Understanding vs. doing

[Mr Spinkles]

I think in a lot of these science vs. religion debates, people talk past each other because of a failure to distinguish between understanding the objective reality of something, vs. doing or participating in a subjective experience.

For example, if we want to understand what is really, objectively going on in movies, we have to deconstruct them, criticize them, and so on. We want to pick every scene apart, catch every flaw and notice every "trick" that was used to improve the experience (such as CGI vs. puppetry, or how Hitchcock gave the impression of stabbing without actually showing it using clever editing). We want to turn on the lights, use the pause button, analyze, scrutinize. IOW we need to take a "scientific" approach.

OTOH, if we want to "do" movies, which is to say, enjoy them and experience them to their fullest, then we need to take a different approach. We need to allow ourselves to get "caught up in the moment" while we suspend disbelief. We want to turn off the lights, grab some popcorn and forget about everything except the sounds and sights and emotions of the experience. Your mind is supposed to be "doing" something, namely enjoying and participating in the movie, and so your mind has to operate in a particular way that does not necessarily involve critical thinking, objectivity, hypothesis-testing, etc. In fact, to "do" movies well we may not want to be exposed to certain objectively true information, like the zipper you can just make out on the monster's costume at 1:30:24. Sometimes, objectively true information may ruin the experience.

Obviously if we draw a Venn diagram, these two approaches are going to have some overlap. But the point is that they are nevertheless distinct. One way helps you understand objectively what a movie is, how it works, and why people (including yourself) respond the way they do. The other way helps you maximize the enjoyment you get out of participating in the movie-watching experience.

To me, the same distinction applies to love, morality, "spirituality" or positive thinking, warfare--even sports. You shoot free-throws in basketball by putting all distractions out of your mind, by visualizing the ball going through the hoop, etc. You try to pretend that you are "in the zone" and you make yourself believe that the ball is going to go "swish". Now, it might be true that you are not a good shooter, and the ball only has a 30% chance of going in. But in order to "do" basketball well, you need to put that (objectively true fact) out of your mind. You need to think about certain things, and not think about other things, in order to "do" basketball well.

OTOH, that is not how you objectively understand basketball well. If you are forever stuck in that mode of thinking and you never "snap out of it", then you don't really understand what is going on in basketball. If you believe the way you think on the court is the appropriate way to understand basketball off the court, then you are superstitious and delusional.

I think a failure to appreciate this distinction is why some people react negatively towards reductionist scientific thinking, like "love can be reduced to chemical reactions". Of course you don't say to your spouse, "our love can be reduced to chemical reactions visualized by an fMRI of our brains", even if you know, when you put your scientist hat on, that may be objectively true. Instead you say things which may not be objectively true, or even knowable, like "We'll be together forever" and you put many true things (like we are all going to die someday) completely out of your mind. That is how you "do" love well, which means you want to maximize the positiveness of the experience, and cement the social bond.

But I think some people mistakenly believe that they can't walk and chew gum at the same time, so to speak. If they accept an objective, scientific understanding, then they believe they will be incapable of setting this understanding aside when it comes time to "do" love. Or they think it would be self-contradictory to do so.

But I disagree. I honestly believe there is nothing contradictory in wearing both hats, at the appropriate times. What you cannot do is reject the truth of an objective, scientific understanding. But you don't have to be focused on it all the time. It is legitimate to put it out of your mind at a time when your mind needs to be focused not on understanding, but on "doing" something well.

Nevertheless this seems to be a major barrier for many people.

Your thoughts?

 

[Sunstone]

Excellent thread! Nietzsche somewhere says something along the lines of "to be permitted to have an opinion about something, a philosopher must have ten opinions, a hundred opinions, about it -- and then know how to dance between them, never resting his feet too heavily on any one of them." That seems to me a fairly reasonable point.

 

[idav]

There is knowledge and understanding which is very important but not as important as actually walking and experiencing the path.

We try our best to conceptualize these experiences but it is next to impossible to do it fully.

Even if you happened to know the chemical formulas for various types of love you can't beat the actual experience of it.

