Thanks for the tip about the book. I'll be sure to look that up!

As per your 3rd para, I agree that you need to be near that line to be eligible for flow. As you get better, the line just goes up. I'm sure Tiger Woods had his flow days; I'm equally sure they were a lot better than mine!

[deleted]

Feel like it's more common in mind sports like chess, go, draughts, etc.

Something like that

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

isn't this also called "hyper focus"?

This is not my understanding of 'flow' at all. Flow occurs when, e.g., an athlete or a musician (the two most obvious examples) is performing at a top level, but is not explicitly trying to do things; they just let the music or game 'flow' out of them.

It is characterized by a lack of blood flow to the pre-frontal cortex (PFC), which is why it's also known as "transient hypofrontality". That lack of blood flow is indicative of the body shifting resources to other parts of the brain. In this case, by shutting down executive and higher order functions in the cortex, the body is able to do things it knows how to do without interference from the judging, over-thinking PFC.

Every golfer knows this problem. You stand over the ball, and there are a million thoughts in your head. "Don't shank it, don't slice it, keep your arm straight, keep your head down, make a full turn, don't come over the top, I wonder what's for dinner tonight, shift your weight, keep your heel down, don't hit it in the bunker,....". Then you proceed to top it into to the bunker.

But you have made this shot a hundred times before, so why are you worrying? You don't worry about picking up a fork from a table, or walking two steps to the front door - you trust your body to do that. But in some tasks, we don't have enough trust to 'let go'.

As OP notes, one can't reach flow unless you have already mastered the basics of a task. That's why piano students spend hours on scales, and golfers hours on the range. You need to build up the synapses and autonomous skills so that you don't need the higher order brain functions to complete the task.

Once you've reached some level of expertise, flow is possible. It is not easy to 'trigger' it, though, because it's not easy to consciously make your conscious brain (CB) take a break. CB is always there, judging each action, assessing the situation, making predictions, and deciding what to do next. However, CB is too slow to play a complicated arpeggio, react to a 100-mph baseball, or make a 20-ft jump shot. We depend on our autonomous systems to do those things for us.

Another issue with flow is it's unsettling to an extent. After, you feel that it wasn't 'you' that did it - it was some other guy in your body, as 'you' weren't present, in that the CB wasn't doing its usual job of collecting, collating, and judging every act you do. Pro athletes have described it as 'being in the zone' - you're completely aware (of the game), and completely unaware (of your ego) at the same time. When they are finished, they don't have much memory of how they played, only that they played really well.

My 30th birthday, I got hammered, and I was playing in a golf tournament the next day. I woke up in the morning, probably still half-drunk, and went out to play. I'm normally a very chatty golfer, but this day, I was very quiet. Instead of the usual thousands of thoughts in my head, there was only "hit it in the fairway" and "hit it on the green".

Which I did. I shot 76, four over par, about ten shots better than I normally do, and I won the tourney. I only remember three shots from the round: two holes had giant oak trees in the centre of the fairway, and you were supposed to play to one side of them. I just decided to aim for tree - "I'll never hit it" - and proceeded to hit both trees on one bounce. I had no shot, so had to chip out sideways, costing me a stroke on each hole. The very last hole, I guess I was beginning to 'wake up', because I hit it over the green, and had to make a nice chip shot to get it close. That shot won the tournament for me.

Afterwards, I barely remember anything except those three shots. Everything else is a bit of blank. Without the CB's constant presence, I was able to perform at my optimum skill level, but none of it registered either.

Whenever I mention determinism vs indeterminism, people seem to always respond in terms of the universe. The universe may be 100% deterministic, but that doesn't mean there aren't indeterministic aspects of reality. What caused Big Bang? It was probably an uncaused event.

I agree, but there are certain nuances to flow, not all flows are equally beneficial. At one extreme you have a junkie in a flow state as they very single mindedly focus on the search for their next fix. Less counter productive than an addiction to drugs is an addiction to the flow state provided by video games.

