7 Recent Videos: Cognitive Sovereignty, Phenomenology of Scent, Solution to the Problem of Other Minds, Novel Qualia Research Methods, Higher Dimensions, Solution to the Binding Problem, and Qualia Computing

[Context: 4th in a series of 7-video packages. See the previous three packages: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd]

Cognitive Sovereignty: How Do You Incentivize Genuinely New Thoughts? (link)
Genuinely new thoughts are actually very rare. Why is that? And how can we incentivize the good side of smart people to focus their energies on having genuinely new thoughts for the benefit of all? In order to create the conditions for that we need to strike the right balance between many complementary forces.
I offer a new ideal we call "Cognitive Sovereignty". This ideal consists of three principles working together in synergy: (1) Freedom of Thought and Feeling, (2) Idea Ownership, and (3) Information Responsibility.
(1) Freedom of Thought and Feeling is the cultivation of a child-like wonder and positive attitude towards the ideas of one another. A "Yes And" approach to idea sharing.
As QRI advisors Anders Amelin and Margareta "Maggie" Wassinge write on the topic:
"On the topic of liberty of mind, we may reflect that inhibitory mechanisms are typically strong within groups of people. As is the case within minds of individuals. In minds it's this tip of the iceberg which gets rendered as qualia and is the end result of unexperienced hierarchies of powerfully constraining filters. It's really practical for life forms to function this way and for teams made up of life forms to function similarly, but for making grand improvements to the very foundations of life itself, you need maximum creativity instead of the default self-organizing consensus emergence.
"There is creativity-limiting pressure to conform to 'correctness' everywhere. Paradigmatic correctness in science, corporate correctness in business, social correctness, political correctness, and so on. As antidotes to chaos these can serve a purpose but for exceptional intellectual work to blossom they are quite counterproductive. There is something to be said for Elon Musk's assertion that 'excellence is the only passing grade'.
"The difference to the future wellbeing of sentient entities between the QRI becoming something pretty much overall OK-ish, and the QRI becoming something of great excellence, is probably bigger than between the corresponding outcomes for Tesla Motors.
"The creativity of the team is down to this exact thing: The qualia computing of the gut feeling getting to enjoy a haven of liberty all too rare elsewhere."
On (2) we can say that to "be the adult in the room" is also equally important. As Michael Johnson puts it, "it's important to keep track of the metadata of ideas." One cannot incentivize smart people to share ideas if they don't feel like others will recognize who came up with them. While not everyone pays close attention to who says what in conversation, we think that a reasonable level of attention on this is necessary to align incentives. Obviously too much emphasis on Idea Ownership can be stifling and generate excessive overhead. So having open conversations about (failed) attribution while assuming the best from others is also a key practice to make Idea Ownership good for everyone.
And finally, (3) is the principle of "Information Responsibility". This is the "wise old person" energy and attitude that deeply cares about the effects that information has on the world. Simple heuristics like "information wants to be free" and the ideal of a fully "open science" are pleasant to think about, but in practice they may lead to disasters on a grand scale. From gain of function research in virology to analysis of water pipes in cities, cutting-edge research can at times encounter novel ways of causing great harm. It's imperative that one resists the urge to share them with the world for the sake of signaling how smart one is (which is the default path for the vast majority of people and institutions!). One needs to cultivate the wisdom to consider the long-term vision and only share ideas one knows are safe for the world. Here, of course, we need a balance: too much emphasis on information security can be a tactic to thwart other's work and may be undully onerous and stifling. Striking the right balance is the goal.
The full synergy between these three principles of Cognitive Sovereignty, I think, is what allows people to think new thoughts.
I also cover two new key ideas: (a) Canceling Paradise and (b) Multi-level Selection and how it interacts with Organizational Freedom.
~Qualia of the Day: Long Walks on the Beach~
Relevant links:
Cognitive LibertyNeed for CognitionFree Energy Minimization at the Schelling Point of the Pacific OceanWhy Care About Meme Hazards (Justin Shovelain and Andrés Gómez Emilsson)Ephemerisle: Health Homeostasis, Worldview Annealing, and the Long-Tails of Serious Fun

Towards an Enlightened Phenomenology of Scent: What's an Aromatic Fougère at the Deepest Level? (link)
In this talk we analyze the perfume category called "Aromatic Fougère" in order to illustrate the aesthetic of "Qualiacore" in its myriad manifestations.
Definition: The Qualiacore Aesthetic is the practice and aspiration to describe experiences in new, meaningful, and non-trivial ways that are illuminating for our understanding of the nature of consciousness.
At a high-level, we must note that the classic ways of describing the phenomenology of scents tend to "miss the target". Learning about the history, cultural imports, associations, and similarities between perfumes can be fun to do but it does not advance an accurate phenomenological impression of what it is that we are talking about. And while reading about the "perfume notes" of a composition can place it in a certain location relative to other perfumes, such note descriptions usually give you a false sense of understanding and familiarity far removed from the complex subtleties of the state-space of scent. So how can we say new, meaningful, and non-trivial things about a smell?
Note-wise, Aromatic Fougères are typically described as the combination of herbs and spices (the aromatic part) with the core Fougère accord of oak moss, lavender/bergamot, geranium, and coumarin. In this video I offer a qualiacore-style analysis of how these "notes" interact with one another in order to form emergent gestalts. Here we will focus on the phenomenal character of these effects with an emphasis on bringing analogies from dynamic system behavior and energy-management techniques within the purview of the Symmetry Theory of Valence.
In the end, we arrive at a phenomenological fingerprint that cashes out in a comparison to the psychoactive effect of "Calvin Klein" (cocaine + ketamine*), which blends both stimulation and dissociation at the same time – a rather interesting effect that can be used to help you overcome awkwardness barriers in everyday life. "Smooth out the awkwardness landscape with Drakkar Noir!"
I also discuss the art of perfumery in light of QRI's 8 models of art:
Art as family resemblance (Semantic Deflation)Art as Signaling (Cool Kid Theory)Art as Schelling-point creation (a few Hipster-theoretical considerations)Art as cultivating sacred experiences (self-transcendence and highest values)Art as exploring the state-space of consciousness (ϡ♘♬ヅ)Art as something that messes with the energy parameter of your mind (ꙮ)Art as puzzling valence effects (emotional salience and annealing as key ingredients)Art as a system of affective communication: a protolanguage to communicate information about worthwhile qualia (which culminates in Harmonic Society).
~Qualia of the Day: Aromatic Fougères~
* Extremely ill-advised.
Relevant links:
Perfumery as an Art FormHarmonic Society (1/4): Art as Family Resemblance + Cool Kid Theory (buy physical copy here)Neural Annealing: Toward a Neural Theory of Everything (Michael Johnson)The Fact That We Can Smell Functional Groups is Just Such a ThingA Primer on the Symmetry Theory of Valence (Michael Johnson)Aromatic Fougère according to FragranticaQualia Research Diary: ScentsDrakkar Noir Guy LarocheEternity for men by CKAzzaro pour Homme

