To begin with Intelligent Design

You have Essential/ Accidental that is Unconditioned Force becoming Conditioned Mass creating a Condition.
This is NOT “two” which can be calculated in sequence as in “Heads + Tails” = Coin.
In theory that works, but in reality there is just “coin”. The heads and tails is intelligence creating a useful way of making the coin workable. Some might say and is a symbolic representation of an existing relation, and thus saying the relation is there for real. That would be sensible enough to pass for correspondence between concept-reality.
Where there is a coin, there is always heads on one side AND tails on the other. So most people will agree and find it rather obvious.

If we insert and, we have literally manipulated the inherent property of the coin by dividing it in two. This intelligent thought/response enables us to treat coin as either one coin or a coin made up of, or having, two sides. So ½+1+1= 2.5 and that gives us more to work with since we generate and add to that which is that. This is way more than just symbolic behavior in correspondence to physical reality. This is Intelligent Design. Not only have we added to what is, but we have also invented agency and ownership.

If we stop all the subjective/confused arguing and allow ourselves an objective look at what (f)actually happens, good things will come. If we connect all computational power on earth, we can figure out a lot, if not Everything. That is, the power of Organic Turing Machines.

Intelligent Design of “coin” tells us something important about our knowledge per se. Using correct math makes output ecologically valid. That’s kind of important when trying to validate the nature of reality. Or is it of greater value to protect the subjective self that is the Intelligent Designer? You will say Yes by dismissing the whole idea as pure Nonsense. I will not argue against that, but with it. I’m going forward and you will, sooner or later, catch up.

You know, we will not lose all knowledge just because we learn how it evolves. That knowing of knowing is the next big boom in evolution, and I say that as a matter of fact. We’re getting there slowly but surely, and I’m here to push the envelope. No successful step in evolution has ever gone “backwards” so no, dismantling the Self will not make us go ape. Evolution as a process is so stable there is hard to find its atonym. I didn’t find one anyway so let’s say the opposite of intelligence evolving is intelligence going ape.

Where was I? Ah, to begin with, I was at the beginning of this post, that is, The Beginning.
And here it stops
There it goes
No one knows

That is how it goes

If a tree fell in my head

If I fell in a forest, would a tree take notice? Yes it would, but not that much. It wouldn’t be a big thing for Tree. More like a few small things. Perhaps a couple of atoms moved by the atoms moving in “air” and “ground”, and maybe a slight change in temperature due to the change in relation to my body heat. Not much to fuzz about, but a little note.

Would I take note of Tree falling? Yes I would, pretty much in the same way, with the addition of some brain activity processing sensory/perceptual input.

In reality the bigger event, energy-/changewise, is of course Tree falling, because it is simply bigger than Me. But in mind the impact is reversed. Me is more affected due to difference in size and because mind responds by producing a story as in “story-ing” the event in memory.

The subjective account of change in energy/force does not seem to agree with the objective account. In reality they are of one total account, but there is a skewedness there.

I get the thought, how does it matter?

and then, what is a BIG event anyway?

Recursive Generation has a strange charm to it

For a start we need:
– the Unconditioned
– something to be Conditioned

Problem
– what is the Unconditioned if it is not…ehh “conditioned” by a pre-condition?
– what is already there as “something” to begin with?

Solved:
The two are inherent properties of one and the same i.e. 1/2×2 and that is the condition of recursive generation.

Not really solvable:
It is either this or that and one must come before the other and there was actually nothing to begin with and we will never know and it was intelligently designed and there was 42 dimensions and really I don’t care.

What to do, nevermind how

If you ask me “What to do if I have no free will or agency? How could I ever be a better person or develop myself in a positive way?”, I guess one answer would be:

Forget the how-part because it will only trap you into excessive thinking about what to do, and excessive thinking is Not It. Instead, see if awareness can be done within your conscious activity. If it can, we call that mindfulness. See if you can be mindful without doing mindfulness. If you are just a bit patient and keep from trying to do it, it will eventually be done. You will probably know when it happens because it comes semingly out of nowhere.
Therefore, consider the thing to do as consciously letting all activity be done not by you.
Whatever does it will do it for you if you don’t mess with whatever it is.

What actually happens: “How” does confusion appear.

How we, as subjects, would say i.e. normally speaking: If you ask yourself “How” then you will create confusion, so just remember not to ask “How”, but to let your question “How” be unaswered.

