is the struggle for enduring peace also the struggle for truth?
It would be nice to know that when people pursue the path to liberation - ...- they are helping humanity broadly, that the quest for individual salvation advances the quest for social salvation.
feelings are said to be true of false depending on whether they align with their evolutionary purpose. If the feelings promote well-being they are considered good or true; if they lead to things that are ultimately bad for a person, then we could say they are false.
environmental mismatch = a feeling designed by natural selection that is true in one natural environment, but false in another.
natural selection didn't design your mind to see the world clearly; it designed your mind to have perceptions and beliefs that would help take care of your genes.
false positive - you take remedial action even when its not called for
1. Our feelings weren't designed to depict reality accurately even in our natural environment.
2. The fact that we're not living in a "natural' environment makes our feeling even less reliable guides to reality.
3. Underlying it all is the happiness delusion. The longing for happiness itself is a delusion that leaves us with a desire for more of what we think makes up happy.
'The cost of survival might be a lifetime of discomfort' Aaron Beck - Cognitive Therapy and The Emotional Disorders.
One thing all feelings have in common is that they were originally "designed" to convince you to follow them. They feel right and true almost by definition. They actively discourage you from viewing them objectively.
default mode network - a network in the brain that remains active when you're doing nothing. It is the network our mind wanders when it is wandering. What you're not doing in the default mode is focusing on the present moment. It is easy to overcome the default mode by participating in a task that requires active concentration.
concentration meditation = focus one's concentration on breath, a mantra, a visual image, a bodily sensation, a physical sound.
mindfulness meditation = experiencing whatever you are experiencing.
enlightenment - ridding yourself of the illusion of what is going on inside yourself, and outside of yourself.
asymptote - something you can get closer to but never quite reach.
insight = apprehending the 3 marks of existence: impermanence, suffering or unsatisfactoriness, and non-self.
deeply realizing that you are selfless - ...- can make you selfless in the more familiar sense of the term.
self - control, persists through time
in the deepest sense the self doesn't exist, human language isn't very good at describing reality at the deepest level. So as a practical matter - as a linguistic convention - we have to talk about there being an I and a you and a he and a she. In other words, the self doesn't exist in an "untimate" sense, but it exists in a "conventional" sense.
The Buddha believed that the less you judge things - including the contents of your mind - the more clearly you'll see them, and the less deluded you'll be.
We think we're better than average at not being biased in thinking that we're better than average.
So, all told, we're under at least two kinds of illusions. One is about the nature of the conscious self, which we see as more in control of things than it actually is. The other illusion is about exactly what kind of people we are - namely, capable and upstanding. You might call these two misconceptions the illusion about our selves and the illusion about ourselves.
benneffectance - the tendency to take credit for success, while denying responsibility for failure.
modular mind - the mind is composed of lots of specialized modules... and it's the interplay among these modules that shapes your behavior. And much of this interplay happens without conscious awareness.
three ways you shouldn't conceive of modules:
1. the modules aren't like a bunch of physical compartments.
2. The different modules aren't like the blades on a Swiss Army knife or the apps on a smartphone.
3. The modules aren't like departments in a company's organization chart.
Feelings aren't just little parts of the thing you had thought of as the self; they are closer to its core; they are doing what you had thought "you" were doing: calling the shots.
Theory of Mind = thinking about what other people are thinking.
Psychologists who adhere to the modular model of the mind tend toward the idea that the conscious you isn't choosing the different modules so much as being commandeered by the modules that have prevailed....
Thoughts are directed toward what we think is the conscious mind... the conscious mind doesn't create thoughts, it receives them.
modules = attracting mates, keeping mates, enhancing your status, taking care of kin, tending to friendships, etc.
feelings are the things that give a particular module greater influence... "Every thought has a propellant, and that propellant is emotional." Akincano Marc Weber. Feelings are judgments about how various things relate to an animal's Darwinian interests.... feelings are the glue that makes thoughts stick to your consciousness.
Self Control - reason prevailing over feelings. "Reason alone," Hume argued, "can never oppose passion in the direction of the will." Nothing "can oppose or retard the impulse of passion but a contrary impulse."
both the problems we call therapeutic and the problems we call spiritual are a product of not seeing things clearly.
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Sunday, November 19, 2017
Global Wealth Report 2017
Global Wealth Report 2017
Wealth per adult across countries
Switzerland (USD 537,600), Australia (USD 402,600) and the United States (USD 388,600) continue to occupy the first three positions in the ranking of wealth per adult .... The ranking by median wealth per adult
favors countries with lower levels of wealth inequality and produces a somewhat different ranking. In contrast, high wealth inequality pushes Denmark (USD 87,200) out of the top ten list, while median wealth of USD 55,900 relegates the United States to 21st place, alongside Austria and Greece
Once debts have been subtracted, a person needed only USD 3,582 to be among the wealthiest half of
world citizens in mid-2017. However, USD 76,754 is required to be a member of the top 10% of global
wealth holders, and USD 770,368 to belong to the top 1%. While the bottom half of adults collectively
own less than 1% of total wealth, the richest decile (top 10% of adults) owns 88% of global assets, and the top percentile alone accounts for half of total household wealth.
Monitoring world wealth
Wealth is a key component of the economic system, valued as a source of finance for future consumption
particularly in retirement, and for reducing vulnerability to shocks such as unemployment, ill health, or natural disasters. Wealth also enhances opportunities for informal sector and entrepreneurial activities, when used either directly or as collateral for loans. These functions are less important in countries that have generous state pensions, adequate social safety nets, good public healthcare, high-quality public education, and well-developed business finance...Valued at current exchange rates, total global wealth increased by USD 16.7 trillion, or 6.4%, in the year to mid-2017. Controlling for exchange rate movements, the rise was a little larger, at USD 18.9 trillion. The United States again led the way with a gain of USD 8.5 trillion, most arising from financial assets. Elsewhere, however, the gains derived primarily from non-financial assets.
Wealth varies greatly across individuals in every part of the world. Our estimates suggest that the lower
half of global adults collectively owns less than 1% of global wealth, while the richest 10% of adults own
88% of all wealth and the top 1% account for half of all global assets.
