The ambivalence of intelligence

As always reality speaks of itself through our mouths. Intelligence means "between choises ". This is relative self/ego wobbling from this to that, seemingly able to pick the right action and correct truth.
Functionally, the Self and Intelligence is the very same process of conditioned separation from reality.
Both rely totally on an experiencer of observations.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=intelligence

Confusion as "knowing" confusion

Below is an article by Mr. B. Kastrup in which he, as far as I can see, attempts to debunk the notion of artificial intelligence/consciousness, without having a clue about who he is and why he is so damn intelligent. This is no different from the AI-designers Mr. Kastrup is arguing with. They have no idea either, with the possible exception of Mr. Haikonen and a few others.
From an objective perspective, this is all good fun and entertaining, watching subjective opinions battling in the Game of Truth. No oponion will win, but confusion has yet again gained momentum.
My comments in italics.
__________________________

The new sci-fi film Ex_Machina has been teasing back into the cultural dialogue dreams of artificial consciousness: the idea that we humans, through the Faustian power of technology, can birth into being mechanisms capable of inner life, subjectivity and affection. Since these dreams are entirely based on implicit assumptions about the nature of consciousness and reality at large, I thought a few observations would be opportune.

The first thing to notice is the difference between artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness. The former entails the ability to process information in ways that we consider intelligent. In particular, an intelligent machine should be capable of constructing an internal, symbolic representation of its environment so to interact coherently with it. We can test whether a machine is intelligent or not purely by observing its behavior in the environment. Alan Turing's famous test aims precisely at that. However, none of the symbolic information processing in an intelligent machine needs to be accompanied by inner experience. It can all happen totally 'in the dark.' As such, an intelligent machine is, for all intents and purposes, simply a glorified calculator. There isn't anything it is like to be the machine.

　

ME: The processing of symbolic representations IS experience. The processing is generally "in the dark", but some of it is within the quality of "experience". That is what we call momentary awareness. Intelligence is not what most people suggest - to calculate "correctly" and "fast". Intelligence is to add a relative perspective to the objective perspective. That is done by "thought", and it makes all information relative to what is already known. That is why human intelligence, or any other relation-based computer, can never grasp absolute reality as objective truth. As long as we do not understand what intelligence is, this discussion goes nowhere.

______________________________

In conscious machines, on the other hand, the idea is that those internal calculations are accompanied by subjective inner experience, or inner life. In other words, there must be something it feels like, from the point of view of the machine itself, to perform the calculations. This is a whole different ballgame than mere artificial intelligence. Moreover, there is absolutely no way to definitively test whether a machine is conscious or not, since all we can ever hope to access is its architecture and behavior. Short of becoming the machine at least for a brief moment, we cannot know whether there is anything it is like to be it.

ME: This point of view is the subjective perspective a.k.a. Ego or Illusion. Not "seeing" consciousness in machines is not different from not "seeing" consciousness in humans. We’re staring right at it when we look at brain scans and such, but the illusion of a separate "owner" of this processing will have you looking forever or, which is the common solution, to imagine something "higher" or more profound than these dull neurons firing in cascades.
You are this organic "machine" as well as IT. Your Ego-perspective will reject the truth. This owner of experience can never ever be Awake or realized as a symptom of the Universe.

____________________________________

What makes so many computer engineers believe in the possibility of artificial consciousness? Let us deconstruct and make explicit their chain of reasoning.
They start by making – whether they are aware of it or not – certain key assumptions about the nature of consciousness and reality. To speak of creating consciousness in a machine one must assume consciousness to be, well, 'creatable.' Something can only be created if it wasn't there in the first place. In other words, engineers assume that consciousness isn't the primary aspect of reality, but a secondary effect generated by particular arrangements of matter. Matter itself is assumed to exist outside and independent of consciousness.

ME: Consciousness IS of matter. It is not separate from physical reality. Separation is the source of Ego and thus suffering. We are not different from the world we experience. We are That which experience. It is so vast and absolute that this subjective ownership becomes a joke. That’s why awakening oftentimes comes with a belly laugh. My gosh, all the time I thought "I" was a separate "experiencer" of "experience" when, all the time, it’s been the Universe making sense of itself through my body.
It is the Ego that assumes consciousness to be outside and independent of matter. It is the Ego that rejects being an equal dancer in the universal dance of force as energy generating all wonderful forms in existence.

