I’m unsure if the sense-reproduction point would be exactly the same, but I’m not a neurologist. (Like, would the same parts of the brain that govern visual perception light up when you ask someone to imagine a dog? What about people with not so great visual imaginations?)
You mean exactly the same as perceiving it? It would not be because in perception the image is continuously updated by the senses. There are practices that purport to reach extremely high levels of visualisation skills but I do not have experience with them. My visualisation skills are not that great either. But it is still a fact that we can mentally reproduce, with varying amounts of skill, any of our senses internally. Notice how good we are with the internal dialogue’s sound reproduction which we have been practising all our lives.
I think that if you were walking around with [3], you wouldn’t currently be implementing a useful operating system in the sense of allowing you to do cool things with your brain.
I just think that we should not call it operating system as the brain can operate without the need for constant intellectual input. I believe it is important as it is a kind of blind spot of western culture that considers the internal dialogue as a constant. So I instead might refer to it as ‘the intellect’, parts of which are ‘belief systems’ and the ‘methods of rationality’.
Also, there are cool things to do with your brain by stopping the intellectual part. Your answer gave me the impression that you would consider walking around (or doing anything else) not thinking as a missed opportunity or a waste of time. If that is so, I can say, from personal experience which you may or may not believe I have, that you are mistaken.
To be clear, I don’t always think that your brain is under an operating system, but the idea of an ontology seems to be a useful abstraction that explains why rationality techniques seem to be different or why learning them can give people a general mindset boost.
I agree. I consider an ‘ontology’ to be a ‘belief system’ and I think there is definitely value in realising that! If you reach that realisation through rationality that is great! But there are other ways so I am not sure about the ‘different’ characterisation.
But it is still a fact that we can mentally reproduce, with varying amounts of skill, any of our senses internally.
I agree that from the sense of my internal experience, I can use solely my brain to conjure up internal states similar to those I’d get from actually having sense experience. So I think that it can feel much the same from the inside; I think we both agree that it’s not exactly the same thing, though?
I just think that we should not call it operating system as the brain can operate without the need for constant intellectual input. I believe it is important as it is a kind of blind spot of western culture that considers the internal dialogue as a constant.
My internal dialogue is not always on, and I am aware of this, so I think we’re in agreement here too. If “operating system” isn’t the right word, I’m trying to point at “a way of internally representing your mind that gives you increased perspective on how your mind works, which might also cache certain algorithms that are representation dependent.” Maybe “abstraction layer” already covers most of this?
Also, there are cool things to do with your brain by stopping the intellectual part. Your answer gave me the impression that you would consider walking around (or doing anything else) not thinking as a missed opportunity or a waste of time. If that is so, I can say, from personal experience which you may or may not believe I have, that you are mistaken.
I think we’re in agreement here as well. I suspect it’d be taxing and suboptimal for people to be meta-aware all of the time, vis a vis the textbook rationality mindset. I think that rationality is one of several ontologies you can be using, which might be good for achieving certain goals.
In other cases, things like “blank time” where you’re not thinking can be good for letting your brain just run on its own. Or, deliberate “non-thinking” can have helpful effects too.
But there are other ways so I am not sure about the ‘different’ characterisation.
By “different”, I just mean how rationality techniques like focusing and precommitment seem to be based off of differing assumptions of how the mind works. I think that’s pretty reasonable?
The textbook definition of rationality from Thinking and deciding is:
The best kind of thinking, which we shall call rational thinking, is whatever kind of
thinking best helps people achieve their goals. If it should turn out that following
the rules of formal logic leads to eternal happiness, then it is “rational thinking” to
follow the laws of logic (assuming that we all want eternal happiness). If it should
turn out, on the other hand, that carefully violating the laws of logic at every turn
leads to eternal happiness, then it is these violations that we shall call “rational.”
When I argue that certain kinds of thinking are “most rational,” I mean that these
help people achieve their goals. Such arguments could be wrong. If so, some other
sort of thinking is most rational.
Yes, we don’t seem to disagree much. Just to clarify a few points one last time and answer your questions.
So I think that it can feel much the same from the inside; I think we both agree that it’s not exactly the same thing, though?
