Naive literal imagination

This is a name for what I’ve referred to elsewhere as “dream logic”. It’s important because this appears to be a sort of magical thinking that we use to process very big ideas, like conspiritards’ insistence that we’re ruled by literal snake people rather than figurative snake people.

Here’s how I think this works. The mind understands the essence of something (as in “common element”), either consciously or unconsciously. Essences are typically expressed through analogical idioms, maybe because it’s easier to give an example of something than state a general rule. For example, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” is an example of the general rule that you only get to control your side of a two-way relationship. Idioms and essences are a subset of analogical thinking, like in the analogies IQ subtest. Interestingly, this suggests that the English would score very high on analogies. Or would have, back when the English were responsible for the language and its heavy reliance on idiom. (As a tangent, there are two heavily g-loaded subtests in IQ testing: Raven’s and analogies. Raven’s matrices scores are increasing drastically. Analogies scores and decreasing drastically.)

This is where the naive literal bit comes in. In a dreaming state our counterfactual imagination faculties are maximized (e.g. “imagine a pink elephant” prompts a more vivid picture in a dream state). This suggests that some other processes are minimized on the grounds that processes share hardware. Let’s presume without evidence that critical faculties are minimized in sleep, sort of like in improvisational theater where the premise is always accepted. So the mind’s ability to dispel a nonsensical illusion is dampened. This could describe children too, as mentioned in previous blog posts. So the process is essence -> idiom -> counterfactual imagination -> lack of critical thinking to break the trance.

I think this process is what explains the phenomena I shared in this older post:

Some of the visual and dramatic elements of dreams also appear to have an abstract verbal element to them. The best example I can think of comes from a dream I had during the initial period of frenzied activity when the Complete SJW List was starting up. In the dream my left ear caught on fire and half of it burned off before I succeeded in dousing it. I realized later that the best interpretation of this was that the abstract verbal portion of my brain had used the phrase “my ears are burning”, and the childishly literal portion was interpreting this with dramatic imagination. This is similar to the tendency of autistics and children to interpret turns of phrase too literally, in combination with the adult tendency to use proverbs to help them interpret situations using previously acquired mental models.

To give another example of children interpreting turns of phrase with naive literalism, I’ll borrow one of my dad’s anecdotes. When he was at the post office as a child, his dad (my grandpa) gave him a letter to put in the mailbox outside in the parking lot. He was warned to make sure he “got it over the water”. In retrospect some years later, my dad realized that it had rained that day and the mailbox’s “in” slot was probably wet, and my grandpa was only telling him to toss it through the opening to avoid getting the letter wet. But because he was young and naive, he imagined that there must be some sort of water reservoir (maybe a bucket) inside the mailbox that some of the letters dropped into if they weren’t thrown hard enough. So for years afterward, he’d throw letters into mailboxes as hard as he could.

A couple of things regarding dream interpretation

So anytime an idiot paranoid starts going on about the earth being hollow, try reframing the idea as figurative rather than literal and see if that does anything for you.

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Naive literal imagination

  1. Koanic says:

    The children of the serpent may leak aura and their identity be less than totally figurative.

  2. MM says:

    Is the sun sentient? Are the planets its be-behs?
    Big if true.

  3. human minds are vanity's beloved meal says:

    You understand how essential ignorance, and (ameliorative) delusion about oneself are, when you accept to see how there is nothing else humans are as protective of as their hallucinatory self-conception and… their ignorance.

    All of love is evolutionary. I have reflected on this for a while. After thinking human’s blindness was an outcome of their innate love of blindness, I am changing my mind.
    It’s a coping mechanism. They would be blind even without their love of blindness. This is only a way to be “happy” (as they all are, all of the time: check some social media status, or dating site profile, to wipe off your doubts about this, if you have any…).

    I can already imagine the exchange

    A: Why write idiot paranoid and not idiotic paranoid?
    B: Cozz my VerbIQZ ‘z 145! Ya all shaddup
    n-o-w.
    A: You mean?
    B: I mean idiotic is a word you use to signal your IQ is north of 110. To signal it is from 135 up, you don’t use it.
    A: What is something that only signals, and lives to signal?
    B: A sign, you slow-wit.
    A: I see. And who are the paranoid?
    B: Haha! It’s ppl like u. Ppl I feel 2 call like dat. Whomsoever I want, whensoever I want. I am big, if u aint’ noticed.
    Big, and growing!
    A: :)

    • Son of Distant Trebizond says:

      ?

