Can I ever be good enough?

Consider the following problem: why do we perceive?

It is the most counter-intuitive problem that I have encountered in my life.

The Easy Problem of Consciousness

Here is a list of less counter-intuitive problems, along with humankind’s nascent solutions:

1. Why does anything exist? Don’t care.

2. Assuming things exist, what existed before the observable universe? By (most-likely incorrect) induction, a single point containing all the information in the observable universe to come.

3. Whence came this information? Split this problem into two parts: the source(s) of the information, and the apparatus which configured the information.

   1. The apparatus by which given information from given sources may reach a given configuration, while a fun computer science problem, is much less interesting than Problem 1, for which the answer is “Don’t care.”.

   2. The source of the information is an interesting cosmological problem, and humans have much ground to cover to answer this question. An intuitive (thus very likely wrong but also very possibly right) hypothesis is that information is neither created nor destroyed, but rather continuously recycled, which would make this a homologous problem to Problem 6.

4. How did our observable universe begin? Assuming that logical conclusion by the collective human consciousness can be trusted (it can’t; and I’m not being edgy, it is logically true that humankind cannot attest logic grounded on humankind’s own perception, if you’re the sort of person who believes in logic), and that we understand the thing we are measuring enough to measure it correctly (we don’t), then based on observation, very likely the Big Bang.

5. How will the universe end? Possibly depends on the shape of our universe, its density of dark matter, and its cosmological constant(s).

6. What happens after the end of the universe? Intuitively, this problem is best approached in tandem with Problems 2, 3.b, and 5.

7. How did life come to be? Big Bang → gravity, matter, and some other forces nobody gives a shit about → energy gradients → groups of matter form → groups of matter form → groups of matter form → the way that forces work results in a tendency for groups of matter to coalesce into ellipsoidal objects → the Earth exists → Hot Soup with yummy elements and energy gradients → molecules → there can exist molecules that take less energy to form and are more durable than others, so naturally these molecules better “compete” for elements and energy and become abundant → there can exist molecules that are compounds of other molecules → organic compounds → Human, the apex predator, the Pinnacle of Life, and all our attendant cognitive complications.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness

So now that we’ve solved why humans exist and why we’re so dang smart, we can see why those were much easier problems than the one of “Why do we perceive?”.

This question was formulated and named in 1994 by the philosopher David Chalmers.

Now that I actually write it out though, I fear us circa 1994-2024 humans will sound a tad like Aristotle when he describes the human brain as pneumatic tubes, or Freud when he describes the human brain as a steam engine, or Sam Altman when he tritely describes the brain as an artificial neural network. This is because I’m tempted to index on Harald Atmanspacher’s 2004 (rev. 2020) review on quantum approaches to consciousness, wherein the cool kids on the block (e.g. my mom since 2009) know that quantum is the new hotness, and that neural networks are 90s tech (literally, here’s my dad’s 1994 paper). Certainly it’s an intuitive and tempting avenue of study if we are to (as we can only do) probe the material bases of consciousness (and I believe that perceivable dimensions require one more dimension to experience perception and not merely exist within those dimensions). But isn’t this just history repeating itself?

I don’t mean to mock Aristotle by the way, nor mental models. Firstly, I’d guess he’s smarter than anyone I’ve ever met (including myself by far). I do mean to mock Freud and Altman, mostly because I think they are less intelligent than nearly all of the people I’ve had the pleasure of working closely with (including myself), but they would pretend otherwise. (Am I more of an Aristotle or an Altman? I’d rather err on the safe side and mock myself, too.). Secondly and lastly, our apex mental models in a given era are collaboratively-built, highly-efficient encapsulations of collective human effort to arrange information, belying simplicity because of countless successive hidden layers below arranged by successive generations. Right or wrong, drivel or not, my novel arrangement of deranged words that flow onto your computer screen right this moment glide off a knife’s edge honed by 50,000 hours of conversation and connection with beautiful human beings who each themselves have had 10,000-150,000 hours of conversation with and connection with their own beautiful human beings. The mental model is our workbench, and our frontier, at which we labor so the next generation can think us foolish.

So, yes, this is history repeating, but in a good way IMO.

So, can I ever be good enough?

Oh fuck I forgot that’s what this essay was about. You know what, I just realized I don’t care anymore! I’m good enough. And, so are you.

Either we all are, or we all are not. I choose to believe the former, and I hope many of you choose to, too.