Are Others Conscious? Solving the Problem of Other Minds with Mindmelding and Phenomenal Puzzles (link)
How do you know for sure that other people (and non-human animals) are conscious?
The so-called "problem of other minds" asks us to consider whether we truly have any solid basis for believing that "we are not alone". In this talk I provide a new, meaningful, and non-trivial solution to the problem of other minds using a combination of mindmelding and phenomenal puzzles in the right sequence such that one can gain confidence that others are indeed "solving problems with qualia computing" and in turn infer that they are independently conscious.
This explanatory style contrasts with typical "solutions" to the problem of other minds that focus on either historical, behavioral, or algorithmic similarities between oneself and others (e.g. "passing a Turing test"). Here we explore what the space of possible solutions looks like and show that qualia formalism can be a key to unlock new kinds of understanding currently out of reach within the prevailing paradigms in philosophy of mind. But even with qualia formalism, the radical skeptic solipsist will not be convinced. Direct experience and "proof" is necessary to convince a hardcore solipsist since intellectual "inferential" arguments can always be mere "figments of one's own imagination". We thus explore how mindmelding can greatly increase our certainty of other's consciousness. However, skeptical worries may still linger: how do you know that the source of consciousness during mindmelding is not your brain alone? How do you know that the other brain is conscious while you are not connected to it? We thus introduce "phenomenal puzzles" into the picture: these are puzzles that require the use of "qualia comparisons" to be solved. In conjunction with a specific mindmelding information sharing protocol, such phenomenal puzzles can, we argue, actually fully address the problem of other minds in ways even strong skeptics will be satisfied with. You be the judge!
~Qualia of the Day: Wire Puzzles~
Many thanks to: Everyone who has encouraged the development of the field of qualia research over the years. David Pearce for encouraging me to actually write out my thoughts and share them online, Michael Johnson for our multi-year deep collaboration at QRI, and Murphy-Shigematsu for pushing me over the edge to start working on "what I had been putting off" back in 2014 (which was the trigger to actually write the first Qualia Computing post). In addition, I'd like to thank everyone at the Stanford Transhumanist Association for encouraging me so much over the years (Faust, Karl, Juan-Carlos, Blue, Todor, Keetan, Alan, etc.). Duncan Wilson for the beautiful times discussing these matters. Romeo Stevens for the amazing vibes and high-level thoughts. And of course everyone at QRI, especially Quintin Frerichs, Andrew Zuckerman, Anders and Maggie, and the list goes on (Mackenzie, Sean, Hunter, Elin, Wendi, etc.). Likewise, everyone at Qualia Computing Networking (the closed facebook group where we discuss a lot of these ideas), our advisors, donors, readers, and of course those watching these videos. Much love to all of you!
Relevant links:
A Workable Solution to the Problem of Other MindsBeyond Turing: A Solution to the Problem of Other Minds Using Mindmelding and Phenomenal Puzzles (and video)Wada Test + Phenomenal Puzzles: Testing the Independent Consciousness of Individual Brain Hemispheres (Quintin Frerichs)Generalized Wada Test and the Total Order of ConsciousnessWhy Does Anything Exist? Zero Ontology, Physical Information, and Pure AwarenessHyperbolic geometry of the olfactory space (Zhou, Smith, Sharpee)Letter from Utopia (Nick Bostrom)A Debate on Animal Consciousness (pretty much a "who is who" of the people in the rationalist community who have strong views about consciousness)Other Minds (SEP)The QRI Ecosystem: Friends, Collaborators, Blogs, Media, and Adjacent Communities
"Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner" – To understand all is to forgive all.

Paradigm-Shifting Qualia Research Methods: How to Take Exotic States of Consciousness Seriously (link)
"New scientific paradigms essentially begin life as conspiracy theories, noticing the inconsistencies the previous paradigm is suppressing. Early adopters undergo a process that Kuhn likens to religious deconversion." – Romeo Stevens
The field of consciousness research lacks a credible synthesis of what we already know about the mind. One key thing that is holding back the science of consciousness is that it's currently missing an adequate set of methods to "take seriously" the implications of exotic states of consciousness. Imagine a physicist saying that "there is nothing about water that we can learn from studying ice". Silly as it may be, the truth is that this is the typical attitude about exotic consciousness in modern neuroscience. And even with the ongoing resurgence of scientific interest in psychedelics, outside of QRI and Ingram's EPRC there is no real serious attempt at mapping the state-space of consciousness in detail. This is to a large extent because we lack the vocabulary, tools, concepts, and focus at a paradigmatic level to do so. But a new paradigm is arriving, and the following 8 new research methods and others in the works will help bring it about:
Taking Exotic States of Consciousness Seriously (e.g. when a world-class phenomenologist says that 3D-printed Poincaré projections of hyperbolic honeycombs make the visual system "glitch" when on DMT the rational response is to listen and ask questions rather than ignore and ridicule).High-Quality Phenomenology: Precise descriptions of the phenomenal character of experience. Core strategy: useful taxonomies of experience, a language to describe generalized synesthesia (multi-modal coherence), and a rich vocabulary to convey the statistical regularities of textures of qualia (cf. generalizing the concept of "mongrels" in the neuroscience of visual perception to all other modalities).Phenomenology Club: Critical mass of smart and rational psychonauts.Psychedelic Turk for Psychophysics: Real-time psychedelic task completion.Generalized Wada Test: What happens when half of your brain is on LSD and the other half is on ketamine?Resonance-Based Hedonic Mapping: You are a network of coupled oscillators. Act like it!Pair Qualia Cartography: Like pair programming but for exploring the state-space of consciousness with non-invasive neurostimulation.Cognitive Sovereignty: Furthering a culture that has a "Yes &" approach to creativity, keeps track of meta-data, and takes responsibility for the information it puts out.
~Qualia of the Day: Being Taken Seriously~
Relevant links:
Psychedelic Turk: A Platform for People on Altered States of ConsciousnessGeneralized Wada Test and the Total Order of ConsciousnessCognitive Sovereignty: How Do You Incentivize Genuinely New Thoughts?A Future for Neuroscience (Michael Johnson)The Neuroscience of Meditation: Four Models (Michael Johnson)Emergent Phenomenology Research Consortium (Daniel Ingram)Welcoming Steven Lehar as a QRI LineageThe Control Interrupt Model of Psychedelic Action (James Kent)Modeling Psychedelic Tracers with QRI's Psychophysics Toolkit: The Tracer Replication ToolHealing Trauma with Neural AnnealingPeaceful Qualia: The Manhattan Project of ConsciousnessTheir Scientific Significance is Hard to Overstate (David Pearce)Ephemerisle: Health Homeostasis, Worldview Annealing, and the Long-Tails of Serious FunPsychedelic Science 2017: Take-aways, impressions, and what's nextIntellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism (Scott Alexander)Why Am I Shirtless (Mario Montano, RIP)Cringe | ContraPoints

Are Higher Dimensions Real? From Numerology to Precision Xenovalence – 4 5 6 8 10 12 16 20 24 32 (link)
Many people report experiencing "higher dimensions" during deep meditation and/or psychedelic experiences. Vaporized DMT in particular reliably produces this effect in a large percentage of users. But is this an illusion? Is there anything meaningful to it? What could possibly be going on?
In this video we provide a steel man (or titanium man?) of the idea that higher dimensions are *real* in a new, meaningful, and non-trivial sense.
We must emphasize that most people who believe that DMT experiences are "higher dimensional" interpret their experiences within a direct realist framework. Meaning that they think they are "tuning in" to other dimensions, that some secret sense organ capable of perceiving the etheric realm was "activated", that awareness into divine realms became available to their soul, or something along those lines. In brief, such interpretations operate under the notion that we can perceive the world directly somehow. In this video, we instead work under the premise that we live in a compact world-simulation generated by our nervous system. If DMT gives rise to "higher dimensional experiences", then such dimensions will be phenomenological in nature.
We thus try to articulate how it can be possible for an *experience* to acquire higher dimensions. An important idea here is that there is a trade-off between degrees of freedom and geometric dimensions. We present a model where degrees of freedom can become interlocked in such a way that they functionally emulate the behavior of a *virtual* higher dimension. As exemplified by the "harmonograph", one can indeed couple and interlock multiple oscillators in such a way that one generates paths of a point in a space that is higher-dimensional than the space inhabited by any of the oscillators on their own. More so, with a long qualia decay, one can use such technique to "paint" entire images in a *virtual* high dimensional canvas!
High-quality detailed phenomenology of DMT by rational psychonauts strongly suggests that higher virtual dimensions are widely present in the state. Also, the unique valence properties of the state seem to follow what we could call a "generalized music theory" where the "vibe" of the space is the net consonance between all of the metronomes in it. We indeed see a duality between spatial symmetry and temporal synchrony with modality-specific symmetries (equivariance maps) constraining the dynamic behavior.
This, together with the Symmetry Theory of Valence (Johnson), makes the search for "special divine numbers" suddenly meaningful: numerological correspondences can illuminate the underlying makeup of "heaven worlds" and other hedonically-loaded states of mind!
I conclude with a discussion about the nature of "highly-meaningful experiences". In light of all of these frameworks, meaning can be understood as a valence effect that arises when you have strong consonance between abstract (narrative and symbolic), emotional, and sensory fields all at once. A key turning point in your life combined with the right emotion and the right "sacred space" can thus give rise to "peak meaning". The key to infinite bliss!
~Qualia of the Day: Numerology~
Relevant links:
Kaleidophone (first "philosophical toy")HarmonographA Primer on the Symmetry Theory of Valence (Michael E. Johnson)Welcoming Steven Lehar as a QRI LineageThe Symmetry Theory of Valence: 2020 PresentationRelating Tuning and Timbre (William A. Sethares)A Big State-Space of ConsciousnessSpeculative Exomusicology (William A. Sethares)The Hyperbolic Geometry of DMT Experiences (@Harvard Science of Psychedelics Club)Gómez-Emilsson (2016, Dec. 12). The Hyperbolic Geometry of DMT Experiences: Symmetries, Sheets, and Saddled Scenes4D Toys: a box of four-dimensional toys, and how objects bounce and roll in 4DA Single 3N-Dimensional Universe: Splitting vs. Decoherence (Alyssa Ney, David Z Albert)
Thumbnail Image Source: Petri G., Expert P., Turkheimer F., Carhart-Harris R., Nutt D., Hellyer P. J. and Vaccarino F. 2014 Homological scaffolds of brain functional networks J. R. Soc. Interface.112014087320140873 – https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.2014.0873

