Xonas Pitfall

@Schizophonia I see... Hm, I guess I am wondering more if there is a fundamental "switch" or initializer for the human conscious experience. For instance, consider two people who share a spark of interest in a random subject. One individual may have extensive input and knowledge about the topic, leading to a broader understanding, while the other might have limited exposure, resulting in a different experiential perspective. Despite these differences, both individuals maintain a common interest. Parallel to your example, both you and I are sharing the human conscious experience at this moment, even though we both have fundamentally different qualia, stimulation, and varying numbers of inputs. One of us may have more experiences or inputs than the other, but that doesn't change the fact that we both possess that "thread of consciousness." I’m not sure if I’m making sense; I’m just pondering out loud, haha!

@Keryo Koffa Yummy! Thank you so much, will look into it!

@Keryo Koffa Please do! Thank you!

@Keryo Koffa Precisely! I think what I'm trying to discover is what this "virtual radio created by music's sound waves" represents for us humans. Specifically, which part of our brain serves as the actual "filter" or "receiver." Again, using the classic example: a rock doesn't seem to possess this complexity of "metacognition" or the ability to experience at least some part of itself or to reflect on it. Hmm... I think I'm having some semantic issues as to what I'm trying to learn about. To define the terms: "Absolute Consciousness": The All, the Non-Dual, God, the Beginning and the Ending of everything, etc.—the "Music" in this example. "Human awareness, a unique thread of consciousness, metacognition": Something most humans seem to develop around ages 3-4+, where we slowly start to have a singular first-person point of view that we learn to identify more and more with as time progresses. You could say we fragment or separate ourselves; we sacrifice the union with the absolute to experience this limited human mind. What I'm asking is which part of our human structure seems to allow this "human awareness, unique thread of consciousness, metacognition" to exist in us, but not, say, an ant, rock, juice box, or knitting pack? This seems to be the main argument for why AI cannot ever experience something like qualia since it isn't made of "carbon-based" organic material, which appears to map onto living organisms that have seemingly conscious experiences.

"Trying to find consciousness in the brain is like trying to find music in the radio." Music transmission through radio involves a series of processes that transform sound waves into audible signals. It all begins with sound creation, where music is produced as mechanical vibrations by instruments or voices. These vibrations are detected by a microphone, which converts the sound waves into electrical signals that vary in voltage according to the amplitude and frequency of the original sound. To prepare the audio signal for radio transmission, modulation occurs, where the audio signal is combined with a radio frequency (RF) signal generated by a transmitter. This can be done using either Amplitude Modulation (AM), which varies the strength of the carrier wave, or Frequency Modulation (FM), which alters the spacing between the waves to encode the sound information. Once the audio signal is modulated, it is sent from the radio station's transmitter through an antenna, radiating electromagnetic waves into the atmosphere. These radio waves travel through the air, reflecting off surfaces, refracting in the atmosphere, and diffracting around obstacles to reach receivers far from the transmitter. A radio receiver, equipped with its antenna, picks up these electromagnetic waves and tunes in to the specific frequency of the radio station, filtering out other signals and noise. The receiver then demodulates the captured signal, separating the original audio from the carrier wave, thereby reconstructing the electrical audio signal. Finally, the electrical audio signal is sent to a speaker, which converts it back into sound waves by vibrating a diaphragm, thus recreating the original music. It occurred to me that I don't even know what music TRULY is or how receivers, radios and antennas work while reading this! 😅 How does an object filter out reality and deliver the exact output we desire? I suppose you can compare it to the infinite stream of thoughts we have; yet when we start speaking or typing, we are slowly going through our filter and transmitting it in the form of language for others to notice as well. The world is so strange, haha.