________________________________

Next, they imagine that if they can mimic, in a machine, the particular flow of information characteristic of our own brains, then the machine will be conscious like us. This is best exemplified by the work of Pentti Haikonen, who devised what is probably the cleverest machine architecture so far aimed at artificial consciousness [Haikonen, P. O. (2003). The Cognitive Approach to Conscious Machines. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic]. In my book

Rationalist Spirituality I summarized Haikonen's work as follows:

His greatest insight has been that the human brain is but a correlation-finding and association-performing engine. All the brain does is to try and find correlations between mental symbols of perception and capture these correlations in symbol associations performed by neurons. In his artificial "brain", these associations are performed by artificial associative neurons. All symbols in Haikonen’s artificial brain architecture are ultimately linked, perhaps through a long series of associations, to perceptual signals from sensory mechanisms. This grounds all symbol associations to perceived things and events of the external world, which gives those associations their semantic value. In this framework, the explanations derived by the brain are just a series of symbol associations linking two past events. The predictions derived by the brain are just extrapolated symbol association chains. (Page 48.)

　

ME: Thanks for the tip! I believe Haikonen to be on the right track (which is a rare case in AI research). I assume Haikonen is basically wrong about absolute reality, but this looks like being relatively close to truth.
_______________________________________________

There are, however, many problems and internal contradictions in the engineers' reasoning. For instance, for Haikonen's machine to be conscious there must already be, from the start, a basic form of consciousness inherent in the basic components of the machine.

　

ME: If you are not suggesting everything in existence has always been there as it is today, then "from the start" there was everything present to evolve exactly as it has, becoming everything there is and ever will be. Otherwise, properties of reality must have been shipped in from "outside" reality. But nothing within reality is ever subtracted or added, it just contracts, expands and create generations of new evolving forms of complexity.

　__________________________________

Although he talks of 'creating' consciousness, what he proposes is actually a system for accruing and complexifying consciousness: by linking bits of matter in complex ways, the 'bits of consciousness' supposedly inherent in them are associated together so to build up a complex subjective inner life comparable to yours or mine.

ME: That is why he is on track. This is to the point how consciousness works and functions. The above is a pretty accurate description of the creating of Ego as a subjective perspective.

　___________________________________

　

Naturally, for this to work it must be the case that there are these 'bits of consciousness' already inherent in every bit of matter, otherwise nothing accrues: you can associate zeros with zeros all you like, at the end you will still be left with precisely zero. So unless consciousness is a property of every bit of matter – a highly problematic philosophical position called panpsychism – all those symbol associations in Haikonen's architecture won't be accompanied by experience, no matter how complex the machine. Haikonen will perhaps have built an intelligent machine, but not a conscious one.

ME: Not at all, because it is all about language and cognition, not some inherent "conscious" property of matter. The addition of thought adds "meaning" to objective reality. that is why you will never, from your subjective perspective, realize the "suchness" of form. You will always relate every perceived object to what you already know, and by that it will become "similar to" this and that, but never be left standing as it is. Seeing your true self is only possible when all symbolic re-presentations of reality i.e. thoughts/concepts are momentarily gone.

__________________________________________________　

Notice that panpsychism – the notion that all matter is conscious – entails, for instance, that your home thermostat is conscious. Allegedly it has a very simple form of consciousness incomparable to mine or yours, but nonetheless there is still something it is like to be your home thermostat. The same applies to your vacuum cleaner, your ballpoint pen, the chair you're sitting on, a rock, etc. Literally everything is supposedly conscious under panpsychism, having its own private, subjective inner life. As I wrote in my book

Why Materialism Is Baloney,

The problem with panpsychism is, of course, that there is precisely zero evidence that any inanimate object is conscious

. To resolve an abstract, theoretical problem of the materialist metaphysics one is forced to project onto the whole of nature a property – namely, consciousness – which observation only allows to be inferred for a tiny subset of it – namely, living beings. This is, in a way, an attempt to make nature conform to theory, as opposed to making theory conform to nature. (Page 19)

ME: Agree on the above

. Panpsychism seems like an easy way out for Ego to stay in charge. "I am generous enough to share this consciousness with everything". I reality, that means a wish for everything to be separate from the whole, not knowing itself. If that were true, we would have confused, depressed, aggressive and debating stuff all around us. The rest of nature would be as lost as we are. Thankfully, it is not.

