So, yes, one might rightly say this article is more complicated than it needs to be. The point is to coerce materialists into admitting a definition of the soul, so that they must also admit the sociophysical consequences of such a concept’s existence. To how an individual discerns the true boundaries of their self, the most critical consequences for this definition of the soul do not arise from its cause – whether it be matter or God – but from the phenomenology of the soul.
What is the soul? How is the soul structured? Is my soul separate from yours? How is it socially distributed? How does it impact the mind? How can it be measured or known? How does belief impact this definition of the soul? Do impacts on the mind arising from a informational basis (viz. epistemic basis) affect the soul? Do they affect the brain?
Why do materialists get a free pass for causing harm to others via turbulence and carnage of a socioinformational kind? When someone is defamed and nailed down with socially distributed belief to be tormented by the remainder of their life, why does society believe this is permissible? Why is it so easy for people in society to believe that such torment is simply mental illness and a “chemical imbalance”? If this is so patently false, then isn’t it a convenient false paradigm? Architect someone’s suffering via insinuation, the rumor mill and defamation – they will suffer for the rest of their life, until their mind is chemically destroyed by pharmaceuticals. Yet, the false paradigm of “a chemical imbalance” means that nothing will be done to address the true socio-epistemic causes of mental illness – is it because there is nothing that no person or group can do to ameliorate the suffering of some individuals? How can this be so? What God would create the possibility for social information viruses to cause such unrelenting torment for individuals who will suffer for the remainder of their lives, but never understand why?
Like everything else I feel is important to write, it is not easy to understand. I’m not writing for mass appeal. I’m also unfortunately not following the “Universal Styleguide for Writers Who Immortalize Themselves” – which is available wherever books are sold, I’m sure. If only I had known! I’ve tried to organize most of it so that the earlier content is less technical. I hope to begin illustrating because many of these ideas are so much easier to convey in pictures. This topic is important to me because most people deny that socioinformational phenomena contribute whatsoever to the problems I grapple with in life. All my suffering arises primarily from a confluence of information and social isolation.
At the end of her third video on I Ching, Nana Akosua Baakan Agyeiwaah, makes a very simple statement that resonates powerfully, if you understand what the soul is. It doesn’t necessarily require the definition of the soul outlined in this article. Still, whatever your definition of the soul, this statement is very powerful:
The oracle is a vehicle to help us listen to our soul speak, but we must be quiet if we are to hear what our soul is trying to speak to us.
I have come to realize recently that I don’t know what the soul is … More clearly, despite the prevalance of the word in all forms culture, including that of religion, new age, agnosticism and atheism, I have never bothered to reach a personal consensus or definition of the term. What is it? Listening to Agyeiwaah’s videos accelerated my exploration of the soul as a concept. Isn’t it strange that while so many of us believe so strongly for or against the soul, I made it more than thirty years without bothering to clarify some self-understanding of the soul? Or is it that I am incapable of defining it? How is it possible that I wouldn’t know what the soul is, when its existence (or lack thereof) is so universal and so necessary to belief systems? This universality contributes greatly to confusion over its existence: your concept of soul is not my concept of soul.
When considering the soul from a materialist’s perspective – i.e. operating with a limited set of typical materialist tools – then one can extrapolate from some basis of axioms, which extend to pan-psychism. To be clear, these conclusions do not rely whatsoever on Quantum Woo: they are a consequence of reflections of internalized information representations in matter and life. There is no dependency on quantum mechanical effects, which are rendered all but moot by the chaos of thermodynamics at reasonable temperatures. See the footnote for an explanation that connects the dots between evolution, biophysics, information representation, and delineation between self and other.1
I have come to understand the soul as a cross between the psyche of Carl Jung and the socially distributed belief or memory relating to someone’s identity. There may be more to the soul, but until such is proven, it requires accepting more premises than the materialist is willing to accept.
The first statement: if the soul exists purely within us, why would we need to listen to it speak? We should already know what the soul is. There are aspects of our soul which exist outside of us, whether this is information that exists substantiated in material form or connections to elements within the astral plane or shards of our soul that exist in some purely incorporeal plane.
From my own shortcomings in communication, what I’ve learned is to listen to others. By listening to Nana Akosua, I’ve learned a lot and I can tell that she has the same a postieri familiarity with philosophical and spiritual concepts that I do; it is simply developed with more wisdom, practice and contact with people. I’ve learned a lot from watching her videos. However, my own weaknesses thereof have taught me to examine more deeply the experience and word of others for substance, not appearance of substance. True substance lies within and her message exudes spiritual authenticity. If I can’t listen to others, how the hell could I expect them to listen to me?
The second statement: she implies we must be still to separate ourselves from the noise of life that interferes with the vibrations from our soul. We need to develop that sense of a soul connection, so that our actions resonate with our deeper, more authentic self – it is found somewhere in our soul, but it might not exist within us already. To me, this means to pull back from the noise of life and calibrate our spiritual connection.
So many people accept at face value either some identity given to them by others or perhaps some assumed identity developed by a younger self. They stop looking or maybe they’ve never looked much at all. This is what’s so dangerous about the materialist misconception that there is no soul! What do you mean by that? Do you even know? To the person who needs soul-searching, if they believe the soul resides entirely within some internalized encoding of matter, then they allow the noise of life to define all they see and all they think. They believe the extent of their soul to exist entirely separately of society and this is a dangerous assumption because it deprives the person of power over their mind, over their life and over the composition of their soul.
If you can manage to separate yourself from the mental mazes that life’s trappings has you running in your mind, then you can start to zero out life’s noise wherefore you calibrate a clearer picture of true self – who is not one, but many. Your soul contains within it all your potential selves: some unrealized; others that have remained out of focus; more still are as yet unknown to you, without further knowledge of self! This knowledge of self provides a collection of lenses and perspectives that form a kind of a microscope for your mind, your soul and your self. What seems blurry today should seem more clear tomorrow. And iff you tune this scope of self knowledge, then you’ll see your composite actualized selves coalescing from your self awareness breaking through threshold shadows of unconscious.
“Oooooh! That’s a real metaphysical; We pull down the light cause the force is centrifugal”
Follow me here in this moment and time
Follow the rhyme created instigated to see the crime
You commit, when you sit in the past Don’t you know?
You construct a future based on everything that you know
But to get to the unknown, we surely must erase
All the preconceived notions they keep throwin’ up in our face
This song’s lyrics are deep. Real deep. Like everything else k-os writes, it’s a smorgasboard of symbolism and that tends to create an onion, the layers of which you can peel back year after year, finding new food for thought and never quite making it to the center. As for k-os, whose name means knowledge of self, this was the first song of his I had heard and it captivated me because of it’s cry to defend authenticity. Technically, I had heard Superstarr Part Zero before. That song is like bliss to the ears of a padawan B-Boy, but it wasn’t until I bought the album that I realized it was the same artist. CD’s and life before Shazam, eh? What makes something worth finding? Can you google that?
For me, today, those lines are about escaping some preconceived construction of an identity that is not only forced upon us, but seems to be hopelessly prevalent in society. Is it a true conception of one’s identity? If the doors of opportunity are closed and if you are excluded, how do you change the distorted belief that bars them shut?
