Discussion on Algorithms, Overflow, Object-Me, and Brain-Computer Interface Technology Pathways
Discussion Background
This article organizes an in-depth academic discussion between two scholars about the differences between temporality and spatiality in cognitive models and the implementation pathways of brain-computer interface technology, focusing on core concepts such as "algorithms vs. computation," "overflow phenomena," "object-me theory," and "subjectivity transfer" in constructing truly intelligent systems.
Round One: Scholar A's Core Theoretical Framework
Q1: Fundamental Difference Between Temporality and Spatiality
Scholar A elaborates:
The greatest difference between all algorithms and computations is whether they depend on "space" or "time."
Spatial characteristics of algorithms:
Algorithms are essentially spatial in nature
Sequentializing (spatializing) practice, i.e., solidification, is the basic attribute of algorithms
The merit of algorithms is premised on whether their spatial structure is "precise"
The reason chaos-emergence is elusive is fundamentally that algorithms lose trends and become ungraspable during operation
Temporal essence of computation:
When we start recursion running, from spatial thinking we can say recursion is completely predictable
But this non-ambiguous understanding is not temporal
In time, the biggest variable is not what space without time has, but what time without space has
Q2: Overlapping Statements of "Is" and "Is Not"
Scholar A's logical analysis:
All concepts, definitions, formulas—all logical formal descriptions—i.e., linear statements are spatial.
Characteristics of spatial description:
Space without time has no possibility of beginning and ending
Its statement is: The world "is not" complete
The feature of spatial description is known negative statements
This kind of statement cannot circulate because the world is already "omniscient"
Temporal "change":
When spatial statements excluding time "return" to temporal statements excluding space, we naturally must "sublate" all linear statements
After sequentialized "solidification" is sublated, only one word remains: change
If time after removing spatialization only has "change," then we must provide a possible "manifestation state" for "change"
Q3: Necessity of Loop Overlap
Scholar A explains:
This is why loops must overlap.
Essence of boundaries:
Boundaries strictly speaking are not "forms," not means of isolating "I" from "outside" in spatial attributes
Boundaries are "change→transformation"
Boundaries are "phenomena" of forms rather than forms themselves
Important distinction:
Sequentialization easily confuses with change
This confusion mistakes the "semantics-boundary" of sequentialization as intrinsic properties of sequentialization
While ignoring the fact that sequentialization itself fundamentally cannot produce semantics
Q4: Core Mechanism of Overflow Phenomena
Scholar A proposes the second concept: overflow
Metaphor of change:
Change is not the engine (form), nor the engine's operation (form's action)
But the "difference" that the engine's operation creates that cannot be covered by the engine's formal definition
Limitations of form:
Forms cannot produce "difference"
The complexity of forms can only create ambiguity but cannot perceive (converge) ambiguity
The complexity of forms and forms, no matter how they "simulate" overlap in sequentialized dimensions, cannot truly produce overlap
Definition of overflow:
Difference is time's "overflow" in space
And thus leaves sequentialized "traces" of change in space
This is the discussable "I"
Q5: Core Concept of Object-Me Theory
Scholar A proposes the third concept: object-me
Essence of object-me:
The sequentialized me, i.e., the formalized internal me
An "I" simulated as "isolated" from the world, is not subjectivity but the sign of subjectivity: object-me
Object-me is the form of me, but importantly we must understand this form is the object of formalization, not the subject of formalization
Characteristics of object-me:
It is essentially thoroughly passive
That is, it is without semantics, understanding of it is completely derivative
Object-me can easily be "interfered with" and "distorted"
As "pronouns," object-me can form mappings with any "subject-me"
Q6: Pure Temporality of Semantics
Scholar A elaborates on the essence of semantics:
Properties of semantics:
Semantics is actually a purely "awareness-temporal" concept
It only relates to difference, everything else is "empty"
Semantics do not associate with any forms
The derivative characteristics of semantics cannot even be reduced to the sequentialized concept of "outside"
Semantics can only exist "on" boundaries
Distinction between metaphor and isomorphism:
Isomorphism is an "analytical tool for object-me"
Metaphor is re-metaphorizing semantics—just a paradoxical insight
Q7: Practical Design Principles of Overlap
Scholar A's design philosophy:
If we want to practice overlap in design principles, we must understand that "boundaries" are generative.
