Ah found the Schopenhead

Different person here but I think "part of" is the key phrase here. Is life part of the universe "looking back at itself?" Well, yes it is. But life is only part of the universe. The universe itself as a whole is not conscious and "looking back at itself." Just like Reddit as a whole is not necessarily interested in philosophy just because some individual members are.

Good question. Not sure if this answers it but it got me thinking.

If it's supposed to be a self acceptance thing is that what it means? To tell ourselves that it would be ok to do something we would otherwise try to not do because if your holding yourself back from doing something you think you shouldn't do but want to do ends up with you doing it anyway to relieve stress then you end up feeling worse and the cycle continues.

But if we change the mindset then your not holding yourself back anymore, which when you did almost always ended up with you eventually surging forward past your restraint and doing the thing your trying to resist in the first place. since your not holding yourself back then you also aren't fighting with yourself, preventing that cognitive dissonance and turning an attempt at resisting temptation to one of avoiding temptation, which is easier in the first place, because it's no longer a temptation.

I think it's all in his you see things. Paradigm shifts etc. Changing how you think and view things.

why are you being downvoted this is the only comment i understand

Ahhh Temptation, the only thing you can’t resist..

Clarification: it doesn't solely define truth, it helps define truth given other constraints (like falsification)

Correct. I didn't say Occam's razor is the sole definer: the other side of the equation is if your model has been falsified.

But given two competing unfalsified theories, what we call "true" is given by simplicity considerations. This falls out naturally from Karl Poppers framework in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, and I draw out that logical argument here. This is something Popper puts forward indirectly himself.

No it doesn't. Example: Occam's razor said that by all available evidence Newtonian physics was right. Only when new evidence became available (through improving technology) were Einstein et al able to show that Newtonian physics is only a special case of a wider law.

Well apparently its physics

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Someone get David Chalmers on the line… I’ll hold.

So is this why so many devout religious folks often get caught doing something anathema to their declared beliefs? The idea that they are ‘righteous’ and can’t give in to temptation makes the temptation that much stronger.

That research makes all sorts of philosophical assumptions about consciousness. For example, even the idea that other humans are conscious at all is an assumption.

That doesn’t make it invalid, they’re necessary for the field of medicine if you want to come to any type of conclusion about how to minimize human suffering, which is the whole point of medicine.

But we’re not talking about medicine, we’re talking about philosophy, and those assumptions don’t hold any water in this context.

That quote is about if it turns out that consciousness IS in fact fundamental and primary (not emergent).

Your point seems to support the view that it would be a strange twist of fate...

Lol I know you didn't mean this, but I feel like I need to say that I don't think being "purely logical and scientific" supports materialism at all.

At this point, there is no concrete empirical evidence of consciousness and I think something like panpsychism is the least logically flawed explanation of consciousness, at least in theory.

But how does this lead to being able to better resist temptation? Like say I have a problem with getting cravings late at night and ordering a ton of food that I shouldn't be eating. Am I supposed to start thinking "ordering a lot of food late at night isn't so bad, there's no reason I shouldn't do it." And that will ultimately lead me to doing this less?

Why do you not think consciousness, and life is the part of the universe looking back at itself?

> suggests that our ability to avoid temptation is a function of our socio-economic back-ground and/or the behaviors of our parents

> So it doesn't bode well for our ability to improve temptation avoidance as adults

I don't understand why this is the case. Our lives and behaviour as adults are significantly different to when we were children.

I'm also interested in hearing their response!

With context - I'm guessing that:

Demons have many heads Refers to a fractured mind and many competing thoughts/thought forms in ones mind leading to ineffective self-governence towards one's desired aims.

God's have many hands Refers to God's having more singular aim/focus. The hands then represent action/ability/power in the sense that more hands means more can be accomplished. Many hands make light work.

Could be wrong though and hoping they can clarify for us! 🙂

The same way they’ve figured out how to measure all kinds of other things in medicine—from what happens when things go wrong, or from correlates. E.g., Ramachandran’s work on sensory illusions, or Sacks’ work, or, like, anesthesiology. It’s not simple or easy. It’s extremely difficult and confusing and basically a giant mess. But that doesn’t mean it’s mysterious.

That’s been my sticking point for years. When we press on “consciousness” The definitions become so untestable and vague that it feels like it’s just a modern place holder for a soul or spirit. That which makes us distinctly human.

That's exactly what I've thought about the swapping consciousnesses ... It's not like you can be 2 consciousnesses to compare in the same body; in the switch there would be no difference. This makes me question exactly what it is!

Part of me thinks it's only a phenomenon of the physical brain but then I think what if something could be perfectly duplicated down to the most fundamental sub atomic level. Duplicate an inanimate object and we have no problem with the idea that the duplicate is in every way identical to the original. Duplicate a person and what becomes of the consciousness? I would think they would be separate and diverge from that point of duplication, with the duplicate having all the memories etc of the original, and also assuming they are the original. But they would be separate. Maybe consciousness is inherent to instances of matter itself and linked in some hidden way like time is to space. I mean... I'm waffling now, but it's mind boggling to think about

Well if you don’t want to resist then it’s fine because you’re not holding yourself in a state of dissonance. You do what you want. I think what they mean by resisting or avoiding temptation here is implying that what you’re tempted to do, you know is “bad”. If I am tempted to volunteer at a soup kitchen and I yield to this desire, most people would agree that this is a “good” action.

[deleted]

I'm surprised to not yet see the term cognitive dissonance in the comment chain at all, because that's basically what the author of this article means by "fragmentation". It sounds like he's saying that cognitive dissonance is stressful, and stress increases the likelihood of giving into temptation, in an attempt to relieve stress. This seems pretty simple and sensible to me. Cognitive dissonance is really a form of double bind: "I can't (or shouldn't) but I must." And double binds are the wellspring of stress, according to every good psychologist I've spoken with. They're not entirely avoidable, but they can be kept to a tolerable minimum.

I'm pretty sure this is why the Serenity Prayer is so central to the Twelve Step programs — it's an attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance and double binds that tend to underly addiction in the first place.

I cite the above with much trepidation, because I'm well aware of how despicable the Twelve Step programs are to the majority of Redditors. I'm not saying I necessarily endorse them. I think they work for some people in some situations, but definitely not all. I'm just making a point about the rationale behind one of their most popular mantras.

Your life would definitely be different ... But would it even be you at all? Would your internal thoughts and preferences, even intelligence be the same as they are now? Really interesting to think about.