more

3 files changed, 567 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/covered-in-cute.txt b/covered-in-cute.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b8c344f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/covered-in-cute.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+
+
+
+              Covered
+                 in
+             C💩u💩t💩e
+
+
diff --git a/freedom.txt b/freedom.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f115292
--- /dev/null
+++ b/freedom.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Slaves are happy to have their lives; the dead are happy to have their freedom.
+
+Few distinguish appearing from being crazy.
+
diff --git a/misc.txt b/misc.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2a57d0d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/misc.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,555 @@
+epistemic extension into the outside world
+sequence of speculative information-harvesting gambles
+creating knowvelty
+
+
+deleuzian assemblages -- i call 'em design patterns
+
+
+determining knowledge about the past
+and
+determining knowledge about the future
+are the same thing
+but only one of them is experienced by us
+as "causing" (the future)
+the other as "discovering" (the past)
+both of them constitute
+  controlling the flow of information
+  with respect to a local point of spacetime
+
+
+
+
+
+Deleuze:
+
+https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/#DiffRepe
+
+
+Deleuzian concept of the virtual seems to refer to only the virtual
+future.
+
+Reterritorialization is counterfeit information about intentions with
+respect to energy (i.e. reducible to our axiomatic foundations)
+
+
+Differentials:
+LOOP OR NO LOOP (chemical chain reaction event loop)
+PERMEATE OR NO (cell membrane)
+COPY IDENTIY (DNA or RNA replication; protein recognition by thymus in primary tolerance; protein recognition by leukocytes either in secondary tolerance or as foreign bodies; recognition of )
+
+
+
+Deleuze by identifying the virtual as identical (if
+"counter-effectuated") with a realization seems to be throwing out the
+principle of difference??
+
+Anyway nothing can realize an imagination; there can only be experience
+that lacks surprise because of prior imagination.
+
+(the remembered image and/or the brain structure programming left by
+it e.g. structure in the salience network to trigger memory of the
+imagination experience)
+
+The prior imagination can be identified as the internal cause of the
+suppressed emotional reaction of surprise.  The image should not be
+_identified_ with the external event itself.
+
+
+
+
+
+Sense and nonsense:  Communications are programs input to the remote
+computer; i.e., they are proofs.
+
+The program is "run" on the local computer brain, and the program
+performs "load" operations based on emotionally-tagged memories, its
+learned/acquired conceptual categories, etc., which allow meanings to
+go across in very complex ways at times (e.g. in poetry) that aren't
+any kind of closed set that could be defined by a grammar. A single
+statement within a grammar can define a new more complicated grammar
+for all subsequent statements (indeed, a communication atom necessarily
+always defines a new more complicated double-encoding for all subsequent
+communications, depending on whether it was received). You can layer on
+more and more meanings because of the generality of the computer brain
+allowed to transmit programs to other computer brains.
+
+A property of proofs (perhaps important to the evolution of language)
+is that validating proofs is separate from, and computationally cheaper
+than, generating proofs.
+
+
+When the proofs cannot be validated
+because they contain references that cannot be resolved (undefined
+terms)
+
+(in terms of locally-defined primitives, e.g. axioms) produce an error
+response that can be called recognition of denotational nonsense.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+For Deleuze, the task of art is to produce “signs” that will push us out of our habits of perception into the conditions of creation. When we perceive via the re-cognition of the properties of substances, we see with a stale eye pre-loaded with clichés; we order the world in what Deleuze calls “representation.” In this regard, Deleuze cites Francis Bacon: we’re after an artwork that produces an effect on the nervous system, not on the brain.
+
+
+Instead of art what we need is SILENCE to enable COMPRESSION AND
+RE-PROCESSING but isn't that what Deleuze said?  CIRCUIT BREAKERS SO WE
+CAN EVADE CONTROL.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+A university is an Erlang-style message passing system for academic
+knowledge accumulation's cultural life-system to regenerate itself.
