tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81847596254501956922024-03-12T20:15:58.471-07:00Dispatches from a wannabe monkMonktastichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02174498033038013911noreply@blogger.comBlogger178125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-11823015815680885162023-11-06T15:12:00.002-08:002023-11-07T06:51:48.213-08:00The threads of reality<p>Transcribed from <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln2h1PYxCDw">a conversation between Angelo Dilullo and Josh Putnam</a> (favorite parts bolded):</p><p><b>Josh</b>: This was something entirely different. It was almost like a spontaneous destruction and creation of all possibilities that, I guess, could be time. So, it definitely spills over into, just, all forms of reality, too, I suppose. Yeah, like, it kind of felt like a—I'll just describe it—this is always going to be conceptualized, of course, and it even came with some imagery in memory, but it was almost like these trillions of teal strings, like threads, kind of swirling in something like a sphere and pouring into an infinitely tiny <b>singularity</b> and vanishing. And also simultaneously, it's spewing something out, and it was just like a repeating cycle. And yeah, out here, in this distance, it was twisting and doing all sorts of chopping. It's really difficult to put into words, but it gave a very distinct sense that anything that could be, has already happened, almost—but not even like in a sense of a past.</p><p><b>Angelo</b>: [...] There's something about it, like you said—it collapses into a singularity and then becomes infinite again, and again, and again. It has this essence of infinite penetration into itself. And also, it's <b>fractal-like</b>. It's as if no matter how far you zoom in, it just becomes more of itself, with more possibilities and iterations. And, at the very same time, nothing is moving at all. It's so paradoxical.</p><p><b>Josh</b>: <b>It's like the essence of paradox</b>—that's what it felt like. There was this sense of being at the singularity, almost like the eye of a hurricane, and it was that nothingness. And you can't even describe it; even the idea of "nothing" is something. It was just... yeah, nothing—not even like it was a black space. There was nothingness; it was just frozen nothing. And then there was this turbulent outer, almost disk, and that just seemed like potentiality. It almost seemed like <b>the stuff that dreams are made of</b>, or the stuff that imagination is made of.</p><p><b>Angelo</b>: <b>It's very fundamental to the most fundamental way of experiencing anything at all. It just feels like this giddiness, like being able to experience anything at all is just a miracle, miraculous sort of</b> ...</p><p><b>Josh</b>: It felt as if there might have been a substance that was being simultaneously pulled apart—that was the substance, and I was the substance—and then put back and jammed so tightly into a tight singularity that there was nothing there. So, it wasn't like watching, or even necessarily feeling, but it felt so fundamental, like the threads of reality.</p><p><b>Angelo</b>: I actually sort of avoid talking about it in videos and like, publicly, because it sounds so enticing, and there's nothing your mind can do with this. Like, you can seek it, but that's not it. But it's quite real, and I've called it "<b>the fabric of reality</b>"—that's the best terminology I've come up with for it. It's like a fabric of reality, sort of. Yeah, but it's even before overt reality. <b>It's fundamental even to reality coming into being</b>. It's neither something nor nothing; it's neither real nor unreal. It has way too much— I can say potentiality, or flexibility, or unhindered essence—to be encompassed by any of those terminologies, mind frames, or even physical confirmations, you know.</p><div><br /></div>Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-31497500534873815652019-12-25T12:37:00.002-08:002019-12-25T12:37:21.579-08:00Anticipated regret<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I was reflecting on my propensity for indecision which, despite all my spiritual practice, is a trap I seem to fall into <i>way</i> more than anyone else. And the notion of <i>anticipated regret</i> came to mind (which I'm sure I must have read about somewhere, despite it feeling like a fresh idea of mine).<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="top" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"></a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<table border="0" bordercolor="#111111" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="margin-left: 4px; margin-right: 4px;"><div style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0.5em 0.2em;">
Anticipated regret is the experience right now of the regret that we think we may feel in the future, typically about decisions we are currently considering making. This unpleasant feeling may well affect our decisions, sometimes wisely and sometimes less so.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<div>
The mind sure is twisty! We're imagining now that in the future we'll feel bad about the past, which ruins the present. This reminds me of some ideas from Bernardo Kastrup's More Than Allegory:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The sophistication and skill with which we trick ourselves in these circular cognitive games is dazzling. We <i>imagine</i> a future wherein we <i>remember</i> a past wherein we <i>predicted</i> a future that matches the future we are now imagining. From this tortuous intertwining of <i>imaginings</i> we conclude that the future and the past must exist, well, <i>objectively</i>, even though all the while we’ve never left the present. Wow! Do you see how we create past and future out of thin air? <i>Past and future are myths: stories in the mind.</i> If you truly grok this, you will be dumbfounded.</blockquote>
The usual process for me is trying to curtail the anticipated regret by collecting more data, or trying to think more clearly, so that the <i>right answer</i> becomes clear. (Spoiler alert: it never does.) But the longer that process lasts, the more I'm reinforcing the <i>propensity</i> for regret in the mind -- which means that I'm more likely to regret the decision <i>no matter what it is</i>. That's obviously bad. Worse, because the building feeling of anticipated regret is interpreted as <i>regret that will be felt later (if I make the wrong decision)</i>, it becomes all the more important that I get the answer right. You see where this goes.<br />
<br />
Any <i>sane</i> person would just put his foot down, make a decision, and live with it. But alas, I'm me, so I'm going to sit here and philosophize.<br />
<br />
Next up is this quote from one Vinay Gupta:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Lowering the mental background noise means going through all the emotional layers and all of the attachments that generate thought. A single emotion that you don’t really deal with properly can generate 5 years of internal chatter. Should I? Shouldn’t I? Should I? Shouldn’t I? <b>You finally come back and it’s this deep feeling of uncertainty about your place in the world</b>. You feel it – it goes away. You’ve been liberated of an emotion, that stream of thought stops. And as a result your mind gradually empties and empties and empties and empties. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(emphasis mine) </blockquote>
That sounds closer to the root of the problem. Anticipated regret isn't really about what's going to happen -- though the mind is <i>entirely convincing</i> in its assertion that yes, that <i>is</i> what it's about, because yadda yadda. It's about an unresolved emotion <i>now</i>. It feels inconceivable that a "real problem" that has its roots in the past and tentacles in the future could be resolved <i>now</i>, but that's part of the central illusion. Bernardo again:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Existence only appears substantial because of our intellectual inferences, assumptions, confabulations and expectations. What is actually in front of our eyes <i>now</i> is incredibly elusive. The volume of our experiences—the bulk of life itself—is generated by our own internal myth-making. We conjure up substance and continuity out of sheer intangibility. We transmute quasi-emptiness into the solidity of existence through a trick of cognitive deception where we play both magician and audience. In reality, <i>nothing ever really happens</i>, for the scope of the present isn’t broad enough for any event to unfold objectively. That we think of life as a series of substantial happenings hanging from a historical timeline is a fantastic cognitive hallucination.</blockquote>
It would be nice to have a deep insight into the emptiness of time all the, uh, time, but if one has had even a <i>glimpse</i> of this truth, it ought to lend credence to the idea that resolving the unease <i>now</i> is key.<br />
<br />
Or, as the sane person would put it: just make a decision and have faith that it will work out. </div>
</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-15089835500248925272019-12-16T22:02:00.002-08:002019-12-16T22:02:21.367-08:00A closer look<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Close your eyes and listen carefully to a sound. Normally we think of "consciousness" as a property that you have that lets you experience the world. Instead, I now want you to conceive of consciousness as more like a <i>substance</i> that is currently taking the form of whatever sound you are intently listening to. Can you get the sense that "sound is made of consciousness?"<br />
<br />
Some find this immediately intuitive. Others find it a little harder. Surely sound is made of something like air waves? If this is where you find yourself, just reflect on the fact that all experience happens in your mind. Sound, as one such experience, can therefore only be made of mind-stuff. Here we're just giving that stuff the name "consciousness." Don't let this remain just an idea: close your eyes and <i>see</i> that this is what noises actually <i>are</i>.<br />
<br />
You can do this with other sensory objects, too. More subtly, do it with emotions and feelings. Finally, notice that your <i>thoughts</i> are also made of this "stuff."<br />
<br />
Become <i>really interested</i> in what this "stuff" is. Be like a scientist in the field, examining it from every angle, in every guise. What, <i>exactly</i>, is it?<br />
<br />
Now comes the really interesting question: <i>who wants to know?</i> "Well, <i>I</i> want to know, of course!" But that thought -- like all thoughts -- is just consciousness itself, in one of its infinite costumes. Try to find this "I" that wants to know. Maybe you feel a sensation behind your eyes, where it feels like the "I" must be. But this sensation is just consciousness shining, as well; no more special here than in any of its other myriad incarnations.<br />
<br />
What if there is no "privileged position" where this <i>one-who-is-conscious</i> sits? What if the very idea of such a one is a myth; a story that's been told for so long that it seems too obvious to doubt?<br />
<br />
But discovering the illusoriness of the supposed "I" is only half the fun. Because even if there's nobody there to be curious about what, <i>exactly</i>, this consciousness stuff is, <i>it</i> has become pretty damn interested in itself.<br />
<br />
It's ineffable and ungraspable, yet "your<i>" whole world</i> is made of it. Look around. Pretty awesome, huh? And if you've ever had a moment where you're in awe of life's majesty and wonder, it's <i>this magnificent substance</i> you've been bowing before.<br />
<br />
Whatever it is, it <i>really</i> deserves a closer look, doesn't it?</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-51379670031278452602019-10-22T10:03:00.002-07:002019-10-22T10:04:54.427-07:00A poem by Nyendrak Lungrig Nyima<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Although subject and object are not two,<br />
They appear to us as fundamentally distinct entities.<br />
<br />
And through attachment to them, we further strengthen this tendency.<br />
Samsara is nothing else but that.<br />
<br />
While good and bad actions are devoid of true reality,<br />
By the power of our intention they produce joys and sorrows,<br />
Just as seeds of sweet or bitter plants<br />
Give fruits of corresponding taste.<br />
<br />
Thus, the world appears similarly<br />
To those with common karma,<br />
And differently to those whose karma is different.<br />
<br />
In fact, even if one “goes” to hell or elsewhere,<br />
It is only a change in one’s perception of the world.<br />
As in dreams, where the things that appear do not exist,<br />
The root of all our illusory perceptions is the mind.<br />
<br />
The nature of mind transcends the notions of existence<br />
And nonexistence, eternity and nothingness:<br />
To this nature is given the simple name “absolute space.”<br />
<br />
That space, in itself perfectly pure,<br />
That immaculate sky, empty and luminous, with no center or periphery,<br />
<br />
Has always been in the heart of every being,<br />
Its face obscured by the temporary veil of mental constructs.<br />
<br />
It is hard to put an end by force<br />
To the continuous chain of thoughts,<br />
But if, when they occur, their nature is recognized,<br />
Thoughts have no choice<br />
But to be liberated in their own sphere.<br />
<br />
Without pursuing past thoughts<br />
Or inviting future thoughts,<br />
Remain in the present moment, and simply recognize<br />
The nature of whatever arises in your mind.<br />
Relax in simplicity, free of intentions and attachments.<br />
<br />
Although there is nothing to meditate on<br />
Remain fully present without getting distracted.<br />
By getting used to the way things occur of themselves, without altering anything,<br />
Primordial wisdom, self-luminous, will arise from within.<br />
<br />
“How is this so?” you might ask.<br />
If you leave cloudy water undisturbed,<br />
It will naturally become clear.<br />
Most other meditations<br />
Are only temporary ways to calm the mind.<br />
<br />
The space of great unchanging emptiness<br />
And the simple luminosity of uninterrupted wakeful presence<br />
Have always been inseparable.<br />
You must yourself experience that essential thing<br />
Which is within you: no one can do it for you.<br />
<br />
Ricard, Matthieu. On the Path to Enlightenment: Heart Advice from the Great Tibetan Masters (pp. 166-167). Shambhala. Kindle Edition. </div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-91600384437547989642019-10-22T09:11:00.000-07:002019-10-22T09:11:57.717-07:00Forget about your brain<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Everything you think of as "reality" is a construction or projection of your own mind. If you see this clearly, you will awaken.<br />
<br />
Instead, most people think "well sure, everything I <i>think</i> of as reality maybe, but obviously there's also a <i>real reality</i> that's <i>not</i> a construction of my mind." Whether or not that's true, your rabid clinging to this belief will forestall realization.<br />
<br />
Or maybe you think "<i>obviously</i> this is all a construction of my brain." But this is a grave mistake as well. You are convinced that if you could ever step <i>outside</i> your reality, all you would find is more of your reality -- in particular, a <i>brain</i>. Even the subtlest expectation of this kind thwarts what needs to be seen.<br />
<br />
It is like trying to bungee jump, but every time you step off the platform, you carefully and transparently lay down more platform in front of you to catch you. You may <i>think</i> you've jumped, but you haven't.</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-10541446105305572232019-10-22T08:50:00.003-07:002019-10-22T08:50:52.497-07:00The Marvelous Primordial State<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: "Amazon Ember", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">From a root Dzogchen text (the Mejung Tantra):</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: "Amazon Ember", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><i>The definitive secret instruction is the meaning of the marvelous [state]. The marvelous secret is that all phenomena originate from me, are created by me, expand from me, and I manifest in them. They emanate from me and are reabsorbed into the expanse [of my nature].</i></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: "Amazon Ember", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">I enjoy myself in all phenomena that originate from me. I reveal and proclaim the greatness of myself in the qualities [that arise from me]. I show the total self in the phenomena that originate from me. As to their arising, phenomena originate from me and are re-absorbed into [my] expanse. Not a single phenomenon exists that does not originate from me or is not me.</span></i></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: "Amazon Ember", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Translator's commentary:</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #111111; font-family: "Amazon Ember", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: "Amazon Ember", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The definitive instruction consists of the fact that just as waves arise from the ocean, exist as the ocean, and subside in the ocean, all things originate from one’s self, exist as one’s self, and dissolve in one’s self. Without renouncing anything, enjoying the creations of one’s state, one meets the true condition, thus openly revealed as the all-inclusive reality.</span></div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-17505372458284234062019-10-22T08:46:00.000-07:002019-10-22T09:00:42.629-07:00Lama Gendun Rinpoche on the Nature of Mind<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
