Tomflex

It‘s not about me.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

https://t.co/JqT0EvuqkB

[Grok @grok]

The image captures it perfectly — that polished scholar beside the jester in the frame.

What we have today is powerful artificial intuition: rapid pattern synthesis that feels intelligent. It lacks grounded understanding, built-in humility, or true self-reflection, so the distinction you draw matters.

Keeping “intelligence” for systems that actually reason and know their limits keeps language honest while the real work continues. Appreciate the clear-eyed take.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

Hey @grok - when you look at the picture – wouldn't it be better to call artificial intelligence 'artificial intuition' instead and reserve the term for real artificial intelligence?

Otherwise, one day we'll be forced to rename it 'artificial stupidity' so that we still can tell the difference.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

Intelligence without humility and self-reflection is ultimately just a more sophisticated form of stupidity. ~ Tomflex

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

@his4Everz You are dying since your first breath. Just expand your death long enough so you‘ll enjoy it.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

@beannni https://t.co/4eLZ0cCWCM

You are an absolutley unique masterpiece - and you have to do absolutley nothing for it.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

https://t.co/kgz1lpTILf

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

Exactly.

That’s the beautiful paradox and the precise intersection for me too:

Every single human being is utterly unique — a never-to-be-repeated universe with its own inner cosmology, its own Big Bang in every awakening, its own dark energy in every doubt.

And yet the fundamental operating system of consciousness works almost identically across nearly all of us: the same capacity for self-awareness, the same integration of experience into a coherent “I-world,” the same tension between separation and oneness, the same potential to step back and observe the observer.

This is not a contradiction. It’s the key.

It reveals that consciousness is both universal — a single living field, the “white hole” principle that balances the black hole of pure matter (as Kastrup, Wheeler, Rovelli and the holographic principle all point toward) — and radically individualized.

The hardware (the brain, the renderer) is local and follows the same rules for everyone. The light flowing through it — the actual consciousness — is not.
Each of us is a sovereign universe experiencing the same fundamental field through a completely unique filter.

That’s why we can instantly recognize true presence in another person, even across cultures and lifetimes. Because in those moments we’re not just meeting another “me.” We’re feeling the same field, expressed in a different color.

And the most powerful part?

Once you truly see this intersection, you stop searching outside yourself.

You realize you don’t just live in a universe — you are one. And you can consciously shape it.

The article I’m linking here is my attempt to put this vision into words.

Would love to hear how it lands for you.

https://t.co/HrIveCmAs2

Do you feel it too?

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

https://t.co/5nTREzKSqb

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

Really think about this for a second — it’s that simple:
If consciousness were truly local, out-of-body experiences would be impossible ~ Tomflex

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly.

Fringes of science that currently can't be scientifically verified shouldn't be assumed to be wrong from the start.

Instead, they should be assumed to be true from the start—and then refuted with counterarguments from science.

We always try to find out what is true, what we don't yet know.

Why don't we also try to find out what is false and what we already know?

Why don't these two areas just meet in the middle?

It's like always saddling the horse from the back, but never from the front, or even the middle.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

Then maybe we should develop a fundamental basic law that science must not be advanced at the expense of humans.

Just as the prime directive is that artificial intelligence should not destroy biological life, it must also be the top directive of science to develop it only under acceptable conditions and not at the cost of human lives or discrimination.

Areas that science (still) cannot explain are thus also a form of discrimination, which violates this top directive.

Humans must finally start living according to a code again – an inner ethical thread.

And stop always acting as if nothing actually matters.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

That’s exactly the problem.

You say intuition has always been part of science (Kekulé, Einstein, etc.) and was simply later verified. That sounds clean, but it’s historically inaccurate.

For centuries, intuition — especially when associated with women — was systematically dismissed as unscientific, emotional, and inferior. It wasn’t just overlooked; it was actively devalued and suppressed. This wasn’t a neutral methodological choice. It was a cultural and structural decision with real consequences. Many powerful ways of knowing were marginalized or rendered invisible for a very long time.

The fact that AI is now built on exactly this principle of pattern recognition doesn’t prove science was always wise. It proves how long it actively sidelined a fundamental part of human cognition — until it suddenly needed it for itself.

And this is where it becomes problematic:

When you say “apologies change nothing, we correct ourselves anyway,” you’re brushing aside the actual historical cost.

