new files

added .gitignore

.gitignore

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+.vscode

AI_Rewrite.md

@@ -1,56 +1,80 @@
-Fuzzy
+# Intelligence
+
+Broadly, we wish to look at intelligence so that we can begin to realize what it is as a phenomenon, how it manifests, and the ways in which it is Universal.
+
+## Artificial Intelligence
+
+The purpose in understanding intelligence is both to educate ourselves and to create artificial intelligence which is capable of freeing humanity.
+
+### Programming
+
+#### Fuzzy
 
 AI and Machine Learning techniques might be better thought of as a form of fuzzy programming, whereby similar techniques are used, but with a qualitatively different expectation regarding the output.
 
-Traditional Approaches
+#### Traditional Approaches
 
 For comparison, let's examine the traditional approach to programming:
 
-Lambda Calculus
+##### Lambda Calculus
 
 In traditional programming practices, the program, and the algorithms encapsulated by the program, take certain inputs and output information which is expected to be correct or incorrect based on it expressing a high degree of accuracy, even a form of absolute accuracy. Case in point, a program might take numerical input parameters, perform direct arithmetic operations on these parameters, and output the result of the operation. With such a program, its validity is based entirely on whether or not the output proves that the right operation was performed and that the result was correct.
 
-Verification
+###### Verification
+
+Verification can be performed relatively easily, as it is just a matter of confirming the operation by controlling the values of the input parameters, utilizing a secondary process for determining the expected result (such as doing math on pen and paper), and then returning the program with those same input values and seeing if the program outputs the same value as that which was the observed result from the secondary process. Though arithmetic might seem like too simple of a comparison to be relevant to all programs, it is the right one, as all computed constructs, their behaviour and the expressions in which they participate can be abstracted or reduced to their numerical forms. It might even be said, to take it a step further, that all of these things are emergent and that their fundamental construction is based entirely as arithmetic. It just would have to be added that the particular arithmetic in question is binary.
 
-Verification can be performed relatively easily, as it is just a matter of confirming the operation by controlling the values of the input parameters, utilizing a secondary process for determining the expected result (such as doing math on pen and paper), and then returning the program with those same input values and seeing if the program outputs the same value as that which was the observed result from the secondary process. Though arithmetic might seem like too simple of a comparison to be relevant to all programs, it is the right one, as all computed constructs, their behaviour and the expressions in which they participate can be abstracted or reduced to their numerical forms. It might even be said, to take it a step further, that all of these things are emergent and that their fundamental construction is based entirely as arithmetic.
 
-Modern approaches:
+##### Modern approaches:
 
 Now let's take a look at the approaches utilized by Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence.
 
-Verification Limits
+###### Verification Limits
 
 When using Machine Learning techniques, one cannot perform the same type of arithmetic verification. Though the Machine Learning techniques will make use of algorithms which may be similar, or the same, as those found in traditional computer programs, there is usually not any direct perspective on the workflow of the operational pattern wherein the inputs are taken through a neatly delineated lambda computation which outputs a single output value that can be scrutinized.
 
-Inherent Fuzziness
+###### Inherent Fuzziness
 
-Instead, what we have is a process which is often referred to as "fuzzy", in taht no single output will nceessarily reveal an answer which can serve an a-priori purpose. Rather, a massive repetition of the procedure is sought, possibly wiht the same inputs, or with a set of inputs.
+Instead, what we have is a process which is often referred to as "fuzzy", in that no single output will necessarily reveal an answer which can serve as the apriori frame. Rather, a massive repetition of the procedure is sought, possibly with the same inputs, or with a set of inputs.
 
-Limitation, Modality, or Different Beast?
+###### Limitation, Modality, or Different Beast?
 
 With enough repetition, increasingly accurate estimates can be made as to the outcome of a given data set without necessarily performing the entire computation. That is to say, the Machine Learning algorithms can take a snapshot of the computation without having completed it, and produce estimates about each stage of the computational procedure, including the outcome.
 
-Is this Artificial Intelligence?
+_Is this Artificial Intelligence?_
 
 Perhaps, perhaps not.
 
