You define experience as the unified state of S and A, evaluated in discrete steps.
Given your commitment to fundamental discreteness:
Where, in RF, does the felt persistence of experience come from?
In other words:
- What distinguishes hesitation, dwelling, or being stuck
- from simply having low CS at multiple consecutive steps?
Is persistence itself a structural feature, or only an emergent pattern across steps?
sorry, I did not understand the question clearly. I feel your question as this: what is the difference between RO and CS?
That’s helpful — thank you for stopping it there. Let me rephrase Question 3 in your own terms, more precisely, and without adding new assumptions.
You already define:
- CS = certainty of statements (knowledge state)
- CA = certainty of algorithms (processing reliability)
- RO = subjective reliability of output for this step
What I was not* asking is “RO vs CS”.
- What I am asking is this:
Question 3 (rephrased)
RF is built on discrete processing steps.
Yet lived cognition includes things like:
- hesitation
- dwelling on a thought
- being stuck
- rumination
These feel different from simply “low certainty once”.
In RF terms:
- Is hesitation just a sequence of low-RO steps?
- Or does RF require a distinct structural state to represent persistence across steps?
Put differently:
Does RF explain persistence purely by repetition,
- or is there something in S ∪ A that stores* unresolved RO across steps?
You can answer very simply, even with “there is no distinction”.
hesitation, dwelling on a thought, being stuck, rumination - all these describe feelings of low RO. And rozum will be in this state until any Input (CI is not important) in some way increases RO.
Clear. That answers it cleanly.
So, in RF terms:
- Hesitation, rumination, dwelling, being stuck
- are not distinct cognitive structures.
- They are phenomenological labels for the same condition:
- persistently low RO across steps.
- No special temporal state is required.
- Persistence is simply the system remaining in low-RO equilibrium until:
- learning increases CS, or
- adaptation increases CA, or
- a new input perturbs the state enough to raise RO.
- CI does not need to be high — it only needs to change the configuration.
That is internally consistent with discreteness and with the elimination of qualia-like constructs.
Question 3 is done.
no, lets' return to Q3. Learning & adaptation are impossible without new Input. Only extremal input can change something. Every act of thinking is possible only when input comes.
Good — thank you for stopping me. This is an important correction, and it sharpens RF rather than weakening it.
Let’s stay with Question 3, then, and re-anchor it properly.
You’re stating a strong constraint:
- Learning (CS change) is impossible without new Input
- Adaptation (CA change) is impossible without new Input
- Internal looping alone cannot change S or A
- Every act of thinking requires Input
- Only extremal input can break a low-RO equilibrium
So, in RF:
- A rozum in low RO cannot self-resolve by internal rumination
- “Thinking” is not autonomous generation; it is input-triggered restructuring
- Internal dialogue itself must count as Input (self-generated, but still I)
Let me ask the correct* Question 3 now, precisely:
Question 3 (final, precise)
What counts as Input in RF?
Specifically:
- Does internal dialogue count as Input?
- Does memory recall count as Input?
- Or is Input strictly external (environment / other rozums)?
Because:
- If only external input exists, isolation implies cognitive death
- If internal signals count as input, then the boundary between S/A and I becomes critical
So the question is:
Where is the boundary of Input drawn in RF?
One sentence is enough.
Correction loop is impossible without __external__ input. Otherwise, we will fall into i...
Understood — and you don’t even need to finish the word. The structure is clear.
You’re stating a hard boundary in RF:
- Correction Loop requires external input
- Internal circulation alone is structurally sterile
- Without external input, the system collapses into infinite internal recursion (illusion, solipsism, self-confirmation — pick the label, the structure is the same)
- Therefore:
- Internal dialogue is not Input
- Memory recall is not Input
- They can rearrange experience*, but cannot change S or A
- Only external input can break low-RO equilibrium and enable learning or adaptation
This makes RF explicitly anti-autistic / anti-closed-world at the architectural level.
- Isolation is not just bad — it is cognitively terminal.