Wealth per adult across countries
Switzerland (USD 537,600), Australia (USD 402,600) and the United States (USD 388,600) continue to occupy the first three positions in the ranking of wealth per adult .... The ranking by median wealth per adult
favors countries with lower levels of wealth inequality and produces a somewhat different ranking. In contrast, high wealth inequality pushes Denmark (USD 87,200) out of the top ten list, while median wealth of USD 55,900 relegates the United States to 21st place, alongside Austria and Greece
Once debts have been subtracted, a person needed only USD 3,582 to be among the wealthiest half of
world citizens in mid-2017. However, USD 76,754 is required to be a member of the top 10% of global
wealth holders, and USD 770,368 to belong to the top 1%. While the bottom half of adults collectively
own less than 1% of total wealth, the richest decile (top 10% of adults) owns 88% of global assets, and the top percentile alone accounts for half of total household wealth.
Monitoring world wealth
Wealth is a key component of the economic system, valued as a source of finance for future consumption
particularly in retirement, and for reducing vulnerability to shocks such as unemployment, ill health, or natural disasters. Wealth also enhances opportunities for informal sector and entrepreneurial activities, when used either directly or as collateral for loans. These functions are less important in countries that have generous state pensions, adequate social safety nets, good public healthcare, high-quality public education, and well-developed business finance...Valued at current exchange rates, total global wealth increased by USD 16.7 trillion, or 6.4%, in the year to mid-2017. Controlling for exchange rate movements, the rise was a little larger, at USD 18.9 trillion. The United States again led the way with a gain of USD 8.5 trillion, most arising from financial assets. Elsewhere, however, the gains derived primarily from non-financial assets.
Wealth varies greatly across individuals in every part of the world. Our estimates suggest that the lower
half of global adults collectively owns less than 1% of global wealth, while the richest 10% of adults own
88% of all wealth and the top 1% account for half of all global assets.
Waking Up - Sam Harris
paradox of spiritual seeking = the deepest goal of spirituality is freedom from the illusion of the self - and to seek such freedom, as though it were a future state to be attained through effort, is to reinforce the chains of one's apparent bondage in each moment.
the urge to attain self-transcendence or any other mystical experience is a symptom of the very disease we want to cure.
Consciousness is already free of anything that remotely resembles a self - and there is nothing that you can do, as an illusory ego, to realize this.
most effort arises from the very illusion of bondage that one is seeking to overcome.
[If bondage to the self is an illusion, then how can mindfulness of the illusion free one from the bondage, the bondage was never real]
If freedom is possible, there must be some mode of ordinary consciousness in which it can be expressed?
[If "I" am going to die, who or what is the "I" that is going to die?]
"The mind is a bundle of thoughts. The thoughts arise because there is a thinker. The thinker is the ego. The ego, if sought, will automatically vanish." Ramana Maharshi
[ mind = thoughts (caused by) thinker; therefore, if thinker is sought, thinker vanishes, and thoughts vanish. If thoughts are sought, thoughts vanish and thinker vanishes]
Direct method = Reality is simply the loss of the ego. Destroy the ego by seeking its identity. Because ego is no entity it will automatically vanish and reality will shine forth by itself.
[the problem is reality is not simply the loss of the ego. In fact, the ego, the thinker, and the thoughts produced are an intricate part of the fabric of reality]
Consciousness is the prior condition of every experience; the self or ego is an illusory appearance within it; look closely for what you are calling "I," and the feeling of being a separate self will disappear; what remains, as a matter of experience, is a field of consciousness - free, undivided, and intrinsically uncontaminated by its ever-changing contents.
Today, a red-golden leafs falls aimlessly to the ground,
only yesterday, it seems, it was a green bud in spring
that clung tenaciously to its tree for life
deriving its essence and giving back sustenance;
Only, tragically, it seems, to finally release its grip.
Blown, raked, and swept into a pile,
it is, seemingly, no more clinging or falling.
Looking back, it seems, it was only an illusion.
a thing, seemingly, that once never was.
a thing, seemingly, forever no more.
pondering a leaf, it seems the illusion is only an illusion.
thinking about what is beyond thought is still thought... Being able to stand perfectly free of the feeling of self is the start of one's spiritual journey, not its end.
[a glimpse of selflessness is still self-ful. The only way to get a glimpse of selflessness is to be unaware of it.]
mindfulness must be synonymous with dispelling the illusion of the self....one "takes the goal as the path," freedom from self is the very thing one practices.
consciousness is intrinsically free of self... the truth of nonduality, once glimpsed, is obvious and always available. self transcendence is the experience that there is no self to transcend.
the implied center of cognition and emotion simply falls away, and it is obvious that consciousness is never truly confined by what it knows. That which is aware of sadness is not sad. That which is aware of fear is not fearful.
thoughts and emotions arise in consciousness the way that images appear on the surface of a mirror.
[consciousness is the mirror, you are consciousness, you are the mirror]
Meditation doesn't entail the suppression of thoughts, but it does require we notice them as they arise and that we recognize their transitory nature
consciousness is free. Meditation is the practice of of finding this freedom, by breaking one's identification with the thoughts and emotions that arise, and to experience them just as they are.
"I" am not even an ingredient, necessary or not, of my own mind, much less of the universe.
selflessness is not a deep feature of consciousness; it is on the surface.
If you are in pain, there is a simple way out. Accept the pain as it arises and do not fight it. It is a transitory experience.
“The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self”. Albert Einstein
“A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.”
Albert Einstein
boredom - is simply a lack of attention
many people renounce the world because they cannot find a place in it
there is only consciousness and its contents; there is no inner self who is conscious.
The truth is that, whatever happens after death, it is possible to justify a life of spiritual practice and self-transcendence without pretending to know things we do not know.
Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness... Every waking moment - and even in our dreams - we struggle to direct the flow of sensation, emotion, and cognition toward states of consciousness we value.
the brain does exclude an extraordinary amount of information from consciousness.
One thing is certain: The mind is vaster and more fluid that our ordinary, waking consciousness suggests.
Happiness and suffering, however extreme, are mental events. The mind depends on the body, and the body upon the world, but everything good or bad that happens in your life must appear in consciousness to matter.
consciousness has no form because anything that would give it form must arise withing consciousness. Consciousness is simply the light which the contours of mind and body are known... Consciousness can appear to take shape for a time, but over time it is possible to recognize it never does.... Consciousness is itself divisible, as in the split-brain patients, but even in intact brains consciousness is blind and unaware of most of what the mind is doing. Everything we believe ourselves to be.... depends upon distinct processes that we are unaware of and don't fully understand, and are spread our over the whole brain.... The sense therefore that we are unified subjects - the unchanging thinker of our thoughts is an illusion. The self we experience can only be experienced in the present moment for it is a transitory experience. Each of us is identical to same principles that bring value to the universe
We are always and everywhere in the presence of reality. Indeed, the human mind is the most complex and subtle expression of reality that we have thus far experienced.