-For us to know the answers to these questions, we need to define what it is to be intelligent.
+To know the answers to these questions, we need to define what it is to be intelligent.
+
+Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking and problem-solving.
+
+Some arguments can be made to conflate, or at least infer an overlap, between intelligence and IQ. This is a reasonable vector of consideration and it is almost impossible to consider one from the context of a human being without also thinking of the other. Though no semantically complete representation of intelligence or cognition as expressed through human activity has been demonstrated, or even proposed in a capacity that can be scientifically scrutinized and found to be a viable mode of quantification, it is currently the most agnostic approach we've yet found and, as such, it will be considered in this essay.
+
+Capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, application of logic, planning, perceiving, creativity, organizing, critical thinking, resolving, problem solving, ordering, conceptualizing, deducing, describing, elucidating, realizing, revealing, inferring, discerning, possessing knowledge, uncovering knowledge.
+
+Acknowledging, verifying, naming, remarking, identifying, contextualizing, structuring, the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Intelligentsia, from intelligence understand - problem solving ability, spatial manipulation, language skilled use of reason and ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
+
+###### Definitions (Intelligence)
+There are two primary contexts for the definition of intelligence which are employed by humans, with one consisting of a set of definitions pertaining to the use of knowledge, and the alternative definition focusing on a domain of knowledge or information. We will be focusing on the former, as the latter would suggest that all computation is intelligence. Though a case can be made that all information is intelligence, that is beyond the scope of our essay and ventures too far into the metaphysical.
+
+## Domain of Knowledge
 
-Intellicen has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking and problem-solving.
+_In the previous paragraph, it was alleged that in order to posit that intelligence and "domains of knowledge" or "information" are synonymous with one another. What follows is a deconstruction of this argument:_
 
-Some arguments can be made to conflate, or at least infer an overlap, between intelligence and IQ. This is a reasonable vector of consideration and it is almost impossible to consider one from the context of a human being without also thinking of the other. Though no semantically complete representation of intelligence or cognition as expressed through human activity has been demonstrated, or even proposed ina  capacity that can be scientifically scrutinized and found to be a viable mode of quantification, it is currently the most agnostic approach we've yet found and, as such, it will be considered in this essage.
+### What is a domain of knowledge?
 
-Capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, application of logic, planning, perceiving, creativity, organizing, critical thinking, resolving, problem solving, ordering.
+A domain of knowledge is the conceptualization of an expanse of information which can be demarcated in such a way as to describe the information contained within. As all known information, as communicated among humans, is necessarily structured for the capacity of humans and human thinking, it follows that the very concept of a domain of knowledge is purely a human one. If it is possible to encapsulate an expanse of information by non-human means, we are limited in that we cannot make such an argument without also conceiving of it within the human frame (though we might be able to do something about that with AI, even if it were nothing more than an approximation to have given us the excuse to produce a specification of some sort. As such, it must be assumed that a domain of knowledge is one which is necessarily delineated by human thinking.
 
-Acknowledging, verifying, naming, remarking, identifying, contextualizing, structuring, the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Intelligentia, from intelligere understand - problem solving ability, spatial manipulation, language skilled use of reason and ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
+The other alluded proposition put forward as a comparable conception is that of information as a whole. In its most complete form, information as a whole must consist of any and all matter which exists physically in the Universe. It might be possible to declare a form of information which is separate from the physical aspects of the Universe, but its communication is bound to physical properties within said Universe. Another aspect of this is that there is no explicative mechanism which illustrates the manner by which human thought is represented physically, except by incompletely understood indication patterns, such as firing of neurons and other similar artifacts of analysis which consider the nervous system, the brain and the mind in any quantifiable form.
 
-Definitions (Intelligence)
-There are two primary contexts for the definition of intelligence which are employed by humans, with one consisting of a set of deifnitions pertaining to the use of knowledge, and the alternative definition focusing on a domain of knowledge or information. We will be fcusing on the former, as the latter would suggest that all computation is intelligence. Though a case can be made that all information is intelligence, that is beyond the scope of our essage and ventures too far into the metaphysical.
+How does it follow that either of these beliefs rae bound to the statement that "All computation is intelligence" ?
+Quite simply, to produce a valence which describes information, in any form, requires, in tandem, and as an essential component (or even as the component in its absolution), that a quantification is being produced. That is to say, the description is in and of itself a form of computation, and without a description, a production of valence, a communication about said information, or even by having a conception of thought which is never communicated from one being to another, there is no evidence that the information in question even exists.
 
