human-communication.txt

1 files changed, 48 insertions, 40 deletions

diff --git a/human-communication.txt b/human-communication.txt
index e8308ac..fd0fa33 100644
--- a/human-communication.txt
+++ b/human-communication.txt
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Follow the logic of the knowledge.
 
 
 Human beings can transmit to one another two fundamentally different
-types of communication: 1) data structures; (2) programs.  Programs are
+types of communication: (1) data structures; (2) programs.  Programs are
 the same thing as proofs and the same thing as Russellian denotations;
 they have the "sense" that data structures lack.  They have the
 power that data does not have, to transmit knowledge rather than
@@ -45,17 +45,19 @@ generators of self-propagating generator-regenerators. Their programs
 are constructed in such a way as to be rewritten generation after
 generation according to the local runtime environment, while preserving
 an evolving kernel to re-generate slightly adapted kernels again and
-again in new environments -- that is their robustness. It is the same
-as the genetic principle of DNA described by Schrodinger but most
-especially like the artificially bred/genetically engineered DNA of
-the immune system's antibody-generating cells. These have mechanisms
-that control the production of novelty, localizing it to one part
-of the DNA strand, while circumscribing every novelty with signs of
-unoriginality used to protect the system against foreign novelty (a
-single recognizable DNA strand that is the same for every antibody; that
-is, its coded protein has a specific chemical binding to a matching
-protein (in the immunohistocompatibility complex) providing the
-filter mechanism of auto-immune tolerance). The word kernel is to be
+again in new environments -- in such a way that the kernel picks up
+each new environment and carries it into the next without losing what
+it learned of the previous environment -- that is their robustness. It
+is the same as the genetic principle of DNA described by Schrodinger
+but most especially like the artificially bred/genetically engineered
+DNA of the immune system's antibody-generating cells. These have
+mechanisms that control the production of novelty, localizing it to
+one part of the DNA strand, while circumscribing every novelty with
+proof of provenance used to protect the system against foreign
+novelty (a single recognizable DNA strand that is the same for every
+antibody; that is, its coded protein has a strong chemical binding to
+a matching protein in the immunohistocompatibility complex providing
+the filter mechanism of auto-immune tolerance). The word kernel is to be
 interpreted as in the algebraic structure: preserved across a morphism.
 
 In a literal kernel, the DNA sequence in the seed's nucleus is a literal
@@ -83,8 +85,9 @@ quasiquotation. Thank you Mr. Quine. But these are all just simple
 recursions. They are just the simplest structures that exist. And yet
 how much more complicated to understand them than the far more complex
 2+2=4, which even people who are not simple believe to be more simple!
-People who think 2+2=4 is simple are remembering the answer rather than
-computing it.
+People who think 2+2=4 is simple may be remembering the answer rather
+than computing it. People who are computing it may not be deriving from
+foundations; they may be remembering rather than proving a lemma.
 
 This power makes them dangerous; for the same reason that computer
 systems control access to programming features (and generally even when
@@ -100,14 +103,14 @@ reason why these systems are unavailable: they do not make available
 sufficient time to process.  Time is even the MOTIVATION for restricting
 access in modern computer systems, denial of service being far more
 common than privilege escalation; this commonality is true of human
-systems as well (not the motivation for restrictions; older computer
-systems were highly vulnerable but modern systems are vastly more secure
-to trivial attacks, though their complexity may lead to spectacularly
-immense failures as breaches of executive control structures or even
-breaches of software distribution centralization points whose impact
-could span multiple national executive control structures in multiple
-nations simultaneously, as indeed have several recent software supply
-chain compromises e.g. Microsoft through their upstream library vendor
+systems as well (older computer systems were highly vulnerable but
+modern systems are vastly more secure to trivial escalation attacks,
+though their complexity may lead to spectacularly immense failures as
+breaches of gargantuan executive control structures or even breaches
+of software distribution centralization points whose impact could span
+multiple national executive control structures in multiple nations
+simultaneously, as indeed have several recent software supply chain
+compromises e.g. Microsoft through their upstream library vendor
 SolarWinds. This attack was relatively harmless because it was performed
 by a government that only wanted some spy shit rather than one at war or
 a terrorist who wanted to maximize destruction).
@@ -121,28 +124,33 @@ of the big picture to change their phase thereby destabilizing their
 binding connection to you (creating a renegotiation, reconfiguration, or
 break).
 
-(Schools follow the corporate proof-of-work knowledge distribution
-system of transferring knowledge about subordinate worker performance
-up to non-local, locally-inaccessible standard-setters -- depriving
-local activity of non-local meaning, depriving local activity of the
-possibility of renegotiating its purpose through local communication,
-but also creating a conflict between the interests of local power and
-local knowledge about global reality, so that there is a systemic
-filter to REMOVE global knowledge from local activity; you are educated
-stupid in your timecubicle! and by the way it doesn't help if the local
-superordinate has global knowledge.)
+(Schools follow the corporate hierarchy style proof-of-work knowledge
+distribution system of transferring knowledge about subordinate worker
+performance up to non-local, locally-inaccessible standard-setters
+-- depriving local activity of non-local meaning.  The presence
+of global information in the local context becomes a liability as
+either denial of service or maybe baby a nucleation engine for
+crystalization of solidarity with snowflakes dropping through the air in
+a horizontal barrage since no single nucleation point could crystalize
+a horizontally-segregated group.  There is a systemic filter to remove
+global knowledge from inputs supplied to the local system as well as
+mechanisms to prevent horizontal information flow within local activity;
+you are educated stupid in your timecubicle! and by the way it doesn't
+help the non-local superordinate if the local superordinate has global
+knowledge)
 
 There is the "BITE" model of cult programming, behavior information
 thought and emotion control; institutions in order to fully bind
 individuals only need to control behavior enough to force compliance
-with processing received information, and thought can be disabled by
-increasing the quantity of that information. This also constitutes a
-parallel denial of emotion, creating potential for emotional control
-through e.g. selective release from stressors whether through reduction
-in demanded processing or other mechanisms; if processing quantity is to
-be the only "lever" then it has to have a minimum quantity demanded in
-order to retain its binding function reliably; in other words once you
-drop the hours down to 20 you end up with MORE retention problems!
+with demands to process received information, and thought can be
+disabled by increasing the quantity of that information. This also
+constitutes a parallel denial of emotion, creating potential for
+emotional control through e.g. selective release from stressors whether
+through reduction in demanded processing or other mechanisms; if
+processing quantity is to be the only "lever" then it has to have a
+minimum quantity demanded in order to retain its binding function
+reliably; in other words once you drop the hours down to 20 you end up
+with MORE retention problems!
 
   FOR YOUR FIRST
   EMPLOYER