Review of Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell: A straightforward summary of the 21st century's only plausible metaphysics by Bernardo Kastrup

Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell: A straightforward summary of the 21st century’s only plausible metaphysics by Bernardo Kastrup
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Kastrup is brilliant, and this book provides an excellent exposition of the metaphysics behind his cosmology. His theorizing usefully dispatches several of the nuttier directions that dogmatic physicalism has taken. Along the way, he provides an excellent elucidation of what information theory is and what it isn't. I've been craving that since forever. Not to mention putting A.I. in its place.

The trouble is that although he claims Occam’s Razor as his guide, he introduces still more needless complexity with his flip-flop from physical to mental; thinking that he’s reduced complexity by claiming that all of reality might reduce to a single principle, which is mind.

I have more than a little sympathy for this maneuver, but in fact Kastrup glides past a more basic distinction between perceptual and conceptual reality. By replacing the substance of physics with mind-only, Analytic Idealism actually re-enters woo-woo mysticism rather than to escape from it.
In the end, Kastrup has conducted a sleight-of-mind 'against' himself; he fools himself in almost the way that he accuses physicalist scientists of doing.

Kastrup is right about many things, and his insights have enabled him to challenge accurately many of the stranger cosmologies of his physicalist colleagues. But that doesn't quite stop him from his own weird conclusions.

In brief, Kastrup substitutes an inside/outside duality for the now antique mind/body duality for which Descartes generally receives credit or blame, depending on one's disposition. Mind/body maps to concept/percept while inside/outside creates an entirely unnecessary complication about that aspect of mind which cannot consistently be claimed to be inside, and that which is demonstrably outside.

Kastrup’s usage of his newer term "alter" to describe our individuated interiority is useful, though not meaningfully different from Descartes' usage for mind once inside and outside are introduced.
In Kastrup’s “analytic idealism,” alters exist in a field of “subjectivity,” built on the analog of a possible grand unification theory for quantum electrodynamics, where there would be a single quantum field upon which all that we perceive as physical has no separate ‘substance’ from the field. A wave is an action on water and is nothing without the water. It has no substance, and is the very meaning of abstraction once we call it into being. Abstraction is a conceptual maneuver whereby concepts are taken from physical reality.

No actual circle exists in nature, any more than numbers can be imposed there without some degree of abstraction. But the concept of the circle and the power of numbers to help with prediction and therefore with understanding are both undeniable. Sure, a circle is the stuff of mind, while we may perceive only approximations. It’s the matching of percept with concept which composes understanding.

While there may not be any actual and perfect circles in what I would still call the physical world – the world of substance – there are plenty of structures whose description is equivalent to their actuality. Molecules, for instance, whose structure is identical from one to the next such that each is individually indistinguishable. But they do have a describable form.

‘Field of subjectivity’ is only meaninglessly different from ‘field of objectivity.’ The meaningful distinction is between conceptual and perceptual reality.

As do many who descend from the world of information technology, and in his case also the kind of Quantum Electro Dynamics which energizes CERN, where he once worked, Kastrup uses the inaccessibility of personal thoughts to others/outsiders – the secrecy of our thoughts and feelings – to prove his inside/outside distinction.

He then goes further, and for me beyond the pale, to replace the sensible apprehension of the boundary of skin with a fairly, to me, specious metaphor of a “dashboard.” In many ways - and this is surprising to me - Kastrup is himself stuck in the Western set of imperatives as much as are those physicalists that he ridicules.

"Alter" is his metaphor for how individuals - chips off the cosmic mind of analytic idealism - are individuated. We are likened to the seemingly separate selves of those who suffer dissociative identity disorder, or what used to be called multiple personality disorder.

One of the weirdest of Kastrup's moves is that he posits a reality apart from perceptual reality (as conventionally considered) that is more real than what we perceive. I suppose the metaphor is that the physically real is composed of unperceivable parts; subatomic particles, in a vast emptiness, say, pervaded only by a quantum field.

According to him, those “particles” are actually eddies in the subjective field without substance of their own. Quantum fields may be more both/and than he thinks though, which might even scotch the dream of completion for a Grand Universal Theorem. Not every literate human culture is quite so obsessed as the West is with history as unitary progress toward completion.

He attributes our misperception - our inability to perceive actual reality - to the perceiver inside our perceptual apparatus having only a dashboard by means of which to perceive. We can’t see reality in itself. Well, of course we can’t. Reality as we perceive it is also composed with concepts, which are mind extended into matter.

But Kastrup then goes so far as to say that the things of our lived experience from behind our dashboard wouldn't exist without someone there to perceive them. They exist in mind and not in matter, remember. He thus reintroduces the gracefully moribund mind inside the mind corroborating sensory inputs. The mind behind the inner screen is a free floating "alter." A mind inside a mind in infinite regress.

Abstraction is real. The physical is real. One is conceptual while the other is perceptual. Putting both on the same side in a universal field of subjectivity is where Kastrup stops following the principle of Occam’s razor. Analytic idealism is far more complex than a metaphysics allowing for both conceptual and perceptual reality; both mind and physical stuff.

In my usage, the only meaning for interiority is that there must be a physical divider for perception to occur. That's not the same as to say that there must be a perceiver "inside" or behind some screen. There is no real locus for the self inside of mind. Kastrup’s replacement of skin with screen, and mind with alter recreates a superfluous and unnecessary confusion.

Perception happens to a body as divided from the rest of reality by a skin and its organic involutions which form our perceptual organs. The mind of the perceiver has never been confined there, inside our skin nor certainly inside our skull. Kastrup and I seem to agree on this.
As do most scientific thinkers, Kastrup - who talks about emotion more than most scientists do, and certainly more than most devoted materialists ever would - still relegates emotion to being epiphenomenal to consciousness. He often conflates thoughts and feelings as things without extension. He claims to deproblematize the puzzle of consciousness by positing that mind is the whole shebang. So, no problem with consciousness being transformed or transmuted out of physical stuff!

But really, consciousness is just the apprehension of both conceptual and perceptual reality. A lizard knows a hawk when it sees one. Evolution adds the quickening of emotion to the apprehension of a hawk to short-cut conscious thought.

At some level higher than a lizard, something like re-cognition occurs, bringing choice along with reaction.

I confess that I don’t see the need for the usage of “qualia” that many philosophers see. Just because colors and flavors don’t exist in the thing itself, the fact that such so-called qualia are almost universally shared should be sufficient to put them on the perceptual side of things. Niggling about the marginal cases seems not much different from mistaking distortions for wholesale misperception, as Kastrup tends to do.

Those perceptions assigned to the category of qualia are rather more complex than simpler perceptions. I would say that the proof for their objective existence is simply that we can talk about them. And animals respond to qualia much further “down” the line.

I would say that concepts exist outside the individual mind, and that, therefore, emotion is fundamental and even primordial. Indeed, mind cannot be described without emotion. Any mind is as much about emotion as it is about cognition. I’ll even grant that Kastrup might agree with this.
But emotion requires at least as much definition as physical forces do. Here’s my radical maneuver: emotion is both real and as outside of mind as perception is.

In my usage, emotion is rather more like the false definition of gravity as a simultaneous force acting at a distance. That sort of physical simultaneity is better defined by a shared 'curvature' of space-time, as Kastrup urges us to understand. Emotion is defined by actual simultaneity without any physical force involved. Emotion is engendered by conceptual/mental and not perceptual/material movement. Emotion involves no physical force but is engendered by the matching of concept with percept, the apprehension of new concepts or the transformation of old ones. It is not a process which can exist within an asocial individual. For humans, emotion takes as much learning as does cognition. But unlike perception, emotion is felt directly by the mind. If mind is outside the skin, then so is emotion.

And furthermore, morality is no more a part of Kastrup's purportedly comprehensive analytical idealism than it is a part of physicalism. Kastrup’s ethics might be something like “we have to keep contributing to the cosmic mind.” In the same way, a physicalist might use the imperative to understand as the highest purpose for humanity.

But in fact, conscience is more a matter of fellow feeling. For humans, the recognition which engages conscience is enhanced by the highly individualized nature of faces and voices and stature and skin coloring.

