Tag: Buddhist Practice

What is FIML?

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML is an acronym that stands for Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics.

FIML is a form of analytical psychotherapy done between two people, neither of whom needs any formal training in psychotherapy. It is designed to optimize communication and psychological well-being.

FIML is a technique that uses real-time, real-world communication data to clear up mistaken psychological interpretations that may have been held for many years or that may have just arisen.

By clearing up many small mistaken interpretations between partners, FIML gradually clears up the psychological bases of those misinterpretations. In this way, FIML optimizes the communication and psychologies of both partners.

For a basic description of how to do FIML see: How to do FIML.

For more information about the theory and practice of FIML, please see other posts on this site, most of which are concerned with FIML in one way or another.

[Abundant FIML information can be found under the tags brain science, and Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics accessible on the sidebar. ABN]

A way to visualize the value of FIML practice

click on image for larger

FIML practice is like the JWST telescope compared to normal interpersonal speech, which is like Hale telescope at best.

FIML is a technical advance in listening and speaking which allows for much greater clarity and resolution.

In Buddhist terms, FIML is partner-based mindfulness that provides immediate objective control on real-time meaning and mutual understanding. ABN

Why generalities don’t work

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

You cannot achieve satisfying communication by using general ideas or general role models.

For example, many Buddhists use a general sense of “compassion” or a vague understanding of “Buddhist wisdom” to get along with other people. This strategy can work for light duties at a Buddhist temple or for projecting a basic sense of who you are to other people, but it won’t be deeply satisfying.

The problem is very simple to state but harder to fix. The problem is we misunderstand each other very often and in very significant ways and these misunderstandings cannot be simply smoothed over with generalities.

Humans are deeply affected by their interactions with other humans. All those little mistakes in speaking and listening lead to big misunderstandings in our relationships, often rather quickly.

I cannot think of another way to deal with this fundamental problem except through FIML practice or something very much like it. When we communicate with people we care about, we have to have ways to restate our meaning, take it back, query each other, probe relevant semiotics. If we don’t, we will misunderstand each other in serious ways.

 

Certitude/Coherence

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Humans all need to feel certain about at least some things. We also need to have basic mental and emotional coherence. FIML practice gives partners a very reliable level of mutual certainty and coherence.

Since FIML practice is a process—something you do with your partner—partners will be able to check and recheck their mutual understandings as often as they like. The interpersonal certitude and coherence that result from this process is amazing. It is amazing in and of itself but also because having reliable interpersonal coherence with your partner will have a deep influence on you. It will affect how you understand yourself and how you feel about yourself. It will also affect how you understand and feel about your place in the world, your place in society.

People who do not practice FIML ordinarily get certitude and coherence from outside of themselves — from TV, movies, newspapers, schools, churches, clubs, and so on. The external semiotics of cultures and subcultures created by other people give most individuals the certitude and coherence they need for psychological well-being. Insofar as external semiotics are not sufficient for the individual (and they rarely are), most people fill in whatever is missing with personal interpretations. In many other posts, we have discussed how these personal interpretations are usually fraught with mistaken impressions. They are usually neurotic, or constitute the kleshas (wrong views, toxic fixations, mistaken interpretations, etc.) described in Buddhist literature.

FIML practice allows partners to correct their neuroses by disconfirming them with their partner. If you disconfirm a neurosis, you effectively confirm that it is/was not true and can therefore be discarded.

FIML practice also helps partners free themselves from the need to find certitude and coherence outside of themselves. As you become more secure in your communication with your partner, both of you will begin to notice that you are becoming less dependent on external semiotics.

FIML emphasizes the certitude and coherence of truth between two caring people above certitude and coherence based on conformance to social norms. FIML helps partners co-form their own subculture rather than conform to a culture created by someone else.

Listeners are different from speakers

~ ABN ~ 4 Comments

A listener’s state of mind is different from a speaker’s.

It is more dreamy, often more visual, and has a wider range of associations in play.

For this reason, listeners often react more to their own minds than to what the speaker meant.

An example of this occurred recently.

While my partner was speaking, she referred to someone as a “douche bag.” She meant to distinguish that person from someone else with the same name (who is not a douche bag).

As she said “douche bag,” a strong image rose in my mind of the person in question being pushed into a region of darkness.

In response to that image, I protested “he is not a douche bag”; not so much to recover his honor or reputation as to keep him from being pushed further into the darkness.