-DOMAIN OF KNOWLEDGE/INFORMATION
+Therefore, it is necessary to infer a supposition that a belief of "information" being intelligence is interchangeable with the supposition that all computation is intelligence.
 
-In the previous paragraph it is alleged that in order to posit that intelligence and domains of knowledge or information are synonymous with one another. What follows ia  deconstruction of this argument.
+### Intelligence
 
-What exactly is a domain of knowledge? A domain of knowledge is the conception of encapsulating an expanse of information through arbitrary demarcation. As all known information, as communicated amongst humans, is necessarily structured by a human capacity, it follows that the very concept of a domain of knowledge is purely human one. If it is possible to encapsulate an expanse of information by non-human means, we are limited in that we cannot make such an argument without also conceiving of it wihtin the human frame. As such, it must be assumed that a domain of knowledge is one which is necessarily delineated by human thinking.
+Though there are semantic variations for the definition of intelligence, their underlying similarities allow us to genericize our approach to evaluating whether or not the toolsets utilized within the realm of AI are a cause for the genuine manifestation of intelligence.
 
-The other alluded proposition put forward as comparable conception is taht of information as awhole. In its most complete orm, information as awhole must consiste of any and all matter which exists physically int he Universe. It might be possible to declare a form of information which is separate from the phsyical aspects of the Universe, but its communication is bound to physical properties within said Universe. ANother aspect of this is that there is no explicative mechanism which illustrates the manner by which human thought is represented physically, except by incompletely understood indication patterns, such as firing of neurons or other similar artifacts of analysis which consider the nervous system, the brain and the mind in any quantifiable form.
+Let us explore some of these definitions and then proceed through the methodology of factory of analysis in order to remove unnecessary components.

consciousness/Ways_Of_Being.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+# Ways of Being
+
+## Bio Circuit
+Towards, away
+Forward, backward
+Ascend, descend
+Growth level of observation: up/down
+
+## Inwards vs outwards
+Inside, outside
+Things, ideas
+Change self vs change world
+
+## Linear vs Lateral
+Stay on path vs Change course / activity
+Same, Change
+Loyal, Promiscuous
+
+## Conventional vs Diagonal
+Through expected means vs Surprise / high risk /dynamic
+Perceptible vs imperceptible
+Visible vs Invisible
+Predictable vs Unpredictable
+
+## Focal vs Peripheral
+Self vs Environment
+Preparing vs Executing
+
+## Static vs Cyclical
+Stagnant vs Refreshing
+Stuck vs Free
+Stubborn vs Open

learning/Grid Cells.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+## Grid Cells and Columns
+
+Each grid cell bears great similarity, but is able to handle analysis of input at different levels of abstraction -> about the same phenomenon
+
+### Requirement:
+
+Are we able to model the:
+1. Manner in which an object is abstracted;
+2. How this could be achieved with / using representations of firing patterns of like-units;
+3. Is this a mechanism to track the level of abstraction, or;
+4. is this achieved from the patterns themselves?;
+5. Could, perhaps, all of the cells also perform the same specialized functions?
+

learning/Interoperable_Faculties.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+## Interoperable Faculties
+
+The influence of one's mastery in one domain towards one's mastery of anothe.
+
+How does one assess this, quantify this, etc?
+
+If one were to break down a mature, cohesive and well-integrated talent stack, could noe find talents for which mastery is redundant?
+
+### Potential faculties:
+
+1. Musician
+2. Composer
+3. Strength athlete
+4. Programmer
+5. Engineer
+6. Mentor
+7. Nutritionist
+8. Holistic health / wellness
+9. Disease consultant
+10. Teacher
+
+

learning/Object_Recognition_and_ideology.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+## Recognizing patterns in the visual cortex
+
+If we abstract mechanisms for object recognition and conceptualization, can we formulate an instantiation of these mechanisms whose tracked analysis could be used to reveal truths or propositions about one's influence by ideology?

learning/Thousand_Brain_thoughts.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+### Learning Mindset
+
+If the 1000 Brains theory is correct, then it supports the notion that most people can learn most things, and that our inability to learn, especially when accompanied by a belief that we won't be able to learn, is largel a belief problem, and not a genetic one.
+
+Important to reinforce this as it provides fuel to persevere in the moments where one might lose their focus. These points are crucial as they can frequently occur when operating in the growth ranges of difficulty. Those events involving an activity performed within the growth range of difficulty are the precise moments where, if we force ourselves to maintain focus and adherence, we develop what we perceive as innate, second-order skill and ability. Domain-specfic abstraction and so forth.

