Note: reposting for emphasis is preserved with redundant entries in the contents list below

The contents themselves are part of the ThoughtStream. Ideas recorded are dated and if there is not a link it is self-sufficient to communicate an idea, but there is an expectation of elaboration if time permits. Anything linked in the contents has an elaboration, or antedates this strategy. This strategy began on Friday, November 24th, 2023, at the time of the first unlinked entry. Since ideas are recorded as contents items, the dates often pre-date the actual elaborations. Some items that are left without links were either thought to be adequate as recordings of ideas, or simply haven’t been revisited yet. Thoughts and ideas always include some plans to write. There is some intention associated with the thoughts for use later. Ideas recorded that are not again revisited still included an intention for revisitation, either to self-remind the thought, self-remind that the thought could be developed, or to self-remind and provide a starting point for developments one really wants to make. Sometimes the recording of the thought is good enough and the revisitation is not wanted later. The contents list, then, is a combination of ideation records and planning records. If a contents item does not have a link, and has not been subsequently developed, it was good on its own as a record of ideas and plans. In this way having a contents that appears “incomplete” considering traditional usage of contents for cross referencing, is really a more complete development of the concept of contents. Perhaps it is a misnomer. A living contents list like this one is a list and log of its own that has its own independent function apart from location of more developed ideas. It has its own developmental interest.


Author: Dr.9 Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh, Retired

Interdisciplinarian with Immeasurable Intelligence. Lifetime Member of the High Intelligence Community.6

Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems

Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists International.



Edit History

Often edited in the addition of new ThoughtStreams, but all prior ThoughtStreams are permenantly uneditable, in intention but not necessarily in data security or data immunity from tampering. See Editing.


The thoughstream is thoughts as they occur in a living autobiography, with freedom of expression.

The ThoughtStream, from its inception, was intended to be an outlet for writing and publishing thoughts of interest as they occurred. Only being able to write and speak thoughts, and not have thoughts appear directly in a typed or written format, one can only quickly write thoughts as they come to mind. A stream of consciousness into writing is not currently possible, and is perhaps not desirable. With my typing skills, I am able to somewhat stream from my thinking though my fingers directly into type without much alteration, and in fact, I resist editing and alteration. Many postings will be found that have small blemishes which I would like to preserve.

This work is well-known in the High Intelligence Community. Thoughts from this page were shared with millions of views. Postings here have been read thousands of times in the High Intelligence Community globally.

If there were a method of streaming thoughts directly into type, I might choose to use that in addition to, but probably not as a substitute for typing. There is a deliberateness in typing, that allows for writing what one would like to say, in a way that is somewhat consistent with how one would like to think; whereas, thinking would have more non-deliberate inclusions which may be blemishes from not writing. Thinking to oneself in a dictation mode may overcome this, but then the same issue exists when one is not in “dictation mode”. Ways of thinking between these deliberate ways of communicating would have blemishes that might confuse, and arguably would only be wanted for evidence about how people really think. I’m not opposed to sharing how my brain functions real-time, and I would be fine with sharing how my thinking is at all moments; but I would also want to be able to separate out deliberate thinking and be clear with the reader what my more committal thoughts are.

The current ThoughtStream is now intended to not only be an outlet for my thoughts in a stream of consciousness sort of way, in which I allow blemishes and freedom of expression, even for things which might be provocative from myself that I don’t really agree with or wouldn’t commit to completely, but a page intended to be my “thinking shares,” as part of my Living Autobiography.

A living autobiography would consist of your thoughts as you live, if it were totally complete. If artefacts from a persons life were used by that person to create an autobiography, it would include writings and photos, which would be laid on a timeline, to show a series of one’s thoughts shown in communications and recordings. Even images are, in a way, part of the thoughts that happened along the way in one’s life. If it were entirely complete, it may be what people mistakenly but wishfully attribute to themselves in an ability to see one’s whole life, even reliving it in one’s last moments (In a flash, some will say, of course inexactly and erroneously). This is what I’m intending to use this page for, to develop my Living Autobiography, at least as it relates to written thoughts I’m wanting to share, since the creation of the page, and onwards until I die.

The Living Autobiography in which these thinking shares are included, contain other categories of shares which also provide written material, videos, images, and so forth, and of course, the entire site is part of this living autobiography. The other pages which relate are in the contents under “living autobiography”, and are:

The ThoughtStream is now approaching 700 postings of good length, and includes over 237,104 words, which is approximately 1000 pages of manuscript. This includes some minimal page structure and content, and was calculated with unix wordcount (wc -w), on Sunday, November 5th, 2023.

Posts from this page were shared with millions of views. Postings here have been read thousands of times in the High Intelligence Community globally.

It will never be changed or edited.

– Mattanaw

Marketing Revolutions Before They Exist, and Equality

Wednesday, June 12, 2024 11:38:04, Tempe, Arizona

It may seem a strange concept that something such as a revolution would receive marketing, but anything that requires promotion in advance of the realization of it as an objective requires promotion. Revolutions get promoted, Civil Rights Movements get promoted, and perspectives like Equalitarianism get promoted too. An issue exists as to the reasonability of the marketing effort as it relates to what is promoted. What if the marketing and promotion includes false information. What if it is manipulative propaganda intended to sway people or encourage action without their rational decision making? What if the result of the marketing and propaganda is loss of life and murder, as might be the case with social propaganda encouraging warfare or revolutionary actions. What if the promotion is for some alternative vision of the future that seems like it would be better, but few are willing to act without manipulation?

Some people like to promote certain plans as “revolutionary” without their actually being revolutionary, utilizing the metaphor to explain that the plan would have effects that are akin to very largescale change. Someone who has an interesting new idea may quickly think to themselves, in some excitement, that the changes that would result from enacting the idea would be large enough to call the idea revolutionary. Simple things have been called revolutionary without it necessarily being known that calling it such is merely for illustrative effect. Some have called books revolutionary, disease treatments revolutionary, dietary plans revolutionary, and so on. For most things that are exaggerated in this way is there often or ever a result that would indicate that the terminology used was justifiable. These things simply do not turn out to be revolutions in any meaningful way.

For example, some may have stated that the “Atkins Diet” was a revolutionary diet. After some time, it becomes clear that there is nothing revolutionary about it, the marketing was simply using a metaphor that was excessive, and there was no outcome in the future that would establish that such a diet even could create a change that might be more honestly considered revolutionary.

But even before an actual revolution is to take place, there must be calls for revolution. There must be a level of organization that is large enough to actually have a revolution take place, otherwise there could be no revolutions. Revolutions could not ever happen without sizeable groups willing to fight. For those revolutionary groups to have existed, there were recruitment efforts. These efforts used persuasion which certainly used marketing techniques that are manipulative, even if there are some true aspects. People are encouraged to believe that there is a revolution happening even in advance of any actual revolution, and if revolution were had, the violence might cause some to recoil and think they prefer the prior state of simply lying that there is a revolution occurring. The actual revolution may not happen later after all the time spent persuading others to believe that it would happen or was happening, and probably the quantity of revolutionary groups that have existed were much larger than the number of revolutions that have happened historically. There must be secretive groups, factions, clubs and small militias in a large number of countries that do not anticipate really having any warfare or revolutionary change, yet they probably tout themselves as being revolutionary. Otherwise the draw and the interest would be too low. So it is very likely that many clubs exist that simply pretend to be revolutionary in order to achieve some feeling of personal importance.

These ideas concerning revolutions are really just analogies I’d like to utilize in explaining the situation with the equalitarian movement. Equality, like revolution, is something that does not exist until it exists; in advance, it is metaphorical, illustrative, or visionary. People who are in clubs that think themselves revolutionary, or advocates of equality, eventually may come to think that they have achieved their objectives already. Along the way, the marketing and propoganda, and self-elevation results in a belief that one has had successes one has not had. One becomes deluded by one’s persistent messaging. Marketing affects those marketed to, but also those who themselves who simply keep repeating the message. Equalitarianism has had to proceed like revolutionary movements by at the outset thinking that what was being advocated was possible, desirable, and had some existence already. For example, if one was historically advocating on behalf of women to gain voting rights within the equalitarian movement, then one might already claim that both women and men really do have an equality that exists, which is a justification for more equitable treatment and more balanced welfare, employment and rights between sexes. The advocates of such a movement then proclaim that men and women are equal and also that they deserve equal treatment, and that their vision of equality therefore has an existing reality and also a visionary pathway to greater realization. Propaganda, marketing, advertising, and messaging are used to spread the word that equality is real and that equality is the pathway to greater justice. It may be claimed that such changes are revolutionary. After some time and many have joined the movement as they did for women’s suffrage, small victories are had and those involved then think to themselves they have achieved what they have set out to achieve, and perhaps for those who were realistic they did. Others will think, seeing the change and the victories, that the wins were more pervasive than they really were. Equality suddenly was won for women. Interest wanes regarding the movement if there is a feeling that the objectives were already achieved and the equalitarian movement takes interests in new goals, perhaps to support the reduction of racism, xenophobia, and the promotion of sexual rights. While this change of attention occurs, the women are forgotten largely. There is no reanalysis that takes place that is very clear in view, although some would be working on such evaluations. Have women really become equal? Were they equal to begin with? Why aren’t some things about their equality not represented in employment, power, and politics? Why are women not attended to with as much respect or admiration? Why are males so seldom emulating women? Why do both seem to care more about what men of power do, excepting interest in young women within entertainment, mainly for looks and personality? Comparing the actual state of affairs with the earlier marketing and propaganda it would be seen that there is a very huge gulf between reality and what was being used to persuasively communicate. It becomes more obvious that the changes made resulting from the movement were small, and were not revolutionary even if the changes required major changes of mindset. Equality had not existed, and equality within the culture not won. Well over a hundred years after making voting possible for women, there is a very strong feeling that equality has not been created in treatment between men and women, and it is not well understood what should be different in their treatment. This means we have not accounted for what is not equal naturally between women that would and should amount to different ways of life between men and women. We have not understood it effectively enough to plan for what should be similar, that is, what would actually become more equal within society for both sexes. Furthermore, since the gulf is so large in treatment, it has to be acknowledged that the advances are unknown regarding how much closer to equality the world has become regarding men and women, but also, that the plan doesn’t seem to have provided a level of develompent result. Where in development are we with regard to equality of the sexes? Where are the points of advancement?

Like the revolutions that never actually take place, equality has not taken place. It has been marketed again and again and utilized for some positive societal advancements, but there has not been any result that one could point out and consider to be actual equality. In fact, those who think they were victorious in their movements and those who inherit changes, actually come to think that there are equalities where there are none. Some really do say that they believe that the various races in the United States for example, already are equal. That all has already been accomplished. This perspective is then used to thwart attempts made by those who are aware of inequalities to improve situations. Instead of getting support from these people, they are told it is equal already.

From Thought Into Code and Writing, Language Agnosticism, and Linguistic Diversity

Tuesday, June 04, 2024 15:24:48, Tempe, Arizona

For quite a long time there have been disputes over which language might be best, and which programming language might be superior over the others. I have taken the position that mostly the differences in programming languages relate to specific features that have been added, that are laregely extranneous given core features that are common to all programming languages. When one first learns computer science, one learns about fundamental programming structures that relate to programmatic completeness. There is a concept introduced in computer science called “pseudocode” which is like a programming without knowing how it will be written with a specific language yet. It is known that if the pseudocode is implemented in a programming language, that it will work. The pseudocode uses the fundamental constructs of programming that are common to the various languages and so it is known already that the languages can perform the tasks in the pseudocode.

“Pseudocode” isn’t the very best word choice. It was used to distinguish it from actual code that would work, that is code-like but isn’t quite “real code”. Another more abstract term is desirable for this, and it can be related to a way of thinking about mathematics, in the world of algorithms. But more abstractly, it relates to natural language. The same discussion can be had about natural language in the determination of which is best. It might be said that if a language has specific features in place that allow for completeness of communication, then that language is already adequate. It is already known that some languages that have or do exist have certain indaequacies. It is also known that mature languages can be readily translated to one another. In logic there was the idea that “propositions” expressed at a higher level what has truth values that would want to be shared in any mature language, but that they are somewhat separate from the language in abstractness. This makes sense because if one knows of a truth, then one might seek to say it in a number of ways, and if ill expressed, one will try to find the way of expressing that is more accurate. If one is highly accurate and logical then one has arrived at something that was intended to be a proposition. The core features of a language that allow for description, logic, use of propositions and whatever else is required to be adequate, are arguably present in each of the mature languages. When one translates what has been well written in Chinese, it can be translated to Arabic, and as long as it is sufficiently defined, is accurate in description, is logical, and so on, it will be expressing propositions that everyone who speaks both languages will understand. The translation into any language then is possible so long as it has these features. There are issues with translations but we know that translation does result in successful communication. Functionally then, using the core features of the languages according to this idea of proposition and other features is like using the pseudocode and core features of programming it works to deploy thinking into a range of languages. If one is a master of pseudocode and clear logical thinking and descrption with accuracy, then one is less concerned about the language that performs the functions.

If someone speaks many languages extremely well (which is a rarity), then one might want to be selective about what language to write in to communicate some sophisticated thinking. Do I write this in English, French or Japanese? There would be quibbles with others on this topic of selection, and self-debate as to the appropriateness of one or the other. If the audience does not matter, and the function performed is communication, then functionally it doesn’t appear to matter which is chosen, if as I said, the description and logical properties exist in the thinking, and it is well implemented in the language. One might think: “Well of course the audience matters–if you chose Japanese then so many people wouldn’t understand”. Since in-principle it is still translatable, then in principle a translation tool that works well would simply output the writing of the selected language into any other language. In that way the selection is still about the key core features of the languages and their readiness to convey the information. The person who speaks many languages who is in this scenario could then simply choose whichever they like the most, or which they are most adept at using. Or they could choose arbitrarily or with other parts of communication that are of lesser importance in mind. These lesser important features of a language are like the lesser important features of programming languages that only they have that are outside of the core constructs.

Instead of merely arguing this point, I have in my career as a technologist, consultant, and software architect, designed and planned around this idea. If one knows that the functionality can be completed in a software project with the core structures and pseudocode, one has consummate confidence about the ability to realize that software. Others don’t have this if they are conflicted about which languages do what. Instead, one merely knows they can do it already. This mindset permits of flexibility about how it is implemented in specific languages, and is more mindful of the realities of team constitutions and business investments. This particular business uses C++ programming, and Python. In that case that is how the work will be performed unless there are other investments that give rise to needing to use other languages. The team can do the work easily, and it is known that whatever they write will be good. It will actually be able to record from the thinking about what needs to be done using those key logical ingredients to have functioning software of good quality. It oftentimes would be simpler, because there is less thinking outside what is fundamental. Furthermore, that work would be portable to other languages. It could be reimplemented again and again using other techniques. The maturity of the guidance is much greater and flexible and can adapt to new and existing conditions.

Some who really love specific coding languages or natural languages will still cling to their favorites and think that what they are doing happens to be the best approach. But notice a more sophsiticated and mature approach is one that is knowledgeable about all languages abstractly, and admits what is common between them that does the same work. If one is a linguist, one will then be much more appreciative and less xenophobic, about languages that are different, and would be good at planning diplomatically because they are realistic and flexible. A software technologist in an elevated position will also exercise better judgement being aware of what all the languages offer and being able to consider unfamiliar alternatives. Software programmers and people who speak languages are often not very considerate of alternatives and sometimes form hatred for alternatives.

Today an idea came to me that provides a much better way to explain or potentially prove this point that the core features of languages that make them “complete” ought to be the central focus, over and above details about any specific language. This idea was related primarly to software programming but is generalizable. In software as I said, one can envision how a program works simply thinking about the pseudocode or core programming constructs. The next step after envisioning is writing in a language. Then one has to select what language that would be? Well, instead of doing that, what if one could offload the writing of the program to AI, or else another system that simply chooses what language to write in. What if instead of this, one could magically think and the code appeared in whatever language it happened to appear in and it was well written. Imagine the code all works as envisioned. In that case, if it simply functions as expected, worked well every time, then one would not care as much about how it was written. A point that has to be added for full understanding here is that when one uses a computer many programs are being called from the system that are all written already in other languages. This means one’s computer is already a heterogeneous system that functions well, using programs written in different ways. Some of the languages of these existing programs are languages few write now, and few would choose. Yet they work. These are the programs pre-installed on a computer that are there, that some other applications actually do also use. So you can have a browser, or word processor, or image processor, that has its own code in whatever language it uses, but then calls these other programs. It relies on these programs to function. So these are trusted programs that everyone is using very often and they are often of unknown origin and the source code has been unread. They are in a large variety of languages and one does not care which language. What one is concerned about is the functionality and the result. So if one could think of a program in one’s mind thinking in pseudocode and core langage features, and magically it appeared in any language, then the result of that activity would be software that simply works, and would blend with software already trusted and existing on the machine.

Now imagine one wants to think and build a sophisticated program, and thinks well through the programming abstractly, and each part of the software is written in a different language, but all functions together. The resulting heterogeneous system would be made of different languages, just like a standard computer, and perform all functionality as desired. This would be a proof that the core features were the most important and the language selection more superfluous. Better yet, imagine that as you thought it, it was implemented 1000 times with different language selections, but each functioned well. In that case you’d have 1000 program versions that do the same thing, with minor differences, and each would have used different languages.

In a way it is like if one architecturally planned to build a large building like a pyramid or skyscraper in one’s mind, then communicated what was to be built in French, to a team of architects who told their teams how to build it, but they were told in a range of other languages. Now the team of people who speak all these other languages build the building, but they just did it without your choosing how they speak or how they implement it. Supposing they did it well, the outcome would be the same or similar enough. It is already known that one can choose human teams in various ways to build the plan and if one did it 1000 times with all different teams, and the communication used the core constructs of language, and the plan also used core constructs of planning, then 1000 times you’d have the building recreated.

It seems to me easily proven that this is the case with software given the above, and one will eventually be able to use AI to demonstrate this. AI will be smart enough to language select for optimization differences, but even with AI choosing which language to use for what, it will still choose a range of languages, and the result will be software that equivalently functions.

Now with language there is less I can say regarding how one would think of what to say and then say it in any particular language. I think most master linguists have no language abstraction from which to deploy the same thinking identically in all languages. They simply don’t attain language equivalence in a good enough way to make for an exact analogy to the software. But everyone is familiar with thinking and knowing they could say what they are thinking in a number of ways. They think, and then they form language that seems appropriate. Within the brain there is thinking occuring that allows for expression in a number of ways. Within a single language all experience this. If someone is really good at a language like English, they may care less about how something is specifically stated. Speaking for myself, I think of what I say as being something that could be substituted easily. If I have something to explain or communicate, I feel as though I can easily switch and substitute alternative ways to convey the same information, which means that within myself I feel that there is a functional equivalence occuring in my language selectivity. There are 1000 English paragraphs to explain a single idea or related set of ideas. As I’m thinking I’m aware there is an extralinguistic or protolinguistic happening occurring. What is most important are the ideas that seem less concerned about how expressed. I can express it easily in a range of ways and am not fixated on any particular conveyance. Likewise, if it were well translated into a bunch of paragraphs that were equivalent I may not care too much about which paragraph were used to convey my idea. I am selective with how I talk anyways. My preference is that it comes from me, but if there were a tool that could translate it into other languages too that I couldn’t think of with a large selection of equivalent paragraphs and pages, I would definitely approve of the translation. That is not so different than if I asked people to translate my writing and they did it well, in unexpected ways. They key ingredient was the thinking that generates the language with its core features, with sufficient logic, descriptions, and propositions.

So in the case of software programming and language it appears that what is above it is more important than implementations and quibbling and fighting over which language is used appears to be a much less mature perspective. The guiding roles on both or in combination would be better from a mindset akin to the one I’ve describe above.

A Budgetary Strategy for Living on the Road

Tuesday, June 04, 2024 14:03:25, Tempe, Arizona

In. Homelessness and Wealthy Camping

For those traveling on a budget, or those retired like myself, living on the road can create a daunting challenge of controlling dwindling funds and finding discipline that corresponds to a clear system of expenditure. Depending on how frugal one wants to be, the advise differs. My lifestyle includes an alternation between luxurious living and very great frugality. I have the objective of spending prudently within the domain of what one might call “better living”, and spending almost nothing, strategically, as a hiker/camper/traveler. Here I will focus our attention to the latter subject matter, since it is the more important of the two. It’s important because the solution is usable to everyone whoever they happen to be, and provides a plan, in advance, for managing when resources are low, which is something that might be faced by anyone who retires and suddenly finds their funds are suddenly inadequate to cover costs. This is also concentrated on the traveler who is seeking stimulation and enjoyment from nature. A hiker-camper-adventurer type.

In my analysis of costs faced by anyone who is budgeting, I’ve found that rent is the most significant cost, as most would know. The second greatest cost is food. Here we’ll focus on the most significant cost which is having a place to stay as one travels.

Rent, when one is traveling, if one does not also have rent at home, which is desirable to remove, consists of hotel stays, staying with friends, online room rentals, hosteling, camping at RV parks, camping at camp sites, camping in a vehicle like a car or RV, camping on or near a trail, or camping in the back country. There are also other arrangements that can be made along the way, like if one happens to discover a room for rent from a trustworthy person, or if someone invites you into their home. I’ve done all of the above, but have some strong personal preferences, since I mostly enjoy solitude, very little chance for accidental conflict, unexpected and unjustified attacks from others, and free places to stay. If it could always be free, private, well positioned geographically, and safe, I would choose it to be that way every time.

Since those are my preferences, hotel stays are useful, because the process is fuss-free and one gets a room of one’s own. When I am not aiming at luxuriant living, and am focusing on frugality, I prefer overall value. Typically low cost hotels and motels often plenty of value, so I’ll choose these. It is extremely infrequent that a chosen hotel will not have nearly identical characteristics to other hotels. What they include is more than sufficient. But I will not choose to stay in these hotels everyday. Living on the road entails 365 days a year having to pay for sleep, and staying in hotels 365 days a year for me, nowadays, as a retiree, is not an option. So I’ll strategically choose to stay in hotels only after having had a number of days of camping, or at the beginning or end of a trip, to ease the beginning and ending. If one stays at a hotel that costs less than $100 USD per night every seven nights, one gets a bit of a vacation for each hotel visit, while keeping budgeting costs relatively close to what normal inexpensive rent would be. Four times a month, one has only spent $400. Emergency stays or stays due to indecision are also allowable, but minimized. This increases costs, but then one can camp longer to adjust the total spending.

For the remainder one can camp, but camping actually requires a good strategy that is not easy to come by initially. The following is my current strategy as I have both planned, partially executed, and still envision. RV Parks and camp sites that have a payment is to be considered a less frequent occurrance like hotel stays. For anything that is more expensive, it is reduced in total frequency. So hotel stays are the least frequent, RV parks which can offer luxuries are more frequent, normal camp sites with a payment are more frequent than RV parks, and any kind of free camping in a vehicle or by tent is the most frequent of all. It’s easy to find hotels and RV parks, as long as they are not booked too late in a day. I should mention that my strategy does not involve advanced bookings. Since I am an experienced traveler and it isn’t difficult for me to find places on the road, I simply make my plans day-by-day. This enables me to choose what I want nearly anytime I want it. RV Parks and Hotels can easily be booked nearly immediately, and there is seldom any outages like completely booked hotels and parks that prevents availability. It can usually be trusted that there would be vacancies.

The greater issue by far is where to camp. There are many issues associated with this and anyone who has had an RV trying to find a safe place to park for the night, or a hiker wanting to find a place to camp that’s allowed would know about this. Here I’m not going to discuss the challenges associated with finding places as a vehicular camper or hiker traveler. Instead I’ll only share the budgetary strategy.

If one has a vehicle as I do right now, well equipped for car camping and touring the country, getting from place to place to camp is fairly easy, as long as one is not immediately in a large urban area. My preference is to drive on roads that are not large highways, and slowly make my way along the countryside for sight seeing. There are long stretches of territory that do not have camping desirability. If one is far from national parks, national forests, state parks and so on, one will have more difficulty finding a place to camp. Part of my budgetary strategy that is consistent with creating more opportunities for enjoying natures, I choose paths that go near or stay near various parks. Historically I have been very averse to camping near others in normal campgrounds, although I’ve done that while young, but more recently I’ve changed mindset since they are inexpensive and are often still in beautiful locations. They are very inexpensive. High side, the cost for camping might be $25 per person. As I drive around, I’ll note signs that point out camping locations, and I’ll go take a look. If nice and available, I’ll keep the location in mind. But that is still pricey and instead I’ll prefer more frequently to stay at a free location. Free locations are harder to find. If one chooses a free location that is not on property that allows for it, one will get visited unexpectedly by police, even if nothing is wrong, since they might just want to see what is happening. This occurred as I was touring the country in an AWD travel van that made just sleeping anywhere really easy and attractive. Now I simply want to avoid any potential interractions with others who might disturb, so I had to find a better strategy for finding free camping locations. Before moving on to the strategy for finding free camping locations, I want to cover where we would be in expenditure for a month. If we spent $400 per month on hotels (4 days per month), and we paid for camping, say, 14 days a month, we would have spent a total of $750 per month. If the remaining 12 or so days were spent only camping for free, our total monthly cost would be $750 per month which is still less than rent. I’d aim to pay for camping less than this, and the amount I’m able to get that free camping simply brings that number down. If one moves around this is harder to achieve, but if one decides to stay in a free camping area of good quality for a longer time, one really could spend nothing every month on camping. My approach, however, since I’m on the move, is to simply have a reasonable budget that is less expensive than rent, that gives amazing adventure opportunities, and includes more diverse living conditions. This enables as I said some alternation of living conditions and if one is spending time in a hotel once a week, and then living in nature the remainder, the overall life satisfaction is very high. All for less than normal rent.

Free camping is easy in only one way I can think of at the moment, and that’s to find a nice National Forest that has few visitors. Large National Forests with few visitors often have a large number of campsites or locations to simply just park without being bothered. The big difference between these areas and parks with paid camping is simply that they don’t request payment, and are flexible about what one is allowed to do. They aren’t strict. These parklands are vast and often have many backroads and few visitors, meaning one can often camp without seeing others. With no costs and few visitors, these are my most favored locations given my preferences. These national forests do often have rules about duration of stay. They typically would like people to be moving to a new location after a week or so. They give various limits on length of stay in their rules, and these apply to backcountry trail hikes as well. But if one is traveling with a vehicle touring the country, living on the road, one might find drawn to a new location before this limit is reached, and typically I like to move after just a night.

The very best free camping method I can think of involves simply hiking along national trails that go through the parks and cover very large distances. On these trails like the PCT and CDT, and Appalachian Trail, one might not see many people for very extended periods of time. Camping is simpmlistic, although there are still rules depending on where one has walked to, and these can be strict. But there is unlikely to be any emergency about camping suddenly anywhere if one has to. There simply isn’t anyone around and few are concerned about where you’re going to be sleeping. A night here and there outside the rules doesn’t affect anyone and doesn’t create any significant risks. If one is off the trail and in the back country it is possible to do this for very prolonged periods of time without anyone knowing, and one could live months this way. With a vehicle this approach is more complex because one needs to find a place to park. In my experience doing this, it was without vehicle. I would find a way to get near to the trail and simply begin my hiking excursion. This is far more challenging since one has to have one’s equipment nearby and carry a large amount of gear, water and food. To alleviate this I’ve purchased a cart to use for hiking in places that don’t have too difficult terrain. If one does have a place to park a vehicle to make such a trip, or one does not have a vehicle, this is the very best way to keep expenditures low that I can think of, and of course off the road there is no thought of paying for camping or paying for hotels. It is possible using this approach to spend months without paying any rent, and of course, if one does actually hike these long national trails, one already has committed to spending months on the trail camping. Nobody has ever hiked the PCT, CDT, or Appalachian trails, end-to-end, without planning on spending a long period of time on the trail. Since the trails exist and are thought to be the epitome of hiking adventure for many, this is an accepted and lauded activity. It would be possible to be entirely homeless and only hike trails. From a budgetary perspective, this may be as good as one can get for reducing costs, while keeping market opportunities available. The only other I can think of is starting in remote territories and living in open country. That is possible, but in that case one would need to hunt, fish, and actively gather food sufficient for survival. Using the hiking approach is safer, and that is currently my preference. One can hike feeling there are no risks whatsoever.

Status on the Current Project Regarding Homelessness and Wealthy Camping II

Tuesday, June 04, 2024 12:33:40, Tempe, Arizona

Before it was a bit difficult to explain to people quickly in a way they could understand how wealth and homelessness relate. Recent news regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict should make it much simpler to communicate some relatioinships.

College students, across the United States and abroad have decided to protest Israel’s overreaction reaction to Palestinian hostilities by creating their own symbolic encampments on University properties. This was extremely well televised, and was spread on social media, and many were influenced into deciding to make yet more encampments at more universities themselves. Suddenly there were hundreds of encampments and groups of protesters living in tent villages that were supposed to depict unity with palestinians who were living in encampments which would not be too dissimilar for the message to not get accross.

These encampments were created by students and some universtiy faculty members and consisted of tent-dwellings that are similar or are identical to what hikers and campers would buy for themselves. Seeing some news coverage of the events, I did spot some high quality brands for tents that were used in these camps. University students and Faculty are typically well off, and comprise a good portion of the demographics of welth in the country. Elite universities also had encampments, and it would be expected that students of these schools would come from families of yet higher levels of wealth. I do not think everyone went out and procured tents specifically for that protest, although some certainly did. It is more likely that students and faculty members who come from higher levels of income simply found the camping and hiking supplies they already had, and so had good brand gear that elite hikers would potentially have for creating their camp sites in their encampments.

These camps were intended to resemble refugee or settlement camps. Campers stayed close together, and their dwellings are not too dissimilar from homeless camps too. Homeless camps, Refugee Camps, Settlement Camps, all have similarities. These camps also resemble simple camp grounds in national parks, although in these camp grounds, usually there is more spacing. That’s not always the case. RV Parks and other kinds of camp grounds are sometimes crowded. If one travels frequently as an RVer one does encounter these parks in a wide variety. We’ve also seen the way some live in poorer countries–worldwide people sometimes cluster together and live in huts, homemade dwellings, tents, and so on, and some are living quite well. Some prefer to live with simplicity and in close proximity to others in smaller homes.

These students of the elite who were already campers who were choosing to symbolize their support for Palestinians were already owners of hiking equipment designed for camping, which means they must enjoy camping for recreation and socialization, and they probably enjoyed being together for their protests. Wealthy people in RVs of various expensive kinds including motor homes voluntarily tour around and prefer to live in camping areas with others, who are not as well off. These other people may be using simple tents or may hav inexpensive trailers. RV parks are a strange kind of mix of high prosperity in retirement, and simple vacationing of others who represent the full diversity of income level, investment and savings. Again they do this for enjoyment. Some save their whole lives to retire this way, and some find this an easy way to live inexpensively, and both of these lifestyles are not too dissimilar from living in an encampment, at least as far as the dorming goes.

Wealthy people buy expensive gear to enjoy camping, hiking, and living in simplicity. As their lifestyle gets closer to being like a camper, they become more similar to homeless people. If they enjoy it and find it adventurous, of course the homeless people do too. The student encampments would not work as a symbol for Palestinian encampments if they did not resemble one another. That the students were using gear that indicates they already camp would show that there is again an overlap with homelessness.

Why is there this huge issue with homelessnes while wealthy people and people well off enjoy themselves camping, and eventually have the likeness of homeless people when they are finally successful doing it. Homeless people, hikers, and others, who have done it more are more adventurous arguably, have a longer history and more experience doing it, and may enjoy it more. After all, why do they choose to live that way? Notice that homelessness and an adventurous life can be a source of jealousy for the wealthy who feel they can’t actually try that sort of life, or don’t have the skills yet to live that way. Some well known examples exist of adventurous people who give up their property in order to live in nature, and to live without having to work so hard. This includes people like Christopher McCandless, the person depicted in the book and movie “Into the Wild”. He gave up his savings and career to travel and explore the country with less, and had many adventures that people admire, which explains the popularity of the book and film. There are also religious founders who have stories about how they left the market system to live out in nature with greater freedom. Siddhartha, “Buddha”, for example, has a story in which he left the life of being a prince to live in nature as an ascetic. There are similar stories in the Jewish and Christian texts.

The overlaps of wealth and homelessness in the area of camping and adventure explain partly why the issue of homelessness has not been solved, and why there are people who dislike those who are homeless. There is an ancient division of interests: to be free and advanturous and to have wealth living in the market system. People on both sides want both for themselves. The homeless would love to be wealthy, and the wealthy would love to live adventurously too. The homeless have fewer options, but the super wealth often live both lifestyles alternating between living in luxury and exploring. Explorers themselves had to have considerable resources to go on their expeditions. We forget who they had to be in order to really become explorers and they were not destitute. The better parts of their lives may be when they were camping in Nepal, or traveling to the North Pole. Many who are less risky would still consider their time along trails or at campgrounds in national parks to be more memorable moments in their lives, and some would wish they could do it more often or live that way. The writer of the book “The Ultimate Walker” lived until an advanced age only living as an adventurous hiker, camper, explorer. If a homeless person wanted more information on strategy to live that they, they might benefit by reading that book. But I think the primary audience of that book are people who have resources who enjoy hiking. They have to use the same literature to gain the expertise required to do it well! This makes this man who wrote this book a sort of expert in both domains.

The reader should know I’m already aware of other issues involved in homelessness, like drug addiction, inability to be employed, low intelligence, medical illness, injury, and pathology, and that is not the current subject for this posting. I will discuss that too. For now I’ll say that part of the religious messaging is that anyone can lose much of what they have very rapidly, and end up in a state of disease or illness. Wealthy can be easily lost. This means most wealthy if they think about it would be aware that if they did lose their prosperity they would be similar to homeless people in various ways and as they are increasingly less prosperous will face the same kind of decision making and conditions homeless people do. But at the end of it they get adventure and enjoyment potentially if they have a positive outlook. They may not think of this while they are considering their potential hiking and climbing vacations, however, but they are planning specifically for enjoyment. Even plain homelessness due to severe destitution offers and advanture of interest, and some wealthy people would like to journalistically explore that mode of life to understand it better. So even the journalistic explorer who wants to learn more may find adventure in the same way a homeless person does and may find some admiration for the lives they are living.

This is interesting to compare with the student encampments protesting the treatment of Palestine. They became a news story and in the process learned more about the Palestinians, got to use their camping equipment, and they certainly enjoyed it for a period.

New Artistry Approximating Skill of Historical Masters

Sunday, June 02, 2024 11:28:06, Tempe, Arizona

Recently I’ve been working on developing my artistic skill again, starting out feeling somewhat like a beginner, although I do have some talents. I began by sketching a portrait of myself, that turned out not to be a great likeness, but more like the appearance of Matt Damon, a person I was told when I was a teenager I looked like. On my second attempt, there was an improvement, but again, the result did not look really like me as much as it shockingly looked like my brother. I never thought of myself as really resembling my brother but seeing his face appear when I was trying to draw my own confirms to me that indeed he really does have a good resemblance. The parts of the drawing that were not quite correct were the width of the face, and overall proportions of various facial features. The combination of miscalculations in the drawing combined together to create a face looking like my brother’s. It’s funny to confirm that you really do look like certain other people by making mistaken drawings that produce their faces without any planning.

Anyway, after doing these drawings I became more attentive to portraits being exhibited by others on social media. On TikTok I discovered a portrait artist who draws only with ballpoint pen, and my practice too was with ball point pen. However, his skill is very masterful, and his drawings seem to be approaching precise photorealism. He’s a young artist perhaps not older than 25 years old, and probably younger. As I was observing his various postings of his pieces of art, I thought to myself that he would be just as good an artist in another medium very likely, and I imagined that in the future he could create very skilled paintings. I was thinking about what he would move onto next, after having already perfected ballpoint pen portraits.

He is aware of his talent and shares it knowingly while making other postings intended to provide guidance and encouragement to other artists who also are doing portraits. He kindly critiques them, mentions where the strong points happen to be, and where there could be some development, and he does this without trying to damage the perception of the quality of art they produced. He has provided commentaries on very good works of art from other portrait artists in various stages of development, each of which are better than what I can now produce but are reachable, and he mentions how long they’ve been doing their art and how amazingly far it appears they can go if they continue on their present course. Meanwhile, it is clear that the art he has produced already is a distance away on their trajectories, and my trajectory, and it would take some time to eventually reach his skill level. But it’s also clear it may not be really possible to reach his skill level and he’s very young. He has achieved his skill very quickly.

Driving today on a road trip out from Phoenix through Kanab and parts of Utah, I was thinking more about my reactions to his work, and realized that already he has really reached a level of productions that must be similar to what great masters of history have produced. We recall famous masterpieces and imagine they are unreachable, and focusing on those works we really do tend to think less of works created by present day artists. These older masterpieces “shadow” new masterpieces as we might say. Today there are many artists that are certainly better than the older masters but they simply don’t get the attention that the older works receive, and that is unfortunate. Thinking again about this particular artist, a person who draws with only a ballpoint pen on regular drawing paper, I realized he already really is a master. I thought about how I wondered what he could do next, that might be “better” or “greater”, that he could achieve more by doing his work with paint, but that ignores the fact that he really is already a master and has the same skill level very likely as those producing portraits in historical times.

He has already created a large number of portraits that are of a quality I would consider complete if I were the artist. There would be good reason to continue work and making improvements, but if I were that artist I would be happy to include similar works of art in my books and maybe not do much more. If I had his skill and anyone looked at my books, they would immediately consider the works to be of a professional. I would be very satisfied only being able to make portraits and other pieces of art at that quality, and being someone who does much more than drawing, I wouldn’t want to necessarily go much further myself.

So this is a young person who has already reached the skill of Leonardo Da Vinci for example. Thinking back to various works I’ve seen in art’s history, I think he exceeds many of their works. Much that we appreciate in the older works involves themes of the time, and historical aspects that do not exist today that create more interest than would exist. Clothing and facial features seem to differ from today, and if some of these works were photographic instead, we would still enjoy them greatly because of what they depict, and the degree of difference from what we experience today. The actual skillfulness of the art does seem in many cases to be less than what this person is able to produce.

It seems likely and possible using this artist as an example that many new artists have exceeded the quality of early masters and did so at a pace that is much faster because it’s now possible to learn the same skills in a compressed period of time. With plenty of examples, there is time to move more quickly through the educational or self-educational process. Once one is creating art this well, one has certainly hit the mastery milestone as it hitherto existed. Even if expectations are greater or excessive today.

There are two points above that I now want to bring together. It appears easier now to become a master if one has the talent, and producing masterful work really means it is masterful. In other words, it is satisfying and is satisfactory. Young artists can then create works of art that have a timeless aspect, this being something characteristic of museum pieces from earlier artists. Being able to create something that has the qualities of timelessness, relates to my wondering about what would be next. Again, if I had this skill level, I would feel my drawing ability is done and whatever I would produce would be so good that each piece would be good enough to publish in my publications. But what happens next? What has to develop further? What improvement is there?

I think one largely produces more works that have timeless qualities it seems that one will mostly just be making more. Different subjects, meanings, intentions, objectives, media, dimensions, and so on. What is one trying to achive creating more pieces this way? Connecting this subject now with earlier recent writings, I think the work would go towards, getting attention, notability, building conversation, earning money, doing what one enjoys, and publishing with the goal of getting the work into a more permanent and accessible record. Maybe one would like to get work into museums, or art books.

Here I will want to realate this to the actual realistic trajectory of valuable relations with other people, and think about what might be an optimal pathway for artistic self-development. I worry sometimes about artists. How they will react to receiving insufficient attention, and insufficient praise of their works. I worry about their likely inability to earn a large income on their works, considering scarcity of related jobs and positions. Also the difficulty of starting a business and earning money from artistic creations.

More soon

Marketing Categories of My Products II

Thursday, May 30, 2024 18:14:13, Tempe, Arizona

Here I will resume from the prior posting about identifying marketing categories of products as it relates humorously to conversations with others.

An initial list of targeted markets. This will have to be developed to include specific audiences and information where each of the various markets exist, where people are active, where they interact, and what products they are already using that might relate. As I was saying this procedure would also identify who I would want to talk to on a personal level about these same topics and markets. It is clear too that these relate to the structuring of knowledge. This is a bit of an initial and somewhat disorganized “mind dump” that will be organized in detail soon. Points without elaboration will be elaborated.

Marketing Categories of My Products

Thursday, May 30, 2024 11:40:55, Tempe, Arizona

Of interest to me lately has been the topic of when to chat with other people and when to abstain. When to expect some valuable conversation and when not. When to share things on social media, versus when to simply wait to market ideas. These topics interrelate in interesting ways.

People sometimes suggest that one might benefit from working hard in isolation until one has developed a writing or product of interest before sharing. There is the idea that sharing along the way may result in thwarting of efforts by others and poor or untimely feedback. Instead, the idea is, that one finishes the work when it is polished and is at a more advanced stage in readiness to show. This is done when there is an expectation that reactions will be more positive and supportive than negative. An implication of this is that one is not really transparent or conversational about what one is doing for long periods of time. One likes to socialize and chat, without plans like these ones, whenever social moments happent to occur or there is a motivation to socialize. So people share on social media when they feel like talking, and they talk with colleagues, friends, family and people in the public just as they run into them. The suggestion that one should isolate while one is creative indicates that all these people shouldn’t know about what one is doing and what one is planning. The idea certainly includes the thought that these are the people who would do all the thwarting. If one looks at one’s socialization, surely the list of family, friends, colleagues, people encountered in the public, and people encountered online is very comprehensive. It does include these people.

Waiting until one has something complete to discuss is not too different than telling people they should wait until they are ready to sell or market before talking to anyone about what one is doing, that one cares deeply about. I am not totally in agreement with this viewpoint, and I continue to share often and transparently, and simply talk about what I’m doing, but the frequency that I’m willing to do that is much lower now. Because it is true that there are too many obstructive and opposing people.

Another related idea is that very good quality conversational moments are rare, and that one cannot expect to get any great popularity, especially if one has a very high quality mind and communicates at a higher level. I’ve committed to speaking less, expecting less, and self-benefiting more from quicker interactions that have any good level of quality. It appears though, that better interactions happen when there is something to share that is more complete, easier to understand, more polished, and more obvious as to its value. This may mean that sharing at the time of market readiness really is a better time to talk about things with others, at least where talking relates to self wherever projects are important. I’m almost a walking human project of projects, so there’s very little I want to discuss that isn’t a project that is incomplte or has a completeness that is not something others can comprehend easily. But I have a complete product and more complete products are underway, and now I’m wonding about marketing and how to have good conversation that is more meaningful and timeful in relation.

Additionally, one has better conversation when it is with the right audience. I just showed my published book “The Velocity of Significance and Ideation” to someone I’ve interacted a fair amount with, and he was interested, but I couldn’t say he is the best audience to show it to. The context and interest didn’t align really and it was more of a show and tell of what I was doing, since he asked about my work, and I told him I was a retiree and author, nearly finished with a book. Showing this book to others will certainly prompt varying levels of interest depending on who it is. One would have to like books and reading/writing, or appreciate and respect it. Also, one will have to like the subject matter, or appreciate that too in order to wish to converse about it. My communications flow into books that are in a number of disciplines. This means my mind and the books will relate in varying ways to other people. Everyone knows this is how people tend to relate well or not, and mutual interest is a pathway towards friendship that usually has constraints of interest. So now I’m thinking, and have been thinking about, who do I talk to about these books with my mind that is basically just trying to talk about the subjects contained, and who do I market to?

Who gets talked to and who gets marketed to turn out to be the same people. I like ultralight hiking and traveling. If I want to talk about that I may join a social group about that topic or join some group excursions. That way I might have more friends who would relate to me in a constrained fashion with a focus on hiking and travel. Now, we would like the same things and products potentially and would want to share information on that. The information exchange would be useful and helpful and I would try to value these sporadic conversations more now that I know so many conversations are of less value. But I want to share self and talk more detail, and that is at a higher level of thinking and talking, so relates to book plans I have underway, which is the avenue for sharing more developed thought. I’m supposed to abstain a period to avoid thwarting until its more developed and at the time its more developed I’m told I will have something better to share and discuss. The book itself can be read which is a better level of communication too. More is needed to integrate and develop this topic thoroughly, but the point can be seen that products and interests relate, and talking about it gets better if there is more to share and if self relates sufficiently to projects and products, waiting until they are well developed might be advisable. Marketing then relates again, because of mutual interest in products, and because friendship is focused on mutual areas of focus. Conversation is marketing. If one has a product, one talks about it somewhat like how one informs about it in marketing. Some persuasion is expected. And–for the interest in ultralight hiking the pathway is on the marketing domain, which is the interest domain as it relates to that activity.

But I don’t just want to talk to ultralight hikers. Some will have interests in other domains that are similar, and that’s why there is even a market space of sorts of related products, like Outdoorsman Gear for examples, and also relates to how their is a friendship comfort zone and space where the friendship remains. It explains why some friends don’t mix with others. Market space and frienship space relate. It can get general but as a rule it is never or extremely rarely globally general.

So now I’m imagining you’re a person with many interests like me. Now there are lots of topics and interests and nobody who shares all of them with you. This is why you likely have many people to talk to and many friends to share and receive with. If you write a book, one friend likes it and cares, and the other doesn’t. You’re in the friendship and product market and there is a big giant venn diagram of interest and disinterest.

You also went to college on one subject, and your friend studied something else. You had one career, and they had another, There is misunderstanding in these areas of talking. But where there is a mutual interest, there is better discussion.

Since we both have many interests, how do we direct our products and conversations? Well, we direct them to wherever there is a topical interest, and that is identified with Marketing. Thought of this way, marketing is extremely simplistic. What do you want to talk about and share concerning is just like where you want to try to sell. You just find that population of people that really relate, and joing up, share, market, and discuss in those areas. We have many interests though. So that means we need to do the same thing for each and every interest! It’s easy, but now you’ve got many different kinds of groups, audiences and friends. You expanded your social life and marketing reach if you’ve got a wide variety of products.

My writings are steadily growing towards having many diverse markets. The interests vary greatly from work to work even though I bring them to cohesion. That means my future efforts will need to include probably thinking about more categories of relationships than I thought I would want to have. I was more interested in having very general friendships with greater intimacy and shared knowledge, but knowing now this is not really feasible given earlier writings, and knowing that marketing makes sense in relationship to this subject matter, I am aware that I simply need more relations and not less of greater intimacy. Some may have thought “I’m lonely, I can’t find anyone who has my interest, and my friends and family don’t care much about what I do”. Well, an explanation I’ve arrived at is that they are all constrained relationships with focal points of interest. People resist developing outside the focus and resist change. But if one simply thinks about topics and interests and forms new frienships and relationships, one has covered more of what one would like to cover in one’s life and has a more fulfilling assortment of relationships. People with many friends who may not have thought about it this way maybe would quickly agree and see how their relationships really already do this kind of thing.

When I first sat down to start writing this I was thinking I would simply list all of the different topical categories where I would start to converse more and where I would start marketing. That is something I’ll have to resume later. In the meantime the topic has more conclusively arrived at what constitutes better relationship having and making, with strangers, potential friends, and consumers, all as one human population.

The Diminishing Return of Thinking

Tuesday, May 28, 2024 10:10:18, Tempe, Arizona

In Economics one learns about the “law of diminishing returns”. The law of diminishing returns is very useful, and has general meaningfulness and application, heuristically. It’s easy to understand, but there is a mathematical component too, which can be ignored for our purposes, although it helps to know that the mathematical component does exist to provide substantiation and rationale. It was first explained to me in a course on Economics in the following way: If you eat one slice of pizza, it’s delicious and the value is very high. If you eat a second slice, it’s very delicious pizza still. The third slice starts to make it clear there is a downward trend in value to the pizza eating. Still it’s delicious but less so. Eventually the pizza is no longer wanted. For all people, when they are very hungry, the first slice is the most prized. This is an example provided from a basic experience mostly everyone has had, but notice it’s already not strictly about economics directly. It’s an application of a general rule that applies to so much more and this is clear in hearing about the pizza example which is already just a selected instance. There are many things you buy that have a diminishing value after the first is had.

For someone just learning of this law for the first time, the next things I have to say may not seem to have as good of a foundation, because it’s an early leap to a subject where this has not been applied. But just like the pizza example, it’s a very good selection. People who have been exposed to economics and have thought about it a while will understand that what is being described is a similar case and there is still applicability.

I recently realized there is a diminishing return on thinking itself, and I connected this with my earlier view on how learning takes place. Learning in AI is already known to be statistical. As young children, when we first learn about basic things that are still entirely new, we pay a lot of attention and think about it quite a lot. We dream about it. One could say there is a diminishing return on dreams. The thinking eventually slows or becomes less frequent about what one has discovered. One feels one knows about it already. It then becomes more thoughtlessly included in action and perception. Insects like bees might seem really interesting and unusual and foreign as a very young child. Later, they are so familiar they become forgotten and are not interest provoking. The thought about the bees diminished in value while the knowledge replaces the thinking. The result of having a diminished value of thinking results in a more mature and knowledgeable person who better interacts with the world. The learning includes a kind of statistical summary of data gathered while learning. More can be said on the statistics, but inferential statistics is an inductive approach to explaining and making generalizations. Learning is like that too. Once the learning of general knowledge has been attained, there is a reduced value of thinking.

The statement “reduced or diminishing value of thinking” requires explanation. In The Velocity of Significance and Ideation I explain that significance increases as one gets more mature. This makes sense because when one is carefully thinking about highly general knowledge, what one is thinking about has greater power and value. This is true even if the thinking quantity and frequency has been diminished. The value of thinking frequently about it is reduced (this might challenge the economic viewpoint somewhat). But the value of the fewer general thoughts is greater and is more significant and includes a more comprehensive and complex brain network. Even if it seems true that there is a diminishing return on thinking, it does not mean there is not an increasing return on different kinds of thoughts, relating to the significance.

Here it appears there is somewhat a contradiction on the valuation of thinking. But there is a diminishing return also on this more significant kind of thought until a greater completion. This is something I’ve been experiencing lately. Much is solved in life already, and I’m thinking increasingly more generally connecting highly significant and viewpoints approaching finality. This results in a decreased need to think about even what is most significant and valuable. I can already feel that as I get closer and closer to a more final general level of thinking that the time utilized for that thinking is no longer necessary, like a child who learns something, knows it, and no longer needs to think about it. We don’t need to think about how to walk, how to drive a car, maybe how to fly a plane, later perhaps how to run a business (perhaps), and if one is in an especially good position, how to think philosophically about certain things. Knowing all that would need to be known about many areas of life, one starts to get into repetitiveness about these things too. Thoughts that are repetitive are felt and if they relate to a finality of solution, there is a strong feeling eventually that those thoughts are not needed or are undesirable. Like having too much pizza for too long. And so even advanced thinking has a pizza related analogy that is useful.

What is there to think about once one has “solved it all” if one has really done that. Supposed you lived to 1000 and you really solved all of life’s problems and learned mostly what is useful to your particular mode of being. Maybe now you want to look at more details, but about things less general or directly useful to you. You enjoy curiosities again. Maybe you want to learn some scientific topic, and maybe you want to learn a bit about what’s around you like more about animals and plant life. You become an observer.

Here it seems since there is a diminishing return on thinking that one has merely directed attention to what remains that is enjoyable. Because our brains are limited, there will be more things that are enjoyable to attend to. But there is a perception too that this is not as valuable as the other learning, but since that’s done already, what one has remaining to think about and do is less valuable. This may indicate there is a diminishing return on time had for experience. And after enough time, one may perceive it has been a long enough life, and really death has an attractiveness. Maybe death can be like eating something for the very first time? Maybe it can be maximally enjoyable instead of maximally fear provoking. Like a kid you can just experience it for the first time.

Death appears to be something separate from this diminishing returns idea, because it simply can’t be experienced over and over again. If it were possible in medicine to keep regenerating you after death, and you are able to experience it again and again, it may turn out it loses its value until it’s so known that there is no concern for having it. Death would be less interesting. It could be neutral or something that is not wanted for experience again.

There is a need to think further on this idea that death can be a great first experience.

I Became The Thing I Want and Wanted to Be

Saturday, May 25, 2024 01:36:39, Tempe, Arizona

To Add

The Peer Review Process of Academic Journals Must Vary

Friday, May 24, 2024 10:08:52, Tempe, Arizona

Academic journals that have a peer review system integrated into their editorial process vary greatly. This is necessary because they all operate according to their own business plans and processes, and there are so many, they would not be using identical approaches. Journals that are peer review vary widely, in their ownership, editorship, composition of peer review teams, peer review processes used, disciplines covered (meaning different editorial needs), and quality of issues and results. Some have the highest quality and some have the lowest quality even in this domain. There are about 60,000 journals, and the subset of these journals indicates a huge number exist. Journal publications range in complexity. Some concern medicine, chemistry, and physics, and some concern more basic subject matter. The needs of peer review in the high sciences is much greater than the need of peer review in other domains.

Since they vary so widely, it is hard to know what generally or abstractly a peer review process offers to quality. To claim that peer review results in quality is like prescriptively claiming that any peer review process whatsoever is adequate. Some of the thousands of peer review journals will have inadequate and poor peer review processes, yet their outward position being and established “peer reviewed journal” will bias readers and others into thinking they will have qualities they may not have. This is because “Peer Review” has been connected to quality but people have not considered the degree of variation that exists in these processes. It is somewhat like marking produce organic. That does not imply quality. There is a degree of quality in the produce itself, and then there is a degree to which it is organic. Both the quality of the source and the quality of the organic farming method contributes to the quality that results. Likewise, the quality of the source of the writing along with the editorial peer-review process jointly produce the quality they come together to create. And so the editors and peer-review contributions are not overstated, recall that the author or authors are the ones who really contributed most to the final writing.

Peer review does not only exist in journals but in careers where work performed is cross-checked, and in these other careers it will be more obvious to participants that the quality of the peer-review process varies greatly and can even deteriorate quality. Since I was a software architect and technogist I was sometimes involved or in charge of testing processes, and was involved in quality assurance. To ensure quality, the code written by software authors is reviewed. Peers are required to review the code for issues, perform testing, and are supposed to reject code until it is really ready for “production”. The quality of the outcome relates firstly to the quality of the written code by programmers, and secondly to the quality of the review and release process. Peer-reviewers are code editors. Results of code are publications of sorts, since they have to be edited before finalized and distributed for public consumption. Sometimes the editing process simply stagnates authorship and creates bad team morale. This would happen in academics and in journal article writing too. Sometimes the development organization is small and they use less peer review tools and processes, and sometimes they are large and have a complex code release process. Sometimes the complexity is appropriate to scale, and sometimes not. Sometimes there is too much peer review, and sometimes too little. The people doing the peer review process may care about results or not. Some may do nearly no job approving everythihng, some will do little, and some will be overbearing and have recommendations that don’t improve. There are control issues that exist within peer review. Anyone in the software industry who has worked many projects for many companies will know that the review process simply varies widely and does not always contribute well to code quality.

Most software companies have code review processes. They can’t state that they have them and so as a result they are to be trusted fully to always provide great quality. What companies produce obviously varies quite a lot and we know this simply by considering what software we’ve been exposed to. The very worst software likely has some peer review testing. That they can’t simply communicate they have “peer reviewed software” for others to believe they have quality is a given. It’s an assumption. But it happens to be true that the same must be true for journal publications.

Books are a kind of loophole to peer review. They have some editorial review and as a default that is a kind of minimal peer review. But that editing may be performed by the author. There are many authors of extremely good quality books, but they have not been “peer reviewed” like academic articles have. Yet we trustingly read from these authors and expect good quality. I software too, a very good software programmer can alone create amazing applications and code. Their results are reviewed by themselves, and sometimes they are the ones who would also be the leads in peer reviews. Their self-review may exceed what reviewin g of others can achieve. If extremely great, others would be unable to peer review them because what they have done may not really be something they can understand well enough to contribute to. Many journal articles surely have been written without a great need for even editing. It may be that for some really great writing, peer review pretends to do their work. They see that it’s great, have some suggestions that ay or may not be required, and then simply let it pass through. For any journal that immediately agrees that the writing is good enough for publication has not really done a peer review. The writing of the author simply produced the quality alone. If there were no such process, the results would be the same if the submission was the same. In this way peer review publications are identical with non-peer review publications.

This all should persuade a reader that an appelation of “peer review” status is insufficient to judge quality of any particular publication. There will be “good” journals that have a peer review process, and there will be less good ones. There are probably bad ones but I’m trying to be charitable. In order to more fully understand the quality of a journal as it relates to the peer-reviewing and the authorship, a study of a large sample of journals would be required. What actually is their process? I don’t think people think about this. I think they think in a binary fashion about whether it has it or not, and that’s a mistake. It does not admit of variation, and this article has provided, I think, compelling cross-discipline shared reasons for agreeing that the variation exists and is important for making an evaluation.

An Initial List of Job Roles I’ve Had

Friday, May 24, 2024 08:54:38, Tempe, Arizona

CEO, CTO, CFO, COO, Vice Chair, Elected Politician, President, Retiree, Owner, Chief Scientist, Chief Solution Architect, Chief Architect, Editor-in-Chief, Executive Presentor, Executive Advisor, Executive, Dev Ops Architect, Dev Ops Manager, Data Architect, Information Architect, Digital Asset Architect, System Architect, Datacenter Strategist, Disaster Recovery, Data Engineer, Editor, Author, Director, Strategist, Program Manager, Software Security Architect, Security Consultant, Project Manager, Producer, Product Manager, Migration Manager, Migration Specialist, Automtation Architect, Automation Programmer, Database Developer/Engineer, Automation Consultant, QA Manager, Test Manager, Tester/QA Specialist, Interface Architect, Cloud Architect, Risk Manager, Economist, Financial Analyst, Interface/Web Designer, Print Designer, Senior Engineer, Engineer, Developer, BD (Business Developer), SC (Solutions Consultant), PSC (Partner Solutions Consultant), Lead, MSA (Multi-Solution Architect), B2B Salesperson, Retail Salesperson, Solution Salesperson, Supervisor, Librarian, Evidence Specialist, Chef/Cook, Waiter, Contractor, Book-keeper/Accountant (Non-CPA), Lawyer/Attorney (Pro-se), Trial Attorney, Litigator, Legal Writer, Procurer/Buyer, Systems Administrator, Webmaster, Content Manager, Content Writer, Technical Writer, Manager, Peer-reviewer, HR Director, Delivery Manager, Federal Consultant, Government Consultant, Consultant, Management Consultant, Athlete, Typist, Secretary, Inventor, Marketing Director, Advertiser, Printer, Bookmaker, Journalist, Back End Programmer, Programmer, Snow Remover, Home Contractor, Analytics Director, Business Consultant, Coordinator, Customer Service Specialist, Public Relations Manager, Investor, Bullion Dealer, Psychologist, Philosopher, Moral Philosopher, Secular Priest, Ethicician, Truck Driver (Box Truck Delivery), Accounts Receivable, Payroll Manager, Cash Transporter, Depositor, Photographer, Model, Videographer, Cinematographer, Nature Photographer, Barber, Homeless Person, Camper/Hiker, Backpacker, Traveler, Booking Agent/Manager, Travel Planner, Planner, Dishwasher, Housekeeper/Cleaner, Carwasher/Detailer, Woodworker, Student, Academician, Dental Hygeinist, Archivist, Student Archaeologist/Anthropologist, Artist/Student Artist, Farmer, Gardener, Nutritionist, Daily Planner, Assistant, Transporter, Dietician, Psychometrician, Consulting Psychologist, Teacher, Tutor, Mentor, Data Entry Specialist, Communications Specialist, Early Childhood Educator, Educator, Curriculum Planner, Trainer, Training Manager, Tutorial Writer, Documentation Specialist, Leather Worker (Faux Leather), Deliverer/Delivery Specialist, Inventory Manager, Warehouse Inventory Manager, Asset Manager, Digital Asset Manager, Digital Asset Specialist, Logger, Blogger, Dissertationist, Publisher, Musician, Roadside Assistance, Telephone Support, Meeting Lead, Meeting Planner, Solution Planner, Enterprise Architect, Organizational Architect, Cashier, Front-End Developer, Parental Assistant, Parent-Teacher Coordinator, Social Psychologist, Team Lead, Governance Director, External Organization Coordinator, Partner Salesperson, Sales Strategist, Business Strategist, Corporate Strategy, Pet Owner, Pet Caretaker, Vegan/Vegetarian Meal Planner, Dog Trainer, Computer Scientist, Researcher, Mathematician, Applied Mathematician, Theoretical/Pure Mathematician, Logician, Linguist. Representative, Customer Sales Manager, Enterprise Sales Manager, EX (Enterprise Executive), Staff Manager, Contract Writer, Contract Analyst, Dealmaker, Legal Business Planner, Intelligence Scientist, Process Designer, Business Process Manager, Executive Startup Planner, Business Case Analyst, Corporate Resturcturing Specialist, Corporate Cancellation Analyst, Lifestyle Coach, Travel Itinerary Planner, Budgeter, Business Forecaster, Technology Forecaster, Digital Transformation Lead, Tourist, Product Tester, Expatriot, Restauranteur, Field Scientist, Cognitive Scientist, Mergers and Acquisitions Planner, Release Manager.

A Model of Business Using Tens

Friday, May 24, 2024 01:26:48, Tempe, Arizona

A model of business using tens only may be helpful for planning for feasibility and quickly making adjustments to make projections and useful estimations.

Years: 10 Customers: 1000 Cost: 10 Seats: 10 Employees: 10 Hours: 10 Space: 1,000 Salary: 10,000 Days: 100

Bringing each figure to what happens to be an accurate number for time, location, market, is just a simple scaling of the tens above. One might think: “Well, already it’s decimal so why not use real figures?” I think that may affect the ability to more easily estimate, recognize the influence of the various factors of market, year, location, etc… These are then considered factors worth manipulating further. It keeps it separate somewhat from estimation but can be easily used for estimation. The mathematics appears easier for anyone including anyone who is good at math.

In a spreadsheet, factors and combinations create subtotals and totals. One merely manipulates these factors in order to determine feasibility and estimate revenues and profits.

Part of the objective of this line of thinking is to see what is minimally usable for business planning, modeling, analysis and operations. It is easy to communicate.

There is some silliness in the simplicity, but business is also a fairly simple machine that can be modeled simply. It is an input and output system of simple money. At a huge scale and at a small scale, the model is very similar. This explains why someone who owns a small business may know a lot, and why someone who owns very large businesses may still speak simply about it.

I’m experienced in business, and am aware that anyone who looks at this will think it too rudimentary. I agree it needs to be developed. I’ve just listed out values for certain categories and matched them to relevant tens.

More on this soon.

Illusions of Communication and High Range Intelligence

Wednesday, May 22, 2024 23:54:35, Tempe, Arizona

One of the lessons taught in communications, which I find to be a valuable major and area of study, despite its having been identified as perhaps an easier major, is that messages may not have been understood even after there have been signals indicating success of transaction. Even before learning about communications in college, where I have taken just a single course (although there is some coverage in Psychology), lessons are taught with games. I can think of several games that were meant to teach that communication degrades as it is shared. If something is told to someone one-on-one, directly to a single person, and they share that to another person, and that person shares to another, and this happens again and again, eventually the relay of the last person may be a very poor copy of the original. Nearing the worst scenario it will say something logically and compositionally different from the first message, and will constitute misinformation. If it is fairly well transmitted, it probably will include wording that does not paraphrase the original and still distorts. Seldom will it be a very good quality copy of what was originally stated.

But degradation of messaging from a source message to later recipients isn’t the only problem. There’s are illusions that what has been said was even heard. Or that it hasn’t been partially heard, and only partially comprehended. People of course conceal this oftentimes, particularly if they are of the disposition to conceal, but also if they are in a situation that may punish what might appear to show incompetency. Thus in business meetings, legal cases with jurors, lawyers and judges, there may very often be displays of understanding where there was little. Transactionally it is possible for people talking to each other directly to mutually not hear, not attend, and not understand, but still give cues to each other that they are mutally in agreement. Keeping the appearance of mutual agreement is well understood and is even enforced by cultures. This can create an illusion that a conversation between two or more people has had any success.

Conversations and communications that are fruitful show more indications of mutual understanding than those that do not. If there is a good degree of mutual development, it shows that takeaways and learnings of meetings and talks have caused changes in participants that match meanings of what was shared on both sides. Many conversations and relationships don’t have these properties of mutual growth. If they do not have the properties of mutual growth, it may really indicate that illusions related to communication are present particularly if one believes there has been good understanding. In additition to what happens during conversations that impede shared understanding are what happens later: diminished recollection of what has transpired and memory regressions. Some seem to have learned shortly after or during a conversation but show signs later that they cannot recall what was discussed. This amounts to a vanishing of the conversations that were had, making those conversations arguably less purposeful or valuable.

Replacement, alteration, and imagination can alter or supplant earlier discussions. Some will simply substitute what they thought earlier for what was supposed to be meaningful learnings. Some will replaced what they heard with what they think they heard, what they preferred they heard, or translations that amount to large changes in what was said. Effectively what they recall is not what the conversation was, and maybe they can’t play back conversations well in their minds. They may think they understood the conversation and later act as though they remember it by simply recollecting parts of the experience unrelated to the communication portion. They remember what you were wearing, what you looked like, where you both were, and maybe other aspects of the environment, which makes you believe that they understood more, while really the conversation part was lost or changed.

Judging by the assumption that I’ve made and the assumptions others routinely make that when a conversation was had it was nearly fully understood, it appears we are very weak communicators, even if we are good at reading people and situations. We don’t really seem to analyze this much, and we hear from others little about the consequences of this topic that would be far reaching and would influence behavior extensively making talking to one another a very different activity than it is presently. We’d ask if we were heard, expect restatements occasionally, make restatements and paraphrases to check for understanding, which is something I do often and habitually, and to look for signals about any of the aforementioned illusions. We’d scan for, and check concerning, recollections, their level of degradation, alteration, vanishing with memory, and loss from inattention. We’ve all had sufficient socialization to know looking back on thousands of interactions that people don’t really do these things actively. I’m included as someone who really has not effectively managed this–but there is the excuse for everyone that they don’t really know how. It can seem rude to be too questioning, or too interested in restatement. I’m not sure anyone really has an expectation of mutual development.

Another way of expressing this is to think about what a very great exemplar of communication would be like if they really were able to manage the above, and if there are any people who fit the description. I think the reality is that there are no exemplars and none would fit the description of a master of the above. Rather, an expert communicator would be someone who exhibits at least some of the time a socially polite and smooth way of handling some but not all of the above issues. This means they are not developed to the point in which they could really illustrate to us a more complete resolution. Looking at this issue, it is obvious there could be no total resolution, it can only be more comprehensive and more complete, but there is no person living today who is close to what is achievable. If a person did it really well they might be so different from others in how they communicate that others would find them uncomfortable and rude by today’s rules. I think pleasantness of conversation and conformity to existing rules creates a barrier to developing skills in this domain to the fullest. Also, there would not be enough willing participants to change their communication style. To do that would be to change many if not most conversations that are being had for the size of the changes required on so many points, and the need for repetition.

