Right. I understand you now. Not saying I agree, just that I grok what you tried to say earlier. I'd add that this recension was rather poetic and it's for that I gave your post a like. In my opinion, you should continue to strive for brevity*; it brings out the best in your writing.
*According to one definition of poetry I read, it's the shortest way to say something.
Thank you. I agree that brevity is the soul of wit.
I'll try to be brief but here's another thought:
The Trinity of pattern is the basis for all mathematics. An integer represents a set of similarities, differences, and boundaries. Let's say you have a set of 6 apples. The apples are all similar enough to receive the label of "apple" but have slight differences in shape or color and are all occupying different spaces. To represent this set as "six apples" you have arbitrarily decided that the similarities are great enough see six instantiations of one thing but that the differences are great enough to consider them separate instantiations of that thing. Let's suppose you put 3 apples really close together on one end of the table and 3 apples really close together on the other end of the table. Are the spatial differences and similarities now in such a state that it suits your purposes to define a set of 3 apples or perhaps a set of 2 groups of 3 apples? Or does it suit your purposes to still define the set as 6 apples? What is your purpose in defining the set? Is it to eat apples? What if one apple has a bite, one is half chewed, and one is nibbled down to the core? How many apples in the set then? What if one of the apples is a crab apple? What if one is an Adam's Apple?
You see that how you define the set is entirely dependent on your choice of where to place the boundary and you place it where it is most useful in attaining your goal. If your goal is to eat apples, you can certainly exclude the apple core, and unless you're really hungry, you might also exclude the half-chewed apple. But you see it is not definite and it is up to you and your goal and your choice.
It is this way with everything. The neural network is a tool for perceiving and creating boundaries in useful way. You show the neural network a set of things which have similarities and differences and it places a boundary based on what is most likely to be useful. How it will assign boundaries in any instance is a probability, not a certainty.
When people describe the feeling of "pure awareness" what has happened is they have stopped desiring and so without a goal there is no need to use anything and a neural network assigns boundaries based on probability of what is most useful. So without driving goal, the neural network cannot assign boundaries, so edges and sets fall away and what is left is a sea of color and light.
This feeling of "pure awareness" and boundary dissolution is nice, but if you are being hunted by a lion on the savanna it might not be useful and it might in fact make it less likely you will reproduce. So our neural networks are hardwired to assign boundaries based on what is most useful to us: finding food, not being eaten, mating, etc.. Our brains are constantly making imperceptible choices about where to place boundaries in such a way as to be useful to us, and it is amazing we can override that hardwiring to have such an oceanic experience as "pure awareness" .