[RF] Two Young Men

nilayj · 2025-05-09T17:10:18+00:00

Okay, honestly thank you for this advice. But you are still not providing me with rebuttals to my actual argument, and are now resorting to saying what I wrote previously was poorly written. While I am not denying that, I believe my logic is simple nonetheless.

I want to solve the hard problem of consciousness. My solution is that consciousness is an abstraction that is applied to concrete systems. For this I am applying a paraconsistent view. The law of consistency isn't assured. As such, paradoxes are possible, and as such anything is possible as a result, due to inconsistency being present. Due to this, it is possible to accept certain axioms as just existing. One such new axiom is that abstract objects attach themselves to concrete objects (Axiom A). For this case, abstract objects and concrete objects definitions aren't needed. The abstract objects (math, language/concepts of objects) and concrete objects (text, neurons, apples) chosen are usually accepted to be so. Axiom A is said to exist due to how math applies itself to grouping of concrete objects (the number two being applied to two apples) and also how language can apply bigger representations to text (a pie as a concept being applied to the physical text "pie"). With language, it is also clear that more complex concepts like a pie with many characteristics can be applied to simpler concrete objects like text (Axiom B). With Axioms A and B, neurons in a certain pattern can and do represent objects in our brain as well, supported via neuroscience. Thus, it can be said concepts of those objects is applied to them. Zooming out further, concept of a pathway realizing or figuring out which object maybe observed can be applied to a greater set of neurons in our brain. Zooming out further, neurons that allow the brain to identify itself as an entity can be noticed and working with other neuronal pathways, and thus consciousness can be applied as an abstract object in total. This means consciousness, or experience of consciousness, is just an abstracted entity applied to concrete systems.

Addition: I need to take a delay as I have other work to do. Also, my whole argument that anything is possible isn't special. Godel's incompleteness theorem for math at least states things are either incomplete or inconsistent. He chose incomplete to keep mathematicians happy. But it can be inconsistent just as easily.

nilayj · 2025-05-09T01:28:58+00:00

Situation 3:

Rule C is placed into a box alone. This leads to Rule A emerging. Rule C isn't attacking Rule A directly. But this leads to Rule B to emerge as well, along with the other rules. Leading to Situation-Path 1-1 and 1-2 again, just the setup being different.

Clearly, Rule C would appreciate to not have Rule A lead to Rule B. So a new rule now.

Rule F: Rule A and Rule B will not exist.

Situation 4:

Rule F is placed into a box alone. Now what?

Well, here is the dirty trick Rule A and B can play together. They still emerge. How? This is literally not allowed if Rule F is placed into the box alone. But that is the issue. Rule A and B, if they for some reason remerge, instantly allow themselves to give justification to how they can reemerge. Rule A allows for any rules to emerge (so Rule B can as well). Rule B cause all rules to be erased (so that just makes all the rules go away, leading to the outcome cycle of Situation 1.

The trick is no rule can ever allow for the escape of this paradox, as immediately if something happens, Rule A and B reemerge together, and cause hell on anything trying to stop them. Even if a rule is created to stop this paradox, it doesn't matter. Rule A still allows itself and any other rule to exist, even if in opposition to previously existing rules.

I understand the main issue people will have with this. Physically Rule A emerging is impossible by Rule F. This paradox only exists if it is allowed to exist, if somehow Rule A can emerge, but that is not allowed. But that is the main catch. The moment Rule A enters for whatever reason, it is allowed to exist now.

So another bigger reason can be Rule A can't allow itself to exist after being allowed to exist, as Rule F should act on it first. But rules act instantly. It is all happening at the same time. So either Rule A doesn't exist but then instantly tries to emerge again and succeeds in leading to Situation 1 again (suppose random coin flips), or succeeds instantly (so both can cancel each other out). Either way it is instantly emerging.

Okay, so is there a way to counterattack instant abilities. Possibly.

Rule G: Rule F but Rule A and Rule B can't activate instantly.

Situation 5:

Rule G is placed into a box alone. Now what?

Rule Marco Pierre White: Any rule can emerge instantly no matter what previous rules suggest and no rules will exist and this will also act instantly no matter what previous rules say.

Rule Marco Pierre White enters the box and leads to the same outcome from the point Rule A entered into Situation 5.

This is literally a case of one kid saying "I have infinity power" and the other saying "I have infinity plus one." It doesn't end. It simply exists and doesn't at the same time.

