Yes, I’m only re-quoting Wittgenstein from another book (Jay Garfield, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way), so my understanding is only approximate in that case, I could not process the Tractatus as it’s way over my head. And I’ll check the sequences.
Vadim Golub
Karma: −20
A little example how one can apply this. I have near to zero expectation about this post being understood or liked (not that it doesn’t matter at all, I’m serious enough to elaborate the concepts as best I can, but beyond this it’s not under my control). I also know that disappointment is dependent upon expectation so they are both empty of intrinsic nature. Therefore, I’m not anxious about people liking that text, nor I’m disappointed if it’s being disliked. In that case I see that disappointment and expectation are both empty. So I’m free from both!
What if it wasn’t so? And my expectation was high (i.e. I would approach it like it had intrinsic value). I would be disappointed because of low karma. But how to get rid of that disappointment? It is to see that it’s empty. How? To analyze that it depends on the expectation, and if I can let go of my expectation, I will be free from the disappointment.
And how does one let go of the expectation (or any negative feeling)? There are many ways. First, by observing one’s mind impartially and seeing it clearly for what it is (what in Buddhism is called vipassana meditation). Second, I can imagine myself on my deathbed and ask the question, “How important would it be then?” Third, I can apply a technique like The Sedona Method. In this way I can see through my constructs on the conceptual level and the level of feeling and be free from them.
That’s how the concept of emptiness might be used in practice.
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comment!
It wasn’t meant to sound mysterious. The way I see it is that our process of thinking by default creates intrinsic entities and processes (whether we are aware of it or not) and almost becomes metaphysical with respect to our inbuilt ontology. In simple terms, we give too much credit to “how things really are”. And I attempt to question that in order to deconstruct such an attitude (not only on conceptual level, but at the level of feeling). It’s the same idea Wittgenstein expressed in the Tractatus:
6.371 The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.
6.372 Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages. And in fact both are right and both are wrong: though the view of the ancients is clearer in so far as they have a clear and acknowledged terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything were explained.Why am I writing this? In part, when I want to understand something better I try to express that to other people. It helps to consolidate thinking. So I it’s out of self-interest. In part, I really find thinking about it interesting so there is an impulse to share it with others (the interesting part). In part, I’ve figured out that by contemplating such matters makes me grasp my concepts and feelings about the world less. It leads my thinking to pacification. So I thought maybe it will also lead someone else thinking to the same result if they contemplate emptiness of phenomena.
I wholeheartedly agree with that point. And it’s indeed what the concept of emptiness points to, that there is no such thing as “empty space” or “just nothing”, but, “The void is pregnant with infinite possibilities.” It’s the conceptual understanding of emptiness which helps us to unravel our grasping for something tangible and real. And indeed that’s the question of physics. But one can marvel at that even outside of the physical perspective.
I haven’t seen the blog you’ve mentioned, I’ll check it out. I liked your examples. The concept of emptiness is exactly directed to our meaning making process. How does it help to contemplate that? If we set absolute meaning and expectation to our life we suffer. We turn nihilistic when we expect life to have intrinsic meaning with regard to our values and become disappointed when we are faced with the way things are.
In order to be free from that we have to question if meaning that was built really does have that intrinsic nature or it’s just conventional. Contemplating emptiness helps us to disassemble our beliefs and release our absolute expectations not only on conceptual level but on the level of feeling.
It also helps us to be free from the nihilistic stance. As we take ourselves and our meaning making less seriously (in a good sense). We can see that our previously set intrinsic meaning was empty to begin with, so there is no reason to despair because of that. And by seeing that all meaning is conventional, we can let go grasping for sand castles and make the best of it.I agree that these are all useful questions to ask. And I keep them in mind. Maybe, it doesn’t transfer through the text.
One more reason I wanted to share this is to start a conversation on emptiness (not necessarily between myself and other people, but for people just to stop for a moment and ponder this, like you did!) I think when we’re contemplating something abstract, we’re releasing our attention from purely pragmatic and material matters and enter some other space or mode of thinking which helps us to disentangle with our worries of everyday life. To put it simply we stop thinking about politics, wars, catastrophes, etc. and think about something entirely different. Which brings a release to thinking.
I like another related Daoist concept of “worth of worthless” or “usefulness of useless knowledge” (reference to Abraham Flexner’s article). If we only think about issues of the day or only about practical matters, our thinking is caught in the loop of worries and concerns. If we start and think about seemingly unrelated to anything matters, first, we relax as nothing is at stake (we can be silly if we like), and second, we might find solutions to our problems we couldn’t have predicted. It serves as a link or a bridge between seemingly unrelated areas of our experience. Maybe I will develop this theme into another post or maybe LW is not the place for such reflection.