Being me is still about outside and inside, and a bat or a human only knows what it's like to be me from the outside. And yes, I mean that I don't know what it's like to be me from the inside. I can't know myself without you who help me to know myself. Cogito ergo sum is nonsense, as we all know. My good friends know my thoughts much better than I do. That sometimes hurts. Don’t we hide from ourselves as much as we have secrets? And having secrets doesn’t indicate a thing about the privacy or insidishness of our mind. Sure, we put some of our thoughts behind a blind, and sometimes we blind even ourselves.

To repeat myself again and again, I make my claim for his fooling himself in part because of his strange - to me - reliance on the hackneyed usage of an instrument panel to describe our distance from understanding or even describing the world as it fully is. Like a computer screen and its icons as related to the workings of the actual computer, another of the metaphors he uses, we only know what is presented. Trying to interact directly with the inners of a computer could only get in the way of its usefulness. This "interface" between inside and outside is identical, I would say, to the dualistic distinction between mind and body, and equally useless as an explainer of anything.
His screen metaphor confuses our perpetual shortfall from full understanding with a perceptual shortfall from full seeing. Indeed, I don't believe any adequate description for 'understanding' exists in his arguments.

Sure, there is more complexity to the world than what we can know, but almost none of this regards what most of us will continue to call the physical world. The contours of the physical world are as real as the conceptual relations beneath or behind or within those contours. Those interior contours of reality are, yes, mental, but as with the surfaces, they are the same to every understander. Instruments on a panel may refine our perception, but they almost never change its outlines.

The complexity we miss from behind our screens is really mostly social and intellectual. The sort of complexity that it's always hard to understand without actual engagement. It is indeed our physicalist researches which have, by way of measurement and calculation, enabled us to refine our understanding according to the materialist scientific method, to the extreme that we have.
Of course, there is complexity to the physical world which we cannot see directly. But we can certainly understand it by way of instruments connected to a dashboard.

Sure, we are limited in our perceptions by the fact that we don't see all frequencies of light, nor hear all frequencies of sound, nor taste all that might be tasted. But when we do extend our perceptions by use of those instruments which compose his metaphor, we have no reason to expect that the invisible - meaning not fully perceived - world would be drastically altered [sic] from that part of it which we do perceive.

And to perceive is not to understand. Instrumentation and numbers enable a deepening of our understanding of the physical world. There is no reason to suspect that the physical world is substantially different or other from what we perceive directly. And you will never know me by my guts. Do we see through or with a telescope? Our instruments allow us to make better predictions. The best part is that quantum physics puts a stop to our dreams of complete understanding. We cannot and do not stand outside the real world.

Understanding is a match between conceptual and perceptual reality. As regards the material world, that would involve the ability to predict behaviors based on an understanding of properties. Emotional reality depends, differently, on mutuality and simultaneity of a sort which can't exist in the physical world.

For a conscious agent having free will, emotion impels both physical motion away or against or toward at the same time that it instigates a mental quest for understanding. It is telling that Kastrup is involved in developing hardware for Artificial Intelligence. But, mirabile dictu, he is not so mystified by it as are those whose most precious dream is to get fabulously rich and powerful off it. Kastrup’s explanation about what AI is and isn’t is just as good and clear as is his explication of information theory.

If mind is all, then there can be no fundamental difference in mind depending on its substrate. Kastrup avoids the trap that the brain is the house of the mind. It's not just that AI has a difficult time with emotion. It's that the on/off nature of silicon logic gates divides such quasi-thinking from the extension that living mind has to the universe all around. Kastrup gives us this and then takes it away with his dashboard.

As the mind researcher Riccardo Manzotti urges us to understand, our memories are not contained in our brains, which instead loops our actual perceptions of actual things. Our memories are all around us. Visit a former habitation if you can find one that hasn't changed too drastically, and feel the memories rush in. Our brain generalizes from multiple perceptions to form concepts. Those concepts are also out in the world. We prove this easily by the languages which create our social being. We share conceptual reality.

It is specifically this conceptual reality which mind "imposes" on what we perceive. We organize the world into lions and tigers and bears, never mind that these are not always so distinct as our mind would like them. Those objects still exist if conceived differently by others. Sure, there is some raw stuff not yet conceptualized. But the reality that we've already conceived is as real as real can be, despite Kastrup's protestation that evolution requires distortion of our perception. Distortion does not make the world that we perceive unreal. Distortion is correctable.
Emotion is as real and external to us as is measurable and detectable physical reality. Indeed, the reality of emotion falls out naturally from Kastrup’s definition of reality as cognition. Mind before matter, as it were. And emotion before cognition.

I do think his discarding of matter complicates rather than simplifies his cosmology. Of course, matter is something, but it is not everything. Neither is mind. Contrasting with his usage for the parsimony of Occam's razor, I would say that to maintain the yin/yang of both mind and matter is the parsimonious course. Get rid of static outside/inside. Reality moves.
As illustration, consider that evolution has a direction which is, in rough terms, opposite to the direction of physical entropy. Indeed I would say that the physical enactment of time's arrow is defined by that interplay, and I would call the direction of life's evolution something akin to love or eros (for the materialists).

On-line, Kastrup has described his own uncanny experiences, which are nothing other than meaningful coincidence, which probably can't be proven or disproven, since it's only meaningful to those who find it so. But Kastrup has described his openness to such happenings after being convinced by his own analytic idealism. Likewise, evolution depends on random mutations - on happenstance - which is no longer so meaningless when taken in the aggregate.

Apart from the metering of entropy, material science has no explanation for time's arrow. And yet for all his analytical idealism, Kastrup still treats time in the way that historians do, and supposes a before and after for everything. Having experienced death a few times, I have the revelation that before and after collapse into a lifetime fully present. Kind of the way the Big Bang might or should be conceptualized, instead of trying to measure its distance from now across time. I would love to disabuse Kastrup of his fear of death.

Love is indeed the hardest guide for humans to follow, though most of us know it easily enough in opposition to, say, hate. From there, everything about morality can be built, no man-made dictates from a man-made God required. However, why not call the non-alterial [!!] all of analytic idealism - the cosmic mentation, if you will - why not call that God? What else to call cosmic mind? It does remain other to us, and always shall be. And God won’t be conscious until or unless there’s another cosmos. Ha! Bernardo and I agree!

Is it any wonder now that the world is in the thrall of conscienceless individuals? These are people without fellow-feeling, sometimes believing that they are following God’s dictates, and sometimes obeying the false consciousness of transactional materialism.


View all my reviews

Old Age Theorizing and the Stupid Economy

I suppose that we're all thinking about age. Biden's blank look, where makeup brings the undertakers' art to mind. Trumpian fallback into the increasingly wild discourse he's been successful with since Garry Trudeau invented him. He's degenerated from his Apprentice edited appearance. Barack targeted him so perfectly way back at that press club affair that Trump had to retrieve himself. Would that we all had reality TV producers to reinvent us into our most watchable moments. I'm pretty sure I knew the one who did up The Apprentice, though we've grown out of touch. 

Meanwhile, as you know gentle reader, I've lately worked up the meaning of mind; what mind means. That lovely, and possibly mostly false sense of  'understanding' when we match up conceptual with physical reality. (It's only false because we inhabit such a small sliver of, reality) Both conceptual and physical are real, I insist, and both are primordial. Meaning that mind is also primordial, but can't be real without the physical. 

So I'd like to extend my set of metaphors, which aren't properly metaphors, since I do believe that I can bring my metaphorical tenor down to earth in words. We'll see. I'm very trying.

Many thinkers, including my old friend and whipping boy Benjamin Bratton, declare that we will know civilization, say elsewhere in our cosmos, by the distinction of its shapes from nature. We see circles and squares that are too mathematically consistent and we know we're in the presence of one-time intelligence, even though it might have passed. 

The capitalist supposition is that this process of realization of conceptual reality involves invention and that the invented real thing becomes a kind of property. Well, not the thing, but the idea of the thing. Our politics are that convoluted. Economics is not just the dismal science, it's become a religion. 

In actual reality, there is no invention. Only discovery, since the thing realized has always been there. There is no way to imagine the invention of an automobile without the prior realizations of all its historical and already conventional parts. But an actualized automobile was always "there" by the very possibility of its being, to paraphrase Picasso.