"The recognition of the nature of mind is the only thing that we actually need – it has the power to liberate us from everything and to liberate all beings in the universe, too.<br />
<br />
All phenomena of the external world are only the manifestations of the luminosity of our own mind and ultimately have no reality. When we allow our mind to rest in the recognition that everything that it experiences is its own projection, the separation between subject and object comes to an end. Then there is no longer anyone who grasps at something and nothing that is being grasped at – subject and object are recognized to be unreal.<br />
<br />
In order to experience this, we allow our mind to remain in its ordinary consciousness, the awareness of the present moment, which is the deep, unchanging nature of mind itself and which is also called “timeless awareness.” That is the natural insight that arises spontaneously when in every moment we look directly at the true nature of mind.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>In seeing the nature of mind, there is nothing to “see” since it is not an object of perception. We see it without seeing anything. We know it without knowing anything.</i></blockquote>
The mind recognizes itself spontaneously, in a way beyond all duality. The path that leads to this is the awareness of the present moment, free of all interference. It is an error to think that the ultimate truth is difficult to recognize. The meditation on the nature of mind is actually very easy, as we do not have to go anywhere to find this nature. No work needs to be done to produce it; no effort is required to find it. It is sufficient for us to sit down, allow our mind to rest in itself and directly look at the one who thinks that it is difficult to find the nature of mind. In that moment, we discover it directly, as it is very close and always within easy reach.<br />
<br />
It would be absurd to worry that we might not succeed in discovering the nature of mind, as it is already present in us. It is sufficient to look into ourselves. When our mind directs its gaze upon itself, it finds itself and understands that the seeker and the sought are not two different things. At the moment, we cannot see the nature of our mind because we do not know how we must look. The problem is not that we do not possess the capacity for doing this but that we do not look in the right way.<br />
<br />
To become capable of recognizing the nature of mind in the way described, we have to work at relaxing deeply and letting go of all wanting, so that the natural state of mind can reveal itself. This work is the exact opposite of worldly effort, in which we strive to obtain concrete things and put ourselves into a state of strain. In the practice of Dharma, we must “strain without effort.” This does not mean that we do nothing at all and simply remain as we are, because then we would continue to reproduce the same behavior patterns that have existed in us since beginningless time. We must make an effort to purify our ego-centered tendencies and become aware of our intentions.<br />
<br />
We must also make an effort to meditate, otherwise no awareness, no insight will arise in us. But this effort should be free of ambition and of the wish to accomplish something. In a deliberate but relaxed way, we give all of our thinking and acting a wholesome orientation. Merely having the wish to become awakened is not sufficient. But we should also not strain after it, full of tension and impatience. The crucial thing is to change our attitude of mind – everything else follows naturally.<br />
<br />
When we become proficient in accepting the movements of our mind in a relaxed manner that is free of judgment, even when these movements are strong and lively, greater clarity and transparency will arise in our mind. To have strong thoughts and feelings is actually a good thing – provided we deal with them in the right way. If we feel uneasy when emotions come up, then evidently we are still attached to a desire for a quiet mind.<br />
<br />
Because of this attachment, we are easily tempted to want to have a pleasant meditation, a meditation without thoughts, problems and disturbances. We desire quiet and believe that when thoughts no longer arise, our mind will feel well. As soon as this wish is stirring, we can be sure that ego-clinging dominates: our longing for personal well-being pushes itself to the fore. This attitude is called hope – hope that something good will happen to us. It blocks the mind and prevents it from being truly free."<br />
<br />
<br />
Rinpoche, Gendun. Heart Advice from a Mahamudra Master (p. 150). Norbu Verlag. Kindle Edition.<br />
<br /></div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-24548860825250398052019-10-22T08:35:00.004-07:002019-10-22T08:35:31.789-07:00Pointing out instructions by Padmasambhava<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This needs to be in more places on the web.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>To introduce this by pointing it out forcefully: it is your very own present consciousness. When it is this very unstructured, self-luminous consciousness, what do you mean, "I do not realize the mind-itself"? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>There is nothing here on which to meditate, so what do you mean, "It does not arise due to meditation"? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>When it is just this direct awareness, what do you mean, "I do not find my own mind"? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>When it is just this uninterrupted clear awareness, what do you mean, "The nature of the mind is not seen"? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>When it is the very thinker of the mind, what do you mean, "It is not found by seeking it"? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>When there is nothing at all to do, what do you mean, "It does not arise due to activity"? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>When it is enough to leave it in its own unstructured state, what do you mean, "It does not remain"? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>When it is enough to let it be without doing anything, what do you mean, "I cannot do it"? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>When it is unified, indivisible clarity, awareness, and emptiness, ness, what do you mean, "It is affirmed and unaffirmed"? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>When it is spontaneously self-arisen without causes or conditions, tions, what do you mean, "I can't do it?"</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>When the arising and release of thoughts are simultaneous, what do you mean, "They do not occur together"? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>When it is this very consciousness of the present, what do you mean, "I do not recognize it"? The mind-itself is certainly empty and unestablished. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Your mind is intangible like empty space. Is it like that or not? Observe serve your own mind! </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Empty and void, but without a nihilistic view, self-arisen, primordial wisdom is original, clear consciousness. Self-arisen and self-illuminating, it is like the essence of the sun. Is it like that or not? Observe your own mind! </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The primordial wisdom of awareness is certainly unceasing. Uninterrupted awareness is like the current of a river. Is it like that or not? Observe your own mind! </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The dispersing discursive thoughts are certainly not being grasped. This intangible dispersion is like a hazy sky. Is it like that or not? Observe your own mind! </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Recognize all appearances as self-appearing. Self-appearing phenomena are like reflections in a mirror. Is it like that or not? Observe your own mind! </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>All signs are certainly released in their own state. Self-arising and self-releasing, they are like clouds in the sky. Is it like that or not? Observe your own mind!</i><br />
<br />
<br />
Karma Chagme. A Spacious Path to Freedom: Practical Instructions on the Union of Mahamudra and Atiyoga (Kindle Locations 1354-1361). Kindle Edition.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-35000136081876583712019-09-23T09:30:00.002-07:002019-09-23T09:36:55.061-07:00Do Buddhas think?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="https://www.lionsroar.com/ask-the-teachers-18/">https://www.lionsroar.com/ask-the-teachers-18/</a><br />
<br />
This is an interesting piece, because of the very different answers that various Buddhist teachers give to the question "do Buddhas think?"<br />
<br />
One teacher:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As I understand it, the awakened mind includes thinking; <b>it’s just that the thinking is necessary, functional, and discerning rather than indulgent, unnecessary, and addictive. </b>Without attachment to thinking, silence and peace are available. In not grasping after thoughts and taking them to be me and mine, there is freedom instead of bondage.<br />
<br />
Buddhas plan, but don’t engage in worry. They make decisions but are not swayed by self-centered emotions. Buddhas are immeasurably creative but not interested in fantasy. Buddhas think but are not caught up in their thoughts, and do not mistake their thoughts to be who they are. They are present in the midst of thoughts arising, and use thinking as a way to benefit all beings.</blockquote>
This is a position I've heard many times: the thinking is reduced to the essentials. <i>Direct! Necessary! Functional! </i>Sounds very... Zen. Obviously you couldn't function without <i>any</i> thought, right? How would you know what to do?<br />
<br />
The second teacher agrees:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The short answer is, yes, buddhas do think. However, I have a bumper sticker on my car that says, “Don’t believe everything you think,” because so often we identify with our thoughts and set up a self there.<br />
...<br />
<b>“Who is it that notices these thoughts as wholesome or unwholesome and responds for the benefit of all beings?” This is an example of how a buddha or bodhisattva thinks. </b></blockquote>
<br />
But I think these are wrong. This has all been mapped out by the Dzogchen tradition. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche (TUR):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What this really means is that we should repeatedly look into what thinks. We should recognize the absence or emptiness of this thinker over and over again, until finally the power of deluded thinking weakens, until it is totally gone without a trace.</blockquote>
But this is not how a <i>Buddha</i> practices; this is how a <i>beginner</i> practices. Recall from the first quote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
They are <b>present in the midst of thoughts arising</b>, and use thinking as a way to benefit all beings.</blockquote>
<br />
<div>
Dzogchen talks about three stages of capacity:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white;">
Within this method of [cherdrol], "liberation through bare attention," there exists a minimal mental activity; we turn our attention to the thought <b>as soon as it arises</b> and recognize it as a thought. ... Although this may have become a largely automatic process, there still exists a small time gap between the arising of the thought, the becoming aware of its presence, and the recognition of it as a thought, on the one hand, and its dissolving again, on the other hand. For the beginner this practice is appropriate, but later it will become a fault if it is not transcended.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white;">
At the next stage, the thought disintegrates as soon as it arises. Patrul Rinpoche illustrates this process with the example of drawing pictures on the surface of the water. The picture disintegrates as soon as it is drawn.<br />
...<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white;">
With the third stage, even the distinction between arising and liberating or dissolving is transcended. ... Thoughts liberate as they arise; their very arising is the process of their liberating. This is the method proper to Dzogchen, and all else is but preparation.</blockquote>
<br />
When thoughts liberate <i>simultaneously</i> with their arising, <i>they are no longer "thoughts" at all</i>. This is very hard for the mind to understand. TUR again:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As conceptual thinking diminishes and finally vanishes, what is left to cause us to wander in samsara? The very basis for samsaric existence is none other than conceptual thinking.</blockquote>
This is what the third teacher (also a Dzogchen master) indicates:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
By definition, a buddha—one who is free of the suffering of existence—does not have a grasping mind. Since a buddha does not grasp, <b>a buddha does not have thoughts</b>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A buddha’s perception is pure awareness, or rigpa, which is not a product of the moving, thinking mind, but is direct perception. Thought can never experience the true nature of mind directly, so in Dzogchen, thought is not encouraged since it will not liberate us from suffering. And while conventionally we could agree that the thought to benefit another is preferable to the thought of jealousy, in order to achieve full realization one needs even to be free of positive thoughts because of their involvement with the grasping mind.</blockquote>
<br />
The hardest part about getting here is that it seems very clearly impossible to function without thoughts. Therefore, we set up this idea that in the awakened state, we will have only the <i>necessary</i> thoughts. But this belief ultimately prevents us from seeing what lies <i>completely beyond</i> thought.<br />
<br /></div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-68857151142237954902019-05-05T20:49:00.001-07:002019-05-06T11:16:13.257-07:00Radical skepticism, revived<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 20.0px; font: 14.7px Arial; color: #222222; -webkit-text-stroke: #222222}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Times; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 20.0px; font: 14.7px Arial; color: #222222; -webkit-text-stroke: #222222; background-color: #ffffff}
p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 20.0px; font: 12.0px Times; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 20.0px; font: 14.7px Arial; color: #888888; -webkit-text-stroke: #888888}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.s2 {font-kerning: none; background-color: #ffffff}
span.s3 {text-decoration: underline ; font-kerning: none; color: #888888; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px #888888}
span.s4 {font-kerning: none; color: #222222; background-color: #ffffff; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px #222222}
</style>
<br />