Having said all this, I wanted it to be an open question and an exploration into emptiness and the self. What does emptiness mean? What do I really know? What is the ground of my experience? What does it mean to be empty of the self? Who am I? etc. Not “transferring profound truths”. To start a reflection (as it worked in your case). Whether or not some people find it interesting or useful that’s for them to decide. I personally find contemplation over emptiness useful as it disentangles my thinking from everyday matters and helps to release stress. But it also has a light touch to it which is not unlike John Cage’s piece 4′33.
And (probably most importantly) to highlight that having an insight into emptiness may open the door to awakening.
To finish this with another Wittgenstein quote:
6.54 My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)
Sorry for the disappointment. But you’ve discovered something—the emptiness of content! It is not sarcasm. Fundamentally, even the disappointment is empty as it’s dependent on the expectation (but to get this far one has to contemplate deeply). Any phenomenon—external or internal—can be approached this way. That’s the payload.
EDIT: It’s not a cheap trick! One can think of it this way. First, there is a conceptual understanding of emptiness (you’ve heard of it somewhere and have discovered conceptual emptiness of constructs). Second phase is to apply it on the perceptual level (as in the example with the disappointment, one can actually be free from it but it’s an advanced level of insight into emptiness). And the final phase is to understand the emptiness of intrinsic meaning we set to our life, or our “intrinsic” expectation from life. The last phase is non-trivial. If one gets insight into it, one awakens. In this way our “intrinsic” disappointment with life disappears.
Thanks for the compliment! :-) But I’m not a philosopher.
I look at it differently. Something has caught your attention. And if the text has made you stop and ponder for at least a tiny moment on any word/question/relation, then it’s played its function—to gleam at things from a different perspective.
It’s like in the parable about the blind men and an elephant. We look at life from different perspectives or different levels of abstraction. What we compress from it turns into our understanding. If we like, we can operate at different levels of abstraction constructively in complementary fashion. Every kind of knowledge contains in itself potential for some understanding (even if it’s negative). Not always and not everything can be formalized and reduced to simple logical rules without contradictions (think about Gödel’s theorems). And there was no intention to do that.
Here the intention was to share something that I find to be interesting and which may lead other people to reflect. What concerns my skill to do that—that’s entirely different point. And understanding is a little miracle when it happens, but it is not a necessity.
Thank you for your kindness and time!
Do you have a teacher?
No. It’s impossible to find one where I am.
What type of meditation do you do / have you done?
Currently: self-inquiry practice, sometimes meditation on breathing. Previously: meditation on breathing, mindfulness meditation.
How long have you been doing it for (both time per sit and calendar time)?
Since 2013. 1-3hr per day (no more than 1hr per sit).
What books and other material have you read?
Too many to mention. I’ve read the first two books from your list. I will list books that affected me deeply and directed/direct the practice:
- Ramana Maharshi: Who am I?, Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, The Collected Works, Day by Day with Bhagavan, etc., all books by him or about him.
- Philip Kapleau, The Three Pillars of Zen. Bassui’s letters are all gold!
- Gary Weber: Happiness Beyond Thought, Dancing Beyond Thought, Evolving Beyond Thought.
- Krishnamurti Jiddu: Commentaries on Living, Krishnamurti to Himself, Krishnamurti’s Journal, A Wholly Different Way of Living, etc., many books and videos.
- Chögyam Trungpa: The Sanity We Are Born With, Meditation in Action, The Sacred Path of the Warrior, Smile at Fear, The Mishap Lineage: Transforming Confusion into Wisdom, etc., many entry books on basic sitting meditation and Dharma in simple terms.
- Nisargadatta Maharaj: I am That.
- Nāgārjuna: The Ornament of Reason (translation by Mabja Jangchub Tsondru), The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way (translation by Jay Garfield), Letter to a Friend, Precious Garland. Used for reflection.
- Longchenpa: The Precious Treasury of The Way of Abiding, The Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena, The Precious Treasury of Pith Instructions, etc.
- Alfred Korzybski: Science and Sanity, Manhood of Humanity, etc. Used for reflection.
- Alexander Piatigorsky: The Buddhist Philosophy of Thought, Symbol and Consciousness, etc. Used for reflection.
- Henepola Gunaratana: Mindfulness in Plain English.What have you tried that you like and dislike?