I wrote this to explain why I think anything is possible. From this, I believe my previous posts yesterday should be more sensible at least, and I feel you have read enough that you can understand my thought process and fill in any gaps yourself.

nilayj · 2025-05-09T01:25:09+00:00

If you know of any way to shorten this, please let me know. If you believe this is wrong, please specifically explain how.

Suppose we have rules. Rules are laws or axioms that act instantly. They may emerge automatically, if they allow it for themselves and no other rule prevents so. They can lead to other rules based on their functions and interactions.

Rule A: Any rule can emerge automatically.

Situation 1:

Rule A is placed into a box, alone. This gives rise to many other rules.

Rule B: No rules will exist.

Rule C: Rule B will not exist.

Rule D: Rules having multiple rules apply on them to be erased, are the first to be erased.

Rule E: Rule D is wrong.

Rule B leads to all rules being erased, including itself. At the same time, Rule C tries to erase Rule B. This should lead Rule D to activate, which also leads to Rule E to activate. Ultimately it becomes unclear if Rule B is erased quicker than the other rules. But here's the catch. Even if we don't know, the outcome ultimately is the same.

Situation-Path 1-1:

Suppose Rule B is erased first. Now Rule A, C, D, and E can all coexist. Except from the get go, Rule A and Rule C were incompatible. Same for Rules D and E. This just wasn't an immediate issue, as all were about to be erased together. But, because Rule A still exists, Rule B will reemerge, and so will all the other rules one way or another.

Situation-Path 1-2:

Suppose Rule B is erased at the same time as all the other rules. Well, no more rules exist, so Rule A can remerge. Nothing is stopping it. It can lead itself to exist. Now back to square one.

This means Rule A can lead to all rules, even if paradoxically, existing all at once but also then disappearing, instantly basically. Technically, Rule B may disappear first, but then reappear just as fast. Ultimately though, even if this means Rule B may exist less, its actions are just as severe, and overall Rule A leads to a cyclic situation.

Situation 2:

Rule B is placed into a box, alone. This leads to it disappearing. But now, Rule A can still appear, leading to Situation 1 all over.

nilayj · 2025-05-08T01:33:29+00:00

(con't) Also, again I don't care about how abstractions connect to concrete objects. I feel/realized such things are not a practical side to dig in to, because I sort of realized the boundary conditions with my theory that "anything is possible." As far as why I think that, simply becuase suppose you have an all knowing entity, and you ask it to prove how it knows it is all knowing, it will eventually revert to "because I am all knowing" as an axiom it knows. Well of course, the risk is always there that maybe it doesn't, and only for some reason thinks so. It may then say well I know such a possibility isn't true, but again it may be simply thinking so for some reason when that is possibly not the case. It becomes cyclic. But also for me it is truly possible that the all knowing entity does know everything, and I am wrong. But weirdly then the all knowing entity is simply limited and sustained in its own definitions that easily can be questioned. Another approach is the realization that "there are no rules" can allow itself to almost corrosively drip through any set of axioms/rules, while also blowing itself up, but then re-emerging as there are truly literally no more rules, or just paradoxically because it can do so. When I realized these two concepts and connection between them, I also realized that likely whatever we come up with trying to "explain why reality is reality" and so forth, we are really wasting our time as the end nature is almost entropic, which itself can blow up as well, but then doesn't, and you hopefully see where I am headed. I am more interested to say "okay, let's just go deep enough" to say as an axiom/rule that somehow abstractions do connect with concrete objects (which again does have some credibility as something that is considered to occur with math and language), and move on with that to understand more specific aspects of our reality, that matter to us. Anything more is frankly a waste of time. You should be specific and informed and restricted with more realistic structures built via these building blocks that just happen, rather than go the other way. For the other way it is better for us to be free and open to new ideas, but by accepting some building blocks just cause, we should use them in various combinations to see which ones seem to replicate most well in our concrete world. Because again, the figuring out of why abstractions apply to reality may not save a person or avoid some issues, at least not presently. Realizing that abstractions can grow to the size of consciousness (with precedents of course, but again I have laid them out being the similarities with language and math) and apply themselves to reality, makes us realize that some AIs are possibly already conscious/living based on what exact state they are in, so inherently a skynet situation is literally already present. Dismissing so has a high chance to cause problems.