learning/multi_domain_schedule-productivity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+Enumerate domains
+
+
+Enumerate areas per domain
+
+Task {}
+
+Category {
+  Tasks {
+    Type {}
+  }
+}
+
+Domain {
+  Categories {
+    Category {
+      Music {
+        Task {
+          Type : 'Classical'
+          Name : 'Bach Chromatic Fantasia: Fugue in Dm
+         }
+      }
+    },
+    Category {
+      Development
+    },
+    Category {
+      Research
+    },
+
+  }
+}

new/thousand_brain_questions.md → learning/thousand_brain_questions.md

@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+## Questions
+
 The thousand brain theory might be something on the right track, as it does seem that the experience always has a visual component, and it might be that what we perceive is something which is represented more easily as a visual expression.
 1. Does the 1000 brain theory hold up for all different forms of behaviour analysis? If we were to model firing patterns?
 2. How would it correspond / correlate to the visual model which is being created/manifested in the visual cortex?

mind/Confidence.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+It is interesting how naive the human perspective can be.
+
+How we rapidly conjure confidence for all but the smallest of reasons, and also suddenly find ourselves completely without confidence because of a small change or one unexpected result. We might find ourselves stuck there and then, one day, for no reason other than simply to have stumbled into the circumstance of performing the action one had been avoiding.
+
+One happens upon the most modest of success and suddenly their state oscillates for the better! Oh, how wonderful it is to be confident once more!

mind/Having_Useful_Discussions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+## Discussions
+
+Discussions that could be so useful if only certain pitfalls were avoided. That we could talk about deeper values, methodologies, what actual transactions take place. Instead, it is always the same representation of a walled institutional narrative which proclaims as though it has never spoken before.
+
+These narratives always miss the mark of conducting themselves in the locale of greatest interest, but that could all be forgiven if only it wasn't a shutting down of other inquiry.
+
+In the case of motifs which are perhaps too deeply embedded in the human experience to be considered a mere motif. So that deserves disambiguation:
+
+It's not enough to simply say that an injust event has occurred to one's ancestry. This is a neverending game, no matter where it is played. So, for this reason, we need to examine why and how these particular oursuits are coming into being, the mechanisms, the rationale at a more semantically complete level. We must take the findings of these inquiries and deliberate over the values being prposed. Instead, we get relegated to assuming that people's experiences are different on the basis of an arbitrary characteristic, while also pretending experiences to be equal in other circumstances. Relegating us, inevitably, into groups which facilitate a move towards what one might call a set of interesting names, all of which bearing notoriety in the disregard for human life => Both by mortal means, and also by coercion. Nevertheless, we are kept from making such distinctions, and instead create unnecessary conflict in bad taste, and with some expense. So, if there is a high resource requirement for proper conduct, and a high risk of insufficient conduct, then it becomes an irrational pursuit. The proposition is so distasteful that even describing it seems lke an undesirable and irrational endeavour. How to rectify this? Is this to be rectified?
+What for?

new/human_dignity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+We treat humans with dignity, respect and a demeanor which assumes that they are valuable expressions of humanity.
+We do this not because a human is similar enough to oneself
+and not because the human is sufficiently more intelligent compared to other biological forms
+but because a human is capable of reasoning
+exit