In the world as I imagine it, time is a dimension equivalent to the other three. It's not that the future already exists (since "already" puts thing in a directional temporal "space" but rather that a car already exists as a possibility, albeit one which may never be realized.

The supposition that humans invent elevates the process of the realizations of conceptual and mostly mathematical reality to be the apex quality of humans and human-like others. The intelligent ones. Implicitly, invention denigrates morality. It is not the job of the inventor to dictate where and how his invention gets used. 

Our emotional responses are as primitive as the stuff our own archaeologists uncover. Quaint. Dead. But emotions are the actual  primitives of intelligence. Without emotive impulse, nothing would get done. What we call invention is more like the chance process of discovery. Our trouble is that we don't have a coherent understanding of chance.

Our world now is littered with "forever chemicals", so-called because they exist outside of natural means to deal with them. One new one I read about today is called TFA, and ironically enough, its increase may be directly related to our very well-meaning efforts to heal the ozone layer. "We don't yet know" how harmful it might be to humans, though in any case knowing would come too late since, as the article says, "everybody's drinking it."

We are rather addicted to the notion that we can only fix these things by the same intelligent processes which generated them. The master's tools and all. Idiots. We are very clever idiots, but it's our supposition that human intelligence is all and only the application of logic and problem-solving, ideally stripped of emotion, guesswork, tossing of dice, and such-like.

We even suppose that our human intelligence can be aped by machines. Now I'm curious about Roger Penrose and his purported discovery of how microtubules might instantiate quantum effects in the brain (conspicuously not the mind), but I remain skeptical that such a mechanistic explanation is necessary. I also don't quite see how this might explain consciousness, unless one is simply positing that it is the quality of life - of nature, if you will - to be connected to all other life, which of course it is.

It is surely reassuring that machines will never be intelligent, since they are pure mechanical logic, and when the machines are computers they are cut off by definition of 0/1 yes/no logic, no matter how complex the neural networks might become. 

I want to know what would moral intelligence look like to an outlander archaeologist, since clearly our sort of "intelligence" ends rather sooner than later. We have yet even to know, never mind to celebrate moral intelligence, religion being but creative fiction anymore. One measure may be our churches' own descent. We have actualized conceptualized reality now across virtually the entire planet, and the results are naturally both obvious and inevitable. The absence of moral intelligence will be obvious by civilization's end, no matter how elaborate or impressive the artifacts might be. 

"I'm sorry, but life begins at conception" sayeth the dorked-out evangelical. What could that possibly even mean? Conception is a scientific notion based on conjugation of sperm with egg. Why place your magic God there? Science or religion, Martha, science or religion?

I trace these results to greed, plain and simple. Gluttony and likely every one of the other deadly sins. It's the economic arrangements which have lowered us to our lowest common moral denominator. The religion of capitalism's magic pricing computer, as Cory Doctorow sets out so beautifully here and elsewhere.

Sure technology seems to make life more comfortable, but there still must be some difference between the pattens of built wood and rock and maybe metal, which don't persist forever and those of more durable structures which do. We'll take our comforts in plastic, thank you very much, and damn the future, since it can't be mine.

Here's a typical puzzle: Cars are getting bigger and deadlier, while pedestrian deaths are soaring. For each life saved by being surrounded by a massive SUV, twelve lives are lost in the smaller cars that smaller lives can afford. In our world, with our economic religion, and our increasingly mob-like so-called democratic behaviors, we can't even imagine solving that problem.

Fossils or artifacts, which are more durable? We can't know since artifacts are so very recent. In either case life turned dead still resembles life, and we'll know it when we see it. But a nautilus shell, despite its near mathematical ideation still won't be mistaken for intelligent life's traces. Just another extinct species by the time we're done.

I've worried this issue to death by way of my absurd and rather silly obsession with sailboats. Once upon a time, I did purchase, which is to say got hold of, an old wooden sailboat which had been adulterated with a forever polypropylene sheath, embedded in forever epoxy. I wanted to sail and so I compromised my morals, and likely my liver, by reapplying the stuff over my extensive repairs to the wood. 

We all still suppose that the plastic boat represents the more advanced civilization.

I fretted that red lead paint was in the process of being disallowed as a preservative belowdecks, and oil paints for places above. And what about the gasoline auxiliary? But boy oh boy that wooden boat did sail in most any condition despite my naive helmsmanship. 

Now I've capitulated entirely to fiberglass, and gotten myself dirtied all over again in the process of my final repair of my final boat, as I must and do declare. Meanwhile reading about Shackleton's Endurance and The good ship Wager, wondering all the while about why these  prototypes for Mars-bound (let us pray) Elon Musk are so celebrated for their questing. I understand Einstein's quest, ill-fated though it became for its unfinished nature. I don't understand climbing Everest at all. 

Music is the loveliest instance of man's conceptualizing physical reality. Sailing is right up there. Powerboating tends more in the direction of first person shooter gaming, but that's just my taste. How ironic that we've polarized ourselves politically over matters of style rather than substance. My military-industrial complex is your deep state and so on. 

Anyhow, one manifestation of technology, this digital stuff, is very directly related to the accelerating mess that we've engendered here on earth. What will outlandish archaeologists discover to explain our demise. What is our fault, and what would be these visitors' success from which we've descended. (of course, I have no expectation or even any way to conceptualize these outlandish physical visitations.) What visits me is always meaningful coincidence, which I still have no way to explain or to explain away. I mean, it's clear enough to me myself and I for sure. But I don't know how to make it so for you, dear reader.

Technology, as we deploy it, is mostly a pump upward for wealth. To be a beneficiary, you must be morally naive and irrationally attached to being rich. I call it irrational simply because that level of pleasure-seeking is about as vacant as what you might experience in an oxygen-depleted state of mind on the pinnacle of Everest. Death is still, however you arrive there. The smaller the boat, the greater the sailing pleasure if you ask me. Like music, there are peaks an valleys without the promise of proximate death.

What a grotesque misuse Trump made when he applied the 'super-predator' moniker to a bunch of hapless black kids. The term is properly meant for folks like Trump himself, or Bezos or Gates or all of the Paypal (Wars) Mafia. These people are predators against life itself, so in the thrall of secular materialism are they all. They don't even notice the digital divide, and I'm not talking about the social divide. I'm talking about on/off reality which divorces itself from felt reality.

Most of us remain blind to the ways that we exploit others. We are blind to lo the many ways that we could actually live in a peaceable kingdom. Well, not a kingdom, but you know what I mean. A peaceable democracy. We'd need a new way to understand economy for sure. Market economy is fine up to a certain scale. Beyond that we need government, in the same way that a steam engine does. Otherwise we fly apart.

Our artifacts should look more like spiders webs and seashells, right? Were we to stay alive. The music of nature evidenced by a lived beauty which transcends even those lovely physical embodiments of conceptual reality. Spiders' webs and seashells. Kindness to one another of a sort to lift literature from mindless cinema. The reality of Alice Munro rather than that of Tom Clancy. Stand down our imperial military. The bad guys are better than we are anymore. 

We won't awaken in time, which makes me glad for my age. Death be not proud, but still . . . I've earned mine. Sort of. Too lazy to make a difference, right? I wish that I did know how to write. Too lazy to learn. 

Well, I'm going sailing. There's little enough wind that my robotic autopilot would let me sleep. Given how little I sleep at night, I should worry about what the automatic worker might run me into as I doze off. To sleep perchance. The dreaming awakens me.

Lovely sail, thank you!

I return to advertisements for AI helpers while I try to become interested in watching the Olympics. Where are all those weird sports? I don't care anymore about gymnastics or soccer or swimming, even though that was once my sport when I looked like Mark Spitz. 

These AI ads show hard working minority class workers, avidly calling on whatever Google calls it's AI bot helper. Their keyboard pounding is almost sweat inducing, and the look of victory sincere. The one I hate the most is where a young aspirant athlete's father wants AI to help her write a letter to her heroine. Really? That's how we're going to get attention? By writing what literally everyone will write?

And those vague assurances that we can level the human language-based class distinctions by granting universal access to what makes the hyper-wealthy even wealthier. Because this stuff - free to you and me - doesn't just violate what we once meant by anti-trust. It utterly erases the meaning of price. Gone even the religion of capitalism, though none should mourn that.