_______________________________________　

Insofar as we have no empirical reason to believe that a rock is conscious to any degree whatsoever, we have no reason to believe that Haikonen's machine is conscious. You see, the mere mimicking, in a computer, of the type of information processing that unfolds in the human brain is no reason whatsoever to believe that the computer is conscious. Here is a rather dramatic analogy to make my point clear: I can simulate in a computer all the chemical reactions that take place in human kidneys. Yet, this is no reason to believe that the computer will start peeing on my desk. A simulation of the phenomenon isn't the phenomenon.

ME: If your simulation is done right, the computer will simulate peeing on your desk if it, by its subjective reasoning, computes that peeing on your desk is the right thing to do. You are confusing "simulation" with "action" so the example is of no use.

　_________________________________________________

Some argue that panpsychism isn't necessary to validate the possibility of artificial consciousness. They argue that consciousness is a property only of the brain as a whole, somehow created by its complex network of information associations, not of individual bits of matter. Indeed, as discussed in my book

Brief Peeks Beyond,

Some neuroscientists and philosophers speculate that consciousness is an ‘emergent’ property of the brain. ‘Emergence’ happens when a higher-level property arises from complex interactions of lower-level entities. For instance, the fractal patterns of snowflakes are emergent properties of complex interactions of water molecules. But to merely state that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain is rather a cop-out than an explanation. In all known cases of emergence, we can deduce the emergent property from the characteristics of the lower-level entities that give rise to it. For instance, we can deduce the fractal shape of snowflakes from the characteristics of water molecules. We can even accurately simulate the formation of snowflakes in a computer. However, we cannot – not even in principle – deduce what it feels to see red, to be disappointed or to love someone from the mass, charge or momentum of material particles making up the brain. As such, to consider consciousness an emergent property of brains is either an appeal to magic or the mere labeling of an unknown. In both cases, precisely nothing is actually explained. (Page 59)

　

ME: Again, if you don’t know that language/thought is the "Con"-part added to "sciousness", you will not progress. Sensory information is always objective and "true", but relating it to memories/knowledge of past information gives it a relative quality that is not a property of what is actually presented here and now. Language/thought is a learned ability that, of course, requires the physical/organic potential to respond to this conditioning, but it is nothing besides that.

____________________________________________　

　

Again, we have no reason to believe that computers can give rise to consciousness; only to intelligence.

ME: As most AI-researcher, Haikonen being a potential outlier, have no idea about what intelligence is, they will create neither. They are stuck in designing speedy and correct stupidity, mere tools for actual, human, intelligence.

____________________________________________

The biggest problem with the notion of artificial consciousness is the assumption that, in nature, consciousness is somehow subordinate to matter.

ME: There you go, relating consciousness to matter and vice versa. You have already acquired the basic premise of subjectivity, that everything can only be understood relatively. As consciousness is a particular form of matter, while essentially being same, you will forever be in arguments of more-less, higher-lower, cause-effect, primary-secondary etc etc. That is how intelligence works, that is the basis for all of science. It is to make sense of something that has to be understood by a separate "Knower". You are basically suggesting that "Water" is more than just "molecules of H2O", that there is something "like" water that is different from water. The water-ness of water perhaps. When you have figured that of, whatever this water-ness is, there will be more questions about what it is made of, in which way it is related to "wet" and so on ad infinitum.

Separating self from the physical world is how all reductionism begins. If the Ego is conditioned to assume this primary division, it will keep dividing everything into nothing. It never stops, and it never should. That is the inherent halting problem with intelligence. It never accepts anything as definite truth, it questions everything. Only thing it avoids questioning is its own status and position. Ego will forever point to something not physical and exceptional. As long as it does, it will be hidden. When exposed, as in awakening or samadhi, it is just not there anymore. There is just Experience/Awareness by and of reality itself.

Matter does not rule consciousness the way you/subject thinks. Nor does consciousness rule matter. Water does not rule its molecules, because it IS "molecules". It does not "have" molecules. Nor does your brain "have" a consciousness any more that you consciousness "has" a brain or the brain "has" a body. In reality, the two (million) separated parts are not separate parts at all. They are IT, just as you are IT.

