Cause of Interaction

Regarding comprehension of anything; what causes the interaction between factors?

In my last post; Interactions of Consciousness, I attempted to distinguish the required brain functions for comprehending the interaction of a factor, which is the basis of being conscious of something (by my understanding). Basically, it seems to require memory of the action of a factor changing. But when it comes to the minimum requirements for the explanation of consciousness, what other factors are included, involving change to a factor?

It seems that, to be conscious of a factors’ interaction, you must be aware of the cause of the change of the factor, besides only the factor changing. Someone could access a memory of an action of a time period of an object changing, but this is still not comprehension or being conscious, if they don’t access memory of the cause of the change. For eg, someone could access memories of a 100 pixel blob changing to a 50 pixel blob, through action of 1 pixel at a time, disappearing. But this is not comprehension of the cause or effect of the blob changing. When it comes to comprehension, or being conscious of something, the key is knowing cause and effect, or how the interaction of a factor with another, causes a new result. Considering this, it seems likely that memory access is required, of 2 factors, and the time period of the change caused by their interaction. If someone accesses memories of 1 factor changing, and a 2nd factor which is the cause of change, then they should comprehend those 2 factors interaction.

Having a minimum of 2 factors seems relevant, as comprehension or being conscious, is in a way, understanding how multiple things interact with each other, and the cause of how something affects another. With this minimum comprehension of connection of 2 differing factors, the potential is unlocked to understand how any factors in this world, cause others.
So there must be at least 2 factors which are interacting. But that interaction between factors, is 1 factor affecting and changing another factor, through action. That action, is a 3rd factor.

1 of the factors seems to need to be, action. I determined in my last post that change is required for interaction, but the cause of that change, would be the factor of an action. Taking my eg from my previous post; someone is conscious of a duck (factor 1), and a pond (factor 2), being combined. The action of factors 1 and 2 being combined, would be the factor of action (factor 3). Without this factor of action, there is no comprehension of the interaction of factors 1 and 2. The factor of action, of the duck moving to the pond (or any other action causing the duck to be in the pond) is the 3rd required factor, for comprehension of the cause and effect of combining factors 1 and 2.

Another example of being conscious of the interaction of 2 factors, using the minimum of 3 factors, could be; a rock being eroded by water. The rock would be factor 1, water would be factor 2, and the action of change by erosion, would be factor 3. In order to comprehend the interaction, someone must access memory of the action of the rock particles moving away from the rock, as this is the effect caused by the water. Memory of this action, still requires memory of some minimum timeline (rather than static factors). The factor of the movement of the rock particles, is conceptually the same as the movement of the duck, in the previous eg. These examples, involve 3 factors, but there is virtually no limit to # of “factors”.

As a different eg; if you are conscious of the existence of something, you must access memories of that thing (factor 1), and the relative environment in which it exists (factor 2), and the action of existing (factor 3). The action of existing, takes a minimum time period of time passing, which is action of particles moving, otherwise, there is not time passing, and no existence. Without a time period for particles to move, no time exists, and the thing no longer exists.

The minimum requirement to be conscious of anything, seems to be; memory access of 3 factors. This includes Factor 1, causing change to Factor 2, by means of action (through time) Factor 3.

Interactions of Consciousness

What functions of the brain are required to comprehend the interaction of a factor, involved in being conscious of something?

I summarized my understanding of the function of consciousness, or being conscious of any given factor, in my post; Conscious Comprehension (and have around 15 more posts with more detail on the topic). Basically, to be conscious of something, I hypothesized that it takes simultaneous memory access of that factor and its interaction.

In my previous post; Artificially Intelligent Language, I touched on a new understanding of the requirements for this conscious memory access, specifically regarding the interaction of a factor. When it comes to using labels in language to comprehend new factors, using general intelligence, it seems to require a saved memory of an action, besides just memories of labelled objects.

Memory access of the interaction of a factor seems to be the minimum requirement to be conscious of that factor, or to comprehend that factor within any context. But in order to save a memory of any factors interaction, the action of that factor changing is required. If a factor does not change, then there is no interaction, and no comprehension. There is only individual factors, and no conscious awareness of the factors or how they interact. In order for a factor to change by action, some minimum time period must take place. As without time, nothing changes. If this is a requirement for conscious comprehension, then the ability to remember a time period, involved in a factor changing, is required.

Even when being conscious of 2 objects being combined to result in a new final result, it requires memory access of the action of combining the 2. Without memory of the action of combining, you are only accessing memories of 3 factors, which is not comprehension or being conscious. For eg, when being conscious of a duck on a pond, you could access a memory of the image of the duck (factor 1), then the image of the pond (factor 2), then the image of the pond and duck together in 1 image (factor 3), but you are only remembering 3 images, with no comprehension of the interaction of the 1st 2 factors. It requires comprehending that the 1st factor combined with the 2nd, = the 3rd. Memory of the action of combining the 2, is required.