Witness testimony has been showed in the field of Psychology to be often very poor. This indicates that people are not the best at attending well enough to get clean exact copies of sensory information into their long term memory. They aren’t really great sources of evidence of what is seen, heard or said. This shows that even for the very first transmission of information, great degradation, omission, and alteration has occurred. It also explains why in that game that teaches how information is lost with each communication and is very poor towards the end works–it simply degrades every time there is a conversation, which includes the very first one.

So when is conversation any good if communication appears to be so ineffective? When is it the best? When is it ideal? On noticing that there would be no living exemplars of the ideal, we know there is no conversation that would be free of defects. Knowing this we know that nearly all conversations are very far from what we have been assuming all this time, that there were few or no errors. Notice we mostly really do assume this in practice, but are very distant from having any living ideal. This means we are chronically affected by illusions related to communication in all of our socialization. But when does it seem to be good enough? To me, it appears to be good enough for this lifetime whenever there is a good mutual development as I was saying. Relationships can be somewhat appraised by the level of existence of mutual collaborative growth. When I was in my early twenties, already I was starting to utilize this method for determining if relationships were worthwhile, and I was using it as I was thinking about relationships I had that I wanted to be better. Why couldn’t they be better? On the other side there just seemed to be stagnation and lack of growth, and reiteration of earlier thoughts that should have been altered with updates related to what was talked. Oftentimes with people it felt that conversations never happened at all, and for some it felt that way for years. How could people continue to keep saying the same things as if they had no recollection of time together? I was being influenced, why weren’t they? Disillusionment with friends, family members, and others accumulated until the reality became more clear that they really were not able to communicate in a way that was valuable enough to maintain the relationships. It would be fine to see each other, but prolonged communication was really not a good way to spend time. I think most relationships can and should be evaluated this way and a very strong communicator would be more quickly able to see what relationships are valuable and simply skip some development. Other people would be found instead. I think very good conversation is not as common as people would want although it exists in mutual growth over time in some few relationships. It doesn’t mean it can’t occur, it just means it is much less frequent than people would think. And the issues are still present in these relationships and it is just a matter of degree.

If one really pays extremely close to one’s own attention one will know that attention is very limited. Only a small piece of reality around is captured by our senses and can be stored in memory. All the time there is quite much around and near that is simply omitted from awareness. This has been proven easily again and again in the field of Psychology in well tested and accepted studies. Another humorous way to test if a relationship or conversationalist is worth talking to would be to see their view on this topic. If they think they have complete awareness, then there is a strong sign they are oblivious to their own experience. If oblivious to their own experience it means they haven’t used that as a test against what they recall potentially. They may think they have perfect recollection. That is not someone to be around.

This topic is an important subtopic of the larger study of human shortcomings. The study of human shortcomings falls within the study of Moral Philosophy and Ethics at a large scale, and at the personal level. In my work, I seek to categories illusions such as this that influence how one can decide to behave. Overcoming limitations by understanding them, recognizing what is permanent and what is alterable or correctable is important. Knowing that communication challenges such as these always exists is supportive for knowing what to do when miscommunications occur and as I said, knowing how to appraise for conversation quality to improve that too but also to know who might not be worth spending too much time with, if mutual growth is at all expected. It is humorous that I have this understanding of these shortcomings but still spend little time addressing them as they relate to communication. There just are so many limitations we have, and trying to work on them all is very challenging. I have greatly changed myself over time to reflect scientific understanding of these limitations in order to improve, particularly in the area of logic, relationship improvement, elimination of cognitive biases and the like. I am certainly an expert in this domain, and still there is so much to improve upon. Imagine trying to become the exemplar mentioned above to check for all ways a communication has not occurred! It is very challenging and as was stated trying to improve is blocked by the need to conform to normal pleasantries and everyday behavior. Since communication is with others, they have to have a readiness for the same advancements. If one tries to become too advanced in this domain, really I think one simply has nobody to practice with. Instead what one can achieve is good self improvement understanding that the others who will be practiced with will remain the same and simply don’t have the same project of improving conversation.

Towards a Complete Written Strategy and Process of Self-Treatment Until Death

Wednesday, May 22, 2024 09:55:29, Tempe, Arizona

After posting on debunking herbal remedies, I became aware of the need for a specific process regarding medical self-treatment, and global self-treatment (for all thought and behavior), for all of life. I’m well underway for global self-treatment, and I did plan some thinking for medical-self treatment, but I’m thinking it needs to further approach something that might be more doctor replacing.

I’m extremely convinced that doing nearly nothing by eating well, exercising, sleeping, and drinking water may substitute most self-treatment that might be medical. People have long promoted preventative treatment and I’ve agreed, very enthusiastically, that that is needed. I think preventative treatment consists of abstaining from most things except a strict vegetarian diet, water, sleep and exercise. Once one has the habit of behaving consistently with this, it begins to feel like one is doing nothing. This is because it’s automatic or strongly habituatl behavior to do these things and be preventative. But I think one could go much futher with this strategy of doing nothing once these habits are had.

Consider if you get sick. Do nothing still, or do something else? I think doing nothing (above devined) very often is enough. Take a drug or do nothing? Take an herb or do nothing? I think usually doing nothing is better. It prepares one well in one’s strategy to do nothing further later when that is needed.

For pain management, I would want alcohol or opium as I stated. For severe illnesses, sometimes nothing is still the answer. Death is the answer sometimes too, but I would join that with the nothing strategy. If an illness is well understood and easily curable, I would go for the drug. For surgical procedures that are really needed I want surgery. But there are cases where I would even choose nothing. For example, I recently broke my toe and did nothing. I’m very happy with my new crooked toe. Doing nothing was really the right solution.

When you need cosmetic surgery, do nothing? I think “Yes” very likely. When your tooth requires a “root canal” do nothing? I think get close to nothing and pull the tooth potentially, depending on which. There are cosmetic solutions other than having the tooth.

Strategically nowadays I think most are in a cloud of ignorance regarding their health. They’ve offloaded it until something serious happens and then once that happens they become herbal gurus as a hobby. Their “knowledge” from this self-help is very dubious. Some will try to convince that having a disease creates full expertise of alternative medicine or medicine. If that were the case, don’t go to the doctor, find another with the same disease. Finding a peer who has a similar issue is helpful but I’m unaware of a directory to locate the diseased for support. You still go to the doctors.

It appears to me that the strategy of doing anything but arriving at the right diet, drinking, exercise, and level of rest, is the best way to achieve doing “nothing” which is the cornerstone of a good approach. Empasis on all things is doing less, until it’s obvious there is a benefit. Knowing which obvious things have the benefit need incorporation into a decision process. The overall result through life could be to have the minimal effort at preventative health and solutioning for reduced conditions that call for drugs and medical assistance, and already those are planned for too. This is all much better than letting all habits slip and offloading planning to someone else. That’s another way of saying that others have little or no strategy.

Debunking Herbal Remedies Kindly

Wednesday, May 22, 2024 08:50:43, Tempe, Arizona

After spending a considerable amount of time living without any medication of any kind, prescribed or unprescribed, I wonder on what occasion I might need an herbal remedy. Recently, I gave up all drinks except water, and for 23 years I’ve been a Vegetarian/Vegan. I’m very infrequently seriously sick, and the last time I was ill was with COVID-19 during the COVID pandemic. I did not receive a test at the time I got sick, so it is possible I had some other illness, but the symptoms were flulike so I took the recommended precautions to isolate and simply assumed that is what I had. Like I normally do when I am sick, I spend a considerable amount of time indoors. I mostly drank fluids and slept. The only over the counter medication I took was a product called Theraflu, which would create sleepiness, decrease pain some unknown amount, and manage flu-like symptoms with an effectiveness I’m uncertain about. Typically, I use no medication, and simply sleep and drink plenty of fluids. I control the symptoms largely by simply not being awake, and I live through the symptoms until they are gone. Now I wonder if I needed anything during COVID too.

By eating well, and abstaining from drugs of all kinds, and rarely being sick, I can’t think of any need for any “remedy”. I don’t think about them. I get tired, fatigued, have mucous buildup occasionally, sometimes need to sneeze and cought, and sometimes I might get the “cold” (When does anyone really have a cold?), but I simply live through all these symptoms. The same solution of resting and drinking fluids is always available. Since I already eat well, there is no recommendation I require for that. I don’t eat soup to make myself feel better. “Special soups” and special food substances seem to have no value for resolving the issue. I’m comfortable when I’m healthy and eating what I eat, and eating what I eat is comfortable when I’m uncomfortable. Sickness meals are questionable. Having a reserved sickness menu is a sort of folk-remedy system for pretending to resolve sicknesses by creating comfort. But it’s not too different than Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner. Those are simply comforts reserved for the occasion. The occasion for special sickness soup is illness.

If someone is unwilling to admit that a sickness menu is nonfunctional for resolving illnesses, they may be unlikely to be persuaded regarding herbal remedies too. Or, if they already disbelieve in herbal remedities, it appears there is a contradiction. Both are very similar and if herbal remedies are debunked, I think recipe based remedies are also easily rejected.

The recipe I typically use is water.

Moving onto the main discussion and interest here, I want to talk about herbal remedies in particular and connect it to when ailments are really experienced. As I was saying, speaking for myself, having a sneeze, cought, mucous, fatigue, and some other discomforts does not constitute an ailment. If I have a nasal headache, a mild sore throat, headache, or some other minimal pain, I don’t even acknowledge it for long. I notice it briefly and then mostly forget about it. I don’t notice when it has subsided. When I am experiencing these individually or in any combination I don’t think of myself as being sick or having anything requiring any special modification to my behavior except perhaps increasing sleep and water. An issue with herbal remedies is that many of them seem to be about resolving these issues which if one has a certain perspective are not issues. Some may even claim they “cure” these issues. But if I wait, sleep, and drink water, and eventually I’m healthy, then what is the meaning of “cure” on close observation? Have I cured them by doing nothing? Furthermore, speaking of these things as something to be cured seems to put the supposed ailment in a category approaching severe disease. For severe diseases I agree there are cures and a desire to be cured. But if a mild irritation is resolved by simply waiting, then the equivalent herbal treatment to me is not a treatment and not a cure. Waiting has the same result.

Arguably, some may say that using some herbal remedy will make one feel better faster at times. I would argue that thinking about it at all creates an issue requiring remedy. Thinking about herbal remedies is something to be fixed it appears. But I can agree that perhaps speeding comfort along is a reasonable result of some combinations of foods and feelings. But what is the elapsed time between the sensation that one is not feeling well and when one is feeling well again? Is it the same for most ailments and irritations if one does nothing in comparison to if one has the herbal cures? If the duration is approximately the same, then thinking about herbal remedies seems really amiss.

I would not think this way if I did not happen to never think about herbal remedies. I’m not sure I ever used an herbal remedy, excepting perhaps chamomile tea during sickness years ago, but when I had that I was not thinking I was curing anything. I was just creating additional comfort any chamomile did not appear to me to be an active ingredient. It’s about the same as having soup during sickness. All of the ingredients are inactive. Since I never do these things it’s very clear to me that I never need them. One could argue that if I were sick I would perhaps need them, but looking back into my distant history into childhood I don’t think I’ve used herbal remedies for anything. There has been very little solution hunting to make myself feel better. If one lives without using remedies and herbal remedies and “special foods” and ignores mild symptoms, and feels healthy and is rarely sick, and is rarely uncomfortable, then even talking about these topics seems a great waste of time. What is the cause of the interest I think?

The cause of the interest appears to be a fixation and curiosity, that simply becomes a hobby of sorts that is developed further. Some work on it until it is well developed. But does anyone need it at all? What is the life-duration of the actual need for herbal remedies in life of those who don’t use it, contrasted with those who do. It seems the are seldom if ever needed, and when they are thought to be needed they are simply to create a kind of comfort. But like in the medical industry, people get attention from the help they think they can provide and may earn money being herbalists or being authors of books about herbs. It seems more common for a women to be an herbalist than a man. I think fixation is a cause of prolonged interest and work on the topic and it’s unrelated to effectiveness.

If it worked, or there was a great need, I’d focus on it myself too. But there is no need so I never think about it.

Here it is worthwhile to make a comparison with the medical industry. Notice I mentioned I take no drugs of any kind. That means I don’t need the pharmacy, and I don’t need prescribed drugs. I don’t need stores that sell these things. But surely there are times when I could need them, and I happen to simply not be in a situation that calls for thinking about these things. I’m certainly aware I would need surgery if I broke a bone, that I would need pain medication if I had intense pain, and that I would need to seek a cure if I had a disease and symptoms that are more than mild irritations. If I had I cut I may need stitches. These are things I agree with.

Pain is one thing I’m planning for too. If I’m eventually old/elderly and am suffering from severe joint pain or other, I will certainly want a drug. Alcohol is available and may do some of the work. If that’s sufficient, I’ll drink alcohol. If insufficient, I’ll want something more effective. Opiates come to mind. I have considered the prospect that growing opium poppy would be worthwhile, and it is true that gardeners or “herbalists” (can I call myself an “herbalist” if I understand and grow plants?) are useful here. They are basically drug dealers, like the herbalists who were marijuana enthusiasts were. Some of the herbalists are druggies or drug dealers in disguise. Interest in drugs is another avenue to fixation in plants, and to use plant expertise as a cover for love of drugs. Perhaps marijuana and opium growers would simply just have large farms to cover what they were really doing. Everyone loves tomatoes and corn, and you can go beyond farming to herbal mastery by growing other weeds, and finally you can look like that’s all you do while you drug deal. I recall in entertainment that has been part of the story at least once in a television show or film.

How many kinds of drugs are needed? A Pharmacologist would state there are many and I agree from my exposure to their reference texts. A chemist would agree that many drugs exist regardless of how often needed. The cause of the large number of drugs, to me relates to the large number of illnesses that were earlier untreatable. There are many kinds of sicknesses, and if we consult the disease manual of the herbalist, we’d find it is very short; whereas if we check medicine, the list of illnesses is massive. Historically people didn’t know what they were, or how to treat them. So they had them drink broth and eat plants. It is really important to note that the history of treatments by herbalists has been the cause of the need of medicine and obviously it can’t replace medicine. It exists from the time of primitive ignorance. Now that more illnesses are known, I think some seek to expand what was known about herbal foods to increasingly apply the same ingredients to new illnesses. They create a guise that they can treat all illnesses by simply knowing what those illnesses are called and stating that the existing greens can fix them. This is extremely dubious and dangerous.

But since the medical industry is not something I use but they would like to sell me drugs, I do like the idea of having a better substitute if simple substitutes exist, but I think the substitute is nothing.

A commonality between many illnesses that call for real treatment is simply pain. Plant people and Medicine have been at odds on this point, and the criminalization of substances that work is really questionable. Marijuana certainly has been found to help with illnesses, and yet it was criminalized and sold as a drug by the medical industry to their benefit. Opium is still illegal, but opium does work for pain management, and exists as a simple plant. For that I’d want the plant over the medicine and that would put me in alignment with the herbalist. Here is a category of drugs and plant sources that work and are needed but they are not needed often in comparison with requiring no drugs. For the rare occasion of having a chronic illness or severe pain I will want the drugs whereever they come from and I nearly don’t care how I get them. If pain were great enough, I’d seek to die or seek to get them illegally.

For pain it is clear that there is a need from the herbalist then, if not from medicine. But arguably I don’t need an herbalist, if I just know the word “poppy” and have the plants. I can grow a plant just fine and don’t need an herbalist to show me how to plant a seed. But what are the other kinds of drugs needed? The other kinds of drugs are needed for that huge variety of illnesses that were untreatable to the herbalist in history that now have solutions finally within the medical community. If I had any illness of this sort I would go to a doctor and work with them on finding a solution.

Here I understand that there is a degree in which some of these illnesses might be influenced by certain plant remedies. That is a crossover between medicine and herbalism that I know people care a lot about because they are suffering from illnesses that are causing them severe pain or suffering, or chronic discomfort, and I know I’m not going to be persuasive to these people about not trying all that can be tried to see what might work. In a way, they the combination and permutation people of guessing at solutions, because their situation is so problematic.

Let’s say I admit it’s useful to still have herbalists in these scenarios. For this I have the following question: “Why don’t you always have within your diet all that’s in your herbal remedy books? Why not eat all these things very frequently. Just utilizing them as ingredients, being like an eclectic vegetarian?In that case, does it not appear you’re just eating more things and eating them more often?.

I mentioned I’ve been a vegan/vegetarian for 23 years. That means I eat all sorts of plans that get recommended to others when they have problems. I’m getting plenty of fiber and have no digestive ailments. I would agree that eating plants helps resolve that. But I wouldn’t say it cures it, if people merely create this problem for themselves and experience discomfort. If I think back to all the plants I’ve eaten, to what extent does that make me an herbalist who just eats it off the menu? To what extent does that mean I’m resolving my issues as an herbalist would by ingesting them? Does the herbalist ingest? In that case an herbalist is nearly like a vegetarian. What if the herbalist and the vegetarian together simply ate all the ingredients from the herbalist handbooks very frequently?

It seems that herbalism vanishes. If you eat all those ingredients often you just eat and there is no herbalism. Is there a rule to eat the herbs less? No, I don’t think so. I think they just don’t actually use them. They rarely use them because they select them and pair them with issues to resolve. if they have them often they are meal ingredients. This would mean a vegetarian or vegan or anyone who simply has all these items on the menu and eats them often has eaten all the drugs frequently, and it’s simply part of their diet.

Relating this to the person with severe disease or chronic illness looking for a solution, couldn’t one just suggest that they eat all of the remedies? In other words, they become like a vegan/vegetarian or anyone else, who just has all those items on their shopping list and then actually eats them. Wouldn’t that make the person with disease an eater like everyone else, but kindof an elite herbalist and dieter who eats every kind of plant substance available? Eat all the plant drugs without waiting for an illness and simply continuing while one has an illness too?

This seems to imply that one could simply avoid the topic as I mentioned. One can simply eat all of these things and consider themselves treated.

I’m aware though, that I’m not going to maintain such a supply, and I’m not going to shop this way. But this would mean the difference between me and anyone who does this is simply the difference in menu.

It seems much more likely to me that people have few needs of any kind and that by eating a simple but diverse-enough set of vegetables minimally they will have prevented most illnesses and “treated” some others. If disease and serious illnesses are encountered, they have the option to eat everything off the menu to cancel the herbalist. More likely though, they will need to go to a doctor.

For me, it’s going to be water, rest, simple vegetarian foods, exercise, and little else. I’ll wait for the disease or pain. If it’s pain I get, then I’ll look for alcohol and opium. If it’s disease, I’ll go to the doctor, so I’m not in primordial ignorance. I’ll use their cures, and if that doesn’t work and it’s untreatable, I may eat all weeds off the menu. Maybe the herbalist is helpful for maintaining supply. In that case I’ll shop at the herbalists store. But I don’t think I would consult their advice for anything.


Monday, May 20, 2024 06:18, Tempe, Arizona

I’ve had a strong preference historically to behave in ways that are not anonymous, and whenever I’ve written things, socialized on social media, created accounts and so on, I’ve not done it with my real name and identity. However, there have been some exceptions. When logging into public wifi networks, or when creating accounts for some businesses, within the last few years I’ve shifted to using false names and email addresses. I figured there was no need for them to know my details and to retain and sell my information. I’ve also changed names on accounts that deducted pay information in a way that concerned me. There is no reason for a business I don’t want to continue to work with should have the name on my credit card. This protects from false charges and so on. But my personality is really one that is about openness and transparency, and is not about acting out other personas. Some have cover stories, lie about who they are and what their history is, create fake accounts to pretend to be other people, create fake accounts to harm other people and so on, and that is not something I’m interested. Not only do I not want to do this, I actively want people to know who I am. If they know who I am then they are more likely to remember me later and my relationship to my writing. If they know who I am they might reach out to me for business. I’m not worried much about the risks of other people knowing who I am. Of course, if someone is dangerous or appears dangerous, I’m not going to divulge that information to them if I don’t have to.

Anonymity is one of those topics in which culture and society are ambivalent. Forgetfully, some will say they are entirely for anonymity, while on other occasions, say they are for transparency. Contexts widely separated from each other contribute to this issue. Pen names, and anonymous authorship is something that is expected, and that doesn’t sound much like a controversial topic. But imagine reading a book of 900 pages and finding out 40 years later a different person with totally different qualities wrote it. Instead of a woman, for example, a man wrote it and he’s not at all like you would think. On social media, we’re aware of fake profiles, but we just let that happen. Maybe the people who let that happen are the perpetrators. It may be much more common than we would think. These are two areas where all would need to concede that it anonymity and impersonation are accepted or tolerated. Efforts to eliminate it seem disingenuous. For example, certification of accounts for social media seem to trend in the direction of eliminating anonymity but has hardly had any effect. Anonymous also means something a little different, which this all more clear. An anonymous person is simply considered a regular private member of society. All are supposed to have this kind of anonymity. Laws exist that people do not need to self-identify even if police officers ask them, if there is insufficient cause. Everyone might think of themselves as anonymous when they consider in public they are just unknowns and want to keep it that way. So anonymity is widespread and we can all see it we just experience it in separate contexts that we don’t always combine together as we think about it.

In other scenarios we want complete transparency, we think. We want our significant others to tell the truth about their histories, and their behavior while together. We want various authority figures and businesses to unconceal. Politicians, businesses and their financial information, doctors and medical professionals who need to share their credentials and their experience. We oddly want members of the public to willingly provide personal details if it is demanded if there is any situation they are connected with that is related to an emergency or crime. We expect and want law enforcement and the legal system to surface all they can to understand a crime, even if one was not committed, and they make public many personal details about people. That one is especially interesting because anyone can become someone who cannot have various privacies on this basis. They news disrespects privacy and is willing to journalistically investigate, expose, and share information about people who would otherwise be private and anonymous.

I think almost everyone would be perplexed if asked if they can say specifically all the times in which any person should be anonymous. This relates to and partially explains why privacy and freedom are not well understood topics either. Together they constitute the ambiguous cloud of society and its morality and commitments.

It will take longer to expand on this topic fully to cover the range of topics which can relate, but here I want to talk about what really prompted this. “Why is it so accepted that there should be anonymous writers?” “How does this relate to the conversation we’ve just had above”.

I was talking with someone recently and we were discussing ideas we had and talked about authoring. I told him about my desire to have a very great level of transparency, open identity, open health information, and open history and so on. I think I shared my Open Health and Identity chapter which shares things that many would not share that confirms much about myself in a way that goes way beyond what is normally shared. It was clear to him that with my writings I really want people to know that I’m the author. He interestingly said that he wants to write all anonymously! He was thinking of using pen names and so on, something I did not think much about or well consider, being so absorbed in being transparent and non-anonymous. We did not try to persuade each other one way or another but just respectfully shared information, and now I admit I do have plans to do some partly anonymous writings. For any anonymous writings I’d do, I would provide a reveal of who I was. I wouldn’t want the disinformation to continue, although it’s an acceptable practice and is widespread in literature. If I recall correctly, I think he was worried about risks. Someone in the audience who does not like what is written can start to behave threateningly and he may have been more perceptible to risks that may exist that may be small, or unique to his own situation and mindset. I don’t feel these risks in my own world even though I have been digitally harassed due to my writings. I’ve found ways to manage despite this harassment others have certainly experienced too, just being on social media and dealing with people, and don’t think any harm will occur just because of my writings. So I have kept them transparent. But he encouraged some ideation and expansion of view on this subject.

In addition to risks associated with being identified as someone who said something that was really not liked for the purpose of being harmed, I like the idea of anonymity in that people don’t like to listen necessarily unless the profile is one that is agreeable to them. If I were a woman, for example, I could discuss things I couldn’t otherwise discuss and would be heard. I’d be treated differently. The same words could come from a woman, if the anonymity is believed, and we all know it is believed. Otherwise people would have more trouble reading books from people with pen names and some women have written as men. For women to be heard this seems especially valuable and trying to think from their perspective makes having a pen name seem really appealing. Societally it is beneficial if women are attended to more often and have an audience. But for them I think they would want to be revealed eventually as the true authors so they can be attributed correctly and be credited. I want the same for myself too. So not only do I want to reveal who I am so the reader isn’t feeling fooled, I want them to know who I am so I am recognized for my writing. I wouldn’t like it much if all my writing were from false names and each were well known, but were thought to be really other people. Imagine if forever you had great writing on different subjects and for each book it was forever thought someone else wrote it. Your writing was from a group of good authors and not you! I would only want to use the name and persona of another imaginary author if it would allow people to read more carefully, understand, and be respectful about the material. And then, I want them to know its me.

It doesn’t feel totally right still as I come to some more definite plans for using this approach. I’ve been thinking of different names I could use and the ways I could make it more transparent than simply keeping a lie going indefinitely. Is it a lie, by the way? Since it is so culturally accepted, it is as if all have agreed it is not a lie. I’m not sure people consider it dishonest either? I have to think of it as a lie in my way of approaching the world. It isn’t immune because it is in a special category of life that has not received thorough analysis thinking of all the other topics that relate, like all those mentioned above. It’s a lie to me, but it has some justification, like other lies that exist and do have good ethical rationales.

In this sitting I think that’s enough of this topic for the moment. I will return to discuss this further, especially to provide my plans around the ways in which I will plan to be anonymous. Especially for authoring. What do I think it will do for me? How does it fit into a strategy? How does it remain ethical, and to what degree. Is there an aspect of unethicality to the plan and will I do it anyways because it is accepted? More on this topic for later.

Art, Writings, and Music as Last Words of Choice

Monday, May 20, 2024 06:18, Tempe, Arizona

Last words in our last moments are something we’ve been trained to worry about without good resolution. It would be much better if we were given simple and easy ways that are easily recollected for thinking aright about that matter. We hear about the last words of some significant figures, or some who recently passed away, and I don’t recall any that were planned or what would be most wanted. People are and will be worrying not just about what their last moments will be like, but how they can be best moments. “I died the right way and I had the right things to say”. Probably they should not be thinking that way and it would be better if already some better plan was had that wouldn’t cause any worry. I wrote here before about this topic and how the very last things we think about might be more unexpected than at any other times in our lives. Part of the planning has to include the realistic expectation of uncertainty.

Two conversations came to mind as this writing was coalescing together in my head.One friend wrote about the excessive concern about last moments, and an online acquaintance from a shared group wrote about, and shared her recent wins in an art competition. These seem very dissimilar topics but they come together here– art can include what one really wants to say. Writing, like art, can also include what one might really want to substitute for last thoughts. Part of the plan for last thoughts could include “What would I want to share or experience last, if I could?” Privately, one may want to think something differently near the end than what one has planned, or as stated, it might be outside of their control. But they can communicate to others what they would want to be their last communications and keep them closer as the end nears if it is expected. Why not tell others about which art, which writings, messages, music, from oneself or from others who are greatly enjoyed should substitute for actual last words and outward thoughts which might fit into the pattern of others who died. If we don’t expect last words or moments to be the best, why are we sharing those? Let’s share something else.

There is a tradition of last-wording that itself is unpleasant. I would worry about giving presentations in high school, and the thought creates some anxiety now. Why would I want my last moments to be a presentation to worry about in addition to the stress of dying?

These wishes can easily be included in a living will and communicated well in advance of death to a number of people, so between them all wishes are more likely to be honored. Obituaries can include these wishes which can include the substitute for last thoughts. “What I would like to be in my obituary and to be thought concerning my experience of my last moments is the following:”. There is plenty of time to do this, and even I have already begin my living will at the age of forty-two. I did not yet include this but I plan to and expect I will. I will think of which writing is most apt and write something if nothing appears good enough. I will consider that edits may not happen so it has to be something I can commit too, knowing perhaps it could be improved. A draft that is more than suitable, even for later. I’ll include any art I’ve made that is fitting, writings, and perhaps music I enjoyed, or some combination of these.

Without doing this, one has done nothing potentially, unfortunately. I’m sure most have thought about it however, but very few must have put a plan into action well before death. It’s stressful somewhat to think about how some might in a flustered way try to quickly throw something together, knowing the end is approaching quickly. “I’d like it to be more planned than this”. It definitely can be more planned and I think it can be a very enjoyable experience. The enjoyment of the preparation may even be a start to having something simple and easy to resolve uncertainties about last moments and how one is supposed to behave. It is strange to think that there could be behavioral expectations just before death. If we can substitute plans for these last behaviors then maybe there can be some release from social rules to the very end. Especially if it is thought of with some repetition well in advance.

What do kids think about this? If I were around kids and in a position to talk with them, as a teacher or parent, or as a tutor again, I would be interested in discussing this with them, if it’s not too inappropriate. I’ll assume it’s possible to have such a conversation. What would they think? How would their thoughts resemble those of adults. I think maybe they would say the same things as adults and that is disconcerting. I really think people are so unprepared and so unable or unwilling to talk about these things that they haven’t developed them too far from what kids would say, and maybe we’d have some things to learn about what kids would think. Social prohibitions and discomforts can cause topics to become more distant as we get older, so there is a chance that an adult can be less prepared to think aright about the subject even in maturity. One might as a mature person be too preoccupied with issues and concerns to give the topic the same treatment as one would as a kid or teen.

Preparations do not need to create pressure to make works of art. If they exist, that’s amazing. If one has the skills then it may be fun to produce some works. Some could even be shown for the first time. Selections from others can be appropriate. All that is included as an improved substitute for last words can be used by others too–many will have a wake after death. Family and friends will come and talk potentially about you and your life. They can have something to share that’s ready and consistent with what would go into the obituary, and importantly its consistent with you, your life and your wishes. The entire death production can be eased. If something new is shared and you’re a writer, artist or musician, it may be kind of amazing last moment with them. Prepared for you but prepared with them in mind. I don’t think too much work is required. Reflection and selection will be adequate. Around the time of death and after the work is for everyone else. That’s also what a will does. It is supposed to extend one’s will to near and after death.

One can be imaginative about it, but when I imagine what seems suitable, especially for myself, I think of what is accurate and honest. What speaks about me and what I like most. But people would likely want to have less plain plans than mine and might want something funny or less about themselves specifically. It could even become competitive. That’s not what I would want if this idea did come into reality for others. But competition about that still seems greatly preferable to having no plans, having actual last utterances and misfortunes shared alone, and having others dread death without having received any guidance.

Actually, why aren’t people competing over their last words? Do they think they’ll perform well? They seem to compete about so many things, why not the greatness of the things they say as their minds start to random a bit? It’s likely because that’s in bad taste of course, but also because I think people are aware they cannot control it. Historically, people have wanted honorable deaths, to die in battle, or to die in one condition or another that seems praiseworthy? There is good reason–some have and will claim and say that to have a death that is not great is a sort of punishment. Some supernaturalists, but not all and probably not most, but in large numbers, will say that if a person died in a really unfavorable way, or had really unfavorable last moments and utterances, that they have been rejected by the deities, or suffered a karmic ending. They got what they deserved and so on.

This posting is for everyone. That the above is how people think is horrendous and really they wouldn’t want others to think these ways about themselves. Control is not really possible at death unless that part is planned too, which is another topic I have much to say about. I wouldn’t want competition between people to be able to claim they had the best final moments or the best substitutes for final moments. Personally I like the substitution more. It can be more tasteful. It is much better than relying on nothing at all, and it can be used by everyone. Perhaps such an idea can become a real thing people mutually want to do and they will understand that competitiveness and mutual punishment is not in anyone’s good interest.

Soon I will get to work on the easy task of including my wishes in my living will. I will find ways to ensure it’s communicated to whoever needs to know about it. I’ll likely publish it, give it to an attorney, share it with a few people, and make sure it is accessible on my person, somewhat like dog tags or health information. There isn’t too much more that can be done than this at the moment, but doing this enough to know now that I did all that could be done. There still is not complete control so that has to be released from worry. Perhaps we will have a technology that is trusted for this. Social media can provide a way too.

Maybe these ideas can be connected with the motivations people have had for faking their own deaths. Some shows and movies have shared these scenarios. Someone fakes their death to see how others would react, and what they would do: “Would they be all about my money or would they be kind and respectful and honor wishes. Would they ignore my preferences?”. Maybe instead of going so far as to fake our deaths, we can share some things in advance here and there, so people are aware already about how one thinks about the subject. Existing material can exist that way. This should go alongside a living will but even if a living will didn’t exist there would not be nothing to go by. The combination seems best, but done well, social media and technology to simply discuss this over time could be better than a living will alone. So it seems there are many ways to arrive at a solution to this problem but one has to start and not wait until the very end.

Identification Numbers, Library of Congress Numbers, and Copyrighting

Monday, May 20, 2024 05:00:39, Tempe, Arizona

Writers and publishers of books and journals will eventually and often need to deal with book numbers of various kinds. As someone who has ventured onto this pathway and is now in the process of coming to routine interaction with organizations that provide these services, I have some things to say about, firstly, what the process looks like and how one work within it, secondly, what is strange about the process and what seems “scammy”, and thirdly, what about the process may be something worth changing or ignoring. One might think, as one begins book publishing, that much of this process is something that one can do on one’s own. “Why do I need to work with all these organizations and why these organizations?”. One will also recognize that the process is somewhat expensive, and there is more than one person to pay even for the release of a self-published book. One can publish a book independently without any numbers from any organization but one’s book will have less professionalism and less potential for sales. My biggest motivation was to ensure a high degree of professionalism, by making my book more like those I’ve been exposed to and enjoyed.

Most have seen on a cover or on one of the first few pages of a book an ISBN and a Library of Congress Control Number. We’ve learned about these things in our times at school or in college. Having learned about these numbers we recognize that when we write a book we want those same numbers in our books. Obtaining them seems straightforward, but the process is a bit odd. ISBN numbers are not obtained from any government entity but the Library of Congress does have an expectation of seeing an ISBN number on applications for their control number. ISBNs have to be purchased and they aren’t inexpensive. I purchased a group of 10 ISBNs for about 250 dollars, and a single ISBN cost is approaching $100. The organization that sells this is called “Bowkers”. At first, upon learning that it was Bowkers and not some agency, I thought it might be a scam. Visiting the website made me wonder if it was just a third party service. It turns out those in publication are familiar with Bowkers and that is what everyone uses. After buying 10 numbers, which could simply be a random set of digits sufficiently large to ensure uniqueness (uniqueness isn’t even necessary but that’s another topic), I had an organized list on the website in which to manage those numbers. You assign each number to a book that’s been written or is in preparation, and you need different numbers for different formats. A print format gets one number, paperback gets another. There is other information that can be entered but I haven’t used the entire service so will have to return to discuss that further. For now I’m fine with having book numbers that I can apply to all the books I’m writing.

Bowker’s, a bit strangely, offers a copyright service, called CopyrightNow. On their website there was mention of a Supreme Court Case that stated that copyrighting with such a service is required to ensure any chance of victory in a lawsuit or claim (paraphrasing). Because Bowker’s is the service used, and is a quasi-governmental looking website, I thought I would try it out. Clicking links and buying things suggested is something I would seldom do, but at this point I somewhat trusted Bowkers and wanted to protect my document. If they issued the ISBNs and they were trusted for that, surely they would provided a reasonable copyrighting service that may be normal in the industry, I thought. So I began the Copyrighting process at Bowkers.

What I found though is that indeed it appears to be a scam, or an entirely unnecessary purchase. Firstly, it is a nonrefundable purchase. One buys it before seeing what one will be doing to get the copyright. Once purchased, a login is provided to another site. That site is very antiquated and upon seeing it I think almost anyone would immediately think they’ve been duped. It is using a database nobody uses today, that I recognized from experience with it in the early 2000s and the site has html that appears like html from the 1990s, using old features that are considered very poor in design and coding. Since I had already paid, I went through the process. Along the way I saw signs and indicators that something very strange was going on with this website but still I wanted to see how it turned out. It appears after going through it, that the service was simply a proxy: anyone could go to the US Copyright Office to register a copyright. This Bowker’s service simply went to that location and did it on your behalf. But the means of doing it seemed like the use of a website that a single individual could make, and it was incredibly unofficial. There is a waiting process and it will be a while before I get my copyright certificate. I don’t know what they are doing with my information between now and when they submit to the US Copyright office. If I submitted directly it would feel safer, but instead I have some strange entity handling something in advance of its being copyrighted. It was advertised to make one feel safer, but the process feels dangerous from just after spending non-refundably without knowing what the process looked like. Since this was off the official site that people use universally for ISBNs it makes me think very differently about Bowkers and makes me question ISBN numbers in general. What is this organization doing and why would they promote a sketchy secondary business? Also, why do I have to buy numbers?

Bowkers also sells bar codes. If you look at the back of your book, you’ll noticed printed onto it an ISBN number combined with a bar code that can be used for scanning at retailers. This helps retailers because then they can just relate the code in their system to inventory, and can immediately begin scanning the books. But bar codes are nearly a “nothing” technology. People can generate QR codes easily. Bar codes can be generated easily. Bowkers also convinces people that they need to buy bar codes to sell effectively, and just like the buying of numbers, I wonder “why would I buy bar codes”. Teenagers and young people would certainly think this is a ridiculous process, seemingly designed to take money from the technologically inadept.

In any effort to avoid in the future having ISBN numbers if they do not really seem to facilitate sales, I have opted to create my own numbering service called MYSBN that assigns a random code. This is in my recent book prints along with the ISBN. They cost nothing to generate and I’ll be offering it as a service to others. Others who want to have unique bar codes could easily generate their own too. Perhaps I’ll provide that service as well, for free. Since I was a Chief Architect in software guiding businesses, and I could provide this service for free, Bowker’s seems especially scam like to me now. Imagine if I offered this as a required paid service for all writers to feel professional. Perhaps the programming takes me a few days. Is it reasonable to charge hundreds of dollars for barcodes and IDs to put in books perpetually for decades for something that takes minutes of programming? MYSBN may require others to begin using the service too to have really good utility and viability even for my sales efforts, but apart from sales efforts I think it will be useful independently too. I just have not yet identified all of the potential usages. It should be noted too, that Amazon uses its own ISBN-like number for its books. I learned of this today. It seems very likely that as they increased their business in publishing, they simply sidestepped Bowkers entirely. If you write a book and place it on Amazon you are given an Amazon number for your book. You can enter an ISBN too, but that is optional. If this is what Amazon is doing, then again, it appears the ISBN and Bowkers are superfluous. They are strange.

I have also submitted to get my library of congress control number and the process there is also bizarre. Firstly, finding where to do it requires more than google. It requires navigating government website pages that talk about the process but provide no links to where to do anything. After some time wasted trying to locate the place to do the work with a variety of searches, sites, and YouTube videos, I finally just found it. I can’t think of a strategy to immediately arrive at it. I would post the link here for others to use, but there are indications they move pages, and after a short time I’ll simply have a broken link to fix, so I’ll avoid doing that. After creating accounts, and submitting information, I am required to send a hard copy of my book. It states 6 weeks will elapse before I get my LCCN (“Library of Congress Control Number”). This must slow down book production extremely, if anyone wants to get the number into their book in advance of printing. A copy has to be printed and sent to them without a number, then one has to wait all this time. If one has a publishing company, like I do, the service will provide a way to get the numbers faster, but I’m not there yet. The process of getting such a publisher account requires the submission of information that appears to be not too useful, and I wonder how it is screened. There are some signs it may not be screened without any discrimination.

Without getting an LCCN from the Library of Congress, one does not get their book entered into various catalogs and may not have their book listed in other library catalogs elsewhere. Some libraries rely apparently on the Library of Congress Catalog. I read also that the information may make it into catalogs that relate to the book industry for things one might not know that the book industry does. This appears to me to indicate that they use your information for other purposes and perhaps share or sell the information. It’s like when one starts a business or changes an address with USPS and suddenly gets junk mail. The information once had is distributed supposedly to your benefit but you don’t know who that is. This is an interaction with a government website, so there is a degree of trust, and an anticipation that your information isn’t used in ways too against what you’d want. However, it does appear to me to be sketchy here too, I just don’t know how sketchy yet.

Either way, the LCCN like the ISBN doubles the dubious numbers one needs for one’s books. MYSBN can be used to instantly have a unique identifier that can be used in any database along with a bar code. I generated mine in seconds. The LCCN takes weeks, an application online, and a snail mail exchange. ISBN takes minutes, but with a questionable authority, and an expenditure that one has not had sales yet to recoup. The processes are too slow and/or are too expensive.

As I think about the quality of my book publication from my publishing company, I think of the professional quality it has. Perhaps I can omit these numbers and simply use MYSBN or my domains. Domains are yet more numbers. Is a website needed to sell the books or convey digitally that it exists? Some would really want that. Soon I’ll have many domain names, many ISBNs, LCCNs, and ISSNs for my books (for my journal). That’s quite a lot of administrative effort for an independent publisher. If you submit on Amazon, now you have an Amazon number too, and they’ll eat into your profits. I’m very tempted now to avoid all of this and simply do it all on my own, but the biggest issue is how doing that much oneself would affect marketing potential of one’s books. It does appear that the industry will have barriers to entry that would greatly reduce potential sales along normal channels like sales to book stores if I don’t have the numbers that they force me to have. That don’t seem necessary. That I’ll have to keep paying for.

After all this effort one has not protected one’s intellectual property. There is the U.S. Copyright office to work with on that. I don’t know the extent to which they provide real legal protection. Copyrighting is not something I have sufficient experience with and I think unless one knows how legal disputes are settled one will feel that one is not totally protected. To avoid any copyright issues, I’m diligently managing my information and dating to provide lots of legal support and ammunition that can be used in court. But nothing of the combination of information and submission to the US Copyright office (including the copyrighting I have pending), seems to complete any goal of finalizing self-protection from infringements. Does anyone care to infringe? What is the risk and how much thinking is desirable to offset these risks? Yet more to think about for people who could simply be writing and producing.

Self-innovation, Self-Adoption of Innovations, and Reality II

Saturday, May 18, 2024 23:43:00, Tempe, Arizona

One of the few creations that person can make that will endure are technological creations that will continue to be used. People die, and stories are often unconveyed after death, but technologies and tools often persist. The hammer, screw, wheel, and various other simple technologies have lasted for many generations. Tools that were used for generations are held onto as curiosities and artifacts for museums of various kinds. They are retained for learning later. This is the case for various other types of technology too. This is not a unique idea– others have commented before that technology and the results of engineering have a usefulness that creates an unwillingness to give them up. There is a dependence upon them, and even the lineage of tools is something to be retained, since it is understood that some older tools sometimes provide better ways of doing things than newer options, and if that is understood, they are used later, perhaps reimagined as newer devices depending on earlier designs.

Here I don’t want to speak specifically about the longevity of one tool or technology or another. Instead, I want to talk about the reality of the tools as they relate to designers and users. Mentioning of the longevity helps to communicate just how useful they are, and to create a clear picture of the importance of the tools in culture and their blending with everyday affairs, such that the tools have an undeniability attached to them. We depend on them, pass them to new generations, hold and use them hundreds of times, and in some cases millions or billions of times, and we are aware that without them our lives would be different and we would perhaps have a less comfortable existence. They figure into literature and works of art, and are part of the overall depiction of human life on earth.

Some work on making tools themselves, or things that are tool-like, as part of their creative efforts. Sometimes these works do not get widespread attention, or are criticized as being unuseful, unnew, or even that they are not really tools or technology to begin with. Some harsh critics will claim that these innovations are not innovations, and that they don’t constitute anything that might be considered “real” technology. Some will try to deny the realities associated with what has been made.

One way to thoroughly establish the reality of such an innovation is to use it for a prolonged period of time on one’s own. If this does no convince others of the reality, then in the least it will convince oneself, which is a good way to defend ones mind against the onslaught of naysayers who want to deny your creativities and advancements. Used initially, a technology creation will create pleasure; used extensively, it will create considerable confidence in what was made and what the results of it are. It begins to blend with life. It begins, through it’s use, to create many effects, either in creating new things or in facilitating the realization of various goals. It can fulfill needs. After many years, the creative object has had many effects in one’s life that may build to something more significant, and what was created forms a constituent part of the living process of that more significant thing. It has attained a kind of “life of its own” within the activities of at least one person, and after a long time probably it has influenced other people. It’s very hard to behave with a technology for a long time without it having some impact on others, by either being a part of their world too, or by having effects that relate to them in various ways. If technologies are positive in their usage, then others very likely have been positively impacted.

Making a useful tool or creative thing that endures eventually attains a definite unchallengeable reality. It’s novelty compared with alternatives is somewhat insignificant if it is well used to good effect. It’s uniqueness coming from an independently creative mind creates novelty even if others cannot see it at first. If used within the family, it becomes an attractive heirloom to have and to keep around. Children seeing their mothers and fathers using the same tool over and over often consider it very special to use themselves too, and to have. It may be something to leave behind or to develop upon, to emulate. This preserves the technology and makes it a special thing to retain.

Notice after all of this from a single person, it already has those same characteristics of importance than any other technology has that were discussed above. We already agree that these technologies were valuable and figure prominently in human history. Scale of civilization causes us to prize some technologies especially because of how common they are, but we also understand that if scale is smaller, the importance is still great. Tribal heritage relating to arts and tools exist at a smaller scale but many in these tribes consider their tools to be very important and special, and think they are examples of what their culture is. At the family level, it becomes part of the family story. At the individual level, it is a part of one’s life story. Using creative tools and artifacts of various kinds, especially if used over and over, blends the technology with life and creates an unchallengeability.

Personally, I really enjoy can openers. A can opener is a favorite tool and often comes to mind. I like simple can openers like those issued by the military, and have them in my possession as I travel. I have seen other types of older antique can openers and appreciate their operation and what they make possible for people like myself, who eat from cans. If I made a can opener myself, and I’d like to make such a can opener, I could enjoy it for years and it would certainly be a part of my life story. If a self-created tool is more useful than this, and has some novelty, that’s even better. Even if I created a new can opener, to well, open cans, even if it does it a different way, it doesn’t bother me that other devices that exist that can do the same. It would still be an interesting device with years of use, and it will still be something special to have held onto.

There are many different kinds of technology that one can create or remake in a new design. I have created other technologies that are actually new and different, that I’ve used for years. The use over time is proof as I said, of the reality of the technology; and this technology has yielded output that is undeniably different than what other technologies produce. It has facilitated my development in ways that no other technology could do for me, and has become incredibly well blended with many different parts of my life. It has influenced others in ways that they are unaware of. I can imagine others who could challenge the technology, but for me its well confirmed in years of use that created very great personal satisfaction and conviction. At the smallest scale in our culture it has been a part of my life, even though interestingly it has influenced others considerably too. Even if it were not adopted by others, I already know it has been an interesting part of my own small culture of one, and has had a place in the larger culture with small but frequent contributions. If it became a popular technology or not does not alter that it was already an impactful technology. Its reality is assured and its properties that are similar to large technologies we already value is already confirmed. By making such a creative effort there is an object and a story of life attached that is more immune from naysayers and people who would wish to critically object in unjustifiable ways. It has already become a vital part of an individual history.

Self-innovation, Self-Adoption of Innovations, and Reality

Saturday, May 18, 2024 16:18:28, Tempe, Arizona

I argued elsewhere, that if one happens to coin a word, and one begins using that innovation, that it already exists as a word. It’s simple to immediately utilize it, use it consistently, blend it with one’s language or languages, and hold onto it as another part of one’s vocabulary. Mentally, I can add here, it is indistinguishable from vocabulary one has in memory. If one learns a new word, it is likely even harder to “wordify it in one’s own mind” because that requires recalling it, using it, blending it in with one’s regular use of one’s languages, which amounts to using it in novel sentences, and so on. The word created and utilized immediately and remembered is a word even if one has invented it and all words have been invented this way.

We can have a social elicitation (see prior postings) on this point as we use it. We may recall that there is a social idea that if it is not already in the dictionary, it is not a “word”. This creates an experience of disagreement in one’s brain with that social rule, and a recognition of disagreement between that social rule and the reality. Without the social elicitation causing thought about the disagreement, one is aware there is positive agreement between the view that the word is a word, that the word is vocabulary in the brain, and that it has utility in the world. That it is a word according to the reality that all words were also created the same way.

Coinages can still be synonyms of other words. That is how there are synonyms to begin with too. A word already existed, but someone created another. The existence or non existence of a similar word or linguistic technology does not matter. If one creates another language one will arrive at synonyms for words in thousands of other languages, but that the new language has the word, and all the languages recreated it thousands of times does not mean that it is not a new language with new words. Can you create a new language with new words? Yes, that’s how they exist. Can you create a new word? Yes, that’s how any exist.

This is a great example of a more general phenomenon because I think all are well enough acquainted with word creation, and all are good enough at doing it, to know that if one creates it, and uses it, there has been a real adoption of it and real use. The real adoption and use are important as I noticed today, as it relates to the social concern of whether or not what one happens to have created is “real”. People will complain about this thing not only for words but for other innovations.

Imagine you created your own mathematical approach to doing calculations of your budget. The results are always correct. It doesn’t use multiplication or division. Your way of calculating is some process that is a substitute for the abacus, and it didn’t exist until you made it. Now you’re at trial in court, and they are trying to examine your financials. You present concepts that they are unfamiliar with. They may think “that’s not regular or real” or “there is some issue with this” but it’s just noncomformity. The creation of the approach and utilization is self-confirming that you use the technology and that it works, and sometimes others merely need to learn the approach themselves, to understand the reality of it. They’ll complain about it, but the innovation is real.

Now imagine you create a mathematical approach of your own to solve myriad problems. This is something I’m actually doing. Let’s say you learn it and develop it so well, that the methodology is a substitute for quite a lot of math and includes innovations existing math does not include. If you create it, adopt it, and utlize it consistently, eventually it blends with your life. Questions from outside as to the veracity of the approach can merely complain somewhat stupidly that it doesn’t conform. “This isn’t real math” just like the complaint of “that’s not a real word”. “That’s not a real language”.

The process of adoption and use creates evidence that can even require continued use to explain to others. Let’s imagine I developed my mathematics to the point where I use it for everything I do math for. Let’s say someone else stumbles on a paper, and plagiarizes that paper. There is some copyright infringement problem. Now we go to court. In court, they may want to hear other ways to describe what the math is doing, but what is interesting is if it’s sufficiently novel, there is no other way than to enforce its use and to teach others. In my case, my mathematics is called Wanattomian math. It’s Wanattomianism. To discuss wanattomianism, I use it, and its concepts. Which means as people are wanting me to explain otherwise, I simply keep using wanattomian concepts. If that’s all I use, and it’s all I’m familiar with, now not using mathematics of other kinds at all, it’s somewhat inexplicable to others. So I just enforce the use and only use that.

Notice that when people talk math, they are stuck in existing math. They can’t think outside of it. If they have to talk math with other people, they are constrained to its employment. They may have to try to teach others how to use it, but inso teaching they are bringing others into how it is used as it is.

If one created a novel language, started to stop understanding a native language, then one would also have to use that language for most things and enforce its use. Others who question it, or want to translate it, will find it is too difficult. A fundamental issue with the courts must be that one must translate a native language into the language of the law. If one is from Papua New Guinea, and one speaks one of the hundreds of languages that are uncommon there, there might be a very great issue doing justice in legal proceedings.

There may be a legal method to be more incomprehensible too. If the court cannot understand, how will they do justice? It appears normal mathematics for accounting is included in this. If you detract from normal mathematics in accounting, it may be discovered either that the incomprehensibility created support, or that the incomprehensibility ensured legal failure. If it ensured legal failure that would show a weakness in the courts, and if it offered too much support, it would show a legal failure of another kind. Likely the legal system is created partly for colonial purposes still. I think if there is a legal issue with a person or people who speak languages too distant from English that they will largely be violated by the law. This is something a historian of native tribes worldwide could talk about. It could even mean that innovations for other languages and mathematics are prohibited. If you can’t speak in English and perform normal math for accounting then you are simply at a much larger risk of being violated by the courts.

Video as Digital Evidence for Science and Substitution for Witnesses

Saturday, May 18, 2024 15:04:15, Tempe, Arizona

By the title of this brief article it would be recognized that there is very braod significance of this topic, and I do intend to develop this topic fully. However, for now I want to focus it to a specific scientific undertaking I have underway and that is my study on editing, as it relates to writing productivity, and overall intelligence evidenced in velocity of significance and ideation.

I am a very fast and skilled typist and require very little to no feedback on what I am typing for the output to be in a ready or nearly ready state for publication, depending on the type of publication. Some writing is book or journal quality immediately. Some writings are not but are of a quality that exceeds informal jourals, magazines, and internet articles. And some need some editing to be ready for even these, but are still suitable for informal publication on social media channels for conversation or for sharing of thinking. Seldom is anything so poor in quality to be like a mundane social person with an average intelligence and usually any thought whatsoever here is of a better quality than that. Even this paragraph is vastly superior to writing quality that one would expect in social media, even with some editing effort on the part of the writer, if the writer wrote anything of what was produced!

I’ve been collecting data on my typespeed and quality, and data on the means in which the recording was carried out. The only witness of the effort was myself, but consistency of effort and some automation of programming create log trustworthiness of the data. What is missing though is witnesses of various kinds. Corroborating witnesses of skill exist amongst colleagues and customers I’ve had and number in the hundreds. Former family members including my ex wife are also well exposed to the type skills I’m mentioning and would also confirm, at least with respect to what they can confirm, which certainly includes blind type speed and proficiency which is unusual. But there are no current witnesses of the data collection other than myself. Going beyond creating a trustworthy log which is something that would be trusted in courts as witness testimony, on my own behalf, I am wanting to have additional substantiation. One way to go without witnesses is to simply record on video. Videos can be edited and altered, but are still considered more trustworthy than actual witnesses when the videos themselves have many characterisitics of authenticity. Of course there is no complete proof in the form of video, witnesses, and automatic or partly automatic logging, but when it is very great in quality in and consilieant, it will be treated as proof enough. That’s all there is that can offer proof.

So what I’m looking for is akin to proof. What I need for this data on typing is simiply to prop up a camera, and record myself as I do a posting just like this one. It will show the opening of applications, the automatic and manual timestamping of the documents, the automatic timestamping will exist in the video, or at least the start and end points which demarcate the data collection from beginning to end.

The video will show my behavior in relation to the typing, where I look, where I don’t, where I seem to gloss my attention, and where I focus intently (a rarity). It will show I can type consistenly in roughly the same way, with the same productivity level, with output on the screen and with no output. It will show I never look at the keys, unless there is rarely a strange character that I’m not yet trained to automatically type using “muscle memory” which is brain motor automaticity. It will show all those metrics which I’m coding for as indicated in the most recent posting. Upon completion of some number of videos, perhaps approaching 20-30 videos, the task of “proving it” will be finished. In digital evidence, if there are videos showing very completely all circumstances relevant to a situation, the witnesses who could be called to talk about what was seen would be shown to be of very poor quality and somewhat untrustworthy. This is already known in the Psychology. Witness testimony is untrustworthy and fallible in too many ways to recall and mention here. In my case however there would even be agreement with witnesses. So the scientific study underway will be shown to have a good designs as far as necessary evidence is concerned. Notice that in the sciences, data collection does not necessarily have witness OR video confirmation. They are simply trusted to be exercising dilligence. This would imply that if I am treated like other scientists, I would need nothing additional to earn trust that is due on equivalence. Instead however, what is being produced will constitute proof as far as is reasonable for anyone to collect functioning as a scientist, doing more than a scientist would do.

Saturday, May 18, 2024 14:36:45, Tempe, Arizona

In prior postings I’ve included notes to indicate which writings were unedited as part of my study on editing. I’ve included information about how the typing was carried out, and what level of editing or reading related. I did this in an informal way that was not very specific, according to my expectations, about how the topic should be divided. However, they were accurate. These notes require some additional explanation and here I’ll provided a better analysis and categorization of the process.

Some who have taken typing courses are aware of the idea of blind typing. Blind-typing roughly means that one does not need to look at the keyboard. But wanting to be very specific this is not entirely adequate. By saying that my typing has been blind typed, I have not been very clear, confounding two ideas. Firstly, I never look at the keyboard so it is always 100% blind typed. But there is also blind transcription which is something I do and can do, which means there is no visual input. There is also transcription without looking a the screen to see the results. That is what I’m thinking was the partial part of the blind typing. I do tend to look at the location of the cursor as I type, seeing some words. Usually with no attention, however, which means it is “blind” but there may be some effect of having feedback upon what is typed. In the near future, I will be typing with no feedback whatsoever, except confirmation that what was typed was stored and has sufficient quantity to know it has not been lost.

Here is a new way to divy the topic on the bais of the above paragraph.

Related to the typing and senses during typing:

Related to editing:

Related to tools:

Awareness - Writing is appearing while writing. - Writing was noticed only later. - Writing is actively read while writing. - It was automatic so it was uncertain.

There is a strange divide between reading and saying when there is output happening as one speaks. Both can happen, but at the micro level it’s hard to disentangle or become aware of whether one is really reading or listing as one writes or speaks. Are you listening when you speak or are you more speaking with an auditory aspect being registered? This is different than reflecting on it afterwards, which in writing is a reading back, or reading of written material that appeared.

This method of categorization is part of the planning for having a more scientific understanding of the data, and to improve data collection going forward. The informal writing above is to be updated to include a coding scheme, so that chunks of experience are properly classified and measured. Some of what is written will admit of measurements, and some will simply apply or not (still related to measurement but without any measuremetn tool used. Like the presence or absence of a behavior or event).

Sharing this here provides some transparency regarding the scientific process for making a study or analysis more rigorous. Initially it is not possible to already be at complete rigor. There is a developmental process to arrive at a more rigorous approach, and it can be made even more rigorous later depending on the instrumentality of the rigor. It is not necessary to be more rigorous than would be instrumental to the purposes had, although it can be discovered later that the rigor was insufficient for those purposes and more rigor needs to be provided, but still not more than some threshold amount which makes it uninstrumental.

Agreement, Disagreement, and Newness as Social Elicitations

Saturday, May 18, 2024 13:34:26, Tempe, Arizona

Now I’m working on identifying the sources of various social behaviors in the brain, but initially since I’m not appropriately equipped on the requisite neuroscience, I’m focusing on what I can discover introspectively. It is easy for me to identify what get’s activated in mental experience when various communication channels communicate something to me. If a message is received, however it is received, it seems to activate a response from me (and likely not the same with everyone) if there is novelty, agreement, or disagreement with experience. By experience I mean nearly any information that can be loaded into the mind for reflection upon. Since I’m adept at logic and logical argumentation, the detection of errors, and the detection of thought that has more truthfulness, I’m very likely to notice, in comparison with information loaded, what agrees, disagrees, or is new. Information is compatible, incompatible, or new. Compatibility and incompatibility seem more basic to the experience. New information when recognized, is still checked for compatibility. Compatibility with experience is basic to learning too, and children as they are learning the world often see new stimuli that adults are familiar with already, that is incompatible with what can be loaded. Learning initially and for much of life is about finding new things that are incompatible with one’s mind, and the mind seeks to blend that experience with what is known to make it compatible, and once compatible something akin to understanding is arrived at. When one discovers something new as an older person, incompatibilities are often less obvious and are less numerous as pieces fit in with extensive information in experience, unless the experience is something that is extremely novel and surprising. In scientific experimentation, since people have little experience with that, surprise can be generated again and again to test a person’s information and prompt learning events akin to learning events in children. What is new may or may not come with explanation. Seeking to explain is like trying to utilize things that are known to develop connections with what is unknown to bring them into a mental framework. Older people are more likely than younger people to pretend they have explanations perhaps because their extensive experience confuses them into thinking that any gaps in explanation are fillable and that the superficial explanations are adequate. How people handle newness of information is an interesting topic, because when it appears they are lacking explanation, or are unable to learn an explanation provided, they don’t seem to commonly abstain from judging that they can know the causes. Instead they tend to pretend they know the causes or try to disregard it as uninteresting or superfluous. Later bringing it up they may get irritated or angry, being aware they do not know the explanation but to persist in pretending they can explain it. Theh later, since they have been exposed to the stimulus the stimulus itself becomes less surprising, and they have less interest in getting the explanation right because it has become less interesting although it disagrees with experience. It can still annoy but they will cover the annoyance by claiming they can explain it otherwise oftentimes.

Newness is an addition to the earlier writings below. Interest in newness is very fast. I can be quickly identified that somethign doesn’t fit into experience, which may also constitute a fast awareness of an incompatibility or disagreement. If something doesn’t fit in with experience, it does not appear to agree with it. People are very interested in trying to discover for themselves with problem solving how it might fit in, which is working to make the mind agree with the phenomenon. The world’s role in compatibility or agreement with the mind appears to be less important than the mind’s role, because all understand that the world is natural, and real as presented, when the phenomena doesn’t come from another mind that may lie or fabricate. So in relation to a mental disagreement with the world, something is to be made in agreement with the mind. This includes building out the mind to include more information and to make connections with what exists to make it cohesive and consistent. Consistency with the world is when the mind experiences familiarity, habit, automation, and expectation. When the mind experiences inconsistency, the world does not need to change, and it cannot and would not. The mind is what would do the changing and that is in the recognition of disagreement and the finding of ways to make it agree with what might already exist or what is learned in the process.

When a mind receives information that came from another mind, there is the understanding that the other mind may need alteration for agreement or disagreement with reality. Also that the other mind may present information about the world that is not in agreement with it. Conversation and passive communication with others is more difficult regarding this topic because unlike exposure to novel worldly stimulus, which forces a need for self-alteration (for those who are more rational), exposure to others involves minds in some degree of disagreement with reality. Much talk and chatter between people is about sharing, correcting, and trying to figure out what is true about reality. Reality is around and is impersonal but both are trying to resolve their various mental disagreements with it.

Since learning on exposure to new phenomena relates to compatibility/agreement and incompatibilty/disagreement, and learning is pervasive, and social elicitations relate to detection of agreement and disagreement with messages, it seems to follow that they are fundamental to life in general. All learning and all social behavior. Much learning too is simply social behavior. Here I’m mostly interested in how it relates to mental elicitations that cause the brain to begin social processes.

Social processes can be activated in various ways that are not supportive to a mind. The mind, so trained to socialize, can spend too much time just mentally socializing with it’s own illusory models of other people and scenarios with them. These kinds of social process have to be evoked somehow, and this is parly why I like the word elicitation. An elicitation would be from stimulous outside the self, or would be from recollection. Recollections of what disagrees with experience is a powerful way to continue unuseful social behavior. Have you ever met anyone who you talked with before, to later find them prepared to argue with you, but their mode of argument seems to indicate they’ve prepared for an illusory version of you? Their thinking included harmful socialization caused by both you as a stimulus and some recollection. There are other causes for recollection. Attraction/repulsion and so on. An attraction may call someone to mind again and again. These will relate to agreements or disagreements of various kinds. There is also the dwelling because you might want something or less from someone. Even planning of what is wanted seems to relate to an analysis of what agrees or disagrees with experience otherwise planning wouldn’t be quite as effective. Here it is admitted that while disagreement and incompatibility are fundamental for social elicitations, they are not the only fundamental components. Attraction and repulsion are also fundamental. Recognitions of wants/desires and risks/dangers are important. Both of these must analyze however, for what agrees/disagrees with experience, even if the mind doing the thinking relies on imagination and illusory models of how the other person happens to be.

I’m generating this analysis afresh independently, but it has been influenced by my learnings of social psychology as I was training to be a Psychologist. This is confirming, when one builds up an analysis and finds agreement with a field. It would be found that this agrees closely with existing work in social psychology and sociology. It also agrees with marketing and advertising which relates to this, and of course most would agree that it fits with experience, with certain omissions admitted. Since I’m interested primarily in my own experience of social elicitations, I curiously did not include desire. I rarely experience desire of any other person, so this did not present immediately as key to the experience of social elicitation. Repulsion however is key. This does relate to disagreements in experience of various kinds. For my own independent experience it sill appears that agreement/disagreement is the most important. Repulsions are largely caused by disagreements detected. These are disagreements of the sort that don’t seem to relate to any need for additional learning, but rather are the irritants of other minds having things incorrect in various ways. Agreements also are involved, as often I hear things from others that happen to be compatible with my experience and that can be a joy. But as it is repeated, I’m finding still that these don’t tend to be learnig experiences and even these have become social irritants of sorts, because of their recurrence. Recurrence can present a disagreement with various plans and thoughts too. “I plan to think mostly about what is not a recurrence” can be in disagreement with what recurs. But plans have to be harmonized with experience too, and that is part of what I’m working on here to resolve. I am more interested in canceling the irritation than altering the plans, and this too would make them more harmonious.

Now that sufficient background is established, I will continue the topic on canceling social elicitations that result in unwanted or harmful social thinking, that happens independently primarily but also in relationships that are unwanted. Unwanted relationships can be shortened, and made less frequent. Independent thinking is what is done most of life. What i’m interested in most nowadays is my own social thinking as it occurs totally separately from others and independently.

What is clear about cancelation of social elicitations and suppression of social thinking that results is more quickly noticing that one is really in agreement/disagreement and that if that is not wanted, redirection should occur. What is great about the work to cancel social elicitation is that it happens often enough for training to be realistic, whereas other types of training do not have enough experiences to train upon. Conflict training is such an example. Conflicts are so rare, that people still find themselves behaving in unwanted ways when conflicts arise, and may feel guilt and shame afterwards. But this is simply because it happens too infrequently. Old people still handle conflict poorly as a result, and it is a challenge to their self-concept when it happens. Suddenly they seem unwise and they worry about appraisals of others. Correct appraisal though may just be that they have ineptitudes in the area of conflict since it is an area where training is more difficult.

The inability to cancel and suppress social elicitations and social thinking is pandemic. But as was said it is so pervasive that self-training is easier. Willingness to work on it may be low and some may not recognize any need. But if one wants to improve it is possible, and with education it is possible to nearly eradicate it, even though it is pandemic.

The process I am working on is quite simple. A message is detected at the time, during, or after a behavior in retrospect. The behavior relates to social elicitation and sometimes is automatic without awareness. At the beginning more is retrospective. “Oh I missed that again, and behaved the same way.” It is caught again and again too late, after the social thinking and elicitation, and any associated behaviors. Over time though, it is detected more rapidly and not only after the fact. Soon automation on the cancelation is experienced, and there are fewer elicitations. Catching it is faster too. With the combination of fast cancelation, fast detection, correction and redirection, and training with fewer retrospectives, the experience becomes almost only cancelation. I’m part way through this process and am not at the poitn of only cancelation. That is what I want for myself but i’m not there yet. Detection of all elicitation and automatic behavior is still a challenge but the frequency is diminishing according to the plan mentioned above.

Here I will record later whatever happens to be of good utility for furthering this process. Before yesterday, I did not have even the method of simply using agreement or disagreement as a way of noticing faster the elititation and suppressing thought about it. I used other means instead, working to ignore what was heard by focusing on various other stimuli in the environment. That has been effective but it has now been confirmed that this method above also if of good utility and should be used further. It is not yet known how comprehensive a training approach this is, but it may be that it is comprehensive enough to arrive at the desired outcome, which is simply to greatly reduce social elicitations and social thinking.