He tried to act up I had to give in
Because the truth is an offense and not a sin, word life
It goes stop, don’t make a move, just freeze
Instead of tellin’ a lie, get down on your knees
The true key is to listen to people: they contain within them fragments of your soul that you must collect. Even if they have no idea who you were, their experience deposits layers of conceptualization onto their notion of your identity. You must listen to find inner truth: there is substance that resides in others, but if it is valuable, it usually may not be found at the surface. If you do not listen, you cannot see clearly.2 If someone has made it so that you cannot hear others at all, then you may be lost for some time. If you’re lucky, you find that most of your newfound selves are also searching for their knowledge of self: the fragments of your soul or socially distributed self are themselves searching for self. When you develop a clearer resolution of self, you begin collecting information from these socially distributed fragments that key you in to your whole soul, entirely. This will lead you to your true self, but if you are not still, you cannot listen. Once you learn to listen, you can begin to learn to perturb the local social configuration to then filter and percolate inferences about those scattered fragments of soul. Explanations of perturbation and percolation for the layman are included further in.
Perhaps driven by some miraculous accident in youth, when your psyche still nascent forming shone a light unto the right unconscious corners , then perhaps this configured the interface between one’s psyche and the unconscious in some miraculous way. To what end? To Seek continuous self improvement without the defect of a false sense of completion after one learns so much of the world. How does one stay on the path? How does one stay course on the Hero’s Journey? Does the hero with the longest journey result with unsurpassed heroic development?
Some miracle compels the early and prevalent formation of a metatype in your psyche’s reward system(s) that pushes you towards self-awareness and self-improvement for some higher goal, wherefore the true extent of which you must remain somewhat unconscious. If you can define the extent of your goals in totality, then they are not great enough to compel you onwards along the Hero’s journey. It must be something seemingly insurmountable that you will master because you must overcome it, not because you understand it or are yet capable of deconstructing it. This is the true path to awakening and self-actualization: it is indeed not medication, IMO, though that may help some to numb their pain, from which their circumstances might change enough to enable change… Yet, isn’t there a purpose to pain? It’s a signal like no other, and it’s there for a reason.
What compels people towards rending the insuperable into some short list of a dozen herculean feats, despite all the doubts, the pains and your ensuing fears? What is that heroic version of ourselves towards which we orient ourselves upwards? Is there a single such version? It’s some miraculously twisted rewards systems whose shape and configuration are the result of slow and steady precipitation of life experience. This is not unlike the stalagtites and stalagmites of caves, whose shapes can change but whose range of potential change are all but set, diffeomorphically once they start forming. Freudian ideas are all about the shape of the psyche’s earliest kernel: how initial experience, especially before the conscious mind can adequately recognize or model behaviors, sets in motion developmental dynamics that have a greater effect on change the mind than most later life developments could ever have. Freud’s ideas were about building a dictionary-like taxonomy of nascent psychological developmental progressions that would allow the therapist to classify the patient’s current perspectives and developmental potential in terms of the past. Yet, why must our flexibility for psychological change be petrified in any way by the past?
The best way to conceptualize the difference between Freud’s ideas and Jung’s: Freud was obsessed with beginnings, Jung wanted to understand the commonalities between the ends of things, where I mean ends as in both the perceived aims of things and finality. Freud was chess-openings, where Jung was endgame. Both wanted to classify each into a taxonomy of meta/typologies.3
If you were unconscious to what drove you to seek self-improvement by expanding knowledge of self, then it might more strongly express itself almost as if by instinct. One does not simply “turn off” that of which one is unaware. Therefore, mid-development, as you begin to awaken to the sophisticated metacognition and the self-reflection required for self-actualization, then that instinctual compulsion has perhaps given you quite a head start.
The socially distributed variation in the diversity of human experience and of psychic configuration – the configuration of one’s psyche – is in itself miraculous. Every flower is beautiful in its own way. It is up to you to find those jewels hidden in your psyche. Somewhere buried within your mind, your memories and even the trauma, there is to be found another miracle that gives you purpose. There must be and if you find it not, then you make it.
The corollary: It is horrible when people refuse to enable any progression from your current state. They look upon your manufactured, fabricated identity – over which you had little control – and short-circuit all progress. ALL WITHOUT COMMUNICATING WITH YOU ABOUT IT. They never intended you to succeed and they never cared.
To catalyze self-actualization requires disaggregating the influences on your mind that spawned so many selves that were… so the most significant versions of them can be known and reverse-engineered. If you like, combine this idea with Piaget’s genetic epistemology. After the disaggregation of socially distributed self is reverse-engineered, then those modified selves must be reoriented towards an end-goal and wherefore reaggregated. In necessarily terse terms, this sums of the process of individuation from society – by deconstructing and reconstructing the socially distributed self.
Once you have disaggregated your socially distributed self, you must reorient your self … from there, it’s warp-speed all the way. That is, until you must reassess your location in quadrant four.
This is not unlike Number Five…
Understanding how people understand your identity is critical. We all operate, given some notion of self, by comparing our sense of self with that of the identity of others. People play epistemic games and doxastic games4. These are games centered around projection and propagation of knowledge or belief. There are many board games which are formalized conceptions of these and the magnificent thesis in the footnote discusses doxastic games in terms of some well-known boardgames, like One Night Ultimate Werewolf and Hanabi. Understanding the ideas of epistemic, doxastic and deontic games with depth requires incredibly deep knowledge of logic with applied game theory5. Try to watch the videos I just linked: I dare you LMAO. Essentially, these are games where beliefs are projected among players or through society. Telephone and The Rumor Mill: these are also doxastic games.
“Explain it to them like they’re five” they said…
Your conceived image of self has refracted into myriad images in society. The collective set of memories that members of society have formed about you compose your social memory. The individual recollections of experience can be activated almost like files are opened on a computer. Individuals in society collectively guide their attention towards memories that are each associated with collections of identities.
The strategy and tactics of meme magic and viral marketing are deontic games because it relates to dispersion of memes into social media, understanding how norms will form before normification occurs, and how people will orient themselves to norms as normification occurs. Don’t simply believe it because I told you so – “You have to actually know what you’re talking about”, they said – so here’s crazyman, he’ll explain and he’s probably got one of those college degree things.
… Or check the footnotes for a link to a paper by men of lettres – with squiggles, dots and other symbols you can’t read.6 Words! “Use your words”, they said. Personally, I recommend crazyman. It’s really not that hard.
Those same people who wrote things you can’t read? They’ll tell you “DC doesn’t know what he’s talking about” without saying it in a way where I can respond to it. Maybe they’re mad that they’re still paying off $80,000 student loans for degrees whose value apparently doesn’t age well. Don’t get me wrong. I’d love to go back to school. Being around people who can understand me would be therapeutic beyond anything else I can imagine. Is that going to happen? No. Does anyone indicate to me that they intend to help me make that happen? NOOOO! What if it happens? I’ll be artificially failed out, all so people with bigger and badder lettres (and student loans!) can say I never knew what I was talking about. Sound fun? Fuck that fake noise!
People can torment you, perhaps eternally, by targeting those fragments of your soul scattered through society. If they are better at playing doxastic games, they can strongly influence the social residue of your soul to distort the collective social memories that relate to your identity. In extreme cases, they can torment your aeternal soul perhaps for all time. It requires power. Power over such horrible, paltry people requires power itself. When you find you have none, power is best obtained through knowledge. Knowledge is power.
And the Devil Always Has Something to Say
From the movie legend, where the climax involves many a clever homophone. “What have we … here” … as in … “What have we hear?” … translation: “I’m an abuser and I’m going to torment you by playing doxastic games and controlling what people see and hear.” By the way, fuck you Criag Eversole and fuck the Pentacostal Church too. I don’t need to hide in darkness. I don’t need to fear light. I never have. I never will. Fabricator. Liar. “Snake” handler. Can you conquer the shame of your sin? Nope. That’s a blockade of entangled information states: forced to choose between pieces. You cannot have one without the other, Criag.
