How do you define the difference between software subagents and hardware submodules?
I (feel like I) have a good understanding of what exactly which major ‘parts’ of my brain are capable of. I know what I can do by language modeling, I know what I can do and when with my visual cortex, auditory cortex, kinesthetic sense, motor cortex, working memory, I know what I can do with my spatial awareness. I can consciously focus on most of these parts and affect their workings, mostly by bringing them into attention. I’m also aware of, but not in direct conscious control of some other parts of the brain which makes me somewhat aware of things such as Ugh Fields. (I don’t have names for all such submodules, only the most obvious ones that seem to match up to things I’ve read.)
These all are completely non-agenty, even if they can somewhat work independently of my central attention. Say, when you’re not focusing on sound, do you view your auditory cortex as a sub-agent when it brings to your attention the fact a loud sound just happened? I don’t. I also don’t see these parts as separate from ‘me’, and I don’t communicate with them in any way except with raw attention.
I should also clarify that despite my description, I don’t mean whatever controls executive function when I say “central attention”. I mean the part of the brain that controls the importance that affects what stays and what’s replaced on the ‘main bus’ that other parts of the brain dump data on.
My interpretation of software subagents is that people can install a (possibly pseudo-)personality that runs in certain parts of the brain, or at least interfaces with them while your central attention is elsewhere. Importantly, it’s able to use various mental resources without it coming to your central attention. This interpretation is likely wrong, as I have no experience with this other than reading people’s posts on the internet, which loses a lot of detail.
Regarding “no default personality” and “no unitary self”. I don’t think that’s the case (unless I misunderstood the term), I do have a self, I see my mind’s central attention as my core self, and the rest of my brain as components that allow me to do things that make up the whole self, the externally visible person that I am. I see some of those components as more important (various long term memory, language; some higher abstraction parts of the visual cortex) or less important (the actual learned personality-like behaviors I assume in various situations, my routines, common knowledge) to preserving the ‘whole’ self and its values.
I believe the most important parts of self-hood happen in the center of attention, things that come to attention have a disproportionate effect on decision making, memory formation, and basically everything else that’s important in the brain.
That again sounds pretty close to how I would have described myself earlier (and would mostly still describe). You didn’t write about your emotional balance but if you’re again like me, it would involve few excited states and fewer conflicted or what’s called negative states and emotions e.g., anger. If so, that would confirm my assumption that getting to such a uniform and stable state requires a certain environment. An environment that has little need for the developing brain and mind to overfit. No forced adaptations to environmental risks like loss of caretakers or life. But also an environment rich in information and worth exploring.
I would like to tag in as a 3rd in this group and say your estimate at my growing environment matches how I would describe it. I have little-to-no interior emotional conflict and explicitly modeling others seems alien to me.
True, I didn’t mention emotional balance since it usually plays little role in my daily life. I used to have issues with managing extreme emotions in early childhood that I solved by both avoidance, and ‘dimming’ them to the point they are mostly manageable. I avoid anger in daily life because it was always unproductive for me in the past, and is incompatible with the social strategies I use nowadays (which I picked because I suck at social ‘tactics’).
The environment you describe matches up well, but not perfectly with the one I grew up in. I guess you can use that as a confirmation.
I (feel like I) have a good understanding of what exactly which major ‘parts’ of my brain are capable of. I know what I can do by language modeling, I know what I can do and when with my visual cortex, auditory cortex, kinesthetic sense, motor cortex, working memory, I know what I can do with my spatial awareness. I can consciously focus on most of these parts and affect their workings, mostly by bringing them into attention. I’m also aware of, but not in direct conscious control of some other parts of the brain which makes me somewhat aware of things such as Ugh Fields. (I don’t have names for all such submodules, only the most obvious ones that seem to match up to things I’ve read.)
These all are completely non-agenty, even if they can somewhat work independently of my central attention. Say, when you’re not focusing on sound, do you view your auditory cortex as a sub-agent when it brings to your attention the fact a loud sound just happened? I don’t. I also don’t see these parts as separate from ‘me’, and I don’t communicate with them in any way except with raw attention.
I should also clarify that despite my description, I don’t mean whatever controls executive function when I say “central attention”. I mean the part of the brain that controls the importance that affects what stays and what’s replaced on the ‘main bus’ that other parts of the brain dump data on.
My interpretation of software subagents is that people can install a (possibly pseudo-)personality that runs in certain parts of the brain, or at least interfaces with them while your central attention is elsewhere. Importantly, it’s able to use various mental resources without it coming to your central attention. This interpretation is likely wrong, as I have no experience with this other than reading people’s posts on the internet, which loses a lot of detail.
Regarding “no default personality” and “no unitary self”. I don’t think that’s the case (unless I misunderstood the term), I do have a self, I see my mind’s central attention as my core self, and the rest of my brain as components that allow me to do things that make up the whole self, the externally visible person that I am. I see some of those components as more important (various long term memory, language; some higher abstraction parts of the visual cortex) or less important (the actual learned personality-like behaviors I assume in various situations, my routines, common knowledge) to preserving the ‘whole’ self and its values.
I believe the most important parts of self-hood happen in the center of attention, things that come to attention have a disproportionate effect on decision making, memory formation, and basically everything else that’s important in the brain.
That again sounds pretty close to how I would have described myself earlier (and would mostly still describe). You didn’t write about your emotional balance but if you’re again like me, it would involve few excited states and fewer conflicted or what’s called negative states and emotions e.g., anger. If so, that would confirm my assumption that getting to such a uniform and stable state requires a certain environment. An environment that has little need for the developing brain and mind to overfit. No forced adaptations to environmental risks like loss of caretakers or life. But also an environment rich in information and worth exploring.
I would like to tag in as a 3rd in this group and say your estimate at my growing environment matches how I would describe it. I have little-to-no interior emotional conflict and explicitly modeling others seems alien to me.
[Edit s/know/no]
True, I didn’t mention emotional balance since it usually plays little role in my daily life. I used to have issues with managing extreme emotions in early childhood that I solved by both avoidance, and ‘dimming’ them to the point they are mostly manageable. I avoid anger in daily life because it was always unproductive for me in the past, and is incompatible with the social strategies I use nowadays (which I picked because I suck at social ‘tactics’).
The environment you describe matches up well, but not perfectly with the one I grew up in. I guess you can use that as a confirmation.
Thanks for sharing. I can relate even to the exceptions and resulting strategies.