yguy

Not this theist.

If you think you can motivate yourself, you're kidding yourself.

yguy

You lost me. If your "internal dialogue" doesn't involve someone answering you, how is it a dialogue? And why would a third voice be a problem?

Actually, most people are motivated by others. This fact being unpleasant to look at, it is convenient to claim self-motivation.

Actually, I think a barf bag would be more appropriate at this point.

Anti-Materialist

Yep... You definitely need a hug...

One big cyber hug coming up


H H U U GGGGGGG
H H U U G G
HHHH U U G
H H U U G GGGG
H H UUUUUUU GGGGGGG



Does that feel better?


Now...

Name for me any source of motivation that is external, and I will demonstrate to you that in fact, it is an internal motivation responding to outside stimuli.


Go for it - I challenge you, oh recently hugged one.

Anti-Materialist

uh...

That cyber hug sure looked a lot better when I typed it in...

Oh well, now it is a mushy cyber hug - even better.


heh,

Anti-Materialist

You've obviously never heard voices before. I used to have to take large amounts of oral narcotics to control a chronic pain problem. The oral narcotics caused me to hallucinate bugs crawling on me, and they caused me to hear voices.

Through much meditation, I was able to prove to myself quite thoroughly that these voices were generated inside my own brain. Nevertheless, they were not something I intended to generate - they came from parts of my brain I did not, at that point, have under conscious control.

I eventually learned how to control them. It wasn't easy - I imagine for people who suffer from severe schizophrenia, it would not be possible without medications. Even better, I eventually got well (after like 20 years of having this chronic pain problem), and stopped having to be on narcotics.

I can tell you from direct experience that there is a world of difference between talking to yourself, and hearing voices.

Perhaps an internal monologue would be more accurate - but not always. For example, when you are conversing with your conscience, then it could be considered a dialogue. As long as you understand that such a dialogue is simply a process of internal feedback, it is perfectly healthy. In fact, having a deliberate dialogue with your consicence is a good way to develop the conscience.

Words are more precise than raw feelings. Internal dialogues are one way to establish a more precise form of thinking.

Precise thinking makes all the difference in the world, in our quest for finding joy in life.


Peace,

JL

Chiron

The point when you start hearing voices that are completely out of your conscious control is the point that you begin worrying.
For instance, if I were to imagine a conversation with someone, I could attempt to play both parts and to judge their reactions from what I know of them. Superimposing their personality and (my memory of) their voice on a part of myself, I can have an internal dialogue with (sort of) two participants. However, I still control that other voice. If this other voice were to spriral out of control, sticking around despite my attempts to dispell it, I'd worry. This is bad because this (along with the loss of the ability to distinguish the out-of-control inner voice from real sounds) is schizophrenia, and because voices almost always are or turn critical, they drive the victim to suicide. When the voices are big-n-scary and command things, that's God. But theists, along with everyone else, use internal dialogue as something of a sandbox, a place to test things out without fear of repercussions.
More on internal voices: refraining from cursing at siblings, simply yelling at them from within the confines of the brainpan, is an anecdotally effective anger-management technique. Does this mean the people who use this technique have multitudes of people inside their skulls?

yguy, you started out saying that Anti-Materialist, in particular, is incapable of motivating himself or herself. Then you said "Actually, most people are motivated by others." So people like Ovid, Shakespeare, and Arthur Laurents are allowed to be self-motivated. But what about the rest of us?
I'd rather make the claim that most people, most of the time, are not self-motivated; if they were, the ship's deck would be a wreck of scrap metal from the 6 billion loose cannons. Everyone, at some points or others, is self-motivated. When I became atheistic, I was doing something that my family decidedly did not like (they wanted me to follow the fold), but I was not spurred on by other people. It would have been much easier to remain xian in name and to keep my feelings quiet, but I did not want to do that. I chose the path of greater (outside) resistance, and had to remain motivated throughout so that I wouldn't roll back down like Sisyphus' boulder.

yguy: "Actually, I think a barf bag would be more appropriate at this point."
This is in very poor taste, sir, as was that 'cranium' jibe earlier.

-Chiron

yguy

Ever had a tune you couldn't get out of your head?

While I'm sure the technique is not limited to atheists, I've always found that people have the annoying propensity to depart from the script without my authorization.

