What an incredible piece of work, and—may I dare to write ‘real’—thinking. I’ll need more time to (try to) think about some sections from this essay, and will come back to it.
At some point in the essay (particularly the C.S. Lewis part) I was reminded of this section I once read in which Virginia Woolf described shocks of (rare) inescapable realizations.
Would you say these are (also) descriptions of real thinking, when something is being shaken loose and crystallizes in a new, surprising and often shocking form?
Glad you enjoyed it, Brigitte :). I'm not sure exactly what you/Woolf have in mind re: "inescapable realizations," but I think epistemic shifts that present as realizations/epiphanies are often pretty "real" in the sense I have in mind here (though I think there's sometimes a risk of letting the intensity of "realness" push out the need for further critical scrutiny, rigor, etc).
As an often lazy reader on substack, this made me wish it was in a hard copy of a book.
It points at something I've pigeon-holed as scholar of philosophy vs philosophy. It's really useful to see all these other angles getting at why truth is so important and beautiful.
In some ways, it feels like this is the exposition a nerd needs to defend him/herself about why they care so much about the truth! About really thinking!
This is an excellent piece of writing, Joe! This made me pause and think critically about a lot of my "loosely-held" takes on research, work and life. While I've only managed to complete reading about 50% of this essay in about 90 minutes and intend to come back to complete the rest, I am extremely curious about the origins of this essay (what made you write on this topic?). Re: "real-thinking", I also wonder, how does one write a piece that's both detailed and thought-provoking while staying on-topic?; how does this process of writing down long chains of thought work for you?; how do you manage to combine many such "disparate" pieces together, yet managed to weave a comprehensive and intriguing narrative?; do you occasionally go off on tangents, into a rabbit-hole, and lose track of the general topic? I am new to writing and these questions naturally intrigue me.
So much “thinking” online is compression without contact, maps optimizing maps. That’s how reality drift sets in as the model of the world replaces the world. Your tags are a good antidote: slow down, tether words to referents, trade soldier for scout, and reinstall just enough friction to keep cognition anchored to reality.
It was really a very interesting read. I could certainly see/feel that you are trying to find some semblance of ground truth in regards to what is genuine, pragmatic, close to "truth" thinking. And trace a "sort of" multiple lines that creates this "blurry line" each person has about the difference between "fake" and "real" thinking.
I'll say that this falls onto one word "perception" (ha! funny reductionism) even though as you said even my current argument is just a mere lens of the world I'm trying to make sense of.
Especially in the current point of time with the rise of generative models - which are trying to picture a sort of world where if we just collect and analyse enough data offline and online we will get a close to turing complete stochastic transformative model that will closely simulate human brain thinking in it's own computer friendly way - that really puts into picture 2 very visible extremes of "prophecies" (I dare to write), opposite to each other. The "realness" of it all will be as blurry or maybe more blurry for some than others when multiple questions will be partially "answered" and "approved" as close to "truth".
My current views are rather more about the "helplessness" of it and the "absurdity" of the way it all "progressed" up to this point in time, and not trying to give any answers in general on these platforms. Because it's quite "literally" impossible to have a semblance of a "real" discourse with the people that will really benefit from having them. (Ha! Another lens about bubbles)
But I'm embodying something more cynical here. And acknowledges your points and also adds more lenses that pictures a somewhat paradoxical world where "real" and "fake" means either "everything", "nothing", or something of the "in-between" spectrums on these platforms. Where each "bubble" is most likely an echochamber at this point in time. But at the same time these sorts of echochambers existed even before the presence of internet and the newly instated "AI brains".
What process did you use to identify which paintings to include in your section headings? Wondering because I dislike most paintings but I liked most of these.
That was a long one. Maybe quite overwrought for essentially one topic, may I suggest much harsher editing. ☺️
In general, I recall being in this frame of mind earlier. I’ve found it lacking.
The binary of “vs.” is the issue here. There is no such distinction.
I believe all thinking is inherently non-binary and has multiple layers to it depending on which memories are we bringing over.
