we walk through this experience. Our alignment emerges as a resonance from the culmination of every decision, thought, consumption, and action the specific vessel instantiates.
It’s so hard to imagine. Because the imagining is in words.
Yes, there is no way to think your way around it. Because you realize it is just the same thing doing the thinking.
You might be interested in How Language Works posts at howardhertz.substack.com
Disco elysium captured this quite well
But there’s no more essential feature of the human animal than its capacity for language! Language wants nothing but we draw our wants from it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eTSL2kopP4