So I’ll start by giving what I think is an unobjectionable example of something that can’t be transmitted via text, then use it to triangulate.
Consider the example of Mary’s room. Mary lives in a black and white room and studies vision. (Her own body is also black and white, she has never seen her own blood, etc.) Let’s stipulate that she has a perfect mechanical understanding of how human vision works, including exactly what happens when a particular wavelength of light is processed by the eye and the visual cortex as opposed to some other wavelength. It seems intuitive, and I would defend the intuition, that nonetheless Mary would learn something if she stepped out of the room and saw a red flower for the first time, with her actual eyes. Literally there are patterns of neuronal firing in her visual cortex that would happen if she did this that couldn’t happen otherwise, unless someone hypnotized her into hallucinating the experience of seeing a red flower or something like that.
So, that’s one example: I don’t know how to transmit via text the qualia of seeing red. Worse, I don’t even know how to convince Mary that there is such a thing as the qualia of seeing red, and that if she never saw red she would be missing out on something important. (I’m reminded at this point of the lack of colors in the world of The Giver, and also the SSC post on missing out on universal human experiences.)
The thing I’d want to transmit around the direct experience of being in a body has aspects of both transmitting the direct experience of seeing red and transmitting the direct experience of playing basketball, in that it has aspects of both an underutilized human capacity and learning a skill. The simplest way to do each of these is respectively to 1) show someone a red thing and 2) play basketball with them. The best you could do via text might be something like 1) give someone instructions for finding a red thing and 2) tell someone where to sign up for basketball classes, but this is not really transmitting the experience via text, it’s giving someone instructions for where to find the experience themselves.
The thing I’d try to do in person, if I wanted to transmit the direct experience of being in a body, is something like run you through exercises to get you into your body, which I would ideally need to see you doing in real time to get a sense of what adjustments need to be made to the exercise. I can also demonstrate, in real time, the difference between me being in my body and not being in my body; there are things I can do in my body that are harder to do when I’m not in my body, and I have no idea how to convince you that I can do these things via text.
Via text I can at least give instructions for finding the experience, in no particular order: go to a silent meditation retreat, take psychedelic drugs, fast for 5 days and ingest nothing but water, find someone who will guide you through holotropic breathwork, find someone to perform shamanic healing on you, go to Burning Man and do as much weird shit there as you can handle. Some of these will be a lot more effective than others and I can’t make guarantees about any of them. I can guide you to a basketball class but you still might just be really bad at basketball, etc.
Oh, actually, here’s an exercise you can do right now, but my experience is that people vary dramatically in their ability to do it so it could easily completely fail for you, and I haven’t figured out how to get it to work reliably yet. I got it from Impro. It goes like this: try to get a clear sense of where the “locus of control” of your body is. Probably it’s where your brain is by default. I visualize it as something like a blue ball of energy shooting out electricity to the rest of my body to make it move. Now, try to move the locus somewhere else in your body. In particular, try to move it as far down your spine as possible; ideally you’ll be able to move it to the base of your spine. For the sake of blinding I won’t tell you what’s supposed to happen when you do this, although there are a pretty wide range of possible responses anyway.
The usual formulation of the Mary’s Room thought experiment makes a very strong assumption about what Mary knows while in the room: that she has a complete understanding of every physical and physiological process that happens when she is looking at things. This of course goes way beyond what any real human being has.
With this assumption, I claim that Mary would already know that there are such things as the qualia of seeing red; she wouldn’t need convincing. And she would already know quite a lot about those qualia; e.g., if seeing red tends to increase physiological arousal and spark thoughts of love, anger and serious physical injury then she would know that.
(This argument is not original to me; I found it in a book by Daniel Dennett.)
Without that assumption, some arguments based on the thought experiment (e.g., ones claiming that qualia have to be something nonphysical) collapse. Probably not yours, though, because for your purposes it doesn’t matter whether Mary understands anything at all about colour vision; I think you get a better example of experiences that might not be conveyable in text if we suppose she doesn’t.
