FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.
The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:
Greatly improve communication between participating partners
Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality
These results are achieved because:
FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed
FIML practice will also:
Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)
FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.
Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.
The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.
FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.
In mathematics, a ‘computation’ is the process of performing mathematical operations on one or more inputs to produce a desired output. A problem in analyzing human psychology arises when we understand that human psychology cannot be reduced computationally. The ‘computational irreducibility’ of human psychology does not mean, however, that there is no way to probe it and understand it. In the following essay, I show how FIML practice can greatly enhance our understanding of our own psychologies and, by extension, the psychologies of others.
Rather than rely on tautological data extractions or vague theories about human psychology, FIML focuses on small interpersonal exchanges that can be objectively agreed upon by at least two people. These small exchanges correspond to what Wolfram calls ‘specific little pieces of computational reducibility’. When we repeatedly view our psychologies from the point of view of specific little pieces of computational reducibility, we begin amassing a profoundly telling collection of very good data that shows how we really think, speak, and act.
FIML is a method of inquiry that deals with the computational irreducibility of humans. It does this by isolating small incidents and asking questions about them. These small incidents are the “little pieces of computational reducibility” that Stephan Wolfram remarks on at 42.22 in this video. Here is the full quote:
One of the necessary consequences of computational irreducibility is within a computationally irreducible system there will always be an infinite number of specific little pieces of computational reducibility that you can find.
This is exactly what FIML practice does again and again—it finds “specific little pieces of computational reducibility” and learns all it can about them.
In FIML practice, two humans in real-time, real-world situations agree to isolate and focus on one “specific little piece of computational reducibility” and from that gain a deeper understanding of the whole “computationally irreducible system”, which is them.
When two humans do this hundreds of times, their grasp and appreciation of the “computationally irreducible system” which is them, both together and individually, increases dramatically. This growing grasp and understanding of their shared computationally irreducible system upgrades or replaces most previously learned cognitive categories about their lives, or psychologies, or how they think about themselves or other humans.
By focusing on many small bits of communicative information, FIML partners improve all aspects of their human minds.
I do not believe any computer will ever be able to do FIML. Robots and brain scans may help with it but they will not be able to replace it. In the not too distant future, FIML may be the only profound thing humans will both need to and be able to do on their own without the use of AI. To understand ourselves deeply and enjoy being human, we will have to do FIML. In this sense, FIML may be our most important human answer to the AI civilization growing around us. ABN
I don’t want to keep talking about crypto because it’s not my area of expertise.
But I want to respond to the post below because I’ve seen too many of these “feel good” assertions, as if we are on the verge of breaking away from a “dying” system and about to “earn our freedoms”.
These are luxury beliefs with no grounding in reality.
Bitcoin doesn’t dissolve the old frame. It proves how the TPS [Transnational Private Sector] rewrites frames.
Gold worked not because people “believed” in it,
but because a handful of people within states and empires enforced it with armies, trade routes, regulation and convertibility rules.
The masses just did as they’re told.
There’s a whole power structure mandate that you’re completely neglecting.
The dollar works NOT because of “habit,” but because the FIC transacts in it and the MIC enforces it globally.
Saddam shared a very similar philosophy on the dollar. That it was a fiat worth nothing based on false belief.
He quickly found out that it was much more than that.
So did Gaddafi.
Ok.
So it’s NOT just “belief” that adds value to a currency.
It’s enforcement of the power structure that punishes anyone who deviates from it.
FIML is a specific semiotic, but it also says interesting things about the general semiotics of all languages and communication systems.
As a specific semiotic, FIML influences individual psychology, behavior, and thought. Since FIML rules can be generalized and taught, FIML also shows something about all languages and their uses.
FIML is a way that two people can check the specific semiotics that exists between them. Without FIML, or something like it, individuals cannot do this.
If an individual does not do FIML or something very similar in their primary relationship, that relationship will be characterized by semiotics extrinsic to the relationship and/or by illusions.
I don’t want to overemphasize the semiotic content of FIML practice, but a basic sense of how signs and symbols are interpreted can be a great help to understanding FIML.
In FIML practice, your partner can explain the “text” of what they said much better than you can interpret it. This can only happen if both partners are honest and trust each other and the interpretation/explanation of the “text” is brought up quickly enough that little or nothing has been forgotten by either partner.
