3 ms·

That's funny, I had the almost same sci-fi scenario thoughts during one night. The thought of the nature of our minds being defined by a disease that we caught

by stephth 14y ago

That's funny, I had the almost same sci-fi scenario thoughts during one night. The thought of the nature of our minds being defined by a disease that we caught at some point in time and now completely identify with it, that that disease made us forget our true nature. It's pretty great as a sci-fi scenario, but I now believe it has a deep truth to it. I later discovered the writings of Eckhart Tolle. According to him, we are diseased in the sense that we identify with our mind/ego, instead of realizing what it actually is: a tool. Part of the problem is we often don't know what exists underneath. We are 100% convinced we are our mind. But obviously we're not - if we were, we wouldn't be able to observe it. Once we realize we're not our mind, we're free of its control. Until we do, we're in a way, severely ill. We're actually not disfunctional in our true nature - but we're unenlightened. At least that's what Eckhart Tolle says. I personally find it disarmingly logical - and reasonably easily provable within my perception, not to mention deeply liberating/changing. Finding out you can stop your thoughts and not only still be aware, but become the most aware you can be, that's quite a doozy of a realization.

thisduck 14y ago
>> we're not our mind Okay, what does this mean?
- KingMob 14y ago
  "Mind" is a very poorly defined term, unfortunately. To determine what you are or aren't, consider this for an exercise: You are a view point, yes? What you can observe is not part of your identity because you can observe it, and therefore it must be external to "you". This is obvious when it comes to things like your body parts; you could cut off your hand, but that wouldn't cut off a part of your "you-ness". The interesting bit comes when you start to examine your mind itself. Normally, we think of our thoughts as part of our identity. But with a little practice, you can watch thoughts arise, at which point they seem more "separate" and less "you". I always liken them to those biplanes at the beach with a banner fluttering behind them. So, if you can observe thoughts and not identify with them, then they're not "you". What makes up "you", then? The more you observe, the fewer candidates for "you" there are, no? ;)
  - scott_s 14y ago
    Perhaps that is a definition of sentiency: being able to observe that which is "you."
henrikschroder 14y ago
> It's pretty great as a sci-fi scenario I've actually read a short SciFi novel with that very premise, but I can't for the life of me remember the name of it. Something about the other sentient lifeforms in the galaxy not requiring sleep and being able to breathe cyanide, but humans were unique in that we needed to sleep, and that was because we were all infected by some sort of mind parasite that now saw its chance to expand to other lifeforms.
- Steuard 14y ago
  You're probably thinking of "Hostess", by Isaac Asimov: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_%28short_story%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_%28short_story%29
  - henrikschroder 14y ago
    Yes, that was it! Thanks!

by stephth 14y ago

thisduck 14y ago

>> we're not our mind Okay, what does this mean?

KingMob 14y ago
"Mind" is a very poorly defined term, unfortunately. To determine what you are or aren't, consider this for an exercise: You are a view point, yes? What you can observe is not part of your identity because you can observe it, and therefore it must be external to "you". This is obvious when it comes to things like your body parts; you could cut off your hand, but that wouldn't cut off a part of your "you-ness". The interesting bit comes when you start to examine your mind itself. Normally, we think of our thoughts as part of our identity. But with a little practice, you can watch thoughts arise, at which point they seem more "separate" and less "you". I always liken them to those biplanes at the beach with a banner fluttering behind them. So, if you can observe thoughts and not identify with them, then they're not "you". What makes up "you", then? The more you observe, the fewer candidates for "you" there are, no? ;)
- scott_s 14y ago
  Perhaps that is a definition of sentiency: being able to observe that which is "you."

henrikschroder 14y ago

> It's pretty great as a sci-fi scenario I've actually read a short SciFi novel with that very premise, but I can't for the life of me remember the name of it. Something about the other sentient lifeforms in the galaxy not requiring sleep and being able to breathe cyanide, but humans were unique in that we needed to sleep, and that was because we were all infected by some sort of mind parasite that now saw its chance to expand to other lifeforms.

Steuard 14y ago
You're probably thinking of "Hostess", by Isaac Asimov: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_%28short_story%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_%28short_story%29
- henrikschroder 14y ago
  Yes, that was it! Thanks!