Great, I’ll send you an email in a day or two (things are rather busy on my end, apologies) and we’ll work something out!
DavidM
Thanks for pointing the rule about karma out to me. I’ve got 10 points so far, 10 more to go...
I like the idea of a non-technical explanation of consequentialism, but I worry that many important distinctions will be conflated or lost in the process of generating something that reads well and doesn’t require that the reader to spend a lot of time thinking about the subject by themselves before it makes sense.
The issue that stands out the most to me is what you write about axiology. The point you seem to want to get across, which is what I would consider to be the core of consequentilalism in one sentence, is that “[...]our idea of “the good” should be equivalent or directly linked to our idea of ‘the right’.” But that woefully underspecifies a moral theory; all it does is pick out a group of related theories, which we call “consequentialist”.
It’s important to realize how much possible variation there is among consequentialist theories, and the most straightforward way to do it that I see is to give more serious consideration to the role that axiology plays in a total moral theory. For example, a basic way to taxonomize theories while simplifying away a lot of technical issues that are not important for the kind of overview you’re providing is:
1) Does the theory fundamentally concern itself with outcomes or something other than outcomes?
A theory that fundamentally concerns itself with outcomes (however “outcomes” are defined) is consequentialist. (Other theories have other concerns and other names.)
2) What kinds of outcomes does the theory concern itself with?
Outcomes concerning the satisfaction of people’s preferences.
Outcomes concerning people’s happiness.
Outcomes concerning non-human happiness.
Outcomes concerning ecological sustainability.
Outcomes concerning paperclips.
etc.
All of these describe consequentialist axiologies which lead to different consequentialist theories.
3) For consequentialist theories, the rightness of an action (i.e. the indicator of whether it should be done or not) depends on its consequences or expected consequences. What actions are right for an agent?
Any action that leads to a sufficiently good outcome, where “sufficiently good” is somehow defined...
-...in relation to the current state of the world. E.g. an action is right if it leads to an outcome that is better (according to the theory’s axiology) than the current state of things. “Leave things better than you found them.”
-...in relation to the actions that an agent can actually do. E.g. an action is right if it leads to an outcome that is better than 90% of the other outcomes (according to the theory’s axiology) that an agent can bring into effect through other actions. “Do enough good; sainthood not required.”
Any action that leads to an outcome for which there is no better outcome according to the theory, among all the other outcomes the agent can bring about.
-E.g. You have the task of distributing two bars of chocolate to Ann and Bob. Any bar of chocolate you don’t distribute immediately disappears. Your theory’s complete axiology is “all else being equal, it’s better when one person has more chocolate bars than they otherwise would have had.” Your actions can distribute chocolate bars like this:
Action A --> Outcome A: Ann 0 Bob 0
Action B --> Outcome B:: Ann 1 Bob 0
Action C --> Outcome C: Ann 0 Bob 1
Action D --> Outcome D: Ann 2 Bob 0
Action E --> Outcome E: Ann 0 Bob 2
Action F --> Outcome F: Ann 1 Bob 1
According to your theory, every outcome is better than A. Outcomes D and F are better than B. Outcomes E and F are better than C. Outcomes D, E, and F are neither better than nor worse than nor equal to each other. So Actions D, E, and F would be right, and the rest would be wrong. “Act to maximize value; if that’s undefined, don’t leave any extra value on the table.”
etc.
I’ve left out a lot of issues concerning expected consequences vs. actual consequences, agent knowledge, value measurement and aggregation, satisficing, etc. which I think are not important given the goals of your FAQ. But I’d say it’s important to get across to the non-specialist that the range of consequentialist theories is pretty large, and there are a lot of issues that a consequentialist theory will have to deal with. (In other words, there’s no monolithic theory called “consequentialism” that you can subscribe to which will pass judgements on your actions. If you say believe in “consequentialism”, you have to say more in order to pin down what actions you believe are right and wrong.) If you don’t make this clear, people may fill in the blanks in idiosyncratic ways and then react to the ways they’ve filled them in, which is likely not to lead to anyone being persuaded, or more importantly, anyone being informed. One easy way to resolve this is to define consequentialist theories as those concerned with outcomes, define consequentialist axiologies as theories of what kinds of outcomes are valuable, describe some common methods for determining right actions, and say that a consequentialist moral theory is a consequentialist axiology + a way of determining right actions based on that axiology.
