Monday, November 3, 2025
Saturday, June 8, 2019
My new blog
My new blog on learning difficult skills, long-term: https://selfimprovementmindset.com/
Free e-book, How to Discover and Do What You Love: https://selfimprovementmindset.com/free-ebook/
Monday, January 2, 2017
All models are wrong, but some are useful
Have you heard this statement,
All models are wrong, but some are useful?
You can check the Wikipedia for more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
Peculiarly, as stated, this must be false, for reasons reminiscent of the Russell's paradox, Turing's Haling Problem, Kleene's Fixed Point Theorem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The very idea that there is reality and there are approximations or "models" of reality is itself a model. So if it were true, then it itself would have to also be wrong, albeit useful.
Technically, we could save the situation by calling models about models "class 2 models" and building a whole infinite hierarchy, and then merely saying that "all class 1 models are wrong", without mentioning models about models. But where exactly is the hole in the original statement? Is reality that mysterious that we can't describe it other than by calling it Zen or Dao, or is it just a limitation of our language, or perhaps of our thinking?
If reality can only be approximated, is there reality after all? Or is it just a convenient abstraction?
All models are wrong, but some are useful?
You can check the Wikipedia for more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
Peculiarly, as stated, this must be false, for reasons reminiscent of the Russell's paradox, Turing's Haling Problem, Kleene's Fixed Point Theorem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The very idea that there is reality and there are approximations or "models" of reality is itself a model. So if it were true, then it itself would have to also be wrong, albeit useful.
Technically, we could save the situation by calling models about models "class 2 models" and building a whole infinite hierarchy, and then merely saying that "all class 1 models are wrong", without mentioning models about models. But where exactly is the hole in the original statement? Is reality that mysterious that we can't describe it other than by calling it Zen or Dao, or is it just a limitation of our language, or perhaps of our thinking?
If reality can only be approximated, is there reality after all? Or is it just a convenient abstraction?
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Grounded and ungrounded in reality
People, who are grounded in reality, often feel secure in life. They can have a big house and a lot of friends. They can appreciate good food. They can also have difficulty making changes in their lives, as they are prone to feeling "stuck". Here I am following the description of the Kapha dosha in ayurveda, though others suggested parallel definitions in e.g. psychoanalysis.
People, who are ungrounded in reality, may be prone to anxiety and, generally, not feeling at home anywhere. They insecure, think quickly - sometimes confusingly - but also faster to make changes in their lives. Here I am following the description of the Kapha dosha in ayurveda, in a very compressed format.
It has just occurred to me, by contrasting these notions with what I've learned from Vision Therapy, that those of the Kapha type are "just" more sensitive to the signals from the outside world than to their own internal experiences, and both are perceived as very real and solid. That is, when they see or touch or smell something, it feels much more real than their own thoughts. So money, food, sex also feel more real to them, hence greater desire to attain all of those, and greater attachment. At the same time, difficulty to change can be explained as follows: perhaps even internal assumptions seem to such people more real.
People of the Vata type, than, are rather distrustful of the general sensory experienced, and partially also of their own internal experiences. What they see, tough, or taste is perceived as more relative. This fruit tastes sweet, but - who knows - it might actually be bitter. This grass is green, but perhaps it is actually red. This is more or less how my mind works, hence the extrapolation. But then, we can see how change becomes much easier with this kind of mindset. Say, I believe that I am stupid, or unattractive. But then, - the mind says, - perhaps it is actually not the case, or it will be different tomorrow. That is, lack of security, lack of confidence, also opens a road to progress.
Through this framework we can see how some people believe more strongly in the reality of everything they perceive, and others less so. Similarly, years spent in the same routine move your nervous system closer to the Kapha end of the spectrum, whereas moving from place to place, or especially living in a war zone or in a location with constant earthquakes, move your nervous system closer to the Vata end of the spectrum.
People, who are ungrounded in reality, may be prone to anxiety and, generally, not feeling at home anywhere. They insecure, think quickly - sometimes confusingly - but also faster to make changes in their lives. Here I am following the description of the Kapha dosha in ayurveda, in a very compressed format.