Additionally, all of it is “fake”. Donald Hoffman is a leading voice in this, allnof his interviews are great.
It’s all biochemical at the very lowest level and we know that. Neurons and cortical columns in the brain work with “packages“ of sorts, neural patterns that may or may not match the models that we already have.
Jeff Hawkins’ “A thousand brain” educated me a lot on this.
We seem to be getting lost in words a lot and thinking that words are at the core of the thoughts, but then verbal thought can be broken down into smaller quanta, and at the very low level, they’re very simple. Signals from neurons in statistical chaos.
The “footstep in the hall” line from Lewis is dead-on—real thinking feels like reality pulling back on the rope, like you can’t hide behind slogans anymore. I’ve been circling that same tension in a different key: how easy it is to drift into safe, abstract language about faith, truth, love, and “the good,” and how uncomfortable it gets when God (and life) makes it concrete—when you have to choose. If you’re into that “no-bullshit” contact with what’s real, you might like this: https://theeternalnowmm.substack.com/p/eternal-love?r=71z4jh
Another metaphor inspired by Joe Carlsmith’s brilliant essay Fake Thinking and Real Thinking comes to mind, thanks to having recently read Francis Heylighen’s Substack.
Carlsmith’s essay makes me think of thinking as a collective project — a kind of hive mind — to which some of us occasionally contribute. In those moments, we become part of the hive mind; the real-thinker hive is one such hive. It embodies a collective intelligence that is stigmergic in the way Francis Heylighen describes in his essay:
When we are part of the real-thinker hive, we leave traces that other truth-seekers can discover and act upon — like ants responding to pheromones left by others.
Other hives exist near the real-thinker hive, in both symbiotic and parasitic relationships. Academia, one of these neighbouring hives, sometimes feeds on the real-thinker hive in parasitic ways, but it also makes many genuine contributions. The two remain distinct.
Sometimes traces of fake thinking appear in the real-thinker hive. These traces are not necessarily harmful; they may even help the hive evolve.
Some ants may believe they belong to a nearby playful-thinking hive, only to feel an uncanny realization that they are, in fact, inside the real-thinking hive. (Is that a real burglar?)
All these hives are close and deeply interconnected, with pathways and tunnels that have existed for millennia — it’s easy to lose track of which hive you’re in.
Fake Thinking and Real Thinking offers the reader a useful map. There’s still no guarantee you won’t get lost, but every little bit helps.
As a notoriously harsh critic, I have to say I appreciated this essay and what it aims to do. I didn't look at who you were until after I read it, and while it did have flavors of the AI-bro milieu, it didn't deter me from reading it.
Different types of thinking are required for each pursuit, and I don't think 'pseudo' thinking is less harsh than fake, depending on who/what it's directed toward. Fake thinking feels like heuristics, but then again, I don't know that a completely false version of thought can occur. It also seems that verbal thinking should be differentiated from written thinking.
I often read pieces aloud on LIVE, and might consider this one. It's long, but there are some gems in here that I will certainly think about again. Thanks.
this is becoming truer and truer now for me -- although apparently less truer and truer for others...
and it's a huge burden when i write anything now -- although a good one -- to fact check what i'm saying and see if anyone said this before and what the full debate is on it etc... and THEN to make simple diagrams because most people won't even read...
literally lifetimes of work i can never complete, and i'm sure you can relate
Also, Gemini says you're wrong about almost everything lol
"In summary, the article is a useful introspective prompt to help you notice a "vibe" of un-tethered thinking. It is not a rigorous model of cognition because it miscategorizes types of thinking, creates false dichotomies, and bundles uncorrelated attributes."
I would pay to see you arguing with your wife! I recorded a video one time of myself doing this on a super controversial topic. Never posted it of course but man.. I was literally driving her insane with trying to use so much logic sometimes. sorry!
What an incredible piece of work, and—may I dare to write ‘real’—thinking. I’ll need more time to (try to) think about some sections from this essay, and will come back to it.
At some point in the essay (particularly the C.S. Lewis part) I was reminded of this section I once read in which Virginia Woolf described shocks of (rare) inescapable realizations.
