20km-daedalus mode vs myopic acker-servant mode

A sceintist (and theorist) mindset (1),
vs.
a builder (engineer) mindset (2).

At high proficienly levels, when you are at either of these, the other looks a bit impossible. Even if you are good at both, your mind can operate at one at a time. It physics language, there is a large energy gap in the spectrum of their Haminltonians.
An example:
1: Thinking (correctly) about Probabiity (Bayesian).
vs.
2: thinking like a programmer (hackery, tinkering).

While programming (implementing or debugging things like backprop using NN, State space using UKF), I find tell myself feeling: I would not come up with this solutionn in 1000 years. (being in mode 2, wishing for mode 1).
Yet, on other days, you find yourself you can generated many ideas -- only if you had enough time to implement all (being in mode 1, kind of wishing for mode 2!, despite it may seem mierable, comparatively -- but more realistic, pragmatic, etc).

Let me give another exmape: When I am writing a silly shader using SDF, I certain shapes seem very complex, evasive to mind. If feels it is a much harder problem that initially thought, or, requires almost a genius to solve them. Yet, sometimes I solve them effortlessly.
But on other days, where I can reinvent that algorithm thing from a theoretical mindset,
when thinking on paper, or using mental calculations, geometrical thinking, etc, I can solve impossible problems with bord-eye view, and 20 km altitude!

What amazes me that how hard problems I have been solving in mode 1, when I am in mode 2.
It felt like these two areas are not integrated, or there is a gap between them.
It is hard to switch to them. Especially, jumping form mode 2 to mode 1 is harder:
Mode 1 can be achieved ony via that sort of course and memoentum. Moving from mode 1 to mode 2 feels like sudden stop and getting occupied with too many details.
None is essentuially better:
Mode 2 provides precision (in a certain way), groundedness, solid-ness, robustness. Also embodied, embedded, etc. Mode 1 is more socially-engaged, socially-extended.
Mode 2 is more tactical thinking, while mode 1 is strategical thinking.
Mode 2 is more engaged (rahter than distant). But both need sharp attention and focus and somehow precision. exmpales:
1: Thinking (correctly) about Probabiity (Bayesian) -- vs thinking like a programmer (hackery, tinkering).
1: strategic thinking.
1: Entrprenuership: seeing product from view of client.
2: Even in science shoed, you kneed to get into mode 2: (publishing paper, testing your idea, implementing, etc).
1: Geometry (and higher mathematics, Category theory, Riemannian Manifolds, PDEs, etc).
2: ...

1: You are a master, 2: you are a servant (of yourself). But a true master need to be able to act like a good servant (to themselves), when needed. To execute you need to be in mode 2. Even in science, etc.
In mode 1, t's like high altitude moving fast. But with that momentum, you cannot build things, like.
A key observaiton is, the capabilitirs are expluded in each My view has evolved on this since I detected it.
View 0: I cannot be that, I can just do programming, and its not especial.
View 1: Those are not "integrated", a gap exists.
View 2: Those are differnt mindsets: switch is hard. Just different hats: details/fighting/OCD vs eloquent social/expressive (also maybe a bit of leader-servant? but is more about the ability and capability, rather than role, and direcitn of influence: you can command, but you are powerless in a larger scope).
View 3: Different momenta (energy state: momenta: far orbits on a phase-plane).
View 4: Myopy vs bird-eye. tactical vs strategical thinking.
View 5: Wings of (art, sience, theory, etc. It feels very much like the "wings of art" moment in the Daedalus mythos
View 6: Maybe only in teamwork, a social setting of a band of multiple poeple, this can be done: since a person needs to be in each of those mode-roles (this also emphasises on "mode as a role").
View 7: the "cognitive rivalry" paradigm that I have developed (more on it, later).
(TBC)

Bird-eye view, vs. Fish-eve view: sees nearby closely, but the outside is too far.
Are these modes essentually separate? or jut not integrated? (technical dept).

