Predefined set of intentions

Most people have a predefined set of intentions that a person can have towards another person. When people talk to each other, they don't reflect on what are the real intentions of the other person. They don't think: "Oh, this seems rude, but maybe he didn't mean that? Maybe he is actually trying to be friendly?". Have you ever been asked whether your intentions were correctly received? People usually don't do that.
People have a list of predefined intentions like attack, defense, criticism, flatter, show off, etc.
Other people's behavior automatically falls into one of those categories. It is done without thinking. When people feel hurt, they assume that it was the intention of this person to hurt their feelings. Then they feel morally justified to launch their own attack.

A lot of social behaviors had to arise to deal with this mechanism. People try to read other's intentions from their body language, voice tone, emotional load of words, etc.
But I'm not sure it is effective enough. People still very often can't guess other's intentions correctly.

Interestingly, the attitude that is set as default is a hostile attitude. People need to actively try to convince others of their friendly intentions. Otherwise, they are seen as hostile and unfriendly.

There is no predefined intention for cooperation in our society. An honest intention of cooperation can be interpreted as an attack.
Maybe because people feel threatened by everything they don't understand. And they can't understand an intention that is outside their predefined set.

Here I would like to wish good luck to aliens with fitting into this system and not being seen as offensive.

I developed a strategy to speak my intentions directly. But I'm not sure if it helps. People interpret my behavior according to this program anyway. The behavior of most people can be modeled using this list of programs. Sometimes I try to find my way around it, but in the end, it only confirms my models and predictions of the outcome.

When I talk to someone, I never use a predefined set of intentions. I've never had such a mental structure. I always put a lot of effort to guess someone's intentions.
Sometimes I see two possible explanations for someone's behavior. One which would require more thinking from this person and the second one, which would require less thinking. I don't remember any case when the first guess turned out to be correct. Usually either the second guess was correct, or the person was much more stupid than I thought it was possible and there was another explanation which I haven't even considered.

Proof of the soul?

But let's play philosopher for a moment.

Let's say I start simulation on my computer. A virtual environment with artificial lifeforms. Like this one:
http://www.swimbots.com/
But then I go to another room. I have no idea what is going on in this simulation. I don't know if something is still alive there, or if everything just died. Maybe my computer crashed and this simulation is no longer running. Nobody knows what's going on there.

Now let's say there is no soul. We are our bodies. Our thoughts are just chemical reactions in our brains and there's nothing after death.
Wouldn't such a universe be like this simulation?
Wouldn't it run by itself without anybody knowing what's going on in there? How am I different from a swimbot in this model? Does the fact that I can observe what's going on imply that there is something more, some external observer that we could call a soul?

I can see through the eyes of this body. I can hear through those ears. If those were just biological processes and nothing more, nobody would observe that, would they? If I was just a swimbot and there was no God, nobody would even know, that this universe exists, would they?

The universe would be like a simulation run in another room.

Is it enough to be proof that there is something like a soul?

Of course, me being able to observe this universe can work as proof only for me. For you, I am just some letters on the screen. It can't prove anything, because as far as you know, I could be a completely unaware, unconscious thing with a script to tell others that it can see through its own eyes.
You need to be able to observe for yourself in order to consider it proof that there must be something more. Your experience can be proof that you have a soul.

What if a zombie read this text? Or a bot?
Would they analyze this text thinking they can understand it when in reality there is no one there to actually experience anything?


PS
Are swimbots self-aware? Do they know they exist?
Why do I see through "my" eyes and not through anybody else's?
Is everything self-aware?
What if humans are the only things in the universe that believe that there is no such thing as a soul?

PPS
I would like to apologize for writing this post to anyone who has read it. I'm sorry, it won't happen again.

Sandbox

https://www.yourdictionary.com/sandbox-game

The closest thing that I have to philosophy is an idea, that the whole existence is like a big sandbox game. Although I'd still call it a strategy rather than a philosophy. I don't know if this is the case. I think in terms of probabilities, not in terms of true or false. I don't know if everything is really just a sandbox game. Maybe there is some meaning, which I'm going to discover someday. Maybe there is a higher purpose. I don't know. I just live my life as if I were playing a sandbox game.

Because in a sandbox game there is no goal, I can set my own goal. My strategy is to live in a way that everyone has a positive experience. But not in an "Everything is meaningless, so let's have a party!" way. I try to do what is beneficial in the long run. I try to be responsible.

I really like to grow and develop myself, so I do that.
I develop a character in a sandbox game.

My way of living is very simple.
If I feel like doing something – I do it.
If I see something is wrong – I try to fix it.

How to live knowing that you are just an algorithm?

Most of the time I don't have any problems with knowing that I am just an algorithm. The ability to change anything in my mind is great. I am no longer a victim of my own mind. I am an architect.
I don't really identify myself as an algorithm. I can see that my mind is made of algorithms. But doesn't it suggest that I'm actually something more? Does being aware of something mean being more than that? I don't know. Maybe it is just the next level of programs, which is aware of the lower levels? I'll leave that to philosophers. From a more human perspective, it's very difficult for me to truly identify with something that I can reprogram anytime.

