Try imagining having a full-body orgasm vibrating at 20hz (as per my definition of ‘vibration’). Let us know if imagining it produces that experience.
Better yet, before you try imagining it, give us your probability estimate that it will work 1) for you, and 2) for others.
Sorry, I read the first sentence first, and so experienced a minor full-body orgasm. It didn’t particularly vibrate, though—I don’t have a clear enough picture of what that’s even supposed to mean, possibly.
I get the impression that you didn’t pay very close attention to what I’ve written. Is that true?
Apparently I didn’t pay close enough attention. On the other hand, if enlightenment doesn’t fix the really obvious flaws in our brains, it would make it more unlikely that it fixes the less obvious ones. I mean, come on, it should at least stop Asch’s conformity experiment from working, right?
Well I mean it wasn’t that great. But it’s not that hard to get an intense feeling and involuntary muscle contractions, what’s difficult is making it feel good, as opposed to like something you’d describe as “an intense feeling and involuntary muscle contractions.”
Sorry, I read the first sentence first, and so experienced a minor full-body orgasm. It >didn’t particularly vibrate, though—I don’t have a clear enough picture of what that’s >even supposed to mean, possibly.
Today may be the day that you learn that your mind works in a very uncommon way.
What is your probability estimate that a LW reader would have a similar experience to yours, just from reading what I wrote or something like it, in a non-contrived situation?
On the other hand, if enlightenment doesn’t fix the really obvious flaws in our >brains, it would make it more unlikely that it fixes the less obvious ones. I mean, >come on, it should at least stop Asch’s conformity experiment from working, right?
Before I agree or disagree, why do you think so? Biases have different origins, and something that may improve some may not improve others.
(Parenthetically, the relationship between rationality and Asch’s experiment is not as straightforward as you seem to think.)
What is your probability estimate that a LW reader would have a similar experience to yours, just from reading what I wrote or something like it, in a non-contrived situation?
Erm, it’s not that I just read the sentence “feel X” and feel it. It’s that I looked away from the computer and spent half a minute putting myself into a quite contrived situation. The best category would probably be self-hypnosis—and most people are hypnotizable. I have an advantage of having this skill in a sort of rudimentary way because my dad did stuff like this for a while (he was a social worker). I’m not sure how effectively I could communicate it to other people, but looking at self-hypnosis literature would probably give a good idea of the upper bound.
why do you think so?
Because peer pressure, the urge to conform, seems like a direct product of unnecessary attachment to the world, which seems like something meditation with a Buddhist heritage is focused on reducing.
Erm, it’s not that I just read the sentence “feel X” and feel it. It’s that I looked away
from >the computer and spent half a minute putting myself into a quite contrived
situation. The best category would probably be self-hypnosis—and most people
are hypnotizable. I have an advantage of having this skill in a sort of rudimentary
way because my dad did stuff like this for a while (he was a social worker). I’m not
sure how effectively I could communicate it to other people, but looking at
self-hypnosis literature would probably give a good idea of the upper bound.
OK. I think I misunderstood you here and also at some points in the past (including your original response).
However, in relation to my claims about enlightenment and bias, you said:
Because peer pressure, the urge to conform, seems like a direct product of
unnecessary attachment to the world, which seems like something meditation
with a Buddhist heritage is focused on reducing.
I described what this style of meditation is focused on achieving rather explicitly. “Attachment to the world” is not anything I wrote, but is something you are imputing to me because it’s associated with Buddhism. I don’t think you’ve read what I’ve written very thoroughly, and for some reason are trying to respond to it anyway. If you want to continue this discussion, I request that you re-read my post first, and then re-state any comments or criticism.
See here. I read not only this post, but the last one too!
Also, I read the following:
(Will Swain)Didn’t you say that enlightenment would fix problems like attachment? Couldn’t that kind of result produce an empirical test?
(DavidM)”Attachment” has a specific nonstandard meaning in Buddhist-associated thinking, and I realized after writing Part 1 that it would have been better to omit the word altogether rather than try to explain it. So I would prefer to discuss the testable aspects of enlightenment without talking about attachment.
So I’ll not make any more claims about attachment. Would you apply similar “don’t test” restrictions to “craving” and “hatred,” which you also mentioned in part 1?
I used the word “attachment” without explaining it. “Attachment to the world” I’ve never written, though phrases like that appear constantly in Buddhist literature and are often taught as central to it (as you seem well aware of, given your use of the phrase “Buddhist heritage” in relation to this discussion).
About these terms, I seem to be having enough trouble getting across the basics, so I think triage is in order.
Sorry, I read the first sentence first, and so experienced a minor full-body orgasm. It didn’t particularly vibrate, though—I don’t have a clear enough picture of what that’s even supposed to mean, possibly.
Apparently I didn’t pay close enough attention. On the other hand, if enlightenment doesn’t fix the really obvious flaws in our brains, it would make it more unlikely that it fixes the less obvious ones. I mean, come on, it should at least stop Asch’s conformity experiment from working, right?
You’re either the greatest imagineer I’ve ever met, or a big fat liar.
Well I mean it wasn’t that great. But it’s not that hard to get an intense feeling and involuntary muscle contractions, what’s difficult is making it feel good, as opposed to like something you’d describe as “an intense feeling and involuntary muscle contractions.”
EDIT: Googling this topic is tricky.
Not at all. It just comes with all sorts of bonus ‘imagination aids’. ;)
Today may be the day that you learn that your mind works in a very uncommon way.
What is your probability estimate that a LW reader would have a similar experience to yours, just from reading what I wrote or something like it, in a non-contrived situation?
Before I agree or disagree, why do you think so? Biases have different origins, and something that may improve some may not improve others.
(Parenthetically, the relationship between rationality and Asch’s experiment is not as straightforward as you seem to think.)
Erm, it’s not that I just read the sentence “feel X” and feel it. It’s that I looked away from the computer and spent half a minute putting myself into a quite contrived situation. The best category would probably be self-hypnosis—and most people are hypnotizable. I have an advantage of having this skill in a sort of rudimentary way because my dad did stuff like this for a while (he was a social worker). I’m not sure how effectively I could communicate it to other people, but looking at self-hypnosis literature would probably give a good idea of the upper bound.
Because peer pressure, the urge to conform, seems like a direct product of unnecessary attachment to the world, which seems like something meditation with a Buddhist heritage is focused on reducing.
OK. I think I misunderstood you here and also at some points in the past (including your original response).
However, in relation to my claims about enlightenment and bias, you said:
I described what this style of meditation is focused on achieving rather explicitly. “Attachment to the world” is not anything I wrote, but is something you are imputing to me because it’s associated with Buddhism. I don’t think you’ve read what I’ve written very thoroughly, and for some reason are trying to respond to it anyway. If you want to continue this discussion, I request that you re-read my post first, and then re-state any comments or criticism.
See here. I read not only this post, but the last one too!
Also, I read the following:
So I’ll not make any more claims about attachment. Would you apply similar “don’t test” restrictions to “craving” and “hatred,” which you also mentioned in part 1?
I used the word “attachment” without explaining it. “Attachment to the world” I’ve never written, though phrases like that appear constantly in Buddhist literature and are often taught as central to it (as you seem well aware of, given your use of the phrase “Buddhist heritage” in relation to this discussion).
About these terms, I seem to be having enough trouble getting across the basics, so I think triage is in order.