Are there other modes too? Like entrprenuerthips, socially-engaged or social influencing mode, etc? Or are they also instanaces of the same?
Some possible examples:
Art mode A: Being connected to emoitions, grounded, etc (a very vulnerable state).
Art mode B: Being connected to creativity flow.
Art mode C ( = 1 ): Immersed into the medium ( which is more like mode 1 in the main part of the post).
Are these the same mode? The power mode ( in in the gym: you push harder, and you). I cal lthis the "Testosterone-1" mode (one of testosterone modes).
Related: the persseverence mode. Most of these are art modes. Maybe I should cann mode 1, the Daedalus mode. But it has too much cultural load/charge and percedence. Maybe this name is ued for too many things. I want to keep things seaprated, untill otherwise (ie I discover some of them are the same).
BTW, pragmatism mans keeping these connected.
Also requires a dose of realism too, in the recepie.

scale of repeat (evol-human-sci)

What does it mean to repeat something at scale 𝜏?
It is an interesting Mathematical concept that is used implicitly in below example usage. The dialogues does not matter, but my point is the meanin of "the scale of a repeat".

From an evolution/neuroscience perspective, if history (evolution) were repeated, would humans come into existence? Or would humans never come into existence at all? Note: I consider persons separate from the thoughts. This question and answer are considered **once purely within the framework of evolution. That is, they are posed under this assumption. They are also considered within the framework of the brain science/neuroscience: by this, I mean properties that are fundamentally brain-based.
Question from N:
According to evolution, if history were repeated, would humans come into existence? Or would humans never come into existence at all?

An evolution/biologist's answer:
This question is, in fact, two questions. It can be posed in two ways, which are distinct questions:
1. Would a being with the cognitive capacity of the human brain come into existence?
2. Would a being with this particular form and appearance (human-like) come into existence?

Even from an evolutionary and brain-centric perspective, if one wants to speculate, then all answers to such questions are thought experiments—guesses, hypotheses, conjectures—and they exist within a specific paradigm. Here, the nature of the question is framed within an evolution-centered and brain-centered paradigm, so the answer is given from within that mode of thinking.
If history were repeated at evolutionary scale, something similar to humans, in the sense of cognitive capacity, would come into existence. Either perhaps later, or perhaps earlier. I observed monkeys in laboratories, they were very similar to humans; they just simply could not speak. That was the only difference one could see.
Birds, in particular, are very close. Dolphins and elephants went in a different direction; not necessarily them, but dolphins, whales, and similar species were also possible candidates. By “human,” do we mean a being that must necessarily have this exact form? If you mean a being with precisely this appearance, then perhaps not—but that is not important. If by humans coming into existence again we mean a being that is intelligent, but that it is acceptable for it to have a different form, then that is the key point. Because if you mean a being with exactly this shape, then perhaps next time it would have a different form—but the form itself is not what matters.
What matters is that a being reaches a level of intelligence at which it can build tools—create the internet, tractors, and similar things. The important question is whether a being with this level of intelligence would come into existence or not. Even an insect is possible, but insects must have small brains. Given my familiarity with insect brain structures, I would even say that insects could be possible if their brains became larger—but not individually, because insects have size constraints. They cannot carry a one-kilogram brain.
If insects were to become intelligent beings, it would have to be in the form of a colony. A beehive is a very intelligent entity; each bee is highly intelligent, but its intelligence is limited relative to the collective organism that emerges. Perhaps something like bee colonies, or insects that became intelligent at the collective level, could emerge.
Overall, as you mentioned, octopuses—especially squid—birds, dolphins, and whales are all candidates. They are also approaching higher intelligence and will likely become intelligent soon (only a few million years to go 😃). However, humans may drive them to extinction before that happens. Humans have already driven other intelligent beings (such as Neanderthals) to extinction because they perceived competition in intelligence. Humans also drove mammoths to extinction. In reality, mammoths were elephants that were becoming more evolutionarily advanced, yet humans wiped them out. Perhaps intelligence was the reason (this is my own hypothesis; I have not read it anywhere).
Birds are particularly important because they possess communication systems more advanced than those of humans. If bird language were to evolve further, it would become far more complete, complex, and faster than human language. Dolphins also have complex languages, and because of the ocean environment, their group communication is easier. In short, the social and communicative dimension is also essential for forming culture.
However, dolphins and birds lack hands, which would make tool construction more difficult for them. If a human competitor were a bird, it would primarily use its beak, but something like hands would still be necessary. Perhaps the reason for the extinction of dinosaurs was their short arms :))) But over the course of evolution, limb size can lengthen or shorten. Just as in humans the tail shortened, the stomach and intestines became smaller to adapt, and fingers and hand shape became more symmetrical and refined to match the higher intelligence that emerged in human-like species. Dolphin fins would need to return more toward a hand-like form, or bird wings would need to transform back into hands (as in their dinosaur ancestors).


