io - nate introspection

*“a discussion on introspection (and metacognition) with nate, which follows a reframing of a quote from the book ‘Wetware, by Dennis Bray’, comparing introspection with early biological discoveries using a microscope” ^{1 2}

responses: io - nate introspection response

• #1. toots - introduction
• #2. toots - nate
• #3. toots - themanual4am
• #4. toots - nate
• #5. question answer breakdown
• #6. discussion
  • #abstract
  • #objectives
  • #metaphors
    • #introspection as lens
    • #introspection as physical training
    • #introspection as exploration
    • #summary
  • #the common frame
    • #system signal distinction (consciousness and contents)
    • #aligning by the common frame (yoga)
  • #familiarity
  • #notes
    • #notes on jhana, zen, etc
    • #notes on formal reconciliation of phenomenological experience
    • #building up from the common frame

---

1. toots - introduction

taken from from the book Wetware, by Dennis Bray

I imagine many active scientists have something of a (gender neutral) “nostalgic science boner” for this period of time and discovery.

Consider the cost of “psychology’s stance on introspection”:

“Armed with nothing more than the lens of introspection (and metacognition), and their own keen perception and intelligence, each psychologist was able to extract essential features of ’the mechanics of cognition between the brain and behaviour’, and to draw rational conclusions about them”

---

2. toots - nate

"Hurry for gender-neutral science boners. ;)"

I’m not sure what you mean by “psychology’s stance on introspection”, but it certainly is interesting to compare your statement to the paragraph about cells.

note: “footnotes which begin ’themanual4am:’ are responses by themanual4am”

One big problem with introspection is that you can only apply it to a single, human mind. Those folks studying microbes in pond water had an incredible variety of examples! They could make statements about single-celled life generally because they could see patterns across species.

When it comes to minds, we’re at a huge disadvantage. It’d be great if we could start by studying simpler examples, but we can’t. The best we can do is study brains and behaviour, which just isn’t the same.

---

3. toots - themanual4am

link

This is a great opportunity for some daylight on the case for introspection, please pushback as much as necessary.

Perhaps first, let’s make sure I’m talking to the right points!

1. Why is the big problem ‘so’?
2. Are you experienced with any meditation practices? Eg can you easily (enough) shift to zen, etc? (To be clear, i’m interested in the territory, not the maps or terms per se, though most structured methods are sound)

---

4. toots - nate

1. link

It’s problematic that a person can only introspect their own mind because it limits their perspective. They cannot experience first hand what it is to have another mind. They especially cannot imagine a mind of a non-human shape. This means we can’t use introspection to do what those early cell biologists did: compare many diverse examples to find common themes and variations. We don’t know in which ways our own minds are “typical,” or what the range of mental experiences is.

Your point about observing a simpler mind is an interesting one. You’re suggesting that we simplify our own minds, observing simplified activity, or a subset of activity. That is a powerful tool, but it’s not the same as, for instance, observing what it’s like to have the mind of a bat. Or a nematode. :)

2. link

I practice yoga, and I do use it to clear my mind and to observe the mind’s activity. I’ll admit my moments of true mental clarity and stillness are rare and fleeting. But I know what that is like, and have experienced it many times.

I’ve also had a couple brief mystical experiences, for whatever that’s worth.

---

5. question answer breakdown

“answer breakdown”

Thanks nate, really excellent points, which I feel are (mostly) representative of the position I have been preparing to argue against (with the exception of your brief mystical experiences, which i’ll put to one side for the moment, though am keen to learn more about!)

Thank you for the opportunity to work through this with you.

2-1

One big problem with introspection is that you can only apply it to a single, human mind

So this is the big one – so I want to make sure that I really understand the argument.

is this interpretation correct?

1. that observations from one mind to not apply to other minds?

Consider observation and observable separately – we absolutely can refine observation sufficiently to distinguish and define observables (phenomena, characteristics, etc), which we can then communicate and compare across minds. But also, at sufficient resolution, these observations begin to reconcile with neuroscientific and behavioural observations.

Part of the problem is (i suggest), that the means to do so has been obscured by the presentation and dogma of traditional experiential practices, to such an extent than now, 5000 years later, these methods and modern scientific pursuit are seen as different, separate things; and one result is divided populations of individuals who have failed to reconcile the two worlds. These different maps and ways of mapping, refer to the same territory, and can be reconciled.

“we can reconcile with other individuals, and more importantly, other verifiable maps of adjacent territory”

or this interpretation?

2. that we can’t directly ‘parallel’ introspect an individual’s mind (while they are introspecting)?

I think that this interpretation is a distraction – why would we need to, to make initial progress?

