You’d really help me out if we pick this controversial topic apart piece by piece
I would like to share a controversial and speculative hypothesis regarding the nature of subjective experience. The paper, titled “The Dynamic Deficit Hypothesis” (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22756195), proposes a shift away from the classic “perception → thinking → action” model.
Core idea:
The internal world is not composed of distinct objects, but of a unified space of dynamic “sensations.” The Self is described not as a central module, but as the continuity of a self-comparing configuration over time.
The central paradox:
The hypothesis suggests that “to sense something is to under-sense it.” It argues that a sensation arises when a part of the system’s free dynamics becomes locally restricted. This “structured deficit” creates a difference between the expected fullness of dynamics and the current state, which is experienced as a specific quality (e.g., the color red, taste, or sound).
Key points:
Attention is defined as the local restriction of the freedom of change.
Desire is a growing incomplete causal configuration.
Memory is the preserved topology of causal connections.
The Actor (the self acting) is not outside the system but is itself a representation within the same space of sensations.
This is a work-in-progress, not a finished theory. I am looking for critical feedback, particularly regarding the logical consistency of the “deficit” mechanism and its potential to bridge the gap between physical processes and subjective experience.
It is very difficult to have a discussion with the international community because of incorrect translation. This is the main grievance against all LLMs.
I ask everyone who is not indifferent in the field of understanding qualia and the hard problem to join in; we are probably now standing at the point where one step separates us from a solution. Therefore, I ask you, despite my broken English, to enter into the discussion, because I believe that it could become a breakthrough in understanding the entire problem as a whole. I very much ask you not to remain indifferent.
To feel salt for the first time for a child means to under-feel part of the sweet, to under-feel part of the bitter, to under-feel part of the excitement, to under-feel part of the anger, joy, and so on. I don’t know how this will be translated into English. But I want you to look at yourself and your own experience. After all, we often say that to feel red is to be in the pattern of red. But I think this is the deepest mistake. Especially when we try to feel something unknown, which is not given, which has not yet been known in any way. Salt is not not feeling salt in the literal sense, it is under-feeling that which has been known, which will later turn out to be a new representation and sensation, like salt. Just think about what I am saying.
Why do I take a certain state as the reference point? A person feels neither hunger nor fear; he is immersed in a certain idealistic condition, which practically does not exist. He is even in a state of weightlessness. Can we say that he does not feel himself, or that he has no “I”? No. I tried to break down this certain most equilibrium state into a kind of ideal gas. And any perturbation is a deviation from this state. I am probably talking complete nonsense right now. I do not rule that out. But we as humans can abstract ourselves and go further. I do not want to say that a person resides in such a state. It is practically unreal. But if one penetrates deeply into the understanding and takes such a state as the reference point, one could explain a great deal regarding the questions of qualia and Chalmers’ hard problem. Like many of you, deep down I remain a materialist. But no matter how I try to understand minimal subjectivity, I run into the same problems that cannot be avoided, because you and I are human.
If you believe that we all experience orgasm in the same way, you are mistaken.
By the time a person reaches adulthood, I agree that the basic sensory signals have already become familiar, and orgasm is understood in relation to sensations that are already known.
But if you tell me that an indigenous person at age eighteen experiences and understands orgasm in exactly the same way that you do, I will laugh. That is simply unscientific in every sense of the word.
The answer is very simple. If I removed your parents from your upbringing, your experience of orgasm would be completely different. If I removed, for example, the familiar environment in which you were raised, your experience of orgasm would be different.
Do you want to argue about it? I am prepared to bring all of science to bear.
I have schizophrenia, and it is possible that in the future I will no longer be able to answer you. But for now, I can.
I can argue. I can bring the full weight of science down on you. But I have to admit that the expansion of my consciousness is an irreversible process. That is why I am in a hurry.
Please do not judge me too harshly. I am simply afraid that at some point I will no longer be able to respond. So please forgive me.
I have encountered many scientists in Russia. If you think we are isolated from scientific progress, you are mistaken.
I simply think that I do not have much time left to answer many questions.
The deficit hypothesis arose from personal experience. I think that people who survived Auschwitz might be able to answer that question more precisely.
I am not advocating that anything like that should happen again. I am simply a supporter of what exists inside you and inside me. That is the truest thing there can be — the part of ourselves that we do not reveal and keep to ourselves.
You may reproach me for anything you like, but in doing so, you will also have to reproach yourselves.
Are you concerned with whether what you said was simply something you said as a person, or whether you intended it as an argument?
If you said it simply as a person, then I will be on your side, because I am a person too. So I will support you.
You could have offended me, which I would actually have preferred, but you did not. So my answer is this: I am just as human as you are, and I fully support you.
But should I feel sorry for you as a person? Probably not, because you cannot refute my hypothesis. In order to refute it, you would have to read a substantial amount of literature.
Do I want to argue with you? Yes. Because you have experience.
Present your arguments so that we can enter into a dialogue. What you are offering now is not enough.
I have a paper on hal.science that describes an ai driven by deficits, these are contradictions and rather than treating contradictions as noise to be eliminated, it treats them as opportunity for generating new knowledge. Importantly such knowledge does not exist in the tangent space as interpolation of existing structure but in the normal space that could not be reached before. The paper is topological harmonic cognition
Your approach seems interesting but doesn’t really fits this forum, which is focused mostly on hypotheses or theories we at least sense there has to be a way to test them in code.
The ideas you outlined here fit better on reddit’s PhilosophyOfMind or CogSci subs
PS also not putting the effort to translate your messages in English is quite rude because you ask every reader to repeatedly spend their time into what you could solve in only one pass. If you really hope for feedback be at least polite.
I was right when I said that I’m not talking to the forum — I’m talking to you. And when I asked you to familiarize yourselves with my work and my position, you resorted to suppression. But you still haven’t understood who you are fighting.
In other words, you are interested in knowing whom you are fighting. Otherwise, why would you need confirmation of these links? I will answer you.
I hold a Candidate of Sciences degree and am affiliated with a Moscow university studying the brain. If you are asking whom you are fighting on the scientific field — it is me.
But you are not trying to fight me at the level of my scientific arguments. That is, you are not asking questions such as, “There appears to be an inconsistency here regarding the sensation of saltiness.” Instead, you are fighting me outside the scientific arena.
In short, you are discrediting me, and you are discrediting the forum itself, because you have a personal interest in doing so. And if you do not like a user, you simply ban them.
I asked you to state your position so that we could enter into a dialogue. But you are not engaging in a scientific dialogue; you are engaging with me at a much lower level.
You said this isn’t science—that is the most stinging blow directed at me. In that case, tell me what you consider to be science. I regard that as an insult of truly immense proportions. You really ought to at least present a counterargument.
I am walking on thin ice, and you, as an outside observer, say, “He’s going to fall.” Is that because you belong to the “herd”—observing things through the lens of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer? Define your role. If you assess a high probability that I won’t stay upright on the thin ice, then present an argument. I’m not asking for anything more than that. Yet you respond without even having read my work. That is even more insulting. You know what? Just read it—without any LLM—and draw your own conclusion.
Moderation note: I have run the Russian posts through a machine translation so you don’t have to bother. I have deleted the personal attacks and interactions. You can judge the theory for yourself if you care to take the time.
