This post is a continuation from:
For the purpose
of context suggest reading the post above, if you haven’t already, before
proceeding.
********************************
From yesterday’s post:
Within the next post I will be elaborating more precisely on specific wording within the text that is used to further describe how the feature net ‘knows’ how to choose or interpret inputs/signals as well as expect particular patterns, which essentially, as I will show, gives rise to an infinite regress wherein the feature net basically becomes the web that traps one’s ability, one's response-ability, to see beyond the programming - and how, through investigating this point, I have been able to assist and support myself in refining my self-reflection process in relation to my mind as consciousness and the various experiences that arise therein.
Again, the bibliography for the text I’m referring to
within this series:
Reisberg, Daniel. Cognition:
Exploring the Science of the Mind. 5th ed. Norton & Company,
2012. Print.
From what was shared in the last post, we now have a
basic understanding of how the feature net functions, which simply served as a
platform to illustrate a frequent error on the part of psychologists and
researchers, especially in regards to the various theories that are ‘out there’
on how the mind apparently functions.
This post will show how, when psychologists attempt to describe/explain a phenomena within the starting point of consciousness – meaning, when a psychologist is investigating/viewing a system, such as word recognition as with the feature net theory, through the lens of their own mindas consciousness – this will inevitably lead to no real understanding of these systems but instead only serve to perpetuate an infinite regress, as a direct reflection of who we have become as limited beings confined to perceptual indulgences that merely keep us spinning in the wheel of consciousness ad infinitum.
We have separated ourselves extensively from this physical world, our physical bodies, and thus we have separated ourselves from the responsibility that is ours to ensure that when we are investigating something, we are not attributing a form of consciousness to that ‘something,’ but are directing ourselves to deliberately step out of this loop to thus enable direct seeing/investigating of what is here through a meticulous process of cross-referencing and checking. Otherwise, it is just too easy to haphazardly justifying our own enslavement because we did not take the time and commonsense care to make sure that our theories are sound, that they actually reflect physicality as what can be observed by anyone who has taken it upon themselves to see beyond the shackles of consciousness – as this is the caution, dedication and specificity we must live as in order to get ourselves to a clear standing in relation to all things such that our conceptions are not muddled by the messiness of the mind as consciousness, as this is downright dangerous and only serves to confirm our inability to see beyond our own self-interest to that which is relevant and will assist in bringing forth a world that is dignified, a world that is stable and a world where all beings are able to expand to their fullest potential: no more limitation, no more limiting theories. Because, when we provide half-baked explanations for how we and this reality function, we will evidently get half-baked humans who have no direct relationship with themselves or this physical reality – and that is unacceptable, as the evidence of this can be easily seen in how this world is currently operating wherein we as the creators of the world that is here are clearly functioning at a sliver of our potential which has rendered us into monsters that find it somehow ‘normal’ to kill, rape, murder and starve each other without regard.
This post will show how, when psychologists attempt to describe/explain a phenomena within the starting point of consciousness – meaning, when a psychologist is investigating/viewing a system, such as word recognition as with the feature net theory, through the lens of their own mindas consciousness – this will inevitably lead to no real understanding of these systems but instead only serve to perpetuate an infinite regress, as a direct reflection of who we have become as limited beings confined to perceptual indulgences that merely keep us spinning in the wheel of consciousness ad infinitum.
We have separated ourselves extensively from this physical world, our physical bodies, and thus we have separated ourselves from the responsibility that is ours to ensure that when we are investigating something, we are not attributing a form of consciousness to that ‘something,’ but are directing ourselves to deliberately step out of this loop to thus enable direct seeing/investigating of what is here through a meticulous process of cross-referencing and checking. Otherwise, it is just too easy to haphazardly justifying our own enslavement because we did not take the time and commonsense care to make sure that our theories are sound, that they actually reflect physicality as what can be observed by anyone who has taken it upon themselves to see beyond the shackles of consciousness – as this is the caution, dedication and specificity we must live as in order to get ourselves to a clear standing in relation to all things such that our conceptions are not muddled by the messiness of the mind as consciousness, as this is downright dangerous and only serves to confirm our inability to see beyond our own self-interest to that which is relevant and will assist in bringing forth a world that is dignified, a world that is stable and a world where all beings are able to expand to their fullest potential: no more limitation, no more limiting theories. Because, when we provide half-baked explanations for how we and this reality function, we will evidently get half-baked humans who have no direct relationship with themselves or this physical reality – and that is unacceptable, as the evidence of this can be easily seen in how this world is currently operating wherein we as the creators of the world that is here are clearly functioning at a sliver of our potential which has rendered us into monsters that find it somehow ‘normal’ to kill, rape, murder and starve each other without regard.
To continue with the point of feature nets, I will share
a passage from the text (which is referring to the letters that were used in
the example feature net which spelled ‘CORN’ in the chart from yesterday’s post,
which you can reference here):
“To explain these results we’ve suggested that the network ‘knows’ (for example) that CO is a common bigram in English, while CF is not…the network seems to rely on this ‘knowledge’ in ‘choosing’ its ‘interpretations’ of unclear or ambiguous inputs. Similarly, the network seems to ‘expect’ certain patterns and not others and is more efficient when the input lines up with those expectations.Obviously, though, we’ve wrapped quotations around several of these words in order to emphasize that the sense in which the network ‘knows’ facts about spelling, or the sense in which it ‘expects’ things or makes ‘interpretations,’ is a bit peculiar. Knowledge about spelling patterns is not explicitly stored anywhere in the network…The net appears to make inferences and to know the rules of English spelling.” (p.100-101)
There is a bit more that I could quote here, but for the
sake of brevity I will keep it at this. The passage does go on to express
points about competition between detectors wherein who ‘wins’ is ‘decided’
based on which detector is more primed in relation to activation levels, and
thus this ‘winning’ detector will influence the consequent events that
transpire.