[There is nothing we think or do in this life or in this world, that can be undone in another life or another world. If there is a reality that is larger and more vast than the one we experience, then we are already a part of it.]
the urge to attain self-transcendence or any other mystical experience is a symptom of the very disease we want to cure.
Consciousness is already free of anything that remotely resembles a self - and there is nothing that you can do, as an illusory ego, to realize this.
most effort arises from the very illusion of bondage that one is seeking to overcome.
[If bondage to the self is an illusion, then how can mindfulness of the illusion free one from the bondage, the bondage was never real]
If freedom is possible, there must be some mode of ordinary consciousness in which it can be expressed?
[If "I" am going to die, who or what is the "I" that is going to die?]
"The mind is a bundle of thoughts. The thoughts arise because there is a thinker. The thinker is the ego. The ego, if sought, will automatically vanish." Ramana Maharshi
[ mind = thoughts (caused by) thinker; therefore, if thinker is sought, thinker vanishes, and thoughts vanish. If thoughts are sought, thoughts vanish and thinker vanishes]
Direct method = Reality is simply the loss of the ego. Destroy the ego by seeking its identity. Because ego is no entity it will automatically vanish and reality will shine forth by itself.
[the problem is reality is not simply the loss of the ego. In fact, the ego, the thinker, and the thoughts produced are an intricate part of the fabric of reality]
Consciousness is the prior condition of every experience; the self or ego is an illusory appearance within it; look closely for what you are calling "I," and the feeling of being a separate self will disappear; what remains, as a matter of experience, is a field of consciousness - free, undivided, and intrinsically uncontaminated by its ever-changing contents.
Today, a red-golden leafs falls aimlessly to the ground,
only yesterday, it seems, it was a green bud in spring
that clung tenaciously to its tree for life
deriving its essence and giving back sustenance;
Only, tragically, it seems, to finally release its grip.
Blown, raked, and swept into a pile,
it is, seemingly, no more clinging or falling.
Looking back, it seems, it was only an illusion.
a thing, seemingly, that once never was.
a thing, seemingly, forever no more.
pondering a leaf, it seems the illusion is only an illusion.
thinking about what is beyond thought is still thought... Being able to stand perfectly free of the feeling of self is the start of one's spiritual journey, not its end.
[a glimpse of selflessness is still self-ful. The only way to get a glimpse of selflessness is to be unaware of it.]
mindfulness must be synonymous with dispelling the illusion of the self....one "takes the goal as the path," freedom from self is the very thing one practices.
consciousness is intrinsically free of self... the truth of nonduality, once glimpsed, is obvious and always available. self transcendence is the experience that there is no self to transcend.
the implied center of cognition and emotion simply falls away, and it is obvious that consciousness is never truly confined by what it knows. That which is aware of sadness is not sad. That which is aware of fear is not fearful.
thoughts and emotions arise in consciousness the way that images appear on the surface of a mirror.
[consciousness is the mirror, you are consciousness, you are the mirror]
Meditation doesn't entail the suppression of thoughts, but it does require we notice them as they arise and that we recognize their transitory nature
consciousness is free. Meditation is the practice of of finding this freedom, by breaking one's identification with the thoughts and emotions that arise, and to experience them just as they are.
"I" am not even an ingredient, necessary or not, of my own mind, much less of the universe.
selflessness is not a deep feature of consciousness; it is on the surface.
If you are in pain, there is a simple way out. Accept the pain as it arises and do not fight it. It is a transitory experience.
“The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self”. Albert Einstein
“A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.”
Albert Einstein
boredom - is simply a lack of attention
many people renounce the world because they cannot find a place in it
there is only consciousness and its contents; there is no inner self who is conscious.
The truth is that, whatever happens after death, it is possible to justify a life of spiritual practice and self-transcendence without pretending to know things we do not know.
Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness... Every waking moment - and even in our dreams - we struggle to direct the flow of sensation, emotion, and cognition toward states of consciousness we value.
the brain does exclude an extraordinary amount of information from consciousness.
One thing is certain: The mind is vaster and more fluid that our ordinary, waking consciousness suggests.
Happiness and suffering, however extreme, are mental events. The mind depends on the body, and the body upon the world, but everything good or bad that happens in your life must appear in consciousness to matter.
consciousness has no form because anything that would give it form must arise withing consciousness. Consciousness is simply the light which the contours of mind and body are known... Consciousness can appear to take shape for a time, but over time it is possible to recognize it never does.... Consciousness is itself divisible, as in the split-brain patients, but even in intact brains consciousness is blind and unaware of most of what the mind is doing. Everything we believe ourselves to be.... depends upon distinct processes that we are unaware of and don't fully understand, and are spread our over the whole brain.... The sense therefore that we are unified subjects - the unchanging thinker of our thoughts is an illusion. The self we experience can only be experienced in the present moment for it is a transitory experience. Each of us is identical to same principles that bring value to the universe
We are always and everywhere in the presence of reality. Indeed, the human mind is the most complex and subtle expression of reality that we have thus far experienced.
[There is nothing we think or do in this life or in this world, that can be undone in another life or another world. If there is a reality that is larger and more vast than the one we experience, then we are already a part of it.]
Friday, November 17, 2017
Power Laws and The State of Being Stuck
A power law is often represented by an equation with an exponent:
Y=MX^B
Each letter represents a number. Y is a function (the result); X is the variable (the thing you can change); B is the order of scaling (the exponent); and M is a constant (unchanging).
One of the characteristics of a complex system is that the behavior of the system differs from the simple addition of its parts... “the whole seems to take on a life of its own, almost dissociated from the specific characteristics of its individual building blocks.” Geoffrey West
emergent behavior = collective outcome, in which a system manifests significantly different characteristics from those resulting from simply adding up all of the contributions of its individual constituent parts,
diminishing returns = the point where more input yields progressively less output
Future Value = (Present Value)(1+i)^n
https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2017/11/power-laws/
being stuck is part of the process.
Y=MX^B
Each letter represents a number. Y is a function (the result); X is the variable (the thing you can change); B is the order of scaling (the exponent); and M is a constant (unchanging).
One of the characteristics of a complex system is that the behavior of the system differs from the simple addition of its parts... “the whole seems to take on a life of its own, almost dissociated from the specific characteristics of its individual building blocks.” Geoffrey West
emergent behavior = collective outcome, in which a system manifests significantly different characteristics from those resulting from simply adding up all of the contributions of its individual constituent parts,
diminishing returns = the point where more input yields progressively less output
Future Value = (Present Value)(1+i)^n
https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2017/11/power-laws/
being stuck is part of the process.
