Reciprocality

If nothing besides the distinction between two concrete things happened then they would not be identified, numbers presupposes identity thus whatever is required for something to be identified is also required for something to be a number. Sufficient agency is such a sufficient condition.

@Carl-Richard If that which were true of numbers at a basic level were not true of "many things" then we would have a hard time explaining why numbers can apply to all kinds of things. When we do nothing about the distinction between two things (which I take to be what you meant as applying to many things) except generalise that they are distinct we create a unitary system, since in the concept of a distinction we find the concept of 1 and 2, you could not both have a distinction and the ability to identify it in the sequential order in which you do it without creating the meaning of the concept of 1 and 2, whether or not you represent that concept with symbols.

Embrace yourself for the day when you explicitly asks Claude's extended thinking variant to evaluate your ideas critically, objectively and thoroughly.

We understand the idea, but we don't understand whether it applies. I understand that you feel that way, but I do not understand what you feel. I understand that seven horses on one ladder will make it break, but I don't understand that the ladder will break, what if it don't, could I understand something when that understanding is wrong? The general rule is this: We understand what we do not need to judge/determine, but among everything we must first judge there is nothing to understand.

It appears to me that you are asking whether anything could exist without existing as a substance, whether there are anything insubstantial. I would ask you similarly whether anything could be possible without first being actual, that perhaps possibilities are conceptual breadcrumbs from perceived experiences and that if nothing is possible without first being actual in some form that nothing is real without first being substantial. Isn't the separation between real and substance an invention of your mind as to what is possible? Again: why should anything be possible without first being actual in some form?

Units representing a generalised idea derived from the real distinction between experienced things occurred spontaneously due to how the ability to identify things presupposes the agency sufficient to hold that identity independently of the thing that bears it.

There are patterns of behaviours in various societies, these implies a state of mind where intentions resides. These consciousness models describe several of these patterns and predict that if one of them occurs in someone then a certain set of other behaviour patterns is likely to occur in them too. All roads leads to Rome, whichever pattern your behaviour exhibits it will be insufficient in certain contexts if you dear to challenge yourself sufficiently, the psychological evolution and trajectory that follows is similar across cultures. We age into these patterns of thinking and acting, we find people similar to ourselves who went through the same phases, the same phases they went through thousand years ago and will do in a thousand years from now. When we observe others we may infer which developmental phase they are going through and maybe even realise that they are exactly like us. All this were clear throughout history in every society, the macro-level intellectualisation is just a repetition of the immediately obvious in our perceptive field, because we went through some of the phases, just like the others. @Carl-Richard You speak about people on the forum not having <lived> the "tier 2" paradigm they spout, and suggest that only 2% of the population reaches this level, but what do you really know about most of the population? What is even the distinction in your mind between 1. who most of the population are and 2. that about them which is stuck in tier 1? How many 40 and 50 year olds (who may actually have lived a little bit) have you stared in the eyes after a thorough conversation and deemed to be "undeveloped tier 1"? I would certainly pay good money to actually rig you with a camera and speaker setup and see how straight your face would be as you spout that evaluation. How could you even evaluate whether someone were tier 1 or 2 if you don't even have the slightest clue the level of thought patterns they go through as they evaluate you?

The cultural distinction between matter and consciousness could be methodical or practical as opposed to fundamental, that when we try to found either in the other we often end up pointing to invariances that are identical suggests that the distinction is precisely so: a methodical angle. Some strands of structural realism can maintain monistic ontology via invariances as condition for objectivity quite parsimoniously and consistently, and unifying materialism and idealism while at it just as it unifies philosophical rationalism and empiricism. One naivite on part of materialism is how the concept of time, which we gain via the invariant rate of diminution of phenomenal and cognitive intensity is supposed to pertain to objects which invariant rate of diminution depends on and is relative to sufficiently particularised locations which through being imposed by information from every other location outputs a rate of "time". Yet these accounts of material substance is hardly to find anywhere thus hypostatised time projected from the mind takes its stead. If we try to look for fundamental physical substances we end up with entities that instantiate properties that partake in dualities and are exhaustive of all possibilities, thus dichotomies like continuous/discrete, necessary/contingent, connected/spontaneous, the very same invariances that arises in phenomenological accounts of the behaviour of consciousness, suggesting the already mentioned mere practical nature of the distinction between mind and matter. The real question becomes how well we are able to stratify the distribution of contingencies, invariances and origins in the tenants of our personal experience and therewith determine when we have the "right" perspective in our everyday life, determining when our thoughts are merely our personal world and when they really are objective, not whether reality is material or conscious.

