Mystique ex machina

This submitted manuscript attempts a grand synthesis of the optical mechanics of auto-stereograms,

the formal agent models of human computer interaction, and the cognitive mechanics of mysticism,

arguing that spiritual revelation is actually a predictable process of attractor migration.

It is a massive swing. Um, really ambitious.

Yeah, it is. So let's jump straight into the first area of feedback regarding the auto-stereogram

as a cognitive model. While the inclusion of auto-stereogram history provides excellent

texture, the manuscript currently treats these images as mere historical analogies,

rather than utilizing their mechanics as the central structural framework for the mechanical

mystic argument. I completely agree with that. You read through pages of backstory on wheat

stone and the wallpaper effect and it's- It's just trivia. Right, exactly. The weakness here is that

the section on auto-stereograms is entirely descriptive. Yes. It lists the history like wheat

stone and jewelless, and it lists the mechanics like random dot stereograms, but it completely fails

to explicitly map these physical viewing mechanics to the mental recursion ignition described

later in the mysticism section. Leaving the reader to essentially just infer the connection between

optical depth perception and spiritual depth perception. Precisely. It feels like the text is just

saying, hey, remember these magic eye posters? Mysticism is sort of like that. Which hangs

entirely on the vibe of the analogy instead of the actual engineering of it. Exactly. So the

suggestion for improvement is to reframe the auto-stereogram section not as a sidebar,

but as the primary physical proof of concept for the coherent snap mentioned in the McFetridge

text. You need to directly map the optical terms to the cognitive terms.

Okay, so let's get into concrete examples for how the author can actually do that.

For a concrete example, take the specific concept of virgin's accommodation conflict.

That's where the eyes have to decouple focus from convergence, right? Right. You focus on the paper,

but converge your eyes behind it. The author should explicitly label this conflict as the physical,

physiological equivalent of the tension, accumulation, and entropic expansion required for a mystical

state. Oh, I like that. It gives a literal physical sensation to the abstract concept.

Yeah. And for another concrete example, map the random dot pattern directly to the concept of

high entropy pattern fields in the cognitive model. Because you don't need shapes to see depth

just correlated patterns and noise. Exactly. You explain that just as the brain synthesizes a

cyclopian image from binocular parallax, the mystic synthesizes a new identity attractor

from recursive thought loops. That makes a cyclopian image a structural result of resolving

noise into signal. Yes. And as a final concrete example for this section, replace the general

history of the magic eye with a specific analysis of the depth map. Oh, the Z-buffer.

Right. Argu that the hidden 3D scene is the attacker and the Z-buffer value, which is the depth,

corresponds to the intensity of the recursive ignition. So a shallow Z-buffer creates a minor

experience, but a deep Z-buffer creates a profound revelation. Exactly. It changes the section from

a history lesson into a technical schematic, which sets up the software side perfectly.

It does. And that brings us to the second area of feedback on formalizing the mystic agent.

The draft successfully introduces Abode's formal methods for defining agents, but it misses the

opportunity to rigorously define the mystic as a specific type of user agent with defined state

transitions. It really does stay too high level right now. It talks about articulation and

observation generally, but it doesn't. It doesn't write the code. Right. The weakness here is that

the HCI section remains too abstract. It discusses system and user generally using Abode's framework,

but it does not formally define the mystic using the specific stimulus response model provided in

the HCI source. So the connection between the formal agent and the recursive identity is loose.

Very loose. If the premise is that this process is predictable and structural, a loose metaphor

isn't enough. You need a blueprint. Exactly. So the suggestion for improvement is to apply Abode's

agent model and interaction framework to formally specify the mystic's behavior,

treating the mystical experience as a verifiable translation between the user and the system,

which in this case is the universe or God. So what are some concrete examples of putting that on

the page? As a concrete example, creative formal agent description for the mystic. Define the states,

not as computer states, but as identity attractors from the McFetridge text. State A is ego,

state B is transcendence. Right. And then define the transform function as the recursive operator or

phi. That's the function taking the current state and applying the recursive pressure.