She changed her wording and the conversation went on. I completely forgot the incident and the image that had arisen in my mind.

The next morning my partner brought the subject up again and explained in FIML detail why she had used “douche bag” and that it had been meant as a minor distinction between the two people and not as a deep statement.

The memory came back to me of struggling to pull my friend out of the mistaken darkness I had imagined.

It’s a good example of how a speaker’s mind differs from a listener’s.

Face-blindness (memory) test

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment
This is an interactive version of the Exposure Based Face Memory Test.

Introduction: The human brain has a special module that is used to recognize faces. People with prosopagnosia, also known as “face blindness”, have difficulty remembering faces. Every time they see a face it looks to them like a face they have never seen before and such people have to use other information such as hair, voice, and body to recognize others. The Exposure Based Face Memory Test was developed as an open source measure of face memory and was designed with a procedure that is both closer to the demands on face memory experienced in every day life, and minimizes administration time.

Procedure: In this test you will be shown a long series of faces. For each face you must say if you have been shown that person before, or if this is a new face you have not been shown yet. It should take 2-5 minutes to complete. This test can only be taken once. It is spoiled if you have seen any of the faces before. So if want accurate results, make sure to take it seriously the first time.

Participation: You use of this assessment should be for educational or entertainment purposes only. This is not psychological advice of any kind. Additionally, your responses to this questionnaire will be anonymously saved and possibly used for research or otherwise distributed.

link to survey

This is a quick test which will give you some sense of whether you have or do not have face-blindness. I scored better than just 16.5% of people who have taken the test, which does not qualify as prosopagnosia, though I do have moderate-significant face-blindness. One aspect of this condition not yet studied, far as I know, is I sometimes see the faces of people I should recognize as distorted, sometimes rather weirdly so, sometimes just a bit weirdly; this happens just before I fully recognize them by voice or some other prompt. If you have face-blindness it is probably a good idea to tell people you meet about it. Some people react with surprise and confusion but many have heard of prosopagnosia and appreciate getting the information. Human faces form a semiotic ‘language’ which people with excellent face-recognition probably greatly enjoy. Easily recognizing/ remembering faces facilitates building social relationships. Not easily recognizing faces causes a delay in fully receiving into your mind the social presence of another person, thus making it more difficult to build social relationships. I have probably spent more time thinking about language and interpersonal communications than most people because I largely remember people initially or click with them through their speech idiosyncrasies more than by remembering their faces. ABN

Semiotics for Beginners

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

This essay by Daniel Chandler is good introduction to semiotics and a good way to help readers better understand how we are using the term on this site. I highly recommend the essay for anyone interested in thought, culture, language, or psychology. But it will be especially useful for Buddhists because having some idea of what semiotics is all about can be a great help in understanding many of the teachings of the Buddha. The deep significance of fundamental Buddhist concepts like emptiness and dependent origination may become clearer and more useful when viewed from a semiotic point of view.

Buddhists might also take note that semiotics is difficult to define and/or get a grasp of and in this resembles some of the more abstract or philosophical teachings of the Buddhist tradition, particularly the work of Nagarjuna. Semiotics is the study of meaning, how we communicate it and what it is. Buddhism, one might say, is the study of how meaning pertains to the self, or the illusion of the self, and how our perceptions of the world around us are built out of a welter of ever-changing codependent meanings–semiotics.

We use the term semiotics on this site because it greatly facilitates our discussions of FIML practice. Terms like semiotics, emptiness, dependent origination, and so on were not created to make subjects obscure but rather to clarify them.

You aren’t at the mercy of your emotions — your brain creates them

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Can you look at someone’s face and know what they’re feeling? Does everyone experience happiness, sadness and anxiety the same way? What are emotions anyway? For the past 25 years, psychology professor Lisa Feldman Barrett has mapped facial expressions, scanned brains and analyzed hundreds of physiology studies to understand what emotions really are. She shares the results of her exhaustive research — and explains how we may have more control over our emotions than we think.

_________

This talk is a very good background for FIML practice, which is based on acknowledging that interpersonal emotions and interpretations are fundamentally ambiguous and must be investigated often to achieve good communication. ABN

Deception (or truth elision) in communication

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

To communicate, we often must ignore the truth or falsity of a statement, our own or someone else’s.