“Then you have to stop,” Wiles said. “Let your mind relax a bit…. Your subconscious is making connections. And you start again—the next afternoon, the next day, the next week.”Patience, perseverance, acceptance—this is what defines a mathematician. (Andrew Wiles)
automaticity = monotonous productivity, a recipe, Method, the panacea, the answer key
grit = perseverance is a partly a matter of personality, of exhibiting the right characteristics: tenacity, determination, a sort of healthy native stubbornness.
fixed mindset = one’s intelligence and abilities are unchanging, stable traits.
growth mindset = effort fuels progress. The harder you work, the more you’ll learn. To be stuck is a transient state, which you overcome with patience and persistence.
perseverance is neither about personality (as with grit) nor belief (as with mindset). Rather, it’s about emotion.
delicate emotions of discovery = the immense release, the inner fireworks, of solving a problem at last.
Zero to One - Peter Thiel
the more we compete, the less we gain.
Higher education is the place where people who had big plans in high school get stuck in fierce rivalries with equally smart peers over conventional careers like management consulting and investment banking. For the privilege of being turned into conformists, students (or their families) pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in skyrocketing tuition that continues to outpace inflation. Why are we doing this to ourselves?
it’s competition, not business, that is like war: allegedly necessary, supposedly valiant, but ultimately destructive.
anyone would fight for things that matter; true heroes take their personal honor so seriously they will fight for things that don’t matter. This twisted logic is part of human nature, but it’s disastrous in business. If you can
recognize competition as a destructive force instead of a sign of value, you’re already more sane than most.
a great business is defined by its ability to generate cash flows in the future ... Simply stated, the value of a business today is the sum of all the money it will make in the future. (To properly value a business, you also have to discount those future cash flows to their present worth, since a given amount of money today is worth more than the same amount in the future.)...Comparing discounted cash flows shows the difference between low-growth businesses and highgrowth startups at its starkest. Most of the value of low-growth businesses is in the near term
For a company to be valuable it must grow and endure, ... will this business still be around a decade from now? Numbers alone won’t tell you the answer; instead you must think critically about the qualitative characteristics of your business.
Every startup is small at the start. Every monopoly dominates a large share of its market. Therefore, every startup should start with a very small market....The perfect target market for a startup is a small group of particular people concentrated together and served by few or no competitors.
You can expect the future to take a definite form or you can treat it as hazily uncertain. If you treat the
future as something definite, it makes sense to understand it in advance and to work to shape it. But if
you expect an indefinite future ruled by randomness, you’ll give up on trying to master it.
And monopoly businesses capture more value than millions of undifferentiated competitors
the power law—so named because exponential equations describe severely unequal distributions—is the law of the universe.
we don’t live in a normal world; we live under a power law
If you focus on diversification instead of single-minded pursuit of the very few companies that can become overwhelmingly valuable, you’ll miss those rare companies in the first place.
The biggest secret in venture capital is that the best investment in a successful fund equals or outperforms the entire rest of the fund combined.
Zero to One - Peter Thiel
the more we compete, the less we gain.
Higher education is the place where people who had big plans in high school get stuck in fierce rivalries with equally smart peers over conventional careers like management consulting and investment banking. For the privilege of being turned into conformists, students (or their families) pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in skyrocketing tuition that continues to outpace inflation. Why are we doing this to ourselves?
it’s competition, not business, that is like war: allegedly necessary, supposedly valiant, but ultimately destructive.
anyone would fight for things that matter; true heroes take their personal honor so seriously they will fight for things that don’t matter. This twisted logic is part of human nature, but it’s disastrous in business. If you can
recognize competition as a destructive force instead of a sign of value, you’re already more sane than most.
a great business is defined by its ability to generate cash flows in the future ... Simply stated, the value of a business today is the sum of all the money it will make in the future. (To properly value a business, you also have to discount those future cash flows to their present worth, since a given amount of money today is worth more than the same amount in the future.)...Comparing discounted cash flows shows the difference between low-growth businesses and highgrowth startups at its starkest. Most of the value of low-growth businesses is in the near term
For a company to be valuable it must grow and endure, ... will this business still be around a decade from now? Numbers alone won’t tell you the answer; instead you must think critically about the qualitative characteristics of your business.
Every startup is small at the start. Every monopoly dominates a large share of its market. Therefore, every startup should start with a very small market....The perfect target market for a startup is a small group of particular people concentrated together and served by few or no competitors.
You can expect the future to take a definite form or you can treat it as hazily uncertain. If you treat the
future as something definite, it makes sense to understand it in advance and to work to shape it. But if
you expect an indefinite future ruled by randomness, you’ll give up on trying to master it.
And monopoly businesses capture more value than millions of undifferentiated competitors
the power law—so named because exponential equations describe severely unequal distributions—is the law of the universe.
we don’t live in a normal world; we live under a power law
If you focus on diversification instead of single-minded pursuit of the very few companies that can become overwhelmingly valuable, you’ll miss those rare companies in the first place.
The biggest secret in venture capital is that the best investment in a successful fund equals or outperforms the entire rest of the fund combined.
since nobody wants to give up on an investment, VCs usually spend even more time on the most problematic companies than they do on the most obviously successful.
The power law is not just important to investors; rather, it’s important to everybody because
everybody is an investor.
Religious fundamentalism, for example, allows no middle ground for hard questions: there are easy truths that children are expected to rattle off, and then there are the mysteries of God, which can’t be explained. In between—the zone of hard truths—lies heresy.
Every injustice necessarily involves a moral truth that very few people recognize early on: in a democratic
society, a wrongful practice persists only when most people don’t perceive it to be unjust.
“if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” James Madison
anyone who doesn’t own stock options or draw a regular salary from your company is fundamentally misaligned.
A company does better the less it pays the CEO—that’s one of the single clearest patterns I’ve noticed from investing in hundreds of startups ... High pay incentivizes him to defend the status quo along with his salary, not to work with everyone else to surface problems and fix them aggressively. A cash-poor executive, by contrast, will focus on increasing the value of the company as a whole.