Still… it seems like one could convey at least some aspects—though certainly not all—of the experience of seeing red through text, even to someone who had never had that experience. Along the following lines. “At present, your eyes give you a picture of the world that could be described by saying for everything how bright it is. Other people—perhaps including you, some day—get more information from their eyes than that: for each location in their visual field, not just a brightness but something else called colour. Different objects have different colours, so this lets us distinguish more things about them than you can from brightness alone. One kind of colour is called “red”, and it turns out that our brains respond in interesting ways to red things. Red is the colour of a liquid called blood that we have inside us. When your body is badly enough damaged, blood may flow out. That’s bad news, and seeing red makes your brain prepare a little bit to fight or run away: it gives you a little of the feeling you might have if you imagine that there’s a tiger just around the corner waiting to jump on you. Most people’s skin is slightly reddish in colour, especially when they are embarrassed or excited, and perhaps for that reason red is also associated in most people’s minds with love and sex. Seeing red may make your brain prepare a little bit for a romantic or sexual encounter: it gives you a little of the feeling you might have if you imagine that someone you find very attractive is just around the corner waiting to kiss you. When there’s something bright red in your field of view, your eyes will tend to be attracted by it, and distract your attention from other things. In our culture, red is associated with fighting and celebration and love and danger and urgency. The colour red is a bit like the sound of a trumpet fanfare, and a bit like the feel of either a warm embrace or a slap in the face.”
Hearing all that (and the much more that one could say on the same theme) isn’t the same as actually having the experience of seeing red, for sure. But I think someone who had never seen the colour red would know more about what seeing red is like after reading a few paragraphs of that sort of thing. They’d have some information about specific effects it might have; some analogies to other things they might be familiar with; some understanding of why those effects might be there, which might help them predict other effects; some information about ideas and feelings and images that people associate with redness.
Fair point. The version of the Mary’s room setup that’s relevant to this discussion is where Mary knows everything about color vision that could be transmitted via text, e.g. the best and most comprehensive possible textbook on color vision.
I agree that I could describe my experience of red to Mary, but if Mary is skeptical / doesn’t trust me to report my experiences honestly I don’t know how I could convince her of anything, really.
It seems you’re very concerned about being thought a liar or a fake if you say more about your experiences. (E.g., you bring that up here, but so far as I can see no one in this thread has been suggesting anything of the kind.) Is there a particular reason for that?
(For the avoidance of doubt, I think it very unlikely that what you’re saying—or indeed what you’re avoiding saying—is lies or fakery.)
Mostly the response to the Kensho thread. Also some common knowledge thing along the lines of, I don’t want to make strong claims on the basis of weak evidence because I don’t want people to think I think other people have or should have weak epistemic standards.
I tried this exercise and found it extremely interesting. My report is rot-13′ed to respect the blinding. I highly recommend taking five minutes to try it yourself before reading.
(One more line break for further encouragement to break your train of thought and try it.)
Ok, here:
V gevrq guvf fvggvat ng zl qrfx ng jbex. V’ir cerivbhfyl unq gebhoyr jvgu rkrepvfrf gung nfxrq zr gb zbir gur ybpngvba bs “zr”/zl rtb/zl crefcrpgvir bhg bs zl urnq naq vagb zl obql, fb V jnf fxrcgvpny V jbhyq fhpprrq. Ohg Dvnbpuh’f qrfpevcgvba va grezf bs “fubbgvat bhg ryrpgevpvgl gb gur erfg bs zl obql gb znxr vg zbir” znqr zr abgvpr n qvfgvapgvba orgjrra gur ybpngvba bs “gur jngpure” be zl bofreingvba/creprcgvba, naq “gur npgbe” be zl zbirzrag/npgvba. Guvf frpbaq guvat ghearq bhg gb or abg gung uneq gb zbir, juvyr gur svefg fgnlrq va cynpr.
V qba’g unir irel fgebat zragny vzntrel, fb V qvqa’g unir nalguvat yvxr n oyhr onyy bs raretl va zvaq. Zbgvba naq fcngvny eryngvbafuvc ner angheny gb zr, fb V sbphfrq ba gur vqrn bs na nofgenpg ybphf gung “chfurq bhg” gb pnhfr zbgvba.
Gb xrrc gur sbphf ba npgvba, V zbirq zl unaq va n ercrgvgvir hc-naq-qbja zbgvba juvyr V gevrq zbivat gur ybphf. Nf fbba nf vg tbg bhg bs zl urnq vagb zl hccre purfg, zl unaq zbirzragf tbg zhpu fybjre, yrff cerpvfr, naq yrff erthyne. Vg sryg n ovg yvxr jnyxvat onpxjneqf, be zbivat jvgu zl rlrf pybfrq. Gurer jnf nyfb n fbeg bs hcjneqf cerffher ba gur ybphf, yvxr jura lbh gel gb chfu fbzrguvat ohblnag qbja vagb jngre.