To me breaking humanity down to chemicals and reactions doesn't lessen the importance of it but I could see how that could be an issue.

Knowledge still is helpful when trying to critique things like love because it is beneficial to attempt keeping it at a healthy levels, avoiding obsessions and things like that which could help yourself and others close to you. Knowing how is important in order to get there.

 

[Sunstone]

If you can understand how a map might enhance your experience of a wilderness, then you should be able to understand how objective knowledge might enhance your experience of such things as love.

 

[Badran]

Your thoughts?

Whatever thoughts i come up with keep appearing like those of a 4 year old when compared to your brilliantly detailed and well thought out OP.

So i will refrain from sharing any beyond saying that i wholeheartedly agree and will leave you with a promise to get you back for this.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Whatever thoughts i come up with keep appearing like those of a 4 year old when compared to your brilliantly detailed and well thought out OP.

So i will refrain from sharing any beyond saying that i wholeheartedly agree and will leave you with a promise to get you back for this.

Wow, I'm appropriately flattered!

Another mistake that is commonly made, I think, is that sometimes people conclude that what I've said in the OP implies the mind influences reality, in a way that disrupts the ordinary laws of Nature, and therefore it is inconsistent with scientific reductionism.

For example, if you convince yourself that you are definitely going to make your next basketball free-throw shot, and you put out of your mind the objectively true fact that you are not a good shooter, you will probably perform better. It is a mistake, however, to conclude that this demonstrates "mind over matter". Your brain, like any other machine made of matter, will be able to devote more of its resources to a given task (such as shooting the free-throw) if it is not simultaneously running other tasks also (such as critically and objectively evaluating your free-throw performance).

Moreover, it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that any animal brain (including ours) would have a tendency to not commit too many resources to tasks which we anticipate will fail. Even my dog does not run very hard after birds she knows she can't catch! But she knows she might be able to catch squirrels, so she runs her fastest after squirrels. Her assessment or her "belief", if you like, about how likely she is to succeed, affects her actual likelihood of success. If it were possible to make my dog "believe" she had a good chance of catching a bird, she would almost certainly expend more resources, run faster, and therefore have a greater chance of catching a bird. Is this "mind over matter"? Only superficially. Fundamentally, it is intelligent betting and resource allocation by a material brain, in a material world.

Unlike most (all?) animals, humans have the additional intelligence to know this mechanism occurs in our brains, and therefore we may decide to try to turn it off. We may therefore make a conscious decision to not think about the risk of failure or embarrassment, in order to improve our own performance, or simply to make the experience more enjoyable. IOW, one part of our brain is simply trying to control the information reaching that part of our brain that "hedges" bets according to the risk of failure. This is not fundamentally different from a mountain climber refusing to look down, it's just that with the mountain climber, the control of information is visible externally, so it is more obvious what is going on. But in both cases, some "higher" part of the brain is simply controlling the information which reaches some "lower" part of the brain, in order to maximize performance on those rare occasions when it is known that the lower brain will not perform as desired if it accesses the information.

Those are just possible explanations, they may or may not actually be true. The point here is simply that it is possible to come up with materialist explanations for apparent (but not actual) cases of "mind over matter". Believing that you will perform well, or refusing to think about possible failure, may indeed enhance your performance at some task. As another example, it may be true that a fighter pilot who believes he is invincible is more likely to survive the mission than another pilot who believes (accurately) that he only has a 10% chance of making it home alive. Again, it is not hard to come up with possible reasons for this, from a scientific/reductionist/materialist perspective. At the very least, thinking about your 10% chances must use up some of your brain's limited resources, thereby reducing the resources available to manoeuvre the plane well, and reducing performance (response time, quick accurate judgments, hand-eye coordination, etc.) It is easy to see how, even from a reductionist/materialist perspective, expectations have a tendency to be self-fulfilling.

So this type of thing does not demonstrate "mind over matter" fundamentally. Instead, what it demonstrates is that one part of a material brain might "turn off" another part of a material brain when it gets in the way of performing a very difficult and crucial task, the same way a (smart) computer would turn off all unnecessary processes when its resources are being taxed heavily.