As for honesty and trust, it is my guess that these areas can be a problem for people because we humans are almost always required to interpret what is said to us without any possible recourse to a better explanation. There are three major reasons for this: 1) convention, habit; 2) timing; and 3) emotion.
Taking the second reason first, timing makes it very difficult to get good information about what a speaker means because when we ask quickly enough for them to actually still be able to remember, we will appear confrontational or rude. The speaker will become flustered and often answer with an excuse rather than an explanation.
This happens due to factor three, emotion. Language evolved in hierarchical societies. To question someone quickly about what they said is to seem to question them, to doubt them. In hierarchies, we do not question the orders we are given. We wait our turn, we let the speaker finish, we don’t interrupt, etc. Yet, if we don’t act quickly—within a few seconds—the speaker will have forgotten the fullness of their mind at the moment they spoke. Their explanation for the “text,” for what they said, will be lost forever, even if we have a video recording of it.
Due to the quickness of human emotion, virtually all societies everywhere have constructed rules for listening and speaking that completely preclude a FIML-type inquiry. Most beginning FIML partners will, therefore, experience some difficulty getting used to FIML queries. Our moods, emotions, mental states, thoughts, and more have all been long conditioned by social forces that constrain us in the very place where we need more freedom—getting the real explanation from our partner to replace our interpretation.
You would never want to run a business or do an engineering project based on ambiguous interpretations, but most of us conduct our love lives and friendships in just that way.
FIML is a specific semiotic in that it deals with the communications between two specific individuals. FIML does not tell these individuals what to think, say, or believe. It merely provides a technique for them to fully explore the semiotics and all ramifications of those semiotics that occur between them. A general semiotic is one that says something about all languages. FIML fixes a general weakness that occurs, to the best of my knowledge, in all human languages.
And there are other SAEs, including cancers, autoimmune maladies, cardiac arrest, harms done to fetuses and babies, and more.
All facts and outcomes point to the mRNA covid vaxxes being bioweapons.
The dubious plandemic, followed by dubious lockdowns, followed by near-mandatory vaxxing based on zero proved ‘safety and efficacy’ cannot all be due to incompetence.
Surely, many functionaries and underlings were incompetent or afraid to speak or act, but the overall covid phenomenon is best explained as a bioweapon attack on Western peoples and nations.
That the West is being attacked in every other area imaginable only bolsters this conclusion, ABN
I believe this is largely true with the addition of a strong cultural and probably genetic propensity for self-deception. Evolutionarily, self-deception is a ‘valuable’ trait for any tribe as it ensures tribal-bonding at the expense of others. ABN
What people thought America could be – a beacon of democracy – was the last thing it became. In reality, it’s a corporate machine that has given rise to the Transnational Private Sector (TPS).
The TPS is a coalition of corporate giants, led by the Financial-Industrial Complex (FIC) with firms like JPMorgan, Goldman, and BlackRock, alongside the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), Consumer-Industrial Complex (CIC), and Techno-Industrial Complex (TIC).
This collective force operates beyond borders, transcends nationality, and prioritizes profit over public welfare.
When Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s CEO, warned in October 2024 that wars in Ukraine and the Middle East could destabilize the global economy, he wasn’t just forecasting. He was asserting the TPS’s dominance over policy.
To understand this power, you have to examine the game theory driving the TPS’s clash with nations.
This concept that I have developed deliberately sets aside the idea of good, evil, right, or wrong. Geopolitical dynamics are examined through the lens of incentives, power, and measurable outcomes, not moral judgments. The focus is the strategic interplay of actors, stripped of ethical narratives.
___
Game theory provides a framework for understanding geopolitical strategies by analyzing the incentives that drive actors’ decisions.
There are two distinct game types: finite and infinite. Both these games shape global interactions. Finite games are zero-sum with defined endpoints, and clear winners and losers. It’s akin to a corporate quarter where profit maximization is the sole objective.
One player wins, the other loses.
Infinite games, conversely, lack a conclusion, have no end, prioritizing sustained participation through long-term stability, akin to a nation’s multi-generational survival strategy.
States operate within infinite games.
