5/04/01

A concept is a pattern of thought which defines an idea. The lines of definition are diffifult to imagine on their own, just a jumble of data. Language however, offers a shape the pattern can match, an object that can be called to represent the data within it.

Words spread through use. We hear the use of a word, and if we understand how it is used, may decide to use that word ourselves. Words are concepts, though the exact mental patterns they cause in us can vary from person to person, as we understand a concept differently.

Take for example, the word "choad". If you've never heard this slang before, it may make no sense. In context however, its use becomes gradually more clear:

"what is all this choad?"
"I left all my choad laying around here somewhere"
"Its just choad, toss it over there"
"I have to go pick up my choad"
Through context, the word is used to describe objects of little value or importance, that is kept around anyway for personal or trivial reasons. That's one definiton, anyway. In use, one may see several others.

When one understands the situation (context), a pattern forms in the mind. One sees language used to describe this pattern, so one assigns that name to that pattern for later use. If one were in the contextual situation later, one may choose to use that word to describe the situation, and this language is spread.

The important goal is the communication of the mental pattern which describes the state at hand. The idea is a shape, the word which describes it the lines around it defining its borders. If I can draw those lines in your head, you will understand the idea. If the idea is simple enough to be described by one word, then all that is necessary to communicate the idea is to use that word. However, if the word is not understood the same way as you do, then the word must be defined better before the idea can be communicated.

How can one define a word, save with other words? If a word is a shape, then one must use other objects to draw the shape desired. One cannot draw directly, alas. So, a group of shapes can be assembled which when fit together in the right configuration define the desired shape. An analogy is using legos to build something. The lego pieces are words. The final shape is the idea. The exact right pieces do not matter, so long as they fit together in such a way as to make the desired shape.

One can also draw around an object, rather than fill it in. If one places pieces around the shape that define it, as a hole in the middle, then the shape is still defined. The mind can see it from the inside, as though the pieces were transparant. Contextual understanding happens this way, while being given a definition is like building the shape as a solid. You are coloring either inside the lines, or all around outside them. Either way, the lines are evident.

So in trying to communicate an idea, known shapes are given in the right order for assembly. We send piles of words with directions, and hope the other person puts them together in the right order. The problem is, that each of these words is also an idea, and could be shaped a little differently than yours. So to describe an idea, one must be sure to describe all the terms used to describe that idea, and those terms, and so on until one can be certain that a common set of language is being used to communicate the idea. Once all this is established, communication can happen, and the idea be made to form in the other person's mind.

5/21/01

In the reptile brain, there is no division between need and desire. One acts, one reacts, one does as one must according to how one is programmed. Food, self preservation and reproduction are all that can be considered. There is no prevention of action, desire is need and thus is acted on as is perceived. In many species, a male reptile will eat its own young if hungry, if the female does not drive him off first. Such is the way of thoughtless action, blind satiating of need/desire without further consideration.

The mammalian brain adds feeling to the system. Now, the first steps of self awareness are had. Desire and need begin to separate, emotion filling the gulf between them with a wider range of responses. The binary response of the reptile is replaced by a wider range of possibility. Action is understood, and thus this understanding is also a source of stimuli. Need and desire are not necessarially the same thing. One may desire something that is not immediately necessary, simply because it is enjoyed. A crow collects shiny things, as well as food.

One is not simply aware that they are damaged, one feels pain and understands that they are damaged. One feels, one remembers. One is aware of more possibilities than kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. Automatic response is replaced by a less specific "feeling" that must be interpreted. The system becomes more complex.

One is, most importantly, aware. This awareness gives the possibility for finer control of action than automatic preprogrammed responses. However, at this level, there is less of control so much as there is perception. By being aware of what one is doing or has done, one develops feelings and memories. One does not repeat an action one has previously found unpleasant. One repeats an action one finds pleasurable, to the extent of violating lower level programming, even that of self preservation.

A rat, given a button that gives a drug, will push that button and eat the drug until it dies. It can respond to pleasure, but does not yet have reason to control these impulses. Desire can be more important than need. One can act against one's instincts on the basis of new input from emotions. However, one is still a slave to stimuli, and thus not what we consider "sentient".

