Daydreams Shape Our Sense of Self | Hacker News Reader

Daydreams Shape Our Sense of Self

nautil.us

75 pointsdnetesn20 comments

This is a disturbingly misguided exercise in Western psychology. If you think that the endless stream of thoughts in your mind is your self, then you have not realized your true self. When we are day dreaming, we are in a kind of dream, which means we are not awake and not in the present moment. This can be highly destructive, for example if you are constantly day dreaming when you are around your partner or your children, then even though you are physically present you are not really there for them and that can have long term consequences for relationships and development. The way to break the cycle is through meditation.

In his books, the Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh describes a cartoon he saw depicting the Western philosopher Descartes raising one finger in the air and declaring “I think, therefore I am.” In the background a horse is depicted saying, “You think, therefor you are what?” Thich Nhat Hanh goes on to assert that Descartes should have said, “I think too much, and therefore I am not in the present moment.”

Dogen might disagree - although you can find him saying just the opposite as well:

"Yet, as a manifestation of the functioning of That Which Is Reality, this consciousness is the Absolute Principle of Reality".

"If the Buddha Dharma is real, then it follows that a picture of a rice cake must be real as well".

„Dreaming and being awake have always been as one and the same, for they are both manifestations of the Truth. And even if the Buddha’s Teaching were a metaphor, it would still be a manifestation of the Truth. And, as already stated, It is not a metaphor. What we create in a dream is the reality of the Buddha’s Teaching.“

For more on this, check out this chapter in particular:

https://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Shob...

as well as:

https://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Shob...

I’m no Buddhist scholar and think highly of Buddhism, but didn’t Siddhārtha Gautama leave his wife and child on his path to enlightenment? Appreciate the perspective and agree you’re not present when you daydream, but your example might confuse its intended audience. To me, it says, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Yes he did, and I am not a scholar either. I will just say that the path is not something to be debated, it is something to be experienced directly.

This is true, and one of the reason why people lack a sense of self these days - we're too deep into distractions to really daydream. We're constantly bombarding our self with information to process and think about without having time to ponder about our life and self only with ourself. That manifests as lack of goals, visions, decisions, as we're not sure what we want for ourselves.

I don't think these are mutually exclusive. I think people can daydream without reflecting on that and without learning anything.

I think that is exactly the point the article is trying to make. Help people get some benefit from daydreaming.

Close, but no cigar. The day dreams are part of the distractions. The lack of a sense of self can only be resolved through meditation, which is quite a bit different from just day dreaming.

I have aphantasia and this seems quite obvious to me. Although I wouldn't say it shapes ourself but just emphasizes what is on your mind, where you would like to see yourself, preparing yourself. You can think about how you might act in a specific situation or reaffirm some beliefs.

Negative daydreams also shows you parts of yourself and your environment that do not align with your worldview or experiences that you haven't let go off emotionaly yet.

But the underlying feeling and thoughts are there anyway, no matter if you daydream or not.

Is aphantasia is a recent discovery or something? I've only started hearing about it here and on reddit in the last year-ish.

It's super interesting since it seems so crazy that you can be incapable of picturing thing, and also because some people told me I might have it in a conversation when I mentioned that I don't tend to picture things like the bar people walk into in the man walks into a bar joke format and can't draw even slightly, but I know that I don't have it because I _can_ picture those things but just don't.

From Wikipedia:

> The phenomenon was first described by Francis Galton in 1880 but has since remained largely unstudied. Interest in the phenomenon renewed after the publication of a study in 2015 conducted by a team led by Professor Adam Zeman of the University of Exeter.

I think it goes both ways. I don't really understand what people mean when they say they "picture" something. What's the sensation like, compared to not picturing something?

It's a hard thing to describe without being circular. The sensation for me is similar to actually physically seeing something, but more... ephemeral, I suppose? I can't see all the details of something as if I were actually looking at it; it's more like I'm looking at an incomplete mental representation of it.

Some people, like my wife, can recall both sound and imagery from a movie they've seen. Not all movies, not all scenes, but yeah, video and audio feeds from historic memories...i.e. echoic memory and iconic memory recall to the point one is conscious of seeing something from the mind, in the mind's eye.

As far as I can tell, this ability to visualize and hear things in the mind is entirely dependent on the individual's own thinking process and therefore highly varied. Many can see family members in the mind, but a few can see many images for a single family members (thousands I was told from one person of images of his wife in mind). Those who pray don't see as many images, or enjoy strong consistent imagery when they do. Those who create see their creations in mind and can change them. This creative process is typically called "visualization" but seeing one's parents in mind uses the same process.

The Pineal gland appears to be somewhat responsible for these images, but there isn't much info about the Pineal being the mind's eye as a hard proven scientific fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland. It's more a belief of many cultures, if anything.

Many, even aphants, report seeing imagery while falling asleep (when the visual consciousness is shutting down): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia

I do experience hypnagogia sometimes. I dream very rarely though (a couple times a year, maybe).

If I really stretch the definition of "imagery" I can sort of invoke the feeling that I'm seeing something, but your description of visualization is way too vivid to match that. I literally can't imagine it :P I can't really hear things either unless it's a very recent experience, and even then it's more like the "feeling" of hearing something rather than anything really auditory.

The note about prayer is interesting, but I've been non-religious my entire life and I've never uttered a prayer with any sincerity.

If you asked me to describe my family to you, I probably couldn't do so with any sort of accuracy. I could probably tell you their most recent hair colour and maybe some very generic features, but I can't recall for example anyone's eye colour besides my own.

I gave a shot at trying to learn to draw at some point, and made some progress towards being able to replicate what I see, but drawing always seemed to be a process of trial and error, since I'd have no idea what my marks would end up looking like before I put them on paper. I did enjoy it when I really got into the drawing process, but the good parts weren't really good enough to outweigh the massive stress and frustration it usually caused.

Just people talking more about it. It's just really hard to recognize and compare such a subjective experience. If you can visualize, it's "obvious" to you and you think everyone does it. If you can't, you don't know that others do or what it's like.

If you check the aphantasia subreddit, every second post is "Do I have it?"

See also: you can't be good at something that you don't think about in the shower, http://www.paulgraham.com/top.html

We should note the distinction between natural moments of daydreaming (one minute here and there) and the daydreaming as an escape from reality where one lives in their fantasy land. I think the former is harmless and may actually help the brain sort out some thoughts. The latter is obviously pathologic.

Poor people buying lottery tickets live in the daydream where they have won the lottery and are spending their millions.

That sounds accurate. Day dreaming is an escape and not a good one.

define: Self

Reply on news.ycombinator.com