V ybfg genpx n pbhcyr gvzrf naq unq gb fgneg bire, ohg ba gur guveq gel V zbirq vg vagb zl thg, naq gura gb gur onfr bs zl fcvar. Nf V nccebnpurq gur onfr bs zl fcvar, na ryrpgevp, ohmmvat, fbzrjung birefgvzhyngvat raretl pragrerq gurer orpnzr fgebatre naq zber fnyvrag. Guvf raretl vf snzvyvne gb zr sebz zrqvgngvba, ohg V’ir cerivbhfyl sbhaq vg gbb vagrafr gb “ybbx ng” sbe ybat. Gb zl fhecevfr, gung jnfa’g gehr guvf gvzr, creuncf orpnhfr V jnf pbaarpgvat vg gb zbgvba naq npgvba engure guna whfg ybbxvat ng vg.
Gur raretl nebfr naq frggyrq dhvgr dhvpxyl, va n znggre bs n pbhcyr frpbaqf. Vg jnf (naq vf, nf V jevgr guvf) fgvyy cerfrag naq fnyvrag, ohg irel znantrnoyr. Nf fbba nf vg frggyrq, zl zbgvbaf jrag onpx gb orvat pbasvqrag, snfg, naq cerpvfr. Nsgre whfg n frpbaq, V (jvgubhg pbafpvbhfyl pubbfvat gb) fgbccrq gur ercrgvgvir unaq zbgvbaf naq ghearq gurz vagb n fgergpu, svefg sbe zl unaqf naq nezf, naq gura zl jubyr obql. Zl cbfgher jrag sebz fybhpurq gb fgenvtug-onpxrq (ohg ernfbanoyl erynkrq) naq V fcernq zl yrtf gb n zber pbzsbegnoyr cbfvgvba. V abgvprq gung zl cnagf jrer hapbzsbegnoyl gvtug naq erfgevpgvat, naq nyfb abgvprq gur cyrnfher bs tvivat zl obql n fngvfslvat fgergpu naq ernqwhfgzrag.
Guvf fgngr bs tbbq cbfgher naq obqvyl njnerarff vf snzvyvne gb fbzr qrterr, nf V bppnfvbanyyl trg vagb vg nsgre ubhe-ybat zrqvgngvba fvgf. Vg’f pbaarpgrq gb trareny tebhaqrqarff naq cerfrapr va fbpvny naq zragny ernyzf nf jryy, ohg vg’f n fgngr V unira’g orra noyr gb gevttre irel eryvnoyl.
V tbg hc gb tb gb nabgure ebbz, naq sbhaq zlfrys zbivat zber dhvpxyl naq pbasvqragyl guna V’z hfrq gb. Gurer’f n fjvatvat qbbe orgjrra gjb ebbzf, naq V fbeg bs yrnarq vagb vg jvgubhg oernxvat fgevqr. Zl zbgvbaf erzvaqrq zr n ovg bs ubj V’ir frra nguyrgrf va pnfhny fvghngvbaf zbir, jvgu n fbeg bs pbasvqrapr naq frafr gung gurve obql vf na rssrpgvir gbby. Vg nyfb orpnzr dhvgr boivbhf naq fnyvrag gung V’z uhatel, fvapr V unira’g rngra oernxsnfg.
V’ir xrcg gur ybphf bs npgvba ng gur onfr bs zl fcvar juvyr jevgvat guvf zrffntr. Vg frrzf gb pheeragyl erdhver n fznyy nzbhag bs onpxtebhaq nggragvba gb xrrc vg gurer (fvzvyne gb, yvxr, crepuvat ba n oenapu juvyr ernqvat n obbx, be fbzrguvat yvxr gung), ohg qbrfa’g frrz gb abgnoyl vagresrer jvgu guvaxvat be jevgvat. V srry trarenyyl sbphfrq naq ratntrq, gubhtu vg’f uneq gb gryy jurgure gung’f na rssrpg be whfg n znggre bs orvat vagrerfgrq va guvf rkcrevzrag.
Awesome! This would carry more weight if I had described in advance what some of the possible outcomes are, but this is consistent with the results I’ve seen and what few models I have. I’d be excited to continue working with you on this at the mentor workshop, and you can also message me on Facebook or wherever.