______________________________

Therefore, our feeble attempts to engineer an entity with a private, subjective inner life similar to our own aren't really attempts to create consciousness. Instead, they are attempts to induce dissociation in mind-at-large, so to create alters analogous to ourselves.

ME: Your Ego’s feeble attempts to defend itself as an entity with a private, subjective inner life similar to others are indeed attempts to create consciousness. It is an attempt to induce dissociation in Reality-at-large, so to create alter-Egos analogous to your perceived Self.

　_______________________________________

Based on this understanding, do we have any reason whatsoever to believe that the mere mimicking of the information flow in human brains, no matter how accurate, will ever lead to a new dissociation of mind-at-large? The answer to this question can only be 'yes' if you think the kidney simulation can make the computer urinate. You see, if the only known image of dissociation is metabolism – that is, life – the only reasonable way to go about artificially creating an alter of mind-at-large is to replicate metabolism itself. For all practical purposes, dissociation is metabolism; there is no reason to believe it is anything else. As such, the quest for artificial consciousness is, in fact, one and the same with the quest for creating life from non-life.

ME: There you go again, dissociation IS metabolism, and metabolism IS life. Objectively, there is no reason to believe in anything your subjective Ego tells you about objective reality, simply because it will never be anything but relative truth.
Whatever anyone tries to create, it is being created within a bigger picture. There is no free will, no agency besides my Egos acute sense of acting as if a separate agent of free will.
This whole argument of Mr. Kastrup falls prey to that prevailing illusion.

_______________________________

The computer engineer's dream of birthing a conscious child into the world without the messiness and fragility of life is an infantile delusion; a confused, partial, distorted projection of archetypal images and drives. It is the expression of the male's hidden aspiration for the female's divine power of creation. It represents a confused attempt to transcend the deep-seated fear of one's own nature as a living, breathing entity condemned to death from birth. It embodies a misguided and utterly useless search for the eternal, motivated only by one's amnesia of one's own true nature. The fable of artificial consciousness is the imaginary bandaid sought to cover the engineer's wound of ignorance.
I have been this engineer.

　

Or so the Ego says, in fear of knowing the truth. Ego wants the "divine power of creation" so badly. Sorry Buddy, we’re all done.

For the benefit of all.

Quantum Confusion by Michio Kaku

To massage my Ego and feel superior, I sometimes read what science experts has to say about mind, intelligence and consciousness. Todays belly laugh is on Professor M. Kaku.

MK: In my book, I give an entirely new definition of consciousness which describes the consciousness of animals and human alike. My theory is testable, reproducible, falsifiable, and even measurable. This definition in particular focuses on the consciousness of animals and humans. However, there is also another type of consciousness, which is sometimes called cosmic consciousness, which goes to the heart of the quantum theory (my specialty). It is so sensitive that even Nobel Laureates today are not in uniform agreement. Basically, the quantum theory (which I teach to our grad students, and which is the most successful physical theory of all time) says that you have make an observation to determine the state of any object (e.g., atoms, electrons, laser beams). Before you observe something, it exists in a never-never-land world, being neither here nor there. (For example, this means that a cat in a closed box is neither dead nor alive in this nether state, before it is observed.) But once you make an observation, you know precisely the state of the cat (e.g., it is alive.) So, in some sense, an observation was necessary for the cat to exist. But observations imply consciousness. Only conscious beings can make an observation. Hence, it seems that consciousness is more fundamental that reality, and that a cosmic consciousness is necessary to observe the universe so that the universe can exist. The greatest minds of science have struggled with this question, without a final resolution. But in my book, I give you a critique of the various bizarre solutions that have been proposed. As J.B.S. Haldane once said, the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose.

So this is what the Self throws my way. This is the State of the Art of Consciousness?

