Is it possible to overcome the side of oneself which is "animal"?

The birth of consciousness and self awareness was the death of the animal

Attached: 1549493416367.png (641x541, 279K)

>the side of oneself which is "animal"

They really got to you didn’t they
I’m sorry. I hope you find Christ soon

Attached: F82B5136-D16F-47B4-BEF8-972DF582DC0B.jpg (597x597, 234K)

Yes but in order to do that you need to be able to stop thinking. I don't mean all together, but merely when you want to. If you can't just stop thinking, then you are powerless to be aware enough to catch the emotions and forced thoughts of the brain in order to realize those thoughts are not coming from you. When you feel anger, then have thoughts that follow which form a negative thought pattern, try to stop thinking immediately and realize the on-coming thoughts are not your own but only an attack from the inner mechanism of your mind as an attempt to force you to identify with the body and physical mind. It is possible to passively observe these thoughts without giving into them and acting as if you must think these thoughts over and over as the negativity grows. You have the power to stop them and not give in. Only then can you be fully present in the moment.

First of all, make sure you know what animals are like. They come in many shapes and forms, across times and places. They're not as limited as you might imagine. In fact, to find out about this is proof of the limitations of reason.
You must learn to know animals. Look at birds. Look at dogs, cats. Look at insects.
What you want to resist are the aspects of yourself that have become obstacles for your life at large - I presume. These would be addiction, attention-seeking, neediness and purposelessness, powerful desires that overcome you; and your desire to overcome them. Fate.
You want to triumph. It's not a bad goal. The cheaters, the current winners, the evil losers - they'd have you believe it is.
Believe in yourself. No one else will.

What a dumb response

You love to be bullied.

That does not really say anything, it simplifies reason and desire to two extremes which never exist on their own, abit better if you just make it a single statement and cut bullshit.

You desire reason so you seek and and practice reason.

The animal side is the fun part. Sounds lame to get rid of it.

Attached: AFEF49CC-B95F-4996-B11C-4CE1F49070EC.jpg (634x857, 54K)

Refute it or shut the hell up

I enjoy the howls of dismay, I think.

Attached: 0EAFB93B-8346-4D97-84EB-ABD8A2C48631.jpg (1000x1000, 108K)

It's a pretty unpractical answer because while I wont be in a state of being animistic I also won't be human so it's not preserving the human side

Ur a fucking retard

Refute what you dumb bitch, there wasn't an argument there to re-
Oh who am I kidding? I love you butterfly, will you please be my wife(male)?

One could say that the animal is all there is is. The only way to escape the worm, the reptile and the monkey is to eject the mind from corporeal existence via self-obliteration.

Note that desire is inherent. And you posit seeking reason is result of innate desire. A boy raised by wolves in total isolation will still seek reason? He will have other desires, for sure.

Whether he will seek reason however, is the question I'm asking.

I posit that people seek reason as they've learned it's an aid to fullfil their actual desires - happyness, power, lust, whatever. There's no reason for desired reason's sake. That would be intellectual masturbation, a perverted fetishization of reason, typically not labeled as reason anymore (non-original thought, circlejerking etc).

Not my problem

Your resistance is part of your impulses.

I suppose music, prayer, fasting, the ability to not be tempted would suffice?

yes. and it will bring you much gains. however sometimes its fine to let the animal out.

Join chamber 0f light and ascend with us! dizc0rd:: BKJC8ss

I get what you are saying, I just do not agree with it.

We can say with a fair amount of certainty that reason is not the sole domain of humans, it exists in the wild and wolfboy would likely seek reason, he would just be more pragmatic about it than the cityboy. Reason is not something we created.

>practical wolfboy
Yes, all desires are fulfilled by "reason" one way or another. Wolfboy horny, wolfboy rape the girl. I suppose that's reasonable thought. In framework of "Can reason overcome desire?" it means that desire has won over reason.

