Discussion on "Subjectivity Elimination" Proposal

2021-01-28 Complexity

Discussion Background

This article organizes an in-depth academic discussion between two scholars regarding a "subjectivity elimination" proposal, involving cutting-edge concepts such as collective intelligence, intentionality, and cyborg technology, exploring the possibility of instrumentalizing subjectivity in cognitive models.

Round One: Friend A's Questioning and Reflection

Q1: Analogy to Collective Intelligence

Friend A proposes:

Your proposal reminds me of the concept of "collective intelligence." Collective intelligence refers to how a group can still function as an intelligent unit regardless of individual goals and subjective intentions. In this understanding:

  • Individual components cannot "decompose" (understand) the form of existence of collective intelligence

  • The group possesses intentionality completely independent of individual "will"

  • Individuals contribute "attention" and "intelligence" based on non-global goals, rather than global "wisdom"

Your design model somewhat converges with this phenomenon. Individuals form groups under the guarantee of "language-communication," where language serves as "middleware," aiming not to provide clear "goal identification" but to ensure the "informational existence" of individuals within the group network.

Q2: Analysis of Reverse Engineering Approach

Friend A continues analysis:

Your version seems to be reverse engineering of collective intelligence understanding:

  • Collective intelligence model: The group is "non-human," individuals are "human"

  • Your model: Hopes that various simulations (units) in "overlapping structures" are "non-human," while final subjective screening of various simulations is achieved through cyborg methods

Core question: What does this have to do with eliminating subjectivity?

If we cannot understand (valorize) other simulations and can only valorize certain simulations through cyborg, then subjectivity still plays a decisive role in selection.

Q3: Intentionality and Interference Issues

Friend A supplements:

In reductionist approaches to consciousness research, scholars like Daniel Dennett generally reduce subjectivity to intentionality problems. In complex systems:

  • Intentionality issues relate to the concept of "interference"

  • Intentionality plays a key role in determining data convergence

  • Value toward convergence directly determines the existence of emergence

Q4: "Purification" Rather Than "Elimination" of Subjectivity

Friend A's core viewpoint:

Your approach is another reverse engineering. You haven't made human consciousness an emergence of various "non-human" individuals, but rather the final characterization (value judgment) of "various simulation (unit) overlaps" of non-human individuals.

Key insight: Rather than elimination of subjectivity, this is purification of subjectivity.

Under this logic:

  • Is subjectivity being "instrumentalized"?

  • We provide an "evolutionary model"

  • This model purifies subjectivity more purely into a step

  • Allowing subjectivity to intervene more "clearly-formally" in higher-level cognitive behaviors

  • Subjectivity itself becomes "componentized"

Q5: Repositioning Research Focus

Friend A's judgment:

If this is true, then your research focus may not be the structure of simulation (under the foundation of genetic algorithms, such pattern research is traceable), the biggest challenge should be how to "purify-isolate" subjectivity as part of the model, rather than traditionally "eliminating-ignoring" it.

Cyborg technology becomes the terminal path for "purifying-isolating-instrumentalizing" subjectivity:

  • Subjectivity is linearized into a loop step

  • No longer an indivisible global existence

  • No longer rejected in models due to global existence being unanalyzable

Round Two: Friend B's Response and Clarification

A1: Clarification on the Term "Elimination"

Friend B responds:

First, I apologize for the casualness of my word choice. What I meant to express is a kind of abstraction and extraction of subjective selectivity characteristics, which is also a kind of elimination, because:

  • In the value judgment stage, we can freely choose whether to cyborg in the direction of human subjectivity

  • This is a kind of free selection independence

  • Specific to certain subjectivity(ies), they can be detached and "eliminated"

Important clarification: If this model is to function, it requires subjectivity to necessarily exist - not only considering subjectivity as ubiquitous, but also treating subjectivity as a main feature in the reductionist analysis process.

A2: Agreement with "Purifying Subjectivity" Concept

Friend B confirms:

The following concepts you mentioned are indeed good descriptions of my method conceptually:

  • "Purifying subjectivity"

  • "Subjectivity being instrumentalized"

  • "Subjectivity being componentized"

  • "Making subjectivity intervene more clearly and formally in higher-level cognitive behaviors"

I believe this indeed fits the intention of my proposal.

A3: Questions About "Simulation Overlap"

Friend B questions:

Q: "You haven't made human consciousness an emergence of various 'non-human' individuals, but rather the final characterization (value judgment) of 'various simulation (unit) overlaps' of non-human individuals"

A: Regarding the latter half of this sentence, I'm quite puzzled about its meaning. What kind of design is simulation overlap? I would like to hear more details.

A4: Specific Exploration of Pattern Evolution

Friend B details research process:

Subjectivity is a recently used term for me; I previously mostly used words like "perspective" and "worldview" to describe the existence and nature of subjective selectivity.

Last year's exploration focus (using cellular automata as example):

  • Different from Wolfram's intuitive dynamic classification of patterns

  • Different from Langton's phase transition parameter analysis of entire space

  • Exploring pattern evolution laws

Core questions include:

  1. How to determine whether two patterns of a certain pattern are the same pattern?

  2. Are all patterns similar to the real world we recognize - can they be layered or grouped, and what are the standards?

  3. How to determine and find specific patterns to achieve certain interference to make patterns evolve in a certain direction?

A5: Mechanism of Value Judgment and Subjectivity Purification

Friend B's discovery:

During exploration, I found:

  • Who serves as identification or judgment standard is key to generating "value judgment"

  • Interference enables convergence of the abstract pattern world

  • Patterns, by only recognizing each other and only interfering with each other, can purify different value judgments and subjectivity into different identification patterns

Design principle:

  • Selection of identification patterns is self-defined, so subjectivity selection is also self-defined

  • Equating identification pattern selection with subjectivity selection may not be necessary, adjustments possible

  • But this approach's behavior is necessary

A6: Core Challenges Faced

Friend B acknowledges dilemmas:

Major problem: Even if separate construction of abstract pattern world is achievable, what is the significance in the construction process?

Contradictions:

  • While escaping the influence of subjectivity

  • Also almost losing the power to make most assumptions with worldview and introduce most specific a priori designs

  • What exactly to do, what kind of abstract world to construct?

Current status: Having intuitive property inferences about these possible worlds, but still unclear about specific generation schemes.

A7: Questions About Cyclicity

Friend B's confusion:

Q: Not quite clear why subjectivity is linearized into a loop step? I don't quite understand how this process has cyclicity?

A8: Engineering Challenges of Cyborg Technology

Friend B raises key questions:

If cyborg technology serves as the path for importing specific subjectivity, challenges that must be faced:

  1. Input problem: How do we find, correspond, and input human real-world worldviews and experiential knowledge into the pattern world?

  2. Validity determination: How to determine the validity of conclusions drawn from simulation worlds for different worldviews and experiential knowledge?

  3. Efficiency optimization:

Overall design requirements:

  • Previously depicted pattern world is static, now needs to become dynamically operational

  • Needs standardized input-output schemes

  • Needs operational purposes and interpretable specific operational means

  • The latter two questions point to engineering optimization problems

Discussion Summary

This dialogue reveals the core paradox of the "subjectivity elimination" proposal: while attempting to eliminate subjectivity, it requires subjectivity as the foundation for value judgment. Friend A astutely points out that the proposal is actually about "purification" and "instrumentalization" of subjectivity, rather than simple elimination. Friend B's response confirms this understanding and further elaborates on specific implementation ideas based on pattern evolution, while also acknowledging challenges faced in meaning construction and engineering implementation.