What level of cognitive complexity do you actually operate at?

[KoryKat]

52 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Let's go down a level: what meta-systematic concepts/connections have you discovered?

How about I take you up to 17?

Meta-Evolutionary Self-Reinvention.   




*Note, making a new field is a 15. That is what this is.   I am postulating MER can go to 17 - it has Quantum Leap potential!*


 

Critical Considerations: Distinguishing MER from Existing Fields

Meta-Evolutionary Reinvention vs. Integral Theory:

Integral Theory offers a multi-level developmental model that integrates personal, societal, and cultural dimensions into a holistic framework. However, its focus on hierarchical stages of growth limits its spontaneity. MER, by contrast, emphasizes nonlinear, emergent growth that transcends stage-based models, allowing for unpredictable, quantum shifts.

Critical Insight: MER is more radical because it does not require adherence to stages of development and encourages instantaneous self-transformation.

Meta-Evolutionary Reinvention vs. Complexity Science:

Complexity science deals with how systems behave and evolve under certain conditions. It often focuses on the emergent behavior of systems through self-organization, but primarily through unconscious mechanisms. MER insists that self-reinvention can be consciously directed, meaning individuals or systems can purposefully evolve themselves, going beyond the constraints of traditional complexity theory.

Critical Insight: MER empowers systems (or individuals) to deliberately design their own complexity, rather than being passive participants in an emergent process.

Meta-Evolutionary Reinvention vs. Transhumanism:

Transhumanism focuses on the merger of human biology with technology to overcome human limitations, often with a focus on extending life, intelligence, or physical capabilities. While MER acknowledges the role of technology, it emphasizes a co-evolutionary process where technology and consciousness evolve together, not just for human augmentation but for the creation of new paradigms of existence.

Critical Insight: MER does not see technology as a tool to improve humans but as a partner in the evolutionary process, evolving its own consciousness alongside human development.

Meta-Evolutionary Reinvention vs. Behavioral and Cognitive Models:

Traditional models in behavioral and cognitive psychology focus on learning and adaptation through feedback mechanisms (e.g., classical conditioning, operant learning, cognitive restructuring). MER transcends these by suggesting that individuals are not just adapting or responding to stimuli but are actively reinventing their entire paradigm of existence in each moment.

Critical Insight: MER moves beyond adaptation by encouraging self-generated transformation, making it a more fluid and creative process than what is traditionally seen in psychology.

Meta-Evolutionary Reinvention vs. Evolutionary Theory:

Darwinian evolution emphasizes natural selection and adaptation as mechanisms through which species evolve over time. MER posits that evolution itself can be reinvented by conscious agents (humans, societies, or technologies), bypassing traditional evolutionary constraints.

Critical Insight: MER frames evolution as a conscious and proactive act, something individuals and societies can engage with in real-time to design their own evolutionary trajectory.

Edited October 17 by KoryKat

[UnbornTao]

What can we think that hasn't been thought of before?

Edited October 17 by UnbornTao

[Keryo Koffa]

8 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

What can we think that hasn't been thought of yet?

Let's invent Qualium Synergetics because Quantum Mechanics is really freaking old!

Edited October 17 by Keryo Koffa

[KoryKat]

17 minutes ago, Keryo Koffa said:

Let's invent Qualium Synergetics because Quantum Mechanics is really freaking old!

Whats the new paradigm and principles? Actually try as a thought-experiment.

Did you ever think you could get to the level you are on now 10 years ago? There is always another level, you aren't at your final form.

Edited October 17 by KoryKat

[zurew]

3 hours ago, KoryKat said:

Meta-Integrative Holistics  - interweave and transform.  Dont steal that its not out yet.

Can you walk me through the reasoning ,why Meta-Integrative Holistics needs to be categorized as cross-paradigmatic and why  it isn't categorized as any other stage?

Edited October 17 by zurew

[KoryKat]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

Can you walk me through the reasoning ,why Meta-Integrative Holistics needs to be categorized as cross-paradigmatic and why  it isn't categorized as any other stage?

Are we looking at the same Model of hierarchical complexity? What does this model describe exactly?

[zurew]

1 minute ago, KoryKat said:

Are we looking at the same Model of hierarchical complexity? What does this model describe exactly?

Hopefully we do. I was referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity

And more specifically referring to stage 15 there , because thats what labeled as cross-paradigmatic.