It has just occurred to me, by contrasting these notions with what I've learned from Vision Therapy, that those of the Kapha type are "just" more sensitive to the signals from the outside world than to their own internal experiences, and both are perceived as very real and solid. That is, when they see or touch or smell something, it feels much more real than their own thoughts. So money, food, sex also feel more real to them, hence greater desire to attain all of those, and greater attachment. At the same time, difficulty to change can be explained as follows: perhaps even internal assumptions seem to such people more real.
People of the Vata type, than, are rather distrustful of the general sensory experienced, and partially also of their own internal experiences. What they see, tough, or taste is perceived as more relative. This fruit tastes sweet, but - who knows - it might actually be bitter. This grass is green, but perhaps it is actually red. This is more or less how my mind works, hence the extrapolation. But then, we can see how change becomes much easier with this kind of mindset. Say, I believe that I am stupid, or unattractive. But then, - the mind says, - perhaps it is actually not the case, or it will be different tomorrow. That is, lack of security, lack of confidence, also opens a road to progress.
Through this framework we can see how some people believe more strongly in the reality of everything they perceive, and others less so. Similarly, years spent in the same routine move your nervous system closer to the Kapha end of the spectrum, whereas moving from place to place, or especially living in a war zone or in a location with constant earthquakes, move your nervous system closer to the Vata end of the spectrum.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
The mirror effect
When we interact with another person, we are creating inside ourselves a little copy of this person. I noticed this effect when my mother was visiting me from Russia two months ago. After she left I noticed for a few days how I would sometimes speak in her voice, with her expressions, while literally feeling the same way as I was feeling when she was present, as if I was a medium for expressing her.
This explain why people so often advise to change yourself instead of trying to change somebody else. If you behave in a certain way, or if you are feeling about yourself in a certain way, other people interacting with you build copy of you inside themselves, so they also start to behave in a certain way or to feel about themselves in a certain way. On the other hand, if you try to make them to behave in a certain way, then via the mirror effect, they will... also start trying to make other people behave in certain ways.
If you sacrifice your happiness for the happiness of your own children, and they can feel that, they may well learn to sacrifice their happiness for somebody else's instead of actually being happy. On the other hand, if you try to make yourself happy, if you love yourself, people interacting with you pick up this attitude and start to feel happy and to love themselves. Since they feel happy in your presence, they come to love you as well.
I know, this idea to try to make other people happy sounds incredibly logical because we are so used to it. However, it is also counterintuitive. Why wouldn't you want to love yourself first? I know, we have all been told stories about selfish egoists, those mythical creatures who only care about themselves and do everything for themselves. I am yet to meet one of them.
The mirror effect is the strongest with children because they don't have any other patterns to react to you, so they end up internalizing whatever patterns you present. Yet I am sure that it operates at all levels. This is why it often, though not always, makes sense to meet violence with love and peaceful disobedience: love gets mirrored back, whereas disobedience helps to not reinforce the pattern of aggression while reflected love is doing its work. If you respond to violence with violence, you are in effect creating two mirrors aimed at each other, endlessly magnifying this energy.
So be the love. Embody compassion, happiness, and generosity. People will mirror these qualities from you, and then, naturally, direct these compassion and generosity towards you. There is no magic here, just a deeper understanding of the way human beings interact with one another.
This explain why people so often advise to change yourself instead of trying to change somebody else. If you behave in a certain way, or if you are feeling about yourself in a certain way, other people interacting with you build copy of you inside themselves, so they also start to behave in a certain way or to feel about themselves in a certain way. On the other hand, if you try to make them to behave in a certain way, then via the mirror effect, they will... also start trying to make other people behave in certain ways.
If you sacrifice your happiness for the happiness of your own children, and they can feel that, they may well learn to sacrifice their happiness for somebody else's instead of actually being happy. On the other hand, if you try to make yourself happy, if you love yourself, people interacting with you pick up this attitude and start to feel happy and to love themselves. Since they feel happy in your presence, they come to love you as well.