I’d also suggest a subtle distinction between flow and Wu Wei. Wu Wei is more about effortless action, while flow is more about a continuous stream of focussed attention, but if not brother and sister they are first cousins.

Whose incentives? The capitalist solution to someone doing that (overcharging, not solving problems when it's cheap and cost-effective to solve them) is simple: undercut them. The only way to prevent that is if the FDA intervenes, which it does; in other countries insulin is like 50x cheaper.

> because we've yet clearly defined consciousness to begin with.

We've yet to agree upon a definition. Plenty of people have proposed their own personal pet definitions. Some are even clearly defined.

The hold-up isn't technical in nature, it's getting all the religious nuts to accept an answer.

> but sissiparity definitely works better than reproduction with a partner

Bollocks. Asexual reproduction depends on mutation to bring in new genetic material. Sexual reproduction reaps a geometrically increasing history of tests. You really need to read up on this more.

>their large bodies making their cancer having cancer a probability to why they don't die as much as we do for it.

. . . what?

>but keep the arguments with the traits of animals, and not the cancer one because that would relate only to mutations and genome errors unlike the selected mutations of the traits.

oooooooh. Dude. Whales (and all larger animals) have a better system of screening and checking for "mutations and genome errors". This is literally one of their "selected traits". They don't suffer from cancer as much as they ought given they have so many cells.

You REALLY have to learn more about these things before you start trying to stir up philosophical questions about the nature of man.

> “A land flowing with milk and honey—desalination and carbon-capture fed by the unlimited energy of Solar-Wind-Battery systems. Agriculture and supply-chain-infrastructure powered by end-to-end automation. Disease and disability mitigated by the confluence of gene-editing and robotics—the possibilities are endless, and the list goes on and on.

> “That itself, is what could be called Utopia; the coming world of our next century—and any and all who disagree are either deeply pessimistic or simply uninformed…

Capitalism isn’t going to give us a utopia. For one, capitalism only puts resources towards towards problems that can be monetized. For example, there is a huge incentive not to cure diabetes. Insulin is extremely cheap to produce and diabetics have no real choice but to buy. It’s not “stupid” or “uninformed” to suggest that utopia is not right around the capitalist bend or even just that there might be some slight tweaks that could get us there faster.

I think it really comes down to this Dionysian/Apollonian argument. The idea that anybody who suggests compassion is just some envious charlatan who is by definition weaker than some super competent ubermensch is just so full of assumptions. The causal reasoning as to how these resentful leaders with their forgiveness - barf! - and selflessness - yuck! - turn society into Swiss cheese deserves criticism.

Indeed, but sissiparity definitely works better than reproduction with a partner, so why has it not been selected. The primary factor ; natural selection, selects the traits that are most likely to get you reproduced ; so to say it's just what works doesn't quite satisfy the definition. I ask you again the question about sissiparity. Whales don't have less cancer, but more, their large bodies making their cancer having cancer a probability to why they don't die as much as we do for it. I'm not saying there should be perfect animals because it's always selecting the best trait, there's always the intraspecific and interspecific relations that results in much of what we see. I agree with what you say but keep the arguments with the traits of animals, and not the cancer one because that would relate only to mutations and genome errors unlike the selected mutations of the traits. I don't know if that's clear.

Existentialism is important. Faith (non religious) is a necessity for moving forward when your heros die, your dreams are broken, and your truths are invalidated. Existentialism provides the dialogue to help one come to terms with a universe that doesn't provide one with true certainty.

I know, right? It's such a funny paradox because of that. It's THE Absurd. We attempt to resist against reality as a function of our very nature. There's no choice but to act as though there is one when there isn't.

I've spent too much time studying existentialism lmao

>... It's a funny thing that humans necessarily act against reality, except that it still the reality of our existence and doesn't ever really contradict reality.... >

If determinism is true (which there is a very strong chance it is) how could one who believes in determinism ever judge someone as acting against it without assuming one has the choice to do so?