1) Humans are animals
2) Only human animals have a relative perspective attached to sensoric input. Therefore, only I "have" Con sciousness i.e. I "am" Conscious, and in this we are forever con/fusing ownership with being.
3) To MK and other ignorant intellectual minds, there will always be "also Another type of...". If you by chance realize any of my points, you will know that this is what intelligence does; when observing one, it divides, when observing two it unites. MK is of course no exception, neither is You.
4) It is sensitive because it is at the heart of intelligence imploding on its Self. The wise guys can sense this, but they do not know how to make sense of this vague input. Sensitive implicates importance that is not intellectual but more visceral.
5) The most successful theory gets some product placement. That is important, so the reader knows that what MK says is based on Success. Remember that Truth and Pragmatism are not same.
6) The rest is a tour de force in dualism and mistaken causality. It is obvious, not to you but to me, that MK believes there has to be ears in the forest for change in air pressure to actually occur when the tree falls. If you know anything about human perception and physics, you know that "sound" requires the faculty of "hearing", that outside the faculty of hearing, there is just change in air pressure/Waves and thus, that sound is relative to hearing. The physical reality of change not related to the faculty of hearing (air pressure) is independent of hearing, while the mind response (sound) is dependent.

Sometimes I sense urgency in explaining reality. It is like we're almost there. When I read stuff like the above, I relax. If MK represents the avantgarde of science, we have a long way to go.
Still, all it takes is a change of perspective, and all he says will be crystal clear. MK is virtually right and would be absolutely right if he looked to the left.
Forward searching for truth can only progress with re-searching backwards.
For now, MK is totally stuck.
Good luck.

0112 is Emc2 backwards, know That and You 2 will C Me.
It's all a yoke ;)

The dark candle forever shines

I am invicible to s/he who see me from the one way
I am invicible for those who see me from the others way
That is: one is wrong, two are wrong
Not one, not two

To see me is to move me
I am forced mass
Enlightened

Without light I am
but massive force
dead to myself

Light is Life
within massive force
Enlightened

Forced Mass Elightened is: 2cmE as Emc2
This is That as That is This
What we are is how we came here
Be-ing as Be-coming

Enlightenment is forced into being by
That as forced into being Enlightenment

Darkness is not an option of light
It is the essence of accidental existence
___________________________________________________

Explaining poetry is not possible, because poetry is the explanation. Poetry is reality responding to itself, just as scientific prose is. Different birds sings differently, but the song remains the same.
If E=mc2 is truth, the only way to know it correctly is changing the perspective. If E=mc2 is what we have right now, the opposit is how we got it.
God is the one Dice of Three sides: emc/ecm/cme/cem/mec/mce
God is the playing of Three faces, creating One reality
God is the exponential effect of times, the equalizer of the Three.
The energy-quality of = is the 2.
Density is mass is force is energy is velocity is the speed of light
M is E is C, where C is the thing as thing-ing, that moving quality of being, the being as coming.
There is no be-going as we lose nothing. Nothing is not real. That is the law of preservation.
Reality is a safe haven for existence. Once enlightened, it shines forever.
We are that.

Waves on the phase of water

Think of data flow as waves on water. Water is a unitary phase of matter with the qualities of "water". The qualities of the particular water phase is determined by the totality of qualities in the single bits of data within the phase.
When another particular phase of matter, say a "rock", is phasing /moving onto the water, the data in the rock-phase is input in the water-phase. The response is mutually dependent as the phasing of both to each other is both input and output. The effect/response in water is waves. The waves is the phasing of the water-phase as it phases the rock-data.
The rock-phase response is decreased velocity. The loss of velocity is the rock-phasing water-data.

Bit + Bit = Phase
Phasing is the velocity within and between phases of bits.

Phases phasing phases is Everything.
That is your Original Face

Data Flow is the Theory of Everything

Forget about spacetime or pretend to not care about spacetime.
Nevermind the Dimensions

Here's the Measurements
- Density of a current
- of Current Density
If those are measured, then there is rate of Velocity.

Therefore: "Spacetime" resides in states of phasing matter. Space is where phasing matter is of low density. Time is how matter phases towards increased or decreased densities.

Consequence: Everything is the velocity of data corresponding to density and currency as one universal unit of phasing matter with the two inherent properties of density and currency. Currency is energy, Density is mass and Velocity is the speed of light.  

In AI terms: DensityCurrency is the input, Velocity is the output. In the open system of absoulte reality, input cannot be separate from output. Any discrete unit of data, as one object, is one unit of inout-data.

Ergo, if measured as being separate/discrete, the function of data obtained, as causing by output and effected by input, is not in the results of measurement. Solid data is therefore relative by default. By the same token, relative data is the only solid data. 