If memory is recordings of sensory input, saved in neurons and synapses, then the brain function of; saving a long enough time period (for a factor to change) of sensory input, as a memory, must be required. Considering using the sense of sight, rather than saving a single recording of lightwave measurements (1 image) as a memory, the brain must be capable of recording a time period, of measurements of the lightwaves changing (a “video”). If a video is only multiple images changing, it seems likely that memory of an action, is only neurologically saved recordings of multiple individual lightwave measurements. While accessing the memory of an action, it seems likely that the brain is accessing these multiple lightwave recordings, in sequence. So it seems, the ability to sequentially access multiple recordings, in memory, is required to access the memory of the interaction of any factor.

If it requires a time period of sequentially accessing multiple neurologically recorded memories, then it seems that being conscious of any given factor and its interaction, can not be done in 1 instance of memory access. For eg, a calculator is not conscious of 1+2=3, even if it was able to simultaneously access the memory data of the digit 1, the digit 2, the digit 3, and the data of the result of 1+2=3. The calculator would require continued memory access of the action of combining 1 with 2, then the result of 3.

It seems that perhaps “simultaneous” is not quite the most accurate term, to be applied to memory access of 2 factors and their interaction. It’s more like continued or sequential memory access of a factor, then it changing, then the result. If someone accesses sequential memories of an object changing to a new result, then it seems likely that, that is comprehension of that factor and its interaction. It is being “conscious” of how that factor changes to an alternate resolution. With this minimum requirement of brain function, it seems plausible to understand the interaction of any factor in its context, and therein, potentially be conscious of the cause and effect of how any factors (or any things) in this world, interact.

Artificially Intelligent Language

How can a labeling system be applied for programming an Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) agent?

Since language seems so significant and beneficial for human intelligence (as I described in my previous post; Intelligence Evolution by Language), it would likely be an effective application in the concept of programming an AGI. Throughout any person's life, learning to be generally intelligent of their surroundings, and their own existence would likely be very difficult without language. A labelling system allows shortcut references for communication to quickly transfer information from 1 individual to another, but also aids in individual thought and understanding. As an individual consciously considers any situation they’re in, they have those shortcut references to use in their thought processes, to distinctly and quickly think about various factors within the situation, by referring to their saved memory link, of the label applied to those factors. Without the labels, consciously analyzing any situation would be very difficult, as the individual would have to think of many memories of each factor involved, and think of many instances of those factors and the interaction of that factor.

To apply this concept of a labelling system into the programming of AGI, it would have to be made with the ability to save shortcut references in its memory. This could be done with common human language, which might also be effective for humans teaching it, by communicating through normal language, but could potentially also be done with the AGI’s own unique language.

Using English for eg, the AGI would somehow have to be programmed to relate sight (and other senses) of objects and actions, with the verbal sound and sight of the spelling, of each label applied to that object. This could likely potentially be done through the process of machine learning, which is used today, by feeding it enough examples of a factor, and giving it a label to go with the virtual boundaries which are included for the definition of that label. For it to be intelligent to a significant degree of generality, it should be able to learn new labels, through saved memory of its new experiences, as it encounters new situations and new factors. If it could continue to learn new labels, as it encounters new factors, it could gain more and more shortcut references in memory, saved as a link with those factors to which the label applies.

If it additionally, has the ability to access memory of 1 labelled factor, and that factors interaction with another labelled factor, it could then use the ability of conscious comprehension. It seems that accessing memory of an interaction between 2 factors, requires the memory of action of the factors. Memory of action seems to require a saved memory of a time period, where 1 factor had enough time to change. Without the minimum time period for a factor to change, there is no interaction of any factor with another. For eg, to comprehend the interaction of 1+1=2, physically, 1 new object has to be added, which requires a time period for the additional “1” object to be moved or created. To comprehend how a piece of paper interacts with fire, it requires memory of the minimum time period for fire to burn the paper.

But if this ability is used, to access memory of a time period where 1 labelled factor interacts with another, this unlocks a whole new exponential potential for comprehension, by means of saving new labels, applied to those interactions. With this ability, an AGI could access memory of a labelled factor, then access memory of another labelled factor, and memory of how those 2 factors interact. This allows the ability of conscious comprehension of how any 2 factors relate, through cause and effect, and potentially the comprehension of how anything and everything in this world interacts and functions.