They do not expire. They do not tap out.
Their permanence compels them to prioritize enduring stability over immediate gains. For instance, China’s $1 trillion Belt and Road Initiative, spanning decades, secures global trade networks to ensure long-term economic influence. BRICS nations, through $10 billion in yuan-based trade, foster mutual economic resilience for mutual prosperity.
This cooperative approach engenders a form of morality rooted in reciprocity: mutual support today ensures mutual survival tomorrow. Such strategies reflect a commitment to societal development and stability, as states must maintain legitimacy and resources for their populations over time.
The TPS operates as a corporate entity, fundamentally detached from societal obligations. Unlike states, the TPS bears no responsibility to citizens, public welfare, or long-term development. Its imperative is profit maximization within finite time horizons, driven by shareholder demands and market cycles.
Elon Musk has backtracked on plans to remake US politics by launching a third party and instead wants to use his immense wealth to help JD Vance become the next president.
The billionaire Tesla founder intends to shift his focus back to his companies after a tumultuous stint working with President Trump and has become wary of upsetting Republicans, according to The Wall Street Journal.
This is obvious formation or announcement of Musk supporting and intending to be an integral part of the ‘Vance faction’.
If elected, Vance would be the public face of this faction, which includes Thiel and several tech bros, along with a large component of Jewish Supremists, many of whom are tech bros with dual or trilateral loyalties.
It might be a good faction. There is plenty of time for conditions to change or become more established. Or other factions to form in opposition.
I doubt Vance has anywhere near the presence, power, experience or skills Trump has, though he is a good talker. ABN
Here’s a long piece about why Whitney Webb’s Epstein book and podcast interviews have had a more detrimental effect on the public’s grasp of the Jeffrey Epstein story than the censors could ever dream of having:
A book or any other printed material needs to be precise and as brief as possible in order to properly convey the material therein. A smart writer knows this and endeavours to reach that goal. It is no good to say “but I had to include everything so that people will understand” instead what should be done is to get a really good understanding of the material so that one might express the essence of it with just enough backing history that the reader can have faith that the material is accurate.
When attempting to baffle with bullshit, however, authors and lawyers often use a simple trick: bury their mark in unnecessary documentation. Overload the senses, use too many words, offer too much documentation.
The aim, of course, is to make the reader or target feel that there’s no way they can actually verify the information or even absorb it all.
Often this trick in itself is evidence of foul play or malfeasance, however it could be that the person producing the material is simply ill equipped to handle the case they are working on and so they throw everything into the mix hoping that the sheer volume will confer some sort of legitimacy on the work. I’m not commenting, in the case of Webb, on her intentions.
Part 2
Think of the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes.
The point of that tale is to demonstrate that a group of people will go along with a delusion if ‘popular’ people embrace it first.
Where real life differs from the tale is that in real life, if someone comes along to point out that the whole group of people were fooled, more often than not the group will turn on the person pointing out the truth rather than awaken from their shared delusion.
This is what has happened with Whitney Webb and her book about Epstein. She wrote this huge and unreadable book (which no, I haven’t read) and immediately got invited onto popular shows (Glenn Beck first) to receive high praise for it. This was ‘The King’ endorsing the new invisible fashion.
Soon the commoners (even though they didn’t read past the first chapter, let’s say, of the book) wanted to look smart & informed so instead of admitting that the book was a cloud of verbal flatulence they joined in the adoring chorus.
The truth is that Tracey’s critique is valid.
He doesn’t go far enough in his warnings about it, though. His aim is not my aim. It appears to me that Tracey just wants to discredit links to Israelis and Jewish intelligence (not sure). In my case I want people to realize that the truth of Epstein not only includes links to Israel, but also to the world of science (progress) / transhumanism / AI and probably to much darker stuff. That his links to Howard Lutnick are not properly investigated. Etc.
When Webb goes on podcast after podcast with her flood of info and in her grating manner (the combination of which sets one’s teeth on edge and makes their eyes glaze over) she serves a more dangerous role than would a censor of info about Epstein and his connections.
She makes people believe that they’ve got the full story, but also that that story is too complex to grasp, and in the end they slip back into “muh egg-shaped penis” titllation instead of ever really reaching understanding.
