Reciprocality

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.

When we perceive something in earnest belief that the identity of the perceived object dwells in that object we are disconnected from the universal in it and disconnected from how that universal is our own intellect thus disconnected from the possibility of universals beyond our own intellect and therefore disconnected from a higher curiosity. Have you ever observed the face of someone in a restaurant or caffe and looked away without thinking twice about what you saw? This implies that there were nothing in the expression of their face that contradict your awareness of reality. If contradiction is necessary for you to think about the identity itself of something then this implies again that you continuously believe that the identity dwells in the object. But what if this changed? What if every item in perception were seen as yourself? What if the identity itself of every perception were distinguished from the stimuli of the senses? Wouldn't this be self-reference properly so called? What besides such complete separation between stimuli and identity thus convergence between identity and self would constitute enlightenment? What are the conditions necessary for distinctness in perception and are there distinct things that are in no way universal but instead utterly personal?

@zurew 1. The muscles are tools that gets employed from the motivation that lies in the mind, motivation is conceptual or semantic past a certain stage of infancy which means that there is not only a difference between the two but such a fundamental difference that one (mind/brain) is the foundation or threshold of the use of the other (muscles), 2. the muscles on the upper arms does not get more used when (if and only if) the muscles on the forearms have grown more efficient, just as the muscles on the legs does not work over-time when (again: if and only if) the abs have become more efficient at crunches, this implies a non-causal and non-inherent relation between growth of muscle groups, although the correlation would be significant since more efficient muscle group A would correlate with more overall exercise thus correlate with the need for muscle group B to grow as well. The mind is a whole other order of business, since the relation between concepts are directly causal and share inherent similarities, overlaps, associations etc., my argument took this for granted and could do so since it holds true against scrutiny. Now recognise that if my arguments against the relevant difference between muscles and the brain falls short this would not in and of itself imply that the burnout rate is not higher for cognitively efficient agents, but could just as much imply that the burnout rate is higher for both physically and cognitively efficient agents, remember also that the burnout section of the argument must have two components, one being correlational and the other causal, this is important to recognise since it is actually possible that there is less correlation between higher cognitive function and burnout at the same time as higher cognitive function is a direct cause for burnout, this is especially possible if the causal relation is an outlier in the statistics. Since I provide no scientific findings this should be taken as causal inference, thus my methods must be rather conceptual and comprise conditionals that build on simple and universal principles.

@Carl-Richard Imagine that your mind consumes more energy the more efficiently it processes a thought because this efficiency allows it to also process related or connected thoughts. Additionally, any surplus energy saved through increased efficiency is not stored but instead redirected to handling these additional tasks, leading to a higher overall energy expenditure per second than in the initial, less efficient system. The duality here would be accumulation or retention vs offset or redistribution But my response took into account the cognitive improvements themselves on the mind, which you appear to theorise as being substantial, not just their cause (the n-back exercise) which your comment responded to. On the one hand you look very optimistic on the positive effects the dual-n-back training have on the efficiency of the mind in relation to cognitive tasks but on the other hand you are very pessimistic that the consequences of this efficiency can be similar to what I believe to be the consequence of those who already possess a very efficient cognitive apparatus, that being mental burnout. But let us say that many of my assumptions are incorrect, the principle that more efficient systems produce a surplus of energy per task is tautological, and that this surplus energy is either offset or accumulated exhausts all non-magical possibilities, if your refined assumption that higher cognitive efficiency does not correlate with burnout is correct then this raises a few questions, 1. why the surplus energy is merely accumulated into some general energy bank, 2. how surplus energy can be offset to other tasks associated with the original and result in more energy spent without it correlating with burnout, 3. why burnout is trivially correlated with mental activity and instead a matter of physical toil or 4. why the surplus concept does not apply in this issue at all. To be clear, I am only asking questions and doing some consistency checking, I have no scientific knowledge in this area nor am I invested in any given stance on the issue, I ask these questions to get answers since it could reveal nuanced principles I have not considered.

@Carl-Richard Is it not likely that the more you improve your cognitive performance from these n-back exercises the earlier in your life you get burnt out or experience similar after-effects? Assuming that your mind is allowed to burn more energy the more efficiently it thinks any given thing because it thinks an associated or connected thing in addition to that thing when it thinks it more efficiently.

