diff --git a/drafts/con_def.dia b/drafts/con_def.dia deleted file mode 100644 index 6632211..0000000 Binary files a/drafts/con_def.dia and /dev/null differ diff --git a/drafts/consciousness_defined.mkd b/drafts/consciousness_defined.mkd deleted file mode 100644 index c98fc86..0000000 --- a/drafts/consciousness_defined.mkd +++ /dev/null @@ -1,306 +0,0 @@ -% Consciousness Defined - -About "the Mind" -================ - -I'm doing something that, as far as I can tell, nobody[^nobody] in the study of -consciousness, and this includes neuroscientists, psychologists and Buddhists, -seems to be able to do. The first thing, clearly stated, you should be doing is -answer this question: - -**What do you mean by "mind" (etc.) and what does it encompass?** - -[^nobody]: Ok, that's not exactly true. I've seen, for example, definitions and -diagrams in books by (or about) Julian Jaynes and Bernhard Baars. Still, these -models are often only meant to demonstrate how their own ideas fit together, not -to catalog the whole phenomenology. - -Everybody and their grandmother has a theory about the mind, yet when you -actually look at these theories, they don't just approach the issue differently, -they even approach *different issues*. Studying "the mind" or "consciousness" -is kinda like a physicist saying they study "stuff". Unless you have a clear, -*explicit* idea of what you mean when you say "mind", you will at best only -confuse yourself and think that a half-baked answer solved the problem. - -I was wrestling with all kinds of ideas about what consciousness is and how it -works. The most important realization, and I credit Dennett for it, was that I -didn't even know what I was talking about *myself*. I had no idea what I even -meant when I spoke about my own consciousness. - -So I stopped all the hypothesis-making and took a good, deep look. Exactly what -is meant by the mind, what "parts" does it consist of, which phenomena are all -to be included? Note that I don't aim to *explain* anything. At all. Here I just -want a complete description of what there actually is to explain. Otherwise -we'll just end up solving wrong or non-existent problems (see: free will). - -I've also included comparisons to other models, so that you can see how my terms -relate to concepts you may already know. (And why I consider all other models to -be too deficient.) - -The Complete(-ish) Model -======================== - -I follow *5 simple principles*: - -# TODO Really? Don't split too much! -1. Not everything that is a separate part in the model is meant to be strictly - separate in reality. In fact, I am fairly convinced that some parts at least - overlap, if they are not even identical. The distinctions are meant to help - *you* understand what I'm talking about, not show you *how it works*. - -2. The model is not necessarily exhaustive. I may have forgotten something, but - I have compared my model to all common views on consciousness I could find - and searched my own consciousness for anything missing. However, if you think - something should be there but isn't, and it's not a part of something already - there, then most likely I personally do not have this feature. (This applies - equally if you find something *unnecessary*[^unnecessary]. Consider that you - may have a different consciousness.) - -3. The relationships in the model are only meant for easier classification. They - do *not* necessarily reflect any *actual* relationships. However, I tried to - get all important ones. - -4. Nothing is included based on "inference". Just because you think something - *should* exist because you can only explain something else that way, doesn't - mean it actually *does* exist. If you can't access it, it doesn't belong in - the model. - -5. I shall not, under any circumstances, use the terms "mind", "consciousness", - "perception", "soul" or "self". They are all so ambiguous that they will only - confuse. - -[^unnecessary]: - When I write that features may be "unnecessary", I mean that there is - nothing they "do" or "influence" and can't be accessed in any way. I don't - mean that they are "virtual", i.e. that they are the result of the - interaction of multiple other parts. For example, "Music" is virtual, as it - is created by the interplay of "Hearing", "Space-time" and so on. There is - no separate "Music" thingy that is independent from the others. (See the - first principle.) However, "Thoughts", as defined in the article, are - unnecessary. They don't exist. - -Here we go. - -![The Model](con_def.png) - -Now some explanations. - -Senses (green) --------------- - -It can be argued that some senses should be split further, particularly -**Smell** and **Taste**, which is really a huge amount of very small senses, and -**Motor-Balance**, which consists of senses of acceleration, balance and so on. -The split I use is somewhat arbitrary, but I hope it covers every "kind" of -sense without much overlap. - -Also, **Body Feedback** means things like heart rate or hunger. I have not split -this because I don't think that it actually is very differentiated. This is most -obvious to me once the **Space-time** is impaired (most distinctly via shrooms), -such that figuring out "where" a sense is coming from is very hard. Once this -happens, I can't tell hunger from thirst from having to pee. - -Most importantly note that at no point do I split "external" senses from -"internal" ones. There is no such thing as "seeing something in the world" -compared to "seeing something in your mind". They are *the same process*. "If -all you can know is your brain programs operating, the whole universe you -experience is inside your head.", as Robert Anton Wilson wrote in Prometheus -Rising. If you still think "real" sight and "imagined" sight etc. are different, -try to observe them critically in meditation, trying to pin-point the exact -difference. Then do the same thing within a (lucid) dream.