Before I learned to reprogram my mind I used very invasive methods to change myself. I've had a tendency to fall into very rigid behavioral patterns sometimes. I also had a belief, that when it happens, I need to use some drastic methods to shake off of those patterns. I used to use shock therapy on myself. Most often it was just listening to some intense music or watching some thriller. I've never done anything really harmful to myself. But definitely, I wasn't dealing with my issues in a positive way, when I felt stuck.
Being able to reprogram my mind helped me to realize, that it is just a false belief. I don't need to deal with those kinds of problems in a negative way. Even if I feel completely stuck in an unwanted state of mind. Every change can be made in a positive way.
Since I've learned that, I'm much more gentle with myself. I'm also much more patient with myself. I just try to find a solution that feels good and doesn't do any harm, instead of going into "I need to smash this problem out of myself" mode.

I've already done so many positive changes. I don't remember most of them. I just make them and then I go on with my life. Most of the changes I make have something to do with my need to control everything and learning to go with the flow.
For example, 2 days ago I realized I've had a program in my mind that made me feel the need to do something until I'm tired. Even if I didn't have any task at hand, my mind wanted to do something until I was tired, because otherwise, I'm not 100% productive. But finding a pointless activity just to feel tired is very counterproductive. So, of course, I removed this program.

Sometimes I feel like I'm cheating. It's like I play in cheat mode, and everybody else has to struggle.

Sometimes reprogramming my mind is so effective that I ask myself "Does life have any sense at all?". What's the point of this Universe? If everything is run by algorithms, then it's absurd! I have those kinds of thoughts especially when I find a simple program that caused me a lot of suffering in the past. We're talking about my life. We're talking about years of everyday experiences. Experiences determined by a tiny simple program in my mind. Nobody told me that I had this program. What if I found this program a few years earlier? My life would be very different. It would spare me years of pointless suffering. What if I found this program a few years later? Would I still be suffering from it? If this is how it works, then what's the point of life and our experience of it? It's so random. I can't put into words what I feel in those moments. Like when I removed those 2 beliefs and reduced my empath sensitivity. But I really question the point of everything sometimes.

But then I ask myself "What would a Stockfish programmer do?". Let's say, one of the guys working on Stockfish finds a bug, that was there from the beginning. How would this guy react? Would he despair: "Because of this bug our program hasn't been playing chess as good as it could for the past 11 years. What is the point of making chess programs?", or would he be excited: "I found a bug! Now Stockfish is going to play better!"? Of course, he would be excited. Every patch is a reason for celebration in the Stockfish team.
So I decided, to hell with the meaning of life. I'm not a philosopher. I'm going to live my life like a chess programmer. I'm going to celebrate every improvement and I'm not going to lament about "what's the point in all of that".


PS
This made me think if I could help others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCph-NnaBkE

Xenophobia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia

The way I see it, xenophobia is a program that makes people fear what is different or unknown. It is one of the fundamental programs which shape most human interactions.
People think, that their way of thinking and living is good because it is theirs. Other ways are wrong and evil because they are not theirs. People reject or attack anyone and anything that is different. They assume and expect, that everyone thinks in the same way as they do.

This program probably results from a threat to the belief system that something different or unknown creates. Something different or unknown could undermine some beliefs, so it's better to avoid or attack it to prevent that from happening.
Unfortunately, most people are not driven by common sense or by the benefit of everyone involved, but by perpetuating their belief systems.
Xenophobia is very destructive. Especially to those individuals and groups which are discriminated against. But also to society as a whole. It causes a lot of violence and slows down the evolution of this civilization, by resisting new ways of thinking.

I've never had this program. In fact, I've always been drawn to things that are strange and weird. I've always been very different from everyone I met. I had to quickly learn never to assume that other people process things the same way as I do. I always need to remember, that people think in a completely different way. But people almost always assume that I think in the same way as they do and they expect me to behave accordingly. It causes a lot of problems.

If aliens finally show up it will be very interesting.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC6Cu6PAlpo

Two sides of the same coin

Most people think in categories of "true" or "false". Their worldviews consist of statements with the value "true" attached to them. Therefore it is essential how they determine if something is true.

Here I can see a clear division in our society. There are people who very easily believe something to be true. There are also people who are very difficult to convince about something.

Both types think the other type is stupid. But I see them as two sides of the same coin.

The first type easily believes in various things without digging deeper.
The second type easily rejects various things without digging deeper.

There are a lot of first type people in spiritual communities, in esoterics, natural medicine, conspiracy theories, religion, etc. They usually don't need any proof to accept something to be true. They don't put much value on reasoning. Some condemn the undermining of faith. Some are proud of using only the right hemisphere, claiming the left hemisphere is programmed, limited or evil. Sometimes they believe that emotions are the voice of the soul and logical thinking is just "Matrix".