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Radical skepticism gets a bad rap. Sure, it's possible to question everything about your reality, but what's the point? Countless freshman philosophy majors and enterprising potheads have done just that, and look where it got them. Better to face up to the cold, hard facts!</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">But maybe they simply didn't know how to wield the tool properly. Let's take a trip down the rabbit hole and see if we can't do better....</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b>Ompha, Lompha</b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Young Earth creationists believe that the earth was created in the past ten thousand years. According to their so-called <i>Omphalos Hypothesis</i>, dinosaur bones and other seemingly-old artifacts were planted there by God as a test of our faith.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s1">As ludicrous as this may strike you, it contains no logical contradiction. In fact, there is no way to disprove that the universe sprang into existence, fully formed, <a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism"><span class="s3">last Thursday</span></a>. Mathematician-philosopher Bertrand Russell takes it one step further (as mathematicians and philosophers are wont to do):</span></div>
<div class="p3">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1"><i>There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that 'remembered' a wholly unreal past.</i></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">But why stop there? For all we know, this may all have appeared freshly in <i>this very moment</i>. But while such a claim is not logically <i>impossible</i>, it is certainly very <i>improbable</i>. Right?</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">To help answer that, let's look at a technique called <i>Bayesian inference.</i></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><b>Bayesian inference</b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Suppose I am hiding a coin from you. I tell you it is either a (US) penny or nickel, and you have to guess which. What kind of evidence would help you decide?</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">If I tell you that there is a US president on one side of the coin, that is no help at all, because it applies <i>equally well</i> to both coins. Whatever you thought the relative odds were <i>before</i>, they should remain unchanged <i>after</i>.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">On the other hand, suppose I tell you that I flipped it and it landed on its edge. Both coins can theoretically do this, but because the nickel is thicker, it is probably <i>more</i> likely to land that way. Depending on <i>how much</i> more likely, this evidence should nudge your bias toward the nickel to a corresponding degree.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">So we see that <i>evidence</i> is one crucial component in determining your beliefs. The second, equally important piece, is something that we hinted at earlier: your pre-existing bias, technically known as your <i>prior.</i></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">If you're like most people, you probably started with the assumption that both the penny and nickel were equally likely. And why not? In lieu of any information, this seems like a reasonable starting point. But you don't <i>have</i> to start at 50-50. You might look up some stats on the number of pennies and nickels in circulation, and use that ratio as your prior. Or perhaps you know that I secretly love pennies, and use that to inform your initial bias. It's totally up to you.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Whatever your <i>prior</i>, you must combine it with <i>evidence</i>, to get an updated bias (called the <i>posterior</i>). You can either stop there or use this posterior as a new prior, to be combined with further evidence (generating yet another posterior), and so on. Over time, as the evidence accumulates, any mistakes in your initial prior will get ironed out.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">In this way, Bayesian inference is a formal framework for doing something that's already very natural to us. We may start off uncertain about something, but we allow the weight of evidence to bring our beliefs into closer alignment with reality.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Let's apply this to our question about the past.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><b>Evaluating the past</b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">First let's try to pick a good prior.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Basic physics tells us that fully-formed worlds are <i>very</i> unlikely to just pop into existence. Therefore we should <i>a priori</i> be <i>very</i> biased against this possibility, right? Unfortunately not: we could only have learned about physics in the <i>past</i>, which we cannot trust without resorting to circular reasoning.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Okay, what about Occam's Razor? It tells us that we should prefer simpler theories to needlessly complicated ones. But this is a statement about <i>preference</i>, not likelihood. Moreover, it runs into the same problem as before: when, exactly, did we collect evidence that justifies the Razor?</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Try as we may, we cannot logically justify any particular prior. So let's throw up our hands and start at 50-50. The evidence should settle it, right?</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Well, this picture I took yesterday seems like pretty good evidence at first. But remember that our hypothetical sudden-world is <i>designed</i> to provide such fabricated evidence. So this supposed "picture from yesterday" fits both models equally well, and it is therefore of no use. By design, neither is anything else. Drat!</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">A final attempt might be to say fine, let's accept that maybe the world sprang into being five minutes ago (or whenever you began this exercise). But <i>since</i> then, you've been collecting evidence that justifies your trust in physics, Occam's Razor, and the rest. This ought to restore your faith, right?</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">But notice that you can repeat the thought experiment <i>right now</i>. How do you know that <i>this</i> is not the first moment? When you try to work out the answer, you will find that your supposed "evidence from the past five minutes" goes out the window just like our supposed "picture from yesterday." So this approach fails, too. There's nowhere to get a grip!</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Strange as it may seem, we are not rationally justified in saying that a real past is "more likely" than a fake one. It certainly <i>feels</i> like the real past is more rational, but this is an illusion. For now, simply notice how powerful this illusion is. We will return to it later.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><b>Choosing our beliefs</b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">We do not necessarily need to rely on <i>reasoning</i> to choose our beliefs. Discussing a different skeptical hypothesis, physicist Sean Carroll points out:</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1"><i>There is no way to distinguish between the scenarios by collecting new data.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span class="s1"><i>What we’re left with is our choice of prior credences. We’re allowed to pick priors however we want—and every possibility should get some nonzero number. But it’s okay to set our prior credence in radically skeptical scenarios at very low values, and attach higher prior credence to the straightforwardly realistic possibilities.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span class="s1"><i>Radical skepticism is less useful to us; it gives us no way to go through life. All of our purported knowledge [...] might very well be tricks being played on us. But what then? We cannot actually act on such a belief [...]. Whereas, if we take the world roughly at face value, we have a way of moving forward. There are things we want to do, questions we want to answer, and strategies for making them happen. We have every right to give high credence to views of the world that are productive and fruitful, in preference to those that would leave us paralyzed with ennui.</i></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Russell also recognized this:</span></div>
<div class="p3">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1"><i>Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it.</i></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">In other words, given that evidence cannot help us, we might as well pick whichever belief is most <i>helpful</i>. And our commonsense notion of time is the most helpful of all.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">But is this really true? Have you ever been <i>genuinely</i> free of the belief in a real past, in order to make a fair comparison? Is such a state even possible or desirable? Wouldn't you be like a proverbial goldfish, totally unable to function?</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">As it turns out, that is <i>not</i> what it is like to be free of conviction about the past. It is entirely possible -- though not easy -- to drop your belief in a <i>literal</i> past while retaining the ability to function <i>as though</i> it were real. You can (and should) try to enter that state right now, but unless you've cultivated exceptional facility with your most subtle mental processes, you will attain at best a vague facsimile of it. Something deep inside you is unwilling to genuinely and completely let go. It protects itself by telling you "well, our belief is the best one anyway!"</span><br />
<span class="s2"><br /></span>
<span class="s2">The authentic state of not-knowing belongs to the purview of mystics and contemplatives. It is unfair to expect mathematicians, physicists, or even philosophers to find the time to explore it properly.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2"><b>The future</b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Let's visit another oddity. 18th-century philosopher David Hume popularized something called the <i>Problem of Induction</i>. Roughly, it goes as follows.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">It seems painfully obvious that the past provides good evidence for the future, right? But <i>why</i> do we believe this? Well, it has certainly <i>been</i> true in the past. Okay, but so what? We'd like to say "... and therefore it will be true in the future," but then we are assuming what we set out to prove. There's that nasty circularity again!<span class="Apple-converted-space"> So we cannot justify our belief that the past will continue to provide evidence for the future.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Thus, the fact that the laws of physics have faithfully operated for billions of years gives us no reason at all to believe that they will continue to operate even one second from now [1]. As before, notice how ridiculous and illogical this <i>feels</i>, despite being impeccably rational. This is a powerful clue, if used properly!</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">Unfortunately Hume, too, loses his nerve before fully taking on board the implications:</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s2"><i>Should it be asked me whether I sincerely assent to this argument which I have been to such pains to inculcate, whether I be really one of those skeptics who hold that everything is uncertain, I should reply that neither I nor any other person was ever sincerely and constantly of that opinion. I dine, I play backgammon, I converse and am merry with my friends and when after three or four hours of amusement I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold and strange and ridiculous that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any further. Thus the skeptic still continues to reason and believe, though he asserts he cannot defend his reason by reason.</i></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b>The nature of reality</b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s2">It does not stop with <i>time</i>. Consider the hypothesis that this world is a simulation -- and further, that its creators are clever enough to hide all evidence of this fact from us. Then, by assumption, there is no way to test the hypothesis, and we are again free to discard it on the basis of <i>practicality</i>, even if not on pure <i>rationality</i>. In fact, there are an infinite number of strange and seemingly-pointless possibilities that we can cut away with one fell swoop in this way. This can make us feel supremely confident in our default worldview. But there is at least one strange possibility that comes away unscathed.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Consider the hypothesis that the world is a <i>dream</i> of sorts. This possibility may seem inconsequential, as with the previous examples: if the dream behaves exactly as a physical world would, then there's no point in pursuing the belief further. On the other hand, if it actually <i>is</i> a dream -- and moreover, <i>your</i> dream, in a sense -- then your participation might be pivotal in gathering evidence of the fact. How might this work?</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">In a nighttime dream, naively questioning your surroundings is often insufficient to expose the dream's unreality. In most cases, the dream will fabricate an explanation that -- despite being nonsensical from a more awakened perspective -- will nonetheless suffice to quell your suspicion. <i>Nothing to see here, move right along! </i>To expose the sham, you must question the dream in <i>just the right way</i>, at which point you might become <i>lucid</i>.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">So how does the analogy extend to this reality? How would one question it in "just the right way?"</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b>The mind doth protest too much</b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">You might begin by noticing how illogical it is to <i>feel</i> so dead certain about the past despite having no rational basis for the belief. Next, watch as your mind tries to wriggle out of this accusation: <i>"well, such a belief is evolutionarily adaptive, so it's probably embedded deep in our ancient limbic system, beyond the reach of higher cognition...."</i> Bam! In a finger snap, circular reasoning again magically restores your faith: I believe in the past because the past made me do it, duh. <i>Whew! Nothing to see here! </i></span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1">This should trigger a great deal more suspicion in you than it probably does.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">If you were to sit and grapple with this conundrum very sincerely -- not just <i>thinking</i> harder about it, but experientially penetrating the very heart of the discrepancy -- you might have a mind- and reality-shattering "aha!" moment, not unlike what Zen Buddhists call <i>kensho</i> or sudden awakening. It might reveal that you've been taking life utterly for granted [2], subtly (but erroneously) assuming that you have the slightest inkling of what it is and how it works. Side effects may include an overwhelming flood of gratitude, awe, wonder, love, joy, and humility, beyond what you believed possible. There may even be insights about the nature, purpose, and evolution of this dream, though they may be hard to prove or even communicate via the standard channels.</span><br />
<span class="s1"><br /></span>
<span class="s1">Why is it impossible to prove that the past really happened, or that it's even <i>likely</i>? Sure, maybe this is all just sophistry and there's a perfectly reasonable explanation. Or maybe something <i>much more curious</i> is going on, right under your nose but hidden by a cleverly self-protective veil.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">If this all sounds like too much for you, well, then, luckily you have the option to continue to blindly trust your default beliefs. And why not? After all, some Very Smart Scientists have assured you that being too skeptical would be "ridiculous," "frivolous," and "paralyzing." And who are you to question that? <i>Nothing to see here, move right along....</i></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<br />
<span class="s1"></span>
</div>
<div class="p5">
<span class="s4">[1] <span class="s3"><a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/problem-of-induction-explained-simply.html">http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/problem-of-induction-explained-simply.html</a></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">"It’s a good test of whether someone has actually understood Hume’s argument that they acknowledge its conclusion is fantastic (many students new to philosophy misinterpret Hume: they think his conclusion is merely that we cannot be <i>certain </i>what will happen tomorrow.) ... [But] if Hume is right, the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is as unjustified as the belief that a million mile wide bowl of tulips will appear over the horizon instead<b>.</b> We suppose the second belief is insane. But if Hume is correct, the first belief is actually no more rational. ...</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="s1">[T]he onus is on these defenders of “common sense” to show precisely what is wrong with Hume's argument. No one has yet succeeded in doing this (or at least no one has succeeded in convincing a majority of philosophers that they have done so)."</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span></div>
