5/19/01

Hi Aurino,

On to Reality.

14. You are right about the problem of explaining the "why" of existence. Any explanation immediately begs the regression of "why" questions so commonly used by 5-year-olds.

15. It occurs to me that the "why" question can be framed in two different ways: objectively and subjectively. The objective form is the question I think Einstein asked: Why is there something and not nothing? The subjective form is the one you asked: Why do I exist?

16. It seems to me that these two forms of the question are really different and may point to two different ways of examining the elephant of reality.

17. In the objective form, it seems to me that you either ignore or assume the possible existence of an observer and ask the question about an objective world which would exist independent of any observer. I think that's what science does and that is what Dr. Dick does.

18. In the subjective form, it seems to me that you get to a more fundamental level. (Or at least a more fun and mental level. I couldn't resist that.) As I have said on other occasions, if we try to pare what we know exists for sure down to the bare minimum, I think that we are left with just our own thoughts. We can imagine solipsistically that everything that seems to be real and objective 'out there' is nothing but a figment of our imagination. We may not believe it, but we can imagine it. In this case, nothing else is assumed--no observer--so I think it is more fundamental. That is why I start there in the development of my own model of reality.

19. So, I too, find myself "existing" without knowing why. And, I agree with you that there obviously is more.

20. I have been thinking about your suggestion that there is "a 'force' that makes me feel 'good' about some ideas and 'bad' about others." My first reaction was that I don't feel such a force or "psychic tension", but after only a little thought, I realize that I have experienced that all my life.

21. I may be thinking of something altogether different from what you refer to as "psychic tension", but in the spirit of describing my particular part of the elephant, let me describe my experience before I comment on yours. Then you can tell me if we are thinking about the same thing or something completely different.

22. Among my earliest recollections is my realization that there was a difference between what I felt naturally, and what I learned is acceptable by other people. The earliest and most obvious example was the requirement to cover certain parts of our bodies with clothing. I was raised in a large family in a small house where modesty was not very important--at least not when I was very young. So it seemed arbitrary and senseless to me that people found it so disturbing to see private parts of people's bodies uncovered. It was no problem to follow the rules, but they still seemed arbitrary to me.

23. Other examples were that certain words were "bad" and should not be spoken and that it was "bad" to stare at people.

24. Much later in life, I came to realize that different people had different sensibilities, that some were offended by breaches in etiquette, decorum, or modesty, that people feel hurt by such offenses, and that it is not right or good to hurt people. So it makes perfect sense to follow the rules and refrain from offending and hurting other people. The "psychic tension" is still there but there is no doubt about what to do in the presence of different people: you use different sets of rules in the private presence of your spouse, or in the locker room, or in the presence of strangers.

25. A second, completely different, early experience that might be described as "psychic tension" was the dilemma I felt between the vague feeling that I had some purpose and the complete lack of information about what that purpose was. Was I obligated to do something without being told what it was? This dilemma may not have entered my consciousness before I got some early religious training--I just can't remember that far back--so it is possible that the religious training was responsible for feeling that dilemma.

26. I can remember making a mental 'deal' with god on this issue. The deal was that if you don't make clear to me what I am supposed to do, I am not going to feel guilty about not doing it. On the other hand, it is very clear what I am supposed not to do, because my conscience sends unmistakable signals to my stomach, so I will try to refrain from doing those things.

27. Those early resolutions to my "psychic tension" have pretty much guided my behavior all my life: I try to follow the golden rule, when in Rome I do as the Romans do, and I feel completely free from any guilt associated with my apostasy from my religious upbringing.

28. So, now on to your description of "psychic tension". You say it prompts one to understand and perceive. Hmmm.

29. After a long pause while I thought about this, I think I can relate my own interpretation of "psychic tension" to these two ideas. First is understanding, and second is perception.

30. I'm not sure what 'understanding' is, but to me, it seems to be a feeling of comfort that accompanies an explanation that seems to make sense or that feels right. If I have such an explanation for something that gives me that feeling, then I don't hesitate to say that I understand that thing. Since the explanation I described in paragraph 24. makes sense to me, I feel that I understand why one should follow rules of etiquette, decorum, and modesty. Similarly, since my 'deal' with god, that I described in 26., makes sense to me, I feel that I understand my role in the universe. So, in these cases, I would agree that "psychic tension" prompted me to understand those two fundamental dilemmas.

31. As for perception, that is a little harder. In thinking about it, I remembered an idea that I had some 20 years ago. I even started an outline of an essay I planned to write to describe it. I never did develop the idea, however. I was going to title the essay "The Universal Theory of Expectation".

