Grand Unified Theory of Cognition (beginning)

This will be my attempt to unify behavioral economics etc. in an abstract model described with Aeolitalk. Obviously it will be a work in progress and probably never be finished. The intention is reductionistic; I want to formalize the central, common notions of the human experience in terms of three core concepts, analogous to the fundamental forces of physics:

1. Information: the set of statements a person believes about their world.
2. Expectations: the set of models a person uses to predict how their world will change.
3. Values: that which demands a person’s attention.

Some common notions I’m particularly keen to formalize:

Demoralization (esp. what makes Jewish ethnocentric behavior different from Han Chinese ethnocentric behavior)
Delusion (i.e. one’s set of copes)
Signalling theory
Genetic similarity theory

On values: There are ultimately only two things people value, God and themselves. All other values reduce to facets of these two in more or less granularity, piquancy, and categorical shading. This is most easily imagined in two cynical propositions drawn from marketing and product design. One doesn’t value “Coke”, one values youth, beauty, athleticism, a life of leisure, and the company of such carefree, lively people as those exhibiting one’s most ideal life in the advertisement. Insofar as a friend or acquaintance embodies one’s core values of health, wealth, and reproductive fitness, one feels drawn to be around them, imitate them, and earn their favor and reciprocated attention. I claim that one doesn’t even value the subjective experience of fizzy corn syrup, rather one values the brief dopaminergic experience of the world brightening, every sense reaffirming that the world is a benevolent place because you’re a good person and God loves you, just before the crash hits and returns you to a darker world than before, filled to the brim with insulin, despair, politics, existential uncertainty, and litterbugs.

Human action is defined as behavior which a person expects will draw them “nearer” to the purest expression of their values, in the colloquial sense of “feeling close to X”. That which is closer looms “larger” in the psychological viewscape, taking up more of the 2D “space” which mentally represents our available conscious attention at a given moment. Everyone has something like an idealized 2D picture in their heart of which elements ought to be in this attentionscape, and in what proportions, and they will feel anxiety until they have repositioned themselves such that their “view” matches this ideal, imaginary picture. This is their personal version of heaven, where “all is right with the world”. Peace of mind is the expectation that the view will not get worse in the future. Therefore, a man who values some idealized feminine figure (say, for example, the “girl next door” type) may find his thoughts irresistibly drawn to a particular starlet who catches his fancy, because she is an expression of “that which demands his attention”. With a few very small leaps then, we can see that worship is merely the expression of focused interest, interest is nothing more than continual attention, and attention is nothing more than gathering and processing additional information about the subject.

Motivation can be defined as nothing more or less than the immediate precursor to revealed preference. It’s the expectation that an action will create a future view that is closer to the ideal picture. There is a common misunderstanding about dopamine here that must be corrected: dopamine is not released in response to pleasure, it is released by anticipation of a future pleasure, i.e. the biological certainty built by repeated concrete associations between intention, behavior, and reward. We release a bit of dopamine in realizing there is a Coke in the fridge, a bit more when it’s in our hand, and the biggest rush of all as the first sip sets off the sensory cascade and rush which we associate with an elevated feeling of benevolence and wellbeing. When the association between a Coke in the hand and this elevation is interrupted, violating the expectation (perhaps by having the bottle knocked out of our hands by a ne’er-do-well), it produces a massive stress response that can only be compared to narcissistic rage. Repeated frustration of all such expectations of acting to improve one’s situation can lead to learned helplessness, as previously discussed.