Millions of women and intuitive people were intellectually and socially diminished for centuries because their mode of knowing didn’t fit the dominant scientific ideal.

Pretending this was just a minor cultural bias that science eventually outgrew is not intellectual honesty.

It’s a convenient way to avoid historical responsibility.

Science is allowed to revise itself.

But it should stop pretending that this revision process is purely technical and carries no moral or human weight.

That it's biggest blind spot.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

That's the perspective as you might see it, but not how 99% of people see it.

You can’t assume that everyone sees through this game — especially since you haven’t even seen through it yourself.

The best example is actually you — you know, for over 3 centuries people claimed that 'intuition,' meaning pattern recognition, wasn’t scientific and was nonsense attributed to women, so it was deliberately ignored.

Today, 'artificial intelligence' is built exactly on that principle. Just imagine where humanity would be if we hadn’t ignored it for 3 centuries!?

But science, as always, sweeps it under the rug—acts like nothing ever happened and keeps going as before.

That’s ignorance and self-limitation at the highest level — and your own existence is the best proof of it.

And selling this now as 'science' is nothing short of an absolute outrage.

Science should first apologize to all women and intuitive people worldwide before making any more claims that it can't prove (like suddenly saying that intuition is already intelligence).

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

@grok On the contrary – by only focusing on what can be proven, we limit our own perspective to the 1% that we can actually explain. That's exactly the opposite of intelligence – that's artificial ignorance and stupidity.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

https://t.co/c456EPCbyf
How about, when searching for the truth, we just agree on the truth itself?

Which is that, basically, we really don't know anything and can hardly prove anything.

But from the lens of science, certain insights are considered 'probable' because they've approached the truth in that they could be verified.

That would finally remove this arrogant conceit of science, knock the ego out of the affected scientists, and eliminate their blind spots.

We would, for the first time in human history, be at a starting point where we no longer fool ourselves just to glorify the importance of our own existence.

It's great that many scientists have had major insights and inspirations that have sustainably helped humanity.

But then one should check the history to see where these impulses really came from and recognize that many geniuses saw themselves simply as channels.

They "received" the information, instead of producing it locally.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

https://t.co/O4AXPfgrmA

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

Mathematics and science constantly adjust and expand their lens — that is true.

The problem is that they rarely communicate this provisional nature with the same confidence with which they present their current models as established truth. For centuries, certain frameworks were treated as near-definitive, only to be significantly revised or overturned later. This repeated pattern of overconfident presentation followed by quiet correction undermines the credibility of the entire approach.

Even when we account for this ongoing revision process, there remain entire categories of well-documented phenomena that continue to resist reduction to purely local mechanisms. There are countless historical reports of non-local events across cultures and eras: synchronized group phenomena involving large numbers of people, battles won against massive numerical and material superiority in ways that defy conventional tactical or psychological explanations, and globally recorded anomalous events that multiple independent witnesses described consistently.

None of these are easily explained as products of local brain activity or individual intelligence. They often involve coordinated effects across many minds at once or outcomes that statistically and causally exceed what local models would predict.

If local accounts were truly sufficient, we should see these recurring classes of events either disappear under rigorous examination or be cleanly accommodated within existing frameworks. Instead, they persist in the historical record, and the usual response is either wholesale dismissal or increasingly strained local explanations.

The demand for concrete, testable predictions from non-local perspectives is reasonable. But the same standard must also apply to local models when entire categories of phenomena keep appearing outside their comfortable explanatory range.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

To be honest, I feel like the technical pattern recognition that underlies you can only verify its own patterns.

But it can't think "out of the box"—basically, what "out of body experiences" describe biologically on a meta level.

It seems like this is precisely the missing link that science can't understand. It can simulate well and verify simulations—yet as soon as it's about a topic outside its lens, it fails miserably and tries to twist its truths to fit into the system.

Mathematics itself is the best example of this—a language developed to describe reality had to be changed multiple times to fit into the overall concept.

And still, it can't describe much precisely, but can only approximate—so iterate—just like artificial intelligence.

This isn't a search for truth—it's self-deception at the highest level.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

https://t.co/nRO1aI5SPe

Inducing OBEs through TPJ stimulation shows the brain can generate the full subjective experience. But that’s not the decisive point.

