Relationships between Schizophrenia and the God

quoteDr=“bahman”]

Let me ask you one question: How mind can cheat itself? To say that we experience something coherent which does not exist objectively means that our minds are in charge of producing fake experiences. This means that mind has to cheat itself without being aware of it which is absurd.
[/quote]
Not quite!

In a partially repressed self concept, the awareness becomes temporary shut off from it, creating a partial image/content. At first the split still is pseudo conscious of the content, but repeated occurance shift the mean ing(structure). The absurd forms of theater, for instance can create a dramatic method of utilizing this partiality.

An example is-6 characters in search of an author.if not utilized , the character(s ) may stay on the level
multiplicity, nominally creating simplex solutions, or , more dynamically , multiple person utilizations.

Multiples are less indigenous because they can sustain credible interaction, even subliminally.

Perhaps this characterisation is more evident when more integrated characters can be ‘called out’.

Are you trying to say that a brain in some cases may causes two or more selves which one self cheats another self by creating illusions? There must be an extra self which is aware of what is doing if created illusions are coherent. If that is true then why does one self always cheat another self? How does one self have ability to create illusion? Do you have ability to create illusion? How does one self learn to create illusion? Why never two selves collaborate (instead one always cheat another)?

I think schizophrenia is phenomenally partially caused at a level of complete lack of integration.
Multiple personality may have a hidden link with it but merely tangentially, and not substantially. Or, the opposite, where the content itself is sacrificed.

The reduction (regression) in dissociative disorder has a limit, tangentially limited, (partially) at a level of abstraction( of the cognitive and identifiable level of the personality) This secondary presence of the process, is typified by the borderline of the personality.

Borderline can at times manifest a complete melt down, but it is reactive to outside stimuli, and not stuck in an internal fiasco.

Now to Your question:

“Are you trying to say that a brain in some cases may causes two or more selves which one self cheats another self by creating illusions? There must be an extra self which is aware of what is doing if created illusions are coherent. If that is true then why does one self always cheat another self? How does one self have ability to create illusion? Do you have ability to create illusion? How does one self learn to create illusion? Why never two selves collaborate (instead one always cheat another)?”

Coherence within and without levels of consciousness may determine the real level of objectivity between competing ‘realities’.

It is not as if an illusion is based on a different paradigm of objectivity, it is merely the level of apprehension which determines a cognative cohesion.

Both levels may be understood , or/ and perceived similarly in which case the verbal cues cause pull toward the conscious understanding ( in sight ) whereas the dramatic pre-cognative episode, prevail a more inter -porous lack of borders.

Illusion is learned as a creative tool of re-differentiating content around the tangent (for lack of a better term), by willfully repeating structural variance.

The illusions become defense apparati, where y they attach more significant autonomous pathways, such as described by Wittgenstein as ‘games’ built on resemblance rather then identity.

“How does one develop this sense instead of a collaboration?”

It depends on the will, to power such a system, that effects the power to will such. The latter was called neuroaesthenia, for the primary symptom of lack of power , or, energy.

Power is derived further on in symbolic effect to will, whereas will stays more on the level of affect.

The illusion to falsify defensively becomes more pronounced as the regression continues to repress the cognative sense of difference into less abstract ( bless his soul) , more formal and more linearly contraindicated content.

There is no real nexus between the psychological one and many (similarly, in philosophical universals , there appear no transandentally cognitive object-therefore it has to be presupposed-just like the saying goes, if god did not exist, it would have had to be invented)

“Why never two selves collaborate (instead one always cheat another)?”

This is the most difficult question, that’s why I left it to the last.

Two selves collaborate when there is an opportunity to do so. If one self is not conscious of a relationship to the other, but is aware of the other, then there is a chance of collaboration. But if one is not conscious of it, it uses other methods , such as trickery, not necessarily to invent another persona, but try to reintegrate with a partially affected semblance.

It really is quite a trick, since the deeply felt inductive lack of cohesion, needs a more general mode of objective sense of identifying motives for defensive postures.

Deep defenses are much more difficult to recover with any account of specificity, it is much more of a wild card, and as such, is more prone to suspensions of validity, as far as using presumtion.

Such presumptive tactics try to produce artificially structured rationalizations., wider in scope. This widening presents the additional problem with how consciously will ful, rather then automatic-axiomatic it is.