As far as I can tell, in the final analysis the only thing over which we can truly exert effortful control is in directing our attention toward potentially better expressions of our deeply held values. This appears to be where the conscious human will interfaces with the brain. Behavior is downstream from expectation, expectation is downstream from information, and information is filtered for relevance by what we value. Of course, effortful control in directing attention to potentially better expressions of our deeply held values requires having previously paid conscious attention to what we deeply value, which is a topic that receives surprisingly little analysis that I’ve seen. The best way to determine what you value but don’t have is to analyze your fantasies (particularly your taste in fiction and art), and the best way to determine what you value and already have is temporary privation of as many things as possible, at which point your needs will make themselves known to you, generally in order of priority. I.e. You always know at some level what you don’t got, but you don’t know what you got til it’s gone, but then maybe you wouldn’t miss it.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Grand Unified Theory of Cognition (beginning)

  1. MM says:

    This has been one of muh pet interests for a while now, as you know.

    I don’t agree with any of this.

    >There are ultimately only two things people value, God and themselves.

    :( :) :( :) :( ;) :( :):( :) :( :) :( ;) :( :):( :) :( :) :( ;) :( :):( :) :( :) :( ;) :( :):( :) :( :) :( ;) :( :):( :) :( :) :( ;) :( :)

    The self may be constructed in relation to other things but that does not mean that these other things can be regarded as “self” except for revelation of value, or in a direct solipsistic way. The only way your statement can be true is to interpret “themselves” as meaning the physical structures of the brain and its emergent nature, and ‘valuing God’ as implying a theoretical higher self. A self of a second world where the laws of physics, causality, and determinism do not apply….

    But its not my job to fix ur shit. Im trying to make new chords right now damn it!

    (Here’s a nice one: C2-E2-G2-C3-G3-D4. A quintal triad a P4 over a major chord)

    (Nah, heres a better one: C2 G2 D3 D#3 A#3. Play the individual notes rising and you’ll hear something familiar)

    So yeah in like 10 years or maybe next week I’ll have the actual good shit and send it to u bb. The cocknition thing, not the chords.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >I don’t agree with any of this.

      Imagine my shock.

      • MM says:

        Let me be more clear:

        This post is greebles tier trash

        • Obadiah says:

          c h o l e r i q u e

          the new scent by MM

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          The greebles post was actually very good and nobody noticed.

          • MM says:

            I’m now very glad I didnt waste all of my time writing a thorough response to this absolute gem just to have it ignored, or a smartass quip being the only “dialogue” offered.

            I got the message loud and clear. That kind of discourse isnt what this blog is about.

            I’ll just make farty noises and tell you how fucking genius you are, or reference one of 5 things: ahriman/lucifer, r/k selection theory, jews, phrenology, bible.

            (Also, I’ll admit that even though GUTOW was very much unfinished, having a shit post like this with a similar name and a similar tier of importance ascribed to it does rub me just a biiiiiit the wrong way. But that’s my last criticism. This post was great. When is apocalyspse now part 4. Damn I loved greebles and it was very very important and not a sign of a profound lack of focus that makes you ever achieving the things you really want and need such a intimate relationships or meatspace political thingies seem like a total pipe dream ha. ha. ha.

            I get angry because I actually give a shit and everyone else seems to have given up and are just seeking pitiful validation. Hopefully thats not whats happening with you. I’ll go back to chords now)

  2. Man of Men says:

    >There are ultimately only two things people value, God and themselves.

    It seems to me that most value springs from the ‘nightmare of fabrication’. The self is formed in relation to other people thus value is inherently linked to other people, or to be more accurate, personifications of all types.

    Even ideas, feelings, or urges can still achieve personification through a myriad of processes usually relating to self evaluation of self. (I’m sure a genius would have much to say on this in regards to pet ideas)

    An idea can attach itself to the ego, become an animus, or it can reshape the value of all people and relationships (thus living as part of ‘everything’) though this is rare and limited in scope (will your heart not to beat).

    Even if you enter total solitude, your self was already constructed around other people and is merely carried forward. If in such a state long enough, you will still find value from the people in your head. You will personify the environment and lose “yourself”. Interesting ey?

    Im not sure to what degree the self exists at all without other people.

    The self itself, after all, is another type of collective. Be still and listen to the myriad of other lines of thought that sit under the primary line. Now toke up a fat cigar and do the same after finishing. Note the sensory gating effect; only the louder sub-voices are experianced. That does not mean they are not there!