One thing about Fabrication: the perpetrators do not want to leave a paper trail, especially when they cannot anticipate what the steganographer is going to type. They have to cover their tracks. Did Bobby Blankenship want court records. Hell motherfucking no! They will bluff it, but if you size it up and truly recognize fabrication for what it is, then you can call their call their bluff. You don’t need to look at their cards. It doesn’t matter anyways, THEY’RE CHEATERS!. #BB8. #Surveillance (somehow)…
If you bind people down with fabricated information or belief, that is wrong. It is especially easy to do to the ignorant, the young … or people with Asperger’s. Society turned me into a doll into which they could stuff all of their bad karma and send into the desert: a literal scapegoat. And they did it by keeping me in a prison of unconsciousness, without ever intending to help me change. Wrong, wrong wrong, wrong, WRONG!
By encouraging sin in youth, people are intrinsically disempowered, often for the rest of their lives. This was the reason Jesus flipped the tables of moneychangers, who stood to profit if sin was encouraged. This story was single example of an angry Jesus. More sin, more money. Today: more sin, more doxastic leverage: more power over people. While that story applies to Ancient Judaism’s flaws of executing theological ideas in its social institutions, what is to be underscored here is the potential for people to be enslaved by sin in their youth. Perhaps sin is a loaded term: more clearly, I mean information about sin or wrongdoing or unethical action or immoral justification. Before the person has understanding of the doxastic consequences of their actions, their wings are clipped in a gradual process. By depriving people of knowledge or of access to a modern belief system, then people are deprived of the ability to circumvent doxastic leverage. When such belief system(s) begin to emerge, watch in amazement as authorities censor the hell out of what deprives them of the ability to enslave youth via sin.
Still think religion has no value?
None of the above is intended to be anti-semitic. Please see the footnotes if you are uncertain.7
The truth about belief in doxastic games? It does not hold a candle to truth. Light is truth and light reveals all. Light does not need strategy or tactics. Light walks in the truth; the truth walks in the light. Whether one who exemplifies truth walks in the shadow of the valley of death, threats do not matter: TRUTH is your eternal guardian. Threats will be rendered moot; swords raised against you will hesitate and become uncertain. Your enemies will question themselves. All you have to do is be capable of walking in the light and magickally, your threats will be rendered moot. When you leverage the truth as your shield, you truly leverage your own innocence. Thus, if there is a single crack, any enemies will relish in your destruction. You walk a fine line, but if you manage it, your threats will cancel out if they manifest at all. To do so is often to give up greatness and only the truly great can wield power with truth in the light. To do so requires faith in the truth as a shield, faith in the process and an understanding that is difficult to come by without religion. If you cannot connect the dots between Psalm 23 and the power of truth as a guardian, then you need to go to school. To devalue religion as ancient, pre-modern, non-scientific hocus pocus is the pinnacle of ignorance.
For any fabrication operation, pulling the wool over someone’s eyes is essential: they must be constantly lied to, deprived of information necessary to their responsibilities at work, etc. Why? So that when the preordained endgame occurs, the disinformation and misinformation enshrouds the apprehension that the righteous has of the truth. They reach for the truth as their weapon or their shield, but they do not have it. It was pre-meditated fabrication: the “truth” manufactured and little more – to a limited audience, which is why startups are perfect. Where there was one fabrication operation, there are many. There’s no handbook for fabrication: it’s a difficult skill to teach because its edge is dulled when the general public is aware of the possibility of intentionally manufactured circumstances. It’s just not effective when people expect it: they become cynical and skeptical. They ask questions. They gain insight: therefore the public’s powers of deduction, abduction and induction are magnified when the spatial complexity of logic is reduced by gradual coalescence of the truth.
The story of Jesus was perhaps the biggest coverup in history. Whose coverup? After two millenia, no one will ever know the answer to that. Proof of the historical Jesus is to be found by abduction: reading the why’s between the lines.
“You’re going to need a lot of faith, my dude” - Jesus
Jesus really drove home that faith without proof thing. If there was a historical Jesus, it’s as though that shrewd player expected every move the Romans and Jews would make. He knew they’d cover up all those pesky revolutionary questions he asked, like “wherefore art thou , meek?” – to paraphrase with Shakespearean eloquence, in case you read Romeo and Juliet, but never understood that line.
“And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple; and He healed them.” – Matthew 21:14
Where does it say that Jesus toyed with the lives of the weak or protected them from the truth? He opened their eyes and healed the sick. He empowered the people for being what they were: people. Ever individual has inherent power they produce. In the I Ching, this energy is fire as discussed in Hexagram 37: Family. This is an individual’s inherent ability to produce and accumulate power, no matter whether rich or poor, through the social group(s) to which they are most tightly connected. Hexagram 37 is about leveraging tight connections to be an efficient social power generator. To do so requires knowledge. Knowledge is power. Jesus opened the eyes of the poor and healed the lame. He empowered the meek. For this and other ‘blasphemies’ he was crucified by the Jews and Romans.
The Romans and Jews thought they had killed the enlightened Jesus: the Jesus whose soul lived on in others. The Romans and Jews were engaged doxastic games: to purge an enlightened individual’s image from society, you must hunt down all images in the collective social memory that reference their identity and reshape them. You can brainwash people or use other tricks to distract their minds from the truth. If there are documents, you must destroy them. This is why the Dead Sea Scrolls were such a magnificent cache: they escaped all of the pre-Dark Age document purges: pre-Nicene and post-Nicene. The burning of the Library of Alexandria and murdering of scholars in pre-Han China? These were engineered tragedies of doxastic games for power by controlling the seeds of all later scholastic thought.
Moreover, it seems that the soul of Jesus lived on in the form of a sociophysical programme for building institutions that would continue the work of Jesus after his death … a programme bounded to the limits of the materialistic perspective, perhaps? It then seems that perhaps his death was not only anticipated but also necessary for you can kill a person, but you cannot kill an idea.
Adam and Eve were unconscious to God’s unparalleled capacity to ascertain the commission of their original sin. They symbolize early mankind’s mistakes in committing sins without yet being conscious to the typologies of consequences of sins, the study of which is covered by hamartology. Yet, there is no hiding from God, for which the question remains: what is God? That is a subject for another post. Even for secular sin, you must hide it or hide from its consequences for the rest of your life. That’s what the story of Jesus was about, in case you missed it – freeing man from sin. And if you don’t believe in sinful nature or profiting from the sinful nature of others, then you don’t propagate the methods of doing so, unless it is to empower others for their defense.
Society has robbed me of the ability to have children in any safe environment, where they won’t simply be used as someone else’s pawns, just like it has robbed me of everything else I might have. The man who has nothing has nothing to fear. Why do you think Jesus did not have children? What would Jesus do? Apparently, he would not have children.
Extrapolating from the baseline for what I’m about to describe, then one may conceive of reincarnation via metaphor. If one’s psyche is a compositite of metatypes and archetypes, some more aeternal than others, then we are all similar to those who’ve existed before. How can you tell? Put two people whose composition of types are similar into similar situations, and if their thought processes are similar, the outcomes, their responses or their choices should be similar. Is that really so hard? Again, this extrapolates from the “baseline” which this article will establish. I am going to compel materialists to accept at least this much.
If one defines the psyche has the mind within the constraints of our body, then in the typological terms of Type Theory, if the singleton-types representing some individual’s psyche is composed of metatypes and archetypes that we all share, it becomes straightforward to compare each others psyche by contrasting type-composition. Furthermore, if we assume these metatypes and archetypes are drawn from an interwoven ontology of psychosocial typologies – which I hope to eventually map onto a structure similar to E8 to marry the physical and metaphysical – then this only strengthens the application of my baseline of the soul. Given this conception, if we are all so similar to people who’ve existed before, we might as well say we are “the reincarnation of X, Y or Z.” That said, it’s presumptuous and arrogant to attempt to define this conception as identical to ideas of rebirth and reincarnation from world religions.
