Suppose there is such a thing as spiritual enlightenment that is not captured by conventional religion, suppose neither Eliezer nor Adam get it. Further, suppose you attain it. Sure, it’s a novel experience, but so are drugs for many folks. What do you expect to get out of it?
“No free lunch” is a basic tenet in knowledge acquisition. Want to know how life emerged? I’m sure we can all suggest books, university courses, museums, documentaries… but meditation? Mysticism? Yogis? They all may be a wonderful experience, with a feel of enlightenment to them, but they cannot impart any novel knowledge apart from themselves.
Another commenter suspects that mystical experience is underestimated by rationalists. Well, what is their true value? What knowledge do they carry?
they cannot impart any novel knowledge apart from themselves
It’s not knowledge, it’s skill at self-control and self-awareness. And like most other skills (riding a bicycle, driving a car, etc.) you can’t acquire them by reading about them or simply thinking that you already know how to do them.
One of the most pernicious biases of the human brain—pernicious because it interferes with self-improvement—is that your brain believes it can always intuitively predict its own responses to mental and physical actions that it has never actually taken.
This means that, even when a self-improvement book includes a technique that produces some useful, novel result, most people will never actually try it, versus just reading about it and imagining that they know what it would have been like if they’d tried it… and concluding that it wouldn’t do anything!
And meditation is absolutely in this category. There’s a world of difference between intellectually “knowing” how much dreck your brain is putting out, and the practical experience of sitting there and listening to it, day after day, and realizing just how utterly stupid you are… it’s also an active discouragement from listening to your own crap the rest of the day, too.
We could also get into health benefits, improved concentration, and all that sort of thing. From personal experience back when I was regularly attending the Dallas Zen center, it also makes you calmer, friendlier, and more confident, although alas those effects are not permanent if you stop. It’s sort of more like exercise that way, I think.
Anyway, enlightenment is hardly a requirement for doing meditation, and Zen masters routinely discourage students from paying attention to any exotic or “spiritual” experiences they may have, precisely because the practice is an exercise, not merely a way of getting to some particular destination.
One of the most pernicious biases of the human brain… is that your brain believes it can always intuitively predict its own responses to mental and physical actions that it has never actually taken.
Agreed, and relevance noted.
So, you say that meditation has practical benefits—helps problem solving and socializing. Is there research which supports these claims? How does meditation compare to other activities?
Thanks, that’s a good starting point. I do feel guilty now for not applying any google-fu, and belatedly offer the Wikipedia article, which mentions other beneficial studies, but also mentions adverse effects and one unfavorable meta-analysis. Whatever the case may be, it opens the way for more constructive analysis, including a cost-benefit one to determine if we, in fact, should meditate, and to what degree. (I’d like to mention here that Erdős took amphetamines. It’s a cheat, but then so is meditation. I wonder what other cheats exist? We might be missing on something big here.)
Anyway, it was Yvain who reminded us the power of positivist thinking, and I think that we should proceed along those lines. Even if we agree that Crowley has identified an infrequent experience that is awesome, it does not mean we should automatically care. We need to understand exactly what this awesome is, what it means in general and what applications it has for us. It appears to me that this post and subsequent discussion got it somewhat backwards!
It might not provide a lot of knowledge to the subject who practices mysticism. It does provide the best experience in his or her life.
For the time being, this might not provide a lot of value in the grand scheme of things. However, as we advance into posthumanisty, we do want to explore the state-space of possible conscious experiences in a systematic way so we can design ourselves in such a way that we inhabit the best regions of conscious experience. Mysticistical practice, therefore, has a tremendous long term potentintial; having practicioners and scientists interested is crucial if we are indeed to find out more about these states of consciousness.
I think, after all, there is a very pertinent parallel in the community of lesswrong: it is called fun theory. The fact that mystical experiences can be so outsandingly great and sublime beyond words is a very strong indicator that we will never run out of fun.
Accepting that I am just guessing and don’t have any empirical evidence, I do see a worthwhile overlap between Buddhist techniques and rationalist aspirations.
My apologia for my faith also suggests a large overlap.
For this comment I’ll try to give a conrete example. I’ve noticed that when I ask for advice I have a tendency to accept it if it agrees with what I want to do anyway, and to reject if it warns against what I want ot do. That is pretty useless. Why ask for advice if one is going to reject any that is contrary to ones original plan?
I’m trying to discipline myself to decide in advance whether I really trust the opinion of the person I’m asking, and if I do ask for advice, taking it without demur. This is hard. I think it is hard because my main motivation for asking for advice is so that I can feel good about plans that I have devised that may be foolish. That uncomfortable feeling, that I want to feel better about my planned course of action, is a pretty strong hint that I should abandon the plan if my chosen advisor is reluctant to endorse it.
Well, that is all very good in theory, but how do I follow through? What I hope to gain from meditation techniques such as the Metta-Bhavana is a degree of unconditional happiness. Strangely it is not the happiness that I’m after. What I really what is to sate the gnawing emotional need for happiness that I blame for biasing my judgement.
If I were happy I could straightforwardly ask a friend for advice and take it. I would be free of the nonsense of rejecting advice to meet subconscious emotional needs. How is this working out? I had a handful of successes; it is not a complete failure. Also it fits with having a sense that more is possible and striving for it.
Regardless of value, the experiences Crowley reports are very far from a free lunch—they take a lot of time, effort, and careful arrangement.
Don’t think of them as knowledge, think of them as skills—like learning to read or do back of the envelope calculations. They enable certain ways of acquiring or using knowledge. We don’t know that the knowledge is at all unique to the mode.
But… why?