I’m quite familiar with Mary’s Room, yes, so this was indeed a helpful analogy.
I can also demonstrate, in real time, the difference between me being in my body and not being in my body; there are things I can do in my body that are harder to do when I’m not in my body, and I have no idea how to convince you that I can do these things via text.
Video!
(Also, convincing me aside, do you mind saying what these things are?)
Oh, actually, here’s an exercise you can do right now … It goes like this: try to get a clear sense of where the “locus of control” of your body is. Probably it’s where your brain is by default. I visualize it as something like a blue ball of energy shooting out electricity to the rest of my body to make it move.
I don’t think I have one of these things… (I don’t visualize any blue balls of energy, at any rate…) I suppose this is one of those “fundamental experiences that some people are missing”, etc.
Anyway, I do understand what you mean, now, and if you manage to get the phenomenon into words I will certainly read it!
I thought about it but I don’t expect video to be very convincing; if I’m by myself the main differences will be changes in my body language, which I could be faking. Most of the most interesting things I can do when I’m in my body involve interacting with other people, and again on video these sorts of things could be easily faked. Try looking up videos of people being hypnotized; they’re not very convincing. It’s much more convincing to actually be hypnotized yourself.
(Also, convincing me aside, do you mind saying what these things are?)
I’ll stick to one example: there’s a thing I’m learning how to do which I’ll call “talking from my guts to your guts.” I’m not very good at it yet and I don’t have a mechanistic explanation of how it works, but what it feels like I’m doing is an interpersonal version of Focusing. It’s something like, I am trying to pick up a felt sense of what a person in front of me is feeling (e.g. from their body language, but processed mostly unconsciously), mixing that with how I’m feeling, then labeling the resulting mixed felt sense. That’s not quite right, though. (Words, man.)
I’ve done this a few times and had it done to me a few times, and when done right I think it’s a powerful tool for personal growth, although those feel like lackluster words for it.
Edit: Oops, forgot to respond to this part:
I don’t think I have one of these things… (I don’t visualize any blue balls of energy, at any rate…) I suppose this is one of those “fundamental experiences that some people are missing”, etc.
I don’t mean to imply that this is something you were already doing and should be noticing that you’re doing; the exercise is to start doing it. That is, start trying to conjure up the sense of a locus of control, in any way you can. I don’t have a visualization that reliably works for everyone, and it’s not really a visualization anyway: if visualization is something you do in your visual imagination, then the thing that’s relevant here is more like doing something in your proprioceptive imagination…
So I’ll start by giving what I think is an unobjectionable example of something that can’t be transmitted via text, then use it to triangulate.
Consider the example of Mary’s room. Mary lives in a black and white room and studies vision. (Her own body is also black and white, she has never seen her own blood, etc.) Let’s stipulate that she has a perfect mechanical understanding of how human vision works, including exactly what happens when a particular wavelength of light is processed by the eye and the visual cortex as opposed to some other wavelength. It seems intuitive, and I would defend the intuition, that nonetheless Mary would learn something if she stepped out of the room and saw a red flower for the first time, with her actual eyes. Literally there are patterns of neuronal firing in her visual cortex that would happen if she did this that couldn’t happen otherwise, unless someone hypnotized her into hallucinating the experience of seeing a red flower or something like that.
So, that’s one example: I don’t know how to transmit via text the qualia of seeing red. Worse, I don’t even know how to convince Mary that there is such a thing as the qualia of seeing red, and that if she never saw red she would be missing out on something important. (I’m reminded at this point of the lack of colors in the world of The Giver, and also the SSC post on missing out on universal human experiences.)
The thing I’d want to transmit around the direct experience of being in a body has aspects of both transmitting the direct experience of seeing red and transmitting the direct experience of playing basketball, in that it has aspects of both an underutilized human capacity and learning a skill. The simplest way to do each of these is respectively to 1) show someone a red thing and 2) play basketball with them. The best you could do via text might be something like 1) give someone instructions for finding a red thing and 2) tell someone where to sign up for basketball classes, but this is not really transmitting the experience via text, it’s giving someone instructions for where to find the experience themselves.
The thing I’d try to do in person, if I wanted to transmit the direct experience of being in a body, is something like run you through exercises to get you into your body, which I would ideally need to see you doing in real time to get a sense of what adjustments need to be made to the exercise. I can also demonstrate, in real time, the difference between me being in my body and not being in my body; there are things I can do in my body that are harder to do when I’m not in my body, and I have no idea how to convince you that I can do these things via text.
