Museum
Artwork
§i. Photography§ii. Fashion§iii. Filmography and Cinematography
Contents
Book I. Introduction and Preliminaries
§i. Preface§ii. Introduction§iii. Editing§iv. Omitted or Missing Pieces§v. Preliminaries§vi. Certification§vii. Issue I. Velocity of Significance and Ideation§viii. Issue II. Abandoning Equality§ix. Human Shortcomings§x. Assumption Elimination§xi. Humans are Animals
Book II. Another Ethic
§i. Nature and Design§ii. Imagination and Filtration§iii. Constraint and Determinism§iv. Procrastination§v. Architecture of Ethics§vi. Situations and Significance§vii. Truth and Honesty§viii. The Comprehensible and the Incomprehensible and Social Alignment§ix. Consilience and Authentication§x. Development of Desire§xi. Evaluative Concepts§xii. Inferring to Moral Conclusions§xiii. Natural Diversity and Moral Diversity§xiv. The Distant Future, Legacies, and Morality
Book III. Living Autobiography
§i. Living Will§ii. Living Autobiography––– Portraits and Profiles§iii. ThoughtStreamTM (Thinking Shares)––– (Nov 7th, 2022 to Present)––– (Aug 18th to Nov 17th, 2022)§iv. SocialNuggetsTM (Experience Shares)––– (Oct 20th, 2021 - Present)––– (July 3rd, 2020 - Sep 1st, 2021)––– (Dec 12th, 2018 - July 3rd, 2020)§v. Open Health and Identity (Bodily Shares)§vi. Nature (Spatial Shares)§vii. Reading (Learning Shares)§viii. InkyFibers™ (Writing Shares)––– Site History (Writing Progressions)§ix. MediaClusters™ (Photo/Media Album, Life Evidence)§x. A Modern Homesteader (Draft Autobiography)
Book IV. Life Categories | Priorities
§i. Life Categories | Priorities§ii. The Personal Form and Its Purposes§iii. Related Accomplishments$iv. Category I. Cycles and Shifts (Calendar)––– Constraint and Determinism––– The Calendar Solved§v. Category II. Planning and Visualization––– Imagination and Filtration––– Planning and Executive Function––– Constraint and Determinism––– Procrastination––– Strategies for Managing Procrastination, Part One––– Life Goals and Blemishes You Can’t Deal With§vi. Category III. Fitness––– Sports and Fitness§vii. Category IV. Music and Art––– Music§viii. Category V. Humor, Fun and Enjoyment––– Short Stories§ix. Category VI. Property and Organization––– Land in Anchorage––– Human Banking§x. Category VII. Meditation, Mood, Habit, and Routine––– Meditation––– Text Personal Form––– PDF Personal Form§xi. Category VIII. Livelihood––– Work and Career Recommendations––– Related Accomplishments––– Professional Resumé––– Human Banking––– Frugal Living––– Inexpensive Energy––– Shopping§xii. Category IX. Environment§xiii. Category X. Cleanliness, Health and Hygeine––– Open Health and Identity––– Stress Checklist––– Sensory Checklist§xiv. Category XI. Mind and Mental Development––– Rational Times––– Inky Fibers––– Reading––– Mathematics––– The Burden of Having Too Many Ideas––– School Improvements––– Methods of Diagramming and Visualization––– Message Encryptor––– Trademarks––– Patents––– Alberta––– Image Player§xv. Category XII. Relationships––– Com––– News––– Sexuality––– Cults––– Advantages and Expectations––– Humans in Cans––– Subtraction––– Politics in Alaska––– Criminal Law––– Civil Law––– The Value of Social Platforms––– Anonymity§xvi. Category XIII. Rest and Rejuvenation––– Meditation§xvii. Category XIV. Nutrition––– Veganism and Vegan Recipes§xviii. Category XV. Outdoors and Travel––– Nature and Design––– Nature Channel––– Wildlife––– Off Grid Living in Alaska––– Foraging––– Camping and Homelessness
Book V. Conclusion
$i. Conclusion§ii. Post Script
Book VI. Appendices
§i. Appendix I.––– Bibliography, Citing and Referring––– Reading––– Library§ii. Appendix II.––– Notes––– Glossary, Coinages––– Terms and Conditions––– Privacy Policy––– Index
Chronology
Series
Thoughtstream™SocialNuggets™Vegan RecipesLegal RecorderListsShort StoriesOpen Health and IdentityRationalTimes™Portraits and Profiles
2024
Cosmological Arguments for a Diety and Other Related Arguments Originating in Myth
2023
Simple Solution for Creating New ReligionsThe Calendar SolvedExecutive Proposal to Correct Salesperson to Technologist RatiosInexpensive EnergyTruth and HonestyThe Comprehensible and the Incomprehensible and Social AlignmentConsilience and AuthenticationDevelopment of DesirePresentationsYou Did Not CareWorthlessnesses of Normal Social BehaviorGenerals, Presidents, Chiefs, and HierarchiesThe Arbitrary Scope of ScienceFrugal LivingSexualityMethods of Diagramming and VisualizationAdvantages and ExpectationsDescriptive Typological Systems and Wanting to Know PeopleLife Goals and Blemishes You Cannot Deal With
2022
CampingCultsFundamental ProblemsProfessional ResuméWork and Client RecommendationsHuman BankingSubtractionFalse and Hidden Alaska, and its Lackluster TourismEstablishment ReviewsAlaskan Travel Advice for MariahA Modern Homesteader Book DraftCertification RequirementsBio and StatsStress ChecklistMathematicsNatureWildlfeMediaClustersTM
2021
Nature and Design (Light Blue Notebook)MediaClustersTM
2020
Vegan RecipesMusicHumans in Cans
2019
Anchorage's Never Ending Crime Prevention LoopPersonal FormThe Dark Green NotebookVideo ListsMemeticClusters™WordlyCoinages™InkyFibers™Stuck Between a Moose and a Winterbear
2018
Retaining Your Sense of Intelligence Among Other Smart PeopleWhat is the Importance of Logical Reasoning in Critical Thinking?What is a Genius and Who Can Become One?Why Do So Many Intelligent People Have a Hard Time Socializing?Windy Day at the RVFly Tape Is Wrong!How Do People With IQs Over 180 Act and Think?How and Where Can I Take an Accredited IQ Test?Bag O' Marbles
2017
Historic Phill Hartsfield Knife For SaleEvening Visit From a Moose in AnchorageAcknowledgementsFlight from Tangier IslandWilderness is Close to AnchorageNo, You Really Won't See the Whales and Aurora BorealisThe Burden of Having Too Many IdeasProcrastination
2016
Strategies for Managing Procrastination, Part One
2015
Imagination and Filtration (Higher Order Attention, Dark Green Notebook)
2014
Black Notebook Two
2007
Black Notebook One
2005
Olive NotebookBeige Notebook
2004
Sand Notebook
2003
Personal FormRational Times

ThoughtStreamTM

A Book and Dissertation on the Subject of Storing, Publishing, and Communicating Thoughts and Ideas, Idea Management, and An Analysis of Thought

Book and Journal of Mattanaw
Volume I, Book III, §iii
Publisher: PlaynText, Tempe, Arizona

Publisher

Copyright © 2024 by Mattanaw. All Rights Reserved.

Publisher: PlaynText Location: Tempe, Arizona

PlaynText is dedicated to the publication of high quality journal publications issued in premium book format, as book/journal hybrids. Each publication is intended to be an illustration, potentially, of the maximum and least-inhibited use of free thought and free expression.

Copying, distributing, plagiarising, processing, storing, and serving the contents of this book is a violation of intellectual property, unless otherwise indicated by the copyright holder elsewhere, as it relates to this specific issue of the Book and Journal of Mattanaw. For permission to use any contents of this book, please contact the author at http://mattanaw.org/com.html.

Published by PlaynText, Inc, companies wholly owned by the author, Mattanaw, Mattanaw, (formerly “Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh”).

Printed in Tempe, Arizona, in the United States of America.

Published and printed by PlaynText, an imprint of PlaynText, Inc.

The Publisher is not responsible for the content of others produced on websites, applications, social media platforms, or information related storage or AI systems. The processing of this Book and Journal by an AI System is prohibited.

Library of Congress Control Number (pending)

Library of Congress ISSNs: 2998-713X (Online), 2998-7121 (Print)

Author

Artist/Author: The Honorable 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.

CEO PlaynText | CEO PlainText

Contact:

Resumé

Copyright© Mattanaw I., the author.

The Moral Rights of the Author are Hereby Asserted.

Abstract

This book and dissertation discusses the thesis that creativity management at its greatest level of development is related to the immediate storing and publishing of thoughts. Thoughts that are wanted for recording, revisitation, and development, initially need to be recorded, and then need to be thought again, in order to create personal change deltas for one’s mind. Within the brain it is certain that development is akin to this, in that one first thinks thoughts, stores them, and later recollects them for rethinking, reanalysis, and improvement at that time with new thoughts. Many thinkers worry about being able to recollect prior thoughts, to be able to revisit them for subsequent development and utilization. For this purpose, we have recording in general, which can take the form of miscellaneous media including diagrams, drawings, sketches, photos, videos, and of course, writing. This book and dissertation treats of all these media, but is most interested and focused on written media that is approaching a direct expression of how one thinks and communicates within one’s own mind. The author has created technology to record thoughts more directly from his mind as he thinks, and is able to communicate his thoughts through a typing and publishing system, with blind typing, to think his thoughts into words published. It is possible to extend this technology to peruse direct neural connections to peripheral computing devices that connect directly to the brain, but this extension is believed to have a number of important disadvantages that will also be discussed thoroughly. It is discovered that a simple approach of communicating through the fingers has many advantages, including improved ability for authentication of writings recorded. Idea protection, and intellectual property, relate to this need for being able to authenticate, and such a system is superior for providing the evidenciary requirements to prove authorship and ownership. Given advances in Artificial Intelligence, fabrication using automated systems has become an increasing risk, and findings of this dissertation will help to mitigate some of those risks. Creativity management, in the storage, retention, reproduction, archiving, access, publication, content creation, and editing, relates to thinking directly into publication, and requires a system and process to manage the recordings. Paper systems are considered for such a process but ultimately digital/paper hybrid systems are considered superior. This disseration also includes the description of the software system architected and engineered by the author, which fulfills the objectives of the system that meets the minimum needs of recording thoughts, managing recorded thoughts, publishing them, and preserving them. A superior system separate from any implementation, but embodied in this implementation, is described such that other systems could be generated or developed following the same principles. These principles are related to the operation of the nervous system and it is shown that there are close analogues in internal functionality. Such a system described is also a superior and advantageous system of general publication, resembling book writing and archiving, blogging, web site production, application content production, and so on. It is considered if there are other forms of publication that would have advantages over this system under consideration and its abstraction. The operation of the system is also shared, along with existing archives that have resulted from the use, which are called individual ThoughtStreams. These are akin to social postings, blog postings, articles, and books, comprised of text and multimedia. It is shown that the existing system is a superior system for many forms of thought production and management in which other systems are used, including personal systems and enterprise systems that are shown to be disadvantageous. The relationship between this system and computer operating systems is conveyed, and the limitations of operating systems as good systems of thought management and production are shared. It is shown that operating systems themselves are inferior to the system and abstraction under consideration even if there is a reliance at present on installation and utilization on an existing common operating system. Relationships with the desire to creatively manage ideas and thoughts in the public are discussed, and benefits to all users to have similar systems are explained. The relationship between thought production using such a system for the measurement of intelligence is also discussed. The thesis that human productivity is required to confirm intelligence test scores or test further in additioin to them is argued, and this is linked to the subject matter in the author’s other book The Velocity of Significance and Ideation that discusses limitations of IQ measures, particularly but not only for those in the exceptionally and profoundly gifted range. The topic of immeasurable intelligence is considered and how the present system may augment intelligence testing to make the issue of immeasurability less an issue. Finally conclusions and recommendations for areas of additional research are shared. Following the conclusion are the data sets which are the ThoughtStreams of the author as he has used his system over the years.

Edit History

Contents

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.

Prologue

A solid treatment of the topic of creativity and creativity management, as it relates to ones personal interest in publishing and producing writings and multimedia, has unfortunately not existed to humanity. Creativity, as a result, has seemed a strange topic, and people have been, and are, in a state of perplexity regarding how to self-organize to record ideas, protect them, and publish them. The author, who has worked on this topic for a very extensive period of time, for nearly 25 years, is no longer perplexed on this topic. I can convey to the reader, that having solved many of the issues for myself, here written about, I have become a different kind of person in miscellaneous ways, and what I’ve arrived at is something that is incredibly needed by others. This writing, I think, will be a fascinating book for devling into this subject to have a solution that is really workable. The utilization of the solution is transformative. Once had the earlier methods of creativity management and work of writing and productions will be seen to be perhaps ancient. The issues that people need to address in writing and creating, storing and retaining, backuing up and arhchiving, are ancient issues, and most are really disorganized even while they think they have been given the proper tools in the age of computing, the internet, and artificial intelligence. However the reality is they have not.

Consider the interesting topic of simply keeping what one has recorded, and making sure that what has been archived can’t be eliminated in the future. Consider how hard it really is to store and organize records that will outlive onself. It is hard enough to organize one’s own possessions, so they are not too much to manage. For most, they will simply relent later and discard what has been archived earlier, or if one leave’s writings, photo albums, and digital possessions to family members, they can have no expectation that they’ll be willing and able, and educated enough, and resourceful enough, and motivated, to make sure they stay extant. Shortly after death all that one has produced will likely be eliminated. If one is a published author, unless one has sold millions of copies, and even in that scenario, there is a great risk that those documents will be lost or eliminated within one hundred years after death. Only some very few documents and recordings have archivists, museum workers, librarians, and other stewards who will protect them later. The vast majority of what one creates and produces will eventually be erased. Part of this issue is currently unsolvable, regarding how to ensure that things are forever archivable, searchable, and accessbile, and there is cause to believe that all would be eliminated eventually regardless of the methods, because in the future, people will have less interest in older documents, there will be too many of them if everyone is storing them, and because as a species we will have evolved to want new things and will want to devote efforts to those things more than older possessions. Meanings will be lost, and what is new will replace what is old. Degradation will also result in slow erosion until what is had is fragmentary.

I admit, this book does not resolve that predicament, although that subject matter is on my mind periodically as I work on growing the existing solution. We don’t have to think about eons of time to see that these are ancient problems that exist even in the present time for the forseeable future. How are people to create and record ideas, organize them, retain them, archive them, and keep them existing, while they are alive. How can they keep documents alive for some time after death? Firsty, the documents still need to exist at the time of death. Initially, the problem is “How do I manage my creativity and record my thoughts in the present so they are organized and archive for later?” If that stage of the problem is not solved, then of course all is lost immediately. One simply does not have what one wants to retain. Also, there is the issue that people cannot archive and store just everything they want to keep because then what they would like to manage exceeds their capabilities. So a solution has to exist for those specific things that want to be retained. This document helps solve for that and does solve for that part of the issue. It also solves for the issue of doing it for all of one’s writings and multimedia. So at the time that one is wanting to organize files, writings, and multimedia, that includes those things that one would want to last, one does have a solution if one is able to use what I here explain. This solution is the nugget at the kernel that is required, to have any solution at all for the larger problems that exist.

This solution is a multifaceted solution, covering a wide range of topics of interest relating to one’s life. These each required consideration to arrive at the right solution, and this is why this book and disseration may seem to cover so much. That should not deter the reader from reading futher. Instead, consider it more interesting because of the interrelationships. More gets solved as one progresses than the problems mentioned above, and one gets more out of this solution than simple creativity management. Considerable additional comforts are created for what is solved and importantly, what cannot be solved. People grapple with the issue that they can’t record all their ideas, and that they cannot really publish all they would like to publish, and they can’t hold onto everything they create. These are mortal issues and can lead to existential crises in people worrying about them. This provides ways to remain comforted regarding these existential issues and to have some finality about what is in one’s ability as a human being to control one’s situation. Some findings of this book relate to eternal problems that are insoluble. These can be later recognized as insuluble, and one can relent on trying to control those. With that knowledge, one can redirect attention to what can be controlled more easily. In this way one can separate the possible from the impossible, and achieve much more focusing only on what is possible. One can also feel comfortable no longer focusing any longer on what was worrisome that happened to relate to daunting tasks that really had no solution at all.

The result should be that writers and producers can be more comfortable with what they are doing and become much more powerful in their ability to create, retain, and enjoy whatever it is they like to make.

Preface

This book and disseration, while an academic publication of the Book and Journal of Mattanaw, is also intended to provide popular audiences ideas from which to improve upon their own publications and multimedia productions. The abstract of the book may appear to the reader to be especially academic, leading some to want something perhaps more readable in order to digest the more popular considerations. However, the abstract provides a style and density that is somewhat an academically required format, required in order to ensure the document does conform to academic standars. The remaining document is both academic and is more readable. It is the intention of the author to provide explanations that are approachable along with more rigorous arguments so the readers understand they can trust various conclusions. Without the rigor the conclusions themselves would be less trustworthy.

Reading along in this book can be performed in more than one way. The best way, I think, is to read it according to its design and normal sequence of sections. But one could jump into sections that one happens to find more interesting and personally appplicable and return or start on other sections only after they have become more curious. The reader is invited to, at first, read simply what seems relatable. Later, it will be noticed that was relatable relates to other sections. Those sections can then be read to the readers benefit, since they will provide elaborations on points that are now more meaningful or usable.

The introduction is provided to give the reader an understanding of the flow of the document, and what will be considered and addressed, and the value of each section that will later appear. It provides a clear restatement of what’s in the abstract but with more details provided, and leads into the subject matter.

Introduction

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

ThoughtStreams

Recognizing More Totally Areas of Faults And Veracity In Statements, Behaviors, and Thoughts

328 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 25, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Abandoning Equality | Higher Order Attention

Since I was young, if I hears some argument that I disagreed with, or found faults with, the faults I found were too numerous to really have a chance to explain fully all that could be wrong with it. Many arguments are simply error ridden. This is why some complain about the effort to counter false thinking sometimes called “Bullshit” because there are so many issues it takes too long to go through every fault. Also, the speakers often do not care about any fault even though one alone may be falsifying, among others that are also falsifying as well. Collections of faults are found for many statements and arguments. Sometimes I can build a large set of mistakes for things said. A good example that is taken very seriously for which there are too many errors to communicate them all is the Ontological Argument used by some old religionists. But outside of attempts at logical arguments the same can be done for things said all over the culture, including what is found in media and entertainment, in advertisements, and in what friends an family say.

Historically, people wanting to refute arguments, have been wanting to refute using less. They want to find one or two areas in which to damage an argument in order to show that the arguments are false. This is a way to really completely falsify arguments. However, I never really liked that approach. It leaves too much unstated. If an argument is a poor one, and I see many defects in it, I don’t wan to seem to rely on one point or another to counter it; instead, what I liked, was having a preponderance of counterarguments to show that collectively and individually it all shows the arguments are false. This is a much more powerful approach but it is seldom used. At this moment I’m considering developing an approach to doing it a consistent way closer to my way of thinking so that for any argument I only damage it more totally instead of with little counters.

So when an argument is wrong, I will be able to quickly state the logical fallacies, scientific areas missing proability, confirmation, self-confirmation, areas of coginitive illusion, personal defects in the writer showing habit of simply stating false (would work in advertising for example, where as a rule, what is shared has false elements), show that there are mathematical failures of analysis, that there are verbal illusions, that what was stated was too short to articulate what was desired to be articulated, that subsequent work shows a trajectory towards confirmation bias, etc… Also, the idea is to do this well, not simply list too many things to deal with. The idea is to list well all that is faulty in an argument or communication, so that it can be seen the extent to which it is false, has lies or truth-related malintent, and so on and not that ther is just some serious flaw, that should be persuasive.

A reason why I did not like this former logical approach is because it is more persuasive internally to me in my own thinking to use all against an argument instead of some, knowing all that is false and not just part. This is more persuasive to me, and if one could communicate all that is wrong with somethign to someone, they see the fuller truth of it, and they are more likely to be persuaded themselves.

Now that I think about it, this explains quite a lot in my life. Trying to work so much harder to be persuasive rather than using less. But it is not successful both ways.

Knowing there were issues with communication using such an approach, I still did not ever stop using it. And I’m glad I never stopped using it. Nowadays, it feels like if something comes up, all are often gullible to what I see as having huge quantities of obviously false qualities. It is obviously better to be the opposite of being that gullible, to be more aware of all that is wrong with something, than to think it is right, or to only see that something small is wrong.

And now I see an issue with the scaling of gullibility.

“I’ve seen what is wrong with it” may hide from others that the speaker is fooled on everything else.

This is a matter of size of awareness and more full and complete application of intelligence to something.

Gullibility is like being unaware to all that is wrong with something. But it scales. Most are partly gullible.

The part of the discussion I’m omitting here for now is when one has rejected something completely but one has not been aware of all aspects of an object. That takes time, and tends to be faster for the intelligent. Doing it incompletely is the only way too.

I will have to discuss this relationship to eliminate vagueness. Having more awareness is related to knowing the faults, if one cannot be aware to find the faults one is still gullible in the social usabe, but gullibility seems to combine multiple aspects I’ve now found and am separating.

Anyway, naturally I have a good capacity for finding faults in a number of categories for which an object can be analyzed and in which one can be aware about it, and using alternative perspectives, but I have not created a framework approach yet for which one can do the analysis.

This relates to the framework in development for Human Shortcomings. Because the human shortcomings can be identified in what people are doing and that is part of the intent of that work.

Knowing what I know, there is an incipient framework, which has vision good enough to consider it a bit of a framework. Like when someone has accumulated martial arts expertise but did not organize the aspects into a communicable system. If the vision and ability are good enough and the person is aware enough there may be an incipient system, or internal system, but that is more rare than I like so I don’t like to speak that way so much as to mostly state that the framework has to be in writing already.

However, the conjoint life-categories, work in human shortcomings, recognition of errors by category, including knowledge and immediate use of lists of error types (like using each fallacy type), and having more to add in addition, there is a system in vision. It does have to be written down though. Framework wise, if one has a good tax, categorization, and set of lists, that one can use truthfully and honestly, and it is representative of the sitatuion and condition (all this represents human error and correction and truth depiction, etc..), then one does actually have a framework or system. The idea of a framework or system in a basic format is thought about here, and I would want to relate this to my work “Methods of diagramming and visualization” which should say somethign about what minimally should exist for one to claim one has a system or framework approach. I’m not aware of anyone who has done such work and clearly it is important.

So a goal of mine will be tactically to use an even more in-total approach to fault finding, which is truth establishing and clarifying, and to write down the framework or system such that others can use it, and this will partly be in Human Shortcomings, partly in Higher Order Attention, and partly elsewhere as well (it relates to many of the Life Categories).

Forever Falsifying Statements of Other People Is More Useful Than It Might Seem

328 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 25, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality | Attentional Architecture

Continuing the last posting, with a new subject matter, I will discuss the falsification of other people’s statements as being permanent and not only temporary.

Let us consider, that when one discusses a subject with another person, and a good quality criticism is stated in response to some claim, that if the claim requires update in relation to additional work, that we can expect socially that the work will never be performed.

Another way of saying this, is that when someone makes a statement that requires some effort akin to scientific efrort, they will never do it.

One may want to disagree with this, but I assure, counterexamples will be too few. The fewness of counterexamples, would include all those efforts that were made, all the work examples for refutation, that could be compared with all those examples in which that effort was not made. The number would be so few, that using probability, if a strong criticism is made of another person’s statement requiring them to do the work to demonstrate (assuming it really does damage what they are saying if they don’t do it), then it may be assumed they will never do it and the statement can be treated as permanently false.

A humorous thing is that if it is known that the statement is likely false on locial grounds, or like with the heuristic in the last posting, or mathematical grounds, we also already know it was permanently false. What the person was going to have to do, if they did the work, was revise what their statements were, but make them more accurate. This means their statements were already false. False is “permanently false”.

So now we have a permanently false statement, and, we know they will never do the work, in which case we can disregard what they were saying.

That they were never going to do the work relates to they never could do the work. That they never could does imply they were probably using false authority. There is a solid line of argument there I can envision. But also because they could never do the work, it seems to follow they could never have the data from any source including from themselves.

Let’s work with an example. Suppose someone stated, that they were aware, that the COVID-19 vaccinations, included other biological material used as a single time opportunity to test reactions in the populace. There are some ingredients, that were undisclosed, that were required to be given to most of the population, just to see what their reactions are, so that they have good data that people are not adversely affected. These biological materials would be used in other drugs or would be used to advance studies for the creation of other drugs. The main claim made by this person, is that “6 billion people were administered a set of additional bio-materials with their vaccinations during the Covid-19 epidemic”.

Now let us consider that statement. Firstly it is instantly false using the earlier heuristic. The number is round and is huge. The size of the margin of error could be massive. Using my approach at absurding it to highlight lack of margin of error provided, the figure is off by 5.763.9 billion. That leaves 236,100,000 remaining. This number is too different from the 6 billion so the 6 billion is immediately false. Using the related list in the last posting, we also know it is probably false for reasons apart from the roundness, although we already rejected it on those grounds. So we reject it on other grounds entirely a number of times using the list. This is like in the legal system, giving the statements “Many life sentences to a crime or set of crimes”. In the United States, if a murder kills say, 10 people at once with a machine gun, and they are found guilty in trial, they may be told they have to serve 10 life sentences, or the equivalent of 700 years in prison, so that those killed get sufficient justice (so we are to believe from these Judeo-Christians). Just like this, humorously, a single false statement suffers many falsifications and many deaths, past the final death for each. Each one is a final death.

Notice in scientific studies, entire studies are rejected instantly if they don’t have statistical significance. We don’t use that concept in regular thinking but it is the equivalent of immediately rejecting someone’s views if they didn’t do their study right.

If someone’s thinking didn’t do their study right, science immediately rejects it. Therefore their thinking is rejected. Another grounds for immediately and permanently rejecting statements of others as permanently false. Notice that if they didn’t do their study right it is thrown out. They have to do a new study.