Yes, I agree. They are of much lower clarity. Nevertheless, I do currently believe it is basically the same process. I am basing this on my exploration of the dream state in which without external stimulus I can get perfect realistic (and even hyper-realistic) full sensory experiences.
(sorry, I know this is not really on topic with your post. I was just pointing to the internal dialogue which we now agree on)
If “operating system” isn’t the right word, I’m trying to point at “a way of internally representing your mind that gives you increased perspective on how your mind works, which might also cache certain algorithms that are representation dependent.” Maybe “abstraction layer” already covers most of this?
My opinion is that there is no need to create a label. ‘Belief system’ already exists as a term and I think it describes what you are talking about. You became aware of what a ‘belief system’ is and realised you can change it. It is a powerful realisation. You could use other terms as well as metaphors if you are trying to teach people of what a belief system is, but that is another subject.
I think we’re in agreement here as well. I suspect it’d be taxing and suboptimal for people to be meta-aware all of the time, vis a vis the textbook rationality mindset.
Just to make sure we are talking about the same things here. What do you mean ‘meta-aware’? Could you describe to me your internal experience when you are meta-aware?
In other cases, things like “blank time” where you’re not thinking can be good for letting your brain just run on its own. Or, deliberate “non-thinking” can have helpful effects too.
Could you also clarify what you mean with “blank time”. When we leave our brain to run on its own the internal dialogue does not stop. We are just flooded with automatic thoughts. No?
Could you also clarify what you mean with “blank time”. When we leave our brain to run on its own the internal dialogue does not stop. We are just flooded with automatic thoughts. No?
There are types of meditation that lead to mental states where the flooding stops.
Just to make sure we are talking about the same things here. What do you mean ‘meta-aware’? Could you describe to me your internal experience when you are meta-aware?
Erm, I’m trying to point to the sort of mindfulness where you’re thinking about your tasks rather than just doing them. Something like, “Ah yes, now let’s go and do this written assignment. Okay, looks like I need to write about post-modernism. What do I know about post-modernism? Huh, I notice I am feeling bored...”
Could you also clarify what you mean with “blank time”. When we leave our brain to run on its own the internal dialogue does not stop. We are just flooded with automatic thoughts. No?
I think there’s several things I was trying to describe. I’ve found that leaving my brain to run on its own can be good, but it feels less like there’s an internal observer that’s speaking. Thoughts just sort of stream in, in wordless impulses and hazy flashes.
But I also buy the claim that complete “non-thinking” can be helpful for Reasons, which I assume is not the same thing as the above.
Erm, I’m trying to point to the sort of mindfulness where you’re thinking about your tasks rather than just doing them. Something like, “Ah yes, now let’s go and do this written assignment. Okay, looks like I need to write about post-modernism. What do I know about post-modernism? Huh, I notice I am feeling bored...”
Yes, that is what I thought. If you are thinking in sound/language you are using your internal dialogue. Mindfulness is pausing your internal dialogue and focusing your senses on the current experience. Not talking to yourself about what you are doing. What I think is happening, and this is an assumption on my part, is that you have never experienced the stopping of your internal dialogue as it seldom happens spontaneously.
But I also buy the claim that complete “non-thinking” can be helpful for Reasons, which I assume is not the same thing as the above.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘Reasons’ but I do believe practising meditation, concentration and contemplation (please avoid, in your mind, associating my use of the terms to religion) are essential. As essential as practising our intellectual skills.
I’ve done some mindfulness mediation, but I haven’t made it into a consistent practice. I was trying to compress the sorts of potential health benefits, general life improvements etc. into a black box of “reasons” (which otherwise might have spiraled into its own discussion) with the capital “Reasons”.
Heyo :)
You mean exactly the same as perceiving it? It would not be because in perception the image is continuously updated by the senses. There are practices that purport to reach extremely high levels of visualisation skills but I do not have experience with them. My visualisation skills are not that great either. But it is still a fact that we can mentally reproduce, with varying amounts of skill, any of our senses internally. Notice how good we are with the internal dialogue’s sound reproduction which we have been practising all our lives.
I just think that we should not call it operating system as the brain can operate without the need for constant intellectual input. I believe it is important as it is a kind of blind spot of western culture that considers the internal dialogue as a constant. So I instead might refer to it as ‘the intellect’, parts of which are ‘belief systems’ and the ‘methods of rationality’.