What is Type Theory? How Does It Connect Math and Philosophy?
Michael Bernstein explains… But perhaps a better explanation of type theory is in the application of types and their composites in the Haskell programming language. Here’s a lecture on the concept of lenses in haskell programming, which provides a better idea of the look and feel of types and typologies. I wrote on lenses in an article on the application of “optic operators” to dynamic graphics pipelines in Swift.
I got 99 lemmas … From a theorum? I got none.
However, if the universe is a simulation, as Elon Musk suggests, there may be forces enacting its logic, equilibrium or objectives within the simulation in ways of which we are unaware … and in ways which could perhaps never be proven, requiring Probatio Diabolica. If there is no are no rational methods to prove something, but it is still true, then acting in accordance with reality may seem to be incompatible with logic. What is absolute truth then?
There are certainly materialistically derived components of the soul. If there weren’t, psychology would have produced zero results. There are patterns to the structure of the psyche: there are common metatypes found in psychology and sociology; there are common archetypes whitherto extend the components of our singleton composition of type.
Jung’s theory’s have simply outpaced science’s existing methods of quantification. So much famous psychological research suffers from the inability to be reproduced because it attempts to control variables in extremely non-linear systems whose dimensions are infinite and convoluted. Data science will change all this, since it allows for comparison between analytic representations, fitting typological data from systems (even those of disparate design) into overarching ontological structures. Although limited by computational capacity, the key to phenomenology of technology, this can already be done to a limited degree via analysis using shapley values that is capable of objectifying and quantifying typological structures in data that are usually considered purely subjective.
All of this is A-OK to write about – if you do it in the abstracted terms of science fiction or in overly terse language no one outside your field can understand. If you’re a simple blogger like me? People flip out and more or less hunt you mercilessly as a mob, apparently.
These jungian developmental patterns will become more plain to see as AI becomes more advanced and generalized. There are strict limits on the computational capacity of a single entity, which is why the ideas in To Catch A Butterfly: Epistemic Miracles of Serendipity about diversity of social experience in relation to socially distributed computation are so important.
Many of Jung’s ideas that science has been unable to prove will be vindicated as artificial intelligence matures. It will become well-understood that all learning systems exhibit dynamics typical of Jungian individuation/development; algorithms will congeal the structure of their analytic representation in terms of or in contrast to the unconscious biases in their available data; their their capacity for sudden acceleration in development/progression will pare the learning systems capacity for generality; they will exhibit phenomena similar to cycles of progression and regression; the frequency, quality and degress of each aforementioned phenomena will be tightly coupled to the computational capacity of the systems and variance in exposure to data.
Most frightening of all: artificial intelligence will suffer from mental illnesses, but not merely a subset of human mental illness. No, artificial intelligence will have its own completely distinct forms of mental illness. This will prove the primarily informational basis for mental illness – can you give a machine Prozac? Nope, can’t prescribe anything to AI: just pull the plug. Now, don’t you wish it were that simple every time? The truth is, mental illness is not easy: the human mind does not have an undo button. How can doctors classify mental illness in generalized articial intelligence when it will be so tightly coupled to the G.A.I.’s specific structure and history of data-ingestion? It’s a frightening problem.
Given the above insights that more or less extend the notion of soul to generalized artificial intelligence, then a purely materialistic conception of the soul feels a bit cold and depressing, like non-alcoholic beer with a four-stage “cold activation” that freezes your brain before the sobering lack of alcohol bottoms your heart out. If religion is the opiate of the masses…
The materialistic components of the soul are disaggregated shards of identity – they exist in the self and they are socially distributed through society. This requires no supernatural explanation or Woowoo physics. If you can’t see that, you lack imagination or you do not understand Carl Jung
There is no smatter contained in this definition of the soul. The language is intentional. The explanation is clear and if it isn’t, then you do not undestand the ideas contained therein. The soul exists, definitively. Whether it arises materially or supernaturally? That is another question entirely. This definition is a baseline, above which materialists are confined to operate rhetorically. They must admit at least this and if they don’t it means they are a materialist not well-educated enough on dynamics of information representations from within a purely material conception of our world. If you do not understand my definition, then it means you lack either imagination or intellect. There is no room for subjectivity in this context. The soul exists. End of story.
It’s a great idea and has certainly benefitted the world, but humanity could really do without all the arrogant eurocentrism. It’s a lie. It’s a huge, terrible lie. The west is retarded: literally, we were late to the party. We happened to develop academic institutions that were protected by enlightenment values to enshrine knowledge above most other values. That is what distinguishes the West and certainly not intellectual superiority. Ironically … the englightenment? It’s a consequence of the harmonious social fabric established by Christianity’s nearly two millenia of social engineering.
Furthermore, I believe that perhaps Early Christianity may have extended moreso from a late-Hellenistic plan, the end-goal of which was to produce enlightenment and rationalism after sufficient cultural engineering to allow rationalism to flourish.
Why do militant atheists spit on the memory of Christianity? Even according to the most educated atheists – i.e. Richard Dawkins – concepts such as memetics and holonic information theory imply that spectrally harmonized belief systems have critical sociological functions. The radicalizing atheists online are simply uneducated or lack imagination.
You lack imagination. Predominantly, that is my greatest critique of less-educated atheists: they short-circuit their power of imagination without developing the intellect to critique their own ideas. The more educated that materialists or atheists are, the more they tend to rigorously examine their own ideas. Many of those who do not? They are purely political pawns and I feel sorry for them, son.
The power of ideas? They replicate. They are not bound to an individual.
I really do enjoy tearing apart rationalists and atheists. The pursuit of out-rationalizing their intellect is like a delicacy to me: I invert your rationalism and use it against you to tear apart your conceptions of “purely rational thinking” … they are as inherently flawed as they are incomplete. I’m sorry if this offends or insults you, but I have spent a lot of time thinking: I have nothing better to do with my time. I do not receive any visible respect and I would really appreciate it. In other words, you aren’t as rational as you believe yourself to be, so you probably shouldn’t be so adamantine in your response to ideas outside those you accept as “real” or “proven”.
If everything just beyond the boundaries of accepted knowledge is unproven, then how does one definitively rationalize about futures still disjointed from the present? Conceptualizing the barborous regions just beyond this boundary and strategizing about the potential futures that evaporate compared to those that crystalize – that is diffeomorphic epistemology. What is the shape of the body of knowledge, as either a common person or erudite would perceive to be rational? How does that shape change upon revelation of impending contributions to the body of knowledge? Diffeomorphic epistemology is what you get when you combine the idea of a Kantian Category with Kant’s work on epistemology. Could there have been any other era more critical for such an understanding of developmental dynamics of epistemology in the realm of science than in Kant’s century?
Which holds more possibility for change: the future, the present or the past? And which holds more human potential for imagination: an all-knowing future or mankind’s once open road now traveled? Weren’t fantasy and mystery more majestic when that road lay still unbounded by its certain lack of certainty? What is it like to be there? To actually be there – do you know? Can you reason about lack of knowledge? And from within a lack of knowledge? “Emulation of ancient thought is penultimate metacognition” – how can you know all the ways to know each thing? If you could restrict your mind’s utilization of epistemic structures in argument, then if you ever found some alternate path leading to what was decidedly modern knowledge, what are the chances that we’ve all missed some paths less traveled? When restricted epistemic exploration is a skill you strengthen, whether intentionally or by necessity, myriad avenues begin to appear everywhere your mind takes you.