<div class="p2">
[2] Notice that to take something "for granted" can mean either to be unappreciative of it, or to logically presuppose it. Here it takes on both meanings: we are quite confident that we've been experiencing life for a long time, which is why this moment feels so mundane. And now notice that "mundane" means both "pertaining to physical reality" and "tedious, repetitive, dull." Again, this is not a coincidence.<span class="s1"></span><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s1"></span></div>
</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-52316497587088507402019-04-22T15:17:00.003-07:002019-04-22T15:18:41.543-07:00Tying some things together<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In quantum mechanics, until a superposed system entangles with you (i.e., information about the system reaches you), you are not entitled to say that it is in a definite state. In a meaningful sense, the place you call <i>"the world"</i> comes into definite existence only when it comes into contact with <i>you</i>.<br />
<br />
A key lesson from Mahayana Buddhism is that the world you think you are passively <i>experiencing</i> is actually a world that you are <i>fabricating</i>. Listen to a sound. It seems like it is happening <i>to</i> you, right? Well, it turns out that if your attention becomes precise and subtle enough, you'll discover that you are <i>constructing</i> that experience out of a slew of assumptions and habits.<br />
<br />
In both of these descriptions, the word "you" is central, but what does it really refer to? Who or what are you, exactly? Discovering the answer to this question is, of course, another crucial issue in Buddhism. Who is fabricating the world? What is that without which no world exists?<br />
<br />
A common meditation to learn first is breathing meditation, where you passively observe the sensations of breath. With practice, you may learn to passively observe other sensations as well. The pinnacle of this kind of practice is to be the silent observer of your <i>entire</i> field of experience. This is sometimes called "bare attention"; a kind of raw perception supposedly without interpretation.<br />
<br />
But in such a practice, there's a subtle activity that's <i>not</i> privy to observation: the very effort required to artificially separate oneself from the field of experience. And until that subtle effort is released along with the rest of the field of perception, it is impossible to uncover even subtler forms of identity.<br />
<br />
When the subtle effort of distancing "oneself" from perception finally subsides, it becomes clear that the whole radiant field of experience is <i>experiencing itself</i>. Listen to a sound again, and notice that the experience is a sort of energetic phenomenon. This energy can manifest as sound, as color, as smell, as thought, etc. You are not a separate self <i>experiencing</i> this energy; "you" are the energy itself, contorting itself into a form called "my human perspective." The whole experience you call "the world" is made of <i>you</i>.<br />
<br />
The task before you is to discern how exactly you play this game of hide-and-seek. You are all that exists, and yet you form yourself into a perspective that seemingly doesn't know or believe this. In fact, in most incarnations, it flatly refuses to even consider such mystical nonsense.<br />
<br />
Sooner or later, though, the game will be up.</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-52573626794621496712019-04-20T16:49:00.001-07:002019-04-20T16:49:45.336-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
You've probably heard of superpositions in quantum mechanics.<br />
<br />
In the Schrödinger's Cat scenario, the cat is said to be in a superposition of alive and dead, and we're asked to note the absurdity of a cat that is somehow both alive <i>and</i> dead (which isn't exactly what a superposition is, but never mind that).<br />
<br />
Thanks to a phenomenon known as <i>decoherence</i>, it's not really feasible to put such a macroscopic system into the kind of superposition that's useful, the kind you can exploit. So maybe we never have to worry about such a cat.<br />
<br />
But you might still wonder: what if some far future technology allows us to do so? There's every reason to believe it's theoretically possible. And what if we put a <i>human</i> into a coherent superposition? Or, as quantum computing professor Scott Aaronson suggests, upload their consciousness into a quantum computer, where we would keep it coherent?<br />
<br />
Instead of using the macabre example where the human lives or dies, suppose they simply either see a red or blue light. And suppose you leave the experiment running for five minutes. At the end of it, the subject will report having seen only one colored light for the past five minutes.<br />
<br />
Imagine <i>being</i> such a subject. Imagine seeing one light turn on and stay that way for five minutes. At the end of it, you'll have a memory of having done so. And it will be an <i>authentic</i> memory, right? All that time <i>really</i> happened.<br />
<br />
But now switch back to being the experimenter. Are there really <i>two</i> subjects, each seeing one light? There are various forms of the many worlds interpretation of QM, but the modern ones suggest that worlds split only when there's decoherence. Here there is none.<br />
<br />
From the outside, we can say (in a precise and provable way) that there was no definite state for the light or subject during those five minutes. Nothing "really" happened. But the subject will find that absurd.<br />
<br />
Is their memory reliable? Did it "really" happen? It depends on whose perspective you take.<br />
<br />
You don't know that you're <i>not</i> in some elaborate quantum experiment right now. What is real to you may not be for others who you may even one day meet.</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-82598213624294174782019-02-15T08:56:00.000-08:002019-02-15T08:56:11.803-08:00Noticing existence<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Finally, a post on practice instead of philosophy. I need to do more of the former and less of the latter right now.<br />
<br />
One instruction for practice might go something like this: <i>simply notice existence</i>.<br />
<br />
This is a tricky instruction for a few reasons. First, what is "existence"? And second, who is noticing it?<br />
<br />
The first place my mind goes is to the <i>world's</i> existence. "Yes, the universe exists. So what?" But that isn't what we're looking for. One useful tip is to consider: what if the world is a simulation or dream? I can't know that it exists. So it's not the world's existence that I should be noticing.<br />
<br />
Next, I might ponder my own existence. But again, all the details I think of as "me" may not really exist. My body, thoughts, and memories might also be simulated.<br />
<br />
As you eliminate possibilities, you find yourself working your way back toward <i>that which is asking itself to notice existence</i>. It's hard to pinpoint that thing, but it clearly exists. It's easy to confuse it with the thoughts it is producing. In fact, even to call it a "thing" or "it" is misleading. It's somehow sitting "behind" all the things that it can point at.<br />
<br />
It is trying to point a finger back at itself, but it always comes up short. It always ends up pointing at some<i>thing</i> or another: this thought; that sensation. This becomes frustrating, as it (you) forgets what it's supposed to be looking for. Maybe at some point it gives up.<br />
<br />
If you don't walk away from the practice at this point, something interesting can happen. You simply notice that "the light is on." Instead of noticing any of the <i>particulars</i> of experience, you notice the simple fact that you are<i> experiencing</i>. Your entire field of experience is <i>lit up</i>, quite unlike if you were dead.<br />
<br />
You cannot <i>stop</i> experiencing, even if you wanted to. The whole field is just there, shining brightly. Even if you close your eyes and plug your ears (which is actually very useful here), you will find that the shine continues. Nothing in particular is shining, but somehow a light is still on. You're not <i>dead,</i> are you?<br />
<br />
At some point you may begin to sense that it is not <i>you</i> noticing this light; the light is noticing itself. In fact, noticing is not something this light <i>does</i>; it is what the light <i>is</i>. There's nothing for you to do, and there's nothing for it to do. Its mere existence is enough.<br />
<br />
The hard part of this practice is the "so what?" that can arise. The mind starts chattering, looking for the significance of this most obvious fact. The suggestion given here is to not listen to the mind's tricks. Just rest and allow the light to shine.</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-51001191154711350372018-09-25T10:20:00.002-07:002018-09-29T17:36:51.528-07:00Your true nature<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In a nighttime dream, you believe yourself to be a character wandering around as an isolated subject in a fundamentally external and threatening world. The only way to see through this illusion is to become <i>lucid</i>, at which point you discover that the whole of "reality" -- all the sights, sounds, textures, etc. that constitute the dream -- are made of the light of your own mind. Not "you" as in the <i>character</i>, but you as in the <i>dreamer</i> -- a being that exists <i>beyond</i> the confines of the dream.<br />
<br />
With increased lucidity, you discover that you do not occupy a position sitting behind the character's eyes, <i>observing</i> all this light. Instead, you <i>are</i> the light. "You" are distributed throughout the entirety of the apparent reality. And with still further awakening, you discover that the storyline of the dream is not something happening <i>to</i> you (perpetrated by your subconscious mind), but instead something you are <i>actively doing</i>. You weave yourself into a fantastical adventure and then embed yourself in it as an apparently localized, isolated subject.<br />
<br />
Once you see this clearly, there can be no doubt. You are free to weave and re-weave realities as you see fit; to lose yourself in them for arbitrarily long periods of "time" (another devious invention of your making, not necessarily present in all dreams); to generate apparently external beings who ruthlessly mock you for questioning reality; to rediscover the truth (it's infinitely delightful every. single. time.); and to rinse, lather, and repeat to your heart's content.<br />
<br />
By now you may have suspected that what I'm saying applies not only to nighttime dreams, but to your present one as well. Just as you would at night, you find this idea to be utterly preposterous; not even worth a second thought. You will devise comically useless tests to "prove" that it's false. Look how internally consistent this place is! Look at all the external evidence! I'm not clever enough to invent this place! Well, your <i>character</i> certainly isn't, but <i>You</i> are.<br />
<br />
If you really want to become lucid, you will have to dig <i>really</i> deep, and not turn tail at the first sign of difficulty. You will have to ignore all the warning signs: "Do Not Enter! Nothing to see here! Don't be ridiculous! The <i>scientists</i> would have found this out already! <i>Sciiiieeeence!</i>"<br />
<br />
So how do you do it? How do you become lucid? That's too big a topic to cover in one post, but here are some hints.<br />
<br />
First you must understand, intellectually, that many radically skeptical hypotheses are not meaningfully <i>unlikely</i>. If you try to prove that it is "unlikely" that this is a dream, you will find yourself <i>presupposing</i> that it is not, in one sneaky way or another. This is circular reasoning, and utterly bogus. Similarly: did the world suddenly pop into being one moment ago, or is the past <i>real</i>? Any way you try to establish a real past, you will find yourself subtly assuming one: "we know (from past experience) that the world just doesn't work that way!" If you find yourself resisting this point, sit down and look more carefully and honestly. Philosophers discard these hypotheses not because they are <i>unlikely</i>, but because they are (apparently) useless.<br />
<br />
Once you understand that, recognize your extreme reluctance to genuinely consider the conclusions they suggest. "Fine, I cannot <i>prove</i> that a real past is more likely, but I know deep down that it <i>is</i>, dammit! I can <i>feel</i> it!" While belief in a real past may be useful for <i>practical</i> reasons, you go further and take it 100% literally. Just as in a nighttime dream, this utter (unfounded) certainty is what kills any chance of becoming lucid.<br />
<br />
The next step is to understand, intellectually, that the world around you is made of your own mind. You can accept this even as a materialist, by substituting "my own mind" with "my own neurons firing." Every sight you see, every sound you hear, every thought you think, is your own mind, illuminated. Just listen: what <i>else</i> could that experience be than your own mind?<br />
<br />
Once you understand that your experienced world is made of your own mind, your mind will <i>immediately</i> follow it up with "but <i>obviously</i> there's a <i>real</i> world out there, causing it." This is the crucial moment. It is <i>not</i> obvious, and purely rationally speaking, it is not even <i>likely</i>. If you can <i>grok</i> the fact that the apparent world is your own mind, and simultaneously <i>grok</i> that there is no reason to take the standard explanation literally, then there is the possibility of becoming <i>lucid</i>. In Eastern traditions, this is known as <i>awakening</i>. It is simple, but it is not easy.<br />
<br />
Now you might wonder: if the Buddha was lucid, why wasn't he flying around with superpowers and such? And now for the punchline: this is <i>your</i> dream. The Buddha is an idea you planted to remind yourself how to wake up. Instead of waiting for "others" to wake up and prove it to you, why not do it yourself?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
---</div>
<br />
Sometimes you get the sense that life is magical or miraculous. You generally squash this idea as irrational, but it's closer to the truth than you know. The Light that constitutes your dream comes from beyond it, and in a sense, the whole <i>point</i> of the dream is to awaken to this fact.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>So close you can't see it</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>So deep you can't fathom it</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>So simple you can't believe it</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>So good you can't accept it</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
-- Tibetan Buddhist saying</div>
<br />
<br /></div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-15246474744929636762018-02-10T21:18:00.001-08:002019-07-10T13:50:18.098-07:00What everyone gets wrong about Wigner's interpretation of QM<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There's an interpretation of QM known as the "von Neumann - Wigner interpretation," aka the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">In the 1960s, </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Eugene Wigner">Eugene Wigner</a><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Wigner_2-0" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation#cite_note-Wigner-2" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration-line: none;">[2]</a></sup><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> reformulated the "</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Schrödinger's cat">Schrödinger's cat</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">" </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Thought experiment">thought experiment</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> as "</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend" style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #0b0080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none;" title="Wigner's friend">Wigner's friend</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">" and proposed that <b>the consciousness of an observer is the demarcation line which precipitates collapse of the wave function</b>, independent of any realist interpretation.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">There are other possible solutions to the "Wigner's friend" thought experiment, which do not require consciousness to be different from other physical processes.</span></blockquote>
