In A Study of History, Arnold Toynbee the Younger says that every big religion or ideology starts as esoteric mysticism with profound, transformative insight that’s understood only by a handful, which gives its followers immense spiritual power. The ones that get huge do it by dumbing down the core insight into something accessible to the masses, who lack the early adopters’ rare intellect and intense devotion, so the mass version also lacks the initial core of genuine insight.
Agreed that turning the phenomenological-ethnomethodological lens towards how the process of discovery *actually* works is a high-value and neglected area.
HOWEVER: I do think that the training in phenomenology which the (sane, grounded) contemplative paths provide is in fact a prerequisite, or at least a great aid (like a microscope in viewing the very small), to this inquiry. It is the grinding and polishing of said lens. There is historical precedent for this — Abhinavagupta is the most famous mystic-philosopher in 'my' tradition, but there are entire academic fields who know him just for his paradigm-defining work in aesthetic theory (it's actually a p good theory, IMO: practically useful, phenomenologically grounded, and intellectually and explanatorily rich.)
Similarly, I think that a decent amount of phenomenological training is something that most people into the sciences may benefit immensely from. There are what are called the 'householder' traditions, which are explicitly meant for those who aren't monks/renunciates, and which have the effect of increasing personal effectiveness, sanity, and agency. Since the transmission to the current culture is mostly through Buddhism, many contemplative traditions have a renunciate/monastic/world-denying flavour that I think you're lamenting — but the householder ones may be more up your alley.
ALSO: there may be a selection/salience effect here? As in, those who are experimenting with Jhanas, etc are far more likely to stand out to you (and all of us on Twitter, I guess) than the people in the sciences who are still quietly rolling on the floor when the math calls for it?
ASIDE: I also think that Ramanujan, though a one-off, was a pointer and a hint; a hint that none seem to have taken, and which wouldn't be that hard to take if you wanted to. (I mean, seriously, how hard is it to put together a mathematical-meditative-sacred-devotional retreat?)
Idk what is so important about having a mystical attitude. Seems to me like not allowing the truth to be its mundane self, if that’s how it turns out. Also think the truth is what matters, not how spiritual you find it. Often a team of lab coats and engineers chipping away at a problem gets a better answer than lone geniuses longing to know. Might be more fulfilling to be the genius, but then it seems like the point isn’t knowing the truth.
If it’s that you think science is worthy of feeling mystical over, then sure. But, despite having a lot of this disposition myself, I can’t recommend it prospectively for learning the actual truth. Imo it’s a huge liability and bias. Asking the unknown truth the fulfill your spiritual needs seems like asking to misinterpret it.
Obviously the goal has to be finding the actual truth, rather than chasing the ecstatic states and so on. And you need the careful textbooks/Sons of Martha approach, or the whole edifice turns to dust in about six seconds.
But it does seem relevant here that your job, and the whole intellectual tradition you work in, springs entirely out of the work of a man who has written no less than *three* separate fictional settings with priests of Truth as a robed and hooded order of mystics who bear the burden of occult wisdom. (The Beisutsukai in the Sequences, the Confessors in Three Worlds Collide, and Harry's science conspiracy in Methods of Rationality.)
The cynical read on Eliezer’s works is that he’s charismatically tapping into a grandiose self-identification of his followers with mystics and lone/elite geniuses. Tbc, I think Eliezer does have a genuinely inspiring vision and clear worldview, but I think the mystical bit has come with a ton of undesirable baggage and held back AI Safety in many ways by making it an elite and mystical ingroup. I see my work in many ways as undoing this gatekeeping and demystifying the (really quite simple) message that “building powerful technology we can’t control could lead the technology to cause us grave harm”. OG AI Safety is terrified of losing some je ne se quois by stating this message plainly, like you describe in Toynbee’s model with popularizers not grokking the insights deeply, but this message doesn’t belong to Eliezer’s tradition and it is discoverable in many ways, as you would expect of something true that exists external to you and your community.
Indeed, “building powerful technology we can’t control could lead the technology to cause us grave harm” has been very widely accepted since 1918, and applying it to the robots has been floated at least as far back as R.U.R. in 1920. Yudkowsky’s contribution was, roughly, fusing this longstanding idea with Extropian “Shock Level 4” ideas about the nature of intelligence, which is exactly the sort of thing I’d expect to get filed off during popularization. (And originally his version of General Semantics mystical introspection was also very important, although that’s been quietly jettisoned by now.)
I find your spiritual distinction between a scientist and an engineer interesting. Although I have to say I felt the exact opposite. Imo, a scientist is defined by their humility - one that enables them to take the world for it is. On the other there is the craftsmen - one is defined by the ambition to shape the world in their own image as they partake in the very act of creation. An engineer is thus someone in between - having a foot in both worlds.