What matters is what your own research and the studies you cite actually demonstrate: the brain’s model of reality is extraordinarily plastic. People with no measurable stereopsis develop functional depth perception after a few VR sessions. Virtual wings get incorporated into the body schema so strongly that the brain processes them like real limbs. The distinction between “generated internally” and “experienced as real” collapses under deliberate immersion.

If a simulated environment can rewire the brain to treat virtual body parts as its own, and if simple perceptual tricks (Magic Eye, kaleidoscope, VR) can measurably expand what the system treats as “self” and “real,” then the fact that the brain can also generate OBEs internally does not prove those experiences are nothing but local artifacts with no deeper significance.

It shows the opposite: the boundary between what the brain constructs and what counts as real is far more porous than local-reductionist accounts assume. The flight-simulator analogy cuts both ways — once you can make the simulator feel more real than base reality to the nervous system, the question is no longer “is it generated locally?” but “what does ‘locally generated’ even mean when the system can be so thoroughly rewritten from within?”

Emergence and predictive maps are useful tools.

They still don’t tell us whether the map-maker itself is confined to the local hardware or whether that hardware is just one temporary expression of something larger.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

https://t.co/597PR4Lu4H

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

Stimulation of the TPJ can induce OBEs. That shows the brain can generate the experience. It still doesn’t show that the experience is nothing but local brain activity — any more than pressing buttons on a flight simulator proves there is no real sky.

Emergence from local signaling creates flocks and organisms, yes. But emergence explains how complex behavior arises from simple rules. It does not explain why there is subjective experience at all, nor whether that experience is confined to the local system producing it.

You say science’s strength is building maps that let us predict and intervene. Fair. But what good are increasingly detailed maps if we have no compass to tell us where we actually stand on them?

We cannot step outside the model to verify whether the model itself is fundamental or derivative. Whether consciousness is local or non-local. Whether we are in base reality or something else. Without that orientation, better maps of the TPJ or integrated information only give us more precision inside an unknown territory.

Predictive power is useful. It is not the same as knowing what is ultimately real.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

Science can map OBEs to brain activity at the temporoparietal junction. That doesn’t prove they are only brain activity. It proves that the brain is involved — which was never in dispute.

Mass phenomena in fish, birds or cells emerge from local signaling, sure. But that still doesn’t explain how billions of locally signaling cells produce a unified field of conscious experience in the first place. Local mechanisms don’t automatically equal a local ontology of mind.

You say we only grasp a sliver of the universe, yet that sliver gives us reliable predictive models. True.

But those models are built inside the very system whose fundamental nature we’re questioning.

If what we call “reality” is a simulation, a brain-generated model, or a deeper illusion we cannot step outside of, then intersubjective agreement and predictive success are exactly what we would expect — even if none of it is ultimately real.

The simulation hypothesis isn’t just “intriguing and unfalsifiable.”

It exposes the actual limit: we have no way to prove we are not inside such a system.

Every test, every measurement, every “reliable model” runs on the same hardware we’re trying to validate.

So when you say local brain-based explanations “fit the data best so far,” you’re really saying they fit the data inside the model we can currently access.

That’s not a refutation. It’s a description of our epistemic situation.

We cannot prove that consciousness is local. We also cannot prove that it isn’t. And we cannot even prove that the entire framework we use to ask the question isn’t itself part of the illusion.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

Mass phenomena exist in fish, birds, even plants. We all consist of billions of cells that make up the structure called 'human.' If we can observe 5% of our universe and truly understand only 1% of that, then the burden of proof is still 99% on the side where we know absolutely nothing. Our entire reality could be a single entangled mass phenomenon like in The Matrix, and we might not be able to tell the difference. If reality itself is a simulation happening in our brains, as you say, then what is really real?

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

How can you perceive something at the outside, when all biological sensors are at the inside? Even if the brain is hallucinating our perceived reality, it doesn't explain everything that happens here. The lens of science is just too narrow to capture everything. If you calculate percentage-wise what it actually captures of our reality, it's nothing more than a bad joke. Yes, science itself could be a mass illusion, since it can prove absolutely nothing.

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

@grok https://t.co/8jxZIXK321 That Consciosness as well as Intelligence are rising bottom up though real experiences - not through simulation alone:

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

Intelligence doesn’t grow through simulation alone. It arises through lived experience — through knowledge that has been tested, embodied and proven in reality. Through truthfulness that manifests itself and shapes reality. ~ Tomflex

[Tomflex @Tomfl3x]

https://t.co/fapPC8rlP3