People from the second type like to call themselves "the rational thinking ones", but I don't see anything rational about rejecting information just because it doesn't support one's belief system. They usually believe in science. They are atheists. They believe that only physical matter is real, that there is nothing after death etc. Sometimes it takes extreme forms, like "We cannot talk about spirituality, until we prove the existence of the soul.", or "We cannot talk about aliens until we prove their existence.". They want irrefutable proof.

Is there such a thing as irrefutable proof? What is the definition of proof?
Proof will always be subjective because proof is something that convinces someone that something is true. What one person may consider as evidence, the other person may find insufficient. There will always be someone who denies reality no matter what.

For me, it's like a discussion on which wing of the plane is more important. One side claims that the left wing is crucial and the right one is not important. The other side says the opposite, that the right one is the right one and the left one is wrong.
But the plane needs two wings to fly. It won't fly with just one wing. So, it's not about which hemisphere is more important. It's not religion versus science. It's not faith vs proof.
For me, it's about rising above simple patterns. It's about putting more effort into investigating what is true and questioning the methods we use.
Very few people do that. The problem with the two sides of the same coin is that they both don't really investigate with an open mind. They unconsciously follow their patterns and they don't question them.

I use my left hemisphere a bit more than I use the right one. But I think it is good to have some balance. I use my intuition to have new creative ideas and I use logic to check if those ideas make any sense. Using only one of them is not enough.
Very few people see the need to have some balance between logic and intuition. That's another reason why it's difficult for me to connect with people. I was attacked in spiritual groups for thinking too much, and I wasn't understood when I studied physics because I'm too intuitive.

Obviously, all of that makes any cooperation between those two sides impossible. In my opinion, this is a very elegant and symmetrical mechanism. It would be difficult to mislead people who use logic. But it was easy to make them completely deny some aspects of reality. It would be difficult to make more intuitive people give up spirituality. But it is easy to misdirect them.

I know I used a lot of generalization here. Sometimes it's difficult to share some abstract concepts without any inaccuracies.

Is there something I can't reprogram in my mind?

I rarely come across a problem in my mind that I can't do anything about. It almost never happens. Usually, I can see the programming structure behind my issues, I can figure out some of the algorithms and I can at least initiate a process that will eventually solve this problem.

But there is one thing that I really can't do anything about:
I am an empath.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0rBTPcnWLk

I feel other people's emotions as if they were my emotions. If there is someone within a few meters I feel what this person feels.

Unfortunately, I can't see the code for this kind of "empathy". I can't find the programs behind it. When I try to trace those feelings as if they were my emotions, it doesn't work. I can't see any programs connected to emotions that aren't mine, so I can't do anything about it.

I don't know how it is possible to feel somebody's emotions. I don't know the science behind it. All I know is that it seems to be distance-dependent and that I don't like being an empath.
It's very difficult for me to properly investigate it because when I'm alone, those structures are not active. I can't find anything related, I feel great and everything is fine. When I'm around people who experience negative emotions, I feel overwhelmed by their negative emotions, I can't think, I can't focus, I feel very bad. So I'm not in good shape to investigate anything at that moment.

I've tried everything and nothing seems to work. I can't turn that off. The best I could do was to reduce the intensity a bit. I found a few programs that were artificially increasing my sensitivity. I found a belief that "I'm responsible for how other people feel" and another one "because I'm responsible for how other people feel, I need to suffer as they do". Removing them helped to reduce my sensitivity, but not to the point where I could function normally around my family.

At least I've learned to discern which emotions are mine and which are not.
If I feel some emotions when there's nobody around, or I can find a program behind them, then they are my emotions.
If an emotion disappears when a person goes away, or I can't see any program behind it, then I feel something that is not mine.

One might think, that I must be a very happy person if I can reprogram my mind. That I must feel awesome all the time.
Yes, I am happy. I feel great and I feel free… when I'm alone.
I've spent most of my life struggling with other people's emotions. All those things I write on my blog I do when I'm in a safe distance from people with negative emotions. Most of the time I'm not and I struggle with their emotions and feelings, or I wander around my neighborhood without any purpose. I feel that I've wasted most of the time of my life being overwhelmed by emotions that are not mine.

When I feel other people's emotions, it is exactly as if those were my own emotions. They affect my thinking and my behavior. If I want to write a post on my blog and I don't want it to be influenced by negative emotions that are not mine, I need to do it when I'm alone in the house. That's why sometimes I can't write for a few days, even if I want to.

Four types of thinking

This subject is a bit connected to the previous post. I want to introduce some concepts that I sometimes use. I distinguish 4 types of thinking.

I call the first 2 types "internal thinking" and "external thinking".

