*“A Meme to End All Memes” Blog Series – Part II: Evolutionary Transcendence*
II.I Compressing Reality: A Defensible Definition of Desire Summary: Behind every description is a choice of concepts. We describe the world in terms of “desires” that cause goals - outcomes which are easy to verify and hard to achieve. But high-level concepts can be misleading. To guard against this, we evaluate concepts as tools for compressing reality. Can “desires” really predict reality in a way that is both compatible with, and not reducible to, the laws that govern physical objects? Our analysis leads us to a more mathematical definition of desire (based on computational complexity), and also a broader appreciation for the possibility of non-physical causality in a deterministic universe.
In Part I of the series, we used desires as the centerpiece of an ecological view of the mind. We claimed that valence and emotion are perceived by desires, thoughts are generated by them, and beliefs are the selection pressures that emerge from their interactions with one another. These correspondences are compelling because they all arise naturally out of our definition of desires as life forms which pursue recognizable binary goal-criteria. But what underlies our original definition of desire? Now is our chance to return to this fundamental question, and in doing so tackle an even bigger one: Why do psychological phenomena seem qualitatively different from physical phenomena? (mind vs matter)
Many conversations about spirituality begin and end in one question:
“Do you believe in something spiritual - as in that which is beyond the material world?” “No” (or “what does that even mean?”)
Physical concepts such as “particle” and “mass”, are real because they have consistent meaning across contexts, and can be used to make precise predictions validated by experiments.
By contrast, humanistic concepts such as “spiritual”, “conscious”, or even “desire” must be held cautiously. These words are useful, but their definitions are not rigorous. When applied outside their common-sense context, it becomes unclear what exactly they can predict or explain:
“Desire” is the central concept for this entire framework. We will continue using it to understand everything from moral truth, to spiritual practice. But as far as I know, “desire” has never been defined rigorously enough to be used in such a technical manner. We want a definition that fits common (Good) predictions, dispels (Bad) ones, and clarifies crazy (WTF) statements to make precise arguments about their validity. Some definitions exist, but they are not good enough:
We will begin our journey into spirituality by celebrating skepticism instead of brushing it aside. We’ll ask: Does the concept of “desire” deserve to exist? Is speaking of “desires” a fundamental necessity or just a mere convenience?
We will argue that a naïve deterministic view of the universe naturally leaves room for a conception of “desire” that is just as precise and fundamental as physical “particles” with “mass”.