David

[Amir D @starks_arq]

This is what @elonmusk childhood looked like.

I spent over $10,000 on Seedance 2.0 in the past few weeks...

i decided to create a guide with EVERYTHING i know about this model:

- workflows
- prompts
- how to get the best outputs

RT + reply "ELON" and i'll send it for free (must be following so i can dm)

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

https://t.co/rHwBtoy77p

[David @davidke]

@DrJohnVervaeke 👀🧠

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

Your brain is actually not directly predicting the world like we do in science, because it's too slow (and it demands too much processing power) and too many people.

And chimpanzees can't do science…so how did we get here?

Your brain is predicting itself as you are causally interacting with the world.

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

Why is existential resilience so important?

Because it’s the capacity to retain your agency in high states of arousal (conflict) and dysregulation.

It allows one to have an awareness of what is happening, while still developing the capacities to agentically navigate a conflict (or difficulty) across time.

It’s a measure of your ability to maintain meaning in life in the face of serious problems that are challenging your agency, personhood, and selfhood.

But there is a way in which existential resilience can become isolationist: “Oh, I’m very resilient, therefore nobody can touch me.”

So it calls into question:
You develop existential resilience for what?

That’s the orientation towards eudaimonia…like, what is the good life?

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

https://t.co/XjeUsjG6py

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

If you just act completely impulsively you’ll actually lose your agency because your impulses are often in conflict with each other…they undermine each other.

What you need to do is you need to step back and reflect.

See, when you’re enmeshed in a perspective you’re enmeshed in its salience landscape…how it’s making you care, how it’s motivating and arousing you.

So when you’re thirsty, you’re seeing the world "thirstily": Things having to do with water become salient and you’re drawn to them.

That’s to see the world "thirstily".

But you can actually step to a different perspective in which you’re aware of your thirst. This perspective (for example) is curious: “Oh, that’s what thirst is like!”

Now your motivational machinery is not driven just by thirst. It is driven by (perhaps) curiosity…and what happens is that you start to gain some relief from the compulsion of immediacy and urgency of your thirst.

You get a gap by reflection.

[David @davidke]

@jackmoses0 100% https://t.co/gHhaak3cAd

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

You do two things in a tightly integrated fashion:
You predict your world and you prepare yourself for it.

By “prediction”, we're going to mean something like what neural networks can already do.

Think of your autocorrect on your phone…that maniacal demon. It's constantly trying to predict the patterns of your text and complete it ahead of time for you.

So what you're doing is detecting patterns in the world and completing them in mind before they unfold in the world.

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

https://t.co/IILpl5pr90

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

Most of us reduce mental images to visualization...replaying a memory or envisioning an ideal future. But mental images may not be tied to “seeing” at all (pointing to something more profound) allowing us to transcend mere seeing...

Traditionally there are two camps: One camp views mental images as "inner pictures", a seemingly intuitive notion since many experience visual-like imagery in their minds. However, the existence of conditions like aphantasia (where individuals cannot form such visual images) complicates this perspective. When asked to visualize a sunset, they may not "see" anything in their mind’s eye. Despite this, people with aphantasia can still reason spatially and navigate their environments. For example, if you ask them: “In your bedroom, where’s the nearest window to the door?” they can accurately answer: “To my left.” This means that the brain doesn’t need a literal picture in the mind but instead uses underlying processes to simulate spatial relationships.

This aligns with the view of Stephen Kosslyn (the other camp): He likens mental imagery to a program that generates images on a computer screen. For those with aphantasia, the "program" still functions (they know where the window is relative to the door) but it doesn’t output a visual image.

And then there was Zenon Pylyshyn, who challenges both camps: He posited that mental images are stored as abstract, non-spatial descriptions. For example: The knowledge that "the cat is on the mat" would be stored as a propositional statement rather than an internal picture of the scenario. In his view, mental representations are encoded in a logical, structured format that focuses on relationships and properties rather than visual fidelity.

Ultimately with all this discussion about mental images, a question arises: Should we create a new category for what mental images are, rather than trying to slot it into our established categories?

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

https://t.co/oe5WhHAK8k

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

We often think we can imagine everything...but there's a hidden structure that shapes which possibilities we actually consider.

This mental architecture determines how we interpret the world (what we consider meaningful) and what we dismiss outright.

Let's explore this with a simple example:
Dissolving sugar in water.

You might think this is straightforward…sugar dissolves in water, right?

But what if I instantly freeze the water as you add the sugar?

Or what if I spray the sugar with plastic coating first and thus the sugar doesn’t dissolve?

While these scenarios are technically possible, your mind likely didn't consider them when thinking about sugar dissolving in water.

Why?

Because your brain naturally filters possibilities through what cognitive scientists call "structure of possibility": A framework that helps you focus on scenarios that are both relevant and probable.

These frameworks (governed by relevance, probability, and participation) typically operate invisibly in our daily lives…but we can make these frameworks explicit (examining the constraints and assumptions) that guide our decisions and understanding of the world.

So the next time you face a decision, remember that your mind isn't just randomly generating options…it's drawing upon sophisticated structures of possibility shaped by relevance (probability) and your participation in the world.

[David @davidke]

@DrJohnVervaeke 💪🧠

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

https://t.co/PtR3FBhSzg

[David @davidke]

@DrJohnVervaeke 🧐👀

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

https://t.co/Az8BPpWHVi

[David @davidke]

@DrJohnVervaeke 👀🧠

[Dr John Vervaeke @DrJohnVervaeke]

https://t.co/Fvt0ztTHgf

[David @davidke]

@DrJohnVervaeke 👽⚡️