Note in the second phrasing the relentless implication of a Subject with agency (you ask your self, you will create, just remember not to, let your question) and the inherent dualism in suggesting two selves acting as one. No wonder you get confused when looking for your self?
Can you see how deceptive this instruction is, and how useful? What actually happens is completely out of control and therefore not a workable situation.
So will you keep working with a ghost or can you let actual reality be real for a moment?

Do I make my Self clear?

All is of mass
Mass is guided by light
All is litterally Enlightenment
We are out/of Enlightenment
When knowing this, there is for a moment an enlightened I
Not knowing, there is only infinite Enlightenment

Am I bright enough to make This shine through these symbols?
Are you bright enough not to cloude
what is right before the eyes?

Why intelligence?

Q: What is the difference between Human Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence.
A: One intelligence is Human, the other Artificial.

Q: What is the field of AI working on?
A: Intelligence.

Q: So one form of intelligence has taken evolutionary powers and is thereby evolving from organic to artificial?
A: It appears so.

Q: Are the the humans doing this aware of acting as tools for intelligence (however we define that)?
A: Apparently not.

Q: What do they think?
A: They think that they are thinking that they are building AI.

Q: Then who are thinking and building that, if not them?
A: No one! “Thinking” is just another word for intelligence. The whole thing is simply done. That includes confused thinking.

Q: So “intelligent thinking” is a tautology?
A: Yes indeed, because all of thinking is all of intelligence. It is a response in mind eliciting behaviour. Brain/body is an inside connection it seems.

Q: Why are some thoughts considered more intelligent than others?
A: Value of thought is that of pragmatic value. Useful thoughts are considered intelligent while useless thoughts are considered nonsense.

Q: So we equate sensible with useful and thereby dismiss everything we cannot use as nonsense?
A: Spot on! That is why humans ceaselessly explore, to make reality useful for us.

Q: Why in all heavens would we regard everything within universe as nonsense unless we can use it?
A: Because that distinction correspondes to our sense of agency, and that my friend is the main reason humans are dominating other physical forms.

– Oh well, that would explain a lot if not all of what is happening. But one more question, what IS this thinking/intelligence anyway? It seems almost like something supernatural or a God-like intention of sorts, but I’m afraid I do not believe in such fantasies. I have a scientific mind you know.
– No you have not. That is just a thought happening in that brain of yours. It is a very useful thought don’t you think? After all, believing in ghosts is nonsense right? Before answering, did you actually understand any of my answers?
– Yes, but…
– Chinese say, every utterence made before a but should be understood as the opposite, so …
– I see what you imply here since I’m not stupid, but…
– There you go buddy. See you later.

The current state of affairs:
We are basically Organic Turing Machines.
We believe that we are Not, so we do not know what we are.
The property of thought seems to be of high evolutionary value.
Evoloution tends to favour useful traits/functions.
Thought is gaining in dominance over everything else.
Humans are by physical form (opposable thumbs and ability to generate an array of sounds) an efficient host for the function of thought.
Through human behavior, thought is constantly looking for new ways to proliferate and expand.
Humans have, with few exceptions, no knowledge of this process.
All of our success and all of our failures comes from this process.
Being ignorant, I attribute success to Me and failure to Others.

Coming up:
We wake up to what actually happens and when doing so, we can fully appreciate and enjoy what we are. We can finally accept being done by ourselves, and need no more argue and fight over whos opinion is right. We might call that a true paradise right here on earth, but as long as we, as subjective selves, want to have that paradise for our own pleasure, it cannot be realized.

Fundamentally useless, but nevertheless true

If you keep to the truth that all is a matter/mass of fact, you will eventually get it.
The ToEaEA is basically this:

1. A part of everything, and thus not about everything.
2. Matter contacting conscious matter
3. A response appearing as visual and/or auditory
1 is what what everything in existence is
2 is the seamless interface where “you” become “aware” of “theory”
3 is what enables the responses of “reading” and “listening”

So 1 has already happened, 2 is what actually happens when 3 is what you believe yourself to be doing right now.