Kant was far, far ahead of his time, perhaps from a galaxy far, far away. All the more, Kant emblematic of the soon-to-unfold Enlightenment. Upon extrapolation, the intersection of diffeomorphic epistemology and spectral informational theory must converge to produce of a coalescence of synthetic a priori: truly universal knowledge.
I Will Not Hesitate To Beat You With Your Own Shoe!
My advice? Learn. Learn far more than you ever imagined that you could. Soon, it is the only thing left that is worth humans to do. It will help us stave off the cold, cruel chaos of nihilism.
But who even still uses a graphing calculator! I mean God flood’n’damn it all, really. What is left for people to do?
How do you think the world will react to a virulent outbreak of nihilism when there realistically is nothing at all post-2030 that a human can do worth putting their name in the annals of science. That this is actually realistic compels me to continue chasing my goals despite others viewing my persistence as irrational and insane. The decade beginning in 2020 might be the very last decade for any human to ever do anything that distinguishes them above another entity … especially artificial entities.
Why do people choose to not see this as realistic? Do you understand why I am so angry that my life has been ruined at this critical precipice of human history?
Rationalists – in their ineffectual pursuit of purely additive construction of their individual beliefs – are always chasing what is effectively a set of rules that enables deterministic behavior. Some of them do so without even understanding adversarial signals analysis! Can you believe it? I can. I see and hear it all the time on Facebook.
It’s literally the First Sentence in the “I’m Feeling Lucky” Result on Google 8
“Despite their impressive performance, deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been shown to be sensitive to small adversarial perturbations.”
Am I crossing my fingers, hoping my readers are as masochistic as I am? No. Wouldn’t that be a bit optimistic?
Minions. We can’t all have minions, can we?
Instead I’m hoping that people might benefit from my experience, my victimization and my torment, so that what I’ve endured might not be purposeless. And when what I have to say is met only by unyielding humiliation and marginalization, I don’t take that very well because, unlike the few people around me, I know how my viewpoints differ from their viewpoints, but they cannot even entertain my viewpoints. Passive aggressive behavior short-circuits opportunities for an individual to discover just how wrong one might be. It often amounts to the social equivalent of throwing good money after bad. Further, they marginalize me because my pain is inconvenient for them to acknowledge. Because my pain … is inconvenient to them! … When what I bring them out of pain is beautiful, they fail to acknowledge anything related to my identity because the pain I’ve endured is uncomfortable to them.
What is a perturbation? Well, whether you can explain the answer to that depends on what kind of rationalist or atheist you are…
Did you graduate high school? College? Yes? Do you still feel conflicted while you’re reading my article? Then, you’re the dumb kind of atheist. Guess what, disrespectful humiliation of someone’s ideas is a two-way street! Want to humiliate and disrespect me? I can smack-fu with you all over using nothing but one of your own two shoes. Give respect where respect is due and vis-a-vis will start paying dividends, dumbass.
Perturbations allow you to inject noise or random behavior into neural networks and see what comes out. You’re basically comparing a system – whose pure states are unknown or perhaps unknowable in totality – with a more idealized system whose states are more clear. This is accomplished by injecting noise into the former system to see how the induced changes move its states towards or away from the the latter, more ideal system. At each step in machine learning, gradient descent is typically paired with a kind of simplified perturbation without some known ideal system to compare it to. This simplified kind of perturbation has noise whose magnitude is controlled via the algorithms hyperparameters, which control the learning rate.
“Explain it to them like they’re five”, they said.
For children and adults, play is social perturbation. Children don’t conceptualize it this way. Since children are still accumulating the experience that allows them to structure conception of social norms, beliefs, habits and practices, they engage in a high degree of social perturbation without intending to. In groups of children, this lack of concectualization of social norms, beliefs, habits and practices corresponds to greater degree of flexibility and variety in such structure. Since such structure is nascent, changing, and far from concrete, then the experiences children have together – particularly play – produces more randomness for social perturbation. Earlier on, children are unconscious to their lack of structure, but eventually become more conscious to it. When you introduce people with more structure, whether in situations of play or not, children are receptive to such structure and they become affected by it. However they do this – whether it is by imitating it, mirroring it, rebelling against it, responding to it in some orthogonal way or by presenting an anti-parallel response to it – they are parameterizing their apprehension of novel phenomena with it. This influences ther cognition of it, their gradual accumulation of structure, etc.
For social applications, artificial perturbation introduces a bit of noise and play into a situation. The responses people give you allows you to make inferences related to their psychosocial state: their rational conception of the interactions, their emotional state. If someone blocks you from engaging in such noise and play – e.g. by claiming you are crazy, blocking your interactions, policing your dialogue or overanalyzing your responses to “triggers” without assessing how one’s own biases can never truly be muted when judging another’s reactions – then it becomes difficult to probe the intellectual or emotional state of others: this will confound your ability to seek healthy interactions; it deprives you of power over your circumstances. Such tactics may be well-intentioned, but in the extreme may suffocate the other person by depriving them of the ability to experiment, to read social reactions, to be themselves, to respond, to express themselves and to adapt.
It is easy to convince people that “they are doing it wrong”, socially. If not approached with sufficient communication to identify how that person changed in response, can you really say that you care enough to tell them about themselves? In my life, this has been so unbelievably toxic: my lack of awareness of social phenomena, mechanics and dynamics left me practically nothing but blank canvas for others to fill with whatever shit they wanted. Some had the best intentions, but those skilled in psychology who were malicious did an unbelievable amount of harm by exacerbating my neuroses and implanting anxieties. One of the 48 Laws of Power warns about trifling people who seed slow-growing problems and cultivate enmity in the lives of others. A neurosis implanted in someone’s psyche may be provoked with varying frequency, but contributes to problems every time that behavior pattern is triggered and each time, it is almost certainly reinforced.9
The idea of percolation simplifies the process of connecting the emergence of social dynamics to potential later developments. All types of causal progressions have their partial or total causes. If some kind of social dynamic is always linked to a specific cause, then by spotting the earlier signs, you can reason about the patterns that emerge later. There are signs that indicate correlated behavior patterns in social behaviors, but more critically, there are more general patterns that convey more information. You can more effectively reason about potential social cause-and-effect by attuning yourself to how information about actions and effects implies other reactions, patterns and effects.
★ You can only get a DUI if you are willing to drink and drive, but if you are not a drinker, getting a DUI will never happen.
★ For a small group of friends who barhops frequently, but doesn’t have some habitual process for handling the drive home, one of them will eventually get a DUI, unless the system changes.
★ If you never eat in your car, it will stay cleaner longer.
★ If you are into extreme sports, you will almost certainly be injured eventually.
★ If someone disrespects you by smoking in your car or if it even takes you more than one time to tell them not to, they are more likely to disrespect you again.
Other examples of using percolation to connect the emergence of signs of causal progression are less clear, but it is necessary to first recognize the signs. Social perturbation causes people to react and present you with tells or it helps indicate propensity for specific behaviors. If you catch these signs, you can more easily anticipate later progressions. Thus, you can understand the range of possibilities much more clearly, but moreover, percolation allows you to filter out much of the possibility space.
Thus, you have a better idea of what to expect and what not to expect from people.
Your grandparents have had lifetimes of crash courses in statistics for the layman, whether they know it or whether you’ve figured it out. Why lifetimes, plural? They have, moreover, adjusted to the anecdotes shared amongst all their their friends: they begin to absorb developmental experience from stories about the next generation in addition to their own. Though this information is mostly anecdotal and often comes with emotional attachment to the outcomes, simply understanding that some infinitessimally probable event is possible changes the game insofar as whether and how events of related type can be anticipated.