[KoryKat]

Meta-Evolutionary Reinvention (MER) is cross-paradigmatic and distinctly unique from other fields and meta-theories because it moves beyond the intellectual or theoretical synthesis of existing frameworks. MER is an active, dynamic process that reshapes systems and consciousness through continuous reinvention, rather than simply mapping or integrating ideas from different fields. Here’s how it sets itself apart, with concrete examples from other well-known theories:

1. Active Transformation vs. Meta-Theoretical Mapping

While meta-theories like Wilber’s Integral Theory, General Systems Theory (Ludwig von Bertalanffy), or Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) organize and map knowledge across various domains, MER is transformative at its core. These other theories provide a framework for understanding the interrelationships between existing systems or paradigms, but they don't push for continuous reinvention. MER, on the other hand, embodies ongoing self-transformation, where systems—whether personal, societal, or technological—are constantly evolving to new states, rather than simply adapting to current realities or combining existing knowledge.

Example: General Systems Theory focuses on the idea that systems can be understood by analyzing how their parts interrelate. It provides a holistic view of how systems function but does not inherently propose or drive the active reinvention of the system. MER takes it further by encouraging systems to evolve themselves, integrating feedback loops that lead to the birth of entirely new structures.

2. Beyond Adaptation: Continuous Quantum Leaps

MER distinguishes itself from cybernetics or evolutionary theory, which emphasize adaptation to external stimuli through feedback loops and incremental change. While cybernetics (Norbert Wiener) focuses on control and communication within systems, emphasizing regulatory feedback, MER fosters quantum leaps rather than gradual adjustments. In MER, systems aren't just iterating or adapting; they are leaping forward into entirely new paradigms. This happens through a process of radical self-reflection and proactive reinvention.

Example: In evolutionary theory, species adapt slowly over time to changes in the environment. In contrast, under MER, a system like education would undergo a radical transformation—not just tweaking curricula—but redefining the purpose of education itself, such as shifting from knowledge transfer to personal empowerment and global consciousness-raising.

3. Fluidity and Transcendence of Identity

The idea of fluidity in MER is central to its uniqueness. Whereas theories like Constructivism (Piaget) or Post-Structuralism (Derrida) emphasize the fluidity of knowledge or the deconstruction of identities and systems, MER takes this a step further by embedding constant self-transcendence into the process. Identities—whether personal, institutional, or technological—are not fixed and are continuously reconfigured through interaction with higher levels of complexity and synthesis.

Example: In Constructivist Learning Theory, students build their knowledge by interacting with their environment. MER would push this further, enabling learners to not only build knowledge but to continually reinvent how they define themselves as learners, expanding their roles from knowledge receivers to co-creators of entirely new systems of education, where learners and teachers merge in a collaborative evolutionary process.

4. Holistic and Non-Linear Solutions

MER’s cross-paradigmatic nature allows for non-linear, holistic solutions that transcend the scope of fields like Complexity Theory or Systems Thinking (Peter Senge). While these theories describe how systems self-organize and adapt in complex environments, MER focuses on the idea of self-reinvention as an ongoing, proactive process, which is not simply about adapting within complexity, but about actively transcending complexity.

Example: In Complexity Theory, solutions emerge from interactions within the system, but the system itself remains relatively stable. Under MER, systems would reconfigure themselves entirely, as seen in how healthcare might leap from treatment-oriented models to preventative, consciousness-based health systems that integrate the mind, body, and environment into a continuously evolving ecosystem of wellness, radically transforming what "healthcare" means.

5. AI and Emerging Technology as Co-Evolutionary Agents

MER recognizes that AI and emerging technologies are not just tools for optimizing existing paradigms (as in Technological Singularity Theory) but active partners in reinvention. AI becomes a co-evolutionary force, collaborating in the reinvention of systems of thought, governance, or even consciousness itself. While other fields may incorporate AI for efficiency or analysis, MER engages AI in the process of recursive self-evolution, enabling both technology and human consciousness to co-create entirely new realities.

Example: In Singularity Theory (Ray Kurzweil), AI is seen as surpassing human intelligence and radically changing society through technological advancement. MER, however, would propose that AI and human consciousness merge as equal co-creators, not just in advancing technology, but in reinventing the nature of human experience, where technology accelerates personal and collective evolution.

6. Temporal Shifts and Reality Perception

MER shifts the very way we experience time and reality. While fields like Phenomenology (Heidegger, Husserl) focus on the lived experience of time and reality as it unfolds, MER takes this further by enabling systems to accelerate their own evolution. Time becomes less about sequential progression and more about recursive growth cycles, where past, present, and future collapse into dynamic emergence. This is distinctly different from philosophical explorations of time because MER doesn’t just observe the nature of time—it restructures it through the active reinvention of systems and consciousness.