Once again, IMO, it is easy to see why some people think there is a contradiction between a truly objective, scientific understanding vs. doing something well or enjoying life to its fullest. But again I think no such contradiction actually exists. There is no good reason to believe the mind exists outside of Nature and interrupts the ordinary course of events. The people who incorrectly believe this are nevertheless correct to say that our beliefs/expectations can influence our performance or enjoyment. This seems like a contradiction, but it isn't.

Then there are other people who make the same mistake, but in the opposite direction. A wise person would use the information gained from a scientific understanding of the mind to control his/her thoughts, when the situation is appropriate, to improve his/her performance or to make his/her life more enjoyable. It would be a foolish person indeed who, because he had a scientific understanding of the mind, did not attempt to convince himself that he is invincible when he is a fighter pilot, or did not attempt to ignore the fact that he is a poor shot while playing basketball, or insisted on looking down while climbing a mountain. Such a person thinks they can never take off their scientist hat and truly "do" or participate mentally in activities which require benefit from self-deception, or controlling one's thoughts in a way that is contrary to critical, scientific thinking. But again such a person is making a mistake, IMO.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Wow, I'm appropriately flattered!

Another mistake that is commonly made, I think, is that sometimes people conclude that what I've said in the OP implies the mind influences reality, in a way that disrupts the ordinary laws of Nature, and therefore it is inconsistent with scientific reductionism.

For example, if you convince yourself that you are definitely going to make your next basketball free-throw shot, and you put out of your mind the objectively true fact that you are not a good shooter, you will probably perform better. It is a mistake, however, to conclude that this demonstrates "mind over matter". Your brain, like any other machine made of matter, will be able to devote more of its resources to a given task (such as shooting the free-throw) if it is not simultaneously running other tasks also (such as critically and objectively evaluating your free-throw performance).

Moreover, it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that any animal brain (including ours) would have a tendency to not commit too many resources to tasks which we anticipate will fail. Even my dog does not run very hard after birds she knows she can't catch! But she knows she might be able to catch squirrels, so she runs her fastest after squirrels. Her assessment or her "belief", if you like, about how likely she is to succeed, affects her actual likelihood of success. If it were possible to make my dog "believe" she had a good chance of catching a bird, she would almost certainly expend more resources, run faster, and therefore have a greater chance of catching a bird. Is this "mind over matter"? Only superficially. Fundamentally, it is intelligent betting and resource allocation by a material brain, in a material world.

Unlike most (all?) animals, humans have the additional intelligence to know this mechanism occurs in our brains, and therefore we may decide to try to turn it off. We may therefore make a conscious decision to not think about the risk of failure or embarrassment, in order to improve our own performance, or simply to make the experience more enjoyable. IOW, one part of our brain is simply trying to control the information reaching that part of our brain that "hedges" bets according to the risk of failure. This is not fundamentally different from a mountain climber refusing to look down, it's just that with the mountain climber, the control of information is visible externally, so it is more obvious what is going on. But in both cases, some "higher" part of the brain is simply controlling the information which reaches some "lower" part of the brain, in order to maximize performance on those rare occasions when it is known that the lower brain will not perform as desired if it accesses the information.

Those are just possible explanations, they may or may not actually be true. The point here is simply that it is possible to come up with materialist explanations for apparent (but not actual) cases of "mind over matter". Believing that you will perform well, or refusing to think about possible failure, may indeed enhance your performance at some task. As another example, it may be true that a fighter pilot who believes he is invincible is more likely to survive the mission than another pilot who believes (accurately) that he only has a 10% chance of making it home alive. Again, it is not hard to come up with possible reasons for this, from a scientific/reductionist/materialist perspective. At the very least, thinking about your 10% chances must use up some of your brain's limited resources, thereby reducing the resources available to manoeuvre the plane well, and reducing performance (response time, quick accurate judgments, hand-eye coordination, etc.) It is easy to see how, even from a reductionist/materialist perspective, expectations have a tendency to be self-fulfilling.

