As I did with Halo 3, this write-up is to help online console players with tactics and ideas in CoD4. Fortunately different than my earlier Halo 3 write-up, I like CoD4 much, much more, so this may turn into a series as opposed to a single item. Also, I’ll be taking things into much more depth; with the previous write-ups I was content to leave all mention of specific tactics to the player to figure out, and focused solely on the meta-game. Here I am not so content. This game is much deeper and it deserves more than just tactical mention.

It is noted that the already strong players of this game have either played CoD2 or Counter-strike in the past, so some (or many) of these ideas might seem standard to them. But none you’ll read here are trivial: all advice that I give are words not to do without – what is discussed will improve how you play.

If one is to survive firefights in CoD4 consistently, they must actively outsmart their opponents, often within a few moments. Tactics must become dynamic – there is no hard rule to unconsciously rely on about grenades, or from which position to fire from. Thus what to do in immediate combat, and namely the options and analysis of each’s effectiveness needs a fair amount of attention. For this first write-up, we’ll concern ourselves with two chapters in the first volume:

Volume 1: Tactics And Smarts

Chapter 1: An Evaluation of Firefight Tactics

The Belly Flop: An elusive move where the player jumps while moving, then on the apex of jumping, holds the crouch button down to go fully prone. To an observing enemy your character is at first moving through the air, then very erratically dives into the ground. To the performing player it is almost impossible to shoot anything, or even properly aim, until the prone position is reached – to maximize its effectiveness one needs to focus their basic reticule above the enemy mid-air, so that upon landing and bringing the sights up, the shot is dead on.

The Pros: A wonderful way to take corners against long-range enemies that are pre-aiming your cover when you absolutely have to take a shot.

The Cons: Absolute suicide at tactically positioned targets; takes practice to perfect, most likely requires the Tactical button setup. If the enemy dodges behind cover it is best to get up and ‘try something else’ – so make sure they don’t have immediate cover nearby.

When To Use: One unique application would be to arrive at a prone position on the edge of a corner: perform the movement a good distance from a corner, so that you fall prone just at the edge for a shot; doing this assures a fast and tactical prone position to suddenly engage with, which has a good chance of disrupting pre-aim and limits exposure. The Belly Flop can also be used to jump further out than normal, an easier variation that might thoroughly surprise the enemy. Of course, a much more common alternate is to simply jump out. While this avoids some pre-aim (evening the playing field with who might shoot first), it does not provide as much set-up for one’s own pre-aim should one master the belly flop. A good rule is to use the belly flop in farther away, even-height fights, and to use a simply jump out against enemies at better tactical positions. Keep in mind that if you have an accurate weapon or steady aim, that once you go prone, you may not even have to bring the sights up if the enemy is close or mid-range.

Peeking: Quickly moving into and out of cover to assess possible enemy position.

The Pros: Done well enough, the chances of being shot are very low. While it is comparatively hard to quickly spot someone in CoD4 with a peek, unlike other games, this technique is notorious enough so that any enemy who is not completely confident in their hiding spot will almost certainly think that he has been spotted. You can use this psychological effect to anticipate enemy relocation.

The Cons: As the graphics are so amazing, you may need longer than a peek to distinguish an enemy from everything else, therefore memorization of details in maps will go a long way. But conversely, whenever one peeks, even if they do not see anything, it’s advised to always assume that your own position is compromised.

When To Use: Unless playing stealthily or tactically, one should peek and search everywhere as if it is an addiction. Whenever camping, holding down an area, or watching through a window, ALWAYS PEEK, never stand still. Going away from a window and corner and looking back is always safer than constantly watching. Report to the team any enemies seen.

Peek-shot: Quickly moving out of cover to fire a burst or two in order to take down an enemy. You need to first pre-aim.

Pros: Outside of grenade tactics, and sometimes in the face of them, it is the best way to kill someone approaching your cover. Because you are emerging from cover, you will see them first (more about this in Chapter 2).

Cons: Becomes predictable between skilled players.