People claim to be scientific themselves. They are not scientific insofar as they do not conduct studies. I argued before, that people only pretend to be scientific, using social alliances. They believe themselves socially allied to earlier scientists, and scientists actively working, and merely pretend they too are scientific, if they like those scientists and some elements regarding methods in the procedures they use. Notice though, that when they start “making arguments using their background as scientists” they do not routinely discard their own thoughts for not being good scientific papers, and totally act differently than real scientists. WE know from this they are really not scientists, but might be “science enthusiasts” like people who watch Star Trek. This is much more damning than it may seem like it is regarding most of their thinkign, because they would want to reject their own thinking if they were scientific, doing it the way scientists do, but they don’t. Further, they never did.

Returning to the statements receiving many deaths including total real death in actuality, we can consider joining with the above, that no person has been a scientist who was not a scientist, and that they would need to be a scientist for whatever thinking they were doing, for that to have the scientist rationale. Since none were like this, and even scientists failed outside their narrow scope (oftentimes), it seems true that a huge number of statements made by most people (since most think they are aligned to science), suffer many deaths over and over. Collectively each statement dies many deaths, then all in total many deaths. So one must wonder, what is the point of talking to these people who are all around.

Connecting this with the recent discussions on quantifying veracity of others, and quantifying veracity of reactions, it appears there is a very great devaluation of people happening in this writing that is true and nearly universally true. I would still need to work on estimating values. But now that it appears that people would need to over and over reject their mental papers, which are their thoughts, statements, and reactions, known in advance to be largely false, and not connected with scientific research, it seems irrefutable.

I do reject science in many ways, and the ways that I reject it opens people to think using methods which do allow for personal life development on an honest trajectory. Later, if those were incorporated into science, then science would be redefined, and some of the above would become untrue, but only where people make their thinking logical in the ways I would indicate, that agrees with what some other thinkers have stated in the sciences and in philosophy. Much is new, but I think most is obvious on inspection, or obvious post indoctrination. But it has to be recognized that nobody knows anything about this kind of thing, and they really walk around thinking they can loft political arguments as scientific, without having any idea about what science woudl be accepted to an academic journal. If they knew, they would not only have to reject their own thoughts over and over, but they’d have to tell everyone else they are a risk to others.

These thinkers are risks to others now, and using their own thinking.

So now we have more reasons to reject interacting with others, and rejecting utterly statements when we interact with them.

This may seem untrue, but I think the way I can move forward with this, is take samples of paragraphs from the writings of others, randomly considered, and show the many ways in which they are false. I am aware already I can do this logically alone, which is one reason why I took so seriously the study of reasoning before, learning about logic and science and related demonstration techniques at University. Methods required for sound reasoning are not especially well-known. Seldom known. So thoughts have not yet been updated to these methods, and they have not been taught to kids. It follows it will be several hundred years very likely given how long it takes to educate that there would be a large population of people who can think in logical ways largely really truthful and more immune or correctively responsive to good criticism. Since most thinking does not use the logic it requires it really is easy to find mistakes all over. Good thinkign requires quite a bit more than people think, and so most thought is found to be defective. But it can approach a good level of truth. But all that I stated above, is atop this issue, that is pervasive, making it more obvious that almost all thinking really does have charactaristics making it most quickly rejectable. It depends on who you are somewhat too. Mining other peoples incorrect statements to find nuggets of truths I am already aware of or find “neutral” is not worth the time. I’m finding more reasons to reject the thinking rather than reasons to find anyone at all to discuss things with having an expectation of getting truth apart from any fun or enjoyment that is largely mindless. I do enjoy fun childish time with others though, just less than before.

Given Slave Trade, Secrecy, International Confict, Trend of False Bookkeeping, And So On, Old Records May Not Be Trustworthy

328 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 25, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

History | Truth and Honesty | Constraint and Determinimism | Human Shortcomings

Reading the history of Portugal, I enountered lines stating that in Brazil, there were 2 million slaves taken from Angola, and in the mid 1700s there were “over 1 million slaves” living there. It was stated that slaves on average lived 8 years. My assumption interpreting that is that they would reach a slave-worker’s age, then on average they would die after 8 years, living perhaps to their early twenties. It was also stated that it was prefered to have male slaves, indicating to me that there must have been a breeding method in which only male children were purchased from those who were doing the breeding.

I find it hard to believe any of this information because of a few issues. Firstly, I tire of hearing round numbers related to millions and hundreds of thousands. People repeatedly state that some number of millions were killed in war, were abducted and trafficked, were sold into slave trade, etc… but never are there any demographics to go along with these numbers, and since the round numbers were already chosen, I am certain they are false and that estimates served to support arguments or existing assumptions.

I also discover, repeatedly too, the people fail to understand the “round number” heuristic for falsification. If round numbers were chosen, it is already known they are false, particularly if those numbers are large. The part that’s in question after the falsification, if any thought additional is provided the subject, is how false. You can use a round number for how false it is, given they accept and use round numbers, and estimate. So if it is stated that some 2 million slaves were taken from Angola, I can say that estimate is off by 1 million. That brings the figure into incredibility.

The larger the round number, also, the more false it would be. Not only because the error would be larger, but because the bookkeeping and demographic studies required to establish them require more work. And Since more work is required, it is more likely it never happened. This also explains why round numbers are used.

What is interesting too, is that anytime this is done, it is already false. It doesn’t matter the subject matter, or the groups it’s about. If I’m told 12 million Russians sadly passed away in WWI, it’s false already, and maybe my 11 million in my estimation. That brings it round to a false 1 million. But that’s round, so let’s agree on 700,000. The person speaking to you when this convesation comes up has no demographics, so they have no methodology to use to recover and disprove your statement. However, you did have the heuristic above to disprove theirs, and theirs is instantly disproven. So there is simply no knowledge about the claim that 12 million sadly died. Sadness doesn’t support it either. 40 million died in Ireland. That was sad, but it was false. During WWI, there was an “event” we’re told is called the “holocaust”. This is just WWII. During WWII we were told 6 million jews died. That is instantly false, even if there were sad deaths.

Relating this subject matter to the title line, there are a lot of reasons why these pieces of information are not trustworthy. Do you trust slave traders? Do you trust slave trade business men? How about human trafficking businessmen? How about war adversaries and their numbers? All of these are incredibly untrustworthy. When you have no demographics, and no accounts, it is extremely dubious any of these claims about large numbers. Additionally, the numbers have to come from those keeping the information, who are untrustworthy, or else they came from people who did not have access.

This isn’t an investigation into any specific claim being made, just that in advance, it is already known, that round figures, untrustworhtiness of sources, and other pieces of information about patterns of human behavior indicate the information cannot be assumed and must be criticized and rejected. When someone invents numbers, it is not recoverable, unless they come back with data. As a rule they never do. So really, most are falsed permanently regarding their round number claims relating to areas of contention, where dubious information might be used.

In addition to the above:

Looking away from this writing, and transfering to reading the same book, I encountered the word “slave raiding”. This also immediately shows, that one could not trust raid demographics.

I think one can go very far in arguing extensively why scientifically this approach is even required by a rational mind. Once a round number is used for large figures (but for small ones too), the margin of error is required to know if the estimate has any value, and if that is not available, it is only false, and since the margin is unknown, it could simply have been invented.

Let’s talk about invented figures. Consider the claim:

“In World War II, 11 million Germans were killed in battle.”

In order to know if this is true or false, you would have to do a lot of work, as someone who started out as just a listener. But stating this, I didn’t provide anything that is trustworthy yet either. In fact, the listener, can use that. If I didn’t supply any work, and I just stated this without any support, even if I claim to have authority behidn me, I still didn’t have anything. That’s pretending to have something. That can be used when one is pretending to have authority that was invented too. Or where authority earlier was invented, and people simply believe it is authority later. A statement like this simply isn’t really different from statements made by people who are relaying history. Someone says 5 million were killed in WWI in North Africa. That actually is as easily invented as the quote above and I did in fact invent it just now.

But the easier approach is simply to use the heuristic I mentioned. A large round number is already false, and this heuristic is used in conjunction with the list above, to simply falsify it and move on. Not even require work for the person making the statement. It cannot be trusted they’ll do that work, and as a rule they won’t, so it is usually forever falsified already.

Heuristic Determiniation of What Is Likely False In Advance For Quick Rejection, and Attention Management

325 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 22, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Higher Order Attention | Attentional Architecture | Heuristics in Morality | Another Ethic | A System of Thought | Relationships | Com

The posting about the falsity that exists in reactions, and the posting about the quantification of veracity in human behavior and thinking, together give us a direction for quickly evaluating or “sizing up” others for false information. If the quantity of veracity is as low as I think it is, and the amount of reactions as false as I think they are, then one can use this to prune experience to make what one is exposed to more honest. More accurately, it controls one’s input a bit more, to exclude what is false, and include what is true.

A heuristic method or tool is one that is known to have some flaws but a small enough margin of error to enable good utility. If one is hearing or sensing in reactions and behavior excess falsity, one can simlly learn to omit that form experience by ignoring or automatically dissolving input. One can also habitually and quickly redirect from one input that is false to another. The falsity that is existing, is coming from people and from recordings. It seldom comes from animals (in ways we are concerned about) or from nature and its objects. If we redirect attention to nature, we will as a rule, almost always, transition from what could be false or probably contains too low veracity, to what is immediately providing truths. If I’m sitting at this coffee house, and a group sits beside me, to discuss religion in politics, I can redirect my attention from their low levels of veracity and high levels of falsity, to simply feeling the breeze and sunshine, feeling my handds and feet themselves, or the things around, or just look at the detail and reflectiveness of the tiled streets. The lights against the castle up on that hill over there are not going to lie to me, or send me distortions, or provide me a vision that isn’t what it is. My brain does come with illusions and so maybe I’ll fail to see something correctly due to my blind spot, but that mechanical correction is insignificant especially knowing its there, and particularly in this sighting. Maybe a spot is off, but what I’m seeing is not falsifying my existence.

This is very persuasive, even with myself as the thinker, to consider how much more I would benefit from simply ignoring humans and other digital inputs to just focus on natural things, memories of natural things, and plans about natural things, and what I might think further using natural things!

Reading, and other cultivated stimuli are what I also want to include in my world, and that involves messages from others and recordings. Since I said these are cultivated stimuli, there is a plan with my attention, regarding what to include, implying also, that there is much that will be exluded! All else! What else to exclude but what is quickly perceived to be low on veracity? Whatever is rich in veracity is to be included.

Hopefully one thinks well, and that is a danger of the media, of traditionalism, and of religion! One wants to think one’s thoughts that are also of high veracity. Unfortunately, these untruths and falsities do come from other people. They speak about religion, and make advertisements, trying to trick and fool, into buying items that are not as useful as they tell. They have trouble with logical thinking and are deceptive. Here is where an audience might want to defend people, but religions have made them vile needing correction from “above” and from supernatural beings. Envy, greed, lust, and trickery are ineradicable we’re told. Obviously these infect what is thought by others, spoken by others, and shared by others in recordings. So one’s attention is largely to detect and avoid what is false about others.

Already I avoid falsity, but I think here is the beginning of a method that will be used more rapidly by the nervous system to simply omit lies and falsities from attention. I’ve been avoiding advertising this way for decades now. When ads to pop into my world, which is more rare, I diable them or mute them or ignore them rapidly. Otherwise I used the approach from my book Imagination and Filtration, also known as Higher Order Attention, to route myself away from sources of ads, and to use television and media to such a low extent that I’m hardly exposed. I want to take this further into the domain of automatic attention filtering other people who are in my immediate environment, who I’m just exposed to as I try to remain minimally social in public locations, and from within cultivated stimuli that are thought to better but still include falsities. If I encounter Christianity and Judaism in books I read, I cross out religious words and cancel them from my mind. This is in an effort to continue the reading but with my own cleaning of it.

A heuristic approach of quickly canceling external stimuli that is perceived to be “maybe” false is needed. There just has to be sufficient probability that what is heard or sensed is false or low on veracity and then it is canceled. Additionally, another thing I’ve been actively working on, is simply ignoring and filtering out anything that is neutral, because why listen to what one knows already, and why listen to what is trivial? I stated before in an earlier writing that much that is overheard in one’s environment is predictable. People are simply saying the same kinds of statements over and over. One is already not in these other conversations, but these conversations, (and ones you might be involved in) include sentences that AI at this point woudl easily fill in before the people stop speaking. Autocomplete of minds, thoughts and communications, like what exists in email. The more predictable it is, the more repetitively horrible it can get, although one does not always need to see it as horrible, as it is also just natural behavior. Like birds flapping. But there is a nuissance to it too. The nuissance of repetitively hearing what one knows and has heard before can be canceled too in addition to what happens to be false. This makes what one is experiencing in sensory life more inclusive of what will be exclusively true, new or interesting, and removing all else.

Open Activism and Public Assembly As Providing Leadership and Elites With Scientific Datum Ensuring Control and Knowledge That Such Activities Are Not Very Fruitful

325 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 22, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Relationships | Com | Government | Activism and Voting

Reading a book on the history of Portugal, I saw a line on a riot by women in Porto, against the increased taxation on linens. This made me think a bit about the long history that must exist of group assembly, protest, activism, and so on, by members of the public, to obtain miscellaneous changes in government. This author soemtimes uses terms that place modern ways of thinking into the past, so I’m not certain the extent to which such protesting resembles current day protests. This story was from the 1600s. Are protests today like those at that time, and are they like protests in Rome, ancient Greece, or other locations earlier? What kinds of protests were allowed. Obviously, people would have been able at times throughout history to complain en masse as a group. Thinking about it this way, current day protests are primordial, and notably current day protests still lack good organization and method. It still appears a simple group, whatever size it happens to be, an dhte complaints would probably be similar to those of more ancient times, perhaps with more modern signs when those are used. Maybe the silly signs were used in prehistory?

Open protests over such a long period of time, or even over a hundred to two hundred years in the modern semblance recently, is enough to show that open information has been shared again and again by the population to leadership. This means the leadership has had something akin to polls, giving them information they need, to estimate concern and to estimate corresponding unconcern or opposition. For every gathering, are those who did not gather or who oppose who are usually more numerous. The information gained, would also provide something akin to open scientific data, that can be used to show the futility of the population, their forgetfulness, their misestimations as to progress, the degree of their personal effectiveness, and humorously, their belief in their heroism. Leadership can use it to see, over and over, that the groups have little power, and that they can give them, very minimally, something that will cause them to believe themselves successful. They can take it back later after they’ve become forgetful or changed opinion. Leadership then has information about the repeated effectiveness of their own approach contrary to public gatherings, but also including public gatherings, which is part of their design. They credit themselves for the gatherings, and for kindly providing people the opportunity to have them. They are aware also, after so much time has passed, that people really are controlled this way, that they cannot discover it, and if they do cannot do anything about it, because those who discover it cannot convince the others, who are too eager to get mutual attention for it, too eager to believe themselves involved, and too wanting to think themselves heroes as I said. People are aware, that in recent times, people will call themselves heroic, for doing things like undergoing health treatment. People call themselves heroes not knowing what heros are, thinking the metaphor apt for actual description. Civil rights activists then are called heroes too, for joining entertainment with risks. Leadership is aware they are deluded and supports the delusion, and does very little and often nothing after protests. The people can be given little and they think themselves successful, but it has been shown as often, that they can give nothing, kill them, or police them, while giving nothing, and the people still believe themselves effective, amazing, and they will continue to do it again. Doing it more often ensures they have not discovered something more useful to do to win their objectives; instead, they do the same. It appears joining in riots, being attacked by police, and joining violent protests, that are thwarted, still results in the participants feeling that they were laudible just for fighting for their beliefs. The continued existence of opposition creates an enemy for them, and the existence of that enemy gives them value. Oddly, their enemy is the same as their own governement, which in contradiction they value, for giving them the chance, to do the fighting?

This has happened so often, with people grouping in such large numbers, with known results, such that we can scientifically confirm that they are not very useful and are contrary to their interests. Public activism seems to support governments and leaders in controlling populations. Notice that with all this joining, people still like their governments as I said and think they are “good” for letting them assemble. This really does indicate that the population voluntarily and happily has more than cooperated with the design of their own control. It appears to offer the population a convenient way to self-praise, feel active in government, and maybe even keep things the same as before. Slow progress is wanted because it keeps things mostly unchanging. Thwarted advances do the same. The combination of enjoyment, increased self-estimation, and “inclusion” creates an inability to see what is happening. Scientifically it appears this is verifiable. It has been verifiable because it has been open.

The openness of public activity provides some leaders and elite figures a way to observe the population as subjects, as scientific experiment participants. Once the people are involved, their reactions to what happens next can be seen. What seems to motivate their group activity seems to be available for sight in dissection. Several million people joining in some political gathering, or protest, would allow people to see why they are there, what they get out of it apart from their mission, allow them to estimate the degree in which the members know what the goals are, that they are those impacted or not, or if they are helpers, and to see afterwards, if anything happens when they are given nothing. It is irrefutable that this has happend many times in the last decades in many nations. It seems to confirm that people will join as helpers, as people who have other reasons for joining, like getting excitement, and confirming self-valuations, and as the entertained, will do nothing if they get nothing. In fact, they can party again if they get nothing.

Protests against actions in Israel in recent current events have been numerous and have included millions of people who have gotten nothing in return but enjoy the thrill obviously of protesting again and again. People may think this is not the case, but what is the cause of their continued interest, given their efforts have no result? Is it to repeat an approach that is conservative in its recurrence, to do what others did before, even if it won’t have a result? Or is it due to reasons I mentioned above. I do not think there are not people joining who have good intentions, but this is not about intentions but about the extent in which such behavior has provided leadership a way to manage people, ensure they get little or nothing, while making them feel they are making the world better somehow. Meanwhile, the entire futile cycle is part of the design, that is actually confirmable due to the quantity of open data they’ve put out for the last several hundred years, and if protesting is as it was in Roman and Greek times, and in other nations throughout history, it is incredibly well confirmed, that the design is control and not progress. People claim to learn from history, but claiming that this process is effective is like thinking the worst of all business types is a good one. Activism does not have a useful organizational form that results in obvious “profits” or “revenues” for expenditure, and if human effort and activity is made part of the expenditure, it is shown very obviously that the gains are nearly null by comparison with the costs and investment. Has anyone ever heard of a business person who invested in a protest? They wouldn’t because they know there is no reward (except advertising), and they also know, that people do it for free to get nothing. They haven’t calculated their hourly wages in the protests! Humorously still, they did not compute both these hourly wages in protest, and the hourly wages in payments to the party they cannot move. The rewards of convincing government officials would result in activities they also paid for. It’s like consumers showing up to a business to pay for food or goods, and then pay for the salaries of those who are providing those goods with separate money!

More on this subject in the near future.

Measuring Attention Received

324 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 21, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Higher Order Attention | Attentional Architecture | Relationships | Com | Mathematics

Here there are issues as to using logic and mathematics as elsewhere and perhaps these writings can be used to build a case of the failed application of mathematics more generally. Mathematics has not been applied where people are most needing, and instead, is applied to more technological solutions. Mathematics has failed to become ethically interested enough. These writings will make this obvious over time.

How are we to approach the subject of attention given to use without using any mathematics whatsoever? Such an approach is the common way, which is not an approach, but thinking the same way about it again. We enjoy when someone gives us compliments, but we don’t know the size of the compliments, what they apply to, their duration, and we even exaggerate how often we received the compliment. Just one flattering compliment can feel it provides our total estimated value for all people. But a more mathematically minded observer, who uses that math actually, would want to break the subject into contsituent parts and analyze.

I’ve been fond lately of the utilization of sets. How much of a person who flatters you with a statement that you are good looking is a part of that person’s existence, and how much of that transfers over to you, and what is the duration, and what is the longterm meaning. This involves thinking of people as sets, and thinks of time as also having sets of durations. Event sets fall on a time line. This is not the onlly way to analyze and obviously there are many mathematical areas that can be here applied, but simply knowing the reduced chunks of the situations to analyze reveals extreme ignorance regarding the normal approach to thinking the subject over.

Here I am wanting to push forward to a culmination regarding the proper estimation of the value of attention from others, given the behavioral need to break habits of thinking, that stem from unreflective and delusional socialization. There are a few assumptions I want to use from earlier postings. Firstly, there is an assumption that for people who are more intelligent, there are fewer interactions that provide value, and many interactions are too repetitive, meaningless, obtuse, or unnecessary. For those that are more intelligent, it would be found, that useful conversations are still rare even when had with others of similar abilities, and that the shortness of conversations, non-overlap of interests, failure of one or both parties to develop the conversation to to recalle earlier conversations for lack of sufficient interst, and for sometimes being harmful, because socialization itself is often harmful, there is still not so much value to attention as one would like. What is gotten, occasionally, through good interactions, is a very short exchange of value. The value has some durability, and typically this relates to fun, kindness, and learning. If one looks closely, these exchanges of information of value with some durability are still short transactions compared with all else one does in life. These transactions are overstated to respect socializing, and relationship building. To make it short, most conversations have transitory value and using math we can see the chunks are infrequent mainly, and apply to only a small amount of brain tissue per occurrence. The overall trend in development of attention through becoming famous is to give people a greater knowledge of oneself. I don’t think it’s much the other way around. I don’t think it is very frequent at all that someone wants to have full knowledge of another person. They more greedily want to have attention for who they are and they want total estimations that they are excellent and free of defects. This was covered plenty earlier and I think it’s certain that this is the case. Famous people of international repute when aging, losing their fans, seem to look as if they want more, they want to retain their fans, and now they want to be known permanently, forever, and hear good things about them, before death. This is all insane and undiagnosed, and certainly relates to never using math for this subject!

Moving towards a better perception of the quantities relating to attention and sets will provide a way to better estimate the value of attention in one’s life and to update one’s behavior to lessen the value. The direction is only towards reduction of the estimated value. Even people who would benefit from more socialization would overstate the value of attention. The objective to arrive at what is closer to an actual valuation.

I’ll here make a very brief attempt at developing towards a framework for understanding how to proceed. Let’s begin by thinking about what a single instance of attention happens to be, using the context of social media. Suppose one prepares a recording of a video to share on social media, from a vacation experience. Say one has taken 30 videos, and one wants to talk a little on video about one’s travels and what one did in a special location visited. 7 videos are selected to trim and create clips. These are uploaded to a social media account and combined, or are edited in separate software in advance. Voiceover is added atop the videos to talk enthusiastically about the experience. Captions are added. One finds some music to accompany the video. It takes 1 hour or less to put together, which is long, but the experience is enjoyable. The video taking took quite a lot of preparation, because is related to the objective of travel and sightseeing, to see and also to have videos and share. The trip itself has others in mind (who is just a pool of unknown people, and family and friends. The videos are taken oftentimes with the excitement to capture something others would like. Total work is some large amount of time, but we’ll just keep that information in the back of our minds, and instead focus on the single hour. After posting the video, which might be 60 secons or less, there is an interest in seeing who liked it, commented on it, and so on, and one is prompted again and again to check, and to think about it. Now, oftentimes, depending on who one is, and the social platform, and a lot of causes one is not aware of, one might get 10 likes, 110 vies, and 2 comments. Or, one might get 900 likes, 2,500 views, and 80 comments. It would be more rare to get more comments, but does happen for select people.

Now let’s think this through. If one watches analytics, the results might be scary. The video might have had 90% of viewers watch 8 seconds and like it, and others 30 seconds, and some small number of completions. This would be in percentages that are fairly consistent even for large quantities of views but there is variation. It is normal that people look at it fast, provide little attention, like it, or provide a comment, then move on. Each user may see 50 - 200 postings on social media. The user quickly forgets what they liked or commented on, and they would be surprised sometimes later, to see that there is a comment on their comment. This means little attention is needed for them to feel they like or dislike someting or to comment on average. They also quickly forget it, and forgot even their own engagement. Now we have to think about sets and ingredients we would use for quantification. This would involve time of attention, levels of attention, interest, etc… and type of interaction. I’m not wanting to spend too much time on this for the moment, so let’s say quickly the average view was 7 seconds, most likes were unreflective likes partly automated, and one in a span of 700 milliseconds after impulse to do it, within 3 seconds of viewing. Let’s say comments took 12 seconds on average, and half were negative in intent, half were neutral or positive. Two comments seemed to have durable avlue, being more positive, but your interpretation of them was that they were about you more as a whole, and that the value was misattributed to you from your vacation sights. One comment was positive about your appreance and this seemed more durable because it indicates you may actually be somewhat generally attractive, but overall, there are many people who would disagree with the estimate, and maybe those disagreeing would be 60%.

Notice that the trend is towards wanting more time from others, wanting them to have a better understanding of who you are, and wanting them to have better total estimations regarding your total excellences. Irrational or not this is the trend most people have, that I’m trying to avoid for myself. I do a fairly good job of controlling for this and have very low expectations, but I think I’m well trained nevertheless to want this and it does form part of my interest, internally in ways I’m not entirely aware of, for seeking out any attention on social media. What is actually gotten for the effort is a very transitory set of micro reactions. Perhaps there is a better way to talk about this kind of attention. Pico-moments of perception. We are to understand people are complex and have lots of life and experience, and thinking that way, these likes, views, and comments, particularly as described above, quantify to nearly nothing in the overall experience. They also aggregate to nearly nothing, and we perceive this too, when we wonder why we are still doing social media after many postings. Perhaps it is like gambling; one gets some positive feelings even as one is losing, or not really gaining as much as one would hope.

I do not feel here I’ve arrived at much of a framework so much as a way to simply start measuring honestly as a technologist would do. Someone involved in analytics. What I didn’t mention either is that on social media many reactions are fake, there are fake accounts, and while it’s harder for people to fake in real experience face to face, people have a hard time noticing that too.

There are few kinds of reactions that seem more rewarding. I think they relate to attractiveness and maybe to cogneniality of personality, if it doesn’t go so far as to make people know you. Your level of gravity in relation to getting any microattentions. If it relates to attractiveness, and one is not crazy, one can clearly perceive that that is what the cause is. If you walk down the street and you notice women are reacting sexually, with great interest, or with involuntary interst, then you have very durable traits and the attention confirmed it. You don’t need that much of that kind of attention to get something positive about it, but sustained attention to it doesn’t provide much more feedback to create that learning experience. Somehow people are greedy concerning this kind of attention even after they got something of durable value that they should have learned. This is a strange irrationality, although it does indicate one can “get what one wants now” if one wanted it. I don’t think this way, but it is a starting point at understanding why people would continually like this interest. It’s not too unlike giving interest to nice looking food. Tomorrow and for years you will look at foods and let them know about your involuntary interest in devouring. The food can have you again and again if it wants.