I believe it is an instinct to do this; that it is part of our instinct to communicate at all. Communication requires cooperation, an agreement to be agreeable enough to get the message through.

We might call ignoring truth or falsity in communication “truth elision” or “psychological elision.” Elision means to omit something. Psychological elision would mean omitting or not mentioning psychological truths.

We do a lot of truth elision to save time. In professional or group settings it is hard to communicate any other way because there is not enough time to be perfectly truthful and most people will not care. They just want to socialize and/or get the job done, not search for truth.

Most communication is like that. Most messages are not even superficially analyzed. Semiotics glide through our minds without any thought to their deep origins or interpretations. Truth and falsity are frequently elided.

Like all instincts, our instinct to cooperate by ignoring the truth or falsity of many statements can be misused to consciously deceive.

Indeed, we frequently deceive even ourselves by accepting our own statements as true when analysis would show they are not. One way we succeed in doing this to ourselves is by simply avoiding the analysis—analysis elision.

This is where a simple instinct starts to go bad. A basic need to cooperate on the signs and symbols of communication gets twisted into tricking people, deceiving them, even deceiving ourselves.

The way to see this most clearly and to stop doing it with at least one other person is FIML practice. One of my main goals for this website is to show how and why communication goes bad and how and why it harms us. At the same time, I present a practical way to fix the problem described—FIML.

_________________

I think the above sheds light on false confessions and pretty much all self-abnegating lying on the spectrum trending down from a false confession with legal consequences.

Abusers work these ill-defined and difficult to grasp areas to dominate, entrap, and manipulate others. Narcissists and other “strong” or “clever” dark personality types use our fundamental willingness to cooperate against us.

Gas lighting greatly relies on people’s willingness to ignore truths and accept falsities about themselves. If there is more than one gas lighter at work, victims may even accept blame for things they know with certainty are not true.

As with so much in this world, immoral people put time and energy into fooling those who have not put time or energy into the dark arts.

Mass mind-control preys on our mass susceptibility to believe the story that first comes out; the story that is approved by the ‘authorities’ and mass media; the story that is embraced and recited by our friends and family. Mind-control relies on our need to conform and our fear of being ostracized and criticized for straying from the mass instinct to be the same as others.

Buddhists all know about wise compassion. We also need wise understanding of the world and wise cautiousness about the full scope of human motivations.

Our tendencies to go along with falsity can be seen in every part of life, from small corners of our own lives to the great expanses of entire societies.

A theory of FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice  is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.

The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:

  • Greatly improve communication between participating partners
  • Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
  • Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
  • Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality

These results are achieved because:

  • FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
  • FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
  • FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
  • FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
  • This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed

FIML practice will also:

  • Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
  • Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)

FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.

Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.

The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.

FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.

Wolfram’s ‘computational irreducibility’ explains FIML perfectly

In mathematics, a ‘computation’ is the process of performing mathematical operations on one or more inputs to produce a desired output. A problem in analyzing human psychology arises when we understand that human psychology cannot be reduced computationally. The ‘computational irreducibility’ of human psychology does not mean, however, that there is no way to probe it and understand it. In the following essay, I show how FIML practice can greatly enhance our understanding of our own psychologies and, by extension, the psychologies of others.

Rather than rely on tautological data extractions or vague theories about human psychology, FIML focuses on small interpersonal exchanges that can be objectively agreed upon by at least two people. These small exchanges correspond to what Wolfram calls ‘specific little pieces of computational reducibility’. When we repeatedly view our psychologies from the point of view of specific little pieces of computational reducibility, we begin amassing a profoundly telling collection of very good data that shows how we really think, speak, and act.

FIML is a method of inquiry that deals with the computational irreducibility of humans. It does this by isolating small incidents and asking questions about them. These small incidents are the “little pieces of computational reducibility” that Stephan Wolfram remarks on at 42.22 in this video. Here is the full quote:

One of the necessary consequences of computational irreducibility is within a computationally irreducible system there will always be an infinite number of specific little pieces of computational reducibility that you can find.

42.22 in this video

This is exactly what FIML practice does again and again—it finds “specific little pieces of computational reducibility” and learns all it can about them.

In FIML practice, two humans in real-time, real-world situations agree to isolate and focus on one “specific little piece of computational reducibility” and from that gain a deeper understanding of the whole “computationally irreducible system”, which is them.