So this type of thing does not demonstrate "mind over matter" fundamentally. Instead, what it demonstrates is that one part of a material brain might "turn off" another part of a material brain when it gets in the way of performing a very difficult and crucial task, the same way a (smart) computer would turn off all unnecessary processes when its resources are being taxed heavily.

Once again, IMO, it is easy to see why some people think there is a contradiction between a truly objective, scientific understanding vs. doing something well or enjoying life to its fullest. But again I think no such contradiction actually exists. There is no good reason to believe the mind exists outside of Nature and interrupts the ordinary course of events. The people who incorrectly believe this are nevertheless correct to say that our beliefs/expectations can influence our performance or enjoyment. This seems like a contradiction, but it isn't.

Then there are other people who make the same mistake, but in the opposite direction. A wise person would use the information gained from a scientific understanding of the mind to control his/her thoughts, when the situation is appropriate, to improve his/her performance or to make his/her life more enjoyable. It would be a foolish person indeed who, because he had a scientific understanding of the mind, did not attempt to convince himself that he is invincible when he is a fighter pilot, or did not attempt to ignore the fact that he is a poor shot while playing basketball, or insisted on looking down while climbing a mountain. Such a person thinks they can never take off their scientist hat and truly "do" or participate mentally in activities which require benefit from self-deception, or controlling one's thoughts in a way that is contrary to critical, scientific thinking. But again such a person is making a mistake, IMO.

Interesting idea/thread. As one who "does" science in an effort to understand the world better, I certainly agree that "doing" is one kind of experience, while "understanding" is another--even when engaged in science.

Not sure I fully agree with your metaphors about fighter pilots and athletes, however. There are plenty of examples of both who thought/think of themselves as "all that," and in reality aren't, and those who were certain they weren't up to the task, but in the end, were "all that." Almost despite their view of themselves, their confidence,etc.

Confidence in science also needs to be considered, though. In physics, chemistry, materials sciences, etc., the explanatory power of science is quite amazing, almost always better than 90 percent at explaining what is observed. In biology, medicine, and allied fields, however, it's rare for science to explain much more than about 60 percent of the variance, and in the social sciences (my own area), psychology, etc., it's often much lower than that, and rarely as much as 50 percent--generally, we give up when we get down to an R2 of less than .2 as "not explaining enough to be interesting."

While I have great confidence in my ability as a researcher, I recognize "objectively" that my own--and my colleagues' in the social sciences and most other non-physics related areas--contributions to real understanding is not that great: depending on how we organize our research and ask our questions, we might be pointing toward how reality really is, but only in a general way. Thus, when we talk about chemical changes and activity detected through fMRIs, we're not necessarily talking about anything other than being able to detect correlates, giving us a partial understanding of reality.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think in a lot of these science vs. religion debates, people talk past each other because of a failure to distinguish between understanding the objective reality of something, vs. doing or participating in a subjective experience.

For example, if we want to understand what is really, objectively going on in movies, we have to deconstruct them, criticize them, and so on. We want to pick every scene apart, catch every flaw and notice every "trick" that was used to improve the experience (such as CGI vs. puppetry, or how Hitchcock gave the impression of stabbing without actually showing it using clever editing). We want to turn on the lights, use the pause button, analyze, scrutinize. IOW we need to take a "scientific" approach.

OTOH, if we want to "do" movies, which is to say, enjoy them and experience them to their fullest, then we need to take a different approach. We need to allow ourselves to get "caught up in the moment" while we suspend disbelief. We want to turn off the lights, grab some popcorn and forget about everything except the sounds and sights and emotions of the experience. Your mind is supposed to be "doing" something, namely enjoying and participating in the movie, and so your mind has to operate in a particular way that does not necessarily involve critical thinking, objectivity, hypothesis-testing, etc. In fact, to "do" movies well we may not want to be exposed to certain objectively true information, like the zipper you can just make out on the monster's costume at 1:30:24. Sometimes, objectively true information may ruin the experience.

Obviously if we draw a Venn diagram, these two approaches are going to have some overlap. But the point is that they are nevertheless distinct. One way helps you understand objectively what a movie is, how it works, and why people (including yourself) respond the way they do. The other way helps you maximize the enjoyment you get out of participating in the movie-watching experience.