When To Use: If you peek and see an enemy, or hear one approaching, first pre-aim the shot (bring the sights up or center the crosshairs in a way to compensate for the distance you need to strafe and the angle the enemy is, then emerge from the corner without the sights up, quickly bring them up as your step ends, take the two bursts and return to the corner with you kill. Works best at mid-to-long range. Beware CQBers; if you suspect your enemy is, it might be best to flash/stun first, or use the pie cut.

Pie Cutting: While revealing only enough to draw one’s sights only slightly straight past the corner of one’s cover, the player waits for the shot. Works standing, ducking, and going prone.

Pros: Reveals the smallest amount of yourself while waiting for an enemy to pass into the line of sight at mid to short range.

Cons: Doesn’t take initiative; you may be spotted first if not at a reasonable enough range.

When To Use: Can also be used in CQB to clear corners. More passive than the peek-shot, preferrable when confident that the enemy is obvlivious to your position.

Corner-walling: Done after a peek, you fire your weapon through your own corner into where you expect your enemy is, as if you are drawing a line through the corner to your enemy.

The Pros: Excellent tactic to panic and confuse the enemy. Upsets pre-aim and almost definitely causes relocation, even if slightly.

The Cons: May need Stopping Power and Deep Impact to be effective in most situations. You’re probably going to have to relocate after a few shots.

When To Use: Whenever both peeking from a weak cover and playing aggressively. This tactic should be followed up with a proper sights-on burst. It can also be used in reverse order, as when retreating back into a corner, and can be used repeatedly while backing far away from the corner to keep the enemy at bay.

Stun Grenade: Causes slight initial flash on enemy screen. Deteriorates aiming, mobility, and hearing (though not entirely) of the enemy.

Pros: Excellent for rounding corners with lots of room to move, as enemy will have a hard time drawing their sights up. Also great when used defensively.

Cons: Does not blind, does not in any way guarantee a kill when turning a corner – you don’t know how long they’re stunned, or how trained their sights already are.

When To Use: When used offensively, stun an opponent, then cook and toss a grenade. It’s much safer than turning the corner yourself, and in the process you are able to relocate with ease. Otherwise, this grenade should be used exclusively for defense: use the stun when attempting to retreat away from a corner, or counter-stun the enemy. If you are flashed or stunned, use this to drop one towards where the enemy is coming from. One important difference that might sway your decision between flashes and stuns is that stun grenades can wound (or kill an already wounded) enemy if they explode close enough to them, which serves as a garuntee of an effective stun as well as confirmation of enemy presence.

Flashbang: Causes blindness and deafness. Enemy is still able to aim down their sights and their movement speed is not hindered.

Pros: Excellent for defensive relocation – can be dumped before a tactical team assault to disorient enemy response time.

Cons: Horrible at close quarters: the enemy will simply spray the direction the flash came from. When used offensively, watch for counter-flashing/stunning.

When To Use: As it serves similar purposes to the Stun Grenade, whichever one is used is a preferential choice. I prefer the flashbang: I think it provides better security while one relocates, and blind enemies may fire to give their position away, or loudly retreat behind previous cover, while you are able to quietly change position and await their eventual arrival or anticipate their relocation. Stunned enemies, while they do not retreat back behind cover, tend to remain much more calm about the situation, as they can still see and hear anything that happens.

Smoke Grenade: Causes a thick cloud of smoke in a 2.5 yard diameter.

Pros: Makes sniping nearly impossible.

Cons: Every competent player in the universe will frag/flash/stun the smoked area and/or predict a diversion.

When To Use: You can still use the smoke as a psychological trick if you can throw it very far, over buildings and into bombsites/choke points across the map. Otherwise the enemy will know you are nearby and expect a diversion. It is almost essential in flanking and avoiding snipers. When playing with a team, it’s a good item for at least one person to have. But keep in mind that if you’re playing smart, and have skill with the stun/flashbang, that you can still get around a pesky sniper.

Frag Grenade: Six second timer, can be cooked – blows up cars, oil drums, claymores, C4.

Pros: Big explosion, gets rid of/triggers other explosions in the area.

Cons: Often need to be cooked, which requires cover.

