marshfram

Closed to public view.

It's not a sentiment, it's real coding. Rhythms of the Brain by Buzsaki. Cinema is already a prototype of differences, using space, and coreelating topological states. It's analog software that's been running for 130 years.

Binary was always a dead end alley, we knew this going in. How do we escape it?

Are there studies of how we lost the creative edge of ambiguity? Media is a wasteland of sanitized takes, adult media is overexplained as if 10 year olds are the target.

Binary computers are toy prisons of counting that model in a reality that has no correct models, not even neuromorphic will gain validity here, leave them behind. Start over with the forms we know are valid in neural syntax and apply them to software.

Research results are more more than two things, have vastly more semantic load than these synthetic categories/labels.

You're wasting your time wasting my time if you pretend you can't find the it in that sentence, one my 14 year old freshman son identified in 2 seconds. That means you're either a moron, or you play very stupid games.

That language is deception primarily can be factual along with 99% of its users remaining unable to detect that deception, and it's not even fully contradictory. What kind of scientist can't hold near contradictory processes in their working memory to reach correlational theoretic statements, certainly none that I know.

If you don't know the animal world of signals heavily discounts arbitrary forms from roles in survival, I don't know what to tell you. Go back to undergrad and start all over again.

The amount of work about language being too indirect to be valid, stable signals and thus deceptive is rather vast, and you pretending it will vanish with that little narrative shuffle "peoplw will ignore it" means you must be either doubly moronic, have no idea about the human capacity for self-deception in signals, mythological thought, or spend your days playing defensive games in debates you just can't win.

I count over 300 papers discussing the deceptive nature of language, beginning with Aristotle.

..at some point a direct contact must occur between knowledge and reality. If we succeed in freeing ourselves from all these interpretations – if we above all succeed in removing the veil of words, which conceals the truth, the true essence of things, then at one stroke we shall find ourselves face to face with the original perceptions.. Ernst Cassirer The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms

You're thinking small, think about software first. Analoga of differentials. Spatial. Specifics. If you get trapped in emulation, you're trapped in counting.

You have to withdraw from the binary in all senses to begin to imagine what an analog spatial differences measurement could function as.

Again, think software first. The brain is always a byproduct of the processes, though it is discerned as a materialist operation.

Think big, binary computers are toys in the gran scheme of things.

Analog is next. Software first, then build the machines. No more models, reductions, loss. Direct perception through measurement and differences.

Good to read Rhythms of the Brain for how SWR creates memories.

The technology of language is designed to fool the receiver. That's its primary goal. Read any substantial text on language post western functional linguistics like Deacon's The Symbolic Species. In his view "language is a virus or a parasite"

Once language became a strategy of cybernetic and then cog-sci regimes (which is what all computer science is modeled from), the basic principle of control-deception in language became electronic through its perceptions of socialization, which comp sci totally mistakes as information (see above) and then control, accelerated and now automated. The entire point of computer science operating socialization is completely off the rails mindblowingly simple-minded and damaging to us. Algorithms a/b tested to succeed are in essence, suicidal to the survival of our species. We're not optimized to horizontalize communication of this type: arbitrary metaphors and symbols. Language wasn't built for speed, horizontalization or decentralization.

Now read the above again. To call Donna Haraway the great theorist/historian of cyborg studies and the development of science into cog science pseudo in any way reveals you have never grasped anything deep and resonant about human computer interaction.

How do you decentralize a network that relies on dictionary semantics, the chaos of arbitrary imagery, basics of grammatically sequence signals?

It's oxymoronic. Our communication was developed in highly developed hierarchies for a reason: continual deception, deviance, anarchism, perversion, subversion always operating in conflict and in contrary to hierarchies.

Language is not self-organizing, signaling is not self-learning it self-regulating. The web opened the already existing pandora's box of Shannon's admittedly non-psychologically relevant info theory and went bust at scale.

It's a theory of drift postulated by neurobiologists.

Unsure if they're more stable.

We should be searching for the last story.

Social media is simply an extension from cybernetics to the principles of cog-sci as a "protocol" network where status and control are the primary forces mediated. This is irrefutable - the web was built as an extension of the cog-sci parameters of information as control.

Social media can't be saved, it can only be revolutionary as a development arena for a new form of language.

"The subject of integration was socialization; the subject of coordination was communication. Both were part of the theme of control...Cybernetics dispensed with the need for biological organisms, it as the parent to cognitive science, where the social is theorized strictly in terms of the exchange of information. Receivers, senses of signs need to be known in terms of channels, capacities, error rates, frequencies and so forth." Haraway Primate Visions.

I don't understand how technologists and coders can be this naive to the ramifications of electronically externalizing signals which start as arbitrary in person, and then clearly spiral out of control once accelerated and cut-off from the initial conditions.

Social media relies on our dead. arbitrary signaling system, language, which once it's accelerated becomes a cybernetic/cog-sci control network, no matter how it's operated. Language is about control, status and bias before it's an attempt to communicate information. It's doomed as an external system in arbitrary symbols.

There are no world models in biology. Idea Johnson-Laird is being promoted in AI as a solution is sado-masochistic. The brain doesn't compress info about our world, it ecologically relates to it. It doesn't compress, it never has to. How these folk science ideas of the brain entered engineering from cog-sci mistaken complexes and how they remain in power is pretty suspect.

Well, it's true Charles Murray is less than his brain, so maybe others are more than them.

Sorry, the WSJ boosting op-eds from discredited, racist theorists like Murray suggests we're verging on a eugenics experiment rivaling apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia.

The drift is probably oscillatory in nature. It's process affecting material. Astrocytes and nanotubules don't directly affect the drift, they are affected by it simply as the memory is shifted by a material/process interaction.

You've got to settle the memory in during this days long process first, and that's being revised through sharp wave ripples.

A true function is outside its narrative effects, you're describing a narrative, not a correlational effect in science. Are you trained as a scientist or as a technologist to seek causes and effects.

As a scientist, the very "function" you're describing could easily be perceived as non-survival, as keeping our attention on things we should be ignoring. Hoel's theory is par to idealized. He's not seeing the impairing role of what he is describing.

Hoel is fundamentally a technologist hiding behind the skirts of science, employing functionalism when it's been long discarded:

"Functionalism is fundamentally a theory of communication. The story of the mutation within functionalism from an organics to a technics of communication within the primate body is a story of semiotic theories and technologies" Haraway

To summarize, a functional description or analysis like Hoel's is an argument about the technology of dreaming, not its organic role in the brain. It's not science. His is an extractive theory, "how do we use dreams separate from their organic relationship to mental states"?

Dreaming is a by-product of neurotransmitter cleansing. Any effects we gain from dreams are secondary. This theory is what might be considered a "narrative" or post-hoc causal explanation to make it seem as if a by-product is a function of evolution. This is bad science. For a real explanation

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7916906/

To explain how science tries this retrofitting trick, see Daniel Wegner's The Illusion of Conscious Will. Science is beset by tricksters like Hoel who find their audiences in technologists.

See Allan Hobson's The Dream Drugstore for a non-psychological explanation (his is a neurobilogical one).

If you read carefully, this is the next step beyond binary. Counting, linearity, into coordination dynamics. We're obsessed with agents, intent, beliefs, etc, this removes them. This exceeds the need for AI.