Key insights:
Semantics are always a kind of self-awareness, not a kind of "object-me form"
Multiple "object-me" do not perceive each other
"Multiple object-me" can overflow perception
"I" is not a whole—whether this whole is "individual," "group," or "totality"
I am a phenomenon of formal overflow, this phenomenon's self-reference is named "overlap"
Q8: Loop Essence of Cyborg Technology
Scholar A's core suggestions:
Possible operations in cognitive models:
Perhaps the only thing we can do is "trigger" the agency mechanism of object-me
This mechanism's coupling with "habitat" rather than environment
Is the path to discovering subjectivity
Essential function of Cyborg:
If this approach has value, we cannot treat cyborg technology as sequentialization technology for cognitive models
cyborg is really not technology that intervenes only when cognitive models develop to a certain stage
The step of loop itself should be a loop
And must intervene as a loop in all "object-me" formalization studies we can discover
Q9: Multi-level Object-Me Overlap Experiments
Scholar A's specific suggestions:
Biological level overlap:
Can patterns and cells (even bacteria or amoeba) make "interactions" under extensive sensing technology
Can ML not "feed data" to existing structures but be a structuring process that produces "phenomena"?
Multi-level data overlap:
Should overlap be mutual interference between different object-me forms?
For example, some pattern data from eukaryotic cells, other pattern data from viruses, third group pattern data from mitochondria?
Can multi-level object-me graft phenomena that existing object-me cannot "explain"?
Possibilities of brain-computer interfaces:
If this "new object-me" interacts with mammalian brains through brain-computer interface technology (ML—gamification), would it optimize existing structures?
If we accept the "subject-me→overflow←object-me" structure, can we think that broken, split, and polymorphic I will become the largest data source for "grafting" concepts?
Round Two: Scholar B's Questioning and Deepened Analysis
A1: Questioning the Necessity of Brain-Computer Interfaces
Scholar B raises core questions:
You mention the idea of Cyborg grafting subjectivity into cognitive models, but I have doubts about the necessity of this process having to be implemented through brain-computer interfaces.
Key questions:
For more advanced brain-computer interface engineering that can fully implement CYBORG technology, must it complete some functions substantially different from current brain-computer interface technology?
What are several landmark manifestations of these functions?
The specific pathway for brain-computer interface technology to "advance to the point of implementing Cyborg" will necessarily differ from current crude interface technology, but what should the future orientation be?
A2: Analysis of Current Brain-Computer Interface Technology Limitations
Scholar B's understanding:
My understanding of brain-computer interface technology is connecting human brains with microchips to enable brains to express their "choices" and "bodily movements" through chips.
Current technology scope:
Brains use chips to express connected "prosthetics" as part of human subjects' "embodied cognition"
Brains should also be able to achieve broader "prosthetic control" through chips, such as controlling race cars, aircraft, etc.
These are all "imagination and manipulation" of these "generalized prosthetics" within familiar three-dimensional movement space
Challenges of abstract worlds:
How to achieve "imagination and manipulation" of various abstract worlds?
These worlds, if their state spaces greatly differ from the real-time space we usually inhabit
And cannot connect with our various motor organs
Then is "embodied cognition" of these abstract worlds possible?
A3: Theoretical Model of Subjectivity Transfer
Scholar B's suggestions:
Returning to Cyborg technology, I think the important thing is to provide a programmatic construction—abstract subjectivity transfer model technology:
Core requirements:
Define and extract subjectivity
Provide theoretical subjectivity transfer pathways
Rather than falling into engineering Cyborg technology
Theory-first principle:
The theoretical model of Cyborg is extremely important
Especially when abstracting subjectivity and navigating completely abstract worldviews
We must have some equally abstract theory for guidance
Data flow abstraction:
If we simply view manipulation and response data exported from chips as mere data input-output streams
We might first consider "manipulation-response data streams" detached from physical backgrounds for theoretical discussion
A4: Two-Level Analysis of Emergence Problems
Scholar B's in-depth analysis of emergence:
This is a problem of data introduction in subjectivity models. You previously mentioned overlapping various levels of data and attempting to extract "emergent" new "object-me."
Basic understanding of emergence:
"Emergence" is highlighted in multi-body systems constructed by reductionism
Reductionist-designed systems with many degrees of freedom can describe almost all possibilities
But are particularly powerless in describing extremely detailed giant complex systems
First problem level: Constraints between subjectivities
Characteristics of giant complex systems:
Mutual constraints between different levels exist in "autopoietic" processes
Limiting their forms to finite possibilities
Simple giant multi-body systems cannot explain "emergence miracles" due to lack of subjectivity intervention
Universality of subjectivity constraints:
Subjects and their constituent systems or constituting systems mutually constrain each other's possible forms
Not only do biological molecules organize into biological blocks, biological blocks also constrain biological molecules' movement and structural forms
Scientific knowledge and technical experience construct industrial civilization, which also prescribes technical pathways and knowledge development
Crazy imagination:
Subjectivity "constraints" are distorted everywhere
Like "life's" autopoiesis, speciation, and "language's" complexification, formalization, systematization
Subjectivity spontaneously extends in "habitats," but different subjectivities' "extensions" are "mutually disturbing"
Because different subjectivities' "subject-me" are all expanding their "object-me"
"Habitat-close" subjectivities have strong opposition, "habitat-distant" subjectivities have weak opposition
Second problem level: Openness and non-closure
Essence of emergence:
Emergence is essentially "openness" or "non-closure"
This differs from thermodynamic system interpretations of openness
Distinction between closure and non-closure:
"Closure" means a set's binary operations on all its elements produce new results that remain elements of the set
"Non-closure" means systems produce some unpredictable states through continuous iteration of specified actions
These states differ from "chaos's" probabilistic unpredictability, being "observationally unpredictable"
I.e., "new information unobtainable through existing observational means and their arbitrary linear combinations"
A5: Specific Schemes for Data Overlap
Scholar B's core questions:
These two problem aspects actually point to difficulties faced by data overlap and object-me extraction.