I'd call it an anger supression technique. While it is better not to vent unreasonable anger at people, better still is to realize how unreasonable it is and drop it. If the technique were really effective in the long term, I can hardly believe we'd have as many emotionally disfunctional people as we have.

It means they are burning the object of their anger in effigy.

If by self-motivated you mean motivated from within rather than without, I suppose I can hang with that for now.

The only way this makes sense is if one assumes that everyone's inner motivation is somehow at odds with everyone else's. Even if that were universally true, the result would look more like Stalinist Russia than some universal anarchy, because bullies always prevail over cowards.

Taking this at face value, it doesn't contradict anything I've said. Motivation is a found thing, not created by men.

From my perspective, it was an appropriately abrasive reply to one redolent with syrupy condescension. Color me unrepentent.

Anti-Materialist

I think Yguy is perfectly right in responding to my post in that way...

Actually - I did not mean to be condescending - I meant to taunt you in a light hearted way. I am not sure that is any better, but it is what I meant. So, for sounding condescending, I apologize.


Of course, Yguy....


You asked me how many personalities I've got in my head. So, you had it coming.


I was not offended by the barf bag comment - I actually laughed at it. It was, after all, a very barfy thing to say.

Peace,

JL

Chimp

Anti-Materialist, I am very impressed by your ability to survive many years of chronic pain as explained in the biographical writings at your web-page.

As far as a belief in a Deity is concerned, I agree with Stephen Hawking. "God plays dice with the universe", which really is a multiverse.

The multiverse is a quantum superposition of all possible universes.

Basically, existence MUST exist

Chimp

Anti-Materialist

Thank you, Chimp...

I am just thankful I am healthy now.



The idea of a multiverse gets really fascinating, I think. I don't know if there are parallel or perpindicular universes to this one. I'd like to find them, if there are - but I am not sure it would be possible for a creature inside this universe to get to another one.


I think it is very likely that there are nested universes. By that, I mean that our universe is defined within something larger. It's a matter of persepective. You could say that a V.R. video game is a universe unto itself, that is nested within our universe. To me, it comes down to pondering what the fabric of space time is composed of - and pondering how many spatial dimensions there are.

Spooky action at a distance, as called for by quantum theory, has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments. However, it just shouldn't be possible in a 3-D universe.

Plus, we know that the 3 dimensions of space that we see around us is curved. In order for it to be curved, it has to have more than three spatial dimensions for it to curve into.

Think about a flat piece of paper, that you bend. When it is flat, you can define it with a 2-D equation. When it is bent, you need a Three variable equation.

So, it seems to me, that for 3-D space to be bent, you must have more than 3 spatial dimensions for it to be bent into.


Quite a few physicists speculate about the possibility of worm holes. These would be shortcuts through extradimensional space. I don't think anyone has yet demonstrated evidence of a wormhole - but if anyone here knows better, please correct me on that. Mathematically speaking, wormholes should be possible. However, according to Kip Thorne, macro level worm holes should not be stable unless constructed in part with negative density matter - something that is purely imaginary, as far as we know.


All of these things, as well as a few other things, lend credence to the possibility that there is a superstructure in which the 3-D spacetime that we live is defined. If my physics is wrong, I would appreciate any corrections.


When I think about this superstructure, I get all giddy inside. Who knows what sort of crazy stuff could be found there. But, how could we, trapped in this universe, ever get outside. It would be a bit like a character in a VR video game asking how he could jump outside of the screen and into the outer world. It cannot be done, because he is only defined within that game.


Now, I think it is possible that when we die, we shed our current identity, and wake up to the outer world. But then, we wouldn't really be ourselves. Ourselves, as defined by our brain-based personality would be dead. Instead, our memories and that part of ourselves that is defined in the outer world would go on. Once we die, it would be like when we stop playing a character in a role playing game. That character dies, but the part of ourselves behind the scenes of that character goes on. I don't expect any of the Athiests on this board to buy into such conjecture - and I did not say it in order to persuade them. Rather, I say it as way of explaining the only means I can think of for accessing this hypothesized outer world.

Of course, when I have Out-Of-Body experiences, I could be accessing this outer world as well. However, OBE's are such unreliable experiences, that I cannot see how it would be possible to really explore the outer world that way. I know that some groups claim to have verifyable evidence of the reality of the OBE experience - but I am skeptical of their writings. Thus, it remains merely a tantalizing possibility to me.


Does anyone else have any ideas on how we might access parallel, perpindicular, or outer universes/multiverse?