Conversely, when a wolfboy elaborately woos the female, it's triumph of reason over desire. Likewise if he simply defers this desire in favor of other one. The desire was still dealt with, but reason was at the forefront to accomplish this, not mere muscle memory for "grab her by the pussy".

Sure, and reason exists at an even higher level than that in nature, more than just trial and error and reason triumphing over desire.
cosmosmagazine.com/biology/australian-raptors-start-fires-to-flush-out-prey

god

It’s ur own reasoning I’d say yes it’s your problem you fucking imbecile
If you can’t contribute something resembling coherency please SHUT THE FUCK UP

>tool use by animals
Mimicry and even self-awareness is not human reason (though it is a necessary prerequisite). Human reason is ensemble of logic, understanding of causality, planning, interpretation of facts and systems. Animals, and I dare say our wolfboy, don't posses human reason (at first). Reason is culturally acquired capacity for "common sense". Only social animals with extremely well developed language for cultural osmosis can ever hope to posses reason.

nah can’t do it. try holding your eyes open while you sneeze if you don’t believe me

hahaha

But why would you opt for doing that.

You have left philosophy and entered religion, might as well say devine intervention or intelligent design. You have no actual proof it is mimicry, just assumption, you are blinded by your desire to believe humans are special all the while as science studies animal behaviors in greater depth, that difference gets keeps getting smaller.

This is one of my big issues with much philosophy, it so often makes these massive assumptions or relies on science to back it up in shaky ways, this is not needed for the task at hand, trying day 'we are special' is stupid and useless and exactly that circle jerk previously memtioned.

We are all connected to the universal intelligence of the cosmos.

If you have not developed nous which thereby allows you to grasp arachai, you will continue being an unreasonable plebian, as you have just revealed yourself to be.

In short, humans have big brains, big brains connect to the bigger picture and are able to notice logical patterns in the universe and categorically use speech to describe phenomena.

And you, well I highly suggest you spend more time reading and thinking.

Start with the Greeks

Attached: 1554052381062.jpg (960x874, 89K)

>recategorize
incorrect usage

Haha, more assumption, when intelligence fails insult prevails.

>or shut the hell up
You're a hero to the small-minded.

Reason and logic are feelings that humans have about the universe. They do not make us different from or put us above other animals on earth.

Animals are in a state of constant rage, they strive to be human.

Empiricism of animal tool use is hardly "religion". You can pretty accurately measure animal capacity for reason and creative thinking. You can say that magpies and monkeys can, with plenty of leeway, be said to posses reason, but hardly to such a degree for it to override their animalistic drive - only humans do that.

Humans are not special in particular. They're just the ones who happened to evolve past threshold of language/memetics it can be used to process abstract symbols. Chimps are just IQ 50 humans. Just as humans with severe retardation, they do have capacity for "reason" far above most other animals, but they're still vastly driven by impulses, below threshold to process abstract planned action.

>only humans do that.
False. See Such blatantly obvious mistakes like this... I can't help but think this thread is full of migrants from /sci/ or /his/.

Priority ordering of impulses (late reward) is among things that reason does. Sure that wants are ultimately impetus for reason, but there's elaborate hiearchy (majority of wants are in fact, symbolic, result of other wants, desire sitting at the bottom of the pyramid). This is in stark contrast of being blindly driven by lizard brain impulses, that's pretty much the opposite of reason.
There is a spectrum of this, of course, and the threshold for "human" is where majority of impulses are managed by a memetically transferred system, as opposed to direct drive by instinct and limited parent-offspring mimicry.

Thanks for the elaboration, but it doesn't dispute what I said at all. Reason is as much a part of our "animalistic drive" as the lack thereof is a part of other animals' "animalistic drives."

>Reason is as much a part of our "animalistic drive" as the lack thereof is a part of other animals' "animalistic drives."
This is a reductionist stance. "All reason is ultimately rooted in impulse", the reductionist fallacy lies in that you ignore the massive symbolic system inbetween which IS the "reason" itself.

