The Game Loop: Part 1 Mental pipelines

[Kaje977]

Cleric,

I’ve decided to start over from scratch and begin the essay series anew this time, right from the beginning. Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the Tarot card “The Fool” and how it describes the "sacrifice of intellect" (the abstract-thinking mode). With that in mind, I’d like to try again from the very beginning.

After reading through the first essay (again), I’ll try to briefly express (in my own words) what I’ve understood:
Basically, this is about placing the game metaphor, with its loop, in relation to real-life experiences. This means that the inputs (i.e., what is within my immediate control) are relayed "to the world", and these inputs expand the world, or rather, the world provides feedback in the process. At least, that’s the usual worldview. Now, however, a contrast emerges: The inputs I provide do not seem to be limited to specific outputs; rather, there are also certain outputs that appear to come to us without our intervention, and to which we can likewise respond with new inputs. Within the game metaphor, this would be comparable as follows: My game character can move in all directions, interact with NPCs, use and pick up items, etc. At the same time, however, activities seem to take place within the game that, "at first glance", occur independently of the player. For example, we see NPCs wandering aimlessly or moving in a certain way or pattern long before we interact with them.

If we were to take a philosopher tasked with investigating this phenomenon, he would (through "common sense") arrive at the idea that there are two distinct worlds: First, the player's world, with their game state, through which they receive feedback from the output; and simultaneously, another, mysterious game state that appears to be even higher and more comprehensive than the game state one seems to know immediately at first glance. A kind of dualism emerges: on the one hand, the game world as seen by the player, and on the other, the seemingly independent game world over which the player appears to have no influence or access. The problem: Ultimately, one could conceivably imagine a meta-state for the meta-state, and so on. And ultimately, all of these are equivalent, so that the entire state could be broken down into a single loop. But this loop would no longer have any meaning.

Have I understood the problem fully and correctly overall? If not, where is my mistake or misunderstanding? Don't sugar coat anything. Be as honest as possible. I really want to make and be sure that I fully understand the problem thoroughly.

[AshvinP]

Have I understood the problem fully and correctly overall? If not, where is my mistake or misunderstanding? Don't sugar coat anything. Be as honest as possible. I really want to make and be sure that I fully understand the problem thoroughly.

Hi Kaje,

I would like to offer a few brief thoughts. What you express above certainly seems to reflect some of the core illustrations of Part 1. What I would add, however, is that a part and parcel of mitigating the feeling that there is a "seemingly independent game world over which the player appears to have no influence or access" is to decondition from the expectation that these dynamics can be "fully and correctly understood" through our mental pipelines. In a certain sense, the pursuit of the latter is what continually reinforces the former. When we seek an exhaustive understanding of the inner dynamics through these pipelines, we keep ourselves at a distance from the lived experience of their constraints, which express themselves first and foremost in our process of mental pipelining. It is a question of how we are orienting our interest - toward fashioning a coherent mental panorama of "the problem" or becoming more inwardly sensitive to its daily expressions. As Cleric expressed it:

"This approach of modelling reality does not accept anything outside the game loop. Even if there was such a thing, the intellect could simply inflate its mental model further to encompass it. In this way, every next game state depends only on the variables within the present state and the rules of the game logic."

I think it is important to gradually decondition from the expectation that these problems will be fully or thoroughly understood in any final sense by inflating the intellect in that way. There is, after all, deeper soul-spiritual reasons why they are so persistent and influential throughout the course of modern philosophy and science, why thinkers keep snapping back into them like a broken record. What we can do instead is simply acclimatize our imaginative navigation to these characteristic dynamics that constrain and modulate its course. Expressing them in our own words, as you have done, is a critical part of that acclimation process. But we should also remember that the concepts we forge in such expressions will necessarily fade away like dream images over time unless we continually return to the inner experimentation prompted by such essays. 'Understanding the problem', in that sense, is continually living through it and feeling how it manifests in our intuitive navigation of the flow. We should feel like the 'CRT pixels' that light up our understanding of the problem are continually fading away until we relight them with our focused phenomenological explorations. That feeling is an indication that we have truly grasped the problem more deeply. The fact that you are now reworking through the essays and expressing what you discern in them is exactly the means of attaining that deeper grasp - we just need to also remain self-conscious of that fact.

[Kaje977]

Have I understood the problem fully and correctly overall? If not, where is my mistake or misunderstanding? Don't sugar coat anything. Be as honest as possible. I really want to make and be sure that I fully understand the problem thoroughly.

