[-empyre-] Welcome to May: Boredom: Labor, Use and Time

[Murat Nemet-Nejat]

"I would say that all learned behaviour is predictable behaviour, and
thus most behaviour is actually predictable (again at some level of
abstraction). Mind wandering is an escape from the predictability of
external reality, rather than an escape from one's own predictable
behaviour. I may go so far to say that by our ability to internalize
learned behaviours our minds are most often already disengaged
from our predictable behaviours. The predictability of these behaviours
means we do not need to (constantly) consciously invest in them. e.g.
walking is a predictable behaviour that rarely requires conscious
intervention."

Ben, once you extend the idea of predictability (in the sense of the
directions of the mind's wandering--like a bumble bee), the concept of
predictability becomes almost meaningless. What does "at some level of
abstraction" mean? Yes, *once the mind has wandered* to a certain place,
one maybe can explain why it has done so. But the explanation occurs after
the occuring, not before. One may say that the effect
precedes/makes/conceives the cause. A similar thing occurs in the
development of the meanings of words etymologically, as in an etymological
dictionary. Very often one can see how an old meaning jumped metaphorically
or by accident or by mishearing, by happenstance, etc. to gain the new
meaning. *But one can not predict it before it happens.* The inherent
potentialities of meanings in a given word is basically infinite--as wide
as the mind's ability to imagine or, *as importantly*, make mistakes. The
situation is somewhat similar to the position of particles of light before
they cross a screen, where *each* will land on the other side. Words are
significant in our discussions here because they are closest physical
reflectors of human thought human has.

Ben, I think the idea of "cause" (a trace of Newtonian physics) may lead
one to all sorts of cul-de-sacs. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying.

Because of my focus on this inherent openness the mind may have that I
doubt whether boredom *(assuming it is related to repetition of looped
behavior) *can co-exist with pornography as a pleasurable experience. As I
suggested in my last post, transgression (breaking of totemic or social
rules) is the power center of pornography. To the extent to a film becomes
mechanical, repetitive, the viewer's/reader's mind may join with it if it
reinforces this expectation (as may happen in a de Sade text or an
authentically amateur (clumsily shot, gauchely acted out, etc.?) film or
the mind may wander from it (if it doesn't turn the film off) into its own
fantasy.

Ciao,
Murat

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 2:12 PM, B. Bogart <ben at ekran.org> wrote:

> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> Hello Murat, (and Emilie)
>
> You ask:
> > Ben, on what basis are you assuming daydreaming is (always?)
> > "informed by predictive models of reality." What makes you say that?
> > The assumption seems arbitrary (or an apriori assumption) to me.
>
> This is the basis of my PhD. The most complete description of the
> argument is available in this unpublished paper:
>
> http://www.researchgate.net/publication/271386560_Unpublished_Draft_of_An_Integrative_Theory_and_Computational_Model_of_Visual_Mentation
>
> Note, the theory has not been empirically validated.
>
> In my thinking, prediction is central to perception. We constrain
> recognition by learning contexts in which certain stimuli are likely to
> occur. Would you argue that perception is a task? I would certainly
> argue that perception is augmented by the particular goals in play at a
> time, but that does not necessarily mean that all perception is
> task-oriented.
>
> You go on to write that it could be argued that "daydreaming is a mental
> act that tries to escape predictive behavior or task driven behavior."
>
> I would say that all learned behaviour is predictable behaviour, and
> thus most behaviour is actually predictable (again at some level of
> abstraction). Mind wandering is an escape from the predictability of
> external reality, rather than an escape from one's own predictable
> behaviour. I may go so far to say that by our ability to internalize
> learned behaviours our minds are most often already disengaged
> from our predictable behaviours. The predictability of these behaviours
> means we do not need to (constantly) consciously invest in them. e.g.
> walking is a predictable behaviour that rarely requires conscious
> intervention.
>
> You further write:
> > In that way, in daydreaming the mind is never bored. Boredom sets in
> > when daydreaming ceases. May not daydreaming be an alternate mode of
> > focus, the mind's rebellion so to speak, contra "organized"
> > stimuli?"
>
> One of the interesting things about mind wandering, is that it's
> difficult to realize we are doing it. In fact, some studies have shown
> the Default Network is most engaged when we are not aware of mind
> wandering, but in fact are absolutely not attending to external
> stimulus. In short, we are often mind wandering without realizing we are
> mind wandering. This is because the areas of the brain that allow us to
> reflect on our own states of mind (parts of the prefrontal cortex) are
> diminished in mind wandering (and dreaming). All this to say that I
> think it's unlikely that boredom would not involve mind wandering, it's
> more likely we don't realize how pervasive mind wandering is.
>
> I'm trying to get my head around what a non-task oriented, not mind
> wandering, boring mind-state could be. Perhaps deep meditation could be
> a state of mind that is neither task positive nor negative? Any thoughts
> on this Emilie? Is meditation a task oriented activity? I would expect
> that the suppression of mind wandering would require a lot of mental
> control, the same kind of control used in task-oriented behaviour.
>
> Mind wandering could certainly be considered a rebellion where the
> internal asserts itself over the external. Could you elaborate on what
> you mean by "contra 'organized' stimuli?"
>
> Regards,
> B.
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20150511/791ddefb/attachment.html>