To move foward on this to have a better total picture to work with I’d need to start to show how this relates to the range of kinds of interactions. I wasn’t thinking to include sexual relations, but that may be worth including too. I have the desire to reduce the complexity to more general socialization that ranges from likes on social media to brief comments from others in person and online, to longer intellectual conversations. That’s more of where my interst lies.

This subject should be combined with the non-truthfulness of social reactions discussed below. The quantification of veractiy in thinking and behavior. We’d have to add in how much veracity exists regarding the specific tissues of the people who are providing us “attention”. Attention here clearly is a kind of misnomer too, although it has its utility. By attention is any kind of interaction that relates to you in your presence or with yoru awareness, but also includes when you’re not present too. If you include what thoughts are when you are not present, including whatever attention that went unrecorded in social media, as one hated you with likes you received, and sarcastically made you think you did well in a video with a comment, then you discover the measured value of attention is lower. Using non-wanattomian arithemetic it could be negative.

I see now this may be a good opportunity to begin an initial text on relationships, which was begun as a very early draft but not seriously pursued yet.

Thoughts Have More Characteristics Of Discontinuity Than Continuity, Making ThoughtStream A Less Apt Metaphor, and Unlikens Thinking To Motion

323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings

There May Not Be A Strong Relationship Between The Reactions of Others And Truths

323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Relationships | Com | Reactions | Facial Expressions | ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality | Constraint and Determinism

Facial expressions made, including those made quickly and reactively, are unplanned, just earlier, in the person having and making them. People sometimes act things out in advance, and practice facial expressions, but as with their streams of consciousness, their sequences of thoughts verbal and visual, they quickly arise at the time had and are not known in advance. People have trouble seeing this point introspectively but it is true. Thoughts and feelings arise, and one doesn’t know the next ones coming. They don’t know which faces they’ll have next either.

Thoughts, Feelings, Faces Made, Gestures, and so on, can be thought of as constituents of the stream of thinkgin and acting, but they can also be considered self-reactive and other-reactive as this stream goes along. People think, then react to their thinking, then react again, then then then. They hear and see others in motion.

Faces had in reaction to self and others is a bit of a facestream, and humorously I would think to myself observing women especially, “When do you plan your face?”, “Here comes another face?”, and “Why did your face change?” They really have unplanned sequences of self-reactive and other reactive face changes, that are oftentimes very manipulative. Since people are post-facial-expression interpreters, like when people think they are happy after they smile back at someone, they often make these faces that are unplanned then think they feel and think like those faces. This makes sense too in an important way. If a woman or man makes a face that indicates a certain thought or emotion, they tend to defend it (there is a lot here I’ll have to think about and write later to establish clear relevance). They are therefore irrationally post-face interpreting and defending, even though they didn’t know what face they’d have, and didn’t know what emotion they would think they had as they interpreted it. If I make a sad face I pretend I was sad, but it can be decoupled. But if a girl makes a sad face suddenly, and manipulatively, I think they’ll actually feel somewhat sad, and will defend that they are sad too. Else they are liars, but their faces just reacted.

This is a very interesting area to explore more and it surfaces that people are highly irrational, and predetermined otherwise than they think.

It may be true that people are predetermined otherwise they can use.

This writing was intended to focus on reactions and untruth, falsity or lack of truth. From the above, we can see how facials (what I sometimes call these facial transitions, while I humancan others), are often manipulative, untrue, not self-knowing or reflective, or are lies. They are usually and often uncontrolled and unplanned. Don’t believe me? Make a planned face now and compare? “I’m going to look angry right now”. It will feel really not the usual. Those who feel it is more usual, are more manipulative and maybe more reliant on planned expressions. This would be true of unfeeling psychopaths for example, or those who are autistic and had to act out social gestures. They smile and laugh without being happy and without humor (not all, some).

As with facial expression reactions, other reactions are often false. I am writing this at a coffeehouse (only drinking water, however), and I noticed as people were reacting to things, that they seemed to include falsities. What is the extent of reactive falsity. Well we already said faces are often have falseness, thinking includes falseness and is reacting and reactive with what it knows how to do logically and honestly, which means that dishonest or illogical people will react more falsely with their thinking, but also other gestures, noises, things spoken quickly, are included too. Involuntary and even automated reactions without awareness have falseness, and this would be exhibited in psychiatric patients.

This conversation is very inclusive and comprehensive, and I think it may create an avenue for the quantification of falseness and veracity in all human movement. I believe there to be significant novelties in this statement, and this would constitute dense dissertative opportunity.

We would need this for quantifying human veracity. We would need this for self-improvement regarding veracity, and to know what shortcomings exist in a ultimate and surmountable ways, for human advancement. Thinking about the post interpretation of faces and reactions and related dishonesties, it appears systemically there might not be a complete solution to make it all honest. Here’s a reason why, to know what one feels in an actualy human way, one behaves as a human does, making a face and interpreting it afterwards, which means that the understanding of the sequence requires thinking about happens later to understand what happened earlier, but what happens later falsifies. Probably untruth is built into the system here. We might want to interpret using the normal interpretations to say things like, well even with this interior untruth, the exterior total presentation amounts to honest feeling. I think that’s incorrect. I cannot think of a way to eradicate this kind of untruth without subtracting out faces and emotions related to them. This will need more analysis at a future time.

Who has felt, they have been able to eradicate the untruths from these kinds of experiences that are formal sometimes, or are expected socially? Even if one has not interpreted as the above, on does sometimes feel too much lying is mixed with smiles, even when one also feels there is an honesty about it. Is this inner falsity ineradicable?

An ethical understanding of the analysis may result in a betterment of the approach to behavior while admitting that a falsity exists systemically, and that leaving that is preferable on other grounds. This would be like my argumentation earlier regarding the need to have concepts of militarism and manipulation mixed in with ethics, otherwise forever people won’t understand this situation. One will feel maybe guilty about the interior systemic untruth caused by brain behavior reaction sequence, but if that cannot be altered, one goes by exterior considerations more than the interior ones taking the interior ones to be still important for further consideration later. Humans may have better abilities later or different ways of interacting and emotionally thinking.

I think I can arrive at a very lucid way to explain this but for now think there is some good clarity despite an initial attempt to collect and organize relevant and required analytical objects.

This subject is weirdly dependent on timing of behaviors. In another posting, I talked about how one cannot perceive gaslighting of oneself introspectively when time elapsed is too short, and that it is often short, because, well, thinking involves brief moments. This I think is another subject where what is really happening with one’s experiences depends on timing and sequence. What has prepared me a bit for this thinking, apart from a propensity to think this way when young, was studying psychology in college, and additional reading in psychology. That is where I was exposed to the truth that people really make faces before they know what emotion they are experiencing is and think it is what face they made. Believe it or not, that is actually useful. Because sometimes I’ll make a face, and know that is not my emotion now, because I am aware that first I have the face and then the emotion, so I cancel the interpretation. But before I would have the emotion and think it was real. It is real and it is not, depending on how one looks at it. But consider that if you make a sad face right now, you’ll feel slightly more sad. Sometimes the prompting of a facial expression has nothing to do with what one is feeling at the time or just before the expression, the face is prompted then one sort of “really pretends” to have that emotion. This is part of the cause of the psychologists recommendation to simply smile more if one wants to be happier. One will smile, fake happiness emerges, but you feel happiness too, and so live more happily. Bizarre, but not paradoxical. I just need to clarify meanings of happiness in both cases, and honest/dishosty. It is false in the way it is created, but seems true as one experiences it. But this relates to timing!

To move further on this subject, I will need to take samples of experience as I am observing human animals, and see what reactions they have seem to be true and untrue and when, and how it relates to timing, that can be seen and that can be perceived only introspectively.

What would be really interesting, is if one can be out, among a lot of people (as I am right now, at an outdoor seating area at this coffee house, in Rossio Square area of Lisbon, where many pedestrians are enjoying themselves), and quickly percieve truth and falsity in each behavior seen quickly, and what reactions are had and the types, and what the timings probably are. It would be like quickly understanding how humans are generally and to estimate the level of veracity existing in everyhing being done.

This would be a quantification of veracity as it exists, but coming to perceive it regularly too. What if it is possible to teach kids to have an extremely acute sense for veracity in others, seeing them individually and seeing them together.

I perceive the reactions in stadiums to have many elements of unveracity. Having the skill would help for collective activity planning.

“This is a counter-educational stadium of dictatorial staring!”

Uplifting Music and Music Do Not Relate To Religious Brands

323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Religions | Making Your Own Religion | Another Ethic | A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings

A complaint of mine for a long while has been that relgious music, particularly Christian pop music, is excessively repetitive in it’s attempt to be “uplifting”. This seems to have crossed over into non-christian pop music as well, where music has highly similar characteristics. One can listen to a Christian channel, accidentally, and hear again and again, the same music as if it hasn’t been ever turned off or changed.

Out for a jog today, in Lisbon, from a metro station to a coffee house in Rossio Square, I was listening to some electronic music, that is ambient, or as some call, “synthwave”, and there were parts that were also uplifting, although not in precisely the same way. Listening to it, with the separation from the usual pattern existing in Christian music, I was feeling that it was non-religious, or did not have a religious interpretation. It was just music. Suitable for background sound, enjoying nature, sights, and exercise. Also pleasant for simply listening to while reading or spending time at home. Good music that would go well in films.

After listening to this music, I realized that music in general does not have a religious interpretation or necessarily any interpretation relating to one’s chosen beliefs separate from the music. Creators have different intents, and sometimes want to artistically create music that sounds a certain way, or creates a kind of feeling. People doing the art are international in their backgrounds, and there is plenty of diversity in motivation and intent, and this ensures for certain that music itself does not favor any particular religious worldview and much music is absent of religious thinking even where the creators themselves are religious. Some want to create good experiences, music for nightclubs, music for driving, or music imitative of others who are well-received who do not themselves have any religious intent, but even if such an intent existed, it does not mean it is known in the emulation.

Uplifting music, does not have a religious interpretation, and instead, religious try to adapt or take possession of music, in order to brand it, blend it with their experiences, and use it to gain converts. Pop music itself, is not Christian for sure, and obviously most nations have their own pop music. But the most famous pop music has been sourced and spread about from the more powerful media, which grew in the United States mainly. Since there are many Christians there are fairly zealous, they have actively pursued making Christian pop and Rock Music to compete with what exists, to spread Christianity more widely, and to have something that is religious so they can feel they do not need to exit their religion to have what they want. There are other reasons too but these are important ones to mention. Since Christianity has adapted pop music this way, and since any uplifting song can be so adapted, it is obvious that the religious component is separate and separable from the music, which can be enjoyed very easily while religious thinking is out of mind.

Can one enjoy one’s music while one is not in a religious frenzy?

Obviously one enjoyes music while one is thinking nothing.

Have no religion mixed in and you enjoy it more like I do, although I do think ethically while I enjoy music too.

How weird is it to think that one must be having ethical thoughts to enjoy the creation or listening of such music.

Uplifting music, it is clear to me, is unrelated to religiosity and religion, but I can see too that religions do not seem to understand this. They’ll continue thinking that there is a relationship, between a rising intensity and pitch would relate to communication with a diety. It simply results in a feeling people tend to enjoy and favor, and what is common to all people who do enjoy the music in all the diversity, is the feeling without any additional layer of interpretation.

I wonder now to what extent I should strip all music of religiosity, excepting those cases where the person who wrote the music had religious intent for sure (and not just potentially, as with Bach (they need to placate to escape religion as they pursue intellect)), and the music has writings that are religious. For those I’ll largely ignore, so as to not be advertised to with falsity.

Having a Loaded Mental Network of Anything Militarily Strategical One Knows For Improved Ethical Analyses

323 Wanattomians, Friday, June 20, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Human Shortcomings | Military Strategy | Another Ethic | A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Higher Order Attention | Attentional Architecture

Recently I was recalling the potential value of bribes. Bribery is not something frequently on my mind, because, firstly, it is not something I would normally think is instrumental and I wouldn’t do it, and secondly, because it isn’t really considered moral behavior. But that is clearly a mistake, and I do link this to what I’ve written about earlier concerning military strategy, which is needed for a clearer total view of ethics. Without an understanding of military strategy, at least some understanding, there would be serious errors in one’s ethical system discovered as one reacts to conflict, and plans for it later. Ethics gets blended with military strategy and military strategy with ethics, and unfortunately because people don’t know this, they just have military strategy in the upper echelons with ethics subsumed within it, as a secondary consideration. Ethics clearly is the overarching concept that includes the other, not only because we might want it that way, but because as I’ve described elsewhere, ethics is the justification of behavior and organizational proceeses and activities. Without a proper view of ethics, one does not know that one needs a military strategy, and this makes sense if you think about the mental development of children. At first, they do not know they need as much defense or aggression in all the ways it’s needed, and have less control of any aggression they have. Later, when they have conflicts with new people, they discover they need to problem solve regarding what to do with the new information. This is like learning that one’s ethics do not yet include conflict resolution sufficiently including defense and aggression, and therefore warfare at a small scale.

Most are not aware that these topics need to be blended, and the above may provide something useful for readers who may have not yet considered it. Here though it is an assumption, and for this particular posting, we’re wanting to move along to improve our own ethics to understand the subject matter of ethics more clearly, and to improve our perspectives regarding interactions with others. Isn’t it strange, if one thinks about social life that one’s had, that obviously communication itself, also includes a need to consider military-like strategy, manipulation, and how to incorporate that into ethics?

There is a weird side effect of not having blended these considerations that people defend themselves aggressively or use manipulation out of a feeling of necessity, and feel guilty about it afterwards, feeling they need to apologize or have “forgiveness” for what was justifiable? This is because their ethics and religion does not incorporate into it a proper strategy for knowing when these behaviors are recommended, and not only forgiveable, and their ethics and religion is supposed to know how to handle conditions such that difficult decisions become easier, and those that still seem harder, when well acted upon, are laudible. Feeling proud about a war effort is very different from feeling guilty! The guilty ethics that thinks unwanted behaviors are still necessary is an extremely faulty system, and this is largely what Christianity is.

A strategy I’m going to try to utilize to expand on my own ethics, and improve my analyses is to simply keep easily recollectable a list of related concepts of military strategy and manipulation, so that when I’m thinking about anything related to war or conflict, I am able to relate that to concepts that are usually out of mind. Also I want to be aware, when I’m thinking about ethics, that ethics always has within its toolset, these concepts too, before I forget, that ethics is only peaceful. Machiavellianism is really close to the result of this effort where it is rational, and those who claim that this writer’s consultative recommendations and writings were somehow not ethically upright, simply did not understand the requirements of life, leadership, and what ethics includes. This author had a strong awareness of more higher level analyses of situations for decision making. I am not saying his works on military strategy, and “The Prince” are self aware, about this kind of ethical direction I’m talking about, but his style of thinking is certainly not deserving of negativity now associated with the word “Machiavellianism” which used to mean deceitful or ambitiously power craving. When read his works do not have characteristics that calls this to mind, so very likely this use of the term was due to earlier liars who simply didn’t want his works to be well known or respected. In this way it is somewhat like Darwinism, and a reading of Darwin reveals intelligence and kindness, and a deep concern for human welfare, although those in religious communities act like he is an antithesis to human goodness.

I do not yet have a list to load again and again into awareness, and in my history, I’ve simply been quick to connect the subject matter, being knowledgeable about the interconnections. I did not yet create a conceptual web to rapidly use for faster thinking while studying ethical topics. Here is a simple list that is a beginning on this effort.

These concepts are relevant to both ethics and warefare in interesting ways, and this list is not exhaustive:

I will grow this later but this is a good list. Each of these have a good place in an ethical life, and they are actually required for better clarity. Grand Strategy is especially interesting. This is where basically everything is included within military strategy somehow including education, the financial system, economics, and even enjoyment is mixed in. People in upper echelons of military who are aware of grand strategy may want to be fit partly to be ready for killing or doing military work, which means health, nutrition, and fitness are included. Social life is included and so is child rearing and plans for children since to be successful in war we need kids to sacrifice. I would not approach the subject as many would, but one can tell that they really do think these things in practice, if one has simply listened to what people say during one’s life. Grand strategy means the military really is controlling our lives in all ways without us knowing about it wherever we are not temporarily unconstrained. Even our thinking is influenced by this. Our educations came from post war and wartime system arrangements. Even the way we eat in cafeterias relates to wartime methods. Canned foods, and the way we were fed, relate to agricultural processes that were to feed soldiers, their families doing important work (their work while soldiers were abroad were related to military), and agriculture itself is militaristic. This is not something we think about, and that is a defect of the people running countries supposedly. You and the others and myself do not of course, but I’ll remind that people think they do. For people who are “masters of religion”, “saved and ready to go to heaven”, who “run their governments”, who aren’t aware of this is absurd. They are both ignorant about it and unaware, to make them aware would require putting all the thought ingredients together thusly, so if one agrees with the above, you’ll notice that points of agreement do not constitute the right combined awareness, to have any awareness about the theses under discussion.

“I can think of ways that something from regular life relates to military strategy”

The above direction, while not intending it, thinking more about having a better overall ethical way of thinking, also seems to be counter-government. This is because very obviously it is not something people bring up, and it does appears something others would want to quash. Squashes (I just wanted to say “squash”). This thinking makes it very clear that military is much more involved in the minutia of planning than one thinks about, and if one thinks about it, one might really get fascinated and want to pursue being aware of it. Knowing that others may not find this subject discussion appropriate it seems that society may not want to understand what their governments are really like, because they enjoy stories about Democracy.

Which things from normal life does the military decide upon and touch?

If one keeps this list in mind, as I intend to do, one will have a more sophisticated vision, and will eventually have better ethics, if that is one’s objectives. I want to incorporate this into my thinking, to find the ways each is usable and appropriate within ethically excellent behavior. Awareness, and improved analysis, should result in better completeness and comprehensiveness, and quick experienced judgement later. If one is asked when lying is good, they simply cannot answer. This is because, again, they just prohibit it, but use it anyways, when it feels needed, but for some with regret, and for others with perhaps a growing distrust or unconcern about what ethics is. I don’t want people to think they need to do “bad things” because ethics is incomplete. But it is incomplete. So people will continue to lie without having an understanding of what virtuous lying is. I think I first wrote about this on Quora around 2018. It takes time to get through all sorts of analyses and I admit I have not done a comprehensive analysis of lying yet. I’m just more aware, as I think, about when it appears it is justified or good, but that is inadequate compared to having it known in advance schematically.

Knowing what is ethically better in advance is extremely incomplete (read “unstarted), if it does not include clear considerations about each point in the list, instead of simple prohibitions. Everyone has always known that prohibiting murder is insufficient, since when one signs up for the military, one suddenly has a”duty to kill” which is the reverse. I say this while being aware that since people have not blended militarism with ethics, they will often narrowly really think the prohibitive way on one day, then think it is good to kill on another. They are self-contradictory masters of ethical and religious judgement!

Alternatives to Making False Statements Using Specific Names and We

322 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 19, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Logic | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Errors of Natural Language

Using specific names of people when talking about groups, and using the word “we” without being specific about what that means, is the way humans often speak falsely. The extent and use of the issue relates not as much to the average person’s inability to craft sentences aright to speak logically as it does to the errors of natural language, and speaking with any language, because in each there has not been devised a clear way to talk about sets. The severity of the logical errors range from relatively unimportant and ignorable, to causing divides between humans who will war with each other. Historical writing, and writing about current events, is especially error prone here, because so much that is unders discussion involves groups, talked about in non-specific ways, or with names of people in their place.

In a recent earlier posting, I suggested that a common issue with this type of error involved two key things, failure to specify exactly the members of a set being discussed, and secondly, failure to state the rule that would allow for actual segregation of members of a group into a new group, to be that group that is discussed.

Another severe issue must be added, of subdivision of individuals, so that whole individuals are not grouped with other whole individuals apart from those parts of them that agree with the set generating rule. Liberals who have a specific view in common, would be a set of parts of people. Tissues being more precise, and only a small quantity of tissues. The remainder of their tissues, and brains would be potentially irrelevant, and show differences between them, that would result in other groupings.

Since the objective to arrive at an alternative usage that does actually result in truth, it does need to go down to the tissue level. One does not have brain imagery to find analogies between people adequate to generate groups, but one can use language and behavioral information to surmise reasonably that corresponding tissue exists and in a certain amount, with a good analogy between people resulting in a reasonable group.

If two people served in the military together, and in the same occupation within the military, as employees doing the same things, for many years, and both state similar beliefs about the occupation such that a grouping is possible combining the beliefs and behavior with a set generation rule, then one has a group with these two members in it, but not both of them whole, just a good amount of tissues. The tissues would be a larger quantity than if people simply said they were both conservatively inclined in politics, knowing nothing else, assuming knowning nothing else, that the similarity is probably superficial. Having the extent of similar experiences visuospatial, verbal, mechanical, and social, for years in the same environment, actually guarantees analogues of brain matter. If one remembered a particular thing they were working on, with images, the others images, would correspond to those images and in some ways would match. Even if both were foggy, there would be a good analogue. This is very differen then comparing both to medical doctors or people working as chemists, in Iran, speaking arabic, if that wasn’t the military job I was talking about (having some fun). Also, there would not be good comparisons between this experience, and those of aquatic sea creatures, living deep in te ocean. These tissues can be compared too.

This is a way to reduce the set related issue for talking about groups and not individuals. This will take some work to get it right, but I fully intend to work on my thought and communication to make it correct in practice.

The other mistake that happens, of using a single name in place of a group, is laziness, and imitation of what others due. It’s also due to limitations in natural langauge. Instead of stating a group, say the Portugese (I’m in Portugal now), or the people of their leader (like in the times when an Afonso was leading), one would need to segregate who is included from who is not in the region, and specify membership criteria (the membership rule). What is a person of a nation anyway? If you ask someone on the street, they would not have an answer univerally accepted, and really, this is not clear.

Speaking now about the United States, people may say instead of specific voters choosing an action, or specific key players, that Donald Trump, current president, make the decision, and that Trump is somehow identical with the United States itself. “The United States Under Trump Created Large Tarrifs on China and Other Nations in 2025”. This makes it appear that I make Tarrifs, and that others in the United States had any say or power in the situation, and actually others would judge me and these others because of this decision. This is how global xenophobia, anger, and desire to exact damages on unrelated groups happen. There are groups of people in the United States that hate the United States! Formerly Mexican immigrants with new citizenships didn’t make Tarrifs on China. It’s not clear Trump alone did, this pretends he acts in isolation, without others actually suggesting and insisting he makes such and such decision, for such and such reason.

Reading my history book about Portugal, I keep hearing about how Afonso, or a Dan, or Pope, did a group action. For example, it was said a papal bull is used to confirm things like

Using Social Media To Teach Nationalistic Indoctrination Globally, With People Sharing Their Experiences With The History and Values Taught By Their Nations, That Was Not Learned In Other Nations

322 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 19, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships | Livelihood | Environment | Outdoors and Travel | Human Shortcomings | Nationalism | History | Living Autobiography

While traveling around the world, particularly to the various English speaking nations, I have noticed a trend for different nations to have different levels of sharing of media from the others. Australia has a large amount of American television, to the extent that they are nearly American regarding what they see, but the reverse is false. There is no Australian television in the United States. In New Zealand, I do not recall the organization with this, but it is not the same and may favor Australia versus the United States (I will confirm when I go back although it is a changing situation). In London I say more American television that was very old, and I did not see much from Australia or New Zealand. I think I did see some but not much from Australia. I didn’t recognize anything that was Canadian. Canadian television has much of its own but much that is American too, but little from the UK, Australia, or New Zealand. To be precise, one would have to do a review of all programming, and nowadays, there would be the issue of streaming media versus television. But large scale media, with much money allocated to it, very obviously and unquestionably does have an international agenda, and it is strange to make the comparisons because of that. It is very clear that people’s minds are being steered around, and Australia is much more like the United States now than they were before probably because they watch so much American television. Not re-runs, not shows, but American everything like news that is current, that my parents near Washington D.C. watch.

Twitter in its early stages was touted as a social media platform that would be the one that created a shared social world across nations. News could be shared immediately where it was happening and would not be censored. The people were in control on Twitter. I think for a short while, that seemed to have some reality, but I think power has shifted in the other direction and now social media doesn’t have this function as clearly, although it does exist. It appears nations and corporations use it effectively to manage perceptions quickly, and control situations. There are also differences like the above with television regarding who sees what. I would have to switch to VPN while in other countries in order to get what I was wanting from TikTok for example, which showed different things in different places. In Malaysia, TikTok was boring, and well, there were people with more clothes on, as compared with what is shared in the United States. In other countries there are fewer controls than others. Each nation seems to be a little different regarding what can and cannot be shared on TikTok making for stark differences in experiences, and there was at least one country I visited that had TikTok banned.

If TikTok remained banned in the United States, it would be an obvious example of a tremendous potential in the control of social experience from one nation to the next.

While there are constraints on social media at the national level, and media more generally, I think there still is good potential to make use of social platforms to break national divides and make the world more transparent and mutually communicative. It is important to point out, for those who might think that the world is sharing this way, to think about what I said above. You have to go to the other nations to discover that maybe nothing is shared between them on one channel or another, or at all. People in media and entertainment are aware of this. Some star, believing themself to be globally famous, may discover that one country loves them more than their host country, while another country knows nothing of them. There is a male star in the UK who is incredibly famous there, who is entirely unknown in other English speaking nations, as if he doesn’t exist. He may be famous in other countries than those in the UK, but even in the English language, he has not been shared elsewhere.

I’ve discovered my website has trouble loading overseas at times, and that to distribute my own content globally, I would have to think about how to do that! I’d have to buy servers elsewhere or pay for global edge caching, and that’s expensive. Companies wanting to share your social media information also have to figure out how to do that globally. So your shares aren’t necessarily getting out of your region or nation, and for those who did figure it out at the business level, may decide actively to fence your activity to specific locales.