EDIT FOR CLARITY: My point is not that you don’t ever bring up these issues, but that these issues are fundamental (theoretically and pedagogically) and I’d make sure that the structure of the FAQ emphasizes that.
Meditation, insight, and rationality. (Part 1 of 3)
Unfortunately, there are no such studies that I know of. There is a large disconnect between the models that practitioners use and the ways in which scientists have been interested in examining the subject. This disconnect is something I intend to discuss in Part 3. Theravada Buddhism, for example, has an official (i.e. sanctioned by doctrine) model of the various stages of meditation, which makes extremely detailed predictions about the changes a meditator is likely to undergo, in what order, etc. but for various reasons, scientists don’t seem to be interested in or aware of that model.
About your experiences with meditation, one thing I ought to have made clear (and I’m not sure whether I did) is that contemporary practitioners have found that some methods work better than others. Common methods that people throw around (e.g. “relax, follow your breath, and try to remain in equanimity regardless of what thoughts come up” turn out not to be very effective. What method did you use?
I’ll briefly describe methods that have been found to be especially effective in Part 2. “Finding and sharing effective methods” is one of the major things that contemporary meditators interested in enlightenment have done well at.
First of all, I don’t believe I said anything about detachment from emotion.
Many Buddhist organizations see and practice meditation as a form of psychotherapy / relaxation, which is different from what I’m talking about. What they said to you seems in line with that style of practice—one that aims at not being stressed, not reacting in unhelpful ways to emotional upsets, not worrying over what one can’t control, etc.
Many people seem to find that style of practice extremely helpful for themselves. For a person whose sole goal is to gain insight into the workings of their mind, I would probably not recommend it.
I wouldn’t say that the group you’re mentioning has “crazy ideas” or “bad communication”. I’m sure they mean exactly what they say, and what they say doesn’t seem especially unreasonable. Many people would benefit from being less reactive. I think it’s simply a case where their goals are to become less reactive, and they practice accordingly, whereas a person who does not have that as a goal of meditation (and instead has the goal of e.g. insight into the defects of their own cognitive processes) would not meditate in a way that aims solely at cultivating that attitude. Different strokes for different folks.
I’m not sure what cognitive artifacts you have in mind. “Enlightenment” is not any particular mental state. It has no particular qualities. In many ways it’s quite mundane. Just everyday life, minus some unhelpful kinds of cognition. No special relation to near death experiences that I can see, if that’s what you meant.
On the other hand, If what you meant is that near death experiences tend to play out in a certain pattern, which is like what I’m claiming about the regularity of meditation experiences, that’s an interesting comparison. I’d say it indicates that both phenomena have a strong biological basis (independent of culture) that is worth investigating. The biggest difference that I can see is that near-death experiences play out over a short period of time, whereas the progression of meditation experiences can unfold over days or weeks or more, with lots of everyday non-meditation experiences interspersed between them. (Described in Part 2)
Agree that “cultural differences” needs to be defined carefully so as not to make the hypothesis untestable.
Being completely honest about your thoughts is great advice for anyone. Meditation is really a different sort of exercise. Honesty happens anew in each moment in which there is something to be honest about. Meditation is something you do for awhile, and eventually, something that you can forget about.
Honesty without limit is unhelpful, but in many contexts, the value of honesty at the margin tends to be high, which is why I’d say it’s great advice.