+
+
+
+Key point for Deleuze is that the "counter-effectuation" is actually
+real-life really-physical Max Ent physics rather than quantum physics
+analogy/woo.  Bayesian statistical knowledge deriving from information
+theory.
+
+
+Deleuze didn't understand quantum physics correctly but it turns out
+that it doesn't matter because quantum physics doesn't have anything to
+do with metaphysics.  It's only that Uncertainty forces human beings
+to adopt a de-centralizing de-totalizing Copernican mental shift.  But
+it doesn't even do it in the way that is most relevant to metaphysics.
+There is also the de-centralizing de-totalizing Copernican mental
+shift of INTUITIONIST MATHEMATICS.
+
+Back to physics: Deleuze understood the main point: that particles
+are merely virtual constructs while these "interaction events" are
+the actual reality available to advanced physics -- the particles are
+virtual constructs that exist only in the human 3D mental model which
+is definitely NOT the same as the physical universe -- this is one of
+those places where we see the difference -- but the physical universe in
+making individual particles places where information access is limited
+fundamentally because the boundary between one particle and another with
+which it interacts isn't so much illusory as the only real thing, while
+the non-boundary is illusory.
+
+Quantum physics DOES imply a macro universe where macro assemblies
+of particles also have limited access to information; but the actual
+universe we see has EVEN MORE limitations on access to information,
+they are much much stricter than Uncertainty, and therefore we see much
+less information embedded in physical objects than Uncertainty allows
+in its theoretical maximum.  (Physics experiments can be set up so
+that information is not lost; but life in general is always balancing
+loss of information against energy expenditure.)  Max Ent physics and
+Bayesian statistics are mathematical/physical approaches to calculating
+the information available at a given spacetime location.  However, part
+of the nature of quantum uncertainty AND max ent physics is that, from
+WITHIN the system, the limitations apply to the observer and the limits
+are self-referential in the sense that the limitations that apply to an
+observer's disability to have information from other spacetime points
+can include the disability to know which information is available!
+I.e., the theory produces known unknowns.  The fact that there are
+spacetime points in the universe where knowledge of mathematics does
+not exist or exists at a merely undergrad level, means also unknown
+unknowns.
+
+
+
+
+
+Deleuzian metaphysics
+attempts to describe
+construction of a neural network
+from the inside
+
+Mr Deleuze talks about phase state changes
+And social collisions as quantum events
+But never describes the individual's phase
+state as subject to change as a result
+of internal computation resulting in lossless
+or lossy compression of the neural structure;
+nor does he talk about the salience network.
+
+Deleuze is "wrong" about the quantum particle information but
+correct about the historical information.  The thing about "quantum
+woo" is that quantum uncertainty is the only familiar model of the
+physical/theoretical limitations of knowledge, and it is used to
+illustrate other limitations of knowledge when the nature of
+the limitation is not even related.
+
+Heisenberg's Quantum Uncertainty is only one of many physical
+limitations on what knowledge is available in the universe (and where,
+when, etc).  (It may be the most counterintuitive, since it implies that
+spacetime is fundamentally not like our human, vision-based mental model
+of it).
+
+Replacing Heisenberg with MaxEnt fixes a lot of philosophical or
+non-scientific misuse and mentally clarifies the nature of information
+flow through the universe.  Also, MaxEnt converges to Bayesian
+statistical reasoning and there seems to be some kind of convergence
+with ethical ideas there.
+
+
+
+
+
+Tue Oct 31 10:09:22 AM EDT 2023
+
+Either a structure exists in a brain or it does not.
+
+A structure in the brain that does exist can be equivalent up to
+isomorphism with many structures outside the brain.
+
+The ability of the individual to recognize a pattern relies on both
+the pattern existing (brain structure subject to transformations under
+morphism) and the brain's secondary (e.g., salience network) structures
+correlating the structure with some perception or basis of comparison.