[Note: completed at 2:28 pm, in 54 minutes, without spell check, grammar check, editing of any kind, and semi-blind typed]

Agreement, Disagreement, Expansion, Persuasion, and Conversational Development

Friday, May 17, 2024 23:59:02, Tempe, Arizona

What are the various social elicitations that result in a desire to persuade or expand on someone else’s communication? Conversational development has been something I’ve been interested in for a very long time, particularly since I noticed with some it seems not to occur even after very prolonged periods of time. Lack of conversation development is a good cause for disconnection with another person. If that person happens to have conversations with you, but reverts only to what they were saying before, indicating a failure of both to recall what earlier conversations were about, and that points of agreement were really agreement for further mutual development, then there is very little reason to continue communication. To continue communication is somewhat akin to trying to develop a relationship with a person who has a certain kind of amnesia, someone who pretends to agree during conversation, or someone who stubbornly and relentlessly holds onto a view that they repeat again and again, without altering it to include communications from you. Without sufficient conversational development there is even a feeling that the person you are talking to somehow is not a real person, and is instead a kind of bot stuck in time. Friendship and other positive relationships are about mutual exchange and joint development, and an insufficient amount of development one is justified in wondering what kind of relationship is really had. So this topic has been important to me as I have considered and reconsidered various kinds of relationships with others greatly preferring those that have characteristics of good mutual development over time showing changes in both myself and the other as time goes on. Today, however, my interest is not only in this, and I’m sharing this in order to move to another stage of consideration, concerning when to refrain from attempting to make any development of conversation with anyone else, who might be present with me, or who might be on the internet, or someone I wouldn’t be talking with at all but am simply seeing on television. In myself, I wonder what social elicitations exist that would prompt me to want to think further on what was stated, written, or said, by another person wherever they happen to present a message.

When one is having conversation with another, there are various intentions and motivations that arise. Parts of conversation may be to relay facts, sharing pieces of information or news that seems interesting and useful, or to convey an argument with inferences that certain truths might exist. There are other purposes, like for the mutual enjoyment of humor, but for now I’m leaving that out. Typically when people talk they are telling each other something about the world including people and it comprises of pieces of information with various levels of factitude along with arguments that certain positions should be taken about facts. Either way, when you are speaking to someone, they wish to persuade you of some things. Firstly that what they are saying happens to consist of facts that you should take to be factual too, and secondly that there are positions they have that they are looking for agreement regarding that perhaps you should have as well. This is not totally comprehensive but is comprehensive enough to encroach broadly on the whole topic of social communication.

When talking to someone, when you are speaking, you really are trying to be persuasive about even some very basic details. You don’t want to be someone who is just sharing a bunch of false pieces of information or fictions. Your appearance and demeanor are even planned to be persuasive, so that someone you speak to takes you seriously enough to assume what you state is true. So you are wanting them to hear you, understand the things you are saying includes factual truths, at a fundamental level. Beyond that kind of persuasion, there is the persuasive effort of trying to convey that certain perspectives are useful, which is a kind of acknowledgement to you, and that perhaps certain strategies, courses of action, plans, and positions, also are useful. You want to persuade regarding yourself but you also at times want to persuade that a position is good enough that others might want to have a similar position or that the person you are talking to should have that same position. Mutual development includes points of agreement, along with ideas about what is agreed upon to expand a shared perspective. Takeaways from conversations include things expected to change between both people. That includes at a minimum knowing what both discussed and being able to recall that later. Above this expectation is the anticipation that after some time has elapsed both will have self altered in various ways being mutually influenced by what was talked about. A great example of this is if a friend or colleague you talk to remembers and changes on the bases of conversation with you and you do the same. If both of you are conveying new facts to each other, agree on various perspectives that have grown on the basis of shared facts, later you both recall the conversation and both have changed, then very likely you have the kind of relationship people are wanting. If humor and fun is mixed in, even better– you’ve found mutual intellectual growth and mutual enjoyment in the relationship and probably that is a decent relationship to continue to develop.Else it’s not clear why one would want to develop it.

Persuasion and self-alteration then seems a basic component of a good quality relationship. It’s happening often in the basic trustworthiness of stories and small pieces of information in discussion, and also in the larger level persuasions that certain perspectives are improvements that each should share in in some way that makes sense for each person’s situation.

In the absence of having a relationship such as this, one still might wonder what kind of development is happening in oneself as a result of transactions of all kinds with other people, either unilaterally in watching entertainment or reading books, or bilaterally in short relationships, talking with strangers, or talking with people one would not really want to talk to.

What I’m more interested for the moment is the extent that it is worthwhile to experience any kind of social elicitation whatsoever. When does it not happen? Sometimes when one watches television, one can watch it in a way that is not too analytical, almost watching without hearing, or hearing without too much concern or attention. People listen to others somewhat like this from time to time too– being involved only partly, and engaging very little. In this kind of scenario, one might not care too much about whether or not something is said is true, false, probable, or dubious. Listening a little more intently, paying attention, a smart person will begin to pick up on what does seem false, what seems true, and what seems probable or dubious. This can be done simply listening and being analytical about what is said, without too much time comparing what was said to one’s personal experience. With a little more attention, these things are attended to with some comparison to one’s own information in one’s mind, and one starts to find what agrees or disagrees with one’s experience. If one is attending to this extent then one may find one wants to think further on what one is hearing. It elicits what might be considered a “social elicitation” which is what prompts conversation on that point. If one is watching television or reading something, it may just create further reflection. If one is with another person, it may prompt conversation regarding it. People spend a lot of time thinking and reflecting on what appears to have been agreeable and what has been disagreeable. If agreeable it is a cause for mental expansion and sometimes the thinker will start to add pieces of what was heard to their own thinking. If disagreeable, there may be a desire to find ways to persuade the other, or to improve one’s own thinking to be more persuasive if there is an opportunity for that. In both cases one starts to think independently about how to converse potentially with others (or an immediate other) who has the view. It is a social elicitation because it catalyzes social thinking that involves imaginary preparations and transactions with another or other people.

What happens if this entire process becomes less useful? Consider an older person who is well-considered, and has many true perspectives of high development. Is it useful to continue to be socially elicited on things that happen to agree or disagree with their perspective? Some old people comment on the inability to persuade anyone regarding their thoughts and positions. Above I mentioned that there are many types of relationships that are not useful because there is little mutual development. What about the relationship one has to imaginary people or the television? Combining this topic with the topic discussed immediately below, there is a very large difficulty of rational persuasion versus rhetorical persuasion and people have trouble knowing the difference. It turns out there is a lot of social elicitation that is not particularly worthwhile and the older person who has less time remaining will know this and will likely begin to decrease these elicitations. It’s simply not worth socializing alone or with others on these various topics any longer.

Recently I’ve been thinking about the ways social interactions catalyze thinking in myself. While I enjoy sometimes hearing from others because it can be stimulating in positive ways, like the old person above I’ve started to notice that sometimes it’s simply socially eliciting. I’ll start to respond socially to stimuli just because I have various kinds of habits to do so. If I hear something I agree with, I’ll start to think about how I agree and why it seems true. If I hear something I disagree with, I’ll try to disregard it as something not worth thinking about, or I’ll recall what I think is the better perspective. But sometimes I don’t want to recall anything or think further about it at all. Who am I going to persuade? What is the benefit I will receive from thinking further on that topic? Where did the topic originate and why think about it then? The amount of ways one’s thinking can be side tracked from social elicitations is quite large. Wanting to have only relationships that involve mutual progression on each side, I wonder why have these transitory relationships with television, people on social media, and random people I hear speaking in public? I want to isolate and reduce socialization, independent or with others. I want it to focus on where it is valuable, and given the above considerations and article below, it’s rare. It’s not common. In youth it is common, but after one has developed a good quality of mind on a diversity of topics, what is around for socialization simply decreases in value.

This is also about controlling the reactivity of one’s mind to social stimulus. This is the reason for wanting to dissect the topic, to understand the really small ways the stimulus have an effect. Is this person now speaking trying to persuade regarding facts? Should I disregard? Is this person trying to state a position that agrees or disagrees with my own? Should I disregard its agreement or disagreement? Is this person trying to persuade me to adopt their viewpoint, or change my own? Are any of these things worth my time given how the communication began and where it came from, or where it will go in terms of mutual development? Will I be the only one developing on the basis of the communication?

In my estimation, after revisiting this and related topics many times, is that there is very clearly little value in socialization excepting rare occurrences. But the impulse to socialize is very great, even thinking alone in isolation while hearing messages and stimulus. Wanting to decrease the stimulus that is not worthwhile, is not entirely possible, and still there will be messages around. What in the messages elicit thinking that’s social in nature? I believe these details are required in order to suppress the inclinations and redirect them elsewhere. If I simply hear something on the news quickly at the gym, I do not wish to socialize alone regarding it. If I overhear a conversation that is somehow agreeable to me, I don’t want to imagine the ways I agree with it or expand my view. It’s typically too low in value compared with independent thinking pursuits I have.

What is the internal socialization that is happening in one’s mind? How does it relate to imagined others. In the absence of stimulus, what recollections are socially eliciting? What is the value? Notice that socialization causes one to overly value it very quickly such that one spends time on it. But one has limited time, so what are the ways to reduce this overall tendency to socialize. This is all coming from someone who is more expert these days in determining what socialization is worthwhile and what is not, and refraining from socialization even independently. However, it persists still nevertheless and is frequent. I would like to more greatly reduce my own propensity to socialize internally in all the ways it can happen to begin.

Problems with Persuasion, Social Inclination, and Conversation Development

Friday, May 17, 2024 20:14:45, Tempe, Arizona

Ever since first learning about persuasion in school, how others are to be persuaded, and the ancient topic of Rhetorical methods to increase persuasiveness, I’ve disliked it. After decades of revisiting the topic briefly, again and again, I’ve come to mostly despise how people are educated regarding persuasion. The primary reason is easy to state: the methods of persuasion actively employ logical fallacies and manipulation. The subject and its education is at odds with other subjects and education that are much better for everyone. For example, how to avoid being manipulated, how to be logical, how to think with correct inferences, and how to be scientific in how one arrives at factual information. These areas of education really do uplift society and individual thinkers. Once taught to think logically, scientifically, and reasonably, then one’s thinking is supposed to be resistant to persuasion from sources that ought not be persuasive. The teaching implies that there are immoralities in persuasion, and that by thinking better and more logically one has become a more moral person.

Because the education goes down these two pathways without reconciliation, it encourages the world to perpetuate a divide between rational and irrational thinking. It partly causes a stark division to remain between careers and markets where manipulative persuasion continues to exist and where it does not exist. Education, being realistic too, has to prepare people for how the world is really like, so they can get jobs and have an income. So people are taught to be persuasive so they can have jobs as lawyers, salespeople, marketers, advertisers, politicians, propagandists, and business people. If one has an offering, or a product, that is not of great value, how does one sell it without learning to be persuasive and to manipulate. Even though education has to be realistic about the world and the division between irrationality and rationality, there is a mutual causality: the world influences what people think needs to be taught, and what ought to be taught to transform the world. And so we have education teaching about how to think aright, and also how to persuade others regardless of how good one’s thinking happens to be.

I was definitely right to find issues with Rhetoric and Persuasion. Courses that cover logical thinking and science have the mission to change the world to eradicate these topics in their current form, and to alter them so that what makes sense becomes persuasive. Science and logic are not supposed to be unpersuasive. Instead they are supposed to provide the primary means of persuasion. A method that does not include the manipulative components and fallacies. Science and logic would indicate that if one has an inferior product, or a product that does not function, that actually it should not be sold. Nobody should be persuaded and businesses should not be seeking to persuade them in ways that manipulate them to make purchases. In the law, the side that is correct is supposed to “win”. Juries and Judges are not supposed to be persuaded using methods that are outside of logical and scientific thinking to identify truth. Politicians are not supposed to be able to represent, if they are not making sense all of the time, and are not utilizing logical fallacies. But they too frequently use appeals to authority, ad populum/bandwagon fallacies, and false claims generally. Rhetoric is the art of the lawyer, business person and politician, and not science and logic. By teaching rhetoric and persuasion in schools in the traditional way, we are actually preserving a huge error in society, and causing its perpetuation.

People complain about errors in politics, in business, in sales and marketing, but they are unable to identify what the problems happen to be oftentimes. They can point out false claims, lies, and so on, but are unable it seems to identify the fundamental issues which relate to how they persuade and utilize rhetoric to get what they want. Rhetoric even teaches that if one is persuasive, one should expect one’s audience to change their view and behave how you want. Knowing that people are untrained in being persuaded by logic and science in the correct ways instead, they are really using the solution that works. Rhetoric and manipulation work. It exists in the world and is a reality. Schools continue to teach it because they have to serve the community in a realistic way. But unwittingly they simply contribute to causing it to continue existing.

I don’t anticipate any solution to this problem in this lifetime. It really means there are huge changes needed to any market that happens to use persuasion. Sales, Marketing, Advertising, and Propaganda, would have to switch to truthful information conveyance. Imagine what it would be like if all advertising were changed to simply communicate honest information. It would completely change and would not resemble entertainment and a bombardment of impressions as it does today. Imagine if politics really had to employ correct reasoning, and what would it take to encourage that change? Firstly it would require an admission that Rhetoric needs to be eliminated in favor of science and logic, so our concept of what is persuasive needs to change. To do that, education needs to not be at odds with itself on this point. Of course education would have to change extremely and people at an early age would have to learn to be resistant to what was historically taught. The methods of the legal system would require alteration too. Juries would have to have been educated correctly, and would have already learned to not be susceptible to Rhetorical devices that are fallacious. Argument methods in the law would need to have their technique refined to be more logical and scientific. To an extent, debate and argument in the court is closer to what is wanted, but there are still tremendous differences in that the court really will accept rhetoric and legal process rules that incorporate logical errors. Attorneys would be able to talk extensively about this issue, and what it has meant for their careers and society.

Not being able to anticipate any change in this lifetime regarding this, and knowing that even on this point about persuasion I will not be able to be persuasive, using good logical thinking that is at odds with Rhetoric, I have to have a strategy for avoiding its negative effects at a personal level. Once one has learned science and logic, and really changed one’s own mind to think clearly, honestly, truthfully, and effectively, one will become aware the problem is all around, but also that one has very little power to do anything about it. The correct way of thinking is so useful in one’s life however, that one would not stop utilizing it. Anyone who has been educated correctly would be extremely aware of the divide mentioned above, and would likely be irritated by the pervasiveness of poor quality thinking and persuasion, and the inability to persuade people when arguments presented and communicated are really correct. There is a combination of a desire to avoid the illogic of the world, and learning to be comfortable being around it when it cannot be removed from the environment.

For a long time I’ve separated myself as much as I could from advertising, and I mostly disconnect from people who are unable to understand sound reasoning. This is the avoidance part of dealing with an environment that pervasively includes untrained people and too much advertising, news and propaganda. But I continue to have social inclinations that relate to a desire to persuade others on various topics to think aright. Not having learned what should and should not persuade, they cannot be persuaded. So I wonder how much of my effort at persuading and connected social inclinations to communicate persuasively should just be eliminated. Most of my writing has a component of persuasion built in. Since the writing is about improving truth related to thinking and conduct, in the field of Moral Philosophy, Logic and the Sciences, there is a persuasive interest that others who might read the material would be convinced and feel somewhat educated or informed. The writing has a joint interest in simply learning and recording what is learned, for self improvement and self guidance, there is an assumption too that what has been written is open for others to read. If one writes a book one would expect that one has benefited oneself by writing it but also that someone would read it. What is the point of having someone read it if they will not be persuaded by some of the contents? So the writing includes a motivation of my own that is about my own development, but also something about having some expectation of persuasiveness.

Knowing that few are really persuaded, and that there is this general societal issue, and that in my experience most are resistant to change and development, I’m wanting to decrease my social inclinations as they relate to the desire to persuade. How big is the desire to persuade? I think it’s massive. When we are communicating we are thinking we are providing good facts for others to use and good ways of thinking, such that if they agree, they will use what they learned. Knowing the size and extent in which people are unpersuaded and the extent that they are really would change our expectations universally about what communication is about and why it is useful. People keep trying to persuade even though their persuasiveness is limited, and of course, if what they say is not scientific and logical, and totally honest, then one should not be persuaded anyways, and this is in agreement with education. If they use rhetoric then there is something weak about what they are trying to say, and they are using manipulation instead. It seems then that communication itself ought to be different than it is, and if all were aware of these issues their way of socializing would be dramatically different. They would avoid it more, and the way of communicating would change. But if all were educated different such that all understood that science and logic were the better way, people could freely exchange facts with due scepticism, and would make inferences of better quality so one would expect more persuasion. Mutual distrust is a bigger result of the current process of communication. In conversation between honest clear thinking people, who don’t want to use poor logic or rhetoric to convince, there is much greater trust.

Returning to the topic of writing which is my favorite activity, I want to do two things: continue what I was doing already and simply keep developing myself truthfully, while keeping my writing available to anyone who might benefit even if the numbers are few, and I want to disconnect the social impulse from the process. I want my writing to persuade myself of course, where it is correct, but I don’t really want to strive to persuade anyone. As I said, they are likely unable to be persuaded. More on this must be shared than just the societal issue, because interpersonally I’ve seen such a small amount of development of conversation that I think people’s thinking is largely in stasis. Interpersonally people are rarely persuaded, which of course is a consequence of the larger issue. Since the environment and interpersonally there is little persuasion, the social impulses associated with wanting to convince others becomes questionable. If I’m writing and I’m having a desire to persuade anyone, I’m basically irrationally imagining I’m persuading an audience that doesn’t exist. Perhaps there is an irrationality in pretending to know an audience? Sometimes, what prompts writing relates also with something amiss socially that I feel I know a remedy for. The prompter is related to the desire to convince others of another way of thinking. I like to self develop on this impulse, but I want to minimize the social aspect of the impulse that creates additional thinking about persuasion. I’d rather use it to simply catalyze some self-development but understand that the inclination to persuade doesn’t make much sense.

More soon

The Joint Elimination of Worry and Planning

Thursday, May 16, 2024 07:54:00, Tempe, Arizona

In the most recent thoughtstream, the topic was planning and automation, and the pathway to gradually reduce planning as it is typically thought of. Here I want to discuss the relationship of worry to planning and a potential pathway for their mutual elimination.

For any particular situation type, if one has planned well, has sufficient experience, the need for having a plan decreases. One can think of their parents or elders at times for examples regarding this. When young, one might encounter a situation that is new and one might not know exactly what to do. One worries about it, perhaps at length, until one finds a solution independently, or asks a parent or elder what to do. Maybe one reads from someone else who knows how to handle the situation. These people who already know would worry less about your circumstances that you were in, because they believe they know how to deal with it already. They would simply quickly act in ways they are familiar with and resolve the situation without too much trouble if they are experienced enough. Their need to plan has diminished along with the need to worry. It is the person who found the situation new and worrisome who dwelled on the planning and the imagination of various courses of action. Not the expert.

This is the case too with very strong employees and business people. The best and most senior employees are undaunted by situations that might make a new employee nervous and uncomfortable, or scared. They may be unconcerned and able to advise regarding the situation and swiftly act as though it is simply a familiar part of the job. They may need to do some planning regarding these situations, but they will spend less time on it and have thinking characteristics that do not resemble the person who is planning it for the first few times.

Clearly we can see in these scenarios that worry relates to planning. I was writing about how interesting the topic of the extensiveness of planning is, and connecting it with worry it becomes more interesting and not less. Whenever I was worried about something there was almost certainly some planning happening. I want to avoid the prospect of a negative outcome of some kind. I have plans, and then I have contingency plans. I would even plan for what was unlikely, and if too unlikely, mostly imaginary. The person who is worried maybe worried about an imaginary risk to begin with. Worry then includes very definitely a large amount of envisioning of situations, choices and outcomes, and very definitely is planful. Since it can include only imaginary conditions and real conditions, it includes more planning and is much more ineffective. After one has been through the worrisome experience one does not worry as much about that kind of experience (potentially, although not for all), and one feels that one’s planning becomes more reality based and less illusory. The worries have diminished the need for planning, and the improvement of planning ability has reduced through experience the need for more planning.

It appears then that worry and planning are closely related and are positively correlated. There is certainly some mutual causality occurring. This reveals the importance of the earlier posting regarding automation in a way I did not expect when I did that writing. One wants to become more automatic regarding habits and judgement to gradually reduce planning as far as is reasonable, not only for efficiency but to decrease life’s worries. If one does not need a plan, then it seems to follow that worries are reduced. After all, how can one be worried if what was worried about is already sufficiently planned into mastery? Parents, Elders, and Seasoned Experts are less worried about all those tasks that would have worried them previously, so it would appear that it is true that if one wants to worry less one should attend to the topic of behavioral automation and reduction of planning with sufficient coverage of life, so there is less that is unexpected, or less that one might want to do that one cannot already do.

Automatic Action and Planning

Thursday, May 16, 2024 06:59:11, Tempe, Arizona

How difficult is planning for the average individual? It seems as though that planning is so pervasive in one’s life that planning itself must be something that could be characterized as a general life-long challenge for most people, but more especially those who are more average or less than average in their intellectual abilities and executive function. As one goes downwards in the intelligence spectrum, one finds that people cannot plan for themselves hardly at all and this is a cause for their being less able to live independently. It seems that it must be the case that planning is one of the fundamental difficulties faced by all people and to the extent that one has less abilities that are required to form plans and act on them, the more likely one is going to struggle. This seems to imply that average individuals are going to struggle with their planning and probably have insufficient training and support to make sure their planning is as optimal as it can be for their dispositions and objectives.

People who are trying to improve their ability to procrastinate less, stay motivated, behave ethically, and compete in the workplace, are often working hard to improve their habits. They also work to improve their ability to use written and well-prioritized lists, and to use their memory to ensure they get things done they were wanting to get done. They work hard to counteract habits that are less beneficial, and often have to spend considerable time to achieve the self-understanding necessary to know which influences have the effect of enabling them to really change their behavior. What is wanted in this process is to arrive at improved habits, so that mastery feels attained and there is less need to work on the same issues again and again. After a long period of work on this one may have the ability to stay fit, eat healthy, stay educated and informed, keep a good job and find better ones, and save or invest money. They may be able to support children in the planning and coordination of their habits so they have a chance to behave perhaps better when they are adults, with more opportunities for success and for a high quality of life. Since the objective is to have habits that relate to a feeling of mastery, and since habits decrease the amount of planning required to live effectively because the behavior includes the planning already, there is an automation of planning occurring that is beneficial. Instead of working hard, and practicing, one just automatically does what one would like to do. As one gets better and better, this gets more automated.

Consistent with the title of this article, the main thing I want to discuss here is not this, which is something I’m aware of, but the more interesting topic of the extent of possible automation of a person in relation to planning. If one practices until one has habits, and behaves in a planful way without planning as much, planning has vanished to a degree. How far can this go? Can it go until one does not plan anything? Immediately one might think that that sounds like too much, but I’m not so sure. I’ve made some personal advancements that may indicate that one can largely eliminate planning, until what is thought about is something that is of a different nature than regular planning. It may be possible to go further until the thought that relates to habit and personal coordination and direction really is unlike what we typically think of as planning.

Imagine if all your habits were very good quality and almost anything relating to those habits required few thoughts. For example, let’s suppose you planned and practiced your way to eating, nutritional, and shopping mastery, to the extent that you really nearly automate your entire grocery-shopping and food-shopping experience. Suppose further, that with almost no thinking, you can adjust this shopping to make changes to try new recipes without planning for it, without grocery lists, and without any need to work hard at locating the foods in the store. Suppose even for novel food eating, you mostly can do it unreflectively to the extent that even new recipes require very little planning and the process from the grocery store to cooking it is largely automatic. It may seem like this is impossible but I’m pretty confident that is not the case. If one thinks it is not possible, I would ask “How far do you think you can go with planful habits? What if someone decided that they wanted to go much further than you would expect anyone to want to go with it?” Surely if someone dedicated themselves to this they would achieve something that is more than just a standard habit replacement for basic actions that one wanted to have. More advanced work results in more advanced automation. How far one can go with it seems unknown, but it also seems it is much further than people would anticipate.

Since most of what humans do with their time involves activities that separately require planning, practice and habit formation, excepting relaxation and very spontaneous action, and perhaps a few other things, it seems that all could be automated in a similar way to the example I provided with grocery shopping. One can become more automated regarding gym behavior and exercise, reading behavior, writing behavior, with the practicing of skills and hobbies, of caring for family and children, &c… If each were worked on as I have indicated above, it should be possible to achieve a very high level of global personal automation which would substitute the need for planning and basic behavioral practice. How far can one go with this. Mastery of skills is really a building up of automation of simple behaviors to ever more complex behaviors, and taking all parts of life together, it should be (and is) possible to arrive at much more sophisticated habits and automations.

What does this mean for planning? Does it mean that planning is slowly eroded until there is no need? It appears it does mean this. Those who are most ethical, and most masterful regarding their own behavior globally, would be those who have the least planning needs. I think as one advances further and further in this direction the concept of planning is altered, and what one thinks about is more abstract and general, and what is desired for alteration is more nuanced. The way of thinking about this does not utilize simple planning lists and the calendar. Instead it focuses more on psychology, introspection, and other kinds of thinking about how to influence thinking about behavior, and thinking about thinking about behavior. It’s like with an organization that is already apparently running optimally and automatically (because the staff is well trained, shows up, and simply does the work routinely), but the executive needs to think through how to advance the business in ways that rely on more nuanced visions of what could be different. They changes they make may be more about minor shifts that are expected to be rewarding, because of some mathematics or financial calculations. Perhaps the larger organization model and organizational processes have areas in which some improvement or optimization can occur that could only be seen by thinking about it as a mathematician would. The shifts would be to the structure of the organization that encompasses behavior but not necessarily to the behavior directly, and even the planning for how to make the changes to the organization are so well understood that no planning is needed, but activating another process of making changes. This is realistic, if the executives are extremely talented, the organization is a good one, and they have sufficient experience, but it is only intended to be an illustration about how one may think about one’s own behavior, after one has gone much further in self-optimization and habituation.

The main item of interest here though is that self-advancement does seem to decrease the need for planning and if one is extremely advanced the character of planning may change dramatically. If people were in a communicative collective eventually, and all were really advanced together, the way they mutually behave together would also take other forms than standard planning it seems.

More on this topic soon.

An Analysis of Social Virality

Tuesday, May 14, 2024 20:59:30, Tempe, Arizona

There are two pathways all are aware of to have a viral production. The first is to put in the effort oneself, arrive at something that people like with few resources, and experience it’s growth in popularity. The other is to use an existing position in the media, existing media related tools and resources, and repetitively market and distribut it to the public, until what is produced becomes popular. Either pathway, what has gone viral has traits that create interest and a desire to spread that interest to others. Outside of the topic of what happens to go viral one can see that this relates too to the topic of media control versus individual effort to gain some fame for oneself or one’s creations.

What exactly can go viral is a tricky topic that many are interested in, but I have seen no published formula or methodology that would ensure virality. It is harder to define, predict, and make some individual viral thing, without a methodology, than to have a methodology that would routinely create something that might go viral. Media and entertainment companies like Disney, and product companies understand that not all that they create will have traits required for virality, and probably they would not want everything they make to be viral. If all that was made went viral, it would probably be disturbing. What they have is a process that creates at a good pace viral things that are sufficient for maintaining popularity and a market to earn from consumers. They make many things along the way and some do better than others, and sometimes some few of those things become extremely popular, such that growths of entire businesses result. But what those things are, will be, and so on, is unpredictable. Even sudden stardom or extreme popularity of certain people and products is somewhat inexplicable even if there was considerable investment and even if key people seem to have identified in advance traits of possible virality.

Some stars, products, and productions have received a lot of investment, and only attained modest interest, although those working on it seemed to believe with some reasonability that these things would maybe go viral. Others invest in people, products and productions, that seem to potentially have less chance of virality, and yet those things do in fact attain extreme popularity.

What is needed here is the identification of an actual formula of virality or potential virality that will make a process ever more virality producing without arriving at total ability to produce viral things or predict what they would be. Such a formula would allow us to precisely explain, as far as it is explicable, why some things in history have become as viral as they have become. Explanations for viral things in history are still elusive. One can understand afterwards that one liked something that became popular, but may have trouble identifying exactly why it became as popular as it did and how so many people were suddenly motivated to have so much interest and to spread that interest. Small factors that are present or not seem to contribute quite a lot to virality, although what is liked seems to require many traits together to get popular. What could be omitted from a popular thing that would diminish it enough for it to not be popular any longer? An exercise of removing traits can help to illuminate what was necessary for the results. It is assumed here that even if there is a large degree of unpredictability (and few things might seem as unpredictable as this), that the entire process proceeds deterministically and that the causes of the virality existed, but that identifying all of those causes may be troublesome. People are convinced that it is possible to become viral, and that media companies can and do produce regularly viral things. They also understand it is like a lottery ticket to individually arrive at virality, and that while it is uncommon to occur from businesses, giant companies do have methodologies that do produce people and things that become extremely popular. They already understand both that it is unpredictable but also that it is not inexplicable. It’s simply hard to explain fully and produce a formula for.

Here I will strive to produce a formula both for the process of organically arriving at virality, and for forcing it to eventually occur with a methodology a business would use. “Organic” virality here means that it has grown naturally from people who are not paying large sums of money to force it to occur, with advertising, marketing and so on, but if they did, they did it from less resources. There are degrees in which organic growth is organic, just like with organic farming. Then there is the other approach of using vast resources to make something popular. A formula for each of these is important because then it will be easier to know what has any potential of virality from individual people who have few resources, and also to understand virality at a large scale where many resources already exist.

There are many different kinds of viral things, and instead of trying to cover all examples, what is striven for here is something general which have some good applicability to most if not allexamples people could come up with. Memes in social media, and viral videos will be considered, along with very popular shows, characters, and people in media and entertainment. Popular items and products from corporations will be covered. Viral ideas will be covered as well. It can be seen from this that what we call “viral” is merely an example of anything that happens to become extremely popular, human or object, which might result potentially in sales. Anyone looking for an opportunity to become immensely famous or immensely rich will be looking for something that has traits of virality, whichever category of virality we happen to be talking about.

Whenever we imagine something that has gone viral, we are actually thinking of a “small something” in the world. A small video, an individual person, product, or idea. Even if it has become so popular as to relate to many things going on in the world, it is still something small contrasted with all that exists. A viral video might be 30 seconds and include a person, who becomes famous and more viral for many videos and many appearances on television. Still that something and all those things interconnected, constitute a small thing of the world. We can encapsulate it, compare it with environment conditions, and find traits in the items, and conditions of society, that explain causally why it became viral. We want to look very carefully at the characteristics of the viral thing in all the ways that lend to interest and popularity, and the conditions in the surrounding environment that lead to readiness to become and stay interested in that thing, and to talk about it further. We’ll be talking about the diverse characteristics of interest that come together to make a viral thing viral and what makes everyone interested in that thing.

Philosophically, this is of interest, because the total number of considerations is quite large, and is not so different from trying to have a full understanding of anything at all. What we have just read above is that what matters about understanding virality is understanding all that is relevant to a “something” and the environment which has to be big enough to make it popular. That’s a huge interplay between a focal point and many people and things in the world. This is an analysis of situations and objects and their relationships. It’s also an analysis of what is important to people, and how they might become motivated. What they might talk about! So clearly, even though virality seems like a simple topic that is easily discussed (and we all discuss it), the problems that relate to it are huge and of scientific and philosophical importance. So while we attend to the main topic of virality we will attain something much more interesting than only that topic as a result, because it connects to the general analysis of human phenomena of all different kinds.

[Note: written in 37 minutes with no spell check, grammar check, and semi-blind typed, as part of a study in editing]

Writing Over Dictation for Authentication, and Spelling and Grammar-From-Mind

Tuesday, May 14, 2024 08:44:16, Tempe, Arizona

Dictation is an approach to avoid type skill and use of the hands for recording thoughts into textual format on a digital computer. I have considered this as an option for increasing writing efficiency, and to increase my capacity of recording thoughts and ideas. For a while I left this aside as a topic for consideration at another time. After having an few insights regarding this, I’m now convinced that typing is vastly superior to dictation, if one is at all interested in proving quality of mind in relation to spelling and grammar, to authenticate one’s writing, and to ensure that what is written connects with how one would structure the output. How one would write also influences how one structures everyday speech at times, and both contribute to how one thinks before engaging in any outward communication. It may relate to how one thinks apart from how would communicate, but that is to be determined neuroscientifically. It may be that the parts of the brain responsible for thinking speech, and speaking, are influencing thinking that is ocurring verbally and perhaps pre-verbally in the frontal cortex away from Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas.

Oftentimes on the thoughtstream I have recorded thoughts that I’ve timed, and I’ve included notes indicating the total time required to perform the writing. I’ve also included notes that this was part of an effort on a study on editing. These writings were nearly blind typed, or partly blind typed without re-reading, and many had no spell check or grammatical checks. Spelling mistakes made are idiosyncratic and typical. Without learning specific spelling changes to make, the same or similar mistakes were made. Common typos related to my specific way of typing occur in similar ways as well. Because I’ve written this way, without dictation, one can authenticate that I’m the person who typed it. I’ve written many times that errors are useful. If there were no errors it would indicate that other tools were utilized and that the writing was not entirely from me. It would also indicate that I needed the tools, whereas the infrequency of errors would indicate that I did not, and furthermore, that my writing and typing skills indicate very great superiority of skill. Dictation and the use of other tools would make this unclear.

Dictation is the utilization of a software tool to do the typing. That has implications that would not be recognized and I did not think of these until today. Firstly, it will spell and introduce grammar for you. Differing dictation tools would do these differently, and if one analyzed the work, one would have to admit upon complete analysis that the writing is partly due to a specific dictation tool that did part of the writing. Perhaps it added commas where there were pauses that did not call for them. The use of commas is related to pauses in speech, but also to pauses in thinking, and if one is not thinking in pauses but is pausing to breath or for other reasons, then it has altered the writing on the basis of speech and not the thought. If one was writing, one would not be speaking, and therefore one would be introducing commas differently. I am now interested in structuring my thinking according to my desired grammatical output. At the moment however, the grammatical output is related to a combination of writing habit and mode of thought at the time of writing. Speech introduces different structures since there is a difference in how I prepare to speak and how I prepare to write.

Dictation writes the words, which means it spells them for you. Dictation makes mistakes. It fails to know when sentences end at times, and how to make transitions where speech transitions can happen in a number of ways and not only one. Does it use a period, a semi-colon, or an emdash? Does it recognize rhetorical questions that do not get a question mark? Does it sometimes choose the wrong word variant or form because it doesn’t have the word in its dictionary. These are the kinds of mistakes it will make over and over. One will have to edit after the dictation is complete to be sure there are no mistakes. But I’ve stated already that in my writing there are very few errors. To introduce a dictation tool I would introduce the errors of the tool. These issues indicate there is a very large set of problems using such a tool if one has the objectives I mentioned above. With a layer of technology between the thinking and the writing there is an introduction of another entity introducing its own influence and the result may not be scientifically as usable, and perhaps not usable for the purposes I’ve mentioned. If one wants to fully authenticate the output as coming only from the mind that thought it, having an external entity involved will botch the authentication. If one wants to test a writer for spelling and grammar and use that to authenticate, it may be impossible using dictation. It is not impossible simply using a keyboard.

For future updates to the thoughtstream I intend to use a functionality that I formally had, of writing directly from a computer command prompt to the book. In addition to this, I intend to do it totally blind typed, instead of semi-blind typed without attention to what is written or re-reading. This will ensure not only that what has been written is good quality directly from the fingers, but that I don’t have any edit capabilities of any kind. The tool I typically use for my writing is a primitive editing tool for the computer terminal called VIM. This does have editing and limited spell checking, but as I have it configured no grammar checks. I would like to go further, however, to eliminate these to further collect authenticating information and data on thought to writing prowess.

There will be more to say on this topic in the future as I begin work actually using this approach. However, it is clear to me that dictation is not a suitable replacement for typewriting, if these concerns exist for a writer. Sadly, if these concerns seem not to exist, fundamentally still dictation reduces the ability to authenticate writing. So in the future if there ever is a need, the use of dictation has diminished the potential of very complete authentication. Authentication of course occurs in levels, so those who are disabled or have impairment to a degree will still be able to find ways to authenticate their writing, but not to the extent to which I’ll be able to do it.

[Note: Completed in 23 minutes, without spell check or grammar check sem-blind typed, without re-reading, inattentively seeing output on/near the cursor location in VIM. Finished at 9:07 pm]

Ideation That Can Be Had in Life, Given Days Remaining

Monday, May 13, 2024 18:44:59, Tempe, Arizona

There is some anticipation that one will live longer until one is nearly dead. Even when nearly dead one might not know when death will occur, but its probability in relation to remaining time is more easily estimated, and is still only an estimate. One’s last thoughts could be repetitively “Am I dead now”, or “Is this the last thought?”. Leaving out sudden death. For everyone who is not in this stage, we can use regularities in nature for other living things and people to arrive at a rough estimate of remaining life, and we’d need to change it when information changes. Speaking for myself, going with average life expectancy of males, I may live to about 83, and I’m 43 now. I won’t know when my last thought will be but I can still roughly estimate how many useful ideas I’ll how between now and that one.

Going with the calendar that we use that happens to be imprecise and incorrect, we can still arrive at the number of days between now and my death. Fudging the math, we have 365 times 10 for each decade or 3,650, and since I might have four decades left, that’s 14,600 days. Since I have what I might call a “routine” which is a deterministic and bounded level of activity, and I often record my thinking as I have thoughts, I am in a good position to guestimate how much writing I can do for the remainder of my life, and from the amount of writing and some considerations about thinking outside of writing, just how much thinking and ideation I can have. It will not turn out to be correct but can be used for planning under uncertainty about what will happen. It can also be used to estimate total scaling of productions for my mind in particular.

This is of interest to the topic I’ve written about in my book “The Velocity of Significance and Ideation” which is available digitally for free and in print format for purchase for those like myself who like reading from real pages. This book explains that in conjunction with intelligence testing an analysis of productions is required to estimate mental quality, and to verify intelligence itself. Many people are evaluated in total posthumously on the basis of their productions and tests. It is interesting that it is possible to arrive at a “good evaluation” by going further regarding estimating total thinking using total productivity. In order to get closer to a total analysis, one would have to bound the analysis in time from birth to death. It was missing from my book and analysis how one might go about performing this analytical task, and it may be something I recall well enough to cover in my subsequent volume that will go into more detail. Either way it is clear that any evaluation of any person in total will require an analysis using their productions to say something comprehensive about their total minds. The total mind however defined is still encapsulated by its beginning and ending. Every thought if available in that time period would constitute the total thought of the indvidual in consideration.

Have you ever wanted to be known? Exaggerated? Well if you’re honest and truthful and you would like yourself to be known truthfully in total then this is something that might be useful to think about. It combines well with the topic I mention often about how one could be known very fully if one could have one’s life and experiences recorded totally in slow motion. This helps one to know what one would like to omit from one’s story that is in one’s story whether one likes it or not. It is also a test of self-judgement regarding their mortality and level of goodness in the world. Total thinking shared would illuminate what person you were like and what your context included. The context would explain anything that might consitute what you don’t or didn’t like about yourself and the thoughts you were permitted by nature to have. Regardless of who you are your entirely life is explained deterministically. Even if you were not particularly good this is already explained for you later. If you were really “good” then you are in a very fortunate position, but either way that is also explained entirely in terms of deterministic nature. This does not mean there are no excellences and merits, but that requires explanation that isn’t best here. I’m only mentioning this in passing as I discuss the total thinking one had and quality of mind in the course of life.

Creativity Management of Thoughts and the Book Publication Process II

Monday, May 13, 2024 18:03:55, Tempe, Arizona

This is now a continuation of the earlier posting on the same topic yesterday. Recording was stated to be a fundamental area of consideration along with the management of the aggregate of ideas that are somehow combined. It was mentioned that this is an issue of computing or of archiving, and an development-organizational concern. In order to have anything to aggregate there has to be “idea capture” or thoughts being recorded. This implies pathways of communication. The pathways of communication involve mouths, appendages, and finger digits, until a time exists that it can come from the mind. It involves interaction with media and devices of various kinds. Writing is one of the fundamental forms of records and can result from directly writing on a page, and I do that, but more preferably to a digital record. Typing is my preferred method of getting thoughts into a record. With good typing skill it can be nearly as fast as might be wanted by dictation. Whichever pathway is used, however, capture of the idea and getting into a record precedes any need for aggregating.

Which thoughts to record is also an issue to be discussed. I will defer that for now. I’ll share two important topics regarding that in the meantime. Thoughts that are shared from my experience will have two important motives for recording. The first is simply to record what is thought and lived–to have a living history or autobiography, or record of oneself. The second is that what is thought is significant somehow. Ideas that are “good enough” to be worthy of being written down. Since we don’t have a means to write everything that comes from the mind, selectivity of what is written is required. Some judgement about time management is necessary to know what to write and when. If ideation is often significant and important and if one is in the minutia of interest about one’s life the tendency is towards recording everything and not being selective, so for some eventually the preference will be to record everything. I’ve commented in various places that I would elect to have my entire life on record in slow motion, so my life could be fully recorded and understood. Having many significant thoughts is a reason for this Book and Journal and especially this thoughtstream which is an aggregate of ideas. Wanting a complete record of my history is a cause for the living autobiography underway. Having many useful ideas and a strong set of reasons for wanting to have a complete autobiography trends one down the path of doing what I’ve done, which trends further to thinking into records.

It would be amazing if there were source videos of all tha was heard and saw, especially if there is a history of what was attended to within those videos. There is a living blur of what is actually seen. I’d like to have the media of both what was to be experienced when I experienced it, so I can be in the world that way again, and also to have a video of my awareness and attention at the time, which is a subset of what the world provided. Both together explain the personal history.

Anyway, returning to the idea capture into writing, which is where I’d like to focus. It serves as a suitable example for other means of recording and that conversation can be developed later.Where does all the writing go? Where do you put your written ideas? How do they become an aggregate? How can they be organized? How do they remain accessible AND editable? To answer all of that I will need to present a model of my own software architecture and technology. Historically it would go on paper, and would be filed. Even if I do that today, and I do, the filing is digital. So even my paper writings end up in a digital format and may even be transcribed. So the more central question nowadays is how do ideas get recorded, filed, and managed in a digital format. Also, since one can write on a paper immediately, there is a desire for immediacy to write in the digital format. But since more is wanted to be immediate due to advances in computing and networking, one also wants to be able to retrieve, update, and store source records, preferably in more than one location so backups exist. Upon hearing this some might think “Already there is technology to do this well” and to that I’d state that one doesn’t understand the extent of the problem making such a statement. It is complex and there is no existing tool system that is fully adequate for the tasks, and this is the reason why I’ve worked extensively on my own solution that I’m now using as I immediately record, store, backup, publish, and distribute this message.

The next posting will constitute a share of my existing model of content accumulation in an organized fashion. It will show what is possible only after a long period of development, planning and effort. I stated in the prior posting that much of what one might require can be done by other software providers, but that if one wants to go further or have more assurance, one will end up doing what I’ve done. Sharing of this system should provide the reader some good direction on how to resolve issues that could take years of organizational planning otherwise. Since more complete solutions did not exist, it should be recognized that even if it seems simple enough, readers would not actually ever arrive at a solution.

More Soon

Holding Onto Content Before Sharing

Sunday, May 12, 2024 16:51:00, Tempe, Arizona

Anyone who is producing a large amount of good-quality content will find if they store and manage that content successfully that they will have a storehouse of material that is usable later. This is not unlike the creation of products, because once a product is arrived at, it can be sold indefinitely; even if a product becomes an anachronism, it informs educationally. As long as one is alive the material is usable. Likewise, good quality content is like having a product somewhat, although in pieces, and in specific pieces of content, it may not congeal or cohere into something others would immediately recognize as product. There are differences but very good similarities. The pieces themselves can be re-used into larger productions, and if individually they are good enough can still serve future objectives. Content had can be distributed immediately, later or both. It can be used within things to be shared later, still immediately, after some time, or both.

In my case, feeling most thoughts to be nearly complete articles, I tend to want to share immediately, but that’s not always useful since the sharing is time consuming and may not be as timely as some other sharing activities. So I’m working on deferring the sharing until later. Until it makes more sense to market it or something else that relates. By market it I mean to promote it or simply to communicate it which is a basic promotion.

If one has a very large amount of content one has quite a lot of marketing potential. If one simply focuses on producing, and creating quality, greater and greater quality results, and what is had becomes more deserving of promotion. When to use the material for promotion is an interesting topic I’m exploring, and at the moment I’m not sure what desirabilities and optimalities might exist. I know I have the correct trajectory given my ample experience but I’m not sure what complete advancement on this path entails, and can say it seems to be unknown territory. This type of question is not one that a traditional marketer, promoter, or product creator and business person would really know to the extent that I’m wanting to know it.

At my current scaling, content is well developed and diverse. This is akin to not having one product but a number of products. Audiences and markets differ. What is timely or not depends on many factors which relate to different markets that behave differently. Optimally delivering materials to differing markets is definitely a complex issue and most business experts would typically have some generalizations from their experience, but they still tend to be market-specific experts, and have insufficient expertise to handle questions such as these. On the other end from being a pan-ultimate business person combined with an academic producing lots of content independently to hold onto, there is the person who simply wants to think and later talk to someone. These are also the same people. When one produces content related to ideas had, one can simply hold onto it without discussion, or can immediately or eventually share it. Some important feedback loops depend on early sharing. So simply and only holding onto materials is not the right direction. One wants to share and also hold onto what’s shared and share later, and under certain conditions hold onto the ideas and develop them in isolation from others.

I’ll share more on this in the future as I continue to work on it. My history has consisted of near immediate sharing, which is something I like because it gives me quick feedback and attention and it makes me feel like a transparent person, sharing what I’m thinking about. I also have work underway that is patient, even supremely patient, but I have not found an optimization between these two ways of behaving with my content, and I have not thoroughly related it to what might be timely from one perspective and another, and I have not related it to all audiences who relate to my content.

Sunday, May 12, 2024 16:15:00, Tempe, Arizona

Creativity Management of Thoughts and the Book Publication Process

Sunday, May 12, 2024 16:15:00, Tempe, Arizona

In 2017 I wrote an article entitled “The Burden of Having Too Many Ideas” which concerned creativity management as it relates mainly to dealing with the experience one has of losing good ideas one is having when one really wants to retain them. Here I want to expand on that discussion, talking less about how one manages this mental phenomenon psycholigically, to how one manages that phenomenon tactically. Managing it tactically to the extent that I’ve been able to manage it is something that one will find fairly difficult without tools similar to those that I’ve created for myself, but it is possible to a degree using tools created by others. Since I’m focusing on my own development as I write too, I am going to constrain my focus to the tools I’ve created, that relate well to the tools created by others. Readers should be able to find parallels and find ways to achieve similar results themselves.

Here I’ll start with a fundamental point of what one is trying to do ultimately when one is wanting to retain ideas, omitting the psychological for now. One does want to record it, either digitally or on paper, firstly, and secondly, one wants to develop upon that idea, and then nearly finally, but not finally, one wants it to be published or incorporated into other concrete forms somehow. Either it becomes an article, a book, a product, a business, or some entity that records into tangible form what the idea was. Along the way anyone ideating and recording will have to decide the level of development they want for the idea, and the level of attention they think is suitable for the result. Not all ideas will get a lot of attention, and that will influence the decision about how much to develop it, if one is at all attention seeking. After one has reached the point of publishing, or making “concrete” the idea in a tangible production, one can still go further. What would final consist of? Final might consist of “everyone on Earth and in the future knows the idea and holds onto it to protect it from degradation and deletion”. Knowing that is very unlikely, and nearly impossible, you’ll settle for another finality that relates again, to the level of attention the idea deserves, and the level of attention you’re seeking. Being realistic about my own ideas, I anticipate that some that I will develop quite far will still be ultimately deleted by nature. I’m willing to develop some ideas quite far and work on them frequently, and have other related ideas in connection with them, even if I’m the only person who benefits.

That was the gradations of recording of ideas, omitting the purely psychological work to manage ideas without paper and computers. Another important topic is retaining the recordings, backing them up, having them easily accessible, being able to edit them, and transform them gradually as they are developed on the pathway I mentioned above. This relates either to how one manages paper records, or how one manages information and data. There are some technology solutions for this, but again I found it more important to create my own. I was an advanced software architect so this was feasible to me but only after much planning and labor. It may be possible for others to utilize my solution in the future. But if one does not have suitable background for this, one can use tools. Note taking and word processing tools can do much of what I share here, excepting the publishing portion, and some of the backup and retention steps. There are other differences but for here, to keep things simple, I’ll just mention that these other tools created by large software companies do provide much that is needed but not everything that one could want. Probably a suitable amount of what is needed is provided by other software companies. One wants a way to record quickly, when one wants to record, and one wants to edit in such a way that it can be stored elsewhere in a copy easily. Some note taking tools allow you to take notes on the phone, notes on the computer, take or upload photos, and aggregate them to a location that stores the data. It is important that one can download and backup that data, and have more than one copy.

Notice that this posting is mostly for people who are superabundant in ideation. One might not need quite this much if one is not having a tremendous amount of ideas that one wants to hold onto. Ideas upon development become projects, writings, and aggregate informtion sets of various kinds, and since one is producing rapidly, managing large amounts of information quickly becomes the objective. Then it becomes an exercise in computer and archival science to solve problems. There is less of a problem if one has less ideation. The more ideation that is had the more complex the result, in diversity of projects and outcomes, which means resulting data to manage, and total size of data to store, backup, and pay for to retain.

More Soon

Market Awareness and Business

Sunday, May 12, 2024 15:36:00, Tempe, Arizona

Today, just now, I did a quick posting to a social media platform a small idea that could be of use to people, particularly young people, who are wanting to get their business brands and marketing messages out. It’s a simple piece of advice: whenever someone starts a new business, whether they plan to use the business or not, they get exposed to a business market that they would not now exists. Anyone who starts a business suddenly has their information about their business “leaked” or distributed to other businesses who would like to market to them. If you start a business, and it is new, very likely supplies will be needed relating to marketing and other goals. Some businesses that want new businesses as customers will use lists of new business addresses as leads for obtaining new customers, and they’ll send them junk-mail, that does include some good nuggets, like catalogs for a wide variety of items that can have custom information added for marketing. What is interesting about this is some of those items cross over into the regular public consumer marketplace and include things that people use all the time outside of business. I was thinking of buying combs on Amazon when I recollected this option. Instead of buying a bunch of cheap combs, I could personalize all my combs and this would expand marketing potential. Even though I have a venture that has nothing to do with combs.

There are enough items in this marketplace, that one would definitely be unaware of, that it makes me wonder why I shouldn’t divert my attention there for many of my purchases, because even for many of these small items I could definitely do some messaging that is desirable that may be useful for various objectives. If you’re just someone from the public, maybe you still want to spread kindness, or humor, or some personal touches to items that you buy routinely that you wouldn’t normally think can be used for conveying those things.

These catalogs are very large and include many routine items you’d purchase at a place like Walmart or Target, or other large store. What if a very large percentage of your regular purchases became opportunities for spreading messages or sharing kindnesses and insights?

Some people who take the decoration of their homes very seriously already are aware of the market of items that includes having custom messages, or desirable messages, displayed in the home. Country stores, that include many different home-related items that one might not expect writing, provide this kind of market to the consumer. Have you ever been in the home of someone who enjoys this? Scattered in their homes they have reminders to themselves, and hospitality messages, that are for creating a more comforting environment? Some homes have quite a lot of messaging.

The regular consumer in the public, including myself, are often unaware of these other markets that can be used to expand one’s self-messaging and messaging to others. Some box stores do have some of these “country house” items that do have messages on them, and it may be that they’ll experience a reduction of sales for those if the messages on them are not attractive to everyone who might consider purchasing them. Unbranded, unmarked items are more globally interesting. If it were easy enough to customize them with one’s own messages, then people buying them would readily buy unmarked goods instead of ones that already have messages on them, unless the items seem like “rare finds” that communicate just what one would like to communicate. Of course, some are purchased simply because the messaging is still quite good to have in one’s environment even if not original or produced in high numbers.

An interesting question is: “Which items would you customize if customization were easy enough, imagining it’s instant perhaps, if you could? What would you still want to remain message free?”

I would choose personally to have in my environment many unmarked goods. But what if I could erase them instantly too? It seems then that I would want all of them to have that potential.

Goods in the regular market don’t have much potential for that unless you can mark them professionally yourself, which is an interesting and artful consideration, but is probably unrealistic. But if you can optionally mark them easily from a supplier or choose not to, it seems that is a superior supplier. But notice that is the kind of supplier I’m recommending. These business to business vendors who sell many of these goods have simply provided you the option to do these things, but do not force that you apply any customization. The items are very cheap and inexpensive, and have prices that are similar to what’s already on the market at these large retailers who also have low prices. Some items don’t exist in that market at all and are of better quality, and provide the option for customizations.

Later I want to expand on this a bit and talk about the related topic of general awareness of existing markets. If one does not have awareness of various markets, ones imagination is constrained regarding what one could do. This is a huge topic, and I’m using this posting as an inroads. It’s a good selection though, because it relates to the initial steps of starting a business and what one learns in the process, and can scale in complexity from that beginning in early development.

Also, it is strange that a person who is not in business might even think they are not in business. Why not blend the concepts to open market options and some creativity, and access to goods that can increase the chance to spread messaging, if one has an organization or if one does not. The desire to spread messaging is already a blend of what businesses do and what individuals want to do, and in that way people and businesses are already similar regarding marketing which relates to general communication.

Road Rage Norms as a Failed Test on Collective Morality and Elder Stewardship

Friday, May 10, 2024 18:39:49, Tempe, Arizona

In each society there are segments of human behavior that reveal various ethical failings that pervasively show which portioins of ethics are not observed and where. Some examples that often come to my mind are truth and education as it contrasts with advertising, and transparency and honesty as it relates to business, government, and personal secrecy and privacy. But I’m not interested in talking about those right now, because I’ve talked about those quite a lot already. Here I’m more interested and have in mind road related behavior. People spend a lot of their lives out on the road, with some commuting 1 hour to work and back every day. Add up the total time on the road and the cars and vehicles are where we are exhibiting a large portion of our behavior. There is no behavior that does not fall within moral or religious behavior and for any place that we spend a lot of time, some analysis would reveal whether or not our behavior is largely in agreement or not with what morality and religion would recommend or even require.

There really is no behavior that a human has that does not fit within the scope of morality and religion. If one is in one’s car two hours a day, then one’s religion or morality does not vanish. It doesn’t vanish in the privacy of one’s sexuality either.

When I was a teen I was a skilled driver, but exhibited aggression and had a tendency to road-rage. That might make you imagine I was driving insanely at the wheel at all times or something, but that wouldn’t be the case. I drove too fast, zigged in and out of traffic, and when someone was agressive with me, I was agressive too. Flipping people off, slowing down traffic in response to tailgater, and speeding around were frequent.

Then, after a period of self-analysis, and a couple car accidents, I thoroughly self-evaluated it, and changed my driving habits. From around the age of 20 onwards I was a much better driver, and enjoyed for many years driving very slowly. Now I greatly prefer slow driving, and as a slow driver, I learned that driving slow is not within the rules. One must drive fast.

When in driver’s ed, instructors educate us as if we are venturing on a new section of life that must include precision driving, plenty of spacing (like spacing for COVID, but for accidents), and courteous behavior. As a teen though, I learned quickly that others were irate and I was irate in return. People are simply aggressive on the roadways. The pattern of mentation on the road that one must keep up with is a certain level of irritability. Others are irritable, and they kindof expect you to be irritable in return. If they want to aggress you, they ware wanting a fight and aggression in return. If you become completely polite, and courteous, you do not escape this adult context of accelerated irritability. The rules of the road are not what was taught, and using what one has taught will not extricate one from having periodic conflicts. Now you’re driving too slow, now you didn’t see someone because your perception was briefly off, now your sticking out too far in traffic because you can’t see around an obstacle. Psychologists, if they are good ones, would recognize that perceptual error and minor “road transgressions” must occur again and again. There is no way to ensure one never makes mistakes. This implies that on the roadways you will definitely over time be subject to agression, and it doesn’t take long to provoke someone irritable, simply by deciding to drive around.

So what is this context of adults from age 18 to 90 and older of misbehavior and non-understanding regarding psychology and what must occur?

Everyone believes themselves to be morally expert (they are very far from being expert), and on the roadways they teach each other and youths to behave irritably and exhaustedly, and as if one cannot politely just notice mistakes in driving. Patience is missing. If “patience is a virtue” (a cliché), then where are the virtuous exactly.

My way is to simply drive slow. People aggressively drive around me. If too dangerous, I’ll try to keep pace a bit. My way is to let errors slide. If someone aggresses me, I act like they don’t exist or it never happened. I immediately forgive myself of errors because I’m a Psychologist and am aware they must recur. If they must recur then there is no learning methodology that will eradicate all errors. If I would work at the eradication, I’d be alone in my driver-morality.

Is there any understanding about this interesting concept of driver-morality? How does one seek to analyze it, and self-alter using the analysis? If you are honest with yourself, and look at the pattern of roadway behavior, you must admit that all are lost on this question. Without a starting point or even a cross-section of religion and civility in which to discuss it. It definitely indicates a moral and ethical failing of entire cultures, who think themselves expert where they are inexpert.

The name is ‘Mattanaw’, ‘Mattanaw Mattanaw’“

Friday, May 10, 2024 02:10:46, Tempe, Arizona

The name is ‘Mattanaw’,

‘Mattanaw Mattanaw’.

I realized I can just state my name as a mononym, as intended, but also say it like James Bond. Solutions for when society makes you use your same name twice just to have a first and last name.

Risks of Fictional Productions II.

Monday, May 06, 2024 17:09:12, Tempe, Arizona

In the prior posting on risks of fictional productions I covered the biases and fallacies related to metaphors and similes. Briefly I discussed the risks created by writing fictional pieces without informing or educating audiences that what is shared is illustrative. What is true about fictional pieces would have a corresponding non-fiction writing that would share what it is about the analogies that hold, what about the real world has been truthfully communicated, in non-fictional prose–in other words, it would simply explain what the meaning was in a way that doesn’t utilize the same fictions as the main portion of the explanation. Here I want to go further and explain more about what risks are created in the writing and enjoyment of various fictions.

Some choose to write fiction because they either don’t think they could write well or with enough detail about something that is non-fictional, or they think that the literary device is better for elucidating the audience regarding parts of the real world that have not been noticed or understood. Even in the case in which people want to write creative pieces that are not intended to be as elucidating, for providing readers entertainment, they still wish oftentimes in the course of the writing to present characters and situations that convey interesting observations about the real world, and so even in the case of what is imagined to be purely creative writing, there is still a desire to convey at least some things of interest about the real world.

The quality of a final literary piece or a work of film utilizing a literary piece relates, regardless of the level of creativity, to coherence and consistency in the story, and believability. Arguably if one wrote an extremely creative piece that lacked consistency, coherence, and had events that were too fantastic, the story as a whole would be one that audiences would enjoy less. They want to feel that they are there, in the story, and that what is occurring could occur, or at least the fits the story in such a way that it makes sense given the context. Patterns that exist in the real world regarding cause-effect and explanations of phenomena still cause expectations in readers that certain patterns exist in even purely creative pieces. Otherwise the story may seem like it has not been well written or conveyed, or is a haphazard piece resulting from brain damage, hallucination or drug use. If you consider the stories you really enjoy from films the stories tend to have much better consistency with the real world, good cause-effect relationships, and coherence which makes them much better than others that have been made. The very best are the most believable even in the more imaginative domain where much is invented and is fanciful. This exists for some shows like Star Trek, which are not blemish free, but are better than alternatives. There are things that don’t make sense but very largely the story does have the properties required to make them seem realistic enough given the operation of the real world that makes storytelling even possible.

Without a component of reality, storytelling becomes impossible. That alone is a topic worth developing.

There are some gradations then between fiction and non-fiction, where non-fiction entirely attempts to convey what is only true and actual. If an author has a message, and there is something that is real that will convey it, it is much safer for the writer and the audience if the author simply writes non-fiction. In that case, if the story is entirely true, then the author and the readers are unlikely to be badly affected by illusions, fallacies, and cognitive biases that result from metaphors and similes that are inappropriately used later. Real life stories, when told well, are already coherent, consistent, and employ correct cause effect relationships. If they convey what is wanted to convey, something about the world is also directly learned, rather than indirectly learned by having to make inferences from illustrations and figurative analogies presented in fiction. The author has then focused on what is true, and has learned along the way.

Obviously though, that may be stifling to the creative and imaginative process, and what might be created might convey more and not less than what exists that one might learn about. If someone is really gifted and is really realistic in their worldview and understands actual worldly patterns of history, of social interaction, and of cause-effect relationships, and is realistic generally, then that person will already be very good at constructing stories that make sense to the reader, and have what is required in terms of storymaking-to-the-world-correspondence. The result will very likely be believable stories that one can enjoy without noticing blemishes that are too severe.

Such writers, it is hoped, could also identify what is metaphorical and separate illustrativeness from reality. They would be able to explain what the analogies and metaphors mean and what they could mean, and what might be illusory if one actually tried to run with the analogies as realities. Examples of this kind of error are shared in the earlier writing on this topic, so one should read that if one is not understanding what illusions, fallacies, or biases might exist on this matter. But here I want to say the primary defense against bias and fallacies to begin with is the identification and correction of them, with as great a frequency as possible. One cannot totally eradicate these kinds of errors in one’s mind as they happen, and at best one can train them out until fewer detections and corrections are required. However detection and correction are fundamental and will continue to be needed, and writers such as these, if they are working on that in themselves, will be able to protect audiences and themselves from fictional writing.

Whether to choose to tell a very high quality imaginative story versus whether to tell a real story seems to consist in whether or not one’s creative powers are able to do what I mentioned above, and to make something that is more rich and interesting than simply choosing a real-life story. The other option I personally prefer is to just write what is intended to be told, not utilizing any story at all but just explaining, and most of my writing fits in the domain of non-fictional writing that does not employ story telling, but includes telling something about the world that is important. I would choose to write an imaginative story, dialogue, or novel, if I thought that what I would come up with would be better and less boring than choosing something in history to talk about. And actually reflecting on this now, I would probably rather do this than find a piece of history, study it, convey it, and explain what I think is important about it. But I would need to protect the reader and myself in the process by being clear that what is illustrative is really illustrative, and I’d need to be able to explain what that illustration is exactly without relying on that illustration. Some writers have written as if there was no other way to explain what is trying to be conveyed without a piece of fiction to do it. If that’s the case, I believe they don’t know what they were trying to convey. Rather, when conveying in other styles of non-fictional writing seem to fail to have the audiences understanding, which is due to natural issues with having differing abilities to comprehend, I think that is when I would want to choose to be more literary. “They will get this finally if they have a story that presents a scenario in which they can better engage their imaginations.”

My choice as to whether or not to write fiction given the risks is when I think the audience will nto understand or be interested any other way.

More on this topic soon.

My Quest to Drink Only Water is Complete!

Monday, May 06, 2024 15:54:47, Tempe, Arizona

I have finally completed my mission to get into the habit of only drinking water, and am ready to share some of the interesting results of the process. It has now been nearly three months of only drinking water, and there are some unexpected behavioral differences, that made the result more rewarding than I anticipated.

Firstly, I don’t want anything other than tap water, although I will have bottles too. I act automatically seeking out tap water when it is available, and when I’m out I’m fine with tap water too. I permitted myself initially sparkling water and infusions of water with fruit, but after a long period only drinking plain water, I rejected having fruit infusions. I still permit myself to have sparkling if I really want it, but found it is a rarity and I almost never want that instead. I hardly think about what to drink and go strait for tapwater whenever it is available unreflectively. It’s somewhat shocking just how unrelfective I am about it. Water goes into the cups and I hardly know it was refilled. Tap water always seems cool, so I’m not even needing ice, something I always especially enjoyed. Conditions would be strange to not be cool when drinking. I noticed nearly all of the time, water has the same cool characteristics that make it refreshing to drink. My concept of what was refreshing has changed and now any water is refreshing, unless perhaps if it came from an outdoor source and was hot; although typically that water is anticipated to be cool too.

The approach I used to get started was to surround myself with water. At my long-term AirBnB where I’m currently staying, I placed many cups around the room at various locations pre-filled with water. If I was thirsty I would immediately drink from them and I would fill them in advance. I would refill all of them once I noticed the supply was going down, so I was always surrounded. I carry a water bag that contains water, that for some I reason I tend to avoid, but when I’m especially thirsty and have nothing available I do drink from the bag. When I go out to coffee houses, like Starbucks, I only get a water bottle, or more recently, I order the smallest coffee I don’t drink, a solo espresso, to get a larger free water, which comes from their tap. That may be filtered but I’m unconcerned about that. The key is I had water available in all locations wherever I was and drank only that water.

The second huge benefit is now any drink I was habitually or frequently having like coffee (especially) or beer, never comes to mind. At first they did spring to mind, and I would use a redirect process to catch the thought and redirect it to drinking water. The process of not drinking these beverages was successful immediately, but I did have to mentally redirect impulses to these other beverages. Now these very seldom come to mind and there is no need to redirect the thinking, it just vanishes. It feels as though they never come to mind, and actually the thought of having any alternative beverage at all seems unattractive, and even somewhat disgusting. I was not expecting that other beverages than water would seem disgusting.

Thirdly, I hardly even think about water. Drinking and satiation are also nearly automatic. I’m staying in the Phoenix area, so the only times I have a strong urge for water is when I’m out and I start to feel somewhat dehydrated or parched. Then I have to seek it out but I still only direct myself to my water bag or to cheap or free sources. Sometimes I notice I was thirsty only after I drank something. Drinking behavior and thirst are somewhat blended. I don’t notice either oftentimes since the water is so often available and is consumed sometimes before I recognize it.

Expenditures are lower. That was expected. Instead of expensive cups of coffee, drinks are less than three dollars, which is a worthwhile cost for time spent at an establishment. Bars have become entirely unattractive, although I’ll permit myself to go for snacks or small inexpensive foods. I have a larger project related to eating that I’ll share later and this is consistent with that project too. If I want more time out writing or reading, or just sitting for food, I’m permitted although I don’t do that, and if I do, the drink of choice will be tap water.

The strangest part of the experience is simply having very little drinking related desires or expenditures. Drinking is almost not a recreation any longer. If we are observant of our regular behaviors drinking things is hugely a part of what we do for fun, since it connects with eating behavior and spending time out in public. We are drinking sodas from convenience stores, juices and other beverages from grocery stores, beer to go out to bars and nightlife places, and coffee anytime we want to sit for a chat or independent time at a coffee house. But my motivation now is only to be out, and has nothing to do with the beverage.

It’s almost like the drinking part of my life has vanished in any way it can exist, and my life has been extremely simplified.