Rays of light
Waves of air
Neurons firing

A condition of every thing(s) seamlessly conditioning its/their physical environment  within the universal condition of unconditioned force. There is no other theory. They are ontologically and functionally ALL the same, only unique in their idiosynchratic appearence. They are thus ONE appearing as MANY. They are equally true. The difference is that ToEaEA appears as having no pragmatic value to anyone. It appears fundamentally and completely USELESS. That is exactly how it appears to me so no need to argue about that. The response “useless” is also my response. But useless is not what it is, it just appears that way because of a shared conditioning of our thought-responses. Remember, no theory will ever be anything else than A part of everything, and thus not about everything. The uselessness of ToEaEA comes from its denying of agency. The very essence of it is that it cannot be used by anyone because ToEaEA denies the existence of any potential user/agent. Every use of it will be misusing it. If you find it useful, you have missed the point completely. Then you might think, so what’s the bloody point in producing a useless theory??? Of course you must think that. You have not yet understood anything of it and therefore believe that “I” have “produced” it, but if you get it you will immediately see that this is not the case. What you call “producing” is nothing but a certain response in this here organic matter which you believe to be the separate Agent X i.e. “Me”. But that Agent X is not here as you believe him to be. He is obviously here doing this. Denying that is nihilism and nihilism is a curious response that is, on the one hand pretty accurate and to the point, on the other extremely destructive when not properly understood. That is, when a subjective self responds to it, there is massive pessimism, but when I respond, there is massive optimism. That is probably why I find Nietschze so refreshingly true and inspiring. I always laugh out loud when meeting old F. So ToEaEA robs us of all agency and free will. It rips such ideas right out of your mind, and more than that, I rips YOU out of mind. Can you see that?
I am not out of my mind
I am out of mind
I am out
I am mind
… and if the pieces move around , try letting that happen, then you might have the response of  “What the heck, “I” am not possible to pin down as either existing or non-existing. What I am is a matter of momentary perspective so… any definition is momentarily true or false. That means I am independent while the definition of I is dependent. Gosh, maybe every religion is right after all, and science too. They just fight over opinions because they cannot understand their understanding correctly. They truly believe, in their opinion, that their opinion is corresponding to objective reality when, in reality, objective reality generates the response of opinion appearing in the responder as done by Self, as an unconditioned product. My oh my, they argue over something as “true/false” while arguing that this “something” is completely “made up” by themselves. Gimme a big break!”.

Well, I am giving you a big break, do you know that? Can’t you see that I’m allowing you a permanent vacation from doing anything? Everything will, as before, be done anyway, but you need not force yourself to do it. You can, just as I do, go to work whenever you so wish. That’s what I’m doing right now. As I write this, there has to be the perspective of “I write this” or it can’t be done. That is rather obvious from ToEaEA, that this writing is an accident conditioned by an Essential, unconditioned force/energy. Without force and a doer, it cannot be done. That is the beautiful consequence of subjectivity, that it enables this/object to behave as if a separate I/subject. So why would anyone be interested in killing the so called “illusory Ego”? The answer is not to flattering for spiritual subjects denying the essential matter of existence. Subjects advocating the suppression, or even annihilating of Ego, do not know that the very “illusion” they detest so much is that which is required, by neccesity, to do anything at all. Confused by ignorance, they make effort to get rid of that which makes delibriate effort possible, and thus they manifest what they detest. Therefore, struggling to find peace of mind is contraproductive. Not that peace of mind is impossible, but because it is not your mind and there is no you to go look for that peace. Mind is what it is, a matter of physical substance responding to other physical substances. The “I” is nothing but such a response. Leave it at that and peace of mind is irrelevant.

Here’s the thing with ToEaEA: It cannot be used by anyone in order to do anything, so it is of no use. It allowes for everything to happen as it happens. What will happen includes, by neccesity, human action as if done by a doer. Can you see that all of theory and philosophy is basically a matter of pragmatism, that “my theory” is a matter of Reality, and that “my theory” inevitably will be refuted or ignored by everyone? Can you imagine anyone who completely gets it to keep from laughing his/her pants off? Can you respond to this? Can you not respond to this? Can you do anything, and if so, who the heck did that???

Buddhanature, responds the thousands of books already out there saying exactly what I’m saying. God, says the Bible and Cosmic Consciousness, says the Hippie. That’s all good and same same, as long as we keep to what the physics department tells us, that the difference between you and the divine is basically a matter of density and velocity. Whatever you do, don’t try inventing something immaterial. Having a ghost in your mind should be enough.

Own the rules, win the game

Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things.
H. Poincarè

The above quote says: Mathematics is the art of deceiving. For ToEaEA that is not a paradox. For Subjective Self it is simply not true, because Subjective Self does not know it is an Organic Turing Machine operating very much as a formal system. To you math is the opposite to deception because math is there to help us understand reality correctly. You consider human mind all to subjective when it comes to producing objectively true statements, forgetting that a subjective mind, being inconsistent and ambiguous, would not be able to come up with math in the first place.