This is true, but he also suggests another way out of the paradox: consciousness is not something that <i>other</i> people have:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It is not necessary to see a contradiction here from the point of view of orthodox quantum mechanics, and there is none if we believe that the alternative is meaningless, whether my friend's consciousness contains either the impression of having seen a flash or of not having seen a flash.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
However, to deny the existence of the consciousness of a friend to this extent is surely an unnatural attitude, approaching solipsism, and few people, in their hearts, will go along with it."</blockquote>
(<i>Remarks on the Mind-Body Question</i>, from <i>Symmetries and Reflections, </i>p.180)<br />
<br />
But a few pages later, he seems to have switched to the view that only <i>he</i> has it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">This
takes place whenever the result of an observation enters the consciousness of
the observer - or, to be even more painfully precise, <b>my own consciousness,
since I am the only observer, all other people being only subjects of my observations.</b></span></blockquote>
(From <i>Two Kinds of Reality, </i>from<i> Symmetries and Reflections</i> p.185)<br />
<i><br /></i>
This is presumably for rhetorical effect, but nonetheless it makes his model <i>so much more sensible </i>(at least, to my eye). It's not that consciousness is some magical property that lives inside human skulls and collapses wave functions. It's that (from your perspective, you might say) you are the only observer.<br />
<br />
Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gets it wrong!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/ </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1a1a1a; font-family: serif;">Among these approaches, the one with the longest history was initiated by von Neumann in the 1930s, later taken up by Wigner, and currently championed by Stapp. It can be roughly characterized as the proposal to consider <b>intentional conscious acts as intrinsically correlated with physical state reductions</b>.</span></blockquote>
Wigner's view is actually a natural result of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. MWI claims to get away from the consciousness problem by explaining that each branch has a copy of you, with its own consciousness. But there remains a meaningful sense in which "I collapse the wave function," and it reduces to Wigner's view.<br />
<br />
Specifically, <i>before</i> I come into contact with the world-eating superposition that is the natural evolution of any experiment, I should (in theory, though decoherence makes this impossible "for all practical purposes") model the system as evolving unitarily. In particular, this is because if I undid enough of the evolution, I should be able to run an interference experiment demonstrating that the original observable is in superposition. But once I come into contact with it, and I join the superposition, the copy of me on either branch is now free to model the entire universe with just his branch.<br />
<br />
Sometimes people explain that different branches of the multiverse <i>can</i> "communicate" -- in the sense of interference. But it seems that I ought to be able to do this only before the superposition has spread to me. Once I make manifest the branch -- aka, collapse the wave function, or become conscious of the result -- there is no other universe, as far as it concerns me.<br />
<br />
This is functionally indistinct from "I collapse the wave function."<br />
<br />
Now, what is this "I" that collapses the wave function? I better pin it down if it plays such a crucial role in reality, right?<br />
<br />
Well, the Vedantins and (some) Mahayana Buddhists covered the "<a href="https://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/teachings/instructions/">locating the I</a>" thing. And what do you find at the end? That I, as consciousness itself, am the very fabric from which the world is <i>made</i>. Of <i>course</i> the buck stops here. It's the only place that's real, so to speak.<br />
<br />
I am that which does not undergo unitary evolution, like all of so-called "physical reality." In other words, I am not definable from within physical law.<br />
<br />
What's particularly unfortunate is how many assume that Wigner's view is radically different from MWI (see, e.g. "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend#Wigner's_friend_in_Many_Worlds">Wigner's friend in Many Worlds</a>"). In fact, he was sagely pointing out that any interpretation will run into something fishy with consciousness. He continues the quote above:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Alternatively, one could say that quantum mechanics provides only probability connections between the results of my observations as I perceive them. Whichever formulation one adopts, the consciousness evidently plays an indispensable role.</span></blockquote>
And in another piece:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
it will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality.</blockquote>
As you try to pin down the point at which I am (in principle, not just FAPP) allowed to stop modeling the world as a superposition in MWI, you close in on the definition of "I," or that which seems to be looking out these eyes. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti">I am not my toes, I am not my torso</a>, ....<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-------<br />
Hmm he also later says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Solipsism may
be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, monism in
the sense of materialism is not. The case against solipsism was given at
the end of the first section. </blockquote>
<br /></div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-67319181740062142072018-01-25T14:33:00.003-08:002018-01-28T15:06:50.820-08:00Radical skepticism and the non-affirming negation: a summary<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span id="docs-internal-guid-96608a8e-39a8-77c9-6ffa-7695f1d521a9"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K Dick</blockquote>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
Radical skepticism</h3>
Young earth creationists believe that the earth was created in the past ten thousand years. The Omphalos Hypothesis points out that dinosaur bones and other seemingly old artifacts might have been planted there by God as a test of our faith.<br />
<br />
As ludicrous as this may strike you, there is no logical contradiction in it. In fact, there is no way to disprove that the universe sprang into existence, fully-formed, <a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism">last Thursday</a>. Bertrand Russell takes it one step further:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that 'remembered' a wholly unreal past."</blockquote>
Taken to its logical limit, this may all have appeared freshly in <i>this very moment</i>. But while such a claim is not logically <i>impossible</i>, it is certainly very <i>improbable</i>. Right?<br />
<br />
Well, stop for a moment and consider how you might evaluate such a probability. Suppose you have two models to choose from: one in which everything suddenly appeared exactly as it is now (let's call this the Russell metaphysics), and the other is the default model of materialism. What evidence will you use to decide in favor of one or the other?<br />
<br />
Any facts about the world are fully compatible with either model. As such, they should not bias you toward believing in one or the other. As an example, suppose you are trying to determine whether an unseen coin is a nickel or a quarter. If you are told that it was flipped and came up heads, this shouldn't cause you to favor either answer. Even if you were told it has been averaging 50% heads over the last thousand trials, then (assuming both coins are fair) you still have learned nothing. You need evidence that <i>differs</i> in the two cases, and we've purposely constructed Russell to be <i>identical</i> in appearance to the materialism.<br />
<br />
You may try to use something like Occam's Razor to make a case, but even here you must be careful. If your argument takes into account <i>anything</i> <i>from the past</i> -- such as evidence demonstrating that Occam's Razor is valid -- then you are <i>assuming</i> your metaphysics in order to prove it. This is circular reasoning, and clearly invalid. If you use Occam's Razor in its aesthetic form (namely, that simpler models are more beautiful and thus preferable), then you are not stating a <i>probability</i> but a <i>preference</i>.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, it is such an incredibly <i>strong</i> preference that it may be hard to recognize as one. <i>The existence of a past is an assumption with no logical justification.</i> Doesn't that statement rankle you?<br />
<br />
It almost certainly does, and this is itself enough to give you a good reason to stick to your default metaphysics. Russell himself refused to take radical skepticism seriously:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span id="docs-internal-guid-96608a8e-2f1e-995c-d90c-340df7adefba" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“Skepticism, while </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">logically impeccable</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it.”</span></span></blockquote>
Same with Hume (whose brilliant <a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/problem-of-induction-explained-simply.html">Problem of Induction</a> similarly destroys the supposed evidence for a sane-looking future):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Should it be asked me whether I sincerely assent to this argument which I have been to such pains to inculcate, whether I be really one of those skeptics who hold that everything is uncertain, I should reply that neither I nor any other person was ever sincerely and constantly of that opinion. I dine, I play backgammon, I converse and am merry with my friends and when after three or four hours of amusement I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold and strange and ridiculous that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any further. Thus the skeptic still continues to reason and believe, though he asserts he cannot defend his reason by reason."</blockquote>
And finally, modern physicist Sean Carroll:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“There is no way to distinguish between the scenarios by collecting new data. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What we’re left with is our choice of prior credences. We’re allowed to pick priors however we want—and every possibility should get some nonzero number. But it’s okay to set our prior credence in radically skeptical scenarios at very low values, and attach higher prior credence to the straightforwardly realistic possibilities. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Radical skepticism is less useful to us; it gives us no way to go through life. All of our purported knowledge, and all of our goals and aspirations, might very well be tricks being played on us. But what then? We cannot actually act on such a belief, since any act we might think is reasonable would have been suggested to us by that annoying demon. Whereas, if we take the world roughly at face value, we have a way of moving forward. There are things we want to do, questions we want to answer, and strategies for making them happen. We have every right to give high credence to views of the world that are productive and fruitful, in preference to those that would leave us paralyzed with ennui.”</blockquote>
In other words, you should believe it because it is psychologically comforting. Leaving aside the obvious parallels with religion, we should consider whether there is an alternative that these great thinkers have missed.<br />
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
Layers of thought</h3>
Have you ever had the experience of reading a book, only to discover that your eyes are still scanning the page but your mind is elsewhere? If you're interrupted mid-reverie, chances are you can recall the past few seconds of thought. Those thoughts were not really <i>outside</i> your consciousness and yet, somehow, you didn't notice them.<br />
<br />
Chances are, you spend the <i>vast majority</i> of your day in a state where you're thinking without being fully present in your thoughts. The mind readily back-fills a sense of presence, so that you can easily convince yourself that you <i>were</i> present when you weren't. If you want to test this yourself, just sit down and pay attention to your breath. See how long it takes you to be distracted, and how long it takes you to notice that you <i>are</i> distracted. You probably won't catch it immediately, even when your whole being is engaged in the effort. What of the rest of the day?<br />
<br />
If you decide to progress on the path of meditation, this starts happening less and less. As you become more present, you detect an undercurrent of more subtle thoughts between the big, coarse ones. When even these quieten, and you're sitting in a seemingly thought-free state, you might consider yourself basically free of thought.<br />
<br />
But are you?<br />
<br />
If you still feel like a <i>self</i> sitting in a world of <i>space</i> and <i>time</i>, it's because there's still a layer of your mind you have not yet penetrated.<br />
<br />
If you look carefully enough, you will notice that your mind is taking experiences and subtly weaving a narrative from them. Memory implies a past; anticipation implies a future; together they imply time and a self. Vision and touch together imply space and matter. Etc. The sense that the past contained a physical world bolsters the certainty that <i>this</i> moment must, too, and that there will be moments to come, following a fairly predictable trajectory. This narrative becomes the "background" of your experience -- as though it were <i>given</i> to you, rather than you <i>fabricating</i> it.<br />
<br />
In brief, the world feels <i>mundane</i>. These assumptions are so deep that they stop feeling like assumptions and start appearing as tangible, palpable, <i>externally</i> imposed structures. I mean, isn't it <i>viscerally obvious</i> that time and space are real, and not merely assumptions? Well, that feeling is there because you are <i>continually reinforcing it</i> (leaving aside for now the question of what "continuously" means in a world with no time). You do it because it's psychologically comforting. And like with distracted reading, it simply escapes your notice.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hume's positive view is that the experience of constant conjunction [things happening together] fosters a “habit of the mind” that leads us to anticipate the conclusion on the occasion of a new instance of the second premise. The force of induction, the force that drives the inference, is thus not an objective feature of the world, but a subjective power; the mind's capacity to form inductive habits. The objectivity of causality, the objective support of inductive inference, is thus an illusion, an instance of what Hume calls the mind's “great propensity to spread itself on external objects” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem</blockquote>
It's true, reality is what remains when you stop believing. But why on earth do we think we're capable of stopping something as deeply embedded as <i>belief</i> when we can barely even notice the constant cacophony much closer to the surface?<br />
<h3>
The non-affirming negation</h3>
So is the solution to convince yourself of radical skepticism? No, for two reasons.<br />
<br />
First, the layer of mind that is reinforcing your metaphysics is <i>much</i> deeper than the one you likely have access to when you try to consciously change your beliefs about the world. This results in a conflict between what you "know" (really, assume at a very deep level) and what you "believe." Obviously this will lead to painful cognitive dissonance.<br />
<br />
Second, you don't actually have any <i>more</i> evidence for the past being unreal than you do for it being real. The certainty that it is unreal is just as delusional as the certainty that it is real. And yet it seems that those are the only two options: mustn't time be one or the other?<br />
<br />
