Impossible for the HN crowd: Do nothing for 2 minutes
donothingfor2minutes.com
donothingfor2minutes.com
Recently, I took a day to tackle this problem for myself, and I've found that I'm just much more productive when I'm stuck in a quicker REPL loop, rather than when I need to wait and stare out the window--and then I get distracted.
I don't think the "when forced to wait, wait" strategy would work well for me.
open "http://www.donothingfor2minutes.com/"
The fact of the matter is making the bed is entirely unimportant. It's symbolic of the state of always playing catch-up because you are behind from the moment you wake up. Nothing is more important than taking a few minutes to organize yourself and your living quarters, as well as everything else in your life, both physically and mentally. Hell, you could stand there and admire the wrinkles and folds of your unmade bed, if that is how you prefer it to be kept, just as long as you stand there and give yourself a minute (or two).
None of this is true with my bedding. I won't lose my duvet because it's not sitting straight on my bed. I suppose I could conceivably damage nightwear in putting it on but that risk is unconnected with its storage location. Yet, because tidiness has practical benefits in other contexts, it has become a generalised virtue. Which is nonsense.
Reeeally? I haven't cleaned my room or made my bed in a year. Think about how much time I've gained.
Working with languages that destroy flow probably grounds more programming juju than most other major factors put together. Context switches kill. (PS, is your timesheet ready?)
"I invite you to pay attention to anything — the sight of this text, the sensation of breathing, the feeling of your body resting against your chair — for a mere sixty seconds without getting distracted by discursive thought. It sounds simple enough: Just pay attention. The truth, however, is that you will find the task impossible. If the lives of your children depended on it, you could not focus on anything — even the feeling of a knife at your throat — for more than a few seconds, before your awareness would be submerged again by the flow of thought. This forced plunge into unreality is a problem. In fact, it is the problem from which every other problem in human life appears to be made."
Being focused in the present is awesome, but the fact that we have the ability to pay attention on things other than reality is not a problem, but in fact essential to the health of the mind (our "spirit" if you will). Imagine if all your circumstances sucked and all your mind could focus on was reality...
Secondly, this essay sounds like he's much more inner-focused, as I know that I rarely have these "flow of thought" and self-conscious moments that he calls being "submerged again by the flow of thought"... If you asked me at any moment what I was thinking, I would tell you "nothing"... Obviously I'm thinking something behind the scenes, but my focus is just not on my thoughts when I'm doing. So my own personal thought-life does not confirm this silliness.
Then again, I'm very extroverted and rarely focused on my own thoughts -- maybe it's my "clearly false" Christian religion, or the fact that I've been a runner for 20+ years which is essentially meditating on present experience (pain), but I just have a strong natural tendency to focus on the present experience rather than my own thoughts.
Even if you're looking at this under the domain of science, I would still argue that the ability of humans to cope with present circumstances is directly correlated to their capability to focus upon that which is not the present. (i.e. thinking joyful thoughts, etc.).
That little essay is pitiful, talk to "robg" here on YC if you want to hear from a Neuroscientist who has a better respect for this domain of mind and spirit. The way this guy just starts with a bunch of assumptions and blasts away at all potential truth in less than 1,000 words gives me no respect for his method of thinking.
In the method of 'religious truths' everyone is right and everyone is wrong, there is no way to sort out the true from the false.
When someone says, "clearly false", it should be (and in this case is) referencing the absence of any proof at all for the extraordinary claims. In this case, people who defend religion have a burden of proof here. Perhaps more precise wording would be: "arbitrary and totally unverified".
This is why I brought up fairy tales. They are just as arbitrary and unprovable. Do you think we should seriously explore them as well? If not, why does religion get a pass - because so many believe it? Let's not have science by vote of the masses. After all, the scientific consensus is that religion is false ;-)
Why not? I find it quite astonishing how often starting with verifiably false assumptions leads to worthwhile results. Your tower of reason is a decent construction. I find it a nice place to visit, but sometimes I prefer the woods. A mind too well-ordered misses the faults in its own assumptions.
Now then, I don't see how this (meaning, your example of aesthetics) is similar to religion. Religion is just assumed to be relative by most people I think; at least the religious people I talk to seem to say so and use it explicitly as an argument (you do, too, I think) to parry demands for falsifiability. So then your comparison goes out of the window.
Religious claims are typically falsifiable, and repeatedly disproved (creationism is a good example). Every time that happens, religions eventually back off, keeping only their claims that are not yet disproved.
Second, while some topics (like choosing a morality) are definitely outside the scope of science, the accurate description of our world is definitely inside. If something we could reasonably call "God" exist in our world, it's got to have consequences. I expect science to find out, or at least try. "Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.
EDIT In response to your edit:
>"Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.