@Letho If this is true for some or all universals then it should be possible to investigate and create a thought experiment where their malleability are revealed, if you could do this I would test it and post the evaluation here afterwards as well as look for inconsistencies between it and my assertions here. The tension certainly is a factor of novel application of the universal, but I believe it is the world-idea and not the units of its metric that gets changed, even if those units ties thereby to units previously foreign. Are you implying that static universals goes contrary to the collapsing boundaries of perception and realisation, which I take to constitute our everyday intuition? Could one even have anything collapsable if it were everywhere made out of jelly? Can there be change in one thing without the absence of change in the other thing? Would the malleability of a baby grow into a unified sense of self without much of the unchanging behaviour of its parents? Could a rubber ball bounce off of the floor if it too like above were made out of jelly? If not then what is different in this topic which also encompasses change? And if there is no such difference then what besides the universals constitutes the rigidity necessary for change or growth? To your question on self-reference: Most of my nature, knowledge and relational principles are hidden from my direct continuous access, new truths spring from old ones, new angles arise from old angles, new motives spring from resolution between antithetical ones, what would make this enclosed, what would not be revelatory in it and which possible alternative revelations are there besides those that sprung from what we already are, whether through observation or thought?

@Letho Let us say a friend is behaving in a way that you can not understand, this way is neither beautiful or ugly, neither shallow or deep, neither kind or mean. Would their behaviour be so incomprehensible that it is entirely different from humanity at large? When you are incapable of judging the situation you may begin questioning the quality of your judgement itself, but this may be a needless restriction to acquired semantics. So what is the alternative? The alternative is to create a universal identity of their behaviour itself, the result is that the upcoming days or weeks one will find this behaviour in others and stand the chance to inquire with far more tools at to the causes (motive) that create them thus leaving the domain of synthetic semantic judgements for the domain of universal principles that dictates entailments the same way as the past dictates the future. Your conscience is only freed from circumspection when you see with clarity the absurdity of a given contrary.

@Letho I don't deny processes or continuous change in the composite of parts, but you seem to suggest that the universals are themselves changing, yet universals are relational or simple and relationality and simplicity is the inverse of composites and change. Some years ago you stated that my methods were rather deductive and your more inductive, this distinction appears to be relevant again as you find partiality where I find exhaustion. What can be gained from mere generalisations of particulars that can not be superseded by only thinking those particulars that entail universals? If it is knowable that all xs are ys and all fs are xs and no gs are xs then what is there to gain from piling up some fs today and then some gs tomorrow that may or may not be ys until discovery of xs? Why synthetic judgements that may be false and involves semantic content that couples with personal motivation when you can have universality at the expense of particular subjects? What do we gain except personal approval by correct coupling of the social semantics with referents, what besides personal motivation couples two things that did not couple purely intellectually? What besides manual efforts is employed towards these synthetic judgements and why prefer these to the spontaneous and infallible judgements of universals?

The chase is its own reward, and it is so for the same reason any other chase leads to any other reward. All life on our planet experience distress in sufficiently complex circumstances, this distress is the teleological uniformity of life, it is the necessary precursor for the evolution of the various ordering mechanism that entails all throughout animal history, whether it be by mere sufficient reduction of stimuli such as happens at the lower end or the heuristics-producing, narrative spinning and memory compiling ego that strengthens itself at every turn or whether it is the inquiry into causes, motives and foundations in processes, behaviour and propositions. To identify distinctly that which happens with very little to no exceptions is as taxing as it is rewarding, for the same reasons any tough task is worth it in the end.

@Letho It is expansion, but by division of what already is, not addition. You can always trace the expansion into some unresolved friction, forgotten tendency, general behaviour, etc. again, self reference. Why bother looking for meaning beyond the inside if all that meaning can be simulated on the inside, why bother meeting with others if the motivation to their action is decoded via the universal that it represents and that universal can be distinctly identified without perception of the action that once implied it and upon which we once inquired for the purpose of now possessing it? From what I can gather you did not miss much, were rather spot on, and not by accident since all introspective paths leads precisely here and could only have somewhere else to lead if one were in any way different but such is not and could not be the case. I am formalising the theories as you suggests, the little that I engage this forum is purposed to conversations like this where I can somewhat connect with people who in their own words articulates precisely what I do, tension is accumulated in all closed systems (even the self-referential one) which is why being seen or acknowledged by others can offset that tension, my engagement in the forum allows the energy to be parallelised or dissipated more quickly, which gives more space for the more particular investigations that all the general theories gain their possible rigour from. The questions would only and could only endlessly give rise to new questions if old answers were disregarded at the same or higher pace as new answers were incorporated. Insistence on coherence and consistency on the other hand can allow exhaustion of any finite domain, but if you mistake reality for infinity then your engagement with the universals are decoupled from one another and all you are seeing is a chaos of particulars, which in turn will produce the distress that our memory and intellect were purposed to minimise through order. what else?

The following is conditional inference If enlightenment is phenomenological and everything phenomenological adds up to a complete compound and all things that adds up to complete compounds has a ratio to one another and natural maturity reduces the sections of the complete compound that concerns the continuous drive of the ego-construct then it follows that natural maturity is enlightenment. I intentionally avoid defining enlightenment so that the assertion bolded above isn't tautological without the phenomenological if-statements. Id be interested in a discussion on the correctness of these premises.

