Various threads on lateral thinking (Owl convo)

Here’s a fun thing from a Ken convo just now:

If you’re 100th percentile curiosity you eventually develop a sort of post-curious attitude. Because you’ve realized that there’s no end to how far you could take it, so one spot’s as good as another. Same with macabre ideation. For most people it’s taboo, for owls it’s old hat. Flaying? A classic choice, but not very original. I was just thinking about how it’s like the spider’s desire to be seduced. For owls it’s more like the desire to experience the thrill of the macabre again.

that’s an interesting point about curiosity
i’ll have to think more about how well it applies in a particualr sense

Here’s the other paragraph: I can understand the mindset well enough myself. Hang a blood moon in the air, etc. It’s like a trance where you’re a machine that inflicts horror mechanically. Maybe functionally is a better word, but it’s the same thing to me. For owl flavor a better term might be possession. So, what we see as bloodlust may be the lack of aversion from overfamiliarity. Because everybody enjoys loosh at some level. Power is the best drug.

I have to assume that phenomenogically, it’s very hard to tell the difference between possession and flow state
add in the idea that prescience locks in particular futures and you have an interesting mix
some of the more vivd momentsof my life have been those weehre it’s not quite clear who’s in the driver’s set, and i can tell what’s going to happen
hell, it’s like in the old greek epics where thigns get so complicated you can’t tell whetehr the gods, fate, men, or none of them are really running things

The main difference I can imagine between the two states is a possessed person can’t describe why A -> B -> C at a conscious level, but a person in flow state can go back and explain in detail.
The main feature of a flow state is you’re making decisions at a pre-conscious level, much faster than verbal thought, but that’s from overfamiliarity.
I’m not familiar with the Greek thing you’re referencing, but it sounds like the typical subjective experience of political systems.
The movie “In the Loop” captures the feeling quite well at the end.

I was thinking the Illiad, specifically where Zeus knows he should let Sarpedon die, but he also knows he his the power to change things if he really wanted

Where they declare war and everybody looks around and thinks “who did that?”

But there are other moments where we see that sort of tension
still need to see that movie

It’s quite good, H/T Patriick.
Just shy of great.

I’ve seen the TV show it’s semi-based on
absolutely fucking hilarious

Do you want to go deep on the fate sense bit or something else?
Speaking of, did you like my choice of art for conveying the feeling of experiencing fate sense?

let’s see what we can dig into with the fate stuff/trance stuff, with the caveat i don’t have much to verbalize and we’ll need to hope things spark off

the key thing for me with all this is the question of whether prescience senses the future or creates it, and whether or not one or the other is true based on circumstances

Unfortunately the quality is bad, but if you blow it up you can see the long procession of birds that the girl is looking at.

not to mention, of course, how to differentiate between “true esp” and intuitive subconscious processing

Right, that’s the main question for me.

if that’s a real distinction of nay kind and not just amatter of degree
ah yes, i rememebr this post

Interestingly, I should probably be more interested in whether troo affirmation is possible.
More pragmatic.
But for whatever reason I’m stuck on the psychological mechanics curiosity track.
So the ESP vs. intuition question grabs my attention.

Well this could be good for a laugh:

I’m inclined to say more often intuition because it’s a general sense of direction.
Where it appears to be troo ESP is the anecdotes of where someone gets a precise picture of irrelevant details that come up later.
The intuition one is more of an aesthetic appreciation of inarticulate patterns.
But if you have a vivid dream about ordering the #2 meal at McDonald’s from a man in a hairnet, and then it happens exactly like that, I don’t see how your brain could predict that from patterns.

i would agree with this

And more to the point, I don’t know why it would.
If you have that kind of power, why would it be spent on the sort of details that only interest 3 year olds?
Note: if it’s intuition, then there’s a clue here.

in typical melond fashion i’m envisioning a hierachal set-up in which most information comes from the senses, a small portion (realtive to sense information) comes from logic and deducation, a small portion (relative to logic) comes form intuition, and a small portion (realtive to intuiton) comes from everything beyond that

Brian Tracy likes to say that your unconscious mind is a 6 year old, so you have to set goals that a 6 year old can look at and say “that goal is complete”.
It could be that there are untapped parts of our minds that are only 3 years old.


Actually, this is a description of attachment theory.

insofar as we’re talking about an information-gathering facility totally removed from all the logic and structres we develop over time, I would say that’s aplauisble mechanism

So if we have troo ESP, we develop it at the age of 2-3, and then it lies dormant.


Well, if you’re Alan Parsons you then develop it to the 33rd degree so you can receive transistor technology from on high.
Did you know they had pictures of Kek on the pyramids?

i’ve seen stautes depicting frogs claiming to be from egypt
i have no doubt that frogs appear in hieroglyphics somewhere

speaking from experience, i will say that owl melon trance states can feel a lot like “i never would have thought of this/noticed this before, but now it feels like something else is moving my body and guiding me towards the genius outcome in this situation”

Okay, so tl;dr- Owl fate sense is high-IQ expert intuitive pattern recognition, ESP is a three year old, and trances are a special case of flow states where the mastery-via-overfamiliarity comes from somewhere other than practice at the conscious level.
Flow states themselves could be described as a special case of counterfactual reasoning.

a workable model for now

E.g. “I’m going to score a basket.”

no idea how you test this but maybe a deus ex mchina genius idea will come to me under a blood moon

Test? As in hypothesis testing? I don’t think we’re there yet.

definitely not lol

I feel like I used to have a shortcut to designing good scientific tests, but it’s gone noww.
I’m going to get my pot of coffee brewing.
I feel like the answer is to make jokes about how you could do stupid stuff in the real world to test the ideas, then be like “hang on, we could actually do something like that.”

in jest, there is truth
if i had to identifiy a mechanism i’d say that the secret to a good joke is lateral thinking
which is, of course, also a great porblem-solving mechanism and at least half the foundaiton of genius
probably why we use humor as a social signalling cue

Impossible. I’m funny as shit and can’t get an internship to save my life.

try getting an intership at a comedy club then

That’s not the worst idea. The main problem is, as the late Norm said, “modern comedians go for applause instead of laughter”.
Real comedy is illegal.

sadly, there’s some truth to that

Actually, there’s a more general dynamic here because lateral thinking is illegal in general right now.

too much truth

You might be able to draw a direct correlation between the health of a society and lateral thinking because you can judge every type of relationship by how often people laugh together.
Even more generally, dysfunction is when lateral thinking is subordinated to linear thinking.
Dogma versus proving the counterfactual.

because you need lateral thinking to solve more complicated problems (specifically, non-linear ones)
so outlawing lateral thinking outlaws the ability to solve any kind of non-linear problem

Lateral does “why” questions, linear does “how” questions.

which is, sadly, pretty much all the important ones
“Lateral does “why” questions, linear does “how” questions.” – this is a very good way of looking at it

So it’s back to the access to the power process thing.
Why-type questions are illegal, you’re only allowed to think about how you’ll comply.

yes, this is too true

I was hoping there would be a causal thing where thinking type -> cultural rot, but I think it comes down to standard power dynamics.
Power -> comfort -> laziness -> dogmatism.

the subcycle within the “good times lead to soft men, soft men leada to hard times” part of the cycle

About Aeoli Pera

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

1 Response to Various threads on lateral thinking (Owl convo)

  1. LOADED says:

    all i have to say on this article is that joe rogan and donald trump are both transvestite-looking idiots. their existence is an affirmation that good things happen to bad people.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s