I’ve hidden my hand my whole life. I wear long sleeves and haven’t seen a doctor about it since I was a toddler. My right hand is completely normal. On my left hand, my pinky, ring, and middle fingers are normal. The issue is only with the thumb and index finger they are the same length and to the side.
It’s not painful or limiting physically but it’s always affected my confidence which is why I hide it.
I mentioned the other day that Reddit has small subs that can be intellectually stimulating. The post linked above, including many of its comments, shows what the title says. One conclusion from this is that the shame and self-induced ‘need’ to hide that shame has wide applications across all stigmatisms and psychological conditions, which often are reified as stigmatisms. By hiding shame or stigmatism we give it an overblown life of its own. By not hiding it, we remove its power to shame us. A physical stigma is simply the luck of the draw and, while someone may be to blame for it, in the end you have to live with it. Psychological abuse or trauma is not so different. At the end of the day, it’s your cross to bear. If FIML is done with this in mind, both partners can use the FIML method to gradually bite off small pieces of whatever shame or trauma or confusion they are experiencing. Doing this repeatedly, over months and years, will slowly reveal the trauma to both partners. And this will provide a wondrous level of freedom. Psychological trauma always leaves evidence in the mind much as physical abnormalities can rarely be fully corrected. Nonetheless, both conditions benefit greatly from exposure to the sunlight of objective consciousness. And this can lead to a state of unperturbedness as the stoics say or enlightenment/ nirvana as the Buddhists say. ABN
Symbolic Interaction Theory, also called symbolic interactionism, provides the best large-scale framework I have found so far for explaining FIML practice.
Three basic premises of symbolic interactionism are:
“Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things.”
“The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society.”
“These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters.”
These basic premises have been taken from the Wikipedia article linked above. I tend to agree with most of the general framework, as I understand it, of symbolic interactionism and believe that FIML practice can reasonably be understood as a method that can fit fairly comfortably within that framework.
FIML differs from symbolic interactionism in that FIML is much more a form of interpersonal psychotherapy than a sociological theory. FIML is a communication technique that focuses on meaning as it arises and is apprehended during short periods of time. FIML’s focus on very small units of interpersonal communication is what allows partners to understand how their sense of meaning intertwines with their emotional responses.
From a FIML point of view, society does not appear very well structured in many of its contexts, especially interpersonal contexts involving emotions, friendship, and intimate bonding. From this point of view, a great deal of social structure appears to be a substitute for authentic interaction between individual minds.
FIML seems also to show that a great deal of human suffering arises from the paucity of meaning that can be exchanged between individuals in most social contexts. Indeed, even in intimate contexts, most individuals, if not all of them, have great difficulty in attaining profound mutual understanding. This happens because our perceptions of our selves and others—due to how we use language and semiotics—are too crude and vague to allow for communicative complexity equal to the complexity of our minds/brains.
FIML corrects this problem by focusing on the details of interpersonal communication. Incidentally, FIML theory/practice can be falsified by having many couples do FIML practice and measuring the results. A criticism of symbolic interactionism is that it is not falsifiable. FIML differs from symbolic interactionism in that it is a practical technique that uses objective data (agreed upon by both partners) to optimize communication and improve psychological well-being.
I am pretty sure I will have more to say about symbolic interactionism in the days to come. A friend just sent me the article linked above, so I put down a few thoughts after one reading. FIML partners may find that symbolic interactionism helps with a general understanding of FIML practice.
UPDATE 01/13/22: The Wikipedia page has been updated since the excerpt above. I found this update interesting:
[Symbolic interactionism] is a framework that helps understand how society is preserved and created through repeated interactions between individuals. The interpretation process that occurs between interactions helps create and recreate meaning. It is the shared understanding and interpretations of meaning that affect the interaction between individuals. Individuals act on the premise of a shared understanding of meaning within their social context. Thus, interaction and behavior is framed through the shared meaning that objects and concepts have attached to them. From this view, people live in both natural and symbolic environments.