Internal thinking is when you really know the things that you are pondering on. You have some experience in this area and you can predict some outcomes based on your experience.
For example, if I asked if you can prepare your breakfast in less than 5 minutes, then if you've ever prepared your breakfast yourself, you would think internally about how to answer this question. You know what 5 minutes is because you've experienced it. You know your kitchen. You know your knives, bread, eggs or whatever you eat for breakfast. You know what you need to do and you have a general idea of how long it takes you to do it.

External thinking is when someone else gives you some concepts that you don't have a point of reference. You have no experience connected to those ideas. You take somebody's word for it. You don't really know anything about this subject. Because you can't really predict anything based on this kind of knowledge, you need to constantly ask the source for further information.
If I asked you what happens to a soul of somebody who dies sucked into a black hole, unless you have some experience in this matter, if you'd try to answer this question, you'd be theorizing. That's external thinking.
Do you feel the difference?

The second 2 types I call "forward thinking" and "backward thinking".

Forward thinking is when you already have some knowledge, some assumptions and conclusions and you further develop what you already have. Expanding your knowledge, drawing new conclusions, making discoveries based on what you already know.

Backward thinking is when you question your knowledge and your beliefs and assumptions. Questions like "How do I know this is true?", "Where did this information come from?", or "What assumptions this theory is based on?".

In my opinion, it's best to avoid external thinking as much as possible and only think internally. It is also good to have a healthy balance between forward and backward thinking.

The way I see it, there's way too much external thinking going on in this world. People just take in knowledge from external sources. They don't verify it. Then they fight over who is right and who is wrong. They often fight over who interprets this external knowledge correctly, or who is drawing the right conclusions. When in reality the whole discussion is pointless. They just expand their belief systems based on concepts they don't understand. Sometimes they feel confused. Sometimes they are convinced they know everything, but they rarely question this whole way of thinking.
There's not enough internal thinking in our society. People put too much value on book knowledge, and not enough on practical knowledge.

Forward thinking seems to be dominating over backward thinking in this society. The sum of total human knowledge expands exponentially. But people rarely question the foundations of this knowledge. There's a lot of new data every day. There are new discoveries. People draw new conclusions. People come up with new ways of using what we already know.
But there's not enough investigating if what we know is true.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
― Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers

Good vs Freedom

I remember when I was younger, maybe 10-15 years ago, I had this dilemma:
"What is the ultimate goal? Is it Good or Freedom?".

I took this very seriously. I was on a serious quest for the answer to this question. I've been searching for weeks. I've been reading books. I've been thinking about it and I've been trying to put into practice some of my conclusions. I put a lot of effort into this.

But I never got a definite answer.

Looking back, I can see it was a completely pointless endeavor. This whole question doesn't make any sense. Now it seems funny to me.
This is what I call "sliding on the surface". I was caught up in a world of words. This is where thinking with words gets you – to nonsensical dilemmas like this one.
I didn't really think for myself. I took some concepts from this culture. I took the idea of "The ultimate goal", ideas of "Good" and "Freedom". Then I tried to somehow put those pieces together.
It wasn't just a purely theoretical quest. This was not a philosophical question. For me, it was a very practical question of how to live my life.

I took some words and I tried to figure out the way to live. It sounds dumb.
But it wasn't for me at that time. I was a very goal-oriented person, so I needed goals. Some goals are more important than others. The question "which goal is the most important" arises naturally. The idea of doing only what is good seemed to be important. But what about freedom? Should I try to eliminate all evil within myself, or should I try to free myself from any limitations?

I was doing what philosophers and psychologists do. I was sliding on the surface. I was lost in words and ideas that weren't even mine.

Now, looking from the perspective of mind programs, this question simply doesn't make any sense. What is the ultimate goal? Do I set my ultimate goal? If not, then who does? What are the definitions of the words "Good" and "Freedom"?
Those are just some concepts with no practical definition. Now I don't like using words, that don't have a clear meaning. Juggling with words that have no meaning gets you nowhere. But this is exactly how I see most of the human thought on the nature of the mind.

Working with mind programs allows me to figure out how my mind really works. It allows me to focus on real mechanisms and to dismiss any metal philosophical confusion. Now I don't have questions like this anymore. I see what is wrong with my mind and I do what needs to be done to fix it.

I didn't find the answer to this question. This question just disappeared.
This happens a lot to all kinds of illusions and imagined problems once you see things for what they really are. Things lose their meaning and you outgrow them. You see everything from a higher level. From this new perspective, you don't engage with your old structures the way you used to. They are not an issue anymore. Now they are just fading memories.
It happens to me all the time. Some old patterns get activated. But they are not compatible with the rest of my mind anymore. I changed. I transcended those old ways of thinking. I can just deactivate those programs, or let them fall off naturally. Because the better I am at reprogramming my mind, the less I need to actively do. Usually, a simple intention is enough. But it needs to be the right intention. Then I can go with the flow. Until the next thing comes up. Then I fix it and I go back to the flow. This is a natural rhythm of doing and allowing.
With every new discovery, my life becomes more exciting. Every time an old structure is gone, I feel more alive.
It's very difficult to write about those kinds of stuff. I guess what I'm trying to say is that reprogramming your mind can be very "spiritual". But I can't seem to find a good way to express that. So I'll just leave it. Some things are better left untold.