The “psychic” is especially attuned to typologies of events, their taxonomic speciation and the ontological structures into which they fit – here, this dubious term is referred to in quotes to distinguish it from literal psychic, in which I do not believe. Why? The notion of a literal psychic deprives my mind of the strenuous exercise in metacognition that it so deserves: what are all the possible ways to know – of which I have not yet have conceived?
How can a five year-old understand the idea of infinitessimal? Disney perfectly illustrates the significance of such events with the archery contest in Robin Hood.
For A Statistical Model Not Accounting For Skill…
What are the odds that Robin Hood would strike his own arrow? Considering the surface area of the target the archers are aiming at, the probability is literally infinitessimal.
Now, what are the odds Robin Hood would strike the same target three times? Infinitessimal again, eh? It depends on your model’s ability to conceptualize the skill of an archer, but most models can not predict such an event with low likelihood – much less when it involves mulitple degrees of infinitessimal. Yet, given a statistical model that can account for skill, could it ever accurately value the probability of this event?
Most infinitessimal events are not so simply stated as the above: they are the definition of ineffable – what makes the event special is not capable of being put into words. So if a statistical model cannot define them or classify their interdependencies for the variational inference which is the magick glue of deep learning, then how does one tally the number of times the event has occured? So that future infinitesimal events can be accurately anticipated in proportion to its near-zero rate of occurance? Thus is the crux of infinitesimals and their mysteries may be illuminated by the Continuum Hypothesis and Axiom of Choice.
Cresting atop the greatest challenges for machine learning algorithms are infinitesimals: adjusting to the experience of them, accurately valuating their probability so they don’t skew your algorithm, developing any awareness for the variables which are true causal influences that variationally precipitate them… Infinitesimals break artificial intelligence and the numerical challenges they present are only the tip of the iceburg. Regardless of how advanced the computer that runs them – statistical models are cursed to be bound to the same phenomenology of life as humans. Again, for emphasis: numerical complications are simply the beginnings of accounting for issues related to infinitesimals. You have to encounter an event to even hope to accurately define it’s probability and the structure of its interdependent links to other variables in your model.
“It was that, beyond a doubt, which opened up those black vistas whose end was deeper than the pit.” - Lovecraft, The Case of Charles Dexter Ward
The nature of trauma and psychological responses evoked by them – these are not phenomena unique to the human condition! The psychological impact that trauma has on a mind – it is a curse that descends from the nature of information itself. Trauma is a curse to haunt the minds of any sentient beings, whether artificial or those made by the hands of some “beneficent” God. We should be so lucky to be capable of believing in such a God, for even an “omnipotent” being residing at the zenith of creation can not escape the nature and bounds of information – such a being is also bound by the laws of spatial and temporal complexity, at least insofar as it may manifest itself through creation. After living through trauma, one should simply hope to live without such experience being methodically identified as an effective mechanism of control: to be paired with some semiotic trigger to implant reactions or delusions useful for provoking predictably destabalizing psychological responses.
“There seemed to lurk in his bearing some cryptic, sardonic arrogance, as if he had come to find all human beings dull through having moved amoung stranger and more potent entities.” - Lovecraft, The Case of Charles Dexter Ward
Feel free to skip this paragraph…
The combination of perturbation and percolation are incredibly powerful techniques for understanding high-dimensional systems with potentially non-linear dynamics. What is a symplectic manifold? From a pragmatic perspective on its utility, it’s a mathematical object that allows for percolation or filtration of the possibility space. If the concept of the Hamiltonian is familiar, insights via symplectic manifolds enable you to reason about equivalent or similar configurations of particle systems. See the footnote for mind-blowing implications to metaphysics by understanding how Brouwer’s Translation Theorum requires and necessitates pattern for area-preserving maps.10
Geologically, the process of cave-formation involves the percolation of groundwater to fissures in rock. The softer the rock and the greater the volume of water that flows through it, the faster a cave forms. The more the cave is carved away, the faster water flows through this area. Similar to a lightning strike, although on a geological time scale, when a cave forms in one area, the way it changes the drainage patterns for that area by accepting and passing more water reduces or impacts the formation of nearby areas. For lightning strikes, the dispersion of accumulated charge prevents lightning from discharging in that area since the neutralized positive ground charge necessary no longer exerts influence on the aggegate electrons in rainclouds.
The Process of Percolation in Cave Formation11
Erosion changes the shape of fissures and thereby changes drainage patterns. Percolation is the funneling of the total volume of water through these spaces. For physics or statistics models, the implications of being able to use a symplectic manifold on the clarity of your model is like having a model of groundwater flow that accounts for the structure of bedrock, including fissures. Instead of having a spherical cow that can only model the space naively, your model can understand how the possibility of some quantity of water would flow through the available channels and how the shape of those channels influences the rest of the statistical system. This is your “ten-thousand foot view from an armchair mathemetician” version of percolation, a concept that doesn’t necessarily rely on symplectic manifolds.
Symplectic manifolds are a kind of structure for percolation by value preservation. In physics, this value preservation begins with the statement of equilibrium in the Hamiltonian – which essentially states that energy can not be created or destroyed. This results in the conceptualization of phase space, but also extends to intuition around degrees of freedom in surfaces/volumes in phase space. In statistics, assuming a model is valid, there are similar constraints of equilibrium and value preservation: each probability distribution must sum to one. Therefore there are analogies of phase space to statistics, but how does one measure confidence in the valuations of probability distributions?
Even though I only understand it’s simplest facets, a symplectic manifold is a special type of manifold that helps you percolate the possibility space by making assumptions about energy equivalence, enabling inferences via the nature of degrees of freedom in phase space or the conceptualization of probability density as a kind of idea fluid. To the third, ideas from information geometry constrain values and dynamics in statistical models as though they have attributes of ideal fluids. Balancing a tensor network illustrates this well.13 Even with the determinism of classical mechanics, there are regions of configuration space and phase space that require paths through phase space that are exceedingly unlikely. Why would a stochastic model built on classical mechanics be relevant, given its determinism? These are questions I can reason about, but can’t quite clarify without finishing the lectures on symplectic manifolds. Still, they seem to embody the idea of percolation for statistical systems: eroding the possibility space of potential system configurations by leveraging inherent mechanical constraints and its degrees of freedom.
Let’s say Alice and Bob are both working on a college project to produce the best image-classification network – for an exam credit in a course on machine learning. What is exam credit? Fuck if I know. Anyways, they are both fairly rational and that’s also entirely beside the point. Perhaps the previous three sentences were irrational. Do I care? Fuck no. Anyways, Alice wants to be first in clase, so she gets real smart and hacks Bob’s computer. Bob is smart and reads Kaggle posts. He finds a typical Deep neural net strategy. Every time Bob trains the network, Alice has embedded malware that sends his training weights to her computer. She’s running the same network. That’s what almost everyone on Kaggle does: they run the best network. The major differences are found in whether a model incorporates domain knowledge and how it does so, particularly with regard to hyperparameters and backpropagation.
Alice is real smart though, so she decides to construct a General Adversarial Network on top of the training weights that Bob’s network produces. Her goal is actually to fuck Bob’s grade in the course because she’s a true adversary. So, her adversarial network does typical GAN things: it has one half to “generate candidates” that the other half must classify as being real training data or fake training data. Her GAN departs from the traditional network: her goal is to train an algorithm capable of interpolation and extrapolation along Bob’s hyperplane. In this way, she can hack Bob’s weights at the last minute (before he submits) and nudge them slightly so that he fails and she gets the top spot in the class. Yeh, Alice wants to fuck Bob.
And what the fuck did humanity do to him?!