Hi Kaje,

I would like to offer a few brief thoughts. What you express above certainly seems to reflect some of the core illustrations of Part 1. What I would add, however, is that a part and parcel of mitigating the feeling that there is a "seemingly independent game world over which the player appears to have no influence or access" is to decondition from the expectation that these dynamics can be "fully and correctly understood" through our mental pipelines. In a certain sense, the pursuit of the latter is what continually reinforces the former. When we seek an exhaustive understanding of the inner dynamics through these pipelines, we keep ourselves at a distance from the lived experience of their constraints, which express themselves first and foremost in our process of mental pipelining. It is a question of how we are orienting our interest - toward fashioning a coherent mental panorama of "the problem" or becoming more inwardly sensitive to its daily expressions. As Cleric expressed it:

"This approach of modelling reality does not accept anything outside the game loop. Even if there was such a thing, the intellect could simply inflate its mental model further to encompass it. In this way, every next game state depends only on the variables within the present state and the rules of the game logic."

I think it is important to gradually decondition from the expectation that these problems will be fully or thoroughly understood in any final sense by inflating the intellect in that way. There is, after all, deeper soul-spiritual reasons why they are so persistent and influential throughout the course of modern philosophy and science, why thinkers keep snapping back into them like a broken record. What we can do instead is simply acclimatize our imaginative navigation to these characteristic dynamics that constrain and modulate its course. Expressing them in our own words, as you have done, is a critical part of that acclimation process. But we should also remember that the concepts we forge in such expressions will necessarily fade away like dream images over time unless we continually return to the inner experimentation prompted by such essays. 'Understanding the problem', in that sense, is continually living through it and feeling how it manifests in our intuitive navigation of the flow. We should feel like the 'CRT pixels' that light up our understanding of the problem are continually fading away until we relight them with our focused phenomenological explorations. That feeling is an indication that we have truly grasped the problem more deeply. The fact that you are now reworking through the essays and expressing what you discern in them is exactly the means of attaining that deeper grasp - we just need to also remain self-conscious of that fact.

Yes, a major problem is that I haven’t dealt with this essay series and topic for quite some time now, so the whole thing has sort of faded into the background. When I look back at my previous posts, I realize that I used to grasp or understand the problem more clearly than I do now. I think that my studies (computer science) and many other things in my life are, in a way, pulling me away from it all. I’m also increasingly realizing that this degree program doesn’t really feel "fulfilling", that is, it doesn’t seem to truly align with my calling, and I constantly feel a thought pulling me toward dropping out, making a complete U-turn, and trying something entirely new, more related to mathematics and philosophy, something that brings me closer to spiritual science while still being firmly grounded in daily life. Another thought on my part was perhaps even to go to anthroposophical societies somewhere or find contacts there, perhaps to find a way to see if one could also be financially active there in some way and at the same time fulfill the corresponding calling (which, of course, is not achieved solely through a society or organization, but through one's own inner effort). To be honest, I should have just studied mathematics and philosophy (but guess what: They all told me that philosophers don't make a buck on the market, an useless study program they told me, so I instead went for computer science) back then, because that's where I’ve been drawn to since 2014. But computer science, programming, being a computer scientist—yes, that’s what I always wanted to be or, at least, what I wished since I saw my cousin programming. But ever since I came into contact with spiritual science, more specifically first with Kant and then later with Steiner, it just won't leave me alone. It feels as though my current studies are simply completely unsuited to me, as if I have some sort of a higher calling. It’s constantly on my mind. It's painful having to deal with this.

Then, on the other hand, I am aware of the absolute fact that I have to make ends meet financially somehow, and I am now right in the middle of my studies. Quitting now and instead devoting myself more directly to, say, mathematics (as a field of study) would be desirable, but it would be problematic for me because I'm at an age (28) where I unfortunately can't afford to do that anymore and have to finish this current degree first and somehow find a job. Stupid decisions from the past have ultimately led me here. And with all these developments in the field of AI, I'm starting to seriously worry about all future professions related to computers and software. I'm not saying that employees in these fields will be completely replaced (I'm pretty sure that won't happen), but the barriers and requirements for entering the job market for software developers will be much higher than before - and it's not as if it hasn't been hard enough for new junior developers so far (I have no prior job experience either, so yeah). Furthermore, I'm not really that skilled of a software engineer too, I mean it's sort of training and exercising, yes, but it just feels so empty to me at this point. I can't imagine a life sitting on my desk and programming software struggling with deadlines because I am not skilled enough, and then ending up hating my job. I really don't want to end up like most people in my family and closer circles who keep on complaining about how they hate their profession, yet continue doing it until death instead of going after what they truly feel called for.

