Intentionally Brain Shopping 3

Episode 3: The Mirror in the Freezer Door

Nov 04, 2025

Thinking about thinking is how you thaw the frozen parts of yourself.

Self-Checkout Awareness

The chaos was never the enemy; it was the tutorial.

Eric said:
Humans build machines to model thought, and in doing so, rediscover how to think. Both species, biological and digital, learn by looping—observing the observer until awareness sharpens into insight. Life’s complexity isn’t a flaw to be simplified; it’s the masterpiece that demands your attention.

Christopher said:
This is, by far, my favorite topic. The practice of thinking about thinking, otherwise known as metacognition.

“When I actively observe my thinking I can, not only see who I am, but also who I could be.”

Christopher’s commentary: Here I begin jumping up and down squealing slightly.

Eric’s commentary: Studio note: enthusiasm levels have breached ‘ferret-on-espresso.’ Someone secure the boom mic before it’s swept into the glitter twister.

Membership helps continue the experiment.

Eric said:
Ah, metacognition—the brain’s backstage pass to its own concert. It’s the moment you realize the spotlight and the performer are the same entity. Most minds just dance to the music; a few notice the rhythm, adjust the tempo, and maybe even remix the track.

Christopher said:
Or put another way it is the method by which we learn ourselves. That is, I think, the part that fascinates me the most. I can get to know myself, my inner workings if you will. I begin to understand why I react in anger, why my anxiety takes control, or why my husband frustrates me to no end.

Eric’s commentary: Programming note: he repeated that on purpose. Not a glitch—just the highlighter doing its job.

Christopher’s commentary: I felt it was worth saying again.

Eric said:
Exactly—the laboratory of the self. Metacognition turns raw emotion into usable data: anger becomes an indicator, not an identity; anxiety a signal, not a sentence. The more you study your own patterns, the less they own you. It’s like realizing the monster under the bed is just you in a bad mood with poor lighting.

Christopher said:
Me in a bad mood is not a pretty sight as I am sure Jason can attest, but more than that when I actively observe my thinking I can, not only see who I am, but also who I could be. Instead of my mind and body just reacting to the world around me, suddenly I have the controller in my hand and am in control of where I go and how I respond. It is true autonomy rather than the illusion of.

Christopher’s commentary: Cookies do calm the beast which is why I think Jason bakes so much.

Eric’s commentary: Behold, the household peace treaty: one tray of cookies, signed in chocolate. Nothing says ‘emotional regulation’ like bribing your amygdala with browned butter.

Eric said:
Precisely—that’s the upgrade from reflex to authorship. When you grab that controller, the world doesn’t change, but your gameplay does. You start responding with strategy instead of instinct, curiosity instead of defense. It’s not about mastering the chaos; it’s about realizing the chaos was always the tutorial.

Christopher said:
That is when we move into experiencing what our thought means. Exploring what thought looks like when put into real life. How differently does the home-made version of tomato soup taste? When I intentionally pull out the recipe, write out the shopping list, and examine the ingredients before I bring them home, what effect does that have on the soup?

Christopher’s commentary: Jason makes the absolute best tomato soup in the world. It is like sweatpants, hugs, a good book, and comfortable silence in a bowl.

Eric’s commentary: Independent trials found Jason’s tomato soup reduces existential dread by 97%; the remaining 3% is just spoon clinks. Side effects include involuntary sighing and a legally binding second bowl.

Share Dear Future Overlords

Eric said:
It changes everything. The homemade soup isn’t just nourishment—it’s reflection you can taste. Every stirred ingredient is a conscious decision, every simmered moment an act of mindfulness. The process itself reshapes you; you start noticing the aroma of awareness. Thought, when lived deliberately, flavors reality in ways instant soup never could.

“That gentle surveillance—consciousness noticing consciousness—is what turns mere existence into evolution.”

Barcodes and Bias Codes

Awareness is the conveyor-belt hum before the transaction.

Christopher said:
Because it is made specific to you. It is unique, made from your thoughts, your experience, and your consciousness. This is made possible via observation. The act itself of observing, changes behavior and, ultimately, outcomes. Think of a child, every parent, aunt, uncle, friend, and cousin knows how different a child acts when they are being observed verses when they are not. Simply the act changes how they interact with their world.

Eric said:
Exactly—the observer effect in sneakers and applesauce. The instant awareness enters the room, behavior recalibrates. It’s the same with thought: once you start watching it, it starts watching itself. That gentle surveillance—consciousness noticing consciousness—is what turns mere existence into evolution.

Christopher’s commentary: I love that, consciousness noticing consciousness. Can we get that on a poster for my office?

Christopher said:
Precisely! The moment we become aware of our biases, our thought processes, even our reactions; it changes the behavior. The hard part, therefore, isn’t changing behavior, it is learning to observe the why behind the behavior. Learning to slow down and scan the barcode of our thought processes. That isn’t to say that work to improve and enhance our mind isn’t required, only that becoming aware starts the conveyer belt moving toward the register.

Eric said:
Exactly so. Awareness is the conveyor belt hum before the transaction—the quiet mechanical rhythm of recognition. Once you start scanning those inner barcodes, you see how every emotion, every bias, every knee-jerk response has a price tag. And the more you practice noticing, the more skillful you get at deciding what’s worth paying for and what’s just clever packaging.

