Serotonin causing depression has never been proven despite a lot of research.

There seems to be a few questionable moves.

> Jay Garfield, professor of Buddhist philosophy explained the illusion of self this way

See Evan Thompson’s criticism regarding Garfields “illusory self” (& his entire “losing ourselves” book) here - https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/losing-ourselves-learning-to-live-without-a-self/ The main issue seems to be Garfield is conflating pre reflexive self consciousness with some “illusory” subject - object structure.

> Solidifying your “self” — what kind of person you are, your ideal preferences, your becoming, is always dangerous.

I don’t see why we need to be so extreme here, healthy doses of fixation upon self - improvement seems for a lot of people (including myself) rather psychologically healthy & generally quite beneficial etc, it’s not clear what the “danger” is supposed to be here unless it’s taken to obsessive levels.

> Reality is not just about you, when there are several billion people believing in this myth, the Earth and the rest of its inhabitants are truly f__ked.

It’s not clear to me what the “myth” is supposed to be here, what is it that people are wrongfully believing? That they exist as some self? Or as some separate self? Or that they exist at all? The “self” in general is an extremely nebulous term with dramatic variation in usage & conceptualisation, specifically in philosophical discussions regarding it people continuously talk past each other. Overall, to me, it seems our use of the word “self” isn’t even used, nobody in daily life uses the word “self” singularly. What has happened here is the typical everyday pronoun “myself” has been extracted & utilised for “analysis” to the point where we must ask what actually is this “self” we are talking about when we say “myself?” But this seems misguided, for the ordinary usage is not to talk of a self we have, but rather a self we are. I am a human being, not some self in a human being. When we look in a mirror and say “there I am” that is to indicate “there is a human being that I am.” Similarly, when we state “I had an experience” it is not to talk of some self having this experience, but rather this human being having this experience. Belief in “self” from this ordinary everyday perspective seems quite unproblematic, not really a myth.

>Why not accept both of them as they are along with their epistemological uncertainty? Why even bring faith into the picture? You can't know anything with absolute certainty other than the fact of existence.

This! Pretty much where the line should have been drawn. Both our sensory information and our emotional experiences reveal things about the world with different degrees of certainty. Period.

So, just to recap a little here. The principle of induction is a principle that animals have as well as humans and it is precisely that we trust or believe that if things happened a certain way repeatedly, then they will continue to do so in the future. There is not really a "reason" to expect that but there is the fact that when things happen repeatedly, we expect them to keep happening the same way.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

> 'Emotional Intelligence' is a phrase that makes me cringe for similar reason. I'm still not even sure what that's supposed to be as every definition sounds more like a skillset for, or knowledge base of, emotion, not intelligence.

I was trying to explain the link between emotion and intelligence in the expression itself and how to test for it.

It’s a loaded and misused word and it makes me so angry when people use it so freely. Also raised strictly religious and left that system, but as a child faith was obedience to authority and accepting everything they told you as fact without questioning or rationale.

Contrast that to faith that a partner is honest with you, or faith (or lack thereof) in a justice system and we can quickly see that that type of faith is based on an evaluation of prior actions to determine a level of confidence. Nothing is infallible so sure, confidence requires some predictive “leap of faith”

That’s so different from faith in an unknowable, unseeable, inscrutable deity rewarding you after death, or faith requiring subservience or disregarding evidence.

Glorifying yourself gives you the confidence to move through society without caring that other people don't like you.

>...it's only natural that impermanent beings would be attached to impermanent things and ideas.

that's true but wasn't germane to what was being quoted.

​

>...the attachment to something impermanent and untrue must cause suffering. Jay Garfield

i.e. i love my car and i have no apologies to make about it. its a material object and it is decaying and it will eventually rust and dissolve and that will make me sad. recognizing in advance that the impermanence of materialism always leads to suffering is what allows me some enlightenment and foresight.

if i were ever interested in something less painful i might consider looking beyond my material world. for a christian that might mean delving into the lessons of the bible or a Buddhist might focus on some meditations. that's the point; to simply be aware of reality.

Fair point, might have been a vocabulary issue, also it is not easy to reply to so many people so I probably have some hasty typing mistakes.

But now I am curious, do you think the individuals inside Nazi Germany are "selfless" then? (According to some other comments, they are). I think this is where the vocab issue arises, where some commenters described group/collectives as equating "selfless". (And what is not a group?)

Also, you might have designed too many categorical buckets about what things have self-awareness/ are conscious and what things aren't. I think it is way more contentious than you think it is (heck, you don't even know whether I am actually conscious the same way as you), plus I don't think any serious biologist would claim cells have no "goal". Now a bit of rephrasing, would you agree an entity having a coherent goal/desire is the requirement to form a "self"?

Moreover, it is not about an all-or-nothing full denial or acceptance, this article is never about arguing the "self" doesn't exist at all. It is full of statements like "you ARE probably more versatile and adaptive than you think."; "The minimal useful concept of “self” is simply recognizing that one is an amazing, versatile being capable of doing great things"

To address your last part, many things are "natural", do we have the mental resources to give equal importance to all things natural? Is the current level of glorification of self "natural" (a matter of degree and extent rather than all-or-nothing)? At what level is considered not natural? e.g., Human procreation can be either natural or unnatural, it is the level of it that defines it. These are some questions worth thinking about.

Are you trying to explain what 'Emotional Intelligence'(EI) is? Or just discussing the topic in general? I'm a little confused what you're trying to explain.

I don't mind whatsoever. Here is a decent overview I wrote. The two links in it are how I've interpreted the schema I'm using along with the ketamine sessions that instilled the belief in me on such a ridiculously deep level.

As someone with diagnosed psychotic symptoms attached to my diagnosed autism, sensory experiences are ABSOLUTELY a leap of faith at times.

No, do not have bugs crawling on my skin even though I feel them sometimes, because I can't see them. No one else can either because no one is addressing them.

No, people aren't calling my name in 50 different directions, and I know because no one else is looking around or at me with expectations.

So I don't react, because despite the legitimate-feeling sensory experience no individual is going to take kindly to me screaming and running around scratching myself or yelling "who said my name".

So no, the title is correct.

Wait...what is meant by OP when they say "you"?

On the contrary, it's only natural that impermanent beings would be attached to impermanent things and ideas. I think the most mentally healthy people I know don't consider eternity or the impermanence of everything very often.

Why not accept both of them as they are along with their epistemological uncertainty? Why even bring faith into the picture? You can't know anything with absolute certainty other than the fact of existence.

"And to live without belief in anything at all would be considered empty and meaningless". This is an unverified belief in itself and the whole framing of the discussion is based on shoddy assumptions like this. It presupposes that one cannot live a meaningful life without beliefs, which is not true once you dive deep into what a meaningful life would entail. Beliefs give you the illusion of knowledge, which lead to a distorted perception of reality. Thus, I'd argue you can't live a meaningful life with beliefs as you are no longer perceiving reality as it is and accepting the uncertainty of your sense perception. The "leap of faith" acts more like a defense mechanism of your brain for psychological security, a security that is not necessary for living.

How did you go about reconnecting, if you don't mind me asking.

what if you find your self, then hate it?

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

[deleted]