@theleelajoker It seems to me that you first acknowledge the general distinction between necessity and possibility, where survival is the form of necessity and every desire that goes beyond mere survival are the forms of possibility. Then you appear to point out that the distinction is not as strict as it appear at first glance, where a) the solutions to the problems that goes contrary to survival are optional instead of necessary and b) that the general tendency of acceptance of things that are entirely optional is itself a survival mechanism. My perspective is that a only works if the reason there initially were a desire to survive itself goes away, while b is accurate throughout the process of base survival.

You do not need a lot of math to imagine that 360 degrees (or any isotropic or homogenous metric) are insufficient to describe the simultaneity of matter. You do not need a lot of math to imagine that isotropic/homogenous metrics have their foundations in the unity of perception and generalisations from counting and that properties that pertains to entities that exists independently of the perceptions from where we abstracted metrics could just as well exist independent of these metrics. Definite positions are a relation between one position and another, out of any two coordinates an isotropic two-dimensional metric can always be derived, when a third coordinate point is introduced without itself deriving from that metric you will not neatly fit it into that metric. It should be straight forward from this to conclude that quantum particles without consciousness (or interaction with something from which a metric is generalised, thus consciousness) have no definite position. Why should this take away from their simultaneity, if all simultaneity requires is an equal age via respective continuous paths each path of which are independent of any isotropic metric that unifies them?

Can the energy of the ego be used to focus away from information that is unhealthy, were that largely why the ego were developed initially and are we justified in returning again and again to ego to focus better? I intentionally avoid substantiating these questions any further because I suspect it would only take away from their intended general meaning.

@LifeEnjoyer I am really asking whether ego is inherent to the rejection of a portion of those things we do not want, that what we want becomes apparent by focusing on what we don't is a separate issue.

If the idea of the person is different from the figure of the person, and there is nothing but figure in perception, then how come that the idea impresses on us simultaneously as the figure does and where does that idea come from?

Everyone sees the similarity between pens and pencils, but the tendency to maintain focus on that similarity has no obvious or clear-cut purpose. Few sees the similarity between socks and tables, and the tendency to maintain focus on that similarity has often an even less obvious purpose. A topologist would find the sock to be identical to the table in a certain way, and for someone who needs to write something down before they forget a certain message a pen and a pencil will aid them equally well. In both scenarios the very apparent differences are secondary to more abstract similarities, the more general properties that pertain to the items take precedence to the more particular properties. What does genius and madness have to do with this?

Bonusquestion Assuming that all things must either have consistency or inconsistency, or harmony and disharmony or congruence and incongruence what ensures that the figure and the idea of someone remains congruent? Are they ever incongruent? When they are incongruent then what generally happens? And if when such incongruence does happen we are the ones who resolves it, then must we change some of our beliefs about the world as a whole in that process?

Preferring the world as it is without your own involvement, to not disrupt or alter it in any way, how often and when last did you have a day like this? Is it enlightened? In which way do you on your better days prefer the world as it is instead of the way you want it or the way in which it comes together?

@Javfly33 Aren't you wittingly or not trying to fix the world already by the principle of not doing so, by wishing to affect those who thinks differently?

@Javfly33 What comes to mind when you consider something undisturbed, something you don't compare to or something your intensions could only negatively impact?

The superficial differences are real, the rest are just practical

Is it a first person perspective you want to have in a young state of mind or is it your particular character you want to have in a young state of mind? It appears to me that the latter is correct, your self is your particular way to love, your particular conscience and fixation, but why is it important that it must be experienced from a first person perspective (an integral whole)? Is there a difference between this insistence on the first person perspective and rejection of others? Isn't youth always myopic, idealised, stylised, simplistic, unaware and inefficient, could you live as a young person without being all those things many times over?

The bum on the street is you and me everyone can focus their mind, some tries to focus others mind as well, this is enlightenment and manipulation hand in hand and we all do it continuously

If the function it serves to identify as a "me" is to switch conscious focus at will so to not become drawn from object to object then how do we navigate the world without this "self"? When I lose the sense of "me" this consciousness becomes filled with something else, this is wobbly or unstable and is therefore prone to induce chaos and distress. How do you minimise your awareness on certain things without the aid of the illwill the self has against these things?