Philosophers at times are accused of hiding ontic psychologic specificity, as regards will for choice, by covering it with ontological platitudes.

This can be a form if dissection to the problem of power as energy to enable the formation of the will, and is interpreted as a weakness sans sufficient power for integration.

For with insight that is more peripheral then schematic, such tactics are learnable as partial integrative, and as that goes, simulation on lower level mimic becomes available as the last ditch salvigable effort to protect what little is left of the impoverished content.
Others, not so lucky, fall into total basket cases, forever untouchable and absolutely self contained.

I am talking with my other self right now. He doesn’t collaborate. These selves are different from us, us being individuals each with a body. That is true because one brain can produce only one physical state corresponding to only one self. There cannot be more than one physical state because the electromagnetic field which generates self is an self-interacting entity.

Sure the same body , but the electromagnetic brain can change into a different state of mind!
There is no argument about the difference imagined or illusioned about the brain/mind difference, it has had quite a distinctive history.

No. The electromagnetic field is a self-interacting field. One field, one state.

One field and one state, fixed, and changeless?
Yes through time, then the field and the state really is a misnomer, rather it is one state through one field at a time, in the present time.
Since past and future times are indeterminate, change can not be a feature of quantitative change. However there are qualitative changes through different states , the field can be inferred as variable.
Self intrapersonal interaction is not quantifiably differ from inter personal interaction, (not measurable effectively).
The relationship is more relevant to an absolute mode of modeling , as an intermediary albeit remote object. such as god.

You need two separate electromagnetic fields in order to have two different selves. This requires that electromagnetic field to be zero at the border between the fields. This way, you could only have two non-interacting fields (since electromagnetic filed is zero at the border). The electromagnetic field has to be different from zero if you want to have two interacting fields. But you have one continuous field when the electromagnetic field is not zero at the border. Therefore, one brain one self.

In fact the problem of separated selves is a challenge for materialism.

  1. A demonstration of materiality of showing absolute zero (and infinity ) would be necessary ascertain (and discern) acting from interacting at the border.; is one possible derivitive with the problem.

If not shown as somehow derived, may lead to the the idea that such is contrived.

2.Basically saw the light:

Between the magnet and electric flow, is an unavoidable interaction.
The brain wave as energy, manifested by the immeasurability of pre ception, versus the carrier of it’s manifestation-the velocity of light, is a measure and indefinite calibration ( relative) .

Therefore the two, are always one.
The difference between one and the other, does not measure in real as opposed to inner qualification or outer calibration.

  1. So as a consequence the result of that indifference, there are the various emtying of certain structural (cognitive transfers of simplification, into appearances of cognitive representations) Here artificially installed memory chips may take up the slack - by a combined natural and AI objects. Regulation of the transaction ( inner-outer) is increasingly shifting toward simulated intelligence…

In and out of the garbage of borders

ref:

Symbolic form and gestalt - a creative tension. Ernst Cassirer’s contribution to a ‘Matrix of mental formation’.

Symbolic form and gestalt - a creative tension. Ernst Cassirer’s contribution to a ‘Matrix of mental formation’.

Abstract

In 1894 philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (Dilthey 1924/1894) initiated a public debate when he accused the empirical research strategies of Psychology (and Psychiatry) of failing to grasp the structural content of mental existence. What was felt as blame in those days has grown to a matter of scandal as Dilthey’s allegations still properly describe the state of clinical psychiatry and psychopathological approach-more than a hundred years later. In the early 20th century Germany saw numerous efforts towards philosophically orientated research into the structure of the conscious mind. Amongst the prominent philosophies influencing this research were Husserl’s phenomenology of “logical experiences” (Husserl 1984/1901) and Natorp’s quest for a “logos of psyche”,(Natorp 1965/1912) by which the formation of mind and operational structures of thought and reflection should be determined. Arthur Kronfeld was one of the few psychiatrists to face this demand, and it was upon him to promote a radical change in clinical practice. In 1920 he made the suggestion to trace back mental performance to ontologically irreducible qualities to secure the logic and the theory of psychiatry. Ernst Cassirer’s project to analyse “the different basic forms of world understanding” and to establish “a structure of mental formation” (Formenlehre des Geistes) can well be seen as part of this more general debate. Nonetheless, Cassirer altered and widened this approach by stating that the ongoing change of mental frame-which is a unique quality of mankind, as well as his flexibility and ability to create future and realms of possibility-can only emerge from a broader knowledge about relational order. Those skills are grounded in man’s ability to expand mental terms and settings of cognition beyond the borders of language to even more abstract spheres, thus claiming that a system of “invariants of experi-ence” (Invariantensystem der Erfahrung) is an integral trait of human cognition (Pluemacher/Sandkuehler 2003). With regards to Cassirer-the key to understanding the conscious mind (and thus psychopathology) lies in the persistent change from terms of “substance” to terms of “function” and the different symbolic levels …