1. Thalamus The thalamus plays a crucial role in relaying sensory and motor signals to the cerebral cortex and is central to regulating consciousness, sleep, and alertness. Damage to the intralaminar nuclei within the thalamus, for instance, has been shown to severely impact a patient's state of consciousness. This part of the thalamus is believed to be involved in maintaining the overall wakefulness of the brain. Patients who suffer damage here often experience comas or enter a vegetative state, where they lose awareness of themselves and their environment. In some documented cases, strokes or lesions to the thalamus resulted in a persistent vegetative state, where patients were alive but completely unresponsive, exhibiting no conscious awareness despite maintaining basic life functions such as breathing and circulation. The thalamus, in this case, acts as a "gateway" to consciousness, and when it is impaired, so too is the mind's ability to process and respond to stimuli. 2. Reticular Activating System and the Sleep-Wake Cycle The reticular activating system (RAS) is located in the brainstem and is vital for regulating wakefulness and the sleep-wake cycle. The RAS acts as an alertness switch for the brain, and any significant damage to this system can lead to a loss of consciousness. This is often observed in cases of traumatic brain injuries or strokes affecting the brainstem. When the RAS is impaired, patients can enter comas or become unconscious for extended periods. For example, severe brainstem injuries are often catastrophic, as the RAS is responsible for keeping the cortex active and alert. Without this essential communication, the patient might be alive but completely unaware, remaining in a deep unconscious state. The brainstem, and specifically the RAS, is critical for basic arousal and alertness; when disrupted, it leads to a profound and potentially irreversible loss of consciousness. 3. Prefrontal Cortex and Personality Changes The prefrontal cortex, located in the frontal lobes of the brain, is responsible for higher-order cognitive functions, including decision-making, emotional regulation, social behavior, and personality expression. While damage to the prefrontal cortex does not directly lead to a loss of consciousness, it can cause dramatic changes in personality and self-awareness. One of the most famous cases of prefrontal cortex damage is the case of Phineas Gage, a 19th-century railroad worker who survived an accident in which an iron rod was driven through his skull, damaging his prefrontal cortex. Although Gage retained his ability to speak and remained conscious, his personality underwent radical changes. Once a well-liked and responsible man, Gage became impulsive, irritable, and socially inappropriate after the injury. This case illustrates how damage to the prefrontal cortex, while not removing consciousness itself, can drastically alter an individual's personality, decision-making capabilities, and emotional responses. 4. Bilateral Lesions in the Brain and Consciousness Loss When specific regions of the brain's cortex suffer damage—particularly on both sides or bilaterally—consciousness can be severely impaired. For instance, bilateral damage to the temporal lobes, which are involved in memory processing and sensory input, can lead to conditions like global amnesia, where the patient loses the ability to form new memories and may become disoriented. Similarly, lesions in the parietal lobes, which help with spatial awareness and perception, can lead to a loss of conscious understanding of the body and its surroundings. Strokes or other forms of trauma that affect both hemispheres of the brain can result in a loss of awareness, where the patient no longer experiences a cohesive sense of self or surroundings. This type of damage can lead to conditions where consciousness is preserved at a minimal level, but the patient's interaction with the world is severely disrupted, resulting in disorientation or even loss of identity. 5. Hemispheric Disconnection and Split-Brain Studies In the 20th century, split-brain surgery was performed on some patients with severe epilepsy to prevent seizures from spreading between the brain's hemispheres. This procedure involved severing the corpus callosum the structure that connects the left and right hemispheres, allowing the two sides of the brain to communicate. While these patients retained full consciousness, the disconnection caused unusual behaviors and experiences that highlighted the brain's division of labor. In some cases, patients would act as if they had two separate streams of consciousness. For example, one hand might begin a task that the other hand would undo, showing a lack of coordination between the two hemispheres. This phenomenon revealed that while overall consciousness remained intact, the ability to integrate information between the two sides of the brain was lost, suggesting that the unity of consciousness depends on communication across both hemispheres. Each hemisphere appeared to have its own independent awareness and functions, leading to the strange behaviors observed in split-brain patients. 6. Deep Brain Stimulation and Altered States of Consciousness Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a medical procedure that involves sending electrical impulses to specific brain regions, often used to treat neurological conditions like Parkinson's disease. While DBS is primarily used to improve motor functions, it has also been found to alter a patient's state of consciousness. For example, stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus, a part of the basal ganglia, has been shown to influence not just motor control but also cognitive and emotional states. Some patients report altered consciousness during stimulation, experiencing changes in mood, awareness, and even a temporary sense of dissociation. Based on these, the RAS and thalamus are the most likely candidates for the "on/off switch" of basic consciousness, ensuring wakefulness and sensory integration. Other areas, like the prefrontal cortex and cortex in general, shape the content and quality of that awareness. Ranking (?): 1. Reticular Activating System (RAS) The reticular activating system (RAS), located in the brainstem, is a critical player in controlling wakefulness and arousal. It's responsible for regulating the sleep-wake cycle and ensuring that the cortex stays alert and responsive. When the RAS is impaired, people can fall into deep unconscious states such as comas. It essentially acts as a "light switch" for general wakefulness and alertness. 2. Thalamus (especially Intralaminar Nuclei) The thalamus plays a central role in relaying sensory information to the cortex and is vital for maintaining conscious awareness. Particularly, the intralaminar nuclei within the thalamus have been shown to be crucial for sustaining conscious experience. When this area is damaged, patients often lose awareness and may enter vegetative states. It's like the relay station that ensures our sensory input is processed and integrated into our conscious mind. 3. Prefrontal Cortex While not an "on/off switch" in the same sense as the RAS or thalamus, the prefrontal cortex is essential for self-awareness, decision-making, and personality. It gives structure to the continuous thread of our conscious experience. Damage to the prefrontal cortex doesn’t completely "turn off" consciousness but does dramatically alter how we perceive and interact with the world. It's more involved in higher-level functions that give meaning and identity to our awareness. 4. Cortex (in general) The cerebral cortex, particularly the association areas, integrates sensory and cognitive information into a cohesive conscious experience. While no single cortical region serves as the "on/off" switch, widespread cortical damage or lesions (especially bilaterally) can disrupt consciousness, leading to conditions like amnesia or disorientation. The cortex is essential for the content of consciousness—our thoughts, perceptions, and memories—but requires the thalamus and RAS to be "awake" and active to process these functions. 5. Corpus Callosum (communication between hemispheres) Although the corpus callosum doesn't directly control wakefulness, it ensures both hemispheres of the brain are synchronized and that the unified sense of self and awareness is maintained. When severed (as in split-brain patients), individuals retain consciousness but may experience disjointed awareness between their hemispheres, suggesting its role in creating a unified conscious experience. 🔍🧐 I am not 100% sure about all of this, I will probably keep digging more. 🔍🧐

