3) re: subminds, there were some mentions of Minsky/Culadasa assuming some "master submind" which is in control. Was a little confused by that, since a prominent theme for both is that there is no such special submind or homunculus, and that it's all decision-making by committee.
-
-
As I understand it, language such as "subduing subminds" refers to the dominant subminds subduing the rest, and is there mostly because one has to use the kind of homonculus-ish ontology because that's what people natively reason with until they've had enough no-self experiences.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @xuenay @OortCloudAtlas
You’re saying that no-self experience proves there isn’t a homonculus? (Not sure I follow, but I am jet lagged and slow :-)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It might be interesting to have a conversation about this, combining meditation and cogsci perspectives. Imo there are significant confusions in merging cognitivist anti-homuncular ideas and the anatman doctrine.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @_awbery_ and
The issues here are extremely tricky, but it’s possible that seeing parallels between the errors of cognitivism and the errors of abhidharma could help illuminate both.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
I’d like to understand this topic better, would love to have a conversation on The Homonculus Illuminated.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
So my interpretation of what "no-self experiences" really are, is an experiental insight of there being no homonculus or central submind that would be in charge, and just experience-moments being produced by individual subminds.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's what I think both Culadasa and Minsky are saying. Dennett too - his _Consciousness Explained_ is an explicitly anti-homonculus book, explaining the mind/brain in terms of something like subminds (though he doesn't call them that).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Part of what I've been slowly building up towards in my LW sequence, is a sketch of how the three marks are insights into how the brain actually works on a mechanistic level, and how e.g. both impermanence and no-self emerge as logical consequences of the submind architecture.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I think I might finally have laid down enough prerequisites to be able to write that article soon. If you people would want to comment on a draft, I'd love to hear your thoughts once I get that far.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
I’d be happy to give it a read-through!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.