Just because ruler is ultimately driven by the wants of his subjects in somewhat absurd reductionist sense, doesn't mean he's subservient to them. He's the decisive factor in the end, not the drives.

>This is a reductionist stance.
I'm not being reductionist at all. You've just introduced something that doesn't belong in the first place, namely the concept of a "non-animalistic drive" that you are subtly pushing for. So me clarifying this doesn't make me reductionist.

>the massive symbolic system inbetween which IS the "reason" itself.
Such a system doesn't exist in the world. None of us interact with "symbols" at any point in time. We are feeling creatures; the idea that there is an appearance and a true reality behind it is merely a feeling of ours. A feeling doesn't mean it's the case.

>He's the decisive factor in the end, not the drives.
Your analogy doesn't even fit. There is no "master and slave" relationship between you and your drives. The drives are you and vice versa. When you rule, you rule THROUGH your drives — not against them.

>None of us interact with "symbols" at any point in time.
It's commonly known as inner dialogue and spatial imagination. It's when you think before you act. Aka, act reasonably. You can bash on the iron bars like monkey does (direct drive), or lockpick the door (abstract symbol processing). You have your initial impulse and biases and "feelings" as input. But you symbolically process it and decide on action, instead of acting impulsively.

>There is no "master and slave" relationship between you and your drives
Master/slave dialectic fully apply. Master is limited in his action by what the slave needs. Yet slave must obey the master. Furthermore, master can't exist without slave. Slave alone can exist, but he acts like an animal as there's no master telling him what to do.

>I'm not being reductionist at all.
>non-animalistic drive
There's no such a thing. All drives above the pyramid base instincts are symbolic wants, ie reason acting upon reason, forming a hiearchy. If you want to eat, you either steal the food (animalistic drive), or earn money to get the food (symbolic want). This works within the learned memetics of "you need money to eat". Animals can process symbols to only extremely limited degree, most don't at all. When you put an equal sign between instinctual need and want, you end up with absurdity (wanting money is animalistic!).

All of hard earned empirical data is proven wrong everytime someone comes back from long term studies of animals in the wild. We have learned out tests to faulty as well as possibly out metric, ourselves. You are grossly out of date on your studies regarding animal behavior.

>But you symbolically process it
"Symbolically" here is utterly meaningless and doesn't refer to any actual process in the world. Your body's processes aren't "symbolic."

>Master is limited in his action by what the slave needs.
You and your drives form a ring, not a split dichotomy. Can a ring have a master/slave relationship with itself?

>There's no such a thing.
And yet that is what you seem to be suggesting reason is for humans.

>Animals can process symbols to only extremely limited degree, most don't at all.
I can see that if you're just going to completely ignore what I'm saying that this discussion is totally fruitless. There are no "symbols" to process. You FEEL that there are "symbols" in the world. Your FEELING that there are "symbols" does not mean that there are any.

>overcoming the greatest source of raw psychic energy you have access to
Never going to make it

Through Christ Jesus, read Calvin

>there are no symbols
What is logic then, if not symbol processing? What is strategy then, when not symbol processing?

The symbols are mental images or words of real as well as abstract objects (fe. pure math). These objects are not real, just a placeholder token fed to intuition and logic constraint solver.

I have no idea what you mean by "feel", perhaps intuition? That one is an interesting topic in itself (differences between subconscious pattern based based induction vs conscious symbolic constraint solving).

>Can a ring have a master/slave relationship with itself?
Indeed you're introducing circular reasoning by putting abstract want on same level as base desire. Desire is inherent, abstract want is only seen down the cascade.

Your argument is however interesting when dealing with things like pure math, or recreational pseuding like seen on this board. There's clearly no definable animal want, or is there? Nerd olympics is male competition like any other, the need to triumph over others. It's why we have this dialog, after all. Not because we "seek truth" or some such bullshit, but because we want to bash one another as very lowly base desire.