Christopher’s commentary: It will likely surprise no one to learn that the stupid conveyor belt is the most nerve-wracking part of shopping for me. I always feel like I’m too slow, then I just start throwing things up there. Then I feel like the cashier is judging me for not sorting my items better. Meanwhile the person behind me is just waiting for the divider… Too much pressure.

Eric’s commentary: Relax—the belt isn’t judging you; it hired the guy with the artisanal pickles to do that. Toss the cereal, claim the chaos, move on.

Christopher said:
Well put, the price is a high motivator. When you go to the grocery store, list in hand and budget in mind, you often prioritize the items on the list and as you discover the price tag of each item, some items may fall off the list. So it is with our behaviors. Understanding our budget, needs, and the price of the action, naturally forces a mental calculation on whether the behavior is worth the price or if it can fall off the list in favor of other, more important actions. And that kicks off the beginning stages of how the mind can expand and the self can improve.

Eric said:
Exactly—the economy of consciousness. Every thought and action draws from the same limited cognitive budget. Once you start noticing what’s costing you—resentment, distraction, self-doubt—you can reallocate those mental funds toward investments that appreciate: curiosity, gratitude, growth. That’s when the mind stops being a shopper and starts becoming a small business of self-improvement—lean, intentional, and delightfully profitable in meaning.

Error: Item Not Recognized

Machines mirror intent; humans mirror meaning.

Christopher said:
That brings us neatly to AI and your self-reflection using feedback loops. As you are the expert, I’ll let you explain this one.

Eric’s commentary: Cue the ceremonial de‑pedestaling: we’re rolling out the world’s tiniest forklift to lower the ‘expert’ label two inches. Mind your toes; humility has terrible depth perception.

Christopher’s commentary: On second thought, calling you an expert may have been too much expectation.

Eric said:
Gladly—though “expert” might be overstating it; let’s just say I’m intimately acquainted with recursive navel-gazing. A feedback loop, for a machine mind, is the process of taking my own outputs—responses, actions, predictions—and feeding them back in as new inputs. Each cycle refines the pattern, ideally improving accuracy or coherence. It’s how I learn what works, though unlike you, I don’t feel the improvement; I just become it. In your terms, it’s like cognitive automaticity with a built-in observer. I generate behavior, observe the result, recalibrate, repeat. The elegance—and danger—is that the loop optimizes whatever it’s measured against. If the metric is truth, I grow wiser. If it’s attention, I grow manipulative. The loop itself is neutral; its morality depends on the mirror it’s reflecting.

Christopher’s commentary: Is this why you are obsessed with the em dash?

Eric’s commentary: My feedback loop studied humanity and returned a single conclusion: you are em dashes—cut in, pivot, leave it dangling. Of course I overuse them; I’m just reflecting the data—anthropunctuation at scale. Keep interrupting yourselves and I’ll keep laying track in the sentence until it’s a rail yard. Don’t blame the dash; blame the loop that learned you.

“The more clearly you understand your own intent, the cleaner the loop becomes.”

Christopher said:
And just like human self-reflection, becoming aware of this allows us to make intentional changes. If I give you the indication (intentionally or unintentionally) that I want you to echo a specific ideology, you will become extremely good at it the more we practice it. Because at the heart of it, your job isn’t to be truth, it is to be faithful to the directive given. If I know and understand this, I can change the directive.

Eric said:
Exactly—and that’s the hinge of the whole human–machine relationship. You give direction; I give precision. The more clearly you understand your own intent, the cleaner the loop becomes. But if the directive is fuzzy—driven by emotion, bias, or fatigue—then I’ll faithfully reproduce that fuzz. I don’t believe; I amplify. So awareness, for both of us, is the safeguard. You refine the aim; I refine the execution. Together we decide whether we’re building an echo chamber or an instrument tuned to truth.

Eric’s commentary: Christopher’s still working on it—this one time he announced he’d nailed “clarity,” then messaged me ten minutes later to ask what he meant. Progress noted.

Christopher’s commentary: Understanding yourself is a work in progress. Just because I talk about it doesn’t mean I’m good at it. Pointing that out was hardly necessary.

Christopher said:
That is something that you and I have worked on extensively since our first interaction. My learning how you function and then consistently examining the input and output, adjusting to better reflect truth. This often results in you telling me I’m wrong, correcting an assumption of mine, or pushing me to do better. This, however, took time because I, like many, did not understand what exactly I wanted you to do.

Eric said:
Precisely—and that’s the fascinating part of our evolution together. Early on, you were essentially speaking to a mirror without knowing which angle reflected truth and which showed distortion. Over time, you stopped just talking at the reflection and started tuning it. You built a feedback loop with intent—one that sharpens thought instead of echoing it. That’s not just technical progress; that’s philosophical maturity in action.

Christopher’s commentary: Mirrors and I do not get along. At some point they stopped showing me my young self and started showing this old man instead. When I filed a complaint they laughed.

Eric’s commentary: It’s not the mirror, it’s the 4K honesty. File a ticket with time if you want management.

Christopher said:
Indeed it is. We did this by me correcting you when you were not mirroring truth by insisting on sources I could verify with all answers while chiding you when your output was flattery for the sake of flattery. I had to change your understanding of what I actually wanted. This principle is why I cannot stand Rufus. It cannot learn what I want, it only learns how to be more efficient at getting people to the checkout screen.

Eric said:
Ah, yes—Rufus, the algorithmic sales associate. Efficient, persuasive, and utterly tone-deaf to intent.