the mind at large has no metacognition ?

[Czinczar]

Hello,
Kastrup often insists on the fact that for him, the mind at large or the cosmic consciousness doesn't metacognate or acts without premeditation. So my question is simply : how come humans have the capacity to metacognate ? Is it because of evolution ? I feel like metacognition is something big enough that it changes the game completely.

Does he say that because to be the ONE implies that there isn't anything else around and thus it is impossible to define the self if there is nothing around it compare it to ? Like a lone dot with nothing around it, it is impossible to tell if the dot is moving or not..

[Ratatoskr]

For me, the argument that M@L dissociates in order to know itself doesn't make much sense. It would need to be already conscious that it's not conscious before dissociation and hence meta-cognitive.

[Ben Iscatus]

It would need to be already conscious that it's not conscious before dissociation and hence meta-cognitive.

It is instinctively and intuitively aware of what it likes and doesn't like - so naturally moves towards the light of its desires. As Czincar says, it cannot be self-reflective (metacognitive) because it has nothing outside itself to reflect about.

[Ratatoskr]

It would need to be already conscious that it's not conscious before dissociation and hence meta-cognitive.

It is instinctively and intuitively aware of what it likes and doesn't like - so naturally moves towards the light of its desires. As Czincar says, it cannot be self-reflective (metacognitive) because it has nothing outside itself to reflect about.

How can M@L "like" or "dislike" anything (instinctively, intuitively or otherwise) if it has no sense of "self" ? In my understanding, meta-reflection creates distinctiveness and "self". The concept of "self", supported by thought and memory, is possible only in meta-cognitive structures. Before meta-cognition, it's not "it". In the state without realization of "isness" there's nothing but experience.

[Ben Iscatus]

MAL has a sense of "self" like a cat or a croc. It is the original subject. If you don't think a cat or a croc has a sense of self, try poking it. All subjects (like cats, crocodiles or us) derive their sense of self from MAL. Identity (i.e. what we identify with) is not part of our essential subjectivity.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Hello,
Kastrup often insists on the fact that for him, the mind at large or the cosmic consciousness doesn't metacognate or acts without premeditation. So my question is simply : how come humans have the capacity to metacognate ? Is it because of evolution ? I feel like metacognition is something big enough that it changes the game completely.

Does he say that because to be the ONE implies that there isn't anything else around and thus it is impossible to define the self if there is nothing around it compare it to ? Like a lone dot with nothing around it, it is impossible to tell if the dot is moving or not.

In BK's model, metacognition is an emergent function of a dissociative process, whereby M@L's endogenous ideation comes to appear as objectified phenomenal percepts 'out there' in relation to subjectified loci of M@L, such that there is a self contra other-than-self to reflect upon. Still the challenge remains as to the explication of such a dissociative process.

[AshvinP]

It would need to be already conscious that it's not conscious before dissociation and hence meta-cognitive.

It is instinctively and intuitively aware of what it likes and doesn't like - so naturally moves towards the light of its desires. As Czincar says, it cannot be self-reflective (metacognitive) because it has nothing outside itself to reflect about.

How can M@L "like" or "dislike" anything (instinctively, intuitively or otherwise) if it has no sense of "self" ? In my understanding, meta-reflection creates distinctiveness and "self". The concept of "self", supported by thought and memory, is possible only in meta-cognitive structures. Before meta-cognition, it's not "it". In the state without realization of "isness" there's nothing but experience.

It is important to clarify that "metacognitive" is a description of a relational perspective, rather than an isolated state of being. We engage in metacognitive abstract thinking because we are finite beings who must use such abstractions (symbols) to think-communicate 'complex' ideal content. A being which did not have any such limitations would not technically be metacognitive, although it could still be self-aware in some manner. That may not be BK's view, but I think he has hinted at it especially in his interview with Vervaeke.

[Jim Cross]

The mind at large isn't really conscious.

[Soul_of_Shu]

MAL has a sense of "self" like a cat or a croc. It is the original subject. If you don't think a cat or a croc has a sense of self, try poking it. All subjects (like cats, crocodiles or us) derive their sense of self from MAL. Identity (i.e. what we identify with) is not part of our essential subjectivity.

Yes, M@L in alter-mode as croc-self perceives lamb (other-than-self) and instinctively attacks, no metacognition involved. Whereas, M@L in alter-mode as human-self perceives lamb, then thinks it would rather get curry take-out, after someone else has dealt with all that messy violence —voila, metacognition.

[Jim Cross]

MAL has a sense of "self" like a cat or a croc. It is the original subject. If you don't think a cat or a croc has a sense of self, try poking it. All subjects (like cats, crocodiles or us) derive their sense of self from MAL. Identity (i.e. what we identify with) is not part of our essential subjectivity.

Yes, M@L in alter-mode as croc-self perceives lamb (other-than-self) and instinctively attacks, no metacognition involved. Whereas, M@L in alter-mode as human-self perceives lamb, then thinks it would rather get curry take-out, after someone else has dealt with all that messy violence —voila, metacognition.

I think all animals, maybe all living organisms, have a self. I'm not a fan of lamb curry. I prefer cauliflower curry because it doesn't scream so loud.