This would be a wild hypothesis in physics to most, if not all. That is 100% correct. I agree.

It IS wild.

It IS a hypothesis.

It IS physics.

But it is NOT lame, factual and metaphysical.

The relevance for the field of AI is, from my perspective as non-AI scientist, that:

1) AI science primarily deals with data as basic units for theory, observation, experiment and application.

2) Knowing what you are doing science with is good for progress.

3) Knowing that your basic units of science is all there is might just be very good for progress.

I don't expect anyone, besides perhaps Dalai Lama and the Tantric's, to actually believe that the above hypothesis is reasonable, beacuse it is not. It comes not from reasoning alone, but reasoning based on unreasonable experience. Those guys know of such unreasonable experience and so do I.

The hypothesis might be phrased, by me as a layman, in terms that are not correctly defined or applied in correspondence with expertise. I'm aware of that possibility, but cannot change this possible distortion on my own. Until expertise objects and we properly revise the wording, it stands alone, as it is.

There are some further consequences of this which I'm currently trying to formulate. I'm not sure about how to tell you there is no gravity. Maybe if you ponder the hypo some, you'll find out for yourself.

To revise a basic premise of everything has the effect of being one IF generating numerous THEN's.
If the above is true, then ! then! then! then! ad infinitum. If you state the one right question, then there will be all of the answers in that one question. That is the paradox of science, isn't it?
Asking the right question leads to the true answers.
If answers are true, they are indisputable.
Indisputable statements prevents generation of further questions.
Science is about generating new hypothesies that can be supported or contested by experimental data.

Science dies with knowing the absolute truth.

To quote Fats Domino "Ain't that a shame?"   

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.

The re-membering of members in memory

Memory is not that separate from awareness. In fact, it is the other end of the same stick.  Perceived now is membered as related to perceived then. Perceived then is thereby re-membered together with the similarity in perceived now.
Back and forth the percepts go.
Membered is remembered and the matrix of units, pairs, classes, concepts and most of all, their relations grows continously.
More input when awake and perceptive.
More remembering and internal affairs when less awake. But both are active 24/7.
This means storing and recall of memory flows more or less constantly, as modes or instances of one single function.

We perceive as we know
We know as we perceive
Knowledge of the present is based on the past. Re-membering the past is based on the present.

Is this possible to understand?
Ask me how,  why or what.
I know that.

No master, only puppets

I say: You are a puppet on the strings of reality. The strings of reality are also puppets. You are not an independent agent.
You say: I refuse to be seen as a puppet! If I was, you could pull my strings and have me do whatever you like.
I say: Believe it or not, but I am also a part of reality.
You say: Sure you are, that's why I reallywon't have you pulling any strings on me.
I say: What I mean is that I'm a puppet, exactly like you.
You say: If so, it wouldn't make a difference as long as your "puppeting" around pulls my strings.
I say: Since we're both equally "puppy", we're both being pulled around. Don't you see that?
You say: Ahhh, so that is how the gov's and institutions manipulate us. They have this secret knowledge with which they control the masses. Thanks for telling me.
I say: But they are puppets just like you and me. They are not in control of anything. They just dance around to the strings of reality.
You say: But there must be some kind of governing behind this. Who or what is the Master of Puppets?
I say: Everything is the Master of Puppets.
You say: Then who or what is "everything"?
I say: Everything is everything pushing everything around. It is called kinetic energy. It is in everything.
You say: I don't get it...
I say: You will never "get it" because you already have it. Look for it and you won't see it.
You say: Now you are pushing me around, pulling my strings.
I say: Sorry, but I had to.
You say: But why?
I say: How could I know?

Jig-saw science

If a whole paradigm is based on a flawed premise, what happens to all of its statements? To be coherent within the paradigm and true to the given premise, they all need to be systematically flawed of course!

I always feel like a jerk when reading scientific papers. I feel disrespectful and nonchalant. Usually I only get halfway through the abstract when the thought of being a no good Mr. Know-it-all pops up. By then, I've figured out what will inevitably follow, and so far my predictions have always been correct. Not that I question the content, the observations or the technicalities within the articles. On that level, what I read is likely to be way over my questinable intelligence. What I predict is that the conclusions will be flawed, that the data presented will be interpreted incorrectly. Or rather, the conclusions and interpretations will be correct in reference to the basic premise(s), and most of all, it will always be material for further research. It will elicit more questioning, new theories and more conceptualization. If done right, the effort made will maintain the need for more effort. The more we research, the more research is to be done.