What I’m wanting to happen, in this context of varying ability to communicate globally, despite promise from early social media platforms, is for people to be interested in conveying the ways in which their countries differ, to the extent that they have information that is exclusive to them and not others elsewhere. Because there would be agendas behind these differences, which relate to nationalism, and preferences for one’s own nations over others. Yesterday, I was talking with a Canadian about how in the United States, there is no Canadian History education early in life or at all, after he first told me, the same was true in Canada regarding hte United States. I didn’t read my first history of Canada until last year, at the age of 43, and while I was aware of Canada’s presence as a friendly neighbor, I knew none of its history. Nobody seems to know that Quebec exists in the United States is an even stranger thought, and it is seldom acknowledged, that a French neighbor is present, that is large, and interested in having its own nation. People live in the United States as if this potential country of its own, speaking a French language, does not exist!

While I discuss this topic, of wanting people to mutually share how they were indoctrinated into learning their own nations to love it, and to not learn others, I am aware that the above constraints exist, and well, that people may not care to do this. Also, people may not know for some reason, that this is true still, and I do recall, that when I discussed this kind of topic with friends while young, they couldn’t understand that they were the product of their nation and their ideas were often simply local and forced upon them. People still do not know this is the origin of their religious views for the most part, for most people. I do think, however, that if people did want to coordinate, to make a social network that is global, reisting divisions that are created by nations and corporations, that they will need to engage in such behavior, as to mutually uncover and make clear that their nations did not globalify them. There could be methodologies introduced to ensure this information keeps flowing, and perhaps a corporation or non-profit could come into existence, that focuses on this kind of sharing, kept alive within existing channels. But, if this got popular, it may go the other way, and nations may find new ways, to keep people aware of only what their nation teaches, making them ignorant about the others.

After writing this, I’m desirous of combining this subject with the one introduced below, to talk about how in addition to the travel, immigration, and ease of visa having, and ease of migrating internationally, about how it is and was also easy, sometimes and in some ways, to have information through media channels from other places. It feels easier to travel though! Like if one wanted to really see Japan, and learn Japanese media, it could be a struggle to get the information which travels instantly, via existing media channels. Why is not all Japanese media made available? Why not a sharing of all media. What travels fast is information and data, and what travels more slowly are animal globs, walking around, getting on planes. How could it be easier to get on planes and fly brains from one location to the next, and not information?

This appears to be a fundamental point, and I will discuss this further later.

When The World Is Too Mixed To Take Nationalism and Addresses Seriously

322 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 19, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Environments | Livelihood | Travel | Outdoors and Adventure | Nationalism | Abandoning Equality

Permission to travel to a nation without a visa or with an electronic authorization (really a visa still), for 30 days, 3 months, or longer, enables people to live abroad for very extended periods of time without too much effort. For people who travel perpetually, like I do, there is only a need to ensure that one exits the nation by the end of the permitted window, and one can return again and again in some nations as long as one has exited. If the rules for a nation are not that one can return immediately after leaving (a strange rule), one can easily move onto the next nation, only to return after a period of time in which electronic authorization will be again granted, after 90 days for the Schengen area in Europe for example, and after a year potentially for other nations. In the arrangement that exists across the entire globe, the only limitation placed on people who live abroad from their “home nation” is to keep traveling at a certain frequency, not less than every 30 days. One can easily stay in places that allow 90 days and move between four countries every year to maintain life traveling.

That’s just for electronic authorizations for “visa free” travel between countries that are not in conflict. If one applies for miscellaneous visas and works with embassies to get them in advance of travel, one can move from one country to the next, traveling less, staying for 6 months to many years elsewhere. One can even wait to get access to work, get work specific visas or residency visas, and move around the world slowly, working abroad more formally. One can even collect citizenships.

People are traveling often for vacation, which is obvious, and there are a good number of adventurous travelers, who do elect to stay abroad for long periods of time, with the effect that in any country that is not too dangerous, and any country that is not in too much conflict with many world nations, there is a mixture of international residents present. I say resident, because for whatever amount of time one stays anyplace, one really is living there. It is on a scale, from moments at an international airport, to much longer periods. The idea that people are to live in one nation only is increasingly rare, and those who still hold that view are really unintelligent. This mixture of people, existing in every nation, also excludes immigrants. I was trying to build up the picture, which should be clear, that countries are fully of others from abroad who call the country a temporary home, or just a home, and that we can increase the clarity of this picture by including immigrants and everyone else. Some countries are more cosmopolitan than others, but a very large number of countries host many visitors. Many countries are also host to huge influxes of people for events, like for the Olympic games and so on. They celebrate the global community and their new guests, and try to make them feel included in events, not only as traveling spectators but as a national community engaged in sports and working towards peaceful relations. The Olympic games creates a picture that the globe is one community, all nations are respected, and travelers are important to host countries.

Electronic authorizations, and Visas, are a strange thing to exist in various ways. Travel is really easy between nations. Visas are easy to obtain, visa free travel is usually instant on arrival, and electronic authorizations are a form of business collecting fees in exchange for instant admission. Ostensibly although in practice one can be suddenly hasseled as if the authorizations do not exist. Most travel is probably smooth and unhindered, given airlines verify this information in advance. Once one boards an international flight, very probably one will easily get into a host nation.

This intermixing constitutes a powerful argument for becoming increasingly integrated, and it is an awkward discrepancy, to have such smooth travel, wonderfully hospitable hosts, and a staunch belief that nations are separate. People are xenophobic as they fail to recognize that their citizenship is shared with immigrants, and that those around them who are traveling business people and traveling tourists is plethora. An interesting question I will want to revisit in a future posting is what must be the psychological causes of such a split-mindset. How and why are brains divided in contradiction regarding these subjects.

In addition to the mixing of people of nations in travel, is the buying of property overseas by individuals and by corporations. Hotels with brand names scatter the globe such that the brand is distinguished from the nation in which it was founded. On paper, these hotels likely have divisions that are simply copies conforming to host nation rules, making it clear that, the same company simply operates the whole thing and had to follow some beaurocratic regulations. The hotels to which loyalists and members travel often, blur the differences between nations and work in those nations, by creating a consistent atmosphere, and well, a place to live. The owners of the organizations may not understand any longer the concept of national divisions except for the pull of governments who want some maintenance of tax payments and following of certain other corporate rules. Brands allow exchange of personnell, have immigrant employees, and as corporations employ and contract the world.

With this in mind, is there not something getting stranger in the thought that with such cooperation and people sharing, and people crossing borders with such ease, and with such intermixing of populations, that there is still a strong desire by people to remain separate and to defend and attack each other competitively.

Notice corporations internally when scattered accross the globe do not self-compete. Thus corporations, in a way, show international cooperation and even ignoring of differences. International corporations are like mini nations simply having less property, and they do have claims to property in all the nations in which they operate. Hotels then are like embassies all over, offering protection and international living to anyone who stays.

Thinking about this subject I wanted to mix in the last posting of my idea of a global land ownership system. While people without much property travel with easy, and live wherever they want briefly or for extended periods, using this convenient visa system to make that easy and not hard for people, land related conflicts, lack of informtion sharing about land ownership in different nations, and border aggression and zealous defense and surveillance indicates a big difference in perspective between traveler and law enforcement. Law enforcement and militaries are firmly resolute on nationalism, and exhibit a form of stubborn stupidity of mindset, whereas the travelers and the visa system indicate fun and excitement about being involved globally. This group likes to think that one could be a global citizen, and the other focuses on absolutish commitment to one’s fenced region. Oddly people as they engage in travel, and sedentary living, alternate between these viewpoints, again demonstrating an inability to have a comprehensive and consistent mindset. The travelers and immigrants aid in the prevention of the joining of nations.

But I don’t think these travelers are the big causes obviously. They really do tend to like the idea that peole around the world could join together. The people who are more sedentary are less inclined to think this way. I think this often includes immigrants who eventually become snobs of their new nation. This traveler’s voice, which includes so many people, does not seem to be used often when news touches on nation related topics. I don’t recall hearing often, travelers insisting, that the world become more joined. Given the above information about the extreme mixing we live in, why is it that this continues to exist.

Property ownership, tethering to a tax system, expectations that one maintains a physical address, and other issues pull one towards a more sendentary mindset in which one goes again into the narrow thinking that one really is a member of one’s own nation where one began or where one committed to remain. One recalls that one is on a team that one likes. Memory is then refilled with dislikes for other nations in which there is a history of distrust and animosity. One quarrels over immigration and the effects on work and taxation. I think the issues that come to mind when one’s attention is redirected to ones nationality is forgetful of the intermixing that is happening and the travel one has enjoyed, and immigration that exists. It especially forgets that planes are flying all over everyday carrying shocking numbers of passengers without any issues, and that the borders really let them all through everytime.

I will return to this topic soon, to analyze further aloud here in writing and to go further into what might cause nations to remain separate more fundamentally given history and other propensities, in contradiction to to the above. There is a stupidity of wanting one world and wanting it divided, that others cause and want to solve for, while being the ones without property, which enables them to move more easily. Regular people have very few things, and tend to have a single home or rent a single place in their home nation.

Without doing more analysis here, because I need to think about it more in advance of doing more writing or when inspired, I think much of the divisiveness is due to orgnaizational structures that have processes and ways of acting, that do not involve any mind. There are people within law enforcment, within militaries, and within governments, in TSA, in border control, and in a wide range of other groups, that simply have existing processes, that don’t care what they think individually, and while people work in these groups, they are concerned to do their jobs, which entails actually following processes that exist, that do not have minds that maintain them, reorient them, or lead them. This is an illusion to think that minds are continually operating to decide what processes and orgs do. They simply function everyday like yesterday with few changes, and leaders themselves are unable to make big changes which is why we don’t see those happening. Instead, they make smaller changes to process over time. But even the business lead and governmental leads have to work with others, and these others really are trained and programmed to continue existing operations.

The extent of this influence is something I have to think more about but I think it’s huge, because it explains why people as globe trotters can love the world and think themselves global citizens, while going “home” to work, finding themselves in a process, in which their minds are “switched over” to doing work, thinking that that work well done is something of a duty. This work includes also being a citizen. Being a citizen too relates to existing processes that are stable. Once back in the structure of life in their nation, or thinking about it extensively, they trend towards supporting processes that exist even if these conflict with globalist perspectives they value when thinking like a traveler.

This is off subject, but I have also noticed the word Earthling is not really commonly used. Also, people do not seem to take Earth Day seriously, except where environmentalism is involved (and still it is a non-major holiday). Earth day, and the word Earthling, enables one to more clearly remember interconnectedness and one’s commitment to our home in total. I’m not here going to advocate for Earth Day although I want to; instead, I just want to point out, it is not really cared about much. How much does this conflict with celebrations of nations, their independences, and their war commemorations? These get the attention wheras Earth Day not so much. Carnival wins over Earth Day. LGBTQ advocacy and events seems to win over Earth Day. I think this to be an especially strange subject because it does seem to reveal that people are extremely more nationalistic than may be realized, if their motivations are so much in one direction versus the other.

A Global Land Ownership System

321 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 18, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Livelihood | Environments | Outdoors and Adventure | History | Non-Nationalism

Not long ago, I was the owner of an 80-acre parcel of land in Alaska, in the United States. It was and is a beatiful chunk of land, and while I owned it, there was jealousy in the surrounding community. They eventually sought action against my neighbor and myself, to try to get access through the property to a nearby beautiful park and mountain peak, called Chugach State Park and McHugh Peak. While there I learned quite a lot about land use and development, municipal planning, politics around land, and law about being a land owner. In this time owning the land, I was exposed to several systems holding information about land owned. If one wanted to, one could find my plot of land in this system and get invormation about me, the owner, the location of property, size, and other characteristics. This was a system I was not familiar with, and I’m aware that the same systems are not used in every state. There was more than one system in use in Alaska to get this information and other information too about land ownership. This one in particular though provided information as to owners of land, who could be individuals, trusts, or corporations.

Recently I started wondering, why it is not the case that there is not a database of land owned everywhere. The globe is not that large to us now, and it is possible, simply with a tool like google earth, to divide up the entire globe and have associated information on who owns what. Right now, if one uses this tool, google earth, or other maps, one can find locations and characteristics about points. In software, one can get photos of specific addresses that have been taken from vehicles. One can zoom down on houses and cars, and see trees and plants that are still there. More advanced enterprise software probably can show real-time the surface or within a span of time approaching real time. If this exists and is unavailable to the public, there is a genuine issue at present regarding transparency of information and science. The reason why I’m saying that the simple globe software can zoom in on these places and show these characteristics is to communicate that this is more data than thin lines covering the globe with boundaries showing clearly property ownership.

Would it not be in everyone’s interests, to be able to clearly know who owns what, to have a way to convey that they really do own what they say they do to all, and to simply have a good understanding of land ownership worldwide in order to guide governments. Since all guide governments all need the required information for their use in fulfilling their duties.

What is really humorous to me considering this, is that it is obvious that there is definitely malintent and selfishness as the causality around why this kind of information is not shared. What does each government even own? Do they all agree as to what is owned? With respect to contested land, they do not, but here I will argue:

There is no land that is not contested potentially.

That may seem absurd, but if one has an enemy that wants your downfall, they don’t respect your property rights.

But if we take enmity out, there are still very large portions of landmasses that are unpopulated that were “claimed” to be part of one’s nation, and one does not defend these portions oftentime or even go to them. Russia’s Siberia does not require protection. Russia just says it is theirs, and nobody goes. I am personally convinced it is not theirs, because they can’t use it and have no infrastructure there. It’s like they just stated that all that extra land was part of their nation. People aren’t visiting these remote places. The animals enjoy it as theirs and humans are like aliens in their own country when they arrive.

Nevertheless, the land claims can be tracked nevertheless. What people think about land ownership can be shared. That a nation thinks they have some territory, and that the people on it thinks they have it divided for them, can be shared in a database and on globe software that anyone can use. Notice that even in these conditions, like in Ukraine, another country like Russia can come over and say “None of that is Ukraine, and none of that is belonging to any Ukrainian”, thus changing the system in that location to be Russian. But all of this can also be tracked! So in the system that shows everyone’s land on the whole planet, the Ukrainian land oownership is shown, until is updated to be russian owned. Or both owned in contest.

That this does not exist is an area where there probably should be intense interest. Particularly, because the people who claim to own their government and steer it, have trouble owning land, knowing where it can be owned and at what cost, and would have trouble sharing their ownership worldwide. Your property is already on the map, why can it not say it is yours? There are many reasons why such a system would be useful for understanding “human equality”, being sarcastic, and to compare different nations, and as I said, to empower individuals to decide the government.

Without this information, wouldn’t they be too ignorant? How much of international warfare is due to land related concerns? This means that the people who “run the government” are ignorant as to what information is needed for understanding these conflicts, and instead of looking for themselves, have to rely on poor information from some few who claim special knowledge, who do not themselves have such a system to use.

More on this for certain in the future!

On Rejecting Old National Or Tribal Founding Stories

321 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 18, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Living Autobiography | Cosmological Arguments For A Diety And Other Related Arguments From Originating In Myth | Non-Fictionalism | Non-Nationalism

Today as I was reading Prisoners of Geography, by Tim Marshall, I was reminded (If I was exposed earlier, and I think I was), that Japan has a mythical origin story like many tribes that we’re aware of. This tribal story is not one that I know to be taken seriously in Japan by a large amount of the population, but from this it does appear that most would know the story very well from childhood. The original myth story is relayed in this book, but is recorded in a book compiled suppsedly in year 712, called The Kojiki.

I’m not going to retell the story here, because it is too absurd to really care about. This story, like native myth stories, talks about how their lands emerged from the activities of human like deieties, having conflicting social relationsihps. It also discusses and underworld and something akin to mortality and eternity, blessings and unblessings. In the same book, North Korea is discussed, and as one might expect, like Japan, there is a seriously foolish national origin story, that involves relations between humans and animals. It explains the position of the emperor, as does the Japanese story. These stories are not too different in the childish silliness of the cosmology of tribes that did not reach a high level of civilization. However, I want to make the point that it appears that nations that try to trace their lineage to prehistory tend to have similar stories of their own simply because they too came from tribes. Mormonism and North Korea’s stories both aremodern tribal creations emulating earlier creations in a modern day using similar approaches, and their appeal to followers or captives tell about the mindset of tribal humans and show that this mindset isn’t too different from the mindset of humans today.

Conditions of humanity determine whether they act tribally or not, chiildishly regarding the inventiveness of their history or not. Human animals would behave tribally if culture were subtracted and they were left alone before having any education. Being the same animals, or extremely similar animals to be more exacting, we understand that the culture that is loaded into us after birth constitutes whether we can think as primitive animals, as tribalists (that are still more advanced!), or as humans within greater complexity.

I have written many times here and elsewhere that I flatly reject early cosmological stories, including in major religions (they still have tribal origins to these stories), from whatever tribe they happened to come from, with no concern about how numerous they are. I would reject the cosmological viewpoints of all animals with brains inferior to humans too, if they happened to exist. Likening humans with early cultures to animals, I reject the views of these animals too. Really, for each tribal view checked, similar characteristics exist which do call for the rejection of those views. These stories are part of the heritages of different groups of humans (not all humanity because there are separate lineages), and already people do not wish to preserve all lineages. This can be easily confirmed by checking the views of Christians and Muslims against their concerns to preserve the earlier cultures of their peoples, who they believe they are in competitition with. This is a cause of the degradation and elimination of ancient buildings and artifacts.

Why is it that, the Japanese are willing to teach this story to their youths and recall it, and let others know about it so they are aware of their culture? Would this not be somewhat embarassing to them (people who supposedly feel embarassment strongly), given it means they are putting too much interest on falsity, and connecting it with their identity, indoctrinating it into their youths, and prefering it over alternative cosmologies, similarly stupid and foolish? It makes it appear they believe some of what is stated, else why is this clinging so strong. If not among their more educated, in other large segments of the population. Like those who cherish disney stories and folk tales in the United States and elsewhere. Those of lower intelligence do not interact with it, think about it, and use it in the same way as those who are smart do. They take it more similarly and have trouble disentangling what it supposedly teaches from what is useful or true. So why do the Japanese not prune this from their bonzai? They left their tree more full unclipped!

Korea, also bonzai’d did not prune their minds so as to leave out these silly pieces of information.

Taking these things seriously, I’m not so foolish as to not judge them and use this as part of my datum for understanding them which helps to evaluate them! Likewise for my estimation of any people, that did not simply store their ancient thoughts in books for the libraries, to be learned as history, but not taken too seriously. Really the books need, like the hieroglyphics, to become really incomprehensible. Because since truth is absent, and story is used for whatever that is not written, it will become largely unknown, and not something to be well understood. This is the strangeness of myth. When we read myths and notice their bizarreness, we know we cannot really interpret why it would be valuable. We have to rely on the people who live in the locations in which it is taught to give context, and to tell what is thought about the stories. But it is clear that since these are simply minds telling you well after the stories were created what it “means” for their group, that they are really not knowing, and they have nothing to cite, but hearsay, and perhaps parents and children’s books. This does not actually provide the meanings to the originals. It is lost, strange, and locked away, like Hieroglyphics. So much hieroglyphics, for nothing at present.

I have not been introduced to a useful text written in Egyptian, but I have been exposed, again, useless tribal stories. Even a renowned ancient greek philospher, I do not recall who specifically, stated that at the their time, maybe year -400 to -300, that they could not extract much usable from all the Egyptian Texts, that they had more plentifully at that time. They coexisted with Egyptians with a lineage tracing back, maybe somewhat consistently, to many thousands of years earlier. Their hieroglyphics were unhelpful even then. They are not known today! But the cosmologies are easily rejected from what is relayed, because it is plain myth without support for interpretation. These also supply the tribalisms of Judaism, Christianity and other religions of the region that emerged later. They don’t make clean divides from what happend earlier! Humans are not that creative. As I try to separate myself, I do see that there is much that is permanently hooked to history. Particularly my language and words I use, since there is not enought time to replace all the concepts!

Countries, to be taken more seriously, to show rationality, do need to soon commit to modern science and real histories, and to put the old stories away. They have to actively reject the silly stories. The silly stories are even used to childishly divide. A Japanese story wants to protect their infantile myths, while preventing people like me, from saying they are too mine, knowing what they are! Why do these silly tribes all have their own “special” stories, while they also claim equality and that there is a “human lineage” and “human knowledge” and UNESCO World Heritage? What is world heritage while one wants to have one’s own that others cannot have?

More seriously though, there is a uniformity of nationalism in each location, where each is willing to war with other nations, as they claim to be all together lovingly with them. These stories, like ancient religious stories, are used to try to create a view that those who know it are special together, and somehow chosen, and this is blended with nationalism too frequently. In Japan this story surely is used to convey what connects Japanese people. The same is true with most nations as far as I know. I do not know enough about all nations, but it really might be, that each and every one, believing to even believe in being part of a nation, believes in separateness, and in this separateness, different histories. These different histories uniformly tend to have silly origins. In groups that do not believe themselves to be part of their nations, they still justify that view usually not on thinking they reject nations, but on thinking themselves to be in a minority that has group claims of their own. They have their own history separate from their nations! This is groupism, ethnicism, relgion, and nationalism.

They cling to their ancient sillinesses.

Only the cultures that have died have stopped clinging, because now they are skeletons without grip! Greeks of ancient times are all dead and so is their Myth, and those living in Greece are Christian primarily. We can make fun of greek religion all we want, because none are wanting to attack, being all dead. The same is true for Ancient egypt and any other group where the current populace sees itself as different from those originally there. Weirdly, they claim the ancient heritage as their own still in these locations. Muslim Egyptians still think that the Pyramids are part of their treasury, but they have disavowed anything religious associated with it, because really those who were there are dead, and they simply occupy the same space.

Not rejecting these early myths for what they are, modern societies appear to still expect to use them to promote nationalism, cohesiveness, and potentially warfare. They also make it clear that their minds are not so scientific and historian as they think. They can easily become refocused on these myths to cause them to make decisions that are opposed to a rational use of science and history. Without rejecting them as fictions, it cannot be known if they really understand that’s what they are. The way to openly and outwardly show that one understands something is fictional is to make it clear to others that you reject it as untrue. It can be rejected as untrue while being stored away as history and early fiction.

319 Wanattomians, Monday, June 16, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Human Shortcomigns | Verbal Delusions | Assumption Elimination | Religion

For a while, in English, in entertainment and in social culture, people would ask questions like “What is your philosophy on that subject?” or just “What is your philosophy?” to which the response expected was a simple phrase, and perhaps a few corresponding statements, but little more.

Philophies of life were things people had, but they had them with only short summary statements. They had them while they had religions too. For example, someone might say somethign like “My Philosophy of life is that kindness is paramount”, or something such as that which is relatively trivial, and if an elaboration was provided it would have little depth.

Why does this matter though?

Saying that one has a philosophy, or a life philosophy, that is “a philosophy” firstly greatly minimizes what philosophy is typically supposed to entail. It isn’t supposed to be especially narrow, separate from other parts of philosophy for which one has views, and separate from other knowledge. This makes it seem that philosophy is some opinion that one has, or some guiding statement. There are many guiding statements that are simply tossed around and these are not individual philosophies. This was an annoying way of talking that was common for a while but may not be particularly common now. People were aware it was really a way of introducing an outlook or perspective one thinks has some importance, but without any seriousness or actual study of philosophy. A philosophy was easy to have.

The other way in which it is annoying is that a philosophy, when one has one (still not my favorite way to talk about it) is supposed to be something that has more depth, and complexity and not less, than simple opinions. If someone told you they had a philosophy in this way, if you knew about this way of conversing, you would have low expectations about what they were going to tell you. But this in various ways reduces what philosophy is really supposed to be and is within the discipline of philosophy. If someone who takes philosophy seriously tells you they have a philosophy, what is to be expected is some thinking of good sophistication. Typically, Philosphy is considered one of the hardest majors in college, and not one of the simplest. The intelligence of students, from admittedly unreliable information I’ve read about, claims they are in similar ranges to those taking mathematics, engineering and physics, with some sources saying those interested in philosophy are higher. I don’t really trust this information, but I do admit the abstractness of the subject and the difficulty of the reading, and overlap with mathematics, and various sciences, does indicate difficulty. Probably there are people who can do well in each of these disciplines because they have overlapping interests, and those expanding on philosophy are often those expanding on the sciences. For example, Leibniz, Descartes and other Physicists and Mathematicians were also Philosophers. Philosophy is supposed to be thinking about the edges and frontiers of sciences and making inferences about the meaning of those frontiers for other disciplines and knowledge and morality more generally. They are not always successful, but it is a difficult undertaking.

Claiming that one has a philosophy in the manner discussed above is really unlike having a philosophical worldview of sophistication like Plato or some other esteemed thinker, and there is an attempt to posture and borrow the term “philosophy” to win over others into thinking they are amongst the philosophers and are not simply stating opinions that they happen to have.

This does not mean that the statements made in this way do not sometimes go along with statements that are of good quality, it’s just that I don’t think this is a particularly honest or useful way to talk about what one’s philosophy happens to be if one has one at all.

Another issue, is that once someone is using phrasing such as this, one often does come to think that the statements made are true. So these people think they have powerful philosophies of their own when really they are just communicating in a semi-popular way. Also, those who state they have philosophies in this way are speaking in contradiction to their religions without knowing it. Some may have arguments that were really thought in advance that allow space for thinking outside of religion such that there is not an incompatibility, but I am aware that this is not typically the case, usually they resort to religious authority to justify their thinking in debates if it actually goes moral philosophical or philosophical at a deep level, and I think more generally, philosophy is really at odds with religion. One having convictions regarding moral viewpoints and outlooks without any connection with one’s claimed commitment to religion is odd, and it’s like trying to have a philosophy while having the religion also, despite definite compatibility issues. I think discussing this part too much more would go too far astray, but I would advocate for anyone who thinks they have a philosophical viewpoint that is important and fundamentally guiding them that differs from their religion, that they should take it much further than they have! Encroach on the religion until like other philosophers the religion isn’t really necessary.

