Lucid Living

And why ask twice in the thread and a third time on Sideshowbob's profile page?
Maybe I'm on the outside looking in for once but, yeah, that is odd...

I must admit though, I'm tempted to spam JamesR's profile, ad infinitum and beyond, with quizzical questions.
 
The expression "to be fully alive" implies its opposite - we can (and are ,most or all of the time ) in a sense less "alive" than we could be.

Simply turning the wheels is not enough to be considered as operating to full (or sufficient) capacity.

As the great man** said "he who is not busy being born is busy dying"


**certainly greater than me.
 
To the best of my recollection, during my prime, sex never involved more than a few hours of my time, if I was lucky, once every week. And I do have my preference, but I'm not certain I would claim it as my identity. You tell me, Bob: does your penis define who you are?
I'm wondering why you mention penises at all. I referred to homosexuality as a supposed mental illness. My post was not about sexuality.
 
Personal identity doesn't play a role in the individual psyche? He and I were discussing the insanity of people and life. What better place to start than on the individual perception of self.


Why are you so concerned? Even you are avoiding the question.
I'm sort of interested in what I thought was the discussion and I don't specially want to connive at derailing it. I had thought, though I may be wrong, that where Sideshowbob was going was the issue of how the mind is able to tune out the cacophony of irrelevant information our senses constantly expose us to, in order to maintain a coherent focus on a task or thought process. Perhaps he may even have information about what mental conditions may result if this filtering mechanism ceases to work properly.
 
Personal identity doesn't play a role in the individual psyche?
I maybe wrong but I understand one can connect with or explore one's own ''psyche'' (observer) through ''meditation''.
If we ( or any other living thing) had never evolved the senses, would there be a ''psyche''? If yes, then what would it be doing?
 
Nothing. Since - without the senses to populate it - our minds would literally be empty.
I'm glad you said that. I wanted to know from Bowser what ''makes'' Personal identity if not our experience, and how do we experience without the senses.
Personal identity doesn't play a role in the individual psyche?
No senses no ''psyche'' no ''Personal identity''
 
Last edited:
I glad you said that. I wanted to know from Bowser what makes ''Personal identity'' if not from experience. And how do we experience without the senses?
Could we have an inherited psyche from our ancestry?

I mean might there be a basis is to our consciousness sitting in our DNA?

A kind of distillation of the sense based experiences of our ancestors...could the most fundamental perceptions be passed down the line of progenies?
 
Could we have an inherited psyche from our ancestry?
I mean might there be a basis is to our consciousness sitting in our DNA?
A kind of distillation of the sense based experiences of our ancestors...could the most fundamental perceptions be passed down the line of progenies?
All I can really say is that we seem to be something more than a flower just reacting to light in real time. We can plan for light and dark. We must have some sort of inherited programming to make us not instinctual creatures in that way.
 
Last edited:
I maybe wrong but I understand one can connect with or explore one's own ''psyche'' (observer) through ''meditation''.
If we ( or any other living thing) had never evolved the senses, would there be a ''psyche''? If yes, then what would it be doing?

people are more complex, are they not? though i believe the rudiment of all life is awareness. We simply layer ours with concepts and ideas.
 
I do. Not on the same level as you and I, but aware nonetheless.
Is our awareness a function of our environment? (and our feedback into it....?)

We don't have awareness as self standing organisms ...just in those relationships...

Does "aware" always have to he understood as "aware of something"


As an aside anecdote ,years ago I was greeted with patronizing chuckles when I introduced the notion of someone being "self aware" into a conversation.I feel this is quite an uncontroversial idea now ,even mainstream .
 
Last edited:
We have evolved a mind, which can be an excellent tool.
Bacteria survive without tools. Simpler, no headaches.
I do. Not on the same level as you and I, but aware nonetheless.
I think it's down to chance a bacterium finds itself a good environment which later becomes really important to other animals and plants, example, the microbiomes of humans and plants.
I'm dead in the long run anyway, correct? So what's the point in fretting over a mental maze?
I'm dead later too. I don't fret about religion or seeking out mystical things. I'm here for the here and now. A lot like our bacteria cousins. I wouldn't waste time trying to throw a religious context on the psyche. I would just get on with life.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top