If science was about telling the truth, this is not how one would imagines the state of affairs to be. As truth(s) were discovered, the need for more searching would decrease. Why look deeper into something you have already figured out? But, science is not about that. It is about generating "new" knowledge, not neccecarily "true" knowledge. Therefore, a flawed basic premise can be kept for as long as it generates statements that generates statements that ...
If the basic premise was corrected to be absolutely true instead of relatively true, we would soon hit the research rock bottom. We would instantly find ourselves on solid, immovable ground. Standing there, the compulsive searching for answers decrease dramatically. There is no uncertainty principle, no hidden substance, no mistaken identity. As I happen to know in what way the basic premise is flawed, this is what happens; I read, I detect implications of "agency" and "causality", I see confusion of "data" and "concepts", so I jump to summary and think "No, not that".

Now, I suppose most people think that a correction of premise(s) calls for us to start all over. I assume there is an idea of questioning the premise(s) will render all our current knowledge obsolete and even "useless". If that is what we believe, I fully understand the obvious resistance to consider this change. Not least within the academic community, right?
Here's the good news: all current knowledge is relatively correct. It need not be done again or in any particulary "new" fashion. It can be left as it stands. What a correction of the basic premise(s) will do is changing our perspective as we look at our knowledge. Changing perspective will alter the way we interpret our questions as well as answers. We will come to understand the nature of our knowledge. We will know what we know, and why we know it. That opens up for discussing what to do with it.

Imagine research as putting pieces together in a jig-saw puzzle. The more pieces we fit into the puzzle, the bigger it gets. The bigger it gets, the more images we detect. This is how knowledge seem to expand, and there is nothing within the picture pointing to any existing boundary of this knowledge. There are no frame pieces with straight edges. Our picture is vast and expanding and it is by all means beautiful and awesome. Why would anyone even consider ending this activity of building knowledge?
Someone could ask "What is it that can never be seen in this picture? This is the puzzeling question. This is the question about puzzeling.

One perspective in looking at the puzzle/picture is of the one fitting the pieces together.
One is of just seeing all of it, as it is, as it happens.

When you can read the writer as well as the written, you will know both equally well. There is no need to rewrite anything. There is a need to re-read what's already in front of our eyes, to re-hear our stories and to reconsider our considerations.
After seeing the whole puzzeling aspect of existence, not just the puzzle, there is nothing wrong in continuing with the jig-saw. It is "just" a map, but in order to move in the terrain of reality, a good map is of great use. It is because we are puzzeling in this way that humans are so efficiently navigating the environment. How could that be wrong?
Ok, it can lead to negative consequences if we are not aware of who we are and what we're doing. If we confuse the picture with the terrain and, most of all, if we keep our true self out of the picture and keep believing we are nothing but a self-image in a big picture.

No zero in reality

Binary data is of either 1 or 0. That's an efficient and stringent system language. In reality no info is of zero value
There is only various degrees of 1. 1 never dissapears. There is no subtraction. No nothing. When not of any 1 form, information is 1 of potential. Mind can only respond to actualized information/input, therefore 1 of potential is believed to be 0. This 0 is the matter of faith.
When designing AI, this must be known. Otherwise AI will not correspond with reality.

Backward knowledge is nothing new

If I give you: 124
You cannot be sure about what 124 "means".
If you immediately forget 124, and I give you 816, you do not understand it.
So 124 is gone and 816 makes no sense.
If you forget 816 also, no further info will help you. In spite of novel "correct " input, you will still know nothing.
But if you remember 124 when getting 816, then you have 124816. Given some time to member and re-member  the units will form a pattern. You will understand this input without further input complementing it.
1 step forward is on 2
2 steps forward is on 4
4 steps forward is on 8
8 steps forward is on 16
For knowing to form,  mind only needs enough new input to form a pattern based on previous input. When pattern form, we "know". When we "know", this pattern of knowing is very robust. It provides us with a sense of knowing what happens as it happens.

