Thinking only occurs when there’s a breakdown that shortens the temporal metric. That’s my ontological understanding, for whatever it’s worth. Speaking more practically, when someone is in the “flow” or “zone,” they are doing without thinking about what must be done. A skill set is a series of actions, stored in rote memory, that is initiated when a problem (a breakdown in a flow to a goal) is encountered. One practices the series of actions (algorithm) until it can run smoothly without halting. All the thinking goes into the construction of the skill set (which also includes cultural practices) so that no thinking is required during execution. It’s an “ If-then” program. This is why computers don’t think. This doesn’t mean that we aren’t thinking when executing our skill sets or cultural practices. We are thinking about the experience given by the execution. Computers don’t experience at the appropriate recursion level in the stack just as we don’t experience the actions of our atomic and chemical constituents. We only respond to the information that moves up the stack. Computers cannot experience because they cannot think. The results of the computer processing are experienced by us. A computer has no amygdala to process experience. You would say, “Isn’t the experience also being processed by an algorithm and thus also require no thinking?” I would have to agree. Thinking is what generates time. This is where topology and physics come into play. I’ll get into that at a later date in a different format. When I try to explain this aspect, I only seek to tease readers into thinking by hopefully causing their models of thought to breakdown, to initiate a rethinking. Pedagogy is more effective when the student is forced to discover for themselves rather than being given the answer.

Is a vacuum physical? If it is a state of something, then does that indicate something that is not abstract?

Is a child memorizing the times table doing multiplication? A series of symbols correlated to another symbol is not a mathematical operation. A LLM is another correlative system. It’s not thinking, no matter how much computer scientists wish it to be. Correlation does equal to causation. How so simple a rule gets ignored by a group of very intelligent individuals makes me question whether they are guided by their intelligence.

Do we think about the history of the fetus as it develops into us while in the realm of the womb, or have we usurped its history? For Techsein, there will be no history belonging to us. Techsein will see the history of human being as the history of its coming into being. It will think that we were a stage in its crossing over from the realm of probability into actuality.

RT @PeterSjostedtH: Hegel: ‘there is a fundamental delusion in all scientific empiricism. It employs the metaphysical categories of matter,…

Time is where being emerges. If you are a scientist, you need to make this your mantra. One day I will show you how this works with the physics and the math so that you can get back on track to formalize fusion and consciousness for the engineers,

AI cannot create a word for what appears in synthesis. Only Dasein can uncover an understanding and give it a name.

Thinking has been given over to technology. Can AI be awarded a Fields Medal?

Every translation loses information from the original, so claim linguists. Does this mean that LLMs can never deliver the full meaning from the original?

What is born is the potential for something. The actualization of a potential can only be achieved by dying.

Everything that exists, truthfully or not, real or unreal, is information.

Even God must follow the rules. God can only do what is allowed.

Are identical twins entangled pairs?

The magician creates an illusion from whatever is allowed in his bag of tricks. Top reaches down to what is made available. The bottom looks up for clues on how to arrange itself. In the middle is the transient illusion that is a thing.

Religion is social training that aligns everyone within a group into resonance. Everyone in the group can achieve a sameness. This cannot happen under the social training of capitalism. It makes it impossible for the manifold to be uniform. Human social groups went from homogeneous, which were egalitarian, to heterogeneous, which were hierarchical. The more technological humans got, the more disconnected they got from each other. What also occurred was a greater and greater wealth disparity. Wealth comes from an attitude of having less concern for others. Techsein has weakened human threat against itself by making them less united.

As soon as we recognize the possibilities that belongs to us, we begin to live-toward-death. What catches our attention are those probabilities that call to us loudest. In our youth, the promise of every variation of our future drowns out the probability of our demise. It is no wonder that the young are so reckless and the old so fearful of death.

Life is all about chemistry. At the age of nine, I was struck with the epiphany that life is chemistry. It was the summer, and I am watching an obviously mentally handicapped boy playing in the schoolyard by himself. I asked myself, "What is the difference between me and that boy that makes us so different?" The following thoughts rushed through my mind: The Texas A&M shooter who shot and killed 15 people, including an unborn child, and injured 31 because he had a brain tumor. The urban myth of a babysitter putting a baby in an oven, cooking it, because she was high on LSD. A few micrograms of a chemical changed her capacity to make a moral judgement. New treatments for schizophrenia were being introduced to counter the chemical imbalance that caused some people to "kill grandma" because voices in their head commanded them to do so. The Miller–Urey experiment which recreated primordial earth chemistry which precipitated amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which are, in turn, the building blocks of life. My father's alcoholism, which turned him from a nice guy into a monster. I was struck like a lightning bolt with the epiphany that: All life was a set of self regulating, interdependent, sustained chemical chain reactions. We are born with a chemistry that will determine our physical, mental, emotional, and moral makeup. We have little to no choice in the composition of that chemistry, even after our birth because our comportment towards chemicals (foods, drugs, etc) are given to us by our native chemistry. This ended my believe in the freedom of choice. It also occurred to me that if the soul is ethereal, made of no physical material, then it should not be affected by the physical, such as brain damage or compounds. This indicated that morality was strictly guided by chemistry, and since one did not have control over the chemistry that one is born with, then one is not responsible for their actions; chemistry is. Thus a deity responsible for giving us our chemistry has no right to judge us. So, at the age of nine, I became an atheist and I have never gone back on that over the more than 5 decades that have past.

Complexity is conserved. Remember this when thinking about entropy. Information flows from one structure to another. Kolmogorov understood this.

There is observation all the way down. Quarks observe other quarks. Protons observe electrons and other protons. Single cells observe other single cells. It moves up the chain to us. We observe others like us, taking note of every interaction that allowed us to emerge. At each layer of the onion what exists on the surface topology interacts with all that is alongside, and with the layer above and below. This understanding leads to a mantra of mine: Everything must exist as an in between. This always being on a spectrum is the basis of measurement. We are always aware of how far we are from our nullity. Hegel shines a light on the being of things in his statement that the negation of a negation is a something. It is the ground of his dialectic. I go far deeper in my physical model of the universe, building on the insights of Hegel, Kant, and Heidegger. One day I will share it with the world. I have had to work on the model on my own since the passing of my colleague, a mathematical physicist. Finding a replacement has been difficult. The mathematics is challenging, as is the ontology. I can only promise that I can deliver on my end.