There is a big difference between people who claim to have philosophies this way who have put in no effort, from those who put in very extensive effort. If one encounters what I’m talking about in real life the difference is more clear, and since this issue is due to a common manner of speaking the issue is less on a spectrum and more of a definite gulf between two ways of thinking about what philosophy is or can be.

Gradients in One Person

318 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 15, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic | ThoughtStream | Evaluative Concepts

The below conversation regarding the use of just two gradients for social issues, has given rise to the thought that in my own ethical project, which is focused importantly on the individual in large measure, would benefit greatly by identifying all those gradients which pertain to one’s own moral thinking. Oddly this involves all thinking too because better thought requires outward utilization of all measures of importance. Also, however, would be key gradients especially useful for personal betterment given the surrounding context and conditions.

The life categories and personal form were purposeful ways of gathering data about life, and planning life, in a way that has adequate coverage. This implies that I was already fairly well-rounded in my treatement and I can use the approach I created before to find what gradients may exist for expanding my system. When I was gathing personal data in different life categories which cover most of life, I did try to find those measures which were supposed to be like KPIs which I would track and use to self-improve. I thought these quite good but they were certainly not all inclusive if one considers all that could be included of importance using a scientific mindset. But the goal wasn’t really to be that comprehensive, but to have KPIs, which involve those gradients, deserving of attention, for the power and control created, on attaining better life excellences. Here it seems that growing that list into what would be used by the sciences may not be especially helpful for in a maximally useful way (initially), and instead choosing what is most powerful would be better.

The life category approach was already aware of the sciences and the measures were chosen already knowing that totally knowing all measures would not be as useful or instrumental. Later on that may not be the case, but either way, for each and every person consdiering self improvement incrementally arriving at an all-measuring approach is needed, and of course, and all measuring approach obviously is out of reach given human abilities. Using pattern oriented thinking one can get closer I think. People have to have better brains to go very far in that direction towards what would be more totally encompassing and I think that is basically a false ideal.

So still finding they key gradients seems to be best and would remain best.

At this time I’m not working on putting together these gradients but will keep it in mind.

I think the above further falsifies science as an approach to human moral improvement because expecations are too great for an individual mind to utilize. This combines with my view that journal article reading is actually harmful to trying to guide one’s life. This is also why I think there is a better thinking approach than science to be used at the individual and probably collective level too.

Population Problems and Abuse Expressed On A Gradient For All People And All Locations

318 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 15, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Life Planning | Life Categories | Justifying Life

After doing a recording today, I was thinking it makes sense to discuss more the gradient of abuse and gradient of population issues. While it would be useful to notice the gradients where they exist and apply them however they can be applied for transformation of worldview, i cannot do that all at once, or finish that effort, and instead can only do it part by part.

A strange question exists as to how much humanity would change if they really adopted gradients, and discovered what changes of mind were beneficial simply from the transition to non-gradient thinking to gradient thinking. What was impossible outside of this kind of thinking?

Probably humans would change in astounding ways before shifting from thinking about the improvements of the change to thinking about all that would change; it happens to be true that measurement itself is what is being discussed to and the manner of using measurement will have a huge quantity of mental changes as a result.

How do I want to use the population issue gradient and abuse gradient to facilitate thinking?

A population issue gradient would allow to communicate and think concerning global problems in a way that assumes that population issues woudl be present rather than absent, and that those problems would exist on a gradient. Currently, peple have been indoctrianted, oddly into thinking that population problems are on or off. Globally people will state that there is no population. Stating they are always present allows for seeing where they exist. I don’t want to use the existence of the gradient against itself by saying the extremity is present at all times where the gradient applies. In other words that population problems are extreme because population issues exist at a low level. This is an odd human shortcoming that people tend to think that way. Weirdly, they don’t go the other way, and state that where there are population problems, they must be small problems. They go to the other alarmist extremity.

Using this we can see rather than keep invisible population problems wherever they exist on the globe and at the aggregate global level.

Population issues exist in families, where there is a resource allocation concern for children had. Population issues also exist regionally in specific parts of the earth, where the effects of the population, have negative consequences to those regions, in ways that may not exist for other regions. Trash is a population problem. Graffiti is too. Need for maintenance is a population problem. There are many population problems people don’t think of. The negative affect of a single person on a small colony of animals, like an ant hill that my get destroyed, is a population problem. Earlier I wrote that each person has to pay for him or herself. That is a population problem, that one person can be too much to care for by the resources of one person. I can tell from this last example that this idea, of recognizing that population problems exist all over or in many places on a gradient is helpful for understanding much more than one might expect. I am my own population problem.

Abuses exist all over. Abuses relate to population problems too, so these gradients will intermix. Rich families apparently doing well abuse their children mildly in various ways or sometimes in very damaging ways. The word abuse calls to mind the extremity, but if one is rational, one can still use the word in a way that does not think it that way. Another word can be used instead but I use this word now. We are on-and-off with the word abuse. People tend to think all is flawless until sudenly there is an abuse, but abuse simply does not typically work that way. A parent can do one thing to a child under that thinking, and go from pure to criminal. But the entire time, even when a parent is a good parent, they are being abusive according to this definition. I think some abuses are severe that might be called mild, but still without calling to mind the extremity of abuse, and now I see that this kind of thinking is an intelligence concern because it calls for too much. Let’s use detriment instead, but know that future people would call certain mild seeming abuses severe later. Teaching a kid a less useful language is a severe abuse, but we consider it something to not notice, or even praise, for preservation reasons. But it can lead to life long impairment. Having a child that will likely have poor genetics without a plan such that they do have inferior genetics is a kind of abuse given the context. If one has a child that is unattractive, has poor traits, and is unintelligent, that child might thrive and live an excellent life, in a natural context in more ancient times, but currently in the social context, they would do very poorly, an dso creating children who have those traits seems a kind of primary severe abuse. Today that is simply not considered at all as having any moral trouble. If one thinks this subject one might be considered to be the moral problem. However, this is plainly a kind of abuse to create things that cannot do well.

Combining abuse with population on gradients with everpresence is useful. Now there is a population problem wherever abuse is occuring in a common way. So if there is a population that is too abused doign too many abuses, the quality of life is lower, and therefore there is a population issue concerning well being. Interestingly, that might seem really familiar, relating it to general welfare. The issue of general welfare is a population problem relating to many things but relating definitely to abuses. An abused or abusive population however small perhaps ought not expand too quickly, or at all, or should consider diminshing numbers. Historically, people would kill each other off and animals too, if there were basic issues with food. Parents would kill their children if they couldn’t care for them. They knew already there was a population and sought to reduce numbers with killing rather than simply reducing it by procreating less. As I said also, in similar conditions, people will procreate more! I was writing about how people tend to produce more children if they are expected to die more often. This appears a contradiction but it is due to different kinds of scenarios, but both kinds of scenarios could exist nearly in the same place/time with different reactions to those conditions. Mortality in history has been high even in wealthier locations leading to having more children, and in places where starvation and warfare is happening, suicide, group suicide, and killing of others for what they have, and killing of children exists.

It may be worthwhile to create a framework that puts many of the gradients of interest in view at the same time so one can move from categorical thinking, dichotomos thinking, and nth-chotomous thinking to spectral thinking. Similar utilizations to the above exists for other subjects. This would help in removing good/bad distinctions, which I’m averse to using anyway. I’m not sure where all these problems exist, know they are language related and so are pervasive, so it would be funny to know how much a mind that has undergone the changes would differ from myself. I think of myself very highly but someone who underwent such efforts extensively would have a better mind for sure.

Thinking Non-Truthfully Is Less Generative of Ideation

317 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 14, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Creativity Management | Productions | Mind and Mental Development | Book Writing and Authoring | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought

Even in the writing of creative fictions, one is often wanting to convey something one believes is important to the reader, and what that is that happens to be important, really is something thought to be truthful. Creativity, mistakenly, has been related to fanciful imagination and the makings of pieces of art that may have unique qualities of colorfulness, patterns, or other visual differences from what existed. Unfortunately, many have come to think they are creative only if they are creating fictional works of various kinds or are doing works of art that show imagination more than reasoning. This confusion really exists although the people who understand better what creativity really would be with better intellection would be aware it is closer to general ideation and problem solving. Ideation, and problems solving, results in creations that may be fictional, or very avante garde if visual or audible, or something new if musical, but creativity exists wherever new ideas are forming in the mind firstly, and are being put into creations secondly. Sometimes creativity is happening during work so happens not only imaginatively but as one is making music or actively making art, but much ideation happens simply by thinking. I don’t consider this the definitive treatment of creativity and would want to say much more which is the purpose on my work on Creativity Management, but I think this is a good statement for now. Creativity does not implie non-truthfulness and creative ideation can be only mental.

The thesis of this particular writing is that not only does it seem that creativity can be truthful and honest, and mental initially, I think greater levels of creativity go towards this type of thinking. There is an additional thesis that non-truthful thinking, in opposition to common expectations, does not appear very generative or conducive to ideation by comparison. I think there is a very large difference in level of creativity in people striving for truth and honessty, thinking about things relating to truth, than those thinking about fictional or novel artistic or musical productions.

In music, one is not haphazardly producing cacaphonies of sound. If one is trying to create a new musical piece, or new sound, one wants others to like it, and one wants to believe it sounds good. The creativity that goes into it relates to arriving at something that does have sound qualities conformant with sound tastes, and one wants it to be the case that what one makes really sounds of good quality. This is looking for truth in music. One wants truly good scales, sound combinations, and well produced songs and albums in total. One is not looking for something fictional and new.

In writing for songs, notice that most have not departed too greatly from norms of vocals, and norms of songwriting. There are songs that diverge a bit, but we are not being greatly surprised by song compositions. Even when artists are creatively trying to share something in the vocals and writing, what they are typically trying to do is convey some truths they have, especially in music truths that are not easily discussed directly. Topics are covered in which there is considerable censorship if spoken about without disguise. The disguises are often imaginatively ingenious. The results in the musical writing, does happen to involve the communications of truth. Something profound, passionate, and infectious. The majority of the drive of the creativity does not seem to be around fanciful imaginative creations separate from they conveyance of truth and contribution to the quality of sound, in rhythm and other areas of musicality. The lesser part of the music creation appears to relate to untruths, although I would admit this component does exist. My thesis here is that the driver of the ideation of the music and the writing accompanying the music is the truth components in each. Notice also that fiction in musical writing is much less common than fictional storytelling, but even where fictional stories are told, there is some accompanying moral or teaching that is expected to be conveyed that is honest and not false and is supposed to result in useful learning.

Where is the falsity that is happening in any artistic creation whatsoever. There may be abstract kinds of art in which lies are told by the artist in conjunction with the art’s creation. Like lying about what it is, what is purpose happens to be, who made it and how, and any other intersting lie that may be created to further some artistic purpose which maybe somewhat purposeless. This does not appear to me to often form cohesive structure, or be very dense or expansive in ideation. This appears to me to include few ideas, but these may include jarring stark transitions, comparisons, contrasts, and so on. I don’t have considerable experience in this domain, but I’m aware of what is possible, and what would be likely portrayed. I have experience in the arts and have been exposed by large amounts of art of all kinds, and I can say from this experience, that very little untruth is trying to be conveyed. Playfulness and randomness in results seems to happen in an art-media-activity interactive way, where the artist does not see the result in advance but makes it amazingly along the way, is something that is common and to some maybe inescapable. This is highly creative too, but once again, like with music, I think unless the result is pleasing, I think it is not really exhibited, unless there are corresponding fictions created to try to invent reasons for thinking the art good. Artworks having good qualities created this way are like the musical pieces that have pleasant aesthetic qualities, and these qualities still represent what is true about human perceptions and attitudes and reactions about beauty and quality.

So in both music and in art, my direction of argumentation and thinking does seem to support the thesis and at the moment I don’t see anything seriously wrong. I think as usual the intuition is resulting in additional thinking headed in a correct direction.

Now moving to fiction, we have the creation of actual false information. Here we have the building of imaginative stories and worlds, and characters of all kinds, including beings that don’t exist, and much that is known to not correspond to reality. How much of the bulk of writing includes such creativity. I think this kind of creativity irrefutably exists and that it is composed of much that is definitely false. But still there is much that is driving the creativity that invovles truth, and I think there is not much driving the creativity that is false. There is a desire to teach, use imagination to discover truths about the world, to find new directions people could follow, and to entertain in a way that is honestly considerate about what the author just likes and what the reader would enjoy. The motives and direction seem to include much that is honest.

Here I pause for the moment, because most of what I want to say is about this part of the subject matter, but I don’t really at this moment want to dwell on it. I will return to this at another time. I want to move on, then come back to this later, while assuming that the above paragraph is on the right direction, that motives around fictions seem to be about creating truth, while much that is created is still false which is obvious, because it is imagination and that is desirable. I think what is thought to be true in fiction still seems to be false oftentimes, despite motives of the authors however. They think people behave in ways they don’t, think that their stories correspond to how social events transpire causally, when they really don’t, and what is created that is supposed to conform to reality in other ways does not. I think oftentimes the moral directions, with ideas of what should and shouldn’t be done are false oftentimes, and so on too. But for now I want to overlook this part because the theses are about the motivations and intentions, and I think despite these issues the objectives in the creation are truth conveying. But here is where there is still ample creation of what is false and I have to address that, particularly since I said I think truthfulness is more generative than falseness. I will need to address this soon.

Before concluding, I wanted to talk about how lying is a strong driver to creating very large amounts of false information, and this too will have to be explained to continue to defend and argue for my theses. Unlike in fiction, lying more often includes a deliberate desire to create more that is false, and in quantities that grow over time. People know this, and have talked about it in moral writings, and it has existed culturally in various locations where simple traditional moral teachings are conveyed. There is this idea that one should avoid lies because sometimes, one will end up living a much falser life and will have to work hard on making sure the lie is not discoverd by covering flaws in stories with more lies. Interstingly, there is convergence here with fiction creation. If one has to tell a substitute story to hide the truth, one has ventured to create fictions. Truth oddly is still a driver in here, because what is sought for by someone who may be close to discovering a lie is truth, and to defend one has to create more fictions that have plausibility which means they are believable fictions that have aspects of truth that correspond with physical and social realities. This is why someone who is smarter is better at lying and conning and scamming. They will have better detail in more areas of thought connecting to reality that will create more comprehensive lies making those lies harder to identify. Those who are worse at lying have more mistakes that are obvious, and stories seem to not be believable fictions. Believeable fiction writing uses intelligence to create imaginative stories that have better structure corresponding to reality. These are stories we are likeing more when we are not having fun enjoying absurdities and sillinesses, which can be quite enjoyable too. Notice the liar cannot use this kind of ficiton in tellling compelling falsities! They would be considered insane! “I didn’t cheat on you, because while I was missing, I was simply abducted by aliens, and these aliens resembled clumps of fluffy clouds with numerous eyeballs.” This even seems like a bad example to share, because of the degree of its insanity. The rules are I’m supposed to tell lies that seem more plausible, like that there are aliens. To the misfortune of the public community, that too is an obvious lie that is insane, but alas the public is not very intelligent.

This conversation presented what was needed for subsequent development because categories and subcategories of productions that can be considered truthful or not have been shared that are adequate for arguing this particular case, that truthful motivations are more ideative than false motivations. The main argument in the next part of this series will be that the edifice of structure of creations is built primarily with truth conditions and motivations playing a role the majority of the time in construction and that this cannot be maintained with false intentions. It will be shown I think, that large structures of knowledge and productions depend on truthful thinking and this influences brain development. This is to be contrasted with false motivations and productions and brain development. As a teaser, consider what the brain would be like of someone who was creatively producing thoughts propelled by false thinking. What would this edifice look like? It would have an unusable structure and could not be large! If taken too far it may resemble the mind of a schizophrenic or psychotic. Even trying to think of totally imaginary concoctions of false information existing in a mind, retained, seems difficult and probably includes impossibilities. Highly creative people, I think, will retain what they have thought about, will want to use the thinking in the future, and will have productions that do also contain information that has more realistic cohesiveness, coherence and structure which permits of being recalled. With less structure things are not really easy to remember. Brains among people who are highly developed trend towards having better structure to information. Creative people I think show sanity as part of their creations, their creations are more developed, and their brains would show evidence of greater development over time. Creativity is related to actual advancemnt. Advancement of culture is the result of ideas which include instrumentality and many truths which make them durable. People seek truths in culture and technology and find them. We here can see that what unexpectedly defends the thesis that nonfiction drives creativity is that falsity isn’t part of the structure of culture so much compared to what is truthful. It exists within it an that is cause for this discussion but it plays the lesser role. This is all fascinating given people think creativity sometimes really requires fictional imagination or works of art and music that are totally novel that may not result from thinking that has a scientific basis. And here we have even that scientific thinking which is also nonfictional thinking seems to push forward creativity rapidly in a way that is structure building and motivational, and results in causal explanations for why good music that was creative was successful, and why certain arits we enjoyed include truths about reality too. It seems that working with fiction is harder in various ways and that too will serve to futher argue this position.

Expansion of The Idea Of Child Abuse to Include Indoctrinating With Wrong Languages and Teaching Lesser Cultures

317 Wanattomians, Saturday, June 14, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Cults | Methods of Replacing Religion | Relationshps | Sexuality

The concept of child abuse is far too limited. The idea is that a certain class of actions should be prohibited from parental practice or practice of adults around children, because the actions cause direct harm or harm in the future of the child. Child neglect, corporal punishment or beatings, drugging children, yelling and screaming at them or otherwise being hostile, and other actions are included. But much is disincluded.

Of particular interest regarding what is disincluded, some parents are simply unfit to have children, and while most would think this includes only a small segment of the population, I think it includes most of the population. Having a parent who is near average intelligence, implies they cannot have very good teaching. Typically, I think it implies abuse. If the parent is smarter than this, the same is likely true. If much smarter than that, it will not be the intelligence that decides but other traits, and still, many intelligent parents are very poor parents.

Having the wrong teacher is not considered good for a student. Teachers are expected to be knowledgeable. Arguably, if oen put one’s child in a school of average people doing the teaching roles, one would have done some level of abuse to that child, given other options are available. One would not say, be a good parent, if in a wealthy nation, but puts one’s child in the school of an impoverished nation. For example, moving form Europe, to some place in Africa for work, and putting the children in a local school along with the African children, would constitute abuse. Notice that the teachers are supposed to be well educated, so if the teacher is full of those with average IQ, it is certain they are not very well educated, because they cannot be. They can only have average receiving of any education provided.

Above I wanted to talk about language and culture. Teaching a child a language that has a small usage, or impoverished usage, is certainly abuse. They will remain too comfortable in a useless language and it does diminishe their language learning potential regardless of what any prejudiced arguments are presented. Learning is time bound and teaching your child a first language that is inferior is an abuse to the child. They will be struggling with gaining proficiency in another language that is competitive all their lives if they are even given the opportunity to do that.

Cultures that are inferior are a form of child abuse as well. Learning Christianity or Islam is a form of abuse, beacause the cultures are filled with superstitions that we know historically are hard to remove later. If children do not want to be Christian or Muslim later, they will not have an easy time, and may face abuse later from parents and other family members or community.

These are simple conclusions. One can easily expand on this to include any type of ethnicity, type of person, heritage, tradition, context, language and so on, where to teach it creates similar abuses resulting in weaknesses and disadvantages. Most of parenting today in the future will not be respected; rather, it will be considered that child abuse was the norm, and good parenting was rare. Above I stated that simply being a parent if one is not of good quality constitutes abuse. Limiting the conversation then to the smaller group, of those parents fit for parenting on intellect and other biological traits, like apperance, and expectation of good health, we look to situation, culture, language, and degree of education potential. There are smart people from heritages that should not have children. The children in these categories routinely complain of suffering then have chilren themselves, perpetuating the suffering they said they experienced. Arguably, women may not be fit for having children, if they believe they suffer for being women.

The issue is widespread. That most perhaps would be abusive having kids, does not mean the abuse ought to be ignored. In European countries, Africa is not really attractive, and no European wants to become African or have an African child. Their views on implications regarding this and similar points is that they think those people are not having good lives. They do actually have views that make it clear that if they are probed for information, would reveal that they think those kids really are being abused. They think they are right sometimes to be refugees, to seek homes elsewhere, to get aid for children because they are doing so poorly, and to think that perhaps, it would be wise if these parents were not having kids in these conditions. Probed they would need to admit it, else they would be in severe contradiction. They believe and disbelieve it depending on the discussion, but really everyone already is supposed to know that Africa has been abused, including the children, and sometimes this is because of the parenting there. Impoverished parents are often abusive parents. Also many believe Africa to be inferior and of low intelligence, and they really do think it while openly disagreeing. They would not want their children to be like African children. For those children to exist in this kind of view is to have a life of suffering which is an abuse. Of course, if they are highly intelligent, they left Africa, have resources, and are generally better than the low intelligent whites in Europe I talked about, then one considers that these might have better prospects than others in various ways. But I would venture to say that people think a black child will suffer anyways, being in these places. It could be really, that having children from certain groups is a form of abuse because already the prospect for that child was thought to be suffering.

These views are uncomfortable for some people, but this is a perpetuation of abuse on their part. They are unable to state that suffering would be a cause for not having children. Instead they hold the horrendous incompatible view that they should remain prejudiced (they are), and that children who would come into life suffering around them, should exist. That the kids they are prejudiced against should keep getting made, for them to abuse later.

I think child abuse is vast and problematic, and again, that the current state is one of horrendous treatment of children, even where it appears they are doing well. The measure of what it is to do well needs to include different potential minds the child will have and as I said in a recent posting, this entails a new way to think of wellness. Right now, Human Quality of Life Indices do not include intelligence measures and actual measures of rationality and knowlege. A nation of people fed well, thoroughly entertained, but stupid and superstitious, living like domesticated animals do, would score high on these indices simply becaue they have income, food, education, and relatively safe spaces. This is till inadequate because a superstitious mind is an insane one, and even in these contexts, people believe they are “suffering” and need religious saving. Doing well like a clean animal while suffering and living ignorantly and stupidly is not really faring very well on another better interpretation of human well being.

We know historically people were doing poorly, and perhaps we know now, that because people are so delusional, that history isn’t the demarcation of poor levels of wellness at present. Because right now people are doing poorly and say they are.

You Have To Pay For Your Own Robot, That’s You

Abandoning Equality | Livelihood | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

315 Wanattomians, Friday, June 13, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Earlier I wrote about the strangeness that one is born into a forced existence then has to pay for one’s own existence, and compared this by implication with buying yourself again and again as a product. Since one is a biological robot of sorts, there is some humor to the idea that you are forced to live, forced to pretend to not be causally determined, are a predetermined biological robot running deterministically, and you have to pay for yourself. It’s funny to think of yourself as a kind of robot product on the market that you had a contract for but didn’t buy initially, then you had to buy it over and over.

Historically there has been this concept of the social contract that I immediately rejected but some have taken seriously in my presence, with great strangeness to me. This is the idea that at birth, you have signed contractually to terms of existence within a nation and society, and that you are really obligated to fulfill what’s in this contract. This is how it was communicated to myself and others, although as I write this, I think it so absurd that it may be possible that anyone I’ve heard talking about it simply got it wrong, and maybe the original source has another explanation. it comes from Rosseau although I did not read the source. Since this idea is surely incorrect, and the subject matter itself isn’t particularly interesting and does not seem like it would be fruitful, I did not look further. But perhaps this idea is really a criticism of “naturalization” and the idea that one is a citizen at birth. Maybe it sarcastically makes fun of this idea, imagining that babies sign contracts. I would have to read to know more, and if I do I’ll relay it here, so the reader should take this conversation not as a judgement of original writers about this, but as a judgement on those who take it seriously that someone can be forced into life and that immediately they have signed a “natural” contract. People really do think this.

I am not fond of metaphors because it causes people to think that the metaphor is literal and really keeps people making those mistakes of not knowing there are metaphors! But the comparison of robotics and humans is so strong, it trends todards recategorization of knowledge around robots I think to make biological animal animal robots. They are running on DNA, small parts, basic principles of energy, and even tendon-ligament-joint levers. The brain has been compared to a computer and digital photography, videography and such stems from an understanding of eyes and optical components of the eye. The robotics is created partially on an analogy to humans but has great similarity in results, such that non-biological robots akin to robots are assured to come into existence. There is a crossover concept of automata, that will apply to humans, animals, and future robots. To call a human a robot is an analogy and one is not strictly a metal being of electronics. But one is certainly an automata. If we made bio robots we’d be making animals! So it does appear, there is a concept we could introduce, that would make robots and humans in the same category. Similar kinds of entitites with differing lineages. But are they differing lineages given the human creates it from self reflection and self observation.

So for now I’m running with the idea that humans are robots. As robots they are product-like. Human trafficing reveals that we presently think they are products. Even if we are against it, they are being sold. We also enjoy robotic employment, and our manual tasks are performed by us automatitically, and when we “automate” it we just get other automata to do it. People have used the idea that employees are slaves on analogy too, but that also does have truth to it. One has to pay for one’s own robot.

Since I have to pay for my own robot, and society has moved forward on adopting the social contract on naturalizing babies to be stuck in nations, and within those nations there is a trend towards criminalizing and ostracizing the non-worker, one really does have to work! One has to pay for one’s own robot and one is a slave like an automata that would replace the employee, who already is the automata, therefore it seems a tight analogy to say that people are robot like and are slaves, and were nation tethered and caged. And they must put in effort to maintain appearances, have homes, and pay for their own selves.

I enjoy what I do automatically. I enjoy my own robot. A robot that is advanced like a person, or a person who is a biobot, or an animal, simply takes pleasure in its own behaviors and its enjoyments, and is liking oftentimes it’s own products. I like my taste buds and did not make them, and I have to pay to use them. I have to pay for my miscellaneous parts that I received on my birthday!

I’m aware some would say this creates a bleak veiw of reality, but it is funny! And better still, it is intersting. Furthermore, it is actual. Because these analogies really are so tight as to recategorize. Humans really are wage and pay slaves, and they are automata, so they are robot slaves that did not choose their lives.

What is the proper life of a robot slave now that it’s known?

