Neurosystem: a revolution of consciousness
Let's try to find a complete form for the previously described knowledge and through it to make a qualitative leap in understanding the processes taking place. If you have abstract thinking and are able to give up your established views for the sake of experiment, then go.
To begin with, it is very important to understand the following.
1. Since right now it is not possible for us to test the below described for us (we need many years of continuous work on ourselves in order to reprogram the mind and get this opportunity), so the experiment will be purely speculative. But in the end I will back it up with indirect facts.
2. I do not offer something new, but simply try to tell about the knowledge already acquired by mankind in technical language in the form of a certain pseudoscientific theory. The same can be derived through other forms. I was able to do it in the framework of biology, physics and history. I think that if there is enough time, you can come to the same conclusions by studying any branches of science. Thus, all branches, once divided, converge at one point.
Let's imagine a neural network. As I explained earlier, this network will exist on two levels: physical and virtual. And if the first is just neurons that are somehow connected to each other, then the second is much more interesting. Here the network can be anything. An analyst who finds patterns in complex data sets, a predictor who finds the most likely scenarios, an adaptive control system, psychodiagnostics, and so on. Anything you can think of. But the funny thing is that we do not know how it works. That is, it is clear that there is an entrance and there is an exit. But what happens inside? In the picture we usually depict the network as something like that.
')
What prevents us from simplifying the presentation of our consciousness as a neural network? There are many inputs in the form of external influences, there is a way out, in the form of our reactions to them, there are feedbacks in the form of an assessment of our actions and we do not know how it works. It is clear that with some levels of assumptions it is possible to accept such a model. Further more interesting. Let's try to combine neural networks from the previous image as follows.
What did we get? Large neural network consisting of several smaller ones. Transferring to the real world we get various public associations: parties, communities, relatives, companies, etc. But one person can stand in several groups. Right, let's add the picture.
At the same time, between the output of one network and the input of the next there is a converter (a certain coefficient characterizing the degree of influence of a particular network on the group as a whole). Leaders are present in each group (the greatest influence), a person is only formally in a group, not taking part in its life (the least influence). I did not display this in the picture, so as not to complicate it much.
We also remember that groups, in turn, can also be combined into more general groups (the management consists of small departments, the organization's departments, etc.). Thus, we have a one-to-one correspondence between the virtual and the physical world (or the physical world and our model). To understand further, you need to abandon the usual understanding and try to think in the abstract.
Let's look at the second picture. What do we see there? A neural network that consists of many smaller networks. That is, the result of its activity as a whole can be assessed as the result of the work of one entity, consisting of separate independent entities. But, as we remember, there are also feedbacks in the form of social rules, public opinion, group performance, etc. Let's complete the picture.
I did not complicate too much and draw an element that takes into account the coefficient of influence of each output, since the model is already too complicated for perception. So again. The first level is a specific individual who has his own computing power, his own system of estimates and decisions. Each next level is a new “personality” with its own system of assessments and decisions, independently evaluating the degree of influence of each of the inputs. Feedback is the influence of each of the higher “personalities” on the rating system of each basic personality. That is, at some level of abstraction, we can talk about the entity as a whole, without taking into account the fact that it consists of some set of other entities. Thus, when evaluating the activities of a country, we do not take into account the fact that it consists of individual citizens, some of whom do not agree with its policy, but speak of it as a separate “person”.
To make it easier to understand, let's draw analogies. I work in a large company that manufactures plastic pipes. However, I am the head of sales. In addition, I am an Internet user, read an interesting resource for managers and apply the experience described in articles to manage my team. Let's transfer all this to our model. The first level is me. The second level is my department. I exert my influence on one of its entrances with a very large coefficient (since I am a manager), the other entrances are sent by signals from my employees with a smaller coefficient. The third level is the company in which I work. There is a signal from my department. The coefficient of its influence depends both on me (if I can convince the management that sales are important for the company as a whole) and on the manager (he may consider that sales are not the most important, but the quality of the product is much more important, i.e. production takes precedence over marketing). Accordingly, the feedback from the level of the department has a greater influence on my rating system than from the level of the company (because in the first one my contribution is greater, because it is closer to me). In parallel, we have a community on the Internet, which is a source of information for me. At the same time, I have no influence on him (I do not publish articles and do not leave comments), but it is immense on me (I consider it the most authoritative source). Thus, this community through me has some influence on the activities of my company. If you try to draw all this, you get a very complicated picture, but the artist is not very good. Therefore, I leave it for independent work to interested.
We have considered a greatly simplified model of just such a tiny part of our life, and have already received a complex non-linear system, whose behavior is difficult to predict. Now imagine how much more complicated in reality.
