Very interesting stuff. I'm quite new to this so would appreciate some clarity - what's the difference between macro and microphenomenology and qualia? are macro/micro both types of qualia?
The word "qualia" is pretty broad, encompassing _any_ conscious experience, big or small. So I'd say both macro and microphenomenology are different ways of studying qualia, or maybe ways of studying different types of qualia.
Great stuff! I’m inspired to dive deeper into the qri heart program after this. Very inspiring
One small comment on “Many long-time meditators (myself included) claim that focusing attention on a painful sensation will cause its negative valence to evaporate.2 This implies that valence may be an emergent, high-order experience.” - I’m not sure it implies this, more that when you’re concentrating, there’s no self sense to create the tension and suffering (as you point out in the footnote). I still think the tension that leads to suffering may be a fundamentally valenced thing when appearing in consciousness. So valence remains fundamental, but is related to conscious tension (contraction or asymmetry)
Yeah I think we're actually on the same page here--just with some confusion of terms.
If we define "qualia" as the most basic mind-stuff, and "consciousness" as something more complicated that emerges from qualia (with a handwave as to how and when it really emerges, but something something selfhood / binding / symbolic representation), I would say valence could be fundamental to _consciousness_ but not qualia.
I do think the subtler jhanas are states that step back from both valence and consciousness (as defined here).
Sorry for double comment; re: reports of psychonauts ‘not existing in 1 dimension’ - zero dimensions is ‘death’, and it is a ‘human state perpetuated by other humans and still seen as valuable’; mathematically speaking 1 dimension would imply ‘being a single point without curiosity which is not ‘a natural human state of existence’ - this is the existence of Ai; 2,3 and higher dimensions put human existence on a curiosity plane/space and satisfies our ‘need for agency’; obviously ~all my opinions; ~ciao
"a single point" would be 0d, which I actually have heard described! Though it's not something I've experienced
for me, a "2d" experience feels like I'm a flat sheet, with some extrinsic and intrinsic curvature into a third dimension. I can _imagine_ a 1d experience, where you're just a wiggling string, but I've never actually heard anyone describe an experience like this
I asked ChatBOTgpt for the strictest mathematical definition and you are right - a point is 0 dimensions; I do have some personal reconciliation to do, and there appears to be nothing in-between, lol. As I said, always a stirring read.
Very interesting stuff. I'm quite new to this so would appreciate some clarity - what's the difference between macro and microphenomenology and qualia? are macro/micro both types of qualia?
The word "qualia" is pretty broad, encompassing _any_ conscious experience, big or small. So I'd say both macro and microphenomenology are different ways of studying qualia, or maybe ways of studying different types of qualia.
thanks for clarifying!
Great stuff! I’m inspired to dive deeper into the qri heart program after this. Very inspiring
One small comment on “Many long-time meditators (myself included) claim that focusing attention on a painful sensation will cause its negative valence to evaporate.2 This implies that valence may be an emergent, high-order experience.” - I’m not sure it implies this, more that when you’re concentrating, there’s no self sense to create the tension and suffering (as you point out in the footnote). I still think the tension that leads to suffering may be a fundamentally valenced thing when appearing in consciousness. So valence remains fundamental, but is related to conscious tension (contraction or asymmetry)
Yeah I think we're actually on the same page here--just with some confusion of terms.
If we define "qualia" as the most basic mind-stuff, and "consciousness" as something more complicated that emerges from qualia (with a handwave as to how and when it really emerges, but something something selfhood / binding / symbolic representation), I would say valence could be fundamental to _consciousness_ but not qualia.
I do think the subtler jhanas are states that step back from both valence and consciousness (as defined here).
Oh, very interesting! I don’t have any experience of the j5+ states, so you could be right
Sorry for double comment; re: reports of psychonauts ‘not existing in 1 dimension’ - zero dimensions is ‘death’, and it is a ‘human state perpetuated by other humans and still seen as valuable’; mathematically speaking 1 dimension would imply ‘being a single point without curiosity which is not ‘a natural human state of existence’ - this is the existence of Ai; 2,3 and higher dimensions put human existence on a curiosity plane/space and satisfies our ‘need for agency’; obviously ~all my opinions; ~ciao
"a single point" would be 0d, which I actually have heard described! Though it's not something I've experienced
for me, a "2d" experience feels like I'm a flat sheet, with some extrinsic and intrinsic curvature into a third dimension. I can _imagine_ a 1d experience, where you're just a wiggling string, but I've never actually heard anyone describe an experience like this
I asked ChatBOTgpt for the strictest mathematical definition and you are right - a point is 0 dimensions; I do have some personal reconciliation to do, and there appears to be nothing in-between, lol. As I said, always a stirring read.
Always a stirring read; Thanks Max.