I agree with this and would add that the the shared understanding and interpretations of meaning that affect the interaction between individuals occurs all-importantly and very profoundly on the level of intimate interpersonal relationships. What FIML does is discover, foster, and create a much more accurate shared understanding and interpretations of meaning between FIML partners. The benefit of this is enormous since it has an extremely profound effect on individual psychology and all other shared understanding and interpretations of meaning encountered in society everywhere. ABN
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
A new study shows that updating beliefs about the world requires and stimulates dopamine release in the brain.
Lead author of the study, Matthew Nour, from University College London and Kings College London has this to say about the findings:
“We found that two key brain areas of the dopamine system (the midbrain and striatum) appear to be more active when a person updates their beliefs about the world, and this activity is related to measures of dopamine function in these regions.” (Source)
Healthy people update beliefs when new evidence is presented. The study may also show that abnormal dopamine functionality is implicated in schizophrenia and paranoid ideation by interfering with normal updating.
I like this study because participants were measured while changing minor, short-term beliefs.
Small changes in beliefs manifested in short-term memory lies at the heart of FIML practice.
FIML relies heavily on changing inaccuracies in the short-term memory bank because this data can be isolated and objectively agreed upon by both partners and because this data is by definition fairly small and thus easily changed.
A year of FIML practice may entail a thousand or more small updates in perception, belief, and self-knowledge. Each individual update is typically small, but the aggregate of many updates over longer periods of time creates the basis for very large psychological transformations.
And since these transformations are based on more accurate data, they lead to a more realistic view of the world and the self.
Moreover, by regularly making many small updates in their perceptions of each other and themselves, FIML partners are constantly exercising their dopamine “updating system,” thus strengthening their abilities to function well in any environment.
FIML changes can come quickly, but it is long-term practice that brings the best results.
The above study shows that something very real happens when we update our perceptions. I would maintain that making this happen often with meaningful psychological information through FIML practice leads to very significant and beneficial changes in psychological functioning across many domains.
This interview highlights the importance of Russia-USA relations to both parties and to the world and how Trump makes deals. Witkoff: ‘The president is all about clearing up misconceptions, clearing up miscommunication, figuring out how to get a good deal for all stakeholders… and then deciding beforehand what the outcome he wants is.’ ABN
Research suggests FIML, or Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics, is a communication technique to improve relationships by addressing misinterpretations in real-time.
It seems likely that FIML involves partners interrupting conversations to clarify emotional reactions, aligning with Buddhist principles of mindfulness.
The evidence leans toward FIML supporting advanced Right Speech and Right Listening, potentially transforming lives by enhancing understanding.
Description
What is FIML? FIML, or Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics, is a method designed to optimize communication and psychological well-being between two people. It’s described as a form of analytical psychotherapy that doesn’t require formal training, focusing on clearing up misunderstandings as they happen.
How It Works Partners agree to interrupt normal conversations when one feels an emotional reaction to something said. The reacting partner asks the other about their state of mind at that moment, and the other responds honestly. This process helps identify if the reaction was based on a misinterpretation, with follow-up questions for clarity. Repeating this frequently can develop better communication skills.
Connection to Buddhism FIML aligns with Buddhist teachings, supporting advanced forms of Right Speech and Right Listening. It’s seen as a practical application of mindfulness, based on impermanence and emptiness, potentially leading to personal transformation by freeing individuals from ordinary speech constraints.
Unexpected Detail: Precision Comparison Interestingly, FIML is compared to the James Webb Space Telescope for its clarity in communication, suggesting it offers a much sharper understanding than typical conversations, likened to using an old Hale telescope.
Survey Note: Comprehensive Analysis of FIML Based on American Buddhist Net
This note provides a detailed examination of Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML) as presented on American Buddhist Net, focusing on its description, practice, and relation to Buddhist principles. The analysis aims to offer a thorough understanding for readers interested in communication techniques and their philosophical underpinnings.
Background and Definition
FIML is defined on American Buddhist Net as a technique for optimizing communication and psychological well-being between two people. It is described as a form of analytical psychotherapy that can be practiced without formal training, emphasizing real-time analysis to clear mistaken psychological interpretations. This approach is particularly noted for addressing both recent and long-held miscommunications, enhancing the relationship dynamics between partners.
The site compares FIML to advanced scientific instruments, such as the James Webb Space Telescope, for its clarity in communication, contrasting it with normal speech, which is likened to using the older Hale telescope. This analogy underscores FIML’s potential to provide precise, high-resolution insights into interpersonal interactions.