It’s been three months now but my objective is to make it totally permanent. Now my consideration for drinking other beverages for a purpose relate to medical needs. I have not ruled out the utility of alcohol for specific purposes. When I’m older, I may drink beer or wine to alleviate pain, or to very temporarily decrease the chance of blood clots, using it as a blood thinner. But I’m not sure if that will be necessary. Currently I don’t do any drugs of any kind, including any off the counter drugs, and do not drink any intoxicants. I only consume plants (from various sources) and water, with occasional small amounts of dairy (very occasional). Although I’m wanting to live as clean as possible, I am aware that anything related to pain may call for utilizing drugs and for that purpose I’ll do what I need to do, but it may be many decades before I need to have anything other than water and plant matter. This has greatly simplified life, increased my ability to control and reduce weight, reduce expenditures, stay in healthy environments, and to overall simplify my habits and inclinations. Imagine a life not thinking of what to drink and eat! Would it be boring? I have found that it is not! It simply takes a transitional period, and thinking itself has been improved by reducing demands on attention. I have experienced greater economy of thought doing this.

I highly recommend exploring this type of option. The obviousness of it is extreme, but the effects of carrying it out are unobvious. The experience is so rewarding I can’t imagine myself going back for any reason.

Risks of Fictional Productions

Monday, May 06, 2024 15:04:34, Tempe, Arizona

Metaphors and Similes comprise illustrative writing that we all learned about in English class, but I do not recall a teaching for which I’ve had an insight later, and that’s the relationship between them and cognitive biases, illusions and fallacies in which they relate. I think they are among the most severe cases that culturally we have not dealt with, and the public at large, and maybe everyone has been adversely affected.

“Why is this the case?” one might ask, and one might also say “I enjoy illustrative fictional productions that are metaphorical, and they have considerable societal value. I don’t see what’s wrong with them.”

Imagine if I did some figurative writing about demons likening them to people who have certain undesirable traits. This would not be a unique writing, since that idea is already pervasively utilized. By writing such a thing, the reader may themselves make the connections between my characters, as they have done with film productions, and connect them to real life figures. What is at issue then, is the potential prospect of demonization of people. People who only seem to have traits that are akin to what the writing illustrates may, to these people, become actual demons, particularly if they think in a religious context. That person, to them, may subsequently be damned to them. They may actually envision that the person will face “hellfire” connecting this to other topics. But not only is the person not a “demon”, which is something we are supposed to know understanding what figurative thinking is, they wouldn’t go anyplace related to any figurative story relating to demons and nothing would happen to them simply because they relate to the characters I have written about in my story. Instead, the writing was figurative and those people may simply be those with some traits that, if identified correctly, are those that may be better to avoid at times. It is important to know that the story was fictional and still the people in the real world are people, and none of them are demons.

The same is true regarding anyone depicted as being “angelic”.

This is not a post about religion though. We are just aware that demonizing others happens to be a serious issue, and relates to killing and warfare. It is an especially fitting example that happened to come to mind, but is one of millions of potential examples that are not related to religion directly.

The risk is global for all metaphors, and this is only a single example. If I claim that humans and animals are “robot-like” and write a story trying to persuade others that most mammals are biological automata, I am not stating that they are actual robots. That is an illustration only, intended to show that humans and animals have traits of automaticity and pre-determination (potentially, if that is what the writing is about).

In order to combat the risk that one will think that metaphors are non-illustrative and actual instead of only illustrative, one has a very large task just like the combating of cognitive biases and correction of logical fallacies. If one utilizes logical fallacies again and again, eventually they pervade one’s thinking and conversation. In fact, everyone who hasn’t attempted to work hard at resolving cognitive biases and logical fallacies is especially subject to making mistakes. Another fallacy that is hard to eradicate is “ad-populum” or “bandwagon” fallacies, that are not only mistakes that people make individually, but are built into culture. Democracy itself includes processes that rely on these fallacies. The news media and advertising often uses it. If one looks closely one will see that it will be many hundreds if not thousands of years until these fallacies are entirely resolved and this would indicate that most people commit them again and again. What I want to impress upon the reader, is that in addition to this, are all the other fallacies, and among the greatest and most important of them is confusing metaphors and similes for not being only illustrative, but actual.

This also relates to the propensity to not only be subject to those thinking mistakes, but to actually contribute to them and create them. Writing of fiction is something I avoid, but in the future it may be that I’ll write a screenplay, film, or dialogue (actually I do have a dialogue planned), that is intended entirely to be illustrative. What I’ll do, in the writing, is indicate someplace in the beginning or end or both, that what has been written is only illustrative, and discuss the risks, just as I did here. Notice that this is not something anyone ever sees when one is exposed to any sort of fiction in literature, in television shows, or in film. One is simply presented with the story and one is not aware of any risks that might exist within it. Since everyone is subject to these biases and fallacies, and makes mistakes themselves (if one thinks one does not make these mistakes, I assure you that watching your own thinking will reveal that indeed you do make this mistake, in various gradations of severity), it follows that everyone watching is suddenly at some risk by these fictions. Suddenly what is remembered is quite a lot that is only supposed to be entertainment, and anything that relations to real life analogically is sometimes missed as being analogy only.

In future writings of mine on Human Shortcomings, which will include a variety of logical fallacies and cognitive biases that are common, with many added that are familiar, I’ll give more examples. One can expect a book to be available soon from my Book and Journal at But for now I’ll trust the reader can generalize this issue and will see that the problem is as widespread that I’m indicating that it is.

Writing of literature, and the creation of film, presents risks to others. There is some danger in the writings, although of course I recognize the benefits of having great and richly meaningful entertainment, especially when it’s done masterfully.

Creating a Personal “Time Capsule” to Enjoy Societal Change More

Sunday, May 05, 2024 13:40:39, Tempe, Arizona

Recently I have ventured onto a personal project to make life more interesting. Some like myself, who have already experienced culture and have seen the patterns it has offered repetitively, may think that stimulation from others and the environment is more boring. For youths, there is plenty to learn and plenty that has not been seen, and in combination the world around seems more interesting generally. But for people who are older and are more intelligent, the world starts to become routine, and instead personal projects and interests satisfy curiosities more than what the world offers.

I noticed after some long periods being away from television and the market focusing on my own interests that suddenly seeing that the world has changed can be intensely interesting. For example, not being involved in the electric car market at all, I was suddenly very pleased to go for a good number of rides in autonomous vehicles in the Phoenix area. These are called “Waymos” and upon seeing them for the first time, and riding them, the world suddenly had something highly stimulating for me again. I started wondering if it would be useful to more deliberately refrain from any entertainment or market interactions for a period of say, 5 years, with checks 2-3 years along the way would be worthwhile. After 5 years, fashion will have changed, music and entertainment will be different, and what is available on the market will have very great advancements. A check after 2-3 years would reveal if a largescale shift happened sooner than that, and if the size of the difference appears large enough, I could consider emerging from my time-capsule to interact, or to stay in my time-capsule, which is like a home-made egg, and emerge from my egg later instead of sooner.

You can create an egg you can hatch from to explore a new world if you want, and that’s something I’m planning to start soon.

Another interesting thing about this project, is that it is possible to really focus on personal projects with creative freedom. In my case, my writing and project interests will no longer have connections with current events or happenings on the news. Instead of often linking my interests with what is happening around me to feel relevant, I can get comfortable with irrelevance. I’m retired so that is something I’m wanting to experience anyways, to increase my ccmforts with doing less that might seem important to others. Also, later the results of my projects may be more oddly interesting and relevant to what is happening simply because I’ve had free creative concentration, so whatever is odd or out of place, might end up more novel or more interesting in a strange way.

So I’m going to move forward on this project to create a self-made time capsule of isolation. I will still be stimulated seeing people around, and various differences, but I’ll remain inattentive to worldly happenings outside my immediate vision. I’ll take a peek out sometime in 2026/27 and see if I see what I like. If I don’t, I’ll remain in the time capsule until 2029. In 2029 I already know the world will be an odd an interesting place, so I’ll have plenty again for a short period to be extremely stimulated, somewhat like a new kid only learning the world for the first time.

News Avoidance Wherever and However it Arises

Tuesday, April 30, 2024 12:29:12, Tempe, Arizona

If we look closely at conversational behavior we can see that much that is talked about, as most would quickly recognize, relates to social issues that are immediately present and near, and those that relate to what has been presented to us on the news. While what is discussed in the former case may seem to be highly relevant to what one might benefit from thinking about, the latter case presents information that is vastly more irrelevant. News is thought to consist largely of topics of current events than many believe, and have been traditionally told, are important to know about to understand what is going on in the local or more distant world, such that one’s interactions are sufficiently informed. Without watching the news one, we are told, would become increasingly disconnected from “what is going on” and this would decrease one’s ability to act as a citizen should in a variety of their circumstances. News, supposedly, would increase one’s value as a person to other citizens, and would increase a person’s ability to act more powerfully and with greater value.

This can be contrasted with the view we often hear much about, that the news often presents irrelevant information, messages with excess urgency or debate, or persuasive value-related messages intended to urge you to think more about a specific topic or to take specific actions. There are some who feel strongly enough about this perspective that they don’t watch the news at all or very often, and may urge others concerning the importance to stop watching the news also. This can be contrasted with the traditional view mentioned above, that advises the opposite, that one should be very aware of the news, and that one should think about what it has communicated, and potentially take actions that are consistent with messages of one news source or another. Even if those news sources tend to have conflicting or adversarial perspectives, it is thought that still news as a whole is something to watch, listen to, and act on.

Personally, I’m not fond of television in general, and watch very little of it, and sometimes none for long periods, because I’m greatly opposed to the way advertising is done. This means rarely I’m seeing any news anyway. It is implied that one will have to watch advertising if one is encouraged to watch the news, and this is something not really well considered in the traditional perspective that one should just watch news. Apart from this, thinking my time important, and my projects to be of greater value for my energy and efforts than television watching or using social media or streaming to watch news, I simply prefer greatly to stay away from the news. We can use this as a starting point to discuss reasons why the news might not be particularly valuable coming from the perspective of someone who watches none at all, and then the reader can think about what value would be provided by watching somewhat more than none, a moderate amount, to watching frequently and on many different ways it might be received.

Today I was thinking through what it would be like if I did not watch any news during some outbreak of a plague, somewhat like our experiences of COVID. During COVID, I did watch some television, but oftentimes I was unaware of the changes of process related to social distancing and who was impacted where. I learned a bit about the masking requirements when I actually visited businesses and observed behaviors, and learned of the strictness of keeping 6 feet apart the same way. I overheard chatter and spoke with employees to discover exactly what was expected and what was going on. This means that even during COVID, I was relying on observation of others and listening in public to obtain most of the information I was needing to behave like a citizen was expected to, at the time it was expected. If there were another outbreak, and I did not watch any news, AND I did not listen to others or chat with them, I still believe observationally I would receive all the social information I would need to act appropriately. I would only need to observe how others were behaving and their appearances, and try to match my behavior and appearance to theirs. If there were additional needs, perhaps relating to the need to be vaccinated, I would learn of that on my own with my own research without any passive television or social media usage, at the time I’m needing to make a trip. For example, If I am wanting to go to Hawaii, and then on to a foreign country, I would check what travel rules existed, and would simply conform to those rules. That’s how I would learn if I needed to be vaccinated or not, and given the enforcement of vaccinations for COVID I would simply comply to make the travel I am wanting possible. This implies that one would not need any news of any kind even in the context of an emergency affecting rules of behavior and enforcement because I could simply utilize simple observation in public and very brief research regarding travel rules.

Emergency information is used to establish relevance for news watching. It provides an example, some would think, of vital communication required to be able to act appropriately. Other forms of information area also used to try to persuade others that what the news offers creates sufficient relevance for one to need to watch. This includes stock and market information, which is thought to create empowerment for doing business or making investments, nationalistic information used for voting, and for understanding current relations with other nations. I am certain for myself that these pieces of information are rarely shared, and even if they are of some utility, that some information can be obtained with research and conversing with others in public. However, I do very little of either, and am certain for myself that they constitute nearly worthless information. For more on that topic I’d have to direct the reader to my views regarding voting, and would have to elaborate on why I’m not interested in investment unless it’s for funding my own businesses. Even these kinds of news are irrelevant to my way of living.

Another interesting way in which the news can be arguably relevant is if others who are wanting to socialize would want to discuss it, and to what extent it comprises what is needed to engage in conversations with many people who are wanting to socialize. Not finding socializing very valuable (although I do like to socialize), and knowing it is easy enough to learn from others without being the one to fully understand or have an opinion on a topic, conversation management is still not particularly challenging. Some want to have “the right opinions” on political topics, and in the context of current news, discuss it with others to try to persuade or argue their views, and have some exchange of ideas and information in the process (sometimes, since many are not honestly interested in doing much more than conveying their own opinions). Whether or not this is something someone wants to engage in, the news has some relevance to the social context, but has often simply created that social context. My personal interest is to discuss other topics that are not within the news context, and there is still plenty to talk about without the news and current events.

News watching at a large scale creates a very large social context that has been initiated by the news itself and this has been related to media control. What I was saying above about relevance reveals that even outside the social context many will argue there is relevance to the news. I have also started at the outset of this article that some will traditional argue that it is nearly a civic duty to be informed by the news. An implication of this is that some think there is an obligation to watch the news, and others will think it is necessary and relevant to be sufficiently informed. If enough people are convinced that this is the case, in addition to the people who simply watch for entertainment, there is a very large population of news-watchers that are going to be seeing the news regularly, and this seems to correspond to what happens to be the actual news watching population. These watchers will not refrain from watching in the future as that would require widespread persuasion that is not going to happen. As a result, the news media has a guaranteed pathway of setting social contexts. More than this they will have a guaranteed pathway to set the thinking context that will be shared amongst the population that makes the social context possible. All of this will not have a foundation in news relevance or actual obligation in my estimation.

Since the thinking context and social context has been steered by the news which has not been relevant to my life, and I actively avoid it, and am sometimes largely devoid of news and political context (for not being exposed to the news), the thought and social contexts around me, to some large percentage, is uninteresting to me. This implies that talking with others about these topics coming from the news often will not be very valuable to me. It further implies that conversation from others has been diminished in value to the extent that their conversation would consist of what comes from the news. This includes news about sports, about other entertainment, and not only news about current events. My interest in other people to the extent that they will want to talk about any of these things is greatly reduced. Thinking about the nervous system, any particular person will have in their brains stored information which would be worth discussing, but the interest is actually having them select those pieces of information and not what is more active or ready for activation. Impressions from the news has created a greater likelihood of activation of those topics, meaning it will be harder for them to choose a topic I’d be interested and for me to find a topic from them worth talking about, in a way that is more socially smooth. Ultimately if I’m having conversation with others I don’t want it news related and I want it to relate to interesting and significant topics that touch on other brain tissue that they haven’t had activated. Personal non-media related behavior is still something that is a good avenue for conversation, but since I’m not often seeking socialization for the purpose of enjoying socialization, even this is not compelling for starting conversation, and instead something to redirect conversation to an agreeable path once conversation has begun for whatever reason.

Since news is not something that is relevant to me, I’m not wanting to receive it from anyplace. If the news came directly from the news, or from another person, the information is still just as irrelevant. The analysis of the information itself would be what would surface whether or not that particular information has any value, and wherever it comes from it would have that same value, unless there is something else in the pleasure of interpersonal communication that makes that information not really the point of the conversation to begin with. In that case it’s more like simply enjoying being around someone else apart from what is spoken about.

A conclusion of this is that I’m not wanting news information from any source whatsoever and even from people who would communicate it to me even if I haven’t been exposed to the news. Plague doesn’t even require this kind of communication, and if it did, it would be extremely focused and brief, and would constitute an extreme rarity. If I needed to know some particular social fact related to COVID I could briefly research it, or hear it once from another person, and in the total set of thoughts it would constitute less than one in 100 million. How can one convince that news is relevant if what is needed amounts to less than a hundred millionth of total thought? As one would expect, regarding myself, I do no think that news has hardly any value to me. I don’t think my learning of the news would increase my value as a citizen to others. Working on projects relating to more significant topics already increases my value in a way that is more important than news could increase it. Since I want my thinking to be for me, and want to reduce the amount of thought I’m having that relates to irrelevant information, I’m wanting to avoid news wherever it comes out, and that includes in conversation with others.

Fantasizing Truth to Understand Honest People

Tuesday, April 30, 2024 12:29:12, Tempe, Arizona

Recently I started a small writing concerning the bewildering difficulty of communicating a large and complex personal history of success and honesty. If one’s career is too extensive, included too many accomplishments, and one is a very complex person, it becomes very difficult to convey to others in a fast way that they will understand, who and what you are and have become.

Historically, I’ve been very much against dishonesty and fictionalization. I have a very strong distaste for fake histories, fake personas, and fabrication of all sorts, excepting those used to escape immediate dangers. Falsification, to me, is usable only when there is basically and insane person or organization against you that you need separation and protection from. More detail can be provided on this last statement to cover all cases, but I trust the reader will understand what I’m talking about. Utterly complete radical honesty is not really realistic. But very nearly utterly complete radical honesty is, and I’m a living example of that.

How do these two topics relate? Well, for my life, I’ve been wanting a way to communicate honestly and exactly my background, but my background must appear impossible to some people. They are in disbelief sometimes and try to find ways to explain for themselves “what I must really be like” but already I’m presenting what I am really like in a really honest way. Furthermore, I’ve collected living artifacts over the years that in combination prove what what I’m communicating happens to be true. Artifacts can’t cover everything so beyond that I can only simply convey honestly what I can to complete the picture, and obviously the artifacts and the communications are consistently honest and point to more honesty in the future. My personality as a radically honest person isn’t really totally understood, so the person or people I’m talking with on their own are searching and seeking still to see what might be false, but there isn’t any mistake regarding my veracity.

That relates to the idea that it is very difficult to know who is honest, and mostly each and every person who isn’t totally gullible or discerning of honesty, will be thinking that something must be incorrect and there must be some areas of untruth. But that doesn’t happen to be the case regarding my personality and story.

The idea that is of intererst for this posting that I believe to be novel is that there may be a way to lead people to finally get out of their expectation of dishonesty to understand what really honest and truthful people might be like, especially if they are in my position having documents and artifacts to demonstrate what is said, for a very large number of claims.

I think the way is fantasy interestingly. People enjoy fantasy. What they are doing while they try to fill in gaps with another person is utilizing their creative imaginations. They do this in a way that includes making the wrong assumptions, but they refine it over time as they come to understand someone better, although they also tend to use their initial impressions incorrectly to solidify some false assumptions. They use their imaginations well and poorly, but they are using their imaginations each and every time. Once you’ve been introduced to someone, their imaginations are working on your story.

So what I want to convey to some people in some way I’ll conjure in the future, in a forthright way, is that they should imagine that I’m a totally honest person and use the artifacts and what I say to build the picture, in conjunction with things they imagine that also fulfill the storyline of a character that happens to be truth telling. They can do this while still being risk averse, because in no way do I ask or expect anything of them, or want anything from them. They still have their risk aversion processes that they can use, so this can all be done somewhat separately from that ensuring their protection while they try to get the story about the other person correct. The idea is to connect the desire to understand who a person is really like with the utilization of fantasy to build out that story in the right way.

Simply imagine what I’m telling you happens to be the case. Build from that, look for defects. You will be illuminated understanding later that it happens to be true, and maybe you’re on the path to really understand someone.

Now this isn’t just about me. So don’t think I’m just thinking about how I’m some super fantastic and honest person who wants to tell you about that, and that you should build your internal story about me to match reality. This really affects anyone who is an honest person with a true story to tell, who consistently self-check and corrects such that almost everything is really well considered for the purpose of conveying truth. Maybe that’s somewhat rare, but I’m certain some who read this will think “this is me” correctly. Maybe such an idea will benefit somehow, once the approach includes an easy an feasible method that can be used in conversation that doesn’t simply botch the conversation. Smooth and social people will understand that there is often a way to use a new social-conversational idea and it is simply a matter of eventually finding the method of communication combined with appropriate timing to make it possible to use and to recommend. I think it is possible that some large number of people may benefit.

Are you distrusting? What if someone you meet is really good and is really telling all honestly to the best of their ability with plenty of material to back claims up? Would you be willing to at the start imagine they are as honest as they say they are, imagine a fantasy of who they happen to be on the basis of that assumption, to later be illuminated that you realy know who someone happens to be without all the distrust and fictionalized imaginative explanations mixed in? If that is not something that others are willing to try, it could be that they really prefer not to know anyone and that really they would rather fill in the gaps themselves with fabrications. This makes it impossible to not know the people who are worth knowing and to know them well.

More on this topic soon

[Note: completed at 4:49 pm without any edits, spell checking, or proofreading, as part of a study on editing and honesty in communication]

The Enslavement of Animal Robots

Wednesday, May 01, 2024 20:51:25, Tempe, Arizona

Since the 1990s I wondered why there was not yet an appearance of any form of robot that was usable to alleviate some of the routine work that everyone was doing. Factories and in industry, already roboticization was extensive, and vehicles and other items were manufactured using sophisticated robotic appendages and other devices to perform work that was earlier performed with manual labor. These robots were not humanoid robots, of course, but simpler appendages and arm-like robots (although there are other kinds too), that did repeated tasks easily again and again. It seemed to me that they could not have been so complex to be too expensive for release into other markets. Now as I reflect on it, I think it must be true that there were other reasons for exclusive use in certain industries and not elsewhere. There are other reasons why they are not more pervasive.

I’ve argued earlier in the thoughtstream (If I have written it–I may not recall, these may just be thoughts I haven’t yet shared), that software automation is also already a form of roboticization only that there doesn’t happen to be body. So any software system that is performing tasks that would have been manually performed earlier is something I’m counting as robotic. Mechanization of industry in general including in agriculture is also a form of roboticization. A large tractor performing a large range of functions can be thought of as a robot. So these robotic systems exist and do simplify life in a variety of ways, but still we don’t have robots in our homes, or in businesses we often visit that perform human-mechanical tasks in the same way humans do. We cook our meals, prepare dishes for the dishwasher, clean around the house and so on, and much of this I would think should already be work performed by robots.

When are we going to see the benefits of roboticization directly at the individual level?

There are two ways we can benefit individually. Firstly if we obtain money from the work of robots even if we are not performing the work. That doesn’t appear to be happening and instead any work performed by robots would lead to business revenues that would mostly be transferred to the ownership of businesses. I don’t think we’re seeing much benefit from this currently. The other is to simply have them in the market doing work for us to improve our lives overall. As I said, we don’t really see this happening at present, even though robots have been around a long time and like I said, already they were performing work in the 1990s.

Eventually, what we are wanting are robotic slaves. In a sense, the work that is performed in automation by computer systems in products is a form of slave that repeatedly does the work for you. Eventually, we would like to increasingly offload work to slaves such that we have less routine tasks to perform that we don’t want to performs, and have the slaves do work in corporations and businesses on our behalf with the distribution of rewards going to everyone and not only people at the top of businesses. Slave labor, if it were not harmful to people, would be something that others would really want. Imagine if house keepers were free, drivers were free, people growing gardens, and people performing any task whatsoever as an assistant were free. We’d want them to do the work and we would benefit tremendously. We’d move from being people doing it all on our own to aristocrats of sorts living a lifestyle of much greater riches. Well, of course, slavery of people is horrible, and of course this is not what we want to do in modern times. In older times, it makes sense that people would want free or extremely cheap labor to lessen their work load and enable them to do whatever they wanted. Since this makes sense, of course it still makes sense, when it happens to be moral. The use of robots is certainly moral, and would enable us to have slaves to perform all our work for us. We could disuse the word slaves to use the word robots instead, while keeping in mind that the work that they are doing is really the kinds of work we would want slaves to be doing.

A challenge of the future will be to find ways to ensure that entities like corporations that build the robots distribute the robots to others for use in a way that is reasonably priced, and allows them to earn from their robots, without too much being transferred directly to the ownership. An example area where this would be necessary is where large portions of the work force are expected to be replaced with automation. Consider vehicular transport services like taxis, Uber, and Lyft. Now there is completely automated driverless vehicles taking the place of these services. An existing automated driverless transit service that exists now is called Waymo, and exists in Phoenix, Arizona, where I have used them frequently. I’ve used them approximately 30 times. These driverless cars can completely replace Uber, Lyft, and taxis in a large portion of the Phoenix area. Eventually, it seems very clear to me, because of the quality provided and other considerations, that these autonomous vehicles will completely or very nearly completely replace Uber, Lyft and taxi drivers, but there is no indication at all that these robotic slave cars will generate income that will be transferred to anyone other than the organization that created them, with much less provided to employees than to their ownership and primary stakeholders. This would be an example of robotic slavery that replaces work for people but does not actually create any income for them. Not only this, it should be providing income to people who might work as a driver, or potentially everyone. The effects of workforce replacement with slaves is not well understood, but distribution of rewards should be large and should go to many, and arguably, eventually, riding in these vehicles should be really inexpensive too. This is another way slaves can support everyone. If all could ride these vehicles for an incredibly low price, they all are directly improved by having robots performing work for them.

Corporations eventually with more and more roboticization would anticipate fewer rewards for their creations, but the decreased cost of living due to the roboticization combined with the increased rewards on the distribution of their return of revenue, would make earning income less important.Corporations would make less, but that is offset already by the potentially greater gains of having the robotic slaves do the work on their behalf.

Transitioning to what seems an entirely different topic, but still one of interest, is the protection of animals which may be on their way to extinction. These animals, being bio-bots like us, currently mostly exist in nature (where they are wild animals), and perform tasks automatically that are mostly directed to the fulfillment of their desires and needs. They spend their time looking for food, mating, looking after their young, and avoiding danger. Many of these animals are at risk of extinction or are going extinct. While there are efforts to prevent their extinction, the success of those efforts may be limited and may eventually cause or result in their extinctions nevertheless. For example, the protection of the Rhino does not appear to have been effective. If it is not possible to prevent them from becoming extinct, it may be possible to employ them as slaves for various purposes provided they are well treated (something of considerable importance given the cruelty of the animals in the food industry). There are some animals, including primates, that could potentially clean. They may even be able to cook, if well trained. Larger animals can perform tasks like take people around like autonomous vehicles. Humorously, it could be that people could benefit by the return of horses, but here thinking about animals that may go extinct, why not allow them to ride other large animals instead? Elephants, Rhinos, or other large animals. If they are going to be extinct instead, certainly it seems their preservation through domestication and use as well-treated slaves would be worthwhile. It may seem a stretch to think of this as a real possibility, but it really only requires the imagination to see how this might actually work. Even if these animals are not used for transit they could be employed for whatever they happen to be good at. Perhaps Giraffes are utilized to collect fruits for others, and not only themselves. Perhaps Chimpanzees and Gorillas can garden, and grow us some tomatoes that are finally worth eating again. This is really possible and while it seems a strange idea, if it is extinction versus flourishing as animals blended with the human population, as friends who perform work, I think the latter is preferable.

There is the question as to whether or not people really care about extinction, or if they only think about it momentarily then move onto other things, desiring and hoping that “someone else” will go into nature and protect them in various ways. But perhaps businesses can be opened, and trained domestication can be increased, to utilize these animals as robots while we can’t have robots. Or alternative bio-robots in a market that will grow to include options for different kinds of robots.

Already it is not unusual to have dogs carry out tasks for us that they happened to be specialized for. They work with the police and perform functions they seem to think are fairly critical. Each of the many other animals have unique traits that make them suitable for differing kinds of tasks that would need to be identified. There are other tasks that they perform as well, and obviously, by having a dog or a cat, one has a robotic replacement for a friend or family member, who often do better than humans could or would.

Some questions to ponder. What are robots usable for in everyday life? What could other alternative animal-robots do for us? How can we blend these in with everyday life to improve general well being for ourselves and the animals? How would it lessen work and increase well being, with a decreased need to gain income? What is the role of money when all work is being performed already and nobody is needing income, when we reach a state in which we really do have all the moral slavery we could desire?

The End Game of the Chosen People

Monday, April 29, 2024 03:54:53, Tempe, Arizona

What could be the end game of a chosen people?

Let’s say I’m a member of a chosen people. (And I happen to be a member of a group that does think they are the chosen people).

How do I complete my mission, and how does it surface over the next 10,000 years to a million years?

Here are several options, and there aren’t many.

  1. Does my people somehow become part of an elite caste, that simply controls everything, or guides everyone, who happens to not be members of the chosen people, supposing they still exist? Meaning the chosen people lead everything, while the unchosen people do not?

  2. Do my people simply remain scattered amongst everyone else, and run things partially, scattered across the globe? With the unchosen people living among us? Doing the same type of things (meaning they are chosen too?). Or, do we lead by oftentimes using manipulation to get our way while others simply don’t have their say as frequently?

  3. Do we eliminate everyone or eventually supplant them, or convert them, so that all there are are chosen people?

If my people are the chosen people (and they are), then it seems 1 and 2 are silly for us. 1 seems to confirm it, but is also abhorrent according to us at present. We can’t just have a caste system. 2 seems silly because it is like pretending to be chosen (that is what we do now). Both one and two don’t make it clear to everyone that we’re really chosen either. 1 makes it seem we are morally incorrect, and 2 makes it seem we’re just regular people, living with everyone else.

3 seems to confirm what a chosen people would be. Eventually, everyone else is absorbed or eradicated. If I’m working gradually to progress my chosen people, it seems that this is what I would want. Like people who want to convince all to be uncruel. In this case, the goal is to confirm chosen status.

After 10,000 years what does it look like though? Does it just stay like one of the above, or does it become something else. Does my chosen people evolve into another people, or do we remain in stasis as chosen people?

Which path do you think I should follow as a chosen person with my chosen people?

Solidifications of the Life Categories

Sunday, April 28, 2024 19:16:01, Tempe, Arizona

Work on the Life Categories and Attentional Management Process within Attentional Architecture has resulted in considerable advancements in life organization, with some culminating accomplishments relating to the objectives of the Personal Form. These culminating accomplishments for now can be referred to as “solidifications”.

Solidifications are the automations and finished habits related to completions of goals related to the life categories. They are stable habits that are exclusionary of behaviors that are unwanted, but more important are focused positively on actions that are preferred.

The recent solidifications are those that were supported for development using the wake book, to complete goals of the personal form.

It is important now to collect, categorize, and easily recall the various solidifications. You’ve commented before that the culmination event of the completion of the personal form is really a completeness that does not require additions; however, additions to this culmination are still desirable. The finishing of the personal form’s objectives have resulted in a lifestyle that is adequate, creating personal contentment, but there is much to do that is interesting that will result in more improved plans and behaviors.

It is not clear yet how you want to organize solidifications because they are very cross relational in the life categories. It appears they will be complete interrelational habits, that will fit into a number of categories, that you will want to track in parallel.

Below is an example solidification relating to food and it’s relationships to the categories. Solidifications can be represented in a hierarchy or as a graph overlay. There are numerous representations of the solidifications but they have increasing abstraction and generality.

It appears after some brief reflection that the life categories and the larger goals of the personal form and AMP are more general than the solidifications. However, listing the solidifications seems like it will provide more clarity as to goal completenesses. For the above interrelated solidification (unnamed), it can be seen it relates each of the categories of Fitness, Nutrition, and Livelihood very obviously, but less obviously it relates to the other categories to. These appear to be highly connected behaviors that simply satisfy a large amount of goals for each of the categories.

The union or conjunction of all the solidifications will together satisfy the total goals of the life categories in another way that encompasses all that one does. Description of each with all the interrelationships further illustrates the cause of selecting the life categories as a suitable set for covering all activities, objectives, plans and so on. Solidifications and Life Categories together provide a way of summarizing what one does. The life categories alone don’t describe on their own without supporting writing what it is that one has done or has accomplished. They constitute a schematic framework usable at all times by a person and any other person.

For yourself, the summary description of your behavior will be well characterized by adding the complete list of solidifications in addition to the log of plans, personal form data, and living autobiography that relates to the life categories.

This will be expanded upon further in the near future.

Animals Thrive Amongst Corpses

Tuesday, April 30, 2024 12:29:12, Tempe, Arizona

Imagine you decide that you wanted to live out in nature alone, as a hermit of sorts. Or imagine, you spend a very long camping trip out in the country, also alone, for several months. After a long duration spending time in the country, one would become very attuned to the behavior of insects, small and larger animals, birds, where they life and what paths they tend to take, and the context of trees, plants and other flora in which they live. You’ll come to understand the ecosystem and its interconnections.

Part of the ecosystem and its interconnectedness of course includes feeding behavior and the death and dying process. You may see birds eating insects, you may hear predators eating small animals like rabbits, and you will likely see many dead organisms that haven’t yet been consumed by scavengers, other animals, and microorganisms. In a system such as this, it would be the case that there would be dead things all over. Either dead animals that are fresh kills, recently dead animal carcasses waiting for scavengers, or older dead carcasses awaiting decay, eroding, and consumption by microbes.

This is all something we’ve learned about in school, but what might be missing from this observations is that animals seem to thrive amongst corpses, scattered all about.

The observation of animals also shows strong indications that very often they are peaceful and are thriving. The visible dying of animals seems somewhat absent from the scene except more infrequently. Sometimes injured animals are stumbled upon, but that is somewhat a rarity compared to the scale of death that is really occurring. Dying animals must be hiding or finding safer places to be out of view while they are in the final process of dying. Much more visibly, we can see animals that seem to be doing well, or at least have better health as they seek out food and resources.

Certainly many animals are actually doing well and are enjoying themselves and their surroundings. And they do this within the context of death. Dead animals and organisms are strewn over the landscape. Dead animals of a similar type are nearby or have been nearby. They eat and live near dead animals of all kinds. It’s extremely familiar, yet on observation many are enjoying things and are thriving.

What here is different between the animals living out in nature and humans. Humans are certainly living in nature too, even if their construction leads them to create a divide between the artificial and synthetic, and the natural. They are still just on earth and in nature. Where it relates to death, humans have created a strong demarcation. Death is not in view. The dying are separated and the oldest of us are not often in public. Nearly they are never in public. But animals thrive even amongst the corpses.

We bury the dead using planning that is old and needs revision. They are buried deep or are cremated, and their corpses are out of view. Animals cannot feed on them, and in a sense, they go to some waste; although it is true too eventually something will benefit from their decay. It just takes much longer. But the animals and things we live in at this time, can’t benefit directly from the human corpses. We package them up tightly and bury them deep, without any intention to revisit them.

Humans are uncomfortable about death, but pretend to have resolved it using a process that keeps it more out of view. It becomes a topic to think about late in life for many who don’t experience it until old age, when peers are more frequently dying and when they of course have to think about what happens when their approaching demise finally occurs. They think of this once it’s closer in view. Or they suddenly and unexpectedly think of it when someone they know dies that they were not anticipating would. Other times when grandparents die, the process is not analyzed thoroughly and instead what is focused on is grievance. The fact that death is not in the open does not much come to mind and has been largely unaddressed.

What would happen if humans and their deaths were more open and if their bodies were not so carefully placed in cemeteries? What is the difference from this way of doing things from a natural life in which animals simply die scattered in the open and are consumed?

What would it cause us to think about population management if people did happen to have their corpses strewn in the open? Would we eventually see too many corpses of our kind, and think to ourselves that even our bodies excessively pollute the beauty of the surroundings? Or, would it seem something so familiar that it is no longer something to concern us and instead, skeletons and corpses are common enough that we are comfortable with our own prospects of finally becoming corpses too, and nothing more?

This is a topic worth spending some time dwelling on, because even imagining such a scenario helps to gain comfort that there is no afterlife, and also, that one can thrive just like animals do in an environment in which death is not hidden. The imagining of it is still helpful even if others prefer to use a less openly knowledgeable approach. People say that nature is beautiful and the world is beautiful, but they have omitted this kind of thinking from their estimations. I think they could arrive at the same conclusion recognizing that nature already is beautiful without or rules and systems, and that even if death were entirely in the open it would be quite nice. How could one like nature if one didn’t already have comfort with the corpses and pervasive death of animals? Finally, you’re an animal too. For those who can’t imagine that they are animals it seems they are further separated from being able to enjoy nature as it is and they would further rely on fictions, and the hiding of information, to continue to enjoy the beauties they select. They are merely being selective about what happens to be beautiful and not beautiful, while they’ll say things like “life is beautiful” thinking they have understood that to be the case in total.

Plans for Site Updates

Monday, April 01, 2024 22:09:40, Tempe, Arizona


Feeding and Digestion Doesn’t Correspond to a Diurnal Cycle

Feeding and Digestion Doesn’t Correspond to a Diurnal Cycle

Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 12:14 PM, Tempe, Arizona

An important activity I’ve been involved in relates to the identification of natural cycles as they exist and to what extent they correspond to the divisions we have in place with are calendaring system. More about this can be found in my article the calendar solved in my book and journal at where I provide my solution to the calendar problem as it relates to astronomy and the earth’s cycles. Some of the biological cycles that are outside of our control fall within diurnal cycles which are cycles of days corresponding to the rotation of the earth, with different lighting for different seasons. Some of our biological cycles correspond to the diurnal cycle and can only for a short time be separated, including our sleep requirements. It is true that this cycle influences the sleep behavior of many kinds of animals across the earth and so presents a hard biological limitation for many organisms and clearly relates well to our present system of calendaring and ideas about what our organization for planning should be like regarding that. But there are other cyclical or potentially acyclical behaviors we engage in that do not actually correspond to the diurnal cycle and for these we simply force them into our calendaring system, and this has many effects as to the veracity of our knowledge about these behaviors. An example of this happens to be our eating/feeding behavior and the eating/feeding behavior of other animals.

There is an exception, in that the sleeping behavior implies that there is no feeding behavior during the sleep. So one will only be eating at times when one is awake.

Our eating and feeding behavior does not strictly fall onto a diurnal cycle or the daily organization of the calendar. However, we have scheduled our food consumption to align with the calendar. Some eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and would be willing to enforce upon others that these scheduled feedings were necessary and natural given the world’s organization. However, it has merely been forced into the calendar this way, chunking these three meals together and placed on a timeline of days. But one does not need to eat according to this schedule and one does not need to eat every day. One does not need to eat every other day. One could go four days without eating or hardly eating or longer and would be fine. This is because our system of self-nourishment using existing resources within our body does its work gradually, and not in a punctuated way over a timeline. Your body will grab resources as resources are consumed and are needed.

Our bodies also are not punctuated regarding the basic needs level of creation and utilization of energy. There is no time that one is living that there is not some energy utilization occurring, and within the body, there is no time that there is not some chemical conversion of resources to energy. If one does not eat food for several days, the conversions of bodily resources to energy just continue, and are able to sustain the main functions for a prolonged period of time without having to eat again. Also, since a prolonged period of time without food can exist while one remains very healthy, it means the starting of the period of non-eating and the period of resuming eating can be at any time within the survivable period of abstinence from food. This implies very clearly that the eating behavior does not relate to the calendaring schedule as it presently exists. If one has no food, then suddenly has food four days later, perhaps living as an ancient human, then one’s sudden scarcity of food and one’s sudden arrival of food have not fit with the calendar either. This can be due to all sorts of circumstances which may create an appearance of partial randomness.

Since naturally humans have evolved without their feeding behavior being related to any particular calendaring which was only poorly conceived recently and several thousand years ago, it is known that our actual bodies have assumed that our energy needs and eating behaviors are unrelated to scheduling and calendaring. If one were not to observe social norms and eat as one likes as if the daily scheduling of feeding did not exist, then one would actually begin to act more closely to the assumptions of the human body, and the assumptions of all the bodies of other organisms that happen to feed when they can. If one were to alter their eating behavior to ignore the scheduling one would more closely understand the actual and natural cyclical energy needs of their systems, and their feeding behavior would be more closely connected with a naturalistic calendar, and not the incomplete calendaring framework that we happen to use that we are forcing various behaviors into.

Imagine if the World Was Mutually Intelligent and Intelligible, and Mostly in Agreement

Sunday, March 24, 2024 17:43:53, Tempe, Arizona

To Add

Wednesday, March 20th, 2024

Commentary of the Logical-Scientific Proof for a Diety by Mr. Iakovos Koukas

This posting is in response to a recent brief article provided by Mr. Iakovos Koukas, who wrote initially two attempts at a logical proof for a deity, following up with what he believes to be a logical-scientific proof for the Abrahamic Deity. My perspective happens to be that no such proof can be created, that such a proof created will be stronger if atheistic terms are substituted, and that ultimately the atheistic perspective is the one that has the full science and logic behind it.

My perspective differs from that of Mr. Koukas, in that I’m convinced that there is no tenable pathway for the development of a purely logical argument, and additionally that there is no logical-scientific argument that will be successful.

I promised Mr. Koukas a response to his proof, and here I provide a summary response with some primary criticisms of interest. My response, however, is long and elaborate, and instead of being written in an article format, it will simply become a new published book of mine. I’m averse to providing fast responses to arguments if there is an opportunity to create finality to a subject and to provide a fuller expression of my ideas. Concise responses don’t address the full complexity of my thinking and a really good handling of the subject matter.

Somewhat recently I was approached for interview by Insight Journal, by Mr. Scott Douglas Jacobsen who is an interviewer of the Extraordinarily Intelligent. Instead of writing a normal interview response, I wrote and published an entire book of it. That book, The Velocity of Significance and Ideation can be found below. The book is relevant because it addresses the analysis of intelligence using informal conversation and the ability to at high velocity develop and ideate at high significance. The conversation between myself and Mr. Koukas can be used as another datum usable for that particular thesis. Transactions within the High IQ Community sometimes fail to exhibit transactional ideation at increasing sophistication and meaningfulness. At over 200 pages, Mr. Jacobsen commented that it is the longest response he has received to date from any extraordinary member of any High Intelligence Society. In a similar way to my response to Mr. Jacobsen, I intend to respond to Mr. Koukas elaborately and at length. This will deal with the arguments Mr. Koukas has provided, but more importantly will handle all similar arguments in the History of Philosophy that have been written, like Anselm’s Argument and the The Ontological Proof. In this way I will be able to refute the argument of Mr. Koukas in detail but also refute the direction, putting an end finally the perspective that there can be such a successful line of argumentation.

This is the related book:

Since that is underway but will take some time, I wanted in the meantime to provide a briefer response that readers of Mr. Koukas can use for the analysis and evaluation of his argument, and to provide Mr. Koukas some valuable feedback.

In earlier conversations with Mr. Koukas I impressed upon him the need to formalize his proof, since earlier proofs he provided were only in natural language and did not provide the requisite proof-like form. The comment was intended to show that the proofs earlier provided were interesting, but were not yet in that format anticipated within the field of Professional Philosophy. Mr. Koukas kindly developed his argument further getting his draft closer to a developed article that would be more acceptable within the field. Here I argue that while it is more developed, it is still not complete.

Here are the primary points of argument given my review of his argument, which can be found below. These are not all the arguments I have contrary to this paper, and as I said it will take a while to fully explain the entire rationale in book format. But in the meantime I’ve provided some critical objections.

  1. A list of equations close to the fundamentals of science does not demonstrate anything in particular. But can confuse readers to think that since there was an appearance of technical detail, it is something to be trusted. However, these formulae are listed but not employed.

  2. The list of specific premises and arguments, while they provide logical formulae in the form of the Predicate Logic, do not actually take the form of a deductive proof. They are a list of formulae only without any deductions or inference steps being shown, or any relationship between them. As such, its not a logical proof.

  3. The choice of the Predicate Logic is questionable as it does not have the proper truth preserving characteristics to determine validity such as Sentential Logic. This would be clarified as the proof itself is finally completed (if completed) with the chain of thought, and modes of transformation shown.

  4. Terms do not have the appropriate operationalization or clarified meanings that make them suitable for inclusing within the logical symolism or natural language arguments. We have a definition for the deity using words like “omnipotent” which simply are not usable.

  5. Proposed mathematical formulae do not have a clear explication as to their representation. These formulae appear to have been prepared to give the impression that such a formula exists or is representative, but intead it appears to be a start at trying to mathematize abstractly a concept that doesn’t appear truly represented by that mathematization. The formula I have in mind in particular is Mr. Koukas’s Integral from infinity to infinity with abstract parameterization expectations of dimensional and dimensionless parameters of any kind.

  6. The Predicate Logic expressions appear to be trending towards an attempt to copy an existing proof, with a plain substitution of the actual terms to use his own. This is to be confirmed. In other words, it doesn’t appear to be a unique development but rather an attempt to take a existing formulae that appear to work separately and plug in terms relating to religion. This would happen when the attempt at a logical proof is not one that is original, or ready for proving, but instead finds a proof and simply inserts values, so the proof form that couldn’t otherwise be achieved is simply reused. If this is the procedure it will be obvious that the logic was borrowed from a source in which the proof was correct, but new terms relating to religion were input instead of the original inputs. It would have been correct or nearly correct in the original context but incorrect in the new usage.

  7. There is a fundamental circularity to his argument. Science and logic, if it proves the existence of a diety, should build up the existence of that deity in the argument. Like proving the existence of a particular entity like miscellaneous atomic particles or the electron. In other words, the argument identifies what is to be defined. But Mr. Koukas simply defines it, immediately employs it, then states that it’s been proven. As defined he’s already convinced it exists without any additional proving.

My initial conclusion regarding this brief article is that it is simply incomplete, but also that it does not appear that it could be completed. I think it will be abandoned in development. I think this article is an example of an honest attempt trying to press it towards Professional Philosophy, and it’s on its way in that direction, but is not quite there in its execution, and I’m pretty certain upcoming obstacles will cause a desire to discontinue that development. The mathematics appears to have been plucked out from elsewhere and included, but not utilized, and I think it will be truly difficult to utilize in a way that brings required rigor of argument. In my estimation it appears a reference or study list on certain formulae of the sciences, and an explanation of inputs, but these are out of context and do not figure into the argument in a way that is traceable to a logical argument. They are listed but are not used. Mr. Koukas uses them to explain how the formulae relate to orderliness, but that is something that is agreed upon already, that science illustrates orderliness. Nearly any fundamental equation could be used for this purpose and the selection appears somewhat arbitrary.

Within the article, Mr. Koukas discusses several formulae he thinks relate to fine-tuning which I would agree relates to orderliness of the universe. He explains these and provides some details about the variables as inputs. But then he simply states that these indicate orderliness of the universe. This is no different than if someone, an Atheist, argues that the universe is simply orderly, and provides the very same mathematical formulae or any number of additional fundamental formulae. For example, I could write an atheistic version of the same argument exchanging terms and providing in my list of formulae such as one relating to the fine-structure constant, that I was recently studying from the CRC Handbook of Physics and Chemistry:

In terms of other fundamental physical constants, α may be defined as:

α = e^2/4πε0ħc

e is the elementary charge (1.602176634×10−19); h is the Planck constant (6.62607015×10−34); ħ is the reduced Planck constant, ħ = h/2π (1.054571817…×10−34) c is the speed of light (299792458 m⋅s−1); ε0 is the electric constant (8.8541878128(13)×10−12 F⋅m−1).

Here I’ve done that in seconds merely copying from Wikipedia, which is similar to what he would have done. The explanation of the constant would simply be a summary of what is provided by Wikipedia or the CRC Handbook. Including it for relevance the purpose of developing it into a fuller article is reasonable, and Mr. Koukas is being transparent about sharing his developments this way which is appreciated, by including the formulae he wants to focus on and use. But it has to be admitted that listing them as he did in the prior article is an indication that it is in a draft state and not a complete state, and as is they are simply usable to see where he is going with his argument, but don’t constitute any part of a proof that actually utilizes them. They are simply mentioned.

I could list interesting formulae again and again and it would be a mistake to think such a list simply justifies any particular conclusion relating to orderliness, other than what it happens to describe on its own, or in conjunction and concert with related formulae.

It will be interesting to see what Mr. Koukas’s finished production will be regarding his logical-scientific attempt at a proof. My expectation is that he will arrive at an issue in choosing the appropriate logics for his deductions and will fail to weave in the mathematics, in a way that takes it from providing an ostensibly good argument that other Christians will accept, to one that is a really good argument that scientists would accept. I don’t think it will be possible to arrive at a cohesive proof. Most importantly I don’t think he’ll arrive at a good definition of terms, which is more damning because without such definitions the proof is meaningless, and of course, atheists argue that the terms relating to dieties are vacuous. I happen to argue they are fictions.

After this commentary, the next refutation of Mr. Koukas’s argument and similar arguments that have appeared in the history of Philosophy will be in book format. This will take some time but it will be circulated within the High Intelligence Communities. There will be no additional commentaries between now and that time.

Sunday, March 17th, 2024 11:55:00, Tempe, Arizona

An Initial Draft

First communication

Until today there are no empirical evidence for the existence of a theistic God, but there are compelling reasons and indications to consider His existence based on logical arguments and observed phenomena. One such phenomenon is the fine-tuning of the universe, which provides a logical reason to believe in the existence of a cosmic designer. The logical argument derived from fine-tuning strengthens this notion, offering logical support for the existence of God. I am presenting to you here the formal logic of the fine-tuning argument.

The formal logic of the fine-tuning argument:

Premise 1: The universe shows a remarkable degree of fine-tuning, where small changes in the values of fundamental physical constants or initial conditions would make the universe inhospitable to life.

Premise 2: The fine-tuning of physical constants in the universe can only be the result of either chance, physical necessity or design.

Premise 3: The fine-tuning of the universe cannot be reasonably attributed to chance alone, as the likelihood of the observed parameters occurring randomly is exceedingly low, approaching zero within the context of known probability distributions and the limitations of our observable universe.

Premise 4: The fine-tuning of the universe cannot be explained by physical necessity alone, as there is no theoretical reason why the fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe must take on the values that allow for life.

Conclusion: Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe suggests the existence of a cosmic designer who deliberately set the parameters of the universe to permit the emergence of life.

The above mentioned designer is equated with God, because His traits of omnipotence, omniscience and transcendence align most closely with the attributes necessary to account for the fine-tuning of the universe.

Second Communication

An additional compelling logical argument supporting the existence of God lies in the complex information encoded within DNA. Here is its formal structure:

Premise 1: The genetic code, found in the DNA of living organisms, contains vast amounts of complex and specified information necessary for the development, functioning and reproduction of organisms.

Premise 2: Information, particularly complex and specified information like that found in the genetic code, is typically associated with the activity of an intelligent agent.

Premise 3: Naturalistic explanations alone, such as random chance or natural selection, fail to adequately explain and prove the origin and complexity of the information found in the genetic code.

Premise 4: Empirical observation and scientific inquiry consistently demonstrate that complex systems with specified information, such as computer programs and written language, invariably originate from the deliberate action of an intelligent agent.

Conclusion: Therefore, the presence of complex and specified information in the genetic code, which parallels the patterns observed in human-designed systems, suggests the involvement of a conscious, intelligent and all powerful creator, commonly referred to as God, in the design and development of living organisms.

Lack of Logical Formalization

Here we will convert the initial communication with its argument into a more formal translation and variant in order to more fully clarify what is being argued and what the structure and constituent parts happen to be.

Initially we need to consider the lanaguage itself and its employment of various key words that are meaningful for any understanding of what is being communicated, not only to identify the formal logical translation of the argument, but to understand what it is about and what it could be about given differing minds with differing word-understandings. All concepts used in an argument constitute premises for the argument. Firstly, they constitute claims as to the meaningfulness and usability of the terms. They pass or do not pass various validies associated with conceptualization. These are what is sometimes referred to, similarly, as hidden premises. There are premises assuming that the words have particular meanings and are meaningful.

Below is a listing of all concepts and terms.

  1. The (indicating unity, uniqueness and oneness).

  2. Premise 1

  3. The

  4. universe

  5. shows

  6. a

  7. remarkable

  8. degree

  9. of

  10. fine-tuning

  11. where

  12. small

  13. changes

  14. in

  15. the

  16. values

  17. of

  18. fundamental

  19. physical

  20. constants

  21. or

  22. initial

  23. conditions

  24. would

  25. make

  26. the

  27. universe

  28. inhospitable

  29. to

  30. life.

  31. Premise 2

  32. The

  33. fine-tuning

  34. of

  35. physical

  36. constants

  37. in

  38. the

  39. universe

  40. can

  41. only

  42. be

  43. the

  44. result

  45. of

  46. either

  47. chance

  48. physical

  49. necessity

  50. or

  51. design.

  52. Premise 3

  53. The

  54. fine-tuning

  55. of

  56. the

  57. universe

  58. cannot

  59. be

  60. reasonably

  61. attributed

  62. to

  63. chance

  64. alone

  65. as

  66. the

  67. likelihood

  68. of

  69. the

  70. observed

  71. parameters

  72. occurring

  73. randomly

  74. is

  75. exceedingly

  76. low

  77. approaching

  78. zero

  79. within

  80. the

  81. context

  82. of

  83. known

  84. probability

  85. distributions

  86. and

  87. the

  88. limitations

  89. of

  90. our

  91. observable

  92. universe.

  93. Premise 4

  94. The

  95. fine-tuning

  96. of

  97. the

  98. universe

  99. cannot

  100. be

  101. explained

  102. by

  103. physical

  104. necessity

  105. alone

  106. as

  107. there

  108. is

  109. no

  110. theoretical

  111. reason

  112. why

  113. the

  114. fundamental

  115. constants

  116. and

  117. initial

  118. conditions

  119. of

  120. the

  121. universe

  122. must

  123. take

  124. on

  125. the

  126. values

  127. that

  128. allow

  129. for

  130. life.

  131. Conclusion

  132. Therefore

  133. the

  134. fine-tuning

  135. of

  136. the

  137. universe

  138. suggests

  139. the

  140. existence

  141. of

  142. a

  143. cosmic

  144. designer

  145. who

  146. deliberately

  147. set

  148. the

  149. parameters

  150. of

  151. the

  152. universe

  153. to

  154. permit

  155. the

  156. emergence

  157. of

  158. life.

Contextual information

The contextual information provided gives the interpretation context for the various words that appear in the main argument. These are analyzed to understand the meaningns of the words as they are employed above.

First Paragraph

  1. Until
  2. today
  3. there
  4. are
  5. no
  6. empirical
  7. evidence
  8. for
  9. the
  10. existence
  11. of
  12. a
  13. theistic
  14. God
  15. but
  16. there
  17. are
  18. compelling
  19. reasons
  20. and
  21. indications
  22. to
  23. consider
  24. His
  25. existence
  26. based
  27. on
  28. logical
  29. arguments
  30. and
  31. observed
  32. phenomena.
  33. One
  34. such
  35. phenomenon
  36. is
  37. the
  38. fine-tuning
  39. of
  40. the
  41. universe
  42. which
  43. provides
  44. a
  45. logical
  46. reason
  47. to
  48. believe
  49. in
  50. the
  51. existence
  52. of
  53. a
  54. cosmic
  55. designer.
  56. The
  57. logical
  58. argument
  59. derived
  60. from
  61. fine-tuning
  62. strengthens
  63. this
  64. notion,
  65. offering
  66. logical
  67. support
  68. for
  69. the
  70. existence
  71. of
  72. God.
  73. I
  74. am
  75. presenting
  76. to
  77. you
  78. here
  79. the
  80. formal
  81. logic
  82. of
  83. the
  84. fine-tuning
  85. argument.

Last Paragraph

  1. The
  2. above
  3. mentioned
  4. designer
  5. is
  6. equated
  7. with
  8. God
  9. because
  10. His
  11. traits
  12. of
  13. omnipotence
  14. omniscience
  15. and
  16. transcendence
  17. align
  18. most
  19. closely
  20. with
  21. the
  22. attributes
  23. necessary
  24. to
  25. account
  26. for
  27. the
  28. fine-tuning
  29. of
  30. the
  31. universe.

We can see that not all of these conceptual premises in the above listing of concepts are ones we would want to dispute or refine at the outset. Some are those that are not especially interesting as part of the structure of the argument utilzed for the accepting or dismissing of the proof as a whole or in its parts. However, some of these concepts do require additional explanation, definition, explication, and so one before one can understand what is being argued, and what the structure of the argument really happens to be. Some concepts here do not seem to pass tests of conceptual validity, including an ability to really identify a meaning that is not disputable, which is part of the test of operational validity in the sciences. Here will be provided some example concepts that appear usable, and some that appear unusuable. Those that are considered unusable will be noted, but this will not impede the continued analysis of the structure of the argument to get an an improved formalization. An improved formalization can always include substitute concepts and expressions, if that appears necessary. It will not remove the utility of first arriving at a better formalization so that it is better understood what formalization would look like upon completion of the process. The argument can be refined by the writer to be a better total argument with a very clearly explained argument formalization, which is another way to say this is how a more full understanding of the total argument is arrived at. This will give opporunity for strongest presentation the author can provide for the argument, giving due opportunity before full criticism is lofted at it. This is a principle of charity within Philosophy which includes a readiness to understand an argument in its apparently strongest form in order to attempt to refute it in its better form.

AI Removal of Operational Concepts From Language

Sunday, March 10, 2024 19:29:17 PM, Tempe, Arizona

If operational concepts in the english language, and other languages, were removed, leaving only nearly operational concepts and well-operationalized concepts, what would you still be able to talk about?

What would you be unable to talk about?

If Everyone Disagrees with Your Theory, It Is Easy to Demonstrate You Are The Source

Sunday, February 25, 2024 13:32:40, Tempe, Arizona

If everyone disagrees with a theory you have, and you actively work on it, the likelihood that a colleage or someone in the field will be able to steal your theory is diminished extremely. By the time anyone is interested enough to want to steal or borrow your idea, your work, if you’ve been disciplined, will already be comprised of a long history of dated evidence that precedes whatever tthey do, and it would be very difficult for them to build a story that demonstrates that they were first. Additionally, the story of your work would be detailed and complex, and clearly and neatly explain the growth of the work and the conditions of the origination of the idea and subsequent related ideas.

This means that the work you’ve created and any subsequent explanation of the work will be of a superior quality and will make it quite difficult for others to merely take the work. It will be too easy to demonstrate that your work and efforts preceded theirs, both in originality and in complexity.

Gaining Audiences and Intellectualism

Sunday, February 25, 2024 12:51:20, Tempe, Arizona

Gaining audiences may be quickly related to the desire for attention, partly to the self for having a communication with some number of people, and partly for gaining attention for the sharing of information about the self more generally. Another way of expressing this is to say some want to gain momentary attention, and oftentimes this type of attention is less than desirable than an attention to one’s life more generally. One concerns quicker interactions, and can be fulfilling, but that fulfillment is not the same as that type of attention that is more wanted regarding having others appreciate and understand themselves as people, more completely.

Typically people seem to be rather dissatisfied with the level of attention they receive in their lives. Oftentimes, considering the population as a whole, this discontent with the attention received from friends and people on social media, and in audiences through entertainment, is expressed in the claim that one should put family first. Because with family one fits in, is well understood, and has a durable attention that is more inclusive of one’s experience than brief and transitory and less frequent interactions with others. The quantity of interactions one has is related to the ability to totally self express and be understood in the larger way that one typically wants after discovering that other forms of attention are not as fulfilling apart from the short communications that occur, that may still be very rewarding.

But many often experience that their families are resistant to understanding them too. They get stuck in the past and have difficulty understanding what has changed, and what their world looks like outside the family. This is one reason why some strive to find others to have better more complete communication with, but typically they settle for briefer communications and time with these others to have attention to other aspects of self that are not noticed or not well exhibited with family and those who are closer.

From this we can see, using our own experiences, that it may be unrealistic to expect that the self is known well by anyone, particularly as one’s life increases in experience and complexity over time. If one’s history and self gets very complex, then it becomes difficult to convey in a holistic or summary way, who one is, what one has done, and what one really cares about. It also appears, that the above considerations, indicate that any relationship will be one that is not entirely fulfilling, and instead one will have to learn to be contented eventually with different forms of relationships that simply provide access and understanding of part of the self, even if that is not what is really wanted. I don’t think there is any relationship that will truly lead to the contentment expected or wanted, unless somehow one is able to find a friend or partner of many years who has very good similarities of personality and intellect, and as rarity of personality and intellect and other traits of self increase in rarity, the likelihood of having this diminishes, and of course almost all relationships have a life cycle. If one has it for a period it cannot expect it will be permanent or remain kind indefinitely; or one may suffer a serious loss and this other person may die earlier than hoped. Of course all will die and so one will be left without the other, and will unlikely have the same opportunity again.

Relating this to the topic of audience building, the same issues appear to exist, but that may not be obvious at the outset. We can see today people building personalities and profiles online on various social media platforms, and elsewhere, initially with small chunks of information being shared with hopes of attention concerning those shares. These still constitute micro shares of life that may result in satisfaction, and some audience, but it will be experienced later that these many shares and communications have not transformed into any good knowledge of self. Entertainers and social media influencers eventually will have to be satisfied with a very incomplete knowledge of self even with large audiences.

If one is an intellectual it is quite hard to have an audience of any kind on any communication channel. But it is possible if one can’t have the attention one is looking for to have social groups of somewhat similar mindsets to have brief communications and interactions that may be enjoyable. These will be composed of smaller groups typically. For some few, fame through these smaller groups may still be possible, but it appears to me that even if that occurs, one is in a situation that is not too dissimilar from where one started, except one will have had an accomplishment directly related to the relay of the message to a larger group that approves of the message, and that of course is feedback that one is doing well with what one has communicated. But still, there will be few rewards regarding the transmission of self to this audience, and probably the audience cannot put all communications together to form a complete understanding of either the messages or who you happen to be.

Audience building is uniquely related now to existing channels of communication that typically have obstacles to getting famous or reaching a very wide and receptive audience. If one is an intellectual, one is very unlikely to have an organic interest from the community that quickly vaults one into the spotlight. If one is young and attractive, and shares what is more of basic interest to audiences, this is much more possible, but still incredibly unlikely. And if fame is attained that way, it was not the other way, the way of sharing intellectualism or sharing details about self. It was more along the transitory path of fulfilling people’s basic desires somehow in a brief way. Furthermore, it is very hard to hold one’s audience’s attention for a long time, or to share what is much longer and detailed. Videos shared on social media nowadays are often only seconds long, and these are those that are quickly shared and become popular rapidly. People have a strong disinclination to read postings if they are of the quality of larger texts, so intellectualism comes in quick chunks that are not too much longer than memes. The difficulties of producing longer content greatly limit one’s ability to have a continuous and connected message disseminated, and these messages often are unable to hold attention and simply pass with very poor quality transmission of communication.

Additionally, those who gain significant attention in social media face the fact that those who do gain attention very often play a complex posting game with more than one account to increase the reach of the messages and to build a larger audience. This means the time to devote to gaining an audience places one in a strange game with software providers to find tricks using more than one account to forcibly get more attention. In the future this may be something that will be impossible, if there are constraints set on account setting related to identity information. Currently on some social media channels, creators will have a large number of separate accounts to share and re-share messages. The time to create and manage these accounts, and post and repost messages, requires a commitment to playing within this game to see if one can eventually force attention or finally get enough to get it to self-perpetuate audience increases. Also, the method employed may seem one of “cheating” or of “finding holes in the system” to make it finally happen. This is a very different activity from creating and disseminating what one wants to share or discuss. This implies the likelihood of having a huge audience is very low, and again if this content shared includes intellectualism it is unlikely there will be interest even with all of the efforts.

What is missing from social media is a clear vision as to the likelihood that one will gain attention from one’s efforts. There appear also to be fabrications in likes, followings, suggesting numbers may not be real even for those who have apparently large followings. Those who have large followings oftentimes still do not attain a large audience off platform or attain any fame, and this is related to media controls that exist in media channels off of social media.

For anyone sharing intellectualism, it appears one will have to be greatly contented with the activity of producing the intellectualism apart from the communication for self understanding, with the knowledge that brief interactions will be somewhat rewarding, but not incredibly so, and longer interactions and concern with the intellectualism will be very low. Considerable effort could be put in to try to gain a large audience, but requires spending an incredible amount of time within the games that are social platforms, for forcing a larger reach. Even with reach intellectualism can’t hold attention effectively; instead people want less of that. The implication is that even for briefer messages, the communications will not be to a large group of interested people, and won’t be very fulfilling anyways. Eventually one will likely want someone to “know you better, for who you are more largely” and for that we’ve seen that the most likely path is via family, and long term one on one relationships, either in sexual partnership or in friendship. But these are not especially contenting which is the driver for wanting to have a larger audience.

If you consider extremely famous people, like Robin Williams, Jim Carey, Michael Jackson, and politicians, one will recognize that one doesn’t know these people at all. They will know that as well as you do. They are recognizable, and they get transitory attention, but they do not have the fulfillment of having great quality mutual knowledge with another unless it is someone who is close, who is a long time friend, partner or family member. What they’ve built that is rewarded by the audience appears to be career related, but not especially message related.

Some like myself, are somewhat disinterested in earnings off of intellectual productions. Which takes out of the picture the rewards of having a career of it. So what are my objectives then? Well, firstly increased self understanding and knowledge that results from the work itself, and secondly, to have periodically rewarding shares that do include brief moments of connection, and thirdly, opportunity for those who might be closer to have a better knowledge of who I am. But the way I manage relationships isn’t especially concerned nowadays and likely never will be, with having and holding partnerships of the romantic sort, or really close friendships, like those that exist in childhood. So the most honest reaction to this is that it is for my own self-development and for brief interactions.

Being realistic this way again completely rules out any chance of a very large amount of mutual understanding with any other person. Since audiences had only appears to relate to brief connections, sometimes only one-way because one cannot speak with large audiences effectively, it implies that no other person would have anything but the briefest communications from myself. Some might think, this is a negative but probably realistic take on the situation of audiences, intellectualism, and deep connections with people, but I don’t see it as negative really. That’s how it actually exists. What seems to be a negative outcome is the fact that so many never come to this realization and end up feeling a loneliness late in life that shouldn’t exist, and regrets concerning the quality of relationships had. The quality of relationships had can simply never be that fulfilling, and instead what is needed to a much greater conviction that one has to be happy with one’s own activities and life, in the absence of really incredible connection. Additionally, in my estimation, people exaggerate the quality of their interactions with others when they do happen to have high quality marriages and relationships to speak of, because they feel a pressure to say so, and want to self-justify their own commitments. An analysis of the relationships of others and overall outcomes of life nearing death, I think would show, that really people with good quality intellects simply did not actually find a suitable audience of any kind for the depth of connection they were wanting, and I think that is a cause for the commitment to religiosity to an extent because it promises, although falsely, that one will have a perfect audience later that will totally understand the self in a way that no-one else did, or that there is someone or something onlooking at all times that sees everything that is done, so somebody is seeing it, it just doesn’t happen to be a person.

Sometimes on social media this surfaces in the comments that other people make. They have yearnings to have someone who will finally be the person to understand them more fully and completely. Suggestions I think, given the above will be largely amiss. What appears to be needed is a much more realistic perspective. For people who are wanting to be better understood they will need to look to family, or create families, and find some good quality potentially longer term relationships. I think overall they will not find what they are looking for but this may distract them a while from what is missing. Additionally, brief interactions with like-minded people in various social groups may provide rewarding transitory interactions. But there does not appear to be a solution that will give them all that they might be looking for. Instead they get part and early on should content themselves without having all of what they want, because it was never rational. Somehow this expectation was never made realistic in any teaching we’ve received, and so people keep searching for what can never be had.