For eg, if a newly learning AGI came across a bunch of dogs, and saved the label of “dog” for the boundaries of that which is included in the definition of “dog”, then did the same for “cats”, then saved the label of “chasing”, as it applies to our definition, it could comprehend that dogs chase cats. The memory of the time period required for “chasing”, would be the interaction. After simultaneously accessing memories of these 2 factors (cats & dogs) + their interaction (chasing), the AGI could save a new memory of that interaction. This new memory, could be used as a reference in the future, for new situations which involve any of those 3 factors (including the interaction). This would help it more quickly comprehend new factors interactions (for eg, wolves chasing deer).

As significant as a labelling language seems to be, for the development and active use of human general intelligence, it could be almost as significant in creating AGI. Besides the advantage of transferring information quickly, via communication of labels, labels also seem to benefit the allowance of comprehension involved in general intelligence and learning about functions of this world.

Intelligence Evolution by Language

How has language influenced the evolution of intelligence in humans?

As I described in my last post; “Labelling Language”, language seems to have a big influence on effectivity of an individual making an accurate estimate of their situation, when combined with conscious thought. Language, being basically a labelling system, enables shortcuts in memory, allowing a faster and more distinct connection to memories, when an individual is consciously analysing the relation of relative factors, in any given scenario. A labelling system can also allow the same concept of; shortcut reference to factors, for communication between multiple individuals.

This added ability of communication, can benefit species which use either conscious or subconscious brain function. But, what are the implications of this ability, regarding the progression and development of specifically; conscious brain function?

Considering natural selection, the 1st individual would likely be born with a minimal adjustment of mind function, of the ability to access additional memories, before reacting, in any given situation (based on my understanding of these concepts). This minimal adjustment would benefit them (relative to their environment) in reacting to situations, so that they would be more likely to survive, and pass on those genes. Their offspring would then also be born with the beneficial ability, and be more likely to survive, by using additional memory access to factors involved in any scenario, and therein having a more accurate reaction.

With this adjustment of brain function, abilitized for multiple specimens within a group, they would have the ability to access more accurate memories of labels of language, and apply this benefit of communication, by slowly increasing the # of labels within their own language. For eg, the 1st few chimps with this minimal adjustment to brain function, may become capable to distinguish an additional specificity of sound of call, between each other, which refers to the warning of a leopard, rather than an eagle (which sometimes hunt baby chimps), instead of 1 basic sound labelled for either predator. This additional brain function could allow the additional label of language, benefitting the group, so that they can react more accurately to the scenario of specifically, either a leopard or eagle. The group with this evolutionary adaptation, could slowly increase labels of language, to benefit the group with more accurate reactions.

Additionally, eventually, individuals within the group, would have the benefit of the shortcut link in memories, created by labels of language, to access memories more quickly and distinctly, in scenarios, which do not involve communication from 1 specimen to another. When an individual is reacting to any given situation on their own, they could have the ability to access memories of additional factors (relevant to the situation), quicker, through the link saved in memory of the sound (or sight of body language), which is the label applied to that factor. This additional ability to have a more accurate reaction, to situations on their own, would benefit them to be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on the most beneficial brain function genes involved.

These beneficial brain function abilities, would slowly increase and spread through the group, as natural selection causes. More and more labels could be applied to more and more factors in their environment, which would allow the group to more effectively survive, and additionally allow more accurate reactions for individuals, through more and more accurate memory links, associated with these labels. This process of improvement in reaction method, could continue to slowly increase until the development of modern day humans brain function.

The ability of labelling language, seems to have potentially had a profound impact on the development of human intelligence. With additional labels for communication between specimens, comes the benefit of more accurate reactions to scenarios, for the group of specimens. With these additional labels, also comes the benefit of more accurate reactions to scenarios for any individual, through more effective memory association with said labels. For the development of reaction method of intelligence and conscious thought, a labelling system seems quite significant.

Labelling Language

How significant and important is the ability to use language, for intelligence?

Language can be understood as basically a system of labelling. It doesn’t necessarily have to be verbally spoken, as sign language or computer coding language would still count as a labelling system. It also shouldn’t have to be well known by any minimum quantity of individuals, as 1 person could technically invent their own labelling system and create a language. The main function of a language seems to be labelling objects, concepts, and categories. This acts as a shortcut for referring to objects or motion of objects (actions), or categories of groupings of either. Using this shortcut reference system can benefit an individual, by referring to memories more quickly and easily, or benefit groups of beings that share the same language, saved in memory.

