Daylen's Journey

[7Wannabe5]

I think it's more likely that African-American-Australian-Argentinian-Alliance will leapfrog over China well before the end of 21st century. The median age in China is already older than median age in U.S. and on track to age much more rapidly. The top Afro-Beats artists saw their works streamed billions of times in 2024. There is nothing exciting about middle-aged Chinese culture. There is a lot that is exciting about African youth culture. Generation Alpha in the U.S. which is almost done being born already, is the first generation in the U.S. with less than 50% white population, and Gen Alpha will be between 70 and 90 years old by 2100. IOW, the Multi-Cultural Gang featured in the 1979 film, "The Warriors" will thoroughly dominate at that juncture, as will the conglomeration of nation-states already (if not currently due to last gasps of traditionalists) engaged in mixing and melting. The last human remnants of the Mono-Cultures will exist only in AI Assisted Living Facilities or poorly funded museums.

[daylen]

I like that idea! Though, it does seem like China is really well setup for automation. They could find a way to get by with there massive yet demographically skewed population until perhaps another liberation period opens them up more to immigration. AI translation making assimilation easier. Hell, they might even implement economic incentives for having more kids helping to reverse the implications of the one-child-policy.

Perhaps the east and west will start sharing social media and start getting along. Seems like almost no one expects that! REDnote? The U.S. might be playing an unwinnable game of social media wack-a-mole against network effects.

[7Wannabe5]

AI translation making assimilation easier.

This is key. I just finished another book, "Generations" which backs concept that technology is primary driver of culture with a good deal of data. However, the ultimate, critical, and underlying human technology is "language." One of my favorite books is "How to Invent Everything: A Survival Guide for the Stranded Time Traveler" by Ryan North. One of the cool diagrams in this book is a Tech Tree which clearly indicates which technologies are dependent on earlier technologies for their invention. In the Long Now presentation below, North humorously describes how holding a bad hypothesis can delay a potential invention for thousands of years. I would suggest an additional potentially bad hypothesis which is that the cultural loop feedback mechanism between potential for an invention (or entire invented future) and desire for such an invention (or future) can often create and run a fairly wonky, eccentric course.

For example, two other books which were quite influential in my reading stack would be "Pride and Prejudice" (England 1813 novel of manners by Jane Austen), and "Food Not Lawns: How to Turn Your Yard into a Garden and Your Neighborhood into a Community" (West Coast U.S. 2006 activist manual of permaculture by Heather Jo Flores.) I love both of these books, but the great continued popularity of Jane Austen, inclusive of legions of spin-offs such as the hugely popular Austen-themes-rendered-multi-cultural" Bridgerton" productions is in almost direct conflict with the Level Green/Yellow philosophy and practice promoted by Flores, because Austen and her ilk are somewhat to blame for the American obsession with the technology of lawns and their associated McMansions.

Here is a partial list of the names of newly constructed housing subdivisions in the upper-middle-middle-class U.S. Midwest suburb (named after an East Coast city which was named after a city in England) where I lived in the early 1980s: Andover Lakes Village, Beacon Estates, Cambridge Court, Mayflower Village, Parklane Meadows, Saddlebrook. Thousands of replicas of 19th century Anglo aesthetic carved out of farm fields which were themselves only 140 years ago formed by applying ax and shovel and fire to the forests and swamps in the range of the Ojibwe and Pottawatamie tribes, near the final push of the glaciers of the last great Ice Age. IOW, it could be argued that the British Empire has yet to swell to its cultural conclusion, because it is so deeply embedded in the water is which anybody of English-speaking, Middle-class swims, including a great deal of the rising population of Africa and every child who will soon immigrate to an English speaking realm whether physically or virtually. The recent increase in the use of "generational wealth" as a buzz phrase also speaks to this cultural reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3eKMg57MbI

https://statisticsanddata.org/data/the- ... 1900-2100/

[daylen]

I've heard that "How to Invent Everything" book mentioned a few times now. I'll have to watch that video and see if I can get my hands on it. Completely agree that the feedback between invented future and actual future can get wonky. I would just add that agents like us in the universe must balance the explore/exploit modes at various levels. Theories such as general relativity and quantum mechanics seem closer to discoveries than inventions based upon extensive evidence and so exploitation seems quite reasonable at these levels. Whereas in domains closer to ecology and culture our theories are still quite hazy and so exploration seems more reasonable. No doubt that language is a key level but so are all the surrounding levels that constrain and contextualize it.