I know, this idea to try to make other people happy sounds incredibly logical because we are so used to it. However, it is also counterintuitive. Why wouldn't you want to love yourself first? I know, we have all been told stories about selfish egoists, those mythical creatures who only care about themselves and do everything for themselves. I am yet to meet one of them.
The mirror effect is the strongest with children because they don't have any other patterns to react to you, so they end up internalizing whatever patterns you present. Yet I am sure that it operates at all levels. This is why it often, though not always, makes sense to meet violence with love and peaceful disobedience: love gets mirrored back, whereas disobedience helps to not reinforce the pattern of aggression while reflected love is doing its work. If you respond to violence with violence, you are in effect creating two mirrors aimed at each other, endlessly magnifying this energy.
So be the love. Embody compassion, happiness, and generosity. People will mirror these qualities from you, and then, naturally, direct these compassion and generosity towards you. There is no magic here, just a deeper understanding of the way human beings interact with one another.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
On social justice and deeply ingrained patterns
I've been reflecting on two recent news event. One - the protests related to the death of Eric Garner who was essentially killed by a police officer. The officer put him in a chokehold during an attempt to arrest him for a suspected minor violation. The other - the recent protests of fast food workers demanding $15/hour pay and the right to unionize.
http://news.yahoo.com/family-nyc-chokehold-victim-moved-protests-163013787.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fast-food-workers-strike-fueled-other-low-wage-employees-eric-garner
The first thing I realized is that people with higher income are less likely to engage in illegal activities. I am sure there is plenty of evidence in the data, though I'd be curious to check for myself. For one thing, if you are making a decent income, you have more to lose, and you have less of a reason to engage in something illegal. On the other hand, if you are not making enough money to make a decent living, you will probably give another thought to other available options.
I have definitely found out for myself that as my outer circumstances changed back and forth, my attitude to slightly illegal activities changed dramatically, and also back and forth. I have also met a number of people in New York who were engaged in somewhat illegal activities, or at least were emotionally prepared to do that, and VIRTUALLY ALL OF THEM HAD LOWER INCOME THAN THE PEOPLE I KNOW WHO DO NOT ENGAGE IN SEMI- OR SLIGHTLY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. In most cases it was fairly obvious: those with little money were looking for ways to make a better living, whereas those with more money were afraid of getting into trouble.
The other reason for that is that people with a lower income are likely to belong to a community where illegal activities are more acceptable, more common, and also easier to learn.
Of course, it is easy to say: change your situation. Change your pattern. Good luck with that! Can you stop drinking coffee every morning? Can you stop working so much and start spending more time with your spouse and your children? Can you start exercising regularly? See! Suddenly changing the patterns does not seem so easy any more, when those are your patterns.
Fine; let's move on to the Fast Food industry. If I think about it for a second,
there is no way I am going to accept a job at Mc'Donald's even for $30/hour, if I have any choice at all. Except, perhaps, for an interesting experience. Those 4 million fast-food workers in the United States accepted those jobs for a reason: they needed a job. Look around in NYC. Do you see teenagers working in Mc'Donalds for some extra cash? Clearly not. I have not seen a single teenager working at a fast food place in NYC in my several years here --- except for those helping their parents at Chinese and other Asian places.
You have to understand that different people have different reality, different perception of life. Try to grow up in a poor neighborhood with your parents screaming at you and kids doing drugs on the block. Do you know what kind of patterns it sets up in the subconsciousness? What kind of subconscious self-image?
Patterns, perceptions, childhood traumas take years to heal, for those who are fortunate enough. It takes time, money, and a supportive environment. I've had the luxury to work through a lot of pain, loneliness, rejection, and humiliation that I had had in my life. Yet I've had the intelligence, the time, and the financial resources.
I am so acutely aware that it is easy to say "go and do something about your situation if you don't like it", yet it took me years to get to that place. For many people, this part of the soul, this part of the subconsciousness allowing one to change one's circumstances does not develop properly. We think we are bad, guilty, not worthy, incapable, whatever it is. And you just can't. Can't say that you disagree with your boss. Can't go and look for another option. Not that you were afraid; your subconsciousness may not even let you get to that point.