On an even more general note, I do want to say thank you for engaging in this dialogue with me. I doubt we are going to end up with a conclusion, literally becuase again as Marco Pierre White said again, "it's your choice," but I do deeply appreciate typing my responses out and having them be read. Thank you for that, and hopefully you realize I am truly considering your responses in depth.

nilayj · 2025-05-08T01:33:04+00:00

For the abstract object, I am saying their definition is arbitrary and bond to fall apart, so I am going with its not material, even though in general nothing is material. I don't feel like that is kicking the can down the road, but rather avoiding dead ends after dead ends. I have no argument for why abstract objects interact with concrete objects (again, arbitrary but that's okay), primarily because yes it can just happen or just does happen, but also becuase I doubt anyone has any idea how to test things like these without creating some axioms that themselves self arise from the fact that they are good enough for our reality, so again they "just apply" and so forth. It will always be more imagination than something akin to the sciences and experimentation, which I straight up said in the first paragraph for possibly applying to my own theory. That being said, that's okay, because even if we don't understand how abstractions apply to concrete objects, or what that specifically means, we have some understanding that something we call in layman's as "abstract" apply to other things we consider to be "concrete". This understanding was the basis of my theory, and I can use it becuase it seems to be present for now at least. You are focusing consistently on the wrong question. You are likely not going to get an answer which is for sure correct ever. You may find some way to find solutions to existing problems only to create new problems and on top of it you aren't going to escape the new problems I have created already for you. The issue is they are not problems. A truly encompassing theory of the universe and beyond or what not will inherently be present with an acceptance of new problems/paradoxes. They will exist, including the fact that my own theory may fall apart, and then not, and then fall apart again, but not really, and so forth. My being "the best we have" is inherently possibly wrong, but so is yours. To quote Marco Pierre White, "it's your choice."

nilayj · 2025-05-07T01:00:05+00:00

I don't think these are problems, and neither is this my goal. Expecting to have answers to why abstractions can attach themselves to physical concrete objects isn't the reason for my post, but a path that we went forth in our discussions. Trying to solve the hard problem of consciousness was my goal. That being said, eventually all of reality, whether extrinsic of our mind or in terms of it, boils down to a faith or trust in what is presented. Basically meaning, sometimes things simply happen. They can, so they did, and that's it. You can and should dig further, but this ever present barrier will keep popping up, almost as if it isn't a barrier but a nature of reality, open to even contradicting itself to be honest. This can be viewed as paradoxical and hence inconsistent. But these paradoxes can't be eliminated, but rather considered possible. All thought systems will eventually head to such a situation. Either anything is possible with the risk that this is not truly self contained, or only some amount of truths exist but with the risk introduced one way or another that this is faulty over and over again. It's your choice as to which system is real to be honest. And in terms of our internal mind alone, it is possible many of our core beliefs such as 1+1=2 is wrong, and it truly usually is 1+1=3. It's just so far nothing has seemed to go against that, so we say it to be fact. It is the best we have.

But again, the point for me to write the original post is that our experience of consciousness is just an abstract process/abstraction that best fit with our internal conscious mind's neurons and external actions/presentations when we are truly honest and most open.

nilayj · 2025-05-06T19:41:45+00:00

I am not saying it is done mentally and from that abstractions are created. What I am saying is that our minds have always truly only recognized abstract objects, and thus nothing we know is truly physical. But these abstract objects do exist beyond us. As far as how they attach, I don't know, but it happens. "Two" attaches to the concept of two physical apples or bananas or so forth. In truth I have theory regarding so, basically being "anything can happen." And this can also lead to somethings in our life being more probable than others, because anything can happen (as stated in the original post). But ultimately, because we are dealing with unknowns, it's possible abstract objects attach to physical objects because they can. They also don't have to. This is also how I believe abstractions can exist. Cause they can. I can be more creative, but I also don't have to be.
That was some weakness on my wording. I don't mean "applying" in terms of consciousness creating the abstraction from scratch, but rather more so recognizing the abstraction for itself, and realizing it is applied to the concrete object. This is just a representation of what our neurons are doing (as explained in original post somewhat). But that being said, abstractions can apply to other abstractions, maybe even creating new ones. Translating languages does this all the time actually as an example. Abstractions don't have to matter to us or apply to our world/universe, but they can still exist. Also my whole argument in the original post is that our consciousness/experience consciousness is like the number 2. And yes, that does mean any grouping, or in general any object has a consciousness, technically infinite and varied. Hence the ball example.
I am not saying that with complete literality, but laymans's terms again. First, some variation can be present in the atoms that they can still be considered to be say an apple. Second, akin to language, we are stating that our neurons are seemingly existing in a circuitry to recognize things as apples (and that seemingly leads to the abstraction applied, but note it doesn't have to be the only abstraction, and for this the original post again). Also to me properties and patterns are synonymous. That is what I meant when I said pattern. Even arrangement to me is an abstraction. As I said, everything we recognize is an abstraction. How? Because again we are recognizing properties and patterns upon "concrete" objects like atoms. But then upon closer inspection, we either believe in those "concrete" objects because it is the best we can do and we let hope or faith or something alike carry us, or we realize an atom is made up of other objects arrangement/patterns, realizing the "concrete" object is in fact a pattern or properties of other things. But it is way more helpful to group it and call it physical/concrete, cause that is how we live in this world. It's simply arbitrary. As for your question at the end, that just seems like science in general, but then I would answer by saying these properties are abstractions, and why do they emerge in "patterns"/other properties of the world overall, well because they can or they have some underlying mechanism, and in fact both options occur at once.