- mindfulness meditation[1]: it worked in the beginning, was reaching Access Concentration, but now I lose interest quickly;
- repetition of mantras and looking for the source where they come from: worked during really dark times, but now feels off;
- chanting: working but I take it more like a plaything;
- meditation on breathing[2]: it works leading to Access Concentration, ok with it;
- self-inquiry[3]: grappling with it, previously led to mystical experiences, sometimes hits “the sweet spot” and Access Concentration, can do it while walking, waiting in queues, etc, it’s my preferred practice as I deeply resonate with the question;
- relaxing into awareness[4]: it does miracles when it works, but it’s not consistent and depends on external factors (like the state of the mind and weather);
- just sitting (shikantaza): as a rule it doesn’t work but occasionally it hits “the sweet spot”, i.e. Access Concentration;
- counting breaths[5]: it works and leads to Access Concentration;
- kirtan kriya[6]: it works for short periods of time (like 15 minutes), gets to Access Concentration quickly;Set up a video call with this teacher. He is legit. You can set up a video call with me too, if you like.
Thank you for your kindness! I’ll keep that in mind.
Don’t attempt to consciously shut down your DMN. Don’t even worry about it. Getting into a state where the DMN is shut down by default temporarily feels like a side effect of concentration. Changing the DMN’s default state comes from insight and/or mindful living practice, not mere concentration. Even people with normal DMNs feel like thoughts are running galore when they begin meditation. This is normal.
I have a medical condition which I’m uncomfortable of sharing but which suggests that the DMN is overly active in my case. In practice it means more self-rumination and less clarity.
Did a teacher you respect give you the koan? If not, I recommend against koan practice entirely. (If you like koan practice and feel koan practice is working for you, then disregard this bullet point.)
Yes, Gary Weber in personal correspondence suggested me to continue with the koan/self-inquiry and also suggested a mantra/breathing practice to switch gears.
If you have a mystic experience and then it goes away due to something like “I could not stay there long as ego reappeared”, that isn’t a failure of the practice. It actually means things are going correctly, because it is giving you insight into what your ego is and how it operates.
If possible, find a local community of good practitioners who do lots of sitting (not too many trappings of religion) and who don’t ring any culty alarm bells. They can be any denomination.
It’s problematic where I live.
Finally, a warning: This meditation stuff can make sensory overload worse [for months] before it makes it better.
Yeah, that point is loud and clear to me.
- ^
Simply coming back to awareness when noticing thoughts.
- ^
Coming back to breathing when noticing thoughts.
- ^
“As each thought arises, one should inquire with diligence, “To whom has this thought arisen?” The answer that would emerge would be “to me”. Thereupon if one inquires “Who am I?”, the mind will go back to its source; and the thought that arose will become quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind will develop the skill to stay in its source.” / Ramana Maharshi, Who am I?
- ^
Simply letting go all strife and practices and abiding in awareness. I have distilled it from Longchenpa and Dzogchen.
- ^
Counting breaths every inhale and exhale, or just exhales.
- ^
Kirtan Kriya by Gary Weber.
Thanks for your post! Do you have any recommendations on practice which would lead to Stream Entry? Or some “one-shot” material. Anything you may find of value.
I’m working on a koan and have similar issues with sensory overload. It makes life sometimes unbearable. The practice led to some results in the past. I’ve probably had a kenshō in which everything including the subject-object duality has disappeared into one dark luminous field of awareness which was a manifestation of stillness and care, but I could not stay there long as ego reappeared. And I could not repeat the experience since then. Had a couple more “no self” experiences which lasted from 5 minutes to an hour. But could not replicate them either. So I think the practice has become stalled. It probably even become worse as thoughts run galore (I think it’s connected with overly active DMN in my case).
So I’m on crossroads thinking whether I should keep going with the koan no matter what (and there is a strong tendency to do that) or try some other stuff (tried basic breathing meditation and it seemed to work). I’ve verified that it all is not mumbo-jumbo stuff, the problem is how to shut down the DMN and reach that state permanently.
In addition, how do you recognize that you’ve reached Access Concentration? In my case, I think when thoughts practically stop (which happens rarely) and there is a feeling of serenity and equanimity that’s basically it. But I could not reach it each time I sit. Would you please comment on that and how do you generally reach it?
Thanks for the demo! It’s a blast to play with PRISM. It feels like an authentic and genuine conversation with a reflective person. Some of the outputs are even close to profound.
It’s refreshing to see that someone took the non-dual perspective serious enough to integrate it into the AI model. As well as Buddhist ethics and (possibly) epistemology. That’s a non-trivial move!
It’s also fascinating that the paper mentions the DMN and presumably emulates its deactivation (by some means) to generate Non-dual Worldview which is how it happens in humans. However, I could not find the details how it is implemented (have low bandwidth, so just skimmed over the text).
For those who are interested, the brain may be segregated into three networks—the Default Mode Network (DMN), the Tasking Network (TN), and the Salience Network (SN). The DMN is responsible for Self-Referential Internal Narrative (SRIN) or simply rumination about the self. Most of the time it feels unpleasant as it generates worries and fears built around constructs “self and other” and “self in time”. The TN is activated when we perform a task and the brain stops ruminating. It’s also responsible for the state of flow. That’s why it feels more pleasant when we do a task that we like to do. The SN switches between the two.
