path: root/misc.txt

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?


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.