And here we come to the most interesting. If you remember, in our model we are the basic unit, that is, our consciousness. But at the next level, we get a new “personality” only a part of which is us. And at the next level, and even less. At the same time, we are completely unaware that we are part of something bigger and make decisions based on our interests, forgetting about the feedback. This is the answer to the question of why communities collapse after a change of leader. In fact, they do not always fall apart, but only if the new leader, in his decisions, will proceed from his own interests, and not from the interests of the community. The same answer to the question of why self-regulating communities are most resistant to external influences and most successful. And this is the answer to the question why at the sight of a predator a monkey screams, attracting his attention to itself, but at the same time saving the rest. The monkey does not have its own consciousness and therefore acts based solely on the interests of the community (the so-called forced altruism). And this is the answer to the question why in all religions the foundation is love for one’s neighbor and a call to act unselfishly for the good of society. This is the only possible path for the development of mankind as a whole.
Let's test this theory.
1. Scientists
To begin, let us remember the scientists who experiment day and night, trying to open (the key word! Not to create, but to open) something new that will give humanity a new impulse for development. Obviously, these people act solely in the interests of humanity, forgetting about themselves. They do not sleep much, they feed somehow, they are not interested in cinema and theaters, they also care little about material values. They get real satisfaction when they manage to comprehend something, to take the next step in their development and, as a result, in the development of humanity. Fame, honor and money - this is only a side effect of their activities, and not the main goal. People who are engaged in this, proceeding from their interests, usually do not achieve any significant results. How do they do it? Refusing to satisfy their interests and acting for the benefit of society, they take their consciousness beyond the limits of a particular person and get access to the entire computing power of the network, and not just to their part (remember the global cache?). Thus, in the analysis they use not only the computing power of the entire network, but also the experience of previous generations (which is stored in the genes of each, and therefore also part of the network). And the main tasks that are solved with the help of neural networks are generalization, classification and forecasting. As global computations occur unconsciously, we get sudden flashes of illumination, tables that dream, revelations, and the like.
2. Women
Since a woman is primarily a mother (this is embedded in her as a basic program), for the most part, in her decisions she is not guided by her own interests, but by the interests of her loved ones (I’m not talking now about which dress to wear or what handbag to choose , talking about more global problems). That is why their solutions are mostly intuitive and more successful in the long run. I cannot give direct evidence of the last statement, since This is a purely empirical assessment.
3. Prophets and forecasters
Recall, for example, Vangu or Nostradamus. Some reasons allowed them to go beyond the self and use most of the computing power of the network, which made it possible to calculate the cause-and-effect relationships far and give very accurate predictions.
4. Schizophrenia
Due to abnormalities in the brain area responsible for self-identification, depersonalization and derealization occur, i.e. again going beyond the self. Because of this, a person begins to hear voices, see hallucinations, etc. That is, simultaneously aware of all personalities.
5. Experience of past lives and reincarnation
Again, for some reason, a person goes beyond his own personality and realizes that he is someone else. At the level of the model in question, it is simply a transfer of one's consciousness from one isolated part of the network to another.
Similarly, from the point of view of the presented model, many other mysterious phenomena are explained. The same model explains the paradox, which is that giving always you get much more, because the feedback in this will be positive, which will affect the performance of a separate section of the network. In this light, the statement “altruism is the highest form of egoism” no longer seems so ridiculous.
What prevents us from realizing ourselves, and through this, in turn, all of the above? Those same thinking patterns and rating system that makes up our personality. Remember about 200 ms, for which our brain always leads us? This is a very complex tool that can be used both to the detriment and to the good. On the one hand, it allows us not to waste extra energy on the control of routine processes, on the other hand, it limits the perception of the patterns that have been formed. Therefore, the only option is to realize the simple truth. We and our model (that is, what we perceive as our “I”) are not at all the same. There are various techniques that allow you to shake your brain and move the point of perception so that you can look at yourself from a different angle. The easiest way is to start doing something that does not fit into the usual pattern of behavior (brush your teeth with your left hand, change the setting, the environment, and so on). A more complex, but more efficient way is to carefully monitor your actions and continuously evaluate them, i.e. do everything consciously.
The article presents only a small (fundamental) part of the information, and it has already turned out to be large and difficult to read. And most likely the critics are right, saying that the information does not fit the format of the habr, but I still decided to publish it.
PS Readers who put minuses and take on the role of censors (which they themselves often oppose), please think about whether they are sure that all of the above is nonsense of the author’s inflamed imagination or with some assumptions can be considered a theory can be considered as the basis for building information systems.