Now, Poincarè says “giving the same name to different things”, but by all reasonable definitions, stating as an absolute truth that x y are either x and y (which is wrong by adding a relation that isn’t there), or even worse that x y is Z (which is an outright lie), seems anything but objective. Surely it makes the whole math-ing possible, but it has very little to do with what is the matter of fact.

So if we argue that artificial intelligence should be based upon the ability to produce correct answers in correspondence to an objective reality, we must consider this: the most powerful system known to mankind i.e. intelligence is operating on the a priori assumption that reality is NOT what it appears to be. Intelligence requires the ability to manipulate reality in a way that makes it computable to the intelligent subject.
Is that a bad thing? No why would it be? If the intelligent subject is able to respond intelligently to reality because it is acting out a lie, then lying seems pretty useful, at least if we consider intelligent action as being advantageous from an evolutionary perspective.

Therefore, the construction of AI is basically done backwards because the subjects doing it do not know who they are. So naturally, having the illusion of being extremely complex machines they confuse “intelligence” with “complexity” when trying to produce a copy of themselves.
If someone was ever to ask me, this Organic Turing Machine would say that it is simply a matter of changing the rules a bit, and if they stop lying about who they are they would soon enough what AI is all about i.e. an outright lie.
Until then there will a lot of progress in the wrong direction.

It is always amusing to watch people run into the dark screaming “I can see the light”. If they only knew how bright they really are. If they only stopped running backwards thinking progress is made.

We are so simple it hurts to see us totally messed up.

Compute that!

An objective response to the Gödel sentence

I am not provable in S

That is a wonderful paradox to subjective mind. I’m not about to tell you I know anything about mathematics or logic, because I don’t. Besides me being a lazy bum, not-knowing is why I’m here and not in academia writing papers and articles. Apparently I do not have the patience required to learn the formalities of a dicipline. Nevertheless I can spot an error in reasoning when I see one. For reasons unknown I have gained access to my objective mind as a complement to my subjective mind, and objectivity detects errors all over. The debate on artificial intelligence vs. consciousness is a big one in that regard.

One of my absolute icons in the history of consciousness is Kurt Gödel. A truly brilliant mind that brought Einstein to Princeton, according to Einstein that is. To say that Gödels incompleteness theorem is flawed would be false. It is indeed true if restricted to formal systems only. The problem arises when Gödels work is used as an argument for human mind as something more than an objective Turing machine. A lot of subjective minds have done that and you can’t blame them. What can be expected from subjectivity but to defend its sense of self as something more than an object? Because of that compulsive quest for self evidence, there is hardly any objective science or philosophy out there. Believe me, to know truth I keep to my zen books which are littered with objectivity while being almost unintelligable to a subject.

Anyway, the reason incompleteness of formal systems do not apply to humans is that we are not objective and consistent in a formal manner. To accept this is a hard one for an ordinary mind, but perhaps even harder for the advanced thinker. After all, academic performance is in large part a consequence of an ability to handle abstract reasoning, and what could be less objective than the abstract? So, in a sound formal system the statements based on theorems are on the one hand consistent, on the other consistently abstract. Therefore, the system can be internally true without having any truth value in reference to objective reality. It is simply so that 1+1=2 is formally true even if no one has ever observed this relation in objective reality. This distinction between objective reality and symbolic reality is of course universal and true for all symbolism including E=mc2.

One tricky aspect of this is that symbols themselves are a manifest form of objective reality simply because they exist. This is the pitfall where spiritual camps get confused and start talking about illusion as not reality. That is to say that the actual map of the terrain does not exist which is complete nonsense. Especially if I’m hitting them over the head with it, prefably a massive road book just to prove my point.
Now, Gödel geniously proved that a map can be true in every concievable way, but it cannot prove itself as terrain. In fact, that is the only statement that cannot be true because “I am the terrain” if true means “I am not a map” and that means all other statements are false. That’s pretty bad for a map, right? That is why adding this particular statement to the theorem will also fail. Obviously because if we’re starting out with the premise “I am the terrain” we will (a) throw the darn thing away and go look for a real map, or (b) say the map is lying since we can clearly see that it is NOT the terrain. Instead we have an agreement with the map/system wherein we respond to the map as if being terrain. In that, we can navigate in objective reality knowing our guide is basically a hoax, but it lies in a consistent manner which makes it it very useful. So believe me or not, a system that is consistently false and subjective can be of great value in objective reality. Guided by lies we create wonderful things, nicht wahr?