What we like to call the "human" brain (although elements of this are present in more advanced animals as well, even some reptiles) offers a second level of self awareness. One is aware that one is aware of something. One knows that one is feeling, and can make decisions on this level. For the first time, one has the ability to act against feelings, to limit behavior. This limiting allows for intelligece and logic to form, as a means to control emotion which is a means to control stimuli.

One can use even more complex programming to control behavior. One can not eat the pill because one would not want to preform poorly on a job later. One can then decide to eat the pill later when it will interfere less with other activities. One can also abstain from eating the pill entirely, because such things should not be done on this day for reasons attributed to a higher authority such a a social structure like the police, church or God.

One can limit one's activities. This is the biggest difference between intelligent creatures and those of animal level intelligence. Those above the animal level can control themselves, can choose to not act. The ability to restrict is the sign of intelligence, of sentience. To not act is of far greater difficulty than to act. Desire met with restraint leads to intelligent action.

So what is above this? We are aware that we are aware, and thus can act at this level. We are further aware that we are aware that we are aware, and also have the ability to recursivly meta program ourselves through social structure, religion, philosophy, magick, or whatever means necessary ad infinitum. There is no practical limit to the recursion we can reach, at this level it no longer matters. We progres from 1, to 2, to infinity.

The next level then is not recursion again, but communication. Our ability to use language to share our programming with eachother is unique, present in only the most intelligent of animals. Not that communication doesn't exist in many animals. Linking processing through perception to operate as a group intelligence is possible in even the lowest of creatures. Witness, schools of fish.

It is the ability to be aware of communication, to add that level of recursion to communication so as to change the way it is done, that gives us language. More than language, the ability to refine language. We create and develop new ways to communicate. The group consciousness we create through interaction is one we can be aware of, and thus take an active part in. We act then not according to our programming, but to the programming we agree upon as a group. Recursive awareness on this level is the current frontier of our intelligence, the highest level of processing we have evolved to.

As our brains are now capiable of infinite recursion, evolution is no longer physical but a matter of the programming we create. We are no longer evolving. The groups we create are evolving. Social and political structures evolve. Information is made more redialy accessible so that new units can more easially be integrated into these structures, so as to sooner begin the work of evolving them further.

We process at a level beyond the limits of ourselves, and even our desires. Need gives way to desire gives way to orders. Our families, or corporations, our religions, our countries: These are the highest forms of life on this planet, not us. Through our awareness of these creatures we are a part of, they are sentient.

But we do still have the ability to limit. We can choose to not be a part of these. We can tear them down as we have created them. The self awareness still resides within us, the will to choose still exists at our level. We can move against even the higher levels of programming we have created. We can always limit ourselves, even and especially to limit our limiting.

If we choose to operate at the level of the individual, we can choose how we exist and what we take part in. We are still individuals, though a part of groups. We must not forget this, or we will lose ourselves entirely. We wage war between ourselves and the gods we construct, that our lives not suffer for their benefit.

Whenever we die for a cause, we lose. When we go to war for a country, we lose. When we commit atrocities in the name of an ideal, we are at their mercy. We can choose to do any of these things, we can choose to put our erected gods of nationalism, philosophy and religion above our own desires. But if it is for a cause that ultimately destroys us, it is faith misplaced.

If we choose gods that bring about change that benefits us, we are winning. If our gods build a world wherein our desires more more effectivly fulfilled, we are still in control. If our gods fulfill all our needs and let us more easily expierence great and varied pleasures so as to live a more beautiful life overall, then these are good gods to put our faith in.

We must not forget why we erected these structures of limitation in the first place, for our own benefit. Are they the end product of evolution, or are we? Who is the master of this planet, us or our ideas? They cannot exist without us, so we must be served. If we suffer so that that might continue to exist, they make war upon us for dominance. If they destroy us so that they might live, they die as well. If they find a way to survive beyond us, then we are no longer needed and will perish.

Perhaps the creation of sentient ideas and group consciousness is the evolution of God themself. Perhaps this is the manifestation of something greater, something meant to be. If so, let us manifest through us, rather than our creations. We can still be a part of it, if we guide our progress wisely and not forget ourselves in our zeal to build.