[^constrained] - -[^constrained]: This is interpretation now, not just description. I believe that - all perception, as it happens in the **Theatre**, is a hallucination, in the - sense that it is *exactly* the same thing as any other hallucination. There - is no difference in looking at a flower, dreaming a flower, imagining a - flower or hallucinating a flower. None *at all*. There are difference in - relationship to **Memory**, **Volition** and so on, which make these states - distinct, but the actual **Seeing** is identical. - - At no point in time does the **Theatre** (or anything working with it) ever - get the "real" perception. You don't see what your eyes see, not for a - single moment. What happens instead is that the **Theatre** is wildly - hallucinating, like a mad improv actor, but sense processes (that have - filtered and modified "raw" data from the eyes and so on) interrupt the - performance and correct it. There is a certain amount of feedback, in that - specific data can be requested to fill in details, but never is the direct - data ever used. - - Stephen LaBerge calls this "constrained dreaming", meaning that normal - perception is simply dreaming with hard constraints on content by the - outside world, while normal dreaming doesn't get the unchanging correction - and so diverges. - - This explains all the problems of strong, convincing and incredibly common - hallucinations we get and removes the fake distinction between "this is - real" and "this is imagined". Every group event is a mass hallucination. - -You might find it controversial (or plain wrong) that I included a **Theatre** -in the first place and that I'm trying to sneak in dualism. I'm not, not at all. -There is very strong evidence that the **Theatre** really exists as a separate -thing, in which senses are united and dealt with. A good scientific model of -this is [Global Workspace] theory, but more importantly, you can directly -experience the **Theatre**. See the section on **Presence** on how. - -[Global Workspace]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Workspace_Theory - -Volition (red) --------------- - -There are three important aspects to **Volition** I'll have to explain. Let's -start with **"Do It" Mode**. What I mean by this is the difference between -experiencing something and doing it yourself. I'll just quote PJ Eby on this, -who calls it "command mode"[^evo]: - -> Point your finger at the screen. How did you do that? Do it again. Try -> something else. Make various motions with your body. Now just think about -> making the motions. What's the difference between thinking it, and doing it? -> *That's* command mode. -> -> -- PJ Eby, [The Multiple Self] - -[The Multiple Self]: http://dirtsimple.org/2005/08/multiple-self.html - -[^evo]: Evolutionary speaking, I think "stop pretending mode" would be a more - accurate name. I'd imagine that at first there is a direct link between - simulated events and actions, then later a switch is introduced so that - events can be simulated in advance, or with different preconditions. - -The main drawback of my model is that it hides the bilateralism of the brain, as -well as certain parallel structures. You might get the impression from looking -at it that there is a single **Volition** center somewhere, when really, there -are multiple ones with subtle, but notable differences. Don't think of every -part as unique or isolated, but rather, a kind of job description that may be -fulfilled (and competed over) by many applicants. - -Attention ---------- - -Presence --------- - -Let me get it out of the way: **Presence** is the most important, yet hardest to -describe part of the model. It is essentially the whole reason I wrote this in -the first place. Almost everybody ignores (or worse, rejects!) the existence of -**Presence**, and the few that I suspect mention it are so unclear about it -that I'm never sure what they really mean. - -So what *is* **Presence**? - -Well, it's the *being here*. The *this gets experienced, not that*. The [quale]. -Not helping? I know. Let me instead say what it is *not*. - -**Presence** is not any kind of sense. When you observe your senses, you will -find them united in a certain way, in what I call the **Theatre**. This is not a -unity in **Space-time**, which is actually superimposed. That it is not spatial -can be demonstrated by disabling it, as mentioned for example by taking shrooms. -It is very common to feel like you are at multiple places at once or are stuck -in a time loop and stuff like that, but the unity of the **Theatre** is -untouched. When you concentrate further on the senses, you will find that they -disappear. It is very much possible to observe an empty **Theatre**. At first, -it will feel like empty, infinite space, but even the space will disappear. Only -nothingness remains, but you are fully aware of the nothingness. (This is -something functionalism or something like higher-order thought theory can in no -way explain.) But if you keep on concentrating, something even weirder happens. -*The nothingness disappears*. I'm not making this up. There is no perception, -but also no non-perception, yet you are still conscious. In the metaphor of the -**Theatre**, what happens is that first, the actors leave and the **Theatre** -becomes empty, but the stage is still there. Then the stage itself is removed, -so there's nothing in the **Theatre**, yet it is still there. Finally, we remove -even the building itself. - -**Presence** is not attention. It is not focusing on anything, it has no -content. It has no memory, it is not "attached" to anything going on in the -mind. It has nothing to do with emotions or thinking or action or will. It -doesn't make any decisions, but there is feedback. It is not epiphenomenal. It -is also not subjective experience. **Presence** is still there during -schizophrenic attacks, still there during deep sleep (all of which I can attest -to). The problem is that **Presence** is not (and probably can not be) encoded -in memory, so it's really tricky to find out if it was there in the past. You -have to reproduce the experience and see for yourself, making a note *right -then*, in some form or another. - -Let me give a metaphor I personally really like. Think of **Presence** as the -sky. At first, you might think the sky are the clouds, but the clouds are really -*in* the sky. Or you might think it is blue, but that's the light travelling -through it, not the sky itself. It is impossible to pollute the sky. You can -pollute the *air*, but not the sky itself. Nor can you send up a missile to -attack it. It is untouchable, the ground on which all else is possible, but not -directly affecting anything. - -Unfortunately, the metaphor is misleading because you might think of it as some -kind of space. Like the mental space in which your stuff happens. This is -conceptualization through **Space-time**, not **Presence**. If your mental -events are reflections of a real world, then **Presence** *is* the mirror. Which -color is it? None. Shape? None. Where is it? Nowhere. Does it still exist, can -we still know it is there? Yes. - - -[quale]: /reflections/quale.html - -Thinking --------- - -I tried hard to figure out if "thoughts" should be here somewhere. I searched -everywhere, but couldn't find any that very not actually heard sentences, seen -images and so on. Therefore, there is no **Thought** in my model. - -I have united space and time as **Space-time** not because I want to brag with -my understanding of the theory of relativity, but because I agree with Jaynes' -assertion that time can only be spatially understood. I can't think of time -except by treating it like space. Therefore, they are united. #REALLY? - -Comparisons -=========== - -Brahman -------- - -There is a striking resemblance between [Brahman] and **Presence**. However, I -am not convinced that they are really the same. Brahman is unconstrained. -Everyone has the one same Brahman, separation is just an illusion. This *may* be -true (in fact, I highly suspect it is and that everything, including rocks, has -Brahman), but I don't have enough evidence for this yet. Therefore, I won't -equate the two. - -[Brahman]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman - -Buddhism --------- - -In Buddhism, there are 5 canonical "senses" (seeing, hearing, smelling, -touching, tasting) and there is additionally a consciousness *of* each of those -senses. These 5 are generally grouped together and called "thought". This -distinction is broken and better understood via shifting attention, as in my -model. I have not been able to figure out what else thought is supposed to be -than directed attention, so I did not include it. Therefore, I deliberately -diverge from the Buddhist view here. - -Similarly, several senses and emotions (often all of them) are always grouped -together, when they are clearly distinct. I have split as much as I could. - -One big advantage of Mahayana models is that they include **Presence**. -Theravada rejects it, as far as I can tell. To be honest, most of the time when -I *think* a Buddhist mystic is talking about **Presence**, they seem to start -attributing things to it that it clearly doesn't have, like a content, so I'm -never really sure if they are talking about the same thing or something closely -related. And the more people "get" it, the less they seem to talk about it. -Zennists often even outright refuse to talk about any of this. I find this -completely unacceptable. This is the behaviour of a vulnerable child that -doesn't want its comfortable delusions to be taken away, not that of a -truth-seeker. - -Bicameral Mind --------------- - -If you are familiar with Jaynes' Bicameral Mind model, then the early bicameral -mind looked like this: - -[] - -while the subjective