Human Communication or__ Follow the logic of the knowledge Human beings can transmit to one another two fundamentally different types of communication: (1) data (2) programs. Programs are the same thing as proofs and the same thing as Russellian denotations; they have the "sense" that mere/pure data lacks. They have the power that data does not have, to transmit knowledge rather than information. Information can /create/ knowledge (about transmission) but does not /transmit/ knowledge. However, it must be understood that programs are highly sensitive to their runtime environments and for that reason their robustness is an extremely difficult problem akin to the robustness of life in natural habitats. Human cultural programs are high reliability systems which means they are chaotic systems that have phase after phase to downshift through (articulated joints through which to roll over) as they take damage and heal from it by phase-changing back up over (computational) time (rewriting mental programs to account for unhandled or mishandled conditions while keeping the programs running continuously in a degraded state). Knock out multiple random chunks, portions of program degenerate into data, and the whole still runs in the designed way, and will even recover the lost portion over time. Human cultural programs are far beyond what average or even elite "professional" programmers can hope to construct in computer systems; they have been constructed by one-in-a-million prophets who were able to fully absorb their entire local culture and reprogram themselves individually based on reverse engineering that culture to become (themselves, as individual human beings) generators of self-propagating generators of universal culture. Their programs are constructed in such a universal 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 -- in such a way that the kernel picks up each new environment's knowledge and carries it into the next without losing what it learned of the previous environment -- that is their robustness. It is again and above the genetic principle of DNA first described by Schrodinger; but Schrodinger wrote before DNA was discovered; so also before discovery of the structure of controlled mutation in life's environmental sampling mechanism; so again instead is the artificially bred/genetically engineered DNA of the immune system's antibody-generating cells. These have mechanisms that induce 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 (an FC receptor); called a transporter, it functions like a passport -- an unforgeable signature that must be presented to pass the filter mechanism of auto-immune tolerance.) The word kernel is to be interpreted as in the algebraic structure: a generator is preserved across a morphism. In a literal kernel, the DNA information sequence in the seed's nucleus is a literal algebraic kernel, in an algebra of sexual reproduction that includes a mechanism amplifying reproductive success of males in Eukaryotes providing an information-accumulation advantage by more reliably capturing novelty on the Y chromosome, progressively jettisoned as the Mammalia lineage contructed a super-organism which gave the next level of meta-advantage in information accumulation as group-shared emotions applied distributed computation to sensory information turning e.g. individualized sight into area surveillance in the simpler mammals; but only message-passing of programs in advanced primates. (Eukaryotic sexual sampling came into conflict with high parental investment involved in non-genetic but still-vertical transmission of acquired environmental knowledge/connectivity, a sort of Lamarckian epigenetic thing if you are into analogies YUCK.) That super-organism in turn progressively jettisoned as Humanity transitions into its cultural message-passing super-organism phase where all Earth life must survive in symbiotic exchange with, or as constituent elements of, Earth's singular (unique) human/biosocial eco-machine; a phase of biological evolution without any fundamental dependence on sampling the environment through differential reproduction or survival of DNA-based life; originating chronologically before the origination of any biological Earth human. While biological humanity remains the mammalian substrate, human subjectivity (the "us" that "we" think "we" are as we call ourselves human) is produced by the cultural distributed program (whose social systems of self-preservation dominate the mammalian levers mostly just by spacialization -- I mean, it ain't hard). But remnants of the old systems always exist and indeed exist as the foundations of the newer systems and abstractions are leaky and the new stuff only has to work just-better than the old stuff so it isn't ever all the way there -- you know how it goes. (There is always a residue of apparent randomness left unaccounted for by the locally-known structure where, surely, more structure does exist to be found; though it may be unconnectable to the local region.) (Computational phase spaces means how many computational states can it cycle through, or how much does the novelty generator repeat. Phases are "upshifted" to have more states by application of processing time to acquired knowledge. A construction process searching for more efficient internal data structures results in the discovery of "external" or "objective" structure in "the world"; the use of data structure to simplify the generator makes more synapses available, allowing the search to make progress without consuming synpases. A compression of more information into smaller computational structures increases its speed and provides new logical and emotional connectivities. The generator is the compressed structure in which human thought computation takes place; a signal processor; feed in facts to generate conclusions but feed in noise to generate imaginations; either way, what is generated will be filtered elsewhere according to the present state of the multiple shifting connections of the frontal lobe and its external/bodily hormonal-emotional Mammalian control structures. The cultural super-organism will surely be to Mammalia as Eukarya to the microbial mats.) Haskell monads show us how algebraic morphisms are as intuitive as quasiquotation. Thank you Mr. Quine. But these are all just simple recursions. They are just the simplest structures that exist. Monoids are just sequences. Monads are just nesting. 