+
+Deleuze talks about difference as if a person could compare a previous
+experience to a current experience; this is only a subjective illusion.
+The previous experience always alters the network through which the
+future experience flows, but the previous network configuration becomes
+permanently unavailable ("past") and disconnected in every subsequent
+flow.  The illusion occurs when the individual has already experienced
+both events, and then experiences remembering them by comparing two
+memories.  These two memories will surely be stored in the structure
+using some redundancy.  However, the brain cannot literally compare the
+structure before to the structure after; this is an illusion. The brain
+constructs a new memory of the before, incorporating information that
+occurred later, when it is erasing the old memory of the before. It
+is a potentially lossy compression mechanism, but also allows the
+brain to employ an idempotent processing strategy with respect to the
+ordering of life events necessary to construct a life strategy adapted
+to the immediate environment.  Humans are _adapted to adapt_ to novel
+environments, not only individually but socially.
+
+
+
+
+
+Tue Oct 31 11:16:09 AM EDT 2023
+
+The process by which computer systems socially evolved into
+internet-based specially-centralized distributed computation should
+serve as a model for understanding other evolutionary transitions toward
+distributed computation such as the evolution of sociality in humans and
+of the immune system and its mechanisms of tolerance and adaptation.
+
+The immune response can be seen as normalizing with respect to the
+binding energy of the antibody-producing leukocytes. There is a
+biological mechanism to supply food energy differentially according to
+binding strength. There is also a biological mechanism to control the
+rate of mutation (i.e., of originality) within these leukocytes as they
+produce mutated child leukocytes; this corresponds to academics who
+read Deleuze and then try to use Difference and Repetition to encourage
+creativity in children's art, etc.  Did Deleuze discuss the controlled
+introduction of mutation (originality, Chomskyian generators) into
+normalizing systems?
+
+The actual generators must be "compressed" structures on which
+computation is performed without "decompression."  Feeding noise
+into compressed structures and then decompressing them results in
+the generation of random but structured information.  The results
+are filtered in the frontal lobe in a way that is analogous to the
+filtering function of Thymus to produce primary tolerance.  Socially
+language filtering may be primarily a mechanism to prevent linguistic
+self-destruction; people with certain brain conditions reveal a
+socially-unfiltered generator, while others reveal a generator
+unfiltered even by connection to reality. I posit that there is
+some kind of dream or unconscious process that filters language for
+self-destruction and that this can block the compression of the
+structure because the mechanisms of compression (and integration with
+the rest of the brain) produce emotional responses that then stop
+the process; the integration process simply crashes because of an
+emotional overload.  Certain thoughts cannot occur, therefore there
+is no possibility to send or receive communications about them; all
+such communications must be coded, implied, or produced implicitly by
+unrelated structures and the more accurate or precise these become,
+they closer the mind's pattern recognition will come to finding and
+executuing the brain structure that causes the crash. I believe this
+to be an evolved mechanism and part of the social computation machine;
+the surrounding society can make thoughts unthinkable using the
+hormonal/emotional voice/facial/gestural signalling system that allows
+multiple brains to be integrated into a single distributed computation.
+For this reason, it is not directly analogous to the immune system mechanism
+of primary tolerance as described above.
+
+However, the immune system's mechanism of primary tolerance actually
+_is_ a distributed system which incorporates its own behavioral control
+loop connection to the local brain -- specifically the sense of smell,
+which is used to assess histocompatibility of mates -- the human social
+distributed hormonal network computation uses pheremonal sampling of
+individual humans in order to produce social barriers that prevent
+disease spread.  _This_ is the biological mechanism analogous to the
+social filter of generated creativity.  The system is based more on
+controlling the inputs to the generator than the generation.
+
+Oregon.  There's more again.