By this definition of language, even animals use some language. Animals communicate using body language, sounds, or smells (as the common methods), to transfer information to other animals. This can be as simple as a certain sound of chattering from a squirrel, which they have used to label an object, being a predator. They transfer the information to other squirrels, using their labelling system, to warn others to react, by running from the predator. But, animals don’t seem to use language as an individual, as a shortcut labelling system for referencing memories. They don’t seem to be capable of complex memory access, which makes use of the labeling (that word of which, seems to be used as a label, using either a double or single “L”...) system as an individual, in order to take time to think about how different objects or actions are relative to one another.

For an individual to access memories of how objects or actions relate to one another (cause and effect), it seems to require conscious thought. With the use of conscious thought, a labelling system seems to become profoundly more significant. A labelling system enables an individual to more effectively use memory, of how objects affect each other. With labels, a new shortcut link is saved in memory, making access to groupings of objects or groupings of actions, faster, within memory. These groupings can be saved in memory, with a label of a category.

For eg, the label of “plants” can be saved as the category for any organism which has those similar traits. Then, when accessing memories of general plants, the subconscious has a saved shortcut to that word, associated with the concept, that it applies to all organisms with those traits. Without this saved label, if someone was to attempt to access memory of how plants relate to another factor (perhaps the environment), the individual would need to take more time to access memories of all different types of plants, and then access specific memories of different traits of different plants, and how plants interact differently in different circumstances. A labelling system also allows the shortcut, to memories of the types of interactions that the plants have in various situations. It allows the label of “growing”, as a trait of a plant, referring to the action of something becoming larger and changing its physical appearance, as well as the saved memory shortcut, of how something becoming larger in size, causes different reactions.

With the shortcuts of labels, saved in subconscious memory, an individual seems to be able to access memories of multiple factors and the information of how factors cause or effect other factors to react a certain way. These shortcuts seem to allow memory access to a higher quantity of information about objects and actions, to be more distinct and much quicker. Language seems to allow significant progress for a species with the capability of conscious thought, enabling more effective relation of cause and effect, within memory. This should be beneficial to each individual, as they can make a quicker and more accurate estimate of outcome (and therein beneficial adjustments to the factors involved), in any given situation.

Conscious Artificial Intelligence

How could AI be programmed to replicate, or improve upon, the subconscious and conscious reaction methods of a human brain?

In my last post, (AI)motion, I mentioned how emotions could be programmed into an Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), in order to give it reinforcement triggers, to be associated with memories of experiences and information that it gains. The reinforcement triggers would be preset for more generalized circumstances, involving situations which it should avoid or pursue, using negative or positive (respectfully) reinforcement. But this function in general, could cause subconscious, not necessarily conscious memory function.

In my 2nd to last post; Conscious Software Updated, I analysed and hypothesised the most effective use of reaction methods for a human mind, in modern day life, to be conscious thought. With the high quantity of variables and complicated circumstances in human society, using conscious decision making as the default reaction method for new circumstances, seems to be potentially the most effective method. Subconscious can still be applied to speed up future situations, with the same relevant factors, after conscious analysis has initially determined the most accurate reaction. How could this method of function, be intentionally caused and applied to an AGI?

Taking these concepts of hypothetical effective processing methods into consideration, they should be potentially applicable for programming an AGI. In a post from over a year ago; Key Concept to Create General AI, I hypothesised methods and functions of programming general AI. An AI with general intelligence, would need methods of accessing memory of information which is relative to new circumstances. Using human conscious analysis, as a sample, the AGI could evaluate any situation it’s in, and compare the situation with circumstances involving similar factors, which it has saved in its memory. I can now attempt to apply comprehension and understanding of concepts that I’ve philosiphised, since then.

Granted, the technicalities of programming it in this way, or the AGI having sufficient memory storage, might be complicated and out of technologies capabilities at this point, but this is philosophical understanding, and the general concepts involved in method of function, should hypothetically be applicable (as so often, concepts are replicable).

If an AGI was programmed for basic (in comparison to conscious) subconscious reinforcement triggers, associated with memories, the difference, in order to bump up the reaction method to conscious function, could hypothetically be quantity of memories, which it accesses at the time of reaction method. Subconscious function would basically be accessing the single memory which resembles current circumstances, and which has the most prevalent reinforcement associated with it, or memory path which has been used most frequently.

For eg, an AGI comes across a basketball, and its single memory, which resembles the current circumstances, and memory which has the most urgent reinforcement-trigger associated with it, is of a basketball striking the AGI, and causing damage. That basic memory access function, would likely cause the AGI to avoid a basketball, in its new, current scenario.

If the AGI was programmed to access more memories, involving relative factors within the circumstances, it could potentially use conscious thought. If it was programmed to take individual factors within its current situation, and access further memories of details of cause and effect, relative to those factors, it could come up with a more accurately beneficial (in context) reaction to the circumstances.