PPS If someone has comments on the model itself, or someone saw contradictions in it, it will be interesting to discuss this in the comments.
To begin with, it is very important to understand the following.
1. Since right now it is not possible for us to test the below described for us (we need many years of continuous work on ourselves in order to reprogram the mind and get this opportunity), so the experiment will be purely speculative. But in the end I will back it up with indirect facts.
2. I do not offer something new, but simply try to tell about the knowledge already acquired by mankind in technical language in the form of a certain pseudoscientific theory. The same can be derived through other forms. I was able to do it in the framework of biology, physics and history. I think that if there is enough time, you can come to the same conclusions by studying any branches of science. Thus, all branches, once divided, converge at one point.
Let's imagine a neural network. As I explained earlier, this network will exist on two levels: physical and virtual. And if the first is just neurons that are somehow connected to each other, then the second is much more interesting. Here the network can be anything. An analyst who finds patterns in complex data sets, a predictor who finds the most likely scenarios, an adaptive control system, psychodiagnostics, and so on. Anything you can think of. But the funny thing is that we do not know how it works. That is, it is clear that there is an entrance and there is an exit. But what happens inside? In the picture we usually depict the network as something like that.
')
What prevents us from simplifying the presentation of our consciousness as a neural network? There are many inputs in the form of external influences, there is a way out, in the form of our reactions to them, there are feedbacks in the form of an assessment of our actions and we do not know how it works. It is clear that with some levels of assumptions it is possible to accept such a model. Further more interesting. Let's try to combine neural networks from the previous image as follows.
What did we get? Large neural network consisting of several smaller ones. Transferring to the real world we get various public associations: parties, communities, relatives, companies, etc. But one person can stand in several groups. Right, let's add the picture.
At the same time, between the output of one network and the input of the next there is a converter (a certain coefficient characterizing the degree of influence of a particular network on the group as a whole). Leaders are present in each group (the greatest influence), a person is only formally in a group, not taking part in its life (the least influence). I did not display this in the picture, so as not to complicate it much.
We also remember that groups, in turn, can also be combined into more general groups (the management consists of small departments, the organization's departments, etc.). Thus, we have a one-to-one correspondence between the virtual and the physical world (or the physical world and our model). To understand further, you need to abandon the usual understanding and try to think in the abstract.
Let's look at the second picture. What do we see there? A neural network that consists of many smaller networks. That is, the result of its activity as a whole can be assessed as the result of the work of one entity, consisting of separate independent entities. But, as we remember, there are also feedbacks in the form of social rules, public opinion, group performance, etc. Let's complete the picture.
I did not complicate too much and draw an element that takes into account the coefficient of influence of each output, since the model is already too complicated for perception. So again. The first level is a specific individual who has his own computing power, his own system of estimates and decisions. Each next level is a new “personality” with its own system of assessments and decisions, independently evaluating the degree of influence of each of the inputs. Feedback is the influence of each of the higher “personalities” on the rating system of each basic personality. That is, at some level of abstraction, we can talk about the entity as a whole, without taking into account the fact that it consists of some set of other entities. Thus, when evaluating the activities of a country, we do not take into account the fact that it consists of individual citizens, some of whom do not agree with its policy, but speak of it as a separate “person”.
To make it easier to understand, let's draw analogies. I work in a large company that manufactures plastic pipes. However, I am the head of sales. In addition, I am an Internet user, read an interesting resource for managers and apply the experience described in articles to manage my team. Let's transfer all this to our model. The first level is me. The second level is my department. I exert my influence on one of its entrances with a very large coefficient (since I am a manager), the other entrances are sent by signals from my employees with a smaller coefficient. The third level is the company in which I work. There is a signal from my department. The coefficient of its influence depends both on me (if I can convince the management that sales are important for the company as a whole) and on the manager (he may consider that sales are not the most important, but the quality of the product is much more important, i.e. production takes precedence over marketing). Accordingly, the feedback from the level of the department has a greater influence on my rating system than from the level of the company (because in the first one my contribution is greater, because it is closer to me). In parallel, we have a community on the Internet, which is a source of information for me. At the same time, I have no influence on him (I do not publish articles and do not leave comments), but it is immense on me (I consider it the most authoritative source). Thus, this community through me has some influence on the activities of my company. If you try to draw all this, you get a very complicated picture, but the artist is not very good. Therefore, I leave it for independent work to interested.
We have considered a greatly simplified model of just such a tiny part of our life, and have already received a complex non-linear system, whose behavior is difficult to predict. Now imagine how much more complicated in reality.
