I’m reading Donald Hoffman’s incredibly interesting book The case against reality: why evolution hid the truth from of eyes, and I couldn’t help drawing parallels to the practice of Jhana in Buddhism.
The main question of the book is: do our perceptions reflect objective reality?
For example, when we see a red apple, is there actually a red apple there, even when we close our eyes?
Many philosophers have attempted to answer that question. Some conclude yes, others conclude no. The difference is that Hoffman uses evolutionary theory to answer the question. Not just evolutionary theory in general, but the mathematical formalization of evolutionary theory.
According to the mathematics of evolution, the answer is no. It’s almost an impossibility that our perceptions reflect anything of objective reality. Our perceptions are just shiny eye candy that helps us stay alive and procreate.
However, the math also shows there are some extremely rare situations where our perceptions can reflect objective reality.
According to Hoffman, perception has a chance to reflect objective reality if the perception is 1) really simple and 2) the fitness payoffs only increase (or decrease. Math speak: the fitness functions are monotonic).
This is the juicy part that IMO relates to the Jhanas.
1) Simple perceptions
What is meant by ‘simple’ is actually the amount of information (measured in bits) of the perception. Consider a single photo receptor (we have millions of them in our eyes) that gives a perception of ‘white’ when a photon hits it and ‘black’ when photons do not hit it.
This perception encodes one bit of information, since it has only two states, black or white. Therefore it is ‘simple’ in the mathematical sense.
2) Fitness payoffs only increase
Most fitness payoffs follow the the Goldilocks principle. E.g. oxygen, too little and we die. Too much, we die. Water is the same, too little or too much will kill us. There is a sweet spot of oxygen and water that is just right, where we feel happy and thrive.
If we take food for example, the fitness payoffs of food are not always increasing. It’s not the case that the more we eat, the better we feel. If you eat, there comes a time when you’re full, and you don’t want to eat more. You’ve reached the peak fitness payoff. Eating more will make you feel nauseous. If you push it you will feel really unwell from overeating.
A fitness payoff that only increases would mean you only feel better the more you get of it. You never come to the point where it’s “too much of a good thing.”
Relation to the jhanas
It seems to me that (some accounts of) the jhanas fit really well with 1) simplicity and 2) increasing payoffs.
For example, Ajahn Brahm talks about the jhanas as extremely simple perceptions. When the five sense are shut off, that amounts to eliminating a lot of perceptual information. There is only a single object of perception which is bliss (i.e. it’s a ‘simple’ perception in the mathematical sense).
Moreover, the payoffs are always increasing. For example, in suttas like an9.34 each jhana is described as successively more blissful than the preceding jhana.
When it comes to the peace and bliss of meditation, there is no Goldilocks zone. It’s not that some peace and bliss is good, but if you get too much peace and bliss you get nauseous and you need to take a break. The more peace and bliss the better.
Conclusion
According to the mathematics of evolutionary theory, only certain types of perceptions are capable of reflecting objective reality. These perceptions are characterized by simplicity (they encode only a small amount of information) and monotonic payoffs (more is better, less is worse, there’s no sweet spot).
Some accounts of the jhanas seem to be congruent with this result of the (mathematical) theory of evolution. That is, some descriptions of jhana experiences describe simple perceptions with monotonic payoffs.
The suttas say that these jhana-perceptions allows one to see things as they really are (e.g. an10.2). The (mathematical generalization of the) theory of evolution implies that these type of jhana perceptions are the only ones that can reflect objective reality.
That’s cool! At least I think so
Disclaimer
Obviously what I’ve written here doesn’t prove anything. I’m just speculating, and I thought it was interesting enough to share
Working from home and being inside almost all day due to country-wide corona shutdown also makes it easier to write long posts like this. Don’t take it too seriously