To mind there is no novel input. There is just experience of similar patterns.

Operators are being done

Q: What is the difference between an intelligent operator vs an intelligent being?
A: Being intelligent is without effort.

Experience, to a conscious friend

If going somewhere, it is of great importance to now exactly your starting point. If you only know where to go, but not where you are, you are bound to wander without any given direction.
So let us begin at where we are right now.
Where we are is always in our experience of being Me-Here-Now.
There is no exception to this rule.
I am always Me
I am always Here
It is always Now

When we eventually arrive to our destination, Me, Here, Now will be This.
This is true already, because how can This be without being true?
I am This
This is Here
This is Now

Me, Here, Now is dividing This One into Those Three.
This is Self
This is Space
This is Time

The same curious relation of One is Three is Three is One appears in many forms. But this will do for now. We will, in time, return to this Whole Tri-unity, pun intended.

Experience is of neural patterns responding to environment.
Environment is everything the central nervous system contacts, that is not cns itself.
The exception is the internal environment of cns as its memories.
Memories of previous experiences, as neural responding to environment, will functionally have similar effect on overall responding as when responding to present context.
Therefore, memory of fearful context will elicit physical fear-response.

Internal speech, as thought, is part of overall experience.
Thoughts are fluent patterns of neural signalling closely related, if not equal to, auditory memory.
As memory of actual speech, own or others, thoughts will elicit physical responding as if an actual speaker was present.

Experience is an amalgam of neural signalling as cns responses to
a) present contex
b) memories
The interaction a-b is mutual so that a conditions b, b conditions a.
That is, a and b will continously respond to each other.

Outside the above, there is no entity, function, physical form or recieving unit that contains, processes or "has" it.
There is no experiencer of this experience.

Experience is an active reflection of reality.
Not reflecting what happens in front of it. No mirror. There is no one there to look at an image.
Not translating what happens. No transformer. There is no one there to interpret a translation.

Experience is the Midas touch of Mind, turning into everything it contacts.
Experience is the mind becoming of what happens and thus what has happened.
Experience is mind waving/signalling in response to reality as it is, as it was.
Waving/signalling is what mind does.
There is no one doing it, as there is no ocean doing its waves.
There is no more finding experience in the physical bodybrain than finding waves in the body of the ocean.
Experience is not within the brain. It is brain experience.
Waves are not on the water. It is water waves.

It is This!
What is "it"?
This is It!
What is "this"?It is This!
Is that it?Not "that", but This!
Is this that and that this???
YES, That Is "This is That's It"!!!

To the last dialogue, subjective mind will respond with confusion, it will almost stall. With "subjective mind" I refer to a mind that is conditioned to reject all of the above.
A subjective mind can only respond to reality as either/or.
A subjective mind will never stop searching for the waves on top of the ocean, never stop looking for itself inside a brain.
A subjective mind cannot see This, only Self, Space and Time.
Assuming a subjective mind responding to this, knowing This is true is not enough. It's conditioned memories of reality will always affect the experience to be of either/or i.e. dualistic.
When/if reconditioned, such distinctions as dualistic as opposed to monistic will all be the same.
Thought will be possible to experience as it is, as echoes of speech.

All of this seems inherently complex and vague, often paradoxical. But trust me, it is only hard to grasp until you crack the code of subjectivity, of the Self-Here-Now-perspective as opposed to the This-perspective. When/if the light goes on, it becomes crystal clear and not complicated at all.

To crack the code, we need to understand exactly how the encoding/conditioning/programming of the subjective perspective is done. Rather, we need to feed subjective mind with a good enough idea of the encoding, so it is not forced to reflexively defend its perspective. The explanation must be based on subjective conditions, or it will be misunderstood completely.

If you do not know Russian, not one statement in Russian will be understood. That is regardless of whether statements are true or false. A million statements will be equally unintelligible.
If you know Russian, one or many statements will be understood. You'll be able to value them as true or false. A million statements are potentially understandable.
Either way, what we are talking about is This. This will change on its own, no matter if we understand it or not. Knowing or not-knowing is not about This, it is within This.
Experience is of This.

Can you stand responding to This without instantly knowing what This is?
I will hopefully be able to help you know this if you do.

This is where we are now
This = Space Self Experiencing Time

Rinse & Repeat x3