    • MM says:

      Cognitive biases are caused by evolutionary forces because organisms that view the world objectively and not through the lens of what has worked in the past for survival (like a normie) are much less effective. This explains many things.
      Average people are the way they are because of nature. Some people are just better than others m8. As long as you actually do something with your intellect, whatever you actually think is important to do, then you wont waste your ultimate inheritance- intellect!!!

      • Santoculto says:

        There are objective and subjective reality. Objective reality or truth is literal or concrete. Subjective reality or truth is abstract.
        The first is about space, the second is about time or spatial sequences.

        Human memory can internalize sequences of behaviors, this is their abstractive skills, non-immediate perception. Humans can freeze artificially the time in their minds. Time is the behavior of space. Emotions for example.

        Humans can understand in very balanced ways the concrete/primarily sensorial or objective truth. Non human living beings not, at least not in the human levels. Non living beings perceive the world in unbalanced sensorial ways.

        So humans are in “second” stage of general perception while all non human living beings are in “first stage”.

        But in the second stage this integral perception become asymmetric again, so humans come back to act as “animals”, because their perceptual skills “become” selective or discriminative while their primary perceptual/sensorial skills are not selective or discriminative. Or not, just saying…

        • MM says:

          >Humans can understand in very balanced ways the concrete/primarily sensorial or objective truth.
          HAHAHA

          • Santoculto says:

            why not*

            • MM says:

              humans view everything through the lens of survival. Even the physical world.
              Do you see infrared light? Do you hear 40,000 hz or feel the Earth’s magnetic field?
              Our existence is pre-focused on only the info that could help us survive!!!

            • Santoculto says:

              I said BALANCED ways…

              Yes as well all other living beings but they can’t jump to abstract world as humans can.

            • Santoculto says:

              One of the big differences between non human living beings and us is that we can and we usually engage in non Immediate survival tasks.

              Pay attention for what appears to be completely irrelevant.

              Humans are to other living beings as (transcendent) creative people are to less creative or normal ones.

  4. Edenist Whackjob says:

    Maybe some people are more “dreamy” even during the waking state, and this explains a lot of aeolid behavior.

    The dreaming state may fulfill some crucial function in structuring people’s mental models, but you need to switch off the other parts of your processing, as well as motor control. Otherwise you’re gonna be a thard :p

  5. MM says:

    Methinks the brain is pretty useless at determining reality from non reality. This is why whether or not something is “real” in any sense is determined through how closely it matches with past experiences.(Also partly explains why most normies currently would never believe the sad truth of mass immigration, rothschilds, white genocide, etc.) Many people in a plane crash likely won’t think it was “really real” until after the crash, granted they survive. Personally, having seen an above average deal of fd shit (like a guy dying of a heart attack at a young age) I can say it has never felt “real” instantaneously unless it was a repeat of a past experience.
    Anyways, thats all Ive got. Back to fish n chips and riding the Dingle peninsula
    (Heh, RIDING the DINGLE XDDD)

    • MM says:

      would add that associative horizon(caused mostly by IQ, of course) is so important for this and the main problem with people with too much AH is psychosis and believing ridiculous shit.
      This problem could theoretically be caused by high IQ but methinks logic has a way of limiting AH to practicality so schizotypal shit is needed

      Is the “thal” really just a schizotypal that is too smart for David Icke style BS? Paranoid, low social ability, anxiety, magical thinking.
      Sounds right…

      Will have to make a note to look into that!!!

      Oh and young age of course gives a naturally much higher AH as you dont really know what is/isnt possible.

      • Robotnick says:

        Should their be a “Homo Pragmaticus” classification? At least for no other reason than the name sounding cool.

        • MM says:

          Yes, and I would get behind that ‘boon for sure!
          …As long as “pragmatism” doesn’t equal to “pussy bitch/globohomo convert” of course

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s