When To Use: It seems the duty of every CoD player to launch their grenades as soon as possible, usually towards cars across the map. Keep in mind that unless you use Perk 1’s slot for triple frags, you only have one, a very valuable one. A frag grenade has tons of uses: it can kill long distance, reach into windows, take out cars, force enemies out of cover (or die), and cover a retreat in much the same way that a flashbang and stun grenade can. You can also toss non-cooked grenades to potentially provide a 6-second barrier on a narrow location — smart enemies will assume they are cooked and won’t bother to throw them. Consider this technique to aid you defusing bombs, keeping snipers from scoping into an area, prevent flanks and crossfire as you approach enemies, upset pre-aim… the list goes on. As said, right now it seems like a duty, a good idea sometimes, to launch your grenade right away, hoping for a lucky kill. I leave it to the player to decide whether he wants a tactical advantage with him throughout the round, or to sacrifice it in gamble early on.

Stop-and-pop: Shuffling left and right while in a firefight, firing bursts between steps.

Pros: Makes you a hard target, allows better management of recoil than full-auto.

Cons: With a low-mobility weapon, and in close quarters, it is almost useless.

When To Use: This tactic almost equalizes medium-range firefights when you have a sub-machine gun. An MP5 with a reflex attachment would be the most obvious ideal for this; with this gun you can feel competent running short distances in long-distance areas, as a medium-range engagement can be handled well enough with some cover and the stop-n-pop. It’s important to stress though, that this tactic is hardly as effective with assault rifles, unless at mid-short range, or with the Steady Aim perk. Otherwise, shuffling left and right still helps with aim and slightly disrupts the enemy’s, but it’s much wiser to instead peek corners and rely on slower movement.

Chapter 2: Playing To Win: Empty Your Cup

A western philosopher once traveled to China to speak to a great Zen master. When he arrived and met the man, who appeared to be very simple in nature, the Zen master invited him to tea. As the Zen master set stumpy plain pottery out and prepared his brew, the western philosopher asked him, “I want you to teach me about Zen and nirvana.” The Zen master did not say anything. Once the tea was brewed he sat across from the philosopher and poured the tea into his cup, yet when it was filled he continued pouring, the tea spilling out everywhere, almost upon the philosopher’s lap. The philosopher stood up and demanded an explanation. The Zen master stopped his pouring and looked up at him, and said: “teaching you Zen as you are now is like pouring into a full cup. You must first empty yourself.”

Whenever you next turn on the game, find a game type to play and load into another player’s server, pick your class — move cautiously into a seedy, well-defended area and wait a moment. You should have in-ear headphones on (or very high quality surround sound, whichever it tends to be is just as equal in different ways), so what you should now do is look out towards where experience tells you the enemy will most likely intrude from, and wait, and listen. As you’re listening to the sounds you’ll hear a variety of background noises— thunder, distant ambient gunfire, the sound of wind, something burning, rusting grass and the occasional creak of wood. A look at your HUD map shows you teammate location (if their arrows are glowing, they are firing their weapons) and if a UAV is on or enemy fire is audible, some enemy locations as well. Now, realize that you are imagining everything that is happening in the game. There are no teammates on the map, there are no ambient sounds in the game, there is no enemy on the map, there is no map.

If you want to truly play at your best, you must stop playing Call Of Duty 4: A Modern Warfare Simulation, and start playing Call Of Duty 4: Programmed Video Game With Flaws. You should not assume a proper way to play, some way that the game is real or fair. All things go: this is a networked program, and that means you can not expect an actual firefight; you have to assume, and play directly mindful of, a programmed game.

Information about enemy location and teammate location — the representation of other players on their computers — is sent through the host and relevant information arrives for you, and it always arrives late. When a firefight occurs, two players are usually shooting at each other in locations different than they think they are — your sidestep to the left is delayed, and you may already have been shot in the head before then, but the information has not arrived for you. Similarly in CQB, the person entering an area always sees his enemy before the enemy sees him (this is because information of your arrival to where your enemy can see you will take time to arrive to the rival player, whereas the information of his position in the room that you will enter is already available for you). When you enter into a flanking area, it appears to you that your enemy is facing to the side, but on his computer he might have his sights set upon you. If you think this is not fair, then you are still playing the wrong game.