+
+In the sense of smell example we also have attraction and repulsion
+as basic forces.  This occurs in the brain filter as well; there are
+multiple emotional reactions to every generated possibility, and the
+brain will use an emotional gestalt to choose when and whether to
+activate some possibility.  When the reaction is a total absence of
+positive emotion, the generated content will be discarded.  Social
+systems similarly have multiple "buckets" in which to put each person;
+not only spaces (such that a person can only have one) -- the individual
+person can be "pigeonholed" multiple times, adopting multiple roles
+-- but the buckets themselves as social constructs -- are they not
+equivalent to the emotions as biological constructs?
+
+Did Deleuze put this in there or what?
+
+
+Tue Oct 31 11:59:50 AM EDT 2023
+CENTRAL LIE
+The central lie of narrative fiction is the conclusory ending.  Why
+is there a conclusory ending?  Because the computational process of
+computing the narrative must end (or else continue).  When it finishes,
+the audience feels the task completion in reality but projects it into
+the imaginary of the story. This creates the danger of such projection
+onto the individual's own life; either in total, or in its various
+compartmentalized elements (e.g., a relationship, a social event).
+
+Task completion is a frontal lobe event.  The frontal lobe recognizes
+the generation of a stop code of some kind (analogous to the stop codes
+of DNA but also analogous to a process exiting according to its internal
+logic, rather than being terminated by an exogenous signal).
+
+The computational process that is open, a continuous non-terminating
+generator, unless very specially selected, is almost sure to be boring.
+A closed (terminating) generator is interesting in proportion to its
+length.  Life itself is a closed (terminating) generator of chemical
+chain reactions, and human beings are one of its longer chain reactions.
+Studying this chain reaction is biology and is interesting because the
+subject is finite (permitting the conceptualization of task completion
+as a future event thus flowing energy into present events predicted to
+make the desired event more likely later).
+
+Human culture is an open (non-terminating) generator and is filled
+with interesting things only because human beings undergo extensive
+search operations to gather information about their local environments,
+collecting and correlating that information in their internal brain
+structures, compulsively sharing it with others as part of the design
+of the distributed computation.  Compulsive sharing creates a kind
+of cytoplasm of information for all humans to filter, selectively
+reflect, and otherwise use in combinatorial ways.  Because of the
+filtering and selectivity, and the previous energy of collection and
+computational compression, the information produced and shared by
+human beings is vastly more interesting than open generators selected
+at random.  Human culture is the longest-known chemical reaction
+loop.  Human culture is the only chemical reaction not known to loop or
+terminate.  Human culture is the only true "irrational number" of all
+discretely-instantiated numbers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Tue Oct 31 01:23:16 PM EDT 2023
+
+Feynman and practicing with a different box of tools
+
+Same idea as the Max Ent explanation of prophecy
+
+But also the same idea as parable of the falling seeds, reversed in
+time; the seeds unfall to the sower, and depending on seed origin
+(fertile soil, or barren) the sower becomes either someone who can farm
+or someone who knows what it means to be unable to farm.  The knowledge
+passes from the earth through the seed into the farmer; the seeds
+provide the connection.  The disabled would-be-farmer is disconnected
+from that knowledge even though he too has and sews seeds.  His seeds,
+though sewn, fail to connect out to knowledge from the past and he may
+therefore fail to connect himself out to intentions from the future (or
+else not even form them).
+
+
+
+The 20th century was spent correlating the implications of a physical
+limit of the speed of light.
+
+The 21st century will be spent correlating the implications of
+the physical limits of the speed and size of computations.
+
+The human being as a computer system undering phase changes as the
+computer gains the ability to represent different types of state -- or
+to represent state with different performance characteristics -- through
+acquisition of data structures copied from the environment -- OR from
+internal processing and DISCOVERY of NEW data structures.