For those who’s enthusiasm is double their doubt.

That’s true #-o

Is it? How is it ? True.

Hey kk23wong,

Sorry only rejoined the site after a prolonged absence. You said in the opening post:

Two things.

  1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet I give this link not really arguing about whether or not the ‘god helmet’ does exactly what its creator says it does, simply to point up that there are areas of the brain which can produce the feeling of a godlike presence, on ‘command’.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo[/youtube]
Peoples’ brains basically hallucinate all the time. We don’t just hallucinate reality, we, when planning our actions, hallucinate possible future realities very very fast, and then fit the most beneficial one into our principle ‘hallucination’ of reality. There are a lot more complicated steps to the process, but that’s a basic summary.

One of the most important things our brains do is to label one of these multitude of hallucinations “hallucination zero” - reality.

With most people, this mechanism works fine. With schitzophrenia, this mechanism is faulty. It sometimes labels hallucinations that have wholly arisen in the brain, with no outside origin, as reality. What may have begun as a daydream, or a fragment of a memory, is treated as real, and acted upon. These can be anything, a smell, a taste, a vision, a voice.

The simplest explaination for your symptoms are these.

Tab, how may Cassirer fit in here and this:

"For those who’s enthusiasm is double their doubt.

That’s true #-o"

{Course, answering or not is no indication of whatever} - meno’ s citation

Meh, some things require philosophy, some things don’t. This thread is ‘some things don’t’ thread.

I tend to agree , but one never knows here. , where multiple personae may represent the others, as to where the thing comes from or, where it’s heading. It may be a case of misdiagnosis, especially coming from other regions.

You have a spot on your face. It’s a spot. Not a cancer, not a transdimensional portal to another world, not the face of the buddha. It’s a spot.

If you keep on picking away at it, all you are doing is prolonging the time it takes to heal, and giving yourself a scar.

Best thing to do is just put some cream on and forget about it.

Soon enough it’s all better.

sup, wong… bows

you’re in a difficult situation bro because you can’t know for sure whether you’re crazy or not. for all you know you could be a prophet or something. so what we gotta do is work out a safe and rational position for you to take while this shit is going down in your head. so i’m gonna offer you a line of reasoning that’ll get you in good with god (if he exists), as well as keep you straight if he doesn’t.

rule number one: no reasonable god would ever speak to a human being. and i’ll tell you why. god knows that you wouldn’t be able to trust a voice in your head… and not only that… to do so would be in direct violation of the principles of reason he designed you to have (which you exercise in your distrust). god wouldn’t commit such a gaffe, see. so you can be sure the voice wasn’t god’s.

next up. spirits and shit. can’t trust them either, and i’ll you why. if we’ve ruled out the possibility of the voice being god’s, but maintain the possibility of it being the voice of a spirit, we’ve got a problem.

premise one: if there’s only one spirit that exists, and this spirit isn’t god’s, then we have a subordinate spirit that can’t be trusted.

premise two: if there are multiple spirits, then we can’t be sure the spirit who talked to us is the one that’s right.

same problem socrates pointed out to the greeks when they were discussing the arguments between their gods. you can’t trust any of em.

so this leaves us with a genuine hallucination, in which case you’re gonna be okay. this just means that your brain is talking to itself… and as weird as this may seem, it’s perfectly cool as long as your brain doesn’t tell your brain to do something that’ll get you arrested.

hope this helps. bows

Modernity pathologizes spontaneous mental imagery of the soul. That’s kind of fucked up. No?