The robot part is not optional ever, it is only as it is. The “slave” part is something that is perhaps changeable, unless we’re on a railroad track into the future regarding that. Probably in this lifetime robot slave that pays for itself as a product is permanent.

Just like an animal you can enjoy your body and your physical talents, the fun of eating, and some enjoyment at finding a mate. Mating is brief but repetitively fun. You have your body to enjoy. Some say free things are best, but your body is not free, you pay for it. If one became very old and lost function, as these robot slaves do, one finds that if one could have certain functions back, which sometimes do return, what is gotten back is like a gift. It’s like a product started working again. My knee functions less occasionally, and when I can effortfully bring it back into good order, it is like I got my toy working again. I’m a collection of products I have to pay for and this is not a joke! One does have to track the metaphors however. But the analogy is so close it really is honest to speak about it in this way!

The Need To Revise Human Quality of Life Indices To Include Better Mind Quality

315 Wanattomians, Friday, June 13, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Relationships | Evaluative Concepts | Environments | Outdoors and Travel

To Be Updated

The Misuse of “We”

315 Wanattomians, Friday, June 13, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Relationships | Com | Human Shortcomings | A System of Thought | Evaluative Concepts

The concept of “we” is one of the more flawed linguistic devices that is routinely used incorrectly, but used in so many different ways it is analysis defying. One cannot envision all of the ways it is used at the time of analysis, and more time is required to have more experience to collect all the manners of use to fully know all the mistakes. Fundamentally though, we can say some things about what is incorrect that is inherited by a large quantity of these common misuses.

I think the best explanation of what is wrong with we will correspond with what math has to say about sets and knowing what set membership consists of in order to know that mathematical statements about sets happen to be true. People say “we” firstly, without specifying what the set membership is, which is required in math to identify the contents of the set. Without saying what the set membership rule is, which is what we can recall from set-builder notation, or saying specifically what is in the set, in advance of specifying a corresponding set building notation, we have no set. A set that is provided a clear membership, can still be an insane and false set, if the set builder notation has not been utilized. Along with the membership of the set, the speaker usign “we” has to have a sane set building rule to say, at the time of stating a set exists, or later without alteration of original intuition, rationale or intention. This provides the two ingredients needed to have a set and know that the set really is not a nonsensical aggregate.

I think this is enough about the math to have the nugget needed to start looking at ways that “we” is used incorrectly in normal usage, and probably the reader can predict in advance some of what I’ll be saying next.

Firstly, people do claim “we” without specifying who that we is specifically. They’ll use it as a rhetorical device, saying “we” in such a way sometimest to vaguely include all humans, all people in the audience, or all people in a nation. When this is used, it can be anticipated the some in the audience, will simply think they are not a part of that “we” and that the speaker or writer is simply trying to assume they are together in agreement on a subject matter, or that they are somehow included as one who is described. This is a use of we that fails on both of the above ways: it does not say who is included in the set of people, which is an insaning mistake, and secondly, it doesn’t state who would be in cuch a set using a rule. Sometimes enough information is used in the rhetoric to know who might or might not be in such a set the person is writing or speaking about, which makes it possible to quickly dissent, but not enough information is given, to really identify, who would really be in the set. Insufficient information is provided, and insufficient information about other people is had to make the connection to that information.

We is also used, in all sorts of other scenarios, pretending that within that scenario, and mistakenly outside that scenario, there is a we-ness. For example, if you are at work, someone may start using “we” and, you may be willing to be part of the group statements. Maybe a number of other people with you are actually willing as well. This does not mean “we” is sane yet, and probably it really does fail both tests from the last paragraph. But let us assume it is working fine for the moment, and is vague but “good enough”. Having a relationship being colleagues, or part of a business, or an employee, does not necessarily imply there is a durable “we” that extends outside of work life. The criteria are transitory and contained within a domain. But a business thinks you are an employee when you are not working, and some groups or leaders of groups may behave like you can never be outside the group, even if you leave. The person who uses this type of “we” is using it insanely, and while I said it could be good enough for usage sometimes, more likely it fails the criteria above too, and is very delusional.

It is common practice, for people who are near to each other, to self-divide into camps. If a happening occurs, and there are witnesses, but the event that transpired was unclear, there will likely be people splitting into groups on the basis of what they believe to have happened. These groups are using really limited information in which to form groups, but in practice the behavior indicates they believe the criteria of the group membership is a deeper similarity than what is going on in the event. People may act to protect each other, think they are more alike in other ways, not recognize the transitoriness or contingency of the group formation on the basis of the situation and think there is a more durable connection. People in an emergency, think suddenly they are a group sometimes that has more significance than the transitoriness of the group. People think in such situations they are supposed to have a more meaningful relationship and connection.

Repeatedly, we have the same occurance, a mathematical erorr also, of thinking that the group membership criteria is something not-superficial and other than it is. But on inspection, it is immediately clear, that it is irrational to use anything for group memberhsip other than what the criteria of membership is.

Someone might say, well, this colleage and I, are both doing this project for 10 days, and while we are both employees, we are also both human, and since we are both, I feel it necessary to learn the person in greater detail and feel a larger bond, than to simply recognize our similiarities regarding our employment. This is a form of irrational and fallacy ridden thinking. What would be more accurate to say is, “we started as colleagues working together, but as we talked, we found more similarities, and using those similarities, came to enjoy each other more and perhaps mutually consider a durable friendship.” This is more rational, but there are reasons to reject this too. For now I want to point out, that once one is considering friendhsip, one typicall goes still by more than the group membership criteria that is growing. Although, with time, it does make sense to consider it probable that affinities relate to patterns which may be cause to think there is good potential for finding many more similarities, and enjoyable differences, and perhaps similarity of personality and direction. But oftentimes, even when one thinks one has thought this way, one forgets that outside of your presence the other person may be more different than is expected, have friends in which very different behavior is expressed, and so on, and this may include aspects of the person, that disconfirm this hypothetically probable set of similarities that might exist. So oftentimes it is still found that the set building rule is still a pretend and false set building rule.

People also use “we” too often. In one scenario one feels “we” with someone with an opposed politics on other grounds, at another time one feels “we” with someone of the same nationality, while havign different politics, but the same politics of someone from an enemy nation. Then one feels “we” with one group of friends opposed to another group in which you are a “we”. What is built up is a nonsensical “we” person, or you and the other ones, who is incompatibly “we” with all of these. Additionally, all of you think you have a special bond that is more extensive like I said above. So your friend is a close friend and you two are very similar. But you are all these contradictions so obviously there couldn’t be such a depth. This is why certain topics cannot be covered, and why these relationsihps have boxes around them.

Since the general propensity of a person is to utilize “we” frighteningly often in the above way, anyone who does this becomes an odd person who is strangely inconsistent and appears to be lying in a wide variety of ways. The way they are using “we” has been false too many times. The cause, however, is really that the way people are taught to use set thinking in language is faulty, and that the way they learn and apply language has resulted in this widespread problem. But this is a problem that plagues civilization, because people fight and disagree and go to war, on one or a number of “we”s for which the others are enemy, forgetting that there are “we”s that make for friendship. During warfare, people actually notice this and sometiems befriend enemies, and there have been numerous stories ont his subject. You can meet a tourist in your country, love them in many ways, then find yourself murdering them in warfare later.

The above is very usable to explain errors related to false togetherness and beliefs about mutual group membership and meanings of those memberships. But what it doesn’t do is conveniently cover the massive number of cases that exist without identifying all the forms of those cases. That seems to be a necessary task, but I will not be able to carry it out, finding that to be not a sufficiently worthwhile endeavor, since for my purposes and the pruposes of interested enough readers, who would want to be able to identify issues natively knowing a few patterns. I do think it is worthwhile and must be done but I admit I won’t be the one to create the catalogue of errors of this kind. But knowing it using the patterns and above examples it covers most cases, and one can still quickly see what is wrong about other cases not covered.

When a politican starts using “we” it is instantly falsifiable, which is humorous. I don’t know of anyone else other than myself trying to avoid using this term incorrectly, and it is just one of many terms. So the prognosis is not looking good in the short term, and I think it will be a long while, maybe hundreds if not thousands of years, before there is a cure.

For those who are curable however, it is enjoyable and great to be outside of delusions and more aware of truths, and this improves life greatly. Since life is improved I wonder what to think about the quality of life of those who never make any changes. There is this idea of a human well-being index, but since this is not cured, I would not really consider the quality of life as good. Since many issues have not been corrected and are not in education, that are similar to this, regarding improvement of thinking, and they are basic learnings, I think the human well indices are too skewed towards happiness of lower animals. The human well being indices are more about income, having various freedoms, ability to live easily without too much effort, better veterinarian access, and so on. It’s not about having an honest and high quality mind.

Wherever religion exists probabily it is a lower quality of living than is pretended.

If You Could Choose Your Own Life, Location, and Context, Your Imagination Would Be Too Poor To Do It, And Notice The Difference Between That And This Process and Result, and Your Actual Life

315 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 12, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Abandoning Equality | Livelihood | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

As an exercise it may make sense to compare what one would really want for oneself, if one could be any organism or being, of a new kind, or a kind similar to one past, present, future, or distant, with the body and type of animal one is that one did not choose for oneself. Similarly, it would be useful to think about, imaginitively, what one’s environment could be, and what tools and things might exist in the environment. What kind of world. Large or Small, with what kind of travel or not, and what kind of plantlife, if any.

How different would be your chosen world compared to the world you live in. How different would you be?

I think this exercise may be helpful, to reveal to the reader, that one did not and could not choose one’s own life and that it is forced and that it has been forced for everyone else too.

For Me To Have A Me, I Need To Keep Paying

315 Wanattomians, Thursday, June 12, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Abandoning Equality | Livelihood | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

As is being discussed in Abandoning Equality, and Constraint and Determinism, it is important to know that every person simply has not chosen to exist, and has not had control over the context of life and their own constitution and biology. There is some influence over things later, but this influence is not as powerful as people pretend, and powerless regarding the starting conditions, genetics, surrounding conidtions all of life, and most of all one’s physical traits. Even decisions about what one will control is a kind of moulding and forming of what exists already, and one modified slightly the surroundings one is exposed to, and slightly changes one’s physical body and mind with minor decisions that are slow acting oftentimes.

I recently recorded, in preparation for this posting, in the back of my book Prisoner’s of Geography, by Tim Marshall, that in order to continue existing I have to keep paying for myself. The humorous idea here, that is true, is that I buy myself in a way over and over. I buy what keeps me alive, and I buy what keeps it maintained nearly as it is. If I stop paying really there will be an issue with my preservation. Keeping myself healthy the way I am now, or keeping myself safe, and finally, keeping myself from starving or dying of illness.

People are brought into life, with planless sex, as I thoroughly discussed before, and after becoming who you couldn’t choose, in a place you chouldn’t choose either, you have to buy yourself too. You have to keep paying to keep yourself in those conditions, and your payment goes to keeping that unchosen situation the same, and to keep payments going.

The perpetuation of business results in the perpetuation of payments. If you support a business, it may be nice for you, because you enjoy what they provide you. You like the products. But the business is what keeps payments happening. So by supporting businesses, you pay for payments to exist.

By paying for anything you support payments.

To support a business is to support what it does, and not only what you receive, although it may be true you might be only focused on what you receive.

The way you receive it is also caused by your payments.

It seems from these observations that you must keep paying for yourself, which means it is required that your payments for yourself sustain more payments for yourself. You make the business of paying for yourself exist and continue.

What if you do not wish to pay for yourself?

That is a difficult challenge and some have tried to live freely, on food from natural surroundings, and using tools make by materials that can be found, like wood and stone. This is a return to primordial living to an extent and it is not easy. Actually I said it is prohibited. It may not seem like it is prohibited, but to move in that direction, one finds many hindrances and risks and prohibitions. Too many to state here. It makes it futile for all to complete the objective entirely, of living off the land with nothign at all but one does not have to pay for. If there are any people who achieved this, they are very few in numbers, so as to be zero as a fraction with the remaining population.

If you do go down this path, efforts replace payments. There is still a cost. But those costs are not making payments.

They are somewhat akin, but it seems highly preferable to not make payments, if there is ease after the knowledge is had, and if that knowledge is combined with modern knowledge.

Housing and clothing are easy, gardens are easy, foraging is somewhat hard but in the right conditions is easy, and avoiding illness isn’t so hard either given modern sterilization and hygeine. Most ailments people have had required no medication. Age at death has some relativity to it. We don’t live to one thousand and think a life to 80 is old. So is a death at 60 old? Also, with the efforts required, combined with modern hygeine and sterilization, it may be that living this way one would live even longer. Dentistry may be a weak point in this plan, but perhaps exchanges allow for dentistry, which like a payment, but is different, and requires no money preparation and maintenance.

Effort is the cost of living so if one is born one is forced to use effort.

Payment was the modern exchange for some effort, but efforts exist still. What if I should not compare payments versus efforts because at present efforts and payments both together are required and both might be higher. This appears true in my estimation given my time spent living more simply. Effort does not seem to much increase reducing payments. But food generation has and foraging was not yet included, and I’m aware that does take more effort. But then I’m a vegan, what if we consider the fisherman?

The fisherman who lives on simple textiles, dwellings, tools, and so on, really appears to be fully self-sufficient.

It appears to me really that the payments have not reduced the efforts and now we are living with a combination of a large amount of payments, and large amounts of effort, and that living simply really does reveal that the substitution of payments for effort has not actually played out to ease people’s lives.

What is actually making for the need for additional effort in this context? Why are our payments not replacing efforts more completely?

Let’s take clothing as a single example, before moving, at another time, to other examples, encompassing most of living.

I discovered it is very easy to make clothes. Clothes provide warmth and coverage, but really warmth and some layer of protection is the part actually needed. It plays the role of the house closest to the skin. One can live without a house and only one’s clothese if the climate supports it, and one has learned to be comfortable. Nudity may be possible too, if the climate is correct. It is hard to say regarding that, however, because we may have evolved to be less adapted given the existence of clothing. This appears to be true with shoes.

So clothes are required somewhat.

But they are easy to make. One can definitely make clothes even with fibers found in nature. Shoes also. One can use hair and other materials scavenged. The exchange in buying clothes, is to replace the effort required with making clothese and presumably to get better quality. In the modern world, where harvest of fibers is possible from human byproducts, or with nearly free expenditures, there is another way to look at this, but for now, I will focus on using what exists in nature only versus buying what exists in stores.

The exchange is supposed to provide better quality, but one can easily learn to live with lower quality. Appearances are used to justify violence, and criminalization of people who differ regarding their clothing and those who wear home made clothing from twines may be subjected to attack, and assumptions about homelessness. They may not be able to get jobs. There are extremely serious consequences to this and this is why I chose clothing as an example. The exchange for having a market then resulted in both the need to procure the clothing with payments, but the need to have better clothing too to avoid being ostracized, being kept out of the market by being unable to pay for lack of a job and so on. This required the additional assumption, that is true, that not only does one need to buy clothes, one needs to keep them clean, buy them somewhat frequently, and buy clothes that have some competitiveness in appearance and perception. That entails a lot of work around clothing, which is apart from the substitution of payments for effort, which transfers effort also to work to have funds. It added more effort still.

From the above, I can plainly see, that the efforts and their forms have increased extremely in the substitution of payments for efforts. It substituted efforts and more efforts and the effort of making payments for effort.

And now we have to make payments for ourselves, to have ourselves.

I think on this line of argumentation that the idea of liberty and freedom is grossly incorrect. This is already a subject matter of the book I’m writing on Constraint and Determinism, but apart from causal determinism, in the domain of unhindered largely unconstrained action of humans who are unbothered by people, we find that really they are extremely bothered, and bothered to the extent that they have to buy their own lives.

I need to work on the actual strength of arguments here and examples but I think this conversation is germane to discussions in both of my books, Abandoning Equality, and Constraint and Determinism.

Speed Monkey, Speed Lizard, and Whole Gila, Innocuous Alternative Purpose Marketed Toys, Undisclosed as Sex Toys

314 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 11, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Development of Desire | Innovation | Creativity Management

Speed monkey, is a plushy toy stuffed animal, with an arm like a dildo, but concealed to be more apelike cartoon, and the arm vibrates, very rapidly. It plugs in for high power and it heats up to greater than human warmth, and has a simulated faster heart beat, for your comfort, love and enjoyment.

Speed lizard, is just like speed monkey, for those who wish to be less animalized as a primate. It helps them feel unprimate even if only for a little while. The lizard is beautiful, has some suface scaling and ribbing for enjoyment, and its tail vibrates excitedly, explaining the lizards slight smile. The lizard is like the stuffed animals had while young, but lizard. No fur, plenty of smoosh, except on the tail, that is more dangrous, attracting mates, and fending off enemies.

Whole Gila, is like speed lizard, but instead of an iguana or other varieties of speed lizardkind, it is a Gila Monster from the desert. It has a larger stubbier tail, with a knob, and a much larger club like head, for advanced affection. It is recommended that younger users, and new users, spend some time with the other animal friends, before moving onto Whole Gila, unless faster to the finish is desired.

These are funny creations of mine, not without some sophistication and significance, and ready for patenting. I wonder, will this lead to my first humorous patent, or will it lead to generous sharing. Do I cling to this idea, or do I give it away charitably?

The Scale of Meritoriousness Relating To Thoughts, Ideas and Actions

314 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 12, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Creativity Management | A System of Thought | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation

In the last posting, I talked about how certain ideas and accomplishments had that were had earlier may have greater significance, and how ideas which are seemingly simple, still are laudable, and good to be learned or discovered, because it was already shown, that such ideas were laudible in their initial discovery. In a way this is like saying that any culture that is true that is learned, that required effort to create, has some praiseworthiness still when learned easily, and when rediscoverd by children and adults functioning in isolation. Thuse a simple learning by a child of somethign that has high value in the original discovery is still culturally important and valuable to have learned, and also, if this were rediscovered in a tribal setting by an adult in another nation, it is very praiseworthy and receives that level of praise the child receives, but more because like the original finder or discoverer, this person discovered it nearly alone. The person is aiding in the culture building of ideas that are thought to make for the greatness of cultures that are thought to be very modern and advanced.

Here I want to trend towards linking this subject matter to the wider subject of value concepts, and of determining what value exists in human efforts, actions, thoughts, and discoveries. The above forms some part of this wider subject and will aid in the illumination of what has greater or less value, and will help for arriving at something analagous to an economy of value apart from money but inclusive potentially of money too. This may be a difficult pathway, but I’m aware of much that will be helpful, in the least, to moral thinking. That is what we want to discover most, it appears, to know what seems to be more fundamental regarding moral valuations which can be used as a larger guide of human behavior and governmental/economic planning. Economic planning may seem as though it would be the authority, but what they are ostensibly trying to do, with economic planning, is to increase human well being and wellfare, but they have not done the very best job of linking these subjects, such that the moral efforts they assume themselves are justified. If they were justified, our personal morality would be altered favorably, if their findings were true.

I will gradually add in subject matter here in a slightly asystematic way as I think of related important elements, because I do not yet envision a comprehensive way of discussing the subject. The growth here will be organic. The development of the book Evaluative Concepts and related books will be more systematic. It’s helpful to allow one to write this way in order to arrive at a better manner of communication later or in parallel.

Now I want to think a bit more about what makes certain thought unmeritorious, given the earlier discussion that oftentimes, really easy learnings and thoughts still have good merit. We can remind ourselves about this thinking about how education begins with nothing, and arrives later at an adult showing excellences. But it is still clear that there are non-meritorious ways of thinking. But I want to separate non-meritorious ways of thinking from ways that deserve less merit, like learning those lessons that happen to be easiest and have value, but not so much value as to prompt any outward celebration from others.

Even potty training can be better than this kind of learning, because it is more significant and vital, and probably ought to be rewarded with celebration.

It is important to mention event these kinds of learning, else parenting and early personal learnings have not been mixed in, with thinking about merit adequately.

Culturally, we do not consider thoughts or actions to be laudible, if they have as their basis, faulty reasoning, and if the extent of that faulty reasoning is very extensive, it indicates that severe results apart from certain directly related actions will occur, and we think less of the minds that have those thoughts, even on little exposure. Initially, this should make it clear, that whether or not this is justified, as a way of determning merit, we know that almost universally, people will call stupid, the behaviors that relate to such thinking, the thinking itself, and if repeated enough, the minds that do both. I think we have to do a little work, since we want to be reductionistic, to arrive at why this might be the case, with some good sample of examples, that will allow us to be confident, that this public propensity, happens to be at least partly reasonable.

I think what we will find gradually is that all are faulted in line with the topic of my book Human Shortcomings, which shows that, humans simply have not attained a very great sophistication in utilization of logic and scientific thinking, removal of superstitions, or psychological cognitive errors. All people really are making errors using some of these issues, and unfortunately most make mistakes often with the majority of these kinds of errors. They’d like to hear they are doing better, but unfortunately they are not. This is easy, even just looking at the extent to which any individual makes good logical inferences probabilistically on good evidence, scientifically and logically, and if they know what that would look like, or how to do it. Finding specimens of what it looks like in prose is impossible nearly, for very few people would serve to be exemplars. Social media examination of communications would immediately show the extent of this issue. But, the issue still exists on a scale, and this amounts to saying humans as a whole are somewhat low on the scale of what is possible and are developmentally early. But one can still identify specimens exhibiting the worst by making the largest mistakes most frequently, or even some who only make reasoning mistakes, or those only exhibiting emotional problems, or nearly always. This would include those with brain damage, serious psychiatric conditions, those insane, and so on. People who are severely retarded or mentally disabled may also be those with psychiatric conditions and they would be unable oftentimes to learn any reasonability.

Just above this are those people who society really detests often. The people who appear on judge shows, and talk shows that are basically zoo experiments or exhibits that some laugh at, showing the least intelligent, most poorly passibly behaved people, existing outside of prison and institutions, doing drugs, damaging close relations, making social mistakes, those unable to be trusted in any way, and so on. These are the people who stick together, and appear together on these shows, an live in slums and worse areas together, because really, others cannot choose well if they decide to be with them. So they are relegated to their area, gradually fleeing from wherever happened to be nice, or remaining in a place where they feel safe, together, where mutual judgment exists less.

There is some especially non-meritorious about thinking that is nonsensical. Up from nonsensical, delusional, psychotic thinking, is just really illogical thought, thought that still does not make sense but is not completely exclusive of some meaning or truth. There’s too much untruth. Idiotic and uncreative lies. Creative lies are valued oddly, and some think if children show good lying, they must be better thinkers. But beneath this are the lies that are stupid lies. Stupid lies, more obvious to others indicates less merit. Inability to trick others calls for demerit. Being gullible causes demerit. I happen to demerit on the basis of belief in superstition, but somehow just above this lower level, gullibility still exists and is popular. And this is partly I think why average people are often considered non-meritorious, and pretend to smarter to avoid this consequence. But together, the more average people are beliving in ghosts, dieties, spirits, poltergeists, angels, devils, afterlives, underworlds, jinxes, unlucky or lucky omens, sasquatches and fanciful beings, and so on. Those believing these things are less meritorious oftentimes to others, even if others don’t say it and partake, becasue there is some awareness that lucky charming is nonsense. But much of this exists in normal average thinking. Normal and average thinking, we have to admit readily, is less than more intelligent thinking, and has less of a development potential regarding scientific, mathematical, logical, and sympathetic thinking. It’s all on a scale, and well, what is regular simply is not providing us models of excellence.

For a moment I thought this too global, but I also know, that logical linguistic thinking is not easy, so it cannot be the case, because regular standard writing and language and speaking is filled with illogic, that the average folk could be suddenly outside of this thinking. They are inside it and are less than what is recorded or heard, because they are not the ones writing books and creating these various works that are shown, and those do exhibit errors still. If we look to errors in music we get closer to what is below average and average and sometimes just above errors and music is like a horror story of nonsense.

It’s like pre-education state of civilization in a way, this world we are living in. Politicians can’t make sense and they are the leadership and it is easy to show they don’t make sense.

In order to discuss this further, we’ll need to get into simple logical mistakes that people make, and psychological mistakes. I am not quite in the mood or prepared to do this, but I’ll mention that simple logical mistakes are being made, like with the plain application of truth values to statements that are fictional.

I’ll develop this and will provide examples soon.

Triviality, Banality, Simplicity, and Significance in Creative Ideation and Thought

314 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 11, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | A System of Thought | Thoughtstream | Creativity Management

Creative ideation that concerns solutions and findings that relate to what has been discovered by others elsewhere, to some, does not constitute good thinking, or good ideation, erroneously, on grounds that there is insufficient newness, if another person happened to discover it already. While this is obviously not the case, and I won’t spend too much time on it, I’ll mention two points, firstly, that what someone does on another planet, or on another continent, or just widely separate from another, such that what was done is laudable to others, is disconnected from that other, and while disconnected removing any claims that what was discovered should be known, still preserves for both what might really be praiseworthy. People do things in isolation, and when one learns in a laudable way, it confirms some laudability of what is done elsewhere in isolation, but that one happened earlier does not affect that the other in terms of the laudability. If there are apparent counterexamples, what is true in the counterexamples will be separate from which came first or second, it will be more concerning the degree of ignorance that exists for the one or the other in the arrival at the solution, with the understanding that sometimes, if solved earlier there was more thinking and less support from others. But even in that case, what was more self-driven in the earlier case did not remove totally the novelty and significance for the other in isolation. Doing a social comparison, one might simply be more impressive than the other, but the other may still be more impressive than much else that could be compared.

Triviality, banality, and simplicity here relate, because if someone happened to have a similar idea elsewhere first, the idea had again by someone else is to others sometimes reduced to being insignificant. That this is true could be seen from considering what trivial or banal findings kids might have in their developmental path. These learnings by children or young people worked on independently in isolation from the findings of adults who live presently or lived earlier remain laudable in a way justifiable by the appraisal of those other adult findings. Thus banal, trivial, or simple ideas, showing independent creativity and discovery, can and do show significance in ideation and thought. But we’ve called them basic, knowing that at the present time, the information may exist even if not researchable from culture.