We celebrate predatory intelligence. What would you call it when a pile of Wall Street hedgerow clippings fills shelves with stuff to undercut local retail, all made-in-whatever-China-might-mean at the moment for less cost than any local craftsperson could possibly meet. That's how poverty-addicted WalMart got its start. We celebrate the machine intelligence of our young relatives when they succeed in digital disruption. 

And we don't even realize that the various sorts of bitcoin are gigantic Ponzi schemes since the government has been bamboozled by the same hand-waving tech woo-woo which made Elon so wealthy. Call the banks ol' fashioned Paypal, and you'll find plenty of would-be regulators happy to shoo you in. 

These mega-wealthy are all gamer predators on their fellow human beings. We know this stuff is world-ending, but we don't know what to do about any of it. Now we have this catchphrase 'global warming' so that we can imitate the sense of having a grip on what's wrong. 

Guess what? We don't.

Well, listen to me. I have a theory. A cosmological theory of intelligence, if you will. But you won't. You're all what that goofy hate-mongering bishop somebodyorother calls secular materialists, or something like that. He's not wrong. Most of us are that. He thinks we know our enemy, like we're an army or something. He thinks whole gangs of secular materialists are out to destroy the church, as though the church has much of anything right lately. They seem not to need enemies, Pogo.

I know one Church whose condoning of kiddy-diddly has forced it to maximize the value of its earthy estate by hiring the world's most expensive mergers and acquisitions law firm to defend its earthly institutional form from going the way of all flesh along with its congregations which, of course, aren't identical to its lovely buildings.  

I am an amateur cosmologist, of course. I'm right up there with theologians, except that I haven't sold out to the totalizing academy. I'd like to, but nobody's buying. Anyhow, I don't have the right kind of mind for academics, though it's not for lack of trying. 

I like Bernardo Kastrup's theorizing OK, but his lazy usage of such terms as 'the screen of perception' which is identical to the bizarre notion of interiority for subatomic particles from Federico Faggin, whose thinking is in affine relation to Kastrup's, reveals almost everything that's flawed with analytical idealism. 

In a way, my complaint is that they've replaced one monism - that it's all material and discoverable - with another - that it's all mind. By disposition and a little training I'm more of a yin/yang cosmologist which is, by far, not the same thing as a mind/body dualist. Thank God, we've gotten beyond that particular silliness, apologies Descartes. Dualism is timeless, while yin/yang is always in motion.

Almost by definition those within the thrall of analytical idealism are also blind to the dangers of digital reality-replacement trends. They don't seem to mind or care that digital reality is, I'd say by definition, cut off from lived reality. Which means that they have a very flawed notion about what it is in which mind consists.  Mind without body is as absurd as mind apart from body. Digital attempts this, and our totalized destruction entails. This is not as complicated as we make it. 

I remember from before the days when Eric Schmidt became a total troll, and hated Bill Gates for his totalizing monopolizing super-predation against any and all potential rivals, including especially Novell which conveniently fell upon its self-forged sword. I too was enthralled. I am enthralled no longer. 

I wish that I could live to see intelligence redistributed to local, along with the return of local newspapers (in whatever form) and the death of social media, and any media which elevates super-stars beyond the rest of us, even though they can't hold a candle to local coffee house performances.

We have to end superpredation first, and then global warming and all the rest will take care of itself. Just add water. 

There are so many ways to accomplish this without political revolution. Tax it to death for starters, but an even simpler starting place would be to outlaw what gets laughably called creative destruction. Meaning that nobody gets to undercut local businesses by using money clout from afar. 

Fix the price of healthcare, meaning consistency and transparency no matter who's paying, and you don't even need socialized medicine. The market will fix itself, keeping in mind that inelastic demand requires a different model than the capitalism of industrial production. Public utilities, including especially Internet, require governmental regulation, as does, certainly, healthcare. 

We've managed, grotesquely, to create elastic consumer models for healthcare to the extent that the poor - the dispossessed - die while the wealthy can buy skinny. Most of us are stretched just to buy a roof over our head and food to eat. It is still alive in my memory when this just wasn't so.

It's funny. Bernardo Kastrup won't talk to anyone except publicly, which is perfectly understandable. I don't wish to expose myself either, though it would be trivial enough for anyone to follow the breadcrumbs back to me if direct personal contact were desired. It's not like I'm any kind of public personality. Heck, I'm not even sure that I'm a private personality.

I just happen to be cosmologically correct. I've tried my whole life to disprove my basic theory, and I can't. I'll keep trying, but what if I'm right? What if I die and nobody knows what I'm trying to tell? 

Well, I trust that the world is lots bigger than I, and that the truth will out, as it always does. But we sure do act dumb at the moment.

The Bland Lonely Life of a Cosmologist

I must be a cosmologist, since I know I'm not anything else. I was, apparently, born this way. I might as well be an alien from another planet. 

Let's say that it's true that life is but a blink in the cosmic scheme of things. That the time frame for Earth's survival is not significantly different from the life span which ends with anthropogenic destruction. That life of the type that we call humanity is always brutish and brief throughout everywhere and everything and across all time, once time is part of the equation. 

So what? I ask you. So what? Says Trump about Pence's safety.

Time was never part of any equation until we started to count it. Which was so recent as not really to even matter. Coterminous with humanity? Whatever. 

So I was invited to attend the New York Conference on Asian Studies, by a friend who took the job directing the Confucius Institute which I, cloddishly, refused at the last minute after it was offered to me. I'd applied previously when the Institute was first established, and was told that I was number two among the choices. At that time, the University was paying a living wage. The second time, they no longer were, and I'd very lately received an offer from a different college which did pay a living wage and which involved travel to China. 

So, apart from being a cosmologist, I already felt out of place as an interloper to a place I'd turned my back on.

There was quite a range of panels, among which I chose at random. The first regarded 20th Century Chinese history. Mostly young scholars presented on seemingly minute topics ranging through China's shattering cosmos, and especially its new triumphal revolution through the twentieth century.

The first paper dealt with the history of emotion, as seen through the lens of the sudden funeral for the last empress dowager, Longyu. I learned that study of the history of emotion is a trending topic in academia. Who knew? As you know, dear reader, emotion is a topic of cosmic significance to me. The presenter had my fullest attention. 

The second presenter, likely an advisee of my old friend at Ohio State with whom I began my own study of Chinese language at this self-same university, was talking about the advent of a publication industry in Shanghai, and in particular the new brand of geographic knowledge being promulgated. China had a new sense of self.

Already, the moderator had remarked about the resonances between presentation one and presentation two as regards China's identity as a nation. 

Then there was a paper about the evolution of fire protection systems in Guangzhou, and how civil government was taking over what had been local privately organized systems. Suddenly, there was a distribution of fire-houses developed from on high, and now strangely disjointed from actual needs on the ground. It wasn't easy to trust government. To let go of local responsibility. To see the privileged districts get more privilege.

The final paper regarded photography, and took us right up toward the present regarding a photo craze driven by cameras as an early blush of consumerism, and more recently by ubiquitous smartphones (not dealt with explicitly in this paper yet). 

I saw my very first selfie stick in Shanghai when I returned for my first time since celebrating my 30th (??) birthday at the Peace Hotel, where I and my socially prominent charges were regaled by the old men rehabilitated in their jazz band, for foreign tourists like us. We were lucky to catch the first private taxi in China, or we might not have made it back to our guest house. 

It was the general public which inaugurated a photographic profession, also absorbed into state apparatus for the sake of a new kind of socialist realism. Authenticity was suddenly at stake.

Now I almost didn't go to the conference, even though it was held almost literally next door to where I live. I haven't been sleeping well, and didn't feel well, but my interest won out over my torpor. My mind was also freed to roam

Perhaps even more than the moderator, I was struck by how each paper was about the same thing. A transformation of the Chinese collective psyche. I wanted to raise my hand and make a comment about how these twentieth century changes overturned the givens of the Chinese cosmology I'd learned as a student of classical Chinese poetry. Poetics is, after all, a kind of cosmology. No poet, I am yet a student of poetics; of making. 

I am loathe to remake received forms, and so I am a second rate maker. I repair and rebuild old boats old houses, and I only know how to read old poetry. I interpret rather than create. I am not so very certain of the implicit goodness of so-called "progress."