Solving the Phenomenal Binding Problem: Topological Segmentation as the Correct Explanation Space (link)
How can a bundle of atoms form a unified mind? This is far from a trivial question, and it demands an answer.
The phenomenal binding problem asks us to consider exactly that. How can spatially and temporally distributed patterns of neural activity contribute to the contents of a unified experience? How can various cognitive modules interlock to produce coherent mental activity that stands as a whole?
To address this problem we first need to break down "the hard problem of consciousness" into manageable subcomponents. In particular, we follow Pearce's breakdown of the problem where we posit that any scientific theory of consciousness must answer: (1) why consciousness exists at all, (2) what are the set of qualia variety and values, and what is the nature of their interrelationships, (3) the binding problem, i.e. why are we not "mind dust"?, and (4) what are the causal properties of consciousness (how could natural selection recruit experience for information processing purposes, and why is it that we can talk about it). We discuss how trying to "solve consciousness" without addressing each of these subproblems is like trying to go to the Moon without taking into account air drag, or the Moon's own gravitational field, or the fact that most of outer space is an air vacuum. Illusionism, in particular, seems to claim "the Moon is an optical illusion" (which would be true for rainbows – but not for the Moon, or consciousness).
Zooming in on (3), we suggest that any solution to the binding problem must: (a) avoid strong emergence, (b) side-step the hard problem of consciousness, (c) circumvent epiphenomenalism, and (d) be compatible with the modern scientific word picture, namely the Standard Model of physics (or whichever future version achieves full causal closure).
Given this background, we then explain that "the binding problem" as stated is in fact conceptually insoluble. Rather, we ought to reformulate it as the "boundary problem": reality starts out unified, and the real question is how it develops objective and frame invariant boundaries. Additionally, we explain that "classic vs. quantum" is a false dichotomy, at least in so far as "classical explanations" are assumed to involve particles and forces. Field behavior is in fact ubiquitous in conscious experience, and it need not be quantum to be computationally relevant! In fact, we argue that nothing in experience makes sense except in light of holistic field behavior.
We then articulate exactly why all of the previously proposed solutions to the binding problem fail to meet the criteria we outlined. Among them, we cover:
Cellular AutomataComplexitySynchronyIntegrated InformationCausalitySpatial ProximityBehavioral CoherenceMach PrincipleResonance
Finally, we present what we believe is an actual plausible solution to the phenomenal binding problem that satisfies all of the necessary key constraints:
    10. Topological segmentation
The case for (10) is far from trivial, which is why it warrants a detailed explanation. It results from realizing that topological segmentation allows us to simultaneously obtain holistic field behavior useful for computation and new and natural regions of fields that we could call "emergent separate beings". This presents a completely new paradigm, which is testable using elements of the cohomology of electromagnetic fields.
We conclude by speculating about the nature of multiple personality disorder and extreme meditation and psychedelic states of consciousness in light of a topological solution to the boundary problem. Finally, we articulate the fact that, unlike many other theories, this explanation space is in principle completely testable.
~Qualia of the Day: Acqua di Gio by Giorgio Armani and Ambroxan~
Relevant links:
The Combination Problem for Panpsychism (David J. Chalmers)David Pearce's PhysicalismThe abstract of this talk (originally written for TSC 2020)Welcoming Steven Lehar as a QRI Lineage12 The CEMI Field Theory: Seven Clues to the Nature of Consciousness (Johnjoe McFadden)Consciousness is a Thing not a Process (Susan Pockett)Principia Qualia (Michael Johnson)Raising the Table Stakes for Successful Theories of ConsciousnessAlgorithmic Reduction of Psychedelic States

Qualia Computing: How Conscious States Are Used For Efficient And Non-Trivial Information Processing (link)
Why are we conscious?
The short answer is that bound moments of experience have useful causal and computational properties that can speed up information processing in a nervous system.
But what are these properties, exactly? And how do we know? In this video I unpack this answer in order to explain (or at least provide a proof of concept explanation for) how bound conscious states accomplish non-trivial speedups in computational problems (e.g. such as the problem of visual reification).
In order to tackle this question we first need to (a) enrich our very conception of computation, and (b) also enrich our conception of intelligence.
(a) Computation: We must realize that the Church-Turing Thesis conception of computation only cares about computing in terms of functions. That is, how inputs get mapped to outputs. But a much more general conception of computation also considers how the substrate allows for computational speed-ups via interacting inner states with intrinsic information. More so, if reality is made of "monads" that have non-zero intrinsic information and interact with one another, then our conception of "computation" must also consider monad networks. And in particular, the "output" of a computation may in fact be an inner bound state rather than just a sequence of discrete outputs (!).
(b) Intelligence: currently this is a folk concept poorly formalized by the instruments with which we measure it (primarily in terms of sequential logics-linguistic processing). But, alas, intelligence is a function of one's entire world-simulation: even the shading of the texture of the table in front of you is contributing to the way you "see the world" and thus reason about it. So, an enriched conception of intelligence must also take into account: (1) binding, (2) the presence of a self, (3) perspective-taking, (4) distinguishing between the trivial and significant, and (5) state-space of consciousness navigation.
Now that we have these enriched conceptions, we are ready to make sense of the computational role of consciousness: in a way, the whole point of "intelligence" is to avoid brute force solutions by instead recruiting an adequate "self-organizing principle" that can run on the universe's inherent massively parallel nature. Hence, the "clever" way in which our world-simulation is used: as shown by visual illusions, meditative states, psychedelic experiences, and psychophysics, perception is the result of a balance of field forces that is "just right". Case in point: our nervous system utilizes the holistic behavior of the field of awareness in order to quickly find symmetry elements (cf. Reverse Grassfire Algorithm).
As a concrete example, I articulate the theoretical synthesis QRI has championed that combines Friston's Free Energy Principle, Atasoy's Connectome-Specific Harmonic Waves, Carhart-Harris' Entropic Disintegration, and QRI's Symmetry Theory of Valence and Neural Annealing to shows that the nervous system is recruiting the self-organizing principle of annealing to solve a wide range of computational problems. Other principles to be discussed at a later time.
To summarize: the reason we are conscious is because being conscious allows you to recruit self-organizing principles that can run on a massively parallel fashion in order to find solutions to problems at [wave propagation] speed. Importantly, this predicts it's possible to use e.g. a visual field on DMT in order to quickly find the "energy minima" of a physical state that has been properly calibrated to correspond to the dynamics of a worldsheet in that state. This is falsifiable and exciting.
I conclude with a description of the Goldilock's Zone of Oneness and why to experience it.
~Qualia of the Day: Dior's Eau Sauvage (EDT)~
Relevant links:
On Dark Rooms, Jhanas, Ecstasy, and the Symmetry Theory of Valence (response to Scott Alexander/ACX)The Constructive Aspect of Visual Perception (Steven Lehar)Thinking Like a Musical Instrument or Psychedelics Give Access to the Nature of Brains (Anders Amelin & Maggie Wassinge)Ising Machines: Non-Von Neumann Computing with Nonlinear Optics (Alireza Marandi) 6/7/2019Psychedelics and the Free Energy Principle (Andrés Gómez Emilsson)Growing Neural Cellular AutomataThe Hyperbolic Geometry of DMT ExperiencesMichael Levin on Morphogenetics, Regeneration, Consciousness, and Xenobots (at TOE)Neural Annealing (Michael Johnson)QRI Lineages


