Some teachings important to me as a mystic.

[andy06shake]

That tiger is a real bitch sometime, whether it's 'real' or not.

Now, that could be an interesting inquery, if consciousness really is at the 'bottom' of the barrel, or not. But that would be pointless, since we still don't know much about consciousness itself, nonetheless entertaining.

To me, the 'ultimate' question is this : "Do you want to live?"

Because at the end of the day, no matter what reality is and isn't, and what one wishes it to be; if one wants to stay alive, there are basic needs to fulfill, and that's all there is to it.

Hence, the further study part. 

I think wanting to live is kind of hardwired into our consciousness.

Possibly one of the reasons we don't get to know what comes next, if anything.

After all being in possession to the answer to that question may very well change the dynamics of survival.

[IgnorantGod]

Hence, the further study part. 

[...]

After all being in possession to the answer to that question may very well change the dynamics of survival.

That could be the case. However, does an answer 'exist' where no question 'dwells'?

Is a 'question' and an 'answer' some basic unit within the fabric of reality? Or is it simply a construct within the 'present' specific context of human's consciousness?

Not that I know if such questions have answers, it's kinda circular. But then again, what isn't?

[andy06shake]

That could be the case. However, does an answer 'exist' where no question 'dwells'?

Is a 'question' and an 'answer' some basic unit within the fabric of reality? Or is it simply a construct within the 'present' specific context of human's consciousness?

Not that I know if such questions have answers, it's kinda circular. But then again, what isn't?

Yeah, circles and repetition everywhere.

I suppose what matters isn't escaping the circle.

But in noticing how each loop shifts slightly.

Now we are on to metaphysics, it was apt to happen. 

And always does when consciousness becomes the topic of discussion.  

[IgnorantGod]

[...]

Now we are on to metaphysics, it was apt to happen. 

And always does when consciousness becomes the topic of discussion.  

Of course, until someone finds a way to 'measure' consciousness, then it's in the realm of metaphysics.

Consciousness 'unextension' may just be within our current perceptual context. What we call width, height and depth, plus motion/time, all 'directional vectors'. As long as one cannot 'perceive' such vectorial property of consciousness, then it'll stay in metaphysics.

But then, thoughts do seems to have an extension in time, and a vectorial one at that, so maybe there's something there 'there'. We may simply not be looking from the 'right' angle or from the 'right' lens. Anybody wants to try the 'left' one?

[andy06shake]

Of course, until someone finds a way to 'measure' consciousness, then it's in the realm of metaphysics.

Consciousness 'unextension' may just be within our current perceptual context. What we call width, height and depth, plus motion/time, all 'directional vectors'. As long as one cannot 'perceive' such vectorial property of consciousness, then it'll stay in metaphysics.

But then, thoughts do seems to have an extension in time, and a vectorial one at that, so maybe there's something there 'there'. We may simply not be looking from the 'right' angle or from the 'right' lens. Anybody wants to try the 'left' one?

We can measure brain activity, but not consciousness itself, hence it doesn't really help much with the question is concerned. 

It all inference as opposed to actual facts.

[IgnorantGod]

We can measure brain activity, but not consciousness itself, hence it doesn't really help much with the question is concerned. 

It all inference as opposed to actual facts.

Facts are another fascinating facet. I think we can try to tie this whole bout with the OP 'control'. Asserting facts, defining them appears to follow some basic function, similar (if not the same) as the 'illusion' of control (if assumed as such).

There may be some underlying logical response to questions that 'waste' time. That is, from a survival perspective. Facts may well only be revelant within the context they are defined. And they do seem to change over time as research advances, and 'new' discoveries are 'found' from data, sometime unexpectedly, while looking for something else.

But then, unless there are actual data that suggest otherwise, arguing a 'fact' ends up being pointless, unless one can 'shift' or 'change' the context, the framework.

[quintessentone]

In my experience, it seems like the confident person "gets the girl," the desired job, and wins at sports. And seemingly the fearful person misses out on these things proportional to their insecurity. 

A new study points to quite the opposite, it appears:

"Berkeley study on being embarassed

The University of California, Berkeley's study on being embarrassed suggests that people who are easily embarrassed are also more trustworthy and generous. This finding is based on a series of experiments that used video testimonials, economic trust games, and surveys to gauge the relationship between embarrassment and pro-sociality. The study's findings are useful for people seeking cooperative and reliable team members and business partners, as well as for dating advice. Subjects who were more easily embarrassed reported higher levels of monogamy, indicating that moderate levels of embarrassment are signs of virtue"

Easily embarrassed? Study finds people will trust you more | Research UC Berkeley

It would appear those who are not afraid of showing signs of being real and vulnerable through physical signs of embarrassment in front of others are the clear winners in promoting what people find trustworthy and desirable. I wonder with any sports-related embarrassment of failure or loss do they get right back on that horse and keep trying vs. a confident/prideful person's reaction to failure?

[IgnorantGod]

 

Seems like tabloid click bait to me. They didn't even link the study, and hence one can't make up its own mind on the research, the data and the methodology.

As a self-proclaimed shy person, I'm not entirely excited about the prospect of people coming to me since I look more "trustworthy" with my showing shyness in public, all because of some article they read on the internet. Great!

[quintessentone]

Seems like tabloid click bait to me. They didn't even link the study, and hence one can't make up its own mind on the research, the data and the methodology.

As a self-proclaimed shy person, I'm not entirely excited about the prospect of people coming to me since I look more "trustworthy" with my showing shyness in public, all because of some article they read on the internet. Great!

The paper has a cost to access but here's a different write up about it to perhaps shed more light on the study of embarrassment, not shyness. Of course, they also say more research is needed into embarrassment and into over confidence.

"The researchers acknowledged the limits of their study, including the fact that they were reading a lot into the behaviour shown by participants during economic games, and that the findings could be different in different cultures. They also said there was a need for more research – for example, to find out whether it's possible for people to feign embarrassment and thereby benefit from the flattering assumptions onlookers make about easily embarrassed people."

Easily embarrassed people are more altruistic, and onlookers can tell as much | BPS

[IgnorantGod]

The paper has a cost but here's another write up about it to perhaps shed more light on their study of embarrassment, not shyness.

Easily embarrassed people are more altruistic, and onlookers can tell as much | BPS

Thanks for the correction.

However, there's still no data, nor methodology. Unless I pay them, I have to take their words for it? If they aren't going to be transparent, why even talk about it in a public space?

Seems a bit dishonest to me, but then, it's just my opinion. I like to look at actual data and methodology if I'm to take something seriously.