Methods of data overlap:
How should data be "overlapped"?
If different data are all "object-me" under a certain subjective worldview, how to extract this singular subjectivity?
Emphasizing inter-subjectivity collisions:
I think we should emphasize "object-me" as "object-me carved out by inter-subjectivity collisions"
I.e., through extensive modeling representing enough different subjectivities' (non-"object-me") "abstract worldviews"
Then collecting certain data representing this "temporal process" rather than simply singular subjectivity's "spatial process" of "relative relationships and situations between subjectivities"
Manifesting "inter-subjectivity constraints" to find subjectivity models
A6: Dynamic Process of New Object-Me Extraction
Scholar B's methodology:
Characteristics of new object-me extraction:
New object-me extraction is solving complex systems' openness problems
I think object-me extraction is a "dynamic-temporal" process
Emphasizing discovery of some "abstract-unknown" subjectivities
Distinction between weak and strong interference:
Though the above data overlap model is also "time-change" based, it is "weak interference"
We still mainly consider "observation-fitting" rather than "interference-feedback"
The latter emphasizes "strong interference," not simply "fitting"
But making hypothetical interference to systems and entering a continuous feedback process of this interference
Goal-orientation problems of interference:
How to set "goal-orientation" of these interferences remains to be examined
Pre-defined "observations" and "goals" might conflict with numerous "possible futures" under interference
Interference essentially leads systems toward future state spaces in time
Only on this basis can we discuss "extracting new"
A7: Theoretical Equivalence of Cyborg and Human Intelligence
Scholar B's core viewpoint:
For example, how do we simulate, induce, and discover intelligence based on human worldviews generated in machines?
Theoretical equivalence assumption:
This requires transmitting human "subjective worldviews" to Cyborg bodies
And theoretical construction of this process is primary
So let me make an equation: Human = Cyborg, in subjectivity
Essential definition of Cyborg:
Discovering Cyborg is discovering "humans" in abstract world simulations
Or Cyborg's essence is generalized humans, abstract subjective humans, theoretical subject-me humans
Description of simulation process:
The simulation process still "starts from scratch"
Constructing numerous abstract subjective worldviews as "hidden subjectivities"
They correspond with numerous "object-me" reflected by subject-me to various observation and interference data: human bodily sensations, linguistic communication, social life, natural physical world movements, etc.
These object-me as constraints from other subjectivities carve out that unique manifestation of human subject-me
Thus gradually discovering Cyborg
Dual nature of the process:
This process is both simulation and induction
Different educational tendencies toward Cyborg and sculpting intentions toward Cyborg all materialize as habitats distorting Cyborg's worldview
Discussion Summary
This in-depth dialogue reveals several key insights for constructing truly intelligent systems:
Theoretical Contributions
Fundamental distinction between temporality and spatiality: Algorithms are essentially spatial sequentialization processes, while true intelligence requires temporal computational mechanisms
Core role of overflow phenomena: True innovation and intelligence come from "differences" that formal systems cannot cover, which are time's "overflow" in space
Operational value of object-me theory: Distinguishing "I" into subject-me and object-me provides theoretical framework for understanding subjectivity's instrumentalization and transfer
Universality of inter-subjectivity constraints: Emergent properties of complex systems stem from mutual constraints and disturbances between different levels of subjectivity
Technical Pathways
Redefinition of Cyborg technology's essence: Not connecting human subjectivity into machines, but connecting machine loops into subjectivity
Necessity of multi-level data overlap: Need data from different biological levels (cells, viruses, mitochondria, etc.) for interferential overlap
Theoretical models prioritized over engineering implementation: Theoretical models of subjectivity transfer are more important than specific brain-computer interface technologies
Strong interference dynamic processes: New object-me extraction requires strong interference rather than mere observation and fitting
Future Directions
This discussion provides a completely new perspective for AI development: True artificial intelligence should not simulate human intelligence, but theorize and instrumentalize subjectivity itself, activating universally existing intentionality in the world through constructing sufficiently complex overlapping structures.