Are there times where there is something that would be painful to admit, but you don’t realize until later that it was weighing on you? I wonder whether you would find doing an active search for such things beneficial (in the right social contexts).
Thanks for the references. I should have made clear that I meant, not that there are no peer-reviewed studies about meditation, but there are none that I know of that concern enlightenment, the typical stages of meditative experience leading up to it, cognitive / neurophysiological sequelae, etc. (which are what I would find interesting in this context).
If you know otherwise, I’d love to hear about it.
Unfortunately, as far as I know, it’s an issue that hasn’t been studied...but because of the detailed knowledge that has come out of communities interested in enlightenment, I see no principled reason why it couldn’t be studied.
Actually, I think it’s low-hanging fruit.
At least in the context of Buddhism-inspired practices, the reasons are threefold...
1) Monks in many (all?) Buddhist traditions are prohibited from discussing their own attainments with non-monks by the rules of their organization.
2) Most (nearly all?) contemporary dharma centers / etc., for various sociocultural reasons, have strong taboos concerning discussion of attainments.
3) If you tell a person in normal society that you are interested in reaching enlightenment, hope to do so soon, or perhaps already have, you are most likely to be written off as mentally ill, a member of a cult, a drug user, or something along those lines.
So, suppose you are a contemporary Westerner interested in learning about and openly talking about meditation and enlightenment. There is almost no context in which this would be socially acceptable, apart from the context of a small group of people who share the same interest and make it a point to keep their interests hidden from the public at large.
The only change that I know of has been that people are willing to talk about all kinds of things on the internet that may be taboo in other contexts, and are better able to find like-minded peers who share their interests. (If you want an example, try talking about the benefits of cryonics in person vs. on LW and see how your reception differs.)
The case might be different with practices associated with non-Buddhist traditions; I wouldn’t know.
In my opinion, the description of meditation in that post has very little in common with the ways that meditation would be described in the context of seeking enlightenment. (No disrespect to the author.)
Do you have statistics or studies concerning the claim that Buddhist physicists are not advantaged in science? How would you even begin to rationally approach the issue? It seems complicated—you’d have to adjust for education levels, the possibility that meditators are inclined to pursue subjects other than physics, the fact that meditation takes up time that could otherwise be devoted to studying physics, different cultural backgrounds of meditations vs. controls...
Intuitively, I think your claim is likely to be true, but I can’t really see how you can rigorously support it. Data on the % of Buddhist physicists, if it even exists, would only be scratching the surface of what you would need to support your claim. (Not that I want to debate the claim. But if you feel it’s important, I want a non-handwavey argument.)
A better model for enlightenment, meditation and rationality, I’d say, is that these things give you tools that allow you to be more rational if you’re so inclined. As with everything in life, it’s your own goals and inclinations that determine what you do with them.
An analogy is drinking coffee. Paraphrasing Paul Erdos, a mathematician is one who turns coffee into theorems. Do coffee drinkers have a special advantage in mathematics? Probably not. So perhaps Erdos was wrong; perhaps having to empty one’s bladder more often actually interferes with being a good mathematician? Again, probably not. Most likely, drinking coffee leads to mathematical productivity for people who are interested in increasing mathematical productivity.
You quoted me talking about people outside these communities (I.e.people for whom neither Buddhism nor meditation have any special cultural significance) but appear to have ignored it in your response.
That there is a belief-independent similarity in people’s experiences was my point!
I don’t really know how to respond to your comment other than to re-emphasize what I wrote and you quoted.
No problem!
Thanks for letting me know that you’re interested.
I never claimed to be a Buddhist and I explicitly disclaimed the value of trying to see my post as an instance of Buddhism (near the top), so I don’t know why you’ve called me one.
I prefer to be thought of as someone sharing what they know, rather than an adherent of some system.
“stumble onto” could mean a number of things. Effective meditation exercises need not be esoteric, and people can and do find them just by using their minds in certain uncommon ways. Sometimes that’s just what happens, and then they search out other people or groups who they imagine might be able to tell them something about the experiences they’ve had. Cases like those are the really suggestive ones.