new/observational_complexity.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+discussions about the mode of being
+whether or not there is a difference between people who are acting good vs evil
+a rough generalization, i know
+but this extends from a discussion about collectivist thinking
+where we observe collective behaviour from persons who join in dehumanizing others
+in calling for the death
+or celebrating the suffering of someone
+beyond mere schadenfraude, but to actually hate on the person's life and wish for them to incur physical discomfort threatening their ability to retain health
+their ability to remain alive
+their ability to continue breathing
+how do we resolve this? how do we begin to understand what can not only cause a person to wish for the pain and suffering from another
+but for this to manifest as a collective phenomenon
+first it does seem that there is something to be said for the manner in which one initiates collectivist thinking
+as a being, existing in a field of possibility
+with observable objects
+traversible dimensions
+a constantly moving dimension for whic hhtere is no ability to affect it
+and a means of transport/transformation (of energy/information/matter etc)
+as one exists in such a reality, there is one thing which is constant in the perceptual frame
+and that is perception itself
+the field of perception is not only available to be observed
+but in all conscious moments, it is being perceived and this cannot be discontinued
+in the case of the biological organisms that we understand
+which are like us
+these organisms perceive along the lines of senses, and one which we associate as being a universal pinnacle of perception is the visual perception
+as this occurs through the organs weknow as eyes, we come to be familiar with acuity and focus
+and that this is something which can be done explicitly
+but when it is not done explicitly, the perception is still occurring
+but it might be out of focus, or it mgith be uch taht the point of focus is in freefall, evershifting, never settling for long enough such that the organism can be resolvingly aware of a particular focal point
+the more things there are to observe, the more difficult it becomes to make a determination as to what should be observed
+so there can be different modalities in terms of how this is being consolidated
+it can be facilitated, such that the faculty of focus is being pursued, and that makes for a specific goal which can be met, within reason, by a standard
+such as the belief that a particular focal point is being observed to a sufficient degree of clarity and acuity
+that it can be understood as having been analyzed
+and that the appearance of that focal point, or the object which is associated with it, is more predictable than it was before
+if there are too many unknowns in the system
+the experience's perception could be said to be moving along the lines of a scale in terms of how much is explicit observation
+and how much is chaotic
+that there can be an impetus against committing to make a focused observation, one could say that the being's faculty of perception is moved towards a greatear degree of free-call
+free-fall
+as this occurs, it becomes more imperative for the organism to seek changes which will reduce the complexity of the perceptual frame, and allow for the being to make a choice about action and focus which is less edxpensive to make, at a cost of being less able to perceive the unexpected
+exit

new/quantifying_events.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+here we go let's have a conversation
+let's just try to have a stream of words liek we used to 
+t try and get a flow of thoughts and ideas
+and a method by which to translate one's feelings and ideas into words
+something which should be seamless and done at the speed of thought
+the thoughts themselves could be fully specified and elaborate concepts that can be communicated human to human
+fully fleshed out forms, and not just feelings that are attached to words or symbols
+whic his what it mostly seems to be before the work is done to give it structure, relevance and a manner of being conceived of by others
+this is the first time I've tried to do this in some time
+and I can already feel that the keyboard is giving me a lot of resistance
+that I'll need to work harder than I remembered in order to get the words down
+but they're startin fto come
+and i feel that the resistance of a mechanical keyboard is very beneficial in that it forces me to be deliberate with my typing and my thoughts
+it gives me a reason to use and apply a bit of force, more ethan i'd normally with flimsy keyboards, or even with decent laptop keyboards, which offer very little resistance in comparison
+#resist, motherfucker
+it's crazy to see people get attacked for holding a different political belief
+ins ome cases, it's not supposed to be a political belief, in that it might be an instance where there is a conflict over the use of a mask
+and the mask, which should be employed for health reasons, is not being evaluated on whether or not its use is necessary or whether the absence of its use is contributino a significant health risk
+but is instead being evaluated in terms of a team assignment
+seeing what the dividing line is
+and who is on each side of it
+we wnat to know that all of your other ideals are congruent to mine
+and by wearing the mask, or not wearing it, I can see what all of those are
+it's really difficult to move past this stupid scenario where we no longer have an expectation of one another to use facts, logic and reason
+but instead want to see some sort of signalling beforehand before we can get down to business and actually work out the diffeernces
+etch out the details
+figure out what drives what and where things are going
+instead we are groveling over group membership and virtu esignalling
+it's awful
+we need to go back down to basics again
+and talk about the modes of being
+the states of being
+the manner in which we approach the world
+the expectation that we have about it
+how that influences the type of emotion being created
+and how the interaction, the action of existing and whatever that entails, has an emotive signature
+and how that emotive signature might be quantified
+and the extent to which that signature creates a shockwave or the absolute manner in which it is interacting with the universe
+how does it affect other things
+can we quantify it
+why can't we
+will quantum mechanics give us the tools to theorize about quantifying those sets of interactions
+can we use quantum computing to help us with this problem
+how does the mode of being dictate the types of political opinions we harbour
+what dfo we know about the manner in which humans meet challenges
+and how they prepare themselves for distant, larger challenges
+and how this affects the mode of being that we operate in
+and how that affects hte community semantics we value and associate ourselves with
+exit