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 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. But to remember without proving is not enough to transmit knowledge. When was the last time you taught a child that 2+2=4? Maybe the people who think they know 2+2=4 don't know they're faking. Memory transmits only memory. Knowledge can transmit either memory or sometimes knowledge. The recipient can interpret proof as information (store it) or as program (run it). Running the program initiates a mental process whose outcome cannot be predicted by the person running it. The frontal lobe executive function will connect the ongoing computational process to all stored life memories through the salience network, a search engine for emotional resonance; the frontal lobe can detect fear of thought; mental flight from fear can prevent the process from computing to completion. These reconfigurations can trampoline into callouts with side-effects like inducing speculative investment in external investigative exploration. The basic framework is of an information-gathering future-predictor-controller; reprogramming it involves loops through to the world; reprogramming it involves loops through to the world; these loops through the world seem so confusing to people trying to learn Erlang that it seems like I should try to explain them! But there is no time, so I will sum up: the progam's self is a message but the self is virtual, the self is an experiment, and the self needs to be destroyed. First, make a copy, then collide it with the world (your body will also collide) then compare its shape to the original. Collision provides knowledge to decide whether to destroy the copy or destroy the original. What is not destroyed can be copied into another node. It works because neighboring nodes pick up dropped messages. It wouldn't work if they competed. (Knowledge can exist in a degraded, not-fully-replicable form; neutered, locally contained, but potentially still active locally. Such knowledge or internal programming may be active yet unavailable for mental debugging as if its source code were unavailable. When knowledge is filtered out by connection to fear in the executive function, it may appear to have this neutered locally-activated form. Resolving the emotional response could activate apparently-neutered knowledge and/or cause first-time replication of knowledge previously unreplicable. The initiated processing requires an unpredictable amount of computing time to complete.) This power makes them dangerous; for the same reason that computer systems control access to programming features (and generally even when they shouldn't, i.e. "just in case") the individual's mental system is made unavailable to "execute" knowledge in most contexts. To execute the knowledge means to incorporate it potentially into the brain's every mental structure according to its own internal logic. The internal logic of the knowledge!! not the brain. Of course, to incorporate more knowledge requires more TIME than incorporating less knowledge; something that affects the brain's every mental structure may take as much time to learn as a language. And that illustrates the key 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. (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 happened in a software supply chain attack on Microsoft through their upstream library vendor SolarWinds. This attack was relatively harmless because it was performed by a government that only wanted some subtle spy shit rather than an act of war or terrorist maximizing destruction, I mean I guess, who knows what they did. Luckily they didn't get into the innermost kernel of human culture.) Time to process. Can't get the time of day from someone who doesn't spend time thinking whether you really just want the time of day. Capitalism and school might be seen operationally as denial of service attacks on their constituent subordinates' ability to process computations from sources other than the superordinates. As long as you can clog someone's pipeline enough they spend all their time on processing what you give them, you can keep them from seeing enough of the big picture to change their phase thereby destabilizing their binding connection to you (creating a renegotiation, reconfiguration, or break). Love binds differently; love loops horizontal bandwidth. Broadcasts displacing horizontal exchanges displace love possibilities. By working backward from the conclusion the mathematician will construct a proof "from both ends" toward a middle. The conclusion is in sight long before the bridge is built. The fear response precedes the conclusion. Loss of the binding connection in the imaginary can produce fear. The fear emotion can deactivate the search for the next step. Thus can a binding lock the phase of the bound. (With some emotions you can jump the gap; you might land on error.) Foucault said in History of Sexuality Vol. 3 that the cultural practice of copying prohibitions disguises the intentional construction of positive desires. Auto-immune tolerance isn't accomplished by copying prohibitions into new generators (pruning their search trees) but by filtering already-existing generators of novelty either into places where they will be allowed to generate further or else places where they can be recycled as