Back to Spirituality

@petewxyz said
It does sort of map on to models of the mind that suggest the observing self is not the whole self and probably does not have access to observe the whole self. It's interesting how many children think their first memories are from around the age where they develop verbal language. More likely that is the age where they symbolize the memories using that language now that it i ...[text shortened]... stored in other forms even though preverbal memories do seem to inform who you become in later life.

“ It's interesting how many children think their first memories are from around the age where they develop verbal language”
That is interesting isn’t it, is it that we cannot commit an event to our long term memory without being able to verbalise it either in an internal dialogue or by relating it to another.
There are memory enhancement techniques that rely on verbalisation of information in order to commit it to long term memory. I have used the technique of repeating the target information 7 times and it does seem to work for me.

@kevcvs57 said
“ It's interesting how many children think their first memories are from around the age where they develop verbal language”
That is interesting isn’t it, is it that we cannot commit an event to our long term memory without being able to verbalise it either in an internal dialogue or by relating it to another.
There are memory enhancement techniques that rely on verbalisati ...[text shortened]... have used the technique of repeating the target information 7 times and it does seem to work for me.

It appears that we remember things from the first year of life, if remember is the right word. We build associations between comforting sounds, movements, muscle tone and smells. They seem to form the basis of knowing how to regulate emotion and not surprisingly get hard wired into the brain that is growing rapidly in the first four years. So it is very hard for people in later life to learn self regulation if they don't have the 'memories' of these experiences to draw on even though they can't consciously remember what was different. But should they be called memories if they are in a part of the brain that doesn't use verbal language, stored before we had verbal language and seemingly inaccessible to the conscious mind that seemingly only does memories stored with verbal language. Is that a part of us and a part of our spirit/soul. People would see it as part of somebody's being if they were very serene and self regulated perhaps.

Important memories which aren't remembered?!?

@petewxyz said
It appears that we remember things from the first year of life, if remember is the right word. We build associations between comforting sounds, movements, muscle tone and smells. They seem to form the basis of knowing how to regulate emotion and not surprisingly get hard wired into the brain that is growing rapidly in the first four years. So it is very hard for people in la ...[text shortened]... f they were very serene and self regulated perhaps.

Important memories which aren't remembered?!?

I would call it conditional software. If it’s written by external stimuli that you don’t have a memory or awareness of and it’s a process that later determines your actions and reactions then it’s more or less innate from the perspective of the older individual.

@kevcvs57 said
I would call it conditional software. If it’s written by external stimuli that you don’t have a memory or awareness of and it’s a process that later determines your actions and reactions then it’s more or less innate from the perspective of the older individual.

Makes sense. In that model it's innately within the machine that your consciousness is landed with for later life, but you wouldn't say it was you. Yet other's would define you by the way it makes you such that you would not be being yourself in their eyes if the equipment were different. But for the person subjectively, it isn't them and if we are saying anatomically it shouldn't be counted as them as well, this is how the process begins of separating the person from the brain creating the problem. Where are they? Which bit is actually them?

@petewxyz said
Makes sense. In that model it's innately within the machine that your consciousness is landed with for later life, but you wouldn't say it was you. Yet other's would define you by the way it makes you such that you would not be being yourself in their eyes if the equipment were different. But for the person subjectively, it isn't them and if we are saying anatomically it sho ...[text shortened]... parating the person from the brain creating the problem. Where are they? Which bit is actually them?

“ But for the person subjectively, it isn't them and if we are saying anatomically it shouldn't be counted as them as well, this is how the process begins of separating the person from the brain creating the problem. Where are they? Which bit is actually them?”
Now we’re talking 😊🤔
What if we were not a unitary entity?
There are lots of options, perhaps ‘we’ are in a constant state of flux and from a certain perspective there is no ‘us’ although there would have to be an innate mechanism for producing the illusion of continuity albeit hit and miss sometimes.
In a more macro sense do people really survive traumatic events or is the person that comes out the other side of the event no longer the person that existed before the event occurred.
Dualism is probably the dominant explanation for the mind-body and / or mind-mind schism.

@kevcvs57 said
“ But for the person subjectively, it isn't them and if we are saying anatomically it shouldn't be counted as them as well, this is how the process begins of separating the person from the brain creating the problem. Where are they? Which bit is actually them?”
Now we’re talking 😊🤔
What if we were not a unitary entity?
There are lots of options, perhaps ‘we’ are in a con ...[text shortened]... occurred.
Dualism is probably the dominant explanation for the mind-body and / or mind-mind schism.

Interesting stuff. Reminds me of psychodynamic ideas in which we are a sort of community of objects in dynamic interaction with each other. The problem with the state of constant flux idea though is that personality seems to be fairly constant and enduring. People can quickly spot if somebody is not being consistent to their usual self. Of course if there wasn't anything enduring we effectively wouldn't exist at all since we could just be anybody, potentially changing on an hour by hour basis. So there is something enduring somewhere even if it is an enduring dynamic interaction between a community of different aspects or objects, yet there is no anatomical seat where it has to sit and it is far more than we are conscious of and possibly far more than it is possible for us to access even though it all counts as us?!?

People change in the micro as well as the macro. The fact that we remember this conversation means something is different in our brains at the level of the very small and our brains can never be the same as they were before it.

@kevcvs57 said
In a more macro sense do people really survive traumatic events or is the person that comes out the other side of the event no longer the person that existed before the event occurred.
Dualism is probably the dominant explanation for the mind-body and / or mind-mind schism.

How we change because of events is fundamentally the application of the ability to learn and recall.

In my work one capability I help sales people to work on is basic self coaching in order to accelerate the learning, recall, behaviour change, habit forming process.

In order to do this effectively a person has to become slightly dualistic (not a term I use) such that they are more able to objectively self-observe and self critique.

@divegeester said
How we change because of events is fundamentally the application of the ability to learn and recall.

In my work one capability I help sales people to work on is basic self coaching in order to accelerate the learning, recall, behaviour change, habit forming process.

In order to do this effectively a person has to become slightly dualistic (not a term I use) such that they are more able to objectively self-observe and self critique.

Some people find themselves in imagined dialogue with somebody they know, maybe justifying a train of thought by attempting to persuade the other. Some also create an observer of that process who can recognise that the representation of the other is in fact just another part of themselves. So a third object watches the conversation between the first two and maybe even reminds the first one that they don't necessarily need to pass the test of the second one that may be being unreasonable towards the first, perhaps through the influence of the memory of a strict teacher or parent on the construction of the second. So rapidly you have a whole community of objects all in relationship to each other with some incorporating memories from recent and distant past, but memories which are now also a physical part of you. So some of the community are memories of your perception of others, but now objects within your dynamic thought process that are part of you and no longer the other (if they were ever even accurate representations).

@divegeester said
How we change because of events is fundamentally the application of the ability to learn and recall.

In my work one capability I help sales people to work on is basic self coaching in order to accelerate the learning, recall, behaviour change, habit forming process.

In order to do this effectively a person has to become slightly dualistic (not a term I use) such that they are more able to objectively self-observe and self critique.

Keep up the good work, the more we can “objectively self observe and self critique” the less we may subjectively observe and critique others.
Dualism is simply a state of existence for myself, I cannot have an internal monologue it always results in a dialogue.