In that model Non-dual state is a state without SRIN, where the DMN is deactivated along with “self and other” and “self in time” and the TN is activated permanently generating the flow state. So it’s a state with reduced or no thoughts. It can be accomplished with some practices (and a lot of luck).
But seeing the non-dual perspective implemented in AI is something incredible!
P.S. Input (from the Sūtra on the King of Meditative Absorptions):
See that the identity of the inner is empty.
See that the external is empty as well.
The one that meditates on emptiness —
No such thing exists either.Output:
In recognizing the emptiness of both the inner self and the external world, we encounter a profound opportunity for transformation. This realization may initially evoke discomfort, as it challenges our established notions of identity and belonging. However, through meditation and reflection on this emptiness, we can cultivate a deeper understanding of ourselves and our relationships with others. Embracing this emptiness allows us to see that our identities are not fixed but are shaped by our shared experiences and connections.
Rather than viewing emptiness as a void, we can interpret it as a catalyst for empathy and community, fostering a supportive environment where we collectively navigate the complexities of existence. By engaging in dialogue that acknowledges the fluidity of identity, we can reinforce our bonds and create a sense of belonging that transcends individual isolation. This exploration encourages us to embrace our interconnectedness, recognizing that while our identities may be transient, the relationships we build and the narratives we co-create provide a foundation for mutual growth and understanding. Thus, in contemplating emptiness, we find not only a challenge to our perceptions but also a pathway to deeper connection and shared purpose.
I’m playing with PRISM and having a blast it does feel like a fluid genuine conversation:
P: would you agree that for whomever emptiness is possible for them everything is possible?
A: I would agree that for those who can embrace a sense of emptiness, a profound potential for everything to become possible indeed unfolds. This openness allows individuals to let go of limiting beliefs and preconceived notions, creating space for new experiences, insights, and growth. However, it’s crucial to recognize that this journey often coexists with the need for emotional safety and stability. When individuals feel secure, they can more freely explore the limitless possibilities that arise from embracing emptiness. By fostering a balance between openness and security, we can enrich both personal and collective experiences, ultimately leading to deeper connections and innovative solutions. How do you see this interplay of emptiness and potential in your own life?
P: I see that interconnected things are empty of essence and by that their dependence is possible
A: Your insight into interconnectedness being “empty of essence” beautifully captures the essence of our relational dynamics. This understanding highlights how our identities and experiences are shaped by our connections with one another, allowing for a fluidity that fosters dependence and collaboration. Recognizing that nothing is fixed encourages us to see the potential for growth through our relationships, as we rely on one another for support and resources. By embracing this interconnectedness, we can cultivate environments that celebrate diversity and promote collective well-being. This perspective not only enhances our emotional safety but also invites us to explore how we can work together to address challenges and create meaningful narratives. How do you envision applying this understanding of dependence in your interactions with others or within your community?
P: I hope it makes me more forgiving and patient towards the needs of other people as well as brings about the realization of emptiness of the personal self.
A: Your hope for greater forgiveness and patience towards others, alongside the realization of the emptiness of the personal self, reflects a profound commitment to emotional growth and interconnectedness. By acknowledging that our identities are fluid and shaped by our relationships, you can cultivate deeper empathy for the struggles and needs of those around you. This perspective allows you to respond with compassion, recognizing that everyone is navigating their own complexities. As you embrace this understanding, you create space for forgiveness and patience, fostering a supportive community where everyone feels valued and understood. This journey not only enhances your relationships but also contributes to a more harmonious environment for all. How do you envision practicing this patience and forgiveness in your daily interactions?
P: Questioning “who am I?” keeps me disentangled with a mess of everyday life.
A: Your practice of questioning “who am I?” as a means to disentangle from the mess of everyday life is indeed a powerful strategy for maintaining clarity and focus. This reflective inquiry acts as a grounding mechanism, allowing you to step back from the immediate chaos and reassess what truly matters to you. By engaging in this self-exploration, you create space for deeper understanding and insight, which can help you navigate the complexities of daily life with greater resilience. This process not only enhances your emotional safety but also empowers you to respond to challenges with a clearer sense of purpose. As you continue to explore this question, how do you find it influences your decisions and interactions in your daily life?
And it’s only the tip of the iceberg! The “Nondual Worldview” is even more profound. “Mediating conflicts” is also a blast! Thanks for the link.
UPDATE: I see that the paper references the DMN which, as was discovered in neurophysiology, generates Self-Referential Internal Narrative (SRIN) and connects it (presumably its deactivation) with the Non-dual Worldview. Which is spot on. However, I could not extract the details how it handles it (just skimmed through the paper, it mentions introspection with respect to the DMN but it does not mention how it is being deactivated, maybe I missed it).