Practice and Methodology
The practice of FIML involves a structured process, detailed in How to do FIML. Partners must first agree to interrupt normal conversations when needed, creating a foundation for open communication. The process unfolds as follows:
Step Number
Description
1
Partners agree to do FIML and can interrupt normal conversation as needed.
2
One partner feels a sensation or emotional reaction within one second after the other says something.
3
The reacting partner asks, “What was your state of mind when you said X?” seeking the other’s short-term memory contents.
4
The other partner answers honestly, describing their state of mind during the few seconds surrounding the statement.
5
If the reacting partner finds no justification for their reaction, they realize it was a misinterpretation, trusting the other’s honesty.
6
Follow-up questions, e.g., “Are you sure you were not implying boredom when you said X?” may be asked for clarity.
7
The reacting partner discusses the new understanding with the other, briefly or at length, as chosen.
8
The process is repeated frequently; after a few hundred successful instances, metacognition may develop, reducing the need for frequent interruptions.
The term “sensation” is clarified as an emotional, physical, or hormonal response occurring soon after something is said, starting at a discreet moment, and can be negative or positive. Mindfulness is crucial, with partners encouraged to observe these sensations within one second and make queries in a neutral tone to avoid further reactions.
Additional resources on the site, such as FIML and practical semiotics, Advanced FIML, and FIML FAQs, provide further guidance on refining the practice, addressing issues like snowballing in practice and disruption of neurotic responses.
Relation to Buddhism
FIML’s integration with Buddhism is a significant aspect, as outlined in various articles on American Buddhist Net. It is described as supporting advanced Right Speech and Right Listening, aligning with Buddhist principles of impermanence and emptiness. This connection is detailed in What is FIML?, where it is noted as a method or process, not formalities, meeting requirements for creating Right Conditions for these advanced practices.
The site suggests that FIML can transform one’s life by freeing individuals from the constraints of Ordinary Speech, as seen in Notes on semiotics, FIML, Buddhism, and a bit of anthropology. This article highlights how FIML corrects distortions in thinking or feeling that may arise from practicing Buddhism in isolation, emphasizing the importance of truthful interaction with an honest partner. It posits that early Buddhists might have engaged in similar practices during their travels in pairs or fortnightly discussions of failings, a tradition that has declined in many places.
Further, The deep importance of intentional language discusses FIML as a profound philosophical answer to language and communication, revealing real-time speech analysis that moves meaning to true experience, resonating with Buddhist mindfulness. Global Workspace Theory and mistake awareness & correction links FIML to calibrating minds like fine instruments, playing the FIML communication game for precise readings, reinforcing its mindfulness aspect.
Significance and Impact
The significance of FIML lies in its potential to enhance communication precision, as evidenced by its comparison to advanced telescopes. This unexpected detail highlights its capability to offer clarity beyond typical conversational exchanges, potentially revolutionizing how partners understand each other. The site also suggests that FIML can address interpersonal conundrums arising from the Problem of the Criterion, as noted in Buddhism category posts, impacting daily relationships and communication at every level.
FIML’s impact is further illustrated in Scott Adams Interview – It’s Okay to Be White, where the author, identified as ABN, recommends FIML for optimizing communication and psychology, suggesting it could benefit millions by spreading its practice. This underscores its broad applicability and potential for societal impact.
Author and Context
While specific author information is not directly provided, the site’s posts, such as About, indicate it is run by ABN, focusing on Buddhism, communication, and FIML. The contact email, realABN@pm.me, as seen in Contact, suggests a personal engagement with readers, reinforcing the site’s role as a platform for sharing and discussing these ideas.
Conclusion
FIML, as presented on American Buddhist Net, is a robust communication technique with deep ties to Buddhist philosophy, offering a practical method for enhancing interpersonal relationships through mindfulness and real-time analysis. Its structured practice, alignment with Buddhist principles, and potential for personal transformation make it a valuable tool for those seeking to improve communication and psychological well-being.
