> However, CB is too slow to play a complicated arpeggio, react to a 100-mph baseball, or make a 20-ft jump shot.

I don't think this is related to flow; these are trained motor skills that the brain learns to "run" like a "process" where the many motor signals get bundled into a couple abstract concepts that you do, kinda like how practicing enough with a tool you can "just swing it" without consciously thinking about counterbalance to the weight or the extra effort in the wrist etc.

Flow specifically involves choices being made in response to external or internal stimuli, but with some form of altered consciousness. It's the altered consciousness that's essential here - a pianist can play a full piece of music without entering a flow state, even a piece that they know by heart.

Off-topic: what is this post doing in r/philosophy? It only briefly discusses just the idea of what flow is, which is more of a psychology topic, and has a super shallow analysis.

Fellow Plain English with Derek Thompson listener?

I've entered flow (as you describe it) a handful of times when playing beat saber. I didn't know how to describe it, but it was incredible, as sometimes it is very, very fast-paced. And i remember thinking briefly to myself this is incredible, I'm not really even controlling my arms. I've found I can hit it after warming up for 30-40 minutes, but definitely not on demand. It's a pretty awesome feeling.

[deleted]

I believe most anyone has the potential to experience being "in the zone" at some point in their life, and it's likely most have. It definitely requires a certain level of proficiency relative to a task, but the tell is a feeling of dissociation. I know dissociation has negative connotations, but that's how I describe it. I'd argue that the task doesn't necessarily have to be physical, even. I'm up there in age but can recall a few occurrences when I was much younger. I believe I've experienced flow while playing basketball - specifically, shooting baskets, shooting pool and even while taking an exam. I'm sure their are significant differences in how the brain enables one to run a table or ace a physics exam in short order, but the result in each case is both gratifying and bewildering. I could be wrong, but that's my take.

Could you provide me with a reasonable definition of consciousness that encompasses both real and imagined experiences, as well as their interpretations, while also being falsifiable?

I assume what are you trying to suggest is some version of Barkeley idelism. In this case, if there is no consciousness (disregarding God) the world cease to exist?

I agree that our self is indeed structured with a language, but it is more like the tool and not the thing itself. The same as our eye is recreating the outside world for us but it does not mean that only those pictures exists.

What are those statistics? I would say much more people right now experience pleasure than suffering. Even if you take a Benatar asymetry argument. Avoiding suffering by non existing is good but avoiding pleasure by non existing is not bad?? Nope,it is bad, so there is no asymetry.

[deleted]

This varies tremendously based on what you are doing. There are plenty of situations where, yeah, I'd prefer to be fully immersed in something, but there are also plenty where being able to effectively multitask is absolutely a virtue. If i weren't able to multitask I'd be working 100 hour weeks. And it's not like I really want to be fully immersed in a conference call, or preparing slides, or grinding through spreadsheets anyway.

My definition of "word" also includes paintings, music, etc. To the degree that they exist, any external object or perception is also words.

No to sound dumb but this sounds like ultra instinct in Dragonball which is super dope

This reduction to words would work only if there was no other means of communication. But there is a something else with witch you can signify a sign. Paintings, music etc… To say that there is nothing but words is a very brave metaphysical statement. It is dismissing the fact that in order to have signified there is a need to have at least some connection with the object. Even if our senses are deceiving us or they are not perfect, we still base our words on something. The problem of saying that there are only words is its distaste for anthropocentrism.

The philosophy of TOTAL ANIHILATION to avoid suffering.

According to some variant of Pro-Mortalism, the amount of suffering in this world (statistically and experientially), currently and into the future, is just too much to make existence worth the trouble, so we should totally empathize with these victims of eternal trolley problem and DESTROY all living things to help them not suffer ever again. lol

We should also develop non sentient space machines that would continue to sterilize all life in this universe that could suffer.

Because to avoid suffering, no matter how big or small, is the ONLY thing that matters in this universe.

Is our current (and future) level of suffering so bad that nothing in this reality is worth living for?

If you say there is something worth it, what would that be? What about the victims that didnt ask to be born into their fate? Is consent of the victim to be so critical that we must not birth them in order to avoid this risk?

What say you my fellow Existentialism connoisseurs about this sort of philosophy? lol

As someone who's been really interested in Taoïsm and who can experience flow quite easily likely die to ADHD (but also really hard at other times) I wouldnt call them comparable.

Flow to me, is what others already described as doing something where my mind is just finally shutting up for a second.

Wu Wei to me is much more mindful. By being in the moment consciously and surrender to that feeling so everything you do because somewhat flow like. Instead of thinking "i have to do this, call that person, go for groceries etc" you just do this and only this. Thereby you can correct yourself as well if you notice it and stay in the flow state.

Whereas flow to me means completely disregarding a ton. Normally I notice almost bloody everything, but when in flow I just have all my energy focused towards the activity.

I’m not talking about insulin. There is sometimes an incentive under capitalism to shift research money towards developing band-aid products that can be sold repeatedly. The OP made an extremely broad claim that requires way more evidence than is available. For capitalism to literally solve scarcity, there can be exactly zero counter examples. If even a single problem is more profitable to band-aid than to fix, his whole starry-eyed prediction fails.

At some point, when we ignore things like barriers to entry and imperfect competition, we stop talking about reality and start wishing. I can’t build a pharmaceutical lab in my garage. That’s just not how capitalism works. Even with zero regulation, we’d still have barriers to entry that create imperfect competition. Is it possible that regulations are one of many complex factors causing the insulin market to be semi-monopolistic? Sure. But even if the incentives were perfect, there is a wealth of literature in behavioral economics that suggests incentives are not destiny. This is a classic problem where creating a dedicated program whose priority can be long-term public good and not short-term profit can boost a weakness in our current system.

Sounds a lot like Timothy Galway's seminal book The Inner Game of Tennis

I’d say that flow is autotelic, but I’m not sure it would be considered a personality trait.

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, the guy who coined the phrase "flow", says that in order to achieve a state of flow, you have to perform a task that is sufficiently complex, but not so hard that you burn out.

My brain call it " compulsion"

Would you say in both instances when a person is able experience flow often in their life they have autotelic personality traits?

I've heard that book is amazing, essentially the conscious mind (awareness) merges with our actions in a more subconscious manner. This can also relate to autotelic personality traits, a person's focus of attention is narrowed to where they have complete control over what is optimal in this experience of the moment (often what is being experienced within and right outside their body to focus on). In a way too this can relate to having healthy self-esteem imo.

Enjoyed this explanation & have experienced this playing music without recognizing how repetitive action flows out later. Drills and scales can feel mind-numbing, but open up avenues when you need them.

I feel like there's a lot of conversations around bending eastern philosophy to fix rigid western standards of productivity and expertise, when many of these concepts were built around people simply existing.

Idk, once you start talking about "multitasking" or "pro athletes and musicians" or "skills," I feel like you've kinda missed the mark of the entire concept.

There's nothing but words.

And I mean for real nothing but words. As in, there is no external world, no self, no mind, no quantum particles, no platonic forms, no truth, no knowledge, only words. Words interacting with words.

Therefore conscious experience is just an illusion because words are just words. And humans are just words that generate other words, or "word machines."

You might say, "But what is a word to you? Is a church also a word? To me a church exists outside of language yet we use words to ascribe universal or relatable experience to that church."

To this I say, "No. A church as you described does not exist because it is not a word. What you call church is just a word."