“i’ve come to call this ‘shut up and walk’, as a play on ‘shut up and calculate’ from quantum mechanics – step one of any adventure requires explorers, then pioneers, and lastly settlers. early settlers might feel like explorers relative to later settlement, but explorers they are not

in pursuit of reason by reconciliation, science has forgotten how to confidently reason from reckoning, which allows more rapid discovery of any domain of concern ³”

other interpretations are perhaps implicated by counter points below. please point out any which speak to your concerns more directly

2-2

Those folks studying microbes in pond water had an incredible variety of examples! They could make statements about single-celled life generally because they could see patterns across species

I suggest that the mechanics of cognition are approximately the same for all of us (with differences being special-case delta to a common, shared general-case). Even for our ‘rich’ human experience of cognition, once we have sufficiently refined introspection, it is possible to observe the same constituent phenomena across different circumstances. And communicate and validate those with others.

2-3

When it comes to minds, we’re at a huge disadvantage. It’d be great if we could start by studying simpler examples, but we can’t

Ah but we can! :) we can simplify our own minds, to isolate and chart common phenomena, and reconcile operational characteristics and mechanics with behaviour, life, biology, and evolution, etc. Discussed below.

2-4

The best we can do is study brains and behaviour, which just isn’t the same

Disagree :), see previous, and below.

4-1-1

It’s problematic that a person can only introspect their own mind because it limits their perspective

Though isn’t the the same is true for all observation? At some point the academic question doesn’t matter that much – there is much good to do first, before stalling over minutia. All species survive just fine. Humans are contriving redundant complexity here ].

4-1-2

They cannot experience first hand what it is to have another mind

Fractional accounting – for many circumstances, we can.

4-1-3

They especially cannot imagine a mind of a non-human shape

Disagree! :), see discussion below.

4-1-4

This means we can’t use introspection to do what those early cell biologists did: compare many diverse examples to find common themes and variations. We don’t know in which ways our own minds are “typical,” or what the range of mental experiences is

Refuted below. But this feels like basic science, of the kind referred by the introductory quote (discern, measure, relate, synchronise, etc) – we determine a method, follow the sequence, and compare notes on where we end up. Of note, the methodology has existed for 5000 years, it does need unsentimentally translating and some important adjustments, for sure, but the basic method is sound.

I think at the end of the day, this entire problem space might be analogous to ‘science didn’t work as well before we all agreed to begin experiments with a clean workbench’, or maybe a reminder of life pre reduction-as-a-problem-solving-tool? (It is literally pre-science, in material formal scientific analysis!)

4-1-5

Your point about observing a simpler mind is an interesting one. You’re suggesting that we simplify our own minds, observing simplified activity, or a subset of activity. That is a powerful tool, but it’s not the same as, for instance, observing what it’s like to have the mind of a bat. Or a nematode. :)

I suggest that we can study a simpler mind (than commonly experienced), by establishing a baseline of zero interpretation, and minimal-viable conscious cognitive activity, and build up from there, by incrementally isolating and mapping all context and content phenomena separately.

4-2-1

I practice yoga, and I do use it to clear my mind and to observe the mind’s activity. I’ll admit my moments of true mental clarity and stillness are rare and fleeting. But I know what that is like, and have experienced it many times

Great, see (#aligning by the common frame (yoga)) below re commonality between yoga and meditation, and (#familiarity) difference between glimpse and familiarity.

4-2-2

I’ve also had a couple brief mystical experiences, for whatever that’s worth

Fascinating. Very interested to learn more.

---

6. discussion

“the discussion”

I’m tentatively excited, because your responses to my comments on introspection point to a possible entry-point for better communicating this project – or perhaps more specifically, your comments point to a formative or foundational hurdle I face, as I speak on these topics.

Please push-back on any of the ideas or assertions I present which jar with your understanding. And let me know which I ought to build upon for your or others benefit.

terms

introspection and metacognition

Functionally, metacognition is the means by which we introspect (and I can talk more of the technicals separately)

In practice, introspection is often used to mean ’light metacognition’, with a focus on our feelings, etc, or ‘what we think or feel about something’

Operationally, this is akin to zoom or resolution, via lensed observation, whereby improvements in discernment allow conceptual reduction to and isolation of constituent phenomena, down through compositional complexity (which for the mind, typically means simultaneity)

As observational endeavours, consider introspection our observation and exploration of map and signal, and metacognition our observation and exploration of territory, the system of cognition – we must ‘pass through’ the former, to get to the latter – though really, the exercise more like housekeeping – when we tidy and take pause, we see what was obscured by clutter, and unnoticed due to distraction.

abstract

“i’ll circle back and complete this when ready” #tbc

objectives

“to manage expectations”

1. Understand what it is of what i’m describing that a ‘differently lensed individual’ (non-meditator or traditional meditator, who sees map but not territory), finds problematic
2. Refine these arguments; then open-up conversation to other technical minds (engineers, scientists, or anyone less coupled to dogma), including those:
   1. Who meditate
   2. Who tried to meditate, but who didn’t get it
   3. Who might try, if there was less ‘bs’ to swallow
3. Solicit feedback on my (fundamentally grounded) map of this territory, by sharing unsentimentally reinterpreted methods from numerous traditions, which align with a single schematic of cognitive operation
4. #Tbc

metaphors

“lens, physical development, exploration”

introspection as lens

Consider introspection and metacognition as a lens which, when developed and refined, are sufficient for objective scientific discernment, measurement, relation and synchronisation.