If a CEO doesn’t set an example by taking the lowest salary in the company, he can do the same thing
by drawing the highest salary. So long as that figure is still modest, it sets an effective ceiling on cash
compensation....high cash compensation teaches workers to claim value from the company as
it already exists instead of investing their time to create new value in the future. A cash bonus is
slightly better than a cash salary—at least it’s contingent on a job well done. But even so-called
incentive pay encourages short-term thinking and value grabbing. Any kind of cash is more about the
present than the future.... Equity is the one form of compensation that can effectively orient people toward
creating value in the future.
Religious fundamentalism, for example, allows no middle ground for hard questions: there are easy truths that children are expected to rattle off, and then there are the mysteries of God, which can’t be explained. In between—the zone of hard truths—lies heresy.
Every injustice necessarily involves a moral truth that very few people recognize early on: in a democratic
society, a wrongful practice persists only when most people don’t perceive it to be unjust.
“if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” James Madison
anyone who doesn’t own stock options or draw a regular salary from your company is fundamentally misaligned.
A company does better the less it pays the CEO—that’s one of the single clearest patterns I’ve noticed from investing in hundreds of startups ... High pay incentivizes him to defend the status quo along with his salary, not to work with everyone else to surface problems and fix them aggressively. A cash-poor executive, by contrast, will focus on increasing the value of the company as a whole.
If a CEO doesn’t set an example by taking the lowest salary in the company, he can do the same thing
by drawing the highest salary. So long as that figure is still modest, it sets an effective ceiling on cash
compensation....high cash compensation teaches workers to claim value from the company as
it already exists instead of investing their time to create new value in the future. A cash bonus is
slightly better than a cash salary—at least it’s contingent on a job well done. But even so-called
incentive pay encourages short-term thinking and value grabbing. Any kind of cash is more about the
present than the future.... Equity is the one form of compensation that can effectively orient people toward
creating value in the future.
The most valuable kind of company maintains an openness to invention that is most characteristic
of beginnings. This leads to a second, less obvious understanding of the founding: it lasts as long as a
company is creating new things, and it ends when creation stops.
no company has a culture; every company is a culture
job assignments aren’t just about the relationships between workers and tasks; they’re also about relationships between employees.... Eliminating competition makes it easier for everyone to
build the kinds of long-term relationships that transcend mere professionalism....every company is also its own ecosystem, and factional strife makes it vulnerable to outside threats. Internal conflict is like an
autoimmune disease: the technical cause of death may be pneumonia, but the real cause remains hidden from plain view.
The best startups might be considered slightly less extreme kinds of cults. The biggest difference is
that cults tend to be fanatically wrong about something important. People at a successful startup are
fanatically right about something those outside it have missed.
advertising matters because it works. It works on nerds, and it works
on you. You may think that you’re an exception; that your preferences are authentic, and advertising
only works on other people. It’s easy to resist the most obvious sales pitches, so we entertain a false
confidence in our own independence of mind. But advertising doesn’t exist to make you buy a product
right away; it exists to embed subtle impressions that will drive sales later. Anyone who can’t
acknowledge its likely effect on himself is doubly deceived.
Sales is..: an orchestrated campaign to change surface appearances without changing the underlying reality.
The most fundamental reason that even businesspeople underestimate the importance of sales is the systematic effort to hide it at every level of every field in a world secretly driven by it.
Superior sales and distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation.
The converse is not true.
Will a machine replace you?
Futurists can seem like they hope the answer is yes. Luddites are so worried about being replaced
that they would rather we stop building new technology altogether. Neither side questions the premise
that better computers will necessarily replace human workers. But that premise is wrong: computers
are complements for humans, not substitutes. The most valuable businesses of coming decades will be
built by entrepreneurs who seek to empower people rather than try to make them obsolete.
people compete for jobs and for resources; computers compete for neither.
computers are far more different from people than any two people are different from each other: men and machines are good at fundamentally different things. People have intentionality—we form plans and make decisions in complicated situations. We’re less good at making sense of enormous amounts of data. Computers are exactly the opposite: they excel at efficient data processing, but they struggle to make basic judgments that would be simple for any human
1. The Engineering Question
Can you create breakthrough technology instead of incremental improvements?
2. The Timing Question
Is now the right time to start your particular business?
3. The Monopoly Question
Are you starting with a big share of a small market?
4. The People Question
Do you have the right team?
5. The Distribution Question
Do you have a way to not just create but deliver your product?
6. The Durability Question
Will your market position be defensible 10 and 20 years into the future?
7. The Secret Question
Have you identified a unique opportunity that others don’t see?
cleantech executives were running around wearing suits and ties. This was a huge red flag, because real technologists wear T-shirts and jeans. So we instituted a blanket rule: pass on any company whose founders dressed up for pitch meetings.never invest in a tech CEO that wears a suit—got us to the truth a lot faster. The best sales is hidden. There’s nothing wrong with a CEO who can sell, but if he actually looks like a salesman, he’s probably bad at sales and worse at tech
job assignments aren’t just about the relationships between workers and tasks; they’re also about relationships between employees.... Eliminating competition makes it easier for everyone to
build the kinds of long-term relationships that transcend mere professionalism....every company is also its own ecosystem, and factional strife makes it vulnerable to outside threats. Internal conflict is like an
autoimmune disease: the technical cause of death may be pneumonia, but the real cause remains hidden from plain view.
The best startups might be considered slightly less extreme kinds of cults. The biggest difference is
that cults tend to be fanatically wrong about something important. People at a successful startup are
fanatically right about something those outside it have missed.
advertising matters because it works. It works on nerds, and it works
on you. You may think that you’re an exception; that your preferences are authentic, and advertising
only works on other people. It’s easy to resist the most obvious sales pitches, so we entertain a false
confidence in our own independence of mind. But advertising doesn’t exist to make you buy a product
right away; it exists to embed subtle impressions that will drive sales later. Anyone who can’t
acknowledge its likely effect on himself is doubly deceived.
Sales is..: an orchestrated campaign to change surface appearances without changing the underlying reality.
The most fundamental reason that even businesspeople underestimate the importance of sales is the systematic effort to hide it at every level of every field in a world secretly driven by it.
Superior sales and distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation.
The converse is not true.
Will a machine replace you?
Futurists can seem like they hope the answer is yes. Luddites are so worried about being replaced
that they would rather we stop building new technology altogether. Neither side questions the premise
that better computers will necessarily replace human workers. But that premise is wrong: computers
are complements for humans, not substitutes. The most valuable businesses of coming decades will be
built by entrepreneurs who seek to empower people rather than try to make them obsolete.
people compete for jobs and for resources; computers compete for neither.
computers are far more different from people than any two people are different from each other: men and machines are good at fundamentally different things. People have intentionality—we form plans and make decisions in complicated situations. We’re less good at making sense of enormous amounts of data. Computers are exactly the opposite: they excel at efficient data processing, but they struggle to make basic judgments that would be simple for any human
1. The Engineering Question
Can you create breakthrough technology instead of incremental improvements?
