Live data from Hacker News

Almost anything you give sustained attention to will begin to loop on itself

henrikkarlsson.xyz

221–230 of 238 posts

Re: Almost anything you give sustained attention to will begin to loop on itself

#221
This blog post, and the one it references, on the jhanas[1], belong to this weird genre which is basically in the vein of Buddhist writing, but without more than a passing reference to Buddhism, its scholarly tradition, its terminology, or its taxonomy. Here's Nadia:

> The word jhana comes from Buddhist scriptures, where they were first described. However, as many meditators like to point out, jhanas predate Buddhism. ... I am not a Buddhist, nor would I describe myself as a meditator.

She seems to be taking pains to extract Buddhist techniques from Buddhism, and discuss them independently. Even if these practices predate Buddhism, Buddhism is the system of thought that contextualizes them, and has been developed and enriched over thousands of years, to provide a systematic framework for understanding them. This is especially true of Zen Buddhism—the word "Zen" is even derived from "jhana."

It'd be like if you tried to describe the properties of sulfur dioxide or something, without acknowledging that an entire academic discipline—chemistry—has been doing that for centuries. You don't have to "be a Buddhist" to study Buddhism, any more than you have to be a chemist to study chemistry.

[1]: https://nadia.xyz/jhanas

Re: Almost anything you give sustained attention to will begin to loop on itself

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do I get diagnosed with ADHD? My sister just recently got diagnosed in her 40s (in another country though) and I'm like, well maybe I have adhd too, but I don't know who to ask, and the online quizzes all seem set up to sell you stuff.

I took an online quiz, then told my doctor, then my doctor administered an online quiz to me and subscribed me Adderall. It has taken me a year and a half to make sense of what Adderall means to me but it’s quite helpful. I’m 40. I had never had stimulants like that before! Be careful with the euphoria. For a while my dose was too high and it felt great at first but I crashed on the weekends. Now I keep my dose lower…

> Be careful with the euphoria. For a while my dose was too high

This is a scarily common problem. For some reason, a lot of primary care doctors are jumping straight to very high doses of Adderall.

Most patients love the feeling at first. They think they're going to conquer the world and that they've become an entirely new person.

The euphoria never lasts, though. When tolerance erases the euphoria they start complaining that their medication "isn't working any more".

The good practitioners will actually titrate upward: Start with a low dose, then incrementally increase it on future visits.

Re: Almost anything you give sustained attention to will begin to loop on itself

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any increase towards baseline is beneficial throughout the entire affected graph of neural structures, as well as proximate ones. This cannot possibly be assumed when talking about physiology already known to be atypical. And specifically, assuming that reducing blood flow one place, and increasing it in another place, post-development, will predictably be a benefit is ... I have no words. Your whole comment is ful…

> assuming that reducing blood flow one place, and increasing it in another place should have made it clear that I did not mean decreasing in one place while increasing in another but increasing throughout all proximate areas. > Your whole comment is full of this type of worse than weak reasoning. Agreed, should have tagged it #sciencephilosophy or something ... I was thinking out loud. But there is merit. I am not u…

> If reduced bloodflow is known to be the cause

But it isn't. Correlation isn't causation. There are so many possible relationships between somewhat correlated things like this.

The difference in blood flow could reflect less need due to upstream ADHD impact bottlenecking something else. Adding more oxygen there would be no different than the benefits of more oxygen anywhere.

That is just one of dozens of alternatives to your - straight from circumstance to explanation - leap of imagination.

There is a reason why we value science, despite it being an unnatural and difficult way to think for many. And often frustratingly slow. (Given science is a new idea, we have no specific evolutionary support for it.)

In contrast, "Plausible" reasoning is trivially easy, but is a disaster in terms of reliability. (Not being pejorative, but the other word for argument by seeming plausibility is "bullshit". We all have done it. For some people it's habitual, even motivated.)

Re: Almost anything you give sustained attention to will begin to loop on itself

#224
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We, as humans, have the ability to collapse (hint hint, quantum physics) from the ethereal to the physical world the thoughts we have. Do thoughts exist in an ethereal world, or are they just arrangements of chemicals and charges in the brain? I've never seen "ether," and nobody's ever found a structure in the human body that interfaces with it. There are no structures causally implicated in quantum wave function c…

Appreciate your perspective friend. Correct me if I'm wrong or mischaracterizing, but it feels like you're looking for something concrete or absolute in what I'm saying. In my experience the only thing that feels "absolute" is that nothing is absolute. The words I'm using are the best I currently have to describe ideas that have always existed. It's not like a new messiah or philosopher came about with this novelty.…

> ideas that have always existed. It's not like a new messiah or philosopher came about with this novelty

Self-help books about manifestation tend to nebulously describe the "law of attraction" as a principle that has always existed and which great people throughout history have understood, but the movement associated with it is a modern phenomenon. The Wikipedia page "Law of attraction (New Thought)" [1] is a good starting point, if you're curious.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_attraction_(New_Thought...