32. Hold on while I try to find my old notes. Amazing! I found them right away. They are dated 10/6/85 so I was off in my time estimate. I was also wrong about the title: the notes say "On the Role of Expectations in Life.". I am tempted to compose that essay right here and now, but instead, let me just sketch out the idea.

33. I think our minds have a model of reality which to us makes sense. Each and every sensory input we receive must fit into this model or we become extremely uncomfortable. Normally, the time it takes to put a sensory input into its proper slot is on the order of milliseconds. There seems to be a threshold such that if it gets slotted in less time, we don't even notice the sensory input. If it takes much longer, we are uncomfortable until it gets slotted. This is the startle response. If an input doesn't find a slot, then the start turns to fear. "What was that noise outside the tent???"

34. To help keep most perceptions under the threshold, our minds have developed a system for predicting the arrival of perceptions. These predictions set up expectations so that when the sensory input comes in, if it matches the expectation, it can be quickly slotted away.

35. That explains why consonant music is naturally pleasing and dissonant music is not. The patterns of vibration of consonant music are predictable across a wide range of frequencies. At the highest, the pitch of tones which are constant, make it easy to predict the arrival of the next wave crest. That is pleasing because when the wave crest matches the expectation, it gets slotted away quickly and pleasantly.

36. At a lower frequency yet, we have the beat frequencies produced by chords. Lower yet are predictable rhythms within the music. The more predictable, the more pleasing.

37. Other periodicities producing similar responses are seasons, day and night, daily routines, breathing, and heartbeat.

38. Of course, there is also a certain amount of pleasure derived from excitement, so if a perception takes a while to get slotted, that small amount of excitement is pleasurable to a more or less extent. So a dissonant chord that takes a little extra time to get resolved adds pleasure of a slightly different kind. In the extreme case, this gives thrill seekers their great pleasure.

39. Sorry to have gone on so long with this, but I think what I have tried to describe is the same as what you described in your paragraph which begins with "This is one of the things I found." (Paragraph numbers make this kind of reference easier.:)) and the next paragraph following that. I think I understand exactly and agree with what you are saying.

40. In your next paragraph, you say that this mental process, which I described as the frantic scramble to pigeon-hole each sensory input, is the same as logic. Hmmm, again.

41. As I recently wrote to Harv, logic mystifies me. I don't really have a good idea what it is. Could you be right that it is simply the algorithm followed by that sub-conscious pigeon-holing process?? Interesting idea.

42. One consequence of that idea would be that logical conclusions give us that inexplicable "comfortable" feeling. That seems to be the case. Another consequence would be that what is logical to one person might not be logical to another. Come to think about it, that's the way it seems to be. Maybe you have hit on something.

43. You say, "What is illogical escapes our modelling process". That fits exactly into the idea in 41: If logic is the algorithm for pigeon-holing sensory inputs into our model, then inputs which fail to get pigeon-holed by this algorithm are illogical by definition. Exactly!

44. You say, "To illogical sense data we give the name 'feeling' or 'emotion'." That also is consistent with my scenario: in 33 I said that sensory inputs which don't fit into the model make us uncomfortable. This discomfort can only be described as 'feelings' or 'emotions'. I think we see eye to eye on this as well.

45. Finally, you say, "They are as real as objects, but they are not logical and can't be sensed in an ordinary way." Here you may have taken a large leap. Not that I think you are wrong but that you are like the math professor who waves his hands and announces that from here, the result is obvious.

46. In order to agree with your conclusion, we would have to agree on what we mean by "real", "objects" and "sensing in an ordinary way". But, no problem. I think these concepts have about the same meaning to me over on my part of the elephant as they do to you over on your part of the elephant. So, I think I agree with your conclusion.

47. I might rephrase it in terms of my scenario: The sensory inputs that can't be pigeon-holed into our model are caused no differently than those that get pigeon-holed right away, it's just that our expectation algorithm isn't sophisticated, or correct, enough to find the correct slot, or else our model is in error by not having a proper slot for this input.

48. I think I understand what you wrote in the sense that I feel that what you wrote is perfectly consistent with my own personal model of the world. I hope I have been able to show you enough of my model and how your ideas fit into it so that you can see how I interpreted what you wrote. Let me know if I am way off, or if there is something about my model which you don't understand or agree with.

49. I am delighted with the conversation we have had so far and I hope you are satisfied with it enough so that we can continue. I look forward to my paragraph numbers reaching triple or even quadruple digits.

More later,

Paul

Next Aurino letter