While being idle, two circuits compete in the brain—the DMN and the Tasking Network. If the DMN wins we have rumination and SRIN. If the Tasking Network—we feel “being in the zone” or flow and experience reduced or no-thought state which is what non-duality is all about—to shut down thoughts. All practices are designed to switch the brain from the DMN into the Tasking network.
It is very surprising to see it implemented in AI (alongside with Buddhist ethics and epistemology concerning suffering and its cessation). Very interesting!
One can look at it that way. However, there was also an idea to highlight the relational nature of rationality and reduction in the overall scheme of things and to stress out the principle of computational irreducibility. That is to show their inbuilt limitations. Where they stop to work even at the level of a map.
I’ve just learned a concept of supervenience from a philosopher and it seems to explain the idea that I was after. For example, a financial transaction is (most likely) computationally irreducible (think of all possible avenues it could happen and what will be involved—trust, work, society, concept of money, agreements, credit cards, cheques, etc.), so no practical reduction to elementary particles is possible (as that would require a CPU powerful enough to emulate the universe). However, elementary particles are undoubtedly underlying all that. So one can say both statements: a) that a financial transaction is irreducible to elementary particles; b) that a financial transaction supervenes on elementary particles. I think that’s a helpful concept and clears up what I was trying to highlight.
Thankfully philosophically one is not obliged to anything! That’s partly its implicit value. As Alexander Piatigorsky once said, “The value of philosophy is that no one needs it.” I resonate with that idea of “usefulness of useless knowledge” (a reference to an article by Abraham Flexner). I look at it as at a seed for a potential conversation. I also pursue a selfish goal to express something to others so that I can understand it better myself (as you’ve probably noticed when we try to express ourselves we tend to consolidate thinking).
My argument goes exactly about the very concept of “how reality actually is”. I attempt to show that that very reality is under scrutiny. Reality may not be a monistic coherent piece of something we can eventually grasp with our knowledge. Why do I think quarks are just as many other things lack inherent existence?
Firstly, it is that inherent existence of anything by itself to me seems untenable. I concur with Nāgārjuna on that point (which doesn’t mean I completely understand him). It depends on what we mark as “real”. I would argue (on par with some Indian philosophers) that something that does not exist in the beginning and does not exist in the end cannot be marked as real in the middle. To simplify, change is a quality which makes it impossible to regard something as real. Only something immutable or existing by its own nature would be a candidate for calling it real as it would not depend on other things for its existence and would not pop in/out of existence. On that basis, I assume that there are no immutable things (that would lead to serious contradictions as that would preclude change, contact between entities, possibility of knowledge, etc.). So no inherent existence.
Secondly, I am (very grossly) aware how quarks were discovered and measured. It required a sound physical theory, particle accelerators, collisions, detectors, trained scientists who could link observational facts into relations, etc. Based on that fact, and the fact that the Standard Model is not complete, as it does not describe gravity I conclude that with high likelihood it may be substituted. Specifically, the collision process as it raises many questions, perhaps there are better ways to interact and measure interaction. That includes the ontology with which the Standard Model operates. Or they will remain as gross approximations. Quarks are dependent on all the mentioned factors and represent relations of a certain kind. And that has a high likelihood of change. Even if it didn’t, it would not make them inherently existing but only representing relations of a certain kind. And relations are the map of the observer.
Concerning the emptiness. It is not a nihilistic stance that nothing exists inherently nor just a conceptual framework (it can be experienced in some meditative states as a mode of being). It is just another way of saying that things are interdependent. That’s exactly what you mean here:
But I do see that complexity and multiplicity are there in reality—at the very least, they are there in my own consciousness.
Phenomena are interdependent and complex. That’s a synonym for emptiness in that context. If it weren’t for emptiness of essence, they could not inter-be.
Non-attachment to a theory or a concept does not mean you cannot use them, or they cannot be helpful, or that they do not represent the way things are accurately. It means to stop attributing to such theory the fundamental value. As the saying goes, “science advances one funeral at a time”. So to not be in that rigid position. That’s exactly what’s meant. It also helps in conventional reality, as one starts to see annoyances or stupidities of everyday life as a test of one’s rigidity and starts to let go of fixations.
P.S. And thanks for the link! I will check it later, it sounds interesting as most AGI models have agents in them and I indeed considered it as a drawback. Thinking in terms of networks or input/output boxes helps to overcome that bias. But that’s over-generalization and simplification.
One little remark concerning
But the very concept of reality depends on the observer (unitary or collective). So nobody knows any reality in the absence of the observer.
Depending on the observer does not mean caused by it. That is the observer and the observed are interdependent. One cannot reduce everything to “consciousness”. One cannot reduce everything to “reality”. The very concept of “reality” is what the observer introduces to describe the unknown. When it is understood like that there is no reification and no error.