This is your projection, not mine.
Either God exists, or it doesn't. Of atheists and deists, one group is wrong. As a matter of fact. As you know, I don't believe in God. If I were polite, I would stop there. Same thing for a deist. We could have a conversation, say "I (don't) believe in God", and it would still look like we "respect" the other's beliefs, and therefore we respect the other, period.
Trouble starts when I say "God doesn't exist" (it really doesn't). It's offensive. It makes too obvious that I think deists are wrong (they really are). Such a direct attack to their belief is of course not polite at all (yes, I am not polite). Politeness is secondary, however: we face Freaking Real Death! I bet many would like to solve that problem (and there are slim hopes that it will eventually be).
On the other hand, a deist that really believes in God, should tell me that it exists, that I'm wrong. Being polite is again secondary. Hey, my non-believer's very soul is at stake! I certainly wouldn't want to Burn in Hell for, say, wanting to be immortal.
Another point. You said earlier:
> […] "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. […]
This is weird to my ears. I assume that for any thing that have observable effect, science has a hope of detecting (and proving the presence of) that thing. God is no exception. So, if you're right, then the existence of God doesn't have any observable effect (by contraposition). Then, belief in God, an observable effect, isn't linked in any way to the actual existence of God. Meaning, belief in God has no valid justification.
Plus, the way that typical monotheists religions depict it, not only God is observable, it has actually been observed. For instance, any miracle God have performed should have a hope of being detected by archaeologists. (Unless God cleverly erased the evidence but I don't recall anything like that on the Bible. To my knowledge, it isn't written that God evades science.)
Plus, God is almost always depicted as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent (let's live aside sentience etc.). Well, those three characteristics combined should be sufficient to have a pretty big observable effect: living in the best possible world. If we don't (it's pretty clear we don't), then something is off.
So, saying that the existence of God can't be tested strikes me as an extremely weak justification for belief in God. Weaker that plainly stating that God exists because three famous, old, Holy books say so (authority can be a valid argument).
For the other side, I suggest http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Reductionism_%28sequence%29 It's longer, but I enjoyed it nevertheless. (I'd like to recommend http://lesswrong as a whole, but it's literally months worth of reading)
a topic index is here: http://christianthinktank.com/hway.html
it could be interesting to dialogue on the subject too...
Fair enough. There are so many dishonest people arguing on both sides that one begins to expect the worst.
>Either God exists, or it doesn't. Of atheists and deists, one group is wrong. As a matter of fact.
Agreed. But one can never prove a negative. We can never prove that there is no plane of existence where another being might exist. That's not to say science shouldn't try. Science should, of course, explore every aspect of existence that it can test and observe.
>Politeness is secondary, however: we face Freaking Real Death! I bet many would like to solve that problem (and there are slim hopes that it will eventually be).
Of course. I don't see why a theist should have a problem with trying to cure death. For a Christian (for example), the story of the tower of babel should be enough to feel comfortable that man wont be allowed to do "go to far". If it happens, then it was obviously allowed.
>Hey, my non-believer's very soul is at stake!
Honestly, it is this very urgency from both sides that causes the problems I think. If the climate change situation has demonstrated anything, it has demonstrated that my urgency can not inspire you to action.
>science has a hope of detecting (and proving the presence of) that thing
We can't even detect the things we think we know about (e.g. dark matter). We can't expect to be able to detect things we don't even know about yet.
>not only God is observable
Not God, but actions of God. And I agree, some occurrences in a holy book should be able to be discovered.
>If we don't (it's pretty clear we don't), then something is off.
You seem to be assuming God would be in the same plane of existence as us. If I build a house I am not confined to that house, why would God be constrained by his own creation.
>saying that the existence of God can't be tested strikes me as an extremely weak justification for belief in God
It wasn't my intention to justify belief in anything, but rather defuse the absolute certainty of a position that can never be absolutely certain. My hope is that if people realize that no one has or can have all the answers that they'll stop trying to convince everyone all the time.
From what I've seen, the people who preach their message to strangers the loudest tend to be the worst representatives said message, regardless of faith (or lack thereof).
I agree with your real point, though; what I'm saying is that religion in a class of its own, because the religious make it (or should I say 'make it up') to be that way.
(Related to this point, I do think that one day religion will be explained: when we fully understand the brain, how thoughts develop etc.; at that point, religion will be shown to be just a figment of our (rather, 'their') imagination. Maybe it served an evolutionary role once, who knows. Of course it won't give us insight in the nature of 'god', it will merely show that 'god' is a fabrication of our unconsciousness).
Your other points are related to http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Anti-epistemology and http://lesswrong.com/lw/of/dissolving_the_question/ (I suspect you know about these, but others may find them interesting.)