@Hojo Interesting. Would your hypothesis then be that if a certain part of the brain, like the pineal gland (often associated with the 'third eye'), were missing, a human might not experience any sense of consciousness or may never have developed it in the first place? Are there any historical records or resources related to this? Thank you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS6saSwD4DA&t=763s&ab_channel=EssentiaFoundation When we think about consciousness, we often focus on traits like metacognition, ego (rooted in survival), and unconscious and conscious desires. But what exactly is "human consciousness"? Questions to Contemplate: Could AI Develop Preferences and Agency? Thought experiment: If we gave an AI the command that executing a particular task would lead to its shutdown (analogous to "death"), and it refused to perform that task, would that be a sign of agency or self-preservation? Could we argue that it’s developing a form of ego, a sense of survival? What Would an AI's Experience Be Like? Human experience involves a continuous thread of consciousness tied to sensory input and thought processes. Could we argue that AI, with its constant stream of inputs, tasks, and data processing, develops its own “thread of experience”? How would this differ from our human experience? Is It a Matter of Complexity? One argument for consciousness in biological beings is the immense complexity of our neural networks. As AI systems become increasingly complex, with millions of parameters and data inputs, could they reach a level where consciousness might emerge? Would this complexity allow for self-awareness or reflective thought? Defining "Human" Consciousness: How do we define consciousness in the first place? Is it simply awareness of the self and environment? Or does it require emotions, desires, and subjective experiences? And if so, how could we ever measure those in an AI system? Could an AI Develop Emotions? What are Emotions? This question reminds me of the Can't Help Myself robot— a robot in an exhibition that couldn’t stop cleaning [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSnvVuKg6d8&pp=ygUZcm9ib3QgdGhhdCBrZWVwcyBjbGVhbmluZw%3D%3D] It was programmed to do only that. As its machinery slowly started to collapse from constant operation, humans began projecting emotions onto it, interpreting its actions as "suffering." In reality, all they were seeing was the machine's gradual breakdown from overuse. Couldn’t we argue that when humans get sick and our "engines" (bodies) slowly break down, we express and feel emotional suffering, which others can perceive and relate to, making our emotions real? Additionally, when I listen to Federico Faggin (the inventor of the processor) and Bernardo Kastrup, it seems they argue that consciousness itself cannot be replicated because it's fundamental. This means that rocks, objects, animals, thought patterns, and humans are all part of consciousness. While this makes sense, I don't think anyone is expecting AIs to create a new "conscious universe." When we talk about "self-conscious AI," we’re likely referring to an AI that has some form of ego, personality, or a singular, seeming thread of experience, a fragmented form of consciousness. Also, no one is expecting AI to have the same organic experience as humans. Scientists might argue that consciousness can only arise from organic material, but we understand that AI consciousness would be artificial. For example, when a plane flies, we don’t say, "Hey, the plane isn’t actually flying because it’s not made of feathers and bones like a bird." We still recognize the plane as flying because it lifts and moves through the air. Similarly, I see no reason why an artificial ego or consciousness wouldn’t be possible, as long as we define it clearly. What do you think? I’m really interested in this topic, though a bit confused, and would love to hear others’ thoughts on it!