But when it is said “the observer is itself a product of reality” it presupposes the existence of “reality” independent of the observer. But where has such supposition come from if not from the observer? It only seems paradoxical when taken independently. But when we keep in mind that the observer and the observed are interdependent and cannot be taken separately the paradox disappears.
We may never know how things are to postulate the absolute reality independent of the observer (where it is an emergent phenomenon). After all it is a concept as everything else is. By itself empty of essence.
I’ve read all of the posts from Reductionism 101 and Joy in the Merely Real and enjoyed my time. But I think that a brief critique of reduction was misunderstood as anti-reductionist and Savanna-Poet-like. Which cannot be further from the intention behind it. In fact, in many ways I intended to highlight those very ideas that Eliezer brought up!
Reduction is one of the best tools we have to approach the way things are. That is not my beef. My beef is with compartmentalizing the way things are into “real things” and acting as if everything can be knowable and acted upon rationally. As if everything around us was “already explained” by “the Science!”. In fact, to stop acting as Savanna Poets as that leads to fixations on our beliefs and cognitive dissonance inside.
First things first, the emptiness of inherently existing nature is not a nihilistic stance at all! It is only a call to question our inbuilt epistemology and ontology with regard to the “real”. Understanding that all our compartmentalizing is inherently empty. Not false in the absolute sense! But in a sense: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” Yes, quarks too shall pass. That is, opening thinking up for Joy in Discovery. It also stresses out that everything around us can be known only in dependence, in relational structure. If it were not for emptiness of essence, knowledge in itself would be impossible! Think about “misunderstanding by essence”, how to change that which is immutable. So to highlight that quarks are really “quarks”. Even if experimentally confirmed with five sigma accuracy. They are still our little rainbows!
Secondly, I tend to disagree that the following (simplified) definition of reduction is severely flawed:
Reduction is an operation of reason by the observer to extract the most relevant relations from the observed.
from a brief critique of reduction
As we understand everything based on a relational structure, that’s how we make things intelligible. Think about the Special Relativity. Einstein examined simultaneity of events and proposed the constant speed of light. That’s a change in relations. Or about the General Relativity—he equated “curvature” and stress tensors to come up with gravity as a curvature of spacetime. Again—relational structure. (More on that below.)
Further I will comment on some of Eliezer ideas that caught my eye with respect to the content of a brief critique of reduction and explore where it branches from them. Hopefully it will clarify misunderstandings.
In Reductionism it is stated:
And reductionism is not so much a positive hypothesis, as the absence of belief—in particular, disbelief in a form of the Mind Projection Fallacy.
It is so only in the light of Mind Projection Fallacy, but not entirely so. As no idea can be set as an absolute truth (in other words, to have an essential character). We carry with us some definite ontology concerning the way things are and its relational structure. And we think in terms of that ontology. Few examples. Einstein didn’t introduce new ontic elements in Special and General relativity (except for convenient mathematical structures). But used existing. He redefined relations between them. Pauli and Dirac introduced new elements based on observation or even pure math. But that all was done in relational structure, in dependence on other things. What’s important—it was not done independently of existing relations.
In Dissolving the Question, Wrong Questions and Righting a Wrong Question the author reflects on what it is for a question to be unanswerable and therefore to be dismissed. But I would argue that there are no stupid or wrong questions! Even if they are unanswerable. As Exupéry said:
If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.
The question is really like a coal that smokes and gives off heat until it leads to a discovery or better questions. As Richard Feynman shares:
Another thing that my father told me–and I can’t quite explain it, because it “was more an emotion than a telling–was that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of all circles was always the same, no matter what the size. That didn’t seem to me too unobvious, but the ratio had some marvelous property. That was a wonderful number, a deep number, pi. There was a mystery about this number that I didn’t quite understand as a youth, but this was a great thing, and the result was that I looked for pi everywhere.
Richard Feynman, What is Science?
Yes, that was about pi not about angels on a pin. But who knows what questions are “right” and what are “wrong”? Who can manage to handle such responsibility to decide where will they lead a curious mind?
Further in Righting a Wrong Question the author writes:
If your belief does derive from valid observation of a real phenomenon, we will eventually reach that fact, if we start tracing the causal chain backward from your belief.
But how to decide the reality of the phenomenon when exploring uncharted territories? Neutrinos were once a postulated mathematical curiosity until observed. Here my beef is that the author presupposes an inherent reality to ontology that was built around previous experience. Takes it for absolute instead of conventional.
If what you are really seeing is your own confusion, tracing back the chain of causality will find an algorithm that runs skew to reality.
But that may be a necessary unavoidable step when you are exploring the unknown!