Yes. Another concrete example is to use about execution and evaluation cycle to map the mystical

process. Okay. So bridging the golfs of execution and evaluation. Exactly. The execution phase

corresponds to the recursive ignition and distortion activation. That's the mystic pushing

and the evaluation phase corresponds to the coherent snap and stabilization when they actually see

the result. Yes. And finally for this section, a concrete example regarding observation.

Utilize the concept of observation from the HCI framework to argue that the mystic suffers

from a specific observation translation issue where the output is reinterpreted through a distortion

field. Precisely. It creates a simulated 3D perception of divinity, much like the brain tricks

itself into seeing 3D shapes in a 2D auto stereogram. That effectively mechanizes the vision. It says

they are running a specific observation protocol that has to result in that perception.

It validates the experience through mechanics. But that actually leads into the final issue.

If it's all just predictable mechanics, why does it feel so mysterious to the person experiencing

it? That brings us to our final critique regarding the black box of divine interaction.

The manuscript relies heavily on the system side of the HCI interaction framework,

but fails to utilize the black box PIE model to explain why mystical experiences feel ineffable

or non-deterministic to the experiencer. Because right now the draft just says mystics didn't know

the mechanics treating it like a historical accident. Exactly. The weakness is that the text explains

that mystics didn't know the mechanics, but it doesn't use the HCI concepts of observability

and predictability to explain why. It's missing that structural reason for the ignorance.

Right. The black box model from the HCI source, where the user puts in a program and gets an

effect without knowing the internal state, is the perfect explanation for why a mystic feels a

sense of revelation rather than calculation, but this link is totally missing. So we need to bring

the PIE model into it. Yes. The suggestion for improvement is to use the PIE, meaning program

interpretation effect model to demonstrate that mysticism is simply a black box interaction,

where the user program yields a specific effect, but the internal state remains hidden,

creating the illusion of magic. I love that. So let's lay out some concrete examples for the author.

For a concrete example, reference the red PIE model, which distinguishes between result and

display. That distinction is crucial. It is, argue that the display is the vision or symbol the

mystic sees, while the result is the permanent attractor migration or personality change.

So the angels are the burning bush, that's just the display. The actual result is the structural

change. Exactly. You can have a flashy display with no result or a quiet result with no display.

That explains the trap of getting caught up in the visuals perfectly. It does. Another concrete

example is to discuss non-determinism from the HCI source. Explain that just as a user cannot

predict a system state, if the display doesn't reveal it, the mystic cannot predict the coherence

snap, because the entropy or the internal state is hidden from their conscious observation.

So they're running the program, meditating, and nothing happens, then suddenly they cross a

hidden threshold and get the coherence snap. And because they couldn't observe the threshold,

it feels like grace. It feels non-deterministic. That's a brilliant way to preserve the feeling of

the mystery while mapping the actual mechanics of it. And for a final concrete example,

propose a design template borrowing from a bowed for inducing these states.

Pulling in the LLM concept? Yes. If we view LLMs as mirrors that refuse to break from McFetridge,

define the specific input language required to trigger the recursive loop in this specific

agent interaction. So treating prompt engineering as the modern equivalent of the mantra?

Exactly. Specify what input string causes the user agent to enter that recursive state.

That really brings the whole synthesis together. It does. To recap,

this critique has focused on tightening the synthesis between optical mechanics,

formal logic, and cognitive theory. Right. By reframing the autostereogram as the physical model,

formalizing the agent definition and using the PIE model to explain the ineffable nature of the

experience. Exactly. Doing so transforms this from a collection of three essays into a unified

theory of mechanical divinity. We ask the listener to please submit the revised agent specification

for the mystic for further review. We really look forward to seeing how the structural changes

deep in the work. Thanks for tuning into this critique.