Grok used 45 seconds to deep search FIML and produce the above result, posted in full. It did a good job. I am fine with posting this and encouraging readers to look it over. Done properly and for a reasonable amount of time, FIML is deeply life-enhancing. It probably should become a fundamental part of Buddhist practice. ABN
I injected the horse tranquilizer Ketamine and tracked my brain data for 15 days. It completely scrambled my brain.
In a world-first we answered the question ‘what happens to the brain before, during, and after ketamine treatment?’ We also discovered how long it took for my brain to return to ‘normal’.
A major feature in language is the importance of asking and how you ask.
The impetus for all speech resides deeply in and around the imperative that we must want and ask for the spiritual development we are seeking. Frivolous asking and mundane desires do not count in this. They are outside of deep language use.
The Buddha only spoke on the Dharma when and if he was asked to do so.
The source and meaning of language and meaning itself can be glimpsed in this. Right Language is a soul-deep operation of the mind.
In this respect, FIML is a profound philosophical answer to what language is, what meaning is, what communication and communion are. FIML is this answer because it reveals and analyzes real-time, real-world speech between honest partners.
You cannot cut that close to the bone in any other way. Two people, true speech, true analysis — the source of linguistic being is revealed. The conundrums of psychology are healed.
FIML speaks to us within language, not from outside of language. With practice, FIML will move the source of your speech and meaning to your true experience. It will remove from you the need to understand yourself through extrinsic language and meaning.
In this sense, FIML is truly a philosopher’s stone. It will take you to the deepest levels you are capable of. ABN
Do FIML practice successfully 25 times and you will understand how wrong the notion of micro-aggression is. Not only wrong but also destructive to self and other. Rather than have us probe own minds, micro-aggression asks us to assert a false interpretation of someone else’s mind. From a Buddhist point of view, micro-aggression turns us 180 degrees away from wisdom and enlightenment ABN.
Global workspace theory is a description of how our minds work. The word global refers to the whole mind or brain, not the world.
The central feature of this theory—the global workspace—is conscious working memory, or working memory that could be made conscious with minimal effort.
This global workspace is also what a great deal of Buddhist mindfulness attends to. If we focus our attention on what is coming in and out of our global workspace, we will gain many insights into how our minds operate.
The Buddha’s five skandhaexplanation of consciousness can be understood as a form (or percepta) entering the global workspace.
Consciousness is the fifth skandha in the chain of skandhas. It is very important to recognize that whatever we become conscious of is not necessarily right.
With this in mind, we can see that being mindful of what is entering and leaving our global workspace can help us forestall errors from forming and growing in our minds.
In the Buddhist tradition, ignorance (a kind of error) is the deep source of all delusion.
But how do I know if the percepta or bits of information entering my awareness are right or wrong?
Well, there is science and Bayesian thought processes to help us, and they are both very good, but is there anything else?
What about my actual mind? My psychology? My understanding of my being in the world? How do I become mindful and more right about these?
Besides science and Bayes, I can ask an honest friend who knows me well if the percepta I think I just received from them is right or wrong.
If my friend knows the game, they will be ready to answer me before my global workspace changes too much. If my friend confirms my interpretation of what they just did or said, I will know that my interpretation (or consciousness) is correct.
If they disconfirm, I will know that my interpretation was incorrect, a mistake.
This kind of information is wonderful!
We calibrate fine instruments to be sure we are getting accurate readings from them. Why not our own minds?
This kind of calibration can be done in a general way, but you will get a general answer in that case. If you want a precise reading, a mindfulness answer, you need to play the FIML communication game.
UPDATE: I’ve watched 45 minutes of this and, so far, it is a beautiful model of how to talk. These guys are both trained philosophers and act like it. They listen charitably (means use the best possible interpretation of what they hear) to each other, delight in rebuttals, and quickly and easily clear up misunderstandings with evident pleasure as they move almost seamlessly together deeper and deeper into their topic without losing sight of where they want to go. Maybe at minute 46 they are going to kill each other in a fit of anger, who knows? Up to minute 45, they provide an exquisite example of how to talk about philosophy. And what FIML can teach partners about how to talk to each other.