This has been my sense of Webb as well. I also have not read her book for the reasons given above.
We should all be wary of influencers while also taking in whatever information is good.
I, for one, accept the fact that we are living in a world run by elites; and with that in mind I offer qualified support to whichever side or faction of the elite seems pragmatically best to me.
To put that another way: would you ever really want to live in a real democracy? wherein every moron alive who knows nothing can determine the fate of a nation?
It’s just as well we have pretend elections which amount to public opinion polls at best.
AI may change the game but, so far, elites have always ruled and still do. ABN
Listening to the ranting of a friend who has Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), I am struck by two things:
he gives reasons for his anger
his reasoning or abstract understanding of his predicament is ridiculous
(His rant was recorded and sent to me by a third party who is trying to help.)
With that as a starting point, consider the various ways abstract reasoning or solid abstract paradigms can compensate for or mask mental illness. Not all of it is pretty.
For example, serial killers often mask their illnesses for decades by holding fast to the appearance of normalcy while secretly indulging their madness.
Less bad are career criminals who act with savagery in less direct ways, through hit men, poisons, theft, fraud, and so on.
There is a wide spectrum between serial killers and normally inoffensive people.
It is reasonable to see all cultures as fundamentally abstract paradigms that mask and allow for madness among large groups of people.
A culture, after all, is nothing more than a Lowest-Common-Denominator system of communication; an LCD semiology. Consider how many cultures are grotesquely narcissistic.
Personality is much the same whether it conforms well or not to whichever cultural semiology it inhabits.
From this point of view, enshrining diversity only ensures a wider array of mad people. Identity politics is the same; just more ways for mad people to function, more room for them to run free; more abstract paradigms to mask their underlying chaos.
That is a decent modern restatement of the First and Second Noble Truths: life is suffering because we are crazy.
The Third and Fourth Noble Truths tell us that the way out of being crazy is to use our reason better; to understand why we are crazy; that clinging to LCD semiologies can’t ever work.
A philosophical psychologist might rightly say that a mad mind open to reason will gradually become well.
My friend with BPD can reason, but his reasoning is really bad. It’s selfish, marinated in anger, and not open to contrary views. But even he can do it if he clings to reason and evidence.
Abstract reasoning and paradigms such as Buddhism, science, other religions, atheism, psychology, or philosophy can lead us out of madness if we use them diligently.
Diligence or perseverance is one of the most important virtues in Buddhist practice. Wisdom is the most important. Compassion is probably the most famous Buddhist virtue but compassion without wisdom or diligence is not good and can even be dangerous.
Indeed, my BPD friend frequently and loudly demands unreasonable compassion from others. And that is one of the most obvious flaws in the way he thinks about himself, the way he reasons.
Take this video as a semblance of an explication of Buddhism; then understand and use FIML when speaking to at least one other person. That’s where and how FIML fits in the human aspect of the cosmos. There is no better way for humans to communicate interpersonal subjective and objective reality. ABN
FIML works with the shared knowledge of two people; knowledge that both partners agree on.
FIML works with small bits of knowledge to avoid jumping mistakenly into false belief, justification, or truth as these words are used in the video above.
In this way, FIML is working with both primary subjective and primary objective knowledge, turning them into agreed upon better subjective and objective knowledge (since both agree).
Doing FIML frequently, clears up mistaken beliefs, justifications, and truths by clearing up basic subjective and objective knowledge mistakes.
I have only just heard of Williamson, but the messy knowledge basis of interpersonal relations has been clear to me for many decades.
When partners compare their subjective knowledge of self and each other, they correct their false knowledge and replace it with much better knowledge.
Basic FIML works with bits of language and semiotics that are small enough for both partners to distinctly remember in real-time and agree on what they are.
A huge advantage of working with small bits of knowledge is self-correction is fairly easy. And also its effects on meso and macro kinds of knowledge happen through autocatalytic expansion into those regions.
Everything changes when lots of little bits of knowledge are cleared up and made better. The insights expand throughout the mind.
FIML does not tell you what to think. It is a method for working with what you know or can know or thought you knew but maybe were wrong or right.
FIML’s truths, once realized, are psychological, existential, philosophical and spiritual. ABN
American Buddhist Net 