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.
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 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)
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.