A universe without agents to explore eccentric paths through it might be a bit like dust clumping into rocks that fall into holes, though a universe with agents can reflect on rock trajectories as joyful rides into a dream. The universe happens, but the universe is also happening.

[daylen]

Had a conversation with Gemini 2.5 Pro to help me collect and explore some thoughts on neural development, an unkot model of the mind(*), AI alignment, and ERE practice at the end. Many limitations and constraints touched upon along the way with many more lurking in the shadows that no one person can resolve. The conversation was too long to share, so I asked Gemini to create the document below. I suppose I could include the entire conversation across multiple posts but perhaps this can act as a starting point for more exploration of the knot model and human/AI alignment.

(*) This is a derived form of the model I presented on agency earlier that I tend to prefer. More topologically focused, ignoring metrics/distances as these are generally inaccessible through direct experience although could be correlated/binded to brain/body states with rigorous measurement.

Document of the conversation from Gemini:

Full Conversation: Self, Mind, Systems, and Integration

This document synthesizes the key points and progression of our conversation exploring cognitive models, self-development, neuroscience, contemplative practice, AI alignment, and practical life philosophy.

1. Brain Hemispheres, Thinking Fast/Slow, and Attention

Initial Question: We started by exploring the relationship between left/right brain hemispheric specialization and Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" (System 1/System 2).

No Direct Mapping: We established that there isn't a simple mapping (e.g., Left = Slow, Right = Fast). Both hemispheres contribute to both modes of thinking. The left hemisphere is often dominant for language and logical analysis, while the right is often more involved in spatial processing, holistic perception, and emotional nuance. System 1 (fast, intuitive) and System 2 (slow, deliberate) describe modes of processing, not locations.

Adding Attentional Focus: We introduced narrow vs. wide attentional focus. Potential correlations emerged:
Narrow Focus: Often linked with System 2's effortful analysis and tasks potentially leaning on left-hemisphere functions.
Wide Focus: Might facilitate System 1 insights, creative connections, or holistic processing sometimes associated with the right hemisphere.

Underlying Factors: We discussed potential drivers for these interactions:
Neuroanatomy: Hemispheric wiring differences, corpus callosum efficiency, prefrontal cortex (PFC) role in System 2 and attention control, subcortical loops in System 1.
Neurochemistry: Neuromodulators like norepinephrine, acetylcholine (arousal, focus), dopamine (motivation, stability), and serotonin (flexibility, mood).
Functional Principles: Efficiency via specialization, competition/inhibition between networks, neural oscillations (brainwaves).
Cognitive Load & Task Demands: How task requirements influence processing mode and focus.
State Factors: Arousal, stress, mood impacting the balance.

2. Relating to Contemplative Practice: The Jhānas

Jhāna Overview: We discussed the Jhānas as progressive states of meditative absorption characterized by increasing concentration (samādhi), mental unification (ekaggatā), and shifts in affective tone (joy/bliss to equanimity).

Cognitive Model Links (Speculative):
System 1/2: Entering Jhānas requires initial System 2 effort, which transitions into an effortless, stable focus (like a refined System 1 process) in deeper states.
Attention: Form Jhānas (1-4) represent extreme narrow focus. Formless Jhānas (5-8) involve focus on boundless objects, complicating the narrow/wide distinction.
Hemispheres: Unlikely simple lateralization; likely involves whole-brain changes in network dynamics and connectivity.

3. Relating to Ego Development

Ego Development Stages: We compared the Jhāna path to later stages of ego development (e.g., Cook-Greuter's Construct-Aware and Unitive stages).

