500word Introduction to Cognitive Development

[behavioralist]

The conscious, where past experience is observed and processed for anticipation and the deceptive means requisite to cultivating that anticipation, generates its own observer.

This observer is not an entity, and yet it has arrogated the province and adopted the title “me”.

Before we cover how “me” is not an entity, we should look at the primary point: This observer cannot find an entity in a child (or other creature), but only accepts and cultivates a seed of itself as the child’s entity.

The child’s entity, never having had a parent who was aware that it exists, and always burdened with something vile it has to subordinate itself to, ultimately becomes subconscious, giving way to mirroring this observer.

Blunt version: parents kill their kids. Dead kids become parents.

Explanation: If I am a normal adult, then I harbor this observer, along with the sole right to be aware of what social intentions it has. To protect these true social intentions from other observers I create a diversion, a dissimulation device, and this imaginary “person” goes into your memory.

In your memory you now process how to interact with this imaginary “person”. This entanglement with the imaginary as the real becomes the assurance of the observer in your memory that it is equal to and superior to what it remembers (the imaginary me), and so it is both an entity and a better entity than the imaginary me it has taken for an example of another entity.

How far from real is the imaginary example of entity in the memory from an actual entity? The conscious can’t ask this question, but must resolve the question comparing its best and worst imaginary/ delusional “entity”. An entity is exactly infinitely more than the delusion of entity the observer of memory is endowing itself with.

If the memory is impressed with intentionally misleading figments of people, so that your own memory is basically programmed to fail by all your tutors, rivals and conquests, then why does it get what it wants so often?

The key to this puzzle is what it sets its sights on! (Compounded by what all these observers have their sights set on, so that it becomes a pie-slicing contest.) It doesn’t want a world or habitat or peace or harmony, but wants this tiny little fleck, reward, like an indigent who is searching the gutter for a butt with at least six millimeters of tobacco remaining on the filter. 6mm! He is a very discriminating chap, a gutter connoisseur! This fixation on reward means that everything else becomes incidental; and ultimately the incidental translates into the random and accidental.

We can expand this fleck of reward as quantity but not as quality. It is a small fleck of oil on your beach or it covers the whole coast. In either event you can’t live in it, but this observer can’t arrogate the province of living outside of it.

[seaturtlehorsesnake]

i guess any response i might make is irrelevant, then.

[behavioralist]

i guess any response i might make is irrelevant, then.

What do you mean by that pronoun, "I"?

[seaturtlehorsesnake]

a complete lack of trust in any ability for this discussion to actually occur.

[behavioralist]

a complete lack of trust in any ability for this discussion to actually occur.

D'accord! If the conscious "agrees" the discussion is dead, since it is not between conscious and conscious.

The conscious means this button opens the reward-slot. The mind expresses something for understanding. Understanding is not an individual, which is why there is biodiversity. A connundrum until one realizes that if we ndestand each other we become different enough to matter to each other. But never such that we do not understand each other.

Edited January 15, 2014 by behavioralist