Sociopath Community

I meant bummed out about the consequences of a reckless impulsivity, or acting out of character, although the cycling of moods surely does not help. I followed a few vlogs of people who had severe manic episodes to the point of psychosis...it can be an overwhelmingly intense experience with little to no capacity to put the breaks on behavior. One woman could not stop herself from spontaneously engaging in deep conversations with random people at places such as the supermarket. She was normally a reserved person, and regarded that behavior as inappropriate.

All of the research I've done on will and choice has led to the same conclusion that you have about it. The Illusion of Conscious Will wonderfully elucidates that perspective with concrete examples, if that sort of thing is of interest to you. The book deals more with the phenomenal sense of agency than psychological determinism. Psychological determinism is self-evident when perceptions are examined in relation to causality.

Well, I'm not even sure what I mean, come to think of it...  Firstly, I think it's a bit curious on a semantic level with a deliberate-looking use of "conscious" as the illusory.  Does that mean that unconscious will is the real operative agency in regard to volition/will?  Are you expressing free will, but only a portion is attributed to conscious participation?  Is it still free will if you are unaware of it, either partially or totally?  Of what sort would instinct be considered?  I guess this might be trying to untangle "awareness" from "consciousness," or just see if there's any useful distinction between the two terms in relation to this.

As an aside, but perhaps relevantly, I've wondered about some hypotheticals I tried to wrap my rational mind around.  It might be leaning a little into metaphysics, but it might be a path that's useful to wander a little way down.  Whatever it is that resides in us to give us the subjective experience of what we call "self" -- whatever it is that sees through these particular eyes rather than another's (seemingly, at least) -- might find it necessary to forget, ignore, deny the enormous limits (or even complete absence) of free will.  This way the experience it receives seems unique, personal, and authentic.  It takes a sort of paradoxical perspective of a single point and the totality.

Let's just put God into the picture, but only as a tool for illustration or for a lack of a better term that I can think of.  If you were an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being, what do you do in order to make whatever game or experience you want to enjoy have the quality of total immersion?  You make the script, set up the stage, wind up all the toys, then let it loose.  Hop into whatever aperture of experience you wish to, like a character in a story or whatever, and you can experience it all as that character, totally...  As if you (from perspective of the character) made the decisions, felt those feelings, did those things, but really it only feels that way and it has to feel that way in order for it to feel real.  You have to lie to yourself in order to pretend to be real.

I've probably stopped making sense, and I apologize.

Interesting.  Is there any truth to an "unconscious will?"

As in having a sense of agency for actions not deliberately performed?

"Well, I'm not even sure what I mean, come to think of it...  Firstly, I think it's a bit curious on a semantic level with a deliberate-looking use of "conscious" as the illusory.  Does that mean that unconscious will is the real operative agency in regard to volition/will?  Are you expressing free will, but only a portion is attributed to conscious participation?  Is it still free will if you are unaware of it, either partially or totally?  Of what sort would instinct be considered?  I guess this might be trying to untangle "awareness" from "consciousness," or just see if there's any useful distinction between the two terms in relation to this."

The free will debate is ongoing, and ranges in perspective from dualism to determinism. As far as I know, only soft determinism and hard determinism are reasonable standpoints if you take science seriously as a philosophy. Soft determinists believe that the universe operates according to strict mechanical causality (determinism), but humans still have the capacity for free will. Hard determinists do not believe free will is possible in a deterministic universe. If all things behave according to causal chain reactions, then how could there possibly be anything independent of the sequence of events that constitute phenomena? It is not consciousness that is regarded as illusory, it is the experiences of agency and volition that are dissected. I do not know where this all stands relative to what you are calling unconscious will, as I'm not certain on what you are using that term to describe.

Semantics can make things kind of foggy when it comes to questions such as the difference between awareness and consciousness. We are aware of the things we are conscious of, but we are not always aware we are conscious of them. At a point the discussion becomes riddle-like, and questions beget questions with answers out of focus. While that is entertaining, it's semantic at the core.