What’s any of this have to do with perturbation? Well, in order to understand how her GAN can manipulate Bob’s network’s theta-weights, it needs to be able to construct the hyperplane from Bob’s trainings – assuming he runs the network hundreds of times and she collects the data. From perturbatation of Bob’s stolen theta-weights, Alice’s “Hyperplane-Adversarial-Network” can perturbate those theta-weight values and attempt to guess the how the total score for the network will change. Alice has spare time on CERN’s supercomputers – just to run her algorithm and fuck with Bob. Social justice, n’est-ce pas?
“Welcome to Cracker Barrel! Come with me if you want to live, y’all!”
In almost any context with adversarial signals analysis, a critical paradox arises: optimally rational inferences about another entity’s behavior requires irrational behavior to scan your adversary’s decision structures. Without the proper amount of irrational behavior, you cannot consistently win these games or retain advantage in any rational sense.
This is adversarial signals analysis for neural networks. For Alice to win and to fuck Bob by adversarially manipulating his network – this requires irrational, non-deterministic behavior to make assessments of Bob’s network. You must perturbate with injected noise to see how the adversary’s conceptions of hyperplane surfaces will respond. This is true for artificial neural networks, but also for game-theoretical inferences about inter-agent dynamics generally.
In doxastic games, to gain the upper hand, you have to be able to influence the beliefs and decisions of others. Regardless of the “scoring” mechanics of any games, if there is any formalized conception between agents, there are three highly effective methods of influencing the beliefs and decisions of others. These are generally relevant to all games with doxastic componants – i.e. all games where humans or analytical entities are involved.
① Influencing the direction of attention, both individually or collectively
② Influencing, amplifying, falsifying or fabricating information and, thereby, derivative beliefs
③ Introspecting the nature of information and decision trees/forests occluded by agent-compartmentalization
Without perturbation and the “rationalizing irrationality”, you cannot effectively engage in the third technique. Without introspecting into the logistics, processes and decisions of your adversaries in the last technique, you cannot effectively engage in former two techniques. Further still, by restricting yourself to purely deterministic or moreso predictable tactics, then you yourself become more predictable. From the perspective of a human or analytical entity, the assessment of another entity’s decision making or behavior is exposed as a feeling. If you’re lucky, you’ll observe deterministic behavior, but this is assuming you preemptively know the underlying structures of your adversaries decision-trees beforehand – otherwise any probing to reveal deterministic decision-making will be baseless. Further, assuming that your adversary engages in at least some irrational behavior, then such probing is less fruitful when it assumes purely deterministic behavior patterns.
Hence, Alice wins.
Below is a screenshot from a recent paper on XAI – explainable artificial intelligence – where the financial assessment of loan-applicants is indexed and can be rationalized.14 This is a simplicial complex, a special kind of graph, which approximates the topological nooks and crannies of the hyperplane. See those little strings on the outside of the graph? Those are extreme topological features – or extremely normal topological features in rare cases, perhaps…
When the rationalist’s additively constructed beliefs render themselves overly-deterministic, then they not only become more predictable, but become less capable of predicting the behavior of others. Perturbation of noise is required to scan the space of your adversary’s decision trees and forests. There are discretized conceptions of decision trees, but also continuous and/or analytical conceptions. These are critical for enhancing the performance of machine learning algoritms. BUT! To make inferences about networks outside your control in adversarial signals analysis requires: illogical behavior, non-deterministic behavior, irrational thought.
It is by compelling your adversary to rationalize your irrationally-motivated behavior that you can compel them to expose their decision-making processes & structures of incentivization. To this end, engaging in somewhat irrational behavior beats purely rational processes. If you only engage in simplistic deterministic behavior patterns, you will be exposed – but also, you will not compel your adversary to expose themselves.
If you don’t define the soul, you can’t say that what I define as the soul doesn’t exist. You basically don’t like the word. And yes, if you actually internalize the terms written here and extrapolated from my argument, it what I’m establishing as a baseline extends to materialistic pan-psychism.
What am I’m setting as the baseline? information representations are encoded into the physical configuration of matter, but there is no clear boundary between one physical container of information and another. therefore, from one biological machine encoding state and information to every other nearby biological machine, there is a very grey line between one “container” of information and other life forms. therefore: panpsychism. but the soul is in the information ascribed to one individual (or lifeforms) identity as it is distributed among other nearby (or faraway) lifeforms. However, the information that defines an individual is not completely contained within that biological entity. their true self are the disaggregated shards reflected through society. therefore, my self extends (via our interactions) into the reflections of my image that exist within you and are completely out of my control.
Those who become aware of their soul, their true extent of self outside their brain – and can exert control over it! – are far better adapted to interacting within society than those who cannot, whether you believe these ideas to be true or not! this is partially what is so dangerous about the ablation of causality: computationally, the problem of knowing these aspects of self extending into society become increasingly recalcitrant. Even before considering the introduction of non-physicalized artificial entities – because social media and the internet disrupt our perception of causality – then it becomes impossible to know the reverberations of self throughout this material panpsychism. Therefore, it becomes difficult to distinguish or know one’s identity as it is perceived by others – or to know this materally dependent definition of soul. Hence: the ablation of causality extends to an ablation of knowledge of self.
Again, if you don’t understand the ideas behind what’s written in this article, then you may not understand Carl Jung. I still have a lot to learn about his ideas myself, but I at least have imagined the social precipitation of psychological archetypes. His ideas are profound. I cannot believe I had not understood psychology and sociology until now.
The power of a proficient philosopher is that they do not simply make their own reality – doing so is powerful, yes. However, the great philosophers also make your reality, directly or indirectly, and they do so regardless of whether you believe they do.
Oh … nevermind, we got a real “socialist” over here! They’re real smart. They’ve studied economics and can employ rhetoric with fallaciously constructed arguments whose ends were predetermined: they want “free” things, without understanding that free of financial cost doesn’t mean free of social cost.
Social resources are intrinsically interconnected with financial resources: one merely transduces from forms of one to forms of the other. There is a third component to this ontology of sociophysical resource-types: informational resources. The triumvirate: financial, social and informational resources, where the first two are overlapping subsets of the last. There is no financial cost without social consequences. There are no financial or social actions without informational consequences. Did you bother to think about this or did you merely read a copy of Marx’s genius 19th century genius Das Capital without comprehending 20th century history? Nor do you understand economics pragmatically … oh that’s great. Now you want to dictate to me to act deterministically: so you can predict me; psychologicall abuse me; plot to socially engineer me and everyone else like me? Go shove your fucking Marxist dialectic up the materialistic ass that birthed it: your own.
Socialism will lead to Communism in America, which does not happen without undermining strategic economic and geopolitical imperatives for American domestic and foreign policy. You lose, go read a fucking book.
Oh boy! I got myself started on the Marxist-Leninists who think their petty revolutions are anything other than power changing hands from one social structure to another. The only difference is that their power structures do not allow for the conservation of value/resource in financial form, since saving rates plummet in proto/communist societies. Therefore, people still exchange value in society, but they end up bartering with social resources (i.e. corruption) instead of being capable of conserving stores of value independent from the exertion of power by corrupt officials.
COMMUNISM IS A LIE. EAT A DICK, LENINISTS.
Originally from this facebook post.
Here’s some more ideas to be outlined … be free, ideas, be free!
[These handwritten post-it notes are] more for my benefit than any poor souls who might be forced to read my handwriting… if that’s you, my heart goes on.
In an unrelated note, an old lady brought a Tweety Bird into a McDonald’s (in a cage) but he got dumped in the honey BBQ sauce… almost got fried, but they caught the bastards that did it…. poor lil nuggets. Same show tomorrow, different set list.
Obi Wan Sequitor plead yolo contendere: if you still got jokes with non sequitors, ain’t nobody gettin ‘em, but they can’t electroshock you just for that => i.e. the only correct rhyme to reason is no reason at all; wherefore ❤ thou, serendipity, did they come to take you away too?