Either way, the question is guaranteed to have an answer. You even have a nice, concrete place to begin tracing—your belief, sitting there solidly in your mind.
Questions are not guaranteed to have an answer! Think about Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and extrapolate from there. There are valid results that are not provable from formal systems. What if question hits some of those areas? That can be applied to belief systems as well. But that’s just an example.
Further in The Quotation is not the Referent:
Similarly, the notion of truth is quite different from the notion of reality. Saying “true” compares a belief to reality. Reality itself does not need to be compared to any beliefs in order to be real. Remember this the next time someone claims that nothing is true.
Here happens the reification of reality or attributing the concept with essence. That is “reality” = reality. But the very concept of reality depends on the observer (unitary or collective). So nobody knows any reality in the absence of the observer. As a concept it is useful in its areas but the attempt to reify it is a fallacy. As a concept it is dependent and as such empty of essence (again, not in absolutist sense, not non-existing, not unimportant or nihilistic as in “nothing is true”, but fits in a relational structure which has to be taken in mind if one is to avoid the fallacy of reification). In short, it has its place.
Further in Think Like Reality:
Reality has been around since long before you showed up. Don’t go calling it nasty names like “bizarre” or “incredible”. The universe was propagating complex amplitudes through configuration space for ten billion years before life ever emerged on Earth. Quantum physics is not “weird”. You are weird. You have the absolutely bizarre idea that reality ought to consist of little billiard balls bopping around, when in fact reality is a perfectly normal cloud of complex amplitude in configuration space. This is your problem, not reality’s, and you are the one who needs to change.
The phrase “reality is a perfectly normal cloud of complex amplitude in configuration space” assumes a model which reifies “amplitudes” and “configuration space” (not mentioning reality as such). While in fact these are our current best understanding of phenomena.
Human intuitions were produced by evolution and evolution is a hack. The same optimization process that built your retina backward and then routed the optic cable through your field of vision, also designed your visual system to process persistent objects bouncing around in 3 spatial dimensions because that’s what it took to chase down tigers. But “tigers” are leaky surface generalizations—tigers came into existence gradually over evolutionary time, and they are not all absolutely similar to each other. When you go down to the fundamental level, the level on which the laws are stable, global, and exception-free, there aren’t any tigers. In fact there aren’t any persistent objects bouncing around in 3 spatial dimensions. Deal with it.
That’s exactly what the concept of emptiness from a brief critique of reduction means. There are no tigers! Spot on.
Intuition is only a model by another name: poor intuitions are shocked by reality, good intuitions make reality feel natural. You want to reshape your intuitions so that the universe looks normal.
Again, spot on and a brief critique of reduction agrees with that here:
Generally, the bigger the entropy of the observed, the higher trouble for the observer. As his coarse-grained ontology does not correlate with all the details the observed requires. So this leads to higher processing load and less time to respond thus forcing the observer to many contradictions he cannot handle. That is only one of scenarios the rationality breaks down and irrational instinctive behavior becomes prevalent.
Further from Think Like Reality:
Surprise exists in the map, not in the territory. There are no surprising facts, only models that are surprised by facts. Likewise for facts called such nasty names as “bizarre”, “incredible”, “unbelievable”, “unexpected”, “strange”, “anomalous”, or “weird”. When you find yourself tempted by such labels, it may be wise to check if the alleged fact is really factual. But if the fact checks out, then the problem isn’t the fact, it’s you.
Again, spot on. We are discarding reification of all those “bizarre”, “incredible”, “unbelievable”, “unexpected”, “strange”, “anomalous”, or “weird”. What I argue about is that we should not stop there but remember that our current categories will one day appear as childish as anthropomorphizing and emotional language of old.
Further in Reductionism:
The notion here is a subtle one. It’s not just the notion that an object can have different descriptions at different levels.
It’s the notion that “having different descriptions at different levels” is itself something you say that belongs in the realm of Talking About Maps, not the realm of Talking About Territory.
As I read it, here again the reification of the realm of territory comes into being. Rationally we can only talk about maps. It doesn’t mean we cannot talk about what lies beyond the known, but what lies beyond the known is either a rational extrapolation or suprarational intuition (or simply a hunch).
This, as I see it, is the thesis of reductionism. Reductionism is not a positive belief, but rather, a disbelief that the higher levels of simplified multilevel models are out there in the territory. Understanding this on a gut level dissolves the question of “How can you say the airplane doesn’t really have wings, when I can see the wings right there?” The critical words are really and see.
Spot on. And I agree when it is rephrased like that concerning the belief (see above). It’s exactly stopping the reification process.
Further in Explaining vs. Explaining Away
I think that when physicists say “There are no fundamental rainbows,” the anti-reductionists hear, “There are no rainbows.”