When two humans do this hundreds of times, their grasp and appreciation of the “computationally irreducible system” which is them, both together and individually, increases dramatically. This growing grasp and understanding of their shared computationally irreducible system upgrades or replaces most previously learned cognitive categories about their lives, or psychologies, or how they think about themselves or other humans.

By focusing on many small bits of communicative information, FIML partners improve all aspects of their human minds.

I do not believe any computer will ever be able to do FIML. Robots and brain scans may help with it but they will not be able to replace it. In the not too distant future, FIML may be the only profound thing humans will both need to and be able to do on their own without the use of AI. To understand ourselves deeply and enjoy being human, we will have to do FIML. In this sense, FIML may be our most important human answer to the AI civilization growing around us. ABN

I don’t get why consciousness can’t be emergent

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

A lot of the disagreement here comes from what kind of emergence people are talking about.

Most philosophers are perfectly fine with weak (scientific) emergence. Temperature, liquidity, elasticity, traffic jams, economies, etc. all emerge from lower-level interactions. They’re not properties of single particles, but once you understand the micro-story, there’s nothing mysterious left over. Crucially, all of these are structural or functional properties, describable entirely in third-person terms.

The worry about consciousness isn’t really about complexity. It’s about the fact that consciousness seems to involve an experiential aspect — there being something it is like — and critics argue that this doesn’t follow from structural or functional descriptions in the same way temperature or liquidity do.

Similarly, when people say “you can’t open the skull and point to consciousness,” they’re not making a naïve spatial claim. The point is that no amount of third-person description of neurons, firings, or networks seems to capture or entail first-person phenomenal qualities like pain or redness.

So you see, consciousness isn’t treated as special because it’s complex, but because it seems to introduce a different kind of property — phenomenal experience — that standard emergence stories were never designed to explain. Whether that really is a problem is exactly what the debate is about.

link to post, quoted is top comment

An Immortal Stream of Consciousness: The scientific evidence for the survival of consciousness after permanent bodily death — Dr. Nicolas Rouleau

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Introduction

The concept of a soul or vital force is consistent across scientific, medical, theological, and philosophical thought1 . The soul is often described as contained within specific organs but separate from the body, and it is unsurprising that its location has been a subject of great debate throughout history2 . Despite much contention, those historically in search of the soul have generally agreed that it is the essence of a person – their true and immortal self1,3 . Indeed, when confronted with the challenge of identifying themselves, most people point to their chest or, approximately, their heart. This cardiocentric model of who we are is described in humanity’s earliest writings from the third millennium BCE, indicating that Ancient Egyptians believed souls were immortal and located within the hearts of impermanent bodies4 . The related idea of the pneuma – ancient Greek for breath, spirit, or soul – represents one among many similar beliefs about the essence of human life5 . Consistent with the heart’s exalted status throughout history6 , and until very recently, irreversible cardiac arrest was considered the medical standard for death7-9 . Which is to say, when your heart stopped beating, you stopped being. However, the importance of other bodily organs did not go unnoticed by our ancestors. Notable philosophers such as Plato and Descartes championed the brain as the locus of the soul10-13 and modern definitions of death rest squarely on the structural and functional integrity of the brain, not the heart7,8 .

rouleau-immortal-consciousnessDownload

A modern explication of Buddhism by Bernardo Kastrup and Nathan Hawkins

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Part One

Part Two

I highly recommend these two videos. They provide an excellent explanation of Buddhist philosophy or world view without ever mentioning Buddhism.

The ‘small self’ of Buddhism is Kastrup’s ‘dissociated entity inside a Markov Blanket’. Kastrup’s ‘mind at large’ is Buddhist ‘ultimate reality’, ‘the Tathagata’, the ‘Buddha mind’, ‘enlightenment’, etc. The ‘doings’ of the entity inside the Markov blanket are karma. In this sense, those doings, or that karma (work), perpetuate a series of ‘rebirths’ rather than reincarnations. The Noble Eightfold Path is a concise way of describing the behaviors that lead to full realization of ‘mind at large’ or enlightenment.

Two of the (falsely understood) most ‘negative’ things in Buddhism are nicely cleared up in Kastrup’s description. The first is the mistaken notion that ‘nirvana’ or the ‘cessation of suffering’ is the cessation of being itself. Nirvana is ‘merely’ the return of the small self to ‘mind at large’, or the enlightenment of the small self to Buddha nature or ultimate reality. The second is karma is some kind of punishment administered by some kind of god thing. Karma is much more what Kastrup calls ‘doings’ and is simply a way to describe how what we do affects what we become.

