logicp_writings/new/floating_thoughts.md

Transhumanism

Structure vs Behaviour

There is an understanding that constructs can be not just delineated from one another, but differentiated based on their structure. It might be said that they are differentiated based on their behaviour, but that begs the question of whether identical behaviour can be produced by disparate structures.

Certainly, disparate behaviour can be produced by seemingly identical structure. But how would we come to evaluate whether the behaviour produced was disparate due to reasons laying beyond the structure? Could the disparity of behaviour come from the slight nuance of difference between two otherwise similar structures? Would disparate behaviour be evidence of disparate structure?

Human Observation of Behaviour

When we recognize that a form provides a particular function, such as the parameters by which a bridge is constructed, we see that the function becomes fulfilled in tandem with the degree to which parameters have bene valenced and utilized appropriately. But, for such a case where seemingly identical structures produce disparate outcomes, what does a human mind conceive?

I posit that the human's representation of the object in question, be it a perfectly reproduced depiction of the physical object to which it relates, or some form of arbitrary abstraction whose material connection is less obvious, will be different. That is, the representations of two otherwise identical objects, but producing different behaviours, will be as two different objects.

Even if they appear, aesthetically, and to whatever degree is possible for them to be represented, the representations of them will be produced in the mind that will be more disparate from one another than they would have been had the behaviours produced by them been more identical. In fact, if the structures are different but produce nearly the same behaviour, the conceptions of them in the human mind will be far more similar.

This suggests an expectation that the understanding of the structure and that form affects function is universal and implicit. It is embedded in our understanding of the world and embedded in the nervous system such as to prime an organism to be prepared to pick up otherwise unobservable phenomena, that is, the aact of it being easy to observe means that aspects of it and its detection are embedded in our nervous system.

Had the behaviour not been presented, there would have been nothing to observe. As well as with the case of disparate structures And if no disparate behaviour is produce, it's likely that structural disparity remains unnoticed, and if the aesthetic of the objects is such that they remain observably identical, even in the case of producing different behaviour by virtue of, for example, beginning with structures that are almost identical and them incurring transformations which do not cause observable alteration of the form - in such a case, it could be understandable that, without the action being presented, the forms might be thought to be identical. But it's only if there i disparty of behaviour that the mind produces the option that there might be a disparity of structure.

So, the question arises: Does disparity of structure produce disparity of behaviour ( as a rule )? Or are the different behaviours purely born of the preceding behaviours such that culminate in a disparity of behaviour?

Break the Spell

Is it really a never-ending cycle? Is it a continuous process with us right now? Is it here for us to work out a problem? Unfortunately, the spell causes us to deny objective truth. How do we get people to understand that that's what we're fighting against?

Objectivity is something unattainable? Obviously, it needs to be attainable or we'd never have shared observations of anything that functions ever.

Marcuse

Marcuse claims that we don't understand what justice is, therefore we can't evaluate what would be just from our current perception. As such, the idea of being concerned about what ends justify what means is moot, because we can't possibly understand whether or not the means were shameful or ingenius, if they are to be scorned or welcomed. It requires us to imagine entirely that reality is not within the grasp of perception.

If a freedom-lover were already making tha case, based on an understanding that our experience of reality hides aspects of reality through moral thinking, then it's likely that such a thing always remains, or that to invest in a mortal way of thought that would only make it worse.

So, isn't that what's being pursued here? That we're taking away the immediacy of the human experience and replacing it with a conception of experience which doesn't represent any actual instance of perceptual frame. Just a caricature of experience which we posit is bound to flesh and form. That the material constructs have preferred experience that we can infer based on our own mortal thinking of these physical characteristics and that somehow we can conceive of it, in the abstract, and as low resolution as is necessary to doubt anyone's ability to infer what our conception might be, thus giving us plausible deniability to go onward forever with whatever dream and suggestion that we might have. Without having to qualify our position and without having to explain ourselves in the face of criticism which one would otherwise be subjected to. No, we can avoid all of that, and pretend that justice is only through listening to us and ignoring every contradictory voice. But, there is no justice when we completely remove the only form of justice that could ever exist:

• The perceptual frame, and one another's pain as derived from it.

Why remove the few real things that we can all agree on?

To pursue power? To identify power that exists and then claim that the world is unjust because the power lays beyond your grasp? That's evil

Still Trans

We're still engaged in the defense over the trans issues, because they're likely the most important issues of our time, and arguably in the history of humanity. One would say: "Well, there have been other events that were much more profound because more people were killed or more deaths were caused. Or they involved the transformation of society in ways that are so dramatic in the sense that some dimension of human activity was increased by a factor that ahs otherwise never been matched. And that these sorts of transformations and heuristics are of such a magnitudinous nature that it's absurd to claim that some other event, which has almost no important heuristics to report, could somehow be a more significant human event or issue, and that makes a lot of sense at the surface because it's really easy to understand the loss of a life, as we assume to have only one of our own which, when it once it becomes finished, so are you and all your experiences. We measure the intensity of such on the basis of the likelihood of dying as afunction of indiscrminate probability. Indistriminate in the sense that we can always quanlify means by which we ourselves are excluded from a certain evaluation due to a factor which we believe is unique to us, but in th case of making a rough analysis without any investment in dealing with the complexity of increased biasing of outcomes, we look towards the overall probability in a non-discriminant context. It's a good general default to use to understand the overall likelihood of something - especially so that the interferences are repeatable to a greater number of people. Almost anyone who is, by definition, a human being, will have interest in that route.

Covidist

If you are a Covidist, you see the COVID period as being a necessary escalation and acceleration of humanity and society towrads our destiny a journey towards future man. The thing is that for a COVIDIST, we've been living incomplete for all too long