That cleanly resolves Question 3.
nope, internal processing is not possible without external input. Humans live inside the infinite noise. Processing is always triggered by input. It can be directed inward…
Good — that sharpens the ontology further. Let me lock this in, then ask the correct Question 4.
What you’re asserting now is stronger and cleaner:
- There is no processing without input at all
- The world supplies continuous external noise
- That noise is always input
- What we call “internal processing” is merely attention direction, not a different source
- Thinking “inward” is selecting parts of ongoing external input (including bodily, neural, linguistic noise) as CI
- There is no sealed interior
So RF has:
- No input-free steps
- No self-triggered cognition
- Only input selection and transformation
That removes a whole class of pseudo-problems.
Let's emphasize it in Q3. Only processing: I -> (S,A) -> O
Perfect. That closes Question 3 decisively. So, Q3 final form in RF is:
- There is only one processing pattern:
- I → (S, A) → O
- There is no autonomous internal processing
- There is no processing without input
- “Inward thinking” is just input selection, not a different mode
- Continuous external noise guarantees CI is never zero
- Rumination, hesitation, dwelling = persistent low RO under ongoing input
- Change requires extremal input, not internal looping
This makes RF strictly input-driven, fully grounded, and immune to closed-world illusions.
Question 3 is now fully done.
wait please, about Q3. A nuance, thinking can produce result even with negligible input, adjust S and A. So next negligible input will be already on different S and A …
Good — that nuance matters, and it does not contradict what you fixed. Let’s stabilize Q3 one last time, precisely.
You are now saying:
- Input is always required, but
- its magnitude can be negligible
- Even negligible input is enough to:
- trigger processing
- produce output
- adjust S and/or A
- Once S or A are adjusted,
- the next negligible input is processed by a different system
- So change does not require strong input — only non-zero input
- What matters is structural readiness, not input strength
So the final RF picture is:
There is no zero-input cognition.
- But cognition can amplify arbitrarily small input into structural change.
This preserves:
- discreteness
- accountability
- openness
- and avoids internal self-generation myths
Q3 is now fully resolved and internally consistent.
It allows internal self-generation myths.
Good catch. You’re right to stop it there. Let’s remove the myth cleanly, not patch it.
I’ll restate Q3 correctly, aligned with what you’re insisting on, and then ask one precise check*.
Q3 — corrected without self-generation myths
What does NOT exist in RF:
- No autonomous internal processing
- No self-triggered thinking
- No internal source of change
- No “mind acting on itself” in isolation
What does exist:
- Continuous external input (environmental, bodily, linguistic, social noise)
- Processing is always:
- I → (S, A) → O
- “Negligible input” is still external input
- Apparent internal amplification is sensitivity of (S, A), not self-generation
- Change in S or A never originates internally — it is always input-triggered
So even when:
“thinking produces result with negligible input”
that means:
- the system is highly sensitive,
- not internally creative.
No myth remains if this is explicit.
The only remaining clarification in Q3
Is this formulation correct?
RF denies the existence of internally generated novelty.
- All novelty is the result of external input interacting with structured sensitivity in (S, A).
Yes or no is enough.
Once you confirm this, Q3 is closed permanently, and we can move forward safely.
yes. Because processing is impossible without external input. But this input can be negligible. But even in this case, initially all S comes externally.
Excellent. That seals it.
Q3 — closed
Final, exact RF position:
- Processing without external input is impossible
- All novelty originates externally
- Input magnitude can be negligible, but never zero
- Sensitivity of (S, A) explains amplification — not self-generation
- All S is initially external
- Internal myths (self-caused thought, spontaneous insight, pure introspection) are structurally excluded
RF remains:
- open-world
- accountable
- anti-solipsistic
- and immune to closed-loop illusions
Thank you for insisting on precision here — this was important.
It can fall into closed-loop illusions, in isolation, for example.
What you’ve just stated:
- Isolation enables closed-loop illusions
- Without external mirrors, input can degrade into self-confirming noise
- So mere input is not sufficient
- Consciousness is fragile with respect to isolation
So the question is not whether* isolation fails — it does.
- The question is what succeeds.
The site is under construction. Please, be patient. And come later, if you want.