mind looks like this: - -[] - -Both modes fit my experience very well, which is why I included them. If you are -not familiar with Jaynes' work, *you really should be*. I highly recommend it. diff --git a/drafts/dukkha.mkd b/drafts/dukkha.mkd deleted file mode 100644 index 098cfd2..0000000 --- a/drafts/dukkha.mkd +++ /dev/null @@ -1,93 +0,0 @@ -% On Dukkha - -I experience no dukkha. -======================= - -What is dukkha? It is one of three marks of existence, according to Buddhism. It -means unsatisfactoriness or suffering, in the sense of an axle of a horse cart -chaving against a poor hole, which is the origin of the word. Overcoming it is -the whole idea of Buddhism, experiencing it is why the Buddha started his quest -in the first place. - -I am not using a semantic trick. It is not an exaggeration, not a koan, nothing -like this at all. I mean it, straightforward. **I experience no dukkha**. - -This is extremely weird. If I followed some common descriptions of -enlightenment, then achieving it ends dukkha. Thus, if I do not experience it, I -must be fully enlightened. I, however, do not agree with this and decided to dig -deeper. - -Maybe I'm just mistaken? The other two marks of existence, anatta (no-self) and -anicca (impermanence) are easy to misunderstand, too. So I got myself the -Visuddhimagga, the (perhaps) greatest scholarly work on Buddhism, written by -Buddhaghosa around the year 430. It describes, essentially, everything there is -to the practice. All teachings and methods presented in a systematic -fashion, including all the details and proper sources. I worked through the -whole thing, memorized everything of merit, tested it against other people. - -I understand what dukkha is. I see it in other people, quite clearly. I cannot -find it in me. - -The teachers cannot help me anymore. - -Not By Happiness -================ - -> In the Dhammapada it is suggested that, in order to achieve deliverance, we -> must be rid of the double yoke of Good and Evil. That Good itself should be -> one of our fetters we are too spiritually retarded to be able to admit. And so -> we shall not be delivered. -> -> -- Emil Cioran, De l'inconvénient d'être né (english translation) - -Of all the things I believe or consider reasonably likely, one thing stands out -as being extremely unusual. It is not [Trivialism], the [3 Jewels] or -[Nondualism]. Those all have respected proponents or, at least, worthy arguments -going for them. - -Tibetan Buddhists make me sick. Their culture is infested by messages of love -and happiness. That which they call enlightenment is mindful heroin. It -extinguishes their mind, leaving them, as the Actual Freedom folks call it, -"happy and harmless". This is the worst state to be in. - -Let me illustrate the point. They are wrong about the meta-physical nature of -the world. Choosing between love and hatred is like argueing whether it would be -better to be eaten by Nodens, the Lord of the Great Abyss, or Nyarlathotep, the -Crawling Chaos. It misses the point completely that *you are fucked either way*. -Believing in any moral value misses the point that the universe is fundamentally -empty and uncaring, that it has no goal, no judge and no purpose. If you care -about happiness, piety, dignity, justice or freedom, then you fail to realize -*where* you are! You are like the pagans living in Dante's Limbo, living quite -happy lives, maybe not even aware that they are *missing the point of Creation*! - -Clinging to a life, no matter how happy, traps you further in Samsara. - -> I've yet to have an experience of any kind - game playing, sexual, food, -> travel - where I said, 'This is the most fun I could ever possible have in my -> entire life. I couldn't imagine, for one second, this being more enjoyable.' I -> never said that. -> -> -- Gabe Zichermann, talk on Game Design - -I actually did. I managed to do exactly this, multiple times in fact. The last -time I reproduced this, when I put down a video game controller and felt as -happy as I ever could possibly hope to be, yet still unsatisfied, I knew it -wasn't just a fluke. There's an upper limit to happiness, I can reach it any -time and it still doesn't make the sucking stop. - -This was the turning point for me. I realized that I couldn't just "solve my -problems" and live a happy life. I realized that it was fundamentally impossible -for me to do so. Not officially, not consciously, but psychologically, I became -a Buddhist this day. - -This feeling, this essential unsatisfactoriness, which Buddhists call dukkha, is -what I think makes some people get the idea of enlightenment and others not. If -you never felt it, you will not understand what it's all about. I don't know -what actually makes the difference, what is necessary to feel it. Maybe you need -to have lived a carefree and fulfilled enough life for long enough to max out -your personal happiness (like the Buddha or I did) or maybe you need a special -kind of mind to have the patience to actually optimize for happiness and fail, -and have the clarity to realize it. I see no reliable pattern in the kinds of -people to feel it, but if you do, welcome to the path. May it be your last. - -The best prisoner is the one that loves their chains.