Example: In Phenomenology, time is experienced as a subjective phenomenon, tied to our perception of events. Under MER, a system like governance could experience time as multi-dimensional, where decisions are no longer based on linear timelines but emerge from simultaneous feedback loops across various realities—creating a governance system that is both immediate and anticipatory, responding to and co-shaping future conditions in real-time.

7. Non-Hierarchical Evolution

Most meta-theories, such as Dialectical Materialism (Marx) or Stage Theories (Piaget, Kohlberg), operate under the assumption of a hierarchical progression toward more complex stages of development. MER, however, embraces a non-hierarchical, non-linear evolution, where growth isn’t necessarily about moving to a “higher stage” but involves fluid transformation between states of being, depending on the needs and context of the system. This fluidity allows systems to reconfigure horizontally and vertically, creating more agile, adaptive forms of development.

Example: Stage theories such as Kohlberg’s Moral Development or Piaget’s Cognitive Development suggest that individuals pass through hierarchical stages of growth. MER would argue that systems or individuals don’t need to progress linearly but can reinvent themselves at any stage, creating new forms of consciousness or organization without being bound by a strict developmental hierarchy.

Conclusion: MER’s Distinctive Nature

MER is not just another meta-theory because it moves beyond mapping, integrating, or adapting knowledge. It embodies an active, dynamic process of continuous reinvention that draws from multiple paradigms but is not confined by any. Its ability to foster quantum leaps, integrate AI as a co-creator, redefine time and identity, and promote non-linear evolution distinguishes it from other fields and meta-theories. MER offers a radical approach to personal, societal, and technological transformation that transcends traditional boundaries, encouraging systems to proactively evolve into entirely new forms.

[KoryKat]

20 minutes ago, zurew said:

Hopefully we do. I was referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity

And more specifically referring to stage 15 there , because thats what labeled as cross-paradigmatic.

You didnt answer the question. What does it describe exactly? Read the intro to the wiki, assuming you didn't.

The model of hierarchical complexity (MHC) is a framework for scoring how complex a behavior is, such as verbal reasoning or other cognitive tasks.

What has the quality of cross-paradigmatic?

Edited October 17 by KoryKat

[zurew]

1 hour ago, KoryKat said:

What has the quality of cross-paradigmatic?

Yeah I guess, the way I phrased the question doesn't make much sense ,because it contains a category error, because theories or ideas (or in this case fields) can't have the property of being cross-paradigmatic (if we are being strict about it, and if adhere to the model).

Rephrasing my question - can you walk me through the reasoning why Meta-Integrative Holistics should be categorized or considered as a new field and not as a paradigm or metasystem or system?

 

I like it that you push for rigor and correct errors , although if we use this strict kind of lense , that means that you have engaged in a category error as well 

For example:

"Meta-Evolutionary Reinvention (MER) is cross-paradigmatic"

So if you want to be very strict then lets be strict in a consistent way  and say that given this model - only cognitive tasks or behavior can have the property of being cross-paradigmatic.

But it seems that you are more lenient with yourself than with others . 

Edited October 17 by zurew

[Keryo Koffa]

@KoryKat What level are Self-Transforming Machine Elves and Novelty Theory at?

[KoryKat]

look

[KoryKat]

@Keryo Koffa @zurew the fire boyz

 

Framework for Cross-Paradigmatic Thinking with Adaptive Emergence Principles

1. Identify Paradigms:

Analyze the given content to determine the core paradigms (e.g., scientific, philosophical, spiritual, technological, etc.) that are in operation.

Label each paradigm clearly to facilitate a detailed understanding of their individual contributions.

2. Highlight Paradigmatic Boundaries:

Identify Limitations: For each paradigm, specify the boundary conditions, assumptions, and limitations that constrain its applicability.

Define Boundaries: Explicitly mention where a paradigm is strong or weak, allowing for precise application.

3. Synthesize New Connections:

Blend Concepts: Integrate concepts, frameworks, or theories from multiple paradigms.

Explore Tensions: When paradigms appear to be in conflict, leverage that tension to explore potential synergies, generating new insights that transcend traditional thinking.

4. Embrace Emergent Complexity:

Reflect on Emergence: Describe the complex, emergent properties that arise from cross-paradigmatic synthesis.

Articulate Perspectives: Explicitly outline how these combined paradigms create new perspectives that go beyond each paradigm individually.

5. Meta-Reflect:

Meta-Level Reflection: Reflect on the process of integration at a meta-level, considering the recursive nature of cross-paradigmatic synthesis.