For eg, it could take the factor of a basketball, and access memories of concepts, that the basketball is a similar object to other sports balls, that it has learned about. It could then access memories of cause and effect of how sports balls function, and could consciously determine that the basketball in itself, is not an object which necessarily needs to be avoided (despite its memory with prevalent reinforcement of avoidance). Additionally, it could access memories of concepts of cause and effect, of the laws of physics, involving an object moving quickly, which transfers its energy to the object which it strikes.

After accessing these memories, it could determine that the cause of the past situation which caused negative reinforcement for avoidance, was the factor of the concept of a fast moving object striking it, rather than the factor of the basketball itself. Accessing these additional memories through conscious thought, could allow the AGI to make a more beneficial reaction to its current situation, by outranking its initial basic memory access (which would have urged the AGI to avoid the circumstances).

Using positive and negative reinforcement triggers, associated with memories of beneficial or harmful results, could be a potential for programming an AGI. But to cause the AGI to have more beneficial reactions to new situations, it may be possible to program it for conscious memory access, by allowing it to access more memories, of more detailed connections of cause and effect (involving relative factors). The key concept, of which to apply to an AI, for making it more significantly intelligent, could very well be, human conscious thought. Applying this concept could allow a Conscious Artificial Intelligence (CAI).

(AI)motion

Would an Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) need to be programmed with emotions?

How would “emotions” be programmed, or function effectively in an AGI?

In my recent post; The Notion of Emotion, I analysed the function of emotions, to basically be, feedback triggers for the brain. Perhaps this concept of function of emotions in the brain, can be replicated, and adjusted for AGI. In order for the AGI to make a decision regarding the best outcome to any given scenario, it would likely need such feedback triggers, to initially guide it in an effective direction for interpreting its environment, as well as, give it positive or negative reinforcement, for which circumstances are most beneficial. Using this reinforcement, linked with memory, could allow it to then make necessary adjustments (decisions) to future, resembling circumstances.

I determined emotional feedback to have a range of general circumstances, which trigger the feedback, instinctually. Beyond the function of genetic pre-set factors to trigger emotions, there is the additional function of causing the effect of reinforcement for more specific details within circumstances, after the individual has experienced a situation. The factors within experienced situations, are reinforced in memories, by emotions, to be avoided or pursued. This function of repeated reinforcement allows the individual to distinguish factors within circumstances, more accurately than the genetic rough boundaries of factors, that they attain from birth.

Applying this concept of function to AGI, would mean programming it with positive or negative feedback, for different ranges of general circumstances. To replicate pain, it could be pre-programmed with negative feedback for a rough range of circumstances which cause it harm. This would cause it to avoid damaging itself, or being damaged. To replicate fear, it could be programmed to receive negative feedback for circumstances involving factors which are likely to harm it. Perhaps to cause it to “instinctively” avoid jumping in a pool, or in a fire, or off a cliff, or moving in front of a large, heavy, fast moving object. Happiness could be replicated by programming positive feedback, for general circumstances involving factors which are beneficial for it to stay well maintained and functioning properly.

Human emotions are mainly intended for survival and reproduction, but when creating an AGI, its likely that there would be other intentions for its existence and function. As a change from the typical function of human emotions, the AGI might be programmed with alternate positive or negative feedback, for sets of generalised circumstances. Perhaps it could be programmed to avoid situations involving harming humans, or to pursue acquiring information, or pursue accomplishment.

Beyond programming the AGI to avoid or pursue those ranges of circumstances in general, it could also be programmed for reinforcement, of its experiences. To replicate human emotion, as reinforcement for subconscious or conscious memory, the AGI should be programmed to save all its experiences in memory, and associate reinforcement triggers with those memories of experiences. It could associate the positive feedback from circumstances where the feedback was triggered. Then when it comes across circumstances involving more specific factors, which were present in its past experience, where it received positive feedback, it will be reinforced to pursue more accurate factors, which are associated with the positive circumstances. After recurrence of experiences, it should be able to determine more accurately, the specific factors which cause the positive results. That is basically the function of emotion reinforcing subconscious memories.

When it comes to emotions, it doesn’t seem entirely unrealistic to program them into AI. emotions could potentially be programmed, involving similar circumstances as humans, but it seems likely that many adjustments would be made. Perhaps these adjustments of the programming, would be different enough from emotions, to entitle a different term for the feedback triggers. If the triggers are a replica of emotion, for (A)rtificial (I)ntelligence, and cause -motion, in action and reaction, perhaps “Aimotion”.

Conscious Software Updated

How would a mind function with the default of conscious analysis and comprehension?