The desire indicates such, and launches avalance of symbolism. It's like a slave "I am hungry", and master feeds him. However the slave is still fully at mercy of the master. If I close this tab, reason trumped over desire.

Yes, most basement dwellers are animals.

>What is logic then
A matter of interpretation. All words mean whatever we want them to mean. We're interpreters; we don't engage with "facts." Nothing is ever "common" except when it suits us.

>I have no idea what you mean by "feel", perhaps intuition?
It's another way to say "interpret" for me. The emotional aspect of our interpretive skills far outweighs the thinking aspect of it; in fact, thinking for me is just a type of feeling that is either spread out far or shallow.

>Indeed you're introducing circular reasoning by putting abstract want on same level as base desire.
All reasoning is circular. Your interpretation just as mine continues to try and compartmentalize the other's so that our own can prevail. You create windowless cabins for your interpretations to hide in just as I do. But "abstract want" and "base desire" are meaningless phrases to MY interpretation — I am not "putting them on the same level" because I don't see multiple levels in the first place. This is an error in judgment as far as my interpretation is concerned.

That's how two strangers in the wilderness tens of thousands of years ago, instead of killing each other out of fear, established communion.

>This is an error in judgment as far as my interpretation is concerned.
Fair enough. Just to provide some context where I'm coming from. The input layers are "base desire" - either sensory input, or instinctual wiring (often reacting to sensory input or biological clocks).

The input layer is individual pixels of a hand written number. The second layer however, is decoded binary value of the a hand written number. The bitmap in itself is just pixel values of a real thing which exist - sensory input, an impulse, or desire if its driven by instinctual wiring or hormonal clock and such. But down few hidden layers, the input is transformed to mathematical construct with no apparent bearing to the input "real world", an abstract symbol.

The lines connecting individual layers is "reason" - it can encode extremely complex functions which can generalize, induce/deduce, strategize and more when hundreds of hidden layers (symbol networks) is involved.

This is just tiny example how computer vision, as well as visual cortex works, and this is conjenctured roughly how our brain works as a whole. My thesis is that animals have very few hidden layers, and instead compartmentalize inputs into separate specializations. Quantity over quality and generality. Hence the limited capacity for abstract though, but much better reflexes.

Humans on the other hand, have entire neocortex trained to process logic (of course we're taught logic, it's not hardwired, however our vision as well as some pre-wiring for language processing is), whereas animals dedicate most of their brains to more specialized input processing (intuition?).

How does this connect to master/slave? The input neurons is the "slave", and the lines between layers are the "master" as potential symbol determinants, the hidden layer neurons being intermediary symbolic values ("lesser slaves"). The master decides what to do with the desire, or even ignore or postpone it. Note that in master/slave dialectic, the master is always "benevolent". He has control, but the two are utterly codependent. Furthermore you can just swap one for another, it's fundamentally two different things.

My suspicion is that you consider the "lesser slaves", neurons in mid layers same as the ones which get their output later, but even in this sense, there's always hiearchy - what comes in later layers in the avalanche of neuron spike has full control over the fate of the preceding values. Most importantly, the later layers have fewer neurons (few masters, many slaves).

Attached: layers.gif (662x375, 8K)

It's doable, in fact it's a rather simple process that anyone with an even slightly-above level degree of intuition can harness, but it relies on first cultivating a mental atmosphere conducive to overcoming lower-order impulses.

The modern West, however, with all its countless trappings of perverse advertisement, government-backed junk food industries, overt sexualisation, and Big Pharma's need to push medicine over psychological development as a cure to people's ills, is in fact consciously OPPOSED to overcoming these lower-order impulses, and instead relies on them in order to maintain its power/authority.

If you want to overcome your lust, quest for junk foods, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, etc., then you need to make the conscious decision to reduce these thing's influence in your life and to only associate with people/places who are not under their trappings. This is hard to do, but it can be done.

