NOTE: I spent 6 and a half hours writing and editing this post. My brain needs a cold shower. If this is nonsense, then I must say, it is some of the finest nonsense I've ever written.
monotonic said:
The problem is if the noise begins to encroach on clear thinking.
OK, but in that situation, the dominant mode at the time is a non-linear 'scan' which has an inhibitory effect on any coherent, internal narrative, and is not very complementary with an attempt at simultaneous linear, logical thinking processes. But I believe you know that from experience and I am assuming what you mean by 'clear thinking'.
This must be what I mean. Is this scanning you speak of supposed to be a voluntary action? Because I can't stop it without great effort. If I simply clear my mind then my mind is simply clear, but I can't think any better. In fact I can clear my mind rather easily. Putting things back in is the hard part. Even things I'm interested in are subject to this. There are things I can do easily, but this is the result of much focus on my part. I do those specific tasks often and they have their own "grooves" in my memory which they can easily fill. But anything else encounters resistance.
If I was a clear thinker, I would be a total wiz at math. I know I would, because on certain days when my mind was clear, math was easy. But math only interests me when done mentally, and in order to perform a task in my head I must clear the memories of the previous task - not much working memory - trying to do the next step without forgetting the previous answer is like leaving a feather in the air to quickly do something and then coming back in time to reach for the feather and hoping it's in the same place. In fact this is a very apt comparison. You have to let go of the feather in such a way you don't impart motion to it, so it stays in the same place. Just like how if you want to spin a screwdriver in it's head you have to let go of it in such a way it remains in balance, held by its own gyroscopic motion. It is the same way with memories to me. If I want it to be there when I come back, I must have finesse.
In any case the only solution seems to be to loosen up working memory - and it seems it is either frozen (needing de-icing) or taken up by other things.
Perhaps it's starting to feel more like 'mechanically-processed work' and the curve of your interest level is declining? That might explain why you're now asking about other points of view and possible applications to the Work? (I don't know, I'm just asking)
That is the feeling one gets when deep down, they know that what they are doing is meaningless. What I've discovered is that this feeling of meaning, some might call it intuition, is often misleading. In fact, my memory affects this issue. For instance, I'll forget why I'm doing something, and it will begin to seem meaningless. Then I will think through to the original thought to realize no, I have only forgotten. This specific thing though I think happens to all people. Someone decides to meditate every day. Gives up in a few weeks, how cliche. But when the person started, they fully were convinced that they could and would meditate every day for the rest of their lives. Why does the person, who believed in every way at one time that they would do something, lose their way? It's because he doesn't remember even his own purpose. But if he sat down and thought real hard, he would get to the bottom to realize either he wasn't sane at the time of the decision, or he wasn't sane at the time of losing his way. And at this point he can either realize the reality of the situation - that his actions are only as cohesive as his memory - or he can choose that it does not matter for him and fall back to sleep. Point is, for those in the know, if it matters then they make sure to remember it and if that doesn't work, they find out why their memory sucks. I'm in the latter stage. I've forgotten my purpose so many times the pattern has become quite clear. One is not born knowing that their feelings or thoughts are important - one must decide they are, and then decide to preserve them. The entire process is voluntary. So to this person, using level of interest to determine a task's priority is missing the point.
From this point of view, the best end result is to think in a single, coherent, line of thought, and follow that line of thought in all that he does. When one breaks this thought then, one can forget and then they might not remember the original thought. The difference is that between asleep and being awake. The person who is asleep continually forgets. The one who is awake continually remembers. Whether to wake or not is a choice but not one that can be made while sleeping. External events may bump a person awake, and they will either make use of this happy accident and remain awake or they will grumble nonsense and fall asleep.
PS. The best thoughts are ones that only create more questions like "what is the meaning of life" or those things most people today don't want to know about. The ultimate question is something which would occupy a person for all of eternity.
Also, I had a strange ear-ringing moment during writing the above paragraph. I read that ear-ringing occurs when the brain is trying to repair itself but can't. This time was unique because it was not a pure tone, but it was made of a lot of different tones.
Maybe I should think more about this, the above unwitting deluge of text may have answered my question (that is evidently the regurgitation of my most coherent understanding of what Gurdjieff was saying). But if so, then it would seem that my problem isn't related to the N-back thing. What am I fighting? Mental fog? Brain noise? Are they the same?
My first thought was that clearer thinking with less noise would allow me to stay awake, because mental distractions easily make me forget. But as I understand creativity is one of those things which allows a person to awake in the first place. This is because creativity can bring up arbitrary memories without mercy for a person's own desire to forget. And by chance, one might remember the right thing, and awaken. Creativity has no mercy for things that benefit from ignorance.