Consider early telescope users, peering up at a blurry sky through imperfectly produced optics, attempting to communicate observed phenomena to others. At this point in time, all observations and descriptions are subjective. Not everyone has a telescope, and the apparatus is jankey by modern standards. Further, imagine that there is no formal agreed-upon approach, nor system of description or measurement.

“did they really see that? just like that? or did they imagine it?”

At the end of the day, it matters not how many observe the same phenomena through the same telescope, but how well those who observe distinguish, measure, relate, and represent, such that methods can be repeated and observations refined, and communicated for others to follow, to verify the same results, toward eventual consensus conclusion.

“the same is true for introspection (and metacognition)”

This lens (of introspection, metacognition), must be developed and refined over time.

Initially our lens of introspection is poorly developed, and unrefined: we struggle to distinguish well, as we might with an early prototype telescope, one which provides only blurry suggestions or glimpses of “what lies beyond”

“ah, that one blob is actually more than one thing, and now that i can discern each separately, as a & b, i additionally observe, that a also appears under other circumstances, some of which i can invoke and measure in isolation”

introspection as physical training

“another useful metaphor is physical strength”

It is easy to underappreciate weight, and overestimate strength or rate of physical development. Development and refinement of physical strength takes time, because changes are physical – we are waiting for our bodies to physically change, which is limited by physical resources (logistics and and construction, etc)

“additionally, we might also fail to appreciate secondary benefits of physical strength, etc” #tbc

“our bodies do not change too easily, lest our state of being (and ongoing resource demands) fluctuate too wildly, which affects survival strategies, and sense making”

“cognition too changes slowly” #tbc

introspection as exploration

Consider introspection and metacognition as the means of physically exploring territory.

“consider #2-1 mapped to early exploration: ‘one big problem with exploration is that only explorers see the new world (?)’”

Explorers, pioneers and cartographers collaborate to make the first maps. And once refined (sufficient for objective consensus by other explorers and pioneers), simplified maps are composed and distributed to general settlers, for day-to-day navigation.

I consider the following arrangement equivalent to physical healthcare:

1. Explorers and cartographers coordinate and refine maps
2. Simplified, accessible maps are created and distributed to the population
3. Intermediates – professional guides – assist as needed

As such, this problem space does not depend upon ‘civilian’ individuals blindly attempting to navigate and explore embodied cognitive landscape initially, nor without help.

This is an iterative process.

summary

The important points, are:

1. Introspection (and metacognition) must be developed and refined
2. While default level of development or refinement my vary, it is not possible to skip the progression anymore than one might in a gym
3. Refined introspection brings not just clarity, but discernment, of primitives and contextual alignment
4. Early exploration requires different approach to later reconciliation

---

the common frame

“establishing a common frame of reference”

To simplify observation and reasoning about cognition and phenomenological experience, i’m going to build towards several distinctions, the first of which will allow us to reason about consciousness and the contents-of-consciousness separately, and to establish and continue from ‘a common reference frame’ ⁴.

The common frame is analogous to:

1. Agreeing upon a unambiguous basecamp for exploration
2. The return to a blank page from which to begin any new sketch
3. A means to calibrate introspective observation (by simplified or constant sample)
4. Like a ‘standard candle’ (supernova), for astronomy, etc

system signal distinction (consciousness and contents)

“the most important distinction initially, is the system signal distinction, which comes from Sam Harris – specifically his online App based Vipassana practice – Waking up – which frames ‘consciousness is distinct from its contents’”

By following Sam’s course and methodology, any person ⁵ is able to experience a calm and peaceful state of being absent of interpretation or emotion, known as jhana (or zen, etc). The structured methodology to navigate and arrive upon this place, has existed for 5000 years. It is surely the most reproduced experiment of all time, yet largely ignored by formal scientific interrogation (minimal caveats).

There exist numerous means of arriving upon the same or equivalent states, and regardless of map, it is the territory which we are interested in here. Traditional terms, language and conceptual interpretations are undeniably problematic, but also irrelevant here. And with few unsentimental refinements and adjustments ⁶, this state of being is an essential first step toward grounding discussion of introspective observation by a common reference frame, regardless of observer, or personal or external circumstances ⁷.

aligning by the common frame (yoga)

“meditation, yoga, and others”

I note that your frame of reference here is yoga – great!