God and Open Individualism

Set-Up and Squaring Intuitions
There is a problem in philosophy of backwards rationalisation, where people feel intuitive pulls towards certain conclusions, and then try to justify why their intuition is correct. We can say this is putting the cart before the horse. If we are to philosophize well, we shouldn't start with the conclusion. However, the pull to side with your intuitions is so incredibly crucial to decision-making that it basically can't be ignored. In fact, at the heart of trying to know anything fundamentally hinges on a feeling quality of 'this seems/feels right' in relation to a proposition.
Now, this isn't to say that all intuitions don't have truth value, it's just that we need to be subjectively sensitive to when we are totally being led by a feeling (which I think in many cases some philosophers aren't aware). At the end of the day, we go off of whether an idea sits right with us at some particular level(s) of the mind, and all the justificatory attempts in favor of this idea serve to shift that feeling in us one way or the other.
Leading on to the discussion of identity: in a lot of thought experiments and attempts to understand where identity starts and stops we find an appeal to intuition. This is often done by conjuring up convoluted scenarios of teletransportation machines, or brain transplants, or Men-In-Black-style memory wipes and then reflecting on whether we feel that identity stayed the same or not. A good way to press people's institutions is to get them to consider suffering, as personal identity is the great motivator of avoiding suffering (no self = no problem, as they say). Depending on where and at what time suffering is endured by which collection of atoms gets people to consider really fast and more confidently, say, where they think the bounds of identity lie.
Along with the epistemological problems of resting an argument on intuition or 'gut feeling' mentioned above, intuitions differ not just from person to person, but from moment to moment (in the same person). And if you haven't become privy to how your intuitions can change, you may not question the truth value of the signal they are transmitting. So, I write this to highlight the problems of trying to solve identity issues by appealing to a felt-sense of where it lies.
Two Ways of Talking About the Self
Now I see an obvious split in how to approach this topic:
(1) We can talk about identity as a raw experience – what in the experience space do I feel numerically identical to (one and the same as) – and in Buddhistic fashion forgo metaphysical claims here after.
(2) Try to extrapolate beyond immediate experience and argue for a position of what the self is or how identity functions in a metaphysical sense. I call (2) the conceptual self as it is about the content within concepts you believe refers to you.
To make this distinction clear I'll give an example of a potential answer to (1) and then to (2). If asked: "What am I?" along the lines of (1) one may answer: "I feel like I am my thoughts." – thoughts arise in experience and there is a fused impression of 'me-ness' to those thoughts. While (2) is concerned about the content of those thoughts and if asked: "What am I?" one may answer and even fervently believe: "I am a brain." However, they don't have any direct experience of being a brain – it is an extrapolation of ideas beyond direct phenomenological perception.
Sorry for all the set up! This is my framing and to give you the best response I needed to spell this out. Now, let me answer personally what I believe identity is in terms of (1) and then (2). However, (2) is informed by (1), and (1) is made sense of by (2); so although the distinction is very useful, like all separations, their boundaries seem to always breakdown – that there is a hint about my metaphysical beliefs.
Phenomenological Senses of Identity
For me, this has changed throughout the years as I've meditated more and more. I have shared these images with you before and they represent the transition of intuitions of personal identity throughout my journey.

They seem to match up quite nicely with how Frank Yang lays out his stages. Depending on which stage someone is in, we hear different metaphysical explanations of identity. (This is where (1) gets easily conflated with (2)).
How I've seen Frank spell out his stages (I realize neither of us came up with these on our own):

