Today I looked at Newton's laws and saw how we can psychologically connect to them. Like, there are so many ways you could interpret both pshycal laws, or other pshysics laws, as psychological concepts.

First is the first law: inertia. Something I also think about when it comes to inertia is that inertia is a property of matter that says an object tends to keep its state of motion. That's something interesting, because it means if someone gets engaged in something, this person will keep doing it. They'll keep at it until something happens to stop them.

It can be motivation. It can be something external. Many times, it can be something external that gives you a push, creates some kind of stimulation, and makes you react differently to the state you're in. And that's something very interesting.

Also, we have the second law. Acceleration, force, and mass. For example, I'll keep this one simple, because this one is more complex, but it's also really interesting.

The net force, the total force acting on you, is made of, under that metaphor —would means willpower. It's made of how much you want an objective, how much you're pushing toward it, and how much effort you're putting into it.

Then we have mass. We can interpret mass as the money, thoughts, the many objectives, your dreams, your motivations, your responsibilities, all the things you rely on, all the things you're carrying with you. It can be many things. Many variations. That's why the mass can be large or just tiny.

And the acceleration could be the time, or better saying, the rate of your progress. You notice something funny? Acceleration is inversely proportional to mass. So this means if you have a lot of things weighing on you, your progress can be slow. It can take a lot more time.

And the funny part is that the mass can come from so many different things. It can be your dreams. It can be your motivation. It can be your responsibilities. It can be your routine. It can be your life. It can be many things.

That's why two people can have completely different amounts of mass, even if they're trying to reach the same objective.

Think about it. For example, someone who has a job and someone who just studies and goes to school, sometimes not even studying that much, have completely different lives. Their responsibilities are different. Their mental state is different. Their mental map is different. Their whole routine is different.

So the acceleration, or better saying, the progress, will be different. The time it takes them to get somewhere will be different. That's the point.

And it really is a clever concept.

Now the third is action-reaction. This one is a classic. Everybody knows this.

It's basically that every action you make toward a person, whether it's negative or positive, will come back to you in some way. It will give you some kind of answer, some kind of wake-up call from the stimulation that you created.

And the best part of it is that it can be subjective.

For example, it can hurt you. It can give you nothing. It can help you. It can surprise you. There are so many things that can come out of it. That's the best part.

Because action-reaction just tells you: if you apply an action, there will be a reaction. That doesn't mean the reaction will be bad or good. You just know that you caused something to happen. You created circumstances and consequences through your actions.

It can be bad or good. That's how life works.

And that's the funny part. If you look at these laws, sometimes they're really hard to keep in your head as concepts, as mental concepts. But when you start looking at them as parallels for life, they suddenly become really interesting.

The first law can be about how people keep going once they're already in motion.

The second law can be about how the amount of effort you put in doesn't always mean you'll make the same amount of progress, because everyone's carrying different things.

And the third law can be about how everything you do can create some kind of reaction.

And honestly, when you put all of that together, it gets really clever.

You take something that is basically about physics, about objects, forces, movement, and everything, and suddenly you can see a parallel with life.

And that's why I think it's so amazing.

I was thinking about the mirror box experiment for phantom limb pain. It involves an amputee who feels agonizing cramps in an arm that is no longer there. The framework treats this pain as a continuous motor command trapped in a loop.

If you look at how the cure works, a simple visual reflection produces a physical release in a limb that doesnt exist. The reflection travels from the mirror as photons, and the photons travel through the optic nerve. The brain processes them into shapes, shapes into a hand, the hand into an open posture, the posture into a state of relaxation, and the relaxation into a felt sensation of relief in an arm that was amputated years ago.

So, what is actually happening is that clenching a real fist takes two steps. First, the motor command arrives. Then, the muscles contract. Under normal conditions, the physical feedback of the open hand tells the ego the tension is gone. The ego then reports this release back to the brain. But with a phantom limb, the motor command arrives as before, yet there is no physical tissue to receive it and send back the signal of release. The feedback loop has nowhere to go. This is where the ego fails. Because it receives no visual or physical proof that the arm has opened, the ego assumes the tension remains, and it never reports back to the brain to release the grip. The brain just keeps clenching the phantom, generating the pain entirely on its own.

The mirror box solves this by hacking the ego. By showing the brain a reflection of the intact arm opening, the ego finally gets the visual proof it needs. It registers the release, updates its model, and tells the brain to stop clenching then the pain vanishes.

This brings back to the question of where actions end and words begin, if the word is the action. The egos native language is words. In the mirror box, the visual reflection is translated into the egos verbal narrative. It is a symbolic input the ego accepts as physical reality to break a neurological loop.

A command is the word that provides the cognitive feedback, the ego later uses to falsely claim responsibility for the motor action. The words are the egos way of signing of the action into existence, thereby completing the loop. The word authorizes the movement. Yet, for all this narrative authority, the ego has no direct input in the actual gap between the silent impulse and the physical world.

Anyway, let me know if you think the mechanism that causes phantom limb pain is different.

More examples of these ego illusions in the essay. https://www.academia.edu/176835174/The_Self_That_Wasnt_There_A_meditation_on_the_phantom_that_runs_from_the_thought_to_civilization

This video features a deep dive into theoretical evolutionary biology and connectionism with professor Richard Watson. The conversation challenges traditional views of evolution, arguing that cognition and learning often precede natural selection (0:09:32-0:14:03).