To me, the same distinction applies to love, morality, "spirituality" or positive thinking, warfare--even sports. You shoot free-throws in basketball by putting all distractions out of your mind, by visualizing the ball going through the hoop, etc. You try to pretend that you are "in the zone" and you make yourself believe that the ball is going to go "swish". Now, it might be true that you are not a good shooter, and the ball only has a 30% chance of going in. But in order to "do" basketball well, you need to put that (objectively true fact) out of your mind. You need to think about certain things, and not think about other things, in order to "do" basketball well.

OTOH, that is not how you objectively understand basketball well. If you are forever stuck in that mode of thinking and you never "snap out of it", then you don't really understand what is going on in basketball. If you believe the way you think on the court is the appropriate way to understand basketball off the court, then you are superstitious and delusional.

I think a failure to appreciate this distinction is why some people react negatively towards reductionist scientific thinking, like "love can be reduced to chemical reactions". Of course you don't say to your spouse, "our love can be reduced to chemical reactions visualized by an fMRI of our brains", even if you know, when you put your scientist hat on, that may be objectively true. Instead you say things which may not be objectively true, or even knowable, like "We'll be together forever" and you put many true things (like we are all going to die someday) completely out of your mind. That is how you "do" love well, which means you want to maximize the positiveness of the experience, and cement the social bond.

But I think some people mistakenly believe that they can't walk and chew gum at the same time, so to speak. If they accept an objective, scientific understanding, then they believe they will be incapable of setting this understanding aside when it comes time to "do" love. Or they think it would be self-contradictory to do so.

But I disagree. I honestly believe there is nothing contradictory in wearing both hats, at the appropriate times. What you cannot do is reject the truth of an objective, scientific understanding. But you don't have to be focused on it all the time. It is legitimate to put it out of your mind at a time when your mind needs to be focused not on understanding, but on "doing" something well.

Nevertheless this seems to be a major barrier for many people.

Your thoughts?

I <3 this thread right now.

My take on the OP is that it's two sides of the same coin of duality, subjective/objective, yin/yang, arts/sciences, function/expression, etc....although you have outlined the contrast and comparison through various actions, which I think provides another angle. Yay!

Might I offer the perspective of a performance artist interested in investigating movement theory and applications as well as the utilizing the platform of the stage for expression? What I find vastly important in becoming an effective communicator in numerous social and professional circles is to practice and explore both the contemplative and investigative paradigms of phenomena. How else can we collaborate as a species when we are unable to express what we see, hear, taste, smell, feel? Or when we are unable to observe other forms of expression as relevant?

It's one of the reasons why a crucial stage of development for a young dancer is to "find himself" or "find herself". It's spoken often in dance circles (and it used to annoy me, but that was my problem), and it is the fundamental shift in seeing dance go from a model that fit into moving caricatures on stage to a model that puts the experience of movement as singularly introspective.

But it's also one of the reasons why it is critical for a successful company/studio/troupe to study and practice, to deconstruct movement skills by angle, verticality, relationship to the floor, to the partner, use of space, timing, etc.

Hope that makes sense, I find it relevant.

 

[Caladan]

Your thoughts?

I feel sorry for people who think in scientific terms all day long, who reconsider and doubt every emotion they hold for another person, or who cannot suspend their judgement to enjoy a good book or a film. Although I don't really know people who are like that, on internet discussions there are certainly enough people who are obsessed with an objective scientific picture in such a way that renders any healthy discussion, in the case of our forum: World religion, practically useless. As a side effect, it also make these people look very boring, pessimists even.

I'll take the example of this forum. In between the 'believers' and 'unbelievers' crowd, there is also a community of members who tend to favor science, but are not afraid to put themselves into the world of allegories, terminology, or philosophies of religion. They 'get' the message of whichever sacred text, doctrine, or philosophy and they are able to discuss it for the sake of interest without mixing it with empirical data which is irrelevant to the discussion.