As I determined in my previous post; The Fault of Default Hardware, using subconscious reaction as the constant default reaction method, within modern society, seems insufficient for the complexity of common circumstances, often resulting in unintended negative effects. Conscious thought seems to often be more adequate in distinguishing necessary differences within varying circumstances, in order to achieve a more accurate estimate of outcome of factors within any given scenario. With a more accurate estimate of outcome, more beneficial adjustments can be made to the circumstances, relative to the context.

So if humans received a “software update”, to use conscious processing as the default reaction method to any situations, how would this change an individual's life, and how would it change the world as a whole?

To begin with, this would likely be a very slow way to go through life. Assuming conscious analysis is at the same speed that it is currently, it would likely take a long time to consider and analyse every situation that an individual comes across.

But, the default method doesn’t have to be the only method of processing. Just the initial method for new scenarios. Technically, every scenario is a new scenario, as there are always at least some particle differentials (except perhaps very specific and defined contexts?). So for the sake of argument, I’ll say scenarios; which have variances in factors, to a degree that alter the end result, relevant to the context. For eg, Bob is trying to catch a ball which is flying through the air towards him. If the variance in factor, from past experiences of this scenario, is simply that the ball is blue, instead of green, then this variance is not relevant to the context of predicting the direction that the ball will fly, to catch it. Therefore, the scenario does not necessarily require conscious analysis. But if the ball was 5x the size, this would be a relevant variance in factors, as the ball will have more air resistance, and likely a different weight, causing it to fly in a different direction. Using a default of some conscious thought in this scenario, should allow Bob to more accurately predict the direction that the ball will fly.

Conscious thought may be slower, but using subsets of saved information in memory (concepts), conscious thought can still be relatively quick. If Bob has the concept saved in his memory, that a larger object will be an approximate amount more air resistant, then the only conscious analysis required, is to quickly access that subset of information, and relate it to his current scenario.

If conscious thought is not used for circumstances which are relevantly similar to past situations, then perhaps subconscious thought can be used, after the initial conscious distinguishment is saved in memory, to speed up a lot of reaction times, throughout life.

But when circumstances with relatively differing factors occur, conscious analysis and processing should allow the more accurate prediction and adjustment. Alternatively, as it seems is common now, subconscious reaction is often used as the default, which does not take into consideration those new differing factors. With an update of default reaction method, any individual should be able to analyse a new situation, and use conscious comprehension to apply any relevant information gained from past experiences, to the new circumstances, and much more accurately predict the outcome. Each person would be able to apply logical reasoning to every situation they come across, then save that rational decision as a subconscious subset, to quickly have that same rational reaction in the future.

This update of initial default reaction, should overpower and overwrite any irrational instinctual reactions which are typical in current day society. Subconscious reaction often does not have the applicable ability to distinguish subtle differences in factors, in order to make this effective overwritation. Rather than allowing recurring reactions of instinctual temptations, such as overspending, overeating, overusing drugs, and disregarding negative effects relayed to others/ environments, etc, the conscious mind should be able to determine more overall beneficial reactions, and save those as the recurring reaction for future similar situations.

If every person was to use this hypothetically more effective reaction method, as their default, it would alter all worldwide contributions. It could potentially profoundly decrease all negative contributions (such as pollution, climate change, war), as well as profoundly increase all positive contributions (such as effective use of resources and money for more efficient processes, problem solving, and development), since each contributing individual should determine the more beneficial contribution.

Overall, updating the brains software to use the method of conscious analysis as the default reaction method, could still allow quick subconscious processing, but use the quick reaction which was determined by reasoning, rather than instinct (or simplified differential distinguishment), but cause much more beneficial outcomes for the individual, as well as the entire environment. Rational adjustments in contribution could likely, basically solve all world problems...

The Fault of Default Hardware

What are the results, in modern day society, of having occasional conscious analysis, but mostly defaulting to the hardware brain programming of subconscious reaction?

I explained how the mind function of subconscious reaction, seems to be outdated and outpaced by the complexities of modern day society, in my last post; “Update Pending: Subconsciousness”. And how the process of subconscious reaction seems to be the method which is more beneficial for a simple environment, by using only a vague range of factors saved in memory, to determine a reaction. Conscious thought seems it should be more effective in modern day, with its ability to analyse more specific details, out of the significant increase of quantity of variables in the context of human society.

It seems common for people to use conscious analysis in circumstances where there is a lot of time, and an important complicated decision at hand. But is this often enough? If people default to subconscious reaction, for the majority of life's interactions, this could result in a reaction which is oversimplified, for the complexity of the factors involved in the scenario. In order to comprehend sequential causes and effects of any reaction or decision at hand, it requires detailed analysis of memories of the concepts involved in the situation. Without the update of more common conscious thought and comprehension, the extenuating effects of an action are quickly overlooked and not accounted for.