Symmetries: Found parallels in:
Cultivation of meta-awareness.
Processes of deconstruction and letting go (of mental factors or rigid beliefs).
Shift from effortful striving to effortless flow/being.
Development of equanimity (upekkhā).
Systemic perspectives and experiences of interconnectedness.
Potential for transcendence of the separate self.

Distinctions: Noted differences in scope (states vs. stages) and method (meditation vs. life experience).

4. Traps in Integrating Practice States

We identified common pitfalls when trying to integrate insights or qualities from specific states (meditation, peak experiences) into daily life:
Spiritual Bypassing
Confusing State with Trait
Spiritual Materialism / Ego Co-option
Over-Intellectualization vs. Embodiment
Integration Failure / Re-Entry Difficulty
Peak Experience Addiction
Premature Transcendence / World-Weariness
Lack of Grounding and Embodiment
Ignoring or Suppressing the Shadow
Ethical Blind Spots
Impatience and Unrealistic Timelines

5. The "Knotted Self" and the Free Energy Principle (FEP)

Metaphor Introduced: We framed the self developing across the lifespan as an "unknot" becoming "knotted."

FEP Interpretation: Applied the Free Energy Principle, where living systems maintain structure by minimizing prediction error ("surprise"). "Knotting" becomes the process of building an increasingly complex generative model of the self-in-the-world to predict experiences and minimize surprise.

Looping & Crossing:
Looping: Represents stable, self-maintaining predictive cycles within the model (habits, beliefs, identities).
Crossing: Represents interactions, conflicts, or integration points between different loops, driving model refinement by minimizing prediction errors arising from these intersections.

Lifespan Plasticity: Discussed how neuroplasticity enables knot formation and change:
Early Life: High plasticity allows rapid, environmentally sculpted knotting.
Adulthood: Reduced plasticity leads to stabilization but allows effortful re-knotting and refinement.
Later Life: Continued plasticity allows adaptation, potential integration/wisdom, or rigidity.

Evolving Roles: The function of loops (formation -> consolidation -> re-evaluation) and crossings (developmental -> life structure -> existential) changes across the lifespan.

6. Limitations of the Constructed Model

We critically evaluated the framework, noting limitations:
Reliance on metaphor and abstraction (FEP, knot).
Speculative nature of many synthesized connections.
Potential for reductionism and oversimplification.
Limited scope and theoretical selectivity.
Potential lack of cultural universality.
Complexity and accessibility issues.

7. The "Hole" in the Conversation

Identified key underemphasized areas:
The deep role of embodiment and affect.
The social and cultural co-construction of the self.
Mechanisms of transformation and "unknotting."
Power dynamics and misuse potential.
Exclusion of alternative theoretical frameworks.

Core Gap: Underemphasis on the embodied, affective, socio-culturally embedded nature of the self.

8. Neurotechnology and AI Alignment

Neurotech: Explored potential for neuroscience/neurotech to understand and positively influence development ("knotting") across diverse groups (mapping trajectories, personalized learning, therapy), while highlighting profound ethical concerns (equity, bias, agency, misuse).

AI Alignment: Translated the "knotted self" concept to ASI alignment:
AI needs to model human complexity (loops, crossings, System 1/2).
Discussed centralized vs. decentralized ASI alignment tradeoffs.
Emphasized the need for robust "approval" processes (testing, auditing, oversight) before granting drastic capabilities, as formal proof is likely impossible.
Acknowledged deep challenges (embodiment gap, control problem, diversity aggregation).

9. Addressing the "Hole" with ERE Principles

Synergy: Integrated principles from Early Retirement Extreme (ERE) – Web of Goals, DIY Ethics, Applied Capitalism/Systems Thinking – as a pragmatic approach to fill the identified "hole."

Connection to Model: Mapped ERE principles onto managing the "knotted self" via FEP: Web of Goals (resilient knot structure), DIY Ethics (conscious knot curation/prior setting), Applied Capitalism (improving world model prediction and action policies).

Constructive Advice: Derived practical advice applicable throughout life:
Cultivate broad competence (diverse loops).
Practice intentional consumption (manage loops).
Develop systems literacy (refine world model).
Design for resilience (strengthen the web).
Engage in reflective practice (monitor the knot).