Despite their embeddedness in elitist social structures, surrounded by a sea of immiserated hoi polloi, I still honor the ancient masters, East and West. Church or state, Martha, Church or state?

I like boats that were made by craftsmen, and not those drafted on a table. But alas, I am priced out. And I cannot be a craftsman and a cosmologist both.

Anyhow, listening as I was, listlessly and anonymously, the presentations were all one. I wondered to what extent these young presenters had present in their own consciousness how "heart" in China includes both emotive and cognitive centers in one word. How the imperial exam stressed knowledge of poetry as a test of sorts regarding the trueness of the examinee's heart. 

How the term for geography mirrors the term of the ordering of the heavens, and how man has a role in the center, at the heart, on Earth, to bring heaven's order down to chaotic Earth. Heaven's pattern is given the Name of literature. Mindless and without heart though it is when bereft of humans.

How emotions tendered toward the emperor, or his proxy, often took on romantic fronts, where subversion could be coyly cloaked. 

And Geography is a sort of knowledge necessary to empire, to exploration, to conquest. But for China the incursions were made explicit, and the empire could be envisioned as a static state with shadings where there was trouble on the frontier. 

Art was never representative in China, the painter replicating with brush strokes - the same brush strokes used in writing - replicating the qi the anima the essence of the living thing he painted. And so what would photography mean? The composition of representative oil painting which had some fame was replicated in a photo still-life, itself containing a photo and which was somehow derided for the fraud of attribution's explicit lack?

I had no way to make my cosmic observations, which would be in praise of the scope of the panel. I am not part of academic discourse. I supposed that there must be a kind of taboo against sophomoric echoing of grander patterns than those which could rightly be comprehended by young minds. 

To be a cosmologist is to be a perpetual sophomore, which is a pretty fine description of me. 

And yet there is truth which cannot be spoken, which cannot be trued by words, because it is not a part of the orthodox which means ordering of knowledge that must prevail for society even to exist. 

But our earth, the geographic whole, is changing in ways far more consequential and chaotic and traumatic than even China's changes across the twentieth century. We've seen the Earth from space. Photographically real.

And yet our cosmology remains locked into the ancient forms of religion, of materialism, or certainty that emotion is entirely separate from mind. That the cosmos is bereft except for the chance occurrence of life here. Or there. Or neither.

Old and Decrepit

Not so very long ago, I was living in a place where it was pleasant each day to take bike rides and walks in the woods. My sister and brother-in-law, who were hosting me, are the types who answer the question about why do you climb, with something like 'because it is there.' Maybe. I once answered the question 'why do you sail,' rudely with 'why do you live?'

I used to canoe, and sail my little dinghy, and I used to ride my e-bike all over the place, but now I have a larger sailboat (again) and spend most of my time dealing with repairs of the sort which uncover all the shortcuts that the previous owners took. I have scars and soreness now from living on my side down under the cockpit for, like, two and a half days minus the time it took to lever myself out using main strength in parts not often used so that I could get the tools I didn't think I would need. And minus the time driving to and fro the boat store as I zeroed in on the right sized bolt. Some trips home to fabricate studs and look for other parts. 

And the largely unregulated traffic in the city makes me afraid to ride my bike. And the shortage of sailing hands makes me skittish about sailing. I installed an auto-pilot the day before the engine to prop-shaft connector flew apart noisily, and that was a relative pleasure. With my main crew away, I'd found that this boat won't hold its course with tiller tied off long enough for me to go below and pee. That was becoming a big issue. 

Now back to mountain-climbing and back to nature, I want to tell you in no uncertain terms that there's a better explanation for why you do such things as climb mountains. Beauty. That's the reason. Elemental beauty, which is that place where consciousness is born. The dawn of understanding. You can't even quite know it with too may other people around populating that dawn with noise. Which is a good enough reason not to climb Everest. As if I need [other] reasons.

As you know, gentle reader, I strongly disagree with Messrs. Kastrop and Faggin that their similar forms of analytical idealism are the most parsimonious systematizations of or for understanding. Calling it all mind [also] leaves beauty almost all the way out, just as materialism does. 

My parsimony is rather yin/yang. To shoehorn everything into one type of "primitive" needlessly complicates the whole deal. As primitives, percept/concept are my yin and yang. Quantum physics proves, as K & F also understand, that you can't call subatomic particles percepts. But those authors needlessly assign some sort of interiority to these percept/concept oscillations, in precisely the same way that they  assign interiority to conscious human beings. They and most other consciousness researchers are brain addled. Meaning that they mystify the brain as a kind of seat of consciousness, even as they spread consciousness across the universe. Their mystification involves a false sense that there is any interiority there.

Kastrop defines the term "alter," borrowed from the psychology of dissociative mental disorder, to explain my individuality as a [holographic?] chip off the old universal mental block. I am no such thing. I have a physical skin to define me, thank-you-very-much, and there is no interiority to it that is more interesting than blood and guts. 

My little brain doesn't replicate or store some rendition of reality. Nope! Why would I duplicate what exists all around me? I am unique enough just based on my lifelong trajectory among percepts and words and conversations, and I swear you can know me better than I know myself. I surely don't find that fact to be a threat. Call it a learning opportunity instead. I can learn about myself from you! Any secrets that I might keep are no more occult than to hide behind a wall. 

I do believe that my brain conceptualizes raw reality. Meaning that it composes nameable things, based on their similarities to other things. As Manzotti describes it, perceptions of actual things keep looping, never "stored" in memory by analog to what happens with silicon wafers. Once named, the concept is part of one's fluency. Language is a practice and not a function of storage and retrieval. Like dancing, it's a somatic practice.

This conceptual composition is made up of harmonization among disparate perceptions. The thing I compose is sometimes called an idea, though ideas are confused with inception. Inception starts with yin/yang and there is no priority there between concept and percept. 

Ideas are no more in my head than is some interior me. They can't exist but that they're shared. And then they are placed in a kind of shared abstract space, where it would seem that they always have been. There is, Virginia, no original primordial circle. 

Now it is my claim that art is the most human of possible pursuits. Those who know me will  freely tell you that I am no artist. Oh how I wish that I were! But there are few enough artists abroad in the world, and they don't usually make much of a living. I only wish that I could tell a good story, also a form of art, which I can sometimes do by way of speech, though I rarely have a quiet and patient enough audience. It would seem that my own speech is mostly useful for provoking others to tell their stories. That makes me happy in any case. I like to listen to the stories of others more than I like to tell my own, though some would call that a lie since I do, sometimes, talk a lot. 

A circle is an element of beauty. A "primitive," if you like. But a tree gets much closer to the essence of beauty. You somehow know, don't you, that a tree is a part of you, even as it is apart from you. For me a tree can be what you might call a religious experience. 

When I try to conceptualize to the level of philosophers whom I barely can read, that feels very much the opposite of communing with trees. Well, that's not entirely true. Like when I was reading atheist Richard Dawkins on the selfish gene, that felt religious to me. It's very hard to understand certain of his uglier thoughts. Like when he says a man is a man and a woman is a woman as decreed in the genes. He needs a dose of yin/yang up his yin/yang. 

I don't understand an angry god. Makes no sense to me. God is love. God is beauty. We are, each of us, alters of God, in a way. Just not in the way that Kastrup would have us be, since his ideal world is devoid of emotion. As do most philosophers, he calls it out among a list of things that go on in human and other minds. Trivial epiphenomena. It comes buried in a long list of such things.

Emotion is very much a part of the physical world. Emotion is key to free will. Free will is defined by interaction with the physical world, just as abstraction means to be removed from the physical world. An idea is an abstraction. Physical reality cannot be abstraction except by unnecessarily contorting our language.  There is no need for that. 

To understand is to make a match between physical reality and an "idea." When you manage to put the schematic into words, and when those words give you a measure of control over the physical material world, you may say that you've achieved a kind of understanding. 

But that sort of understanding will never be complete, and you will never rid yourself of the random impingements on the security of your control. Birds poop on the supercollider and fly into jet airplane engines, and things break and fall apart. Our trouble is that we think that "random" is the same as meaningless even while most of our lives have been determined randomly. We think that understanding means to eradicate random.