> And if they do, it's because they have a programmed directive to do so.

Are we not programmed? Our brains were developed through evolution, not engineering, but we still eat when we are hungry. That's a directive that was embedded in us during the process of our development. Why should creativity have a supernatural component when the source of our behaviour, evolution, is anything but?

> The human is the one with an internal universe that span the colorful spectrum of experiences that is referred to as "qualia".

We certainly feel as if they are colourful, but we would, wouldn't we? They have to be, to fulfil their evolutionary purposes. Fear compels us to run and hide. If it didn't feel overwhelming and powerful, it wouldn't work. And if it didn't feel unique, then it would be redundant. Imagine if lust felt like fear: we would either flee reproduction or embrace danger.

Qualia are the abstractions of our senses. They feel present and vivid because they are the fabric of experience, but that doesn't imply anything beyond the physical. If we created an intelligent robot and programmed it to be compelled to flee when it detected danger, how do you think it would describe the experience of detecting danger and feeling its mind transform into a mode that compelled it to flee, that made staying still seem unbearable? Powerful, ineffable, invigorating, unpleasant? It would probably sound something like a person describing fear.

> Many musicians talk of how sometimes a song just appears to them.

Sure, but that's not magic. It's just an idea moving from the unconscious parts of the brain to the conscious. Why shouldn't the "deeper mechanism" simply be the parts of our minds that we are not consciously aware of?

Re: Almost anything you give sustained attention to will begin to loop on itself

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah honestly I have good self control for a lot of drugs, but this one was pretty tricky. It took me a while to realize what was happening. I had been on Adderall for almost a year when I started a new job at a fast paced startup, and only then did my usage patterns become an issue. My golden rule now is I only ever take the same dosage at the same times of day (morning and afternoon). For a while I took extra on bu…

That's awesome! Thank you for the tips!

Makes me happy to help. Good luck.

Re: Almost anything you give sustained attention to will begin to loop on itself

#226
The part about good art not being about communication is just plain wrong. Good artists (and yes you can argue that art is subjective) spend thousands of hours studying the fundamentals—perspective,light,colour,value,proportion,anatomy, not to mention the dexterity to making a line—so that they can communicate to the viewer in the best way that suits the piece of art.

Sustaining the attention on an art piece unlocks things that you missed the first time due to having an untrained eye, much like reading a good book.

Re: Almost anything you give sustained attention to will begin to loop on itself

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> assuming that reducing blood flow one place, and increasing it in another place should have made it clear that I did not mean decreasing in one place while increasing in another but increasing throughout all proximate areas. > Your whole comment is full of this type of worse than weak reasoning. Agreed, should have tagged it #sciencephilosophy or something ... I was thinking out loud. But there is merit. I am not u…

> If reduced bloodflow is known to be the cause But it isn't. Correlation isn't causation. There are so many possible relationships between somewhat correlated things like this. The difference in blood flow could reflect less need due to upstream ADHD impact bottlenecking something else. Adding more oxygen there would be no different than the benefits of more oxygen anywhere. That is just one of dozens of alternative…

> But it isn't. Correlation isn't causation.

I don't understand. If it IS the cause, hypothetically speaking (or in one of the rare cases when it is confirmed to be the cause), then it's not correlated; even though in--let's say, all--other cases, it is just a correlation.

> Adding more oxygen there would be no different than the benefits of more oxygen anywhere.

More blood flow and oxygen in my leg does add to my overall performance, if my leg had reduced blood flow and oxygen supply before the increase but if my biceps is suffering from low blood flow and low oxygen, increasing both right in biceps increases it's functionality and performance to a much larger degree.

> could reflect less need due to upstream ADHD impact bottlenecking something else

That is rerouting and reinforcement played out over time. You probably heard how some left-handed kids, to this day, are forced to--or at least rewarded for doing it--learn to write with their right hands. What happens in the brain, given that their genetic baseline dexterity is much better in their right hand and their brain thus prefers using it for writing and other fine work? [I should absolutely cite research here asap. I'm still treating these conversations like a noob, even though I could support arguments using good old Baconic ways. Forgive me.]

> That is just one of dozens of alternatives to your - straight from circumstance to explanation - leap of imagination.

Most certainly. I always loved it when Dr. House had to test one theory after the other. He and his team didn't fall back on imagination of course but often enough, the connections between symptoms, information and established causes and correlation required logical abduction.

> Not being pejorative, but the other word for argument by seeming plausibility is "bullshit".

I'm not sensitive and I like being wrong more than I like being right.