Outcome: This approach aims to foster greater resilience, agency, embodiment, and alignment with consciously chosen values by practically engaging with one's life system.

[daylen]

Here is a possible branch of the (true, good, beautiful) model being discussed here viewtopic.php?t=13358



Let this chart only be defined completely for an entire civilizational cycle of birth and death. As such, it is impossible to fully calculate what/where/when/who/how of these qualities from within a civilization. What is true for a civilization will reveal itself or unfold into the interobjective, and what is good for a civilization will reveal itself or unfold into the intersubjective. Coalescing into a unified(*) transjectivity through relevance realization involving greatness, novelty, and morality.

(*) although not to be confused for the neoplatonic One that tends to interweave through religion.

[daylen]

Given the relational nature of a civilization it is impossible for any particular agent/subject or object within it to "have" or be 100% or 0% true, good, or relevant. A corollary being that history is generally fuzzier than any one story or myth would have us believe.

[7Wannabe5]

I think your addition of relevant is key, because it also goes towards "emergent." It's interesting to consider concepts/practices such as "permaculture" and "polyamory" and "ERE" in terms of your diagram, because it does seem like much of the discussion/debate about them is towards determining whether they are "true" and/or "good" and/or "relevant." At first approach, "true" seems like the easiest hurdle, because you just need to point to a single existing instance. Permaculture might struggle a bit with "relevant", and a counter-example might be "the singularity" which is quite "relevant", not yet very "true", and not believed likely to be "good."

[daylen]

From bookworm's journal:

Also...looking through your journal to probe for potential weaknesses

I'll try to make it easy.

1. I am almost 30 and live with my mom, which tends to unsettle some. Potentially having to do with modernity and the development of adult masculinity. Seems to be less taboo in the midwest than on the east/west coast where people seem more achievement oriented (in part due to density). The arrangement is mutual and to the best of my estimate, seems to make long term sense. My mom and I tend to maintain a healthy degree of independence involving finances, chores, activities, etc.

2. I probably drink and smoke weed a bit too much, although I have always sort of had the intuition/commitment to weaning this off as I got older. Which has been the case, perhaps leading to near-teetotaler status by my 40's or 50's. Maybe earlier for alcohol since vaping weed seems to be productive for me sometimes.

3. I am lazy in some ways but not others. I come from a blue collar background and work laborious jobs without much fuss so long as it's less than about 20 hours a week. After several months of working any job above 20 hours a week I tend to get a little skittish. Burned a few too many bridges in my life thus far. Need to work on that.

4. I've been on this forum for years and not yet FI even though I understand to math of compounding and all that. I just don't care enough about money or security, I suppose. Well, I should give myself some credit in that I was really into finance and economics for a while in college when most were out partying (I did most of that in HS).

5. I can be quite spacy and absent at times, ignoring my surroundings, clocks, and calendars, although I think my genetic hearing loss has played a substantial role in this.. or perhaps the spaciness caused the hearing loss? Don't know, although 23andMe labels it as such. Was also tested as a kid.

6. I was in two sexual relationships in HS, one rather more serious lasting a year. Otherwise, I have had little desire for sexual relations. Not completely opposed to it if the stars aligned.

7. It use to be more of a problem that I thought I was always right about everything, but I just fundamentally don't believe this anymore given the relativity and dimensionality of knowing. Plus, shaved apes are in some sense a just a hair above a hare and ASI is probably about to blow all of us out the water (although may be fundamentally limited by the embodiment we give them or they create for themselves).

[bookworm]

Sent you a pm

[bookworm]

I think the best way to approach is to pull one thread at a time.

Applied the Free Energy Principle, where living systems maintain structure by minimizing prediction error ("surprise").

This translated to "suffering" for me. The latter has focuses more on Feeling than Thinking.
For suffering/surprise (S) we may consider a four quadrant model:
I. High S / Long Duration
II. High S / Short Duration
III. Low S / Short Duration
IV. Low S / Long Duration

I, II, and IV may all contribute to self development(*), however III is unlikely to move the needle. III. is basically comfortable and not challenged over entire lifespan.

