Inside the outside of the Black Box

 

The black box-theory is a good one. It is simple enough to be useful in understanding how the mind operates intelligently. I will probably use it myself. But there is one problem attached to it, a big one.

If I’ve understood it correctly, the BB-theory builds on the premise that input and output is inherently distinct. With computers, that seems reasonable. When pressing "A" we want the processor to perceive "A", not "42" or "gradda" or "whatever". If we put in "A", that must be the input BB gets.
But this is not the nature of the input mind receives. Awareness (see end note 1) is never of one single, separate unit of input data. Awareness is always of a unified context, a whole with parts in it, as parts within a whole. We cannot perceive reality in any other way (see end note 2). We never perceive a single "A", even if "A" is exactly what we perceive. See the difference?

Input is discrete in the sense of "A" will always be "A" in itself. But since "A" never comes alone, the meaning of "A" is relative to other distinct input perceived in the context of "A". Think about it and you will know that this is also true for artificial systems. The input of "A" will not produce a meaningful output if "A" is unrelated to other data. If so, the only possible output is the re-presentation of "A", say "a" or "Ei". In this case, BB doesn’t know anything about/around "A" to make intelligent use of the input. All BB knows is "A". I refer to that as objective, or absolute knowledge. It is knowing this as it is, producing output "this is this". So asking BB "What is A", you get "wHAT is a".
But if "A" comes with "s" we get "As", and suddenly there is meaning to it. "A" becomes "part of a word similar to like". Likewise, the distinct property of "s" gets is meaning from its contextual relation to "A". The two "A" and "s" becomes, by means of being contextually related, the one "As". Were the context of "A" instead "sk", "A" would become "part of a word similar to question".

To outline this process in detail is not possible within a single blog-post. I will come back to it over and over again, because this is extremely important if you want to know intelligence correctly. A full description of how the BB of mind converts discrete units of input into dynamic patterns of related data can be found via the links. I will point out that, although some say Relational Frame Theory (RFT) is inherently difficult and hard to get, it is an extremely simple theory if you approach it from an objective perspective. If you hold, as your basic premise, that there is no causality involved, that all events are responses to a context of multiple responding, then there is no problem at all. If you assume that there is no separate unit of function, no subjective agent doing anything, then there will be no missing pieces in your understanding. It is completely understandable. The paradox is, to explain what is inherently simple, you need a lot of words. That is why the so called sages and mystics believes that truth is impossible to speak of. Truth is so simple it is best expressed in silence. As for me, I just can’t keep my big mouth shut. That is because "I" cannot control my "self". What I do is in fact just responding in relation to relative data.

What I get is what you get!
Geddit?

The bigger problem with the BB-theory is the basic premise underlying all of scientific method i.e. the hypothesis of causal relations. If it were only a hypothesis, there would be hope, but to me it seems more like an a priori assumption everyone must agree on. If you disagree, as I do, none of your statements will be considered relevant. But for now, that is a bit off topic. I will deal with causality elsewhere. There is nothing happening beside contextual responding to responding in context.

Full stop.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_frame_theory

https://contextualscience.org/system/files/IntroRFT_0.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2731367/pdf/behavan00011-0071.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779078/pdf/anvb-25-01-87.pdf

　

Awareness is the momentary totality of input eliciting, as a response, distinct patterns of neuronal firing strong enough to be among the approximately 5 patterns that make up momentary awareness.


The only other way is by either con-centration or de-centration of awareness, as in the two basic methods of meditation.