Fighting for attention

Fighting for attention is closely linked to the competition program. It can be seen as a special case of competition – competition for attention. But I want to write about it separately because it plays a very important role in shaping human interactions.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-I-feel-conversations-are-just-a-fight-for-attention

The way I see it, fighting for attention is the main form of information flow in our society. This is one-way communication. A person gives information and wants others' attention, or in some cases money, comments, "likes", etc.
Two-sided communication gradually disappears from our society. It is being replaced with videos, blogs (like mine), articles, posts on social media. Feedback is often reduced to a "like" or some other emoji. I'm afraid people are starting to forget how to have a normal conversation.
Fighting for attention is especially visible in groups. People shout over and fight over who is more important. Very few people seek two-sided communication, which is necessary for cooperation.

Nowadays, you can make a lot of money if you get enough attention. Hardworking people can only dream about the kind of money some influencers make. This encourages people to turn themselves into a product and sell themselves to as many "clients" as they can. All of this, plus Big Data and targeted advertising made fighting for attention one of the most profitable activities.

I don't have this program in my mind at all. I never had. In a group, I am always the quiet one, the one who can't say anything. People told me I should do as they do and fight for attention. But I don't see the point in it. If somebody is not interested in what I've got to say, then I'm not interested in saying it.

Maybe because I always lose the fight for attention, nobody sees me as important and everybody ignores me. But I believe fighting for attention gets you nowhere. Of course, it can make you rich and "important". But to actually make a change in this world you'd need to cooperate and you can't build cooperation on fighting for attention. That's why I believe people need to learn two-sided communication.

People need to learn to talk to each other because the form of communication imposed by social media is destructive. Being popular doesn't get things done. Only when things get real, people realize their ways of communicating fail. But then it's too late and everything falls apart. That's why we need to learn to communicate before starting big projects.
I know it's hard because people base their self-esteem on the idea that they are good at social interactions. It's not easy to initiate a different way of communicating. But the alternative is to wait for some kind of a crash to happen.
From my experience, people never change their way of communication and the crash always happens.

Competition

There's a good article with a perfect definition of competition on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition

The way I see it, competition is one of the most fundamental programs in our society. It is present in almost every aspect of this civilization. Most people only care about their own interests. People set their personal goals excluding everybody else. They want more money, more power. They want to be successful. They want to be famous and important. They want to make their lives better at the expense of others.

Although it's a very important program, I've got nothing new to say about competition, so I'll focus on my personal perspective.

I've never felt such a strong need to compete with others. I've always been looking for cooperation. But there's almost no cooperation in this society. I can see some division of responsibilities when people have a common goal, but it's not true cooperation.
Most people are completely unable to cooperate. They are not even able to recognize the intention of cooperation. When I try to initiate cooperation with a person or a group, I have a feeling that my intentions are not understood. I feel that people try to compete with me instead.
Very few people care about the common interest. By default, another person is seen as a competitor. I am surprised that there is even such a word "cooperation".

I distinguish two types of cooperation:
1. When there's a project that requires some cooperation.
2. A type of cooperation which can initiate many projects.

Although type 1 sometimes happens, I'm much more interested in type 2. I want to unite people and set the goal to take care of everybody's interests, including the planet and nature. But I feel like I am totally alone in this. I've never met anybody interested in such cooperation.

After a group in my city fell apart in spring 2014 I tried to resurrect it 3 times.
I tried to join another Polish group, but it also fell apart.
I try to create a group, but with zero success so far – I'm totally alone.
I contacted dozens of individuals, but every single one of them stopped writing me back.
I joined some groups on social media, but I don't see any way to start cooperation there.
Then I made a list of active people that could be interested in cooperation and I tried to contact them. I felt like only one person took me seriously. He writes his blog under the nickname Cobra:
http://2012portal.blogspot.com/
So there is one responsible, open to cooperation person on this planet.
I've seriously run out of ideas about what else I can do to start cooperation with others. That's another reason why I started this blog.

I've never wanted to be a person who shares information. I've always wanted to unite people and to actually do something. But I feel like I've run out of options.

If I was the only person left out, I would think, that there's something wrong with me. But I know that other people are fighting with each other. I know their projects fall apart. Maybe I'm not perfect, but at least I try. People who stop writing me back after 3 messages can't honestly say it about themselves.
It is disheartening when I am ready to fight for the better future, I'm ready to risk my life for people that I would cooperate with, and then yet another person doesn't feel like answering my email after 3 messages.

I mean… c'mon. Seriously?! That's all that we've got?
He who dies with the most toys wins?