When it comes to identifying with awareness (the second picture/stage) this is when you hear talk of the sort of there being one universal consciousness and that's our true nature. When I was identifying with awareness, I could suddenly relate to what people meant by 'we are all one universal consciousness'. However, I got the sense that people were failing to differentiate between something being numerically identical and qualitatively identical. When you become 'aware of awareness' there is a sense that this is a pristine dimension and is not personal. It doesn't seem to belong to the notion of Roger (as it is perceived causally before the very idea of Roger), nor is it trademarked by Roger's beliefs or memories. There is an insight that this perfectly equanimous layer of being is part of everyone's experience, they just don't see it. Yet it couldn't be ruled out whether we are all in touch with the same one pure light of consciousness, or if each sentient organism has its own and our consciousnesses (plural) were just qualitatively the same. I think people often miss this distinction.
Stage 2 does not obviously lead to open individualism yet. There is still a sense of the duality between the radiant awareness and everything else to be aware of.
Although, I think that anyone (even those without emptiness insights) could be talked into believing closed, open and empty individualism at a conceptual level, this doesn't mean their phenomenological experience of identity would change, or would their instinctive, non-inquisitive gut-intuition on the subject.
I would hypothesize that those who have no insight into the 3 characteristic are intuitively most swayed by closed individualism. And those who have sufficient enough insight into impermanence (but not no-self) may intuitively side with empty individualism. And then with a deep enough insight into no-self, open individualism becomes a no-brainer.
Experiencing God (and a message to Leo)
At stage 3 is when open individualism is most likely to begin to intuitively feel right. This is also when talks of being God come out of people's mouths and, as in terms of (1), they phenomenologically perceive the sense of 'I' in everything they experience, and they (2) conceptually infer there is just one thing, call it 'God'. God is everything. I am everything. Because the understanding of moving from (1) to (2) (from experience to conjecture) is often lost on people, all kinds of wacky metaphysical beliefs come about – supposedly self-validating by higher consciousness or direct cosmic download.
While on stage 3, if you inject some metta into your experience space, you come to see what people mean when they say: "God is everywhere and all loving" or even: "God is love". Having the feeling of being everything in your experience is like you don't feel separate from anything, thus there is a deep intimacy with the world which construes love. You feel like you are the body, the thoughts, the emotions, the trees, the hills on the horizon, the air in between all of it, the sky and the awareness field which contains all these things. However, going from 'the experience of feeling identical to everything you are aware of' to 'I am everything (even that which I'm not currently aware of) and therefore I am God/the universe' requires an unfounded leap – which I admittedly made at some point.
I remember an incredibly stark moment I had when I was in stage 3, where being 'God' felt like the most real thing (I can sympathise a lot with where Leo Gura is coming from – though I think he's lacking some phenomenological discernment). Because at stage 3 the sense of 'I' is so prevalent, due to it being perceived everywhere in experience, I was investigating this quality a great deal. I was trying to distil the sense of 'I' down to its rawest form. "Yes, I feel identical to the trees and the sky and other people, but what is that common element that can be found in all these things which I call 'I'?" After whittling away all the other unnecessary phenomenological baggage piled onto this 'I', I arrived at a clear perception of 'I' in its rawest form. The 'I' I call the epistemic agent, the pure sense of 'a knower of experience'.
It became obvious that once the epistemic agent was singled out in experience that this perception of 'I' can only manifest in one way. What I mean by this is unlike with milk where the formula can be tainted slightly and result in versions of milk with slightly different colors, or tastes, or smells and yet they are all still milk, it is impossible for the epistemic agent to have a slightly different perceptual 'flavor' to it other than it does. This is because the qualia recipe only consists of one ingredient and if that's missing or different, then it's not the epistemic agent (the rawest sense of 'I am'). Once I clocked this, I realized that all iterations of 'I' wherever and whenever, in all beings at all times, experience the sense of 'I am' exactly the same way. Then, and I remember this moment so clearly, it hit me: if God or the universe is self-aware – which it is just by dint of me being of the universe and self-aware – and has an experience of 'I-ness' then my experience of 'I-ness' in this relative body is the same as God's and through a sharing of experience there is a direct link and so… "Oh my god, I am God!"
(I am not suggesting that this line of reasoning is sound. It was simply the series of steps I went through which brought upon this profound experience).
Again, the numerically versus qualitatively identical distinction could be parsed, however there is a way to get around this, for when you remove the sense of time and space from the equation then that difference collapses. To say that something is qualitatively identical to something else, but not numerically identical doesn't make sense if two things can't be differentiated by existing in separate moments of time or space. So in my "Oh my god, I am God!" epiphany, the sense of time and space had been shunned from attention and numerical identity was presumed.
I can imagine that someone has this epiphany moment as I did, but then when they return to a more 'timey/spacey' existence they retain credence in the belief that they are God and not just a single, distinct instance of experience of 'I' (which would be more of an empty individualist thought). They do this because they are basing their beliefs off of a very profound mind moment, even if the majority of their waking hours don't suggest the same message.
If I could tell Leo Gura one thing it would be this: "Profundity does not equate to truth." Just because something felt so real and epic, does not mean that experience is giving you the most accurate representation of greater reality. Truth be told at stage 3 I didn't have anywhere near the attentional clarity, precision of view, and metacognitive abilities that came later; and so while I was having all these profound experiences I was not totally clued into the subtle ways I was manipulating my experience and was biased to certain perspectives, while overlooking certain things that became clearer to me later on.
Self, Not-self, and Neither Self nor Not-self
When it comes to personal identity, I want to distinguish three things the mind can do here:
It can project a sense of self onto parts of experience – "I feel like I am this chair." – said the man on salvia.
It can project a sense of not-self onto parts of experience – "I don't feel identical to that person over there." – said sober Joe. I want to emphasize here that I don't mean there is just a lack of 'feeling' associated with something, but rather there is an actual new 'feeling' of not identifying with something.
Stage 4 (my 4th picture) was living a life with the constant signal of 'not me' being coupled with everything I pointed my attention to.
It can stop projecting any sense of self and not-self – "I neither feel like I am everything, nor I'm not." said Roger. Here, I mean the lack of projecting a sense of self and even a sense of not-self.
To go into a little more detail on what is meant by 3: 'Neither self, nor not self'… essentially there is just no transmission of data on this subject. No reading. When asked "What are you?" it's like the question doesn't even compute. Before, there were qualia indicators to be able to judge what is self and what is not-self. And now it's like the mind pulls a blank. It is not because the answer is obvious that 'I am everything', or 'I am nothing'. It's almost a bit like asking a person who is blind from birth "Do you just see blackness?" – it can be really hard for sight-abled-people to get their head around the fact that some blind people don't see anything at all (and what that really means). 4th path is akin to becoming blind to identity in a way. Although, I wasn't identity blind from birth, memory of the qualia of 'me-ness' and 'not me-ness' is incredibly faded.*
*There is subtle nuance to get into with retaining semblances of individuality just to be able to function in the world.
The Ship of Theseus, Threshold Emptiness Insight and Losing the Ability to Buy into Nouns
At a certain point, once enough insight into emptiness was established, the ability to seriously believe in separate entities became near impossible. I remember with my beginner's mind, closed individualism was the default position. And when nouns were comprehended, they were firmly believed to be distinct, real partitions in reality. "The world is made of things that are tables and things that are not." (As if a table is an actual thing, lol). However, now I can never fully think that a table is anything more than a mind-made construct. It is perceived as so porous, airy, hollow…. empty. And this applies to all nouns: 'atoms', 'being' 'non-being', 'life', 'death', 'mind' and including the idea of 'The Now' (I'll get into that later).
One time in philosophy class we were going over the 'paradox' of The Ship of Theseus. People in my class had all kinds of differing intuition. Some said, 'as soon as over 50% of the ship parts have been replaced then it's a new/different ship'. Some said, 'as soon as you replace one part of the ship it's a new/different ship'. And others said, 'as soon as one atom changes it's a new/different ship'. They were going back and forth arguing about identity, which was the point of the class. And meanwhile the whole time I was thinking there is no ship of Theseus to begin with, there never was, it's not a thing. And so there is no paradox. There is no conundrum to solve.
I had been reading 'The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain' at the time, and it occurred to me during the class that what I was witnessing were people with all very different brain chemistries and either left or right hemisphere biases, and this is what is leading them to different conclusions (me not being an exception) – the philosophical quibbling had little to do with it. (This is not to resort to any postmodernist conclusions. I do think some positions contain more truth signal than others.)
4th Path Putting the Nail in the Coffin for Empty Individualism?
There is no 'now', as there is not enough time for even a single isolated self to form. At 4th path insight into emptiness is so stark that you realise that to conceive of 'The Now' as a thing is wrong view. I used to experience things as arising and then a moment later passing; as manifesting and then slightly there after defabricating. But now I can see how phenomena are already disappearing the moment they are appearing. This leads to kinds of visions of super-positions – simultaneous 1 and 0. With such perception a 'now' as a moment can't even consolidate – there truly is no ground for things to rest on.
Finally (2) My Conceptual Beliefs About Identity! (Prepare to be disappointed)
Keeping in mind what I said about 'neither self nor not self', when the intuition of personal identity is so lacking the question of 'What is me and what is not me?' just becomes 'What does it mean for something to be its own individual entity?' or even more simply 'What exists?'. Does there exist one thing or more than one thing? And does it even make sense to consider there being 'things' (nouns) at all?
(Take this next part as me applying a cosmic lens).
So, is there more than one thing? Engaging my scrupulous, philosophical, inquisitive mind, I can't conceive of how there being more than one thing would be meaningful. But I don't even really believe in things at all (if 'thing' is taken as a noun), so one thing isn't quite getting at it either. There is something and it seems to be something so magical that it defies categorical comprehension. But the fact that there is change suggests this is not unitary, yet nor do I wish to say it is legion. Not noun, but verb? A process? But to where and how?
Heidegger often wrote in double negatives; I believe because when you construe something in the negative you bring to mind both the thing and its negative simultaneously. There is a greater potential for the mind to grasp a seeming paradox, but the conceptual mind can never fully do it, it can only approximate. Kierkegaard tried as he put it: "The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation's relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself." But words can only serve to point to something outside of their grasp.
This is why:
"The Toa that can be named is not the eternal Toa"
However, when I stop thinking (disengage the conceptual mind) and simply be, I get an intuitive sense of a super-position. Simultaneously, neither one nor many. Neither now nor not now. Neither existing nor not existing. Neither conscious nor not conscious. And this is apprehended in a way that is not confusing or jarring, but as the most sensible stance.
Still I have a sceptic bone in my body, and I am always open to being schooled.
Halfway In, Halfway Out The Great Door of Being
Imagine a great conundrum that people have been debating over for centuries. "If a man is stepping through his front door and he has one foot in his house and one foot out of his house and his body is exactly in the middle, is he inside or outside?" People can't seem to agree. Some say he is clearly inside because he is already under the door frame. Others say, he is still outside because he hasn't fully entered his house yet. People squabble about whether it matters if he is coming or going. The real question is when he is exactly 50% in and exactly 50% out what is he? Inside or outside? The reason people can't come down on a solid answer is because whenever they find someone passing through their front door the moment they go to make a judgement they miss that 50/50 moment and either witness him too early or too late at 60/40 or 40/60 in and out. In which case, they either decide he was definitely inside or definitely outside, accordingly. You have been trying to solve this issue too and feel like you have come close. One time you saw a guy in the act at 51/49 in and out. And then another time you saw a man who was 49/51 in and out. But no one ever is precise enough to make their judgement when he is exactly 50/50 in and out. Because true 50% in and 50% out hasn't been witnessed, so people can only speculate that 'well if we were to catch a man who was exactly at 50/50 in and out of his front door, we would conclude that maybe he was BOTH inside and outside.'
One day, it just so happens you see a man coming home from work. He's approaching the front door, keys in hand. You've been practicing for this moment your whole life. Finally, are you going to be able to solve this great conundrum? He unlocks the door. He opens it. He steps through. And that was it! You witnessed it. You clearly clocked the 50/50 moment.
"I saw it! I saw it!" you yell. Bystanders hear your cries and come up to you.
"What did you see?" they ask.
"I saw the precise moment he was exactly 50% in and 50% out!"
"Well…" they say "what was he, inside or outside then?"
And you respond "No".
"Huh? Oh, you mean he was both inside and outside?"
"No" you say again.
"I don't get it." respond the bystanders. And in fact, you don't even really get what you mean, because it doesn't quite make sense to you either and yet it was as clear as day.
"He wasn't inside or outside, because he simply vanished."

God and Open Individualism


Review of Log Scales

This is my 2022 review of Logarithmic Scales of Pleasure and Pain: Rating, Ranking, and Comparing Peak Experiences Suggest the Existence of Long Tails for Bliss and Suffering (2019; QRI link; forum link), written for the EA Forum First Decade Review; permalink of the review; read all reviews and vote for submissions here.

I would like to suggest that Logarithmic Scales of Pleasure and Pain ("Log Scales" from here on out) presents a novel, meaningful, and non-trivial contribution to the field of Effective Altruism. It is novel because even though the terribleness of extreme suffering has been discussed multiple times before, such discussions have not presented a method or conceptual scheme with which to compare extreme suffering relative to less extreme varieties. It is meaningful because it articulates the essence of an intuition of an aspect of life that deeply matters to most people, even if they cannot easily put it into words. And it is non-trivial because the inference that pain (and pleasure) scales are better understood as logarithmic in nature does require one to consider the problem from multiple points of view at once that are rarely, if ever, brought up together (e.g. combining empirical deference graphs, descriptions of pain scales by their creators, latent-trait analysis, neural recordings, and psychophysics).
Fundamentally, we could characterize this article as a conceptual reframe that changes how one assesses magnitudes of suffering in the world. To really grasp the significance of this reframe, let's look back into how Effective Altruism itself was an incredibly powerful conceptual reframe that did something similar. In particular, a core insight that establishes the raison d'etre of Effective Altruism is that the good that you can do in the world with a given set of resources varies enormously depending on how you choose to allocate it: by most criteria that you may choose (whether it's QALYs or people saved from homelessness), the cost-effectiveness of causes seem to follow much more closely (at least qualitatively) a long-tail rather than a normal distribution (see: Which world problems are the most pressing to solve? by Benjamin Todd; the long-tail on the left below). In turn, this strongly suggests that researching carefully how to invest one's altruistic efforts is likely to pay off in very large ways: choosing a random charity versus a top 1% charity will lead to benefits whose scale differs by orders of magnitude.

