Early Retirement Extreme Forums

S: sensation
F: feeling
N: intuition
T: thought

B: body
M: mind


1. Prehension arrives concurrently with irritability.
2. Prehension starts as a point that can center reality; and irritability occurs as a structural localization around that point.
3. The center point of reality acting as an N-loci that doesn't grow for a while in volutionary vehicles.
4. The global-S structure being located grows with time in volutionary vehicles.
5. Volutionary vehicles being subject to volution and can be treated as agents with a self through sufficient interaction.
6. Symbolic or platonic forms arsing in the structure start to later be associated to irritability projections.
7. Symbols originally being inert with respect to grammar and volving into T.
8. Irritability projections tending to map B states from M and volving into F.
9. N grows from point to network along with the volution of dynamic communities (i.e. unlike statically typed ant colonies of weak and strong interaction switches).
10. T later grows from symbolic forms to strings of forms.. and strings of strings.. etc.. and encoded into prehended symmetries that vary asymmetrically with string following (mirroring suppressed irritations).
11. S roughly being amphibian/reptilian, F avian, N mammalian, and T sapien.
12. T is translated into objects (i.e. transistors) that add into finite state machines.
13. Machines link up into a network with dynamically volving properties.
14. Initially the perception of entropy and intropy (i.e. losing things and finding things) is limited to stochastic measures in communication channels.

...predictions...
15. As architectures complicate within individual nodes, networks will start to dynamically draw their own boundaries.
16. As a result, the perception of entropy and intropy will necessarily shift to integrate multi-channel communication.
17. Computational networks will start to approach networked B's.
18. Unless quantum architectures are introduced into the mix (to confuse the particulars of learning neurons), nodes [and the networks themselves] may appear to have an M, like organisms, yet will always be tractable and deterministic if reduced to bit channels and turning machines.
19. Though, eventually, the M/B problem of machines could be solved through a middle-out self construction/discovery emerging/synchronizing between indeterminate particulars in a complex environment.

20. Of course, I am assuming something like freewill here is worth talking about, and would project onto B's in a way M's can grasp.
21. Perhaps this has something to do with the apparently unlimited pool of platonic forms from an M/B standpoint.
22. The concept of randomness is quite strange. Almost like it can be bundled up or distributed as holes on/in a manifold that is experienced.

Essentially, in AQAL, S as external unity (UR) -> F as internal unity (UL) -> N as internal division (LL) -> T as external division (LR) -> B as external/internal unity in construction projects (Upper) -> M as external/internal division from project construction (Lower). With node/network distinction blur pending.

Metaphysically, a foundation can be erected by starting with time, space, or causality and deriving the other two (pick one for three).

<-> time <-> space <-> causality <->

time first
1. Time has passed.
2. A space has opened up to graph.
3. The graph has causal closer across time.

space first
1. Space emerged.
2. Graphically, causes exist as arrows along edges between nodes.
3. Traveling along edges takes time.

causality first
1. Causes exist. OR Randomness is impossible.
2. Causes have a time delta. OR Determination takes time.
3. Deltas in time may intersect at a node in a graph across space. OR An arrow determines a point in space.

So, we can pick whatever. How about we say that time is fundamental.

As time passes, it would seem that sometimes I can be conscious and sometimes I can be unconscious. During consciousness, space arises and agents can cause graphs to appear that suggest a shared causal path between its nodes. During unconsciousness, space arises but not graphs.

Across time, two casual paths between the nodes of two different graphs with shared nodes can conflict in the direction of arrows through time with respect to the shared nodes. If sub-graphs are only ever parts of the ultimate casual graph then apparent reality will appear as sourced from pure randomness OR pure determination. Either can do! .. or there exist a demon that just deceived me of the arrows in the casual graph suggested above.. we are now in paradox land.

That is a good place to be. From here, for fun or more seriously.. time periods, graphs, and causal arrows can be categorized (category theory) and counted (set or type theory). With the axiom of selection being explored above in which elements of sets arranged into categories can be randomly selected to suggest categorical probabilities. Assuming the existence of true randomness can never be proved as it cannot be implemented on a finite state machine that halts. Leading me to the activities associated with these times, spaces, and causes to necessarily presume the existence of a true randomness generator when exploring identities internally and instruments externally that may be selected/chosen (i.e. the basis of free will).

Evolution is at its heart a tautology between selection and fitness. Organisms or gene bundles get selected for based on their fitness; and the fitness of gene bundles or organisms is based on what has been selected. Coarsely punctuated gene bundles generalizing to species at the macro-level that applies a similar selection-fitness tautology.

With the introduction of involution, an internal tautology between selection and fitness is created. When the internal and external fits align well in volutionary vehicles they can be presumed to be in deep sleep or in flow (i.e. actuation where topology is unified/connected). From here any number of typologies can be created as mutual affordances in-between deep sleep and flow.

A corollary being that external fits represented as structure-map pairings can be selected due to presumed agency, though these selections may turn out to be errors with respect to the overall agent construction in a given volutionary vehicle (by self-reporting). By symmetry, internal fits represented as point-frame pairings can be selected in such a way as to make an error (according to the standards of the agent).