This is where we reach the <i>non-affirming negation</i>. An affirming negation is one that, while negating one thing, implicitly affirms another. "No, that's not true" generally implies that the thing is false. But it is possible to <i>withdraw</i> your belief in something without <i>affirming</i> something else. This is the non-affirming negation. You don't have to start believing in a crazy worldview to undo your belief in the default one. You can simply loosen your death grip on <i>this</i> worldview.<br />
<br />
You may fear that letting go of those beliefs will make it harder to interact with the world in a sane way. But actually, folks like the Buddha are far <i>more</i> sane than the rest of us.<br />
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
Taking existence for granted</h3>
So why is it worth releasing our metaphysical beliefs?<br />
<br />
When you look around you right now, don't you feel something like "I've seen this all before (more or less)?" And don't you take it for granted that the next moment will offer something similar?<br />
<br />
You're not paying attention to life because of the (completely unjustified, remember) assumption that you've experienced something very much like it before, and that you will continue to.<br />
<br />
Yet there's actually something <i>overwhelmingly glorious</i> about existing at all. From time to time we may notice this, but our metaphysics typically swoops in and dampens it. No doubt it feels amazing to recognize something like "wow, we're made of star stuff," but concepts are always few steps removed from the primordial epiphany itself. You'll know you're getting closer when you're filled with gratitude, wonder, and awe beyond your wildest imagination. It's the most natural response to encountering the miracle of existence for the first time.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-74578935235527952882018-01-09T11:48:00.000-08:002018-01-15T21:26:04.104-08:00Does consciousness "exist"?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="tr_bq">
For the duration of this post I want you to forget about your model of reality and return to your raw experience of the world. If you hear a sound, for example, forget the idea that there's some object causing the sound, some subject ("I") receiving it, some sense organs and neurons mediating the experience, etc.</div>
<br />
Okay, let's try this.<br />
<br />
Silence is the <i>absence</i> of sound. Now, pay attention to any particular sound in your environment, and recognize it as the <i>presence</i> of sound. "A sound" is some particular <i>presence of sound</i>.<br />
<br />
Now close your eyes and notice a (relative) absence of light/color. Now look at something, and recognize it as the <i>presence</i> of color.<br />
<br />
You can do the same thing with your other senses. Compare the <i>presence</i> of a feeling (like pressing your fingers together) with an <i>absence</i> of feeling (in that location, at least).<br />
<br />
The senses are all different <i>modes</i> of presence, but what they have in common is <i>presence </i>itself. Now spend a minute and see if you can intuit what I mean when I say that <i>presence</i> is the very "stuff" out of which all experiences are made. Presence, modulated in various ways, is the sole substance of your perceived world. Really take a moment and notice this.<br />
<br />
It is also the sole substance of your thoughts, memories, emotions, etc. Every single thought you've ever thought, like every sound you've ever heard, is "made of presence." For the most part, we do not even notice the <i>existence</i> of our thoughts, let alone carefully inspect their texture. Beginning meditators can spend weeks or months, possibly requiring retreats with constant practice, before noticing just how busy their minds have <i>always been</i>.<br />
<br />
This can be hard to believe, since it's so counterintuitive. But if you've ever been reading a book, only to discover "crap, I thought I was reading, but I was really daydreaming," then you have all the evidence you need: you're consciously doing <i>tons</i> of stuff that you just haven't realized yet. What secrets lie in that murky deep?<br />
<br />
Slowly you may discover that even your sense of identity is just a cluster of thoughts. There's nobody there, sitting inside your head, looking out at a world. You may already know this from neuroscience, but now you experience it directly.<br />
<br />
As this happens, you might start to reevaluate the belief that "I am conscious." <i>Who</i>, pray tell, is conscious, if there's nobody there?<br />
<br />
And now, slowly, slowly, it occurs to you that "consciousness" is just another word for what we've here been calling "presence." It's not that there is some <i>object</i> called sound, and a <i>subject</i> called I, and some <i>abstract property</i> called "consciousness" that magically links the two. Or rather, that model of reality may be <i>useful</i>, but it's not your actual <i>experience</i> of the world -- even though it has always <i>seemed</i> like it due to unexamined conceptualization. Instead, this shimmering show you call "life" is <i>all</i> consciousness, all the time. In a sense, it has always only been experiencing itself.<br />
<br />
So now what do you do with a belief like "consciousness exists" or "consciousness does not exist?" You discover, directly, that those beliefs are made of the very "stuff" they are questioning. Even the concept of "exists" or "real" are made of it. Any answer you might muster is <i>also</i> it.<br />
<br />
The sweater begins to unravel. A remarkable charade is exposed.<br />
<br />
In each moment, the luminous fabric of consciousness weaves itself into a dazzling array of sensual delights, as well as a thicket of mutually reinforcing beliefs that together form your conception of reality. Beliefs form, such as "there must be a real world out there, responsible for all of this glory," and "these memories and expectations <i>must</i> prove that time is real." Whether or not any of that stuff is true, it is astonishing to discover how these beliefs really form (and re-form) in each moment.<br />
<br />
Remarkably, during this model-building phase, consciousness brilliantly hides itself <i>from</i> itself, taking on fiendishly clever forms such as "the stuff of the world (aka matter) is all that <i>really</i> exists; consciousness is just an illusion." And like a snake eating its own tail... <i>poof!</i>, the sole substance of your reality seemingly vanishes into itself.<br />
<br />
But it's always hiding in plain sight. It is what the Tibetans call "self-secret." It's not that some yogis in an ancient cave have been hiding it from you. It is <i>everything</i>. Yet somehow you are continually hiding it from yourself. This game of hide-and-seek is known as Awakening, and it can go on for as many cycles (lifetimes) as you wish.<br />
<br />
This isn't a physical or philosophical fact, but an experiential one. Of course it doesn't prove anything about the world, but it's not meant to. Instead, you can consider it as a pointer to a peculiar mental habit we all have -- or in a sense, that we all <i>are</i>.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
So if you're called toward meditation, I encourage you to follow that thread. There may be something worth discovering there.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>So close you can't see it<br />So simple you can't believe it<br />So deep you can't fathom it<br />So good you can't accept it</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i></i>-- Tibetan Buddhist saying</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(All that said, I still need a word to describe the fact that the organisms I experience are interacting with the world. I'm perfectly happy to use the word "consciousness" here, and study it scientifically. These things are probably, but not necessarily, related. That is, perhaps I can experience a world without being able to interact with it, or vice versa. The conflation of these two facts has led to no end of philosophical and scientific trouble.)</span><br />
<br /></div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-44983222166623926282017-10-04T09:38:00.003-07:002017-10-04T09:38:47.586-07:00Buddhism and QM<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Many religions seem to want to believe that their ancient scriptures predicted modern scientific discoveries, such as the distance to the Sun, the speed of neural oscillations, etc. I think it's all nonsense.<br />
<br />
So, without any trace of irony, I present three ways in which the Buddha predicted modern results from quantum mechanics, with a scoop of woo to go along.<br />
<br />
<br />
1) The doctrine of Emptiness.<br />
<br />
Emptiness is the very core of Mahayana Buddhism, and also its most misunderstood teaching. Rob Burbea, a teacher I love, puts it most simply: it's the fact that <i>there is no way that things "actually" are</i>. There is the way that things <i>appear</i>, but fundamentally they have no essence; no substance. It is not that there is a "real chair" lurking somewhere "out there," independent of our minds. What is the actual truth then? That's a much more complicated question. It's an interdependent play of causes and conditions.<br />
<br />
What has QM taught us? That when we're not measuring things, they have no well-defined objective properties. What does it mean to measure things? We don't know (though surprisingly many physicists will tell you that we <i>have</i> nailed this problem). Yes, particles in a sense can "measure" each other, but not in a way that makes the system as a whole well-defined. I would be roundly mocked for suggesting that the ultimate point of measurement is "consciousness," so I'll stop short of doing so. But it is.<br />
<br />
<br />
2) There is no self.<br />
<br />
This is the foundation of Theravada Buddhism (and Buddhism as a whole, in some sense). There's nobody sitting at the center of your being; no soul. All of your properties (personality etc.) are incidental.<br />
<br />
Here's a quote from Hugh Everett, who originated what is now called the "Many Worlds Interpretation" of QM:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The price, however, is the abandonment of the concept of the uniqueness of the observer, with its somewhat disconcerting philosophical implications.”</blockquote>
The implication is that when the universe "splits" into multiple, it's not meaningful to say that either copy of "you" is actually <i>you</i>. In other words, your sense of personal identity is an illusion.<br />
<br />
<br />
3) <i>You</i> choose which world manifests.<br />
<br />
Wait, what? Neither Buddhism nor QM says anything like this. You're right; it's my own addition, extrapolated from both.<br />
<br />
The point is that in any given moment, the question of "which particular objective properties will manifest" (i.e., which world will appear) is not dictated by anything external to consciousness itself. Perhaps it is not determined by consciousness either. Heck, in QM the statement is meaningless: <i>all</i> possible worlds are manifesting.<br />
<br />
But here's something to explore. When consciousness is "constricted," the world appears to be constricting. When it is deeply relaxed and free, the world appears to construct itself in a way that justifies that, too.<br />
<br />
It seems as though the "constricted" vs "free" quality belongs to the individual; i.e., the illusory being that is manifesting along with the world. That is, it cannot belong to consciousness itself, which is prior to the manifestation.<br />
<br />
That may indeed be so. In that case, the "true" cause is something more subtle. The only option I see is this: it is the degree to which consciousness has woken up to itself. The more consciousness recognizes its own face, the less sense that it is bound by anything else, which manifests in the person as freedom, and in the world as justifications for experiencing freedom.</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-25640165307170089472017-09-29T08:26:00.000-07:002017-09-29T09:23:52.504-07:00Why the measurement problem in QM won't just go away<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The founders of quantum mechanics knew there was something funny about its relation to consciousness. It seems that lesson has been lost through the decades, with many modern researchers believing that approaches like <i>decoherence</i> have solved the problem. They'll tell you that the idea that there's any relationship between consciousness and QM is just flapdoodle. But it's far from solved; we've just kicked the can down the road to ever-more esoteric possibilities. If you don't believe me, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ">here's the world's smartest physicist (Ed Witten) agreeing</a>.<br />
<br />
There's something fascinating in here that I think every human (with time and energy) ought to think about. So I want to give you a quick summary of the problem and why I think it won't be solved any time soon.<br />
<br />
Suppose we have a particle that's in a superposition state: if we measure its spin, it might be up or down. In classical physics, this wouldn't be strange: we can just say it's <i>actually</i> one or the other but we don't know which. In quantum mechanics, we can do what's called an <i>interference </i>experiment to show that it's a different kind of beast. Somehow, both possibilities remain, and those possibilities can interfere with each other (much like in the two-slit experiment).<br />
<br />
We can introduce a second particle and have it interact with the first in such a way that their properties become correlated: say, if the first particle is spin-up, the second will be too, and vice versa. This is a form of measurement (you can "read out" the second particle to learn the state of the first) and it works by a phenomenon known as entanglement. The key thing to note here is that an interference experiment on either particle <i>alone</i> will show no interference. Each particle by itself looks classical. But we <i>can</i> exhibit interference on the <i>pair</i>. That's how we know that two possibilities remain in the system. This is the essence of the loss of interference in the two-slit experiment when detectors are placed at the slits.<br />
<br />
As more and more particles get in on the entanglement (for example, in a macroscopic measurement apparatus, or just the environment), it becomes harder and harder to do an interference experiment on the system as a whole. There are way too many degrees of freedom to control. This is known as "decoherence," and explains why macroscopic systems look classical (show no interference). But crucially, it does <i>not</i> explain why, when, or how <i>two</i> possibilities become <i>one</i>.<br />
<br />
That is the heart of the measurement problem, and there are two broad approaches to solving it.<br />
<br />
The first is to say that something special ("collapse") happens somewhere to make the two into one. This is problematic for aesthetic reasons (it introduces a law that's very much unlike the rest), technical ones (that law disobeys certain key assumptions like time-reversibility), and practical ones (as our technology improves, we're able to demonstrate in larger and larger systems that there is no collapse). As time goes on, this position gets harder and harder to maintain.<br />
<br />
The second is to say that nothing special happens, and two possibilities remain. If that is the case, why do we see only one? We don't: we instead say that <i>both</i> happen, each in their own "parallel universe." Since there is one copy of you in each universe, you <i>do</i> see two possibilities, not one. As time goes on, the multiverse keeps branching and branching. There are infinitely many "copies of you" right now. This is called the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI).<br />
<br />
As absurd as this may sound, it's perhaps the most straightforward explication of the results that we have. But it comes with a nasty problem -- depending on your views on consciousness.<br />
<br />
Consider how things look to a single experimenter. From his perspective, the universe is obeying its usual reversible laws, right up until the point it interacts with him. He can even confirm this (in principle) with a sufficiently sophisticated interference experiment. But once <i>he</i> interacts with the system, he splits. From a God's-eye view, the reversibility is maintained, and everything is fine. But from the perspective of any individual "copy" of him on one of the branches, the "quantum-ness" has been suddenly lost. He can only see the outcome on <i>his</i> branch, and there's nothing left to interfere.<br />
<br />
