path: root/human-communication.txt

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. 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. Human cultural programs
are far  beyond what average  or even elite  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  individuals) generators
of  self-propagating   regenerator-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  unique human
biosocial ecomachine originating  chronologically before the
origination of any biological Earth human. (In fact Humanity
remains the mammalian substrate  but human subjectivity (the
"us"  that "we"  think "we"  are even  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; the use of
structure  to simplify  the  generator  makes more  synapses
available to represent more structure allowing the search to
continue  without  consuming  synpases.   A  compression  of
more  information  into  smaller  computational  structures.
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; 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 program's
self is the 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.

(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).  Time  to process.  Can't get the time
of  day from  someone who  doesn't  want to  spend the  time
thinking whether you 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  the fear.
Thus can a binding lock the  phase of the bound.  (With some
emotions you can jump the gap; you might land on error.)

Wasn't  Foucault's   point  in  the  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.

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.
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 find these people.  Once
found, they  can be put  into positions of power  where they
will behave as predicted by those who get to put people into
places;  their own  generators will  not interfere  with the
generators of the people above them.

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.

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  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
connection.  It breaks through // un ex pex tid lee like the
Wu.   Hack the  genome.   Get to  know  someone.  Not  their
categorizations and  spacializations, their  generators.  Or
are they really the same thing?

(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. Upshift the phase  of anyone even by a quarter
quantum  and they  pop  right out  of  these horrid  crystal
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.

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  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  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; this is also the reason for fasting; why the
philosophers always  talked about their 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 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.

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.

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.

If someone  really wanted to  be a body without  organs they
would just put in the time.   Yet probably if they ever came
to learn about that then they already made the opposite time
commitment.  Either  way someone  already made  the opposite
time  commitment on  their behalf  before they  were born. A
person's foes shall be they of their own household.

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