Tasks for the Day Within the Life Categories Template

Monday, February 19, 2024 17:02:56, Tempe, Arizona*


Requiring “Vulnerability” to be compelling

Sunday, February 11, 2024 18:15:46, Tempe, Arizona*

There is this idea that to be compelling to your audience, sometimes you should be vulnerable.


I’m not vulnerable OK, so we’re going to be compelling in other ways.

“Be vulnerable”

“Pretend I can’t work through things with my strong emotional abilities?”

What is my EQ if I didn’t solve it?

Using verbalizations to filter out verbalizations of others

Monday, February 05, 2024 00:44:31, Tempe, Arizona*

To Add

Unique Names, More Final Idenity, and Natural Taxonomy

Sunday, February 04, 2024 00:10:43, Tempe, Arizona*

Draft to be Updated

Unique Names in Scientific Taxonomy

Within the sciences there is an ongoing issue of how to depict life on earth in terms of names and relationships, and similarly, there is a need to classify within astronomy all objects of the universe, including their histories, interrelationships, and lineages. We are familiar somewhat with the naming of objects within our solar system and within other systems in space, and likewise we are familiar with the taxonomy of organismal life on earth includine all animals, and of course living humans. Animals, unless they are human beings, are not often individually named unless there is a reason for researchers to track and understand specific animals for specific reasons. Animals within the home are given names that are not entered into any taxonomy or ancestry to understand their interrelationships. Humans, however, uniquely have family lineages that are documented in geneological records in the form of “family trees” that somewhat resemble the “tree of life” that is the taxonomy of the animal kingdom.

A complete classification of animal and human life would include more specific records and naming conventions that would go down to the individual animal level. A complete graph of the entire animal kingdom and lineage and interrelation of celestial objects would also go to the object level, where object naming makes sense, to have a complete depiction and representation of the universe. As scientists continue to collect data, find patterns and interrelationships between objects, and better understand lineages, various graph representations like simple trees are updated to including increasing information, and this includes greater specificity in the naming conventions.

Here, however, my interest is more about humans and their names, but it is necessary to first revisit the objective of organizing objects in the univers and organisms on earth to better understand the insight under discussion here. That is, if we want to have a better understanding of ourselves, and our place in the Earth’s history, and history of the universe, we will need to revisit naming, such that there is a better system for categorizing and “addressing” and “identifying” specific objects, including human objects. The objective of arriving at a better system of naming people and placing them within the earth’s history is expected/anticipated to have positive results for individual living people, and this also is in mind while talking about the topic of taxonomy somewhat separately.

In our taxonomy we have two interrelated pieces of information that come together to give the visual and verbal representations. Firstly, we have of course family tree diagrams, and species lineage diagrams, that look like hierarchical trees. These tree diagrams are related to a naming convention that is designed to provide also a hierarchical way of organizing the information. These do not actually do the job so well as people envision, but for now they do provide a decent way for understanding interrelationships and for knowing the scientific names of each animal that has been named thus far. For example, for humans, the name Homoplaces us in a large group of other relatives that are humanoid or are human-like, and provides a hierarchical understanding of lineage like a family tree. We understand by all names that contain “Homo” that there was a very related species that existed that has become extinct, like H. Neanderthalensis, H. Erectus, H. Habilis, and others. By Homo Sapiens, we have a step down in the lineage, having ourselves H. Sapiens Sapiens, and H. Sapiens Neanderthalensis. This indicates that we had an even more closely related relative (that is apparently extant within our species due to blending), that was formerly distinct. Homo Sapiens Sapiens, being our species, is a class name and not the name of any individual, and in the taxonomy of life on Earth, there is no greater specificity provided. However, that specificity could be provided by blending with this taxonomy the other more specific taxonomy provided by geneology, including family lineages.

When we think of any particular person’s name, like my former name “Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh”, we can see there wasn’t a very good systematic way of choosing the name, akin to the planned nomenclature of classes of animals in the sciences. It is possible to have such a naming convention such that the naming of specific humans can have greater specificity, be related to older style geneological family trees, and be related and inserted into the taxonomy of organisms on earth. We know already that our naming of newborn babies does not have a scientific classification scheme. Instead it has a traditional scheme that is only somewhat good at placing family relations in a mostly paternalistic pattern. It is well known that this scheme is limited, and by making it a scientific scheme, it will become possible to blend existing human life and it’s lineages with the larger taxonomy of animal classes to give an increasingly precise representation of our total earth history and our individual relationships to that history.

Already we know that each individual animal has unique traits and genetic instruction information that can supply worthwhile scientific names or IDs for each of them. A person’s DNA can be utilized to generate a succinct scientific ID for each and every person, and this can corresponded to a chosen name that also follows rules of uniqueness to pair the actual name of a person with their totally unique DNA identifier.

Using this information, the family tree, the total animal taxonomy, and our knowledge of the lineage of planetary and celestial objects, we can come to a total name that maps to the entire graphical or hiearachical representation of the history of objects, including people. People are not only in the lineage of their parents, and recent ancestors, but of course are in the lineage of distant ancestors, and planets/stars. Since the total verbal name of any person can map to the tree, just like a scientific name of an animal matches the hierarchical graph taxonomy, the total name of a person can tell his/her entire position in the history of the universe. This would be the matching of one’s DNA ID and chosen name on a new scientific scheme to the Homo Sapiens Sapiens classification, traced back to the beginning of the animal kingdom, and traced further back to the origins of the Earth and the Solar System. Eventually one could have a name that is somewhat like:

Milky Way > Sun > Earth > (many interstitial names) > Homo > Sapiens > Sapiens > Family Tree Names > Individual Identifier.

A topic of interest highly relevant to the above is the representation of such names and hierarchies in a digital format. Of course, this information would need to be stored in information systems. Within our information systems, we have various ways of organizing the information, but since humans want to be not only named but be communicated with and identified, addressing is discussed in the next section. A system that provides unique identification of objects with mapped usable names is DNS and Domain addressing.

Computer Addressing and Domain Names

Whatever naming system is used in the sciences to give individual humans totally specific names, the system must have a very large name space. This means whatever naming convention is used, there has to be enough possible names to hold every person. Within computing, IP addresses were provided to give numerical names to machines with sufficient name space to have enough for every entity that would need addressing. IPv4 was a standard that was temporarily usable in this way but eventually it was known that there would be an insufficient pool of names for all that would require the addressing in the future. To overcome this, IPv6 arose and is slowly being implemented to proved the required namespace for the growing number of machines requiring it. These digital names do not have a hierarchical taxonomy, but provide enough names to be mapped to every individual living person. Each IP address can be matched with a new scientific identifier for each individual living human along with their chosen name that also follows a new scientific scheme. The chosen name roughly relates to domains, since domains provide the “human usable” simplified word based way of referring to human objects.

From this and the above it can be seen that it is possible to have a digital system that provides the required uniqueness of IP, that can be mapped to totally individual scientific names and chosen scientific names of each individual that is living, while providing the addressing that would make it possible for each person to store and serve content.


Mattanaw. (2021). Personal Identification, Naming, and Species Membership. Book and Journal of Mattanaw.

Thought Into Music

Thursday, January 25, 2024 15:13:12, Tempe, Arizona*

To Add

Fitness is Solved

Wednesday, January 17, 2024 17:17:35, Tempe, Arizona*

Recently I have noticed that fitness is very basically a finite and repetitive activity with very little expertise that cannot already be had at a very young age.

Fitness is not physics. Fitness is a topic that is very enjoyable to learn because it is so basic and can be immediately utilized, creating a feeling of the usefulness of what is learned.

Strength training, if one joins a gym, quickly becomes a repetitive activity that depends on repetition for personal development. The recurring gym visits and exercises and slight changes to the exercises is what creates fitness success and noticeable improvements in appearance, attractiveness, and physical abilities.

But the repetitiveness somehow was not noticed in relation to the learning required for “sufficient mastery” and “expertise”. Since it is so repetitive, it is very low on the learning requirements for doing well and attaining mastery.

From those who are especially developed we hear again and again that consistency and discipline are required, along with proper nutrition. But even the messages from these people are extremely repetitive and arguably what is conveyed has not departed from fundamentals. The fundamentals that are learned in strength training classes when young, and in textbooks and bodybuilding manuals like the “Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding” seem to be unchanging, and when one is really experienced in the gym one might notice that very little learning was required to advance further, indicating that once the fundamentals were mastered the subject could be brought to a close, except for minor additions and refinements. This means that the experts of bodybuilding and of certain sports are not so different than the youths of those sports, and it must be admitted, those who reached maximum success sometimes did so when they were teeenagers, or were in their early twenties, winning competitions and gaining medals in the Olympic games.

The repetition of fitness also ensures that the repetition required for easier learning already exists.

It is unlike very challenging subjects like those in the sciences or others that require problem solving on new problems that appear along the way.

The sciences and challenging subjects to not “give to you” repetitiveness needed for mastery the way fitness does. Fitness provides to you immediately repetitive “already solved problems” that do not require sustained thinking without trying to create repetition of complex thoughts and studies. The studying is in the gym and what is needed to be learned is always in view and is of very low complexity.

It could be that fitness is among the easiest subjects to master.

There is also a finite pool of activities in the gym that could be listed out very easily. Taking bodybuilding as an example, or plain strength training, one has already a list of equipment and uses. These uses relate to muscular functions which involve only a small set of muscle groups. The human body does not have that many muscle groups. If one thinks there are a lot of muscle groups one has not acknowledged that lists of 50 large vocabulary words are easily mastered. Once you know the key anatomy related to musculature one remembers them as easily as “shoulders, biceps, pectorals, and glutes”. The anatomy is simple and would be only a tiny portion of what is learned by a doctor, and one masters these quickly in gross anatomy and physiology in high school. A highly intelligent person rapidly would achieve boredom regarding the muscle groups. So there is a small set of muscles, small set of equipment available, and listable but small set of exercises and variations, and once learned, there is not much more to know.

Listability would quickly counter any arguments contrary to this perspective, because in practice all exercises performed by all exercises including all variations is not a large list, and this comprises all activity up to the expert level. Anything that one might think one needs to know will relate to an easy list to memorize and use at the gym.

An example that might be useful relates to fitness of the bicep. If one knows how to curls in strength training there is really hardly anything more to know regarding bicep development. Once simply adds variations to the only movement the bicep can perform and its small minor movements. If one masters curls, one simply adds weight and repetitions, and later variations. A gifted kid can learn all of what is needed to be known fundamentally about curls in a day and may utilize that information for the key activities of development until one is old, with the result that they’ll reflect later that really there was little to know.

Doing bicep and tricep exercises may be simpler than learning to handle a knife to cut onions.

This does not mean there are not interesting learnings along the way in the journey of personal development. Instead, the point is to share that one in the gym becomes like an obsessive compulsive person without knowing it, doing the same things over and over again without ever noticing the pattern or trend, to let go of learning more. Reconsideration needs are too minimal. Being a person who has used the gym for decades I’m certain that my behavior, which is similar to others I see at the gym who have had success, includes a certain excessive reconsideration and rethinking of exercises in such a way that one has thought about the same learnings again and again without any special gains.

Fitness as a whole appears to be solved. Nutrition as a whole appears to be solved. Knowing this results in a reinterpretation of actions at the gym that detract from thoughts that could be developmental on other topics, even while at the gym. It results in a reinterpretation in what experts have to provide. What bodybuilders and other experts in strength training provide in video content on social media and in various books, really does appear to be a simple redundant repetition of fundamentals. If one has a specific need related to development, one has a hard time finding it because it has not been realized that what is taught is simply contributing to a sea of ideas that already amount to fundamentals. Fundamentals have been taught too many times in fitness and for some reason, it has not been acknowledged that fitness is not an intellectually demanding subject and one can bring it to a close rapidly to see better mental development.

Caring and Insults

Sunday, January 14, 2024 02:26:16, Tempe, Arizona*

It does not appear our cultures have resolved the issue of harassment and insulting behavior, and the moral evaluation of reactive behavior that seems uncaring to manage or control the harassment, that appears to be less caring.

Minority groups in history were mercilessly and relently attacked with psychological warfare in the forms of social bullying, insults, and harassments. These people, who may have included some of the most caring individuals that existed among human beings, were then attacked again, if they did anything to protect themselves, for being “uncaring” in their attempts to manage.

Even in current day politics, politicians are often attacked with plain insults in order to thwart their efforts or even end their careers, and sometimes the harassment includes the most crass and uncouth of social verbalizations. The politicians, after being subject to gang attacks, are then judged on the basis of their responses to the behavior. If they manage the bullying with like-behavior, they are then considered to somehow be uncaring or morally blameworthy regarding their behavior even though the gange consisted of majority members in the population.

Certainly, they cannot be judged in this way in a way that has any ultimate truthfullness, so if there is a need to manage their behavior with behavior in-kind it will never have the sort of moral blameworthiness the majority hoard will pretend it has. They behaved the same way, in greater numbers, often in concert, and with definite malintent, and with insufficient cause, and certainly no moral calculation.

They forget their religions entirely, and show to others they have no religion of worth.

As a person who has faced gang harassment by members of the population for various reasons relating to my various successes, I have come up with a methodology to ruthlessly and mercilessly attack them to manage my attention, mood, and their behavior, using verbal insults and comments regarding their inferiorities and commitments that are foolish. I share the blunders of them and their heritage, their parents, and their many failures that seem to be unchangeable into the distant future. So in a warfaristic way, I attack. However, I never create the problem, never “start the attack”, and typically patiently do nothing for a long period until it seems it is better to manage than ignore.

This can be done in a way that is somewhat automated. One can simply attack without any concern about what is said, operate using roughly the same list, and use creativities in a similar way to what was done earlier, to make it a very easy process that requires low effort. It’s like fighting with people after becoming a robotic expert boxer or mixed-martial artist, without any concern of the results to their minds. What is useful about this automation of approach which I call “human canning”, to humorously remind myself that they are often doing “canned uncreative behaviors themselves as copies”, and that what I offer in return need not have any intellectual value and can simply be used repetitively. By doing it this way, I can separate my moral worth from any behavior which is sensical and justifiable to offer an in kind reaction, that instrumentally is meant to manage them and my own attention and health.

When one attacks others who are attackers sometimes there is a feeling that what one has done might not be fully justified from a moral perspective, and that instead it would be better to perform other behaviors instead. But over time it appears that one does not have recourse to all instruments of ignoring and avoiding those behaviors of others at the same time, and there is a point in which the automated retaliation is more useful and more easily performed. But this is not retributive as some might expect. It is simply to instrumentally manage conditions. There is no need, at all, to justify in a recurring way to oneself, in order to self-justify, behavior of this sort. One is normally caring and if others cannot behave, one may need to invoke a protective process. This isn’t too different than defensively spraying someone in the face with mace, or with shooting them with a weapon if thing escalated too far. If a gang is mercilessly and relentlessly attacking without good cause for a prolonged period of time, than quite a lot is justified already in the reaction. Probably too little can be done than what is actually justified, and again this relates to the non-retributive nature of the management. It isn’t to attack and retaliate to punish them in a way equal to what they have done, but instead to simply make sure one’s conditions are improved and to manage one’s own mind and health and well being.

If one could push a button to instantly stop bullying or harassment after it’s lasted for a long period that would be justified already. That button may simply be to brutally and mercilessly attack their minds with verbalizations in an automated fashion that is akin to pushing a button that stops the behavior.

Historically, in the civil rights movement and before the civil rights movement, american blacks were attacked probably every day so often, and in so pervasive situations and locations, by children and adults, that nearly any reaction of any kind was justified up to and including murder. So if in an automated fashion their situation was managed with verbalizations that simply created in-kind attacks, at a necessarily smaller scale, then obviously it is already justified and it is best if those actions are separated from one’s self-appraisal concerning moral worth. Especially if the cause of more negatively evaluating one’s worth is due to the expectations of the attackers to continue behaving in a way they expect, before, during, and after they attack. Their morality is of a lower worth already and they are behaving like primitive savages and their thoughts and judgements can be duly cancelled from any consideration.

Baffling Life Histories After Excess Success

Tuesday, January 09, 2024 15:05:37, Tempe, Arizona*

To Add

#hashcat1 #hashcat2 #hashcat3 #hashcat4 #hashcat5 #mattanaw.original #mattanaw@mattanaw.original

There aren’t really any competent voters

Monday, January 08, 2024 13:23:27, Tempe, Arizona*

To add

The Decision to Use Steroids or Not in Bodybuilding

Sunday, January 07, 2024 15:52:16, Tempe, Arizona*

Landscape Master

Portrait Master

An issue with bodybuilding is that one is ineffectively able to communicate transparently what has contributed to personal excellences and what has not.

I’ve chosen to be a natural bodybuilder and athlete because I want to know for sure what has been the results of my efforts, and have the transparency possible from drug avoidancce to be able to talk about it candidly without personal risks.

However, I want the same for bodybuilders who do take drugs and hope they can achieve transparency with more openness, and I’m seeing some evidence from some online that this is happening gradually.

I am not totally opposed to steroid use and am still considering it for when I’m in old age, in my 60s or 70s, and to even know what to do, I would need to rely on the expertise of bodybuilders who have the real experience already about what to do and what not to do, and what gains relate to what levels of drug use.

#steroids #tren #hgh #bodybuilding #natural #decisions #compeition #transparency #selfknowledge #excellences #merits #understanding #phoenix #arizona #mattanaw.original #mattanaw.original

Monthly Anniversaries and Making the New Year’s Resolution Useful

Sunday, January 07, 2024 15:19:41, Phoenix, Arizona*

Landscape Master

Portrait Master

When I was married, I celebrated monthly anniversaries with my wife, for a period of not quite 19 years.

Recently, I was commenting that the New Year’s resolution is a cultural fail that cannot succeed because it is forgotten too early in the year, and is not repetitively revisited often enough.

It could be useful to simply revisit New Year’s resolutions with a montly approach, making a New Year’s Resolution a big thing every year, but something to think about every month with a renewed monthly celebration of the current year and it’s changing months.

I called this the “Monthiversary”!

There can be a monthiversary of the new year too.

Enjoying Time Alone At Bars and Restaurants Reading and Writing

Saturday, January 6th, 2023


For this posting I was wanting to share with others that they need not feel anxious about going out alone to dinner and bars for independent enjoyment without anyone else and without socializing. Some, I’m aware, are nervous about going out and having fun alone in social settings without others. While I’m out alone I’ll simply work on the computer, or will enjoy reading and writing. I’ll keep entirely to myself, and use a considerable amount of time doing these things at a relatively low expenditure. It’s fun to go out in public and simply read and write in one’s journal, and it isn’t restricted to coffee houses. You can do the same thing at restaruants and bars while enjoying drinks or dinner entirely alone and without any social pressure or reason to think that one is doing something out of the ordinary or something that would cause any reasonable person to socially judge in a way that is meaningful.

In Context Productions, Relevance, and Thinking About Anything Anywhere

Saturday, January 6st, 2023



I’ve had the intention for a very long time to produce more video content with my conversational speaking that has been valued by friends, family, and colleagues over the years. While my writing is of very good quality, and communicates in an intellecual way what I’m wanting to say, it lacks the clear intention, emotion, and expressiveness that exists in my day-to-day conversation that is as intellecual. An effect is that readers may not recognize the kindness and playfulness that exists in my postings even where those postings may be provocative or may cover content that some would consider challenging or dryer. In my converstion with friends and family, intellectualism has been mixed with humor, goofiness, and kindness. These are not opposed and the same messasges that are found in academic like writing I’ve presented and are communicated in the full mode of expression in normal face to face conversation. I’ve been wanting to revisit many of my earlier writings and postings to provide video contenet that clarifies and provides a more human delivery of the meanings. But while writing and posting comes very natural to me, I do have some anxiety preceding recordings that has caused me to delay my video productions efforts for a number of years.

What is the cause of these feelings of anxiety that relate to the video recordings?

Firstly, there is some connection with social anxiety that has existed since childhood classroom experiences. Sudden heart pumping mixed with a dimished clarity of audience understanding and knowing what to say results in a resistance to wanting to do a recording. That the audience is not well understood contributes to the sudden anxiety that arises, and does not exist at all with even limited familiarity. Once I start speaking, and once I’ve gotten somewhat familiar with an audience, the anxiety subsides and I have no issue speaking well. In fact, my careeer has depended on very high communication and presentation abilities. I’ve overcome this issue in the work and academic environment, but not so much for making recordings.

Oddly, this momentary feeling has thwarted my effort for a very long time. I’ve been wanting to make videos since doing skits with friends twenty years ago. I’ve been wanting to make video content since the onset of this blog, about 7 years ago, but have mostly only done video productions that did not include myself at all. I’ve produced many scenic videos in national parks for example, but none of them included me or my thoughts. This is how I do want to produce those types of videos, but there was not supposed to be that sort of favoritism in producing and posting. I wasn’t only supposed to be doing natural scenic videos! I have much more to provide in personal videos sharing my thoughts and many talents.

More recently I’ve been motivated finally to make videos with myself and my thinking as the focus.

It appears also that will slowly train out any remaining social anxiety I experience at the outset of certain socialization opportunities.

Anxiety is not the only thing that has contributed to unwillingness to create video content. Also is the feeling that whatever I’m thinking about or am wanting to say does not connect with audience, and somehow does not match the context in which the productions will be taking place.

So now, as I write this, I’m reminding myself of some facts that may contribute to my being more willing to simply post anything I wish to post about wherever I happen to be.

Firstly, if one is an intellectual, such as myself, there is already a loss of audience. Struggling to find my audience to begin speaking is a mistake, and instead I would be much better off simply posting how I think on a routine basis. This way people can self-select who might want to hear more and I don’t need to think at all about what the appropriate audience happens to be, and I may surprise myself about who would gravitate to my thinking.

Secondly, almost anyone I have ever known has enjoyed my thinking even when I express it in a way that is closer to my natural way of communicating, even if I am sharing complexity. If they are not understanding all of it, they are undersrtanding some of it. Also, I think they recognized the generosity in my communication. I’ve been open and honest and did not keep my ideas to myself. Probably they felt they were being included in creative happenings of importance that that the generosity was really honest and unreflective, and that I would really share mostly anything with them without being exclusive given who they are. Typically I like who I talk to and “open up” with them without knowing that’s what I’m doing. So perhaps I should let people decide for themselves what they like or not, and what they want to be an audience to, and recognize that in my history of human interractions it is almost always positive. It is uniformly a good experience with only some few strange interractions where some are more combative or more threatened for various reasons relating to their own earlier experiences.

As I go about doing my normal things during the day, my thinking might be about things totally separate from where I am and what I happen to be doing. I may be thinking about moral philosophy, mathematics, or other abstract or general things much disconnected from what I’m doing. For example, I used to like to read and ponder my readings while on the eliptical trainer at the gym. So while I’m enjoying the eliptical trainer, and the gym, and the experience of feeling my own fitness, I might be thinking of something that has nothing to do with any of that. Some intellectuals get criticized for this, but it is no different than if someone is thinking about their personal relationshihps while doing those activities. So everyone and not only intellectuals, of course, think of things in detail while they are doing activities, and there is even something offensive about thinking that all would not be doing this. Worry cannot exist if people are not thinking of things that are very different than what their present context would cause one to expect, and planning of one’s life obviously has to happen at work, and at the gym, and at the grocery store, including family and relationship planning, and so certainly people think of things that are outside their immediate doings. What I would stay about intellectuals is that the range of what they would be thinking about that would be imaginative would be larger than what is average, and so when one is doing grocery shopping, one might be thinking about a formal mathematical proof for example on a topic that has no relationship to grocery shopping. And this is enjoyable to the thinker.

How does this relate to my resistance to making and posting videos? Somehow I think it causes me to believe that there is an insufficient level of planning in environment in video and the relationship to the planned audience. Somehow I think “it is not a good time for the video” because I should have a better place to record thoughts related to that specific type of subject matter, and that I should have a better way to say what I want to say so that it connects with the audience, and connects the environment to the audience. This has created a desire to keep postponing the video for better conditions. But the planning required to create those conditions takes away from the spontaneous motivations to actually make the videos, and so the videos never actually happen. This is a cause for my procrastination regarding video productions.

Others on social media do seem to post content that better relates audience, context, and messaging. Particularly if the videos are quiet, or are extemporaneous. People post themselves exercising at the gym for example, sometimes saying very little. This matches messaging with context, and is easy to digest by the audience. Or sometimes, people posting while working out will give tips related to the content presented, again matching the messaging, context, and expectations of the audience. Other postings from people of all different age groups involve immediate interesting happening in environments. Perhaps someone posts a sudden funny animal behavior, or someone posts a natural disaster as it is happening. Once again, this matches up those three components of production, and it does it in a way that results in proven success. Rarely, I would say, am I ever wanting to post content in this way, because what I’m wanting to share does not involve happenings in my environment. Instead it relates to mental happenings that relate to curiosities and things of interest relating to my writing. Observations on the world and life, and various conclusions that may relate to moral phiilosophy and ethics are usually what I’m wanting to produce about but that does not relate at all to waiting for things to happen in my environment, to make things happen in my environment, or to spontaneous things of interest that occur suddenly in my environment on some occasions. Interesting things do occur and sometimes I video those things, but much more frequently I’d be more interested in my own thoughts even than those spontaneous interesting situations! What one is thinking about has an interest that relates to the importance and significance of the thoughts being had.

Like I was saying though, people do think of things that are unrelated to their environments, obviously. But I see less compelling postings and content that create a mismatch of message, context, and audience. But some is quite good, it just makes for less of the overall content that one is exposed to on social media. For example, there are postings from people who are just sitting in their cars, enjoying their thoughts and relfections on happenings that were recent, or have little to do with their vehicle, or recent or present circumstances creating the context for their sitting in their vehicle. These are the postings where people just share interesting thoughts, and in these postings it appears that they are not too concerned or anxious about what they will be sharing. Their readiness to do this provides some inspiration for me to do similarly, because this format is much closer to the expected format of my usual future shares.

But notice that in these postings, they still match their messagew to an environment that is still not wildly disconnected from their context. It is disconnected, but not in this way: people are expected to not be thinking hard about driving while in the car. It is their personal space to meditate and think upon any topic. They drive around not thinking hard about what they are doing but instead ponder other happenings. There also appears to be a similarity with this and with postings that might just be of talking while at home. At home there is no need to match the context to thoughts. One can sit on the couch or lay in bed thinking about all sorts of different things, and one’s postings in these contexts will be recognizable by the audience to be normal places to think those things.

What about thinking about sports while sitting at a desk and posting about it though?

What about thinking about philosophy and posting about it while playing basketball?

These seem to be a little more outside the norm of video productions but this is closer to what I should be doing if I am to post candidly about myself.

Trying to sponteneously post a video about philosophy while playing basketball would create a feeling of anxiety for being too irregular, and for creating a lack of matching between context, audience, and message.

As I think about this though, probably no video could not be too unakin to the videos of in-vehicle monologues.

Why not take the monologue into any environment and simply share any thinking as it happens to have interest wherever it occurs. It may lose some audience but it may not be worth any of the stress or anxiety that it produces, blocking the videos for thinking there should be greater planning.

I don’t think i’ve yet reached here the subject matter that I’ve indicated I would speak about with my chosen title, but I can add more later in a future posting.

More later!

New Year’s Resolution as an Indicator of Irrationality and a Cultural Failure

Thursday, January 4th, 2023



After thinking more about new year’s resolutions, after my earlier posting, I realized that there is something more fundamentally at issue with it.

I was mentioning that you will definitely forget that there even is a New Year’s Resolution by April or May, and d probably before that.

But why don’t you know that already?

It’s infeasible for sure then.

But what does that mean for everyone else?

Everyone is insanely using the New Year’s Resolution once a year and then totally failing at the resolution part.

The resolution part.

If there is success it is because the discipline and the cyclical work on a daily or weekly basis continued, but even then I think it is forgotten that it was connected with any New Year’s Resolution.

That this is a cultural thing that so many people have adopted is really bizarre.

It’s not from a Religious group but calls for self alteration, and everyone has adopted it, but nobody has determined if there is any moral or religious justification. Like with other things people simply adopt because others are doing it, this was adopted without any reflection on the commitments one already has. It’s one reason why people are morally a cobbled mess.

It utilizes a methodology of moral self-alteration that can’t work but all have chosen to utilize it.

People are more lost regarding self-change than they think.

How many resolutions do you have per year. It seems you wait for a New Year’s Resolution.

Are the other changes you make “resolutions”?

Additionally, how many strategies that are forgotten part of the way during the year, and disused most of the year, could be considered good strategies for change?

Why is it that people don’t know that they forget these strategies?

If they all once a year start the “strategy” of a new years resolution, promptly forget it, disuse it most of the year, and then forgot that they didn’t use it as a group, then continue to use it every year, isn’t that a kind of collective irrationality that is quite serious. A holiday compulsion?

The strategy didn’t work for anyone and they couldn’t remember that, and kept going with it.

Is this degree of ritual justified outside your religion?

It is a cultural failure.

Pro-Semitism as Affirmative Action

Monday, January 1st, 2023

To Add

Monday, January 1st, 2023

The Size of the Viable Exercise Routine

Sunday, December 31nd, 2023

To Add

Drug Strategies and Transparency Among New and Experienced Bodybuilders

Sunday, December 31nd, 2023

Development of musculature among men can be easily segregated as one knows into two groups, which includes those who take no drugs, and those who take some number of drugs related to the growth. This topic can be expanded to include the topic of all human performance, but I think for now it is better to focus on the branch of human development in which drug use is accepted and mainstream, and that is modern bodybuilding.

This is especially important regarding the health and planning of males.

Men want to exhibit excellences. They want to attract mates. They want to have relationships that are rewarding to their potential spouses or temporary sexual partners. They want to witness the effects of their own planning and work, and maximize to the best they can, the results they have from work that they’ve committed to.

We’ve all agreed that bodybuilders and strength trainers often take steroids and other growth enhancing drugs.At the higher levels of skill, in sports competitions, we allow, within bodybuilding, bodybuilders to exhibit their results even though we know that they certainly took drugs.

The drug use entailed possible issues with law enforcement. The buying, dealing, and avoidance required strategies. Are the young aware of these strategies? Are males in general aware of these strategies? To what extent do we think that this behavior is moral if it is plainly against the law.

We tend to think, that there is a justification for the use of these drugs, in the exhibitation of human excellences and the possibility of having those excellence by a means that is not possible otherwise.

How much growth and recovery is possible with the drugs, and in what dosages? This is important. How much or how little is required? A little may be more justifiable than a lot. A little may be something that may allow for legalizing substances. Large quantities may be less justifiable, but what are the risks? But more to the point of the topic here, how much of these substances are being taken by these various exemplars of muscular development? How much was used for each drug for how long? What really went into creating the effects that are shown.

It appears to me that there is an admission that bodybuilders are doing drugs, and on social media people are more willing to be open and candid about the fact that they are using various substances to support recovery. But what tends to be missing, I think, is how much?

There is a very stark difference between the so called ‘natural bodybuilder’ and the committed drug using bodybuilder. One can very easily identify who is doing drugs and who is not, after a certain early stage in muscular development with drugs.

I’m personally committed to disusing drugs for muscular development. But I confess as a male, the recovery times for exercise can be very long. Especially during aging. I may permit myself to use performance enhancing drugs at a certain age, when recovery is so poor that livelihood is simply diminished. I don’t think the proper route to achieve the results is through the medical profession. If bodybuilders in their youths had substantial gains, and this was celebrated in victories in sporting matches, why would I not take these proven drugs myself, to do the same, at an age in which muscular recovery is difficult.

Keeping a spouse or girlfriend from straying may depend on this. (Although I think that depends on quite a lot more).

But even at the age of 60 years old, if I were to choose to finally go down this path, of doing steroids for enhancing my development, or improving maintenance, why is it the case that I would have no knowledge at all, about what is required for what, given it has been so long since bodybuilding has been in the spotlight.

One can become famous for drug use.

Many bodybuilders who are quite effective, and successful, may be doing less or equivalent levels of work to natural bodybuilders, or people like myself, but are simply using small or large quantities of drugs. Meanwhile we praise them for their efforts, but they are equivalent efforts, and drug taking efforts.

Again, I think there is a big miss in the sport of bodybuilding, and muscular development. We are entirely aware of the benefits of steroids and growth hormones, and other drugs for development, and we see the results often. But we are not well educated concerning it.

To create fairness in the sport that accepts the use of drugs, there is not only a need to compare people by their results and their methods of excercise that result in those results, and their diets, but also the specific drug cocktails they are using, the frequency, and the dosages. Otherwise we have no idea what contributes to the success really, and we don’t know what the relative merits of specific bodybuilders are, and we even forget that there are people with lesser effects that are not doing these drugs at all, with perhaps greater merits.

This is an important topic for understanding the merits of various athletes and independent exercisers for understanding merit.

I cannot know my own merits in any comparison with bodybuilders, unless I were to do drugs with them, and secretly use it how they use it, without proving that information transparently.

New Year’s Resolutions as Infeasible

Tuesday, January 2nd, 2023



There are several issues with the New Year’s Resolutions that people have been making for a long while, that may not have recieved suitable attention, if the issues have been noticed by many at all.

Firstly, there isn’t any special reason to rely upon the year’s cycle to decide upon which changes one should make in one’s life. While it is fun and interesting to consider the prospects of the upcoming year, and think about what major changes or advancements could be had on an individual level, the yearly cycle is far to long to utilize it for making personal changes.

Much shorter cycles are needed.

Revisitations are necessary.

Is it really the case that people will defer their changes for the next year? Morally, to make changes that are needed, they need to be planned othwerwise. Feasibility matters more. One does not want to find later that the changes that one wanted to make did not happen, were forgotten, were not revisited often enough, and were not considered ‘moral’ at all.

Which changes in a person’s life are moral changes?

Maybe one wants to adopt a new hobby to improve one’s life and stimulation/education. Maybe one wants to stop smoking, or to make a change regarding one’s health. A New Year’s resolution plan may be a simple promise to lose some weight, improve athletics, diminish drug use, or to improve one’s business or employment situation.

Yearly thinking that one will do these things is insufficient. This involves habits. Habits that result in behaviors that occur more than once a day. Instead of yearly, it is much better to realize that behavior isn’t even on a daily cycle. It may be within recurrences of habits that are happening in individual days.

The New Year’s Resolution appears to be infeasible and there appears to be very little evidence from others that there are accomplishments that have hinged on it. We are not seeing on social media or elsewhere special thanks and moments of gratefulness pinned to New Year’s Resolutions.

Instead of the New Years Resolution, I would substitute what people are already aware of: periodic commitments and revisitation of those commitments on daily or weekly cycles. Perhaps a habit that would enable that approach is journaling or personal data collection. Commitments to journaling and personal data commitments, resulting in consistency of effort, do have results that are reported back to us as reasons for success.

Who has forgotten their New Year’s Resolution mid way through the year? Who has asked themselves at the end of the year, when their New Year’s Resolution of the prior year was forgotten. I would venture to say that most resolutions are forgotten and abandoned already in January.

Like I said, thinking about what the upcoming year might be like with improvements is fun, and probably worthwhile; but it has to be included within some methodology that includes cyclical revisits that are more frequent, otherwise the commitment will not exist.

I think on reflection most will be able to conclude these resolutions are infeasible.

There are other reasons to think them infeasible. The level of planning of the New Year’s Resolution seems to be of simple ideation regarding what one hopes to happen, but not concrete plans or recordings. If one thinks carefully about this one will see that this type of planning is nearly a substitute for planning with hopes alone, and hopes alone result in infeasibilities in action.

Real plans, real frequent use, and commitment result in the changes that are wanted.

If one has a New Year’s Resolution that includes these efforts then I would offer congratulations, because the moment of the year that is special was used in a way that could really result in effects.

But I don’t see it as a likelihood that our common holiday behavior of forming wants and hopes for the future and our future selves will include a shared period of discipline.

It appears resolutions on an annual cycle without such efforts is an infeasible approach to producing what people really hope for themselves.

There is a somewhat sad message in this. What has been connected with a holiday regarding personal change was never really a good approach. Most if not nearly all resolutions were abandoned.

Successes were had but they did not relate well to the resolutions. They resulted more in the disciplined recording and planning and frequent revisitation for the personal absorption of learnings for new habits instead.

But there is a way, on a personal level, to do more, to make New Year’s Resolutions something worth doing.

But one will be in a very small minority engaging in this behavior.

Can we help to make New Year’s Resolutions holiday related still and include the required commitment and planning for personal change, making it feasible, rather than infeasible finally?

What is required to do that?

What an amazing holiday it would be, if all could actually use the new year to achieve this, without instead merely ideating upon what they would like for their future selves, that they may not have without existing or new commitments on a schedule that is not annual?

Answer to a Question Regarding How I Depleted My Liquid Funds During Retirement

Wednesday, December 27nd, 2023

[Acquaintance] I travel perpetually. I come from a consulting background and have a long history of living in hotels, driving rentals, and flying all over. This history has lead to habitually spending to maintain approximately a similar livelihood (but I am adept at quickly reducing my lifestyle). However, after retiring I did take steps to reduce my spending and for a long period I was doing a combination of luxurious living, and adventuring outdoors, hiking and so on at very low cost. Part of this relates directly to my field science efforts studying homelessness, and this served to create a lower average expenditure. But total expenditure was still somewhat immoderate, since I preferred so much travel still. I greatly reduced my cost of living as my savings was depleted, and anticipation of sale of the property created a reasonable expectation of incoming funds before depletion. However the sale and work to access funds post sale resulted in a protracted period of issues that caused for total depletion.

I have much greater fund access now so it is highly unlikely I would run into a similar predicament. But if I did, I would probably simply consult again temporarily, interrupting my retirement, to quickly have a large amount of incoming funds again. My career is lucrative so willingness to simply work again would create the needed protection and I could quickly retire again after an engagement.

But I’m highly frugal too. There is a superficiality to my lifestyle that can give the wrong idea as to my commitment to materialism. But instead I’m highly interested also in having a highly self sufficient lifestyle at extremely low costs. This is what originally enabled me to build some wealth and enable my retirement. I enjoy living in luxury and also frugally on extremely limited resources. But not on nothing so much!

Most choose one or the other but I enjoy both. It may appear there are contradictions here but there are not.

[Acquaintance] the biggest contributing factor to the depletion was false expectation of a faster transaction. It took months!

[Acquaintance] the justification of this lifestyle relates to trying to achieve maximum life variety and stimulation.

Answer to a Question from a Friend on the Effects of AI

Tuesday, December 26nd, 2023

I will think this over as it is becoming increasingly relevant, and I’ve been becoming increasingly more interested as a result.

I’m a technologist who has worked in the global enterprise computing space so should have something meaningful to add, but I like that this is something to return to later, for additional thoughts, since I’m not having quite enough of them to my satisfaction presently. I do want to relate this to economics too.

In my estimation, Bitcoin was an amazing idea for a technological advancement, but thought after reading the bitcoin paper that key problematic areas relate to the actual programming and maintenance of the software. I thought of the simple solution as one that is institution replacing, and not merely a software offering. This implies that the software would be, well a huge thing, and not merely a small solution, and that there would be an institutional replacement that would entail long term maintenance. This maintenance requires updates to cloud infrastructure, and actual programming to ensure it is operable. Unless at an institutional level this is adopted, and understood, I don’t think it’s a true candidate for replacing existing methods of managing transactions.

How is this relevant to the present discussion of AI. Well, AI could create a situation in which the maintenance of the solution and the programming is not human, and is easier, but at some risk if there is not sufficient areas in which human interjection is possible that is not loopholed for simply adjusting the system to the benefits of elite. This would affect the entire economy.

Elite intervention into AI systems that preserve their influence and expand upon it is a risk to anything in which AI is utilized.

But I don’t think this sort of change would occur in the next 10 years. In the next 20 years, I think it will be utilised, as elite becomes increasingly aware and adept at garnering support on the clout that AI is gaining. I think AI will become a sort of expert that cannot be contradicted by ordinary people, while special controls will still exist for manual alterations by those who have power.

There seem to be signs that this is happening already with media control, and I’m seeing some indications of trends of companies in using the influence that AI has to justifying their own programs.

I now think we really will have some dystopian effects of AI but this may not actually prohibit the advancement of the living conditions of regular people. It will likely result in the increasing inability of regular people to influence the system or see past what is presented to them to understand that they are being actively controlled using marketing that is also utilising AI for the purpose of controlling what stimulation exists. People are and will be walking around more thoroughly influenced by marketing, advertising and propaganda, and television entertainment programming that is intended to steer them unwittingly. Notice that this is already a concentration of media and entertainment and of advertising and marketing. Increasingly people will be channeled without their knowledge that they are simply being directed on various pathways that they did not decide. This was achieved by pervasive AI personalisation and marketing set by those who are in positions to decide what types of directions people will be set in.

The financial system is showing signs of convergent efforts to eliminate cash. The elimination of cash will result in a more controlled employment to bank relation, and universal credit situation, in which all are more completely understood regarding their behaviours for work and spending, and there will be additional directions set for people to follow that will be justifiable by an increase in living conditions, but a decrease, and a dramatic decrease, on ability to choose how one will work, create new businesses, and spend.

In Australia it is very close to a cashless society and unless one has a credit card, one will be harshly controlled regarding one’s lifestyle. One will not be able to eat at restaurants, and may not be able to book hotel rooms.

AI will probably be combining data from law enforcement surveillance (something I was involved in) and spending information, and financial information, to arrive at more complete pictures of people who are to be controlled in various ways. The objective by the elite will be to improve their well being while they are directed in ways that they cannot see or understand are not within their choosing. Some who are highly intelligent will be really angry about this change of conditions, being able to read more closely what is going on but will have no ability to influence due to media control and inability to influence in democratic processes. Thus those here in the Ultranet, being rarities, will see the condition and will have even less power to influence it.

A timeline I think could be set on this. Cashless in some countries will be near completion within five years, although I don’t think people will understand they are cashless. Rather that conversation will not occur or will be rare, and they will simply give up their abilities to spend with cash. Other countries will follow within 20 years, as long as their infrastructures are developed enough to be able to manage the change.

Ability to set up corporations will also slowly vanish, but I think again people will not really know it. Instead there will be hindrances that are very great that will simply make creating and owning a business infeasible unless one is in a very special position to do so. So examples will continue to exist but they will be rare. Their rarity will be unknown, so people will have plenty of examples of success stories in mind, but there will really be no way for regular people to be able to successfully set up these businesses, or they will be constrained in income to the extent that opening a business will simply result in an employee like experience. Platform control will be the business that will control businesses within. I’m seeing trends of this on AirBnB, and POS systems like Square, that excessively involve the platform in matters that are really usually only for businesses to decide. Owners will be less like free owners and simply will resemble software users, and will face many obstacles.

Software automation was already a methodology intended to lessen the need for software workers. Even a website is an automation contrary to publication in print. Standard and basic software offerings were already replacement technologies. I think we’ll see an increase in software automation independent of robotics that will increasingly gobble jobs greatly decreasing the need for all sorts of positions. Recently I was thinking about how machinery in agriculture replaced crop growers. Any type of machining and mechanisation is intended to create a greater yield than workers can achieve without that technology.

I think we have an incipient “What do we do with ourselves” that will result in social surgences that will come in the form of complaints and activism. I can’t yet say when that will happen, but I think the newer generations of extremely young school age children will want to complain that they have controlled stimulation and can’t well choose what they will do with themselves outside entertaining themselves.

We could see however in the future and advancement on providing ways for individuals to do meaningful leisure activities, like sports, art, and academics, but many will not be happy with the attention received. There may be great difficulties for the less intelligent to find ways to express their talents. Probably this will be the source of complaints and activism. I think there will be a point in which entertainment becomes overwhelming.

“All I am is Entertained” and it is AI driven, and much is altered and is not real. Meanwhile, employment and spending will be too controlled.

More later!

Text Template for the Life Categories and Example Utilization

Saturday, December 23nd, 2023


File Types and Required Accounts

Saturday, December 23nd, 2023


AK Activity Plans

Friday, December 22nd, 2023


Post Bank Payment Plans, Set 1

Prepared: Tuesday, December 19th, 2023

To Add

Donation Request Methodology and Printout

Prepared: Wednesday, December 13th, 2023

To Add

Upcoming Plan to Utilize just $100 as a Wealthy Homeless Camper for a Period of 1 Month

Saturday, December 9nd, 2023

After a period of approximately two years fully retired, living off of cash on my person, I’ve come to a point in which all of my assets have been depleted. For a period I will now not only be experimenting with homelessness, camping, and such, I will be actually homeless. I was not expecting or fully anticipating this scenario, and humorously, in my possession is a $393,000 dollar check that I’ve been unable to cash or place in a bank account, due to a combination of withdrawal and depositing rules with banks here in Florida that have not been helpful, and my name change to a name that I only now discovered is too long for banks to want to see on checks. Authentic IDs like Passports and Social Security Cards still truncate names, because of data and print limitations created by the agencies that issue the cards. My name is much longer than what my official IDs show. One might think the banks would allow longer legal names to appear on checks, but they don’t want to see your real name, just what matches a passport or other ID card. The large check in my possession was received after a very lengthy land transaction, regarding my property in Alaska. I signed the title documents using my full legal name, and the new Deed for the buyer has my full name as well. The title company said they can only use the name that is shown on the deed and the signature in the transaction, and unfortunately that name cannot fit on any ID card, and because of that the banks cannot deposit or cash my check!

My full name for those who might be curious is “Mattanaw Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh Mattanaw” and that is what the check shows.

Because it took so long to get the sale, and to receive the check, I depleted all my remaining assets that I did not think I would deplete. While this is an undesirable situation, it is fortuitious for my study, that I already entitled “On the Overlaps of Homelessness and Wealthy Camping”. I also have a scheduled talk in May 2024 for Mensa Sweden on this subject. Before it was a field study only guided by the recognition that my travel experiences as a high income person resembled the travel experiences of campers, and both resemble homelessness. But now in this situation I am really a homeless person with wealth. The wealth just happens to be temporarily unusable and inaccessible.

Currently I have only $120 dollars in my pocket and intend to spend 20 today to have only $100 remaining. I intend to try to stretch the $100 for a period of one full month, to prove a plan around high frugality, that also includes planning around food selection and nutrition. For a long while I was thinking that a combination of foraging and very inexpensive food purchases would allow for a very inexpensive and sustainable way of living, that would enable a “homeless person” to have a good quality of living that is incredibly inexpensive.

But there are definite risks to this arrangement and plan, and I do anticipate some challenging conditions, and perhaps some mishaps. If there are any mishaps I will need to actively ask people for food funds like a normal homeless person for a period, but this will be informative. It may even be necessary for entirely understanding homeless living. I have plans for my method of requesting that will include pointers to my current work underway for the study, so any requests I make will not appear to be as basic as that of a standard beggar. This I have related earlier to the relationship between homelessness and intelligence, and I believe that this is an inverse relationship. This explains why the signage we see from homeless people is of such poor quality, and includes messages that are not those that people would be well inclined to give for. Additionally, my habits are quite good, and my appearance is clean and tidy. I also have some good looks and a good level of fitness. Not being homeless a long time, I cannot say what reduction would happen if I were living that way for years, so I don’t want to be too judgemental. But I do want to mention that smart planning and living can lead to a homeless experience that is probably irregularly normal and apparently healthy, and I would attribute this to my mind and level of intelligence. This might seem a sensitive topic, but if we are to resolve homeless conditions, we are going to have to acknowledge uncomfortable issues. Firstly, those who are homeless and in a poor condition may simply be handicapped, mentally retarded, or may have a diminished IQ or acquired decline in cognitive capacity. I have no such issues and this would explain greatly why they are in the condition they are in and I am not, and likely would not ever be in, depending on circumstances.

I will leave more about this in my upcoming book on the topic that I expect to complete within a year.

After the one month period, if there are not further banking issues, I will have nearly $400,000 in my bank account again, and this will greatly change my circumstances so as to explore the overlaps again from the perspective of the wealthy traveler. For this I will simply resume my travels in North America and abroad like I’ve been doing recently, before this predicament, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Mexico.

Now, regarding the $100 dollars. Here is the plan regarding food and weight.

Currently I weigh a little over 180 pounds and want to reduce anyway to around 150. I’ve been wanting to experience being much thinner, although I do like the bodyweight I’m at, and wanted already to reach my goal of being 150 pounds, when I was in Hobart Tasmania. This means I have 30 pounds to lose, which equates to 3,500 calories per pounds or 105,000 calories. This is all part of my food supply, and so I am entering this food into my dietary planning.

I am wanting to consume a relatively unsustainable average daily amount of calories near 1,200 calories per day. For days I feel I have an aggressive hunger, I will eat substantially more. For other days, I may eat less. I am unopposed to having no food at all for some days in this upcoming month. It does not harm one at all to have no food for a day or two.

The 1,200 calories per day for 30 days, amounts to 36,000 calories of food, that I will need to buy using the $100 dollars. Combined with my self-eating with weight loss, that is 141,000 available food calories for the month. Only 36,000 calories have to be paid for at the grocery store or with any possible foraging. Since I’m fairly unaware of the foods that are locally edible in Florida, I know I will greatly depend on the grocer, but there are some foods I’ve located that I know I can eat like dates from palm trees, and I will consume those to add additional nutrition. The 36,000 calories I need to buy have to be purchasable with $100 dollars. I have considerabl experience with eating frugally so I do not anticipate issues or unsuccess, although I do anticipate some discomfort. Here are the foods I plan to purchase:

I have estimated every 5 days I will need $12.00. If this is accurate, in 30 days I will spend $84, and will have $16 dollars remaining for emergency purchases.

This will be the most frugal I have ever been in my life although I have been very frugal in the past. I consumed primarily oats in New Zealand and Australia for sustained periods and had very good health and weight loss. I have also gone periods with no fat consumption at all. In my view we have excessively tied nutrition to daily requirements that are about averages needed for consumption over longer periods. The daily requirements do not entail true daily needs. One can easily not eat for five straight days and have excellent health. True nutritional requirements appear to not be well understood, but certainly are about maintaining health and vitality over a number of days and not just one. For example, I know in this diet I will be lacking certain nutrients like copper. But how much copper do I require for a month? I think none. But how much copper do I need for any particular period of time? Well that is related to the way my body utilizes and depletes copper gradually. It is not related to any immediate need of copper.

This plan begins tomorrow. It begins tomorrow not from choice as I indicated. I actually need to do this or I will experience actual mishaps as a homeless person, who happens to have a check for $400,000 dollars.

Backup and Redundancy Plan, and Unrelated Tasks

Wednesday, December 6nd, 2023


The American Flag is only Blue and Red and is Basic

Tuesday, December 5nd, 2023

The love of flags is contrary to the time required to create them, their excessiveness basicness, lack of beauty, childishness, and degree of unconcern in their creation.

If you don’t believe me, recall quickly, if you can, the flags you’ve seen to date.

Stripes, few geometrical figures, and very little artwork exists within them.

In fact, it appears what is common to them is a kind of stupidity of art.

Some will tell you that flags contain white. They do not. Rather, there is a canvas of white envisioned already. On these canvases of white, simple rectangles are drawn, or quilted. Attached to fabrics without color. Canvas.

Any child can create some of these flags. Any elementary school child can make a block of red, and block of green, and place them on a white canvas.

Flags of all nations are basic creations. Salutes and so on to flags are a kind of abomination.

The flag of the United States is no exception. Our groups are international so those of the United States have no cause to think this is offensive. It is one simple flag among others.

Here is a way to think about the original creation of the flag of the United States.

Job done!

I bet you can think of other childish ways to remake it with ease.

The American flag is blue and red.

It is excessively simple.

It is hardly any art or effort at all!

Put anything up the flag pole and force the meanings! And it will be something people will think they need to protect!

Has anyone noticed that flags are moronic? Your nation has a rectangle?

Then you forgot earthday with planned warfare!

Flag the earth now with another rectangle?

Completion of the Mission of the Personal Form

Sunday, December 3nd, 2023

The personal form, as recorded at | PDF

had many different objectives to innumerable to relist here, but the primary objective of attaining a level of personal discipline and completeness in reduction of behaviors to only those that are desired is now complete.

Much was realized and made successful along the way as there were gains made, and goals completed. However, in the course of collecting personal data, and trying to obtain specific goals in different categories of life, it was noticed that discipline would flag in one category that was gaining insufficient attention, while another was being improved upon. There were weightloss goals completed along the way, financial goals, career goals, fitness goals, etc… completed. But it was found definitively that an all-at-once completion was not possible. Instead incremental categorical goals were possible while others would have to wait until later for completion. There were improvements and regressions.

However now I can state that full attainment of the primary goals have now been definitively achieved. If there is any regression from this state I will record the regression here, but it is not anticipated that any meaningful regression will occur.

The primary objectives were to be entirely plant-based, drink only water, maintain weight, nutrition, finances, stay clear of alcohol, live free independently of debts, achieve retirement, achieve career success, academic success, remove the need to masturbate, remove the need for pornography, &c… Masturbation was not explicitly listed because it was thought that would provide too much information on the form later upon being read by others, but this goal was encoded as “-m”, which is the negation of masturbation. I’m not opposed to masturbation, and actually advocate for it, but for my own personal progression I did revert to my earlier view that I would simply prefer to not do it at all. Much can be said on this and I expect to say more on my page about sexuality.

The most important goal of all was to be water and plant based only. No alcohol, no coffee. At the time of the writing of the personal form alcohol was not an issue. Coffee was not considered an issue. But coffee became an issue since I excessively drank it from youth. Alcohol became something to be concerned about later but nothing even close to alcoholism. Just habitual beer drinking for leisure and fun. Nicotine more recently became an issue with dabbling in cigar smoking in Las Vegas. This switched to a brief period of cigarette smoking, which is still mostly disgusting to me, and finally vaping, at a small amount of nicotine. Completion of this elimination is now done.

I now only ingest water and plant matter, but permit myself dairy on occasion, if I want it. That is a choice made upon long maturation as a vegan, thinking that some small quantity of dairy in my behavior is still an insignificant negative as compared to life contributions to that cause, and health attained in regular vegan behavior. More will be said later about this as I share more about the vegan lifestyle which I think is not totally opposed to the lifestyle of meat eating people. I’ve discovered a large convergence that requires rethinking how one discusses the topic and the differences in commitments people have. But that is tangential and the more important point is that I’ve completed entirely this mission of only having plants and water. I’ve been successfully vegan and vegetarian though since year 2000, 23 years ago.

The start of the personal form was approximately June 2006. This means it took 17 years to bring this effort to a finality. More will be said on the chapter on the personal form and data collection about the long path of habitual changes and discipline required to get to this point. The dedication towards this goal I think is unusual considering the total human population.

An interesting point regarding the finality of this arrival of this goal is that the goal itself is not quite as important now, and instead the mission with the personal form has transferred to the mission of managing attention and increasing writing and media productions. The attentional architecture includes objectives that exceed those of the personal form but are an outgrowth of the personal form. But even this has progressed to such an extent that the behavioral goals associated with it are already complete, and that anything extra is extra.

This date, December 3rd marks the transitional date to completeness. December 4th is a kind of purity date of completeness. If this turns out to be false due to an unexpected small regression, then that will be logged and recorded.

Affidavit of the Authenticity of The Book and Journal of Mattanaw at, as a Testament of Mattanaw for the Living Will

Prepared: Saturday, December 2nd, 2023

To Add

Affidavit Concerning Vegetarian/Vegan and Water Lifestyle

Prepared: Saturday, December 2nd, 2023

To Add

Affidavit Concerning Mattanaw’s Abstinence From Drugs, Sex and Alcohol

Prepared: Saturday, December 2nd, 2023

Being first duly sworn, under oath states:

  1. I am totally teetotal regarding alcohol. I use do not drink or utilize alcohol of any kind. I never have alcohol on my possession, and I never buy it from any person or establishment.

  2. I am totally teetotal regarding drugs. I do not use any over the counter medication, drugs prescribed by doctors, drugs from any illicit source, or any drug whatsoever. I never have drugs in my possession, never exchange items with others, never carry items from others, and never ask for, buy, or solicit for purchase, any drug from anyone whatsoever. I have never, and will never, be involved in any sale of drugs, possion of drugs, &c… anything involving drugs.

  3. I only consume water and plants, and infrequently dairy products. I have an entirely vegan and vegetarian lifestyle and only consume plants and water, and occasionally dairy products.

  4. I only ingest non-drug substances. By one through three it should be understood that I only consume the set of ingredients that are water, are plant-based foods, or are dairy foods. All else is excluded from this list. This means nothing else is ingested. This means no alcohol, drugs of any kind, including any not mentioned, are not consumed.

  5. I do not put anything that is not food or water into my mouth at any time.

  6. I do not “inhale” anything other than air/oxygen, and would refuse to inhale anything else. If anything is in my environment is perceived to be chemical, I exit that environment.

  7. I do not consume anything that has a chemical formula sold as a single ingredient. I do not consume sugar. I do not consume any additive, except for preservative additives.

  8. I do not engage in sexual activity of any kind.

  9. I do not seek out any dating, or sexual friendships from the opposite sex, or anything that could be construed as leading to a sexual relationship from anyone of the opposite sex.

  10. I am heterosexual only, but do not do not engage in any sexual behaviors at all. I do not seek, converse, or “look for” anything leading to a sexual relationship. I generally refrain from touching others, except for fist taps. I do not masturbate, and I do not view pornography.

  11. I am not a homosexual. I am not attracted towards males at all, have never been attracted to a male, and never have any sexual contact with males. I do not watch any pornography. On social media I avoid contact with images of males. I prefer images of females, and am attracted to females. But I do nothing that is ever a movement towards any sexual behavior whatsoever.

  12. I am fully functioning sexually, am healthy, and have a very good anatomy, but do not engage in any sexual behavior whatsoever.

Dated at Miami Beach, Florida, this day _ , day of , _.


Subscribed and sworn to me by Mattanaw, this _ , day of , _.

Notary Public in and for the State of Maryland

My Comission Expires _ _.

The following affidavit was used as a guide, from when the author was trial attorney and witness in his land case in Anchorage.


Be Concise But You Missed This

Friday, December 1st, 2023

Be concise, but you missed this…


Friday, December 1st, 2023

Identification over the years has changed quite a bit in a way greatly unfortunate to the user of the IDs.

Before proceeding let’s consider some important pieces of information:

A purpose of an authoritative single ID is to provide instant evidence that one is who one claims to be, and has the priveleges attached. Above we’ve seen that passports are the single piece of evidence required to show that one is who one says one is, and that one has the priveleges attached, relating to travel restrictions, and also to nationalization. It is a picture ID. It also provides signature confirmation. Above we’ve also seen that the driver’s license is a singular identifier for immediately showing that one is who one says one is, particularly required in the context of driving. It also provides verification that one has the priveleges relating to driving and interstate travel. It also establishes that one has some connection to a state resembling residency.

An authority figure, or member of the public, can look at one or either of these documents and confirm that the person is as depicted, has or had that name, and is the person who the person claims to be, and has the priveleges attached mentioned earlier.

Obviously there is more regarding potential uses and priveleges attached, but for this conversation being complete and comprehensive is not possible and would create excessively lengthy discussion.

This use of single identifiers by authorities for international travel and for interstate driving is considered adequate to them. If you present a passport you can travel, you can use it to show your nationality in a foreign country, and you can use it to show your nationality in your home country. But obviously there are many risks associated with this. Likewise, you can use your driver’s license with an authority figure and show your nationality, your state connection, and your priveleges for driving, and it is accepted as sufficient by itself to do this by authority figures such as policemen. There are still many risks with accepting this as a single form of ID.

The conveniences of only needing to provide a single ID however are obvious. What is the point of having multiple IDs carried along with you to establish who you are? It is possible that you might have one or none. You also are not obligated, it is said, to carry an ID with you in many if not most circumstances. But if you need to have an ID you don’t want to have many. You want to only have one, or else there is a burden of maintaining a personal process of having and protecting multiple IDs, greatly increasing the risk of losing one or multiple IDs. That could lead to a lengthy process of having to obtain not only one replacement ID, but a number of them. This would come at a considerable time loss, loss of resources, and would create personal risks, depending on circumstances. Having one ID that is adequate protects alternative IDs that are also adequate, and diminishes the risk of a huge impact of losing multiple IDs.

While these authorities mentioned above can accept a single ID, we have somehow allowed a situation in which institutions can demand multiple IDs, despite the fact that there are fewer risks associated. They will claim there are more risks associated but there could not be more risks than with international travel. They use this perception, often falsely created, to gather more information about you than is necessary.

An example is in banking, where many conveniences have been lost.

I was issued a large check recently, in the amount of $393,000, and I went to the bank to either cash it, or obtain some smaller amount of cash along with a cashier’s check. The check was issued by Well’s Fargo as part of a Real Estate transaction. The bank visited to get the cash was Well’s Fargo. The funds were in a verified escrow account in which funds could be instantly confirmed. The customer of the escrow account is a title company in which they do many large transactions. The name on the check was the same name as what was on my passport. I went to the bank with the passport and the check, expecting service to receive the funds: and it was important that the funds were released. However, the Bank sent me on a long pathway, without any indication the result would be favorable to actually releasing the funds, of confirming in myriad ways my identity.

There was a time in which a bank would make payment simply if the name on the check matched an authoritative ID.

What are some other places that require many forms of ID and papers, to get authorizations?

Keep in mind you can terrorize another nation with your passport. What is the need to have many IDs with such a low amount of risk to make simple transactions, and to accomplish very simplistic forms of business? Where is the convenience? Why is it so convenient to use the Driver’s License, and the Passport, in situations that may present large risks, whereas, it is so difficult to use a singular form of ID to get any simple tasks done that elders would have demanded to be simple?

Affidavit Concerning Name Change of Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh to Mattanaw

Prepared: Friday, December 1st, 2023

Did you change your name?

What name did you choose and why?

Are you in the process of changing your names in various systems?

Have you used this name actively?

Do you use your old name?

Are there any organizations unsupportive of your name change?

What actions or ordeals existed regarding your name change?

Have there been any negative impacts regarding your name change?

Affidavits Attesting to Living Autobiography

Thursday, November 30th, 2023

One learns, in the court system, that witnesses are trusted regarding the affidavits they submit, sworn under oath on text, and notarized. This is the case even if what they submit or record on the affidavits happen to include predominantly lies and fabrications.

When one writes an autobiography, one is testifying as to one’s own life. One needs artifacts to substantiate one’s personal history, working as a personal anthropologist and archaeologist and historian. Legal documents are part of the total history of artifacts that one might have, and it includes ID cards, medical records, bank documents, birth and marriage certificates, and actual legal materials used in the court system, if there were any procedures. For example, one may want to talk about the significance a traffic accident or a divorce had in your life.

If one used an affidavit to explain an event, or circumstance, and that document is trusted in the legal system, implies that others including the legal system would trust it within an autobiography.

Why not then simply create many affidavits in advance on any topic of interest that figures well into the living autobiography?

Why not make the living autobiography and books attestations to the court system?

Affidavits are officiated documents, sworn under oath. They get notarized by a public notary. One could make an entire autobiography an affidavit, if it is well enough written; although affidavits need not be well written.

I’m in the process of accumulating affidavits that constitute usable legal materials in legal proceedings, that will figure into my living will and living autobiography, and will also constitute the entire living autobiography and will too.

All will be wrapped in affidavit, and include affidavit.

My Commitment to Chastity

Thursday, November 30th, 2023

Some who have been exposed to my writings and various postings would recognize that I’m a single male. But many would not know or recall that I was married for quite a long time, nearly 20 years, to my very first girlfriend. My ex-wife and I went to the same school system and are from the same town. We went to different elementary schools, but went to the same middle school and high school. While we went to different elementary schools, many of our friends from those different schools were blended together subsequently in our middle and high schools. So to a very large degree our experiences were blended together backwards in time, from the time we were first put together in middle school, to when we were born. We were even born in the same hospital, in Olney, Maryland.

We first became committed to a monogamous relationship November 29th, 1998. I have original correspondence between the two of us, from this time in High School, in our senior year, in my Book and Journal, at From that time we celebrated anniversaries on that date, and considered ourselves having a relationship equivalent to marriage. When I say we were married for 19 years, I am using that agreed upon anniversary date. We didn’t really believe in getting formally married, until a time arose in which it seemed to make sense to combine finances. There were other reasons why I proposed at the time I did, but we finally got married, October 4th. I have my marriage certificate posted on my open health and identity page chapter here:

We did not celebrate the date of actual marriage as our anniversary, but continued to celebrate that on November 29th. We were evntually divorced, in January of 2018. The entire duration of my relationship I was entirely committed to monogamy. I never cheated and took passes from women as a kind of threat, although I did not openly express that or show any indication that that was how I felt. I kept my distance from other women and was mostly averse to any kind of touch contact.

While married I had a healthy sex life and could not of course consider myself chaste during that period. But my inclinations were still to monogamy and having a sex life that did not resemble in any way one of promiscuity, or even of interest in sexual relations with others. Mentally, even within my thinking, I did not think about sex with others. However, I did indulge in pornography. I don’t consider that to be an exception. It does not involve other real people from one’s environment. Rather it is a way to more completely satisfy sexual desires, since a monogamous relationship does not result in complete satisfaction in sexual relations. Particularly if it lasts a long period of time. Nevertheless, my sex life was complete, and I had enough that I really am not too interested in having any more, after divorce. It is a part of my life I really want to close off.

For the last several years, I have totally abstained from all pornography too. While I think self-satisfaction with or without pornography is a commendable way to live life as a single person, because few risks are presented to self and others by living that way, I am personally even trying to avoid that behavior. I’ve gone long periods without masturbation and currently I do not masturbate at all. Although, again, I find no issue whatsoever with that behavior and even find it commendable if it fits into a lifestyle that removes risks to other people and oneself. If one only masturbated then one would be no risk to others at all with cheating behavior, promiscuity, risk of STDs, and so on. It is an expected behavior among single people, and to urge single people to do more than this by engaging in promiscuity or formation of other relationships, is a kind of immoral pressure placed on them. Our culture really does immorally peer-pressure others into behaviors that creates risks to their well being and the well being of others. There are no good plans for ensuring unwanted children are prevented, STD/Is are prevented, and that cheating behavior is eliminated. Tinder and other applications of that kind, including dating applications, can expose good people to others who are already in relationships for sex. Tinder an other applications can also expose oneself to the risks of being a kind of promiscuous paid or unpaid prostitute. Lastly, there is even social pressure to prostitution. I have not been exposed to this but understand it does exist.

Being suddenly divorced in 2018 from my girlfriend from the 1990s, whom I met in High School, suddenly made me single in a very different world. I never had a date in my life, as I told many colleagues. I didn’t know how to date, and didn’t know anything about dating on social media.

Realizing that I was not really wanting to date, or do any online dating, I decided to completely refrain from any pressure to utilizing online dating applications. There have been many over the years that came and went, but I used none of them. I refrained from using even regular social applications for that purpose. Effectively, I’m entirely chaste in my online communication regarding sexuality, or anything verging on sexuality, unless one went further back into my history of earlier teenage years, in which I used AOL humorously to chat sometimes sexually within that community. That was during the period of low understanding of sexting and cyber-sex. All was text based and utilized no audio-visual, and was oddly uncontrolled and ignorant. Anyone who used AOL in the nineties would have humorous stories about the nature of online chat-groups and discussions with others to whom one discovered there.

