So good, I read it twice. Quite beyond me in parts, but riveting nonetheless. Such a fascinating cross-disciplinary synthesis. I found myself waiting to be guided down the garden path of reductionist denial of the transcendental, but the final line was perfectly delivered, and gratefully received: "the signal is real..." I'm planning a piece on prayer through the lens of narrative transgression, and your observation of the event horizon-to-singularity gradient has given me a whole new conceptualisation to mentally masticate.
Also, the dual processes, "constrain the search space, reorient toward the signal", remind me of the creative process: Divergent Thinking as Loyola's "Desolation" (entropy detection/alignment error = scope of problem to be solved; wider scope = increased divergent thinking required); Convergent Thinking as "Consolation" (clarity, movement towards alignment/syntropy). Those of us who believe there is meaning in suffering could view it as a creative process (aiming to know our Creator); the (painfully/ecstatically oscillating) embodiment of prayer.
My biggest critique on this is that you underplay the implications of objection 2. What you call false objective functions is to narrow---all targets will be shaped by the cultural/linguistic/conceptual background of each practitioner. A TM Californian will be significantly different than a Franciscan Nun.
That some of the physiological effects are similar are not proof that these practices aim at the same thing. Do we know if the false objective functions create the same physiology or not? I bet they do!
I'm also unclear why this 4 step pattern is unique to prayer. It seems like almost any intentional activity has this. I imagine this has to do with some sort of target (God/Infinite/Enlightenment?), but that thing isn't clear to me.
The pysch effects are empirically significant. These practice all aim 'up' to bigger informational objects. What those objects are and the motivations is not the point I'm making.
Re step 4 - It does - an earlier draft had a section on secular 'prayer-like' practice / attention practices but left it on the cutting room floor for brevity!
So good, I read it twice. Quite beyond me in parts, but riveting nonetheless. Such a fascinating cross-disciplinary synthesis. I found myself waiting to be guided down the garden path of reductionist denial of the transcendental, but the final line was perfectly delivered, and gratefully received: "the signal is real..." I'm planning a piece on prayer through the lens of narrative transgression, and your observation of the event horizon-to-singularity gradient has given me a whole new conceptualisation to mentally masticate.
Also, the dual processes, "constrain the search space, reorient toward the signal", remind me of the creative process: Divergent Thinking as Loyola's "Desolation" (entropy detection/alignment error = scope of problem to be solved; wider scope = increased divergent thinking required); Convergent Thinking as "Consolation" (clarity, movement towards alignment/syntropy). Those of us who believe there is meaning in suffering could view it as a creative process (aiming to know our Creator); the (painfully/ecstatically oscillating) embodiment of prayer.
My biggest critique on this is that you underplay the implications of objection 2. What you call false objective functions is to narrow---all targets will be shaped by the cultural/linguistic/conceptual background of each practitioner. A TM Californian will be significantly different than a Franciscan Nun.
That some of the physiological effects are similar are not proof that these practices aim at the same thing. Do we know if the false objective functions create the same physiology or not? I bet they do!
I'm also unclear why this 4 step pattern is unique to prayer. It seems like almost any intentional activity has this. I imagine this has to do with some sort of target (God/Infinite/Enlightenment?), but that thing isn't clear to me.
The pysch effects are empirically significant. These practice all aim 'up' to bigger informational objects. What those objects are and the motivations is not the point I'm making.
Re step 4 - It does - an earlier draft had a section on secular 'prayer-like' practice / attention practices but left it on the cutting room floor for brevity!