Now, to further elucidate what I was mentioning in the
beginning of this post in terms of the pitfall that comes with investigating
ourselves and our world through the lens of consciousness itself, I will
introduce what is called the Homunculus Argument (Fallacy). Homunculus means ‘little
man’ and the homunculus argument thus states that if, when
describing/explaining a theory, there is a requirement for a ‘little man’ to
complete the theory, this then shows that the theory is false, a failure, or
inadequate/incomplete. Essentially it is attempting to describe a phenomenon by
way of the phenomenon itself thus creating/perpetuating, as I stated
previously, an infinite regress.
Infinite regress, meaning – in this instance – that the author is attempting to explain the workings of the feature net by/through giving it a sort of consciousness of its own, like its own personality, like it is a homunculus that sits inside of our head and carries out the process of word recognition; who interprets stimuli and expects particular patterns, who decides which detector wins and which loses the so-called ‘competition;’ and is the little man sitting inside each of us that is somehow responsible for the consequential outflows that come from how the feature net interacts, or is in relationship with, how we interpret our external reality.
BUT! If there is a little man inside of us that is
responsible for this task, that means that this little man also has a little
man inside him, and that that little man has a little man inside of him, and on
and on it goes - ad infinitum. We can see here how convoluted this becomes and thus how far
we get from the law of parsimony which I described on Day
278 – meaning, how far from simplicity and common sense critical analysis
we become – and this is what we’ve been doing forever, riding this infinite
spiral of self-deception that ensures our eternal enslavement to consciousness as limited
perceptions where we keep ourselves nice and trapped in the perceived safety of circular
reasoning based in separation because we will do ANYTHING, say ANYTHING, be ANYTHING so as
to attempt to evade responsibility for who we have accepted and allowed ourselves to be and become.
Obviously this is not a sufficient explanation - it doesn't matter if it's 'plainly attractive that the hypothesized detectors, with the feature net, function in a way that's biologically sensible' as I quoted in yesterday's post in relation to feature nets being analogous to the building blocks of the brain, or neurons. The 'attraction' of it all has plainly stood in the way of actual sensibility. When we approach something through our mind as consciousness, in separation, we'll see anything we want to see, because all we're seeing is our own self-interest, that doesn't make it 'sensible' - quite the contrary - it makes it untrustworthy.
All that is being shown here is a reflection of our own creation staring back at us. The hall of mirrors as the homunculus fallacy. The fail-I-see. The trap, the net, the characters with characteristic features caught in a net, a web - trying to figure out how we got here by using the same features that got us in this mess. Brilliant. Yet this is what we see in textbooks within the education system, this is how we learn to view ourselves and this world, and it's been going on for generations - again, as I noted on Day 289: some of the ways in which the material has been presented so far within this course is nothing short of disturbing.
Infinite regress, meaning – in this instance – that the author is attempting to explain the workings of the feature net by/through giving it a sort of consciousness of its own, like its own personality, like it is a homunculus that sits inside of our head and carries out the process of word recognition; who interprets stimuli and expects particular patterns, who decides which detector wins and which loses the so-called ‘competition;’ and is the little man sitting inside each of us that is somehow responsible for the consequential outflows that come from how the feature net interacts, or is in relationship with, how we interpret our external reality.
BUT! If there is a little man inside of us that is
responsible for this task, that means that this little man also has a little
man inside him, and that that little man has a little man inside of him, and on
and on it goes - ad infinitum. We can see here how convoluted this becomes and thus how far
we get from the law of parsimony which I described on Day
278 – meaning, how far from simplicity and common sense critical analysis
we become – and this is what we’ve been doing forever, riding this infinite
spiral of self-deception that ensures our eternal enslavement to consciousness as limited
perceptions where we keep ourselves nice and trapped in the perceived safety of circular
reasoning based in separation because we will do ANYTHING, say ANYTHING, be ANYTHING so as
to attempt to evade responsibility for who we have accepted and allowed ourselves to be and become.Obviously this is not a sufficient explanation - it doesn't matter if it's 'plainly attractive that the hypothesized detectors, with the feature net, function in a way that's biologically sensible' as I quoted in yesterday's post in relation to feature nets being analogous to the building blocks of the brain, or neurons. The 'attraction' of it all has plainly stood in the way of actual sensibility. When we approach something through our mind as consciousness, in separation, we'll see anything we want to see, because all we're seeing is our own self-interest, that doesn't make it 'sensible' - quite the contrary - it makes it untrustworthy.
All that is being shown here is a reflection of our own creation staring back at us. The hall of mirrors as the homunculus fallacy. The fail-I-see. The trap, the net, the characters with characteristic features caught in a net, a web - trying to figure out how we got here by using the same features that got us in this mess. Brilliant. Yet this is what we see in textbooks within the education system, this is how we learn to view ourselves and this world, and it's been going on for generations - again, as I noted on Day 289: some of the ways in which the material has been presented so far within this course is nothing short of disturbing.
This is as far as I’ll go for now. In my next post I will share how I have
practically utilized this notion of the homunculus to assist and support myself
to get to know the ‘little person’ or really the 'little people' that I have separated myself from, that I abdicate my
self-responsibility to, within my head. And how it is only through the process of self-forgiveness in self-honesty that we'll be able to get ourselves out of this mess - once and for all.
***********************************
***********************************
FREE Desteni I Process Lite Course
No comments:
Post a Comment