>junk foods, alcohol, drugs, tobacco
We don't naturally crave any of that. Tackling addiction is entirely different can of worms and can't be written down as "animal behavior" as such.
The broken feedback loop of addiction specifically sidetracks rationality, an addict is typically not capable of willing himself out of addiction.

Animal impulses on their own are all pretty simple drives - aggression, competition, sex and trivial to self-manage when no addiction is developed.

Yes

Attached: 1546770247796.jpg (186x270, 17K)

That's what the psychoanalysis/rehab industrial complex wants you to believe.
Good goy

Believe what? I'm ok with /pol/tards in here, but can you please at least speak in full sentences?

Note the reply numbers.
That's what I am speaking to.

The idea that addiction is a special condition totally out of the control of the animal, and that it is not found in nonhuman society.

That helplessness idea keeps you a victim and a customer, going to your group and into rehab when you invariably fail.

They want to keep you dependent, on anything that will keep you coming in and getting them paid.

>They want to keep you dependent, on anything that will keep you coming in and getting them paid.
Well of course drug sellers want to keep you dependent, duh.

>The idea that addiction is a special condition totally out of the control of the animal, and that it is not found in nonhuman society.
Yes, neither animal nor human can break addiction on their own, because addiction is defined as compulsive behavioral loop one is no longer able to suppress in the first place. Outside circumstances (cost, parents, friends and even your conspiratard clinics) typically can break addiction.

That's total bullshit that removes human willpower, but if you need to have other people absolve you of personal responsibility and liberty, you just keep going to your kike psychiatrist

Also, rat park experiment proved that rats will stop using drugs on their own. Retard.

Rat Park: Ideal social environment reduces likelihood to get addicted. It doesn't cure addiction once acquired, as an addict will no longer seek the natural drive to participate in ideal social environment.

Except it did.
The rat's lives stopped being shitty so they stopped eating drugs.
They always had the choice to keep using it and didn't.
Read the fuckin paper next time

See slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/25/against-rat-park/
All (4) attempts at enriched group "cure" failed to replicate. The original 70s experiment had also "equipment malfunction" in measuring level of consumption in the enrichment relocation phase for 8 days. In addition to suspiciously strong co-factors such as sex deprivation in cage/sex orgy in the rat park. There's no dispute about the social factor, but using it as miracle cure is not particularly helpful.

Ironically, it's those "jewish clinics" which actually practice de-isolation therapy (reintegration community in bumfuck nowhere and such).

>SSC is the project of Scott Alexander, a psychiatrist on the US West Coast. You can email him at.. Note that emailing bloggers who say they are psychiatrists is a bad way to deal with your psychiatric emergencies, and you might wish to consider talking to your doctor or going to a hospital instead.

Almost as though your source is not only some guy's blog, it's a biased one as well.

This guy has an equally bullshit anti-neoreactionary post as well.

Pathetic

Look at the repro studies, ignore the blog post if lesswrong is not compatible with your ideological preconceptions. Note that all the experiments were conducted by (((psychiatrists))) and (((neuroscientists))), including original experiment by Bruce so it's probably pointless to have any meaningful argument here.

The reproducibility crisis is real in general, further proving anything with "psych" in the prefix is voodoo.

But let's be real, you're trying to deny agency in human beings. The same animals that have been known to light themselves on fire as protest and silently burn to death.
That have mastered what are considered totally inaccessible autonomic functions repeatedly in labs the world over.

If a human being is motivated to stop doing a thing, they stop.

You're pushing blown out Skinnerism.

look at this dude

yeah by dying or by not being stupid
stupidity is man becoming animal

lol, source? I do not believe it, but it's still an interesting concept

All of this theorizing is worthless when you realize that we are our brains and our neurons. These things aren't separate from ourselves. You've yet to identify the "you" — you just keep theorizing as if it has to be separate from these things, which is why you consider there to be a master/slave relationship between them at all.

>By dying.
Go ahead.

I hope you have an aneurysm.

MAIMON couldn't do it