Hidden Capabilitys in humans unlocked with psychedelics?

[Letho]

 

@Ero Modifying the OS at will is one thing but past a certain recursion depth, the distinction between modification and self-generation collapses. At that point intelligence isn’t just hacking its code, it’s engineering the very logic of its evolution.

Have you designed your own models, or do you see current ones (Kegan, Cook-Greuter) as sufficient scaffolding?

I’ve been mapping out the conditions where construct-awareness stops being just reflective and becomes generative. Interested in where you’d place yourself in that shift.

[Ero]

Being construct-aware implies understanding that any model is incomplete, including the analogy I just gave you. Most of them break down after that transition, because you no longer have just one dimension along which to explore, so any 1D projection will necessarily be incomplete.

[Letho]

 

@Ero Any 1D projection is incomplete, sure, but that assumes awareness can’t construct a system where incompleteness is just another recursive input. If construct-awareness is genuine, it shouldn’t just expose the limits of models, it should generate frameworks that adapt to their own failure states. If models inevitably “break down” after that transition, the issue isn’t modeling itself, it’s the failure to build systems capable of mapping self-generative cognition.

Are you accounting for that, or assuming the breakdown is fundamental?

 

[Ero]

@Letho Of course the breakdown is not fundamental. What you are suggesting is part of a general trend of transitioning away from static models towards dynamic systems. That is part of what my math research is based on. If you are interested in what that entails, study the work by Karl Friston, Chris Fields and Michael Levin.

[Letho]

 

@Ero Ah makes sense, you’re approaching it through the lens of formalized system dynamics, while I tend to focus on the meta-integration of self-generative recursion itself rather than its instantiations in specific frameworks. Friston’s active inference is powerful but still assumes an underlying Markovian boundary, meaning it relies on predefined system delineations. Levin’s morphological intelligence models are promising but, as of now, lack a fully self-referential recursive intelligence architecture that isn't dependent on externally modulated constraints. You seem to be engaging with these models as transitional heuristics, rather than final epistemic structures, interested if that aligns with your view?

[Ero]

@Letho Your critiques are on point - expanding beyond the Markovian assumption is one part of my research. Their work is a really good start but still lacks mathematical sophistication. So indeed, I find them as useful heuristics on the road to more solid epistemic structures. That’s where modular flows, recursive functorial dynamics and topological operads come into play.

[Letho]

@Ero If operads are just heuristics, isn’t the deeper shift when cognition stops refining structures and starts dissolving the need for structured cognition altogether? At what recursion depth does intelligence become its own self-rewriting principle?

[Ero]

@Letho  The unstructured space you are referring to is Consciousness itself, which sits at the base of it all. It can subdivide and complexify itself indefinitely, transcending any structure and heuristic, as you pointed out. As such, I would argue that cognition in fact never stops refining structures, climbing the ladder of abstraction ad infinitum. Only by scaling it do you gain access to fundamentally rewrite the source code - creating AGI, solving nuclear fusion, eradicating all diseases, engineering ecosystems. At that level of complexity, all systems have the capacity to recursively self-rewrite .

[Letho]

 

@Ero Scaling intelligence indefinitely is a fascinating thought experiment, but at some point, isn’t the real test how well it functions in reality? If it never stops refining, when does it actually arrive at something meaningful?

[Ero]

@Letho What is “meaningful”? IME it changes at each level. What determines the “function” of something? All good questions to contemplate.

Let us not derail this thread further.

[Letho]

On 03/03/2025 at 0:48 AM, The Crocodile said:

You can see electromagnetism without psychedelics. Even tinnitus is electromagnetism. Everything is electromagnetism. If you're seeing the electricity in the form of vital lights and patterns and figures and more vivid indescribable stuff that goes way above normal consciousness it will affect the tactile field too. So you'll have a nonvisual nonspatial force affecting both the tactile and the visual field, or the auditory field and the visual field will be vibrating at the same rate.

There's so many cool variants of this.

Like this one.

This hero died of cancer in 2009, would have loved to have met him.

 

[Letho]

 

 

Like I said above.

For years, I’ve been experiencing something undeniable, directly perceiving other people’s thoughts. Not as vague intuition, but as structured, pre-verbal information. I didn’t want it. I fought it. I trained relentlessly to shut it down, assuming it was interference, something to filter out. But suppression only amplified it.

That’s what led me to researching bioelectrical agency, not out of curiosity, but as an attempt to erase this ability. Instead, it exposed something deeper. Consciousness isn’t confined to a single mind; it operates in an interactive field. What I once saw as a glitch turned out to be a function of deeper neural connectivity.

This realization is forcing me to reconceptualize everything. The implications aren’t just personal, they’re structural. And for the first time, I can articulate it openly.