After being divorced, I did go to bars and restaurants and suddenly had solo-interractions with others in a happenstance way. This was a lifestyle I was also previously unfamiliar with. This did lead to some very few friendships and dating opportunties. These were brief, but I did have a handful of dates, or singles date-like encounters. Is a first meeting with another person of interest a first date? Perhaps it is. In that case I have to say I did have some dating adventures. But these were very few. Less than ten total, between 2018 and the present. A few could be characterized as unwanted dates, since my inclinations were only friendly. I have only had two sexual encounters after being divorced in 2018 and I can say they were unnecessarily stressful. They made it obvious to me that our culture has provided very poor sexual planning, and mitigation of sexually transmitted disease and other risks.

For over one year now, I have elected to be one hundred percent chaste. This is a permanent election. I will never be in another sexual relationship of any kind nor do I want one. I will not date, be in a relationship, or get married again.

Soon I will write up an affidavit about this and get it notarized. So legally, I will have testified as to my chastity.

Why would one want to do this? Well, it creates a way to show to others that one is not a risk in any way, which is another thing I desire. I want a legal way to make it clear to others that in no way can I risk the relationships of others, in no way can I be a sexual “threat” to others, and in no way even be thought of as having sexual motivations of any kind. Males would understand this. They can be accused of anything. If at some point in the future, I attain a greater level of fame, I need a way to eliminate any risk of false accusations. But apart from this, just being a male, one feels a risk of false accusations.

Having already had a satisfying marriage, I can continue to think that that marriage completed my sex life. Furthermore, it really did.

ID and bank activities and plans

Thursday, November 30th, 2023


Gold Wiring

Monday, November 27th, 2023

When one procures gold from a bullion dealer, there are a few options provided. Firstly, one could procure a small amount of bullion, under $10,000 and not sign any documents at all, using cash. One can procure more than that too, but if more is wanted, more documents are required as one scales to huge amounts of gold. From conversations with one gold dealer, my understanding is that 24 ounces of gold can be procured at the current price without signing more than what is required for a transaction over $10,000. If more than that is wanted, additional documents must be signed. In order to avoid all of this, one is simply slowed in the process of obtaining bullion with cash. Everyday one can get 24 ounces of gold and fill out the 10K paperwork, or everyday one can get less than 10K in gold and fill out no paperwork at all. I’ve followed the process of daily visits for less than 10K in gold, platinum, and palladium, in order to get a larger amount without worrying about any documentation.

If one does not want to make purchases with cash, one is able to make purchases with wire transfers. I’m exploring this for the first time now. After having made a large real-estate transaction, I’m wanting more bullion. My objective is consistent with that in development in my Human Banking chapter of this work. It is also consistent with the developments and explorations of the world of wealthy homelessness. I have a field research study underway called “On the Overlaps of Homelessness and Wealthy Camping”. Wire transfers are subject to the same rules. For this particular transaction, should I move forward with it, I’m required to fill out the documentation for tax purposes for transactions exceeding the 24 ounces I mentioned earlier. I think that’s a 50k limit but don’t recall for the moment.

What is interesting about this is that I’m doing this transaction via a third-party wiring. The title company issued the funds, and provided an initial check in the amount of 393,000 dollars. But the bank refused to cash it, or provide any funds in a smaller quantity in cash, and has asked for smaller checks. I have asked the title company to provide smaller checks, and they exhibited reluctance to do so. My current bank Discover Bank, an online bank, has set limits that are lower than what banks with branches set for accepting deposits. So they cannot accept wires over 250,000 dollars or take checks over a small amount under 100,000. So I cannot wire to the bank. But I may soon discover I can wire to a bullion dealer for bullion. In that case it seems banks can be totally bypassed in favor of wire transfers to other parties. That may open the potential scenarios for obtain funds without banks. Well without a specific party to transactions functioning without banks. One could then wire to other people to handle funds on your behalf, for an exchange.

Checklist for attacking the bank to provide my funds owed to me.

Sunday, November 26th, 2023

Withdrawing Large Cash Amounts from Banks Issuing Their Own Checks, Refusals, and Pathways for Obtaining Cash

Sunday, November 26th, 2023

I “learned online” that banks issuing checks, like cashier’s checks, can cash the entire amount for you if you only go to the issuing bank, request the funds, and wait for the transfer to be arranged. The idea here is you sell you house, say for $200,000 dollars, you receive a check, and you can obtain all cash for that transaction by merely bringing that check to the issuing bank. You may need to wait two weeks or so but they are supposed to arrange for the cash to be delivered, and you can then receive all your money at once. They are supposed to do this for you even if you have a checking or savings account elsewhere, and simply can’t or won’t deposit the funds there, or even if you have no bank account at all. We are told there is no obligation at all to have a banking account, and for those opting to be partly or mostly free of banks, this is the way to receive funds when one sells one’s home or otherwise receives a large check.

Recently I received a check for $393,000. I am wanting to use no bank whatsoever to obtain my funds. I am following this pathway of the person who has no banking account at all, wants none, and simply wants to obtain the funds owed.

In order to do this, I followed the above advice. The check was issued by Wells Fargo, by a title company. It is held in an escrow account. I took the check to a Wells Fargo branch, expecting to perhaps wait for two weeks to receive my funds, all in cash. But I found at the bank they will simply refuse to give any cash whatsoever, and complain of giving any cash more than $10,000 dollars.

After some debate with the tellers, and a conversation with the bank manager, I was told I could take $40,000 in cash that day, and get a cashier’s check for the remaining amount, of $353,000 dollars. I thought this a good solution, perhaps better than receiving all the cash at once, at least for my needs, and agreed to wait for the transaction to be processed while in the same branch. I waited for one hour, until closing time. Seeing closing time approach, I anticipated that the branch manager would decline to provide the cash and cashier’s check, perhaps doing nothing at all, only using the time to tick-away the day.

The branch manager emerged after a long wait and informed me that he could not provide any cash for the check. He could not fulfill on the solution he offered after finally being able to talk to him, after first receiving misinformation from tellers. It appears the entire visit was misinformation and wasted more than one hour of my time, and my time is valuable. I have logged one hour of personal work time lost to this effort. I am retired but I invest my hours into my own company doing scientific research and planning for my publication company.

He said that he called a higher office for approval for my request and that it was flatly denied. He said he thought in the future it would be denied again. The implication is that they refused to provide my money, even though their bank issued the check, and provided no means to obtain the money. They told me they could “open an account”, but that is simply a mechanism for them to retain their own money, slow depositing, and obtain more information from me than I would like to provide. The bank manager told me he could not split checks, either, but that they could cash checks split. What is humorous is they split the checks for themselves, since they are the issueing bank. So for me to obtain all the cash, they want to write more checks that I will bring back to them, with the same or similar result.

I would like to pursue this further but escalate the issue. However, I have no experience with bank escalation. Does anyone here have a strategy I could use, to ensure I can receive all the cash, from this bank that is refusing to honor it’s own checking?

A second resort is that I can ask the title company to work, again with Wells Fargo, to issue smaller checks. However, this is a fun process. Maybe I want all cash for my checks later too. Maybe I’d like to send people checks with money that they can use for cash. Is there a way that I can ensure that I can get my cash?

Thinking back in time, I thought the name had to match the check, and they simply were obligated to disburse. It is understood large quantities of cash may require some delays and planning, but not flat refusals.

My Introduction to Mensa Sweden

Thursday, November 23th, 2023

My name is “Mattanaw”, formerly “Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh”, a retired management consultant and Chief Architect of various global corporations. Many here have probably been exposed to my numerous writings in our shared groups Mensa groups in the social communities and journals, and my Book and Journal at I first joined Mensa in 2014, but I was identified as gifted as a small child in my school system in Maryland, where I was born and raised. While I was born in the United States I see myself strongly as a global citizen, and while that’s hard to make a reality, I spend much time abroad in locations like New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, and Canada, and expect soon to have residence in Sweden and Europe for a long period. I am an executive presenter, and may be presenting at the upcoming Mensa Sweden AG, on two topics in which I am expert. The first concerns management of creativity, and the second concerns my scientific field efforts at eradicating homelessness. That talk is called “On the Overlaps of Homelessness and Wealthy Camping.”

Despite my history being a software architect and management consultant, my primary are of expertise is Moral Philosophy. This relates to our interesting theme of gaming, as I will explain momentarily. I have a nearly completed B.S. in Philosophy, a B.S. in Psychology, and I’m working on a degree in Management, with a focus on Economics and Finance, at Harvard University. I first began my more definite project on Moral Philosophy in my early twenties, although thoughts and materials from the 90s and earlier in my life figure into my work often, and are archived on my website at, where I present my life work.

Although I was a software architect the technology of focus was not gaming systems, even though I come from the generation that was greatly influenced by the onset of video gaming technology. It is a somewhat good demarcation to separate generations because my parents and those who were born only several years before me either had no gaming exposure, or developed very little interest in video games. It is interesting now to think of how my writings and research, and my software expertise, relate to the planning, execution, and limits of gaming systems. Also, moral philosophy has a gaming aspect, as it relates to managing one’s personal attention and one’s behavior in this life which might be thought of as an RPG like game. RPG games, in a way, model and simulate real life behavior, and when one plays these games one is exposed to another world and environment in which one does familiar things. One makes decisions that bear on the outcome and one does well or not depending on how one chooses. I have a chapter in my book on the planning of attention, using process diagrams that are suitable for the planning of software systems, video games, and our use of our attention in life, and within organizations. For those who are interested, one can read my growing work “The Architecture of Ethics” here:

I will also be discussing this as it relates in my talk on creativity management at the Mensa Sweden AG, should the proposal for my talks be approved.

Video gaming for enjoyment has been a very large part of my early life, up until I was about 23 years old, when interest began to wane. My parents utilized video game systems to keep my siblings and I entertained, and out of the way, doing something known to be somewhat positive. I don’t know what the impact to my mental development was, but I think it was largely positive, although it did detract greatly from my school interests while young. My first game system was an Atari-like self-contained unit that I began playing sometime between 1983 and 1985. I was born December 18th, 1980, so I was a small child excelling already on simple Atari video games. Later I spent many hours in arcades, playing a combination of pinball games and video games, while that was extremely popular, exciting and competitive. I had a large number of gaming systems, since my parents were very generous buying them, and around Christmas time especially, I recall having memorable experiences opening boxes of gaming systems, like Sega Genesis, Nintendo 64, Playstation, and some lesser known systems like Panasonic 3DO. Having many gaming systems and an expertise in the range of gaming platforms led me to form friendships in my neighborhood and have a draw to my home where friends would return again and again for fun times. As I write this now I am recalling some memories that were forgotten but highly formative.

I also had quite a bit of talent with Chess, and spend a very large amount of time playing board games with family, like Monopoly, and games more suitable for family fun with youths who are developing. We had a large collection of board games and had much fun playing these together as a cohesive family. Gaming had a good role in keeping us doing things together in a positive way for long periods of time, most memorably during the holidays when we were off from school.

Nowadays my interest in gaming is contained within my interest in planning and guiding organizations and developing my system of ethics, as I stated earlier. I think software planning was somehow left out of moral planning, and the evaluation of various ethical systems. I think they are incomplete because they do not include them. If they include them they become more detailed and useful.

If one is interested, one can watch for the upcoming Mensa Sweden AG in May, and check for my planned presentations and talks. In that case there will be opportunity to discuss this topic, particularly as it relates to my presentations on creativity management, and “The Overlaps of Homelessness and Wealthy Camping”. The latter topic touches on gaming as it relates to the experiences of making choices as a homeless person, in the system of law that makes for a survival game like experience.

Accurate and Easy Descriptive Skin Complexion

Monday, November 21th, 2023

To Add

Facebook and Using Sentiments in Marketing

Monday, November 21th, 2023

Most users are aware that Facebook has provided ways to give emotional reactions to postings, but not all may be familiar with marketing methods that relate to this tool and potential misuse.

Being from the technology industry in an elevated status, working with businesses on marketing strategy and software related to marketing approaches, I can share with you some issues I see that relate to issues with Facebook’s system for controlling, with a very short list of emotions, reactions you can provide to their system. I can also share reasons why their approach likely exists, and side effects for regular users.

This is an important topic because for some it greatly affects how they interact with businesses online, and with friends and family, and in any conversation had with anyone on Facebook.

Since the start of Facebook as a public company it was very interested in how to gain revenue via advertising. There was a period when the media portrayed Facebook as being “at risk” for being apparently unable to gain sizeable marketing revenue required to keep it a strong business. Not too long after this Facebook became a success in its approach that it needed in order to stay alive.

Businesses do not want negative feedback. Any business that can receive reviews online knows well, that if they get a single bad review, it can look very bad for their business. They will want to control perceptions regarding that review, potentially have it removed, and will offer responses to make it appear they are willing to resolve problems, or else deny them outright. Businesses oftentimes create false reviews of their own businesses to counter negative reviews to ensure their ratings don’t drop excessively.

Notice that on Facebook, the way you interact with each other includes the ability to write comments or interact with likes and emoticons. This supplies data to Facebook on what they think you and other users think about a product, or other people’s postings. You don’t have many options. You can simply write comments that provide information about how you think or feel, and you can provide likes or emoticons. You have few options for the likes and emoticons. You have seven ways to tell a business or another person roughly what you feel, and most have noticed that these do no provide the full range of your natural reactions.

The easiest reaction is the like or emoticon. The next level of interaction is to write a short comment. Beyond that you can write lengthy or numerous comments to share how you think and feel. Most will share only simple short interactions. Emoticons and likes therefore will be the most common ways people quickly and easily interact with a business or with other people online.

Notice that a business is not a person. How you interact with businesses, you would think should be different than how you interact with people. However, Facebook blends these by providing the same means of interaction. This is important for the remainder of this posting, because I claim here that their way of gaining advertising revenue has constrained and distorted all your interactions with other people outside of business.

Since businesses do not want negative feedback, and want to communicate to other people and other businesses “good news” about their products and marketing offers, they are extremely motivated to have feedback that is positive only. It is not an understatement to say they never ever want negative feedback. We are all aware of businesses in the past that have even asked for “five star” or “ten star reviews” from customers, to nudge them towards not providing anything less than a perfectly positive response to them. That information is presented back to potential buyers. That information is used by businesses to communicate to others, that what they have is really excellent. They don’t want to have anything that brings down anyone’s perceptions about the quality of what they are offering.

As I mentioned, Facebook offers exactly seven like or emoticon options that people can use for their most frequent interactions. Now it is important to discuss what those are. There is a “like”, a “love”, a “care” that greatly resembles “love”, a “wow”, a “sadness” that has a positive aspect, and “anger”. The first five options are roughly equivalent to “like” if one thinks carefully about it. In social sciences, these would all be grouped together as a “like” too. The “sadness” emoticon can be variously used for gentle disagreement when the user doesn’t want to say anything in comments, doesn’t want to indicate they feel anger, or does not have a better option to show they do not like the advertisement or posting. However, this emotion is also related to caring. Oftentimes, and more clearly, people will use the “sadness” option to show they are caring, actually feeling a sadness for someone or something, or that they agree with the sentiment of the post that is expected to provoke sadness in others. Use of this emoticon in these scenarios is akin to “liking” yet again. Importantly this is clear, whereas, using it to disagree is unclear. This means when analytic data is gathered from marketing it can be used to indicate that there is a positive engagement for whatever interaction happened, regardless of the way it was used. So going through our list of 7 options, six of six so far really are likes. They would be used that way. Businesses, again, don’t want to share data on dislikes.

Let’s now consider the seventh option, which really is the last. You have to look through six options that are all akin to “like” before that one is seen. Sometimes its position in the list is forgotten. If one really disagrees with a post, or dislikes a post, even if not very strongly, it appears this is the only option available to use, to make it clear what one feels. But it is too strong. This means most will be disinclined to use “anger” except in very few circumstances. This means that if we analyze the use of the emoticons we would find that very few are expressing their natural disagreements or dislikes at all, and are rarely choosing “anger” as their way of expressing it. This means it gets chosen unoften. There would be a good balance between the uses of “like” and “dislike”, meaning that the seventh option would be selected very often, and nearly as often as “like”, if not more often. In order for the public to express their true feelings of dislike, they only have one option. They have six for “like” and one for “intense dislike”. It should be obvious to the reader at this point that Facebook is simply controlling interactions to report “likes” for businesses.

While one can choose to provide information in comment boxes, this information is likely ignored largely for reporting purposes; or, if not ignored, reports concerning comments can simply be omitted from being used. This means both Facebook and Businesses can choose to share reporting information with others, including investors, that simply excludes comment data. Instead they share the larger amount of data including public selections of sentiment. It is important that when someone selects their option in the list of like and emoticons, they are directly choosing the sentiment themselves. This could be used to show that people who clicked really did feel the way they did when they clicked it.

This is very different than comment information. Comment information can be analyzed by sentiment analysis tools and AI. When I was working at Adobe Systems, responsible for selling their software and architecting solutions for partners and customers, there was a sentiment analysis tool that we offered. This tool, Adobe Social, would examine text from users and report the emotional summary of what was entered. It was intended to reach into all social media, but Facebook created a policy eventually that blocked it’s ability to connect to their specific data. Facebook decided it did not want external software to scan it’s comments. There may be many reasons for making this decision, but one reason of interest might be that they don’t want to use that data anyways, because it could be used again, to report negative sentiments more accurately. Additionally, since users directly chose their sentiments themselves, this data is more valuable because there is less risk of a faulty tool falsely reporting sentiments. But more importantly it give Facebook more control over the user to ensure they can only select one of seven options in reporting sentiment. This means very likely that even though Facebook users can say anything they want in the comment fields, the preference would be to simply use what appears most positive in reporting. That would be the likes and emoticon entries selected by the users themselves, constrained to have only 7 options, 6 of which are likes only. This is attractive to businesses because their reporting would then only reflect positive interest. Comment data can be then ignored, and negative comments could be excluded, or considered uncertain because there is not an automated tool checking for sentiment in that way, by an external provider, that might not do it correctly, or in any case, would provide more negative information than would be wanted by businesses.

Imagine if negative comments were automatically scanned by AI to lower ratings of businesses on Yelp, Google, or other systems providing ratings. Businesses certainly would not want that. Instead they want more control over removing negative feedback, to keep a pristine image, even if that pristine image is a false one. Again, that’s like wanting five star reviews, even if the buyers of the product or viewers of marketing have negative thoughts about it, and may have provided comments or data in writing that suggests they had negative experiences or dislike the offerings.

It is unfortunate that this type of marketing control carries over in Facebook to conversations. Because there are few ways to choose sentiment for control over data for businesses, there are few options for choosing genuine sentiments in relating to other people. People are unable to dislike as much as they do, and if they do choose to dislike, are prone to over exaggerate by selecting the “anger” sentiment.

There could be one additional very harmful side effect to this arrangement in the software. It could be that Facebook not only does not want reporting of negative sentiment, they may not want people on their platform who express negative feelings.

Another purpose of Adobe Social and other sentiment analysis tools is to scan for text that indicates problem people. This is not only used potentially in social media, but at work. It also uses social media to gain information about employees. An example I remember at work is that Human Resources at a company may want to know, or to validate, that an employee suddenly has a very negative mindset, or is harmful in various ways. They may use it as a kind of health check on employees. If an employee is identified using software to be erratic on social media, expressing too much anger or even hatred, the business may plan to contact the employee to do a “check up” of sorts. They may even choose to fire on the basis of poor information. This is part of brand protection. If an employee is suddenly expressing hate, or seems to be acting poorly online, even if not at work, they may seek to self-protect the business by firing the employee. It is unfortunate but this is really how companies are seeking to use sentiment analysis software. They’ve been doing this for a long time now too. It was about ten years ago that I was exposed to Adobe Social and it is anticipated that this technology has been greatly expanded by major software providers.

But companies working on marketing businesses want to show a polished and nearly perfect image of them, in order to ensure they want to continue doing business. They would not want to mine user interactions in writings of users to see if there is negative feelings. They wouldn’t want to use that to impact their ratings. Again, they want to control their ratings to have a perfect image. In order to do that they would want to use Facebook reporting on controlled sentiments. This makes Facebook very desirable even though it controls the user in what they can input. Unfortunately there are huge social side effects to this since it is also desirable that the user has consistent interactions between businesses and other people on Facebook– there would even be a desire to confuse users into using only positive interactions everywhere to ensure they continue to do so when they are also confused that they are commenting on an advertisement. Some have complained that Facebook has created a system in which postings from businesses excessively resemble postings from friends. I’ve often commented or clicked “like” to things that looked like they were shared by friends or acquaintances, only to notice afterwards that they were really postings shared by Facebook advertising for social influencers I don’t know, and businesses and groups I did not ask to see. Oftentimes these are personalized so it looks like things I would sign up for, but instead Facebook Advertising is simply smart enough to show me things it knows I might be interested in from interactions elsewhere.

Returning to the point about not wanting folks on social media who are negative, consider if a Facebook user very often chooses the angry emoticon. They actually would be a negative impact on their business and reporting. Very likely Facebook would scan for users who use that emoticon and treat them differently, and potentially more frequently lock their accounts. Many have told me about “Facebook Jail”, which is simply a temporarily disabled Facebook account due to bad behavior. I have not ever been in Facebook Jail, or had my Facebook account locked, due to bad interactions. Overwhelmingly my reactions and communications on Facebook are positive, and that may be a reason I’ve never experienced this personally. I post extremely often and have had many disagreements, yet I have not ever been targeted as someone to have their account temporarily locked. It could be that those who have been locked out of their accounts exhibited unwanted behavior enough times with angry reactions that they are desirable for purging.

Consider if businesses could choose to have anyone who would rate their companies low removed from social media platforms, such that their ratings remained high?

Since Facebook already eliminated what is needed to balance liking with disliking, which is as frequent a sentiment if not more frequent, it isn’t absurd to think they would take actions to lock or eliminate unwanted users damaging their advertising revenue.

Before concluding, let’s consider the importance of the minimal selection of sentiment related options provided for disliking, versus liking postings. If Facebook wanted to provide you with an opportunity to share yourself truthfully, they would provide a means for you to share your sentiments accurately, whatever they are. If six of seven sentiments provided are equivalent to liking, correcting that issue would require at least five more sentiments equivalent to disliking. Wouldn’t that seem like a dramatic change on Facebook? It would greatly change the experience. But it would also greatly increase the truth of the sentiments everyone can provide in their postings that they hope reflect their minds. Users really do want to be able to provide negative-ish feedback and ratings. What is the use of a rating system for businesses if one cannot state what one’s less satisfactory experiences were, in a way that the businesses would have to deal with?Since this action has not been taken, to provide a way to give true sentiments, one’s feelings are skewed. This has impacted millions of users of Facebook– all users in fact.

All users of Facebook have been skewed in all that they’ve done!

To conclude, it appears that Facebook has been able to increase its profits by providing businesses protection from negative feedback. This protection utilizes a sentiment gathering tool, that is the same tool used for regular communication. This communication crosses into normal discourse and private conversations with family, friends, and acquaintances on their messenger application. This application is touted as a kind of replacement for telephone and text messaging functionality on cell phones. Many rely on it. Many have private conversations on it. Their conversations and special messages were skewed towards the positive artificially, simply to train the users to use the same methods as they talk with businesses. Their communication then is on a business-driven pathway, not a personal pathway.

It has made all communication on Facebook falser and more dishonest. It has created a situation in which all the history of communication on Facebook between regular people is less true. Minds on Facebook were steered to falsity and fake sentiments.

Changing and Partly Disusing the Phrase “I am”

Monday, November 20th, 2023

To Add

Brain Dividedness as an Outcome of Non-Synonymous Multilingualism

Monday, November 20th, 2023

To Add

The Need to Finally Understand Whale and Dolphin Brains

Monday, November 20th, 2023

To Add

Updates to the Solution Regarding Wetness in the Field Study on Homelessness and Wealthy Camping

Monday, November 20th, 2023

Following the prior notes regarding solutioning for camp wetness, the following was completed:

From the experience of using these solutions for two days it appears the strategy for remaining completely dry is nearly complete. It was noticed that the poncho material, however, is still inadequate for rain protection, since it does not provide enough material. It is adequate for the upper body but could not be used as a cover for the sleeping bag. It was considered that an additional poncho costing roughly two dollars may completely cover remaining needs, but if not, additional plastic material will be obtained to cover any remaining unprotected areas needing it. The feet are to be covered with simple bags tied above the ankle as was done when the author was a child. This is expected to provide adequate dryness to shoes and feet, and there are additional socks in case any wetness penetrates the bags. Additionally, it was considered that the shoes and socks can simply be removed for a period of intense downpour to briefly escape any risk of getting shoes and socks wet. Shoe wetness is especially important to avoid, so this requires additional consideration and testing for feasibility.

You are an organism, and you have organelles

Saturday, November 18th, 2023

To add

Religion as the slowest education pathway with the least iterations

Saturday, November 18th, 2023

To add

Plans for resolving some specific aforementioned homelessness and wealthy camping issues

Saturday, November 18th, 2023

The primary areas of immediate interest for resolution relate to clothing and controlling for wetness and cleanliness in a shortage. Currently I have two pairs of shorts, two t-shirts, one hoodie, a sleeping bag, 7 pairs of socks, and a sleeping bag. One t-shirt, one pair of shorts, the sleeping bag, and 5 pairs of socks are saturated and dirty, and are accumulating stench, at the early stages, being bag kept.



Of the above, plainly, making wetness an impossibility appears to solve all the issues of concern. Until there was an adverse event of wetness, there was no perceived issue maintaining homelessness at all, in the Miami Beach environment. Dirtiness of clothing and the sleeping bag was due only to the wetness. The inability of the clothes to be dried immediately is what resulted in storage in bags, without air transfer, resulting in their becoming increasingly smellier. Before that, clothes could be worn for seemingly indefinite periods without any need for cleaning. This implies laundromats only come to mind in this context once wetness has ocurred.

The wetness then is primary. Now that clothing availability was halved, specifically due to the saturation, there is increased risk to well-being, because any additional wetness would create a funding requirement to buy more clothes quickly. Particularly since no method for immediately finding suitable replacement clothing for free, with good appearance, has been identified.

Since the clothing has been saturated there is an immediate need to clean and dry them and the sleeping bag. However, skies are cloudy. Weather indicates low chance of extended showers for approximately one week. Reports are changing increasing the probability of showers, showing earlier entirely clear skies, and recently changing, to show partly cloudy skies, with a ten percent chance of rain every day for the week. At the end of the week, showers are expected.

Right now, it is unwanted to use funds for laundry. So I must examine options.

Don’t utilize a laundromat.

Utilize a laundromat.

What is the larger cost of an 8 dollar deduction?

That is a question for later consideration.

Backup Tasks

Friday, November 17th, 2023


Friday, November 17th, 2023

In the ongoing study on the relationships between homelessness and wealthy camping, I’ve identified some areas of interest for further examination. Without a resolution to some of these issues, total comfort even for the wealthy homeless, those studying homelessness with experiential field work, those taking camping extremely seriously in order to attain maximal mastery, and the homeless themselves, would not be entirely possible. The level of comfort I’m working towards is normal comfort. The same level of comfort that would exist in a normal mode of living, which is simply that style of living that includes a normal home dwelling, normal financial status, and a normal level of access to assets and various public services. Also is the normal level of access to electronics, electronic charge, batteries, and so on. Also is the normal level of appearance and health, which requires clothing and shoes that have a good appearance.

The following issues must be solved:

Solving of the above issues would result in - Perpetual basic food access with diversity of nutrition. - Perpetuation of basic water access. - Elimination of the need of any kind of shelter whatsoever. - Ability to work. - A calculation of earning capacity through requests for donations.

Some items above may be less essential than others. For example, it might not be necessary to find employment. For some employment is impossible, so the plan must include a strategy for living well without employment.

It appears requests for donations is potentially totally required, if one is to avoid engaging in theft. However, it may be that free food sources that exist utilizing scavenging may still be sufficient to cover most needs that are funding related.

For the present conditions in the study, defense against weather seems most important. The study is now taking place at Miami Beach, Florida, a former place of residence of the author. Conditions in Miami Beach are very optimal for homelessness. Comfort is often easily achievable. However, if it rains for an extended period, quickly temperatures are decreased and ability to remain dry is made difficult. Waiting through long rainy periods while businesses are closed creates long periods of waiting, with diminished access to resources. Recently the author had an unplanned experience having many possessions flooded. This was due to lack of planning and unexpected change of weather during sleep. Risks to the homeless do include decision making mistakes and mistakes due to lack of training. This means solutions for the homeless would need to include training for strong proficiency of self-management during the entire range of potential conditions faced, and this training would be not unlike the training gained by those who join the military forces, who become field practitioners.

It is very likely that the most adept homeless people would include those who were in the military and received training already.

Homeless simulating wealthy campers would be at more risk of disaster in unexpected circumstances. These travelers may have satellite devices that are popular nowadays that include an option for SOS, or signaling for help if there is an emergency. The homeless do not typically have this and would need to begin to ask for assistance if there are issues. It is already known that issues and complications in the outback areas, forests, remote territories, and so on, would create situations in which emergency response would be supportive or necessary. Pilots are aware of this and so are seamen. It doesn’t appear that anyone who has received training in any of the areas in which emergency conditions are sought to be avoided with planning expect to have so much planning that emergency could not occur. So it appears there is another fundamental need of the homeless, to have very clear emergency assistance pathways that do not create additional risks.

Warfare Census and Demographics

Prepared: Tuesday, November 14th, 2023

To Add

Falsifications and Infeasibilities of Histocial Methodology and Practice

Prepared: Tuesday, November 14th, 2023

To Add

Wealthy and Luxuriant Beach Camping

Prepared: Tuesday, November 14th, 2023

To Add

Aimless Behavior and Work-Labor

Prepared: Tuesday, November 14th, 2023

To Add

Broadening Synonyms of Anti-Prejudice

Prepared: Monday, November 13th, 2023

To Add

Common Retirement Struggles, Part I

Prepared: Monday, November 13th, 2023

To Add

Reinterpreting the Role of Normalcy in Morality, and the Relationship to Determinism

Prepared: Monday, November 13th, 2023

To Add

Stock in Nations and Single Combined Retirement and Basic Income Accounts

Prepared: Monday, November 13th, 2023

To Add

The Full Extent of Marketing Practices and Making It Identical with Education

Prepared: Monday, November 13th, 2023

To Add

Public Blood Storage and Replacement Stations

Prepared: Monday, November 13th, 2023

To Add

Oblivion in the Afterlife as Contrary to Equality, and Being Aligned with Hate

Saturday, November 11th, 2023

The duration of our lives is well understood. We know well we will live anytime from conception to approximately 130 years as a maximum. Most will die between the ages of 60 and 90 years old. But that is not what we are told is the true duration of our lives, if we are religious. If we are religious, we are told additionally we have forever.

Taking the duration of our lives that we know we have, to be a fraction over forever, the current life is really nearly nothing. As time goes on, it becomes negligible, nearly nothing. Consider after one million years, our life over the afterlife might be:

75/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000… years

Equality hasn’t been established in our current life. But if the afterlife is taken from other groups, we are saying they are more unequal than people may have considered. Those with the afterlife have everything, people without have nothing.

Saying other cultures and groups are not going to make it to “heaven”, are not going to have an afterlife, are not going to have a continued life of that length, really means all they get is that fractional amount, that is nearly nothing. Everyone else has a continuing durable life that goes on forever.

By claiming that a group is a “chosen people”, or a “select few”, who will make it to the afterlife, while everyone does not, is a real genocide, if the afterlife is real. Everyone dies, but the few keep living. It is worse than merely shortening life from 75 years to 40 years and younger for a large group, or exterminating a group. They then only lost some few number of years. But by saying that all but a select few will have an oblivion at about 75 years old, they lost:

999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,965… years. Plus forever.

The afterlife might then be considered a form of hatred. It is exclusive in each religion. Everyone who is not in the select few are purged. They have oblivion. Nobody else dies!

Our current systems of religion are immoral. They do not really support equality, if they really believe in the afterlife the way they say they do. Cultures and peoples and religions simply cannot have the same rewards, if some are said to have oblivion approaching as something deserved.

It is strange that people could have believed in cultural and religious equality without discrimination(!), if they believe that some live forever, while everyone else does not.

Introduction to Mensa Sweden Under the Gaming Theme

Prpared: Friday, November 10th, 2023

To add

Color Palettes for Social Justice-Comfort

Prpared: Friday, November 10th, 2023

to add

Every animal is deformed already

Prpared: Friday, November 10th, 2023

to add

Cloud Surfaced Earth Hypothesis

Prpared: Friday, November 10th, 2023

to add

On Partial Self-Marketing Removing Propaganda

Tuesday, November 6rd, 2023

To what extent does anyone posting on social media have to become like a marketer to be heard.

On Instagram, TikTok and so on, it seems influencers and posters gravitate to becoming a sort of “false excitement” type to gain influence.

I don’t want to excessively fault this behavior. Instead, I’m curious here what is necessary to have attention.

How does this support folks here? Well, those who are very intelligent might have a distaste for advertising and marketing, since there is a convergence of false enthusiasm and false messaging. People here might want intellectual conversation and may want to present messages that are of good quality and length, well delivered, without a propagandist methodology.

This relates somewhat to my earlier video post here. If one becomes a marketer of sorts with one’s personal messaging, one may begin to decline one’s communications. Quality goes down, becomes less reflective of intelligence. It becomes more reflective of working towards popularity. Popularity including with those who might not understand the full messages from one’s mind.

I’ve decided in my Book and Journal, and postings to various locations, not to follow this path in self-marketing. I’m a supporter of the idea that one can self-market, and should, in order to find a good career pathway. I’ve been successful at that.

Beyond normal career pathways, if one is wanting attention, on the media and in social technologies, one works differently. One becomes more interested in doing something that will catch attention with excitement. Perhaps with tricks, teasers, and underdelivery. Pretending to be bigger than one really is. Pretending to have a quality of life and intellect that is less than it is. Pretending to have something more to teach than one really has.

Instead of this, I want to have conversations. Occasionally, I’ll exhibit my lifestyle and current thoughts, like a normal logger. But what I don’t want to do is start to share my life in a way that is becoming increasingly more like a false media personality. Or an advertiser wanting attention and other related things in return, like money, without providing anything of durable interest.

Instead I’d like to just keep working steadily on providing value. I want it to be consistent with my mindset and manner of thinking.

Software Tasks

Monday, November 6rd, 2023


Study of One’s Symptoms as Knowledgeable Symptomology

Even the very smallest sensations can be classified as symptoms. What is your digestive tract doing, as a result of the foods you were recently eating, over the last few days? If your digestion is uncomfortable, that is a sensation that might be considered a symptom of what was eaten in conjunction with the state of your digestive system and related organs. If your digestion is more comfortable than usual, you may have more pleasant feelings in your digestive tract. Maybe you feel emptier and lighter than usual, and perhaps you feel as though an upcoming movement will be easy. You may know what you ate and perhaps you deliberately chose your foods to have a better digestive experience. In this case, again, you experience sensations that reflect the state of your system, that could be considered symptoms relating to the combination of your digestive processes and your eating.

Even your thought may be considered part of the symptomology of sensations. We need not call thinking sensations, but we can see the interrelationship easily. If one ate well, had good feelings in the digestive tract, and then experienced some happiness at one’s choice, one’s positive mood and temporary elatedness or comfort, then those feelings, thoughts and experience too fit into the symptomology.

In Psychology symptoms are mental. In Physiology, they are more generally biological. Physiological symptoms, or all symptoms of any kind, are sensations that relate to a combination of situation and bodily state, and choices about how one conducts one’s life. This includes decisions about how one conducts oneself in feeding behavior. What is eaten and when, and how that fits with one’s knowledge of one’s own physiological system.

Even digestion is a part of moral planning. If one eats and lives well, has positive digestive sensations often, or very frequently, one knows this improves happiness, confidence, well-being, and long term health. These influence how one performs in athletics, work, and longevity. Longevity is connected some think with excellences in how one has lived, although it is known that that is not necessarily all it’s about. However, if one is planning for good health with reasonable longevity, one can take better care of family, friends, and has opportunity to provide mentorship later in life to others as a teacher and elder.

If one’s digestive system deteriorates, then one will surface new sensations. These sensations may include some that are interesting and mildly desirable. Some sensations may be negative, and more connected with what one would expect from a medical condition or ailment. Both positive and negative or wanted and unwanted sensations come along with various conditions and diseases. It would be a mistake to think conditions do not offer opportunities for self-examination sometimes, and learning creates the chance for expanded self-knowledge and potentially better health in the future. One sometimes learns to have a better diet after learning that a health pathway resulted in a real diagnosable condition came to exist. It certainly had some negative and positive sensations associated. The full combination of results that one notices from one’s experience would figure into a comprehensive symptomology of human experience.

I wanted this posting to not only be about encapsulating experience in symptoms, understood as sensations, but to communicate an additional message about the usefulness of this perspective in medical history.

Currently doctors collect and record information in such a way that they may be expecting and anticipating language about sensations that are closer to diagnostics. They may not be using the word sensation. Instead they may be asking about your experience with a readiness to classify them already as negative symptoms. If you talk to a Psychologist, they may already be lead by their industry to hear for dysfunction. Perhaps you are having experiences and sensations related to sleep experience. While you tell them your experiences, you might both be ready to conclude something like “It appears you are depressed.” Instead, I think it is possible to let a doctor know that whatever is discussed is mixed between positive and negative. It includes positive sensations and negative ones. If one is accurate, one merely relays one’s experience without concluding anything as to even symptoms. This article states that a total symptomology could be considered more detailed if it focuses more specifically on sensations. However, the medical profession has not adopted this point of view. Within this view there are positive and negative symptoms. Within the medical profession, this is not what is expected. So here what I’m saying is that until that time, it may be better for people to let doctors know that they are not talking about symptoms but positive and negative sensations, with less immediate interpretation in relation to conditions and diseases.

Doctors are the creators of medical records usually. You arrive at the doctor’s office, they interview you and look you over. You talk. The doctor quickly writes things down. These things written are in the language expected by the medical profession and that language may not support your long term interests. Sometimes, they may fail to translate your speaking accurately. They may even record your experiences as symptoms. They may build a case that something is wrong with you when there is not anything wrong at all. So doctors, being the recorders of your medical history, do so in a way that doesn’t necessarily include your written input, may include expectations built into the medical industry, and may go into permanent medical and personal history with erroneous information or assumptions.

It seems thinking about this that one might want more control on what gets recorded. I have not experimented with this yet personally, but it may be possible to bring in writing that would go into the medical history on arrival. Write the experiences down, and ensure that those writings are gathered along and filed with anything that is written down. Medical data input into systems is also out of your control. You may want your medical records after a visit, so you can confirm that their entered data includes your writings that you brought along. Also, you may have opportunity to review the doctor’s notes. They are yours and you paid for them. You have the chance to explain miscommunications and make corrections. If they don’t accept your reading of their documents with a readiness to alter and correct them, they almost certainly are not operating in your interests. In that case they merely want to control your medical history without receiving your input, even if there are errors. The preservation and enforcement of retaining errors in medical records is not consistent with oaths and vows of medical professionals to never do you harm.

It is your living history in your medical records. Here it is suggested that perhaps it is more in your control than might be anticipated. Here it is also suggested that what you share can be both positive and negative intermixed, concerning your sensations. With a sophisticated view about human symptomology, you may be able to dodge the false or erroneous recording of information and symptoms you don’t have, that could lead to independent diagnosis that is incorrect.

The cause of my thinking and recording this information was a recent conversation with myself about sensations. I noticed that sensations are symptoms, and that they cover all experience one might have that is wanted or unwanted. Seeing that symptomology has a diagnostic focus, from my learnings in college, in the field of Psychology and Biology, and some medicine, I noticed how it might be helpful for everyday doctor visits that everyone has. I hope this has been helpful to expand potentially the idea of symptoms to sensations and thinking, to perhaps broaden our ideas about symptomology that may allow us to have more accurate, rewarding, and self-protected experiences with doctors. It may help us better self-examine and understand ourselves too.

The Replacement of Pascal’s False Wager is Easy

Sunday, November 5rd, 2023

People remember “Pascal’s Wager” and use it again and again, thinking it authoritative. However, it is foolish, old, and meant to confuse and manipulate. People simply remember it, and keep pretending they can use it as an authority of sorts. There is no such authoritativeness. That it can be recollected so easily is really a kind of halt on civilization.

The replacement is basic. Firstly, people simply decide yes/no regarding the afterlife. They use no probabilities at all. However, probabilities could be used, to demonstrate they are unavailable for a reason. First I will share the main decision tree without probabilistic thinking. Then I will share the decision tree with probabilistic thinking. You have to add in the probabilities, doing work. Probabilities don’t require no work at all. You must actually find the probability, or estimate it using evidence, and then use it. But really, the way people actually do this is they’ve chosen ‘yes/no’ already.

What you do or not after selecting one path or the other revels few action options. If the afterlife is true, you choose it, and do whatever it takes. Otherwise you are a fool. If the afterlife is false, and you choose it, you are a fool, doing whatever it takes to secure nothing. If you choose against it, you wisely have a true life.

The truth is not optional.

Yes/No Decision Tree, and Outcomes

That’s really done.

Probabilistic Decision Tree

Now some think there might be a probability of the afterlife, so let’s do one more:

Probabilistic Decision Tree

The tricky part is what to do if you think there are probabilities to fill in. Afterlives in the religion are said to be hard to have. This means you may need to allocate a lot of time/effort to securing the afterlife, doing all that is necessary to have it, only on a 50% probability, if that’s what you think it is. This may explain why people pretend there is an afterlife for sure and do very little, while thinking they should life life “to the fullest” without becoming preists, monks, nuns and so on.

I would be interesting in how people can say exactly how they know already how to behave with different percentiles filled in.

Hypothesis: they don’t know.

Hypothesis: true human behavior is really more like the first decision tree, they just suffer uncertainty.

It appears to me the correct pathway is number one. I assign a zero probability to the afterlife, understanding the fictionality of it. I assign a 100% probability to having no afterlife. Thus it becomes a simple decision with a true/false pathway. The best options are the first pathways in that decision tree.

Other variants of this could be created but I’m confident results are the same.

The Idea of Lobbing in Business and Intelligence

Sunday, November 5rd, 2023

In business, there is a concept called “lobbing”. “Lobbing” happens when a person, or group in a business, identifies a task that can easily be performed and simply passes it to another person or group, instead of doing it. When this happens, one might think “Who can do this task I or we don’t want to do myself or ourselves? Who else can have responsibility for it? Who can be accountable for this instead of me or us?” The recipient often sees this clearly, but sometimes, the work is simply performed and completed. It was someone else’s work.

It’s like someone “lobbed” a hand grenade to someone else or another group. If not a hand-grenade, a ball or some object. It is metaphorical of course. Minimal effort is carried out and it is simply “chucked” to the other group or person.

I’d like to extend or play with this concept a bit further and use it for things it isn’t strictly normally used for. Let’s use this term in social media. It doesn’t really fit the original usage, but has the laziness of “lobbing” I like. It also has the “take-creditness of it”. It also has the pretense of having done the work by delegating, using someone else, and doing minimal effort to get some special perceived reward.

In business what gets lobbed might be something like an idea that one will take credit for later. You can pretend you delegated it if you lob it over. So now an idea or task was carried out, that you can even pretend you or your group “thought of first”.

There are some in the high intelligence social communities who do little more than lob. They don’t share there thoughts that are really their own. They don’t use their own words. They don’t do their own research. But again and again, they’ll lob memes, they’ll lob the research of others, and they’ll lob questions to groups. They’ll mine answers. They’ll use people in the group and pretend they are “members” somehow. The person who made the lob takes credits for the thoughts of high quality thinkers. Often it is unclear if they are good thinkers themselves. They use the writings and thoughts of others and present them as their own.

This is so common, one might really get confused and think that these “lobbists” really are as intelligent as they portray themselves to be. They’ll pretend the thoughts and findings of others, and memes, are like the thoughts that go through their own minds. But being poor at expressing their unique thoughts, rarely doing so, they haven’t communicated their own thoughts. They lobbed over, or “chucked” into the group, something from someone else, or some other group. They do it again and again. Sometimes if one wants to see the thoughts of the person or people doing this, you cannot find them.

I wrote about the need to demonstrate one’s own work and actual thought with productions. I did a long interview concerning the detection of giftedness in communication. If one has intelligent thinking, independent communication in one’s own mind is happening, at high velocity of creativity and significance. If that thinking is real, communication pathways people have, will express the same kind of thinking. If instead, the people lob thoughts of others, they really are potentially scam artists. The writing below is an interview about this topic in which it is discussed the detection of high intelligence scam artists. One red-flag to be used in the detection, is impoverished unique communication, evidenced extensively in lobbing. Uniform lobbing is a sign of fraud.

One might think that this might not be true, but then only one forgets one’s work life. If one at work is really only stealing, only lobbing, and never exhibiting talents and thoughts that supposedly are of a quality that they claim exists in their heads, they are doing fraud at work. If you haven’t experienced this, that is a point of confusion to me. It would also indicate, you aren’t aware that this happens.

In these communities, I will continue to use the word “lob”. You’re a “lobb artist” might be something that I’ll state, from time to time. Trolls are not the only issues in groups. These frauds that just keep lobbing are pretending to be intelligent very likely. The frequency of lobs is under consideration. Sometimes people will of course share memes and thoughts of others. When a pattern of behavior is evident, it appears fraud is possible. They plagiarize and seldom do anything that’s their own.

Obviously I could be targeted for the same, and expect it. But an important issue is that I’ve shared enough that it is obvious that I’m immune to this. I hope others immunify themselves as well, with honest and genuine, original thinking.

Naturalistic Description of Attention

An area of Moral Philosophy that I’ve spent quite a lot of time over the years developing is the management of attention. I’ve written much on this topic, and have worked hard on developing my own attention, with considerable success. However, I noticed I have not spent much time writing a naturalistic description of normal attention in human beings.

It is clear to me, particularly observing differences between myself and others, having undergone already considerable development, that such a treatment does not exist and has not been made available to people, so that they can see what normal attention consists of, and how they might want to control it in various ways in order to improve their own behavior. Improvement of behavior relates to truly embodying moral and religious characteristics, and not only speaking about them. Education relates to self-training, and people certainly can and do improve themselves often, but that improvement does not have the scope or specificity of the kind of self alteration at the psychological level that I’m speaking about.

This is not a long posting like some others I’ve been sharing. Instead of going into various areas of needs for a description of natural attention, I’ll list some areas in which we are certainly impoverished for not having this work, and the work I’ve been preparing for several decades.

One: What is natural sexual attention and its relationships to relationships and their maintenance and need for dissolving?

Think of how relationships can live and die due to attention? And that there is little guidance.

Two: Attention as it relates to “tells” or “social cues” about how one thinks and behaves for real, and privacy.

Three: Attention as it relates to self-organization, and efforts to more globally improve one’s life.

Here, I can point the reader to a special work of mine, of data collections on my own attention and behavior over the years. Follow the link below to my binder of personal data, and look particularly at how it expanded until the end. It was very well developed at the end.

This is a large document and takes some time to download, but is worth it. Let me know if you have trouble with it and I can find an alternative way to send it. Image scans can also be seen in the last section of this page:

A primary finding was that hard work is required to track the categories of living. This relates to how we manage and organize our attention. Much is omitted from these data forms because of the time to fill them out. But beyond this, there is limited amount of thinking time in the day. An implication is that we have not trained our attention fully to scan our lives in the various categories to really develop them all in parallel. If you think I’m incorrect, consider if people are able to maintain their athletics over the years, jointly with family management, relationship management, work, financial management, health, nutrition, skills for cooking, resting, meditating, etc… You’ll see that they are universally not uniformly well-developed in combination. Instead people seem to be able to focus on a few categories and not them all. Believe it or not, that is due to limitations on attention, and inability to develop attention and time management further, in a way that results in efficiencies and motivations that ensures parallel development of all life categories.

Thinking of me as a very old person is appropriate

In the High Intelligence Community, and in psychometrics, some still discuss the origins of IQ and it’s original meaning that is the cause for the abbreviation, relating to “Inteligence Quotient”. That quotient is no longer used, but still, we have the lingering history of meaning built into the acronym IQ, that really does still stand for that same phrase.

In the phrase “Intelligence Quotient” is the word “Quotient”, which one would recognize from school years as implying division, and fractions. The original quotient related to one’s mental age, versus one’s actual age. The actual nomenclature was “Mental age over Chronological Age”. The idea was that, if measing children in particular for giftedness, one would consider where there mind seems to fit in relation to their peers at different ages. Precocious children seem much more like older children in various ways relating to their mental abilities, although any parent or educator will tell you, they still are children of their own age in many important ways. But the idea is still useful and interesting for detecting which children might be especially gifted, as certain mental abilities are unlocked earlier, likening them more to older peers than children their own age. Various causes for separation from other children come to exist. They are too unlike children their age and very similar to children older than them. They are somewhat at risk of children their own age, and somewhat at risk to children their age.

When I was a child, I too was identified as being gifted, and was briefly raised a grade level. Behaviorally, though, in many ways, I liked to play and sport with peers very close in age. Sporting does not call for being elevated in grade level. Instead, for youths, one wants to play sports with those who are physically more equivalent, or physically unfairnesses come to exist. While I excelled at sports, in retrospect I wonder how much my comparative abilities related to actual physical talents. I had them, but I think perhaps mental abilities came to the fore there too, making it possible to excel with less perhaps. I state this without diminishing too much my physical gifts, because they are extensive. But I was never especially tall, large, or effortlessly dominantly strong. Strengths related to mental energy and mental exertions and endurance, that created good growth potential.

Mentally however, I was very unusual. I got along with peers, but remained intermixed with the regular student population, despite being placed in gifted and talented, partly because of parental decision making. I enjoyed my peers to a great extent anyways, too. But there was always a strange separateness.

In friendships I would do most of the talking. Later, it became obvious listening was limited in friends and close connections. I was typically the driving force in conversation and activities with peers.

I had an odd interest in pleasing adults. This lead to being strangely formal, careful, and patient. My skills in adulthood with various social formalities were not really learned as an adult but were already instilled probably as an elementary aged child. I would work very hard to please adults, and over time recognized a great futility in that effort. I was challenging of the views of instructors and that seldom was received positively. I had a scientific mindset as a young person and discussed sensitive topics dispassionately and scientifically. As an adult I still cannot understand extremely the causes for wanting to avoid topics that simply can be discussed like a doctor would. Discussions with peers on topics of sensitivity like sex life and so on were very easy for this reason, and I was a source of knowledge and positive mentorship, very early in life. Friends felt they could talk over these topics with me without receiving any shame or embarassment. As children I think it is easier to “turn off” sensitivities if the method of presentation feels scientific and matter of fact, and non-sensitive, but caring. This may be true in adulthood too, but probably a certain portion of the population shuts down due to increased sensitivity. My openness in face-to-face conversation is still appreciated by others. It doesn’t appear to be well appreciated in a text based context, where sophistication in social cues and interpersonal emotion management is missing. I had very strong emotion management skills as a kid and could easily guide others to positive, honest, and humorous experiences, that were gentle, kind, and professional almost. This aided me in my career and in any job I ever performed.

Since I was intermixed with the standard population of children, it would not be easy for an outsider to immediately distinguish my mental traits from those of my peers. Simply looking, I looked like a kid like anyone else, and so, there was nothing incredibly special to witness unless one cared enough to observe closely. My giftedness in schools came up sometimes for GT meetings, but largely waned as school years passed on. I had much more attention in elementary school than later, where awareness of my GT status must have been much more known. Less kids, and better information sharing about fewer children.

This posting isn’t really about my life as a kid though. Only to mention that at that age, there were mental traits that certainly were more like adults than a kid. These were separable from physical traits that were normal for my age, and since that is more connected to visual “sizing up” of people, physical traits overtook mental traits in comparisons.

As an teenager and adult, I was still oddly more interested in people older than myself. I still retained long term friendships with friends my age, but still, there was a much greater comfort with older people than younger people. I was always very able to get along with people who were far older in a way that seemed to open conversation that was meant for their peers and not only for me. I would have conversations that were more in their age range, I could feel, and I think I left impressions that they were talking to someone who was older than my appearance would serve to indicate.

More natural friends of mine, and more natural colleague relationships, trended later to be skewed towards people older than me. Physical sporting relationships, still seem to be skills and ability based, so I really still like to work out in gyms and work on fitness amidst people my age, and somewhat younger, because I have been able to maintain good fitness health. But for conversation, which is my main interest in friendship, I greatly prefer time with people who are older than I am, and sometimes much older.

After becoming divorced recently, I discovered that conversation isn’t really as rewarding unless with women who are much older than I am too. I had some few dating and bar-room encounters with much older women. While I’m now celibate, and largely was since divorce, I still enjoy these moments with older women.

Since I’m retired at 42, and have had a career now that’s been elevated early, my recent colleagues, friends, and acquaintances are all older. My life has also gone very far along in experience to be so comprehensive to resemble people in their elderly years. I’ve also had some elderly friends in the High Intelligence Community, because our mode of conversation, interests, and backgrounds align. My very best friends in the High Intelligence Community have all been much older. Some who I have the best conversations with are in their sixties and seventies, and conversation is never out of parity.

Mental Age over Chronological age is certainly a concept that is not distributable across all areas of development. Some traits I had as a teen were like fifty year old men. Particularly regarding manners, when I was showing them fully. Some thinking in Philosophy for example, was perhaps older. In reading I gravitated to older thinkers, like Bertrand Russell, who wrote quite a lot in advanced age. Most of my reading from a particular author was from him. Conversation included a large and developed vocabulary and words and experiences discovered in older writings of older people. This too indicated a sort of mental age that was not commensurate with my own. Physically my athletic age would not correspond to chronological age, but would be younger. Musically, and culturally, I enjoy things that are from the regular population that are sometimes from what youths enjoy. This means I would be conversant in youthful things that would cause one to perhaps say makes me similar to younger people. But this is true of many older people too, and musically I have had intersts in classical since a child too. While friends were listening to rap I was often listening to organ, harpsichord, oboe, or other instrumental music.

Conversation, it appears to me, may really be the best way to understand mental age versus chronological age, and is a cause for wanting to divide children in youth. I’ve written a posting on this, regarding identifying intelligence via the [velocity of significance and ideation] and person demonstrates. As one gets older, or gains more experience more rapidly, being highly intelligent, one increasingly shares messages of greater density and significance. Topics touch on more experience than others would recognize. It becomes harder for people to relate, if there is not a similarity of mental age relating to quantity of experience accumulated. Children who appear to be similar to older kids are those who are gathering experience faster. Later in life these children will become adults who will resemble much older people even while younger.

These days, if I’m looking for excitement, I’m still young enough in appearance to put myself amongst people my age or younger. But if I’m looking for conversation, it’s much more appropriate that I’d be talking to people who are older, and sometimes much older. While they may wonder about having friendship or acqaintanceship with someone who is considerably younger, I don’t feel that same concern. Instead, I just enjoy it and want more of it.

Being someone who has provably immeasurable intelligence, there is even the idea that I would relate well to people who would be even older than is possible for humans to live. People die typically between the ages of 74 and 100 years old. But if someone is very intelligent, then they will gather experience faster, and may resemble would be 110 year olds, 150 year olds and so on. I’ve even likened myself to a vampire in some ways, being serious, taking out the negative aspects of vampiry, like eating people and enjoying blood. Instead, vampires may be very old and look young, and have vastly more experience than their peers-in-apparent age. It’s not a terrible analogy, thinking of highly intelligent people as being peers only in apparent age with those who look like them. Their brains are different and really they have gathered experience that eventually is like the experience of more than one century for others. What is lacking is direct experience, but even these people, like myself, are curious in older things, older books and so on, and will really read them, causing more to be in common with those closer to living in those times. If one focused on reading works from the 1700s, one would have much more in common than would be expected with people who lived, thought, and spoke the same way as those books evidence for us. If someone was alive from the 1700s they would likely enjoy conversing with people who are younger but quite smart who absorbed minds of others from the 1700s through writings.

What is missing from this post is why I think it is quite appropriate to think of me as someone who is significantly older. To think of me as an old person, despite appearances. Some of what relates to that is written above, but more information needs to be provided that is more directly related to that particular point.

More Soon.

Proving determinism with an approach of self-neural inspection in conjuction with introspection

Sunday, October 22th, 2023

Some who are thinking of the topic of free-will versus Determinism have taken the path of physics to at a very small and wide scale demonstrate that the universe is entirely causally explicable, and that this applies to human behavior. While this is interesting, I think oftentimes people on the free-willist side will be enabled to keep seeking refuge in whatever unknowns exist, claiming that somehow freedom is contained there, and that their brains rely on that closely. This delays conversation and proof substantially. This has been done again and again, and in the current day, some will bring up “quantum entanglement” as the are in which the unknowns that exist are pretended to create questions around the non-existence of free-will. The free-will that exists suddenly is somehow explicable in quantum entanglement.

I’m a Determinist that has assumed there is no free-will most of my life. I’ve integrated this view into my behavior, moral perspective, and expectations of others. I’m definitely of the view the Determinism is true, and also that it is easy to demonstrate, and not that hard. While most of my views about that are to be written in a book planned for that, I will share one additional methodology that has an experimental trajectory that is viable, and expected to allow people to gradually see for themselves, observing themselves, that they do not have free-will, and that nonexistence doesn’t hurt them in any way. Rather, it helps them.

The experimental pathway is this. Eventually brain scanning technology is made available to people either via their smartphones or via headset technology like the Oculus 3, or other VR system. The person wears it or has it near. The person also receives some basic training on introspection. While people all have the ability to navigate their own minds, by thinking about how they think and feel, there are certainly big differences between people in their ability to do so.

The brain scanning technology will allow individuals to in real-time see their brain states as they think. This means not only will they be able to think about how they think, and just think, they will be able to see what brain activity is happening for all thoughts. This will enable them to connect their thoughts to their brain states as they happen, and see what changes as their thinking changes.

What is really interesting about this is they will be able in time to see what they appear to be able to change for themselves. They will see how their learning changes their brain, how their reflections result in structural changes. They will see how forgetting might relate to brain structure they remember. Some brain structure went missing or became different! They’ll notice the changes that are happening from sleep. For those with especially good memories, they will be very adept at tracking brain changes as they relate to the thoughts they’ve had.

Here’s where the simplified proof against free-willism comes in. Once noticed, I think intuitively the reader will recognize it illustrates Determinism is true, and that there is nothing that exists that is free-will. One will know what the constraints of change are gradually, and see what slowly changes, and what apparently never changes. They will have emotions, and changes of feeling, and changes of certain thoughts that appear to relate to brain structures that also do not change much in structure or behavior. They’ll see that they can’t change them with thinking any way in particular. They can try, and yet when they observe the brain states, they do not change, and correspondingly, when active, the feelings, sensations, and certain underlying thoughts do not change. This will serve to demonstrate that the degree of constraint of those systems, and a stability of unchange that reveals that they simply don’t have any freedom to alter those systems, or have a greatly diminished ability to control those systems. This experience will also be recognized as something obvious on reflection. Change deltas of people are very small.

Additionally, they will recognize more clearly they cannot just think anything. Their brain will navigate what they know, how they imagine, and they will have feedback showing which brain areas do that again and again. Later, they will recognize what learning does for their brains, and see that those areas were forever unavailable unless they learned them. Thus they will become better at seeing that options for choice are unavailable if there is no brain tissue or states that exist for it. They will get a clearer idea that what is not in the brain is not available for choice. They will get a better idea of what is available for choice and why it is there to begin with. This will reveal the importance of constraint over misconceptions of overly broad freedoms.

The scope of thinking and change in the nervous system will become more apparent. This will allow to define the extent of constraints. The constraints will be seen to be very great. Freedoms one enjoys in regular behavior are unaltered, so constraint begins to appear less an enemy, and just something that is expected and natural, and universal.

Actual causality of thinking will be more related to brain tissue and state. Causality of thinking will be illuminated by being able to introspectively think and see the brain state, and switch to another seeing that brain state. One can then deliberately return to another brain state and see that the brain state really is realted to the causality of those thoughts. One will see how deliberation and selection of thoughts also relates to brain tissue and state.

Not much more needs to be said about this presently in my estimation. The combination of being able to introspectively think and observe one’s brain activity that corresponds will be enough to prove finally that free-will is not real. Instead all is causally determined in animal organisms.

It can also be seen that the discussion of “quantum entanglement” is not necessary and is probably an irrelevance to hold onto a freedom the people think they will lose, that is really illusory. Medical understanding is primarily what is needed to understand that determinism is real. It will be found, unfortunately, that these experiments will seem unnecessary for proof. Everyday self-examination will be shown to always have had sufficient information to convince that causal determinism was true. We are animals that are medically and biologically determined.

[Finished at 4:34 in 23 minutes, semi-blind typed, without edits as part of a study in Editing.]

It is possible to share everything

Sunday, October 22nd, 2023

The meaning of “everything” has to be clarified here. My point relates to the context of this writing, the ThoughtStream, that is a place to share anything I happen to be thinking about. It is a blog page within an Book and Journal, and as a “blog”, it is a web log, but one can think of it simply as a public but personal journal. I have another similar blog page, called SocialNuggets, that is the primary location of all social content that is suitable for social media pages, where informality and media is expected, and not only text. Between the two of those locations and the entire Book and Journal I’ve been striving to share all I can about myself and my thoughts. Many writings, like those that go into a personal journal or diary, are shared in these locations. Diaries include thoughts to selves that are private but not only those that are so private that they could not be shared to others, but simple thoughts of importance to record and hold onto.

But what cannot be shared in these types of writings that are private-like but are also public?

If nobody reads them they feel safer, and of course, personal websites are often unread, or have a low readership. But they are consumed by search engines, tools like AI, and do provide the public a record of something that can be legally used whenever there is a legal contest. I have had legal contests and in one, my public profiles were used against me by my opposition.

It seems as though one cannot share whereabouts of exact current locations. However, in my case I travel, so my location changes often. Sharing something about my whereabouts does not typically provide so much information that one can search and find me with ease. I am not trying to remain elusive necessarily, but this observation is relevant to what can and cannot be shared. If one shares on social media platforms images, oftentimes those images have GPS encoded information that can be used to determine recent locations. Also, my postings tend to have timestamps, or hand written but accurate times logged. This provides information about recent whereabouts. If you post your vacation images someone could potentially travel to go and see you. But few worry about that, and either way, it does not imply that by the time someone seeks you out, you are still there. Posting at your home location may actually provide a way for someone to quickly find you, and legal process servers can and do use that information to find you to serve papers. There may be times in which it is unwise to be that current on social media. However, if I lookat my Book and Journal, and various pages, I see that it includes materials going back to the 1990s. Certainly over 99.9% of the information on the website then, is historical information. This means for those considerations one simply wants to have some minor controls, perhaps, on current details.

Anything on the website can be used for legal purposes, but if one reflects that one already has public social media pages, and a long hisotry of it, one knows that quite a lot of personal information is already out there that vultures can use to try to harm you in various ways. Expanding on that information is successful self-marketing, so self-marketing appears to be at odds with the desire for secrecy. My finding thought is that the infrequency of use of the pages, and my want for having an accurate living autobiography and personal record, greatly outweighs other considerations. Some seem to be hesitant about what they would share in great detail, but consider authors too. They might write many books and share their autobiographies with the effect that they are well known but could be attacked. However, these objectives are goals most would like to achieve if they can. It appears still one can easily share very large amounts of personal information with limited risk, that already exists for almost everyone to an extent.

If much is shared, as it is in my case, it is harder to scan and read and understand. In my legal cases, attorneys chose to use easier locations like LinkedIn and Facebook. Reading through my entire Book and Journal with many hundreds of thousands of words, and many tens of thousands of images, is difficult, costly, and one finds too much that is relevant. Not knowing what is relevant, it is hard to find anything of interest. They did not utilize my website in court.

I have an open identity. I have a chapter in my book called “Open Health and Identity” sharing my medical records, identity files, and many other items of interest for establishing authenticity and identity. There are some claims that public health data cannot be shared, and identity information cannot be shared either. Having a long history sharing this information, I’m confident it has helped rather than hindered, because real risks of utilizing that data results in criminality to others, and hasn’t happened; whereas there have been many situations in which building trust has been needed, and for that purpose I simply shared my records. Again and again you have to share your identity and establish credibility in new relationships, and for that purpose my openness has been useful and successful.

I have a history in computer and data security so I’m aware also of security risks. This is not a posting for that, but in passing I would mention that openness still seems to greatly improve security conditions rather than diminish them.

So what is new regarding this posting about being able to share “everything”?

What has been missing is a way to share personal or business IP information, involving my plans, designs, and information relating to customers I’ve had in the past. Also the sharing of personal notes, that seem to be something worth discarding and keeping. I don’t want to rely on tools from others and strive to use my own. Sometimes I kept simple notes in text files and other places that I did not want to place on my log. However, those tools consume the information sometimes, and instead of simply using the tools of others and letting them consume my information without providing me a great storage model, I could simply store that information in my thoughtstream. I began doing that recently.

More recently, I realized that even more sensitive data can simply be shared. I have a message encryptor tool on my website that can simply encrypt information I’ve written into ciphertext. For data that seems more important to retain but not share totally open, one can simply use this tool and post the cipherdata into the log. Posted and timestamped, later it can be openly decrypted, such that it has still been shared with a good data retention model, still be synchronous and sequential, and still be create openness. It is simply temporarily locked although it is open and public.

One can see such a posting here, where I recorded my plans for the continuing maintenance and improvement of my software system which constitutes personal and business intellectual property of great value:

Using the strategy of temporarily encrypting open postings makes it so that some of the prior considerations are not as important. One can really share anything textual or image based in the same personal log and keep it open.

One can say that I have not “shared it” if it is public and locked. But that would only be partly true and is a matter of degree. It has been shared, is timestamped, is public, is consumed by web crawlers, and can be decrypted. Later it will. The only matter of importance is it is not decrypted and cannot yet be read. So one can temporarily share with self something usable that others cannot understand, in a public way, briefly controlling the potential negative usage. I was saying above that current risks relate to travel for example. Risks have a start and expiration. With intellectual property and in business, there is a time of value and utility, and confidentiality is impermanent. Oftentimes between businesses I’ve had NDA documents, or non-disclosure documents, and those only last about 2 years or less. Which means even public sharing of data that would fall under NdA can be performed, keeping an accurate record, even an accurate personal legal record, of the same data, that can be unlocked at a time of expiry.

Much can be shared that one would forget about.

One can play and use my message encryptor tool for free. It is fun and can be used for sending mail messages that are encrypted, and can be used for sending any textual content whatsoever in a way that it can be decrypted by passwords for free. It is safe and easy to use, and no data is sent to my server. It is kept on the client. One can steal the page and use it for one’s own purposes too if one wants. It is an Open Source Tool that I created, using the existing cryptojs library.