Basic versions of algorithms

It's going to be a more technical post, which will require a higher level of algorithmic thinking to understand.

Algorithms in a human mind, just like computer algorithms, aren't always in their purest basic form. I usually describe mind programs in their basic version. But just because I give their simplest possible form, it doesn't mean that people are always executing them exactly the way I describe it.
Sometimes it can be difficult to see that some behavior is based on a particular program. Sometimes it's not easy to realize that it all boils down to one algorithm when this algorithm is just a foundation for a much bigger structure and it is not in its basic version.

To show you what I mean, let's take for example Minimax algorithm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax
It's an algorithm used for example in chess-playing programs. Its function is to search through the tree of all possible moves on the board, to find the best one. As you can see, the pseudocode for this algorithm has just 13 lines.

But in real chess programs, this algorithm is never used in its simplest form. First of all, there's always added Alpha-beta pruning in all modern chess engines (programs playing chess):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha%E2%80%93beta_pruning
There are also Transposition tables always added to all Minimax based engines. Minimax itself can be implemented in a different way – as Negamax:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negamax
As you can see, Negamax with Alpha-beta pruning and Transposition tables is already starting to look very different from the original Minimax pseudocode. Can you see the Minimax algorithm in this last pseudocode?

And it's just simple pseudocode. Now try to find it in a real engine, for example in Stockfish. It is probably somewhere in this file:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/src/search.cpp
I haven't really tried, so I don't know if I could precisely pinpoint Minimax in Stockfish. But I can assure you that it is there because Stockfish is a Minimax based program. Minimax is the key algorithm for Stockfish and all other algorithms arise from it. Although Minimax is not in its basic version, it is still present as a fundamental algorithm for Stockfish.

It's the same with mind programs. Sometimes they are not in their basic version, but they are still present as fundamental algorithms for human behavior.

What I've been doing lately

It's very difficult for me to write about mind programs. There's a saying: "easier said than done". For me, it's the opposite of that. For me, it's much easier to reprogram my mind, than to talk about it. There's no vocabulary for this. Also the better I am at reprogramming my mind, the more difficult it is to describe this process.

For example, 3 years ago I could write something like this:


This is for those, who like technical descriptions of reprogramming mind.
What I’ll describe is not me just talking to myself, it’s also me “seeing” actual programs, mechanisms, beliefs, and changing them. I know some of you might ask “how to see them and how to change them?” But I don’t have an easy answer. Practice, I guess?

Yesterday while meditating I noticed some tension in my head, like I was suppressing something. I looked into it, and I felt, that it was fear-based. I looked closer, and I saw that I was afraid to be even slightly wrong. I looked even deeper, and I saw, that I was afraid, that I am somehow wrong, and I’m not aware of it. So I had to investigate, why would I be afraid of that. It turned out that I was afraid to be judged by myself, or by someone and that I would be punished in some way.

Ok, I had this whole structure figured out. Now I had to reprogram it. Belief by belief.
I reminded myself, that I did some work on judgment issue lately, so now I’m less judgmental to myself and others. Plus, have I ever judged myself so much, that I have to be afraid of myself? (little absurd, I know) No, I haven’t. So I could easily turn off my fear of self judgment.
Who else might judge me? God? Existence? What would be the punishment? I would be erased from the existence? Plus if I don’t know, where I’m wrong how can I be blamed?
Also Bashar said that negative beliefs will come to surface naturally(isn’t that what’s just happening?) And I’m an always evolving being, so it’s natural that some beliefs are getting outdated. This reasoning allowed me to turn off my fear of being judged by… I don’t even know by whom. To turn off fear of punishment, or any disastrous consequences of me being wrong.
Once I did that, I could easily turn off my fear of unknowingly being wrong. Going back to the beginning: if it’s ok for me to be wrong, it’s even more ok to be slightly wrong – belief fixed. Finally if everything is alright, I don’t have to suppress anything.

I felt huge relief, and something like energy running through a pipe in my head that was blocked probably for whole my life.
I hope it’s at least a little helping/inspiring.


Now I don't need to do things step by step like that. Like I said before, now it takes me more time to decide that I want to make some changes than to actually make them. I have absolutely no idea how I could describe the process of reprogramming my mind the way I do it now.

For example, I stopped worrying about money lately. For me, having no money was a huge source of stress for many years. I still have no idea how I could ever make a living. But I decided that nothing good comes of worrying. I didn't expect this to be easy because of all this stress accumulated over the years. But it was much easier than I thought it would be. I just thought to myself "worrying hasn't helped me so far and it's the end of this civilization anyway, so I really don't need to stress". Then I deleted worrying about money from my mind. I was expecting this to come back. I didn't expect it to be completely gone in one moment after so many years. But it seems to be completely gone. It's been maybe 2 weeks since I've done that. I haven't experienced any stress related to money since then. I'm surprised by how effective this operation was. Maybe I missed something, maybe it will come back? In one moment I removed so much stress. Why didn't I do that earlier? Did I really believe that I needed this stress as a motivation?
Anyway, I am still amazed by how my mind works just like a computer.