Because there are no dedicated servers, objects are even more misrepresented than on dedicated servers. You must compensate: if you are engaging an enemy in yellow bars, you can never know which direction he is facing or what he is currently doing; if in green bars, you can guess, but you are relying on sometimes second-behind information. Think of all your enemies as blurred-out figures with a probable location of a meter in diameter in all directions; you can never know what your enemy or ally is currently doing by just looking at them — you will never know when they bring their sights up to aim, or if they have a direct headshot ready on someone.

What you must do, then, is think psychologically and probabilistically about even the most minute details of enemy dynamics — if you want to prepare yourself for an enemy who is running towards you, evaluate if he could possibly know you are present. If he probably does not, be sure to quietly seek a hiding spot, somewhere that you can jump out from (so you’re definitely firing first) or somewhere that you are positive he will not see and aim upon before you first. Also consider jumping out before he enters, intercepting enemies at corners and doorways — but keep in mind that CQB weapons are equalizers in these situations.

If your enemy is moving into an area and he knows you are there, you are in trouble. Because of the lag problem, always over-compensate with tactical wit — retreat when an enemy approaches instead of “fairly engaging” (it is never fair head on, as one person has a connection advantage over the other), use flashbangs and grenades early before an enemy enters (as you do not know when he will pass the threshold into firing range and sight), and try your best to avoid knife fights: they can often randomly miss, whereas a silenced pistol or primary weapon would have been safest.

If you enter a new area and see an enemy, at any range other than close, it is best to duck back into cover, find some way to disrupt pre-aim (either relocate to fire your weapon, use a grenade tactic, corner wall, belly-flop, simply jump out, or wait a moment — keep in mind that you could be fragged) and emerge with a well-aimed shot of your own. If your aiming takes more than a second, keep in mind it might mean that your enemy may have had up to two seconds to take you down, so return to cover. If you can not immediately kill a threat, remember that a split second more will probably be in their advantage. Play it smart, you are not Rambo, empty your cup.

Chances are CoD4 transfers information with a distance priority: the farther away you are from an object, the more likely you are a second or two behind. This makes snipers especially dangerous — they could have been aiming at you a good two seconds ago!

That’s all for now. Next time we’ll wrap up tactical firefighting with a short look at some additions to what was previously mentioned, as well as a segue into how tactics meets strategy (”Chapter 3: Sword and Shield” and “Chapter 4: Thinking On The Move”). I hope you enjoyed this entry’s serving. Feel free to leave comments and feedback if you have anything to say.

Oh wow, there’s a great resource out now (it’s been out for a bit actually, I’m late). Tons of essays on consciousness from the philosophy side of the house are online (tons). They can be found here.

If you’re interested but intimidated, keep in mind that an essay or two in any resource’s introduction is best to understand any given topic, and just work your way down. Even ten of these essays, so long as they’re dated within the last decade, would be wonderful for anyone to read.

So far as this blog is concerned, I know I’ve been on a longer than usual break. I’m travelling more and trying newer things out than just reading. But I do have an essay in the works, which tries to make clear the argument between Dennett’s consciousness model and what some philosophers call the “Hard Problem” as well as point out some trouble I think both sides of the house are having. It won’t actually answer any difficult questions, but it provides a vantage point that I think some people miss because of the nuances of semantics and what experience itself might be. Check back in a month and it should be up.

I’m also thinking of updating the anti-god essay (check the first month archives) and putting it up as a linked page from the front of the site (where the About and <3 entries sit). And probably not the smartest thing for me to bother with, but my writing is tied up into continuing what I did with Halo for Call of Duty 4 now, partly because I’m infatuated, and partly because I always wanted to put something up on Gamefaqs.

Now, I’m no expert, but I’m worth giving attention to on the matter, because I tend to be better at other players at taking the unspoken skill of playing and making sense of it for lesser players to reach the next level of gaming prowess. What you’re reading now is the second volume of Halo 3 writing here; how to play well in multiplayer.