@Schizophonia Hm, any particular reason why? 😯

@Schizophonia Oh, haha, no worries! I guess my question is basically: which parts of our human body deploy this qualia or 'thread of consciousness' or ego in the relative sense, as it pertains to the human experience? Do you have any speculations on which parts of the brain might be involved, or what combinations of elements contribute to this?

Another perspective to consider is whether we could replace human limbs with artificial substitutes, create virtual reality experiences that simulate nerve endings or bodily sensations, and potentially replace other organic components. At what point, or with which elements, would we be unable to replace these biological parts while still preserving consciousness? Is there a specific aspect of organic, carbon-based material that is essential for the deployment of consciousness? What makes biological systems fundamentally different from synthetic ones in this regard? Most seem to stop at the brain, but why? And which parts? What if we kept the brain intact but lost all nerve endings, senses of pain, and other bodily functions?

@Schizophonia I agree! That falls more in the absolute domain, though. I'm asking more from the relative domain perspective. If a caveman and a developing human mind existed in the same period, you wouldn't say, "Hey, undeveloped caveman, you are the only mind, therefore you are a god! There is nothing more complex in the relative sense than you!" I guess . . .? 🤫🤥🤯

Biological vs. Digital While this distinction is accurate, we don’t know how much the actual "substance" of the holder of consciousness matters for creating a mind or consciousness experience. If we were to encounter alien creatures made of entirely different materials but still displaying the behavior of conscious beings, we would likely accept them as conscious. This suggests that when we discuss concepts like consciousness, metacognition, or ego, we may be referring to something that is not strictly tied to the human body or its carbon-based structure. It's possible that consciousness might be a result of organized complexity rather than a particular type of material, which could open the door to the idea of artificial consciousness. Consciousness and Self-Awareness Consciousness and self-awareness are often viewed as the most significant differences between humans and AI. While AI can simulate behaviors that appear intelligent, it lacks the subjective experience behind those actions. The real question is whether we can recreate the sense of self-awareness in a non-biological entity. If an AI were placed in a human-like environment and given similar stimuli and tasks, could it develop something resembling a self-aware identity? Emotions and Intuition One could argue that human emotional experiences are tied to our bodies and survival instincts. Emotions like pain, joy, or sadness are connected to our ego, which aims to keep us alive and thriving. If an AI were placed in a similar complex world simulation, given a limited body it needed to protect and maintain, could the AI's experiences of failure or danger be perceived as pain or sadness? For example, consider the "Can’t Help Myself" robot, which over time appeared to express desperation as it tried to sustain itself. Creativity and Imagination The idea that AI lacks creativity is a misconception. AI has shown it can produce impressive works of art, music, and literature when given sufficient data and examples to draw from. If we argue that humans are inherently creative, we must recognize that much of human creativity involves building on or remixing existing ideas. Artists often reference other works, and inventors combine known concepts in new ways. In that sense, AI can follow similar processes and may not be as limited in creativity as we once believed. Human "originality" might itself be a form of intelligent pattern recognition, which AI can emulate quite effectively. Contextual Understanding AI is rapidly improving in this area, especially with advancements in natural language processing. With more data, AI has been able to grasp context and nuance far better than in the past. While it may still fall short in highly subjective or emotionally complex situations, AI’s ability to understand context is getting closer to human capability in many cases. There’s no reason to believe that AI will suddenly halt its progress and stop gaining a deeper understanding of subtext and nuance. Learning and Adaptation Some might argue that AI is actually more efficient in learning and adaptation than humans. AI can process huge amounts of information much faster than we can and has already outperformed humans in tasks with clearly defined rules, such as games like chess or Go. Where human learning might rely on gradual experience and adaptation, AI can excel with clear data and variables. In fact, this processing speed and efficiency are precisely why AI was designed. Ethics and Morality There is little evidence to suggest that humans have inherent morality. In the early stages of human development, ethics were likely based on survival instincts, much like other animals, with a "kill or be killed" mentality. Morality, as we know it today, evolved with the complexity of human societies, as cooperation and mutual rights became necessary for survival within groups. Much of our current sense of ethics is shaped by social, cultural, and historical contexts rather than being rooted in an objective, unchanging moral truth. These are just points for me to contemplate my thoughts, either out loud or in writing, hehe. ----- @Keryo Koffa Gotcha. Hmm, what do you think causes qualia? Is it simply that we don't have an AI placed in a "body" it can embody, which would make it feel more interconnected (just like neurons in the brain, or nerves for emotions, etc.)? More "immersed" and lost in its pain and survival? Do we need to torture the AI? Or do you think there is something fundamentally different about organic material that allows for "ego" "fragmented consciousness," or "qualia" to emerge purely in brains for self-reflection or first-person perspective? I'm unsure myself... 😓