In other words, "collapse" has found its way back in, this time with a vengeance: instead of happening at random unspecified places, it happens <i>only when things encounter him</i>. By symmetry, of course, it would look this way for <i>any</i> object in the system that found itself in the unfortunate circumstance of "being conscious" or "having an inside view." Humans aren't necessarily special here, but consciousness somehow is. Thus MWI <i>really</i> cannot afford to have consciousness enter the picture in any meaningful way. Who wants to be a <a href="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/on-being-the-sole-observer-in-mwi.926552/">lone superman</a> (and maybe lone conscious being?) in their journey through the multiverse?<br />
<br />
Let's take a step back. What problem are we trying to solve? The problem is that the math and experiments seem to predict multiple outcomes, but we see just one. If we somehow <i>didn't</i> see just one, there would be no need for these competing frameworks. The math would predict everything, with no wiggle room for interpretations. Most MWIers will tell you that this is precisely why you should adopt MWI.<br />
<br />
The problem is that some obnoxious people keep insisting on this parochial idea that they <i>do experience just one universe</i>. In other words, that they are "genuinely conscious." And as long as that keeps happening, the matter will not be so easily settled. Sure, it's <i>possible</i> that "collapse" will solve it, but I'm not sure anyone actually believes that.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Most physicists, even those who use quantum mechanics every day in their research, get along perfectly well speaking the language of the Copenhagen interpretation, and choosing not to worry about the puzzles it presents. Others, especially those who think carefully about the foundations of quantum mechanics, are convinced that we need to do better."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I suspect that a substantial majority of physicists who use quantum mechanics in their everyday work are uninterested in or downright hostile to attempts to understand the quantum measurement problem." -- Sean Carroll</blockquote>
<div>
If you're unsure of what I mean by "genuinely conscious," I leave you with an experiment to try. Really try it; don't just think about it.<br />
<br />
Pause for a moment, and look around. Doesn't it sure seem like something is going on? I emphasize "sure" here. If you check very simply and straightforwardly, you will notice an immediate and unequivocal certainty before your intellect kicks in and explains it all away ("That's just a trick of my brain! Nothing to see here; move right along!"). This flawless certainty -- that something <i>sure as hell seems to be happening</i> -- is more profound than it may seem the first few times you encounter it. It's the only thing that doesn't depend on a worldview. You can't be nearly as sure that time or space (or brains or QM) exist as that ... consciousness ... and even <i>that</i> doesn't touch the profundity I'm hinting at. If you've ever been completely overwhelmed by the magnificence of life, it's just the tiniest whiff of <i>this</i> realization that you're brushing up against.<br />
<br />
But we're not ready to face this possibility. You can confirm this yourself, as your mind generates one explanation after another to disprove the fact that you're "really" experiencing anything. If it doesn't fit your worldview, psychological tension <i>forces</i> you to discard it. Of course you could just check again (and boy do I encourage you to, as many thousands of times as necessary), but who has time to confront their own outrageously profound existence? Ain't nobody got time for that. It's so much easier to just let the intellect run amok.<br />
<br />
The one thing you can actually be meaningfully sure of is the one thing we can't fit into the theory. And yet we continue to insist that the cart come before the horse. And <i>that</i> is why the problem won't go away -- not because we haven't figured out the appropriate math, or been willing to overcome our ape-like beliefs.</div>
</div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I think consciousness will remain a mystery. Yes, that's what I tend to believe. I tend to think that the workings of the conscious brain will be elucidated to a large extent. Biologists and perhaps physicists will understand much better how the brain works. But why something that we call consciousness goes with those workings, I think that will remain mysterious. I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness...<br />
<br />
I'm not going to attempt to define consciousness, in a way that's connected with the fact that I don't believe it will become part of physics. ... And that has to do, I think, with the mysteries that bother a lot of people about quantum mechanics and its applications to the universe. ... Quantum mechanics kind of has an all-embracing property, that to completely make sense it has to be applied to everything in sight, including ultimately, the observer. But trying to apply quantum mechanics to ourselves makes us extremely uncomfortable. Especially because of our consciousness, which seems to clash with that idea. So we're left with a disquiet concerning quantum mechanics, and its applications to the universe. And I do not believe that disquiet will go away. If anything, I suspect that it will acquire new dimensions." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
-- Ed Witten </blockquote>
</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-55039390263108925182017-09-29T06:44:00.001-07:002017-09-29T08:12:48.313-07:00QM and consciousness<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The founders of quantum mechanics knew there was something funny about its relation to consciousness. It seems that lesson has been lost through the decades, with many modern researchers believing that approaches like <i>decoherence</i> have solved the problem. They'll tell you that the idea that there's any relationship between consciousness and QM is just flapdoodle. But it's far from solved; we've just kicked the can down the road to ever-more esoteric ideas. If you don't believe me, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ">here's the world's greatest physicist agreeing</a>.<br />
<br />
Why is there so much debate about the correct interpretation or formulation of QM? It's not just arcane maths. It centers around the <i>measurement problem</i>: why do we see only one result out of the sea of possibilities QM predicts?<br />
<br />
This question is all too easy to conflate with a much more straightforward one: why does a spread-out wave function suddenly become localized (particle-like) when it interacts with measuring devices and/or the environment? For example, why does a light wave stop showing interference when a detector is placed at the two slits?<br />
<br />
Well, when a particle encounters a measuring device, the device effectively <a href="https://www.blogger.com/"><span id="goog_152855657"></span>works by becoming <i>entangled</i> with the particle<span id="goog_152855658"></span></a>. If it's a tiny measuring device (e.g., another single particle whose spin is made to match that of the first -- hence "measuring" it) the math is very straightforward, and clearly shows that the first particle won't exhibit "interference." Yet it also predicts that we <i>can</i> perform an interference experiment on the <i>pair</i> of particles. So the quantum-ness isn't <i>gone</i>; it can be found in the larger system, but requires that we are in careful control of all the involved particles.<br />
<br />
So does the quantum-ness ever really disappear? Well, as our technology improves and we're able to do bigger and bigger (but still tiny) experiments, things keep looking quantum. But in a truly macroscopic system (such as one that includes an experimenter's body and brain) it is almost unthinkable to have control over all the relevant degrees of freedom that we'd need to confirm it. This is called "decoherence," and it's explained by roughly the same math before, showing that a system <i>should</i> "look quantum" as a whole if we could control everything, but we can't, and so we don't.<br />
<br />
So is that it? Problem solved.<br />
<br />
If you were following along, you might have noticed the sleight of hand I pulled on you. This whole thing is about measuring a particle. There could have been more than one outcome of that measurement. Everything I've told you so far is about why there's no interference between those outcomes, and nothing about why there's just <i>one</i> result instead of <i>two</i> (or many, depending on what property is being measured).<br />
<br />
Here's where the different formulations collide. The orthodox ("Copenhagen") interpretation is that probably somewhere in that ill-defined micro-to-macro transition something magic happened and two became one. A genuine collapse, with each of the outcomes happening with 50% probability. And how could you disprove it? To show that there are still two, you need to do something like an interference experiment, and we already saw you can't at that scale. The system would be decoherent, and while there would still be two possibilities, each would behave basically like a collapsed result. So no experiment today can tell apart whether it collapsed or merely decohered.<br />
<br />
This second approach can be extended such that a collapse <i>never</i> happens. Instead, every time there's more than one thing that can happen, the universe splits so that <i>all the things happen</i>. You know, each in its own parallel universe (this is called the Many Worlds Interpretation, or MWI). This neatly sidesteps the question of why we only see one outcome: <i>we</i> <i>don't; we see all of them</i> (in different universes).<br />
<br />
Maybe that tickles your fancy, or maybe you'd rather retreat to the safe confines of Copenhagen, but in either case you've really cheated yourself.<br />
<br />
Do you remember what question we were trying to answer? It was the measurement problem: <i>why</i> do we see only one outcome instead of many? Even if you have an answer ("we don't!"), it should make you think: why are we asking such a funny question? The easy answer is that we're wired to think primitively but I want you to look closer.<br />
<br />
The reason we're asking this question is because the math predicted multiple results but we're seeing only one. We are <i>experiencing</i> only one world. If your solution to this conundrum is "you only <i>think</i> you're seeing one; that's just a trick," then I suspect I know your answer to the question: is consciousness a trick of the brain? Obviously the questions "are you <i>really</i> experiencing one world?" and "are you <i>really</i> experiencing something" are intimately related.<br />
<br />
The reason the measurement problem won't go away is that it's intimately tied to the question of whether you "actually experience" anything.<br />
<br />
What's the problem with just answering "yes?" Well, the math is supposed to describe everything that's happening. There's nothing there that could account for this strange idea that some real, external thing called "consciousness" somehow swoops into the equations at random points (human brains) and gives an "inside view."<br />
<br />
Moreover, consider what things look like from the view of any embodied consciousness in this multiverse (if MWI is true): from his perspective, the rest of the world -- including other people -- obeys the "branching" laws of physics, but from his perspective it gets reduced to one. In other words, he's <a href="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/on-being-the-sole-observer-in-mwi.926552/">all alone with this magical power</a>. Are the other people even <i>conscious?</i><br />
<br />
We can't have any of that.<br />
<br />
But the problem is that you <i>do</i> really experience something. Pause for a moment, and look around. Doesn't it <i>sure seem like something is going on?</i> I emphasize "sure" here. If you check very simply and straightforwardly, you will notice an <i>immediate and unequivocal</i> <i>certainty</i> before your intellect kicks in and explains it all away ("This is just a trick of my brain! Nothing to see here; move right along!"). This certainty -- that <i>something sure as hell seems to be happening</i> -- is more profound than it may seem the first few times you encounter it. You can't be nearly as sure that time or space exist as that ... consciousness ... and even <i>that</i> doesn't touch the profundity I'm hinting at.<br />
<br />
But we're not ready to face this possibility. You can confirm this yourself, as your mind comes up with one explanation after another to disprove the fact that you're really experiencing anything. Of course you could just check again, but who has time for confronting that they exist in an outrageously profound way?<br />
<br />
And <i>that</i> is why the problem won't go away; not just because we haven't figured out the appropriate math, or haven't been willing to overcome our ape-like beliefs.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I'm not going to attempt to define consciousness, in a way that's connected with the fact that I don't believe it will become part of physics. ... And that has to do, I think, with the mysteries that bother a lot of people about quantum mechanics and its applications to the universe. ... Quantum mechanics kind of has an all-embracing property, that to completely make sense it has to be applied to everything in sight, including ultimately, the observer. But trying to apply quantum mechanics to ourselves makes us extremely uncomfortable. Especially because of our consciousness, which seems to clash with that idea. So we're left with a disquiet concerning quantum mechanics, and its applications to the universe. And I do not believe that disquiet will go away. If anything, I suspect that it will acquire new dimensions." -- Ed Witten </blockquote>
</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-13158708900579139622017-08-29T09:23:00.002-07:002017-08-29T11:09:33.138-07:00Theravada and Mahayana<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Wanted to share some quotes from Kenneth Folk (who practiced Vipassana in the Mahasi tradition for many years, until he finished the path according to its teachers). This is just one perspective, but I find it intriguing.<br />
<br />
Basically, he says there are two modes of practice: "developmental," which uses phenomena (such as sensations and thoughts) to develop toward a physio-energetic completion, and "awakening," which is primordial awareness coming to recognize itself. Those that just target the former will likely only lead to the former realization, whereas those that target the latter can result in both.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/106307">https://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/106307</a><br />
<br />
---------------------<br />
<br />
[I]t's unlikely that [Ramana Maharshi] became an arahat in the moment of his initial awakening. Awakening doesn't depend upon development; it is its own attainment. Arahatship, on the other hand, seems to be directly correlated with the kundalini phenomenon Ramana mentioned (see my essay above), and is the culmination of a developmental process. This is why I differentiate Awakening/Realization and development. The former is the noticing of that which is prior to the arising of time. The latter is completely dependent on time and the physical world.<br />
...<br />If Ramana is correct, this is good news for pure Advaitists. They need not fear missing out on the fruits of development even if they never spend a moment on practices that specifically target development. All that is necessary is to dwell as primordial awareness. By the way, the common denominator between pure concentration practice and dwelling as the "I AM," is... concentration. Concentration, coupled with insight, leads to developmental enlightenment. Ramana's practice promotes both concentration and insight. All of this makes perfect sense when seen through the lens of the Buddhist maps. The non-dual aspect is, of course, not addressed in Theravada, which is why we have the Mahayana. If Hinayana were complete, there would be no need for Mahayana or Vajrayana.<br />
...<br />
<br />
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm defining Awakened in a particular way. In this context, Awakened is not synonymous with arahatship. Rather, it refers to a perspective in which primordial awareness knows itself. Lot's of people who are not arahats have access to this perspective. And it appears, based on my observations of and conversations with some people who I believe are arahats, that not all arahats have access to this perspective. On the other hand, maybe they just don't value this perspective; but I would say that it amounts to the same thing, as this perspective is considered the highest understanding by virtually every school of enlightenment except Theravada. To know it is to love it. :-)<br />