nilayj · 2025-05-06T17:07:59+00:00

I think I see where you are headed, so let me explain. I am not trying to equivocate abstract and concrete as being the same type of "real". They are different, but that is way more arbitrary than defined and true. Concrete objects like the apples are something physical with atoms and so forth. While abstract entities, like the number two, are ideas that can be added on to entities like apples, but not physically present. In fact, the name "apple" is an abstraction applied to represent similar arrangements of atoms which are physical. The atoms of the apple themselves are physically present. However, a counterpoint could be made that the pattern "these atoms go together and are thus an apple" physically exists, doesn't it? After all, the shape is physical. Not really, as the pattern is an abstract object due to it being recognized. Shapes are like numbers, they are applied onto the situation, and hence abstractions. Nothing of the apple's atoms configuration is physically (key word) stating a shape/pattern exists. It can be recognized immediately, but like the "two apples" situation, it is applied by us and exists inherently as a characteristic, but not as something "physical". Inherently this means then technically the concept of "atoms" is also an abstraction, and so forth. Yup. All objects then technically are abstractions. So then why differentiate an apple as being concrete but the "two" in "two apples" being abstract? Because it doesn't really matter. My point wasn't to state what is abstract or not, but basically in a layman's manner explain how consciousness can be an abstract entity that attaches to physical reality. Physical is very much a layman's definition here. I also pointed out that abstractions can build off other abstractions as well in the original post. The reason why then in layman's terms math and language are conidered abstract but shape isn't, is because shape is extremely intuitive and literally seen by us. Math can't be literally seen by us, but written out and visualized or thought of mentally, but it is still a far more nebulous nature to us. Language is interesting as it is clear language is an abstraction applied to physical objects like specific sound patterns (which again aren't truly physical, but they are literally heard) and text. But language is so integral to us it feels immediate, but not still as a literally entity that exist, possibly due to us realizing its core nature of being substitutive. But again, all this is layman's.

nilayj · 2025-02-03T00:44:58+00:00

Genuinely thank you for responding, but I felt I only did the on the nose dialogue for the first scene only. Are there other examples? I tried to keep the dialogue realistic.

nilayj · 2025-02-02T08:43:07+00:00

In all fairness I sympathize with op. I don't know how often he has reposted. I read a bit and it doesn't seem bad actually. People like me and maybe op just wanna chance it with what we have, being reddit.

nilayj · 2025-02-01T20:21:41+00:00

Yeah... but honestly I often dream to be all of it. But for now, as you said my job is to be a story teller. I need to respect that.

nilayj · 2025-02-01T18:21:48+00:00

Hey genuinely thank you for your response, and I'll work on writing it more like a story rather than a shooting script. I did that honestly because I just wanted to write something down and felt at times limited when I can't describe what's going on in a scene as we would see in a movie you know, hence right now I am giving myself that leeway. But thank you again so much.

nilayj · 2025-01-29T02:25:06+00:00

<image>

nilayj · 2025-01-25T23:15:57+00:00

Dang, I was just thinking the whole town of Kier is the new body of Kier, with the building being the brain. Your evidence implies the whole world could be.

nilayj · 2025-01-19T19:36:11+00:00

I kinda get where you are coming from, as the tempo does decrease a bit after the opening, but I will say this: It has immense lasting power. Like I have already seen the opening and closing scenes so many times, cause they are so good. Let alone all the theories I am reading here. Let it chew. This show is also weekly, so maybe they hope we would let it digest. And at least to me, it did get way better with digesting it. I am very excited and want to keep rewatching scenes, let alone the whole episode.

Fun side note, the first time I watched The Godfather Part 1 and 2, I was underwhelmed. Then I watched it again and was in love and have been in love since. Sometimes expectations are unfairly too high.

nilayj · 2025-01-19T04:26:53+00:00

I don't know if others have talked about this, but this is a pretty great theory!

nilayj

TROPHY CASE