We can reasonably account for all you need to know by saying that playing well in multiplayer is a three-part aspect that you should master. The first aspect is strategic thinking — thinking about what you should do next in relation to your enemy with the game’s goal in mind; the second aspect is tactical — your immediate movement in coordination of your team and in awareness of your enemy; the third is instinctual — exactly what you are doing while you move, which are your firing habits, your ability to toss grenades, your melee judgment, all of which in this last category must be performed without taxing your ability to communicate and monitor the situations around you. We’ll start with describing the last two items, then move on to strategy later on.

Notice that while some might not differentiate between tactical and instinctual, I do. If you’ve ever considered the karate-technique (I suggest also reading the article contained through that link, as they suppliment the discussion here with more specific items), I am sort of suggesting that. But I submit that there is enough of a difference between thinking tactically while in a firefight, and simply performing in a firefight, that we must regard them as separate from the start. Both of these should be happening simultaneously, but with distinction from each other, and if you can do this, you will have an edge of clearly understanding what you should be thinking about, and have a way to correct problems in your tactical and instinctual behavior. It all comes down to creating accessable and versatile models of the behavior of the players.

To illustrate, I’ll introduce a rather novel concept for you to center your thinking on. Consider that you are playing a different game altogether, called Ring Battle. In this game, each player is a dot located inside a set of two rings, one ring larger than the other, the smaller ring inside the larger. These two sets of rings, which make up the player’s reaching ability, move around a large, spacious maze, and attempt to run into each others’ dots. If a player’s largest ring is larger than other player’s, he is able to make contact with that player’s dot before the other player can do the same, and in doing so, eliminates that player. So you see, the object of the game is to stay away from rings bigger than yours, and eliminate what you can of smaller rings. Throughout the map, there are other spare rings that the dots can pick up to trade one of their existing rings for — some items are smaller, and some larger. To spice the game up, the programmers add a variable of intensity to the rings — that is, some rings, while perhaps being shorter than others, are more capable of quickly eliminating the dot. This lets smaller-dot players “camp” in corners, or drop in on larger-ringed players, penetrate their dot, and eliminate them with a higher variable of intensity. So now, even a player with shorter rings can defeat a longer-ringed player if he plays to his ring’s strength — but unless he is playing smart and with purpose, he should always avoid larger ringed foes.

The analogy is probably apparent to you; the two rings represent the reach, and within that reach, the power, of whatever two weapons you have at the time, and the dot is you, at the center of it. In slayer game types, your tactics should actually center around the location of spare rings that you can pick up, and who also has them picked up. This way of thinking should help you realize the tactical value of the weapons above your own ability to play with them — weapons are tactical goals to have and keep away from the enemy. Regard this as more important than your ability with these weapons, for keeping them from the enemy also keeps superior rings from the enemy.

Thinking like this gives you an edge — it takes away the ego of engaging higher-ringed enemies, it gives you a formula to win against them, and gives you a simple visual idea try to keep track of enemies, and how you should handle arriving at or avoiding confrontation. This represents your tactical thinking: pondering abstractly about where your enemies are, whether you should move to confront them, and if the power of your weapons is superior within the distance and spaciousness of your confrontation. Choose the right ring, choose the right time, and then let your instinctual abilities control how your ring kills that dot.

Your instinctual ability is going to have to overlap with tactical thinking until you get used to the game enough that you do not think about it. At first you will have to seriously concentrate a thought or two on firing, throwing grenades, switching between weapons in the heat of a fight, jumping, melee, keeping track of the radar for surprise threats, retreating around a corner, and noticing your health. You want to get to the point that while you do all of this instinctually, that you are also communicating tactically with teammates about your situation, and have awareness about the other rings in your area.

I’ll leave most of the instinctual thinking to your own style and self-learning. However it is important to say something of bad habits. A bad habit is something that gets you killed against a ring that you should have overcome, but in bad form did not. You know that you have a bad habit if you consistently lose in situations where you’re tactically sound; you engage a dot with a stronger ring than theirs, but you still lose. It is then time you go into theater mode, surface your bad instinct, review it, and take the time to remember and think about this flaw in playing until it corrects itself and can go back into instinct.