I hope this was interesting to those wondering about what can and cannot be shared, and the exploration of sharing increasingly private information for one’s personal benefit, to become more transparent and organized. As I move further along in this exploration, my finding is trending towards the view that total openness is possible, as long as some very minute and timely safety details are kept sane. One does not need to be so open as to risk one’s life to achieve a very extreme openness. If one considers that one only needs to temporarily expand on security, doing things like what I’ve done above, then one can feel incredibly open and honest, share more, and still remain secure.

[Finished at 3:30pm, in 32 minutes, without editing, semi-blindly typed, without re-reading. Unedited as part of a study in editing.]

Sunday, October 21th, 2023


Planned update to publishing method of underlying software

Saturday, October 21th, 2023


Regret, and You Can’t Even Want the Right Things

Saturday, September 14th, 2023

For some I think, who are approaching death, there may be a realization that their plans and pursuits had too many defects, and that there is not enough time to change course.

It may happen very late in life.

Some choose silly objectives. Large families of strangers (discovered later), car and property collections (nobody cared about what you had), and excess social concerns (caring about what people care about). Later in life it is discovered that much was illusory in the plans and activities one was involved in. This can result in regret– “If I had another life, I would do this and that differently.”

I have another perspective to share.

You are unable to identify what morality consists of. Otherwise you’d already be able to identify a good and worthwhile plan, and already know what is not regretful about it. But if you are regretful, or might be, you couldn’t even see morality correctly.

For those who regret. I would have you consider that maybe you don’t want the right things. Late in life if regret creeps in, you might want to think:

“I couldn’t and can’t know what to want anyways. If I lived to 10,000 I would discover over and over I couldn’t ever plan anything I wouldn’t regret to substitute with another.”

“Partly because I’d like to BE SOMETHING ELSE.”

However that is not true of everyone and is not true of myself for example.

Repetition of Example Uses of the My Moral-Attentional Processes

Sunday, October 8th, 2023

Earlier I wrote an example real-life recalled usage of my attentional processes listed in my chapter discussing attentional architecture. At the moment I don’t know what I titled that piece but it was posted via this ThoughtStream. It was a recollective stream of consciousness of the earlier process as it was performed, and I could remember the usage very clearly. Here an in the future I will provide additional samples in which the utility is demonstrated clearly, which will provide additional substantiation of the routine dissertative thinking interconnected with the process that results in books like [The Velocity of Significance and Ideation], a book whose contents explains methods for identifying giftedness of thought. Posting this way will enable me to demonstrate repetitively and conclusively that the moral-attentional process combined with dissertative thinking improves quality of thought and provides opportunity for its real life demonstration, in an intellectual way. The takeaway of this will be that the process itself has clear benefits of utility, and also that the thesis of “The Velocity of Significance and Ideation” regarding the use of productive intelligence to estimate degree of intelligence is true, and self-applicable to my own thinking and writing.

When what you are is not what you want

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2023

Suppose you could ask an old dog if they wanted to be in heaven with you. The dog is sick and elderly, and uncomfortable all the time. They lived from 17 to 21 in a deterioration.

They might just answer with

“Not if I’m in it”

Because at that age what you are is what you don’t want.

Now thinking about probability, very likely old age will have discomforts that last.

Now thinking about birth and probability, very likely many will not be who or what they want.

And yet morality has left out a death plan.

“I’m the animal that doesn’t like what it is” is what people think at times.

Interview from Scott Douglas Jacobsen of Insight Journal

Monday, October 2nd, 2023

This is the source interview on intelligence from Mr. Scott Douglas Jacobsen that culminated in my related book shared earlier “The Velocity of Significance and Ideation”. He noted in the introduction that this was the longest interview he received to date, with the second longest being that from Hindemburg Melão Jr., creator of Sigma Society, and self-proclaimed candidate for the smartest individual in Brazil. The population of Brazil is 200 million.

This Journal has also posted some interview responses from my favorite Moral Philosopher who I acknowledge in my works, Peter Singer, of Princeton University, and links to his answers are of interest to see a person who has influenced me deeply. He is world renowned and has many publications worth reading. His responses concern animal ethics and the utilization of AI in relation to moral issues relating to animals. I mention this to provide some understanding that this interviewer is one who has serious intent and does have some very good quality responses from significant figures. This places me in some good company, and for that I’m fortunate for having had the chance to be interviewed by Mr. Jacobsen.

Posted from Ipanema, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.


Sunday, October 1st, 2023




My Introduction to Mensa Sweden!

Thursday, September 28th, 2023

I am a long-time member of Mensa America and Mensa International, having joined in 2014. I was first identified as having Mensa level giftedness as an elementary school student, where I was tested by a visiting psychometrician, when other students in the school were also tested. I was separated for the special giftedness program in the State of Maryland and offered opportunities to join the well-known programs at Johns Hopkins University in the same state, a program that was joined by some well-known notable figures. Although admitted and separated, my parents did not encourage my work in separate programs, and for a long period I was mostly disinterested in giftedness. After becoming a Software Architect, and engineer supporting the President of the United States, then Barack Obama, I decided to get tested again, using the Stanford-Binet 5 and Wescheler (WAIS-IV) tests, and again confirmed my childhood scores. After confirmation in 2014 I entered Mensa, and shortly after became a Mensa Lifetime Member.

I am the author of The Book and Journal of Mattanaw at This is a privately produced Book and Journal that has objectives of promoting a better moral and ethical understanding, using my history of professional moral philosophy and science, and career background. I am a trained Psychologist, am trained in Philosophy, and have another degree in Computer and Information Science all in the University of Maryland System. I’m not a student of Harvard, although I already culminated my career and am now retired, working previously as Chief Architect at Adobe Systems, and Advisor/Architect at a number of very large enterprises known worldwide. I am currently President of Social Architects and Economists International, and consult periodically when interest is sufficient, or there are retirement related funding needs. I am also CEO of Plaintext, a new publishing company related to the publication of my book and journal.

In my career I became a very experienced presenter to leadership of global corporations, and am now focusing, in addition to my writing efforts, on sharing my experience and knowledge on diverse topics, in support of moral efforts internationally, and also for resolving issues like homelessness. I travel extensively, and think of myself as a non-nationalistic global citizen, even if that is a hard mission to make a total reality. I’ve lived across the United States in many locations and own an 80-acre parcel of land in the State of Alaska. I’ve lived in Canada, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand, partly for retirement and for business interests. Next year I intend to live in Sweden and Northern Europe for a period. Typically I try to stay in the warm summer seasons in places that are not too cold, and alternate from hemisphere to hemisphere. I’m currently residing in South America, in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.

Some notable facts about myself include my history of flying planes, and flight training. I’m an endorsed solo pilot with 103.5 hours in the Cessna 172. I enjoy athletics greatly and am a skilled basketball and soccer player, and I enjoy many other ways of staying fit, like weightlifting, running, walking and hiking. I’m intensely interested in ethics, logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, and use my Book and Journal as my main outlet for my writing and creative interests. Oftentimes these writings appear in the various Mensa Groups in which some of us share good conversation, including the Mensa International, and other Mensa Facebook Groups. I am a member of Mensa New Zealand and am pending inclusion into Mensa Brazil. I anticipate that some here would have enjoyed some of my writings already, since they’ve been published for many years, and I look forward to forming some new friendships in Mensa Sweden as we become more mutually acquainted. I may be presenting at Mensa Sweden’s AGA in May, 2024, and that is yet to be decided, but I would be very happy for invitation and inclusion to share my talks that I’ve planned and prepared.

Radioactive Data Storage, Radio Communication, and Increased Capacity

Thursday, September 28th, 2023

A long while ago I recall seeing an interesting posting about the prospect of having a new storage device that utilized cubical crystals, with information stored and retrieved within the crystal using lasers, that would write to it using three dimensions. I read that this device, using this very small crystal, that was perhaps a 1cm x 1cm x 1cm cube, or a cube of s similar size, would hold terabytes of data. This was during a period in which gigabytes of storage was still somewhat expensive, and the idea that such a small device could retain terabytes was very attractive.

Now utilizing microSD cards in the one half gigabyte size, it is clear that it is very easy to store huge amounts of data on very small devices. It is already somewhat strange that I can use such a small device to hold so much data, at a cost that has been under $100 dollars USD for several years now. Before relying on that media, I used the Samsung USB Bars which are USB devices that are also small, that could hold 128GBs and 256gbs. Now it has stopped its growth at 256GBs and this was my cause for moving to microSD.

The cheapness of the cost of the microSD for 512GBs has caused me to wonder at the costs of computer hard drives purchased from manufacturers including nearly the same amount of storage. The microSD is the size of a small SIM card, and is actually somewhat smaller. I’ve complained that it seemed a computer system could include more than one computer system functioning independently with more than one microSD card built in, and perhaps an array of microSD cards that could store huge amounts of information at low cost and size. Phones could hold easily in volume no less than twenty of these microSD cards without an apparent weight increase. Since now MicroSDs can be purchased at 1TB for $100 USD, it seems manufacturers could procure them very inexpensively, and provide phones and laptops with seperate internal systems so one can have more than one computer in one device, and also provide much more storage capacity than they currently provide, at very high costs. My most recent cellular phone purchase was for an iPhone12 Max Pro, which has 256GBs of data. It was about $1,000 USD. For my laptops, typically I choose those with smaller hard drives, using the hard drives for minimum application storage, and offloading data storage to my microSD cards. What is funny about that is I am using computers that still cost about $1,000 or more, being Apple products, but the application storage is only 128GBS while I have very large amounts of storage, much more than the computer provides, on tiny wafers of microSD cards. I have about 12 micro SD cards that costed a little over $100 each, I believe, when there was a brief cost increase, and two smaller hard drives. Together the micro SDs offer about 5TBs of data storage, and I have additional TBs of storage on the hard drives. Combining the 10 microSDs it is humorous to see how much data can be stored on devices that can be easily lost. But these are preferred because as I travel the world, I have a large amount of storage with devices that weigh nearly nothing at all, and I can redundantly store those devices so one or more could be lost but I would still retain my data. Furthermore, I can geographically redundantly place them so that I have all the storage safely backed up.

The above indicates some of my solutioning for my technology that I have developed but not the entire system. I mention this to make it clear I am very familiar with, utilize, and depend on, very small storage devices with very great capacity, so I can safely store large amounts of mental information and life-assets. I also have a scaling plan for the software and storage as market costs change, so I can safely update my storage to include differing devices with greater amounts of storage, as I scale and as the market changes. I’ve done that in several iterations already over the last decade. And of course all have experienced growth of storage from simpler computer devices since floppy disks and before that time. The earliest storage device I used for external data management was the large floppy disk that we like to remember “really was floppy” and later the 3.5 inch hard floppy disks. After that I used hard drives and zip drives. Zip drives were basically larger and thicker floppy drive-like devices that were input like floppy disks but had characteristics of cartridges. They had quite a lot of storage, but the shift to flash and usb greatly improved portability and easy of use. The zip drives still required a slot on a peripheral device that allowed for inputting the cartridge, and were somewhat like small disk drives or VHS/Beta video drives. Or like musical casettes, except again, they were read like floppy disks and had the small metal sheet that slid to reveal the drive within. I also used like others tapes for other readable media, which we forget really were storage devices, read-write audio tapes and cassetes, vinyl records, film for storing photographs, paper photographs, books and print paper of course, card files for reading (scantrons in education), and cds, DVDs, and larger capacity read/write disks for computers. I never used BlueRay or other more advanced DVDs thinking them antiquated by the time they came out. Recently I was forced to use cds once again because of interactions with the legal system as an attorney self-represented in a land-related prescriptive easement case. One can see from the above I’m very familiar with the range of storage devices, have used quite a lot, and it traces back to the 1980s which was very close to the beginnings of computing. I was Chief Architect at Adobe Systems nearly a decade ago, and was trained in Computer and Information Science in the University of Maryland System. In my education I was exposed to some other forms of storage, but these forms of storage were not too different than I was utilized and was exposed to already, having fortunately been born near the earliest consumer electronic computing device stages.I was young enough to have been exposed to some of the very earliest personal computers, word processors, video gaming systems, and used devices that appeared earlier than these in school, since they were still being used due to existing technology investments.

What is common to most technologies used before I saw this crystal devices is storage in two dimensions. Read-write storage on musical recordings like records were simply etchings onto a plastic-like vinyl material. I remember as a kid playing records that were made of hard plastic. Cassetes utilize a still available medium of tape storage that records audio and data. Microfiche is a film based information and document storage that is fading, but still exists in Anchorage, where certain older legal documents can only be researched using it. But to the present day, looking at all the other devices, they still were 2 dimensional. This includes compact disks that are basically small records, hard drive disks, floppy disks, and flash media like USBs and MicroUSBs. The implementations of the newer small devices and SSDs are not something I’ve inspected, but quick observation still reveals to me that these are not utilizing three dimensions the way one would want to, to have an extremely large set of storage on a single small device, using layers of sufaces that are microscopic. To give an example, consider if a compact disks surface were represented three dimensionally such that there were thousands of compact disks in three dimensions, for a small thickness. It could be that some current Hard Drives with very high capacity do some of this three dimensional storage, but as far as I know, this is limited. And probably by how it is written.

The crystalline three dimensional storage was expected to finally store on three dimensions using movements of more than one read write laser, that would pinpoint positions in the crystal to store and retrieve information. Writing was stated to degrade the storage, so read-write was not something that could be done too many times without degrading the crystal. But oftentimes we do not write entire disks often, and maybe this storage method could still successfully write to the entire cube thousands of times. I was excited about this technology because it seemed to create potential for scaling of personal productions. Nowadays my interest has transitioned from simply intuitively recognizing that vast storage was interesting, relating it to potentially storing also quantities of information similar to what is in a human brain, to actually needing such a storage to support the scaling of my productions, which exceed that of many enterprise corporations.

Seeing that the market trajectory does not include an easy pathway to store all of one’s information in a cost-effective way, while one scales one’s own media productions, is something disconcerting. It seems by this time that one should be more able to utilize a single device, or an array of small devices, to store huge amounts of data. But it appears the market only provides ways to do it minimally greater than what is mostly average at a reasonable cost. This issue relates also to the number of ports on a computer, bandwidth of radio communications, and so on, making it more difficult to scale to large amounts of productions, particularly when moving about, than one might realize. I will say more about this in the future.

Thinking about the crystal device that appeared about 10 years ago in print, and how it did not come onto the market, recently I had an idea about an alternative that might be of interest to those who are interested in computer storage, and the possible future for improving computer storage. I think I’ve thought of a possible device that may exceed even the storage of this crystalline storage that would be written upon with lasers.

The idea is that since radioactive material and elements exist that can transmit radio waves, there may be a way to combine communictions with storage on three dimensions. Like the crystal structure, there could be a storage devices utilizing elemental radioactive elements that are not harmful to people, or are shielded, or are used in quantities that are so low that they couldn’t harm anyone. With x-rays we already know we can shield with lead. We also know that low exposure isn’t serious, and that there are differing radioactive materials that are less risky than others. Radioactive materials provide a radioactive signal we know for many years into the future, with a predictable degradation. We know this because radioactive waste for example stays radio active for a much longer period than humans want, staying radioactive for thousands of years, making it hard to eliminate and treat as separate waste. In the production of nuclear energy we have refuse that we don’t know well what to do with, where to put it, and how to store it, such that future people are not impacted. While this is something we do not like or want, we did get communicated to concerning half-lifes and degredation mathematics indicating that radioactive materials do remain radioactive in a way that may be extremely useful in other contexts. It may be that it would be useul in combining storage technology and communications.

The storage device may work as follows, although feasibility is not assured without sufficient research and development. I don’t know for certain that this would work but still communicate it as a possible area for advancement. In three dimensions radioactive material is stored in a particular configuration that represents an empty state, ready for writing. This is the initial format. The radioactive configuration at the elemental level provides the image of the device, and the radioactivity and configuration can communicate the image to a sensing device, that can ready immediately its state. So initially it communicates via its radioactivity, something sensible, relating to the initial empty state.

Akin to the lasers that combine to write to the 3D crystal is an approach that reconfigures the elemental radioactive material to differing positions or configurations that represent the data to be stored. Perhaps a single text file is written to a location, or a single image. The radioactivity of the substance then communicates via its radioactivty to the sensor(s) that read the differences, or the actual structure of the medium. With this then is a read-write method using radioactive substances, and a possible approach to direct communication to the medium. It may be that peripherally available computers can read from teh same device using sensors that pick up the radioactivity. Perhaps it is not necessary to have direct sensing at a very close distance, like in a normal hard drive. Already there are devices like geiger counters that detect radation, and the level of radioactivity, and these devices are old, and don’t need to function at immediate touching proximity. They are operated by hand at a distance. Signals increase as one gets close, and if radioactivity is high, but signals are still received at a distance. If information encoded is captured at a distance in a consistent manner from material it may be possible to indirectly read from storage without radio communications that are now standard, like wifi, bluetooth, infrared, or through routers and radio devices. Instead the configuration of the elemental radioactive material in conjunction with the radioactivity of the medium could work with sensors that are external for more quickly and more directly communicating information. Currently data has to be processed through many systems and protocol layers for transport. In computer and information science one learns of the OSI Networking layers, that relate to networking and digital security, and the total architecture of a computing system. Much of the existing layers could be bypassed potentially if a receiving system can simply pick up the configuration of a three-dimensional radioactive medium.

Since the configurations could be elemental and potentially manipulatable using lasers, magnetism or other, we would have a more atomic method of storing information, meaning we are already at elemental levels of information storage. As storage and computer technology increased in storage capacity, we knew that the smallness of the electronics would dictate how much could be stored. Intel for example had to produce processors that were smaller and smaller to process more data. Likewise in the history of storage, the movement was from small to smaller. If more is written to the same disk, it means that smaller writing is required. The limit of the smallness is on the atomic or elemental scale. If one can write to a medium with a configuration of atoms, one has gotten very close to what is possible for potential storage. So a device like this may be useful for finally having maximally dense information storage, so we can have devices that would probably exceed in capacity what brains can store. Additionally however, would be the possibility of using natural radioactivity to communicate the storage, without processing in between, and with less networking protocols. Here we may have one potential idea providing a pathway to combining storage and communication.

If we had brains that functioned like this device, we would remember more, but also would have methods of reading other brains at a distance.

[Completed at 4:41 pm, in 52 minutes, without editing, semi-blind typed, without spell check.]

Tuesday, September 26th, 2023

The End of Randomness, Randomness in Uncertainty, and Cryptography

Tuesday, September 26th, 2023

Approximately one-half decade ago I devised a strategy for utilizing true randomness of user input in a computer system. One might wonder what one would want to use such a method for, but there are a wide range of applications, including making random passwords that are closer to what is naturally considered too complex to predict. In physics and the sciences there is not an agreement as to whether randomness exists at all, and it appears it might not on the regularities experienced in nature. In Philosophy arguments about physical determinism and free-willism have related to uncertainties and apparent randomnesses that seem to exist in the movements of electrons, in quantum slit-experiments often referenced, and in brownian motion, a topic of interest to scientists such as Einstein and others. While there is disagreement concerning whether or not such randomness exist, probabilistic natural laws and natural laws expressing regularities in mathematics, conjoint with everyday life regularities of planning and historical reconstruction, cause one to want to accept complete Determinism. I have accepted complete Determinism on grounds of regularity for my Moral Philosophy on inductive grounds, but I have not completely discarded the idea that there could be some randomness in nature that is or is not regular that feeds into processes that are regular. On this topic we often find the religious refuge of those wanting to preserve their traditional viewpoints, but those viewpoints fail whatever refuge is attempted.

The device I envisioned is a simple one and not theoretical regarding feasibility. It is a truly simple system to create. One only needs a peripheral device with an object and sensors taking in information from a physical thing presenting sensory data too complex to understand due to the understanding of brownian motion, complexity, and apparent irregularies in natural behavior of objects. I’ve used the example of the “snow globe” to devise and build such a simple system, with optics similar to those collected from an optical mouse. If one requires a good cryptographic encoding of a document or text file, one may use software to do the work, but that software will sometimes require mouse input that is created by the user, that is seemingly random. One simply moves one’s mouse around a while as data about the mouse’s position is collected and encoded in text, that is subsequently used in the encryption in a variety of ways. Movements of the users hand really do show characteristics of randomness and unpredictability although the behavior of the person moving the mouse does show regularity. To control for that regularity, to avoid detecting any pattern of mouse usage, it is recommended to simply move the mouse around longer. But in this system, no user input is required. Instead the optical instrument is pointed into the “snow globe” detecting random minute movements and positions of floating, rising, and descending particles, or particulate that is the “snow” in the globe. For those who may not know what a snow globe is, it is simply a glass dome or sphere containing a Christmas or Winter themed scene, with material inside, upon being shook, results in an appearance of falling snow. The movements of the currents, and small movements of things in the fluid exhibits a good randomness that can be detected by the optical tool like the mouse on a surface. This is then used to rapidly build data that is random, or seems to be random, with great complexity. It is not repeatable. Patterns would be hard to utilize. The result of the movements is due to physical causes that are not well understood and are thought to be random from true randomness in nature. While I disagree with the hypothesis that this is random, I can’t prove that it’s not random. It appears it is not for a variety of reasons I’ll share, but in any case, it’s complex enough to cause us to think that this device really would provide random input at a fundamental level of randomness supposedly existing in nature, based on what the physicists would tell us about the state of their understanding.

Some inputs of randomness like the future digits of pi that have not been ascertained, and the pattern of static exhibited in radio or television static could be used, but I have thought that these show sufficient recollectivity to indicate there is still a knowable pattern. For example, once PI is calculated, it is recognized it is one number or ratio calculation. If PI is known then it is not random any longer. One could still collect intervals of hard computations of PI and it would appear random. Static is recognized as such. If static were truly random, it is not clear it could be recognized as static. It appears to me this indicates again, that once one “understands static” as a thing, one would eventually understand the pattern. Complexity determines for us what appears random. Static information gathering would result in an unrepeatable gathering, which would allow us again, to devise a similar system to the snow globe approach, because the input involves data and pattern complexity that one cannot predict using a recognizable pattern. If one knew all the digits of PI then one could break any PI related input, but that depends on computing power. If one has sufficient computing power one can select unknown intervals of PI and use it in a similar way, although someone with the same computing power would be able to break a setup using PI calculation as an input.

From the above, it can be seen that, since PI is weaker than the others, that complexity of input seems more important than actual randomness for cryptography. As long as the input is complex enough and not repeatable it does not matter if it is truly random. Thus it appears randomness is not required.

Apparent randomness and complexity together do provide a system in which one can arrive at very good cryptographic strength, and so such a system like I devised would be one that would be especially strong for protecting documents and messages using also some mathematics and software doing the actual encoding and decoding.

In any computer system not actually utilizing a device like that I’ve mentioned relying on an external physical method of grabbing information that is complex and random from a physical level, instead using only the computing system and software, is fully deterministic. Cryptographic algorithms taking the input using the math and software use math and software that is fixed. This component of the cryptography is entirely deterministic. Furthermore, input from the system like the generation of random digits is also software and hardware based and is fully deterministic. Some systems allow for highly difficult to remember passwords to be generated from the software, and that can also be fed into the crypographic algorithms for encryption, but in that case all is fully deterministic, and would be fundamentally weaker than the system setup I devised that relies on what even the best physicists would consider to be random information.

Recognition that the entire computer system is deterministic is important, and I will share more in future writings on this point. The idea that seemingly random things like PI’s digit expansion is really deterministic is also important. The physical idea that there is randomness in Brownian motion and in quantum experiments of particles and electrons is something I will challenge. It appears on future work it may be possible to put an end to the idea that there is randomness in nature, and the work of physicists is in that direction. The idea of randomness relates to “I can’t tell if there is anything law-like governing this yet”. The goal of science is to finally eradicate uncertainties and replace uncertainties with knowledge.

It may be possible that certain underlying controls of nature are not accessible for our observation. We rely on complex machinery and tools like CERN to study partical collisions to unearth tidbits of information on subatomic particls, and that is very hard and costly to do for some small results. Results may be large for technology, but they seem small regarding determining finally what the patterns are that would allow us to conclude that there is no randomness. Randomness is not something that is assumed, but is rather something that tells us there is more to know, and that knowing it may be difficult unless there are other arguments and techniques that can be devised that sidestep observational difficulties, to show us we are in better than a probabilistic system, but one in which we can always make predictions in principle. That would prove finally that Determinism is actual “all of the way down” to a fully reductive physico-mathematical level that opens up methods of fully determining natural systems. If the smallest natural systems having some characteristics of apparent randomness are shown under the surface to really follow regularities we expect, then we will know for certain that they collect such that all nature can be shown to be totally predictable in principle and fully regular, even if complexity gives us the expectation that we will not have enough computing and predictive power to utilize it at all scales. Mattanaw’s Law already states that it would not be possible to represent information fully enough in any computing or natural storage system to have the power to predict the future, even for somewhat small scales.

[Finished at 7:16pm, in 35 minutes, with no editing, spell check, semi-blind typing, without reading. Editing]

The timing above relates to my book The Velocity of Significance and Ideation. For those in the profoundly gifted range it may be required to illustrate dissertative thinking conversationally to show there is no lopsidedness between mental internal communication and thinking and outward expression.

Purely Intellectual Morality and Resistance to Application, and Learning

Monday, September 25rd, 2023

Yesterday, while walking along Copacabana in Rio de Janiero, I began reflecting on the gulf that exists between intellectualized or mental morality, and moral behavior. While thinking about this topic I recalled my earlier studies on morality, about twenty years ago, which included the observation that there is a difference between what one thinks is correct intellectually, while there is a gulf between that idea and behavior. Self-training and education is required in order to, personally, make the transition from having an idea about what a more excellent set of behaviors would be, connecting to a moral view, and actually having those behaviors and acting a certain desired way automatically. While most can tell when they learn something about a self-improvement goal that they have not reached that goal, it appears additionally that many have an idea of morality that they would utilize for judgement of others, even while it should be known to the thinker that that morality is intellectual and is not actually related to a commitment in behavior the thinker has, or a commitment to the behavior that exists in others. Sometimes people will have an idea about what is best concerning behaviors, and expect others to engage in those behaviors too, even before a commitment to personal change has been made, and that person himself/herself simply hasn’t habitualized it to automaticity yet. We see this again and again where there is a contrast between expectations of others, particularly those in media and entertainment, and public officials, while the person with the expectation cannot or does not really behaviorally exhibit what would have been expected. If we dwell on this topic and combine it with other observations from this Book and Journal we would arrive at a more clear and comprehensive idea about what hypocrisy is and was, and the extent to which people are truly hypocritical.

Just before I began thinking of this I was thinking of another topic in which there is a serious flaw, and that is the issue that nobody really understands the laws. While one might think one knows the law, it can be easily demonstrated that one cannot recite usually even a single written law, which as a rule has more detail than one expect. Lawyers also do not memorize the laws but only get a better sense of them and how they fit into the legal system, that they are educated more about. But lawyers are typically specialists and would recognize that they too, don’t know and cannot recite most laws that exist.

This issue extends into morality, but is far worse. In religion people have been judged for their ability to recall scriptural verses. If one is good at recalling and repeating what was written, one is thought, if one is not only relying on memory and is of good intelligence, to likely have a good idea, compared with others, about their religion. However, these could be compared with lawyers who only have some recollection, and like everyone else, memory is really very poor about verse and nobody can well recall all that is written within the religious texts. But morality for the everyday person goes beyond what is written even in religious texts and this is obvious when one looks at what one recalls as far as hearsay rules of society are recalled in short phrases. This means that what would need to be recalled is much greater than just what’s in a religion, and really would include laws additionally because following the laws is thought to be within the required moral conduct of a nation. The phrases from culture have not been recorded like the laws in a way that provides easy reference in libraries, so much is unwritten. The result is not only that people cannot recall what is written, they would disagree about what has not been written that they think should be. The complete normal ethical system that one thinks one belongs to then, is unknown in a worse degree than what was stated above about knowledge of law.

Relating the first paragraph with the next two, we find that much of what we think is morality is a list of intellectual ideas recalled, that poorly represent what it would actually be. People quickly recall and generate more moral ideas themseles, that are thought to be what people should act on. These can be thought of as poor-quality intellectualizations of how one should act and behave. These may or may not correspond with actual behavior, as we’ll see shortly in more detail, and if there is a discrepancy we have the issue that this is a mental morality that is not within behavior sufficiently. This means there are rules in mind that are not followed and would not be followed. Because moral rules are often unwritten, and laws are not recalled, people disagree even about the purely mental rules, and debate if they should ever act on them. It follows from this that much moral thinking and debate is simply a mental exercise that is largely unrelated to behavior, and we can anticipate disagreement rather than agreement about what it means for behavior. It also means people will be chronically calling each other hypocrites because they both cannot agree as to the rules, and clearly see that the rules are not well used and exhibited in real behavior.

When we connect this to education the issue becomes more clear and obvious and in different ways. Teachers often teach mathematics, grammar, and a range of topics that are never applied. I have discovered that mathematicians often do not apply math to their own behavior or their own field, but more than this, the math they teach is often never applied in the world by themselves or their students, even on the topics that relate. People complain because they do not obtain jobs that relate, and so can never use it. Likewise the instructors have been criticized for having jobs that teach, but do not do, what is taught about. The range of what education provides is large, and contains much that is useful, but it goes unused oftentimes, and people admit this and complain about it often. People learn skills they cannot apply, and they learn teachings they cannot get jobs for. They also learn so much, they have few chances to really utilize each thing they learn, which means they will not behave in any way utilizing what has been learned. They may recall sometime what they have learned but they will need to agree that they do not utilize it often. If one considers the full range of all learned in education one will need to agree that due to the size of all that is learned, there will rarely be matching situations in life in which that same knowledge is behaved upon. It follows from this that most of what is learned involves rules that become mental recollections.

Additionally and somehwat unrelatedly, is something I want to share about learning and change. Recently I shared an article The Calendar Solved that offers a solution to the calendar that is permanent. The calendar has gone through a number of changes over many centuries to correct for differences in years, since it is known that the year is not exactly 365 days but has an extra fractional day. We corrected for this using the leap year. But more corrections are needed to finally get it right, and that is what the solution in the article is about. Once one learns this, one has to consider how one behaves. Since it is solved it really implies that all would need to adopt it, since correct. Since the current calendar is functional and there are many investments in this calendar it will take a long time to change, but the change is required, if one wants to be honest about progression of science and learning and education. If I were a teacher of astronomy and geology, or history, I would teach this in my class. But I would be unable to change my behavior about the calendar much regarding existing calendar use, although I have decided to use my own instead. I’m an example of someone changing behavior on the basis of what is learned. Students in the class would likely hear it, understand it, and perhaps remember it, but would be unlikely to be able to behave regarding it. Likewise, even if it became widespread knowledge that this new calendar is the solution, it would take a very long time for others to adopt it and make personal changes, and things like the annual celebration of the New Year would also need to change in simple ways.

Learning something new makes demands on how one should behave. Firstly, once someone has learned it, they have already changed their mind. They may not agree that any behavioral change needs to be made immediately. But they would agree that some changes are needed eventually. This leads to a disparity of knowledge and behavior. But that makes sense because how to behave on it is slightly different at times from learning new facts, which do not seem to call for any specific changes. One person commenting on my new calendar solution said it seemed to her that there was no need to change the existing calendar because it, paraphrasing, “would do the work into the forseeable future”, and I agree with that. However, it was learned by her that it was incorrect. What she was wanting was to simply resume using what existed, because it worked, but not to utilize the learning. Mentally we both agree what is the right calendar (I think she understood), which means we both would agree on what the correct astronomy, geology, and history is to teach about it. By not taking steps to use it in practice, we teach students who cannot use it, but need truth. Also, if we decide to not take steps on our own to revise the calendar and holidays related to the New Year, we are deciding to learn something that we will not use. The result is that there is a resistance to change on the behavior, but a willingness to learn that is somewhat stifled, within one’s mind.

Here we have an example of an inability and resistance to matching up what is our mental rules, even in education which would touch on all learning and knowledge. We have new rules about the calendar that we agree with and cannot follow. We may use it for moral judgement of software companies who continue to use the old calendar, but they cannot yet adopt or change for it. We see the world unchanged as we learned something new that relates to the behavior of everyone.

Education is largely that– knowledge that seems to relate to required changes in behavior of ourselves and others. This means there is a disparity as I said above between what is known and what is expected potentially of others, and oftenties teachers have not utilized what they are teaching. This informs us about the nature of hypocrisy and disparities between learning and action from learning. It also informs us about morality. Learning happens fast, but there is resistance to using it, even though there are expectations generated that make us want others to follow the rules even if they are not utilized broadly.

Connecting this with the observation that people don’t really know the laws or moral rules, and would disagree on moral rules if they were written, and not know most later in attempts to recall, we can see there is a huge disparity on what would be true and what could be carried out in action. What people carry along with them in education and their knowledge of laws and morality is often mostly mental, and disagrees with what others think. And since there is a limitation on application of anything learned that calls for new behavior, it appears that not only are the moral rules and laws are often unknown, or purely mental, they cannot be applied as well as we might think. Moral rules are those we sometimes think must be applied.

[Finished at 5:24 pm, without spell checks or edits, semi-blind typed, unread]

Scaling water in ultralight hiking. A query to the Ultralight Hiker community

Of interest to the HighIQ Community regarding water needs and scaling on the lowest level, from homeless upwards, when traveling.

Thursday, August 10th, 2023, 12:00pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

What do you consider the maximum amount of water comfortable for your trips?

Under what conditions would you expand you water load?

I’ve got an extremely minimal pack now, with all contents fitting in my 30L Hyperlight 4oz stuff bag. I have a secondary small pack if I need to expand on water only, otherwise it goes into the Hyperlight 4oz.

That water is still annoying. I find the primary scaling of weight is now on water. I’m in Arizona hiking, and water sources may be too spaced out, finding some sources dry. So I mainly need to carry water.

My setup now includes expansion up to 10L, but that is for very long distances expecting no water, ~20 miles or more, upwards of 30. I’m about to test this out.

But the 10L seems like it’s high side? What is the max you carry? What supports mostly any distance for you on average, in your hiking climates?

[This posting pertains to my study on Homelessness and Wealthy Camping]

The Meaning of Rock, Paper, Scissors

Wednesday, August 9th, 2023, 12:36pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

[A shorter piece, to invite a greater readership, without edits as part of an ongoing study on Editing, Productivity and Intelligence]

Most have played the game in childhood and probably as an adult too, “Rock, Paper, Scissors. Since all have played it, I don’t think any introduction to the game is necessary. Instead I’ll jump straight into what I think may be the meaning of this game we played for so long, but didn’t think much about the possible meaning.

Of course the game has been passed along without explanation. It is like a cultural recording, like a tribal story, or game-ritual, that has meaning but the meaning has been lost. Fortunately, I think we can reconstruct possible meanings.

As I was walking around Flagstaff, Arizona recently, I had the insight that this is probably a play on the alchemical reduction of life to basic elements. Early attempts to reduce the world to “Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water”, to do similarly to what greeks like Democritus were doing, with his early theory of atoms. Worldwide, people wondered about what might make up the contents of everday things. Was there something fundamental that was the building blocks of nature? What are they? Some cultures would have one view and others another. In time there would be perspectives that would state there were one, two, three, or four basic elements. Others would think there are more. Later of course, we have our real periodic table of elements, closer to the truth.

“Rock, Paper, Scissors” I think is a twist on this. Instead of telling what is fundamental regarding the alchemical, or the elemental, it tells what is fundamental regarding competition and warfare, legal, cultural, and military.

According to this view, Rock is blunt weaponry, Paper is legalism and recordings, and Scissors is editing and omission.

Thinking through the game, it makes sense: When a player uses rock, it wins over editing and omissions, and lies. When paper is played against rock, it wins in history, and sometimes legalism, like international law, or adversaries using force and not rules. Scissors wins over paper, because paper is not comprehensive enough and there are also deliberate omissions and deletions, and editorial lies. The interaction of them all, is the general play and competition between these forces of government, aggression, and lies/omission.

“I can edit that or you out” versus “I can hurt, scare, or kill” versus “this is the governmental code and rules you have to follow and our history.”

I thought about this in greater depth of application than this and am convinced that this is likely part of the correct interpretation.

Connecting this with the elemental, being more speculative, it says “You can skip thinking about that and focus on what matters, and I think the alchemical theory is false anyway.”

Let me know after thinking about your enjoyment of the game, your thoughts about elemental theory, and your view of the social world. I’d be curious to hear if you think this story is one that has now the right explanation after all this time of not having one.

[Finished at 12:50 in 14 minutes with no spell check or edits as part of an ongoing study of Editing and Intelligence]

Linguistic Associative Graphs, Brains, and Adaptive Organs Like Skeletons

Monday, August 7th, 2023

[Unedited as part of a study in editing, but still of excellent quality]

While driving in New Plymouth, New Zealand, I thought through and intended to write and share concerning an interesting finding I’ve discovered, concerning the operation of mind-like behavior in bones, and the relationship to the nervous system, and our desire to organize and re-organize our minds as they relate to vocabulary. This finding relates directly to my writings on ethics relating to our desire to structure our lives, using our verbal systems. If we are attentive about how we try to organize our behaviors, we utilize and develop upon transformations of words and their combinations. Interestingly, it relates to adaptivity of organs, including the brain of course, but other organs that respond to environmental stimuli and stressors resulting in change of their configurations. The example I currently have in mind that would be elucidating to others are bones. The muscular system and it’s attachments would provide another good example, but since I broke my toe recently, and did not treat it and observed the interesting changes it made over a year, I am especially interested in the example of bone reactivity and change.

Bones are not typically thought of as being “minds” and of course, they don’t think, but they do have similarities to the design and growth of real machine learning and artificial intelligence systems, which are meant to emulate brains, but actually also show characteristics of growth like bones. Notice that AI systems are not minds. We liken them to minds, and want them to resemble minds, but their system architecture is unlike a brains, and do have characteristics similar to bone growth. I was pondering concerning the extent in which bones could in the future be utilized as artificial intelligence systems, still with outputs that are likened to minds, but are not the same as them, like current AI systems.

Not all can be discussed here, but some key insights are worth sharing that would relate to later developments on the topic that I’ll make, that may stimulate others to similar observations and efforts.

In the media we’ve seen some examples of the creations of AI systems in structural engineering, supposedly exhibiting more optimal results than what might be created by a human designer. Human designs of homes and structures are typically rectilinear, and gridlike, wheras these computer designs had unexpectedly curvy and porous results. These curvy and porous results resemble tissues in certain ways, including brain tissue under very close examination, but more obviously bone tissue. Bone tissue, it would appear, is responding to the world in ways to develop with a similar pattern of non-grid-like, supposedly more optimal designs, created by AI systems. This woudl suggest that the non-rectilinear biological pattern has charactistics of greater optimization than what humans like to make, and is more like what AI might create, depending. There are certainly optimizations related to grid-like rectilinear patterns, but what we can see is that there is a trend away from that for certain systems.

Notice that an AI system doing this work is doing it independently. Likewise, when I broke my long toe beside my big toe, its growth was done independently too. I could look at my toe and be fascinated and curious about what it was doing, but there was no way I could know the resulting structure. It was entertaining to see what my skeletal system would do for me in creating a new toe that would still function but be unlike my other toe, on my left foot, that was somewhat symmetrical to my first right toe. The asymmetry in a skeletal system is of interest because in total it reflects the responsiveness of the system to differing influences and inputs from the mind and from the world outside. The stronger side, showing differing structure, is more optimally related to my behavior, and ultimately this relates to ethics too. Now I may want to train the left in order to improve my personal excellences in athletics, health, and longevity. It would also support my ongoing ability to support others in their related interests.

My right toe now had a joint that did not function for a long time. Now it functions, is much larger, and is somewhat bent. It was somewhat usightly to me despite being interesting, because of its difference from my left toe. But over time it has become more attractive, such that as I sit here now, I wonder if my feet would be better in total if the left was the same as the right!

If an AI system included sensors that watched the development of the toe and the resulting structure, it would have information about the changing toe heading towards optimization. If the complete toe was read by the sensors on completion, the final system would be a storage system approximating a machine learning system. Bones then would contain information, like a database, about the optimal structure of the toe. If someone wanted to use the AI system to understand toe optimization, the AI system would need to load the information about the toe, which is similar to loading the database. It would then observe patterns, including patterns stored on its development. This would mean the bones are really like physical Machine Learning databases complete on existing optimizations. In the medical field it is already known that imagery of the details of the bones surfaces and interior structures would need to be studied, likely in visual form for humans, to understand the seemingly intelligent but mindless growth of bones. The medical doctor, seeing the structure, may recall why they love their jobs. “Look at how this had developed without any need of surgery! What are the patterns contained in this growth that I can see faintly but incompletely?”

Simply speaking more about this topic would reveal increasingly greater relationships between AI, the nervous systems of people, data, and natural optimizations of non-mental organs.

Being a former software architect in technology and a long time consultant of large businesses in technology, I’m certain that these observations are correct. An interesting implication is that bones are like AI/ML and that bones themselves could be used as part of new AI systems, comprising part of the designs of those AI systems, meaning they are AI-like, or AI-component like. You could have a mind-like AI using bones.

Some may read this and want to go further into intelligent design, but I would resist that inclination. While this optimization exists in nature, and is AI like, I don’t myself interpret nature in this way. I also think it is possible to exceed nature in the designs, although that would be a growth of nature. More to be said on this topic later.

Notice the mind of the doctor is made of nervous-system. The nervous system too develops in response to stimuli in nature and stresses, including anything going on in the nervous system itself, like when you are simply thinking without interracting with your environment. The nervous system’s pattern of growth is not rectilinear, but includes structure that is curvy, porous, and somewhat like bones. The analgoy between the nervous systems and bones is only a partial analogy, but it must be admitted it is not gridlike. The design of AI systems has aspects of grid-likeness and not, and where it is not grid-like, it is more like an associative graph. Thinking primarily about our verbal systems, we already have the idea of a ‘tag cloud’ in web technology, showing more unusual and less rectilinear relationships of different levels of strength between words. Some words are heavily used and others are not. These are directly related to brain storage. These two also have optimizations that are natural and are not like the organization planned by any person. Everyone’s brain and verbal system developed in a natural way, with brain tissue results and verbal graphs that are not rectilinear and do not have the tidiness that a human would want to create. There is a natural tidiness that exists but that wasn’t anyone’s plan. Even if someone tries to make their verbal thinking more ‘tidy’ the resulting brain structure takes control and it will be optimized in a natural way, somewhat resembling the responsiveness to bones and the environment.

This has implications for the moral planning of one’s life, as one thinks through verbal thoughts. At the moment I’m not prepared for the development of that topic needing to ‘reload’ earlier thoughts on the topic of interest and relevance. I will share more on that topic later, but for now can say, implications exist that would simplify the personal planning anyone might make in their own life.

[Finished at 1:19pm, with no edits, in less than 48 minutes (likely completed in about 40 minutes), for the purpose of continuing my study in editing]

Today I ate my first ant

Monday, August 7th, 2023, 12:13pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

Wanting to further my foraging abilities, I’ve been thinking through eating insects like grasshoppers and ants, while trying to be as caring as possible, being a vegan not wanting to create cruelty.

I look at grasshoppers and think, still, I’m not ready to try it out. They look like they are enjoying themselves somehow too much to do that. Yet, perhaps.

Ants seem more favorable for eating. I was learning they are antiseptic and unlikely to create illness, even without cooking them. Raw ants in many varieties can be eaten unreflectively it appears. Large ants are the most attractive for a feast, but seeing them so clearly, again, I wonder if they are enjoying themselves.

Today without thinking much about it, having a very small ant walk over my hand, I simply quickly ate it directly. It was very tiny, and had very little taste. The texture was not at all bothersome, but seemed somewhat firm and hard. Not unpalatable at all due to the hardness, however.

This was the first deliberate eating of a non-plant life form since just before Thanksgiving, year 2000. That’s 23 years nearly now.

I find it likely I will expand on my eating of ants. Have you eaten any insects? Howdo you feel about it? It seems a plentiful food source to eat ants while hiking and foraging. In Australia recently, I was driving among the termite mounds, which extend beyond what can be seen immediately. Thousands of square kilometers of free and easy food maybe.

I’m studying homelessness and wealthy camping currently, and the overlaps in experience that exist. It seems possible that ants are a truly free and valuable food source, for wealthy people hiking in their premium ultralight gear (like myself), and homeless people alike. A short walk from a city into the forest would yield large supplies of ants, and harvesting would be simple.

AI Translation of Egyptian Hieroglyphics

Monday, July 24th, 2023, 9:07pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

A response to a fellow HighIQ community friend regarding the translation of Egyptian Hieroglyphics. May be useful to others. Originally posted yesterday.

The most current AI would probably on memory tell the meanings. This is because they would have been trained already on the glyphs. If they were not trained, then humans would need to verify. Only after scaling past human verification to a method in which cross-ai verification in conjunction with humans is arrived at, would AI be able to start to test its own results. After a stage in which humans and AIs work together on cross verification, and test-retest replication (many replications and improvements over time), I think AI only testing can happen. But that would be on new data and many test runs in which the results are thought by humans to be better than the earlier results provided. Trust is created in the authority of the AI, and subsequently AI can do all the work.

There would be a stage of total dependence on human verification until humans feel exceeded (meaning they can’t verify but repeatedly it seems more precise).

Probably much is lost on Egyptian Hieroglyphics I think. I don’t think reconstruction of the past is something AI can do with insufficient data. A single hole would still be guessed at as to how it should be filled. It would be probabilistic translation as it is now.

On the Idea that Laypeople Cannot find Issues in Expertise

Thursday, July 18th, 2023, 3:08pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

Regarding a meme joking about how people should not expect to know more than experts:

Let’s reconsider. While this is funny, because most could not surpass the knowledge of experts, it is correct that experts do not rely upon data/information as much as one thinks. They are people with specialized training, and in that training read some papers, and documents. These documents were poorly remembered. Key insights remained. The aggregate of key insights does not include all good insights and unfortunately here is pinned to data/information from source research. Since reading is limited, and minds only contain key insights, it follows that there is little in minds that is comprehensive. Much is missed that they have not covered. I find it personally easy to find what has been missed or else find where there are gaps. Gap filling with plain knowledge is possible in these scenarios to arrive at solutions. This is why the lay person resists the idea that they cannot have knowledge. Much is obvious regarding gaps in people who are uncombined. Here we have high intelligence that is inexpert, except where it was certified expert.

Quality in Thought Sequences of Individual Minds Versus Conversations

Monday, July 17th, 2023, 9:57am, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

[Written without any edits as part of a study in editing]

If one pays attention to a normal conversation, it doesn’t typically take logical steps. When thinking alone, I find it easy to proceed in a roughly logical way, such that the chain of reasoning is clear, and one sentence leads into the next, and various conclusions follow from earlier premises and logical steps. Any leaps made are easily accounted for. This does not appear to exist in shared conversations. A conversation of two or more people does involve sentences and turn taking in which sentences are supposed to relate to one another. One person often builds off of the sentences of another or finds relationships in which to add and speak concerning. Within these conversations it does not appear often there would be discernable logical progressions anything like what is achievable by a single person or mind. There appears to be a reduction of quality in shared conversations versus independent conversations with the self.

A conversation with the self may be as rigorous as a mathematical proof that follows rules of logical inference resulting in apparently valid results, from good premises. One can proceed in a roughly scientific fashion too, utilizing facts which are trustworthy as premises, and drawing inferences. Most conversations with the self would not be mathematical like this, or really formally logical. But conversations with oneself can proceed in a way that is more consistently and reliable of good logical quality. It does not appear that conversations with others often or nearly ever proceed in a way that is even basically clearly logical.

One can notice this by looking at how sentences appear in sequence, and looking for any logical development of any kind which can be used to extract something akin to a logical argument or logical flow similar to what can be done independently.

This is partly due to the people involved in most conversations, but also due to the nature of conversation between differing minds. Even if the people involved are able to arrive at a kind of conversation that has sentences related enough together to approach the kind of argument that could be created by a single mind, it is likely that a written recording of this argument would require reworking the conversation into something better than in the source. But a single mind seems to be able to better craft something approaching a finished argument the first time. An example would be a writing which has a logical flow which is direct from the mind into a recording.

I think this would be verifiable by using dictation tools to record what is said in complete conversations, to show that transactions are not approaching the quality that is possible from a single logical thinker.

[Finished without any edits at 10:12 am, in 15 minutes]

Comfort with Inaccuracies

Friday, July 14th, 2023, 5:53pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

A large portion of the human population that I would quickly devalue and consider dangerous includes those who are too comfortable with inaccuracies. These are the ones who will speak and defend anything they’ve spoken, or those who will speak and alter later without concern about gaslighting.

Some appear to not know when they are inaccurate or not. This includes the unintelligent or people who are simply unable to notice defects. Some do not seem to want any inaccuracies to be corrected anytime soon; they are fine with inaccuracies and have no special motivation or desire to see them corrected. They can simply let things remain inaccurate, and may want inaccuracies.

There are limits with how accurate things can be made, and there are time constraints in the process oftentimes. However, this post more concerns things in which accuracies are easily had, or are had without too much effort.

These are people to be avoided:

“I can’t tell it is inaccurate, or I will watch and enjoy inaccuracies come into existence and will let them remain.”

New Religious Products and Stagnation

Saturday, July 15th, 2023, 8:15am, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

[Note: written without edits as part of a study in editing]

It was stated in an earlier post that products that appear to be complete, particularly ones that have durable qualities of finishedness, resulting in an inability and unwillingness to change them. These products tend to have a design that seems refined, and a manufacturing result that is of good enough quality to execute the design exactingly. There is a blend of vision and product execution. Finished products of high quality are those we appreciate, want to continue to use without alteration, and are those we find more attractive and aesthetically pleasing.

However, it was also noticed that these products appear to have an associated stagnation. The ability to visualize how these products can be improved is stifled. Organizations that produce such products have difficulty making changes which would result in alternative designs and manufacturing processes that would result in sufficiently different products which would be better. It was noticed that different or new organizations may be more successful at creating a better product eventually, and such a product would likely come into existence despite appearances of perfection in the existing proven product.

Stagnation has a relationship to perceived completeness of a product (Ref ). If movements cannot be made, it is thought that maybe the product is done. Sometimes development is simply challenging and improvements are hard to be arrived at. Othertimes, the product really does seem to be unimprovable without an alternative design that would effectively result in a new kind of product. Products that are finished or appear to be finished but are not, involve visible stagnations, or inabilities to progress.

The above ideas, it must be noticed, are not only applicable to products but to people and culture. Here I want to focus attention to the relationship between this and religion. Religious views are extremely stagnated. Alternative conceptions of better ways to guide life would certainly exist in the future. I would argue that i’ve developed an improvement myself. Either way, religions offer a product of sorts. The product is expected to create people who are of better quality and these people can also be thought of as products of sorts too. The religion itself and the people are under development. When there is little change, or little development, people can get confused as to whether or not their product, their religion, is complete or not. They may also be confused, in this context, as to whether or not they are complete. Stagnation is a sign that there is perhaps a confusion as to the completeness. Either there are reasons for the religion simply being unable to be altered and progressed, making it appear to some as complete when it is not, or the design of the religion itself and the realization of the design in the creations of those within the religious organization have reached a pinnacle. Having reached a pinnacle of design and its manifestation, there is a kind of finishedness to it. The finishedness, however, does not mean there will not later be a substitute that is superior, probably created by another organization, that does not have the limitations of movement and flexibility to create new designs, that plague the religious organization that offers its own product, that cannot be switched dramatically without great resistance. Notice that religions only change slightly. They cannot change greatly. This suggests that when changes are sufficiently slow, and there is stagnation, one can anticipate there is a false sense of final completeness associated.

Few, I think, have entertained this kind of persepective regarding major religious institutions, but it does seem to provide some clarity and elucidation. Each religion is old and certainly stagnant. They feel antiquated. They feel like they cannot be changed, and certainly, their organizations are ancient in origin. They appear to be unable to incorporate many changes that have arisen in modern times. That options exist suggests that they are product like in their offerings, and that one can be a substitute for another. Each product is taken to be complete and final. Yet alternative designs are certainly possible, and occasionally do result. Scientology is an example of a recent religious offering that has gained a following, and people with different developmental qualities and results.

It appears to me that there ought to be an understanding that products will certainly be superseded by others. This view is damaging to the excess commitment people have for their choice of favored religious products, and for their thoughts that their utilization results in final people, that cannot be improved upon in subsequent generations, using entirely different religious products.

[Finished at 8:59 without edits]

Readings from other nations and languages

Thursday, July 13th, 2023, 1:19pm, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA

[Note: written without edits as part of an ongoing study in editing]

Periodically I return to thinking about how little is known about the popular writings of other nations, and writings in other languages. Reflecting on the history of my reading, most books were sourced from searches or references relating to the English language, and any works coming from elsewhere were older documents, with sufficient interest generated historically to cause an investment in translation. This, however, does not mean that these are the only valuable books which could be read from other languages, and of course, they have libraries of materials which have not been translated. Most books I have read are not the most popular in the English language. These books would appear in libraries, but would likely not be in collections in other nations. The intersection of the set of books in libraries in other nations and the set of books in English speaking nations may not be very large. This would imply the most knowledge is not accessible outside of one’s own language, and resides in the set that includes only books that are in a single language, considering only individual titles and not copies, since of course, some books have many copies.

My partial reading list ( located at ) indicates definitely a strong bias towards the English language and is a sign of probable ignorance about valuable works that may be relevant that exist in other nations and languages. Thinking about how biased this is I wonder about how lacking my search for quality reading material is, and what the effects of national separation have been on my ability to know. It isn’t hard to infer, though, from this experience of one’s own reading, that we are greatly affected by national divisions that have been created not only by linguistic boundaries, but by travel boundaries, and arbitrary geospatial boundaries.

Today, as I was remembering some works that I have read that I forgot to include on my list, I remembered the Federalist Papers of the United States, which I read partly over 20 years ago. Having just spent considerable time in Australia and New Zealand (I see myself as part Canadian, Aussie, and Kiwi these days, for substantial time or work in these countries), and having observed the boundaries around media information available, and differences in knowledge of history and politics, I wonder why I would care again about the Federalist Papers. Upon recalling this book, I did think to myself I would like to read it more fully; but then reflecting on things like the currency in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and all other nations, which include no American figures, I wonder why I would not instead read the equivalent documents of importance in these other nations. They are very different. Entirely different history and figures. Stories are complex; so complex, that like Americans, people cannot really comprehend or understand it any longer, without devoting a very large amount of time to learning it summarily only, and sometimes only verbally.

Knowledge exchange between nations appears to be planned to be low. Australia shows news from the United States on normal television and includes some channels we have in the United States. This means they are simply watching American television. Australia seems quite American in a number of ways which seem to relate to entertainment. Their speech is easy to understand, and it appears over time there may be a blending. Oddly, the situation is not likewise in the United States. We are not really watching Australian television. Considering television is always on, Australians probably feel in many ways they are American, if not only partly, for watching the same shows and news for decades. In Australia they show American news, not only American programming.

This appears to be less the case in New Zealand. I have not gone through all channels, not being much of a television watcher, only watching when I have hotel rooms, and/or when I have sufficient interest usually in learning a region. In the United States, there is no Kiwi news (New Zealanders refer to themselves as “Kiwis”), and no Aussie news. In New Zealand, there is some exposure to entertainment from the United States, but not as pervasive an inclusion of news or media channels on regular television. So in New Zealand one feels less related to the United States, but in Australia, one can sometimes forget one is not in the United States.

It appears that differences in exposure to news and channels relate to higher level media controls. This, of course, appears to be related to controls on learning and human behavior. For a long time I have been critical and aware of international boundaries that relate to keeping people separate for objectives that are not known. Problems around this have been articulated by some like Noam Chomsky in his famous work on media control, and his positions that he’s been vocal about in his political advocacy. Intellectuals who travel must eventually understand that they cannot be completely “global citizens” even where it relates to information. Eventually some may be overcome when translation becomes automated and digitzation results in the ability to access a larger pool of valuable works. However, it appears, still, interest in performing automated work of translation, and costs of storing translated works, will result in a still fractured and divided source of total information. Making translations available to everyone is about storing information, finding ways to make it available digitally, and translation, and not only translation alone. These costs are huge, but automation will make it more possible to increase the quantity of available information. Media control, however, appears to be something that will take much longer to over come, and false divisions and controls on information will probably still encroach on attempts to make new translations freely available.

For a period Twitter and social media was celebrated for opening national boundaries to global conversation, and comments online often include free translation features that are useful. But work of intellectual importance, that have made it after much effort into printed publications, are still unavailable across national boundaries.

A strange thought is how we would decide what to watch, if suddenly all channels from around the world were made simultaneously available. It seems that this would be possible already to being to provide if not through the web, initially with some inferior network limitations on streaming. Would you watch television from a country we have not been checking on often, like Mongolia, or Yemen? Suppose all was translated: wouldn’t it be incredibly fascinating to suddenly understand the day-to-day interests of people living very different lives elsewhere, facing different problems, and being shown different issues on the news?

Sometimes it is strange to recall that entire lives are lived every day in extremely different cultures that one knows very little about. Your entire life and all its details are repeatedly lived differently by millions in Nigeria in a culture and context that is unimaginable without a long visit. Suddenly, their lives could be made available to us for daily watching. Every day we could potentially be watching what the Nigerians themselves are watching. Would this not result in a feeling that we are suddenly Nigerian too? This must be the effect that television from the United States is having in Australia. Millions are watching it everyday. But it doesn’t go the other way around, and this is due to media controls.

It would also be strange, if suddenly college courses required literature from China, Russia, Argentina, Brazil, and any other nation to be required, not simply to be diverse, but because of the quality of the authorship. Suddenly it would be obvious that we were artificially separated from great minds of other nations and languages. Their books are expected to be interesting and special, not only because leading thinkers have different minds from each other, but also because cultural differences and linguistic differences are expected to produce different kinds of thinking, that others ostensibly say they value. This implies that high quality thinkers of other nations and other universities globally are producing materials that are different and probably surpass in a number of ways what exists in English literature.

It would be a huge mistake to think that English literature really completely covers all that might be produced by other nations. And that is a mistake I’ve made in my reading list, but there aren’t great ways to overcome the limitation of finding and translating good materials, and making them accessible for my own reading purposes. Since I am primarily a reader biased to the English language, stuck in what I have available and what has been made to appear interesting, and my experience is not unique, it appears others probably are nearly entirely biased in their reading lists too. As a reader of mathematics, science and philosophy, I have been exposed to great international works which have been translated, but if one goes by frequency of presentation of information, looking at my reading list and history, at work and in college, it really is nearly entirely biased towards English writings and of course, this is partly due to media control across national boundaries. Media control is not only about what is on television and entertainment, but all information. Media control is information control.

[Completed at 1:55 pm, in 26 minutes, without any edits, spell-check, proofreading, or re-reading, as part of a study in editing]

Generalized Human Hierarchy for Ranking and Titling

Sunday, June 26rd, 2023

Hierarchies used for ranking people in order of importance recur in many human contexts without any apparent awareness of the reword done in each context, what was already done in another. The result is that we have a fimilarity between organizations wherever there is a desire and need to rank and title, but differences in how the ranking and titling is done, and a perception that changes to the way of ranking and titling would require independent effort, and not the use of a ranking and titling standard, competitive with other standards. Not yet understood and unstandardized, organizations unfold in ways that are self-determined, with resulting rank and title systems that have some familiarity to those existing at other organizations but with idiosyncratic differences, resulted from unguided growth by vague emulation.

Recently, I was reflecting on the large number of synonyms that exist for “high leader” roles. This large number of synonyms might lead us to think that our extra vocabulary around names for leaders is inefficient, and also that it is somewhat strange, that one organization would choose one word for a leader role, and not another. Desire for importance seems a motive for avoiding the use of just a single or small number of titles for role, because by having a new title, or one slightly different than the one expected, creates a chance to have special importance.

In choosing how businesses are organized, if one is a founder, one sees that the entire structure of the organization is open for their determination. They can choose what the leadership structure will be, and what to call each of the roles within the leadership. Owners can be given titles or names that are somewhat lofty to create an impression to others that those who are members have some special greatness about them. There is some consistency within business leading to mutual comparison and relative “fitting in” regarding how one chooses these titles. Creating a business is somewhat like creating a government in which an organization will be lead, with knowledge that the organization that’s not in the ownership or immediate leadership will be beneath, and may never be owners or members themselves. These workers or employees are also placed into a hierarchichal strucutre, in which titles for jobs will be created, along with gradations in the jobs relating to room for people to have “advancements” and “promotions”, increasing their relative power and compensation in the organization. There are few organizations in which there is not a feeling of a mostly traditional hieararchy in which people are given titles which function to show their relative importance, compensation, and some summary descriptiveness about the role that they perform. However, businesses do differ significantly in their resulting hierarchy specifically, and this appears to be caused primarily by their being a business functioniing without definite standards.

Militaries, hospitals, businesses, religious organizations, and nations all have systems of ranking that really are quite similar in their function, yet there are still no standards the cross these domains. It appears however that the method of creating and organizing human hierarchies is roughly similar whatever the organization is that has a hierarchy. That they all use hierarchical schemes is also telling regarding the simililarities betweent he organizations. They can know that they need and want hierarchies, but they cannot know how to do it well, and rely on copying what has been seen in other existing hierarchies already observed.

Below are some words used for the title of the highest leader. These words really mean roughly the same thing despite utilization in differing domains.

Pope, President, Leader, General, CEO, Chief, Cardinal, Director, Manager, Sultan, King, Queen, Monarch, Resident, Executive, Judge, Professor, Doctor, Master…

The list is really quite large, and on only a small amount of reflection, it does appear humans have chosen to simply rename the word “leader” over and over. They’ve had different motivations for this, but regardless, a cause is not having a system of taxonomy and structure for organizations. A pope is simply a leader of the church. A cardinal is a leader of a subset of the church. A President, or CEO, or owner, is a leader of a business. A director or manager, is a leader of a subset of the business. An organization with more development may have a CFO, who is a leader of the financial portion of the business. In that domain, there may be an Account Manager, who is a leader of a subset of the business. What is common in this scheme is the hierarchy, and hierarchies within hierarchies. Leaders are simply roles in which some subset of the organization falls underneath them, in certain ways.

What varies greatly also are the sizes of organizations and their level of development of their heirarchical structure. The mililtary would be an example of a very large hierarchy with many titles and gradations between titles. Organizations of one person, when companies are created, have self-designated Presidents and CEOs. This would be an example of a great error, or a symptom of not having a system of forming hierarchies. A President that has no hierarchy underneath may simply be someone pretending to be like a president of another organization that may have a hundred thousand employees, or someone pretending to not be a simple worker. They may be pretending they could ever have a useful or successful business or any structure in their organization. It is just them and they are instantly president! When I created my business, I was instantly President of my own company.

It appears that as people are creating various organizations, or managing organizations that exist that are separate, they continue to be motivated to play with their particular hierarchy, to do new things that would differentiate their organization or people in various ways, and create a different perception in those who are inside and outside the organization. Motivations for making modifications seem to relate to competition. Simply not having a hierarchy that is the same as another may create a differentiation that has many ramifications for the success of the business, including its ability to attract and keep employees, and for marketing to others that their organization has different traits, and has a different offering. Companies will try to argue that their organizations are simply “better to work with”, and that might be relating to reasons including “how the company treats its employees,” or “the quality of its work environment”, or the power of their leadership in their industry. Organizations will strive to make their leaders appear more and not less important than the leadership of competing orgs, even if those competing organizations are larger, offer a better product or service, is more experienced, or is more generally powerful.

Names for members of hierarchies can be used to trick others regarding who is in charge of what and when. An owner of a company can put considerable blame suddenly on a director, when there is business or legal crisis, even though the fault is entirely on the owner. Employees can be given titles like “President” or “CEO” even if they are not owners or have little total control over the business. This gives the impression that certain people who have such titles at large companies are really responsible for whole organizations or are the causes of certain decisions. People may come to believe that they receive the bulk of the pay, and are earning more directly from the margins of earnings atop wages of staff; whereas, in reality, the owner may be unknown and receive these funds more directly, without any contributions at all, or with very periodic decision making only. The President or CEO can be someone who simply redirects attention away from real owners to keep them protected, and also to have a way to direct all blame. It is possible to have an organization blame a President, after an event causes public unrest, with the objective of protecting the real ownership. As owner of my company, I could easily hire a President, who would then be paid fairly well, and would be the apparent leader to others. However, mostly this person would be an employee who is puppeted somewhat in their leadership role. If there was any situation with accusations of mismanagement, I could fire this person and people would believe the issue was taken care of. Meanwhile, I’m unknown, and am still earning a larger amount of money for doing less.

I myself have fallen for the idea that a presented leader must actually be the leader. It is a common illusion. It is hard to know what exactly the title means when it is used. If one is totally ignorant about the financial and founding organization of a large business, and its history, one will not know really if the leader of that organization is the leader of that organization. With research one becomes less ignorant, which may cause some to think “well, people can just research specific organizations to know more” but the work associated with such research is not great enough to overcome the issue that for all organizations unresearched there will be an illusion as to the leadership.

My primary interest for sharing this post relates to the fact that a single word really could be used to designate all leaders, with the addition of a standard for describing, in a more detailed way, what that leader does, and how that leader relates to real hierarchies.

It appears to me, that the actual structures of organizations are complex and not cleanly hierarchical, meaning we pretend there is a hierarchy akin to that which the business may “draw up” given its way of assigning titles and relationships among employees.

A hierarchical model may represent a single view into the organization model of the whole which would include much more detail and may not be cleanly hierarchical. But more likely, a published organization chart would have inaccuracies.

A hierarchical model may be one in which to force an organization, and it also may be one to misrepresent one. A complete description of an organization would indicate some striving for a clean hierarchical model, but the actual description may not benefit from hieararchical visualizations of it. Visualizations of the complete description would require probably more sophisticated graphs, that would show what the role of the “envisioned hierarchy” is within the organization apart from an attempt at description.

This relates to my view that people are organizing things in a “straight and rectilinear” way, when oftentimes the more optimal organization would be one that is less tidy and orderly and more akin to structures seen in nature.

Problems that organizations face when leaders are trying to structure them are natural problems. They seem to try to solve these problems with a desire for tidiness that is akin to house cleaning and organization. Tidiness is not a mark of problem solving necessarily, meaning that a tidy organization does not mean it has been optimally organized or that its problems were solved therby. Instead, one is quickly confused into thinking something has been improved or that problems were solved, by tidinesses. A tidy hierarchy is a way to make it appear the organization is tidy, and functioning optimally, but the result may really be an angry staff, but a nice looking diagram.

It does not appear to the author that there would be an inexhaustible number of potential organizational models due to the constraint that humans have for advancement. If not for some basic constraints around organization which are the cause for their becoming hierarchical, there may really be a massive number of possible organization types in which the constraints would move to being human or animal constraints, or successful prolonged grouping and work.