My interest here at the moment is not really to defend children and others using creativity or doing problem solving from the judgement of others who cannot think it aright, as much as to try to arrive at a clarified definition of what is more trivial or more simple. If it is clearly identified what is easy, both in the learning process, and independent discovery process, and this clear identification also allows for explaining what is laudable or not, or how meritorious some activity or learning is on a scale, then we will have it defined for us, what is smart in work and stupid, a better idea as to what words to use for others thinking and efforts, and a good view of what really happens to be trivial or not.

Using this, we can start to build a scaled approach at understanding conceptually and communicating more clearly about the relative value of other people’s thinking and accomplishments, undrstanding value of things when one is entirely alone too, versus when one is in a culture, or in a set of cultures. This is needed because humans remain in confusion about whether what they do is valuable or not, with a real worry about complete devaluation in the estimations from others. Seeing the above we already saw that complete devaluation will occur with a profound independent discovery of something that turns out to already have been discovered by another potentially in another country. Like if someone in Russia solves a complex problem, that say, was already solved in The United States. People in Russia, learning the discovery already exists, really will completely devalue and claim insignificance regarding this discovery, while not understanding, that the praise for the other discovery, confirms the praiseworthiness, of the independent find in Russia. That we know this to be the trend in experience, we already are aware to give less value to the estimations of others. But the issue exists, why have these others not been educated correctly to make it uncommon.

The result of this effort would be both trivial and basic after adoption and education of everyone, because all would be unable to see how, in the past, this mistake could be made, and all easily think together in this new way, that happens to be simple itself. So even this is a case of trying to arrive at a solve of high significance and importance, that is not apparent to others, but not entirely unknown to all others either, and yet it would be reclassified as unimportant or regular/normal later on. Since kids will need to still learn this, their learnings would be reclassified as trivial or simplistic, without any praise if learned well.

Scepticism Key, Used to Quickly Relate Like Footnotes to Items Indicating Clear Relation, Use Often in Some Context Less In Others, But With The Difference Being Due to Justifications Relating Not To Inapplicability, But Unreasonability Of The Quantity of Use

313 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Human Shortcomings | A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Editing

This could be renamed something like “An Initial System For The General Utilization of Skepticism”, which is a fitting title for the subject matter, particularly because no such system has been universally taught as part of the school curriculum and something such as this truly is necessary. It could be included within school curricula and college practice as part of a new teaching of logic. Logic has not been taught within the school system, and is only first really encountered within Philosophy, particularly college philosophy, which teaches logic to go along with an understanding of proper skepticism. Logical analysis would provide reasons to be skeptical and provide avenues for reducing the need once sufficient reasoning and evidence approaching proof has been arrived at. There are still some avenues within philosophy for challenging norms which may come to exist in the dogmatization of what is thought to be fact arrived at from intially skeptical investigations.

This provides one starting point for wider use of skepticism. People know what skepticism is largely, and know sometimes to be critical, within the larger atmosphere of assumption and conformism. But the manner in which skepticism arises is sporadic, and sometimes infrequently, sometimes frequently, depending on how critical the thinker happens to be. A critical thinker with good skill will find many things to be skeptical concerning and will have to self-supress or throttle their excitement at critique, to allow others the comfort of abstaining from sustained examinations and analyses. Not many people find that highly enjoyable or have endurance to consider it an enjoyable recreation. I tend to find it funny and often it relieves and comforts rather than labors my mind. We kindof know this too, people just use their minds and only sometimes openly or internally critique things in an analytical way akin to what philosophy advocates in a healthy use of skepticism.

Or another perspective could be true, when it is not intellectual and sporadic, it is pervasive and common, in socialization about what is disagreed with or what is not liked. This may actually be a more complete way of looking at it if this is included.

That would make skepticism something a bit more obvious because people are disliking and challenging seemingly everythig around if the population is checked regarding total reactions to anything in particular. There is no universal favor.

Either way, in conversation too much passes along without criticism, and without sustained analyses with a skeptical mindset both of what requires culminating answers, and regarding the answers had, which may require additional reflection. Skepticism teaches that one seems to be more correct if one gives time to test one’s own viewpoints rather than immediately have too much trust in initial reactions. This kind of criticism does differ from the common skepticism I talked about above because many do seem to trust too many of their own conclusions with inadequate testing and self-criticism.

There is not really a clear methodology used in any of this. The criticism is just sometimes about whatever appears to have defects. Some people are aware of the classes of defects that exist logical and psychological, but even in my experience amongst those educated concerning the types of errors that exist, their knowledge about it isn’t that structured or methodical and the criticism works, but is somewhat sloppy, and relates more to what their intuitions say about what they perceived or detected to be false, in the ways they can perceive and detect things to be false. So people are walking around like partially complete defect detectors. They see defects often but in their own ways, and they don’t know all the ways, and they do it asystematically. They often do it well, but there needs to be a better more comprehensive methodology behind it. This is like pre-methodical natural error detection resulting from good thinking with insufficient education or organization to the education. Note I’m not talking about people as being “uneducated”, instead I’m wanting to convey that even in mathematics, science, and philosophy in the study of logic, and in the law, this is not so well done as people think, and what they come out with after all this formal education is really closer to a native understanding of how to do some of it, but still without a clear and comprehensive method.

If one disagrees with this, I have a challenge. Can one point out a handbook, that really does pull together the possible forms of error and areas of skepticism for people to methodically address, such that there is an authority or trustworthy source that all can rely on, to some degree? There is nothing combining those elements which are required. Science has its way of discussing an approach at valid knowledge, epistemology has some to add, logic speaks about soundness and good valid logical inferences, computer science does too, and so do language studies. But that is not combined, and needs to be combined with, probability and statistics, and most importantly the defects that exist from a study of psychology and neuroscience. Perceptual errors, illusions, delusions of various kinds, effects of indoctrination, and many other areas of related results. Cognitive errors, limiations. These play a role in identifying what one should be skeptical about.

The impetus for writing this particular piece was my realization that in history or archaeological museums, statements about artifacts and works of ancient art, and buildings, tended to use statements that never indicated any margins of error, any issues with approximations, and too many assertions with no indication that there could be any incorrectness. There is pretense too frequently, universally and without exception in museums nearly, that all that is stated happens to be true. But in my estimation the margin of error must be very large, and expected frequency of accurate veracity might be less than 50% in some cases. Depending on the museum, what is stated for knowledge may be true less than 20 percent of the time. Much correction would be needed with full knowledge. For some reason they do not expect this? They do not expect that if they learned the entire story, that their lack of direct information, would result in an actual difference between what they said and what was real? This is a clear case in which skepticism is needed.

I had this idea that like a map, there can be along with some works, initially, a key that relates to various forms of errors, defects and areas of skepticism that are relevant, and that this key can be checked against, markup in writings in museums and history, that tell you without dwellign or talking about it too much, what areas of skepticism exist, that would be shown in the key. It’s like a guide as to what might be false and in what way. A guide to truth in writing like a guide to the usage of a map.

The key that is used in a text, or in relation to writings of various kinds, like those in museums to cover the example, but more widely anything relayed as fact in nonfiction, can vary according to piece, to include only what is relevant, but the keys can all come from a standard sourcebook in keys, the standard reference, which pulls together all the key items, keys that can be borrowed in standardized form to add to texts, and includes additionally all one might need regarding errors of many different species. It would be both the reference text for these keys, with examples, but also a definitive reference in progress, regarding errors of all kinds, pulling together what must be related from those interdisciplinary fields I was talking about.

It may be possible for me to provide an initital example or move forward on it, and alread I am intending to work on something akin to this, to discuss error correction as it relates to ethics and moral philosophy. Much of what ethics is, and moral philosophy, is to self correct until one has more excellences. Since many people are engaged in such an effort, I think people would quickly understand that eliminating errors from the mind and thinking is vitally important seriously in ethics and not only in these areas of inquiry like history where nonfictional statemnts happen to be made. It is a task of self-improvement.

A useful part of this effort could also be to arrive at what is usable. In technology, in user experience work, and design, is what is called “usability” which relates to the extent to which the software is flawed or useful for actual humans interacting, to determine if changes are needed to be more inclusive of people with disabilities, or to simply make the software not have stressors and so on. the goal is a smooth use of the software. Well, in self improvement, trying to do things like adapt ones mind to new information like logic and self-change due to knowledge of fallacies and illusions, requires considerable self work if done without tools, but with tools, still requires a degree of work that could be unreasonable depending on how much change seems to be necessary. This is an area where it will seem too much change seems necessary. So usability regarding the tools, and output of actual usable texts and information, will benefit from some understanding of optimality for the writer and reader, or information creator or consumer, to have some comfort with the undertaking.

This should make sense since if one is using exercise equipment, and everything is new equipment, one really would need to learn what is reasonable or not. Imagine if nobody ever used gym equipment? There would be strange risks, obsessions, injuries, misuse, and less appreciation for limits of the human body and appearances. Even today the same happens to be true, but people seem to be better at knowing what is healthful or not. I think people have somewhat improved in this domain with increasing knowledge of sports and sports tools. But with self improvement for logical and psychological rigor without error this is a new domain. People might state it’s not, but it is, given the absense of tools like I’m discussing. I would agree, that people are aiming for improvement of their mind with self-help, and do have unreasonable expectations, like to be enlightened and reach nirvana or to be transported to an afterlife with a diety. These are unreasonable and unhealthy. These also exist because there is too much credulity and not enough skepticism. Adding skepticism will help this situation, but what I’m talking about here is that skepticism too can lead to a desire for incredible precision, and the unattainable mind, like having an impeccable body. Some can get further than others. It is highly practical to have the right tools, but also with a knowledge of those tools, what is reasonable for self-development.

Everything We Do Costs Food, Wakeful Awareness, and Recovery. What is The Complete List Of Costs?

313 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Economics | Evaluative Concepts

There are two subjects where I’ve covered this at least, that of the cost of communication and listening, and audience having, as discussed in the last writing, and in my discussion on an alternative usable definition of “free” in the marketplace, where one is making purchases. I mentioned that in that context I consider “free” to be, at present, anything less than $2.00, thinking about foodstuffs, and in part of my rationale for that, I talk about how obtaining food in foraging, even has a cost, and it can exceed that number, because of the amount of energy used. $2.00 can cost less than foraging. If the foraging was free, we can treat that as free, but I don’t use only those reasons; and, I am aware that one can simply use another perspective too. This is a perspective of specific instrumentality.

However, the discussion about everything having a cost including foraging is actual.

Oftentimes, there is a comparable cost in money which can make discussing most things on an economic basis reasonable, and the early economists were also moralists, thinking they could have an economic and reductionistic calculus for both the market and for human behavior. I think one can have a calculus, or set of calucli, with difficulties in finding for commensuration, but that instrumentality and advancement on the instrumentality are undeniable. One becomes more sophisticate and moral using such tools and one feels this as we (or I) strive aright, with early tools, while we live in a primitive state of tool-lessness. Economics and math were not in wide use until very recently, when school became available.

We did not have school.

Anyway, the point about morality pertains to the idea that behavior involves decision making, and habit formation, that are benefitted by smart plans, that do include computations. If they included all the related mathematics and science, they would be more maximally optimal.

What Qualifies Your Audience or Listeners To Hear You

313 Wanattomians, Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Relationships | Audience | Human Resources | Economics | Resume

While it may not appear that listeners really do need to provide their qualifications in order to hear certain things, there are many domains in which is not the case. Qualifications really do need to be provided. Two kinds of qualification will quickly show this to a reader, the first is the financial qualification that one either has sufficient money to be in an audience, or has paid to be in an audience, and the second are working contexts in which one cannot have access to people without first getting hired, but this extends to many kinds of groups with requirements for joining or being admitted and not only jobs. You cannot spend time with people in universities or faculty very easily without first getting admitted to the schools? One cannot access the higher administration of religions without first being admitted, easily, but later without having social requirements to be involved with those more powerful. In general, there are social requirements, akin to admissions, for people to simply allow one to have any access to them, in group relationships or in friendship. Or to have any communication.

From the above it is abundantly clear that people do have to meet criteria for qualifying to listen or hear oftentimes, or to be audience members too. This is the class of relationships that is less transactional. Since the above applies to both, it includes also the one directional.

Sometimes one can pay to be admitted into a group, a conference, to be a member of an organization, a political group, or an investment group. Sometimes one can pay to meet a star, or to see a concert; either way, one has to pay.

If one wants to read a book, or to listen to a book aloud, one oftentimes has to pay for that too. Now from this, it is appearing, that to be in an audience, is to be in a market, and that to hear or listen, one does very often need to pay.

If messages are especially worthwile, a payment or qualifications are often required, otherwise it is free. It is free in friendship, or free online, on the radio or on television. But to qualify for the both you still need qualifications. You need to convince someone you are worth being around and make small efforts and expenditures to remain in touch. You need to pay for a television, computer, or radio, in order to hear from those, while this would be more evident in history than now. These are not free although now they are less costly. Additionally even to have free content, of oftentimes poorer quality, one has to watch or listen to advertisements, and in a way, to see advertisements, people have to buy the products, and there is some probability that you’re the one doing that. So even to see advertisements, there has to be some expectation of transaction, and if they do not receive it, advertisements stop. But they don’t stop because you and others really do pay them, and those funds, pay for the ads too. Your contribution to a business is allocated to marketing, so you pay it twice, when you buy and when you watch.

When starting this posting out, I didn’t think I would trend to the finding, that this amount of listening was paid for. Let’s try to find something that’s not paid for. To do that, however, it is clear effort has to be removed. I think even in an immediate environment, with family present, available to talk for free, there is still an effort cost. Unless we remove the effort cost, nothing will turn out to be free for listening.

Family seems to provide ongoing free listening experiences. Friends do a bit too. Perhaps we can say light advertising also can be omitted so on social media, some of our reading of posts and comments and some exposure to videos and entertainment is free. Maybe we can say that, trips to free events that are somewhat nearby, constitutes free listening too. If one goes to the urban center of one’s city, and there is some gathering, with speakers, maybe we say that’s free.

Here we can say, probably without too much mistaken, that on the more accurate conception of costlessness, no communication is free. On a more relaxed version of costlessness, some things emerge as free such as those listed above, but there is some irritation knowing that these really do have costs while we put that aside for the moment. I personally think radio does not feel free. Talking with friends and family does feel free. Predatory behavior wants you to think social media is free, so to let that slide too long for the sake of conversation can be dangerous, which shows just how much it really costs; nevertheless for now we will say that it is free.

Now let’s change directions. I went on this exploration not to discuss any irritations about not being unobstructed from having cost free listening experiences or to be in some audience. What I wanted to talk about is having qualifications for other people simply to hear you talk. While in the above discussion, we were talking about how others are really compensated for you hearing them, or how they are filtering who can talk to them for other reasons, I’m thinking about how liberally people are willing to communicate with others, with a strange idea that all are equal, and all must have genuine conversations with whoever happens to be around, or willing to speak to all. How absurd is this idea?

In public, people think there really is a togetherness such as this, where they ought to liberally share. It’s a giving generous attitude that is inconsisent observed over time. All are good and we can have relationships with all, and we are all equal, and why not share and talk and give lovingly or kindly without too much reflection about who the people we are relating to are.

On reflection this is incredibly naive. While I’ve been willing to engage strangers for quite a long time, gradually it has been shown to be a largely non-worthwhile activity. I’ve said worthless or negative worth at times. One has to pretend there are only positive valuations to relationships, but recal that in all the above, with the cost of qualifying, and the filtering that happens to hear someone, there is the meaning that having someone listen who is not qualifying, or not filtered, is somehow a detriment to them. Detriments imply negative valuations. Since this is so common, it must be admitted, that for any and all listening experience, using the stricter costing perspective above, there is some negative valuation within the composite of negative and positive valuations and sometimes it is net negative. I’ve written it is hard to be net positive. But this explains why one has to work even to find good friends.

Thinking to myself further about relationships the trend is to increasingly reduce it, with my present preference for solitude, after plenty of longterm friendships and very large numbers of other friends and acquaintances. Many jobs, many customers and colleagues too. Solitude has been very pleasant, and while I’ve been traveling alone for a long time, a number of years now with very little social interaction, there has been no desire to increase it, the desire instead is to nullify any interactions that happen, using monging, explained earlier, to transactionalize automatically required formal small-talk type relations, with businesses and others.

So instead of going against the costs of having listeners, I’m willing to go beyond the naivete of the odd liberality of unstrategic promiscuous talking, to a strategy that requires qualifications. And guess what? That is what happens when one realizes that one has to transition, if one is a producer of art, literature, or other media, from socializing too much, to simply having customers and a paying audience for those things, while one selects carefully who one talks to, for business purposes, to further that effort, and within that effort are enjoyable discussions.

What qualifications am I creating? Am I making a kind of job type list of criteria for others to fulfill to be able to listen to me? Yes, that is what I’m thinking of! And even this sounds like it could offend, but one does not feel responsive to beggars, and homeless approaching who might look ungrateful or dangerous? One does not want to admit friends into relationships without considering cleanliness, appearance, and social standing. People are filtering more than they think they do, as I said in contradiction to, their sometimes advocated perspective of indiscriminate socializing.

Men and women both will reject others from approaching if they do not appear desirable for intercourse later. This means the discussion hinges on sexuality and attractiveness, and oftentimes not only for that intercourse, but the view that intercourse is worth thinking about potentially. In other words, they have to seem good enough to be around to get something out of it that relates to sexuality and attractiveness even if it does not result in a relationship and even if there aren’t intensions like that. I seriously do not especially want female friends if they are not very attractive to me, and this is also because, since we know the above, we know it can trend towards relationship wanting on the other side, which means that other person may become sexually interested, but one knowns one doees not want that. It is a much nicer life to be around a pool of potential mates, even if you’re not openly believing that potential exists. It’s nice to be around attractive people, and they become your listeners, because they supply that value to you.

So it’s not weird, but normal, and even in-built, to qualify people for having closeness or proximity to you, for a number of reasons including but not limited to those mentioned above. So adding qualifications is not really so strange as it seems.

Reasons people give for wanting others to pay for hearing and listening to them are not only about making money. They also involve the respect given once someone does pay. In some relationships, some are quite rude and unsupportive. If someone pays, already they are providing you some support. So you’ve already done some filtering, for those people who could be more kind to you. Also, there is an economy of sharing, and efforts do matter in choosing how to communicate. It is better to avoid useless progressless socialization, in comparison to forward looking, goal oriented, sharing that exists when one is productively doing art, writing, or media productions of various kinds. Some say they put their communications into the writing and not into the socializing. There is limited energy. One results in too many benefits, while the other seems to over time result in lack of progress and frustration. So some think to avoid the socialization that is more indiscriminate and unplanned, happenstance relationships, and focus on goal oriented communication with some requirements.

So now I need to think more about the exclusivity I want to have for listeners to be able to access my work, that is humorously free at the moment. Typically for more intimate, personal converation, few have had access as of late, and that has consisted of people who have regrettably had access to me or vise versa in the high intelligence community. Other times it has been with customers, colleagues of very high quality, and certain longer term work generated friendships. But I’m trending even these downwards. The other group are those who have purchased my first book, a very small group, who bought my hand bound, self-published book. These were expensive editions at 100 per copy, so those who supportive, were very supportive, and they had the reading and some small writings in return. These folks don’t bother me, or obstruct my interests; instead, they’ve listened at a rate of 100 per book, and have been largely silent. It’s a very worthwhile path I can see.

More on this subject later for certain, since I’m tiring of writing of this in a sustained way for now.

The Family as a Cult

312 Wanattomians, Monday, June 9, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Cults | Relationships | Religion | Learning

For this writing I’m not wanting to expand too much, because on brief reflection it is true and true in many ways. Some cults appear to be partly modeled on the family with a father figure being the person to submit to. A mother type character sometimes plays a role. All in the group will not do well trying to alter the group, and outward independence and difference is strongly deterred, thwarted, punished, resisted, ridiculed, &c. Learning is much like indoctrination, and learning is not only formal education, modeling and teaching, but pruning and channeling. Behaviors in a range are allowed. Views expressed have to remain within boundaries and persuasion may not be a part of the experience. Parents rely on force and bereatment, repetition, and simply being the only adult in the child’s presence. Exclusivity of influence is sought. Choice of mentor is disallowed. Other parents are ridiculed and considered dangerous.

## Insanity of Audiences

312 Wanattomians, Monday, June 9, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Relationships | A System of Thought | The Value of Social Platforms

Too many times, too often, humans have had a person or small group, on a stage or with a microphone, in front of them, ready to agree, act like the others, give power to the speaker, stare straight ahead, and even assent to religiously give up their independent thinking.

Sporting events, political rallies, meetings of all sorts, religious services, lectures at school and elsewhere, collectively watching and responding to the news, watching musical events, and any other gathering you can thing of with an auditorium like setup.

These are people on reflection I do not want to be near or among in any meaningful way excepting to have a minimum level of a social life. People watching and so on.

They are unable to see the problems with it, and it will be a part of what determines future events.

## A Reduced Quantity Of Behaviors Following Removal Of Those Not Gainful Or Thought Increasing

312 Wanattomians, Monday, June 9, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Relationships | Com | Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Attention Management

Now in this book there have been extensive writings on a decreasing value of relationships, communication, and thinking. Additionally, I wrote about the illusion we have that attention is as valuable as people think, particularly for those with a reduced gainful social pool of people for whom there would be mutual development. Here I want to grow this topic, to begin to cover the changes that might make sense to ones normal activities, reducing what they are, because their use for self improvement also decreased.

A simple example follows from the dwindling value of socialization. If speaking to people has become too repetitive, eventually it feels as though it is not communication-conversations can become vacuous, and feel like they have no value or negative value. Many think this way but going further what does this entail about the activity? Here I’m wanting to explore the idea that what we are doing begins to become making sounds at one another, or moving mouths at one a another, being near and breathing rhythms. This too is not new as in commonplace communication people talk about people blowing wind or hot air, or simply behaving like birds or herd animal- but I don’t think people carry it into action in the interesting ways I have in mind. Some people who say these things are just not smart and cannot socialize well, and discount the activity, becoming self-isolated and avoidant, or reclusive. Some of these people pretend others have defects and they are not worth being with, and they’ll make some of the statements above, that are just traditional canned expressions, and don’t really think along this trajectory, but I’m not claiming this is entirely new or none have done so.

Monging is a practice that is akin to formalized robotic customer service, which coming from me is the other way around when used against business personnel but is used more generally to make conversation automatically non existent but largely favorable to oneself. This is not like being reclusive. It is like recognizing communication isn’t happening and dealing with it otherwise, to make it go all the way to vacuity, which is the real direction of development anyway.

This is one way of altering behavior to account for diminishment of value of certain behaviors, and is somewhat like reducing the behavior and all it can be to something very minimal, and clipping it from experience.

Standing near each other, sitting beside or across each other, also constitutes something less than what people would want to grow it to, pretending great significance of togetherness, as though repetition and low thinking and sameness doesn’t eventually make it less important.

Some people who would talk like this in less intellectual ways would be the elderly who really have experienced the same too many times.

Sitting for a drink seems similar. Eating loses a but of its value. One loses taste over time. I want to further reduce these activities in ways that are appropriate and have done so with water drinking only and my new adventure of meal automation. Tea time is really not anything to me.

Tea time is like sitting again, with a drink that people used oddly to name the event, to the extent that if you have water, it’s not tea so others may get angry, sitting near each other is like bodies in the space, and what is said is like worthless false information too often played through speakers that are the mouths. Dead information, and bodies at each other, with stops in breathing for voices, and drinks unneeded with a spend.

With a spend.

Thinking this way we can see we are decreasing the range of activities, because while before we would allow for subcategorization of things like drinking as drinking at a bar, which is now, ingesting fluid in an enclosed space with bodies breathing with noise. Drinking coffee is the same. So there are fewer activities.

Before I talked about diminishing value of thinking and of imagination about what is really outside of sensory space, to now reduced value of activity. I didn’t deal with this directly in this way, although I did arrive at my reduced list of behaviors within a activities I’ll perform regularly within a 3-day cycle. But this takes things a bit further in a different direction. I need to produce a list of remaining behaviors and activities and see what it alters about my three day process. I think probably it will not alter that list regarding what it includes as much as it will change my interpretations and meanings concerning it.

Ramifications of The Mistaken View of Equality Rampant Across The Globe

311 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 8, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Abandoning Equality | Evaluative Concepts

People are affected in nearly all the ways they can be affected with this incorrect concept that has too many life-relationships.

One lives in foolish contradictions, and if severe enough, one has a fake life.

Weak people are unable to think it and remain weak. They can’t think about things like how easily they can be killed, submitted, defeated or embarassed, and they may stay fearful because of their dishonesty.

Believing In Human Equality Results In Excessively High Self-Appraisal For Some, Excessively Low Appraisal For Others, and Incorrect Appraisal for All.

Truths can be used for strategic advantages in warface, wheras those stuck in untruths will be put at a substantial weakness. Since in many democratic nations, they are unable to think carefully enough about humand differences to notice them in detail, and enemy who is attentive to differences will have a realistic evalutation of self and other, wheras the one’s who cannot do such an evaluation, know neither well.

Those groups that have been unable to understand human behavior as a zoologist would, in all details observable, making comparisons with other primates and other animals, understanding that humans are animals, will have eventually a very impressive understanding of humans wheras others, who use “equality” to inhibit investigation and comparison, being sensitive and easily offended, will avoid the subject matter, as they currently do, and will appear ignorant like they do, for not doing that. There will be a very stark comparison between the actual darkness of information about self an dothers, compared to the obviously intelligent and creative and brilliant thinkign of those who actually have the scientific understanding. One advances, the other does not. One group remains sensitive about it as a sensitive matter, the other transitions to medical understanding, not being sensitive or offended, and intellectual about what is known and understood.

Equality since it does not make sense can be used to stifle nations into endless disputation internally about what it means, how to have it, and what changes should be made to encourage it. Many democratic nations have wasted a considerable amount of time discussing equality with very few internal improvements, and internal changes, to grow equality, which does not make sense, implies internal changes that are not making sense. Many democratic nations, while others are advancing, have simply stagnated in bickering, about how to make things equal.

Some pretend equality exists already so others cannot advance.