And here we come to the most interesting. If you remember, in our model we are the basic unit, that is, our consciousness. But at the next level, we get a new “personality” only a part of which is us. And at the next level, and even less. At the same time, we are completely unaware that we are part of something bigger and make decisions based on our interests, forgetting about the feedback. This is the answer to the question of why communities collapse after a change of leader. In fact, they do not always fall apart, but only if the new leader, in his decisions, will proceed from his own interests, and not from the interests of the community. The same answer to the question of why self-regulating communities are most resistant to external influences and most successful. And this is the answer to the question why at the sight of a predator a monkey screams, attracting his attention to itself, but at the same time saving the rest. The monkey does not have its own consciousness and therefore acts based solely on the interests of the community (the so-called forced altruism). And this is the answer to the question why in all religions the foundation is love for one’s neighbor and a call to act unselfishly for the good of society. This is the only possible path for the development of mankind as a whole.
Let's test this theory.
1. Scientists
To begin, let us remember the scientists who experiment day and night, trying to open (the key word! Not to create, but to open) something new that will give humanity a new impulse for development. Obviously, these people act solely in the interests of humanity, forgetting about themselves. They do not sleep much, they feed somehow, they are not interested in cinema and theaters, they also care little about material values. They get real satisfaction when they manage to comprehend something, to take the next step in their development and, as a result, in the development of humanity. Fame, honor and money - this is only a side effect of their activities, and not the main goal. People who are engaged in this, proceeding from their interests, usually do not achieve any significant results. How do they do it? Refusing to satisfy their interests and acting for the benefit of society, they take their consciousness beyond the limits of a particular person and get access to the entire computing power of the network, and not just to their part (remember the global cache?). Thus, in the analysis they use not only the computing power of the entire network, but also the experience of previous generations (which is stored in the genes of each, and therefore also part of the network). And the main tasks that are solved with the help of neural networks are generalization, classification and forecasting. As global computations occur unconsciously, we get sudden flashes of illumination, tables that dream, revelations, and the like.
2. Women
Since a woman is primarily a mother (this is embedded in her as a basic program), for the most part, in her decisions she is not guided by her own interests, but by the interests of her loved ones (I’m not talking now about which dress to wear or what handbag to choose , talking about more global problems). That is why their solutions are mostly intuitive and more successful in the long run. I cannot give direct evidence of the last statement, since This is a purely empirical assessment.
3. Prophets and forecasters
Recall, for example, Vangu or Nostradamus. Some reasons allowed them to go beyond the self and use most of the computing power of the network, which made it possible to calculate the cause-and-effect relationships far and give very accurate predictions.
4. Schizophrenia
Due to abnormalities in the brain area responsible for self-identification, depersonalization and derealization occur, i.e. again going beyond the self. Because of this, a person begins to hear voices, see hallucinations, etc. That is, simultaneously aware of all personalities.
5. Experience of past lives and reincarnation
Again, for some reason, a person goes beyond his own personality and realizes that he is someone else. At the level of the model in question, it is simply a transfer of one's consciousness from one isolated part of the network to another.
Similarly, from the point of view of the presented model, many other mysterious phenomena are explained. The same model explains the paradox, which is that giving always you get much more, because the feedback in this will be positive, which will affect the performance of a separate section of the network. In this light, the statement “altruism is the highest form of egoism” no longer seems so ridiculous.
What prevents us from realizing ourselves, and through this, in turn, all of the above? Those same thinking patterns and rating system that makes up our personality. Remember about 200 ms, for which our brain always leads us? This is a very complex tool that can be used both to the detriment and to the good. On the one hand, it allows us not to waste extra energy on the control of routine processes, on the other hand, it limits the perception of the patterns that have been formed. Therefore, the only option is to realize the simple truth. We and our model (that is, what we perceive as our “I”) are not at all the same. There are various techniques that allow you to shake your brain and move the point of perception so that you can look at yourself from a different angle. The easiest way is to start doing something that does not fit into the usual pattern of behavior (brush your teeth with your left hand, change the setting, the environment, and so on). A more complex, but more efficient way is to carefully monitor your actions and continuously evaluate them, i.e. do everything consciously.
The article presents only a small (fundamental) part of the information, and it has already turned out to be large and difficult to read. And most likely the critics are right, saying that the information does not fit the format of the habr, but I still decided to publish it.
PS Readers who put minuses and take on the role of censors (which they themselves often oppose), please think about whether they are sure that all of the above is nonsense of the author’s inflamed imagination or with some assumptions can be considered a theory can be considered as the basis for building information systems.
PPS If someone has comments on the model itself, or someone saw contradictions in it, it will be interesting to discuss this in the comments.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/210248/
All Articles