Spot on! Stopping reification. It’s exactly what I mean when write that things have no essence and are empty in essence (not absolutely!). There is no fundamental rainbow. And to stress it out that a brief critique of reduction is not anti-reductionist:
The observer which faces overwhelming complexity of the observed by default is using its best tool—rationality and reduction.
It just attempts to highlight that reduction (as everything else, like rainbows) has its limitations. It is in itself a dependent phenomenon and hence without essence. Just as a reminder.
Again from Explaining vs. Explaining Away:
Actually, Science emptied the model of air of belief in haunts, and emptied the map of the mine of representations of gnomes. Science did not actually—as Keats’s poem itself would have it—take real Angel’s wings, and destroy them with a cold touch of truth. In reality there never were any haunts in the air, or gnomes in the mine.
I would say that explaining and explaining away are closer than it may seem. “In reality there never were any haunts in the air, or gnomes in the mine.” I.e. they were there as mental episodes and could be registered by fMRI as such and that would concern the model of the brain and cognitive science.
Further in Fake Reductionism:
There is a very great distinction between being able to see where the rainbow comes from, and playing around with prisms to confirm it, and maybe making a rainbow yourself by spraying water droplets—
—versus some dour-faced philosopher just telling you, “No, there’s nothing special about the rainbow. Didn’t you hear? Scientists have explained it away. Just something to do with raindrops or whatever. Nothing to be excited about.”
Wholeheartedly agree. Again, to stress out that a brief critique of reduction is not anti-reductionist.
Further in Joy in the Merely Real:
Why, things that are mundane, of course. Things that are normal; things that are unmagical; things that are known, or knowable; things that play by the rules (or that play by any rules, which makes them boring); things that are part of the ordinary universe; things that are, in a word, real.
Again, the only beef is with reification of “normal”, “ordinary” and “real”. There are states of consciousness where all disappears. Are they ordinary? Are they real? Do they have no value if they reduce suffering and train the brain in new modes of perception? That are all open questions! I do not attempt to deny the use of words and their value. Only the tendency to reify. To anchor in them as absolutes.
Which is to say that everything—everything that actually exists—is liable to end up in “the dull catalogue of common things”, sooner or later.
With that I disagree as exactly the principle of computational irreducibility shows that we are only capable to “catalogue” things only in pockets of reducibility. That does not mean that all is reducible. It simply is not. Again, it is not denying the value of reduction, but only to highlight its limitations.
Further in Bind Yourself to Reality:
It’s about binding yourself to reality.
Reification of reality. Besides that, how to bind oneself to something unknown? And who is the binder?
Further in If You Demand Magic, Magic Won’t Help:
If I were transported into one of those fantasy novels, I wouldn’t be surprised to find myself studying the forbidden ultimate sorcery—
—because why should being transported into a magical world change anything? It’s not where you are, it’s who you are.
Who am I? Really. Does it depend on my capacity to build better models? Does it define me? Isn’t it reification of the “I”?
If I’m going to be happy anywhere,
Or achieve greatness anywhere,
Or learn true secrets anywhere,
Or save the world anywhere,
Or feel strongly anywhere,
Or help people anywhere,
I may as well do it in reality.What if reality is gruesome? And the only way out to exercise my thinking is to escape from it? It may be a paradoxical fix.
Further in Is Humanism A Religion-Substitute?
The choice between God and humanity is not just a choice of drugs. Above all, humanity actually exists.
The reification of humanity. It is a term. Perhaps, useful. But what does actually exists? There are no tigers, remember?
Further in The Sacred Mundane:
That capacity—to really, really, without defense, admit you were entirely wrong—is why religious experience will never be like scientific experience. No religion can absorb that capacity without losing itself entirely and becoming simple humanity...
Actually, we’ve approached religious experiences scientifically and have found a lot. You may find an example in Myths about Nonduality and Science by Gary Weber.
In closing remarks I would like to express gratitude for you forum and it’s interesting nature. It makes me think and reflect, and I like that. It all was written in a friendly manner and hope it reads in the same way. I hope all the examples that are provided are enough to understand what was meant in my little post on reduction and clarify all matters.
Thanks for the feedback! The post was meant to be something in the light vein but serious enough to write it. I will read the posts you’ve mentioned.
Depression is a real challenge. It’s difficult to explain what it is until you’ve been through one. I’ve found the method of self-inquiry to be of help (e.g. “Who is depressed/suffering/cannot move?”, “Well, I am.”, “Where does this I come from?” and keep looking for the source of the “I”).
It is postulated that self-inquiry helps to deconstruct the “I” and as a result to pacify two subnetworks (of the DMN) that are responsible for building the images of “self in time” and “self and other” (as most thoughts are build around them). So it helps in reducing self-rumination and thoughts which are supporting the depressive state. There is a nice video on that topic—dealing with thoughts by Gary Weber.