Would you say these are (also) descriptions of real thinking, when something is being shaken loose and crystallizes in a new, surprising and often shocking form?
Glad you enjoyed it, Brigitte :). I'm not sure exactly what you/Woolf have in mind re: "inescapable realizations," but I think epistemic shifts that present as realizations/epiphanies are often pretty "real" in the sense I have in mind here (though I think there's sometimes a risk of letting the intensity of "realness" push out the need for further critical scrutiny, rigor, etc).
As an often lazy reader on substack, this made me wish it was in a hard copy of a book.
It points at something I've pigeon-holed as scholar of philosophy vs philosophy. It's really useful to see all these other angles getting at why truth is so important and beautiful.
In some ways, it feels like this is the exposition a nerd needs to defend him/herself about why they care so much about the truth! About really thinking!
This is an excellent piece of writing, Joe! This made me pause and think critically about a lot of my "loosely-held" takes on research, work and life. While I've only managed to complete reading about 50% of this essay in about 90 minutes and intend to come back to complete the rest, I am extremely curious about the origins of this essay (what made you write on this topic?). Re: "real-thinking", I also wonder, how does one write a piece that's both detailed and thought-provoking while staying on-topic?; how does this process of writing down long chains of thought work for you?; how do you manage to combine many such "disparate" pieces together, yet managed to weave a comprehensive and intriguing narrative?; do you occasionally go off on tangents, into a rabbit-hole, and lose track of the general topic? I am new to writing and these questions naturally intrigue me.
So much “thinking” online is compression without contact, maps optimizing maps. That’s how reality drift sets in as the model of the world replaces the world. Your tags are a good antidote: slow down, tether words to referents, trade soldier for scout, and reinstall just enough friction to keep cognition anchored to reality.
It was really a very interesting read. I could certainly see/feel that you are trying to find some semblance of ground truth in regards to what is genuine, pragmatic, close to "truth" thinking. And trace a "sort of" multiple lines that creates this "blurry line" each person has about the difference between "fake" and "real" thinking.
I'll say that this falls onto one word "perception" (ha! funny reductionism) even though as you said even my current argument is just a mere lens of the world I'm trying to make sense of.
Especially in the current point of time with the rise of generative models - which are trying to picture a sort of world where if we just collect and analyse enough data offline and online we will get a close to turing complete stochastic transformative model that will closely simulate human brain thinking in it's own computer friendly way - that really puts into picture 2 very visible extremes of "prophecies" (I dare to write), opposite to each other. The "realness" of it all will be as blurry or maybe more blurry for some than others when multiple questions will be partially "answered" and "approved" as close to "truth".
My current views are rather more about the "helplessness" of it and the "absurdity" of the way it all "progressed" up to this point in time, and not trying to give any answers in general on these platforms. Because it's quite "literally" impossible to have a semblance of a "real" discourse with the people that will really benefit from having them. (Ha! Another lens about bubbles)
But I'm embodying something more cynical here. And acknowledges your points and also adds more lenses that pictures a somewhat paradoxical world where "real" and "fake" means either "everything", "nothing", or something of the "in-between" spectrums on these platforms. Where each "bubble" is most likely an echochamber at this point in time. But at the same time these sorts of echochambers existed even before the presence of internet and the newly instated "AI brains".
What process did you use to identify which paintings to include in your section headings? Wondering because I dislike most paintings but I liked most of these.
That was a long one. Maybe quite overwrought for essentially one topic, may I suggest much harsher editing. ☺️
In general, I recall being in this frame of mind earlier. I’ve found it lacking.
The binary of “vs.” is the issue here. There is no such distinction.
I believe all thinking is inherently non-binary and has multiple layers to it depending on which memories are we bringing over.
Additionally, all of it is “fake”. Donald Hoffman is a leading voice in this, allnof his interviews are great.
It’s all biochemical at the very lowest level and we know that. Neurons and cortical columns in the brain work with “packages“ of sorts, neural patterns that may or may not match the models that we already have.
Jeff Hawkins’ “A thousand brain” educated me a lot on this.
