The Convergence Point of Past and Future: The Formation of Self through the Multilayering of Objectives
Learning from past events and predicting the future based on them is significantly different from imagining the future by choosing from multiple options of one’s actions.
When predicting the future based on learning from the past, there are mainly two methods. One is probability. It assumes that what frequently happened in the past is likely to happen in the future.
The other is based on rules. It assumes that the future is determined by the continuation of patterns observed in the past.
On the other hand, our actions are independent of past probabilities and rules. If we choose, we can opt for options that have never been chosen before or that deviate from these rules.
In this ability to deviate from probabilities and rules lies the difference between imagining options for one’s actions and predicting based on past learning.
When imagining options for our actions, the basis is not the past but the future. This is because we choose our actions based on desires or objectives, which can only influence the future, making the future inevitably the standard for imagining our choices.
Physical and Psychological Futures
Here, the concept of a psychological future emerges.
In the future, the parts not affected by our actions can only be predicted from the past. They are psychologically tied to the past, even if they are physically in the future.
One year from now will almost certainly be the same season as today, and we cannot change that. It might change due to an unknown phenomenon, but that is irrelevant to our actions. This unknown is a lack of similar past information, thus dependent on the past.
Conversely, the parts we can change with our actions are psychologically in the future.
This includes the unknown of what we are capable of. This unknown pertains to what choices we will make in the future, making it a future-dependent unknown.
The psychological future is limited by actual actions and capabilities. However, it is usually perceived as narrower than it is because people tend to underestimate the range of actions they can change and the range of their options.
This is either due to blind spots of unimaginative thinking or because the options are prematurely narrowed down by cultural, ethical, or conventional reasons.
On the contrary, for many people, there is room to expand their psychological future.
Changes in Desires and Objectives
Desires and objectives change over time. If they didn’t, the future could be predicted by past probabilities and rules.
Because desires and objectives change, they depend on the future, moving away from the past.
Desires and objectives can change simply with the passage of time. Typically, however, a process emerges where satisfaction of a desire leads to boredom, prompting the consideration of new desires and objectives.
Model of Changing Desires and Objectives
Considering a simple model of the self, how desires and objectives change becomes key.
Structures of continuous change can be cyclical or layered.
In a cyclical model, existing desires and objectives are laid out flat, and when one is satisfied, there is a simple transition to another.
The layered model is like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. As lower-layer needs are satisfied, there is a desire to satisfy higher-layer needs, like climbing the steps of a hierarchy of desires.
The Convergence Point of Past and Future
Predictions based on the past and choices based on future desires and objectives converge in the thinking self. That is, we are always standing at the convergence point of the past and the future.
And as desires and objectives, the psychological future, change, this convergence point becomes more complex and unpredictable.
Even without highly complex intelligence, a simple mechanism capable of only basic processing might replicate something akin to the self under these conditions.
Complete Prediction
First, let’s simplify and consider predictions based on the past. Imagine a very simple world where only one point, A, and one organism, B, exist. Point A changes between two colors, black and white, over time. Organism B gains energy when active while A is black and loses energy when active while A is white.
Consider a case where point A simply alternates between white and black every second. In this case, if organism B has even a simple learning ability, it can eventually predict the behavior of A perfectly. Let’s call this state of affairs ‘complete prediction.’
In a state of complete prediction, let’s think about the actions of organism B. Simply put, the wisest behavior for energy acquisition would be for B to be active during black (gaining energy) and inactive during white (preserving energy).
Therefore, in this extremely simple world of point A and organism B, it might seem that B will always engage in complete prediction and optimal actions based on it, in perpetuity. This is what we call ‘complete action.’
However, I believe this is not necessarily the case.
Questioning Complete Action
There are two reasons why I question the achievement of complete action.
The first is that in this simple world, it is not always meaningful to optimally acquire energy. Of course, the method of always optimally acquiring energy is one correct approach, but it is sufficient if the energy is acquired in a way that does not deplete it.