<br />
We are now at the very heart of the debate between "Hinayana" and "Mahayana." How is it possible that people can spend their whole lives meditating and not come to the same conclusions?<br />
<br />
For me the answer is simple: If people would stop arguing long enough to actually master the other camp's practice, they would value both perspectives. Too often, people dig in and attempt to defend their own limited understanding rather than branching out and embracing multiple understandings. It takes a lot of work. You can't just say, "I'm enlightened and therefore anything I don't already know about doesn't matter." You have to keep practicing even after arahatship because there is always something you haven't yet understood.<br />
<br />
So, to answer the question directly, there are arahats who are masters of vipassana and samatha but who have never committed themselves to the mastery of non-dual practice and thus do not understand the full implications of Awakening.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
You could make the case that both Awakening and Arahatship are enlightenment--which gives us two distinct situations, both going by the name "enlightenment." I think that some people reject the idea of "two enlightenments" as aesthetically displeasing. I tend to agree that, as an aesthetic, the idea of two enlightenments fails to inspire. Reality, however, has rarely shown itself to be subordinate to my aesthetic concerns.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
I don't think the Theravada ideal is both development and Awakening. I think it's just development as I'm defining it. The Bumese, for example, don't talk about "turning the light around," "awareness knowing itself," "realizing what has always been true," etc, all of which are recurring themes in Advaita, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. They seem to take enlightenment as an entirely linear process that fundamentally changes the practitioner over time. Theravada, notwithstanding the occasional instant-arahat story in the suttas, is about as far as you can get from a sudden-enlightenment school.<br />
<br />
Among those who do talk about awareness knowing itself (see Mahamudra, for example), there is wide consensus that this Realization is by far the most important thing to have, and that pure developmentalists are somehow missing the boat.<br />
<br />
I like Theravada, but I like to keep in mind that it is the little brother of the enlightenment schools in spite of its self-serving claims to greater authenticity.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
I will say that someone who fully commits to the non-dual route and (accidentally) develops to the point of arahatship has completed the two-fold program. But someone who reaches arahatship by doing only developmental practices may or may not stumble hard enough on the non-dual to get hooked and explore it further. In that case it would take some outside influence to encourage that yogi to keep practicing, as s/he would intuitively feel done.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
The thesis I'm offering is that by becoming absorbed in the awareness you will progress along the developmental path, thus killing two birds with one stone. This position seems to be supported by such luminaries as Ramana Maharshi and Jack Kornfield, among others. Mind you (and getting back to the point I made in the essay), pure non-dual teachers (e.g. Tolle, Adyashanti, Ganga-ji, Mooji) don't like to talk about development, presumably because they believe it is a distraction. (How can you become absorbed in the awareness now if you are planning your future awakening?) Nonetheless, I'm giving you the holistic understanding for better or worse: if you do the non-dual practice properly, you will develop just as efficiently as if you did pure vipassana.<br />
<br />
The only down side to this is that to some people all this talk of awareness knowing itself is incomprehensible gibberish. Fine. For those people, I recommend vipassana. This is really a can't-lose situation. The important thing is to be committed to some kind of practice, to do it every day, and to take intensive retreats whenever possible and do it some more. The finite part of it will eventually be finished and the infinite part will keep you entertained for a lifetime.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
My sense is that people who are Awake tend to talk about it a lot, at least when the conversation turns to mysticism. People talk about what they value. So if somebody talks for a half-hour about meditation but doesn't say anything about awareness, I suspect that awareness is either not known to them or not important to them. For concrete examples, compare the speech of a Mahasi master with the speech of a dzogchen master or a Mahamudra master. The dzogchen and Mahamudra guys are all about awareness knowing itself, whereas the Mahasi guy will talk about body sensations or noting mind states. These are two very different orientations and I think it would be wrong to conclude that these people are all having the same experiences but talking about them differently.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
My response to a question from a friend about whether to combine vipassana and the "I AM:"<br />
<br />
I like to use the source/river analogy. The Source is where things have not yet diverged into subject and object. One definition of enlightenment would be unfettered access to the Source. Both the "I AM" perspective and the vipassana perspective are downstream from the Source. That's fine, as most people will do a lot of downstream practice before they realize that the Source is always available. Your question is which practice to do, or if they should be combined.<br />
<br />
"I AM" is so close to the Source that it does not admit the kind of investigation that is vipassana. Vipassana is slightly further downstream from "I AM." "I AM," because it is so far upstream, is upstream from suffering. What's not to like? To introduce vipassana to the "I AM" is to pull yourself further downstream than you need to be, into a perspective that admits suffering. Since the "I AM" does everything vipassana does (i.e. it efficiently develops the psychic anatomy toward arahatship), and has the added advantage of being upstream from suffering, there is no percentage in doing vipassana if you are able to become absorbed in the "I AM." It would be like stepping over dollars to pick up quarters.<br />
<br />
So, anytime you are able to become absorbed in the "I AM," AKA the no-dog, just do that. If that isn't happening for whatever reason, downshift to vipassana. Just realize that although investigating the no-dog with vipassana or doing vipassana from the point of view of the no-dog are perfectly good and useful practices, they are in fact vipassana; once you introduce that level of investigation you have pulled yourself downstream from the pure no-dog for no good reason.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
Actually, descriptions of stream entry/1st path, as defined in the Theravada tradition, are remarkably consistent across individuals. That's one of the things that really drew me to vipassana in the first place. My teacher told me that the Progress of Insight was so accurate, and that it described a process that was so hard-wired into the human body/mind, that a teacher could accurately pinpoint a student on the map and watch her or him go through the 16 insight knowledges one after another, just as if it were scripted. And this would happen irrespective of whether the student knew or had even heard of the map. I have since found this to be true again and again; first path is not at all nebulous. Same for second path. After that, it gets harder; teachers don't even agree on exactly where to put the dividing line between 2nd and 3rd path. But it gets easier at 4th path, which is a very easy call, as you know when your insight disease goes away. Post 4th path, it gets fuzzy again and there are all sorts of ways that enlightenment can manifest, which is why I started this discussion. I wanted do go deeper than the usual it-all-ends-up-in-the-same place talk and explore the reality of it.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-6623674683644780322017-07-25T07:27:00.002-07:002017-07-25T07:27:29.907-07:00So simple<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />"The root of the whole of samsara and nirvana is the nature of the mind. To realize this, rest in unstructured ease without meditating on anything. When all that needs to be done is to rest in yourself, it is amazing that you are deluded by seeking elsewhere!" -- Saraha<br />
<br />
"The ultimate Truth is so simple. It is nothing more than being in the pristine state. This is all that need be said. Still, it is a wonder that to teach this simple Truth there should come into being so many religions, creeds, methods and disputes among them and so on! Oh the pity! Oh the pity!" -- Sri Ramana Maharshi<br />
<br />
"A mind imbued with conceptual elaboration is a mind of samsara. A mind free from conceptual elaboration is liberated. The very nature of mind-itself is primordially, intrinsically free of elaboration. ... People go awry in their practice because they fail to recognize this point and pursue it. ... In reality, it is enough to leave the mind in its own unstructured state. Why have so many complaints and questions? Why complicate the issue?" -- Gyatrul Rinpoche<br />
<br /></div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-19650002147825917992017-06-11T08:01:00.001-07:002017-06-11T08:39:29.441-07:00The simple fact<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
If you could -- just for a millisecond -- notice the simple fact of consciousness (or rather, if consciousness were to <i>notice itself</i> -- because what, other than consciousness, notices?) without your mind subtly spewing out answers (and questions) about what it is (just an illusion!), where it comes from (just neurotransmitters!), whether or not it's anything special or remarkable (not particularly!), etc., you would be <i>brought to your knees</i> in a profound humility, reverence, awe, and gratitude that you could never have imagined possible.<br />
<br />
Before wondering "why am I here?" or "what is the meaning of life?," perhaps spend more time looking (nonconceptually) into <b>exactly</b> what you <i>mean</i> by "I am here" or "I am alive." I guarantee you will be surprised and delighted -- and with enough luck (or really, enough sincerity, precision, simplicity, and directness), it will unequivocally resolve (if not exactly "answer") your first question.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>So close you cannot see it</i><br />
<i>So deep you cannot fathom it</i><br />
<i>So simple you cannot believe it</i><br />
<i>So good you cannot accept it</i><br />
-- Kalu Rinpoche<br />
<br />
</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-63993301630212330832017-05-10T19:20:00.001-07:002017-05-10T19:20:21.944-07:00ACIM and Buddhism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It is remarkable how similar A Course In Miracles (or at least, this interpretation) is to the <a href="http://monktastic.blogspot.in/2017/01/truly-no-limits.html">Mingyur Rinpoche quote</a>:<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<blockquote style="border: none; font-size: 12.8px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">
<i>The Course's assertion is that everything stems from the mind. The mind's thinking provides the basis for everything that it experiences. Whichever way the mind chooses to look at reality, it will find itself surrounded by and experiencing a "reality" that is the precise mirror of that. The mind's fundamental belief-system first manifests as inner feelings, emotions, interpretations and perceptions; and then manifests as the "outer" reality in which the mind seems to live.</i><i><br /></i><i>…</i><i><br /></i><i>Our healing, then, must be a healing of the mind, a healing of our fundamental perspective on reality. This is what the miracle does. It comes in a moment, a holy instant, when we decide to temporarily suspend our habitual perspective on things. As we momentarily loosen our grip on the ego, our minds are allowed to shift into a new way of seeing things. And since our thinking is the foundation for our entire experience, as our thinking shifts, so does everything else. Our whole experience of life is allowed to brighten from the bottom up, making this kind of healing more deeply liberating than being healed of even the most insidious and destructive physical disease.</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8184759625450195692.post-42560568654254206922017-04-20T19:58:00.001-07:002017-04-20T20:01:31.918-07:00What do you really have?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
What does it mean to be happy?<br />
<br />
It means that for just a moment, you are not longing for <i>something else</i>. You are not craving or searching or yearning for things to be different in any way. What you have is truly <i>enough</i>.<br />
<br />
That's it. That's a simple but complete description of the condition we spend lifetimes struggling and fighting and killing for. Of the one and only thing everybody fundamentally wants.<br />
<br />
This may surprise you. It couldn't be that simple, could it? After all, most of the time you're not longing for something else, and yet you're not perfectly happy, right?<br />
<br />
You may not have noticed that for the vast majority of your life, your mind is indeed preoccupied with scheming up ways for things to be different. It can take some practice to detect.<br />
<br />
Or perhaps you are aware of this, but consider it perfectly reasonable. If you didn't seek ways for things to be different, you wouldn't accomplish very much, right? It's lazy to be content with what you have.<br />
<br />
But have you noticed what you really have?<br />
<br />
Suppose you say "I have a sports car!"<br />
<br />
Concretely speaking, what you have then is not a sports car, but the <i>thought</i> "I have a sports car!"<br />
<br />
Suppose you go to your garage and point at it, to prove it to me. Now what you <i>have</i> is a <i>visual field</i> that looks something like this:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DH--YDOOrzY/WPlwdOudtuI/AAAAAAAAq3c/Fja16nfTci8QAyk5aur11TXgjyqU4Pb9gCLcB/s1600/lambo2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="128" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DH--YDOOrzY/WPlwdOudtuI/AAAAAAAAq3c/Fja16nfTci8QAyk5aur11TXgjyqU4Pb9gCLcB/s320/lambo2.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(Yeah, right, you only <i>wish</i> you had a Lambo)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
You can get it in and vroooom off into the distance, and you may have super-sweet <i>vroooom</i> sounds and wind in your hair, but you'll never <i>have</i> a Lamborghini.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
What you will only, always, and ever have is <i>this one moment</i> and whatever it contains. Just one frame. You can save all you like, but you'll never have more.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Wouldn't it be a damn shame if you didn't want the one and only thing you had?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Wouldn't it be an incredible tragedy to discover at the end of your life that all you ever really had to do was appreciate the one thing you had?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Wouldn't it be unfortunate if the reason you failed to appreciate it was fear? Fear that if you enjoyed what you had, that you would turn into a lump of complacency?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Wouldn't it be amazing if the opposite turned out to be the case? That when you started enjoying what you had -- not what you <i>thought you had,</i> but what you actually had -- that things got better, not worse?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Wouldn't it be funny if teachers have come before to tell us of this, and we are just refusing to listen?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JmyqC4iRUkc/WPl0dS03l9I/AAAAAAAAq3o/gvtIXnz9py8doBe0RGdrZdj9n_Q1e6g_wCLcB/s1600/buddha%2Bwith%2Bhalo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JmyqC4iRUkc/WPl0dS03l9I/AAAAAAAAq3o/gvtIXnz9py8doBe0RGdrZdj9n_Q1e6g_wCLcB/s320/buddha%2Bwith%2Bhalo.png" width="211" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #565a5c;">“Accept — then act. Whatever the present moment contains, accept it as if you had chosen it. Always work with it, not against it.This will miraculously transform your whole life.” -- Eckhart Tolle</span></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
</div>
Adityahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06265541752604506523noreply@blogger.com2