2. The Timing Question
Is now the right time to start your particular business?
3. The Monopoly Question
Are you starting with a big share of a small market?
4. The People Question
Do you have the right team?
5. The Distribution Question
Do you have a way to not just create but deliver your product?
6. The Durability Question
Will your market position be defensible 10 and 20 years into the future?
7. The Secret Question
Have you identified a unique opportunity that others don’t see?
cleantech executives were running around wearing suits and ties. This was a huge red flag, because real technologists wear T-shirts and jeans. So we instituted a blanket rule: pass on any company whose founders dressed up for pitch meetings.never invest in a tech CEO that wears a suit—got us to the truth a lot faster. The best sales is hidden. There’s nothing wrong with a CEO who can sell, but if he actually looks like a salesman, he’s probably bad at sales and worse at tech
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Jesus Is Poor
Sometimes it is worth remembering that Jesus did not just take on poverty. He was poor. He was born homeless to poor parents in a poor country occupied by a foreign power. Like most poor people unable to escape their poverty He lived his whole life as a poor person; and, like most people who dare speak out, he was killed. In the end, he was buried the way so many poor people are buried, in unmarked graves. If there is a resurrection story, then the miracle is the fact that a poor person's story is being told at all, and even occasionally listened to.
Thursday, November 9, 2017
The Illusion of Conscious Will - Daniel M. Wegner
The illusion of conscious will - Daniel M. Wegner
Will is a feeling. David Hume was sufficiently impressed by this idea that he proposed to define the will as “nothing but the internal impression we feel and are conscious of, when we knowingly give rise to any new motion of our body, or new perception of our mind”
the will is not some cause or force or motor in a person, but rather is the personal conscious feeling of such causing, forcing, or motoring.
Intentions, plans, and other thoughts can be experienced, and still the action is not willed if the person says it was not.
Each of us is quite comfortable with using these two very different ways of thinking about and explaining events – a physical, mechanical way and a psychological, mental way. In the mechanical explanatory system, people apply intuitive versions of physics to questions of causality, and so they think about causes and effects as events in the world. In the mental explanatory system, in turn, people apply implicit psychological theories to questions of causality, focusing on issues of conscious thoughts and the experience of will as they try to explain actions
The real causal sequence underlying human behavior involves a massively complicated set of mechanisms... Each of our actions is really the culmination of an intricate set of physical and mental processes, including psychological mechanisms that correspond to the traditional concept of will – in that they involve linkages between our thoughts and our actions. This is the empirical will. However, we do not see this. Instead, we readily accept the far easier explanation of our behavior that our Houdini-esque minds present to us: We think we did it.
The mind creates this continuous illusion because it really doesn’t know what causes its actions...The mind has a self-explanation mechanism that produces a roughly continuous sense that what is in consciousness is the cause of action – the phenomenal will – whereas in fact the mind actually cannot ever know itself well enough to be able to say what the causes of its actions are
To quote Spinoza in The Ethics: “Men are mistaken in thinking themselves free; their opinion is made up of consciousness of their own actions, and ignorance of the causes by which they are determined. Their idea of freedom, therefore, is simply their ignorance of any cause for their actions”
In the more contemporary phrasing of Minsky (1985, p. 306), “none of us enjoys the thought that what we do depends on processes we do not know; we prefer to attribute our choices to volition, will, or self-control.... Perhaps it would be more honest to say, ‘My decision was determined by internal forces I do not understand’”
The theory of apparent mental causation, then, is this: people experience conscious will when they interpret their own thought as the cause of their action
The real causes of human action are unconscious, so it is not surprising that behavior could often arise – as in automaticity experiments – without the person having conscious insight into its causation.... Such “controlled” processes may be less efficient than automatic processes and require more cognitive resources, but even if they occur along with an experience of control or conscious will, this experience is not a direct indication of their real causal influence. The experience of conscious will is just more likely to accompany inefficient processes than efficient ones because there is more time available prior to action for inefficient thoughts to become conscious, thus to prompt the formation of causal inferences linking thought and action.
Most of us think we understand the basic issue of free will and determinism. The question seems to be whether all our actions are determined by mechanisms beyond our control, or whether at least some of them are determined by our free choice
free will is a feeling, whereas determinism is a process. They are incommensurable.
The experience of will comes from having our actions follow our wishes, not from being able to do things that do not follow from anything. And, of course, we do not cause our wishes.
This deep intuitive feeling of conscious will is something that no amount of philosophical argument or research about psychological mechanisms can possibly dispel. Even though this experience is not an adequate theory of behavior causation, it needs to be acknowledged as an important characteristic of what it is like to be human.
Perhaps we have conscious will because it helps us to appreciate and remember what we are doing...Will, then, serves to accentuate and anchor an action in the body. This makes the action our own far more intensely than could a thought alone. Unlike simply saying “this act is mine,” the occurrence of conscious will brands the act deeply, associating the act with self through feeling, and so renders the act one’s own in a personal and memorable way. Will is a kind of authorship emotion
T. H. Huxley (1910) made the equation explicit: “Volition . . . is an emotion indicative of physical changes, not a cause of such changes. . . . " Will is a feeling, not unlike happiness or sadness or anger or anxiety or disgust.... Still, will has other characteristics of emotion, including an experiential component (how it feels), a cognitive component (what it means and the thoughts it brings to mind), and a physiological component (how the body responds). Although conscious will is not a classic emotion that people would immediately nominate when asked to think of an emotion, it has much in common with the emotions.
The experience of consciously willing an action belongs to the class of cognitive feelings described by Gerald Clore (1992). He points out that there is a set of experiences such as the feeling of knowing, the feeling of familiarity, or even the feeling of confusion, that serve as indicators of mental processes or states, and that thus inform us about the status of our own mental systems.
Conscious will is the emotion of authorship, a somatic marker (Damasio 1994) that authenticates the action’s owner as the self. With the feeling of doing an act, we get a conscious sensation of will attached to the action. Often, this marker is quite correct. In many cases, we have intentions that preview our action, and we draw causal inferences linking our thoughts and actions in ways that track quite well our own psychological processes.