For eg, I’m driving, and see a Mcdonalds up ahead, and my subconscious reaction, is to stop in and buy a big mac, since the only factors my subconscious take into account, are that my hunger is triggering the basic memories of the food tasting good. But otherwise, with conscious analysis, I would comprehend the concept of the ingredients in the food, and that eating the big mac meal will sequentially cause me to be less healthy. Also, I might comprehend the concept of financing, and the effect of the negative contribution toward my bank account balance being reduced, by overspending funds on such food, when better food could be purchased for much less cost. It takes conscious analysis of the detailed extenuating effects, caused by the factors involved.

If the majority of people coast through life on default mode, of subconscious reaction, they neglect to comprehend important effects, which are too long-term, and involve too many sequences of cause and effect, for subconscious reaction to take into account. This leaves a narrow perspective of the effects, which the actions cause. The lack of accurate distinguishment of the outcome, caused by all detailed and relevant effects of any actions taken, within the complex circumstances of human society, results in a lack of awareness of of many negative effects, which could otherwise be prevented, using conscious comprehension. The negative side effects of a basic outlook on actions, are not only relevant to the individual, but also extenuating to others, as collateral damage.

Using the narrow perspective of (subconscious) reaction to circumstantial triggers, neglects the consideration of negative side-effects, caused directly to others. For eg, stealing someone’s wallet, subconsciously seems beneficial for the individual, but it would take conscious comprehension, of the residuating effects toward that victim, such as their potential urgent need for the money, ID, or other important cards, inside the wallet.

But lack of conscious understanding can also lead to lack of awareness of indirect, long-term negative contributional effects, toward more complex aspects of the world. For eg, a millionaire decides to buy a nice new Hummer, because subconsciously, they will enjoy the higher status of which others perceive them. Otherwise, with conscious awareness of contributional concepts, they would comprehend that the 10’s of thousands of dollars wasted on the Hummer, could potentially go toward saving hundreds of peoples lives, who are starving to death. It takes complex analysis, requiring conscious thought, to understand that money wasted on 1 unimportant thing (which may be intended to simply boost their own ego), could alternatively go toward the contribution of a charity, where the funding would have an exponentially more positive effective. Additionally, using conscious thought would allow the individual to comprehend that the Hummer causes excessive pollution, which negatively contributes toward climate change, which therein contributes toward massive extenuating negative effects and risks for the entire planet.

Using the function of subconscious reaction, can be useful in simple situations, when time is urgent, and with minor extenuating effects, caused by the circumstances involved. But using this method of reaction as a default, through life, can cause many negative unintended side effects, within the complexity of the modern day world. With technology, complicated networks of interactions, and a high quantity of variables, which humans interact with regularly, many negative effects are caused, and potential positive effects are overlooked and missed, without the accurate analysis of conscious comprehension. The default hardware function of subconscious reaction, seems to be quite dangerous with its narrow perspective.

Update Pending: Subconsciousness

Is the method of subconscious brain function, pending an update for modern day life?

By subconscious brain function, I’m basically referring to the brain utilizing memory of experiences, more vaguely than conscious thought, to influence an action. I explained a bit about the function of subconscious, as well as a comparison to other brain functions in another post; Equation of Action.

In my most previous post, Emotion in Motion, I explained how emotions, being the triggers being subconscious action, seem to be significantly falling behind or becoming faulty, in the rapid advancement of humanity. I also explained the complexities of modern day life, and how that relates to the slower, in comparison, developing functions of the brain. As the triggers seem to be becoming more ineffective, it seems likely that the overall function of which they relate to, are also becoming less effective.

The complexities and developments of humanity seem to have begun near the beginning of, and be a result of, more complex thought processes. I’ll refer to the more complex thought processes as conscious thought, whereas the more simple brain function, which seems to be the typical function for basically all other animals, would be subconscious reaction. If the cause of the increasing complexities throughout human history, such as sophisticated social structures, significant increase of information, objects, and substances, has been conscious thought, then it seems likely that conscious thought is more effective at distinguishing the most beneficial reaction to the more complex circumstances.

Subconscious reaction was, and is still, likely the most effective brain process for simple circumstances, of which most animals live in. Subconscious is faster to make quick reactions, and there seems to be little need for a more accurate reaction function, with few factors and variables. But with human society having a much higher quantity of variables, as well as a reduction of requirement of quick reaction, a more accurate brain function should be more effective for the individual to make a more accurate estimate of outcome of variables, and therein make more beneficial adjustments to their circumstances.