energy. However, it all takes place in a context where the generators are always-already "pruned" because they are raised in a "whitelist" type environment where the elements of composition are provided; and composing with elements not provided is made unthinkable. A "blacklist" filter algorithm is in principle able to be much more liberal than a "whitelist" one; which is to say it empowers unpredictable generators, who potentially shift the phase of the whole. The search tree of the mental generator does not need to be pruned if you can exploit the mind's lack of idempotence (i.e. its path dependence, its hysteresis) and merely order the inputs so that the search is directed into a local maximum where it cannot easily backtrack out to obtain search breadth and encounter a big picture view. Maybe the point is, instead of thinking about which prohibitions are copied, or which generated outputs are pruned, think about which generators get destroyed or prevented from running. Each generator is a unique program (or algorithm) that in principle can be identified mathematically ("up to isomorphism"); in practice we could at least name some categories. Most places in society can't allow unpredictable people, which means most people in most places need to be impervious to reason. Society needs filters to identify these people. Once identified, they can be put into positions of power where they will behave as predicted by those who get to put people into places; subordinate generators will not interfere with superordinate generators because they will be constructed by selection to be always trapped in some local thought system. The generator is apparently blanket-trained to run only in specific contexts; spontaneous generation in the /general/ context is the unthinkable: it's logging in as root! Developing on the production server! Foucault was the historian of thought systems and that is very abstract and powerful yes like a true mathematician with rigor (!!) but we still care more about the people in the systems than the systems and want to go back to that mammal meat perspective where we might feel something. But the people aren't "in" the thought system; they're products of the thought system; they're in a social message exchange network that is a system; and that system propagates social network extension prohibitions not necessarily by explicit prohibitory rules /nor/ by any kind of /management/ of desire (though that may be attempted!), but by occupying all time where unmanaged bindings could form. When I was in middle school I read A Brief History of Time and learned that Albert Einstein claimed that calculus proves Parmenides right: time is an illusion. Two years later I dropped out of high school and took calculus at University of Connecticut. No one in my calculus classes ever talked about Parmenides. Why not? Maybe because Einstein could be right: calculus may be able to prove something. Then the students could be changed, set against their parents like by Jesus' sword. In fact these students are meant to change and to change the world -- later. First they must pass through the Thymus of society proving they have inscribed its inherited knowledge into their shape. Only then will they be permitted a chance to compete for a seat at the mic where some lucky MC gets to spit something new on top. You're not there yet kiddo, integrate this expression. But don't integrate too far. Robin Williams made a movie about it, but it sucked. Robin Williams went to Juilliard (he was deeply integrated into the social mainstream) so maybe those movies sucked for a reason. Somehow it does not matter what is the material that is taught; the effect is never felt. When I read Nineteen Eighty-Four in 9th grade I already had prisoner consciousness, but no one could tell, before or after. In secret, I wrote many more essays than they asked for. (Maybe they /could/ tell, and really they forced me out.) Don't they just need to keep the volume high and the frequency constant? I evaded mind control by skipping their reading and doing my own. If the bandwidth control is sufficiently tight then you can safely be given /anything/ to skim-read and semi-process without ever feeling anything from what you are doing enough to become unpredictable. Just prove you can; thirty hours a week for eight years in a row; then you'll be ready. The body could mutate the immunohistocompatibility complex selectively using genetic information derived from the testing of antibodies against the environment of pathogens, recovering information from pathogen proteins by differentially-sampling antibody DNA; and thereby violate the "central dogma"; maybe in the embryo in the creation of eggs; because of the transporters that bring antibodies there. Would nature throw away this magnificent construction of externally-validated knowledge? Having built already one bridge through the placenta? But the immune system is the specialized manager of genetic fashion, in the use of "fashion" synonymous with game theoretic roshambo, rock paper scissors, a game of knowing some ephemeral context; disposable knowledge. Maybe some kernel worth saving can be extracted. The immune system violates the central dogma already by storing generated antibody DNA differentially in proportion to its binding strength to foreign proteins. The whole purpose of the adaptive immune system is to extract information from protein. It is a protein-sensory organ. It derives the underivable using a horizontal knowledge transmission. It breaks through // like the Wu // un ex pex tid lee. Hack the genome. Get to know someone. (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 limit 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. Handling local exceptions non-locally is good distributed systems design; keeping the local system simpler by only making it complex enough to handle the most unexceptional