New Monadology Codicil

Screen Shot 2018-12-02 at 8.10.48 AM


Let’s reiterate: How do you draw the boundary between one computation and the other? – since, after all, these are just shapes traced within light cones in the sum of the relevant neural networks? There is no especially principled way to do this from the inside of experience. The choice itself changes us. We can choose to believe in a single brain changing from moment to moment. But then we realize that belief in a single brain is arbitrary since timeless causality is flowing from what might be called “other brains” in the naive ontology. The unenlightened are given the Koan: How would you draw the line for souls after mix-matching half of my brain with half of my neighbor’s brain?  – And then connecting the other two halves, all the while keeping every half functioning.

Of course, I who understand, know that a competitive exclusion principle need not apply here, since the two “souls” aren’t competing to exist. It’s not that one blanks out and the other remains. Experience is intrinsic to myself. No things are traveling and seeking to remain.

If I am a physicalist, so I believe that the empirically-tested theories of physics provide an undergirding for my perceptual tools as opposed to the other way around, then this suggests that what I really experience is a solipsistic ascent that is already perfectly adaptive, but that I must sort of forget this in order to be perfectly adaptive.

I developed this idea while processing signaling theory and uniform-cost search. Uniform-cost search is a relevant model because that is how an algorithm checks to see if a new path is better than an older one, and it is easy to see that uniform-cost search is optimal in general. Since new and older don’t exist anywhere except in the timeless algorithms themselves, I argue that we are always in a better path, because otherwise we would not constrain our anticipation by the density that arises when we apply the Born Rule to infinite amplitude. The algorithm that I identify with is occurring in the absence of a physical time.

Signaling theory dynamics have long subsumed biology by the point that we are social mammals that partake in Mind. There, you find that humans are deceived about their hidden motives in order to function. Since my being is a functional role, I am permanently deceived about where I am going in order to get there.

In short: Uniform-cost search selects a node for expansion only when an optimal path to that node has been found and therefore swallows Mind by sacrificing Hilbert-Space drafts.

Screen Shot 2018-12-02 at 6.13.23 PM

Oscillation converges towards the most rational behavior. The most rational behavior is not that which is most Spock-like necessarily, but that which is most capable of tenseless survival with regards to the unknown-source-of-the-Born-Rule/the-unknown-selector-of-binding-in-Relativity’s-fabric.

I am not some crisp cut of physical events that I can point to and say, “Ah there I am.” I can only choose to become truer (by debunking the solidity of closed individualism for instance) and equipping it strategically instead.

2 thoughts on “New Monadology Codicil

  1. It seems to me there are non-arbitrary ways of arriving at boundaries that “carve nature at its joints”. How do I solve the binding problem/boundary problem? Topological bifuraction. Topological bifurcation is how you can get discrete entities out of unified wholes. A simple example is e.g. how you can start with a sphere, and then twist both sides until you get a pinch point in the middle. Now you have two volumes connected by a point. What I’m saying is that your “moment of experience” is perhaps like that point, but rather than spheres we’re talking about the universal wavefunction. That’s how we can all “be one” and also “be individual moments of experience” at the same time. We are different compactifications of a high-dimensional universal being.


    • “Moment of experience” is as arbitrary as any other concepts in Mind. This knowledge/feeling can be elaborated with other concepts built on top. All you are doing is mapping to other concepts and deriving new ways of being from that synthesis.

      The attempt to reduce is useful in chemistry or a sufficiently predictive mathematical model, but the binding cannot be solved with any sequence of sense impressions, language, or formalism. The binding has already happened “by the time” you make your spiel. It doesn’t matter what the spiel is. It is already bound from relativistic “pieces.” Pieces and time are concepts in mind. The reason we respect pieces, develop time, and then un-discover these with relativity and QM is because this was already deemed adaptive. …Memetic hazard? Perhaps.

      If topological bifurcations oriented mind to predict things the way that special relativity orients mind to predict things, one might choose to give that ontological precedence over non-see-through eternal binding as a means of progress towards rational alignment.

      OI, EI, and their myriad permutations can only be more true in the sense that angers may be more true than sadnesses, blue more true than buru, mathematical operations more true than witchcraft operations. Of course, these varied concepts do not exist in a separate magisterium from the predictions made by SR, which are also internal to mind; it’s just more difficult to accept your truth in the absence of your triumph at the game of “convincing implications and witnessed refutation attempts.” We could all attempt to dutifully convert to the doctrine you found aesthetic sense in, but reality gives us no reason to commit for now – only to taste the wine for fun.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s