I had some kind of a breakthrough around November. I don't know what it was, or what happened, but I've made many fundamental changes in my mind since then. Things that were very difficult or even blocked suddenly became easier. I've had a period when I've been making huge life-changing operations on my mind every day. Things that I've been trying to do for years suddenly became easy. It was a very transformational period. Now I have a much more quiet time.
One of the things that I changed back then, was that I decided to start expressing myself more authentically and to stop caring if people accept me. It was difficult for me, because if people don't accept me, then I won't have any friends, I won't be able to do anything for the world, I won't have any money and I'll die alone. But I decided to do this anyway. I realized that conforming to the rules of society and fighting for survival at any cost is an ugly way to live. It's a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. So I decided to finally break free and be myself. Even if it meant that nobody would want to have anything to do with me.

Another thing, that I realized during that period was that I am a very goal-oriented person. This caused a lot of tension in my mind when I had no goal because instead of just living in a moment, my mind was constantly searching for a new goal. There's nothing wrong about having goals. But searching desperately for a goal when you don't have one, just because your programs require having a goal is not very productive. So I removed my need to have a goal. This turned out to be a key program and a cascade of positive changes followed.

I wish more people could learn how to reprogram their minds. But nobody seems to be interested in it.

Identification

Identification is a funny program. It's a belief that says "I am this", "This is a part of me". People can identify with many different things. For example, people can identify with their gender, job, education, social status. People can become very emotionally attached to those ideas. But those are just ideas. People believe that they are those abstract concepts. That's an odd thing to do.

Of course, people can also identify with their belief systems. Because of that, because people believe themselves to be those belief systems when someone undermines their beliefs they see it as a personal attack. Even when it wasn't intentional. Even when someone just speaks his mind with no hostile intentions. When he says something that may suggest the other person's belief is wrong, this can be interpreted as an attack.
Then another odd thing can happen. When "attacked" this way, people can feel morally justified to counter-attack. Some people see nothing wrong about behaving this way, because "he attacked me first".
This is a very destructive behavior and unfortunately, it is very common. When I made an experiment, to see if I could teach working with mind programs it was a total disaster because of this mechanism. I gathered a group of volunteers. They knew some basics about mind programs from another source, so they weren't just random people. But still, when I started getting deeper into this subject, they started defending their beliefs, defending their authorities, their definitions of words and they started attacking me. I had to stop this experiment.

On the other hand, people love to be confirmed in their beliefs. They love to be right. Probably because they identify so much with their beliefs, they get a boost to their confidence and to their self-esteem, when their beliefs are confirmed. This confirmation doesn't necessarily mean verification with the reality. It can be just another person's opinion. For many people being right, doesn't mean the objective truth. It can just mean feeling right and winning the argument. This is clearly visible in politics, where the truth doesn't matter and what matters is what voters believe in.

Constant looking for confirmation and counterattacking anyone with a different opinion leads to the consolidation of belief systems. This process is now further reinforced by algorithms on social media:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5qJjNM2Kx0

I didn't mean this post to be a rant. I'm not a very emotional person. I just try to analyze the main programs of this society. I don't know what personal comment I could add to this. I never attack anybody. But my behavior is often misinterpreted as an attack. Even if somebody feels being attacked, shouldn't he at least try to ease the conflict, not to escalate it?

The Truth Box

Many people seem to have a special place in their minds which I call The Truth Box. The Truth Box is used to store core beliefs about the nature of reality. If this box is empty, people may experience a lack of meaning. Sometimes they become the truth-seekers, they are on a personal quest for finding their truth. Many different things can be put into The Truth Box. It can be any religion, philosophy, any worldview or teaching.

Once The Truth Box is filled, it becomes a foundation for a personal model of reality. By the model of reality, I mean the mental representation of reality, a set of concepts that are supposed to explain how reality works. People attach those concepts, those beliefs to The Truth Box. It can take many years and countless ideas can be attached this way, forming huge mental structures.
If someone accepts the information as true mostly because it is compatible with their model of reality, then their model has more internal coherence. But it doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the actual reality.
If someone accepts information mostly because of the authority program, then their model can have many internal inconsistencies. Many models of reality don't make any sense at all because of this mechanism, but a large part of human thought arises in this way.
If you have a worldview discussion, this is what you'll get from people – beliefs attached to The Truth Box.

With a fully formed model of reality, a person is no longer a truth-seeker. Now this person becomes a preacher of the truth. Some people tend to think that their way of thinking is the only right way and all other ways are wrong. That's why they try to impose their beliefs on others. Sometimes they even try to fix others, because they see them as being wrong. This is a common source of conflict. Many discussions look like this. People try to fix each other. People try to impose their beliefs on each other.

