Uncurious monkeys

[axod]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.

That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.

Fascinating.  Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that.  At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me.  Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized.  I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect?

It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.

I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness.  I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.

That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.

Fascinating.  Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that.  At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me.  Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized.  I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect?

It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.

I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness.  I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.

What do those words mean? They appear to be strung together in a sentence as if they are meant to impart some kind of specific meaning, and yet as far as I can tell they don't.

Are you saying  that consciousness arises from something outside of brain function? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Capgras and Cotards are both very rare. They are defined by observational symptoms, but in all known cases seem to be based on underlying brain damage. So the answer to your latter question is perhaps, hypothetically.

For the most part though, you really don't see brains with nothing physically wrong with them producing minds that have debilitating functional disorders.

[axod]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.

That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.

Fascinating.  Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that.  At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me.  Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized.  I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect?

It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.

I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness.  I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.

What do those words mean? They appear to be strung together in a sentence as if they are meant to impart some kind of specific meaning, and yet as far as I can tell they don't.

Are you saying  that consciousness arises from something outside of brain function? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.

More like an epistemological point on how correct brain function is not always as easy to study, compared to cases where there is a functional breakdown.  Much of our understanding of how the brain works is informed by cases in which the brain is actually not working properly.  It's kind of like how a fish may occasion to think about water only once it has been removed from its watery environment.  Although there previously was no point of comparison, it's still ironic that the critical distance nescesary to observe something often requires a change in the nature of the observed.  The question naturally arises if there is something counterfactual about the inquiry?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.

That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.

Fascinating.  Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that.  At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me.  Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized.  I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect?

It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.

I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness.  I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.

What do those words mean? They appear to be strung together in a sentence as if they are meant to impart some kind of specific meaning, and yet as far as I can tell they don't.

Are you saying  that consciousness arises from something outside of brain function? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.

More like an epistemological point on how correct brain function is not always as easy to study, compared to cases where there is a functional breakdown.  Much of our understanding of how the brain works is informed by cases in which the brain is actually not working properly.  It's kind of like how a fish may occasion to think about water only once it has been removed from its watery environment.  Although there previously was no point of comparison, it's still ironic that the critical distance nescesary to observe something often requires a change in the nature of the observed.  The question naturally arises if there is something counterfactual about the inquiry?

Yes, much as with genetic research, we have learned most of what we know about the brain by looking at what happens when parts of it are damaged. Mostly, when we have a situation where we have a disorder, we try to learn about it by comparing as many people with the disorder as we can to a similar or larger number of people who don't have any known disorders.

Still not sure what you were getting at, though. Maybe you could use teeny tiny little words, since using bigger ones didn't help to explain your point any better.

[axod]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.

That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.

Fascinating.  Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that.  At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me.  Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized.  I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect?

It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.

I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness.  I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.

What do those words mean? They appear to be strung together in a sentence as if they are meant to impart some kind of specific meaning, and yet as far as I can tell they don't.

Are you saying  that consciousness arises from something outside of brain function? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.

More like an epistemological point on how correct brain function is not always as easy to study, compared to cases where there is a functional breakdown.  Much of our understanding of how the brain works is informed by cases in which the brain is actually not working properly.  It's kind of like how a fish may occasion to think about water only once it has been removed from its watery environment.  Although there previously was no point of comparison, it's still ironic that the critical distance nescesary to observe something often requires a change in the nature of the observed.  The question naturally arises if there is something counterfactual about the inquiry?

Yes, much as with genetic research, we have learned most of what we know about the brain by looking at what happens when parts of it are damaged. Mostly, when we have a situation where we have a disorder, we try to learn about it by comparing as many people with the disorder as we can to a similar or larger number of people who don't have any known disorders.

Still not sure what you were getting at, though. Maybe you could use teeny tiny little words, since using bigger ones didn't help to explain your point any better.

It's just curious to note how we understand the way some things work by examining the cases in which they don't.  This could have lasting consequences.  For example, I learned myself some these things by reading this 'merican translation of twisted Frencie author Maurice Merleau-Ponty.  If you sample some of his text you will understand how the damage was irreversible

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.

That's essentially what happens in Cotard's Syndrome, and the result of the lack of any sense of relevance or attachment to anything is that the sufferer concludes that they are dead, and then they generally starve to death.