Log Scales suggests that pain and pleasure themselves follow a long-tail distribution. In what way, exactly? Well, to a first approximation, across the entire board! The article (and perhaps more eloquently the subsequent video presentation at the NYC EA Meetup on the same topic) argues that when it comes to the distribution of the intensity of hedonic states, we are likely to find long-tails almost independently of the way in which we choose to slice or dice the data. This is analogous to, for example, how all of the following quantities follow long-tail distributions: avalanches per country, avalanches per mountain, amount of snow in mountains, number of avalanche-producing mountains per country, size of avalanches, number of avalanches per day, etc. Likewise, in the case of the distribution of pain, the arguments presented suggest we will find that all of the following distributions are long-tails: average pain level per medical condition, number of intensely painful episodes per person per year, intensity of pain per painful episode, total pain per person during life, etc. Thus, that such a small percentage of cluster headache patients accounts for the majority of episodes per year would be expected (see: Cluster Headache Frequency Follows a Long-Tail Distribution; the long-tail on the right above), and along with it, the intensity of such episodes themselves would likely follow a long-tail distribution.
This would all be natural, indeed, if we consider neurological phenomena such as pain to be akin to weather phenomena. Log Scales allows us to conceptualize the state of a nervous system and what it gives rise to as akin to how various weather conditions give rise to natural disasters: a number of factors multiply each other resulting in relatively rare, but surprisingly powerful, black swan events. Nervous systems such as those of people suffering from CRPS, fibromyalgia, and cluster headaches are like the Swiss Alps of neurological weather conditions… uniquely suited for ridiculously large avalanches of suffering.

Log Scales are not just of academic interest. In the context of Effective Altruism, they are a powerful generator for identifying new important, neglected, and tractable cause areas to focus on. For instance, DMT for cluster headaches, microdose ibogaine for augmentation of painkillers in sufferers of chronic pain, and chanca piedra for kidney stones (writeup in progress) are all what we believe to be highly promising interventions (of the significant, neglected, and tractable variety) that might arguably reduce suffering in enormous ways and that would not have been highlighted as EA-worthy were it not for Log Scales. (See also: Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free Necklace). On a personal note, I've received numerous thank you notes by sufferers of extreme pain for this research. But the work has barely begun: with Log Scales as a lens, we are poised to tackle the world's reserves of suffering with laser-focus, assured in the knowledge that preventing a small fraction of all painful conditions is all that we need to abolish the bulk of experiential suffering.
But does Log Scales make accurate claims? Does it carve reality at the joints? How do we know?
The core arguments presented were based on (a) the characteristic distribution of neural activity, (b) phenomenological accounts of extreme pleasure and pain, (c) the way in which the creators of pain scales have explicitly described their meaning, and (d) the results of a statistical analysis of a pilot study we conducted where people ranked, rated, and assigned relative proportions to their most extreme experiences. We further framed this in terms of comparing qualitative predictions from what we called the Normal World vs. Lognormal World. In particular, we stated that: "If we lived in the 'Lognormal World', we would expect: (1) That people will typically say that their top #1 best/worst experience is not only a bit better/worse than their #2 experience, but a lot better/worse. Like, perhaps, even multiple times better/worse. (2) That there will be a long-tail in the number of appearances of different categories (i.e. that a large amount, such as 80%, of top experiences will belong to the same narrow set of categories, and that there will be many different kinds of experiences capturing the remaining 20%). And (3) that for most pairs of experiences x and y, people who have had both instances of x and y, will usually agree about which one is better/worse. We call such a relationship a 'deference'. More so, we would expect to see that deference, in general, will be transitive (a > b and b > c implying that a > c)." And then we went ahead and showed that the data was vastly more consistent with Lognormal World than Normal World. I think it holds up.
An additional argument that since has been effective at explaining the paradigm to newcomers has been in terms of exploring the very meaning of Just-Noticeable Differences (JNDs) in the context of the intensity of aspects of one's experience. Indeed, for (b), the depths of intensity of experience simply make no sense if we were to take a "Just-Noticeable Pinprick" as the unit of measurement and expect a multiple of it to work as the measuring rod between pain levels in the 1-10 pain scale. The upper ends of pain are just so bright, so immensely violent, so as to leave lesser pains as mere rounding errors. But if on each step of a JND of pain intensity we multiply the feeling by a constant, sooner or later (as Zvi might put it) "the rice grains on the chessboard suddenly get fully out of hand" and we enter hellish territory (for a helpful visual aid of this concept: start at 6:06 of our talk at the 2020 EAGxVirtual Unconference on this topic).

From my point of view, we can now justifiably work under the assumption that the qualitative picture painted by Log Scales is roughly correct. It is the more precise quantitative analysis which is a work in progress that ought to be iterated over in the coming years. This will entail broadening the range of people interviewed, developing better techniques to precisely capture and parametrize phenomenology (e.g. see our tool to measure visual tracers), use more appropriate and principled statistical methods (e.g. see the comment in the original piece about the Bradley-Terry model and extreme value theory), experimental work in psychophysics labs, neuroimaging research of peak experiences, and the search for cost-effective pragmatic solutions to deal with the worst suffering. I believe that future research in this area will show conclusively the qualitative claims, and perhaps there will be strong consilience on the more precise quantitative claims (but in the absence of a true Qualiascope, the quantitative claims will continue to have a non-negligible margin of error).
Ok, you may say, but if I disagree about the importance of preventing pain, and I care more about e.g. human flourishing, why should I care about this? Here I would like to briefly address a key point that people in the EA sphere have raised in light of our work. The core complaint, if we choose to see it that way, is that one must be a valence utilitarian in order to care about this analysis. That only if you think of ethics in terms of classical Benthamite pain-minimization and pleasure-maximization should we be so keen on mapping the true distribution of valence across the globe.
But is that really so?
Three key points stand out: First, that imperfect metrics that are proxies for aspects of what you care about (even when not all that you care about) can nonetheless be important. Second, that if you cared a little about suffering already, then the post-hoc discovery that suffering is actually that freaking skewed really ought to be a major update. And third, there really are reasons other than valence maximization as a terminal goal to care about extreme suffering: intense suffering is antithetical to flourishing since it has long-term sequelae. More so, even if confined to non-utilitarian ethical theories, one can make the case that there is something especially terrible about letting one's fellow humans (and non-humans) suffer so intensely without doing anything about it. And perhaps especially so if stopping such horrors turn out to be rather easy, as is indeed the case.
Let's tackle these points each in turn.
(1) Perhaps here we should bring a simple analogy: GDP. Admittedly, there are very few conceptions of the good in which it makes sense for GDP to be the metric to maximize. But there are also few conceptions of the good where you should disregard it altogether. You can certainly be skeptical of the degree to which GDP captures all that is meaningful, but in nearly all views of economic flourishing, GDP will likely have a non-zero weight. Especially if we find that, e.g. some interventions we can do to the economy would cause a 99.9% reduction in a country's GDP, one should probably not ignore that information (even if the value one assigns to GDP is relatively small compared to what other economists and social scientists assign it). Likewise for extreme suffering. There might be only a few conceptions of the good where that is the only thing we ought to work on. But avoiding hellish states is a rather universally desired state for oneself. Why not take it at least somewhat into account?
In truth, this is not something that classical questions in Effective Altruism pre-Log Scales couldn't overcome either. For instance, as far as I am aware, in practice QALYs are used more as a guide than as an absolute; their value within EA comes from the fact that in practice interventions are orders of magnitude different when it comes to their cost-effectiveness when assessed with QALYs. So even though the vast majority of EAs are not QALY absolutists, the differences in QALYs saved between interventions are large enough that as an approximate guide, the metric still generates huge amounts of consilience.
(2) In turn, the post-hoc finding that hellish states are much, much worse than one would intuitively believe really should at least rebalance one's priorities somewhat. Is there really no amount of suffering that would do so? Unless one has a utility function akin to a ReLu activation function, going far enough down into the depths of hell ought to count for something. And…
(3) Speaking candidly, fully articulating the true significance of this finding will take us to philosophically polemical territory: philosophy of personal identity where person-affecting views will see the situation quite differently than person-moment-affecting views, philosophy of mind where the ontological status of pleasure and pain might be questioned, and intricate questions that arise at the interface between the views of virtue ethicists, deontologists, negative and classical utilitarians. Of course a negative utilitarian who believes in Empty Individualism and Eternalism at the same time will likely be especially horrified by this information. But, with that said, I would suggest that there are good reasons to care about Log Scales no matter how antithetical one's views are to philosophical hedonism.
In particular, I would argue that deontologists and virtue ethicists should still take note. The cultivation of virtue requires a minimum of wellbeing in order to maintain motivation to live. And perhaps deontologists might find extreme suffering particularly egregious from the point of view of "things so horrible that ought not to be". Really, the people we interviewed for the cluster headache writeup told us that experiencing such levels of hellish suffering causes profound psychological transformations (e.g. one interviewee told us that experiencing the higher ends of pain in a cluster headache feels like a profound "spiritual violation" from which you may never recover – a feeling most certainly aggravated by the seeming indifference of people at large about their plight). Virtue ethicists and deontologists might as well recognize this cause area as work that is unconscionable not to perform, regardless of arguments based on the precise mathematical optimization of the prevention of negative valence.
And finally, in all seriousness, as the cognitive intelligentsia of the world begins to see clearly the nature of the distribution of pleasure and pain, we can expect there to be a big social benefit to being the one who destroys hell. Right now there isn't a huge social reward to be obtained by working on this cause, but I predict this will change. And, pragmatically, it is sensible to present this cause in a motivating rather than depressing light: indeed, let's give honor, glory, and endless admiration to whoever makes tangible progress in tearing hell down. And to all of the millionaires and billionaires reading this: this could be you! You could be the one who took on the mantle of preventing all future cluster headaches, established the field of anti-tolerance drugs for severe chronic pain, or got rid of kidney stones (and you did it before it was cool!). Let's get to work!