+
+These data structures are PASSED BETWEEN HUMANS who learn them
+implicitly and pick them up and play with them.  But data structures
+are unsafe when EXECUTED AS REASON and for this reason human beings
+have SYSTEMS OF ACCESS CONTROL to HUMAN REASON both internal to their
+minds (e.g., concepts of valid and invalid authorities) and external as
+social environment.  Society imposes economic exploitation which causes
+evolutionary adapations to "bubble up" in ways that are UNPREDICTABLE
+IN DETAIL (chaos theory) but according to evolutionary theory will tend
+to produce EFFICIENT DISTRIBUTED COMPUTATION so that it will converge
+to the computer systems we find most advanced as well as the biological
+systems of generating and filtering novelty that we find most advanced
+(except that the search space may have valleys etc).
+
+Another system of access control is RUNNING IN EMULATION this is when
+the individual learns enough about a foreign system to execute the steps
+of its reasoning without however being allowed to reach any conclusions
+that apply to the larger brain's data structures.  There are two reasons
+why humans cannot rely on this mechanism primarily.
+
+First, EMULATION CAN BE JAILBROKEN; this cannot ever be as secure.
+
+Second, more importantly, RUNNING IN EMULATION IS COMPUTATIONALLY MORE
+EXPENSIVE.  Even though CPUs and apparently also human beings have mechanisms
+to optimize emulation, in human beings especially, these cannot obtain
+"native" performance.  Therefore, computational emulators (e.g.,
+learners of a second language) cannot "actually" perform as well as
+computational originators (e.g., learners of a first language) if they
+use the same underlying computational equipment for the same amount of
+time.
+
+But human beings do not all have the same underlying computational
+equipment; and they do not all apply the same amount of time to
+processing it.  In the real world, running the other side in emulation
+is something that more intelligent, more informed, or more adult human
+beings attempt to do when interacting with less intelligent, informed,
+or adult ones.  Human beings may also believe they are running the other
+side in emulation, when they are running a gross simplification; in
+fact, they are running a gross simplification even when they run the
+remote side natively, since they always still have to emulate the entire
+remote environment(!) which is where the real problems start.
+
+Non-portability of language between individuals is a major problem.
+Before the internet, locality constraints on communications caused
+portability to self-organize locally; but the internet has changed
+communication patterns so that every person experiences a kind of
+cosmopolis without totality.  Every experience is a scene from a virtual
+city which is a construct only of that experience; each event and
+corresponding city co-singular; co-existing only once without object
+permanence.
+
+One problem is the human tendency to imagination, roleplay, etc.,
+causes human beings to pretend communication incompatibilities are
+not real.  Human beings must surely have evolved under circumstances
+where perceived universality of linguistic forms was vastly more
+common than it is today in the adult internet-connected world, though
+perhaps less common than it is today in the world of the schoolchild
+or university student or professor.
+
+The professors may not make the same naive/incorrect excuses as children
+for failing to communicate; their perspectives will be more realistic;
+the university system as a whole is constrained in certain ways to
+succeed in transmitting information; but insofar as these transmissions
+fail, are the reasons understood from a rational information-theoretic
+perspective?  Or is it a primate emotion static control program designed
+to regulate subordinate behavior emotionally, amplifying the causal
+force of the intentions of individuals positioned in social hierarchies
+such that their anger generates fear in others?  Or is it a whole series
+of task-activated network programs, each one separately influenced
+by its own emotional context?  Perhaps they are constrained by
+environmental demands to understand these failures operationally
+
+
+The task-activated networks seem to be the neurological place of
+mental compartmentalization; and the ADHD don't shut off the DMN when
+activating TANs.  We still "see" the task when others are absorbed
+"in" the task.  Of course, in order to influence the DMN, it would
+have to be activated.  The TANs feed back into the DMN in ADHD, which
+allows the ADHD brain to generate totalizing connectivities by putting
+information from disparate parts of universe into the same local
+computational system; where for the non-ADHD these same components,
+though contained within one BRAIN, are not connected into the same
+integrated computational system; the TANs are prevented from feeding
+back into the DMN which allows mental compartmentalization to prevent
+information from one controlled system to produce interference in
+another controlled system when each controlled system is controlling the
+same physical human being with a different control algorithm.