We seem to be getting lost in words a lot and thinking that words are at the core of the thoughts, but then verbal thought can be broken down into smaller quanta, and at the very low level, they’re very simple. Signals from neurons in statistical chaos.
And
what do you think of, for example, bahiya sutta, udana 1.10?
I think you can differentiate between real and fake thinking pretty well with these heuristics:
Real:
- quantitative
- causal
- clear theory of change
- you would bet money on it
Fake:
- psychological
- metaphysical
- correlational
The “footstep in the hall” line from Lewis is dead-on—real thinking feels like reality pulling back on the rope, like you can’t hide behind slogans anymore. I’ve been circling that same tension in a different key: how easy it is to drift into safe, abstract language about faith, truth, love, and “the good,” and how uncomfortable it gets when God (and life) makes it concrete—when you have to choose. If you’re into that “no-bullshit” contact with what’s real, you might like this: https://theeternalnowmm.substack.com/p/eternal-love?r=71z4jh
Another metaphor inspired by Joe Carlsmith’s brilliant essay Fake Thinking and Real Thinking comes to mind, thanks to having recently read Francis Heylighen’s Substack.
Carlsmith’s essay makes me think of thinking as a collective project — a kind of hive mind — to which some of us occasionally contribute. In those moments, we become part of the hive mind; the real-thinker hive is one such hive. It embodies a collective intelligence that is stigmergic in the way Francis Heylighen describes in his essay:
https://open.substack.com/pub/francisheylighen/p/stigmergy-the-most-important-concept?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
When we are part of the real-thinker hive, we leave traces that other truth-seekers can discover and act upon — like ants responding to pheromones left by others.
Other hives exist near the real-thinker hive, in both symbiotic and parasitic relationships. Academia, one of these neighbouring hives, sometimes feeds on the real-thinker hive in parasitic ways, but it also makes many genuine contributions. The two remain distinct.
Sometimes traces of fake thinking appear in the real-thinker hive. These traces are not necessarily harmful; they may even help the hive evolve.
Some ants may believe they belong to a nearby playful-thinking hive, only to feel an uncanny realization that they are, in fact, inside the real-thinking hive. (Is that a real burglar?)
All these hives are close and deeply interconnected, with pathways and tunnels that have existed for millennia — it’s easy to lose track of which hive you’re in.
Fake Thinking and Real Thinking offers the reader a useful map. There’s still no guarantee you won’t get lost, but every little bit helps.
As a notoriously harsh critic, I have to say I appreciated this essay and what it aims to do. I didn't look at who you were until after I read it, and while it did have flavors of the AI-bro milieu, it didn't deter me from reading it.
Different types of thinking are required for each pursuit, and I don't think 'pseudo' thinking is less harsh than fake, depending on who/what it's directed toward. Fake thinking feels like heuristics, but then again, I don't know that a completely false version of thought can occur. It also seems that verbal thinking should be differentiated from written thinking.
I often read pieces aloud on LIVE, and might consider this one. It's long, but there are some gems in here that I will certainly think about again. Thanks.
regarding "it's not cool to be wrong"
this is becoming truer and truer now for me -- although apparently less truer and truer for others...
and it's a huge burden when i write anything now -- although a good one -- to fact check what i'm saying and see if anyone said this before and what the full debate is on it etc... and THEN to make simple diagrams because most people won't even read...
literally lifetimes of work i can never complete, and i'm sure you can relate
Also, Gemini says you're wrong about almost everything lol
"In summary, the article is a useful introspective prompt to help you notice a "vibe" of un-tethered thinking. It is not a rigorous model of cognition because it miscategorizes types of thinking, creates false dichotomies, and bundles uncorrelated attributes."
https://gemini.google.com/share/f54af7768bdf
regarding soldier vs scout: i tell this all the time to soldiers and they don't wanna hear it lol
I would pay to see you arguing with your wife! I recorded a video one time of myself doing this on a super controversial topic. Never posted it of course but man.. I was literally driving her insane with trying to use so much logic sometimes. sorry!