With the higher quantity of variables, comes circumstances with much more particular factors, in any given scenario. Subconscious, functions utilizing positive or negative reinforcement, connected to memories of basic circumstances, to avoid or pursue a current scenario, which only vaguely resembles the factors involved in past circumstances saved in memory. This use of vague and generalized circumstances saved in memory, is what becomes an insufficient process, when involving an environment with much more complex variables.

Conscious thought however enables the ability to analyse more details within saved memories. With the ability to distinguish more particular variances in factors, comes a more accurate analysis of current factors, and a more accurate prediction of the complex circumstances. Conscious thought, seems to be a much more applicable tool, for the environment of which it caused to develop.

Human society has also allowed less pressure of time for reaction, compared to a natural environment, where time holds a higher weight value. With more secure practical surroundings, such as more co-species, more weapons, and more secure habitats, all to aid defense, humans have less time sensitive reaction requirements.

With these 2 changing elements, being; 1) the environment for humans, rapidly increasing in quantity of factors, therefore more complex circumstances, as well as, 2) less time sensitive situations, the function of continued use of subconscious reaction, seems to be pending an update.

Emotion in Motion

How does the function of emotion suit the motion of modern day life?

In my previous post The Notion of Emotion, I outlined the function of emotion, as basically triggers in the brain to influence a species to instinctually pursue or avoid a range of circumstances, based on what has been proven over generations, to be most beneficial for that species. Furthermore, emotion allows a more precise customization of reinforcement, relative to the individuals experiences, via subconscious (or potentially conscious) memory. This causes the individual to pursue or avoid more specific circumstances, based on the feedback which they received from emotions, during experiences throughout their life.

Whether these functions of emotion, are effective for modern day human life, is another question. The initial range of circumstances, of which emotions are instinctually intended to be feedback for, take many generations of natural selection to adapt to new environments of a species. Once humans developed the more advanced prefrontal cortex, allowing conscious thought to more accurately make decisions, and more rapidly develop technology and society, the rate of change of our environment sped up significantly. The speed of changing environments for humans, has likely surpassed the rate of change for emotions to adapt to more beneficial ranges of circumstances, in which to trigger humans to avoid or pursue those situations. For eg. we’ve rapidly developed technology and processing to allow easily available large quantities of sugary and fatty foods. Emotional feedback still triggers positive happiness from eating large quantities of these foods, as it was beneficial for survival when resources were scarce. But now, these resources are too readily available, meaning the positive reinforcement, causes eating beyond an effective amount, to the point of self harm.

Besides the rate of change of environment, human’s common environment is becoming more and more complex, with so much more information and factors (such as objects, tools, & substances) relevant to common societal life, as well as an increasingly complex network of interaction with other people. With a complex environment, involving a potentially exponential increase in variables and factors, comes much more complex circumstances for emotions to be triggered by. For eg. with the added variables of technology allowing long distance communication, someone is likely to receive negative emotional feedback, such as lower self esteem, from gaining selective knowledge of only the highlights of certain other’s lifestyles, which is unobtainable by the individual themselves. The more variables there are, the more probable the inaccuracy of result, of something which functions based on a generalized range of circumstances. If emotions function as a trigger of a basic range of factors in the present, then it's likely to be insufficiently accurate, and mistakenly triggered, by such complex combinations of such a multitude of variables.

Another potential disruption of the usefulness of the function of emotion, could be artificial selection, and artificial sustenance of life and reproduction. In natural selection, the ones who have the most beneficial genetic emotional feedback relative to the environment, are the ones to survive and reproduce. But with artificial selection, as a result of more complex conscious thought, people choose to reproduce with someone for more varying reasons (for eg. the other also play video games), besides the basics of survival and reproduction. Selection can be driven by much more complex thought processes, including the increase of factors, which influence that decision for reproduction. This reduces the likelihood of the people which have the most effective emotional feedback (related to the environment), to reproduce. Artificial sustenance of life, allows individuals with emotional reinforcement triggers, which are not beneficial to the environment, to survive and reproduce, whereas otherwise would not. If their genetic emotional triggers are not tailored to the environment, they are more likely to survive and reproduce, with the aid of artificial developments, such as medicine and technology.

The complexity of circumstances and variables within recent and modern day society, seems to by far, outreach and outrun the simplicity of emotional feedback. Ineffective, unbeneficial, and inaccurate emotional feedback, seems likely to occur much more often, by this point of development in today's society. It should be useful to take into consideration, the notion of the function of emotion, as well as the motion of emotions development, relative to the current complex environment of humanity. Understanding these concepts, should allow a more beneficial adjustment and control of emotion.