Via text I can at least give instructions for finding the experience, in no particular order: go to a silent meditation retreat, take psychedelic drugs, fast for 5 days and ingest nothing but water, find someone who will guide you through holotropic breathwork, find someone to perform shamanic healing on you, go to Burning Man and do as much weird shit there as you can handle. Some of these will be a lot more effective than others and I can’t make guarantees about any of them. I can guide you to a basketball class but you still might just be really bad at basketball, etc.
Oh, actually, here’s an exercise you can do right now, but my experience is that people vary dramatically in their ability to do it so it could easily completely fail for you, and I haven’t figured out how to get it to work reliably yet. I got it from Impro. It goes like this: try to get a clear sense of where the “locus of control” of your body is. Probably it’s where your brain is by default. I visualize it as something like a blue ball of energy shooting out electricity to the rest of my body to make it move. Now, try to move the locus somewhere else in your body. In particular, try to move it as far down your spine as possible; ideally you’ll be able to move it to the base of your spine. For the sake of blinding I won’t tell you what’s supposed to happen when you do this, although there are a pretty wide range of possible responses anyway.
The usual formulation of the Mary’s Room thought experiment makes a very strong assumption about what Mary knows while in the room: that she has a complete understanding of every physical and physiological process that happens when she is looking at things. This of course goes way beyond what any real human being has.
With this assumption, I claim that Mary would already know that there are such things as the qualia of seeing red; she wouldn’t need convincing. And she would already know quite a lot about those qualia; e.g., if seeing red tends to increase physiological arousal and spark thoughts of love, anger and serious physical injury then she would know that.
(This argument is not original to me; I found it in a book by Daniel Dennett.)
Without that assumption, some arguments based on the thought experiment (e.g., ones claiming that qualia have to be something nonphysical) collapse. Probably not yours, though, because for your purposes it doesn’t matter whether Mary understands anything at all about colour vision; I think you get a better example of experiences that might not be conveyable in text if we suppose she doesn’t.
Still… it seems like one could convey at least some aspects—though certainly not all—of the experience of seeing red through text, even to someone who had never had that experience. Along the following lines. “At present, your eyes give you a picture of the world that could be described by saying for everything how bright it is. Other people—perhaps including you, some day—get more information from their eyes than that: for each location in their visual field, not just a brightness but something else called colour. Different objects have different colours, so this lets us distinguish more things about them than you can from brightness alone. One kind of colour is called “red”, and it turns out that our brains respond in interesting ways to red things. Red is the colour of a liquid called blood that we have inside us. When your body is badly enough damaged, blood may flow out. That’s bad news, and seeing red makes your brain prepare a little bit to fight or run away: it gives you a little of the feeling you might have if you imagine that there’s a tiger just around the corner waiting to jump on you. Most people’s skin is slightly reddish in colour, especially when they are embarrassed or excited, and perhaps for that reason red is also associated in most people’s minds with love and sex. Seeing red may make your brain prepare a little bit for a romantic or sexual encounter: it gives you a little of the feeling you might have if you imagine that someone you find very attractive is just around the corner waiting to kiss you. When there’s something bright red in your field of view, your eyes will tend to be attracted by it, and distract your attention from other things. In our culture, red is associated with fighting and celebration and love and danger and urgency. The colour red is a bit like the sound of a trumpet fanfare, and a bit like the feel of either a warm embrace or a slap in the face.”
Hearing all that (and the much more that one could say on the same theme) isn’t the same as actually having the experience of seeing red, for sure. But I think someone who had never seen the colour red would know more about what seeing red is like after reading a few paragraphs of that sort of thing. They’d have some information about specific effects it might have; some analogies to other things they might be familiar with; some understanding of why those effects might be there, which might help them predict other effects; some information about ideas and feelings and images that people associate with redness.
Fair point. The version of the Mary’s room setup that’s relevant to this discussion is where Mary knows everything about color vision that could be transmitted via text, e.g. the best and most comprehensive possible textbook on color vision.
I agree that I could describe my experience of red to Mary, but if Mary is skeptical / doesn’t trust me to report my experiences honestly I don’t know how I could convince her of anything, really.
It seems you’re very concerned about being thought a liar or a fake if you say more about your experiences. (E.g., you bring that up here, but so far as I can see no one in this thread has been suggesting anything of the kind.) Is there a particular reason for that?