Changing Processes of Morality

Thursday, June 22nd, 2023

Edits required on process improvements and degradations relating to system behaviors including idividuals and groups, implies that one’s moral system is one that cannot be entirely unchanging. This is and has been an assumption of the author, and is implicit in the edits of his gradually improving system of ethics on the process components. But it also implies that ethics cannot be static and unchanging, and “planned in advance”, and debunks religion, and it’s commitment to ancient and unchanging dogma, wherever that dogma is not taken to be literary history, and is considered to influence behaviors of individuals and groups. It’s age would be akin to if I created my moral system in my youth, then followed it without any addition or alternation the remainder of my life; civilization being young, created a sketch process and demanded it to remain largely unchanging. Yet civilization is wanting of changes. The processes of a young person or young civilization on moral behavior is not inclusive enough of learning either; indeed, the goals of the author here are to expend and improve the process to be increasingly inclusive of new relevant knowledge and information, and it doesn’t appear there would be final terminus of the process. If the author was to create a final process, and make it into dogma and scripture, subsequent moral practitioners would be required to do the same; however, this is not at all in keeping with the goals of the author. Improvements to the process are part of moral learning and creativity, and moral self-modification and improvement. I am a changing persona and my moral learnings would conform to a changing process of behavior, even if merely descriptive and not one that guides future behavior. The implication is a more scientific view of my life is included in this, for allowing for changing descriptions of my life related to actual behavior, while also recognizing processes and rational behavioral plans and real target habits exist that are also changing as I learn. This includes all planning behavior, which also falls within the total description of me. This book includes my living-autobiography.

A strategy for creating a taste for your bag

Thursday, June 22nd, 2023

An issue with improving habits around nutrition is periodic triggers to eating, that associate with unwanted foods and drink. For example, a gas station that one frequents may be a trigger for sweets and drinks, or alcohol. A bar that one has enjoyed frequently, becomes a trigger once it is nearby, resulting in desire to sit down for drinks. Shopping at a grocery store, has aisles that may attract if one has been down them, having candies, snacks, already-prepared food of poor quality, etc… The list of possible triggers to eating in a way that is recognized to be contrary to one’s nutritional goals is huge, and in my history has been an obstacle to progress. Historically, I used a strategy that is not the focus of the present post, but I’ll mention it in passing. That strategy is to recognize all triggers, and find alternate paths away from the triggers even if it means going to new locations that one ordinarily doesn’t go, and additionally, to focus on visual plannin in advance, about what paths will be taken and what will be eaten that’s better, that’s substituting positively for what is wanted to be avoided. The reason for this is that it appears to be easier to make alternative plans that are better and attractive and follow through on them than to simply combat the various triggers in one’s environment. My earlier thought was that driving home from work was a cause for desire for satisfying certain food and drink cravings, since I was in a weakened cognitive state from working all day, and that the triggers caused decision events in which I was less equipped to think rationally to choose options that were not as desirable, the nutritious options, or no options to control spending. Also, choosing a positive alternative route home that had none of the triggers only involved one commitment, of redirecting my path when I left work, in a context without the triggers nearby. It was then easier, to drive the alternative path that had no triggers, and sometimes, one will find, the alternative path results in having no decisions arise at all concerning cravings, and one simply makes it home without issue. It is a simpler way to alleviate the burden of repeated decisions required when triggers to cravings would be numerous, creating numerous decisions, following one’s normal pathways.

This writing concerns, however, a new option that only recently came to mind, approximately 17-20 years after having started the above method. It appears they could be used together to improved results. This new idea is to transfer interest in things in the environment as providers of food and drinks, to one’s own bag. This is simple enough, and some have done this, simply by being prepared with already prepared foods, snacks, and drinks. I’ve done the same. What is different about this idea, however, is the addition of an attempt, using the psychological methods of reinforcement and conditioning, to make the bag itself, which can be a purse, backpack, or other bag always had nearby, an object of desire or trigger of desire for food and drink. Additionally, combined in this same process, is the creation of a search habit, for food when it is wanted on recognition of a sensation, to immediately go into the bag for the item. The result is that the bag itself causes a desire for food, but if the desire also comes from a sensation of feeling famished or thirsty, the bag is still the object of the food search. Either way the bag becomes the source of the food. Repeated satisfaction in the food and drinks contained then reinforces positively the process, making it more desirable to repeat again and again, making it a habit. Once a durable habit, one can stop thinking about how it was originally formed and simply enjoy its repetition, until a time in which another habit competes with it for behavior—at that time a return to retraining the habit with the same process is required.

There is a cyclical need to retrain habits once they begin to be subsituted by other candidate habits that may be less desirable. If more desirable, one simply learns the new habit and replaces the old one permanently.

The assumption in the above method is that foods and drinks placed in the bag will be those that are known to be of good nutritional quality. It may be desirable to choose options, that are satisfactory even with some degree of overeating and drinking, because, if the bag becomes a source of desire, one may repeatedly want food or drink at a greater frequency. This may be a limitation since having no food at all or no drink, for some, may encourage eating nothing or waiting a prolonged period, but this would not be the same type of person as that mentioned above, who is succumbing to triggers for buying poor quality food and drink at various businesses. But if all in the bag is not too calorific, this may not be an issue. My typical strategy additionally is to eat only late at night. The time in which I would be wanting food nowadays would be when I’m famished and haven’t eaten for a very long time. At these times I would prefer to have my bag available as the object of my eating desire, or my area to search once I notice I’m hungry on other sensations.

My preferred drink for my bag is water. I’ve noticed that water is also, of course, a substitute for food, and will be practicing utilizing it in advance of using the bag for any food contained. Foods that will go into the bag are to be decided, but may include, somewhat eccentrically, my more recent preferences: oats, really inexpensive nuts, like peanuts or sunflower seeds, and fruit. I have not decided proportions, but since I tend to overeat peanuts or sunflowers seeds, I would carry less of those particular foods. I may make simple additions and modifications to make it sufficiently attractive to make the bag really potentially a possible object of desire itself. However, these foods are certainly somewhat low calorie, of good quality, vegan, and their choice is consistent with my moral goals and objectives.

The method to be developed further, which will be here written, is precisely how the bags attractiveness is to be increased using principles of psychology. Already having done similarly in the past, as indicated in my personal form, I am confident it will be simple to succeed in conditioning my interest in the bag. There are a number of ways it can be achieved, and in practice I will see what works, and record that process here. Here are initial ideas on how I may begin:

This may not be a complete strategy, however, in my experience it appears this will work effectively. The association of my bag with a single dinner, means that every meal I have will include the bag without any exceptions. If I eat, the bag is involved. This is facilitated by my normally only having one meal, but enables eating on other occasions, for having the food in the bag. Also, since I predictably eat dinner, and dinner recurs, involving my bag ensures training. It means the bag will be involved and will be part of the goal of conditioning it to become attractive on its own. The usage at dinner creates sufficient repeated use.

Carrying the bag everywhere ensures the presence of the bag at other times I may be wanting to eat or drink, on sudden sensation, or to combat possible purchases at locations involving triggers (this happens despite the usual of eating one meal a day). This creats not only sufficient repeat use, it makes sure it is always present. Being always present, it is available as the primary source for satisfying thirst and hunger. If the bag itself does become tasty, then it is more likely that it will be a first searching point for food/drink. This point then ensures, sufficient repeated use for training, and sufficient usage to ensure the success of the objective to be able to use it anytime food or drink is wanted, and not only at dinner.

The first two points pertain to frequency of use and spatial presence of the bag, and routine usage at dinner creating good conditioning opportunities. Additional conditioning is performed by the last two points, which involve emphasizing repeated positive thinking about the bag in relation to the food/drink, search, and finally to make the bag itself a target of hunger. If a psychological study were performed, it would not include conditions so desirable as these, for frequency and opportunity of conditioning, and availability of subjects. What is missing somewhat is isolation of certain relevant conditions, which is needed for confirming causality, but it does appear that one will see clearly that the process has caused the results once it is successful. It could be that one could suddenly have the successful outcome for other reasons, but those would be noticed along the way also, and it is not thought that there would not be additional learning along the way. However, what is interesting, is that despite having no isolation, and a single subject, the causality will appear to be well known on post analysis. Being able to identify the causality is not only about the experimental design, but the mind analysing. Some, unable to identify for themselves good steps to arrive at an objective, may do things along the way to cloud what has occurred. Meaning some, for not having as good quality of minds, or as good quality in planning, may become confused as to how the success has finally resulted. I can admit, to an extent, this appears pervasive regarding weight loss, and there have been instances of my own weight loss in which the central causes resulting in success involved in my behavior may have been unknown. Nowadays this would not be the case for me, but historically it was, and for many wanting to lose weight, it is possible to have success and be unclear as to why it finally worked, and cannot be perpetuated or repeated easily later.

The final result of this effort to make the bag tasty and an immediately thought of place to search for food, is to make the bag related to the only two starting ways in which one seeks food or drink: 1) one thinks of a food of interest and targets it directly, or 2) one becomes aware of a want for food and finds a place to obtain it or search for an option. The result of this process is that the bag is tasty itself and contains tasty options, immediately thought of and present to mind from habit of eating it. Additionally, all searching and shopping is eliminated. One simply has a search habit of going directly into the bag if there is any strong want of food immediately, and of course, at mealtime, when it regularly happens anyway.

What is missing from this process is that the bag cannot contain all food that one will need. One can imagine that if all shopping has been eliminated, the bag is filled with all the food one needs all of one’s life. Which is a humorous way of looking at what is wanted to be achieved, to have a tasty bag in which all food wanted and needed is already in it, and additionally, it never runs out.

Of course it runs out, however, so one has to shop or procure food. Water procurement is easy in that one really emphasizes always having it and does not tolerate waiting to refill. Refilling with water is a priority and it is filled often.

Regarding food, the objective is to refill it daily at a minimum, from a source that is detached from periods of high appetite or craving. Appetite and craving is managed entirely by the bag, which means there need to be times of shopping without a feeling of need to reload the bag. This connects with other advice I’ve used for myself around shopping when not hungry. Shopping when not hungry allows one to purchase more rationally, and to get foods that one does not simply want immediately. Food shopping happens when there is no strong food desire, and fills the bag, and creates a surplus (if needed) that itsef can be used to refill the bag. This is equivalent to filling a kitchen with suitable foods which then are transferred to the bag.

[Written in one hour and 14 minutes, without edits or spell check, finished at 7:16pm]

Demographics You Don’t Have that are You

Wednesday, June 21st, 2023

There are numerous social issues that are pretended to be solved, or are somehow perpetually out of attention, and awareness, that have serious pervasive consequences.

Here is a list of the things you do that you did not supply demographic data regarding:

What are the causes of tiny heads?

But you solved the afterlife.

Which other demographics matter? What is your religion and did you drink when you got pregnant?

You can’t know if your spouse has STDS but you pretend you can know for dating?

There are areas in which as a group there is a pretense that there is a solution, but there is apparently none.

Do you even care about STDs?

You Should Have Thousands of STD Test Results

To what extent have you aggregated your STD test results, monogamous or not?

You should have thousands of test results by now.

Sexually transmitted disease testing and prevention seems to dumb our population. It is pretended that anything reasonable is done at all by anyone really.

In response to saying something like this, I would anticipate “societal protection” responses, that support rationalization:

“I use condoms each and every time I’m with my partner” as though genetalia don’t rub together, and as if that were actually honest.

“My cheating husband has no STD tests at all, and never used a condom.”

This problem is not solved. Not only is it not solved, it is as if nothing has started for finding a solution.

Adding Philosophical Discourse to the High Intelligence Community

Sunday, June 18th, 2023

[Written without edits, and spell checks, in a single sitting, as part of an ongoing study on editing, and the value of certain forms of edits, and editing processes]

Since the departing of William M. Fightmaster, there appears to be a dearth or scarcity of truly philosophical conversation of good quality in certain High Intelligence groups in which he formerly participated. After he died, there was, over a period of time, a noticeable decrease in postings of the same quality and character, which seem to have been primarily created or contributed by him. His many postings were more academic in nature, and where characteristic of philosophers who were academics, and his were sharings that seemed more directed to creating awareness of philosophical topics, shared in a way consistent with what perhaps may be shared by other Professors of Philosophy, coming from philosophy departments in university institutions.

He was sharing openly with our groups topics to discuss with material references from good sources, and also background information and summaries of readings from earlier philosophers, so readers were aware of some background and direction for future explorations and investigations. As a student of Pychology and Philosophy, like him, I am able, and have been able, to verify the authenticity of his shares. He was sharing good quality philosophy that was real and consistent with what is presented by other philosophers who are current, and still professors at various institutions. His citations were accurate, and his descriptions of the thoughts of others seemed accurate to existing trusted readings, providing corroborating primary or secondary source materials, which would justify his postings.

He wasn’t incredibly opinionated regarding his materials and invited open conversation and lively discussion. Threads in which he was included, and those he created, were a source of good intellectual conversation which seemed to enrich the high intelligence community. Now that he is not around, after some number of years, his contribution to the quality of discussion is more obvious, and now there appears to be a clear difference in the quality of conversation and contributions. I think people in our groups are ready for high quality discussion, but the starting points for their development seem to have been reduced without his frequent contributions.

I first joined the High Intelligence Community after years of studying philosophy and psychology independently, mostly keeping all conversations and thoughts about philosophy to myself. Even while at the University of Maryland in the Philosophy Department, I was more often wanting to think alone than with others, because the controversial nature of philosophy lead to a style of conversation that did not seem to promote growth or mutual development. Instead, conversations flagged after focusing on specific topics presented by instructors, and seemed more about quandries and puzzles that did not appear to have good direction for self-improvement. Many who are exposed to philosophy and some parts of psychology and the sciences that are more theoretical, or less obviously connected with everyday self-improvement, probably felt the same way as I did. Having perhaps less interest for independent study, Philosophy and certain theoretical topics may have seemed ‘pointless’ will less real-life reasons to think the topic worth considering further. However, Prof. Fightmaster invited conversation in a way that was unusually consistent with the objectives of real philosophers who really are able to make connections between the subject matter and real life. He had many admirers and friends and it appears it was because he offered significantly improved mutually collaborative conversations that show the real value of philosophy and topics he was interested in. He provided real academic avenues for people who may not see the value of philosophy and theoretical topics, in a context in which people really were wanting to have that kind of conversation, and he appears to have won much admiration and friendships as a result.

He and I quickly gravitated to discuss with mutual interest and recognition of understanding of the importance of Philosophy and mutual understanding of what it requires concerning logic and skepticism. Finding him to be reputable, I spent much time communicating nearly exclusively on threads that included contributions of his as well. Seeing each other as being akin in various ways we developed a personal relationship and friendship which extended into in-person visits and conversations outside of the social groups like Mensa. I was a guest in his home a number of times, and once attended a party including others who were caring about his friendship and involvement in the comunities, at a time when his health conditions were deteriorating and it was becoming clear that probably he would eventually succumb to terminal illness. He passed away not long after, and is now noticeably absent from discussions all over the intelligence community’s discussion forums.

I think there is a need in the High IQ community to introduce topic matter and a familiar style of collaborative discourse that he was providing, and that I found stimulating and congenial to my own intersts. He provided somethign to the community that I was intensely wanting, and appreciative of upon finding it. I don’t think he is the only person to be able to stimulate with new and intersting conversations on topics of theoretical interest that are foundational, and supportive to minds that are wanting better complexity and solution. But to contribute in the way he did would require substantial efforts and time; being a retiree, he was able to spend more time than others in posting to the group and sharing comments. Others however, I think could provide excellent contributions, perahps if certain suggestions are observed which would relate to his contributions, and would relate also to what is simply done in academia. It’s the sharing of topics of real interest, and invitation of a quality of communication that exists in academic publications. He would provide numerous background sources to back up sharings he made, which would create seriousness and reality to the discussion, and provide material that readers who are unfamiliar need, to be brought into the conversations. Here in our groups we have scientists and philosophers, and business people, who ceratinly could delve more deeply into interests they have that are foundational or “cutting edge” with sufficient personal background and research to supply information with some basic preparations and citations, creating collaborative high quality discussion. Folks may not be able to spend as much time developing the conversations but periodically, I think it would be a great contribution, if some could sometimes contribute in a similar capacity.

In my many sharings over recent years, I have taken an alternative course of sharing edgy philosophical topics embedded in my own reflections or remarks, in a way that assumes that others could recognize the significance or philosophical directions, thinking it could perhaps stimulate interesting conversation, and sometimes it did, but I think not with the same results as what Mr. Fightmaster would produce, by sepaking to tohers as a teacher would. Here I believe I will transition my own writings to be more in keeping with useful conversations I’ve had with Fightmaster in a more academic and invitational format, that may help benefit in the ways that I was mentioning others could do similarly, in their own areas of interest. In other words, as I write this I’m forming plans for how I contribute to the high intelligence community, in ways that are more similar to what I’ve done somewhat, with Mr. Fightmaster, somewhat following his lead, in earlier conversations. For me this is a return to a more academic style of communication, with recognition and appreciation for what Mr. Fightmaster has done for our community, and I’m also inviting others perhaps to be more ready to share in a more academic style, to have longer more worthy conversations, than some that are created that detract perhaps from the value of the community.

Of course people want to socialize, so I’m not thinking that socialization should end in favor of more difficult sharings and conversations that require some background reading, research or career development. Instead I’m thinking it would be great for an increased quality of contribution of the other type so that there isn’t an unbalance felt, and that there might be a real feeling of interest and cultivation of mind in the various communities.

It would be noted, probably, by other folks who have been in the communities many decades, that there are times in which there would be really good quality contributions, and other times, in which there appears to be less. I’m feeling from what I’ve seen over the past few years that perhaps quality has diminished from the period of a few years earlier. Then again, it depends on where one goes for conversation, and who it is with. Mr. Fightaster leaving may have simply left a noticable decrease of a certain kind of conversation I myself enjoy, but I have to also say, that with his departing it does make it appear that the groups have diminished somewhat in the availability in what I’m wanting for myself and found gladly on first arrival.

I was focusing this on philosophy because typically philosophy involves conversation on topics of intense interest for being on the edge of intellectual exploration. It touches and includes various fields, as long as they are foundational or are on the edge of mental and learning adventures. Others, doing similar things, in technology and the sciences, and engineering, are working on “cutting-edge” ideas, and foundational or novel areas of cultural development. I am including these others in the above remarks and am wanting to hear more from them what they can share about what is of interest in their own minds, for mutual conversational development and enrichment of the community.

In other words it would be nice to hear the more advanced academic developments of folks who have much to share even if they don’t have much time, in a way that is “teacher like”, providing some background information and ways to learn, in a way exhibited us already by folks like Prof. Fightmaster, Ph.D, Psy.D. The way he was sharing is what is of interest and not that he was an advanced acedemician. He was inviting others into conversation in ways that was collaborative without expectation of PhDs or advancement in a university setting, making it possible for others to interat in a similar way without having had that background. It was a feeling of having a familiar university level conversation with wider participation made possible. It’s not to be forgotten that people are able to contribute in the same ways without having the same backgrouns, and of course we are in a group with a very diverse participation. Furthermore, it is not clear who will have important and unexpected contributions.

A characteristic of these conversations was respectful and interested communication, and expectation of collaboration, and much less that is rude, reactionary, or quickly written with an objective of thwarting the conversation, or its value. Conversations have still been inviting of diversity of opinion and debate, but the debate was of a type more characteristic of kind and civil conversation, which is celebrated within Philosophy, where it is possible to be skeptical of all sorts of thoughts, and supportive of ideas that are unconventional, or often rejected.

[Completed, blind-typing, without reading or editing, or spell check, as part of my ongoing study on editing]

Status on the Current Project Regarding Homelessness and Wealthy Camping

Saturday, June 17th, 2023

In earlier writings I’ve discussed an ongoing project I’m working on connecting the topics of homelessness and wealthy camping, with the goal of resolving related issues. Efforts to dates have resulted in some insights of significance, requiring some additional testing and validation, including:

It’s been important to me to arrive at key occlusions that exist that have prevented others from being more successful than they have been in any projects for solving homelessness. It is interesting that in all the time in which solutions have been attempted or proposed, for various homelessness related issues, there has not been a need to introduce causes to keep homelessness. In other words, it appears it has been solved to keep homelessness, and that solution already exists and is living in the world. Complaints and controls around the market for sleeping, including requirements to have a suitable bed at a hotel or in a residence, appear to be key incredients in this issue. Also the role of law enforcement is extremely important, because they are the ones responding to complaints, and are effectively the existing solution for preventing wealthy camping and homeless living. Where one is allowed to sleep, is also related to the controls that exist with law enforcement, particularly if one thinks that it is dangerous at night, and one must be on property that one pays for or owns already, meaning there are transit, market and property requirement that all connect to ways to involke police. Those who are more adept at complaining and getting police favor would be those most able to ensure that issues around homelessness still exist. A person who is having difficulties related to homelessness are experiencing those difficulties partly because of who would complain to police. In locations where there is more money and power, homeless people and travelers can be complained about much more quickly even if their behavior is not related to anything causing complaint. One can simply dislike wealthy campers and homeless people, and use one’s power with law enforcement to ensure that they have irritating police encounters that could lead to arrest, and inability to continue their pursuit of healthy wealthy camping and homeless living.

Currently I’m focused on what the life of people consists of when they decide they do not want to be in the rent market. Rent makes up a significant portion of one’s living budget, but few really consider that they could remove renting and owning homes from their expenditures. There are claims in the United States and elsewhere about rights to choose lifestyle and certainly that includes ability to choose how one spends money on sleep arrangements. If sleep is the primary need one has identified for being a consumer of homes and apartments, and hotels, then one may want to continue to rent and purchase accommodations. However, if one has decided that what the market offers is not good enough, is too expensive, or is otherwise only something to have occasionally, and not all the time, then one has the freedom, some might think, to spend money otherwise. With funds made available due to a decision to no longer rent, one has had a substantial income increase, even if one is living on savings. Suddenly, one may have another $15,000 a year to spend on other things, which may enable being able to survive well on existing resources. One may not spend much on other things apart from rent, if one is living frugally. Living frugally is arguablly, extremely limited, given this huge cost increase in expenditure if one chooses to live in a residence. Keeping those funds to use otherwise is an intelligent choice, and so one may want to not have a home and live more as a traveler or camper, than spend those funds. Even if one is wealthy, one is supposed to have the option of where to spend extra funds, since as a consumer, one can have any position one likes regarding making purchases in the market. On may refrain from renting simply to choose how one will retain, manage, and spend wealth. Even if that wealth is very great. We have some exmaples of wealthy people, like Warren Buffet, who pride themselves for living in regular homes. I once read a book, “The Millionaire Next Door” which explains that the demographics of wealth reveal that wealthy people are not really ostentatious on average, and instead choose to spend their money on more basic homes than one would expect. This means the wealthiest, most well planned families regarding finances, are choosing to spend a certain way that supports keeping that wealth and ensuring habits are good for preserving and increasing wealth. One does not need to have several million dollars, or billions of dollars, to follow their leads. Actually, these people are often advising others on how to attain the same situations for themselves. Their recommendations are often to do the same, or spend even less for not having enough yet, to have even a modest home. Some have stories, of before they were wealthy, explaining that they did what they needed to, to live in a car, live with other roomates, or live in homelessness temporarily, in order to make sacrifices to gain wealth later. They tell their humble starts to their success stories. This implies, that for many people who did become wealthy, they would advocate very frugal living, making big drops in their budgets for paying rents, or any rent at all, and further, they live in success still living in modest conditions. This means they advocate to never be wasteful regarding resources and instead to live as cheaply as one can, even making what they call, again, sacrifices in rent, to eventually get to the point of having substantial resources, still in an inexpensive home.

It is important I think to think more about why they would advise sacrifices, and why they could even be sacrifices. Living inexpensively, in a vehicle, or in a camping scenario, or at someone else’s home temporarily, or with family, or in an RV or tiny home, etc… clearly may include some discomforts. But why advise that type of living? Also, why advise that type of living, to celebrate a living hardly better later, once wealth has been gotten?

Here is where I can offer some expertise as a wealthy traveler and camper, and someone exploring what it means to live closer to homelessness in a huge variety of living conditions. This includes years living in hotel rooms. That sounds irrelevant, but it is not: it involves choosing how and where one wants to live, and there are sacrifices, including strangenesses around relationships requiring “permanent physical addresses” and “mailing addresses”. Even if one is wealthy, and traveling hotel to hotel, suddenly there is pressure to stay in one place, to have a mailing address and physical address. But as a consumer of the rental market, I can choose anything I want to spend my money on, including totally homeless life in hotels. I’ve lived this way for years.

I’ve also lived trying to camp, stay in hostels, stay in AirBnBs and more short termarranged housing. I own a large plot of land in Alaska where I’ve lived for long periods in an RV, totally off grid, with no water and no septic. This type of living also requires making what some would call sacrifices relating to entertainment, transit around havin wifi/cellular, and strangenesses around rules with addresses, since my property is a vacant parcel, and they don’t allow mailing boxes near the home, if there isn’t a permanent dwelling. This creates a good amount of complexity for managing life, particularly if one is maintaining a business and is actively working.

But there are rich people who were advocating worse living conditions. Living temporarily in vehicles like cars, or living more like a homeless person, simply finding places to sleep. Many stories from famous people tell about doing this for long periods to create habits and savings to make steps towards wealth and work success. Some tell stories of risking everything including all funds and taking on credit card debt on risky business ventures, with the result of sleepinging in cars, or sleeping in offices for long periods. Anyone living in the United States knows probably there are too many stories like this, not a shortage of examples.

People will use stories of their temporary homeless life, or frugality in residence, to create credibility on their success story. Meaning some will lie.

There really are too many stories like this in American Popular culture. Wealthy people want and need to prove they did it all on their own and in order to explain it, will tell their stories about how they had nothing in the beginning, and how having nothing was really important for teaching lessons required for finally becoming rich.

But why are we advocating these sacrifices, what are these sacrifices, who are they for, and what risks do they create? Firstly, it seems that to preserve merit in having a good success that one has made for oneself, everyone needs some story about having nothing. So everyone is told that to do it on their own they need to have started basically with nothing at all. To prove it, one needs street credibility, which includes stories like living with danger in one’s life, or living without a place to go and maybe nothing to eat. For everyone else, who hasn’t started totally from nothing, one is still getting advice from rich people like Warren Buffet, or those who lived in cars, who say that making big frugal changes to lifestyle results in sucess. So now one is told to live in vehicles, camp temporarily, live in offices (like living at your employers place?), sleeping where one can, taking uncomfortable offers from friends an family to have cheap temporary places to stay. All of these things create social risks (now your friend later reminds you of how poor you were and how you didn’t get success on your own), security risks, and risks of looking like one is doing something wrong. So now you’re living in your car, or on the street, and you are a problem and you are not someone to be cared for. How can this type of life be suggested by people who are successful later, if the risks are this great?

People don’t really consider living this way, and really do not consider themselves free about their rent arrangements, beecause they understand it is risky to try to live one one’s own according to suggestions like these.

But the risks are not really well understood such that they could be listed by people. People don’t really know what the risks are well, and cannot explain them, if they have not perhaps attempted living that way, or have not been exposed to information from those who know. When I was young, I just vaguely knew I would not want to not have a home or a place for mysel. I didn’t seriously consider that choosing not to spend money that way was really an option. That one does not think to budget out rent is an interesting tell, because it shows that people are really not as free as they might imagine, given that option can never come into their thought at all. Instead they automatically know they need to spend on rent, and do not take it out of their budgeting.

But the rich people still advocate starting out in a way that is extremely frugal, with risks maybe not totally remembered or recollected. One reason why, may be, that they noticed that they really did have that option. They really did budget in a way to take out rents. They did something unusual and they know it. Later in life, they forget the risks and discomforts. Also, they somehow survived without serious outcomes, while others, certainly, end up uncomfortable, or really do have consequences realted to law enforcement that make it seem much more impossible an option.

“I tried to live as a homeless person to improve my life but instead was criminalized and accused of miscellanous unsolved petty crimes, or worse, something serious.”

Homelessness is a tell that one does not have a lawyer. This means one will not succeed very likely, if one is suddenly targeted by police.

. “I was just sleeping in my car in a parking lot, but suddenly I was arrested for criminal trespass, and accused of theft. Now I think it unwise to try to live without rent.”

A famous person may have gotten through possible predicaments without serious risk. I’ve slept in cars, travel vans, RVs, and have been approached by police on many occasions. All were unwanted and unnecessary. I’ve gotten through it without issue, but I’m also white, intelligent, I have good self-presentation, and am less likely to be targeted more thoroughly or in a more severe way, by police. If I was black, or hispanic, there may be someone with my likeness out there, already accused of a serious crime. Now, there is risk of a visual match. Since trespassed, why not accuse them of other serious crimes that happened at night?

Famous people may have forgotten risks is the point here. But they tell the stories because they did:

Who has ever started a business and wanted to pay their rent, and rent for an office? I temporarily did this and it felt like an incredible, and somewhat depressing, waste of funds. What is advised is to have no rent at all! What one feels when one has an office is “Why am I not at home in my home office,” and if one can do much of the work without an office, and one already dislikes rent, then one doesn’t want any of it, particularly given the costs. Real estate for a new lawyer’s basic office might be more than their own rent at home. So a starting lawyer could make a foolish move of having 1,500 in rent and 2,000 in office payments. Interestingly, those people who made business success stories, living without rent, would have had other real-estate concerns and issues related to their business, and would advise to minimize those costs too. For example, when you start a business, it needs an address, you ned bank accounts with addresses associated. So one may not be following the rules either when starting the businesses. One may be breaking a good number of rules to make the sacrifices possible to begin with.

“What was you mailing address on your driver’s license, when you were living in your car?”

If you advised concerning the American success story from having nothing to being rich then you would be aware, that this may include having an incorrect driver’s license, and mismatching information on all records requiring ID and address.

Then, the postal service handling mail has rules around post office boxes, correct addressing, and so on, meaning that one may need to break rules to get mail, while one does not have a home, temporarily living in a vehicle, or in someone else’s home, or in a hotel, or in a tent.

It is really strange, that advocates would think it both necessary, for learning and saving, and also a sacrifice, despite being part of a global American dream. How can all these examples of success stories from nothing exist, and continue to be advocated, while maintaining beliefs that there is good opportunity in America?

“It is required to suffer and have risks for any life improvement if one is starting with few resources, and it’s good.”

Not only is it “good” it’s been a “dream”, a “real possibility”, drawing people from other countries to follow similar advice, with good expecations, and not expectations of dangrous risks including criminalization and permanent poverty.

[More to come]

If the news isn’t interesting, others likely became less interesting

Friday, June 16th, 2023

Or, using the news to, in advance of socialization, know if socialization is worthwhile.

In the earlier posting below, it was discussed that people tend to think they are conveying their personal value when they discuss current issues on the news, which may relate to politics or religion. If some major event or movement exists and is in the news, people will think they can convey their own value by talking about their position and thoughts on what the news has shared. Notice they do not discuss, or seldom focus attention on, issued considered closed or settled, or old, or out of memorty. People really do focus on what has been presented to them recently on the news and media.

Now, suppose nothing of interest is going on in the news. Suppose there are no major events, and no major movements. What is presented on the news may appear more mundane, less interesting or catastrophic, and perhaps less related to personal worth, that is expressed in shared thoughts in conversation. Now, having less of interest to talk about, and less that is perceived valable, there will be less that appears to connect what they wish to talk about with the larger world around them. They may become more interesting on communicating about what is nearer to them, or what is more of personal social interest.

In order to have something to think about, to convey self worth, it appears there is a complete reliance on news and media sources to have something current, that appears larger than their own social context. Otherwise what people will discuss and talk about would be spatially local, and appear basic, and more like small town talk.

It may be possible to use the news and media as a way to recognize what people could talk about, to keep themselves interesting to others. Maybe people are not conveying their own value as much as they are keeping themselves interesting, they think, to have attention.If one can observe the news, and media, and roughly guess at the probable thoughts probable minds will be having, one can then avoid having any conversations with people who would only say what is expected.

People who would oppose such a view, would not have a reasonable argument, since having expected conversations with others is not anything anyone really advocates. If too known, too repetitive, and too expected, a person will look for other sources of stimulation and interest. They do not owe interest from poor sources of information that’s too predictable or repetitive. But interestingly, it does appear to be a common thing in etiquette, for people to think they are deserving of being heard, regardless of who it is they want to take attention from. However, behavior and other recommendations clash with this perception of rudeness, in trying to manage attention.

It appears possible to simply periodically observe the news and media in order to estimate the relative unvalue of the thoughts of others. However, if the news becomes of better quality, it is not clear that the thoughts of others outside the news would become any more valuable, given the news is more sophisticated than they are.

“If the news were more sophisticated than most of the audience, and more informative, they audience would not be able to copy it into their conversations, or have reasonable positions.”

This seems to provide additional information, regarding why regular people seem so perpetually unuseful as sources of information and quality of conversation. Even if the information sources get better, until it exceeds their sophistication, they won’t be elevated. It would make it obvious that instead of listening to others, the news is adequate on its own.

But if the news is of poor quality, then thoughts and reflections on what is conveyed may appear to exceed what the news has provided, making it seem as though regular people are more valuable, but that is only an illusion created by having simpleton-news.

The relationship between the news and demands of others to be heard suddenly, about what was on the news, by listeners, is a strange topic. It clashes with what is taught in education: one should direct one’s thought and attention to learning from valuable and trusted sources of information, not everyone. People in academics would likely greatly enjoy people in their environment in which they can have conversations about what may be more valuable, versus regular people from the public who decide to rely, contrary to what is taught in education, on the news and what is given in the media. And each other! The respect wanted to the process of listening to people reacting from the news, because it is democratic, is simply contrary to what all have been taught.

More basic pieces of information supporting the view that higher moral behavior, and better ethics, requires a method for managing attention, in a way that is more consistent with what is taught in higher education, and what is more consistent with rational selection and habit building.

“Choose your friends wisely”

indicates a non-democratic viewpoint that most accept. Expanded upon it’s:

“Direct your attention to what is worthy, excluding all else.”

Of course, any attention to something, completely excludes all else that could be attended to.

One ought not choose plain friends, who react to low news and stimulation, with a probable mind, that is probably low quality. Going further to attention to all, and not just people, one wants to have a smart family, and not a randomly generated family! One wants to reach intelligent books, and not nonsensical misinformation. One wants to have a nice environment, maybe one more heavenly, to use an analogy that the low people use.

Nice things to have, hear, and see, and smell, etc… Not people reiterating the news, in a canned fixed-patternlike way.

You interacted and shared the news according to a fixed pattern, known-inferior?

Inability of Others to Contribute Useful Thoughts

Friday, June 16th, 2023

Just moments ago I was reflecting more on what it is other people can really contribute that is valuable to me conversationally, or informatively.

Earlier I mentioned that most people have highly probable thinking, as opposed to those who are more intelligent, and are not too into common sources of stimulation (socialized probable thoughts), who have less probable thoughts, more likely to be separable from common social thinking. These people are less worthwhile as targets of conversation, or as worth attending to when they try to force their presence or messages on your attention.

Oftentimes when someone thinks they have something valuable to offer, or complain concerning, it has these two aspects:

  1. It does not include private information.
  1. It often includes what has been on the news.

People do have a tendency to relate important thoughts to religion and politics, or current events in the news. They obtain their sense of their own importance by their support or non-support of various religious or current event issues, which are put in front of them. These are probable pieces of information they did not create. But more importantly, they are unable to create topics of interest. They depend on these topics to have a reaction to them that somehow creates value, they think, relating somehow to themselves.

In democratic nations, by reacting and supporting or opposing a view, or happening, one thinks one has automatically become valuable, because there is a supposed inclusiveness in the democratic system, which is thought necessary to keep it going. However, this is a very unreflective way of arriving at self importance, and anyone can do it! Even those with probable thoughts, or copies of thinking from the news and media.

This also relates to the view that young people really do not have valuable thoughts to hear. Around end of high school, and early college years, young people begin to think the way to show their value is to participate in common disagreements that are current to their time period. Their thoughts are considered something worthwhile in that it shows they are getting involved, and are doing something adult-like, consistent with the ways that government and entertainment function, according to some unspoken words about timeliness. This is why they talk about LGBTQ+ism and gay rights so often.

However, adults also instantly discard their thoughts oftentimes, seeing their activism as naive and well, practice at becoming an adult. There is something bizarre and foolish appearing about young people zealously supporting something they learned recently on the news.

What could these activist kids have to offer to politics, if they did not find something from the news to react to? Would they be creating things anew, afresh, to share with us, including new improbable thoughts, and improbable solutions? Or, is it more likely that these kids, like the adults that think their activism is cute, really just repetitively choose topics from the news, and pick some side that seems to exist, to team regarding it, and talk over it or gesticulate openly, with zeal sometimes at rallies, using probable thoughts, conversation and sentences, that can be known in advance?

Let us imagine an approach to understanding whether or not any regular people will have something of value to offer, or not. One can first think, well, what has been on the news? Also, what are the repetitive supposedly important common religious views, and their possible relationships to news events? Ok, now what are the ways that people team and oppose each other? Knowing these things, one can fairly predict, without extreme accuracy, but good accuracy, the kinds of things people will say. “I think gays should be allowed to be married,” and “I think women should be able to have equal pay,” and that “student loans should go down, and debts forgiven.” What of this is of value really, to me? What can they say or do that would convey from them to me, something of a useful exchange, particularly given that, someone like myself would have something interesting and new to contribute, and not something merely a routine “unsolved problem”?

I was walking by a guy at Arizona State University today, and he tried to get my attention for something not worthwhile, and not well communicated, and I thought to myself:

“What could he really do for me, LGBTQ+ me?”

Now I’m required to disclaim that I’m not against something one might cherish concerning current events in LGBTQ+ welfare. But instead, I’m going to say “One cannot infer what I think from this…””

But back to this thought “What are you going to do, NEWS me?”

This really does appear a reasonable approach to handling information from others particularly when the person who approaches, or is wanting of information spreading, is someone who does not appear to have anything obviously valuable to offer, from a fair sizing up of their face and body, an clothing. What does anyone share that is new, interesting, improbable, or valuable in relation to educating others. If one just reflects: “This person is a private person who really cannot share without believing they risk their own life, and when they do share, is in a common news-fed way, relating to instant antagonisms between teams… Going on probability, their minds will be probable. I can safely ignore.”

Going on probability the minds will be probable, really does allow one to unlisten to all that people might say, knowing in advance that really, people are disenfranchised and have nothing to offer.

They actually go further than having probable thoughts and probable minds, but join in a system of voting and politics that is channeled and controlled. They “joined in” on a news system and information sharing social process that makes their minds more probable, thoughts less interesting, more in control.

If I decided, as a media organization owner (I’m not that), I could simply raise a new topic of supposed political importance, and watch people become self-important. I could predict and watch how they would team. Their superficial thoughts, and wild anger act activist rallies that might result.

If I created an issue around marriage, I could predict in advance most that could be said about the topic, that would be unvaluable, that would be common too. Their preferences can be seemingly known in advance, because what they would probably think, with probable thoughts, that’s political and religious, would be what they think raises their own value. Raising their own value with their words and actions, they are communicating, they may not realize, their supposed preferences.

I don’t believe their behaviors would indicate they have the same preferences, particularly considering what they keep private, but I would be expected to believe them, when they are talking in a context that is supposed to be showing their value.

There is an attentional process that is reasonable here, that could be added to the relationshp management part of life, fitting into the attentional management process I’ve written concerning. It is that you can expect that people will try, when they want to convey their value, something that seemes canned and related to the news. For that no listening is required.

Just now I noticed a thought of interest. If people are canned, they need to know the ways in which they appear object-like and not humanlike in their behaviors. If they are more object-like, they may dislike their own self-objectification. They may come to recognize that their behavior is a simpleton-pattern, self-objectifying and predictable. It is much better for me to oppose that politically and one method of opposing is by not listening to them.

Recalling additionally, that one only hears what is near, or what has temporary access, there is no rudeness in not listening to what has merely presented itself, while all else, that has not been presented, has gone unheard. One can simply not hear along with all else that exists that is not heard. This had to be written because there are people that think that anyone who is present needs to be heard. This does not work well when the thinker considering listening has value, but those around have little to offer. That one person, and important listener, who many want to listen to him/her, has many more situations in which they really need to decide not to listen. Whereas the people who want to speak, who people don’t want to tell anything to, can believe that all need to hear, for having no instances of people who want them to hear something.

More on this topic later, but a tentative supporting confirmation exists above in refraining from listening to people who are effects of news.

Inability to Intuit that Significance Precedes Persuasive Language

Thursday, June 8th, 2023

Today, just now as I was reflecting on the posting below, The Life Categories, Language, and Brain, I came I think to a solution to the issue of communicating new significant thoughts, or ideas, to people who are unable, apparently for reasons of having a differently organized mind with respect to language, including words and relations, and knowledge. There is an excessive expectation in thinkers, including myself, who have many significant ideas, to speak and write in a way that is accessible and persuasive to others. The ideas had, which are significant, already involve language immediately available to thinker. If a person is strong at communication and verbal thinking, then already that thinker, will use language alone, independtly, to self-explain, summarize, and develop upon the same thought. Communicating alone, there is no special need, to go any further on persuasion; believeing the thoughts already important, the thinker is persuaded by the idea’s meaning and interrelationships with other knowledge, and relationship to life and the environment, so there is no audience requiring any pressure to accept some learning. Persuasion is a kind of pressure applied, to get others to want or succumb to a messageor learning. Oftentimes, people do not want to hear new ideas, or accept them, or understand them. Oftentimes they cannot understand the messages. This is due, partially for having different brains with verbal mappings, (Ref further into The Life Categories, Language, and Brain) and relationships. So when a thinker, who already understands and can communicate an idea already understood, and already understood to be significant, tries to speak with others, they either don’t understand, or resist somehow, and we think that plain or simple language and persuasiveness will overcome this, and make them able to think what the thinker does. There really is a want, for the thinker to have an audience who can reiterate with understanding a confirmation of what was communicated. They want to hear that others are understanding and see the significance.

This a solution to stay aware of this, for someone like myself, because there isn’t a great reason to expect myself to change how I speak, for others who either won’t understand or won’t be persuaded. The idea that simple language is required, is missing that that an audience will really not resist what is heard once understood, or that they can understand. Furthermore, the thinkers like myself, believe already that the thoughts do include plain language, which explains the irritation had, when others expect other words and other ways to express. Sometimes they want examples crafted for them, or special illustrations. If the knowledge is missing in someone to quickly recognize the significance, then what is needed is more knowledge, and not plain language or illustrations. How they get the knowledge is something of interest. Certainly if they can arrive at a similar enough language organization of brain, they will have a better chance at understanding, like anyone who ends up actually understanding already. But how do they arrive at that? By learning new vocabulary, and getting prepared with new teachings and relationships, etc… This resembles trying to teach someone something new, to get them to a greater sophistication, to finally arrive at the more significant thoughts. This takes time. That it takes time, already debunks the idea that the significant thoughts should have another kind of simple land persuasive expression, for immediate understanding. The duration of time required to arrive at thoughts was ignored and is actually necessary. Instead what was substituted was “you need to think more simple and do certain steps, before I can understand or accept”, but this was only a false path set by the audience.

The requirement that a thinker have simple or plain language, and be more persuasive, is a false-path misdirection, of those who may not be able to understand, and may not have a short pathway to understanding something important.

These people will also say, “it isn’t important” without understanding. They’ll say “if you can’t it simply, you don’t know it.” This last example, is plainly a way out for some audience members who know they are not smart. A thinker who arrives at a mathematical treatment of a topic, that in mathematics is said to be “elegant”, has arrived at a great level of simplicity in complexity, that an audience will never understand. This means they have not lacked simplicity at all. They have not had a way to persuade, or provide knowledge, to people who could not have had enough time to learn the information, or people who never could learn the information. The requirement set up for these thinkers, is a requirement of instant communication. But for significant thoughts, this is not possible.

This creates an issue for people, like myself, who have highly important significant thoughts often, using language already felt to be simple, in communicating with others. I think now, reflecting on this, that the reality, a reality resisted, is that people cannot understand and cannot be communicated with, regarding highly important thoughts. There is a want to share share, and give to others but they cannot receive it. Not only that, they don’t want it. The proof that they don’t want it, is the false expectation of instant persuasion simple words without new knowledge, is for making the thinker have more work to do, for no achievable goal. It is often also a way, to make the thinker believe, that their thoughts are not actually understood by the thinker.

Again, a thinker who has really already had a significant idea or thought:

  1. Knows what they thought, and identified it as important.
  2. Has the words required to have to begin with, to arrive at it.
  3. Can speak about it using the words they have.
  4. Words had already, include all of the simple words.
  5. If the thinker continues thinking about the same idea already understood, they will re-use their own vocabulary.
  6. To have the idea, new words are not required, because that would imply new words are required for learning thoughts, already learned. Since learned, and known, the vocabulary was sufficient already. Nothing additional is needed.
  7. A significant idea, is one with many associations.
  8. An idea with many associations, has many words related, including simple words.
  9. A thinker who is good at communicating alone, and is highly verbal, will be able to use those words, already known to be associated, to contiue thinking about, summarizing, and expressing the idea, independently.

A thinker has all of this already. Simplicity and many ways to say the same, including ways to say what is important about it. Why they like the idea. Why they think it important. Why their minds led to that point, of having the idea with the words they learned already.

The have all this

AND they want to give it to others.

For free oftentimes!

People in the audience are not “loving” if they are not understanding the causes of not being ablel to receive it, and are ready to call it nothing, by saying that the thinker doesn’t even understand their own thoughts. “If it’s not simple, then the thinker doesn’t understand it” is really disgusting and repulsive. It’s ungrateful and anti a willingness to share. Consider the best things are:


The Life Categories, Language, and Brain.

Tuesday, June 6th, 2023

At the time that I first created the life-categories that were intended to provide a mechanism for staying aware of the various parts of life requiring attention, it became clear that there were many different categories that could be chosen alternatively. The primary focus of selecting those categories, were related to my specific purposes and my interests, and what I thought to be important areas of my life to manage and collect information regarding. I spent time over a period of two years using and revising these categories.

After a long period of discontinuing active development of my personal form, I returned recently to work on the life categories in the development of this Book and Journal. I have altered the priority of each of the categories to suit my recent needs. However, I did not much alter the actual categories used. This was due to my recognizing that they really were adequate as they were, provided complete coverage of my life, and could be modified at any time depending on my later needs or goals.

Another early observation relating to the categories of life is that people with different interests and backgrounds, and people wanting to choose categories using differing languages, would choose other words, and not the words I was using. Part of the plan of these categories was to allow for modification, and anyone who wanted use the system, modify it, or create systems of their own, would want to use their own words, as long as additionally they had adequate coverage to encompass all that was important to them in their own lives.

The key criteria of the life categories is maximum coverage with an easy to manage sized list of categories in which to focus attention on parts without forgetting any for too long a period of time. Additional information on this approach can be found on the section about the personal form itself. Our purpose here differs somewhat from a development on the life-categories themselves, and is more about the importance of resisting excess structuring and restructuring of them. They are modifiable, of course, as I said, but one need not dwell excessively on organization, once it is known that comprehensiveness is attained, and the requisite attention is achieved, by usage of each of the categories. Some may experience a desire to represent life in a way that is extremely accurate by revising and re-revising this list of life categories, which is a kind of taxonomy of a person’s life, as it relates to categories of interest and behavior. It may not be immediately recognized, by systems of taxonomy, like the taxonomy of the earth’s animal kingdom, can be organized and reorganized many times, and is incomplete and not complete. The current nomenclature for annimals surely does not adequately represent the structure of the history of animal life and the ancestry and relatedness of the different organizms whose names appear in the lists of extant animals. In different languages outside English and Greek/Latin, there are other languages, like Chinesse, which could be used to name the animals differently, and alternatively represent their ancestry and relations, according to different assumptions about how life on Earth evolved. Within the taxonomy of primates, including humans and their ancestors, there would be differing opinions about the lineage, and the meaning of various fossils that have been proposed to have latin names, with partly guessed positions and ages in the history of the human lineage. Even the human portion of the taxonomy, Chinese and other language speakers would likely greatly disagree with the current usage in English/Latin/Greek, and probably the name “Homo Sapiens Sapiens”, which redundantly includes the word “wise” twice, for our subspecies, would not be accepted.

Working on my life categories, and thinking about larger issues about how to choose names and arrange them according to life-structure, I have recognized that the objective to perfectly describe using relationships of words seems an incorrect approach. If we look far into the distant future, it can probably be seen that even if we diversly created taxonomical systems to represent the history of earth’s animals, we would not find a final taxonomy that represents it in the way we want, in all the ways we want. Here we might say the representation of the animal kingdom as we have it is somewhat like representation of the earth’s globe in different map forms. Without an exacting knowledge of Earth’s history, we do not have a globe; by that I mean, we have to rely on maps that are not precise like an image of the Earth from outside, including all the spatial information desired. Being able to image the earth well, we have good globes that provide the full information we are wanting. When we can’t use a globe, however, like map making in history, when maps were made with incomplete views, different types of maps that had differing levels of descriptive truth were created to fit needs. But these were greatly inferior to a spherical globe based on space-imagery. As an analogy, we can see that we do not have detailed history of the Earth. It is really lost and appears to be something we can only reconstruct somewhat poorly. Since that is the case, we cannot have a taxonomy that will be a final one, and instead have to rely on a “partial map” to continue the analogy, of the structure of animal life. Since all maps of this life would be partial maps, Chinese Maps, English Maps, and maps from any other group creating it, would be unable to come to a desired exactness that is final. Moreover, being maps and not globes, different versions would be needed to depict different things desired, for not being able to show all that is desired at one time, in the right way. Maps look different in how they appear as partial maps because they cannot be spherical. Being not spherical, they have to make concessions in what they show and how. There are many ways to depict a sphere as a rectangle, or other geometric figure. Using other geometric figures, one loses sphericity. Cartographers, the map makers, have known that to create correct distances, representations of areas, and correct directions, require different partial maps with different geometric properties. We’ve seen the defects in maps, when we view a globe and see that Antarctica is smaller in appearance, than on the Merkator projection map, which shows Antarctica as the largest of all the continents. This map is one used in flattened form on Google Maps (if not a very similar projection), and that used as an instructional poster in classrooms. If one were to use language alone, entirely, to describe the world, without a globe, one would be even more limited in how to describe it. In times before we had a globe, if we tried to write in words what was in the partial maps, we would have something in language alone that is of perhaps less quality still than what is in the already limited maps. Notice that our system of taxonomy for representing animal life does not include a globe with a video of how life evolved from the beginning. So what we are doing with our taxonomy of animal life is using language to describe what we have only very incompletely known in visual and historical data.

Language is an important cause as to this limitation on our ability to represent, and accurately describe, parts of the world and our own lives. Focusing more on the topic of our lives, recalling our lives are still natural phenomena in the world, with more or less complete potential data, that we simply are unable to capture, we can see that again, we can use language to represent ourselves only incompletely. We have a similar issue of trying to use simple words to “correctly” represent the structure of our behavior and interests, and parts of life requiring our attention. One person would not choose the same words as I have when I started my own life-categories. Someone from another language, would think that some words are more central than others for classifying nearly the same things, but this too would have effects on how to organize things further, or more fully describe life, when details are sought, and interrelationships are considered. The categories of life are not distinct. For example, while I’m focused on the category of fitness, I’m often aware of other categories like nutrition, which includes cooking, and health. One could combine them all into a single category creatively if one wanted to. However, I kept them separate because of how I choose to organize my own behavior and attention. Similarly, one could use more than 15 categories or less. It is optional how many categories one might use for organizing and desribing one’s own life or the lives of others.

However, there are other interesting things worth considering here aside from this admission about some arbitrariness of choice of category arrangement, and of admitting that options appear to be necessary for others to find the categories useful for their own ethical interests. This relates to the observations above that there seems to be no way to choose, in any case, if numerous options are created, to decide what “finally” represents life most accurately, or most usefully. Usefulness is a primary consideration too, like in map making for navigation. This system is intended to be a tool for aiding in life’s planning, information collection, and behavior management. It appears that there is something fundamental about the need to resist trying to organize and reorganize this, and I’ve actually gone through the process of doing such reorganization a number of times. Early choices do not seem much worse than later choices, and in some ways they were better. I’ve made improvements which are instrumental and allow for more precision, but I could be more precise still. However, it is extremely useful as is. If I were to spend much more time organizing and reorganizing, it would be much like the organizational problem many people feel when they are wanting to find perhaps some “perfect” system of organization, that feels “finished” and not merely extremely comfortable and useful. Many people have the urge to organize and reorganize to the point in which they may feel a sense that they cannot solve some perplexing problem about their specific situation requirng organizing. It may have not come to their attention that there is no final solution, and that instead, there is a level of good utility and usefulness, that relates to certain comforts the person has. This same tendency to organize perhaps too often without a great gain in usefulness, to get to a mental comfort level, exists in wanting to represent life on earth totally accurately, and for organizing one’s entire life categories in a way that is best for one’s goals and improvement objectives.

Now it may be seen how large this interest is in organizing and reorganizing things in life, and this is particularly true of the organization of one’s mind. Consider that most aretrying to problem solve in their mind variousissues that they face, which requires words and language, and decisions about their importance and arrangments. People will find new words to describe more accurately situations, and make distinctions and new words, in order to arrive, again, at something that feels comfortable and “more final” regarding answers. If situations are complex, then again there is this feeling that perhaps more time organizing and finding new information and vocabulary, will allow for describing it entirely accurately, with all problems comfortably solved. Culturally, as knowledge progresses, we have new words and new information which leads us to think we are doing better and better at describing situations, and solving problems thereby. A great example of this is in our development of medicine, with creations of new words for illnesses and new words for underlying things which are important for finally understanding what was and is important for treating and curing illnesses. Still, it can be noticed that medicine is far from any final taxonomy or description of science as it relates to animal life, including human life. The taxonomy of the animal and plant kingdoms are still related to an understanding of medicine, as one needs to know a bit about relationships between animals that are test subjects, and humans who are administered drugs. The drugs are coming from chemicals and plant organisms which also need to be well understood to research further, what might better resolve medical ailments. So while in medicine alone this issue exists regarding wanting to find a taxonomy that is final, it relates still to the taxonomy of the entire earth and the scientific descripiton of all that exists. It does also touch on physics and chemistry and the origin of life, and sources of matter. Medicine also relies on technologies that make use of x-rays, which implies similarly, that information about electromagnetic spectrum is also required for advancement. It is not clear which, if any information about the universe would be unuseful for the further development of medicine and its description and taxonomy, and larger taxonomies.

Here we can transition to considering the importance of the brains organization and representation of language. Earlier I mentioned that different people in different cultures using different languages would use different words and relationships to describe the same world and lives within it. This implies that their brain structures have different organizations than the brain structures of those with different vocabularies in different languages. Between individuals, too, there are different selections about what words to use, and anyone who chooses to independently create life categories would have different words and relationships in mind between the words. All would be doing something related to trying to describe life and the world, and in this case, a person’s own life. But it is important to recognize, that this really does imply that people have different brain organizations relating to the words stored in their minds and their relationships. Also, the readiness of the brain to utilize some words over others. If everyone on earth was asked individually to describe their life using a set of categories first that they could choose, and the relationships later, using sentences and paragraphs, they would all do it differently and their way of doing it surely relates to the organization of tissues in their brains.

While driving around New Zealand this year, I was reflecting on some significant observations around this and the requirements of learning both for humans and for computing systems, that utilize machine learning for standalone use or with early artificial intelligence. The brain, and computing systems, rely on training in order to develop further. Networked computing systems in machine learning rely on huge amounts of information and training in order to finally “learn” what was presented to it. One machine learning system would not have the same resulting memory or physical representation of what was learned, depending on how it was exposed to the information and training, and the order of exposure. Also, different machine larning systems, learning for example, different plants on earth and their relationships, would see images of plants, and videos, and words, from data/information sets that are different from each other. If one software company created one machine learning system, and another another, they would not have the same result, and would not have the same sophistication. Different AI systems resulting from work at software companies would result in consumers having preferences for one over another. Sometimes consumers would want only one superior option, and other times, some consumers would want one that does some things well, and another if it does other things better. The point is that these systems would have partial views of the earth’s information, would have learned differently, and would have different internal representations of what is thought known. Additionally, the behavior of the system would vary. The above can be very quickly understood as an analogy for human life, since many people and many learners are exposed to information differently, with similar effects upon the brains representation of that information, with the effect that their behaviors differ. One person if they seek to describe their life using life-categories and sentences/paragraphs related to those categories, would do so differently. Some would do it in a nearly globally superior way. Some would do it well in some ways, while others better in others. Some finally, would not do it so well. This depends obviously, like with computer systems, on the level of advancement of the brain, or the quality of the system. It simply varies from one system to another, if human or if not.

As I was relfecting on the organization I chose, I noticed that some categories have larger interest than others, and some words are called to mind more easily, and during the time doing the personal-form collecting data on my behavior, some categories were much more useful than others and received more attention. This would relate well to my actual life as it would describe what I was doing versus what I was not doing at all. My life has depended on learning in a way that has been different than for others. I was exposed to different languages, culture, and regions than other people. I learned in a school system that emphasized certain books and courses and goals that were not emphasized in others, particularly if one considers this internationally. The sequence of my learnings differed from others. There are things others learned early that I learned late. There are easy things I have never learned. The implication is that my brain structure is different from others, and this includes, of course, words and relationships between words, and different strengths of associations, and readinesses to bring some words to mind versus others. My creation of my life categories relates to the vocabulary I prefer and my history of learning as it relates to describing my life.

The way that life is presented is not planned entirely. Different people are exposed to information and situations and stimulation that is mostly organic, or asystematic. What this means is that it is not systematically prepared information, quite often, that supplies the learning experiences. In my case, I’ve done lots of reading and have had an extensive education, using materials that were systematically prepared. However, there is some lack of overall planning even in these materials which leads to an organic or asystematic aspect to the overall learnings even when they were well prepared by experts. Most of my life information, of course, came from experiences with nature, and with people, which was unplanned an organic. A cause for my system of ethics is that I, like others, were not prepared with a systematic and correct overview of all learning, particularly learning relevant for the rational planning of one’s life and one’s behavior, and training in relation to that information. This Book and Journal filled this void, and I had to create it myself. The life categories are an important ingredient in this overall effort.

Since my life-categories related to learning that was organic and asystematic, any systematization created is from a brain whose organization is different and somewhat arbitrary compared to brains of others. Again, others would do it differently. And again, others would however, arrive at similar results. Even if myself and others did much to develop this system, there would be no final result that had all the strengths one wanted all at once, with no limitations. Each system would also, I noticed, be very comprehensive, and likely one could utilize one or the other, without too much loss. Similarly, like the brain itself learning, the system can be changed and switched as needed.

Focusing now on the organice way that stimulation is learned from the environment for humans, animals, and for computing systems, it can be seen that it is a necessary requirement that minds would all differ. No two humans have the same mind. No two machine learning systems would have the same result. The way to make two minds or two systems the same, would require similar hardware and biology and precisely theh same perspective, and learning of the same systematically presented materials. This is of interest to my article Abandoning Equality, which is a writing about the expectation of inequality between people, and not equality. Likewise, we here can see, that people would differ greatly just because they learn things in an organic way, in different places, and in different languages after languages are acquired, and in different times, and in different orders. Historically, people were extremely different from people now, in how they organically intook information that was available in their environments.

A system of taxonomy and life-categories which describe extremely well would be approaching what we might call an optimal system, that is approaching what we find desirable in utility and accuracy and detail in descriptiveness. However, we have already said that each would have strengths and weaknesses, and without extremely large minds, and without complete information, there could be no optimal finished system. Instead, what we would be looking for are roughly optimized systems. Humans, it should be noticed, do understand their own lives and can self-describe in ways that are much better than certain animals and machine learning systems, presently existing. Also, some people, who are considered less advanced or deficient, are thought to have ways that are less optimal for self-understanding or describing with words. Having a system such as that here described indicates it is possible to have still a better system of self-description and self-organization than which commonly exists. It appears also, of course, that this system is a novel system, and represents a state of high advancement in taxonomy of life and ability to self-describe. Others, not having such systems, however, are on considering the advancement of life on earth, and culture, pretty good methods for self-understanding. What may be said, then, is that there are some who have more optimized ways of self-understanding, and additionally, people in general, are a trend of earth neuroscience towards brains that are more optimal than what existed earlier, in the development of animal life. So there is a range of optimization on this topic. Also, I stated that people learn in different orders and in different ways. If we take people who are already somewhat optimized, taking optimization to be a relative thing and leaving plenty of room for growth for millenia to come, it can be noticed that this system can also be learned by others. Also, I stated that others would choose different words, but can have quickly the same comprehensiveness. This means with some time, alternative usages of a similar system such as this would result in others being able to have differnt systems of categories and descriptions that have properties related to optimality.

This is a promising development as it relates to potential learned of another approach to ethics and management of one’s interests, training, and behaviors. That was not my initial thought causing this direction in the conversation, however. What I wanted to indicate, is that with different exposure to information, we have different brains with different words and relations that are somewhat trending towards optimization, and that being useful already, as parts of living minds, adapted to life and living life somewhat effectively and well, that there are similarites of interest between brains even though they differ. The structure of lexicons and relationships of words, and models of life-categories, and life, vary and are partly optimal, and are useful. This offers great support of the view that trying to find a final arrangement and taxonomy is an incorrect objective, although improvements and progress is had and can continue; and it also supports the view that allowing for change in the system via learning, and change of needs is valuable; and also supports the idea that there is some interchangeableness in the system, in that different people can be effective with different sets of categories, and that one person can use this system, and develop or change it to their benefit, and that people use it differently over time. Overall this supports the idea that human brains and machine learning systems find optimizations on a spectrum related to organic learning from the world’s stimulus.

If one were to graph the life-categories and relationshps, and caluculate relative importance of words in their behavioral usage, frequency of thought, perceived priority in life management, what would be found is something that appears unplanned as a model. It would look like a set of nodes, and connections, with different weights and values. This would relate, in various ways, to underlying brain, that itself has the characteristics of having strong and weak associations, and different networked nodes, with differing thresholds related to readiness to think one thing or another. These look somewhat unplanned and tangled in appearance. The structure appears somewhat like what is thought to relate to models created by artifical intelligence software for optimizing problems in the sciences. These systems also have networked nodes, relationships that are stronger and weaker between nodes, with different information stored in different ways based on the exposure to information. All of these indicate that what results in the optimization that has resulted, from learning on organically presented stimulus, has an appearance of non-humanlike organization. In other words, what your brain looks like, what your eventual system of life-categories and relationships in the categories, and description looks like, and what the machine learning system/AI system looks like, is something that is not systematic, like what a human would plan, wanting to be really orderly and exacting in drawing it out. Humans want a kind of orderliness and structure which appears to not approach what this tendency is towards optimization. That is not to say that optimization does not occur from deliberate human planning; but it does appear that human planning results of rigidness in results. Square buildings, rectangular hierarchical diagrams, straight ways of lining things up, and not other ways of organizing which are closer to those resulting from organic natural growth. It is also noticed, that trying to arrive at an optimal way of organizing over and over, results in something dissatisfying in the rigid, straight lined results, that don’t solve all problems and don’t have properties of final optimization.

The interesting webbed and irregular networked organization resultin in nature, and in the brain, and in the linguistic representation not excessively planned or controlled in a system like this, and the similar structuring in machine learning systems, which were created by observing natural minds and how they learn, appears to approach optimization, whereas, the rigid and sometimes obsessive organization into linear structures trends towards optimization somewhat less. Also, the organic way of learning, which is asystematic, we would think, would already have such characteristics potentially, and we see also in the growth of animals and plants in nature, similar odd webbing and patterns of growth that have curves, nodules, and less exacting geometry related to our way of learning mathematics. Our way of wanting straightness, and precise geometrical figures relate to our way of learning those things. Similarly, however, the beauty of nature is compelling, but we are unable currently to use what we see in nature that appears irregular to guide our way of organizing much of what we do. Instead, we rely on the rigid and simpler structures that were made available to us in education. What nature has optimized is much more complex and much less well understood. This includes the nature of the brain itself, and it’s tangled way of organizing information that it was exposed to.

There are many systems in nature which grow in response to stimulus in the environment that results in what we consider optimized solutions, that are really somewhat optimized solutions, including examples like the arrangement of bone tissue, muscles, plants relying on sunlight, &c… bones have an odd appearance relating to the handling of stress and strain, and has a webbed like appearance, also with lines that are not perfectly straight, and nodes and grooves. These are optimized with relationships to nutrition in the environment and ability to handle gravity and forces relating to specific behaviors. Plants grow in unusual ways, not straight ways, in order to have adequate sunlight, and the result is something also somewhat of a networked organism, with webbed vascularization, and networked branches and connections between branchs, with differing sizes of branches. Much in nature follows this type of pattern, and the organization relates to stimuli coming from other sources.

At this juncture, it may be noticed that this can be taken quite a bit further if one includes all of earth’s history, recognizing that ancestry includes strong and weak associations, more growth in some areas and less in others, and an irregular total graph. The ways that ancestry happened related also to stimuli in the environment, and social forces, and disasters &c… which relate to ability to reproduce or not, for individuals and entire groups of people. This here would be where the topic would relate to a natural and somewhat optimized description and representation of the history of life on earth, and its growth, improvement and evolution. Here there would be a good point of departure, to in detail consider Darwin’s theory of evolution and advancements in evolutionary theory. Notice already, there were views as to the supposed “perfection” in nature, from the religious, which exists also in evolutionary scientists, who admire greatly the seemingly extremely well adapted traits of plants and animals, ability to live well under various conditions in their environments.

This system of nomenclature is simple, yet is comprehensive. It allows for change and adaptation. It can be expanded on to include additional detail as far as is necessary or is instrumental for describing a life and for aiding in the planning of ethical and moral behavior, and general training for goals and objectives. Limitations on ability to represent, relate to optiimizations that exist from not trying to be too rigid with organization. Any system or taxonomy aiming to describe life appears to have a limitation that exists already in describine and naming the animal kingdom. The description of the animal kingdom, welldone, would have those characteristics of organic development, and partial optimizations, similar to what we saw as necessary in brains and computers systems. Language itself, being formed on the basis of organic infomration exposure is also a system that has optimization properties that when graphed would show patterns of non-straightness and webbing like what is seen in nature. It is expected that a system of life categorization and description, is one that will have properties like this system, and would probably require a starting point like this system anyways in order to advance to later stages.

[Finished at 7:41 pm in 2 hours and 7 minutes, without edits, partly blined typed, without a reading, without spell or grammar check. Typed on a flight from Honolulu to Portland, Oregon]

The Intelligent Who Cannot Find Real Games to Enjoy

Tuesday, June 6th, 2023

Or: The choice of child’s puzzles to mathematics and reading.

Since young I wondered why people seem to have been unable to notice that the puzzles offered by mathematics, are sufficient to supply the same or similar interests thought to be had in doing popular puzzles. I think it is arguable whether people truly find published puzzles that fun, even though they do them, but assuming they provide some amusement, or some somewhat pleasant way to use time, when nothing else seems better to do, in order to focus on what can be done instead that is at least as enjoyable or more enjoyable, but more importantly, useful. Math, reading and learning area all availa