But by this logic, what is the worth of clear thinking? Clear thinking cannot lead to creativity, the liberating force, can it? My best guess is that clear thinking is what allows one to stay awake. And the puzzle pieces seem to fit! I first described "logistical thinking" as how you put together things you already know. I described "remembering" as the thing which keeps a person awake. You can only "remember" what you already know! And "clear thinking", in retrospect, is the consummation of the two. "Clear thinking" is the voluntary effort of logistical remembering which occurs after one decides that their thoughts and feelings are important - and decides to preserve them. Clear thinking is Sanity.
What still isn't clear to me is whether this new definition of "clear thinking" is what I am or am trying to achieve through N-back. My initial impression was that my problem was a brain chemical imbalance or some missuse of my brain. This makes sense if I make the observation that the Clear Thinking idea works regardless of how well the memory itself works, provided there actually is a memory. So really this appears to be an aspect of consciousness, and the memory is the connection with the biology. The memory is vitally important to consciousness but the quality of memory is allowed to vary as long as it is sufficient to support the other things that are necessary.
So so I've been around the block a few times, but I've come to the conclusion:
My memory sucks.
What I find fascinating is that at first to me, your question seemed to miss the mark. But even so, you stroked the coffers just right, and watered the seed, whose roots broke the dam.
What remains is that I experienced a boost in memory (working memory at least) after doing N-back. This may or may not have come at the expense of creativity. I do not know because I haven't actually played the game in a long time, and didn't play it enough to make sound observations. I think it is safe to say that N-back may affect the organism's ability to support consciousness, but in which way is unsure. Since quality of memory doesn't seem to be able to affect potential of or for consciousness, because clear thinking occurs as a choice, the other route I see it affecting the potential for consciousness is in N-back's affect on creativity. I do not know enough to say whether N-back suppresses creativity, or simply raises the attention span. A method should be devised to test which is true.
I know this is what you have been saying all along, but I have an interesting way of understanding it now.
Agreed, but it's just the brain in scan mode, looking for all possible meaningful associations and relationships. I do understand that much of this associative activity may be, or seem to be, irrelevant to a specific task at hand though. That's why some folks go for the chemical helpers.
Would I be right in saying that the noise floor is what stimulates a burbling stream of information, and that it is the analytical mind's job to grab at the pieces that come together?
Of course, but aren't you looking for a way to make that state of mind stay with you longer? Have you thought about Mindfulness (meditation)? I use a modified form of it with my Work and it helps me.
I remember trying something like that but as I recall there wasn't much to be mindful about. It is easily possible I didn't understand at the time. N-back could be said to be a mindfulness game. This is because you must be constantly mindful of the order or events in order to see the pattern. You must maintain a clear line of unbroken thought, to keep those memories intact, and to update and purge. What I said about spinning a screwdriver or letting go of a feather applies here - it requires focus and finesse. Finesse to stay in control of your mind and body, focus to do this while watching the screen for input. You must be mindful in order to reach a higher score.
Can you provide an example of going "logistically through the thinking" the way you do it? Isn't the goal to learn something you didn't know before and to integrate it with your total knowledge structure?
You are right, logic only means everything adds up and checks out okay, and still checks out a week afterwards or a year. Creativity and free association can give you a list of things to add up and check. So in fact logic is another way an organism my differ in its ability to support consciousness. If it cannot or does not produce conclusions which add up and don't break down, a succession of thought that adds up to more than the sum of its parts, it cannot support consciousness.
Maybe because the questions are kind of 'absolutist'. Maybe the only way to answer them is to place the questions into a context that consists of a specific learning objective?
I think I could answer them now.
"Perhaps both methods have their merits? Which process is more thorough?" - This is redundant if talking about creative vs. logistical thinking, because they are inexorably married and necessary for producing a meaningful conclusion. If talking about after playing N-back vs, before playing N-back, then it remains open.
"Does thoroughness simply depend on the time spent thinking as long as creative and logistical processes are in harmony or at least both are used?" - If one has a specific objective in mind, he will only be as thorough as necessary for the objective. If one's objective is simply to discover about something, time affects thoroughness.
"What would constitute "harmonious" logistical and creative thought?" - The combination thereof which is not broken by sleep or wishful thinking.
"Can an "in-between" state of mind be appropriate for all situations, or is it better to dynamically adjust?" If you call creative and logistical states of mind, creative becomes thought without a clear end result, and logistical becomes thought with a deliberate and intended end result. Each is obviously appropriate for different situations. Apples and oranges.
Kinda hard to say. I reckon you need to find out if the phrase "learn about the game" indicates you've lost the point? Smiley
Didn't you start out looking at it as a means to an end (attentional control)?. Now it appears it's an end in itself (training the brain for what?). But I could be misunderstanding.
What needs to be learned is whether creative ability is lost in order to gain attention span. Plus any other unexpected caveats. Then we will know whether it has a place in the Work.
Note: I'm no authority on anything, so consider my posts for what they may be worth. I'm still learning too. Smiley
What this says to me is that you're more readily able to convey understanding than you are facts or figures. To each his own.
