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.   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