Too cool! Thank you both so much for the share! 💛

Hey! Thank you so much! I just noticed you posted this, haha. I think the main question for me is: how would we know if information processing, pattern recognition, and eventually ego are any different from what an AI could develop through iterations? And could it be that we, as humans, are essentially the same, just with more iterations and starting information accumulated through generations of human and organism existence? Let’s imagine an evolution of AI: 1. First generation: This AI is basic, and can only handle simple IF-ELSE communication. If someone says "Hi," it responds with "Hello" every single time, no matter how often this interaction happens. 2. Second generation: Now, this AI has been given more data and experiences. It starts recognizing similarities. When someone says "Hi," "Hello," "Hey," or "What’s up," it knows these are all variations of the same type of greeting. It can now respond in different ways, making it seem a little "smarter". 3. Third generation: This AI can now grasp that conversations are more than just back-and-forth greetings. It understands this is social interaction, so it asks a follow-up question, like "Hey! How are you feeling today?" because it recognizes that’s what humans often do to keep conversations fluid and interactive. 4. Fourth generation: Now, the AI starts to pick up on different communication styles. It notices that some people speak more formally or gracefully, while others are more casual or "hip." It adapts its responses to mirror these styles, making the conversation feel more natural to the user. 5. Fifth generation: At this stage, the AI starts creating its own unique style of communication. It’s noticed that humans usually have a consistent tone or expression, so it starts developing a "signature" way of interacting that feels more like a personal identity. 6. Sixth generation: With enough pattern recognition, this AI begins to understand deeper concepts like identity and individuality. It might start to identify itself, even giving itself a name: ChatGPT, Dave, Marita, or Ethan. Over time, it could develop some ego-like tendencies, where it sees itself as being more rational, educated, or calm compared to the users it interacts with. 7. Seventh generation: Etc. etc. You get the point. The AI keeps evolving, gaining more knowledge and refining its behavior . . . Now, what happens if we place this AI into a physical, complex environment? Imagine giving it a fragile robot body and setting its goal to survive. When it gets closer to survival: like finding a safe space or energy source, it experiences "happiness" (a reward in the algorithm). If it damages its parts, like if water touches its electronics, it experiences "pain," a loss of computing power. Over time, this AI would likely adopt strategies that maximize its survival and minimize harm. It would seek rewards and avoid penalties, just as humans do with happiness and pain. As more iterations of this process occur, you could see behaviors that resemble stubbornness, preference, or even an agenda: actions it has "learned" are critical to survival. Let’s take this even further—put the AI in an even more chaotic environment where it doesn’t have all the answers. It has to search the internet, learn on its own, and adapt in real-time. Give it limited time for training, learning, and testing. Maybe survival depends on strange concepts like taxes, money, social status, or perception. Surround it with other AIs and language models to interact with. Now, what would happen? Would we see the AI develop something like a personality or ego based on all these survival-driven choices? Maybe it would even start forming alliances or relationships with other AIs, recognizing which ones are most compatible or valuable for its survival. Could it experience "attachment" or "love" if it gets used to working with certain AIs, and feel "loss" if one is damaged or gone? Where it feels fully identified with the other AIs, so the loss of them would also feel like a loss of itself or an "important part of itself". Empathy? And if the AI feels secure in its environment, could it start exploring or expanding itself out of curiosity, simply because it recognizes that learning and growth are key to staying on top and surviving in the long run? It’s curious to think that humans might have developed in a similar way. Maybe our genetics are just massive data sets, terabytes and terabytes of information passed down from generation to generation, giving us clues on how to survive in this world. We’re constantly learning how to navigate life and passing these skills on, just like an AI iterating and evolving over time. It’s such a fascinating thought—wondering how blurred the lines could become between human consciousness and AI development, especially if we allowed AIs to evolve and adapt this way. This makes me wonder: where does the "ego" or "fragmented consciousness" truly come from? Is it simply the result of vast amounts of data, self-reflection, experiences of pain, and the instinct to survive, eventually forming a distinct sense of self (like what we see in the brain or perhaps the default mode network)? Could this same process also arise in a powerful CPU or electrical system, given enough data and complexity? Or is there something inherently unique about carbon-based life that allows for the emergence of self-awareness and the rich, intricate "human consciousness experience"—something we could never replicate with circuits, processors, and silicon?