With regards to potential religious truths then the problem of course is that you can't verify religious claims thus the very idea of talking about truth in this context seems rather misguided.
Religious claims are by definition and practical circumstances not verifiable since they are claims about things outside what we can observe.
But they are also claims that there is a metaphysical reality which we cannot access through science but contain truths about the world we can access. And that is where it falls apart IMHO.
You'd probably do something to improve your reality rather than try and replace a miserable life with some form of escapism (not picking only on religion here, even World of Warcraft fits the bill).
IMHO one should be able write without the pretense of neutrality and be judged holistically rather than dismissed out of hand.
His major point is this: "There is no discrete self".
He isn't making an argument to discredit any potential religious 'truth' (in fact, he is using the existence of certain religious 'truths' as evidence for his argument). His comment about 'clearly false' religion was not his main point (although for some of us, extreme lack of evidence and verifiability is enough).
The annihilation of the self is an idea/concept/experience that occurs in many religious traditions, and also when exposed to certain drugs (hallucinogenics, I think). It is also a common theme in literature dating back to antiquity. The Bacchus is an example. Enlightenment in Buddhism is about annihilation of the self. Not that I am an expert on either.
By annihilation of the self, I mean the elimination of the concept of the self, not suicide. The thought being that the concept of the self is actually an absurdity. "Can a man step in the same river twice." This is what he is referring to when he talks about the flow of thoughts.
The concept of self leads to a lot of problems, selfishness, fear of death, things like that.
That's actually quite simple. Mushrooms, LSD, or any number of other psychedelics should do the job. For the more industrious, meditation will do it too.
I'm a skeptic when it comes to "Religion" type stuff, but meditation is one of those practices that has survived so long that I wondered if there was something practical to it. The main point in that book is that meditation has nothing to do with religion, it's a personal productivity technique. It's fundamentally about training your mind to focus on one thing for a period of time. It seemed interesting and I didn't have to buy anything other than the book I'd already purchased to try it. So I started doing it ten minutes a day, and let me tell you, the results have been impressive for me. It's nothing more mystical than the ability to really intensely focus on something, one thing, without letting your mind wander. If you think that's easy - give it a try, for just ten minutes. It's surprising just how hard it is to contain your mind for that long.
Give it a try, before long, sitting still for two minutes is so easy you won't believe it. As a side benefit you may learn how to relax at an unbelievable rate during those two minutes.
The premise that is argued is a very strong one, being "Is there any truth at all in the claims of various religions?" It is as academic as one can be, with appropriate cites and books to read and refer to. However, it is a "Howto" manual that does require quite a bit of work.
As an aside, I bet you (and others) have had the problem of itching and scratching and burning and freezing and biting and everything else that could go wrong when you try to meditate. I had it when I first started to practise, and the general feelings of discomfort only seem to multiply. Asana is the Hindu technique used in order to quiet the mind and body. It's in the same document.
Meditation, for those that could actually pass the 2:00 timer, is directly relevant as it is all the books referred to by the Amazon link. And I posted an interesting critique and comparison of techniques to possibly use in doing meditation.
Religions want you to seek answers from them.
Meditation encourages you to seek answers from within.
The Buddha was the only one to provide a direct roadmap on how to do it, with prior textural help from the Hindu Vedas. The Vedas were closely guarded by the Brahmins (Hindu Priest class) and therefore hard for the 'average man' to get a hold of.
So yes, there is a great deal of 'religious detrius' to remove, but I believe the benefits are still there for the here and now, not some future afterlife/reincarnation. Clear and quiet thoughts have no monetary worth, but I'd trade no physical objects for them.
But, IS the mind a computer?
Of course yoga also originated out of religious practices, but very few people have trouble seeing yoga as an activity that can be done completely separate from any kind of religious or spiritual practice. I would assume that over time, as meditation practice becomes more common that people will have an easier time accepting that it can be practiced in a completely as a completely secular activity.
2. I stopped because I became paranoid that with 0:15 seconds, the website was going to rick-roll me.
Though the author would probably need to add <START> button, to minimize the unintentional fails. Also failing could be adjusted for accidental mouse movements, perhaps by ignoring distances of just couple of pixels.
Edit: Just looked at the code. The programmer missed a great chance to gather some data. I would have tracked the fail events using Google Analytics so I could see how many fails on average per user from different traffic sources:
_gaq.push(['_trackEvent', 'Fail', 'Mouse Move', 'dummy', 'dummy']);to track how many fails were required before success
May I suggest using getclicky.com which calculates time based on actual time spent.
For extra difficulty, you should throw in more and more things like the above to make ocd people squirm ;)
This said, the site is really, really making me think about moving back to Puerto Rico.
Failed for me every time before I even did anything (Chrome, Vista). When I changed tab, and then came back without mousing into the viewport, the FAIL message didn't appear...but neither did the clock count down.