Eradicating random would be identical to eradicating God. We think that we can take the place of that cosmic love that we seem to feel less and less. I spend so much time trying to read the ever longer articles about all sorts of things, delivered to me by way of money-making algorithms. Nature, meanwhile is having none of this. Nature's seeming anger with us now, is just more of cosmic love. We're not paying attention.

To the extent that we behave according to the same structures which define artificial intelligence, which we surely do when we focus on making money, we are eradicating emotion from our cosmos. At least two local mass murderers around these parts are reported to have been very nice and mild-mannered by acquaintances and co-workers. Emotionally dead, their own deaths would be redundant.

I don't believe that the religious beliefs of the Christian Nation variety - many supporters of Trump - are any different from atheism. When you paint a cartoon god and impose creationism on wild nature, your own beliefs are dead. That doesn't mean that I deny the miracles you feel and know most every day. I only protest your acceptance of some manly need for you to follow his guidance. You're being sold the same bill of goods that atheists pander. Most atheists I know are nicer than pederast preachers.

Anyhow, emotion is the felt apprehension of concepts moving. Non-force-meditated change is apprehended as emotion, which is as much out there as perceptual material reality is, depending as it does, on motion. Your eye must move to see. Your heart/mind must be moved to feel. To be alive is to move and be moved. 

Asking What It's Like to be a Bat is Not Different from Asking What It's Like to be a Trumper

I do not wish to denigrate either bats or Trumpers. I don't know what it's like to be either. Or do I? Visiting a zoo, I have had a feeling of communion with penned or caged animals there. Looking into their eyes, I feel something very akin to what Faggin describes as his experience of cosmic love. Kastrop speaks of a "screen of perception," revealing his fundamental inability to escape fantasies of some sort of interiority to mind. He writes of physical tangible reality as an abstraction, which is a fundamental misuse of the term. 

I, naturally, find conceptual and perceptual reality to be equivalent ontological primitives. Mind and matter are not dualities; opposites separable, severable and distinct. Viz Manzotti, mind does not internalize perceptual reality by way of images stored or otherwise. Mind conceptualizes reality, both in the sense of inception, as well as in the sense of understanding. Mentation does not take place "in" the brain. Indeed there can be no mentation without the existence of percepts all around. The brain, rather, loops perceptions and aggregates them according to various affine qualities.

The brain, to the extent that it can be construed as related to mind, provides conceptual identity to repeated perceptual phenomena. Call them phenomenal fugues, but we know a tiger when we see one, coached by zoos and other tame imagery and imaginaries. Our willful acts are in response to conceptualizations of perceptual reality. The goad to act is emotional. A match is made between conceptual and perceptual reality. Often, we give that match a name.

Indeed, it is the naming which is the brink of consciousness. It is the sharing of concepts by way of language which makes each of us conscious as an identity, also with a name. Well, I should say that lots of animals - all of them, really, are conscious. Yet they don't have minds as such, that we can know of. 

Faggin would grant interiority even to such perceptual primitives as electrons, just because they can't be cloned. But they are not things, and they have no identity, existing not yet until they are perceived. It is their approximate position which can't be replicated. No other can be put there. There is certainly no interiority to any electron I know.

In the wild I can't tell a Trumper from anyone else. But try as I might, I can't see what they see in the man himself. It seems a wild fiction, no different from an AI approximation for a human. I understand that women, or maybe just a woman - let's not generalize - has been seen praying to him. Puhleeze!

I confess that I can't see God either. My mind, wherever it is, can't make God into a person-like creature who minds my business and grants my wishes or tells me what to do. I can't even conceive the nuttiness of creationism. But I know God in my bones, since serendipity is not the toss of a di, like the rock that hit my windshield dead center in my field of vision as I passed under the Peace Bridge yesterday. Wake up!

The so-called hard problem of consciousness doesn't really get any harder just by positing the impossibility to know what it's like to be a bat. We can describe consciousness in almost precisely the same way and with the same precision that we can describe material reality. The problem with consciousness is really not that much different from the problem of prediction at the quantum level. You never can predict what a mind will do until you provoke it. It isn't conscious without communication. A bat communicates as well as a dog does, though I won't be looking for a mind in either. Just because they can't tell me what it's like to be them doesn't mean that I don't know what it's like.

We think we know each other better than we know bats, but that's just batty. Computers destroy the serendipity of life, full stop. That's by definition. Monetization of purchase prediction is the very definition of grift. Non-fiat currency defines anarchy. These things are not that complicated. Trump is at the head of a gargantuan political Ponzi scheme where we all get bankrupted and then he dies. Leaving all the decent people holding the bag. Just like money has no currency without government, politics that doesn't partake of some extension of identity beyond the individual - call it a nation-state, sometimes - is by definition an imperial state.

Sure, all politicians are corrupt for the same reason that so many Ivy Leaguers seem out only for themselves anymore. But there are limits beyond which corruption becomes solipsism, and Trump has crossed them.

We can project love and value onto just about anything at all. But I'm not letting a psychopath drive my kids' school bus, meaning I'm not letting my kids get onto that bus. I wouldn't let Biden drive my kids to school either, but at least I know what it's like to be him. I know what it's like to be a bat a whole lot better than I know what it's like to be Trump. There may be no there there, but if there is I find the man morally repugnant. I can't say that about a bat, icky though it is to touch one. Just like a slimeball, actually, but a live one and not silly putty or its copyrighted replacement Slime(c). (Does that exist anymore?)

Mind gone along with half her body, I still knew that she meant it when Mom told me she loved me on the way out. She made the same connection to each of us, and to her grandchildren. She let us let her go. She told us to. Dad was in a different state when he passed. Still angry that I'd taken his car keys (out of love)? Repentant? Rage and contrition combined, it seemed.

Death is not the end of me any more than my skin is the limit of me. But I don't expect to be talking after I'm gone. And I don't expect you to know me without at least a perceptual connection to a known creature. This essay is not written by a LLM bot, I assure you. 

An Open Missive for Federico Faggin - Goodreads Review

Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature by Federico Faggin
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I was very excited to hear of this new book, by way of Bernardo Kastrup. Kastrup is very compelling about his insights, and I have found Faggin similarly compelling. I have, myself, come to similar insights from a different perspective, and his write-up has been extremely helpful for my own thinking.

My thinking certainly harmonizes with the conclusions of Irreducible, though I would love to engage Dr. Faggin about what I think may be mistakes in his analysis. I don't claim so much that he is wrong, but rather that he needlessly elaborates concepts in a way that many readers might associate with other unprovable belief systems. He might be getting in the way of a more convincing argument.

We most certainly agree that what is called AI is not very similar to human intelligence, but I think his systematization is overly complex, especially with his introduction of new and, to me, unnecessary technical terms.

It has been my adult pursuit to find someone with whom I might communicate those insights I gained from an experience while in my twenties, not dissimilar to what Faggin describes in the introduction to Irreducible, where he describes feeling a kind of cosmic love. I arrived at that place by cognitive breakthroughs; insights about love would follow.

The main elements of my own preparation before my breakthrough were physics and a reasonably deep study of Chinese poetics, together with a practiced understanding of how things work. I was living at the time aboard a wooden boat that I'd rebuilt. I am less proficient at designing or building new things. I am even (or have been) demonstrably great at troubleshooting computer networks.

I am no inventor or innovator, except perhaps conceptually with words. I left behind childish pursuits of gizmos and gadgets, having experienced early on the mayhem of industrial pollution and its analog of spiritual confusion from an economy fundamentally tied to warfare. These problems would not be fixed by use of the masters' tools. Dr. Faggin may have the pride of an inventor, which allows him to lay claim to more than he should in his formulations. I humbly ask that he open his mind to a much simpler rendering.

As do many of us, I now feel a sense of emergency, based on my own advancing age as well as on what I feel has become the moral emergency of mankind's misapprehension about the nature of existence. I think that much more than the future of mankind is at stake. Faggin also identifies our evil tendencies in the distortions which derive from competitive self-aggrandizement.

Along with many, if not most, thinking people, I feel alarmed about the state of humanity. Our collective behavior is certainly understandable in light of exponentially accelerating transformations which began with the industrial revolution and are now culminating in a communications revolution. Hopefully, humanity is integrating just prior to the awakening which Dr. Faggin urges. In competition with that awakening is misplaced triumphalism about the glories of materialism.

