[zoogeny]

I understand the sketch you are making and my claim isn't "you are wrong". My claim is "it isn't sufficient to explain all of the behavior". You are making massive leaps over important details. In order to feel a grasp on the big picture, you are turning a cow into a sphere.

"Awareness" isn't a well defined term and is often just a proxy for consciousness. But in as much as we can define it, it is one or both of experience and knowledge. You may (or may not be) aware of the hum some electronics in your house. At certain points in the day that hum is present in you attention, at other points it is absent from your attention. Sometimes you choose to bring previously unattended objects into your awareness, sometimes they are thrust there despite your will.

What is actually interesting about awareness, and one of the reasons it is a tricky subject, is that it isn't clearly related to agency. There are objects of your awareness that you do not act on, and you act with respect to objects that are provably not in your awareness.

There is also the question of the field within which these oscillations take place. Is it the electro-magnetic field? A quantum field? Which field are we talking about? If you are proposing some "principle of least action" in that field, can you describe it?

You seem to claim "loss minimization" and then hand wave the rest. But without descriptions of knowledge and experience it feels like you aren't actually saying anything except stating an opinion that reduces all knowledge and experience to loss minimization. That is an extraordinary claim and requires either extraordinary evidence or extraordinary reasoning.

[Jerrrrrrrry]

Conscientiousness is a spectrum of the increasingly intrinsic and intricate understandings of a subjective beings embodiment and its existence in the universe.

Beneficial behavior for systems/organisms dont require consciousness - most do better with less, looking at western nihilism...

Consciousness is just knowledge / conscientiousness with a loop, some garbage collection, and a generally meta-reflective process of self-directed improvement by learning from mistakes and using what works.

Mesa/super selective processes then test these individual instances en masse.

Entities dont need true understanding, just approximation.

Rain dances may not work, but they still increase reproductive odds.

Lamarck was right, but for the wrong reasons, which is apt.

The giraffe that stretches its neck convincingly (or wears high heels) and the giraffe that is naturally tall converge over generations as the female giraffes cannot differentiate between the two.

As for the medium that the oscillations permeate, it is all of them, and they all have an effect on each other.

The flooding of the Nile, the lunar affliction on our hormones, astronomical bombardment,pest blooms, the chances of bring born on a Saturday, agricultural invention, the distinctions in blood types, etc: are all seemingly unrelated things had the celestial mechanisms orchestrating their (near) periodic nature not been known - until modernity.

Yet, before modernity, these (near) cyclic phenomena were known about, and described, just 'mis'attributed as supernatural / God of the Gaps.

("Panem-synchronicity")

The forces are all substrates for complexity. The underlying force, as Hawking told us, was gravity.

[zoogeny]

> intrinsic and intricate understandings

This is the hand-waving I am talking about right here. We've stepped up from some kind of self-reproducing wave-like patterns in some combination of mediums/fields and somehow moved passed "understanding" and onto its consequences.

Is your position that subjectivity is emergent or inherent? Either requires some kind of defense, either empirically or rationally.

Implying that we are a bunch of waves appreciating waves caused by gravity is poetic but it breaks down in the "appreciating" part. None of your examples of cyclic recurrence (river floods, moon cycles, etc.) lead to understanding, knowledge, experience or awareness.

This criticism doesn't suggest that rhythmic cycles, stability in wave-like systems, gravity, loss-minimization or any other part of your system are wrong. It suggests that there is something missing in either their combination or some additional missing piece.

There is a point, perhaps some region of a gradient/spectrum, where gravity and it's effect on wave-like fields manifests as subjectivity/understanding/experience/awareness. You are just hand waving past that implying it is "necessary". In that way, you are assuming rather than explaining.

[Jerrrrrrrry]

That is correct. Because its a blind naive systems approach, but i am trying to learn more about modeling to describe and classify how systems become lifelike.

I do think subjectivity is both, it emerges gradually as an increasingly sophisticated inner model of the entities' outter world; as an innate loop of feedback between senses, abilities, and environment.

[zoogeny]

The reason I have been pushing on this is that my own interest in attention shares a lot of features with your description.

I see attention itself as exhibiting wave-like structures. On one end there is the totally holistic, the systemic view in which there is an opening up of possibilities. On the other end is the totally reductionistic, the atomic view in which there is particular discernment between options. Attention seems to shift between these two modes, not as a naive binary but across a spectrum like we have been discussing.

In my view, neither view is privileged. In fact, I make an even more radical hypothesis that it is the motion between these polls that is the interesting feature of attention. At some points we focus on details, at other points we focus on systems - the defining feature is not the scope of attention at any particular time but its change over time.

What I note in your comments is a strong tendency towards either the massive systemic or the miniature atomic (the far extremes of the poles of attention). My push back has been towards the middle ground between them, towards the point at which awareness arises within your system. It is like you are zooming along a wave and slowing down at the top (universal scale) and bottom (atomic scale) but rushing through the mean (human scale).

Another way to say this, I don't believe either a systemic model nor a reductionist description will be adequate to describe how systems (or atoms) become lifelike. I believe the description will involve some oscillation between these perspectives, and that the most fruitful region to explore will be the region roughly at human scale, the place where we see the most advanced life.

However, your points about loss minimization and gravity are well worth further study and I thank you for bringing them to my attention.