Wednesday, 25 August 2010

Entropy of Truth:Shuffling Facts

What would you say if I tell you that all along history the little Devil Boltzmann mixed true quotations with false ones? Our little devil likes just the sake of it; he doesn't have any strategy nor he wants to deceive human beings, not in particular. He simply wants to have fun.
History wouldn't be credible anymore? Is it now?
Now let's say some people know he did, but they have no way to systematically discover it; they found some of samples of wrong quotations, they corrected them or did try and that's it. The lesson is that now they know.
History wouldn't be credible anymore? Is it now?

I think we are ready to change game: what do you do with genuine quotations? What do you do with truth in general? Don't take me too radically: it's not this game. I know that truth can be meaningful if in the majority of cases, it's more or less what we think. Call this the basic notion of truth. Now keep on the game. After you know the meaning of truth, after you collected a vast sample of true propositions (and a lot of true quotations), you're ready for the game.

Do you think that at the end of the series of the true sentences and the true quotations, there is something? Or someone? There is a price? Do you find the sense of truth at the end of this...rainbow? Do you know really something more? Do you know everything now? Are you wise?

It's a thin line this. Radical deceiving is pointless: it transforms your words in verbalism. Fine. But a mixing false quotations, just to shape a new sense, a new meaning, is that evil? I don't find evil, but patronising. You have your mystical agenda and your false quotations are supposed to lead me to your imaginarium. It's a game.

You have also an alternative: mixing false quotations randomly. So precisely, even you don't know which are the good, which the fake ones. Why? Well you'll start to think more. It's not a quotaton or a proposition that makes the truth sense. You need much more effort, you need to work in very stormy cognitive conditions. And you know it, so you're not exactly misled, it's more a virtual conceptual training camp. This is the entropy of truth: good cartesian reflection on fakeness of language.

Monday, 16 August 2010

The reason of the haiku:

permutations of words, permutation of minds

Truisms are mute; when you state the obvious you're basically mute. On the contrary when you say something meaningful you're driven to new semiotic paths. Haiku can have sense only because they accurately just says what is not yet written in the environment. They are moderatly silent, like the whisper of a gentle breeze and they teach you the language. Haiku points at meanings in the environment and shows the path to them. It's short, because it's common. Haiku don't aim to re-found conceptual grammar: they set up what is already known. Just in a more meaningful way. It's obvious what underlies beneath an haiku, but it's not obvious what an haiku states: you can learn how things are connected to words. It's like the most common thing: you know what meanings are, but only trivial meanings are available: they are frequented semiotic paths.

It's a bit more difficult to reach more complex meanings: you can see them, you can walk nearby, but the path is unsecure. Try. Most of the times the people will simply don't understand you. You're connecting things and words in proportions that are visible only to you. At this point: are you really sure you know what you wanted to say?

Complex meanings are not just funny inventions. They are written in the environment, with the words of their times. Reach them, through a semiotic path; but you need to go there. It's not enough to assemble words: this is verbalism. And to go where complex meanings are, you need to start a semiotic enterprise, you need to became an interpret of signs. This is slightlydanger, because not interpretation will leave untouched the interpreter. Only truism are safe: without a clear idea, silence is preferable.

If you still want to say something, beware that the things you say will change you. It's normal: if you're manipulating the writing of the environment, things will start to interact with you and will react to your saying.
Common thoughts are the structures of language; changing them, is changing the environment, because the environment is the writing of intepretation. The wisest thing to do is just saying what is not yet written in the environment. A gentle breeze of things.

Thursday, 12 August 2010

Algorithmic vs Semiotic Search:

The Fall of Consciousness in a Cognitive Sedan Chair

Algorhythmic search is effective. You search statistical proportions of single stupid search in huge number;stupid here means with no clue; and huge number probably can mean a “googol”. The story is straight: take a very simple task, take a unbefuckilievable big number of samples, connect with an algorithm. To give this algorithm strategy a name, let's go for stigmergic: this is pretty much what ants do. But the question is: can it work for men? The simple answer is: Goddamit yes!
Instead of inventing resourceful expensive task, you have very simple ones.And cheap, resourcefully and cognitively cheap. The system as a whole is a lot faster. A lot. So it can grow bigger and more complex: that means more powerful. I don't about you, but I like complexity, so as a rule of thumb, I find positive this enrichment.

But, we got some downside. First, it tends to consolidate the system as a whole, which is good is you searching for stability, not so good if you're searching flexibility. Why? Well, it's in line with the fascism of feedback: a feedback can be a feedback only if the system stays the same: other wise it can't use the feedback as a feedback! Simple, but for example our brain doesn't work this way. Re-entry information change the system, which continuously adapts to new re-entrant information. I still don't know about you, but I keep on liking complexity and brain is one my favourite buddy-theme. For this I'm a bit bitchy with feedback (comments from other human beings are more complex than proper pure informational feedback).

Second point: health. Health is always important. If you're rich and ill, you're fucked (even if you're poor and health you're fucked, but in a different way. In this post we consider a priority “wellfare” of the system, so kudos for health rather than money). Homogeneity in a system make it per definition every region more consistent to each other; so you can connect better the regions because they are clearly more compatible. This is good if you pestered by colleagues using different operative systems. This is not good if you're the immune system; you want some degree of compatibility, but you like diversity in order to be able of upgrading your defense. Let's talk about this. In biology complex device must pay off. If you don't have advantages, you don't need swankies devices. The story of epidemy indeed shows that the rare occurrence of a viral epidemy kills between 80/90% of the population. The survivors were the only ones who committed a bit to diversity. Conclusion? If you're an individual you don't five a damn about your species global welfare, so forget it. But from an overall perspective, the integrity of the system is put at risk with homogeneity.

Now we can come back. In our cognitive adventures, algorithmic search is giving what we asked. This is efficient and stupid. A semiotic search on the contrary is complicated, expensive and fallible. During your research, you'll find a lot of different things you don't need; while you're involved in your activity, you consume your time and resources; finally, it's likely you don't find what you were searching for. So? Well, so sometimes it's better not to find what you were searching for. Two reason:1) you were searching something actually stupid\pointless\outdated\ ;2) what you found is more interesting\valuable\meaningful. Further on your enterprise exercised your cognitive equipment: we are not searching for finding (primarily), but only to explore our environment.

A semiotic research is actually the deployment of what consciousness is meant for: exploration of a semiotic environment. On the contrary an algorithmic search makes you giving up cognitively expensive enterprise. Then we rest on a lazy cognitively attitude and we are not ready for viral attacks on our consciousness (you don't need to wait for alien-like beasts: a viral attack on your consciousness can come from a religion. Or a TV series.).

In other words algorithmic search is mutating our attitude, degrading the level of complexity. Hang on. Am I saying I don't like Internet, google and stigmergic collaboration??? NO! But we need to re-shape our consciousness' enterprise in order not to be shut down by some cognitive virus. At the end, our cognitive system is close to be disconnected by the understanding of its own means of production: we are already disconnected by the understanding of our means for living comfortably, it's the price of living in big societies. But losing the understanding of our means of understanding it's different. Of course, providing we are not that unhappy with a Bye Bye consciousness....