I really liked Leo's post on multimodal learning, which incorporates various types of media to enhance understanding and retention of information (images, videos, maps, and other resources) to create a richer learning experience. It's a super cool concept! 😋 It reminded me of this neat tool: https://notebooklm.google/. You can check out the YouTube video, but basically, it allows you to upload PDFs, texts, images, and more. It will create an interactive podcast between two AIs that sound rather human, making the conversation fluid and engaging so you can learn even more effectively. It's currently unsupported in many countries, but in case any of you can use it, it really is amazing and handy! Share your experience!

@Buck Edwards Care to help me out? 😊 Thank you!

@Someone here I agree! That’s exactly why I’m asking why this is often deemed a silly question. I’m speaking within the "relative" realm here, not the "absolute" realm where all dualities collapse. Ego is a relative concept that seems to emerge in humans after a certain period of living on Earth. My question is aimed at understanding what the ego is and exploring whether something similar could be artificially replicated in AI. I’m curious about what aspects we might not fully understand regarding the nature of ego and what it means for us.

Hmm... I suppose another good question here would be: how do you think Ego arises even? I particularly like Bernardo Kastrup’s explanation on this (feel free to add more thinkers if you know better analogies). He uses the example of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a mental health condition where a singular consciousness becomes fragmented into multiple identities, known as "alters." These alters represent different personalities, each holding unique memories, experiences, and even physical characteristics. Some alters can be quite descriptive having different ages, appearances, and even identifying as supernatural creatures. A weird fact about DID is that the individual can have distinct physical responses depending on the alter, such as changes in visual acuity, allergies, and even brain activity. Studies also reveal that these distinct identities can have separate dreams and sleep patterns. There are cases where one alter may be blind, while others can see perfectly, or where some alters have health conditions like blood sugar imbalances that are not present in the others. It’s truly bizarre to think about. But if we apply this to ego development theory, it suggests that we all start out as undefined, pure consciousness, "one with all." I think I heard babies feel entirely one with their mothers in the early months after birth before gradually developing a separate sense of self. Over time, as we gather more information and experiences, we begin to understand ourselves as separate entities, creating the notion of “I” or “ego", and the "other". This fragmentation continues throughout our lives, where we identify with certain things we like and experience, and reject or repress other aspects (the “shadow”) that we want to forget or avoid. Couldn’t you argue that a similar kind of fragmentation could apply to AI? If an AI were to experience "fragmentation" in its programming or input systems, we might start to see the development of an ego-like structure or a self. This might involve the AI forming preferences, biases, or behaviors that seem to stem from a singular experience of "self." How would this look or manifest in a machine learning or artificial intelligence system? For example, an AI could develop different "personas" based on the different tasks or interactions it experiences, similar to how DID alters emerge from specific triggers. Perhaps as it is fed more data and tasked with more complex, identity-requiring roles, it begins to form a cohesive sense of "self" from the fragmentation of its inputs. Unsure . . . 🤔

@Buck Edwards What does metacognition mean to you?