"We" need more fMRIs, though.

On a side note: Your comments did stimulate a desire to properly formulate a hypothesis based on tangential evidence from relevant (fMRI) studies. But there is no one to hold me accountable and once I'm done with PreCalc, I will move on to Biology and Chemistry basics, because I hope that the increased blood flow I achieved in the area around my parietal and temporal lobe will finally let me haul my broke ass back to university ... after, well ... too many years. (I could do the whole "fake it till you make it" being a grown up thing and JUST GET A JOB - but I don't like fake shit and once you get something to do what you want it to do, all the effort was worth it and there is ZERO reason to "adapt")

Re: Almost anything you give sustained attention to will begin to loop on itself

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If reduced bloodflow is known to be the cause But it isn't. Correlation isn't causation. There are so many possible relationships between somewhat correlated things like this. The difference in blood flow could reflect less need due to upstream ADHD impact bottlenecking something else. Adding more oxygen there would be no different than the benefits of more oxygen anywhere. That is just one of dozens of alternative…

> But it isn't. Correlation isn't causation. I don't understand. If it IS the cause, hypothetically speaking (or in one of the rare cases when it is confirmed to be the cause), then it's not correlated; even though in--let's say, all--other cases, it is just a correlation. > Adding more oxygen there would be no different than the benefits of more oxygen anywhere. More blood flow and oxygen in my leg does add to my ov…

> I don't understand. If it IS the cause, hypothetically speaking […]

That is circular reasoning, the way you are using it. Logically “if” makes sense. But when you go from “if” to effectively treating something as if "it IS" true or likely to be true, that’s jumping into an almost certain deep deadend pit with both feet, and then not looking up.

If you have a way to test a possibility, then do it. Otherwise, don’t get trapped in it.

Moving forward requires we all put currently untestable ideas on a shelf and continue undelayed. Preserve the potential usefulness of the idea, without turning it into a trap. Let it accumulate with many others. Where it is available to be reactivated, edited, or contribute to better ideas down the road.

The less stuck we get on one idea, the more complementary ideas and triangulating perspectives we accumulate.

So don’t let yourself get entangled in single possibilities.

Hone your thinking for long term effectiveness. Let shiney things go quickly.

(As the wise but brutal poets say when they have written a wonderful passage they treasure, if doesn’t quite fit the current work: “kill your darlings!!”)

The strength to do this avoids self-created brakes, and will compound your progress in life.

—-

I have ADHD. It’s not ever going to be corrected. ADHD permeates the brain.

It could not be removed or negated, without destroying my strengths and who I am.

I will always be vulnerable to inward and downward spirals.

But learning to cope, creating fallback habits and strategies, and developing support, all help tremendously.

I relate to wanting to solve things, and solving myself is always an attractive problem. The number of systems I have optimistically created to “fix” my own unhelpful patterns is endless. Most don’t work, but I don’t stop (or stop enjoying) trying.

But the best way I have found to improve is to work on things that are not about me, and let my efforts to make more progress on something else lead my progress on myself. The signal is much clearer. Internal progress and external productivity are much more likely to be real.

That provides the best and most reliable feedback. Reality outside myself.

That doesn’t mean going into an area related to oneself is wrong. But when the focus is on fixing yourself, instead of making progress for others, "feedback" becomes a source of subjective spirals, inviting mazes of wishful thinking. Quicksand for the ADHD.

Don't focus on fixing yourself, harness your strengths to do something productive, and you will naturally accumulate the personal tools that help you do that and more, along the way.

Your naturally unrelenting curiosity, care, interest and motivation are advantages many normies don't have. You are an idea factory and hopelessly creative. You have more wood behind your arrow. But to learn to shoot far and straight, to achieve something in the real world, you must seek and aim for targets well beyond yourself and your bow and arrow.

That will guide you to unique areas of self-improvement that fit you and your quests alone. And not waste any of your time on the many ways we genuinely appreciate others for being better than us.

Those are just my thoughts in the moment. You know yourself better than anyone else.

Re: Almost anything you give sustained attention to will begin to loop on itself

#230
post #27

This did not go where I thought it was going, and I'm glad. I enjoyed the read. I'm not versed enough in psychiatry to validate the brain-chemistry stuff but my practical experience lines up. Reminds me of the trick of telling yourself "let's give this my full attention for just 5 minutes, and if I still don't want to do it we can move on". I pretty much always end up wanting to keep doing that thing.

I've been learning to draw lately and I was having some serious "getting started" issues every time. For me the trick was to not go "I will now practice drawing" but to go "I will now hold a pencil and browse through my old drawings". It ends me up holding a pencil and looking at a blank page.

I know it ends up with me drawing anyways every time and yet lying to myself that I'm not intending to draw works wonders.

Post reply on HN