Also, there are cool things to do with your brain by stopping the intellectual part. Your answer gave me the impression that you would consider walking around (or doing anything else) not thinking as a missed opportunity or a waste of time. If that is so, I can say, from personal experience which you may or may not believe I have, that you are mistaken.
I agree. I consider an ‘ontology’ to be a ‘belief system’ and I think there is definitely value in realising that! If you reach that realisation through rationality that is great! But there are other ways so I am not sure about the ‘different’ characterisation.
I agree that from the sense of my internal experience, I can use solely my brain to conjure up internal states similar to those I’d get from actually having sense experience. So I think that it can feel much the same from the inside; I think we both agree that it’s not exactly the same thing, though?
My internal dialogue is not always on, and I am aware of this, so I think we’re in agreement here too. If “operating system” isn’t the right word, I’m trying to point at “a way of internally representing your mind that gives you increased perspective on how your mind works, which might also cache certain algorithms that are representation dependent.” Maybe “abstraction layer” already covers most of this?
I think we’re in agreement here as well. I suspect it’d be taxing and suboptimal for people to be meta-aware all of the time, vis a vis the textbook rationality mindset. I think that rationality is one of several ontologies you can be using, which might be good for achieving certain goals.
In other cases, things like “blank time” where you’re not thinking can be good for letting your brain just run on its own. Or, deliberate “non-thinking” can have helpful effects too.
By “different”, I just mean how rationality techniques like focusing and precommitment seem to be based off of differing assumptions of how the mind works. I think that’s pretty reasonable?
The textbook definition of rationality from Thinking and deciding is:
Seems good. I was trying to gesture at the typical LW definition, but this is helpful too. Thanks!
Yes, we don’t seem to disagree much. Just to clarify a few points one last time and answer your questions.
Yes, I agree. They are of much lower clarity. Nevertheless, I do currently believe it is basically the same process. I am basing this on my exploration of the dream state in which without external stimulus I can get perfect realistic (and even hyper-realistic) full sensory experiences.
(sorry, I know this is not really on topic with your post. I was just pointing to the internal dialogue which we now agree on)
My opinion is that there is no need to create a label. ‘Belief system’ already exists as a term and I think it describes what you are talking about. You became aware of what a ‘belief system’ is and realised you can change it. It is a powerful realisation. You could use other terms as well as metaphors if you are trying to teach people of what a belief system is, but that is another subject.
Just to make sure we are talking about the same things here. What do you mean ‘meta-aware’? Could you describe to me your internal experience when you are meta-aware?
Could you also clarify what you mean with “blank time”. When we leave our brain to run on its own the internal dialogue does not stop. We are just flooded with automatic thoughts. No?
There are types of meditation that lead to mental states where the flooding stops.
Indeed, that is what I am pointing at. I am just not sure lifelonglearner realises that these states are possible.
Erm, I’m trying to point to the sort of mindfulness where you’re thinking about your tasks rather than just doing them. Something like, “Ah yes, now let’s go and do this written assignment. Okay, looks like I need to write about post-modernism. What do I know about post-modernism? Huh, I notice I am feeling bored...”
I think there’s several things I was trying to describe. I’ve found that leaving my brain to run on its own can be good, but it feels less like there’s an internal observer that’s speaking. Thoughts just sort of stream in, in wordless impulses and hazy flashes.
But I also buy the claim that complete “non-thinking” can be helpful for Reasons, which I assume is not the same thing as the above.
Yes, that is what I thought. If you are thinking in sound/language you are using your internal dialogue. Mindfulness is pausing your internal dialogue and focusing your senses on the current experience. Not talking to yourself about what you are doing. What I think is happening, and this is an assumption on my part, is that you have never experienced the stopping of your internal dialogue as it seldom happens spontaneously.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘Reasons’ but I do believe practising meditation, concentration and contemplation (please avoid, in your mind, associating my use of the terms to religion) are essential. As essential as practising our intellectual skills.
I’ve done some mindfulness mediation, but I haven’t made it into a consistent practice. I was trying to compress the sorts of potential health benefits, general life improvements etc. into a black box of “reasons” (which otherwise might have spiraled into its own discussion) with the capital “Reasons”.
Ah sorry. Didn’t get it :)