[AshvinP]

Yes, a major problem is that I haven’t dealt with this essay series and topic for quite some time now, so the whole thing has sort of faded into the background. When I look back at my previous posts, I realize that I used to grasp or understand the problem more clearly than I do now. I think that my studies (computer science) and many other things in my life are, in a way, pulling me away from it all. I’m also increasingly realizing that this degree program doesn’t really feel "fulfilling", that is, it doesn’t seem to truly align with my calling, and I constantly feel a thought pulling me toward dropping out, making a complete U-turn, and trying something entirely new, more related to mathematics and philosophy, something that brings me closer to spiritual science while still being firmly grounded in daily life. Another thought on my part was perhaps even to go to anthroposophical societies somewhere or find contacts there, perhaps to find a way to see if one could also be financially active there in some way and at the same time fulfill the corresponding calling (which, of course, is not achieved solely through a society or organization, but through one's own inner effort). To be honest, I should have just studied mathematics and philosophy (but guess what: They all told me that philosophers don't make a buck on the market, an useless study program they told me, so I instead went for computer science) back then, because that's where I’ve been drawn to since 2014. But computer science, programming, being a computer scientist—yes, that’s what I always wanted to be or, at least, what I wished since I saw my cousin programming. But ever since I came into contact with spiritual science, more specifically first with Kant and then later with Steiner, it just won't leave me alone. It feels as though my current studies are simply completely unsuited to me, as if I have some sort of a higher calling. It’s constantly on my mind. It's painful having to deal with this.

Then, on the other hand, I am aware of the absolute fact that I have to make ends meet financially somehow, and I am now right in the middle of my studies. Quitting now and instead devoting myself more directly to, say, mathematics (as a field of study) would be desirable, but it would be problematic for me because I'm at an age (28) where I unfortunately can't afford to do that anymore and have to finish this current degree first and somehow find a job. Stupid decisions from the past have ultimately led me here. And with all these developments in the field of AI, I'm starting to seriously worry about all future professions related to computers and software. I'm not saying that employees in these fields will be completely replaced (I'm pretty sure that won't happen), but the barriers and requirements for entering the job market for software developers will be much higher than before - and it's not as if it hasn't been hard enough for new junior developers so far (I have no prior job experience either, so yeah). Furthermore, I'm not really that skilled of a software engineer too, I mean it's sort of training and exercising, yes, but it just feels so empty to me at this point. I can't imagine a life sitting on my desk and programming software struggling with deadlines because I am not skilled enough, and then ending up hating my job. I really don't want to end up like most people in my family and closer circles who keep on complaining about how they hate their profession, yet continue doing it until death instead of going after what they truly feel called for.

Right, and I have often imagined the same thing. My current work (law) seems quite orthogonal to my spiritual interests and preserves a certain dichotomy between these distinct modes of intuitive navigation. I have imagined that if I could go back and do my studies over again, I might choose philosophy, theology, et cetera, to maintain a more natural connection to spiritual inquiry. For example, I may have attended the California Institute of Integral Studies, like Max Leyf, Matt Segall, and others. If I were teaching philosophy, much of my daily work and my relationships with others would naturally overlap with my spiritual interests. On top of that, I may be able to steer others in the right phenomenological direction. It is certainly too late for me to switch tracks now, however.

With respect to your situation, it is helpful to keep in mind that Cleric is in a similar field, and he is a living testimony to how experiences and knowledge in that field can be leveraged for spiritual development. And I suppose the same is the case in my field as well. Our unique life experiences in any given field can surely help shape our spiritual perspective and development in healthy ways. A key part of that development is realizing that true satisfaction will never come from changing our outer circumstances, expecting those changes will make us happier, more comfortable, more aligned with our true calling, and so forth. As you say, there are many other factors to account for, such as financial stability. Without the latter, we may eventually find ourselves increasingly resentful toward and dissatisfied with what we imagined to be our 'true calling'. When we are distracted with affording our rent, food, and so forth, it is hardly conducive to calm and patient inner work.

To be clear, I'm not saying you should or shouldn't switch tracks. Only you can evaluate that based on a totality of the circumstances available to your present consciousness and also by prayerfully seeking feedback from the higher worlds about those circumstances that are not so available yet. But no matter what field you end up pursuing, I think that, over time, you will easily find a healthier balance between the daily tasks required by that field and the spiritual tasks that you long to pursue. Consistent inner experimentation will also help us discern how to strike that balance over time by leveraging our unique life experiences to refine and expand our intuitive orientation to the inner dynamics. This experimentation may help us see how we often generate excuses for avoiding that work, rooted in our outer circumstances, whereas the real obstacle is our expectation that the outer circumstances will be the determining factor. This is a very troublesome tendency to root out, and my current strategy is to simply be as honest with myself about it as possible, to see it accurately for what it is.