For example, when discussing Greek literature, we don't stop to think: 'hmm cyclops don't really exist', or 'the underworld doesn't really exist', because that is irrelevant to the point. Likewise, when we discuss world religion for the sake of discussing world religion, we are in a different 'zone', and there is no point derailing the discussion with scientific literature.
I'm reminded of a course I've taken as an undergraduate about Egyptian religion. We studied the entire journey of the soul of the departed in ancient Egyptian mythology. How the deceased overcomes obstacles, demonic entities, and the way they had to memorize incantations to help them on their way. Nowhere during the duration of this course do I remember that we stopped to think: 'Hmm life after death doesn't exist', or 'demons and spells don't really exist'. Because that would be irrelevant.

I think in our forum there needs to be a fine line when we aim for a decent discussion. We can discuss science without trying to make it conform to our religious beliefs, just for the sake of discussing science. And we can discuss world religion, just for the sake of discussing world religion, without mixing it with science.
It may sound unreal to some people, but many members have already been doing it for years.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, all.

Not sure I fully agree with your metaphors about fighter pilots and athletes, however. There are plenty of examples of both who thought/think of themselves as "all that," and in reality aren't, and those who were certain they weren't up to the task, but in the end, were "all that." Almost despite their view of themselves, their confidence,etc.

I acknowledge the examples I gave were completely made up, and may or may not actually be true. My point is simply that, if and when cases of apparent "mind over matter" occur, they are not necessarily incompatible with reductionism/materialism, because I can make up a story which could hypothetically explain such cases. Whether the beliefs of fighter pilots or athletes actually affect their performance or not to begin with, and whether the story I made up is actually a signficant reason for this, is of course a question where I must defer to any knowledge experts such as yourself can provide.

 

[George-ananda]

It is a pretty good OP for someone trying to marry scientific reductionism with everyday emotional life. There's an audience for that.

But of course some of the assumptions in the OP (consciousness can be reduced to chemical events rather than consciousness causing physical events) don't really apply to all readers.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It is a pretty good OP for someone trying to marry scientific reductionism with everyday emotional life. There's an audience for that.

But of course some of the assumptions in the OP (consciousness can be reduced to chemical events rather than consciousness causing physical events) don't really apply to all readers.

Case in point for the OP.

 

[Sculelos]

If something can not be explained through physical evidence then it is of extreme foolishness to believe in it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It is a pretty good OP for someone trying to marry scientific reductionism with everyday emotional life. There's an audience for that.

But of course some of the assumptions in the OP (consciousness can be reduced to chemical events rather than consciousness causing physical events) don't really apply to all readers.

Granted. I did try to include some examples that were, I felt, essentially uncontroversial, like the difference between "understanding" vs. "doing" movies or sports. Do you really think that deconstructing a movie (or scientific reductionism) is fundamentally at odds with the everyday emotional experience of watching a movie? Can't we understand what a movie actually objectively is, and then take off our scientist hat and enjoy the movie too?

 

[George-ananda]

Granted. I did try to include some examples that were, I felt, essentially uncontroversial, like the difference between "understanding" vs. "doing" movies or sports. Do you really think that deconstructing a movie (or scientific reductionism) is fundamentally at odds with the everyday emotional experience of watching a movie? Can't we understand what a movie actually objectively is, and then take off our scientist hat and enjoy the movie too?

Yes, I'll agree that can be done. I guess I've never seen a scientist or person conduct their personal affairs from a strictly reductionist viewpoint. Or watch a movie that way either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your thoughts?

Your analogy with sports resonated with me: it's occurred to me before that you often can't get the feel for a game by reading the rulebook. In many cases, you can't even use it to derive an optimal strategy for the game.

However, when playing a sport, even though the "feeling" of the game is important, the player still has to take the rules into account. When a player (i.e. someone whose experience is based on doing) and a referee (i.e. someone whose experience is based on understanding) come to disagree, it's the viewpoint based on understanding that prevails, regardless of how much the player believes that the illegal play was in accordance with the proper feeling or "spirit" of the game.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It seems just shifts in focus to me regarding whats simultaneous. The game analogy is good. I thought of players act out the rule book repeatedly over and over until it becomes automatic. Not requiring analogy during the adrenaline and the excitement felt by the players in the heat of the moment.