It has been convenient to put aside deeper aspects of our existence so that we may almost blissfully enjoy the triumphs of our materialistic certainties. They are certainties because they work. It has been convenient to put aside conventional morality as the atavistic holdover from an ignorant theistic past, while we glory in newfound bodily comfort and thrill.

The trouble is with replacing one theology with another.

Here's a tiny rehearsal of how evil works: I find it convenient that my phone offers up news items according to my interests. But this is not serendipity, as Faggin amply defines such things. I read more and more and inevitably fall into a false sense that by understanding more and more detail, I can alter my behavior in ways to make the world, and my world, a better place.

But of course all of the computed suggestions are motivated by algorithms for monetization. The root of all evil. By comparison, wanton recreational sex is a sin on the level of using the f word in every sentence. Bad, but not so bad. And yet our political body is once again motivated by the same kind of moral absolutes which power terrorists. How can we better align ourselves?

Because I feel still alone with my own realizations, and apparently remain incapable to share them, It is hard for me to find any good outcome for not just our current trends; it is also difficult to circumvent my sense that we have already passed the point of no return.

Collectively, we are experiencing a moral failure, which is firmly based in dangerous assumptions about the meaning of progress, the proper purposes for technology, and especially on economic arrangements which incentivize inhuman behaviors. But, it is in the nature of moral failure that it can be rectified much more quickly than can other sorts of ignorance.

It is still not inconceivable to me that we shall pull ourselves together and arise from our man-made muck by tugging at our bootstraps once the obvious truth of what Kastrup, Faggin, and I'll add myself, are struggling to share starts to infect a sufficient portion of intellectual mankind.

In some fictional cosmos - a fiction which I don't endorse - our global collectivization will entail spontaneous contact and potential communion with some other global collective of consciousness. A more realistic scenario to me would be our moral awakening to a collective responsibility for life in the largest sense. That is sine-qua-non for transcendence of our contemporary benightedness.

In a related, though subtly different fantasy, we will solve all of our problems by the application of new technologies derived from objective materialist science. It already seems far too evident that this fantasy stokes human competitive greed much faster than human compassion.

My own interpretation involves deeper definitions for familiar terms. I combine those definitions with a fuller definition for time than what we currently understand.

Firstly, I would extend to emotion the universal quality that Faggin extends (as does Kastrup) to consciousness. Consciousness is surely much more common than is conscious mind, but the term loses its meaning if made universal to the level of paramecia. Mind pervades everything, in the way that Faggin would have consciousness do, while conscious mind is rather rare, and on earth that designation should probably be reserved for humans. I think both Faggin and Kastrup misuse the term consciousness to mean mind, with which the smallest entities must always participate, even though mostly without consciousness.

A different way to speak about this, as Faggin does to an extent, would be to observe that the separation of individual conscious entities from all else is a very dangerous exaggeration. Digital either/or reality is by definition not connected. I would observe consciousness in individuated animal species as "primitive" as a lizard. That would be the starting point for "free will," or the ability to initiate causation in the world "outside" the conscious being. It would be the boundary between reactive unconscious vegetative participation and a more proactive animal posture. All boundaries are fractal, and therefore not measurable or precisely locatable, so this starting point must be intrinsically arbitrary. Proactive conscious decisions are prompted by emotive (gut) impulse, conditioned by cognitive understanding. No creature reasons its way out of emergency. Emotion provides the quickening.

I would claim that conceptual reality is ontologically equivalent to perceptual reality. Concepts exist in minds (or are of mind), and generally require rough material representations before they can be spoken of and shared. There is no conceptual circle in perceptual reality, though there must be approximations near enough to the idea(l) to provide the basis for shared comprehension.

Ideas are not born of themselves - they are not the initiator of what we call invention - but result from the interplay of objective material reality and the conceptual work of mind.

I don't think that the philosopher's term 'qualia' adds anything useful to our understanding. That term exists because of an unthinking denigration of conceptual reality. We have no more trouble being certain that our compeers perceive our own "red" than we do with more instrumental perception. In this I agree with materialist Daniel Dennett.

I don't find any of the newly coined technical terms which Faggin uses to add anything useful to this discussion. I mean such usages as seity, CU, as well as qualia. To some extent, Faggin is urging a belief system based on his own quasi-religious awakening. I don't think he's really furthering understanding.

The consequence of the realization of the ontological equivalency of conceptual reality with perceptual reality is the realization that mind pervades the cosmos.

The nut of my realization has been that emotion is (the apprehension of) change in conceptual arrangements. To put that another way, in the perceptual world, movement means that force is present - the exchange of gauge bosons, as described in the standard physical model. In conceptual terms, there is movement without force, and that movement constitutes or provokes the emotional response of the conscious mind. That response ranges from "aha" to the love felt when deeply in communion with cosmic mind. To understand is to feel a more encompassing conceptual arrangement.

Of course, there is no final or ultimate understanding. This realization is where hope resides. The world which we co-create will never be complete. Its natural laws evolve along with its creatures.

As regards ultimate matters, Dr. Faggin doesn't address time except implicitly. It is my realization that directional time is defined by the course and direction of evolution in life. A sort of complement to entropy, which might be called love, but might better be called eros.

I don't believe that there is any consistent physical description for time's direction without life. As with the big bang at the beginning - according to some exponents of the standard model - without life, the ending of the cosmos would be as instant and as beyond time (as we currently understand and sense it) as "was" the Big Bang. Emotion is a not time and force-bound any more than is quantum entanglement. The universe as we experience it is not composed of 3+1 dimensions. It is composed of four.

The non-reproducibility of quantum nature constitutes the identity of all electrons with all other electrons. Faggin mistakes the uniqueness - the non-clonability - of each collapsible cloud of probability, just as he extends the uniqueness of each individual conscious being by introducing the needless concept of seity. No other conscious being can exist in my space. My "interiority" is sufficiently defined by my social, physical, linguistic and emotional "position;" my uniqueness requires no further mystification. Electrons or other quantum particles are sufficiently unique according to their approximate position. It isn't helpful to equate this uniqueness with some supposed "interiority" of consciousness. Personally, I tend to believe that we all wear our special qualities on our sleeves.

In brief, usages for both "consciousness" and "time," as that relates to history and development, are not sufficiently examined or consistent as described in Irreducible. If he has a kind of faith that the interconnected lived world of consciousness will get us out of our current mess, I also differ with that fundamentally religious position. What is required is the exercise of moral will.

In some obvious sense, each of us is individuated enough that our being doesn't end when our body does. Based on a personal experience of death by drowning, I also know that, upon death, individual human consciousness grows exponentially toward full consciousness of one's entire life at once. Analagous to the Big Bang, death of consciousness, identical to birth of consciousness, has no boundary, no finality, and is metaphorically identical to time dilation to massless eternity at light-speed.

Humans are now organized in a state of confusion probably greater than any previously experienced in our history. Various styles of religious belief proliferate willy-nilly, and an alarming number of people have evidently abandoned any and all natural (versus rule-bound) quality to morality and moral behavior. Our seeking individual fault is counterproductive at best, and is more likely an accelerant to our collective misbehavior, as I'm certain Dr. Faggin would agree.

Ours is a crisis of understanding, though its terms are based on morality, rather than on cognitive understanding. Accepting the fundamental reality of emotion allows for at least as much "progress" toward rulemaking for behavior as materialism (R.I.P.) has afforded us the means to control our environment. Meanwhile, we've run amok both conceptually and materially.

I wish that I could develop a compelling narrative, but I seem first to require an interlocutor open-minded and informed enough to work with me on that. So far, there has been nobody. It would be a contradiction in terms for me to be able to accomplish this understanding on my own. My goal in blogging is to make contact. I have no finished description or explanation on my own.

I'll be grateful for any help in the contact.

View all my reviews

Exhausting AI

I want to focus on a small set of the absurdities of so-called Artificial Intelligence. I'm motivated in the first place by some misapprehension about what general intelligence is and isn't. Human intelligence, for instance, can't be understood apart from random. Random is that uncontrollable part of reality, which human intelligence deals with reactively and/or intuitively. There is emotion involved.