I want to add that Nathan Hawkins does a wonderful job of interviewing Kastrup. He contributes a great deal to this conversation, which overall is not only a good description of Buddhism (without ever mentioning Buddhism) but also an excellent example of how people should talk. At one point, Hawkins says he wants to create a something like a ‘proto-religion’ that does not rely on ‘sacred texts’. He also says he wants philosophy to be more in touch with people’s lives as they are really lived. I like that a lot. It’s basically what basic Buddhism already is.

The Buddha said he was just a man; that he should not be worshiped; that his words are not sacred; that his teachings should be conveyed mind-to-mind (as in the videos above) and not turned into scared texts; and that each of us should make the teachings our own; learn them in our own languages and convey them to others generously when and if they want to hear them. I bet the Buddha would thoroughly enjoy and approve of the discussion above.

In a deeply Buddhist sense, there is no need for a Buddhist tradition. The whole thing could be thrown away and recreated. But why bother? Buddhism today is not a clinging to some sacred past or god-like figure, but a present iteration of a long tradition (which is largely philosophical) that dates back 2,500 years to the Sage of the Scythians, Shakyamuni Buddha. Watch the videos above and see what you think. ABN

UPDATE: I do not want to detract at all from Kastrup’s vision, but would like to say that, imo, Mind at Large or Ultimate Reality is much more like Mahayana on steroids than the philosophically guarded position Kastrup holds. He himself says he is conservative and sticks to ordinary interpretations like time and space and probably the existence of other civilizations and realms. I appreciate that he does that and why. Another point worth mentioning is the Markov Blanket each of us is ensconced in is surely semi-permeable. In that sense, a great deal of religious practice, including especially the samadhi states in Buddhism, can be understood as ways to make the Markov Blanket more permeable, to invite Mind at Large into our little cocoons. Prayer and religious ritual do that as well as does calling on God or practicing the presence of God. Moral actions, no matter how they are understood, that make us receptive to powers much greater than us are fundamental to human being and our comprehension of who and where we are. If we can comprehend Mind at Large viewing our lives through our eyes and senses, we can also comprehend having a very rich relationship with Mind at Large. In Buddhist terms, that might be described as us being drawn to the Tathagata to the point of never wanting to turn back. ABN

The illusion of culture

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Cultures have illusory “grammars” that outline what can and cannot be said.

Culture wars, essentially, are battles over what can and cannot be said, done, signaled, thought, believed, valued, etc.

Some time ago in You can’t say what they don’t already know, I said:

Cultures demand constant authorization and reauthorization from their members. To stray from established norms is to weaken group authorizations.

That’s how it works for all cultures with more than a few members. Cultural bonding and affirmation involves nothing more than authorizing and reauthorizing the basics of the culture.

It even works that way in groups as small as two people. This is because two people speaking together typically do so in a larger cultural context that is defined and accepted by both of them.

Just as most people do not make up their own words or jokes, most people do not make up the bases of their culture(s).

Even committed couples speaking in private typically do not leave their shared cultural script(s). This happens because they do not know any other way to speak to each other.

A profound and rich world of subjective insight and perception eludes them because they are afraid they might stray too far from the established script.

Culture becomes deeply illusory at this point. Its tenets are held not due to thought and insight but only to stabilize or maintain a rote communication pattern.

You can change this by using a functional communication pattern instead of rote cultural grammar that has been imported into your mind from outside.

As an experiment, try not feeling anything about the basics of your culture. Do FIML from this point of view and see what happens.

__________

Edit: BTW, the above roughly explains how mass mind-control works.

The controllers insert material into the public’s metacognitive vocabulary/ semiology, and sure enough, their minds shift.

There are so many examples of this, I trust readers can discover their own.

The thing to see is how easily something new can be inserted and become ‘reality’ for many because it’s the latest way to talk and think.

The other thing to see is the old and ancient metacognitive vocabularies/semiotics/ memes which have been in whatever culture for decades or centuries.

Seeing what those are and where they came from and what they do is a fundamental part of Buddhist practice, which sees all of them as empty, impermanent, delusive.

Hence the notion of ‘Buddhism without beliefs’.

Cling to none of them, including Buddhism.

The Buddha was the world’s first, still famous skeptic. ABN