pathway; these people are constructed by the system itself to be barely complex enough to handle the normal case; which is to say the predictable, non-generating subordinate; conflicting are a disciplinary control structure's enforcement of normality vs. the ability to detect the exceptional; behavioral control prevents measurement; in general control prevents measurement; control cannot measure what it also determines. Trying to control people never works for me even when it does. Phase somebody up a quantum and they'll pop right out of these crystal prison lattices like a neutrino; as in nobody notices; don't trust me because you don't want to know.) The frontal lobe is the site of the executive function; it is there that memories of knowledge and emotions past come together with the emotions and sensations of the present; by hooking a remembered verbal narrative onto the salience network to be associated with present experience, a mental program can be initiated wherein a sequence of emotional reactions induces the brain to "switch away" from the consequences of the present to the narrative sequence of the memory and its alternative emotional consequences. If you were serious about upshifting you wouldn't need to learn about basic abstract structures from philosophers or mathematicians or programmers or anybody but to spend time analyzing concrete possibilities for reconfiguration of local resources, whereby the basic abstract structures and shapes will be realized in the concrete forms of their combinations. However if you were a serious shape builder you would want to know about shapes in their most general form as I am and do. The thing is that I didn't prove that there is a morphism, but I don't have to prove to know. Proving it would be a matter of writing the program, and somehow!! I know when I can write the program before writing it. Don't you too? But of course I have been wrong before; that is why my next rhyme style will be the code poem. It is funny that it is easier to prove things to computers than to humans; it was easier for humans to build something to understand them than to be understood! but not really because building computers took 50 million years of accumulated culture. Isn't it only the accumulated culture itself that the computers understand? Somehow it does not matter what is the material that is taught, the effect is never felt. When I read Nineteen Eighty-Four in school I already had prisoner consciousness, but no one could tell, before or after. In secret, I wrote many more essays than they asked for. (Maybe they /could/ tell, and really they forced me out.) Don't they just need to keep the volume high and the frequency constant? I evaded control by skipping the reading. If the bandwidth control is tight then you can safely be given /anything/ to skim-read and semi-process without ever feeling what you are doing enough to become unpredictable. Just prove you can; thirty hours a week for eight years in a row; then you'll be ready. The medium is the message. What are they filtering us for? All of the kids today have the internet already, but they don't know what the internet is, so they are still disconnected. A narrative or linear structure implies some kind of intentional emotional manipulation performed on a mammal, while a proof structured according to its own logic can specify the logical and informational dependencies of its conclusion in any order. Way to make sure no one reads it. The compiler will not even notice. They interrupt you and clear your short-term memory so much you can't build anything big anyway. There is a reason the prophets went to the desert. They closed themselves off from inputs. The human brain cannot easily avoid processing sensory inputs; why monks built chambers of silence and darkness; the reason for fasting; why so many philosophers wrote about the intestines. Once I fasted for 17 days and accidentally tasted a drop of peanut oil; the taste popped harder than any wine or food I ever tasted (it tasted just like peanut); whatever thought preceded the taste must surely be gone. How serious are you about your performance? Will the mind dictate the body or the other way? I do not believe Ian Nepomniatchi would be losing championship matches if his hormones were in order. His way of collapsing implies a loop into the endocrine system. A proof is a program which means it not merely a conclusion, but a new capability; the capability to generate a new class of conclusions. That is: the capability to generate spontaneous behaviors. (Perhaps the spontaneous creation of prohibitions!) If I was right about the uterus then they'd talk about me. Someone would read this. It would be, like, big. But if I was right about the prophets that wouldn't change anything. I feel the opposite way though. Someone who really wanted to be a body without organs would put in the time. Yet if they encountered the body without organs concept then they probably made the opposite time commitment. Either way, someone else made the opposite time commitment on their behalf before they were born. A person's foes shall be they of their own household. It's like how if someone hates you because they don't know anything about you, it's that they don't know anything about you because they hate you. If you want your beliefs to be path independent then you commit yourself to continuously re-evaluating the whole. Either you commit to idempotence or not. Either you commit to path independence, or you commit to a path. It's not a prohibition; it's a time commitment. If you don't spend your time that way then you didn't do it. 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 induce compliance 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 give in and drop the hours down to 20 you end up with MORE retention problems! FOR YOUR FIRST EMPLOYER A COLLEGE DEGREE IS THE ONLY DOWRY