Fascinating.  Last time this clown at the office dosed me with a brownie I kind of felt like that.  At least he spent months preparing the ritual for me.  Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized.  I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect?

It generally represents damage to the communication between the fusiform face area and the amygdala. There are variations, such as Capgras Syndrome.

I know in these neurological conditions are considered a breakdown of "normal" brain function, nonetheless, it seems they both inform and are also informed by our understanding (of) consciousness.  I wonder if these conditions (Cotard/Cap., etc.) qualify as such if no physical CNS damage is present.

What do those words mean? They appear to be strung together in a sentence as if they are meant to impart some kind of specific meaning, and yet as far as I can tell they don't.

Are you saying  that consciousness arises from something outside of brain function? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've lost me completely.

More like an epistemological point on how correct brain function is not always as easy to study, compared to cases where there is a functional breakdown.  Much of our understanding of how the brain works is informed by cases in which the brain is actually not working properly.  It's kind of like how a fish may occasion to think about water only once it has been removed from its watery environment.  Although there previously was no point of comparison, it's still ironic that the critical distance nescesary to observe something often requires a change in the nature of the observed.  The question naturally arises if there is something counterfactual about the inquiry?

Yes, much as with genetic research, we have learned most of what we know about the brain by looking at what happens when parts of it are damaged. Mostly, when we have a situation where we have a disorder, we try to learn about it by comparing as many people with the disorder as we can to a similar or larger number of people who don't have any known disorders.

Still not sure what you were getting at, though. Maybe you could use teeny tiny little words, since using bigger ones didn't help to explain your point any better.

It's just curious to note how we understand the way some things work by examining the cases in which they don't.  This could have lasting consequences.  For example, I learned myself some these things by reading this 'merican translation of twisted Frencie author Maurice Merleau-Ponty.  If you sample some of his text you will understand how the damage was irreversible

In some cases, it's really the only window we have into understanding certain functions... I mean, look at Tierney's work with reverse genetics. Personally, I'm largely interested in what's going on in our brains when everything's working just right, but the technology for looking at that is brand-new, and the context for understanding it is largely dependent on what we've learned about brain structure by looking at injuries.

And of course, in medicine, in order to cure something is is very often necessary to understand what caused it.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm out of my league here.  Will read and attempt to comprehend, but I have nothing of value to add.   

[Karapac]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

Say the alteration you mention fashions consciousness to be an emergent property, like a self-correcting/learning/evolutionary algorithm.  What is it that allows said experience to be something that particularly concerns you?  Imagine a world of objects percieved absolutely without relevance.

Huh, that's a good question. Of course people have to assign value to everything, rank them in importance, so it is not really strange that they do so in different manners. I guess I'm curious about what allows us to be so different.

[Karapac]

Oh but I did, I just didn't get an answer.

All of them? How many people are we talking about, here? Are we talking about enough people to allow you to generalize about human beings, or about enough people for you to have asked them why they think it's weird to go for a walk in the woods, and for them all to have, for some reason, ignored your question?

We're talking about two that I have asked this. And you're confusing not getting an answer with not getting a response. I did get the latter, and it amounted to a shrug and "I dunno, it's just weird." I'm not generalizing about human beings based on this, it's just another little thing adding to how mystified I am about them.

What other motivations can they be then? Honest question, I really have no idea.

That is the thing, isn't it? That you don't know their motivations, so you're making up stories that fit within your own experience to explain other people's reaction. The problem with this is that it's more revealing about you than revealing about them; it doesn't say anything at all about them.

This seems like a good place to tell a fairly boring story.

When I was in my early 20's I thought that middle aged people were really boring. They weren't interested in having conversations about any of the deep topics my friends and I were into, like the problems with capitalism and how fucked up the school system is or  the oligarchy or social justice any of those big, brand-new, world-changing ideas. If the conversation turned in that direction, they would often act kind of bored or just walk away. So boring! Come on old people, why don't you care about important stuff? And then one day I said something to a co-worker who was an older guy, and he just said "How many times can I have that conversation?" and I suddenly realized that it wasn't them who was boring. It was me. They were having far more interesting conversations than I was even able to understand because I was just then picking up the foundational information, having the foundational conversations with my peers that they had with their peers 20 years ago.

Do you need to re-learn how to read every time you pick up a book?

Once you learn something, you have already explored it. Therefore, when you go back to it, it is no longer exploring, it is visiting.