The field of FIML is not philosophy per se. It is the idiosyncratic intermeshed fields of the FIML partners themselves. I have often said FIML has no content save what partners bring to it. FIML is a technique which reveals what our content is, what we are bringing to our relationship. Once both partners see clearly through the eyes and ears of each other what both of you are bringing, you will also delight in the fun of being able to talk as well as Kastrup and Hawkins (but about much more than just philosophy). I doubt either one of them does FIML and both of them might find it difficult since so much of their psycholinguistic constellations are defined by academic philosophy, but I know they could do it if they tried. ABN
The case for removing concepts from cognitive science and AI research
It can be difficult to convince someone that concepts don’t exist. Everyday experience appears to provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Concepts are not only intuitively perceived to be active in daily life, they are also a widespread feature of theories across AI and cognitive science, where they are assumed to be necessary for symbolic and logical thought¹. Most who read the title of this post would be tempted to brush off the argument as patently, demonstrably absurd. It’s akin to trying to convince a European 500 years ago that God doesn’t exist, when everything around them appears to be evidence of, and indeed presupposes God’s existence. Any contrary argument is likely to be taken as the result of sophistry or word-wrangling, or because some critical piece has been neglected.
Despite their seeming obviousness, it is worth noting that there is still no complete and unambiguous explanation for what concepts are, or how they work on thoughts —and indeed how to program them into AI. The human ability to learn and create concepts is multifaceted and complex. AI theories and implementations generally only touch on one or two of its features, while neglecting large numbers of counter-cases. This has lead some researchers, notably Lawrence Barsalou, to suspect that the way we think of concepts is flawed. Perhaps the whole notion of concepts — as a native mechanism for grouping experiences — is untenable.
This article is well-worth reading. Below, I have made a few notes based on my reading of it. To my eye, it demonstrates the existence of consciousness as a thing, the existence of a very real subjective world, the high probability that this subjective world is not entirely confined in your head, that consciousness is a primary of existence and not confined to our brains, and also, importantly for this website, why FIML works so well.
(The sections in quotes are from the article.)
Firstly, concepts: they exist within consciousness and are used to reason, analyze, communicate, organize, and so on. They are probably a features of consciousness itself, depending on how you define them. They need not be stable.
Secondly, FIML:
To begin with, there is no scientific experiment or empirical observation that can be used to prove that any given concept “exists”, and by extension that concepts exist at all.
No. FIML practice provides unlimited empirical observations that concepts exist. FIML is a scientific experiment and can easily be repeated as many times as you like.
To objectively prove that any given interpretation matches reality, you would somehow have to compare your subjective mental concepts against an objective view of the real situation. But the latter isn’t possible.
Yes, it is possible. FIML is precisely that—a means ‘to compare your subjective mental concepts against an objective view of the real situation’.
FIML accomplishes this by allowing two subjective consciousnesses to objectively compare their mutually ‘subjective mental concepts’ against each other. To claim that ‘an objective view of the real situation’ can only be achieved by some other means is absurd. The very best means to objectively compare subjective states is to have two honest informants compare them based on a shared micro unit of communication in the real-world in real-time. This is what FIML does.
The discreteness of concepts is a built-in requirement of language itself, one that does not necessarily reflect what an individual mind is doing.
Why settle for not being crazy when you could be going for psychological optimization?
A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a diagnosis of a behavioral or mental pattern that can cause suffering or a poor ability to function in ordinary life.
Why settle for being able to “function in ordinary life” when you could have an extraordinary life?
Why take pills to get by when you could be optimizing your brain?
Humans go for optimization whenever we can. We optimize technology, our diets, our medical treatments, our educations, even our friendships.
Optimization: an act, process, or methodology of making something (as a design, system, or decision) as fully perfect, functional, or effective as possible.
Hell yeah. That’s what you want for your mind, your life. Why settle for less?
OK, that does read like a sales spiel, but I will deliver.
All you have to do is put time and thought into the process of optimizing your psychology. An optimized psychology is an optimized brain and life.
This requires about as much time and effort as learning to play a musical instrument at a beginner’s level. About as much time as it takes to learn to drive a car. Or to learn to play pool well enough to enjoy it.
FIML takes less time to learn than a semester at school, whatever grade. Less time than most job-training courses. Less time than becoming a decent amateur cook. Less time than buying a house or redoing your kitchen.
