How do we think of relations within Kastrup's model?

[findingblanks]

Staying within the language and details of Kastrup's model:

1) When we look at the inanimate world, we are looking at a partial image of MaL's inner experiencing.

2) We must not assume that any definite values (quantitative or qualitative) that we can measure/observe in that image represent 'an' experience. For instance: you can study the intricate and reliable patterns happening in a group of my neurons but you must not then assume that those are 'having' my inner experience.

3) My question: In that case, how do we thinking specifically about the very detailed and repetitive relationships we can track in our observations of the inanimate world?

Illustration: When we look at a car, we are able to speak in detail about an amazing blend of very intricate relationships taking place (rusting, combustion, wind-force, how a specific movement of a shaft of metal is changing the wear on a small pad and how the slight moisture affects that...). These are very reliable patterns that we ARE NOT thinking are experiences of MaL itself. They are like the neurons that partially are how my experience of planning my daughter's birthday look to YOU because of how your body translates my experience across the dissociative membrane.

So we know MaL's experience is objectively happening (within the presuppositions of Kastrup's model). We know that I am able to study and know almost exactly how this car will change in millions of details over time and in specific circumstances.

Is it fair to say that the car is a blend of MaL's excitations? As Bernardo always points out, the car itself is nominal not ontic. MaL isn't packing up 'cars' as images of experience. We reach out and shape images of inanimate objects into things we call cars. But we don't create the 'rules' of all those relations we can study.

Those 'rules' are what happen when we blend any images of MaL together and have something to do with whatever MaL is....

How do we think of these detailed and highly intricate relations?

[Starbuck]

I recommend Bernardo's latest interview where he discusses the evolutionary forces that shape the dynamism and adaptability of the alter's 'dashboard' perception vs the stability and reliability of M@L's excitations (which are not subject to the same pressures, and seem to to conform closer to archetypal and 'mathematical' regularity).

I would also caution against mistaking regularity/similarity with permanence. It would appear that there are perceptual patterns of coherence as opposed to singular phenomena that endure over time.

[findingblanks]

Yeah, it was (and has been) how clearly he articulates his 'dashboard' metaphor that leads me to my question. I take your cautions, but I think I am being cautious. I'm not sure he's ever spoken to this specific question. Maybe?

In terms of 'permanence', the only thing I can imagine I'd apply that word to is consciousness itself. But I couldn't apply that term to even it's most early or basic manifestation via excitation.

I just haven't heard any of us (Bernardo's most serious and eager readers) talk about what this kind of 'relation' suggests in regards to MaL.

[SanteriSatama]

How do we think of these detailed and highly intricate relations?

Mathematics is often considered a general study of relations, discussing them in abstract language.

BK refers to the notion of Markov Blanket, here's a discussion of the psychological interpretation of the mathematical form:



I have not yet watched the full video, and much of the math is beyond my current competence. My comprehension of Markov Blanket does not go much beyond the simple form in graph theory.

Intuitively, my feel is that Markov Blanket presents at most an internal view of an alter looking at it's boundary. And BK does not seem to claim anything more. So, the external view from M@L aspect observing an alter from "outside" need not be anything like the view from inside, but there needs to be some continuous translation and transformation between the external and internal view.

To be clear, "external" view from M@L should not be confused with peer-to-peer inter-alter/interpersonal projections and reflections, or how alters project and create, observe and participate in their external phenomenal surfaces. I do not think that the mathematics of M@L view are totally inaccessible to our mathematical cognition and ability express mathematical intutions in language. On the other hand, mathematical theories starting from discrete/discontinuous foundation cannot express the continuous aspects required for a full both-and study of the mathematical relations involved.

[findingblanks]

Thanks so much. I will respond soon