One beautiful thing about separating instinct and tactics is that we can also separate a difference between a bad habit on an instinctual level, and a bad habit on a tactical level. This sort of bad habit though, we will rename to ‘bad thinking’, and you also now have a way to quickly realize where your thinking went wrong — chances are that you were thinking poorly if you were not taking serious considerations to avoid larger rings than yours, or shorter, more intense rings at close range. If this is your problem, don’t be stupid! The abstraction is there to eliminate the ego and aid with the kills. Tactically retreat, tactically inform your teammates of the threat, and think, think always.

Given the option, you should always consult your tactical thinking before firing a shot. If you are a sniper, your tactic should be to engage any foolish dot that you can, but while you instinctually attempt that, also become informed through teammates of other rings closing in, and make the right tactical choice if things change — if things become hairy, hope that your enemy’s instinct is weaker.

One overlapping item to consider is grenades. These weapons are in a ‘ring class’ all their own, with incredible range, and just as much short-intensity to boot. Your tactical considerations of grenades should be upon any long-range throws, as well as the amount you have remaining, and where-and-when to go to get more. Your instinctual grenade throw should occur as soon as an opponent is BOTH aware of you, and one of their rings puts you in danger.

It is good in general to set a sort of “Ok, release instinct” sense in a firefight, where unless you are caught unaware and must react, to always choose when to engage your enemy with the most ideal tactical position in prize.

Strategy, the final leg of this writing, is the most simple to describe, but perhaps the most difficult to master, for its mastery is not for one to have alone, but for a team. So far I have only exuded on what it is like to think tactically if one is facing single or multiple rings, but not how one should go about it if they have teammates to cooperate with, to complement of the rings of.

Preferably, all focused objectives and enemies should be met simultaneously with teammates, and it is important to develop this simple technique. Teammates should determine a word or group behavior that allows them from multiple angles to engage the same enemy or objective. “As One” is my suggested wording; once suggested — or if by designation of leader, ordered — the team should communicate their positions and pace of approach to the team’s target (”crouching”, “with caution”, “quickly”, “currently engaged”), then on an attack command all commence with a tactical orientation of their teammates and reported enemies, then instinctually taking down their targets on superior ground, or rotating to better-suited teammates in a tactical way, to conquer and win.

A quote that would be good to hear from yourself or a teammate that exemplifies all three items would be “he’s got a shotgun, I’m moving out,” (presuming the enemy’s location is apparent). This information keeps the team informed, allows strategy to be adjusted, or tactics rotated, and just as importantly, keeps the teammate alive, as he tosses a grenade or two in retreat.

In situations where multiple goals should be attended to, such as multi-flags, or team slayers where gathering weapons and ad-hoc positions of defense are most important, it is a good idea to either give abstract orders ahead of time (”I need two people to secure rockets, two to take stealth”) or come up with some form of addressing multiple but specific teammates quickly (”team alpha” might suffice to address two distinct players who might tactically play close together).

But to write further strategy would be to become overbearing here. The amount of game types makes the topic too saturated to give a satisfying exploration of. It is due for the player to come up with his own strategies in the game and outside of it, to train and play hard with his teammates, and resolve better plans to replace poorer ones.

To sum the relationship up:

Tactical:
Accounting for enemies, reacting to their weapons in relation to their reach and power within the variance of that reach.
Deciding which enemies to avoid and which enemies to encounter.
Communication with your team about the above. Moving along with and in complement to your team with these things in mind.
Deciding to crouch under radar or expose oneself to detection.
Deciding any sort of possible surprise or opening attack.

Instinctual:
One’s ability within a tactically-decided attack.
One’s survival against an unexpected enemy attack.
Affinity for constant cover and the dynamic of that cover with enemy weapons/grenades.