There is another dimension to consider, which is self-imposed austerity versus challenged by life. Many of us pursuing ERE are voluntarily choosing some degree of renunciation. Some of us get an extra dosage of life challenges through trauma / tragedy / sickness(**)

(*) They may also lead to unhealthy coping mechanisms, addiction, and other problematic behaviors.
(**) Clearly ERE also increases resilience towards certain negative events but we are considering here what cannot be protected against despite best efforts.

[daylen]

A negative utilitarian perspective of minimizing suffering is one half (perhaps even the more important half given the meaning crisis) of the utilitarian scale. The other half being the positive utilitarian perspective of maximizing pleasure or gratification. Maximizing utility overall seems to require both an ability to accept actuality and an ability to aim for potentiality. Naturally throughout the lifespan, actuality tends to rise and fall in one big arc bounded by potential. Overestimating potential can lead to suffering the unobtainable, and underestimating potential can lead to poverty of the obtainable.

Related concepts: hedonistic set point, hedonistic treadmills, and the hedonistic imperative (see David Pearce and https://www.humanityplus.org/about)

Everyone has a [mostly] genetically determined hedonistic set point or baseline valence level and can respond to life circumstances akin to a valence thermostat. Treadmills of pursuit can open up or otherwise close off the potential hedonistic range through adaptation or addiction. The hedonistic imperative being an ethical principle concerning the use of technology to engineer "information sensitive gradients of bliss" into future generations of humans or even animals. Informative negative emotions such as pain serve a survival purpose but perhaps could act more signal-like, with motivation skewing more towards blissful engagement with reality. High neuroticism could be more a relic of our ancient, tribal circumstances than a functional adaptation in modern neo-tribal society.

[bookworm]

A negative utilitarian perspective of minimizing suffering is one half (perhaps even the more important half given the meaning crisis) of the utilitarian scale. The other half being the positive utilitarian perspective of maximizing pleasure or gratification.

The priority should be to start with suffering minimization on a broad scale before proceeding further. Jumping into the positive utiliarian end first will create issues because of mismatch with the dominant collective consciousness. If someone is perceived as "happier" than average, the majority can be turned off by it. One way around this is some degree of lightly held emotional neutrality which requires a degree of cognitive load and enforced constraint. Of course, some people have relatively low levels of suffering and/or neuroticism to begin with and perhaps jump into the positive utilitarian end near the beginning of their life journey. It seems that this category is a minority in the world. Such people are likely removed in some way from mainstream society in order to obviate the issue raised above.

Applying your framing to mindfulness practices with an eye to the negative->positive transition, it seems like many get into the whole thing based on the "stick" of a difficult life situation. Sometimes the crisis resolves and the impulse to continue the practice is simply not there. Part of the reason may be that the "carrot" of, for example, a blissful state is not really put out there as an initial selling point (perhaps due to niche appeal).

Informative negative emotions such as pain serve a survival purpose but perhaps could act more signal-like, with motivation skewing more towards blissful engagement with reality.

We can make the well-worn distinction between pain and suffering here. Suffering overlays the pain and makes it worse. Under minimization of suffering, pain still serves as a signal for survival purposes. I'm not entirely sure that we could do away with pain unless there was a drastic shift in the lived environment. On the other hand, the current trajectory of society is to do away with severe pain on the gross physical level (painkillers, etc.) Psychological suffering is harder to mitigate and may in fact be increasing as a second-order effect of social organization. Of course, there are technological solutions underway to address this problem as you are suggesting. From where I'm standing, one concern would be that many of these proposed solutions have an incomplete view of human beings at their core (Orange bias), but maybe that's something that will be dealt with in future revisions.

Many people believe that their baseline is as good as it gets and are disturbed only if things get out of hand. When higher and higher states of bliss are perceived as live possibilities and "common unhappiness" (Freud) is seen as some intermediate state, would suffering increase through this realization?

[delay]

Informative negative emotions such as pain serve a survival purpose but perhaps could act more signal-like, with motivation skewing more towards blissful engagement with reality.

