“Nate’s responses to io - nate introspection”

overview

Okay, I went through all of that, and have many thoughts. :).

I’ll share some high-level thoughts here, but I also have more detailed point-by-point feedback. How would you prefer I share that with you?

Sometimes your writing resembles a web. Large, complicated, structured, with no obvious linear path through it. Wrapping my head around and digesting it is hard. It would be easier if you could narrow your focus and / or give the reader more of “guided tour.”

A big point of departure is just that I’m being more skeptical. You’re describing your observations and saying, “surely these must generalize.” I suspect you’re right to a large extent, but I consider that all hypothetical until there’s evidence, especially when talking about other kinds of minds.

I object to the idea that meditation (“simplifying” human conscious experience as much as possible) can tell us anything about the mental experience of simpler brains (fewer neurons, less structure, more limited senses / capabilities, etc.).

detail

“Nate’s detailed reply to io - nate introspection”

Overall structure of this document.

  • Shows a pattern of global, holistic thinking.
  • Non-linear, highly structured presentation of information
  • Purpose / conclusion seems to emerge through the writing, rather than framing the whole piece.
  • Perhaps when writing for a general audience:
    • Start like this.
    • Then, think about what you’ve said and what the big points were.
    • If you have many points, maybe split them into separate, more narrowly-focused documents.
    • Refactor everything so the purpose / conclusions are visible from start to finish (mention in intro and conclusion, and make sure each point is aligned with / referencing back to that).

2-1

Comparing observations across minds.

  • I agree, other people can describe observables within their minds, we can recognize those patterns within our own minds, and (to some extent) find common mental experience between individuals. There are some critical limitations, though:
  • Some mental observables are very hard to describe in words, and we have no other way of capturing them.
  • Understanding a description of mental terms requires that you have had a similar mental experience. This isn’t always the case, especially for rare or divergent experiences.
  • This technique assumes human minds are similar enough that what we observe in one is basically the same thing we would observe in another. That’s probably mostly true, but one risk is that when there ARE differences, we might not notice. Stupid example: what if everyone’s color qualia are wildly different? We talk about them as if we experience them in the same way, but we have no way of knowing if we do.
  • This technique doesn’t work for comparison with non-human minds. It’s not valid just to assume their experience is similar to our own.

2-2

Two objections here:

  • While I also suspect that mental experiences are very similar across people and even species, we need evidence of that to convince others. You claiming to see this clearly won’t help others to see it, or even to believe you.
  • Even if we assume consciousness requires a brain (I’m not sure!), the sheer variety of brains in the animal kingdom is enormous, as is the variety of bodies, lifestyles, and sensory experiences. While I imagine other species have consciousness like our own, it must also be different. Without comparison across species, it’s really hard to say what aspects of my experience are universal to consciousness and which are quirks of humanity.

4-1-1

There’s an important difference. If you haven’t yet, I highly recommend this essay by Thomas Nagel, which is generally considered one of the most important on this topic.

The key point is that my subjective experience is what it looks like to observe myself from my perspective. Science tries to be objective, an impossible ideal which means having no perspective at all, but seeing things as they “really are.” This is done by removing the observer from the equation, or triangulating between many observers. But you can’t do that for my subjective experience. If we want to study what I look like to me, then the moment we change perspective, we’re studying something else. Attempting objectivity brings us further from the truth, not closer (as it does in other realms of science). .

This is NOT the case with external objects of study. With them, we can take any perspective we please and it should not change the object of our study or alter its nature.

4-1-5

I value meditative introspection as a tool, but I feel like this assertion is unfounded. It may be true, but I don’t see how we could possibly know that this is valid. Is my clear mind the same as your clear mind, or the clear mind of an animal? Maybe, but we can’t prove it. .

Taking this further, what about brain damage? Some people have had portions of their brains destroyed. Sometimes, their conscious experience and even their personality is altered. Sometimes they lose abilities / behaviors, but sometimes they produce surprising, abnormal behaviors instead. In some sense, their mind is “less” than it was before the injury, and in another sense it is “different.” Can a still mind help me understand their experience? I would argue NO. .

Going even further, I mentioned nematodes. Every individual of the species C. Elegans has around 300 neurons. Do they have conscious experience? We have no idea. Would it be like ours? Maybe in some ways, but surely not in others. If we could know these things, it would teach us SO MUCH about what minds are and how they work, but it’s likely we never will. .

4-2-2

It’s a very particular form of human experience. Hard to describe, somewhat rare, and yet it happens all the time to all sorts of people. For me it has happened spontaneously, without drugs, while contemplating the nature of reality. It felt like a profound and overwhelming flood of every emotion at once. It felt like, for a moment, I “knew” the full depth of Life, the Universe, and Everything in my bones. I saw myself simultaneously as an insignificant speck in the midst of infinity, and as that infinite whole. I felt a profound sense of universal connection and love. I experienced abstract visual imagery which sorta represented all this, sometimes in spiritual form and sometimes secular. In every case, it lasted for just a moment, but stopped me in my tracks and moved me to tears. .

6

Terms

I actually think the words introspection and metacognition are pretty clear, and you use them in a standard way. I don’t think those are confusing, though it makes sense to cover them thoroughly, since they are your focus. For the record, I use these tools A LOT, and they are a big part of how I’ve come to understand myself / intelligence generally.

On the other hand, words like “map”, “signal”, and “territory” are much more ambiguous, and you seem to have a very particular meaning in mind when you use them. I think these concepts, even though they are simpler, might be more important for you to clarify. .

Objectives

These are very good motivations for your work, and long-term goals for this project! I suggest you also try to think about this on a smaller scale with each post / argument / document you make within the project. If you want to say something, it should be serving some specific narrow purpose within the larger work. In our conversations, I get the sense that everything you say HAS a purpose, but sometimes it’s a complex one (a mix of many different objectives) or one that isn’t clear to me (I have to read the whole post and roll it over in my head a bit before I see what point you’re trying to make). .

In my own writing, I try to narrow down and focus on one, simple, tidy point with as few tangents and mix-ins as possible. Then I try to be very clear about what point I’m making throughout the argument, starting from the introduction. My intent is to make it easier for others to understand and engage with my argument, by effectively handing them a map / agenda before I dive in and pointing out our progress as we go along. .

Metaphors

These are very nice and make immediate sense to me. .

Yoga

How much do you know about yoga? It’s very much designed to be a meditative / mental / spiritual discipline as much as it is a physical discipline. The yoga sutras present a non-dualist metaphysics and explore the nature of mind and consciousness. Jnana is an explicit goal in many yoga traditions. The main reason for performing the poses is to use the body as a focus for the mind in order to clear it of thoughts and observe it directly. .

Other meditative practices teach us to ignore the body, and that also works, but focusing on the body has some interesting benefits. I’ve learned that my body experiences discomfort and fatigue and all sorts of other sensations, and that I can choose to perceive or ignore, interpret or observe, act or accept, identify or not identify. My mind can focus on bodily sensation, it can focus on itself, it can focus on nothing, or it can wander. Through this, I have learned that I am not my body and I am not my mind. I am consciousness itself, perceiving mind and body. That is what yoga teaches. .

There are many meditative practices. I think the important thing is to observe the mind in a non-judgmental way as you do the same thing over and over again. What that thing is doesn’t matter. You can clear your mind or visualize an object. You can stay still or perform poses. You can be silent or recite a mantra. What matters is observing yourself perform some simple activity until you become so familiar with it that you can notice the subtle changes in the mind going on beneath the activity. .

Reconciliation across species

You assert that a bat resting in safety and comfort has a similar experience to a meditator. Maybe, but how would you know? .