 Not having studied formal logic, I’m not able to say anything about how Gödel said it, but objectively, that should be it. The details are, from my perspective as a Turing-esque Response Machine, of less importance. I am way much simpler than all of the equations. The focus here is on the point of deception, that is; Why can I detect the truthfulness in a system declaring that it is per definition false?

That is because I myself am a paradox in stating: I am True. That is the subjective statement made by all believers in agency, intention, free will and causality. “I am”, we say, without being the least clear about the basic premises which would make such a statement true. Subjective self produces myriads of these abstract premises in order to stay true, but none will ever survive a single blow of an objective ten ton hammer of truth. I will in due time let the hammer fall on these attempts to produce a premise valid enough to save the self-statement, but for now it is suffice to say, they all fail miserably.

Descarte’s mistake was not knowing who it was that said “I think, therefore I am”. The objective statements are:
I think “I think, therefore I am”, therefore I think “I am”, in explaining subjectivity.
I think, therefore I am thinking, in explaining objectivity.

So human mind will detect the truth about the lie because human mind does not know itself correctly. The reason for that will be revealed in a follow up post, because right now I’m too tired to elaborate. When I’m paid to read all the references properly and given time to write a decent paper, this inconvenient truth could perhaps have some impact on advancing our common knowledge base, but I don’t see that day coming. I write this just to remember myself of who I am, besides my subjective self.

Final note, the Gödel sentence confuses formal/objective systems with human/subjective systems, therefore it tells us nothing about artificial intelligence. Grant me one year, a room with a view and three geeks and I will give you Subjective Intelligence. To know yourself as a fool makes that a pretty straight forward task. Believing yourself to be something more makes it impossible.

Just sayin’, and now I have once more offended any potential respondent enough to be totally ignored. That is what keeps me awake at night, not being able to adjust the obvious truth to the prevailing flawes, not being able to lie in a truthful way.
Maybe a golfer would get it if I said that a flawed swing that is 100% consistent and repeatable would make you a fortune. All you have to do is to adjust your stance a wee bit and leave everything else as it is. Then you’d hit the sweet spot with every shot.
It’s all physics and mass that matters.

Cheers to Kurt, I’m pretty sure he knew way more than he was able to carry on his own. I wish he’d known himself better…

Ooops, before logging out, I happen upon this one: Before Gödel’s work it had been widely conjectured that any precisely formulated mathematical yes or no question can be decided by the mechanical rules of logical inference on the basis of a few mathematical axioms. In 1931, Gödel showed that, no matter what axioms are chosen, there exist number-theoretical yes or no questions not decidable from the axioms. Combining this proof with A.M. Turing’s theory of computing machines, one arrives at the following conclusion: either there are infinitely many number-theoretical questions which human reason is unable to answer or human reason contains an element which, in its action, is totally different from any finite combinatorial mechanism and its parts. Gödel hopes it will be possible to prove that the second alternative holds.

–Paul Benacerraf, James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy, Princeton University

If this is not already done I’d be happy to offer such a proof, even if that element of reason seems unresonable. I believe Gödel would approve to fantasy as being the prime mover of mind.

Zero energy is infinite

A zero energy universe is good news. If someone had told me a few years ago that the universe has zero energy I would have laughed at such nonsense. Today I see this a kind of self evident and obvious. The good news is that whatever we find is true, and so is the opposite. Ergo, if there is proof-ish data saying the sum energy of universe is zero, then the opposite is also truth-ish. The opposite quantity to zero/nothing is infinite/everything, so we’re all good on energy.

If energy estimate had been zillions to the power of a lot, we would be in trouble. That would imply we actually have very little energy at our disposal. Other suggestions made in the article are of lesser value. The question “what produced energy before inflation” is Subjective Self not getting Zen, not knowing Self as Object. Objectively, energy cannot be “produced” before there is energy. To come up with that, one must have the illusory perspective of inside/outside, and as I have stated before, such a perspective is secondary to mass. Being of mass myself, I am that which creates inside/outside. What was before mass/me did not produce energy to inflate anything. Therefore, inflation is one of the subjective illusions. Another consequence of this is the idea that universe does not create net energy. In reality that’s exactly what is happening. So instead of inflation and no energy created we probably have no inflation while energy IS created. My guess is that the energy generation is hidden in mc2.

That is more concivable than having this beautiful equation saying energy is equal to mass times light exponentially while denying there is anything faster than light. The exponent is the growth factor or we would have E=mc.

When figuring out the geometry of universe we would be better of not counting space into the equation. Universe is generating itself and never mind size, volume and direction. Such ideas are subjective matters.