Suppose there is such a thing as spiritual enlightenment that is not captured by conventional religion, suppose neither Eliezer nor Adam get it. Further, suppose you attain it. Sure, it’s a novel experience, but so are drugs for many folks. What do you expect to get out of it?
“No free lunch” is a basic tenet in knowledge acquisition. Want to know how life emerged? I’m sure we can all suggest books, university courses, museums, documentaries… but meditation? Mysticism? Yogis? They all may be a wonderful experience, with a feel of enlightenment to them, but they cannot impart any novel knowledge apart from themselves.
Another commenter suspects that mystical experience is underestimated by rationalists. Well, what is their true value? What knowledge do they carry?
It’s not knowledge, it’s skill at self-control and self-awareness. And like most other skills (riding a bicycle, driving a car, etc.) you can’t acquire them by reading about them or simply thinking that you already know how to do them.
One of the most pernicious biases of the human brain—pernicious because it interferes with self-improvement—is that your brain believes it can always intuitively predict its own responses to mental and physical actions that it has never actually taken.
This means that, even when a self-improvement book includes a technique that produces some useful, novel result, most people will never actually try it, versus just reading about it and imagining that they know what it would have been like if they’d tried it… and concluding that it wouldn’t do anything!
And meditation is absolutely in this category. There’s a world of difference between intellectually “knowing” how much dreck your brain is putting out, and the practical experience of sitting there and listening to it, day after day, and realizing just how utterly stupid you are… it’s also an active discouragement from listening to your own crap the rest of the day, too.
We could also get into health benefits, improved concentration, and all that sort of thing. From personal experience back when I was regularly attending the Dallas Zen center, it also makes you calmer, friendlier, and more confident, although alas those effects are not permanent if you stop. It’s sort of more like exercise that way, I think.
Anyway, enlightenment is hardly a requirement for doing meditation, and Zen masters routinely discourage students from paying attention to any exotic or “spiritual” experiences they may have, precisely because the practice is an exercise, not merely a way of getting to some particular destination.
Agreed, and relevance noted.
So, you say that meditation has practical benefits—helps problem solving and socializing. Is there research which supports these claims? How does meditation compare to other activities?
Here’s some that I know of, from my bookmarks. I imagine a Google search would find you plenty more:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070507202029.htm
http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/web/News/Meditation_Alters_Brain_WSJ_11-04.htm
http://www.livescience.com/health/070629_naming_emotions.html
Thanks, that’s a good starting point. I do feel guilty now for not applying any google-fu, and belatedly offer the Wikipedia article, which mentions other beneficial studies, but also mentions adverse effects and one unfavorable meta-analysis. Whatever the case may be, it opens the way for more constructive analysis, including a cost-benefit one to determine if we, in fact, should meditate, and to what degree. (I’d like to mention here that Erdős took amphetamines. It’s a cheat, but then so is meditation. I wonder what other cheats exist? We might be missing on something big here.)
Anyway, it was Yvain who reminded us the power of positivist thinking, and I think that we should proceed along those lines. Even if we agree that Crowley has identified an infrequent experience that is awesome, it does not mean we should automatically care. We need to understand exactly what this awesome is, what it means in general and what applications it has for us. It appears to me that this post and subsequent discussion got it somewhat backwards!
Modafinil?
Concentraion
It might not provide a lot of knowledge to the subject who practices mysticism. It does provide the best experience in his or her life.
For the time being, this might not provide a lot of value in the grand scheme of things. However, as we advance into posthumanisty, we do want to explore the state-space of possible conscious experiences in a systematic way so we can design ourselves in such a way that we inhabit the best regions of conscious experience. Mysticistical practice, therefore, has a tremendous long term potentintial; having practicioners and scientists interested is crucial if we are indeed to find out more about these states of consciousness.
I think, after all, there is a very pertinent parallel in the community of lesswrong: it is called fun theory. The fact that mystical experiences can be so outsandingly great and sublime beyond words is a very strong indicator that we will never run out of fun.
deleted
Accepting that I am just guessing and don’t have any empirical evidence, I do see a worthwhile overlap between Buddhist techniques and rationalist aspirations.
On Hulver’s scoop site I offer a definition of enlightenment.
My apologia for my faith also suggests a large overlap.
For this comment I’ll try to give a conrete example. I’ve noticed that when I ask for advice I have a tendency to accept it if it agrees with what I want to do anyway, and to reject if it warns against what I want ot do. That is pretty useless. Why ask for advice if one is going to reject any that is contrary to ones original plan?
I’m trying to discipline myself to decide in advance whether I really trust the opinion of the person I’m asking, and if I do ask for advice, taking it without demur. This is hard. I think it is hard because my main motivation for asking for advice is so that I can feel good about plans that I have devised that may be foolish. That uncomfortable feeling, that I want to feel better about my planned course of action, is a pretty strong hint that I should abandon the plan if my chosen advisor is reluctant to endorse it.
Well, that is all very good in theory, but how do I follow through? What I hope to gain from meditation techniques such as the Metta-Bhavana is a degree of unconditional happiness. Strangely it is not the happiness that I’m after. What I really what is to sate the gnawing emotional need for happiness that I blame for biasing my judgement.
If I were happy I could straightforwardly ask a friend for advice and take it. I would be free of the nonsense of rejecting advice to meet subconscious emotional needs. How is this working out? I had a handful of successes; it is not a complete failure. Also it fits with having a sense that more is possible and striving for it.
Regardless of value, the experiences Crowley reports are very far from a free lunch—they take a lot of time, effort, and careful arrangement.
Don’t think of them as knowledge, think of them as skills—like learning to read or do back of the envelope calculations. They enable certain ways of acquiring or using knowledge. We don’t know that the knowledge is at all unique to the mode.
Practice