Similarly, if you grew up in a middle- or upper-class family, even the thought of something illegal may make you freak out. This is, however, just your perception. Had you been born in different circumstances, your life and your character would've been very different.
It is easy to talk about justice, about fairness, about responsibility for one's actions. Yet we just repeat the clichés we had received from the past generations. People are not born equal. They do not have equal circumstances. And because we take in our environment, we internalize what we receive from our lineage through our parents, what we receive from our culture and our country, we do not have the same possibilities, even before financial or legal circumstances are taken into account.
Thus, it is absurd to claim that fair justice is the same sentence to any person who commits a particular crime. This may be the most practical approach, but there is nothing particularly fair about it. Sometimes you can say at birth that this person, being a male born into this environment, already has a very high chance of committing a crime as a teenager.
Of course, a deeper insight is that there are no "bad" people: people commit crimes because of subconscious patterns and attitudes passed to them, because of need, or because they are crazy, or because something that is called a "crime" should not be considered as such. It is absurd to imagine normal a human being who would willingly, consciously hurt another human being or a group of human beings, and would do so with a clear understanding. Similarly, in the case of Mc'Donald's workers, it is absurd to imagine that people would go to the trouble of protesting out of vanity, laziness, or other bad traits.
Everyone does the best they can, and everyone's perception is so limited.
So let's forget this mythical ideas of "fairness" and even "justice". These ideas are not completely useless, but they lead us into mental traps, into a world of concept and ideas that do not really exist.
http://news.yahoo.com/family-nyc-chokehold-victim-moved-protests-163013787.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fast-food-workers-strike-fueled-other-low-wage-employees-eric-garner
The first thing I realized is that people with higher income are less likely to engage in illegal activities. I am sure there is plenty of evidence in the data, though I'd be curious to check for myself. For one thing, if you are making a decent income, you have more to lose, and you have less of a reason to engage in something illegal. On the other hand, if you are not making enough money to make a decent living, you will probably give another thought to other available options.
I have definitely found out for myself that as my outer circumstances changed back and forth, my attitude to slightly illegal activities changed dramatically, and also back and forth. I have also met a number of people in New York who were engaged in somewhat illegal activities, or at least were emotionally prepared to do that, and VIRTUALLY ALL OF THEM HAD LOWER INCOME THAN THE PEOPLE I KNOW WHO DO NOT ENGAGE IN SEMI- OR SLIGHTLY ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. In most cases it was fairly obvious: those with little money were looking for ways to make a better living, whereas those with more money were afraid of getting into trouble.
The other reason for that is that people with a lower income are likely to belong to a community where illegal activities are more acceptable, more common, and also easier to learn.
Of course, it is easy to say: change your situation. Change your pattern. Good luck with that! Can you stop drinking coffee every morning? Can you stop working so much and start spending more time with your spouse and your children? Can you start exercising regularly? See! Suddenly changing the patterns does not seem so easy any more, when those are your patterns.
Fine; let's move on to the Fast Food industry. If I think about it for a second,
there is no way I am going to accept a job at Mc'Donald's even for $30/hour, if I have any choice at all. Except, perhaps, for an interesting experience. Those 4 million fast-food workers in the United States accepted those jobs for a reason: they needed a job. Look around in NYC. Do you see teenagers working in Mc'Donalds for some extra cash? Clearly not. I have not seen a single teenager working at a fast food place in NYC in my several years here --- except for those helping their parents at Chinese and other Asian places.
You have to understand that different people have different reality, different perception of life. Try to grow up in a poor neighborhood with your parents screaming at you and kids doing drugs on the block. Do you know what kind of patterns it sets up in the subconsciousness? What kind of subconscious self-image?
Patterns, perceptions, childhood traumas take years to heal, for those who are fortunate enough. It takes time, money, and a supportive environment. I've had the luxury to work through a lot of pain, loneliness, rejection, and humiliation that I had had in my life. Yet I've had the intelligence, the time, and the financial resources.