    Fuck, I forgot the idea I was building to…

    Misc thots:

    – I said “most” because there are plenty that at least start as simple switches. Hit that crack rock and suddenly you want more. Still, build any circuit in the brain up enough and it seems to spill over and start hijacking personality.

    Its the actual power of sex magic and doing degenerate shit, and how it can effectively rewire people to become monsters unlike much else (sex is about the most dopaminergic thing imaginable- at least in the classic nucleas accumbens “dopamine as reward” function. Of course it has many others) People have talked about how porn has chnaged thier personality, or perhaps has hijacked some higher functions and has made a sub personality for itself.

    Thats the downside of dopaminergic reward if you are rewarding the wrong thing . It learns and wires, fast.
    So make sure you aint “feeding” the wrong demons. Who knows what years of that will do to actually change ‘you’

    2. If you build a representation of a worldview in your head it seems to be one of the more pernicious and most personalized of the “dopamine” (misnomer) demons. Its like you have an actual feminist/chosenite/etc in your head and it really does seem to have a full fledgrd personality if you run ideas past it! (All of these critters try to get out of the pen too which is pretty funny in a really meta meta way. Torture the representation of what you hate that you have fully personified in your head!

    Humans is weird

    • what says:

      The self is emergent from sub-personalities, it is not fabricated from other people’s perceptions of you as other people aren’t in your head. Whatever you construct from the concepts that you’ve acquired from external forces or things are ones ultimately filtered out through your own cognition, as you can’t acquire more information than the filter of your mind can accept. What you know is always a mere representation, an incomplete story, an incomplete map, and incomplete image. In the same way you can not negate your own existence the self itself can’t be negated. You can not negate physical laws, you can not negate emergence, you can not reject something simply because you can not diliniate the boundaries of what the system of self is and is not. The self is the superego, it is the ego, it is the id. It is a universal, it is what you get when you negate every particular within it, it itself can’t be negated. The self is experience.

      Sup-personalities can respond to input you direct at it as if it is alive. It’s based on the self, on your experience. That’s what a tulpa is. It isn’t useful unless you really like using counterfactuals and don’t want to experience metacognition related to what sub-personalities give as an output.

      • what says:

        Take it further. The self is constructed from experience. From the first air of breath you’ve taken you’ve been bathed in sensory information, as an infant you have experienced your own cognition, you have intuited the language of those around you and constructed a system of thought based on what you have taken in. The foundation of your life, if negated, would annihilate your perception of a self. It is because THAT self was always a mere construction. It is illusionary. The basis of that construction, to the contrary, can’t be negated. Experience can’t be denied. Pain will always be with you, so will joy, so would anger, so would sorrow, anguish, pleasure, fear, whatever emotion you have felt is there. Forever! Until you die, until your flesh is rotted, and then you will find what you truly were to begin with. Nothing! But that is an absurdity. You’ve experienced, but what you experienced are not things in themselves. To that basis lies things that aren’t experienced, they are not of the self. I don’t think it’s rational to claim experience dies with the flesh, in the same way that the self is emergent there’s probably a God who, just as you experience yourself, exists. There is an undying universal, just as you are.

        You are not an aspect of that universal. The correct response is terror. It’s dogmatic to attempt to claim that universal is an idiot, blind, and autistic God who only exists as mere physical laws. Unknowable if true, therefore any claim of knowledge dogma.

  3. Obadiah says:

    >On values: There are ultimately only two things people value, God and themselves.

    So everything?

  4. forgot my handle says:

    You forgot actions. The human experience is also what the human does: e.g. Catholicism vs. Protestantism. The cognition is not separable from the response; it’s like talking about PID control loops without an effected device.

    Once you add action we’re back to the OODA loop.

    BTW models == narrative. Even LRFD is a narrative about the riddle of steel.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s