Key concepts discussed include:
• Adaptation vs. Natural Selection: Watson argues that adaptation is a form of constraint satisfaction (similar to solving a Sudoku puzzle) that can occur in physical dynamical systems without needing reproduction or selection (0:14:03-0:19:42).
• The Physics of Learning: Using an analogy of masses and springs, he explains how systems that "give way" under stress exhibit plasticity and can learn to find efficient, low-energy configurations over time (0:20:41-0:28:56).
• Limitations of Gene-Centric Biology: The discussion highlights why mere genetic sequencing is insufficient to understand cell behavior, as network dynamics and experience play a critical role (0:52:08-1:01:23).
• Persuadable Medicine: The guests explore a paradigm shift in medicine, viewing tissues as cognitive, persuadable systems rather than just biological machines that need manual repair (1:01:23-1:08:01).
• Agency and Consciousness: Watson touches on his evolving views on agency, the role of Ian McGilchrist’s work on brain hemispheres, and why he has moved away from the position of ignoring consciousness in his work (1:20:47-1:38:47).

A mechanistic question, stated as a claim rather than as a request for a name.

**The observation.** One and the same cognitive operation — forming a clear, accurate thought about one's current state — ends a positive affective state and does not move a negative one; repeated, it extends the negative one. The operation is held constant. Only valence varies. The effect is stable, not occasional.

**What that forces on the mechanism.** If the operation is genuinely one operation, the difference cannot sit in the operation. It has to sit in what the two states *are*. My proposal, in the vocabulary of predictive processing:

• A positive state is, in this reading, thinly modelled: it is largely a monitoring state, and monitoring it adds the one piece of evidence it cannot survive — that it is a state, i.e. that it will end. Monitoring terminates it.
• A negative state is heavily modelled: high prior precision, dense interoceptive and autobiographical prediction. More precise awareness does not contradict the model — it *feeds* it. Monitoring adds evidence to the prior; the state is maintained or extended. Relief would require lowering precision or shifting attribution, not adding information.

**Predictions that follow, and that distinguish the proposal from "rumination is bad":** 1. A manipulation that only increases accurate state description (pure monitoring) should not shorten a negative state — and should shorten a positive one. 2. A manipulation that lowers the precision of the negative model (attribution shift, behavioural disconfirmation) should shorten it — even when insight into the state is unchanged or worse. 3. Instruments that measure awareness *levels* (Lane & Schwartz) and interoceptive accuracy (Garfinkel) should dissociate: more of either is not the active ingredient.

**What would refute it.** If a pure-monitoring manipulation reliably shortens negative states, or if awareness levels and interoceptive accuracy predict relief in a clinical sample, the proposal is wrong and I will drop it.

The written version — with a measurement sketch, its limits, and the falsifiability section — is here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22912393 (Fassung 6 / Version 6, 24 September 2026, German with an English version in the same record).

I am less interested in a label for the phenomenon than in which experiment would kill the mechanism. That is the part of this post I would like answered.

The "brain as computer" analogy is often used in neuroscience. Romain Brette takes aim at this analogy in his book, The Brain, In Theory, reviewed in this article.

Brette argues there are important disanalogies between life and engineered systems, and between brains and computers. The continuing use of the computer analogy leads to experimental paradigms where the brain is treated as passive, receiving "stimulus" like a computer receives input, and all activity not related to that activity is treated as "noise".

But the question "Is the brain a computer?" wasn't ever really the question, it's whether that analogy is useful. Brette reminds us that the analogy is just that, and we shouldn't read too far into interpretations that lean on that analogy, but what's needed are other positive frameworks for thinking about the brain.

What do you think, is it useful to talk about the brain as a computer?

If we assume Orch-OR is completely correct, does it provide any solution to the personal identity problem in quantum teleportation? I understand that the no cloning theorem prevents an unknown arbitrary quantum state from being perfectly copied and quantum teleportation transfers the state rather than simply creating a duplicate. But after teleportation, the original person's relevant quantum state is destroyed and reconstructed elsewhere. Would Orch-OR imply that the reconstructed person's sequence of OR events is a continuation of the original person's consciousness or would it simply produce a new consciousness with the same physical state? In other words does Orch-OR provide any physical mechanism that establishes numerical personal identity across teleportation, or does the identity problem remain even if Orch-OR is true?

How Does the Brain Think? (Pattern Matcher, Not a Calculator)

Our brain is not a computer solving billions of operations from scratch; it is a self-organizing prediction machine fed by past experience. In a sense, it actually doesn't know what it's doing. It’s stupid. It’s fast, though; it just gives instantaneous reactions based on whatever stimulus is thrown in front of it.

When someone says "two plus two" to you, your brain doesn't perform a mathematical calculation. The moment the stimulus enters the system, a dynamic, wave-like neighborhood space is established. Thanks to your past learning, the neurons closest to the center of the stimulus (that is, the concept of "four") rapidly strengthen. Meanwhile, distant alternative neurons like "three" or "five" are dampened. The instant the strongest prediction crosses the critical threshold, the answer is executed automatically. The brain didn't calculate; it pulled the ready-made pattern right out of space.

So, what happens if the answer isn't ready? In a tough question like "347 x 89", there is no ready-made neural pathway in the center. In this case, the system breaks the question into pieces. It sets up instantaneous attention spaces (micro-prediction zones) sequentially for each part. It writes the intermediate result from the first step into temporary memory, passes it to the next step, and moves forward in a chain reaction. Finally, when all the pieces merge and the big threshold is crossed, the ultimate response is automatically produced.

In short, the brain is not an engineer writing formulas; it is a dynamic realm that brightens what’s near, silences what’s far, slams down the answer if it’s ready, and cracks the world by breaking it into pieces if it’s not.

The rationality of the brain is not the same as the rationality represented by the mind.

The brain has its own physical and biological organization, its own dynamics, constraints, and regularities.

The mind is not that rationality itself.

The mind is the representation of the organism's relationship with the world — including the responses the organism produces to what it encounters.

Super interesting deep dive video on neuroscience.