Proving or disproving consciousness is a near futile argument to attempt because we've yet clearly defined consciousness to begin with. Don't get me wrong. Proving or disproving consciousness is important, but so far the best answers are speculative interpretations of life experiences, and neuroscience. It's hard to accept consciousness doesn't exist when you think about your life (memories as you put it), and it is undeniable the ability to think can be altered quite predictably by affecting brain chemistry or matter (drugs, hormones, tumors, and other brain injuries). Neither of which proves nor disproves the existence of consciousness because the nature of it has no acceptable definition.

I think the conversation would be best progressed by taking the existence of consciousness as an axiomatic statement. Proving the existence of consciousness would then be irrelevant to describing what consciousness is and is not. I believe that is vastly more relevant and useful to current affairs regarding topics such as how to treat AI capable of passing the Turing Test.

> So the question is why any other animal's DNA (except the hydra) doesn't do the same when it's cut.

Because that's not part of the design in the DNA, except for hydras. (And some lizards tails, salamander legs, starfish... Here we go

>why hasn't this particular regenerating factor been selected [in other animals, like humans. I want to regrow a limb!]

Evolution. It's not selecting what's best or what's coolest, it's just whatever works. Like how it's be really nice we didn't get cancer as often, like whales. But the species gets on just fine without that. Or polarized vision of the mantis shrimp. Or the echolocation of bats. Just on and on and on and on. Species envy is real. For every neat trait though, there's typically some drawback. Did you know cat vision is blurry? They sent the light through their sensors twice, and have great lowlight vision, but it makes things blurry. Humans having to work out for their muscles is actually a FEATURE to survive lean times. Ugh.

No, this is only interesting to people who don't know how evolution works. Which, admittedly, is a depressingly high number even among "educated" people. If talking about it helps people get some learning in them, then all the better. But posing it as "haha, humans are magical creatures with souls and special purposes instilled by God because we're so special" is just plain bollocks. The post is literally anti-science. It's questioning the well known and obvious answers that science hass provided. Hey, this is r/philosophy, the place for question. But it's like questioning if the Holocaust happened. Some people are going to take offense. Please mind your lane and keep the philosophical drivel out of the science's territory. Or you will be told how wrong you are.

False. What you describe is homoromantic asexual. And yet another excuse for fascistic genocide. Gay, aka homoSEXUAL is about sexual attraction

Actually plenty of gay people have no interest in sex. "Existence" is not equal to "intimacy", not even remotely. It's the same childish argument Trans activists use.

Well, I don't assume that we are distinct from the universe. I understand that what you said is true. However, for those without that knowledge, it is natural for the human mind to assume that it is distinct from other things. And even those who understand that still don't or can't act according to that information*,* because their biological and psychological programming is such that they act in contrast to reality: like persons, distinct from the rest of the universe, as though determinism doesn't exist, etc*.* It's a funny thing that humans necessarily act against reality, except that it still the reality of our existence and doesn't ever really contradict reality.

It's a whole thing in Albert Camus' concept of the Absurd, which he talks about in The Myth of Sisyphus.

Why would you assume we are distinct from the universe? All of what we are is just a fraction of it in every sense

So the worm's DNA has the information required to build itself fully from a few cells. So the question is why any other animal's DNA (except the hydra) doesn't do the same when it's cut. You have the example of the lizard's tail right, but it doesn't quite satisfy the issue which is that why hasn't this particular regenerating factor been selected. Which then leads us on the question ; why hasn't sissiparity been selected ? Why would natural selection "choose" reproduction with a partner over this one is simply not known. I agree the first post wasn't exactly right, but this doesn't mean the question isn't interesting.

This is moral relativism that this substack addresses and refutes. Right and wrong mean something. And natural rights derive from this objective ethics.