Ultimately, I need a lot of mental health assistance to get to a place where I can afford to deserve the mental health assistance that I need to get to that place, and I’m not comfortable being a leech on society.
What you know influences your behaviour. Not necessarily as much as you’d like right now, but that doesn’t mean the effect is null. Given that I’d start small, like stop making claims you rationally disagree with so that you don’t reinforce your negative thinking by giving it more credence than it deserves.
hrm. Historically, when I’ve done that, I’ve got called on it, and then socially sanctioned. (I.e., “you say you think , but then I see you doing . I’m going to stop believing anything you say until you start being more honest.”)
I think I may be bogged down with too many cached constraints, but I have no idea which ones to purge, let alone how to stop following them.
Also, knowledge is a tricky thing. While I’ve always followed something like a Bayesian heuristic for knowledge when left to my own devices, it’s reasonably easy to convince me to abandon it in favor of a kind of radical skepticism against my own thoughts and qualia.
Historically, when I’ve done that, I’ve got called on it, and then socially sanctioned. (I.e., “you say you think , but then I see you doing . I’m going to stop believing anything you say until you start being more honest.”)
In person that can certainly be a problem with some emotional/irrational people but luckily we can’t read facial expressions and body language here on the internet :)
I think I may be bogged down with too many cached constraints, but I have no idea which ones to purge, let alone how to stop following them.
It’s a possibility you can’t do that alone. I also suggest some of them would simply disappear were you in a different state of mind. That is, they might not be the actual problem, but caused by it, and fixing them from the wrong end could be incredibly ineffective.
favor of a kind of radical skepticism against my own thoughts and qualia
Would I be wrong to claim the uncertainty is more general than philosophical?
Would I be wrong to claim the uncertainty is more general than philosophical?
Yes, but non-philosophical language is somewhat lacking in terms to explain it. I can spend 10 hours in separate 1-hour sessions trying to explain to a therapist that I don’t feel comfortable asserting the existence of my own subjective experience and qualia, or I can simply say “do you know what the term ‘p-zombie’ means? Do you understand me if I say ‘I can’t maintain proper perception of my own qualia if someone else tells me that I’m faking my perceptions’?”—in the latter case, replacing “qualia” with “feelings” injects a nuance that typically leads a therapist in an unfruitful direction, but explaining that to them is tedious and difficult, especially considering that they’re the expert and I’m just the (damaged and delusional) patient.
At $200/session (or even at $25/session with co-pay, if by miracle of miracles you have insurance), all that explanatory time adds up, especially when you rely on (already-beleaguered) others for every dollar you spend. And even if it was free, it’s hours and hours (and thus weeks and weeks) of tedium before we actually GET anywhere, which is exhausting and discouraging (unless, of course, I’m faking all that).
“you say you think , but then I see you doing . I’m going to stop believing anything you say until you start being more honest.
That’s remarkably harsh. People tend to be reliable or unreliable in spots. Reliability should be modeled as % reliability in whatever part of life there’s evidence for.
That’s remarkably harsh. People tend to be reliable or unreliable in spots. Reliability should be modeled as % reliability in whatever part of life there’s evidence for.
I don’t really see it as my place to judge what’s harsh and what isn’t; we work with the culture we’re given. If that kind of criticism is the norm, then who am I to say that it’s harsh?
You don’t really know that, do you?
In this circumstance, it doesn’t seem particularly relevant what I “know”; what matters is how I behave.
What you know influences your behaviour. Not necessarily as much as you’d like right now, but that doesn’t mean the effect is null. Given that I’d start small, like stop making claims you rationally disagree with so that you don’t reinforce your negative thinking by giving it more credence than it deserves.
hrm. Historically, when I’ve done that, I’ve got called on it, and then socially sanctioned. (I.e., “you say you think , but then I see you doing . I’m going to stop believing anything you say until you start being more honest.”)
I think I may be bogged down with too many cached constraints, but I have no idea which ones to purge, let alone how to stop following them.
Also, knowledge is a tricky thing. While I’ve always followed something like a Bayesian heuristic for knowledge when left to my own devices, it’s reasonably easy to convince me to abandon it in favor of a kind of radical skepticism against my own thoughts and qualia.
In person that can certainly be a problem with some emotional/irrational people but luckily we can’t read facial expressions and body language here on the internet :)
It’s a possibility you can’t do that alone. I also suggest some of them would simply disappear were you in a different state of mind. That is, they might not be the actual problem, but caused by it, and fixing them from the wrong end could be incredibly ineffective.
Would I be wrong to claim the uncertainty is more general than philosophical?
Yes, but non-philosophical language is somewhat lacking in terms to explain it. I can spend 10 hours in separate 1-hour sessions trying to explain to a therapist that I don’t feel comfortable asserting the existence of my own subjective experience and qualia, or I can simply say “do you know what the term ‘p-zombie’ means? Do you understand me if I say ‘I can’t maintain proper perception of my own qualia if someone else tells me that I’m faking my perceptions’?”—in the latter case, replacing “qualia” with “feelings” injects a nuance that typically leads a therapist in an unfruitful direction, but explaining that to them is tedious and difficult, especially considering that they’re the expert and I’m just the (damaged and delusional) patient.
At $200/session (or even at $25/session with co-pay, if by miracle of miracles you have insurance), all that explanatory time adds up, especially when you rely on (already-beleaguered) others for every dollar you spend. And even if it was free, it’s hours and hours (and thus weeks and weeks) of tedium before we actually GET anywhere, which is exhausting and discouraging (unless, of course, I’m faking all that).
That’s remarkably harsh. People tend to be reliable or unreliable in spots. Reliability should be modeled as % reliability in whatever part of life there’s evidence for.
I don’t really see it as my place to judge what’s harsh and what isn’t; we work with the culture we’re given. If that kind of criticism is the norm, then who am I to say that it’s harsh?
I don’t think that particular criticism is common in the culture, or at least I’ve never seen it before.