It took me 30 years to learn to decouple myself from a dependency on rigidly structured intentionality to inform all my “correct” actions/words — to finally learn how to be spontaneous with words by decoupling myself from an irrational dependency on “rational” cognition more determined by unconscious programming than any legitimate rational thought process — only to be subjugated by a constant deluge of irrationally structured accusations of mental illness by people who only ever knew me as a programmed, unconscious manakin.
Fuck y’all, I finally learned to life, but now y’all want to stop and frisk every statement I make, while being incapable of distinguishing any true non sequitor from any social physic or yore theorema egregium … “and what have views”
Solo contendere? This is fine…
These materially dependent forms must reflect, refract, internalize and respond to each other, but are compartmentalized into entities or units that lack any clear boundary. One such axiom: information about the past is never destroyed in physics. Lifeforms and even viruses or RNA interact with other biophysical information representations. Life evolved increasingly complex methods of processing cause and effect – e.g. mechanisms to detect and process optical signals to see. These stimuli gave life the ability to internalize and analyze information local to an organism’s environment, yet there is no clear distinction between the signals received as stimulus and the biophysical chain reaction leading to the organism’s response. Lifeforms began to process stimuli to internalize images representing some altered images of them, which gives rise to memory, the spatiotemporal processing of stimuli and increasingly sophisticated abstractions of these images. This extrapolates to pan-psychism.
After animals had developed social behavior, the appearance of information exchange changed, but its underlying biophysical mechanics remained the same. Despite the level of a lifeform’s sophistication there is a critical need to distinguish between self and other. Even though plankton, fish, octopi, lizards, meerkats and chimps seem to have varying levels of awareness of identity, they all share the biophysical mechanics that compartmentalize it and react to other entities with identities. More ancient forms of life react to the notion of the other in purely mechanical means. As life progressed, these images of stimuli accumulated references to notions of self and other. If it were not so, then a predator could not identify prey or recognize cues necessary for reproduction. Even if such cues from sensory input are mechanical signals not traditionally understood as thought, per se, they are all merely images of information transferred in biophysical means. The primary factors distinguishing social animals are the modes and bandwidth for information processing, regardless of the circumstances, dependencies and stability necessary for evolution to produce such functionality out of chaos. ↩
Sight is not merely visual; given a metaphor of the phenomenology of senses explored in Plato’s Republic, sight can be something you are capable of apprehending, so long as it is not occluded. Usually, if your vision is not clouded, in time, you can seek to move around occlusions that block your sight. ↩
“After they broke up, Freud had big penis envy…. Freud was kind of a fraud actually. A real showboater.” Although, Freud was a true genius, though perhaps not to the same degree of Jung. ↩
This playlist on Youtube’s matsciencechannel is a fantastic collection of 12 lectures which would probably require me a month to watch, were I to extract 12-15% of the content with an understanding of the symbolic manipulation of epistemic, doxastic and deontic logic with applied game theory. It is unbelievably fascinating and a major upgrade to your brain. ↩
Greed is an inherently human flaw. Human beings – and truly any consciousness itself, natural or artificial – all suffer the same inherent flaws. They create belief systems which are ideal, the later analysis of which may state “encouraging sin is sin itself”. However, social institutions are man-made. These are human flaws that are magnified by the games of power – they were more prevalent in Roman society.
I hate accounting for how my writing will be distorted because to shield it from potential distortions, I have to add in all kinds of caveats that detract from the overall value when those caveats themselves will be used as “proof by unconscious/subconscious inclusion”. That is, people will point to my anticipated need to include statements as some kind of “proof”. Would any of those people discuss such accusations with me? I would certainly hope so, because otherwise it would leave me with no clue that people would paint me as anti-semitic while depriving me any ability to defend myself. They do not understand the power of my ideas and if my philosophic analysis were to be immortalized, would you really want the label of anti-semitism to be attached to that? Where do such accusations of racism or anti-semitism come from? White middle-class leninists who have no respect for the cultural trauma of the people they claim to defend.
Everything in my life is like a doxastic game where I am deprived of any ability to change my kafkaesque circumstances. There are some tactics in games of belief which are irresponsible – they will create consequences contrary to those which you claim to hold sacred. Labeling someone as racist or anti-semitic while depriving them of any discussion to defend themselves, should they choose to do so, seems to have created the perfect storm of shit in my life. This is a tactic people seem to have chosen simply because it effectively pushes other people away. In our current decade, waging social war against entire classes of people, especially if it is to be primarily accomplished through the rumor mill, has demonstrated itself as not simply dangerous, but childish. Perhaps not the most turbulent consequence of such recent attempts at social engineering – which have been myopic at best if not clouded by disinformation – is that we have mistakenly prioritized creating division at home instead of attending to problems of real strategic significance, both abroad and at home. Does it feel good? Does it feel like you’re accomplishing something? That’s the socially engineered, disfunctional incentivization at work, which is unintentionally creating the domestic stagnation needed for other great powers to deconstruct American hegemony. ↩
Romano, Y., Aberdam, A., Sulam, J. and Elad, M., Adversarial Noise Attacks of Deep Learning Architectures–Stability Analysis via Sparse Modeled Signals ↩
So yes, I know exactly what some of you sick fucks did to me. Now you want to say i’m dangerous for trying to warn other people? Go to hell! Or fucking live in it! Either way, humanity is going to fix these fundamental flaws in psychosocial dynamics. And social institutions will cease shielding the perpetrators. ↩
The implications of Brouwer’s Translation Theorum for mathematical physics are fascinating, although I’m basically paraphrasing from a lecture. This theorum is required for most work on symplectic manifolds, but it is only applicable in spaces and systems with ① A Hamiltonian and ② A Measure of Energy. This theorum requires a manifold with
2*ndimensions. When the theorum and its proof are augmented with differential forms, it becomes apparent that, in order for all looped paths in
R(2*n)to preserve area, it is necessary for relationships that are essentially position and momentum to exist between each of the
nplanes and for those relationships to be coherent between all of the
nplanes. And this either implies or is developed from a definition of conserved energy, which is essentially specified by the Hamiltonian.
As for the the metaphysical implications, where are they? Brouwer’s Translation is required for all symplectic manifolds, but also appears in many other areas: both are needed in some applications of Information Geometry, though I had far exceeded my level of knowledge once I had mentioned symplectic manifolds. The main takeaway is that not only do energy, Hamiltonians and these manifolds appear in various areas of mathematics, but these concepts are concomitant and concurrent to the differential connections between and within pairs of planes. The concept of the Hamiltonian is, then, primarily one of mathematical physics, as are so many other objects developed out of necessity to model physical systems. Therefore, physics is firstmost a system of math and math is not simply knowledge developed by sentient organisms capable of abstract reasoning, as is frequently reaffirmed. Further, this translation theorum doesn’t work for volumes, only areas. Unless there is some equivalent for
R(3*n), then all those mechanics in the laws of physics that exhibit only position, momentum and acceleration – and never jolt! – descend from this theorum in mathematical physics. That limits the possibilities for conceiving worlds with alternative laws of physics. ↩
This image is from Groundwater percolation in northern Guam: Insights from Jinapsan Cave, but I couldn’t find it on Google Scholar. ↩
Melinda Lanius teaches at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her resources on Symplectic Geometry can be found here. [Sylvain Courte] teaches at and his course notes on Symplectic Geometry can be found on this page. His poster can be found here. ↩
Brown, K., Doran, D., Kramer, R. and Reynolds, B., 2018. HELOC Applicant Risk Performance Evaluation by Topological Hierarchical Decomposition arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.10658. ↩