@Letho Another possible byproduct of this non-linear trajectory of self-reference is that universals (things kind of existing outside of time) become ends in themselves, much like how Schopenhauer depicts his Platonic philosophy in The World As Will And Representation, whether they are universals of beauty, teleology, development, intent, appearance, identity or perhaps "transcendental" concepts that unify all of reality such as we find in the dualities of essence/accident, mind/body, predicate/subject, homogeneity/complexity as well as the cognitive systems and contexts they couple with in precise ways. If all living beings, whether human, animal, biological or non-biological operate in the same ways and for the same purposes for reasons that can be investigated with sufficient conceptual baggage and without reliance on dogmatic teleology then I can not see otherwise than that this would be the pinnacle of universals, self-reference and ego-dissolution, as it provides for a direct connection to the reasons for and eternally repeating footprint of existence.

@Letho If your position is that the maturation process is influenced by cultural factors then you were probably correct in saying that I should have reread your metaphor, the probabilistic domain of unknown cultural factors certainly influences the development and dissolution process of the ego, maturity or enlightenment, which the phenomenological argument states to be three expressions of the same thing. Note on the bolded: Are you perhaps saying that the competition between constructs are inherent to the immature ego? And though the ego dissolves is it therefore precise to consider the competing constructs to dissolve with it, don't we for instance still have many of these constructs with us way after the ego has waved goodbye? And if the competition you were referring to instead were between the ego and maturity then it would certainly seem like you were stating the ratio-part of my phenomenological model in different words which, again, I should have figured out when I read it. The visualisation can certainly be helpful to some who would want to understand the idea we were discussing. Are you suggesting that various iterations of the development of an ego can to some extent not be compared to one another due to how perception is self referential (projection from subject to object) in each iteration? This is interesting, it does not seem way off but I would want to hear more about how you conceptualise this without getting too speculative myself. The effect that ego-dissolution has with the more and more clear insight into ones own conditioning through the perception of behaviour of other people just as one sees ones own character as present in their behaviour thus separation between a. stimuli/objects and b. identity (self-reference) while perceiving ones surrounding then the ratio of this compound simply follows the non-linear trajectory you suggest, if given enough time, effort, sincerity and discipline. The result is that one grows a higher curiosity to the things that exists independently of ones own memory and intellect, partially due to how one knows that others are just like one self, which does appear to provide the somewhat paradoxical and self-referential loop you problematised above. Note on the bolded question: Yes the idea is that our identity of going the enlightened path is conditioned on continuously identifying the ego delusions of other people and culture at large, that this happens because we carry at all times a perspective of the world itself for the purpose of comparing ourself to it and keeping us within beneficial limits.

Dave has some impressive judgements and intuitions that he relies on to aggressively look for the behaviour that conforms to it, this is partially why his debunking videos gain so much views and that his skeptical audience praises it. Dave is a an analyst of human intension behind human action, this is why he is a very efficient bully. Dave positions himself as a top-dog, this identity of a top dog gives him much of the energy and focus sufficient to create these kinds of videos. Dave's personality would easily be characterised as stage red on the spiral dynamics model, the man lives and breathes the heuristics that allows him to position himself as the strong guy which is confirmed by his exclusively confrontational and derogatory focus in the interactions in the comment sections under his debunking videos on his utube channel and the debunking videos themselves. Dave's method for scientific knowledge is hardly different from his personality (a personality he naturally hides in presence with people he respects), anything can be taught from a motivation that hides elsewhere than in the taught insight and there may be several cases of this that you can remember, I am not suggesting that many don't have a confrontational side but it does not easily couple directly to their knowledge when that side of them is purely contextual. Dave has in many of his videos employed his knowledge of scientific models and theories as a positive instead of as a negational assertion, this implies the heuristical (or non-substantial) nature of the knowledge. (substantial knowledge implies sufficient topical similarity) My claim that Daves scientific knowledge is not substantive but primarily heuristical can be further grounded on the principle that I pointed to above which is that the more one has acquired of substantial knowledge the more particular are the conditions necessary to retrieve them. Knowledge of scientific terminology and correlations that does not rely on a complex range of perception of real world referents are not post-dogmatic in the least and can instead be perfectly purposed for and congruent with manipulative, self centred or competitive use. The pure science videos are very helpful, and Dave does a good job with these, but its positive contribution to the world is not knowledge but instead heuristics that makes acquisition and comparison of knowledge easier later.

