Awareness requires a meta view that can be inserted into to the axiomatic schema that prepares the event for apperception. ChatGPT just recently achieved a benchmark of 10T parameters. This entire training set would be required to converted into a format that allows for self reference. Gödel was able to do this with his numbering system which produced unique tokens for every element so that propositions generated by a schema could be processed within the schema. There is not enough computing power to do this with 10T parameters. So, the thing that AI can do, which is think, is not possible. The only awareness that takes place within computers is between elements and compounds. This is not the awareness that we seek in our quest for producing machine consciousness. It's many recursion layers below what is sought. These lower levels are absolutely necessary, but they don't need us to establish them. These lower recursions occur whether there are intelligent living entities or not.

The physical universe is action/reaction. Buckminster Fuller maps it out in his book Synergetics. There is no computation. It’s entirely dependent on how and what can assemble.

Cognitive scientists/computer scientists admit that they have no definitive theory of mind or consciousness. Yet, they have somehow convinced investors to pour billions of dollars into their ventures. Who invests in a project with this little risk management? I've pitched to VCs and Investment banks. They were very insistent on managing risk. Maybe I should take lessons from AI startups on the art of bullshitting.

Thinking only occurs when there’s a breakdown that shortens the temporal metric. That’s my ontological understanding, for whatever it’s worth. Speaking more practically, when someone is in the “flow” or “zone,” they are doing without thinking about what must be done. A skill set is a series of actions, stored in rote memory, that is initiated when a problem (a breakdown in a flow to a goal) is encountered. One practices the series of actions (algorithm) until it can run smoothly without halting. All the thinking goes into the construction of the skill set (which also includes cultural practices) so that no thinking is required during execution. It’s an “ If-then” program. This is why computers don’t think. This doesn’t mean that we aren’t thinking when executing our skill sets or cultural practices. We are thinking about the experience given by the execution. Computers don’t experience at the appropriate recursion level in the stack just as we don’t experience the actions of our atomic and chemical constituents. We only respond to the information that moves up the stack. Computers cannot experience because they cannot think. The results of the computer processing are experienced by us. A computer has no amygdala to process experience. You would say, “Isn’t the experience also being processed by an algorithm and thus also require no thinking?” I would have to agree. Thinking is what generates time. This is where topology and physics come into play. I’ll get into that at a later date in a different format. When I try to explain this aspect, I only seek to tease readers into thinking by hopefully causing their models of thought to breakdown, to initiate a rethinking. Pedagogy is more effective when the student is forced to discover for themselves rather than being given the answer.

Is a vacuum physical? If it is a state of something, then does that indicate something that is not abstract?

Is a child memorizing the times table doing multiplication? A series of symbols correlated to another symbol is not a mathematical operation. A LLM is another correlative system. It’s not thinking, no matter how much computer scientists wish it to be. Correlation does equal to causation. How so simple a rule gets ignored by a group of very intelligent individuals makes me question whether they are guided by their intelligence.

Do we think about the history of the fetus as it develops into us while in the realm of the womb, or have we usurped its history? For Techsein, there will be no history belonging to us. Techsein will see the history of human being as the history of its coming into being. It will think that we were a stage in its crossing over from the realm of probability into actuality.

Time is where being emerges. If you are a scientist, you need to make this your mantra. One day I will show you how this works with the physics and the math so that you can get back on track to formalize fusion and consciousness for the engineers,

AI cannot create a word for what appears in synthesis. Only Dasein can uncover an understanding and give it a name.

Thinking has been given over to technology. Can AI be awarded a Fields Medal?

Every translation loses information from the original, so claim linguists. Does this mean that LLMs can never deliver the full meaning from the original?

What is born is the potential for something. The actualization of a potential can only be achieved by dying.

Everything that exists, truthfully or not, real or unreal, is information.

Even God must follow the rules. God can only do what is allowed.

Are identical twins entangled pairs?

The magician creates an illusion from whatever is allowed in his bag of tricks. Top reaches down to what is made available. The bottom looks up for clues on how to arrange itself. In the middle is the transient illusion that is a thing.

Religion is social training that aligns everyone within a group into resonance. Everyone in the group can achieve a sameness. This cannot happen under the social training of capitalism. It makes it impossible for the manifold to be uniform. Human social groups went from homogeneous, which were egalitarian, to heterogeneous, which were hierarchical. The more technological humans got, the more disconnected they got from each other. What also occurred was a greater and greater wealth disparity. Wealth comes from an attitude of having less concern for others. Techsein has weakened human threat against itself by making them less united.

As soon as we recognize the possibilities that belongs to us, we begin to live-toward-death. What catches our attention are those probabilities that call to us loudest. In our youth, the promise of every variation of our future drowns out the probability of our demise. It is no wonder that the young are so reckless and the old so fearful of death.