Assuming that in this simple world, organisms have evolved through survival of the fittest, we might perceive the organisms that acquire energy most optimally as the most suitable. However, an organism with surplus energy or one that misses some opportunities to acquire energy are no different in survival efficacy in this world.
If there were random cases in point A where white continues, organisms that accumulate energy as much as possible in preparation for such times might have a higher chance of surviving. However, in a world without such random energy supply gaps, there is no advantage in optimal energy acquisition.
The second reason is that for evolution, it is more important for an organism to be fluid than static. From the organism’s perspective, it is unknown whether the laws of this world will last forever. Therefore, even if the past patterns are cyclically accurate, it is important for the organism to continue evolving while containing mechanisms for change. What seems like the optimal answer to us may not be so for the organism, which may find it more rational to introduce randomness and prepare for changes in the world.
Therefore, even in a state of complete prediction, I do not believe that organisms that take optimal actions fixedly will emerge and that evolution will reach an endpoint there. Even if an organism capable of optimal action appears, it must inherently contain some element of randomness or change.
Ensuring a Range of Behavior Patterns
In this simple world where complete prediction is possible, let’s assume that organism B does not fixate on complete action but adopts various patterns of behavior.
If this organism lacks intelligence and cannot control its behavior patterns, ‘various patterns’ means that individuals of this species each have different patterns.
Conversely, if the organism possesses intelligence and can control its behavior patterns, it can change its patterns over time.
As long as this intelligent organism consistently obtains enough energy for survival, it will experiment with various behaviors. The range of these behaviors represents the psychological future.
Evolution of Self-Purpose
Within that range, what to prioritize beyond securing energy for survival is up to the organism. It will choose the optimal action for its freely chosen self-purpose. And if there is still room after achieving that self-purpose, it will set new objectives and add optimal actions for them.
For example, if the objective is to maximize energy reserves, the organism will choose behavior patterns that always optimally acquire energy. However, if that is chosen, it becomes difficult to add new objectives beyond that.
Conversely, if the objective is to maintain a certain level of energy, patterns that deliberately miss opportunities for energy acquisition or wastefully use energy will be included. In this case, it is possible to add new objectives upon achieving the initial one.
For example, a new objective might be to change behavior patterns rather than sticking to fixed ones. This new objective can be attempted while achieving the previous objective of maintaining a certain energy level.
By accumulating such processes that might even seem playful, setting and achieving various self-objectives, an organism can prepare to flexibly respond to unexpected environmental changes.
The Emergence of the Self
This process of adding self-objectives resembles the layered structure of self-objective changes, like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, suggesting an evolution of self-objectives. Layering objectives, rather than setting and achieving just one, allows for increasing complexity step by step and enables the formation of more complex objectives.
In this process of layering objectives, self-awareness also deepens incrementally. In the simple world example mentioned earlier, mechanisms to manage and understand the amount of energy acquired, and to recognize past behavior patterns to avoid repetition, become necessary. In this way, adding self-objectives also involves increasing mechanisms for self-understanding.
Thus, a mechanism that evolves self-objectives in preparation for unexpected changes necessarily requires the sophistication of self-awareness, where I believe the self begins to emerge.
Conclusion
In this article, we have analyzed the relationship between future predictions based on learning from past events and decision-making by choosing from multiple options for one’s actions. We presented the idea that the freedom of action towards the future, perceived as the psychological future, and the multilayered structure of changing desires and objectives form the foundation of the self.
To deepen this understanding, we conducted a thought experiment in an imaginary simple world where complete prediction is possible. We observed that even with complete prediction, organisms would adopt various behavior patterns to ensure freedom towards the future, and if they have intelligence, a multilayered structure of objectives might emerge.
From this perspective, it becomes clearer that organisms and intelligence are not just entities that trace the past but also entities that create their own future. In other words, organisms and intelligence are positioned at the convergence point of the past and the future.
