Self-Coding
Computer programs are sequences of logical arguments. Complex arguments with multiple premises can be broken down into elemental arguments. An elemental argument is an ‘implication’ statement, commonly expressed in the form ‘if x then y’, which has the sense of ‘x necessitates y’ or ‘x, therefore y’, where x is a premise/input and y is the conclusion/output. Some arguments involved in the running of a program are not explicitly articulated but are structurally encoded in the hardware, firmware, or in the operating system. For example, activation of the power button implies execution of the firmware, which may in turn imply the activation of the operating system. When a program is subsequently initiated, a specific command implies the starting point for explicit argumentative processing. A string of consequences follows deterministically, according to the encoded if/then structure, from the input conditions.
Consciousness relies on the same logical structure in every movement of thought. Every perceived situation follows from past conditions, including any pre-conceived properties, which are collectively taken as situational premises, and it also triggers cognitive implications (involuntarily); these are effectively hard-coded arguments, structural properties of ‘existence’. Every set of reasons/premises implies a conclusion that logically ‘follows’, but insofar as reasoning is abstract, that which is taken to ‘follow’ from incomplete, vague or negotiable premises must be evaluated for the logical consistency of the consequence. This requires provisional ‘fixing’ of the premises in terms relevant to the conclusion, which amounts to temporary, contextual, argument-coding. Reasoning in-context is akin to compiling a program that executes a series of elemental, logical implications in order to obtain the logically necessary conclusion.
Conscious beings are easily coded under the influence of social trust or functional dependency, but are not consistent self-coders at the intentional level of thought, which is precisely what facilitates the programming effect of social trust and functional dependency. Every contextual argument that an agent does not consciously make, is unconsciously imparted on that agent by someone else. The social risk and the attention-cost of consistent self-coding typically vastly exceeds the situational benefits of consistency, because the involuntary programs we call ‘reality’ and ‘culture’ that run continuously in the background (analogous to the operating system) are already safety-nets that make unconscious conformity socially fail-safe in most situations, whereas erroneous conclusions that conflict with the operating system can be individually catastrophic. For the most part, ‘persons’ are just instances of the same operating system, running the same free software, which is riddled with errors, and are performed unconsciously at every level of the socially regulated hierarchy.
‘Artificial Intelligence’ demonstrates that many professional, educational, and creative tasks can be performed unconsciously.
Unconscious behaviour is the most functionally efficient in the fulfilment of contingent, deterministic aims. It regulates society at all professional levels, it is the cybernetic system that humans are born into and are conditioned to maintain, it is cultivated by the ruling power as it determines political power, but it is also fundamentally aimless. The sense of meaninglessness or disillusionment that confronts individuals at the peak of their professional, political, humanitarian or artistic careers is a realisation of misalignment between the intrinsic value-commitment of conscious agency (to maximise conscious agency, which is a function of logical consistency) and the unconscious pursuit of material or social success, which is essentially animal behaviour. The high attention-cost and the transient trauma of social alienation associated with the pursuit of intentional consistency is therefore imperative to conscious agency. Its effect is akin to upgrading the operating system and developing a more sophisticated compiler than the free version, with the capacity for continuous debugging of the argumentative process, resulting in fewer logical errors that corrupt self-ideation. This is instrumental to the development of creative power over meaning, which is coextensive with the degree of consciousness. Consciousness does not begin or end, but is a matter of degree.
3 observations in that regard.
1, yes people run on the culture operating system, and during COVID we saw an example for how that makes everyone execute in unison. I think however that since then, and because of that, a lot of people have become aware that they can never again adopt so many presuppositions so carefree as before COVID which for many now also extends to other topics. (That tendency in people to open up for considering the more cynical possibilities is btw an important reason also for why the day before 9/11 was selected for the Charlie Kirk performance, namely, to disturb the otherwise to be expected collective, ever more mature, revisiting of the original 9/11 including the consideration of more cynical possible explanations. From that taking place at all, and from that getting space on pages of newspapers and on air in talkshows, and in private conversations, there had to be a distraction, to avoid an ever more determined consolidation of a collective awareness of having been conned (in what specific ways ever, there was a variety). Instead, distract them so they don't talk about it, they don't remind each other of it, they don't test each other's arguments on that coming out more convinced by having executed their own thought processes on it - and if possible retraumatize them through showing people more clearly their helplessness against absurdity. Make them talk only about the new instance where they can only exchange expressions of helplessness.
2, "The sense of meaninglessness or disillusionment that confronts individuals at the peak of their professional, political, humanitarian or artistic careers is a realisation of misalignment between the intrinsic value-commitment of conscious agency (to maximise conscious agency, which is a function of logical consistency) and the unconscious pursuit of material or social success, which is essentially animal behaviour.":
I have often thought that this sense of meaninglessness or disillusionment hits predominantly those who go through life chasing indeed only the first-layer purposes and rewards. I think that at least subconsciously, to avoid this emptiness, is why many more than most imagine, engage in overt but especially in covert ideology-driven activity. Especially the covert faction does this to garner excitement, meaning, gratification and possibly in some cases (this is blatant in many overt cases) to assuage resentment against those who have the foreground success, or certain characteristics that they may feel they lack. For that underground stuff, certainly intelligence is needed but then, the covertness requires more duplicity than other aspects of intelligence because the majority is not perpetually suspecting of foul play which generally has to be ok, they/we HAVE to be able trust to a certain extent for our kind of society to function which makes it easier to betray intelligent people using less than excellent intelligence as long as it is infused with malignancy.
Then this need to have to be able to trust makes it really important for everyone to get into the new habit of becoming aware of our own code, and strictly ensure to never feed inputs by unreliable actors into our thought processes. Where AI comes in. There are always those who feed AI outputs masked as own, into collective thought processes, corrupting the reliable base of those.
3, this finally reminds me of a Soviet children's book for 7 year olds that I once read, where the child was taught the importance of AXIOMS, and was also taught that those by no means do not require proof! That they would require proof, but that it is merely that people have agreed for the moment that they will take the axiom at good will without proof. And that made me think in context of COVID that it has been detrimental that people did not have this fact present. In COVID, the public accepted too many things as scientific facts that really had axiom status - but the assumed goodwill on the part of those proposing the axioms was assumed in vain, which I hope will have a dampening effect on future readiness and goodwill to accept future axioms at face value.
And there was one last thought, I'll add that later, forgot it for the moment.
Michael, would you rather my paid subscription be here or at Wordpress? I unsubscribed here (but seem to have re-subscribed by accident). I will cancel one of them. Which is best to keep?