Agreed that turning the phenomenological-ethnomethodological lens towards how the process of discovery *actually* works is a high-value and neglected area.
HOWEVER: I do think that the training in phenomenology which the (sane, grounded) contemplative paths provide is in fact a prerequisite, or at least a great aid (like a microscope in viewing the very small), to this inquiry. It is the grinding and polishing of said lens. There is historical precedent for this — Abhinavagupta is the most famous mystic-philosopher in 'my' tradition, but there are entire academic fields who know him just for his paradigm-defining work in aesthetic theory (it's actually a p good theory, IMO: practically useful, phenomenologically grounded, and intellectually and explanatorily rich.)
Similarly, I think that a decent amount of phenomenological training is something that most people into the sciences may benefit immensely from. There are what are called the 'householder' traditions, which are explicitly meant for those who aren't monks/renunciates, and which have the effect of increasing personal effectiveness, sanity, and agency. Since the transmission to the current culture is mostly through Buddhism, many contemplative traditions have a renunciate/monastic/world-denying flavour that I think you're lamenting — but the householder ones may be more up your alley.
ALSO: there may be a selection/salience effect here? As in, those who are experimenting with Jhanas, etc are far more likely to stand out to you (and all of us on Twitter, I guess) than the people in the sciences who are still quietly rolling on the floor when the math calls for it?
ASIDE: I also think that Ramanujan, though a one-off, was a pointer and a hint; a hint that none seem to have taken, and which wouldn't be that hard to take if you wanted to. (I mean, seriously, how hard is it to put together a mathematical-meditative-sacred-devotional retreat?)
Grr, typed out a comment and lost it. Try again:
Idk what is so important about having a mystical attitude. Seems to me like not allowing the truth to be its mundane self, if that’s how it turns out. Also think the truth is what matters, not how spiritual you find it. Often a team of lab coats and engineers chipping away at a problem gets a better answer than lone geniuses longing to know. Might be more fulfilling to be the genius, but then it seems like the point isn’t knowing the truth.
If it’s that you think science is worthy of feeling mystical over, then sure. But, despite having a lot of this disposition myself, I can’t recommend it prospectively for learning the actual truth. Imo it’s a huge liability and bias. Asking the unknown truth the fulfill your spiritual needs seems like asking to misinterpret it.
Obviously the goal has to be finding the actual truth, rather than chasing the ecstatic states and so on. And you need the careful textbooks/Sons of Martha approach, or the whole edifice turns to dust in about six seconds.
But it does seem relevant here that your job, and the whole intellectual tradition you work in, springs entirely out of the work of a man who has written no less than *three* separate fictional settings with priests of Truth as a robed and hooded order of mystics who bear the burden of occult wisdom. (The Beisutsukai in the Sequences, the Confessors in Three Worlds Collide, and Harry's science conspiracy in Methods of Rationality.)
The cynical read on Eliezer’s works is that he’s charismatically tapping into a grandiose self-identification of his followers with mystics and lone/elite geniuses. Tbc, I think Eliezer does have a genuinely inspiring vision and clear worldview, but I think the mystical bit has come with a ton of undesirable baggage and held back AI Safety in many ways by making it an elite and mystical ingroup. I see my work in many ways as undoing this gatekeeping and demystifying the (really quite simple) message that “building powerful technology we can’t control could lead the technology to cause us grave harm”. OG AI Safety is terrified of losing some je ne se quois by stating this message plainly, like you describe in Toynbee’s model with popularizers not grokking the insights deeply, but this message doesn’t belong to Eliezer’s tradition and it is discoverable in many ways, as you would expect of something true that exists external to you and your community.
Indeed, “building powerful technology we can’t control could lead the technology to cause us grave harm” has been very widely accepted since 1918, and applying it to the robots has been floated at least as far back as R.U.R. in 1920. Yudkowsky’s contribution was, roughly, fusing this longstanding idea with Extropian “Shock Level 4” ideas about the nature of intelligence, which is exactly the sort of thing I’d expect to get filed off during popularization. (And originally his version of General Semantics mystical introspection was also very important, although that’s been quietly jettisoned by now.)
I find your spiritual distinction between a scientist and an engineer interesting. Although I have to say I felt the exact opposite. Imo, a scientist is defined by their humility - one that enables them to take the world for it is. On the other there is the craftsmen - one is defined by the ambition to shape the world in their own image as they partake in the very act of creation. An engineer is thus someone in between - having a foot in both worlds.
> Imo, a scientist is defined by their humility - one that enables them to take the world for it is.
Have you read biographies of any actual breakthrough scientists? Humility is not the word I'd use to describe them.