Review of Log Scales


Perfume Notes Are Impressionistic

From Reddit r/fragrance "An example of how commercial fragrances are composed [education] [long]" by u/acleverpseudonym. [See also r/DIYfragrance]. Lightly edited for grammar; links added for educational purposes; light [commentary and additions] by me.

Some of you might remember me. I was one of the moderators here for half a decade or so until my life got busy enough that it became difficult to keep up.
I have a small fragrance line myself and I occasionally make fragrances for other brands. Occasionally websites like Fragrantica and Now Smell This will write articles about my fragrances. I'm by no means a famous perfumer, but… I've worked enough as a perfumer to have insight into how fragrances are made.
The average person doesn't really think about what's actually in their fragrances any more than the average person really considers what flavors blend together to make up the taste of cola. (As a side note, you can make a passable cola flavor out of orange, lime, cinnamon, lemon, nutmeg, and coriander). When people do start thinking about it, they inevitably come across fragrance notes.
Fragrance notes are both incredibly useful and completely misleading because notes are not ingredients! Notes are the impressions that the fragrance creator thinks a lay person might get from smelling the fragrance. They aren't necessarily the ingredients used in the fragrance, and also, (this is another important bit), they're not necessarily even what the perfumer was attempting to make the fragrance smell like.
There's a fundamental misconception on the part of most consumers. Most consumers think that fragrances are made largely from familiar materials. Orange, lemon, jasmine, rose, birch leaves, lily of the valley, etc. Ok, maybe most people realize that most fragrances contain synthetic materials, but there's quite often an implicit assumption that the synthetics are a synthetic version of a natural material. In other words, that the synthetic is an attempt to recreate a smell that is found in nature and that all (or at least most) of the smells in a modern fragrance can be reproduced with naturals. I suppose that if you asked someone "do you think that all synthetics are an attempt to recreate a natural smell?" they would think about it and quickly come to the conclusion that this doesn't really make sense, but most people haven't actually stopped and thought about it. I see evidence of this assumption all over the place online:
"I'm looking for all natural version of [fragrance X].""I'm looking for a less synthetic version of Sauvage.""Can someone tell me which essential oils I can mix together to make an aquatic smell like Cool Water?"
It's really only pretty recently that there has been any real visibility (to the general public) into what materials go into a commercial fragrance, so this is an understandable point of view.
It's very, very wrong, though.
We need to take a giant step back and clarify some things.
Natural oils (essential oils/absolute oils/SCO2 extracts/etc.) are typically made up of dozens to hundreds of different materials [typically distributed in a long-tail]. They're like miniature perfumes in and of themselves with top notes, heart notes, and base notes. They're complex and beautiful, but they can only be manipulated in a limited way. They're like photographs.
Specialty bases are typically made up of dozens of individual ingredients, some natural, some man-made, some that exist in nature, some that didn't exist until they were created in a lab in the 60s. Basically, the sky is the limit. You generally don't know exactly what's in them, but they're produced by suppliers that you can be pretty sure will still be making them in 20 years. Sometimes, they're direct attempts to reproduce (or improve upon) a natural smell, for reasons of cost, safety, or performance. Sometimes, they're just a novel smell, like Givaudan's aquatic smelling Ultrazur base. These are like computer generated images [or Photoshop filters].
Isolates are ingredients made of a single molecule. They can be naturally derived or lab-made. They can exist in nature or not. They have names like linalool, coumarin, limonene, ambroxide [better known as ambroxan – the qualia of the day in this video and one of my favorite aromachemicals], methyl dihydrojasmonate and you can describe and find the chemical formula for them. A lot of them have trade names that are shorter and refer to one company's version. E.g. Hedione is a trade name for methyl dihydrojasmonate. Quite often, isolates can also be found in natural oils. Natural lavender oil is typically ~42% linalyl actate and ~40% linalool [note: lavender oil with more linalyl acetate relative to linalool tends to smell "dryer" and "dustier"]. When composing fragrances, I'll use linalool and linalyl acetate as isolates as well. Sometimes I'll use them to "tune" other ingredients that already contain them, but not in the quantities I want (like lavender [e.g. "LAVENDER OIL 40/42 has fresh, herbal, clean, aromatic nuances. The numbers in Lavender 40/42 indicate the linalyl acetate content; in this case, they indicate the product contains 40%-42% of linalyl acetate. Lavender 40/42 is generally a blend of various lavenders in order to get a consistent scent from batch to batch, with processors adding linalyl acetate to cover the smell of camphor or borneol components of a given lavender."]). Sometimes I'll use them to add a sweet, floral character to completely unrelated materials. If natural oils are like photographs and bases are like CGI, isolates are like paints. You have the most control, but it takes the most skill to turn them into something beautiful and complex.

