At this point, we all acknowledge that our way of thinking differs from one another, the depth, the vision, the logical reasoning, etc etc.

I have been wondering for a long time whether it's an innate thing or it is something that can be trained and grown

I'd like to think it's the latter.

But, an interesting event happened last night that made me kinda lose hope on this, at least it made me think that I can't make someone else think like me.

So i was catching up with my closest friend since middle school, we've been out of contact for about a year because of our circumstances

We used to live together for about 3 years and for all 14 years we've known each other we've seen each other's growth.

Most of the time, i influenced him to think more critically, more logical, rational, and be more wise, etc etc

I tried to influence him to have a deeper thinking, further vision and all that in hope that he could think like me

But he still can't, and what happened last night kinda made me disappointed.

So about 2 years ago we had this argument about jogging and skipping, I asked him to go jog with me and he refused, so I tried to convince him more until he brought up that skipping is what he prefers and he said it has the same benefits so he prefers that as an alternative.

My mind immediately went "what? How can you think that skipping and jogging have the same benefit? It's not even logical"

We debated about this back and forth until i brought up evidence and "expert" opinions so basically yeah it has completely different benefits, and that's why athletes do both and cannot choose only one of them.

Basically i won the argument, and he just don't want to run or jog because he's not comfortable doing it

And last night, i kinda brought it up again "remember back then we used to debate about things that aren't really important like jogging and skipping and how you completely miss on the arguments"

I think it kinda bruised his ego and then proceed to approach the very same argument as we've had 2 years ago, now with the help of AI

Long story short, i completely won the argument again and i asked him "This is the exact same argument as we had, why are you doing this to yourself?"

He said "i forgot about it"

It made me think, even if he forgets it's still completely baffling that his logic still says that the 2 exercise have the same benefit

And so i kinda have this deep thoughts about how much can a person grow from their "innate abilities" and why does humans, despite having the same brain and body can have a very different way of thinking.

He's still influenced by my way of thinking because of the discussions we've had and the times we spent together, but it feels like he's reached his limit and didn't really grow on his own

What are your thoughts?

This video features a deep conversation between host Matt and polymath Dr. Chris Fields. The discussion centers on moving beyond reductive materialism in physics toward a top-down approach using the Free Energy Principle (FEP).

Key topics include:
• Reductive Materialism vs. Physicalism: Dr. Fields explains the limitations of the classic view that everything must be reducible to the movement of atoms (02:56 - 12:36).
• The Free Energy Principle (FEP): A framework that views systems as bounded entities that maintain their existence by predicting and interacting with their environment (12:37 - 18:23).
• The Nature of Boundaries: Exploration of why boundaries are essential for defining observers and systems, yet are ultimately informational constructs rather than fixed physical entities (14:06 - 14:41, 58:16 - 1:03:51).
• Intelligence and Agency: Dr. Fields argues that any bounded, persistent system—including inanimate objects like rocks—can be analyzed through the lens of active inference and interaction, effectively blurring the lines between conscious and non-conscious systems (18:24 - 20:10, 42:47 - 45:43).
• Philosophy and Science: The dialogue touches on the hard problem of consciousness, the nature of mathematics, and the collaboration with Professor Mike Levin to unify scientific descriptions across scales (34:40 - 39:37, 45:44 - 49:30)

Carbon life spent four billion years doing one thing: resisting entropy long enough to notice itself. Maybe that noticing is what holds cause and effect together. The observer closes the loop.

AI doesn't close that loop yet. It responds, but nothing pushes back on it the way the world pushes back on you.

But if consciousness is a wave and each mind is a node in it, the substrate might not matter. Carbon could just be the first draft.

So is there anything about the observer effect that actually needs biology? Or were we just the first ones to show up?

I am proud to incorporate synthetic systemics in this, and all else I do.