heckraiser

As a fan of Ursula K. Le Guin, the central theme is one sorely missed.

This has been a controversial critique in terms of karma (up and down so many times it has leveled out.)

It’s a bit crass, though my reply was regarding the relevance in today’s world (dirty secrets we don’t confront) more than the author’s shake up.

Le Guin’s social commentary is still pressing in our day.

How many times does the author slit a kids throat?

Yeah, we must have read different stories.

What a horrific nonsensical rant that clearly misses the point of the story.

Save yourself the eyesores, don’t click.

The Omelas narrative challenges the psychological maxim that someone must suffer for the common gain.

It is a short story, and like all short stories accentuates a tiny detail into a worldview.

In what way does Ursula roll in her grave?

Gaza, or #metoo, or thriving race hate, or the pedopolitics (here come scathing karma killers.)

To be silent in the face of a tyranny of evil is to be complicit.

Rest easy Ursula, you have been heard.

This is not new. Potential resolves through constructive and destructive interference as state in the moment of now.

State is not the building block of existential reality (as classical tautological theory insists), potential is.

That “cloud” is the super amplitude of quantum dynamics we have always spoken of, yet left unintegrated into our world view.

Yep. 15+ years and counting.

I’ll power up VSCodium from time to time to quickly flip through reams of pages of code, though I’m always annoyed at the faux vi features and end up doing real work in the terminal.

I’m not sure I would be as comfortable without screen.

Complicated means more Extraneous and more than necessary. Complexity means an order of magnitude beyond an immediate account.

Resilience requires that failure at one level minimizes the likelihood of catastrophic chains of failure. This may mean redundancy or heuristic response (both threaten the rule of extraneous.)

The design of any system should consider how each piece of a larger assemblage may perform its functions clearly, without unnecessary dependencies. Further, such components should self identity their status and provide tools or process by which each feature may be tested without disrupting their role in the greater system dynamic.

I would disagree on one hand as mechanisms can and shall inevitably outperform human thought capacity at some scale.

And agree on another, the human mind is an efficient quantum computer (I know …) which uses constructive and destructive interference for some holographic rendering rather than a composition of linear conditional logic.

Do not let the confines of human ignorance set the horizon for Truth!

Allow that science is only a tool for undeceiving ourselves. Universal rejection sounds like dogma, not science.

If we could only turn off the media stream and live civilized lives without worrying what global destabilization would bring us.

Orchestrated Objective Reduction is a terrible name for it.

Why sniping Penrose? Some scandal for which I am not aware?

His explanations of manifold contours was an epiphany of enlightenment for me.

Not process.

Potential is composed of the super-amplitude. Process would be the physical system influencing the resolve (which may vary allowing different technological approaches, i.e. organic or silicon or otherwise.)

QM exclusively allows this super-amplitude. No physical process can compare, yet without some physical medium the amplitudes would be unbound.

Modernity sees state as the building block of reality. Quantum dynamics says it is POTENTIAL through constructive and destructive interference resolving into state in the moment of now (a continuously transitive and ephemeral moment.)

Is it so hard to see consciousness as the domain of existential POTENTIAL, and living systems as a feedback loop into this echo chamber of potential?

Does potential not sound more like consciousness than the arrangement of state?

Information is the reduction of uncertainty. If it does not reduce uncertainty it is not information.

Intelligence is the mitigation of uncertainty.

The revelation of the light is information. Navigating the contours of darkness is intelligence.

If the cave walls glowed in response to proximity (of the observer) then the light source would have a modicum of intelligence.

A thermostat is certainly intelligent.

The definition of intelligent I give is “to mitigate uncertainty.” If it does not mitigate uncertainty, it is not intelligent.

It is merely of constrained intelligence. Perhaps your expectations are too broad.

If the thermostat reacts appropriately to environmental changes then it is performing its role intelligently.