Second question:
N: Perhaps it would have been a jellyfish, or an octopus, or a bird?

A possible answer:
If you mean whether a being with this exact form and appearance would come into existence, then perhaps not—and on this point I agree. It is possible that an intelligent being capable of reaching sufficient self-awareness to ask this question would have a different form and appearance: as you said, a bird, an aquatic organism, a different kind of mammal, or even an entirely different life form with a completely different structure, which I think you have already alluded to in the description.
But if the question is whether **any** intelligent being reaching the scale of human intelligence would come into existence at all—that is, whether the capabilities humans developed were dependent solely on this specific historical path—then in my view, no. Overall, evolution was moving toward intelligence, but it could have manifested elsewhere. It could have been a mammal close to primates, or another organism entirely. Many different evolutionary paths lead in the same direction. If the initial human lineage had been wiped out—for example by an asteroid, or even by extraterrestrials—this intelligence would have emerged elsewhere.
However, we are talking on the scale of millions of years. It might not have happened so soon—perhaps millions of years later—or it is even possible that if history were repeated, it could have emerged earlier along a different path.

to loop or to not to have loop

لوپ داشتن یا نداشتن،‌ مساله این است.
#نیمه‌جدی


to loop or to not to loop.
to have loop or to not to have loop, this is the problem.

phd is a sacrifice

You don't get a PhD to "enjoy" it.
It is a structure to make sure you sacrifice enough, to painfully achieve certain goals.
Like almost anything useful in life.

There are other things that their purpose is to enjoy.
It is "research-training", like a boot-camp.
It is to achieve to execute, buin, "build a project. And to present it in a certain way. Once you did that once, you can do more yourself. (e.g., conduct research, run experiment, present, do more peojects like that, able to reach cerain level of competitiveness to controbute to the cutting ebndge, one of the cnceessaities is to attain the currintg edge in terms of knoelege, abut also: vision, intuition, ability to communicate, etc).
Once you do it, it not only "shows" that you can do it, but more importantly, it teaches you to do it.
Learning by doing.
Beacause surprisingly, many things needs to be learned for one to be able to finish "PhD as a porject". For exampoe, it needs to be presentable (piblicaiton standard) and "grafted".
Standard of work itself.
The executive aspects.
It raises the bar, to a ceratin bar: 1. As training, 2. as test.
If you cannot do it, it not only means you did not "test" (to demonstrate, prove) your ability, to "to others" to do it, it means you could not acquired the training.
At laest that time. Maybe you were not ready.
Very much life a bootcamp, a tough physical training. It can be easier for some poeple, since they already know ( by muscles (muscle memory, muscle fitness, etc), abilities, discipline, "know how", practicality, "have seen it, "been there, done that", etc). Those who are less fit, may need it more. It may be harder. But it means you need it more.
Those who already can do it, it will be reasier for them.
For them, it might be boring. But for them it has more of the value of "demontrainting to others", so that they can give reseources to. you (postdoc, academic projects, posittions, etc).
But even for the most fit, the PhD has training for them.
If PhD is hard for you, if means you need it more. (Sometimes it may mean you need to do somehitng before, like a Master degree, or an MPhil, etc). -- I mean if the reason to do PhD (i.e. "doing and finishign a project") is compelling (a binary condition: yes/no).
If it is boring, not challenging eough, usually it's not the reason for PphD drop-out.

It is key to set the expectations before PhD. Or before "decising" to do a PhD.
and to know what is the goal.
It is a project. Not a funfair. The same is professional achievements: profesional meanis having ceratin standards. Usually, PhD is steeper thatn professional. Professional prores is more gradual ( in certain ). but the professionality and seriousness, dedication, sacrifice, is the same. (a bit more in PhD: because part of the motivaiton is left to the candidate). Part of the suffering is from the discipines that is imposed form outside to be internalised.
It is interesitng that it is internalised. I think getting a second PhD should be easier after first time. In fact, each future research/pape, is like a repeated PhD. But they are much easier.

In taht sense, it's a bit like an "idempotent function" in functional programming...


The PhD is a guard-rail, a structure, to protect you from human's natural prpensity to ruin its goal, by its desire for enjoyment.
PhD is not for pleasure. You need to be prepared for that. You need to have a compelling reason, a mission, a sustained dedication, to self-inflict the suffering that is getting a PhD.


Conceived as a reply to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si__oldQURM Title: "Got Better at Math After Leaving My PhD".


© 2025 Sohail Siadatnejad.