I am so acutely aware that it is easy to say "go and do something about your situation if you don't like it", yet it took me years to get to that place. For many people, this part of the soul, this part of the subconsciousness allowing one to change one's circumstances does not develop properly. We think we are bad, guilty, not worthy, incapable, whatever it is. And you just can't. Can't say that you disagree with your boss. Can't go and look for another option. Not that you were afraid; your subconsciousness may not even let you get to that point.
Similarly, if you grew up in a middle- or upper-class family, even the thought of something illegal may make you freak out. This is, however, just your perception. Had you been born in different circumstances, your life and your character would've been very different.
It is easy to talk about justice, about fairness, about responsibility for one's actions. Yet we just repeat the clichés we had received from the past generations. People are not born equal. They do not have equal circumstances. And because we take in our environment, we internalize what we receive from our lineage through our parents, what we receive from our culture and our country, we do not have the same possibilities, even before financial or legal circumstances are taken into account.
Thus, it is absurd to claim that fair justice is the same sentence to any person who commits a particular crime. This may be the most practical approach, but there is nothing particularly fair about it. Sometimes you can say at birth that this person, being a male born into this environment, already has a very high chance of committing a crime as a teenager.
Of course, a deeper insight is that there are no "bad" people: people commit crimes because of subconscious patterns and attitudes passed to them, because of need, or because they are crazy, or because something that is called a "crime" should not be considered as such. It is absurd to imagine normal a human being who would willingly, consciously hurt another human being or a group of human beings, and would do so with a clear understanding. Similarly, in the case of Mc'Donald's workers, it is absurd to imagine that people would go to the trouble of protesting out of vanity, laziness, or other bad traits.
Everyone does the best they can, and everyone's perception is so limited.
So let's forget this mythical ideas of "fairness" and even "justice". These ideas are not completely useless, but they lead us into mental traps, into a world of concept and ideas that do not really exist.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Karma, state, causality
Your state includes the state of your nervous system, the state of your body, and your circumstances --- that is, the state of the rest of the world.
You do not observe all of these states in sufficient detail. Sometimes you observe virtually the same thing on several different occasions, but the real state of your nervous system, your body, or the rest of the world may be quite different. In this way, life is like a hidden Markov process. Of course, the state in life never repeats, so this is tautologically true, but don't take this analogy so literally.
The concept of karma was introduced to restore causality in what seems to be a random world. If you observe the same thing, but suddenly see different consequences, the concept of karma can be invoked to explain it. Karma simply accounts for the differences in the underlying state that is not observed, much like a hidden Markov model may be in different states while printing the same characters on the output for a long time.
There is no other concept of karma. If something can affect your life --- say, something in your DNA, some person who is looking for you, or a habit that you have --- then this is part of your karma. If something cannot affect your life, then it is not part of your karma; why would it be?!
If the Universe is capable of completely random, unpredictable, noncausal events, whether conceived of as God's will or as a random subatomic event, then such events are not part of your karma either. Though, of course, the idea of random, unpredictable events has been developed out of particular experiences where one was merely unable to explain some particular events. This is hardly sufficient for postulating the existence of such events, even just in principle.
You do not observe all of these states in sufficient detail. Sometimes you observe virtually the same thing on several different occasions, but the real state of your nervous system, your body, or the rest of the world may be quite different. In this way, life is like a hidden Markov process. Of course, the state in life never repeats, so this is tautologically true, but don't take this analogy so literally.
The concept of karma was introduced to restore causality in what seems to be a random world. If you observe the same thing, but suddenly see different consequences, the concept of karma can be invoked to explain it. Karma simply accounts for the differences in the underlying state that is not observed, much like a hidden Markov model may be in different states while printing the same characters on the output for a long time.
There is no other concept of karma. If something can affect your life --- say, something in your DNA, some person who is looking for you, or a habit that you have --- then this is part of your karma. If something cannot affect your life, then it is not part of your karma; why would it be?!
If the Universe is capable of completely random, unpredictable, noncausal events, whether conceived of as God's will or as a random subatomic event, then such events are not part of your karma either. Though, of course, the idea of random, unpredictable events has been developed out of particular experiences where one was merely unable to explain some particular events. This is hardly sufficient for postulating the existence of such events, even just in principle.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)