Strategy:
Overall coordination with the team about goals.
The use of tactical knowledge to change the dynamic of the team through given commands.
While tactical communication is only used to share information, strategic communication’s purpose is to give commands.
Assessment and prediction of the enemy’s tactical and strategic underpinnings, and how to counter this through teamwork.

Honestly I have not ever witnessed a serious person mistakenly define ‘consciousness’ as ’self-consciousness,’ nor conflate the two if they are discussing consciousness. But I have seen countless philosophers set their definitions in unsure territory, presuming that others like to define consciousness as or similar to self-consciousness, I guess because they are themselves unsure of the semantic arguments available. People seem to think that self-consciousness somehow has something to do with consciousness; it is another sort of consciousness at least. Color me disagreed.

The problem is, even in an entirely physical system, without any inclination a priori to account for consciousness, we would naturally stumble upon members in our model that have self-consciousness, which is a physical phenomenon, almost completely accounted for in our current spatiotemporal explanations.

Imagine that we run a grand simulation of our universe that takes account of an at least slightly advanced model of physical matter that we have now — advanced enough to run a convincing simulation of our universe — and we begin to run it from the Big Bang. We speed ahead billions of years to our simulated Earth. We then use our engine interface to travel below SimEarth’s clouds, and we see there cities; humans. We choose a human and zoom in on it, penetrate the body, through the nose, going up into nerve wiring, and follow its electrical path into the temporal cortex. From there we activate some engine AI to help brighten up our view of the brain, and we’re presented with a hideously squished up neuron parade, thousands of them, passing information back and fourth. Our engine AI also has another trick — its ability to convert the neural firings into a language we can sort of understand. What we’ll find, if we dig around enough in the brain, and witness enough reactions of, are meta-configurations in the brain, or parts of the brain which seem to model other parts of the brain; refer to other parts of the brain. The brain of this simulated human seems to have naturally evolved a completely physical process of referring to itself. We do not at all need to assume beforehand that it is conscious for us to clearly see that it is self-conscious. The self-consciousness allows the human to regulate its actions according to previous actions, previous thoughts, and quite recent thoughts as well. The human’s brain system is calculating the causality of the system — in at least some sense, the brain is as cognizant of the outside world as it is of itself. And all of this evolved naturally, and physically, without us needing to presume any sense of experience or quality of consciousness itself.

The point is that self-consciousness is capable of being completely defined in our current models of the universe; self-consciousness is a predictable, physical state of matter. We do not at all need to talk about a system being conscious, or assume that it is, to arrive at conditions that are self-conscious. We have that proof in our own wirings.

This is not to say that I don’t think self-consciousness implies consciousness. I think that it does, but only in the way that I think that all physical states, and all matter, have consciousness as well. I am not going to defend a sort of panexperientialism here. It is just a semantic bit this time. (However, I will add, that one not inclined towards non-dualist panexperiential ideas should think about how it is possible to say ‘I am cognating about experience itself’.)

Do you know how every month or so you think about if you could somehow travel into the past, or be reborn, with the sort of knowledge you now have — you think you could live a richer, better life? That with the knowledge of the future that you have, you could alter the course of your life, avoid the troubles, more fully relive rarer times? If I told you that you could get into an aging time machine that I made and go back into the past with all your current memories, with only the loss of your emotional regret of the mistakes you wish to correct, what would you expect of reliving your older times?

Not to come off as some heckling motivational ass, but most of us actually already have this time machine, that allows us to arrive from the future with a good idea of consequence. We have the power of foresight, and almost all of the time we expertly predict the outcome of our worse behavior. Aside from not having any a priori emotion (what we also lose in the time machine), the only things holding us back are our excuses about our own foresight, which is, if one thinks about it, completely implausible to doubt in both grounds of accuracy and utility. Foresight is easily one of our most powerful and ignored faculties. Foresight saw global warming, foresight saw nearly all of the wars and suffering in the world. Your own foresight accounted for almost every single mistake you ever made. If you could go back in time, without the emotional regret, I could do you just as good a favor by simply instilling confidence in your own foresight, and suggesting you develop an emotional perception of it.

Now go on and travel into the future for a moment. You see? Then don’t fuck up this time.