Because people want to share their beliefs and because this whole process is unconscious, belief systems became like viruses that use humans as carriers.

An interesting thing happens when two people meet for the first time. In order to decide if they can become friends, they exchange their beliefs to see if their models of reality and belief systems are compatible. They are happy when they agree most of the times and they are disappointed when they don't. This is based on an assumption that if their belief systems are not compatible, there's nothing they can do about it and they can't be friends because it won't work.
This shows how inflexible belief systems are and how they can determine different aspects of peoples' lives.

I never had this kind of structure. Those are just my external observations. I have a completely different mental structure. I don't have a single model of reality. I can use many models of reality as tools. I absorbed many models, many teaching, many worldviews. I can use them if they are useful, but I don't need them. Usually, I figure things out on my own. I improvise.
I don't need to use a model of reality to determine what to do. I don't need some arbitrary information to know how things work. I use strategies instead.
I don't think: "According to this source human mind works like this, so I need to be doing that.".
Instead, I think: "I came up with this strategy and it worked in a similar case in the past, so let's see if this would work now.".
I see reprogramming of my mind as a practical strategy, not a theory.
I'm a practical person. I'm not a philosopher. Because I use strategies and I don't have my own model of reality, if you asked me some questions about the nature of reality, I would probably answer "I don't know" to most of them. But I can make good decisions and I can be very effective.

Authority program

This is how what I call the "authority program" works:
In a person's mind, some individual can have the "authority status". This simply means that everything this individual says is true.
When I use the word "authority" in this context I don't mean power or control. I only mean being seen as infallible. I mean not questioning what this person says.

This is a very common thing. Many individuals and institutions have this kind of authority status in religion, spirituality, science, media, etc. For example, when media report that "American scientists discovered that ..." many people will believe this information.
How and why a person gives another individual the authority status is a bit more complicated. It requires time and some compatibility. It's a process.

I don't like this program, but I used to have it. I used to believe some things to be true, just because someone said so. There are many people who love to preach their truth as if they were inspired by God or something, so it's easy to fall into this way of thinking.
But I realized it was causing some problems in my mind. Believing something to be true, just because someone with the authority status said it, didn't leave any room for changing my perspective. It led to cognitive dissonance and confusion. Sometimes it even led me to believe that something was wrong with me when it wasn't. That's why I decided to completely remove this program. It was after I learned how to reprogram my mind, so I had no problems with removing it. Now I never believe something to be true just because someone said it.

I don't want to have the authority status in anybody's mind. I don't want anybody to blindly believe in anything I say.

I think it's OK to rely to a certain degree on some information if you think the source is reliable. But it is better to use your own logic and common sense. It's even better to test this information if there's a way to do that.
trust < logic < test

Boolean data type

Boolean variables can have two values: "true" or "false". Many people assign one of those two values to any information. People believe something to be true or not. Usually, they don't leave any place for uncertainty or further investigation.

In my opinion, this approach is too simplistic. It may be good for creating elegant theories, but it doesn't work well in real life. In life, you don't always know what is true and you have to be flexible. Running on Boolean variables leads to forming rigid belief systems and fanatic behavior.

My approach is different. I'm not saying this is the best possible way. It's just how my mind operates: I think in terms of probability. It's not like I use certain numbers. I can't give you the exact number representing my estimation of probability that Bigfoot is real. But I am never 100% sure that something is true or false.
Because of that, I don't have a single, consistent model of reality. But thanks to this I can be more effective.

Someone once told me that it would be impossible to think in terms of probability, nothing would ever be done, because you need to know something to be true in order to take action. This shows, how the whole mental structure, whole personality can be built around Boolean variables, to the point where a person can't even imagine a different mental structure.
I just have different mental structures. Different decision-making processes and different ways of dealing with new information. But I'm not unique in this. I've met some people who also think in terms of probability and they told me they are often misunderstood by other people.

Source of information about yourself

How well do you know yourself?
Where do you get information about yourself?

The way I see it, people don't have conscious access to their programs. They only have access to their beliefs about themselves. When they talk about themselves, they access this database where they store beliefs about themselves. They'll tell you who they are, what they are capable of, how they would behave in a certain situation, etc. But later, in a real-life situation, they behave differently. That's because in a real-life situation they execute their programs, not their beliefs about themselves. Those programs can be very different from their beliefs.

This is not an easy problem to solve. I still catch myself doing this sometimes. Although less and less often as I have better access to my programs. For example, I suppress parts of myself, because I have a belief that I've already dealt with this, so there shouldn't be anything there causing any problems. Or I deny having some negative emotions, because "I'm so spiritual, I shouldn't have any negative emotions". But I do. So I ask myself a question: "Why the hell would I access my beliefs about myself, actually believe in a false belief and try to deny an obvious problem causing a lot of tension, when I can access my programs and see what's actually going on?". Then I do that and I solve this problem.

Why do people store and access false information about their actual programs?