deleuze

1 files changed, 263 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/deleuze.txt b/deleuze.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fd8aed3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/deleuze.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+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 life-system to regenerate itself.
+
+
+
+Key point for Deleuze is that the "counter-effectuation" is Max Ent
+physics rather than quantum physics woo.
+
+Bayesian statistical knowledge deriving from information theory.
+
+
+
+
+
+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?