There is much overlap between meditation and yoga – the same embodied mind of course – but there are also significant differences which I suggest explain a few of your comments (failure to reach states of experience without body plan, and experiment with alternates, for example) ⁸.

“development of introspection and metacognition also increases cognitive range of motion, just as ongoing practice of yoga does physical range of motion”

Where yoga develops physical range of motion, meditation develops cognitive range of motion – despite overlap, yoga no more takes you through the same cognitive range of motion than meditation does physical.

Differences (between yoga and meditation) will be described in detail, but for the time being consider that for many, the objective of meditation (which one cannot think of as an objective!), is jhana (or zen, by whatever name), which in simple terms, is achieved only when we have learned to consciously direct and effect (for sufficient time) cessation of interpretation ⁹. When doing so successfully, our system will incrementally shut-down spatial sensory processing (which is observable, and testable) for as long as our attentions are not directed to our physical circumstances. Scopes of operational change include all those senses which we can become conscious of, but the more obvious shifts include: auditory and visual flattening; and loss of body plan.

While any phenomena is new or novel or a surprise, it will catch our attention, such that we notice it and begin to interpret it. The act of interpretation prohibits, or ends, the desired state. The only way to progress, is incremental desensitisation to all waypoints and circumstances ‘along the way’ (well, common ones are sufficient, circumstantially)

For yoga, this is not possible while intent and focus remains on muscles and posture, though may be experienced in moments between, at absolute contented rest – but I suggest, that if any practitioner is reaching this state in those moments, they ought also be able to reach those states directly, without distractions of yoga, and therefore for the purposes of formal exploration of cognitive landscape, more rapidly establish the common frame between yoga and meditation, directly.

---

familiarity

“an important point – for introspection and metacognition, a glimpse is a waypoint, not the destination”

There is a profound difference between glimpsing any cognitive phenomena, and exploring it, swimming in it – becoming intimately familiar with it.

Familiarity, takes time, measured in discreet excursions, rather than intensity of occasion; and requires a separate topic (which also includes architectural schematic and operation)

---

notes

notes on jhana, zen, etc

1. Jhana is easily achievable by following a simple method – though while the method is simple, following it, is not always
2. Scopes of concern ¹⁰
   1. Prep
      1. Physical safety, comfort, and opportunity
   2. Triage
      1. Matters for attention
   3. Waypoint
      1. Predictable sensory configuration changes
   4. Base – jhana (or zen) (caveats)
3. Jhana is often characterised by a state of buzzy bliss, but this too is a distraction
   1. The buzz of jhana is not a permanent fixture, and fades over time (and intensity is in fact relative to prior body state, such that, as regular practice becomes integrated into life, body state is maintained at more optimal levels, buzzy bliss becomes deep contented okayness) the buzz, is our experience of ‘climb down’ of body state. It feels deeply good to stop and rest, for very good reasons
4. So, the real baseline i’m pointing toward
   1. To make the point – not higher states of consciousness, but lower, simpler
   2. Conceptual, environmental, embodied interpretation-less existence
   3. The void (eyes closed)
      1. The feed (with experience, eyes open)
   4. In fact, this baseline, is more like basecamp ¹¹
      1. And once established, forms the common reference for all subsequent excursions, and observation (incremental delta)
      2. Can explain in more detail, by describing the entire process in more detail

Consider the circumstances described above.

1. Volitional control over sensory spatial processing ¹²
2. Direct experience of zero body plan
3. Interpretation-less experience
4. Basecamp

“when in this state, whoever you are, whatever your circumstances, they are not present (recallable, available) – whatever intricate details occupy and define your life, do not exist in these moments”

notes on formal reconciliation of phenomenological experience

Later on, a first-principles account of the general architecture of cognition will align jhana with low power operational modes (of biological cognition), for technical reasons, including offline edits and maintenance of interpretive contexts, and the autonomy core (including sleep)

This ‘common reference frame’ exists between yoga and meditation, in-fact all humans – however different their lives (caveats)

Further, this common reference frame will be shown to be common across all species of a particular, specific architecture of cognition, and presents as an operational requirement ¹³.

Whatever it is to be a bat, for example, in moments of contented downtime – perhaps moments before sleep, while assured (as any bat might be) of physical safety – is remarkably similar to a sufficiently accomplished (albeit upside down) meditator with equivalent embodied sentiment.

“following, just as the common frame of interpretation-less existence is necessarily similar across all qualifying species, so too is the spectrum of buzzy bliss - to deep contented okayness, of circumstantial intense jhana which then, is in effect – the common sensation of al species (caveats) ¹⁴”

response: io - nate introspection response

#tbc