But however we do calculate our complicity in moral actions, we then experience the emotional consequences and build up views of ourselves as certain kinds of moral individuals as a result. We come to think we are good or bad on the basis of our authorship emotion. Ultimately, our experience of conscious will may have more influence on our moral lives than does the actual truth of our behavior causation.
Sometimes how things seem is more important than what they are. This is true in theater, in art, in used car sales, in economics, and, it now turns out, in the scientific analysis of conscious will as well. The fact is, it seems to each of us that we have conscious will. It seems we have selves. It seems we have minds. It seems we are agents. It seems we cause what we do. Although it is sobering and ultimately accurate to call all this an illusion, it is a mistake to conclude that the illusory is trivial. To the contrary, the illusions piled atop apparent mental causation are the building blocks of human psychology and social life. It is only with the feeling of conscious will that we can begin to solve the problems of knowing who we are as individuals, of discerning what we can and cannot do, and of judging ourselves morally right or wrong for what we have done
One key theme of the book is the analysis of automatisms – actions experienced as occurring without conscious will.
My body is causally responsible for whatever effects emanate from it, whether it is falling down a flight of stairs, or pulling the trigger of a gun, but I, the person “inhabiting” this body, am morally responsible only for my actions. Again, who is this person and what is he doing in my body?
"Brains – or functional subsystems of brains – don’t interpret anything, they don’t make any inferences, and they don’t exert control. Only whole persons can be directed at the meaning of certain sentences (or of sentences describing chains of internal events), thereby attempting to interpret them. Only whole persons could establish inferences between mentally represented propositions. And, only whole persons can be directed at the fulfillment conditions defining certain goal-states, that is, only whole persons can truly make an attempt at controlling a certain state of affairs." Thomas Metzinger
"Probably brains are even more than that, namely, complex dynamical systems exhibiting something like a “liquid” architecture." Thomas Metzinger
"The “feeling” of will could then be not an illusion, but, rather, a nonconceptual form of selfknowledge – that is, the introspective knowledge that one right now is a system undergoing the internal transformation just described." Thomas Metzinger
"We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are" Anais Nin
Because having experiences of conscious will – whether they are correct or incorrect in any given instance – is a necessary step for assigning authorship to oneself, and so doing, fabricating the self, the experience is what creates the possibility of responsibility.... A person is constructed in the mind of the person, and, through a variety of communications and evidences, in the minds of others as well (cf. Dennett 1987).
We can argue all day about what caused a given action, but this is simply not the same argument as whether the person is responsible
"Prayer and Support" - a phrase that is intended to alleviate the pain and suffering of another person. It most effectively alleviates the pain and suffering of the one who is offering "prayer and support."(Mine)
Will is a feeling. David Hume was sufficiently impressed by this idea that he proposed to define the will as “nothing but the internal impression we feel and are conscious of, when we knowingly give rise to any new motion of our body, or new perception of our mind”
the will is not some cause or force or motor in a person, but rather is the personal conscious feeling of such causing, forcing, or motoring.
Intentions, plans, and other thoughts can be experienced, and still the action is not willed if the person says it was not.
Each of us is quite comfortable with using these two very different ways of thinking about and explaining events – a physical, mechanical way and a psychological, mental way. In the mechanical explanatory system, people apply intuitive versions of physics to questions of causality, and so they think about causes and effects as events in the world. In the mental explanatory system, in turn, people apply implicit psychological theories to questions of causality, focusing on issues of conscious thoughts and the experience of will as they try to explain actions
The real causal sequence underlying human behavior involves a massively complicated set of mechanisms... Each of our actions is really the culmination of an intricate set of physical and mental processes, including psychological mechanisms that correspond to the traditional concept of will – in that they involve linkages between our thoughts and our actions. This is the empirical will. However, we do not see this. Instead, we readily accept the far easier explanation of our behavior that our Houdini-esque minds present to us: We think we did it.
The mind creates this continuous illusion because it really doesn’t know what causes its actions...The mind has a self-explanation mechanism that produces a roughly continuous sense that what is in consciousness is the cause of action – the phenomenal will – whereas in fact the mind actually cannot ever know itself well enough to be able to say what the causes of its actions are
To quote Spinoza in The Ethics: “Men are mistaken in thinking themselves free; their opinion is made up of consciousness of their own actions, and ignorance of the causes by which they are determined. Their idea of freedom, therefore, is simply their ignorance of any cause for their actions”
In the more contemporary phrasing of Minsky (1985, p. 306), “none of us enjoys the thought that what we do depends on processes we do not know; we prefer to attribute our choices to volition, will, or self-control.... Perhaps it would be more honest to say, ‘My decision was determined by internal forces I do not understand’”
The theory of apparent mental causation, then, is this: people experience conscious will when they interpret their own thought as the cause of their action
The real causes of human action are unconscious, so it is not surprising that behavior could often arise – as in automaticity experiments – without the person having conscious insight into its causation.... Such “controlled” processes may be less efficient than automatic processes and require more cognitive resources, but even if they occur along with an experience of control or conscious will, this experience is not a direct indication of their real causal influence. The experience of conscious will is just more likely to accompany inefficient processes than efficient ones because there is more time available prior to action for inefficient thoughts to become conscious, thus to prompt the formation of causal inferences linking thought and action.
Most of us think we understand the basic issue of free will and determinism. The question seems to be whether all our actions are determined by mechanisms beyond our control, or whether at least some of them are determined by our free choice
free will is a feeling, whereas determinism is a process. They are incommensurable.
The experience of will comes from having our actions follow our wishes, not from being able to do things that do not follow from anything. And, of course, we do not cause our wishes.
This deep intuitive feeling of conscious will is something that no amount of philosophical argument or research about psychological mechanisms can possibly dispel. Even though this experience is not an adequate theory of behavior causation, it needs to be acknowledged as an important characteristic of what it is like to be human.
Perhaps we have conscious will because it helps us to appreciate and remember what we are doing...Will, then, serves to accentuate and anchor an action in the body. This makes the action our own far more intensely than could a thought alone. Unlike simply saying “this act is mine,” the occurrence of conscious will brands the act deeply, associating the act with self through feeling, and so renders the act one’s own in a personal and memorable way. Will is a kind of authorship emotion
T. H. Huxley (1910) made the equation explicit: “Volition . . . is an emotion indicative of physical changes, not a cause of such changes. . . . " Will is a feeling, not unlike happiness or sadness or anger or anxiety or disgust.... Still, will has other characteristics of emotion, including an experiential component (how it feels), a cognitive component (what it means and the thoughts it brings to mind), and a physiological component (how the body responds). Although conscious will is not a classic emotion that people would immediately nominate when asked to think of an emotion, it has much in common with the emotions.