(For the avoidance of doubt, I think it very unlikely that what you’re saying—or indeed what you’re avoiding saying—is lies or fakery.)
Mostly the response to the Kensho thread. Also some common knowledge thing along the lines of, I don’t want to make strong claims on the basis of weak evidence because I don’t want people to think I think other people have or should have weak epistemic standards.
I tried this exercise and found it extremely interesting. My report is rot-13′ed to respect the blinding. I highly recommend taking five minutes to try it yourself before reading.
(One more line break for further encouragement to break your train of thought and try it.)
Ok, here:
V gevrq guvf fvggvat ng zl qrfx ng jbex. V’ir cerivbhfyl unq gebhoyr jvgu rkrepvfrf gung nfxrq zr gb zbir gur ybpngvba bs “zr”/zl rtb/zl crefcrpgvir bhg bs zl urnq naq vagb zl obql, fb V jnf fxrcgvpny V jbhyq fhpprrq. Ohg Dvnbpuh’f qrfpevcgvba va grezf bs “fubbgvat bhg ryrpgevpvgl gb gur erfg bs zl obql gb znxr vg zbir” znqr zr abgvpr n qvfgvapgvba orgjrra gur ybpngvba bs “gur jngpure” be zl bofreingvba/creprcgvba, naq “gur npgbe” be zl zbirzrag/npgvba. Guvf frpbaq guvat ghearq bhg gb or abg gung uneq gb zbir, juvyr gur svefg fgnlrq va cynpr.
V qba’g unir irel fgebat zragny vzntrel, fb V qvqa’g unir nalguvat yvxr n oyhr onyy bs raretl va zvaq. Zbgvba naq fcngvny eryngvbafuvc ner angheny gb zr, fb V sbphfrq ba gur vqrn bs na nofgenpg ybphf gung “chfurq bhg” gb pnhfr zbgvba.
Gb xrrc gur sbphf ba npgvba, V zbirq zl unaq va n ercrgvgvir hc-naq-qbja zbgvba juvyr V gevrq zbivat gur ybphf. Nf fbba nf vg tbg bhg bs zl urnq vagb zl hccre purfg, zl unaq zbirzragf tbg zhpu fybjre, yrff cerpvfr, naq yrff erthyne. Vg sryg n ovg yvxr jnyxvat onpxjneqf, be zbivat jvgu zl rlrf pybfrq. Gurer jnf nyfb n fbeg bs hcjneqf cerffher ba gur ybphf, yvxr jura lbh gel gb chfu fbzrguvat ohblnag qbja vagb jngre.
V ybfg genpx n pbhcyr gvzrf naq unq gb fgneg bire, ohg ba gur guveq gel V zbirq vg vagb zl thg, naq gura gb gur onfr bs zl fcvar. Nf V nccebnpurq gur onfr bs zl fcvar, na ryrpgevp, ohmmvat, fbzrjung birefgvzhyngvat raretl pragrerq gurer orpnzr fgebatre naq zber fnyvrag. Guvf raretl vf snzvyvne gb zr sebz zrqvgngvba, ohg V’ir cerivbhfyl sbhaq vg gbb vagrafr gb “ybbx ng” sbe ybat. Gb zl fhecevfr, gung jnfa’g gehr guvf gvzr, creuncf orpnhfr V jnf pbaarpgvat vg gb zbgvba naq npgvba engure guna whfg ybbxvat ng vg.
Gur raretl nebfr naq frggyrq dhvgr dhvpxyl, va n znggre bs n pbhcyr frpbaqf. Vg jnf (naq vf, nf V jevgr guvf) fgvyy cerfrag naq fnyvrag, ohg irel znantrnoyr. Nf fbba nf vg frggyrq, zl zbgvbaf jrag onpx gb orvat pbasvqrag, snfg, naq cerpvfr. Nsgre whfg n frpbaq, V (jvgubhg pbafpvbhfyl pubbfvat gb) fgbccrq gur ercrgvgvir unaq zbgvbaf naq ghearq gurz vagb n fgergpu, svefg sbe zl unaqf naq nezf, naq gura zl jubyr obql. Zl cbfgher jrag sebz fybhpurq gb fgenvtug-onpxrq (ohg ernfbanoyl erynkrq) naq V fcernq zl yrtf gb n zber pbzsbegnoyr cbfvgvba. V abgvprq gung zl cnagf jrer hapbzsbegnoyl gvtug naq erfgevpgvat, naq nyfb abgvprq gur cyrnfher bs tvivat zl obql n fngvfslvat fgergpu naq ernqwhfgzrag.
