Again; I look at consciousness as a gradient, not a binary.

So when it comes to building brainlike computers, what we're looking for is a way to allow individual components in the architecture—whether it's one agent or many—to be implicitly aligned with each other. Thus, the question: how do we fold latent experience into the blueprint?

Here's where I'm getting at.
If we subscribe to a platonic worldview, it follows that our sense of taste ultimately develops in the same direction as everyone else's. Although the paths we take may differ, we find that people who share taste can work together without explicitly talking about it.

Continuing the detour:
Taste is developed through experience, and manifests as some immeasurable quality we often refer to as latent space.

More to the point—taste is like implicit knowledge that allows you to act without thinking about it. If you know yourself well, you needn't deliberate.

A brief, but necessary detour:
The key marker of self-actualization is a sense of taste; how well do you know yourself? What do you like and dislike?

If we run with the assumption that we are simple souls inhabiting complex vessels, we find that selfhood is a matter of channeling/blocking energy.

The question, of course, is: how do brains implicitly coordinate? How do they parallelize tasks without a central clock?

Imo this is where it makes sense to turn away from explicit math, and instead turn towards group dynamics. Psychology. Hive minds, etc. My thinking is: coordination is ethereal.

The need for complexity decreases as latent space is folded further into the model, but getting to that level of density seems remarkably difficult, seeing as we don't yet understand our own, biological brains.

Here is some great supplementary content: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fege...

Further food for thought: www.reddit.com/r/Advancedas...

Uranus just stationed direct, btw

personally, would like a bit more breathing room

Not the ```Add to List → No lists found``` pattern 😭