The experience of consciously willing an action belongs to the class of cognitive feelings described by Gerald Clore (1992). He points out that there is a set of experiences such as the feeling of knowing, the feeling of familiarity, or even the feeling of confusion, that serve as indicators of mental processes or states, and that thus inform us about the status of our own mental systems.
Conscious will is the emotion of authorship, a somatic marker (Damasio 1994) that authenticates the action’s owner as the self. With the feeling of doing an act, we get a conscious sensation of will attached to the action. Often, this marker is quite correct. In many cases, we have intentions that preview our action, and we draw causal inferences linking our thoughts and actions in ways that track quite well our own psychological processes.
But however we do calculate our complicity in moral actions, we then experience the emotional consequences and build up views of ourselves as certain kinds of moral individuals as a result. We come to think we are good or bad on the basis of our authorship emotion. Ultimately, our experience of conscious will may have more influence on our moral lives than does the actual truth of our behavior causation.
Sometimes how things seem is more important than what they are. This is true in theater, in art, in used car sales, in economics, and, it now turns out, in the scientific analysis of conscious will as well. The fact is, it seems to each of us that we have conscious will. It seems we have selves. It seems we have minds. It seems we are agents. It seems we cause what we do. Although it is sobering and ultimately accurate to call all this an illusion, it is a mistake to conclude that the illusory is trivial. To the contrary, the illusions piled atop apparent mental causation are the building blocks of human psychology and social life. It is only with the feeling of conscious will that we can begin to solve the problems of knowing who we are as individuals, of discerning what we can and cannot do, and of judging ourselves morally right or wrong for what we have done
One key theme of the book is the analysis of automatisms – actions experienced as occurring without conscious will.
My body is causally responsible for whatever effects emanate from it, whether it is falling down a flight of stairs, or pulling the trigger of a gun, but I, the person “inhabiting” this body, am morally responsible only for my actions. Again, who is this person and what is he doing in my body?
"Brains – or functional subsystems of brains – don’t interpret anything, they don’t make any inferences, and they don’t exert control. Only whole persons can be directed at the meaning of certain sentences (or of sentences describing chains of internal events), thereby attempting to interpret them. Only whole persons could establish inferences between mentally represented propositions. And, only whole persons can be directed at the fulfillment conditions defining certain goal-states, that is, only whole persons can truly make an attempt at controlling a certain state of affairs." Thomas Metzinger
"Probably brains are even more than that, namely, complex dynamical systems exhibiting something like a “liquid” architecture." Thomas Metzinger
"The “feeling” of will could then be not an illusion, but, rather, a nonconceptual form of selfknowledge – that is, the introspective knowledge that one right now is a system undergoing the internal transformation just described." Thomas Metzinger
"We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are" Anais Nin
This is true because the experience of conscious will is involved
in the creation of the self. The feeling of doing establishes
a “doer,” not only authenticating the self but constructing the self from what was previously thin air (Wegner
2005).
As Jack & Robbins
note, “a genuine illusion remains compelling even
when the subject knows their experience is misleading.” (Anthony I. Jacka and Philip Robbins)..... each self must have been created sometime,
somewhere, somehow. Short of imagining eternal
souls, most of us recognize that there is a point in each human’s
development that marks the development of self. We
each undergo a transition from being an organism that behaves
to being a person who acts; and it is in this transition
that we begin to experience what our bodies do as flowing
from the prior thoughts of an entity we call “I.”
the products of mental processes may be knowable,
but the mental processes themselves are not “self-luminous,” .... The illusion of conscious will is the belief
that we are intrinsically informed of how our minds
cause our actions by the fact that we have an experience of
the causation that occurs in our minds.
If the experience
of conscious will is indeed connected in any but the most
capricious way to the causal sequence whereby actions occur,
it should not be mostly right but sometimes wrong. It
should be perfect. If the feeling of conscious will is intrinsically
right, informed somehow by the fact that it is the cause
of an action, it should lock on to that causal relationship and
always reflect it correctly....This logic requires that we draw an important inference.
From The feeling of conscious will can be mistaken,we must
conclude that the feeling of conscious will is never correct.
It is more parsimonious to assume that there is an action
production system and an authorship processing system –
one motor to make the actions, another to create the experience of willing them. The action production system does
the marvelous things of which humans are capable; it causes
behavior. The authorship processing system, meanwhile,
rumbles alongside the main machine, taking in all the information
that is relevant to determining which actions
should be ascribed to the self and which occur because of
outside events and other agents. Much of the time, the authorship
processing system gets it right: Feelings of conscious
will well up appropriately just as behaviors occur that
are causally traceable to the person’s brain and mind. Such
feelings ebb at other times when events happen that are
truly not authored by the person’s brain and mind. However,
this authorship processor is only loosely coupled to the
action production system, a kind of observer of the system
(cf. Gazzaniga 1988), so sometimes it can get things wrong.
This kind of cognitive mechanism seems likely to be something
that might reasonably have evolved to produce feelings
of conscious will in the human. Theorists who insist
that mistaken experiences of will and authentic experiences
of will can coexist in the same organism would have us believe
that instead of a self-knowing mechanism, the mind is
a monstrous hybrid of robot and soul.
Because having experiences of conscious will – whether they are correct or incorrect in any given instance – is a necessary step for assigning authorship to oneself, and so doing, fabricating the self, the experience is what creates the possibility of responsibility.... A person is constructed in the mind of the person, and, through a variety of communications and evidences, in the minds of others as well (cf. Dennett 1987).
We can argue all day about what caused a given action, but this is simply not the same argument as whether the person is responsible
"Prayer and Support" - a phrase that is intended to alleviate the pain and suffering of another person. It most effectively alleviates the pain and suffering of the one who is offering "prayer and support."(Mine)
Monday, November 6, 2017
America's Song
rat, tat, tat
thud, thud, thud
crying and waling
sobbing, and screaming
gnashing of teeth
There are the ribbons,
and the flowers, purple, red, and white
balloons flop aimlessly on a stick
pictures of smiling faces
cards, and candles and incense sticks
cotton candy and boxes of chocolates
and, of course, the flags waving in the wind,
always the waving flags.
Then there are the prayers
to whom? or what? where?
and the why's?
always, the why's?
the why's that are never answered.
and then the encores,
over again,
and again,
and again...
the song plays on
rat, tat, tat
thud, thud, thud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