I could be wrong, but it sounds as if you are in a very exploratory mental place. many things are wondrous and new to you. That's great, keep doing it; exploratory behavior generates new neurons and keeps you healthy and resilient. But when you are exploring something and feeling good and see people who don't seem to think that what you're doing is interesting, rather than pitying them as poor uncurious monkeys, it might be wise to wonder whether they already know what you are just discovering.

How else am I to understand other people? There's three methods, basically - try to do it based on what I already know; ask them, which isn't always possible and not always reliable; or ask others' opinion and contrast their thoughts and experiences with mine, which I'm doing now or IRL or when I read stuff. Is there any other way?

I appreciate the story. It certainly is the case sometimes that people simply know already what I'm just now thinking about. But that can't always be the case, especially when I'm talking to people my age or younger, like at school (in the group, we're anywhere from 18 to 38). Some of 'em are barely out of high school and they just aren't interested in things outside of work, personal relationships, a few choice subjects like marijuana legalization, and hilarious internet memes. Some may grow out of it, but some won't. And hell, it's not like I want all humanity to share my hobbies, not everybody has to be interested in roguelikes or recognize every bird species that lives around here. But when I point out that there's a lion relief on the facade of a building, or a cool car always parked in a certain spot, or an unusual beggar lady (all these things having been there forever) and the person I'm walking with says "Huh, I've walked here a million times and I've never noticed," I have to wonder why. It's just about a general awareness, curiosity, open interest in one's surroundings, in the world in general -- that thing that animals and children have, but adults largely don't.

I'm really not that guy proudly flaunting "You laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same" on a Hot Topic shirt or "98% of teens has done/likes X, if you haven't/don't put this in your signature." in their deviantArt sig. I know I'm not special or smart, really, I do. I'm not pitying anybody. My original post was a rant, hence the whiny tone, but what I'm bemoaning is not that it's lonely at the top of these heights of consciousness and different-ness that I've reached, but rather than I still don't understand why do people act like they do.


@axod What you're saying is... really intriguing. What if we learned about, say, bones and their function mostly through comparing healthy ones to those broken or wrecked with osteoporosis or whatnot?
But what did you mean by

Srlsy though, I do think Cotard's represents an acute form of a delusion that is more prevelant than generally recognized.  I wonder how well an upside-down Barstool Experiment would work in that respect?

?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The thing is, Karapac, as I tried to point out before, you aren't really asking questions. You're making statements and waiting for validation.

You say you're curious about people, but you aren't acting curious about people. You aren't even acting curious about yourself. At this point, you are merely making assertions and defending them.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm gonna post this a third time, and see if  this time you have the guts to actually critically examine your own assumptions:

What assumptions are you making with these questions, and are you curious about whether they're sound assumptions?

...don't you agree that this is strange?

Why are (adult) humans so very not curious?

Show them something they don't know or understand, and they shy away or get offended and rationalize it as unimportant. Why??

What happens during a human's growing up process to kill that curiosity?

What happened to our species to make us blind?

What happened to some of us to have avoided it?

[Karapac]

I don't think it's guts, or willingness, that I lack, it may be ability (look, something I'm blind to!). Haven't I already admitted that those were loaded questions? Assuming people's lack of interest in x is caused by a lack of curiosity, and fishing for confirmation that there's something strange and mildly negative about it?

And I am aware that there's quite a few reasons people may not be interested, chiefly that they have already been exploring a subject and moved on, and also personal differences in openness to new experiences being attuned to different things and blind to others. Myself included. It just doesn't seem to me like that's all.

Am I still missing your point?

I was making assertions here because it seemed to me like we could be miscommunicating and I wanted to clarify exactly what I'm trying to say. I might simply be misunderstanding what you are saying, though. How am I not curious about people? I'm not extrapolating about a person from a single instance, I may add. All the individuals I've used in examples were people I consider my friends, genuinely like, and interact with often enough to see whatever I'm describing was not aberrant behavior. Maybe I should have mentioned this. None of them are shallow or stupid people, and that makes it all the more perplexing. And there's plenty of people I know who are not like this, people who'll bite into anything interesting you show them, who will talk about any subject, people who pay attention. Why are they this way, when others aren't? Simply personal difference?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

As far as curiosity/openness to experience, that's a temperament trait, probably largely something you're born with, a result of your genetic and epigenetic blueprint, that tends to be stable over a life span.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This is in books and shit, it's not a mystery. FYI.