Typical Lavender Oil Composition (source)
"Aromachemical" is a catch-all term used to describe these fragrant materials, though it typically connotes materials that are either isolates or bases.
Now that we have that out of the way, let's take a look at how commercial fragrances are created. The easiest way to do that is to take a look at a formula:
Cologne Accord [which you can find/purchase in Perfumer's Apprentice's "Key Accords"]:
This is an example formula for a "cologne" accord that was composed by Givaudan. It's by no means a finished fragrance, but most everyone would recognize the smell. It's a fresh, slightly sweet, slightly bitter, slightly green smell that often finds its way into men's fresh fragrances in one way or another (though that's not to say that this exact formula does).
Florhydral – 10Exaltolide Total – 10Ultrazur – 15Peonile – 60Petitgrain oil -70Ethylene Brassylate – 90Aurantiol Pure – 100Geranyl Acetate – 120Linalyl Acetate – 220Dihydro Myrcenol – 305
Total: 1000
Lets take a look at these ingredients one by one:
Florhydral is the trade name for an isolate. It is a floralizer that can add a sort of fresh, green, floral note to fragrances. It is not found in nature.
Exaltolide is another single molecule, a white musk. It's very delicately animalic, with the characteristic smell of a white musk. It's been used as a reference white musk because it's so typical of the "white musk" family.
Ultrazur is a specialty base from Givaudan. It's marine smelling, more oceanic than the Calone 1951 found in Cool Water. By itself, in concentration, it reminds me very much of fabric softener.
Peonile is another "not found in nature" molecule. It has a sort of rosy, sort of geranium-like, sort of peony-like, sort of grapefruit-like odor and acts as a volumizer and fixative. Odor descriptions that call to mind an assortment of known materials are fairly common, but it's important to note that they don't mean that it smells like x+y+z. It just means that they have facets that are reminiscent of these materials in some way.
Petitgrain oil is a natural oil made from the greenery of a citrus tree. Usually from orange trees, but varieties from mandarin, lemon, and all sorts of other citrus are also available.
Ethylene brassylate is a sweet, floral, white musk that can smell a touch old fashioned to some people by itself, or in really high concentrations. It's still a fairly clean musk, however. Yet another single molecule.
Aurantiol is a very, very commonly used material in fragrances, particularly men's fragrances. It's a single molecule (more or less). Aurantiol is a Schiff Base, which is a class of materials that you get when you combine an aldehyde and an amine and they react with each other. Most amines don't smell very good, but one of them, something called methyl anthranilate, does. It's found in white florals, particularly neroli [see: The Neroli Neighborhood for a deep dive into the neroli vibe], as well as grapes. Artificial grape flavor is basically methyl anthranilate. Hydroxycitronellal is an aldehyde that is often said to smell as close as any single material does to Lily of the Valley. When they're mixed together and heated, you get water and a very thick, highlighter yellow colored schiff base that smells like a more mild version of methyl anthranilate. It's sweet, long-lasting, and reminiscent of orange blossom/neroli and grape.
Geranyl acetate is the acetate version of geraniol. It's a single molecule that is literally found in hundreds of natural oils. Everything from oregano and thyme to ylang ylang, rose, geranium and neroli, to fir needle and frankincense. It's everywhere (much like linalool and linalyl actetate [note: in addition to lavender, also petitgrain, neroli, and bergamot all have very high concentrations of both linalool and linalyl acetate at the same time]). It's sweet, fruity-floral, and vaguely green smelling. It also has a smell that I think of as the "acetate smell," which can make it smell "chemically" to some people in isolation, even though it's found everywhere in nature.
Linalyl acetate is another material like geranyl acetate that's found all over the place in nature. Natural lavender oil is ~42% linalyl acetate. It's also found in most of the natural oils I mentioned for geranyl actetate. The description for it is also very similar to geranyl acetate, but it's more lavendery and less rosy. I really like this material and use it when I want to add an ethereal fruity/floral sweetness to a composition.
Dihydromyrcenol is aggressively fresh, cold, and almost harsh. It's somewhat reminiscent of citrus and lavender. Mostly, though, it smells like laundry detergent. It was used to scent laundry detergent for years before it made it into fine fragrance. At first it was used in tiny doses, but by the 1980s it was being used much more prominently. Something like 10% of the formula of Drakkar Noir was dihydromyrcenol [and apparently also the fragrance super-star of the 90s Calvin Klein One]. It's found in trace amounts in nature, but nothing natural really smells prominently of it.
So now that I've explained all the materials, let's take a look at the formula. Here are some observations:
Natural oils from recognizable sources only make up 7% of the accord. There are other materials that are found in nature, but they're all isolates, one alien smelling-molecule refined from a more familiar-smelling material. More than half of the formula is made from 2 molecules [once again, long-tails]. More than 90% is made from 8. The amounts of materials used can vary wildly. Material strength is in no way consistent.
The perfumer who composed this formula painted the majority of the formula in broad strokes from single molecule aromachemicals and then filled in depth and details with natural petitgrain oil, and tiny amounts of a specialty base (ultrazur) and a powerful aldehyde (florhydral).
I didn't compose this, and I can't speak for the perfumer who did, but I can imagine how it might have been composed. I'll walk you through how I'm imagining the perfumer's process:
I imagine the accord was inspired by petitgrain, but the perfumer wanted something fresher and more stylized and abstract, in the same way a graphic designer might prefer a stylized logo to a photo. Dihydromyrcenol is fresh and powerful, but also cold and harsh and almost bitter. It's a good compliment to petitgrain, but right off the bat, I know it's not going to be suitable by itself unless I'm trying to just modify the smell of petitgrain a little bit by adding a teeny tiny bit dihydromyrcenol. It needs some cushion, something to cut the harshness. Geranyl acetate and linalyl acetate add a niche cushioning effect, can be used liberally, and are both found in petitgrain, so they'll go well with it. By itself, that composition is still cold and bitter. It needs a bit more warmth, but not a candy-like warmth. Something keeping in line with the petitgrain. Aurantiol is the obvious choice. The scent of orange tree leaves goes well with the scent of the orange blossoms that nestle amongst them. In keeping with the "more abstract" theme though, we don't want to just dump neroli or orange blossom absolute into this. Too much complexity can leave a composition smelling muddled [see quote below for more on this], and we want the bitter, fresh, green petitgrain to be the star of the show here, not the neroli. Plus, neroli is quite expensive and not as long-lasting as aurantiol. We add the aurantiol for warmth. The peonile for volume and some white musks for depth. It's pretty common to use multiple musks in a fragrance because many people are anosmic to some musks, so you want to make sure they're able to smell at least one of them.
Then as finishing touches, we add a hint of Ultrazur, which adds a bit of modern sophistication and florhydral, which in tiny amounts adds a bit of a dewy, natural, green smell to the composition.
This composition isn't about taking familiar smells and mixing them together like some sort of fruit salad with hunks of this and hunks of that. It's about taking an idea and enhancing aspects of it, rebalancing it until it fits the vision. It's more like painting than making a collage. It's not necessarily as detailed or accurate, but it's not supposed to be. Degas wasn't trying to create photorealistic ballerinas. Van Gogh wasn't trying to accurately render the night sky. They were trying to evoke an impression. Perfumers are the same way.

If that fragrance doesn't smell like realistic rose/jasmine/cedar/etc., chances are, it wasn't intended to. The perfumer wasn't trying to make a realistic jasmine and failing, the perfumer was trying to make an entirely new smell that just has aspects that are jasmine-like.
Breaking it apart into notes is actually counterproductive in a lot of ways.
…but that's a subject for another post.

Relatedly:
In response to the Reddit r/DIYfragrance question: "Lavender + Lemon + Rose accord – How would you use a lavender + lemon + rose accord? I like that combo a lot – a narcotic acidic mix with powerful mood-lifting properties. But as soon as I use patchouli, ginger, or even chamomile as the base notes for the composition, the magic of the accord gets drowned out by the base. I'm curious how more experienced DIY fragrance makers would go about harnessing the magic of that accord by blending it with things that enhance rather than detract from it. Thank you in advance "
u/NanashiSaito comments:
I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say that it sounds like you're using essential oils rather than individual aromachemicals for your accords.
If that does happen to be the case, that's your issue. It's not that there's anything specific about Rose/Lemon/Lavender that doesn't play nice with other scents. It's that essential oils inherently get "muddy" when you start to mix more than a few together.
Essential oils are a complex combination of hundreds of individual aromachemicals. They're almost like finished fragrances unto themselves. I look at them like jellybeans. One jellybean tastes like whatever flavor it's supposed to taste like. Two or three jellybeans can taste like a fun combination of flavors.
But have you ever tried popping a handful of jellybeans? The flavors all muddle together and create this generic sort of fruity sweetness that doesn't really taste like anything in specific. It's the flavor equivalent of swirling together a bunch of colors until you get brown.
Same with essential oils. For example, lemon and lime essential oil share a ton of common ingredients, mostly terpenes like limonene, pinene, terpinene, Myrcene, etc. But anyone who has smelled lemon and lime knows that they smell very distinct. This is because they have slightly different proportions of these ingredients. Lemon might have 70% limonene, 10% pinene, and 15% terpinene whereas lime has 50% limonene, 5% pinene and 10% terpinene. When you blend them together, these distinct proportions are lost, and with them, their characteristic smells.
Same goes for mixing other different oils: ginger for example also contains a lot of the same terpenes that lemon contains. But it also has a big dose of camphene and zingiberene which give it the characteristic sharp ginger bite. But when you mix ginger with lemon, it throws off the delicate balance of terpenes in the lemon and thus muddies the character. Same with patchouli: lots of patchoulol and guaiene, but also lots of terpenes found in lemon. Same with chamomile: lots of ethereal esters but also lots of terpenes.
In fact, it's hard to find essential oils that don't muddy the balance of lemon. Lavender happens to have a fairly close balance of terpenes (in addition to the characteristic lavender combination of Linalool and Linalyl Acetate). And rose is almost all alcohols.
Basically, with each essential oil you add, you also add a large list of other oils you can't add without muddying your scent. And with lavender/lemon/rose, there's really not much room to explore if you're using essential oils only.
And there's the rub: if you really want to explore enhancing your scent, you need to get more granular and start using individual aromachemicals rather than entire essential oils into themselves.
If you're dead set on using essential oils only, check out www.2pih.com/ingredients.php: I put together a resource with about 200 different essential oils and their constituent ingredients. You want to find ones that use either entirely different ingredient sets than what are found in your main accord (which will be difficult because you've really covered a broad swath of ingredients with your combination), or find ones whose common ingredients are in similar proportion (which will also be difficult).
On the other hand, if you're already using individual aromachemicals and your description of the accord is more abstract than literal, then you probably know all of this, so my apologies for the presumption, and I hope this comment is helpful for anyone else reading this.
Good luck, and see you in the singularity!

Featured image: San Giorgio Maggiore at Dusk by Claude Monet

Perfume Notes Are Impressionistic