Guvf fgngr bs tbbq cbfgher naq obqvyl njnerarff vf snzvyvne gb fbzr qrterr, nf V bppnfvbanyyl trg vagb vg nsgre ubhe-ybat zrqvgngvba fvgf. Vg’f pbaarpgrq gb trareny tebhaqrqarff naq cerfrapr va fbpvny naq zragny ernyzf nf jryy, ohg vg’f n fgngr V unira’g orra noyr gb gevttre irel eryvnoyl.
V tbg hc gb tb gb nabgure ebbz, naq sbhaq zlfrys zbivat zber dhvpxyl naq pbasvqragyl guna V’z hfrq gb. Gurer’f n fjvatvat qbbe orgjrra gjb ebbzf, naq V fbeg bs yrnarq vagb vg jvgubhg oernxvat fgevqr. Zl zbgvbaf erzvaqrq zr n ovg bs ubj V’ir frra nguyrgrf va pnfhny fvghngvbaf zbir, jvgu n fbeg bs pbasvqrapr naq frafr gung gurve obql vf na rssrpgvir gbby. Vg nyfb orpnzr dhvgr boivbhf naq fnyvrag gung V’z uhatel, fvapr V unira’g rngra oernxsnfg.
V’ir xrcg gur ybphf bs npgvba ng gur onfr bs zl fcvar juvyr jevgvat guvf zrffntr. Vg frrzf gb pheeragyl erdhver n fznyy nzbhag bs onpxtebhaq nggragvba gb xrrc vg gurer (fvzvyne gb, yvxr, crepuvat ba n oenapu juvyr ernqvat n obbx, be fbzrguvat yvxr gung), ohg qbrfa’g frrz gb abgnoyl vagresrer jvgu guvaxvat be jevgvat. V srry trarenyyl sbphfrq naq ratntrq, gubhtu vg’f uneq gb gryy jurgure gung’f na rssrpg be whfg n znggre bs orvat vagrerfgrq va guvf rkcrevzrag.
Awesome! This would carry more weight if I had described in advance what some of the possible outcomes are, but this is consistent with the results I’ve seen and what few models I have. I’d be excited to continue working with you on this at the mentor workshop, and you can also message me on Facebook or wherever.
Thank you very much for the detailed reply!
I’m quite familiar with Mary’s Room, yes, so this was indeed a helpful analogy.
Video!
(Also, convincing me aside, do you mind saying what these things are?)
I don’t think I have one of these things… (I don’t visualize any blue balls of energy, at any rate…) I suppose this is one of those “fundamental experiences that some people are missing”, etc.
Anyway, I do understand what you mean, now, and if you manage to get the phenomenon into words I will certainly read it!
I thought about it but I don’t expect video to be very convincing; if I’m by myself the main differences will be changes in my body language, which I could be faking. Most of the most interesting things I can do when I’m in my body involve interacting with other people, and again on video these sorts of things could be easily faked. Try looking up videos of people being hypnotized; they’re not very convincing. It’s much more convincing to actually be hypnotized yourself.
I’ll stick to one example: there’s a thing I’m learning how to do which I’ll call “talking from my guts to your guts.” I’m not very good at it yet and I don’t have a mechanistic explanation of how it works, but what it feels like I’m doing is an interpersonal version of Focusing. It’s something like, I am trying to pick up a felt sense of what a person in front of me is feeling (e.g. from their body language, but processed mostly unconsciously), mixing that with how I’m feeling, then labeling the resulting mixed felt sense. That’s not quite right, though. (Words, man.)
I’ve done this a few times and had it done to me a few times, and when done right I think it’s a powerful tool for personal growth, although those feel like lackluster words for it.
Edit: Oops, forgot to respond to this part:
I don’t mean to imply that this is something you were already doing and should be noticing that you’re doing; the exercise is to start doing it. That is, start trying to conjure up the sense of a locus of control, in any way you can. I don’t have a visualization that reliably works for everyone, and it’s not really a visualization anyway: if visualization is something you do in your visual imagination, then the thing that’s relevant here is more like doing something in your proprioceptive imagination…