Sometimes humans proactively measure how the future is likely to be disposed and change present decisions accordingly, in a proactive way. The decision is only logical if there is time for that. Otherwise, I would contend that it's mostly emotional. We'd never survive if all our decisions were made logically. 

Now, I'm sure that computer-based AI can also deal with slings and arrows, perhaps even better than humans can. Perhaps it will be enough better than humans to price out human reaction, no matter the cost in electrical power and design to prime our intuition pumps with artifice. The trouble is that once the raw speed of AI decidering takes over, emotion will be essentially banished from our world.

I have maintained for quite a while that AI doesn't and didn't start with computers. AI is the kind of intelligence to which we delegate our human choices when we wish to take credit for our good luck on the basis of our cleverness. Sometimes, while knowing the morally good choice, we make the clever choice to advance our individual interests. 

This is what our economy is designed to reward, and most of us are familiar with the blowhards who claim credit for their inherited social capital, which includes social placement, good luck, and frankly for their vacuity in the morality department. 

Artificial intelligence leaves no room for morality in decision-making, except in the extremis of legal sanctions against certain plays, and possibly when morality can be reduced to a set if rules for compliance. But legality and rule-making is its own realm of AI, not able to touch the global decision-making which most, or at least many, of us still leave to the Gods. 

But the Gods won't decide such things as how ridiculous it is to build electric vehicle recharging stations along the interstates. Sure, if mandate number one is to preserve private vehicle saturation, which it certainly is in our economy, then it only makes sense to get them on the prized contributor to the economy from the military-industrial complex, which is the Interstate Highway System.

From a more human perspective, it surely makes more sense to retrofit those rights of way with comfortable high-speed rail. Leave the electric vehicles for those benighted souls who still want to live in the suburbs, and leave the smartphone distributed autonomous vehicles for the urban centers. Make them mostly trolleys, please.

If you're lucky enough to be a C-level deciderer, you know that it would be considered immoral of you to forgo the collective, corporate, interest according to your personal or religious morality. You only job is to maximize profits, though that might be accomplished by pleasing a certain religiously guided segment of your customer base. 

While what we mean traditionally by religion is dying, we collectively behave in ways concordant with religious empires just simply because no matter how sophisticated we think that we've become, we have as much ability to trust our collective knowledge as we did before Darwin when we trusted religious authorities. Where's the progress, I ask. 

For good reason, we've tried to ban religious thinking from the marketplace, from the education space, and especially from government. The trouble is that we don't know what to do about morality short of the law. Or long of the law, if you will. 

Now for certain, I think that the notion of a personal god has become nutty, but not quite so nutty as the notion that there is no god. And I don't mean a God, which tends toward nutty but God. As in there is God. 

You can say it's just lazy to attribute to God what is beyond humans, but really that's only if you think humans are ultimately capable of understanding everything. Which would mean, ultimately, to banish random except as a mathematical concept. Which is probably the same thing as to banish God, since many of us find God in the distinction between random events which make no difference, and random events which do. We're somehow supposed to believe, scientifically, that it's wrong to attribute meaning to happenstance. I think that's a rule impossible to follow myself. 

Let's take if for granite [sic] that machines don't fall in love. While machines having a certain sort of sophistication to their logic pumps, their LLMs, might imitate forms of language or music or imagery which trigger emotional response in humans, those machines themselves are never taken in.

Now, jumping ahead of myself for a moment, do we really wish to live in a universe of what used to be called MUZAK (c) ?? Surely AI can anticipate our emotional responses better than any superstar, especially when that superstar is immediately digested by the AI replicating monster.

Machines aren't taken in, in part, at least, because of an inbred inability to make decisions by random selection. At it's extreme, that's because digital is cut off from that continuum which living creatures are part of and not apart from the way that AI is, by definition. 

Sure, throw in random from the "real world" beyond the AI and you can get something that might nearly replicate the processes of evolution, for example. But apart from the performative sort of falling in love, which arguably most humans practice now, especially given the ubiquity of performative sex on screens everywhere, there won't be any machine falling in love. Whoops, I've turned you off!

It's funny, in a weird way, that those of us who grew up under the shadow of the scary population bomb have now been presented with an equally scary baby-shortage bomb, itself under the shadow of the climate bomb. 

Our economy depends, in addition to amoral AI, on perpetual growth. At its root remain perishable humans. Perishable humans who can't separate the mechanics of sex from the emotions of sexual engagement, and ultimately, of reproduction.

I know that sounds primitive of me. I wish to say precisely nothing about the amorality of hooking up, of trans sex, of recreational sex whatever gender to whichever. Those things don't quite make it into my morality either. 

I'm just talking about the necessary and eternal connection between whatever it is that we feel in communion with our fellow humans, and whatever it is that we physically do. Love can take at least as many forms as cultures, languages, and people do. At root, there has to be some sort of reproductive process for life to be life. 

It is my contention that the overall trajectory of life is in a direction informed by love. I mean evolution in the largest possible sense. This direction has been disturbed by the forces of AI for only a few hundred years by now. Call them the years of apocalypse if you must, but the form and nature of that darned apocalypse keeps shifting, doesn't it?

The big BIG question is how are we to collectively decide anything anymore? I guess the good news is that we are in a massive liminal zone, which is wherefrom all life has always evolved. Think beaches and tides. Earth and sky. Beneath and beyond the bozone, er, ozone layer. 

Frankly all of our weirdness can be reduced to idiotic notions of individualism. The great thing about the great transformative NOW is that the skin is dissolving before our very eyes. ASMR, sure, but we don't feel a thing anymore. 

Here are some of my own practices in service to the collective good. They all seem to have the quality of having been internalized as disgust. Sort of like the disgust we would feel while eating shit, but less natural than that. 

So, I can't drink Coke. If I must drink it, it tastes as good to me as it does to you, but given that I don't and can't know everything that's in it, I get more pleasure from a splash of orange juice into soda water. If I could afford it, and it didn't cost so much transportation-based wastage, I might use Perrier water, but it does so I won't.

I can't purchase plastic bags or plastic wrap, though I do clean and use the stuff that's thrust on me in the form of leftovers. I see no actual need for these things, and I feel a kind of disgust with myself to use them. 

I won't ever buy an electric car, basically because those seem to have more power to continue our addiction to automobiles than gas cars do. Sadly, I can only imagine the actual joy of plentiful and comfortable public transportation. I could use the social interaction. I love driving, though, and like a gun owner you can pry the wheel from my cold dead hands, or I'll gladly relinquish my car if you help me vote for more and better public transportation. Meanwhile I need a stick shift and the sense that I'm doing the driving. I can't imagine any other reason to want a car. I know a million reasons for needing a car, but we need to vote those out of existence.

My route to not feeling fretful or guilty all the time is to imagine that the God resolution when it comes, will look nothing like the human resolution. We obviously can't decide to end global warming. But the decision will be foisted upon us willy-nilly. Will it be population collapse? Shipping breakdown for political reasons? Hatred and warfare because of the obscenity of intrageneralational wealth transfer combined with s shrinking ratio of beneficiaries per decedent? Some seventy trillion dollars going from lots of baby-boomers to far fewer offspring.

We're already almost crippled - politically we are crippled - by all the hatred caused by the ambiguities of received truth. Meaning that we don't know who to trust, and gather toward those whose beliefs most match our own. We use things like race and culture and religion to mark our enemies. Surely that collective force will overwhelm any goodwill we might muster. 

And yet through it all there will still be love and life and happiness and sadness. Hanging on to what we have now, no matter how comfortable we think it is, is not going to make anyone happy. In very simple terms, the comforts we crave - in the same way we crave a Coke - are not sustainable. 

But many these are artificial comforts, not even worthy of the name. The real comforts are love and security and warmth and a full stomach. The gizmos and gadgets and happy-making machines just don't cut it against those basics. The more duress we bring on to the whole, the less the distinctions among us will mean anything. A wealthy person on his yacht or in his bunker is just as dead as the rest of us once the seas are roiling and the skies are hot and dry.

The sun will come up tomorrow, and many of us will still find reason to think that the likes of Trump are other than a psychopathic con artist. In the collective, we are truly no smarter than the rest of the animal mass combined. In the collective, we are Leviathan gulping oil. We take credit ourselves, never crediting God for the challenge. Shall we blame God for the fall?