"As an aside, but perhaps relevantly, I've wondered about some hypotheticals I tried to wrap my rational mind around.  It might be leaning a little into metaphysics, but it might be a path that's useful to wander a little way down.  Whatever it is that resides in us to give us the subjective experience of what we call "self" -- whatever it is that sees through these particular eyes rather than another's (seemingly, at least) -- might find it necessary to forget, ignore, deny the enormous limits (or even complete absence) of free will.  This way the experience it receives seems unique, personal, and authentic.  It takes a sort of paradoxical perspective of a single point and the totality.

Let's just put God into the picture, but only as a tool for illustration or for a lack of a better term that I can think of.  If you were an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being, what do you do in order to make whatever game or experience you want to enjoy have the quality of total immersion?  You make the script, set up the stage, wind up all the toys, then let it loose.  Hop into whatever aperture of experience you wish to, like a character in a story or whatever, and you can experience it all as that character, totally...  As if you (from perspective of the character) made the decisions, felt those feelings, did those things, but really it only feels that way and it has to feel that way in order for it to feel real.  You have to lie to yourself in order to pretend to be real."

Yep. It is believed the experience of agency conferred some advantage which made it a favorable adaptation for natural selection. I think it's because sentience influences cognition in such a way that it makes self-preservation a personal affair.

I didn't have that idea what I was a kid. But then again no emos back then. When I started growing up, in music and such, the trend was that society made you mad, but inside you were the sane one.

My first encounter with how insanity could be "fun" was when I was around 11 and read a book and someone in it had an "artistic temperament", meaning they could  get pissed off fast, happy a while, gloomy a while. No idea why I found that appealing but I didn't yet know it could be part of any disorder, it was an old book with old terms for things.

I started having anxiety attacks in my preschool years. It took over two decades before I realized that could be part of some disorder. I had "always" been like that so I never questioned it. If someone had asked me if there was any romance about anxiety, I would have broken their nose.

Being crazy is about being different. It is about being creative. It is about having experiences people rarely have. It is feeling another depth. I think the last thing is the most important ones. People are so tired of everything superficial. Today's world is emotionally phobic. You should be happy but not too happy. And you should not care much. A lot of people think that is a soul killing format.

Then I think people want insanity without the downsides. But no, that does not happen.

I have ADD (which is not insanity but still...), and it gives and takes. It gives tons of new ideas. New combinations. New plans. It takes the actual skills to get something done. So to really use it, you have to fight hard.

That sounds similar to why Dr. Steel tried to be pro-insanity in his Manifesto:

Hello, my name is Dr. Phineas Waldolf Steel™ and I’m crazy. At least that’s what they tell me. It’s a real load off of my mind too. I mean you can get away with pretty much anything if you’re bonkers. It really relieves a lot of pressure and responsibility for me.

What I’ve noticed about being insane is the fact that most people really don’t want to acknowledge insanity. You can walk down the street talking to yourself (or little dancing bears that no one else sees) and people violently avoid eye contact. “Keep walking, don’t look at the crazy guy. Act like you don’t see him.” You become invisible because people just don’t want to deal with what they don’t understand. Life is too busy to try and stop someone from having a conversation with a fire hydrant. And being crazy isn’t illegal. You won’t even be placed into an insane asylum unless you try to hurt yourself or others (note: that also includes trying to burn down your ex-employer ' s toy company).

There are a lot of things I like about being crazy, but one of my favorites things has to be the fact that I don’t have to be anything that the world expects me to be. If I feel like crawling around on the floor and barking during a business meeting, so be it. I’m nuts. If I feel like spouting off conspiracy theories involving the Alien Illuminati or that I will one day become World Emperor, then that’s just to be expected. After all, I’m a complete wacko... and it ’ s rather convenient.

This guy had quite the cult following for a while, and many of them if they didn't appear crazy wanted to. Pair that with attempting to appeal to the Peter Pan syndrome among 90s kids through this notion of "building a Utopian Playland" and you'll see quite a few people lured into his musical clutches.