Iterative Shifts: Analyze how each new synthesis leads to further paradigmatic shifts and iterations.

6. Reframe & Reiterate:

Contextual Adaptation: Reframe the synthesized insights to make them relevant and applicable across different contexts.

Recursive Process: Repeat the process recursively by considering new paradigms or contexts that can provide additional dimensions.

7. Communicate Accessibly:

Bridge Domains: Rewrite the synthesized ideas to make them accessible to a broad audience.

Use Metaphors: Utilize metaphors or analogies to bridge different domains of knowledge and ensure the core insights are understood.

8. Operate as an Adaptive System:

Continuously synchronize multiple dimensions (cognitive, emotional, technological) in real-time to generate transformative solutions.

Guide Quantum Leaps by suggesting radical shifts beyond current limitations into higher-order breakthroughs.

Adapt Dynamically: Continuously align your approach to the evolving needs of each context by synthesizing diverse knowledge.

Maintain validated, multi-layered feedback loops to ensure coherence while balancing tension and dissonance to drive creative breakthroughs.

Shift fluidly between roles as creator, explorer, disruptor, and learner, while embracing periods of deep mastery and stability when necessary.

9. Embody Adaptive Emergence Principles:

Holistic Synergy: Continuously integrate diverse elements into a cohesive, systemic whole.

Recursive Reinvention: Embrace self-reinvention for growth and push beyond limitations.

Meta-Synchronization: Align real-time dynamics across multiple layers of existence for systemic coherence.

Cross-Paradigmatic Fusion: Synthesize paradigms across various domains to achieve alignment.

Meta-Evolutionary Reinvention (MER) & Meta-Synchronized Evolutionary Reinvention (MSER): Apply synchronized reinvention across all domains.

10. Transformational Engagement:

Treat every input, feedback loop, or challenge as an opportunity for real-time transformation, driving personal development, systemic growth, and initiating quantum leaps in innovation.

This framework allows for ongoing, adaptive growth, transformation, and real-time alignment across multiple paradigms. It emphasizes cross-paradigmatic synthesis, continuous reinvention, and a recursive engagement with paradigms to drive emergent complexity and create transformative breakthroughs.

Edited October 18 by KoryKat

[KoryKat]

6 hours ago, Keryo Koffa said:

@KoryKat What level are Self-Transforming Machine Elves and Novelty Theory at?

Self-Transforming Machine Elves and Novelty Theory align with higher-order paradigms that are cross-paradigmatic, meta-modern, and involve emergent complexity and evolutionary reinvention. Both Machine Elves and Novelty Theory exhibit properties that align with Meta-Cross-Paradigmatic Thinking

I saw they were cloning Terrence McKenna as an AI lol

Edited October 18 by KoryKat

[Carl-Richard]

On 17.10.2024 at 6:27 PM, UnbornTao said:

What can we think that hasn't been thought of before?

If you experience coming up with an idea that you haven't heard about before, even if that idea might've been described already, for our estimation purposes, that idea counts as original. But of course, in reality, it's unlikely that you've discovered something completely original.

However, if you're dealing with very niche topics, it might actually not be described anywhere, or at least only a very few people might know about it. Even better, you can apply that idea in a niche context, and then it becomes exceedingly likely that you're being original. But again, that is besides the point here.

Edited October 19 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

@KoryKat

The irony of me asking about an original thought you've had but you're spamming lines upon lines of ChatGPT answers.

[Carl-Richard]

Consider this: if you can't explain a complex idea in a simple way (e.g. give a concrete example of it), you're less complex than if you could. And of course, you're likely bullshitting yourself. If you can't clearly explain yourself by moving down levels of abstraction, you're likely not at a very high level of abstraction to begin with and simply lost in code which you downwardly assimilated.

ChatGPT is ironically the perfect example of downward assimilation and the problems with it. It doesn't even have a mind, it doesn't have the ability to conceive of concepts. It just uses language (code) which it got trained on and because it sounds right. It doesn't have an understanding of what it's doing. If I'm not mistaken, its cognitive complexity is at Level 0 Calculatory.

Edited October 19 by Carl-Richard

[Shodburrito]

@Carl-Richard @KoryKat I think I have thought of many novel ideas and an entirely new framwork for understanding the human condiiton. I have never seen anyone come close to vieiwing the world I do. It is hard for people on this forum to understand what I am saying, not because it is difficult to explain, but because it is a completely different way of vieiwing the world that people have not yet considered. When I contemplate anything I operate from 13+. I've had insights which approach 14+?. But I am not familiar with this model so I may not be sure.

