Truth is a controversial concept. Some deny its existence altogether – which would be a truth in itself. Others see it as a fundamental belief, call it "knowledge," and have a hard time understanding why others seem to overlook it. But everyone understands that there can be a difference between what one says, what one believes, and what one knows. And which of these takes precedence when it matters.
What
matters?
 |
| Claus Janew |
I am not an engineer, but I would like to convey the idea of how we can create artificial consciousness with free will using the concept of infinitesimality structure. The basic principle is surprisingly simple and has probably already been realized here and there. We need
 |
| Claus Janew |
 |
| Claus Janew |
If we ask for the one cause that repeatedly leads to human misbehavior against our better judgment, we find the lack of a sense of connection with others, with the environment, and with everything higher. If we had it, we would be aware that everything is a single movement of consciousness, that every experience flows into all other experiences and draws from the dynamic balance of a deep wholeness. On the one hand, this comprehensive balance allows us to be flexible with our own mental and social balance without falling into a bottomless pit. On the other hand, flexibility on a smaller scale is a good way to maintain stability on a larger scale.
Some people would rather ask what meaning life should have if not the purpose of becoming happy. Really? Is that all there is to it?
As I said, perhaps a clever drug would be enough to give you perfect feelings of happiness until the end of your life. Wouldn't it?
That would be too dull for me too. But what are we looking for instead?
Only you have your worldview with all the bells and whistles, because that is what defines you as an individual. Everyone else sees things in a different way, a completely different way if you ask them, even if you have points of contact. Your motives for everything you want and everything you do are accordingly individual. Although we try to find and emphasize similarities in order to feel secure or to assure ourselves of mutual help, we actually know how little we really share. Strictly speaking, nothing at all. Or if we take "share" to mean "divide," then we divide everything – into individual perspectives, unique ways of being, unique emotional tones.
I have been trying to understand how people come to their opinions. Pure logic and impartiality are rare - largely independent of intelligence. Emotions constantly distort thinking in one direction or another. Fear of something in particular does this. Often subliminally, but you can see it very well if you pay attention. In discussions, I can sometimes see, as if under a microscope, how someone fails to think ahead at a particular point, but always turns back to what is pleasant. And, of course, the appearance of rationality has to be maintained.
Edmund Husserl's phenomenological descriptions* show many similarities to my own considerations, for example when he speaks of a "halo," a "horizon of mental processes" (awareness) or a "central point of unity" (neutral center point). Nevertheless, he does not consistently take the omnipresence of the center-periphery structure further to the infinitesimality structure.
Creating is an endless game of separating (projecting, i.e. changing) inner aspects in order to obtain a new individuality, which we can then rejoin (and enjoy again). A moment later we separate a new form of our infinite inner reality, and so on. We integrate all these "objects" in a new way as our awareness expands. This awareness also means going into limited experiences and coming back to the bigger "picture" that has now become more comprehensive, both consciously and subconsciously.
The stem of the Reality Funnel summarizes the
alternation of the less conscious points of view "perspectively". But
if they don't just jump around there, they also have a closer effect on each
other and are wound up in places to cores that harmoniously connect many perspectives. (Without harmony, they
would fall apart again.)
Such a comparatively harmonious core, such as our inner self, can hold our Awareness (I) together, and from it probably emanate more comprehensively harmonizing impulses for thought and action than from the adjusting roles of our little ego. On the other hand, this ego can often handle everyday situations better. Therefore, it is best if each one devotes itself to its own subject and benefits only from the skills of the other. We can feel such a harmony like a beautiful concert. If, on the other hand, the ego is completely in tune with the inner self, we can speak of unity, but hardly of harmony: The connection is too rigid and the duet probably short.
If we can exist only in the constant change of the
point of view (sensory, psychic, mental) and this must apply analogously to
every place of effect (hardly has it worked, it is different), how then
stability, something constant arises?
Of course, by repeating the alternation: of thought, of way of looking at things, of mutual confirmation, of effect. Quite exactly, the change can be repeated only for an infinitely short moment; then it must already reach beyond the repetition in order not to cancel itself out. That is, it changes altogether and thereby remains open. For stabilization, approximate repetition is sufficient, though. So we believe approximately the same thing for a long time.
When we
weigh between two alternatives, say between job A and job B, we weigh between
their respective priorities. Each job
has a certain probability of realization, which can change during the weighing,
whereupon the probability of the other job immediately adjusts. That is, if we
prefer job B, job A becomes less probable, but remains available in the
background for a while. With job B we choose an individual probability hierarchy as such to our reality.
What about the other candidates? They and their choices are also part of our probability hierarchy. They are aspects of our individual Awareness, which as a whole decides for a new individual reality, for a new probability hierarchy. This means in reverse: The other candidates have their own awareness and choose their own probability hierarchies. We all meet in the respective awareness, but we do not merge.
In What is Consciousness? (I) we considered the formation of i-structures through
circumscription, and in What is Awareness? (I) the alternation of perspective
as such. But basically both are one and the same.