You are treating variables as though they add to one another, are conjoined, but they are mutually defined, connected and are dualities of one distributed entity. A sum of added parts / coinciding parts were one of the worst tragedies that happened to our intellectual circuits, they are effectively enforced accidents (inessentials) where any one part forcefully exists independently of the others. The modern language we use comes with the accident of every one combination of words that expresses meaning, the syntax of the sentence, and I believe this has forced us to think more syntactically about memories, the hypothesis from this is that tribes that only think by hieroglyphs or single words think wholes and are able to "see" the whole through the parts, that they think holistically because the accidental relations between things have not been forced on them through the way in which syntax of language efficiently allows one to think utterly differentiated things, partially from ones will and woe, at various points of the day or week which when generalised into entailments would be tremendously inconsistent with each other. When we employ immense amounts of conceptual thinking the inherent connections between parts can reemerge, where their distinction is falsified through investigation into the ground for abstractions (phenomenology, axiomatics and memories), such that nothingness derive from logical negation, negation derive from spontaneous distinction, ones sense of self is the same as others, limits unified with conditions, body identical with mind, the future identical with the past, space the same as time, algebra the same as geometry, energy as the same as space-time, logic as the same as identity etc.

To be clear, the thesis is that burnout is an effect of subject-relative higher cognitive efficiency because for every thought it processes more efficiently inherent constraints are approached more closely without that limiting the growth-vector/ synthesis of concepts, the unchangeable nature thus universal applicability of concepts could also be predicted simply from that. Thus the idea that you could think more efficiently x and y without that leading to z decouples the inherent relations without which the mind would not think in the first place. The condition-limit equivalence is also an argument for a macro-level (non-continuous) determinism which is translatable to an inherent psychological balance-mechanism which dictates that any action or non-action follows by an equal and opposite action or reaction in some or other way. To disagree with the equivalence will then imply disagreement with the balance mechanism, so if you think that the mind has a shadow, a conscience or values then what can be induced from them (inherent psychological balance) is negated by that disagreement. Edit: note on the point of the universality of concepts: if they weren't unchangeable why would humans intuitively read their children and younger people like a book? Are judgements sudden novelties or are they remnants from past experiences? Is the belief in the novelty of my present judgement a decoupling between the present and the past?

Where does the concepts of boredom and stimuli come from? Why are you stimulated by a conversation about neurology, principles, improvement, intelligence etc., instead of a conversation about the politics concerning the ownership of land in the sandbox at the closest kindergarten? My answer to that question is largely that you have grown to think of ownership, self, self-bias etc. in far more efficient and interconnected ways than you once did, but that this efficiency would be impossible without first having been the self-proclaimed owner of the sandbox, and that whatever comes afterwards are more and more complex bifurcations of that proclamation and its negation, that the significance of such proclamation is the substance of the system that overtakes it. The new branches on a tree grows out of what the tree already is, and these new branches render a higher toil on the tree in proportion to what they contribute than the previous generation, since the substance that allows it to operate is the same limit all throughout every generation, if this were not so then trees would die far later. You don't accept my proposition because you don't connect the inherent relation between the condition for the possibility of x with the limit of x. Once you distinctly identify how all systems are limited by their conditions you see how it entails that if all else were equal then a more efficient variant of a brain or mind will use more energy than a less efficient one, not in relation to a given task, for which the converse is true, but in relation to the set of all relatively-present tasks. It is possible that other variables minimises the effect, and that part of what life on this planet has done is to succeed at this, that would be a very interesting hypothesis and we should investigate it, but confusing that for the absence of condition-to-limit equivalency would be like confusing biology for physics. If conditions are equal to limits then just as the conditions will continue to be the walls you are bumping into so too will they be the growth that allows you to tear through them, if the growth-vector were to minimise the more one grew then the continuous limits that the growth vector up until then constituted would need to minimise too. Which would be absurd unless the system were initially unequal in condition and limits, which also would be absurd. The more easily you think concept x the more easily y is conceived alongside it, since concepts have their whole significance and origination in the perception and set of judgements both of which correspond with the growth-vector and its inherent limits all throughout your development. What I am saying may be clearer if you consider concepts as the aperture of the mind and the experiences it can and will imagine.