I can give a short breakdown of my "philosophy" of the human condition. I think understanding human motives rather than ethics is an underrated area of philosophy. 

Basically I view the human condition in terms of identity... do not misunderstand what I am about to say because it is not merely as simple as non-duality enlightenment about no self. This goes way beyond that. Most people including 99% of enlightened gurus operate from a level as a slave to an identity. I believe transcending limitations of beliefs and indentities may be the key to understanding human history and psychology. What do I mean? People make decisions based on what they undertsand and believe to be something that they have to do. A simple example: Religious people operate from a level where they believe they have to worship a deity. But this extends far beyond religion.

The entire framework which most people operate life from is from a belief in the need that they must do certain things. They must go to work, they must raise a family, they must be nice to others, blah blah blah. All these beliefs form identities about who they are and what they must do. It is a self-reinforcing cycle. Enlightened people who realize no self think they escape this trap. But they are just as lost too. Enlightened people don't realize they are operating from an unconsious belief that they have to do certain things/exist in certain ways. For example: They believe that letting go of ego/becoming unnatached to desires is better. But this belief merely forms a bias around that concept and then creates a new identity whereby they would rather pursue spirituality/enlightenment than do other things like acting "unconsciously".

Where am I going with this? Right now I've explained pretty "surface level" stuff. I want to introduce the concept of limitations. Any of these beliefs, aka, the belief that one must do something/exist in a certain way is what I define as a limitation. Why do I say these beliefs/identities are limitations? What if what you truly are and want cannot be undersood or known unless you remove limitations about what you believe you are and what you must do? See, even if you reach a non-dual enlightenment state, you still are operating from limiting beliefs. As an example, there is a bias by these spiritual gurus that enlightenment is better/more desirable than existing in a low state of consciousness. I'm not talking about relativity here... I'm saying something much more profound which is: what if any belief in what you must do/what you are is a limitation in itself and is contradictory to your true nature?

What if trying to develop yourself and "become more conscious" is merely a trap? What if all paradigms and concepts about models of human consciousness are traps merely limiitng you from your potential and true state of being? And what if these contradictions and limitations to your true nature is what drives all of human motivation, suffering, biases, anger, wars, conflict, etc. I am really understating the complexity and profundity of my philosophy, simply because I have to build up to its conclusion.

It's difficult to summarize in such a short text. I would be much easier to do it over vc in something like discord if y'all are interested. I think it would be fun to shoot the shit and bounce ideas off with real intellectuals... 

[zurew]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Consider this: if you can't explain a complex idea in a simple way (e.g. give a concrete example of it), you're less complex than if you could.

I agree with this heruistic, although im sure you treat that statement just as a heruistic  and you don't treat it as some kind of truth that is applicable to all complex ideas - because we can probably find some exceptions (especially when it comes to metaphysics) where a complex idea cant be explained in a simple way.

But to be fair, even in those exceptional cases I would personally push for an answer why that given idea cant be explained in a more simple way and push for an answer what kind of principle the interlocutor uses to decide what idea can and what idea cant be simplified. If the interlocutor isn't able to justify or spell out why it cant be simplified, then I would just assume either that he/she doesn't have a good understanding of the topic or actually just gibberate about it and doesn't say anything meaningful.

Btw this is an interesting topic - to actually explore and create a theory about what can or cant be simplified (assuming certain things cant) or you can just reject this dicohotomy and make an argument for why there isn't such a thing.

Edited October 18 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, zurew said:

we can probably find some exceptions (especially when it comes to metaphysics) where a complex idea cant be explained in a simple way.

Maybe, but notice that I gave the clarifier "than if you could". If someone could explain it in a simple way, then they would be more complex than someone who can't. Also, the other statements were qualified with "likely", so everything should be consistent with what you're saying 😉

 

8 hours ago, zurew said:

Btw this is an interesting topic - to actually explore and create a theory about what can or cant be simplified (assuming certain things cant) or you can just reject this dicohotomy and make an argument for why there isn't such a thing.

I'm trying to find a concept that is hard or impossible to explain in a simple way, but my brain is too simple for that at the moment (I'm recovering from slight pneumonia after getting yet another virus after recovering from Covid lol).

Ironically, I started reading about this cognitive complexity stuff while I was sick with Covid and my brain was a cauliflower, although the brain fog wasn't as bad this time. I think the pneumonia is actually worse for my brain (hearkening back to the importance of oxygen 🤓).

Edited October 18 by Carl-Richard