I would say that the methods leading to enlightenment will help with stress, but only indirectly. Once you’ve begun to do away with the delusions that cause you suffering, life starts to go a lot more smoothly. But the practice that most directly aims at that is not a relaxing one and is not one that I would ever recommend to someone to control their stress levels for immediate relief.
Parenthetically, some people find that, with partial enlightenment, the practices that directly improve mood and stress levels become ridiculously easy (for those who care to indulge). Most beginners typically find the same practices hard to execute successfully.
Meditation, insight, and rationality. (Part 2 of 3)
The earliest contemporary tradition which emphasizes meditation in a style like this that I know of goes back to Mahasi Sayadaw, a Burmese Theravada monk, and then to whoever taught him. Mahasi Sayadaw’s impact on Theravada Buddhism has been very large, though his tradition is certainly not the only one in contemporary Theravada Buddhism.
“Vibrations” is a term you won’t see in any Buddhist literature. Where I write “pay attention to vibrations,” Buddhists would write “pay attention to the impermanence characteristic of phenomena.” In Buddhism, “impermanence” (Pali: anicca) is one of the three characteristics of everything that exists. “Vibrations” is a term that suits the positivist in me better. (Note: I didn’t invent the term. It’s common in contemporary secular communities interested in enlightenment.)
What you’re describing doesn’t sound like vibrations; there are other [for lack of a better word] “pulsatory” phenomena in experience. But you can make an educated guess under the following assumption: if you can see them that easily, you should be able to see them in lots of places. So, look at part of your visual field and see if it has any property that you would describe as ‘vibratory.’ Or touch your skin and see if the sensation has any vibratory property.
I don’t know what’s up with the particular numbers. There may be some relationship between the frequencies of vibrations and the frequencies of brain waves, but I wouldn’t know. Vibrations typically present at frequencies around there (5,7, 10, whatever), and it is true that certain frequencies are more predominant in certain stages. It would be interesting to know whether there is an interesting association between the stages, their typical cognitive / emotional / attentional / perceptual manifestations, and brainwave activity.
EDITED FOR CLARITY: I didn’t see that you wrote alpha waves. Vibrations often present slower and faster than alpha waves. I’ve seen 3-4hz often enough. Stage two often has really high frequency vibrations (20hz+) if your concentration is strong or you’re deep enough into it.
I’ve been through the stages I’ve described, yes.
I’m a newly registered member of LW (long-time lurker) and was thinking of posting about this very topic. Like many in the community, I have a background in science / math / philosophy, but unlike many, I have also spent many years working to understand what Jasen calls the “Buddhist claim” experientially (i.e. through meditation) and being involved with the contemporary traditions that emphasize attaining that understanding. I see myself as an “insider” straddling both communities, well-situated to talk about what Buddhists are going on about regarding “self” and “not-self” and enlightenment in a way that would be highly comprehensible to people who frame the world in a contemporary scientific way.
Specifically, I was considering a three-part series along these lines:
1) Highly abridged history of Buddhist thought concerning “insight” meditation and the insight into “no-self”; overview of contemporary secular traditions focusing on attaining this insight. Risks and benefits of pursuing it.
2) Case study: Have 1500 years of Buddhist tradition yielded a novel testable model of an aspect of human psychological development?
3) How science has dropped the ball concerning research on meditation and “spirituality”; how some communities of meditators have come to know more about meditation than scientists do; some thoughts on why; some thoughts on how this could be changed.
However, I don’t want to pre-empt anyone’s post (in particular Jasen’s, since he mentioned it), and also, I don’t know the extent to which this is an interesting topic to LW-ers, or what the community norms are for newly-registered members initiating new posts. So I’d like to get some sense of whether people here would like to see posts on this topic, and in particular, what Jasen thinks about the prospect of me posting.