# Writing Experiment

## Declaration
Here is an exercise in writing 2 pages for revising afterwards.

## Introduction
At the moment there are too many thoughts, so it's a good time to sit down and sort through them.

## Issues

### Work
First of all, there's the issue of having meaningful work, where I'm partially convinced that I've demonstrated enough effort in my current position but have come to a point where it will require an unreasonable amount of resources and intention in order to make the endeavour worthwhile. As such, I am doing my best to fulfill my obligations while also developing myself in other areas which are more relevant to the future and the tasks which I'll need to be performing.

### Tech
For example, I must master embedded frameworks and gain a better understanding of electronics, robotics and mechanical engineering (possibly other forms of engineering as well) so that I can create the types of machines and systems of technological solutions which will be most useful and allow for the best type of life in the shortest period of time.

### Music
Furthermore, I must compose music and create a recording of it as I believe there are ways of thinking which are advantageous to living and being in the Universe, and the prototype for this way of thinking might be found in some of the compositional and harmonic devices which I've come to rely upon in my approach to harmony. These approaches, though used for the better part of my life-long venture of musicianship in improvisation, will be better specified and more elucidated in composition. I have already begun to undertake this more rigorously for a few months now, but it will take more focus in order to get past some of the current sticking points.

What sticking points, might you ask?
Well, for starters, there's a critical requirement for practicing and deeply inculcating some of the musical constructs which I've created. Partially because the constructions themselves were sought out as part of a research into my style of harmonic production and negotiation, but also because the physical demands are rather high since the structures of harmony were devised in a somewhat instrumentally agnostic fashion. That is to say, though I am using an instrument to explore harmony, my ears get the better part of me, and my mind knows that it's best to not be limited to the physical assemblage of the instrument.

The other sticking points have more to do with some of the psychological complexity of thinking about the deep meaning which I ascribe to the compositions, both as awhole, and as integrated to various sections or passages of some of the pieces themselves.

For example, let's look at one of them: Political Interference

Sections:
- Intro: Business as usual, but building up to something which doesn't sound right
- Secret Agent: an event takes place, we presume to understand it and ascribe blame. In the end, it seems we may all have been fooled
- Reflection: a moment to consider what actually happened, and what it might mean
- Realization: A moment of clarity as history can be viewed with a clear insight and understanding
- Tension: This new knowledge brings dread and anxiety
- Humour: We jest at the absurdity of it all
- War: Hell to pay
- Reflection
- Realization (end)

### Intelligence
Also there is a need to better understand the nature of intelligence, intelligent patterns, and reason, and whether or not human beings and human perspective are requisite to such conceptualizations.

My first assumption is to claim to believe that intelligence and intelligent patterns are only recognizable because of a human understanding of the world.

What is a human understanding of the world?
One which takes into consideration the human form, and the experential minutiae which emerge from the movement of that form through space and time, coupled with the cognition of mortality.

There is much which the human experience has in common with the experience of other phenomenae of the Universe, but there are pecularities exclusive to the human experience which one might argue as being necessary for the recognition of what we deem to be intelligent.

Here are some of the popular definitions of I (Intelligence) and IB (Intelligent Behaviour):

1. Dictionary: The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
2. Dictionary: The collection of information of value
3. Dictionary: The ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria.
4. Wikipedia: The capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving.
5. IB Dict: Behaviour having consequences that are judged to be intelligent. The consequences of behaviour are due both to the behaviour itself and the environment that it influences. When these are judged in relation to some criteria of intelligence, both the behaviour and its appropriateness in the environment in which it is observed should be taken into account. Various criteria for judging behaviour in terms of intelligence have been used. Normally, the criteria relate to what we think about human intelligence.
6. IB Paper (language): Human summarization involves two related behaviours: a) representing which includes such behaviours as observing, memorizing, writing and reading and b) understanding, which includes such behaviours as linking a new representation to the existing representations, reasoning on the semantic link networks of representations, and the interpretation of of representations according to semantic links and rules.

In critiquing the applicability of scientific definitions for intelligence insofar as we are able to use intelligence to describe the behaviour of various animals, it is posited that there are limitations for describing intelligence because a) it is unfair to compare different animals using different tests and b) it is unfair to compare all animals with the same test. Though this may very well be true, the same could be argued as being true when testing humans. There are no two humans who are 100% identical, and certain humans can, either in a temporal instant, or throughout an entire lifetime, enjoy advantages on some tests over others, thus it can be at least suggested that no two humans can be fairly tested with the same test, nor can two humans be fairly tested using each a different type of test. This suggests an invalidation of the notion that applying a human standard of intelligence is not appropriate for evaluating the intelligence of non-human animals. Furthermore, it is never posited that there exists a standard for intelligence which applies to non-humans but does not apply to a human. For example, the feeding practices of an otter might bear certain aspects which are not familiar to a human, but the most important aspects are all too familiar (mastication and ingestion of material for the purpose of material transcription and energy production), thus the only difference in terms of the application of evaluation of intelligence of the feeding behaviour of an otter vs the feeding behaviour of a human is the fact that we humans are able to confer about it.