+
+In other words, the DMN or the big picture understanding does not
+help with, but interferes with, TAN activity downstream of power
+in the social grid, because of the way in which this activity is
+structured to depend on human beings as removable components,
+keeping the environment highly-controlled.  General intelligence is
+not useful in highly-controlled environments until they begin to
+break down.  High-efficiency local computation requires discarding
+global information in order to maximize local connectivity of the
+processed information and thus processing speed.  (Principle of
+cache locality.)  So as optimization proceeds, the big picture is
+squeezed out of every local environment; except SOME privileged local
+environment has to be preserved in order to manage the organism's
+interaction with _environments_ themselves; this is the executive.
+The organism has a consciousness of multiple discrete environments;
+each environment controlled by some local control system; each local
+control system incorporating its own different own model of human
+emotion and behavior as necessary to sustain its specific local
+constraints
+
+Emotions are the foundational social control levers in humans.  Not
+life/reproduction directly, as it would be in the case of domestic
+plants; but emotion/physical-reproduction-of-imaginary-will plays
+the same structural role, allowing animalia the meta-evolutionary
+advantage of evolving without biological death; emotional sampling with
+differential reproduction of imaginations replaces eukaryotic sampling
+with differential reproduction of offspring in the information-gathering
+social super-organisms of mammalia).
+
+In a school, a student convincing their teacher that they do not belong
+in the space to which they are assigned is NOT sufficient to liberate
+the student from the space; only a non-local authority assigning
+them to some other space can liberate the student from the local
+space.  The student having the level of understanding of the system
+that would cause them to make this conclusion correctly tends to make
+the student even less able to perform in a space where they do not
+belong; if the student instead internalizes a false simplified local
+model in which the possibility of mis-spacialization is impossible by
+construction, then the student may have a better chance of passing
+through the filters imposed by the environment for reaching a more
+appropriate spacialization.  If the student internalizes a more
+realistic, more complete, but externally-referencing (non-local)
+model, then compatibility issues are likely in communication with
+their teacher; if compatibility exists between the teacher and the
+student, then the compatibility issue will exist between the teacher and
+administration; or else the administration will have issues with the
+school board; or the electoral system; or else the local municipality
+itself will drain tax funding since diaspora from other schools will
+collect locally.  At every possible avenue where the "exception" could
+"bubble up", there will be an incompatible interface, because the
+system attempts to impose a constraint that exceptions are handled
+non-locally.  All biological systems impose this constraint because of
+how it produces a superorganism that is more intelligent and robust than
+if its individual components were individually intelligent and robust.
+Advanced decentralized computing systems also impose this constraint; it
+is a foundational principle of Erlang.
+
+Another principle important probably is that in order to learn a lot
+of things you ought to be independently generating them yourself;
+the fact that someone has generated something and transmitted it to
+someone else does does not mean that they transmitted the generator;
+transmitting the generator between people may have more to do with
+copying the environment in which the independent generation occurred;
+mathematics provides students an environment in which to independently
+re-discover the fundamental theorems; but mathematical education outside
+of universities does not seem to understand this principle even in
+schools that feed top universities.  Students are fed the theorems to
+memorize and use without even being fed the raw material from which
+the theorems were originally derived.  Thus they are optimizing to
+demonstrate a false affectation of mathematical education.  Gresham's
+Law again.  Erlang illustrates the structure of passing the generator as
+well as the data.
+
+
+Tue Oct 31 01:59:34 PM EDT 2023
+
+Rappers are only really good at styling up content that they copy from
+other places.  They generate novelty only in style, they do not generate
+novel content.  Novel content is generated places other than hiphop and
+then incorporated there.  People who are competing in social spaces
+for the best content do not put that content in hiphop style.  People
+competing in social spaces with hiphop style are not competing on
+content and do not bring dense content into the competition.
+
+
+