@Letho It appears like you smuggled in a concept of enlightenment as emerging from the spinning wheels out of nowhere though it would already be proportionate to the "ego voidness" (y) from the coupling in the argument I presented. It also appears like you strictly define enlightenment (z) as a construct and ego voidness as not a construct, which creates a meta-perspective that is simply not warranted in a topic of the dynamic between experientially real things. My argument, if correct, implies that these cultural, sociopolitical and economic agendas of our current age is significantly independent of enlightenment. Which further implies the fantastical generalisation of the "unenlightened" masses that you are operating with from the beginning. Is it not quite possible that the world you are seeing and paying attention to is that sub-section of it which are most aligned with your own level of maturity, that the ongoing stream of "most people are this and that way" is an externalisation of your own latent intent and behaviour?

What if we investigate where the concepts and categories that compare people come from? Are they intelligible for others or are they entirely personal to us? If these concepts are intelligible for others then they are universals, and if they are universal how could they be artificial? Edit: if developmental processes leads to the concepts we possess and we possess the same concepts then this implies that we went through the same developmental processes.

@Kuba Powiertowski It is understandable to be irritated when you don't believe your point have been received by those who respond to your post. I have no qualms with the premise that humans position themselves and evaluate and compare themselves with others in all sorts of ways, what I am questioning is what this implies about us, why it happens and whether it could fail to happen. I am thereby questioning how artificial human posturing and comparison really is, by hinting at the natural nature of some hierarchies such as the one that produces the words that are available to us at this moment. There are many kinds of ways the ego could have been conditioned, and it were conditioned the way it were for analogous reasons to why others ego were conditioned the way their were, you appear to claim that these reasons are artificial without articulating the relationship between the concept of artificiality and these reasons/behaviours. I am not asking for more information about hierarchies, but about the justification for the status of some being artificial, from which justification I would be better suited to evaluate whether the ego is properly separated. I would also question how the ego could be a separated entity if the hierarchy on which it is based is conditioned on comparison between people, how separate is it if the concepts that compares it with others unifies them under one category?

Interactions are inherently euclidian, nothing physical is determined besides euclidian interactions, energy states are physical and everything euclidian must change energy states to be undetermined again thus trajectories follow from the euclidian nature to measurement or interaction. Determination and interaction does not reify into every segment of reality just because their concepts does not intuitively or perceptively meet on any contradictions there. Modern physics appears to me to only be aware of the evidence for these assertions, not the philosophical entailment.

@Kuba Powiertowski Which hierarchy is truly artificial?

Are there not parts in a combustion engine which are less essential than others? Does not some parts of the combustion itself emerge from other more homogenous or invariant parts that could produce many other emergent effects besides combustion? Wouldn't you prefer to lose 2 fingers instead of 3? 1 hand instead of 2? Weren't every word you expressed here distilled into the finest essence of things from thousands of years of linguistic evolution, implying hierarchy in the order of natural language? Natural order?

It may turn out that the damage is already done, that unless one preserves the independency of every identity by not associating it to any other, even those it correlates with in time and space, then motivation instead of insight will guide its application so that the mind has no reason to change direction. The efficiency of good insight and awareness of the world is inversely proportionate to the tendency of association between distinct things, thus if a desire is remembered upon the sound of a word (such as the desire for political victory when hearing the word "liberal" or "conservative" then the mind is already cognitively impaired in relation to that topic. edit: The more immense the association the more impaired the concept, the self is apt for association thus the more immense the self the less distinct your thoughts.

When you listen in on a podcast or video don't you find that the remembered item in conversation is highly correlated with the intonation and rhetorical efforts of the agent? That there rarely is any memory there unless it serves the purpose that this intonation and rhetorics implies? What is the implication if not that the memory that couples with a given subject is that about the lived experience of the agent which conforms to its motivation? How could an agent change their perspective if the very mechanism which allows them to remember something is that perspective, how would they be able to change perspective without a corresponding memory? If we could be reasoned into something that negates fundamental values or beliefs it would suggest that fundamental values were secondary to reason. If on the other hand reason were dependent on the clarity or distinctness of the identity of concepts and these concepts would need to leave their invisible dwelling place in the mind where all its associations or known use cases also lies then unless all those associations were brought along then surely pointing out an inconsistency here and a fallacy there would not suffice to decouple those associations.

Reality is a personal engagement and a personal abstraction that pertain to every particular thing but its identity appear to never be contradicted by any of these particular things, the items of perception. How would it be possible to infer anything about other peoples reality-concept if it never even appears to us that it could be different from our own via how every single experience is consistent with out own reality-concept? I can not see the world beyond the way in which its various items becomes the same reality I have always imagined. It really follows that I can not be other than who I am, but also that I cant not be me. But if by some weird inquiry, deduction or contemplation we could reach the ways in which others reality is or has to be, then how would we succeed at that? If that which is the same in all of us could be pinned down, distinctly identified, how would we succeed with doing so, how could we avoid that line of thought turning recursive or self-referential? And if we can not avoid that self-reference problem then could that actually imply that reality is the same thing for all of us? edit: a few imprecisions.