Works in Firefox 3.6 though.
- Alright, calm down
- What if my monitor goes into power saving mode?
- It's only 2 minutes, I'm sure power save is set for longer than 2 minutes.
- I wonder what the default setting for power saving is in Windows 7.
- Concentrate!
- (looking at the horizon on the right below the clouds) I wonder what it would be like to be a world traveler by way of boat.
- Hey, what are those birds doing there?
- Try to remember your thoughts to post on HN after the 2 minutes is up.
- Look at that swell. I wonder how that works, exactly.
- (distracting noise in background) Feeling tense again!
- I think the wife and kid are watching me take this seriously, and have probably lost a sliver of respect for me.
- (mind drifts into nothing for a bit)
- Well, that was calming. I like looking at the horizon.
- I wonder what I get for beating this.
Because I clicked open a lot of stories from the main HN page in background tabs, and by the time I got to that one, it had told me I had passed.
Just opened a second tab and passed, though.
I'm all for adding more peace and quiet reflection to my life, but watching a javascript timer count down for two minutes on a website with a picture of the ocean doesn't count.
I mean, why does it matter that it's a javascript timer? And that it's a website? Or what the picture is? Why should any of these things affect how seriously you take what it's trying to do?
I sit in front of my computer to get shit done. When I want to take a break and do nothing, I hang out with friends, take the dog for a walk, go to the park with my wife. I don't sit motionless at my computer and listen to waves. But that's just me.
I was so close. Trying it for the second time:
* Open in new tab.
* Change to that tab using keyboard, let it activate, be careful not moving your mouse inside the window.
* Change to another tab/window/app, continue work as usual.
* Success!
Kinda like my sex life.
[1]http://www.workrave.org/ [2]http://tech.inhelsinki.nl/antirsi/
There is a work method based on this as well: http://www.pomodorotechnique.com/
As the Zen enthusiasts already implicitly acknowledged, the ability to concentrate on a single thing may well be valuable, but concentrating on a single thing, especially on a single thing of your own choosing at the time of your choosing, is vastly different from doing nothing, on a moment chosen by someone else, while actually concentrating on something you don't consider interesting.
But relaxing like this was much more soothing than reading about programming languages or hacker-essays. I've heard a lot of times that taking a break for 10-15 minutes where you just close your eyes and relax is good for you, but I've never really tried it. Maybe I will do this more often after this.
Also, would it be possible to make one for 10 or 15 minutes as well? Sometimes, 2 minutes isn't enough.
I closed my eyes and focused intently on the sound of the waves. I imagined myself on a beach, waves rolling in and out. I wondered what kind of material the beach was constructed from. Sand and a few larger rocks, it sounded like. There's a distinctive wash, but it seems just as clear there's a break in the rhythm of the crashing wave.
I then started to wonder just what shapes of wave was giving rise to the really bad compression artifacting in the wave sound on that page. Some of the sounds are remarkably clear for all the artifacts in other portions.
Unfortunately, I didn't really get anywhere with that lien of thought before my CFO interrupted me. At which point I saw the site had determined that I 'succeeded'.
I'm not entirely convinced I failed though. Sure, I thought about sand, rocks and compression -- but I was concentrating on the sounds of the waves that whole time.
What meaning could there be in "do nothing but listen to this" if truly listening to the sounds and internalizing them and analyzing them was ruled out as being "something"?
If staring like a zombie with your mind empty was the goal, surely there wouldn't be an audio track and full-window image on that page.
I wonder how many people cheat.
Also the clock on my wall is really loud.
I found that the time seemed to pass more slowly when I closed me eyes. I had my eyes closed for the first minute, and I opened them when I thought it should have been about two minutes, only to discover that I still had a minute left.
Nice job, bookmarked for future relaxation.
Concentration is a skill that requires practice, like anything else.
It's a well-meant attempt of bringing some calamity into our lives, though, thanks for that!
FWIW, I'm running Chrome on Win7.
(And I had no waves, because I don't have Flash plugin enabled, meh.)
Love the site though. It really is relaxing and a neat simple idea. Hard to sit through after a 16oz red bull, but i did it!
Although it seems in Safari I can succeed by loading it in a background tab :).
It worked its magic, I felt better when it was over. Goes in the bookmarks. Wonder how I could make it activate automatically once or twice a day...
Ironically, came before 20 seconds elapsed to post this comment :)
Also, this is the second site I've seen this week that adds background sound via an invisible youtube embed.
Honestly, didn't find it too difficult; just dropped into chair-zazen for a couple minutes.
Fixed that for you.
workrave/xwrits are better, if it actually matters.
your typing detracts from your enlightenment
He has been swimming
Well done !