Thanks for the interesting post! It's hard to see how positive emotions can exist without negative emotions. If one were continually in a state of bliss, it would no longer be bliss. The resulting state would be one of emptiness rather than happiness.

Nowadays we see pain as something bad that you suppress with willpower, chemicals or other medical treatment. But once pain is suppressed the problem that the pain was signaling gets further out of hand. This results in stronger messages.

Instead of seeing pain as bad, I try to see pain as a message of hope. It says that there's something I can do to improve my life. When I feel pain, I try to listen to it, and to address the issue. Bliss is the temporary reward I get if I do the right thing.

[daylen]

It's hard to see how positive emotions can exist without negative emotions. If one were continually in a state of bliss, it would no longer be bliss.

As far as I can tell, they do mutually define/support each other to some extent although the relative skew is adjustable. Some people rarely if ever get depressed and others rarely reach above hedonic zero. An information rich gradient of bliss would still allow for learning guided by subtle relative differences in well-being. It may be possible over several generations of genetic engineering to skew the hedonic range of the population from say (-10,10) to (-5,15) or even (90,100). Even a small shift could have drastic consequences, potentially addressing the meta-crisis at the stem. The ethics gets hairy fast given the complexity of genetics and the sheer number of different traits that can be selected for. Although, seems inevitable at some point given the falling cost and capability of the technology. Class differences could become so wide as to split humans into multiple sub-species. We have never been all that afraid of playing with fire.

[daylen]

Many people believe that their baseline is as good as it gets and are disturbed only if things get out of hand. When higher and higher states of bliss are perceived as live possibilities and "common unhappiness" (Freud) is seen as some intermediate state, would suffering increase through this realization?

Perhaps, although not necessarily if expectations are managed. In a future of even more profound class differences, there would most certainly be a strong attractor towards acquiring these technologies. Though, if/once the technologies are completely distributed over the population, emotions like jealousy could be weak relative to say curiosity and compassion. Orange likely overestimates the power of technology in augmenting our biology while green likely swings towards underestimation.

[7Wannabe5]

The priority should be to start with suffering minimization on a broad scale before proceeding further. Jumping into the positive utiliarian end first will create issues because of mismatch with the dominant collective consciousness. If someone is perceived as "happier" than average, the majority can be turned off by it. One way around this is some degree of lightly held emotional neutrality which requires a degree of cognitive load and enforced constraint. Of course, some people have relatively low levels of suffering and/or neuroticism to begin with and perhaps jump into the positive utilitarian end near the beginning of their life journey. It seems that this category is a minority in the world. Such people are likely removed in some way from mainstream society in order to obviate the issue raised above.

You just neatly encapsulated the story of both of my marriages, as well as my subsequent decision to practice solo polyamory. Through the learned practice of emotional-differentiation, it is possible to remain at your higher innate level of happiness even when those around you are miserable, but this is difficult if those who are miserable are not similarly differentiated, because the tendency is towards equating intimacy with equilibrium achieved through emotional fusion.

For example, one human who is innately unhappy scans the environment for "reason" for his unhappiness, perhaps some news he reads on the internet. Then unhappy human encounters happy human, senses emotional disequilibrium, so shares "reason" for his unhappiness. The happy human remains happy in spite of the bad news, so the unhappy human pushes harder for equilibrium, "How can you be happy, when the state of the world is such and such...?!!!" Finally, as a result of the repeated efforts of the unhappy human to find affirmation/intimacy through emotional equilibrium, the previously happy human is brought to a state of lower happiness within the context of the behavior, as opposed to just the experienced emotional state, of the unhappy human. However, after a number of such encounters, the innately happier human, if also towards the rational, may recognize the contextual influence upon her happiness level, and simply choose to remove herself from the context, thereby restoring her own innate happiness level. Although, she may certainly also experience a bit of guilt along with the feeling of rapid rise of bliss upon exiting context.

IOW, you can't make other people happy or unhappy, but you can behave in a manner that is likely to bring them more pleasure or more pain, and other humans acting in alignment with rational self-interest are likely to value their relationship with you on the basis of your behavior.