Circumscribing
movement - consciousness - is of course an alternation of individual points of
view. And the perception of an alternation - awareness - also circumscribes a
constant center. The difference between emphasized
circumscription and emphasized alternation
lies in the density of the circumscribed central area. If the circumscribing
alternation (for example, between facades) forms an object (a house), the
content-dense center symbolizes its unity ("being inside"). If the
alternation is perceived more as such, the object character is thin ("Is
it several houses or one?").
The maximum of unity is in the intuitive center point, while the maximum of alternation is in the alternation itself. That is, the alternation is authoritative and the circumscription is derived. (Without facades, there is no interior.)
The uniqueness of each standpoint, each point of view,
can obviously only be "overcome" by changing the standpoint to other standpoints. And returning. In
such alternation alone, which can also appear as constant change, lies the
unity of the world.
The grasping of this dynamic unity goes beyond mere consciousness, because Consciousness (I) always tends to circumscribing condensation, i.e. to the formation of symbolic, quasi-static objects. In contrast, the change to other points of view - other individual attitudes - is naturally more open. The perception of this alternation is what I call awareness.
The question of whether we can freely choose among
several possibilities, without imagining this freedom or confusing it with
chance, leads us to the truth about our responsibility. For if we had to answer
for something that came from us but was not decided
by us, it would be no more than the responsibility of a cloud for its rain.
To find the answer, let us consider the simple choice between two continuations of our day, for example, whether to go to the cinema or to the theater. Actually, we like both equally, although sometimes we feel more like one than the other. Today, however, we really don't care; we could just as well flip a coin. But we don't - that would be too cheap. We think. We put ourselves into the cinema, then into the theater, then back into the present, and so on. In this way we circumscribe the entirety of the decision situation, the present being its center. Strictly speaking, this center is infinitely small, right in the middle of the whole circumscription with all its details. That is, in us.
Whatever consciousness "is" - it must have
structure. Even emptiness can only be defined in contrast to fullness and
non-duality versus duality (as the word says). Or it is simply "Mu".
And that would be the end of this paper - and everything else.
I suggest that we take some time with this and try to start from a consciousness that is as concrete as possible, from a conscious object, say a water glass. We perceive something that we distinguish from ourselves. We also distinguish it from its environment (table, cupboard, room) and determine it in comparison with other known things (table, cup, plate) to what it "is". That is, we circumscribe its existence by comparison. Likewise, it stabilizes itself through external and internal interactions (pouring and drinking, molecular attraction and repulsion).
Your individuality is much more than a little
peculiarity. It is a view that nothing and no one has but you. Otherwise
it/he/she would be you. Also, you will have changed your perspective - yourself
- in the next moment, and you cannot turn back time.
For convenience, we agree on "common" objects that are supposedly perceived by everyone, although everyone is looking at things from his or her own point of view. If you see me rolling a pen across the table to you, you may think it is the same pen that I see. But I see something completely different from what you see. There is not the slightest concord between my perception and yours. Otherwise, I would be sitting in your place, having your thoughts, memories, and feelings, and connecting them to a shape that is rolling toward me.
Material wealth does not exist. For wealth is always felt. Even the value of the spiritual.
The materialist identifies with his possessions, the life-experienced person may not need them, and the spiritual seeker may not understand what to do with them. Everything can be more or less in harmony with our soul, more or less deeply or superficially, more or less directly or indirectly. In fact, wealth can be attained without any "detours" through external events or achievements: in meditative silence. Because basically we already have it. We just need to rediscover it.
A world in which our every wish was immediately granted would obviously not make sense to us, but would simply be arbitrary. We wouldn't even need to have a specific wish, because we could just as easily have any other wish. We wouldn't need to understand our desires, in fact there would be nothing to understand. What we now know about ourselves, and what could serve as the basis for our desires, would have no connection to any more comprehensive reality. So we might as well wish for our dissolution. And why shouldn't we?
To judge other people is not to condemn them. It is simply a choice, which of course always involves an evaluation, a weighting. However, such a judgment can go beyond mere preference by claiming to be universally valid. This is where it can clash with the evaluations of others.
James Anderson* has proposed an obvious definition for the dreaded division by zero...
To ensure consistent formatting, the document is in PDF: Division by Zero
Radical constructivism was initially formulated by Ernst von Glasersfeld.
Radical constructivists do not speak of creating reality, but of
constructing reality. What is the difference?
"Creating reality" ultimately means creating everything, without exception. "Constructing reality"
means interpreting external "disturbances" and thus shaping effects.
Thus the constructivist has the lesser claim, but at the price of
inconsistency. He cannot avoid including an external cause of effect that essentially
determines his construction. In principle, however, he cannot and does not want
to know by what this obviously pre-structured effect is exerted. What is
important is only what is useful in the context of one's own life, whereby
"usefulness" is equally constructed and thus co-determined by this
external something, and so on.
Instead, he might well admit that there is an external reality, the effect of which he is only further constructing. But he would not be saying anything essentially new. And once he admits its pre-structuring, he might as well go on to ask what else there is to "pre-recognize". And with that, he abolishes the radicality of constructivism.