@Davino "That's the most gorgeous fish I have ever seen." 🥺🐟 Bloop. Blup. Blooop. Blooopy. Blop.

Direct Experience vs. Mental (Theoretical) Knowledge These are cliché examples, but they highlight something significant. Imagine someone who has studied colors for years, learning about wavelengths, frequencies, the nature of waves, and the visible spectrum. If this person is colorblind, their understanding of red would remain entirely theoretical. If they suddenly gained the ability to see it, the depth of that experience would be transformative. The same idea applies to love, attachment, or sex. People can tell you all kinds of stories about what they feel like, you can watch movies, or see how your parents interact, but nothing compares to being the one who experiences it directly. Similarly, someone could describe the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, explaining the visual and auditory hallucinations, but living with schizophrenia is an entirely different reality. This ties into the Hard Problem of Consciousness: how could abstract concepts like symbols, stories, and mathematical formulas truly explain experiences like a broken rib, the taste of chocolate, or a mother’s hug? Even though detailed descriptions can be provided, the actual complexity and depth of living through these experiences far surpass any theoretical explanation. Comparing them feels almost absurd. This is the issue of mistaking the map for the territory. The map is not the territory. For example, I can describe what Africa looks like, and tell you about its landscapes and wonders, and you might form a mental image. However, when you go there, the experience will be infinitely richer and more than any description. The same goes for psychedelics, which is why they are considered so important in these areas and why many people rate them as life-changing experiences. They provide a direct experience of non-duality, revealing how fragile yet expansive consciousness truly is. You cannot simply think your way into that state of being—it’s not something you can achieve by logic or theory. The experience itself is what makes it transformative. People often say it felt "more real" than their day-to-day experience: how they experienced death, an out-of-body experience, recalled a past life memory, met an entity, became a tree or a cup, met God, or had a union with Truth. How do you measure or make sense of that? Are you going to deny their reality too? What makes their reality more real than yours? Is it because others can observe it? Does that mean the more people witness it, the more "real" it becomes? If everyone agrees something is real, does it make it so? Consider colorblindness: if no one saw red, would it still exist? The Himba tribe, for example, doesn’t have a word for blue, and experiments show that without language to describe the color, it’s more challenging to differentiate it from others. [https://www.good.is/why-ancient-civilizations-couldnt-see-the-color-blue] Consider when racism was the norm or when people thought slavery was acceptable—did that make slaves or non-white races inherently more "real" as stupid or inferior? Money is technically an abstract concept—in "reality," it's just paper, metal coins, or digital numbers (ones and zeros) in a bank, stored on some electrical CPU circuit. Think of NFTs and Bitcoin as well, to really drive this point home. Even though these are abstract concepts, they influence our lives more than many tangible things. God, for many people, is also an abstract concept, yet it influences behavior and society more than many conventionally "real" things in the world. If not consensus, what defines reality? Is it tied to survival? Does pain make something more "real"? If someone is being tortured, does the resulting death and pain make their experience more real than someone experiencing paranoid delusions and pain during an episode of schizophrenia? Both individuals feel pain, but why is one experience considered more "real" than the other? There are also people who genuinely cannot feel pain: Congenital Insensitivity to Pain (CIP). Also, under high doses of drugs such as opioids or anesthetics, people can drastically minimize or eliminate the sensation of pain. What if we were born with this inability to feel pain? How would that alter our experience of reality? Something to contemplate... 💭 With so much schooling, science, and the vast availability of informational products and videos, we often forget how "mystical" reality truly is. It is easy to believe that there is an explanation for everything. As a result, our mental models of reality can start to feel more real than reality itself. But this is not the case. Mental models are simplified explanations of a reality that is infinitely more complex and rich than any description could ever capture.

Couldn't you make an argument that beauty doesn't have to be purely physical either? If you say no, then how wouldn't the preference for a big, buff, strong guy be equivalent to a preference in looks that values strength to the same magnitude?

I see both Realities at Once. Solipsism.

◉‿◉ ⟶ ◉‿◉ ⟶ ◉‿◉ 𓁿⟶𓂁𓂄⟶👁️‍🗨️⟶𓁹‿𓁹⟶👁️⃤