The hardest part about FIML is learning the technique through reading. Start here: How to do FIML.
The second hardest part is having a friend or mate who is willing and able to do it with you. Sadly, this is a deal-breaker for too many people.
I hate saying this, but it is fairly normal for people world-wide not to have a friend who is close enough to do FIML with. This is the result of so many non-optimized psychologies in this world!
Many people have five or more “good friends” and a loving spouse, but not even one of them willing or able to do FIML.
Their excuses will be they can’t understand it, don’t want to bother, don’t want to be that honest, don’t want that kind of relationship, don’t have the time, already are doing it (no, you are not), etc.
The result is they and you will continue to languish in less than optimal mental states. Moods, alcohol, pills, arguments over nothing, ridiculous misunderstandings, ominous silences, severance of ties, and worse will rule your world(s).
For most, the best relief they will find are self-help books based on generalities, career books about “getting ahead” as defined by more generalities, nonsense about “loving yourself,” low levels of religious belief and practice, exercise programs, etc.
You didn’t learn to drive a car that way. Driving a car requires interaction, observation, the help of another person.
Your psychology needs similar kinds of input.
Once you have learned to do FIML with a trustworthy partner, the practice will tend to self-generate because the insights gained will be real and have real and deeply felt benefits for both partners.
Besides the “how to” and FAQ links at the top of this page, most posts on this site describe some aspect of FIML practice.
For psychologists, I honestly do not see how you can claim to be able to treat other people if you have not done at least a few years of FIML practice. Human interactions without any technique for consistent meta-control and understanding (which FIML provides) are 100% guaranteed to be riddled with misunderstanding and wrong views.
For the study, the researchers looked at the interaction between mother and child over several months. The babies came into the lab for the first time at the age of 6 months, while their final visit was when they were 18 months old. As they engaged in various play situations, the interactions and imitations of mother and child were analyzed.
The longitudinal study shows that the more sensitive a mother was in her interactions with her six-month-old child and the more often she imitated the infant, the greater the child’s ability was at the age of 18 months to imitate others.
In the interaction between parents and child, mutual imitation is a sign of communication. Parents respond to the signals given by the child and reflect and amplify them. A mutual imitation of actions and gestures develops. “These experiences create connections between what the child feels and does on the one hand and what it sees on the other. Associations are formed. The child’s visual experience is connected to its own motor activity,” says Markus Paulus, explaining the neuro-cognitive process.
Children learn a variety of skills through imitation, such as how to use objects, cultural gestures like waving, and the acquisition of language. “Children are incredible imitators. Mimicry paves the way to their further development. Imitation is the start of the cultural process toward becoming human,” says Markus Paulus. In psychology, the theory that the ability to imitate is inborn held sway for a long time. The LMU study is further evidence that the ability is actually acquired.
Mutual imitation and/or rapport are fundamental to interpersonal communication and a constant of it. FIML practice is a metacognitive method for making these processes ‘objective’ and thus mutually understandable, analyzable, and correctable or transformable as needed or desired. FIML works with objective material, which is defined as material both partners agree on. Real-world, real-time mutually agreed upon moments of micro communication discovered during FIML practice are some of the best objective psychological material you will ever acquire. Analyzing it with your partner is a total blast! There is no other way to do it except through FIML practice. ABN
UPDATE: This study reveals the profound importance of imitation for the infant brain. Imitation is one of the first things humans learn and it establishes a basis for social interactions from then on. Imitation is a major foundation of all cultures. People within any culture always imitate each other a lot. This includes adults who form new cultures or conform to deep transitions within their already accepted cultures. Often, cultural transitions are so large, the original culture is lost to time. This instinct to keep up with the group through imitation is a major factor in behavioral mind-control. This video provides an excellent example of how blunt, crude, nasty and deeply fear-based mind-controlled cultural transitions often are. Not only are viewers lured into being terrified of the invisible virus, they are also bullied into conforming to the one and only way to save themselves—taking a dangerous and untested vax. When children and then babies were also sucked into this whirlpool of anti-science, all morality was gone and all that was left was fear and insane conformity. If the mind-controllers learned anything from this, they will probably leave pregnant women and babies alone next time. More likely is they will cause even greater fear. ABN
American Buddhist Net 