Wartime propaganda can be used to make fools of nations that pretended to have equality, but cannot secure it, claiming that they are innefectual, stupid, or hypocritical. Their greatness rested on it but it was lies.

Sudden violence, internal stress, social snapping. Since ideas about equality have not been realized, and goals are not clear, and people who understand it is too erroneous, will gradually become more and more discontented with their society, until some snap, and eventually it could lead to a need for dramatic change, which could become violent.

Disgusting history of ignorance. Instead of being proud of one’s history, it becomes increasingly clear that one was stupidly indoctrinated, and one was not using good reasonign or thinking or reflection concerning topics of interest like peace and justice, and neither was one’s countries founders or one’s ancestors.

Need for overhaul. Eventually there is a realization that the erroneous thinking has infected too many activities related to the structure and operation of business, government, institutions, and regular communicative behavior, and that such changes will take a very long time, are necessary, and may not be fixable in a lifetime.

One lives in foolish contradictions, and if severe enough, one has a fake life.

Theft By Historians Of The Work Of Others To Write New Unneeded History Texts

310 Wanattomians, Friday, June 6, 2025, Estoril, Portugal

Human Shortcomings | Living Autobiography | History | Relationships | Com

Recently I started reading a History on Portugal, and while reading that I was motivated to write a number of postings revisiting the value of historical writing, texts and expertise.

This book in particular, indicated to me what I wrote about yesterday, that historians are not able to add history. Anything they do add, that has not been already written, would involve logical explorations about what might have been possible, speculations, and simple lies and misinformation. They cannot add to history, and when they do, whatever they’ve added, would need to be flagged as having some level of suspiciousness. The reader is supposed to be informed, that what consists of thinking about history, or how it might have been, or how they author thinks it was, needs to be designated as such, to protect the reader, and of course, to protect history, and that all of the other writing, that’s not of this kind, would be statements that are nearly identical or are identical in meaning to what was already written about or recorded before.

This means the historian cannot add their ideas for the most part! Nearly at all! They can transmit, from what they’ve read, and what they are reading to re-record, to copy from, what has already been written.

While reading this work on Portugal, it did seem to me much was chronology. Too much writing that is simply a list in a paragraph, of events, names and dates, for which one has no exposure. The author, since they did not invent the chronology, hopefully, and refrained from adding his own ideas, (there is no part of the book in which he indicates he adds anything of his own which would be needed), only included sentences that must be re-recordings of the same sentences, either identically, in paraphrase, or in translation.

Then I realized, that it was very likely that this historian simply rewrote a history and stole all the sentences from before and just used his own words. Since he cannot add his own history, this is all he can do!

So we have a strange conclusion that historians only steal history and transform it into their own words. This is surely an exaggeration, and I would have to size the extent, but whenever they are telling history, they have to really only be reconveying what evidence they had. I think some additional argumentation is required to show how this is the case in all instances but I’m convinced it is true. Relationships, logical inferences, and so on, have limited admissibility, and that’s what they would be trying to find and use, and that’s from their mind, and they would need to relay that. Because it can all be false.

The historian then, arguably, does not need to write additional history, except in those cases, where evidence is scattered, and requires combining. These would be new histories. But what has been combined into chronology, still is tying evidence together. And even in that case, mutual inclusion is somewhat unjustifiable sometimes. So existing chronology is questionable oftentimes.

But this writer, and many others, simply seem to be drawing on other histories already written. This book is a Brief History of Portugal, and while reading it, I really get the feeling, that the writer, who is not using citations, has a stack of books beside him, that he re-records selectively in his own text. Like he really is stealing mostly everything. Oddly, from what was stated above, in history it is expected to steal writing and simply combine evidence. This writer and other writers, do not do nearly enough citing. It really is true they are stealing it, but it happens to be the case that this is expected behavior in this strange field.

Imagine you are to write an essay on Portugese history, and it has to be ten pages long. You know you can’t invent history. So you read some books. From these books you see sentences, and you remember them. You have the books beside you, so you refer to them. To write the history, you are not permitted to add, so all you can do is say again what they said. You plagiarize it. There is a limited extent to which you can use your own words, because when you use your own words, you may add translation, paraphrasing, and ways of describing events, which change those events, and how people think about those events. You are not permitted to hear the story of history and tell it differently in a way that changes it too much. So you either steal it verbatim, or you rewrite their sentences.

If you take a few books, write a small book on history, which is a longer version of your essay, do you think it is ethical, and reasonable, to rewrite sentences down? Then sell the work? Then claim you are a historian? Let’s consider, that also you are a fraud, because someone who is not a historian, is then a historian, if they take sentences, and rewrite them. The scribe is the historian!

Since the historian steals the sentences, where do they originally come from? That is the strange topic of the writer who added too much in at the time they put evidence together, and devised their own narrative. Without indicating how and where and how often they added their own thoughts. They are not permitted to add their own thoughts without telling you you are at risk of speculations. How much of their works would remain, if all the parts they added were omitted? It would just be the evidence?

Does it not makes sense to present only evidence then?

There were a number of courses I took, that included source books on history. These source books were aggregate collections of evidence from history for which a narrative would be presented. But the books together already conveyed much history.

I can see now that I need to add more about this particular topic of first histories, using evidence, and to think about what the first historians add, compared to evidence. If you imagine works of history, you will know, many include no evidence, and just tell you with words, sometimes what that evidence might be, and one has to go find it or trust. Just words on pages, not museums and artifacts and buildings, and dead people raised alive. That never happens.

For now I have to conclude it is increasingly obvious that historians may be lost regarding the quantification of the veracity of their works and that they may go along doing what others have already done, unaware that all they are permitted to do is relay existing information or say more but confess it is likely false. When one is using inference where one does not know, one really is just guessing. We act like they are in the domain of 90% probabilities, but what if on average, they are in the 5% of probability. I think that’s highly likely, that it’s very low probabilities, not high ones, and if that is what are history is, is that not refuse? It’s active lying about history while sharing what existed.

Synthesis of Thought and Time Limitations on Revisitation On Prior Thinking

311 Wanattomians, Friday, June 7, 2025, Estoril, Portugal

Mind and Mental Development | A System of Thought | Book Productions | ThoughtStream

This ThoughtStream has become a very long and extensive writing, with ideas falling under numerous categories being included very often. These interdisciplinary and eclectic ideas each are expected to fit well within various books in progress. Also, the thoughts are often related together, which is a cause for having a number of keywords written above to show what subjects the thoughts belong to and how they might connect. My way of thinking has a very good amount of blending and synthesis, which is required if one is a very good thinker. If one has an insight that is true and has high generality, one expects to understand that generality, and to understand the implications what is learned. This means on will have and continue to relate the learning to whatever does relate, and will make changes to self and behavior wherever those implications call for it and where there is a good combination of time, energy and interest. Others who are less synthesizing in their thinking either just decide they don’t care to self improve, mentally or behaviorally, or are actually unable to think with the same level of abstractness. Whenever I meet others, I can tell from their discourse, and progress with me conversationally over time, that they are always as a rule less naturally synthesizing compared iwth myself, not that I’m expecting that they would have this trait to that extent. Laziness or lack of generality in thinking appears to be the main causes of not doing what I mentioned above.

Most are doing it to some degree, since this process really is required to some degree by most learning. Any learning that is going to be used later, has to have some generality regarding application, but this is far from relating diverse topics quickly to a level of abstractness that has traits of pandisciplinarianism (no one does this well in the thinking but it trends towards that) and most are not working hard to slef improve based on learnings. Probably the bigger defect is the latter, because it limits those who even have a good degree of abstract thinking.

Typically I’m doing a very good job relating subjects, but today I thought looking at the thoughtstream that it is really getting more difficult to tie subjects I’ve considered over the years to have mutual progress of related ideas. They are too numerous, and I would need to admit, some thoughts that have passed simply have not returned to memory for blending.

It may be possible to start to estimate the extent to which I’m limited on using my thoughts later, and for blending thoughts, given all that I’m having. While the Thoughtstream does a very good job of conveying what I’ve thought about recently, it does not include everything, because of course I don’t write everything I think that has good significance, but I do tend to notice what is more interesting and novel to recall to write it down, if I don’t simply write the ideas immediately upon realizing they are worth recording. Sometimes I have a laptop handy, sometimes I don’t but wait for later to record.

Before I had my system of publishing my thoughts I would have had to let many more ideas go, as I talked about in my writing “The Burden of Having Too Many Ideas”. It has been about 8 years since writing that though, and now I can say that much of the ideas I have really do get written down. I don’t know the percentage written versus unwritten but soon I can estimate that too, if I just take note of what I think about in the day, what was significant and ideative, and what I wrote and didn’t write. A decent estimation is all I think I can achieve regarding that in the near future.

Anyway, I think it possible to begin to measure and quantify sythetic thinking and limitations in myself, and this would provide a pathway to do it in others and compare people more generally.

What would it take, for me now, to load into memory, all the ideas from this thoughtstream, and what would the thinking be like, that blends it well. How much time would it take to read it all and comprehend it well, and what would the output look like afterwards.

I am very good at quickly loading and self-priming information I’ve thought about and have been exposed to in order to prompt ideation and readiness to think further about it. To develop and improve it. But here’s an important comparison: before I was doing well blending my ideas without reading the writing, but now looking back, and seeing that I do not load many earlier thoughts, I’d have to do the priming. So there is how well I do without priming, and how well I do with it. There is also how much I get primed by: do I read all of it, or some reasonsable amount? What is reasonable. There are approximately one thousand postings here, many of which are long. Last I checked it was over one thousand pages, and now it is probably approaching 1200 and that excludes other writings including one full book that I’d want to have in memory to blend.

The writings are simply thoughts conveyed quickly here. If what I wrote is a good representation of what I think about, then largely to some percentage I will soon estimate, the writing is the same as what I’ve thought about. So I will learn the limit as to what I naturally combine and not combine, rate of letting things out of memory, and rate of reinclusion.

This is incipient, so I will talk about this more in the future. I want to relate this to some earlier writing on the impossiblity of oneness or holism, that I said was impossible already on brain division along sensory systems fundamentally, but it would be true due to other divisions as well. Obviously, If I do not recall earlier thoughts in order to blend them then they could not appear in any holism. They could and would appear in a related system, but not one that has holistic thoughts like some fraud gurus have claimed to have.

Notice since I said earlier, that laziness about self change and alteration of related domains of thinking from learnings means that anyone with that laziness is especially non holistic. Already it is impossible, but that person is more fractured and splintered, which is just a harsh way of saying what is natural, that thinking cannot be all combined and is divided. But the faux expert practitioner of some types of religious or new age thinking will claim they are whole, or holistic, or one, or are total, and so on, without any good justification. They are very much not that, and can’t tell and can’t make the changes out of said laziness!

But additionally as I said before, most are not very abstract in their thinking. Even someone who is more abstract and general, people like myself, think of abstract and general things about what they are about that’s not about whatever else its not about! Or where unable to relate at that time. There is nothing that exists that blends mathematics in a mind, such that all math is the same math, and really that is a clincher refutation. An ultimately general mind would hold all math together simultaneously.

If both paragraphs above are remembered while existence is forgotten, then it will be readily known that those two are adequate together to know that holism is impossible. And the joke in that last sentence of course, is that your attention is limited.

Cognitive Limitation On Defect Finding In Short Videos Composed of Many Clips Used to Convey Higher Quality That Actually Exists

311 Wanattomians, Friday, June 7, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Mind and Mental Development | Filmographicvideo | Social Media Platforms | Livelihood | Music and Art

Here I want to compare the video productions in social media platforms in the shorter format which is common as video platforms scale in their ability to handle large videos, and supposedly artistic work in photography, and with advertising and music video production. Not all at once, but part by part.

I noticed today, while out for a jog in Lisbon, while thinking about the beautiful videos produced by people on social media in the short format, that while those videos are of very high interest, and are the result of the creativeness and image and video productions of many young people who have made good cultural contributions for the enjoyment and benefit of everyone else, that still, despite the many positives, the work really does capitalize on cognitive limitations to create an inflated sense of quality. I’m here speaking more about videos in the short format, and less about videos in the longer formats, that took potentially more time and care to put together, to create a longer period of attention, perceiving a more complex quality. This isn’t the best demarcation or categorization because there’s some that is more masterful in the short form, there is some that is not masterful in the long form too. Here I’m just focused on the short form.

Short form videos on social media composed of quick successions of images and shorter videos with captioning and voiceover have gained in popularity, to the extent that much of the entertainment that people are exposed to in recent years are on phone applications that show almost exclusively this form of content. This kind of content, which is made of user selected videos and photos, displayed in quick succession, somehow is very attractive to people watching. It seemst o me that this interest in these videos is nearly universal, and the presentation is effective, and this is not only a cause for the newer popularity of such videos in the last two decades, but also the cause of the effectiveness of advertisements that use a similar approach, and also music videos that are slightly longer but still rely on fast displays of chunks of content, sometimes so fast that what is shared is flashed at the user. Here I want to talk about why that might be popular before relating in the other topics.

I think it has to do with a cognitive limitation that appears irrefutable from my earlier studies in Psychology, that an observer is unable to really find defects in things shown to them at a rapid pace. If a user has clips of videos, and images they think are nice, and these are quickly flashed through to a user, in a span of say, 30 seconds to a minute, the watcher will be unable to see defects in what was shared, but will quickly pick up on the colors, some visuals in each, that did have good qualities which were the cause of the producer’s having included them. So the observer, the person entertained, or the user of the software showing it, the audience, does get exposed to some quality. Sometimes very good quality. But they have no time to appraise what they are seeing, to evaluate the short exposures they are seeing. In this way, sometimes they aren’t sure what they saw, and oftentimes don’t reflect on what they are seeing suitably to notice what might be wrong or of less quality. There is insufficient time to see the details to know what is wrong, and too much shown in sequence to retain in memory for sustained independent reflection in the imagination. The quick images and videos shown still convey energy, a high level of stimulation, some of the qualities the producer wanted to convey, and some other characteristics that cause interest in the user. Because this interest and excitement and quality still exists, but the defects are much harder to notice, I think it is the case that user misappraise what they see to think it is higher quality than it is, and that they do this also for advertisement productions and short productions for music videos. Music videos especially seem to rely on this method of presentation if we are focusing on more traditional media and entertainment and not only new social entertainment.

This idea is not purely hypothetical and it is view I had before in another context: movie productions where what is wanted to be shown is too complex, so what is shown instead is fast. For example, in the movie Transformers, and all its sequels, if one looks at the transformation of the robots, one would expect, on close inspection, if it were really done well, that the transformation appears to be a realish one, with the steps from the robot being a car for example, to being a standing robot, or a plane, to have some realism. When the transformation occurs though, obviously, what has to be done is something creative and imaginary. It is possible to create a fake robot, which is what they are doing, and obviously that’s all that could be done, that would show all steps of transformation such that it still looked real and maybe the idea could translate into a real world attempt to make a real model. Or a real robot, but that’s far too hard. But that is not really feasible for a productions company to do. It’s too hard to think about how the robots would transform. And they have to have many transformations within a single movie. So instead, they just show fast flashes of strange interstitial video and images that make it seem like the robots transformed, when obviously they didn’t. There wasn’t anything even imaginatively making sense about the transformations. It’s whatever would fool the user into thinking it looked the robots transformed, and in a movie called transformers, they relied on speed, of sequences of video and images, to create an illusion that there were transformations, and I noticed at the time the movie came out, in people who I knew who saw the movie, and in the public, that there was an unawareness as to such a critique. This means they liked what they were seeing because of the other qualities that existed, but were actually really unable cognitively to detect that such a category of mistake or defect would exist, or see that there would be any defects that would be missed by this limitation. They did not really appraise or evaluate the film in a way that included the errors that I was seeing, that combined with other errors, made the movie a fool’s film in my estimation, that could have been made well but wasn’t.

Use of fast presentation of images in tests of psychological subjects is not uncommon in Psychology, and while I was in college, it was part of initial learnings of experimental designs, for creating practice experiments on computer systems that used slide shows to show images followed by information collection on reactions. For example, people may be quickly exposed to photos of other people, to see what their impressions were, hardly seeing them. The body of studies in this area would be very large, and while I am not at this moment searching for specific studies related to this, being on vacation, and somewhat resistant to that activity for a number of reasons, I’m still very confident on my background that my observation is true, and one reason is compelling. If you were to make a video like a music video, and you only had a short time to do it, and it had to be three minutes long, would you choose to make a three minute video, showing all the flaws, or would you select the very best footage of a much longer period of productions (maybe in a day), to put together a sequence of videos, that show what was best, left out everything else, and was quickly shown in succession for 3 minutes? The choice to do it that way conceals and makes selection incredibly easy. Because whatever footage is gathered, there will be three minutes worth that is interesting somehow.

This is testable by everyone who wants to produce something fast to share in a way that reduces defects.

On social media, one is highly motivated to quickly post. I’m impatient about this myself. So people want to go through their images and videos, and choose quickly what they most liked, and following the format of what is expect on social platforms, using the short form, will choose a handful of things, and simply crop and trim to have very brief good quality files to work with. These are then uploaded all at once with the order chosen by the user. Voiceover and captions are added, and sometimes subtitles are added. Someone else’s music is put in the background. The result is a video that really deceives regarding the overall quality of the act an conceals that there was a rush to publish, and that what makes all like this format that is already popular on social media relates to a cognitive limitation, that elminates defect finding and an ability to recall for reevaluation afterwards due to limited memory.

Ok, but moving on, there were the other intersts. I think a good conclusion regarding this subject that is helpful, that will make this kind of productions more honest, is that in many ways this kind of video making is akin to photogrpahy that people would deny could ever be a true art from. It felt like photography was too easy, too much like what an amateur would do. Over time, this was confirmed very definitely, although somehow denial exists. The photos produced by people with their hand tablets (I’m getting annoyed now dating that piece of technology by calling them phones), or digital cameras before smartphones created larger higher quality images in greater quantity that photographers could produce, and an easy sampling from all that exists in the space of amateur photographers, or “anybody”, would result in specimens of great quantity better than what professionals produce. Professionals who are doing better, oftentimes really, honestly, are just editing them afterwards. Photography became the profession of justifying what they do with the technology they paid more almost exclusively, and if one wants to do more to defend them, one still has to look at micro activities they are doing to achieve anything better, or more worthwhile?

Currently, there is a trend, to think of those who are making content for social media as content producers. I think that’s fine, but I would now, after the above observations, reduce the esteem of this title a bit, to make it clear that it is what everone does nearly now who does do it and imitates, even if the results are good, and that it will be perceived, later, to be something as simple as photography. It’s video taking. It’s cobbling of selected videos into video albums. A music video is a video album, and so is a movie. Movies and films sometimes are of much higher complexity to raise the esteem of the efforts. Filmmaking still seems to be hard to me, to get it done well, which is why so few films exist that I care to see. But videography today on social media platforms is revealing probably that video making and editing in the short form was always using this cognitive limitation and was using a rushed approach potentially, to create something that really is like what a “photographer” would do. It was too easy. Everyone could do it. It required just selecting what one liked from the world at time of capture, then selection from the reel. They were put together in sequence. Anyone who had this type of job before has learned from youths that youths can do better. When amatures take better photographs than paid photographers and people making videos on social media do better than video producers and editors, it shows the fields were too unsophisticated to separate the professional from everyone else.

In software architecture, I had a task to facilitate the process of taking videos and organizing them into a content management system in an automated way so that teams would not have to do the work manually. I created a program that executed an entire team’s day of work in seconds. From this I became aware that a large amount of the post productions of videos, including naming, cropping, alteration, scaling, and other processing can be done easily with software, and I do this to a limited degree on my own software platform I made, for this Book and Journal. There are limitations on what I could do with existing software, but it showed really, how basic the work is. More recently as I thought about how I would devise my movie player I was making from scratch, I realized really that movie editing, when it isn’t manipulating what is in the images or on top of the images or in sound along with the images is just a sequence of images only. There isn’t a single movie or video seen on television that has had “productions” behind it, that was not a sequence of smaller videos and images, merely put together, like a slide show. And I even noticed that slideshows and videos are just transitions of the same, frames that come in and out of view, and in time it is in one direction. It is just frames appearing when others disappear, and all video productions we would do would result in one video after another.

This is just not hard to do. Software can do much of it, and this is something I did show in real life for a large organization on my own.

But nowadays, with AI, AI will do the selecting for you, and already I’ve seen advertisements for tools, claiming to be able to take your camera reel, to make the video for you that you would put on social media. They don’t do the best maybe at the moment, but later, they will know to make what is average. Then later what is better than average. My phone right now tries to make silly things out of my photos and videos, and its choices aren’t the best, but others have perceived, that this work that people are doing, to make videos of their own in the short form, can be done easily by AI and it will just take time. Not too much longer either.

This will prove to be a simpler task to make these kinds of videos than others. Really simple. This will demonstrate that as a manual task it was an easy task. In software automation, the first step to automate, is to identify how it was done manually, and if it was done easily manually, the software has to perform less steps with less complexity. That is what enabled me to do the solution I did for this company. If it were more complex than it was, in the manual steps I identified, I would not have been able to do it. But I did it without AI, and for a long time, people have done scripted, programmatic, batch processing, doing the same steps I did.

Anyway, so my view is that this type of video production just hasn’t yet been identified as being nearly as easy as photography itself, although admittedly, most do initially struggle on social media to do the editing in a way that people really like. It doesn’t mean that it’s that hard when one gets it right, it’s just that few have been exposed long enough or had sufficient practice to do it well. Someone who does it well, I think would have to admit, that they could train anyone to do similarly after a short time, to do nearly as well if not as well or better. It is an easy job, not a hard one. If one were to employ others to do it after doing it well, they would quickly do it well too, and not after a long time.

Photography seems like it could not have been that way, but really has a similar process. If one takes a photography course, one finds that one takes better photos. Some learn how to do it naturally on their own. But if you give a camera to a baby they don’t instantly learn how to take very well framed pictures, with a good eye as to what is interesting.

So photography and videography both take some learning, but not enough to make it so that the “professional” really is on a category apart from everyone else. Really they have an easy job that doesn’t take much training to do.

The Need To Identify What Is Really Understood As a Result of Learning History To Reorient History Writing, Archiving, and Study

310 Wanattomians, Friday, June 6, 2025, Estoril, Portugal

Human Shortcomings | Living Autobiography | History | Relationships | Com

Reading the book on the history of Portugal that I bought in Lisbon a week ago, last evening, I became more interested and not less about the topic of what is really being understood when history is being read. This particular text, in some portions of it, amount to recording sequences of events and names and dates. Complaints about to much learning of events, dates, and names of influential figures, is common and everyone who has taken history classes knows about this. But instead of students getting defended regarding their defence, or the students going further to really know what it is that is fundamentally wrong, to advocate in some ways against the present state of history education, the students are ignored, and the students ignore their own earlier thoughts. But it appears to me, as I do my reading, thinking about it honestly, that it was always really obvious that little is really transmitted through such readings and there is no way out of the issue that really the words are mostly meaningless.

It is important, that historical events really are masterfully recorded sequentially, to a level of detail that is really beyond what people would want to memorize, but I think this has utility that is separate from the meaningfulness of what is being written, and that the meaningfulness of what is written is really very low.

How much can one really understand, when they write a history of names and places, and times, they have had no exposure to. I think there is some degree of insanity occuring, or profound delusion, in those who are really interested in history, in their belief that they are learning and understanding as much as they think they are, and they really do act as though in their studies of history they are transported back in time to really know it, whereas the reality is, I think they mostly have a verbal comprehension of what they read.

This writer about Portugal, for example, says he spent time in Portugal. He is a British writer. I’ve been to Portugal too, being here right now, as I write this. But the both of us having been here in the last 30 years, going to the museums and places that relate to some parts of the historical text, does not give us an awareness of what it was like in the year 700 AD. If someone were to claim that we both know nothing about it, both of us would disagree, thinking that untrue, but I would do this reluctantly, thinking that really the person who makes that bold statement is really getting close to being accurate. I would want to credit their observation. The writer of history I think, would delusionally defend, thinking themselves expert in what they have read about. I think there is a way to test the historian though.

My ex wife used to claim she was fluent in Spanish. I would agree with her that she had pretty good Spanish skills. When we moved to Miami, she discovered she was intensely uncomfortable with the languages, when jobs really required it. So tested by life, it seems she was not fluent. But I wouldn’t use that against her, although it is a real test of fluency of whether you are fluent. So very good test of her abilities. But there is a simple test one can use, and that is to challenge them to say whatever you can think of with simple words in the language you both really know. For example, I might say “Throw the basketball between those branches over there to try to hit that seagull”. Strange sentence. She would not be able to say that in Spanish. But when one is fluent, one can do that over and over and over. Sentences the come up in everday thought about what is happening in the highly variable environment includes sentences like this one. When at work, people will stay unexpected and strange things. If one is fluent, one is able to do that. Once fluent, everyone is able to do that who is talking together. If one is not able to do it, one will be too rigid, and seem foreign. It’s a good test.

How does this relate to history. Very easily. Test in detail what the historian can tell, about what they know about various time periods, in a way that has this property of diverse curiosity. Question outside of the normal dates and times, or question about people who were not famous, etc… and one will definitely find they simply need to invent to have answers. Also, if one probes deep about the causes of events, they will not know them, they will only recall verbal statements as to causes of events. Go into more detail, wanting to know systematically, who all of the key players were, ask about what else may have been involved, and just keep asking, and do so like you’re asking about the present day, until it is obvious that the difference between the knowledge about that time and the present time is so great, that the person who said that one knows nothing about history is starting to seem more correct. Then add in questions about the present, to show that what is thought to be known about the present is not known. If historical events and their main causes and interconnections are not well understood at present, living in the middle of the living world that is telling you about it, with the figures living and testifying about events, it is obvious that one is not really fluent about the present and one is so far from being fluent about history that one really seems to be a beginner in a language, with only a few words and very little ability.

Historians have very little ability about history. But in their defense, what I am trending towards is that they can’t, and that the study and transmission of history seems delusional, and that these historians are somewhat just part of the system, although they are still stupidly guilty and seriously self-deceptive and dishonest to others.

How much history can you know and write about that is your own history? This is why I added above, the relational category to living autobiography, which is another topic of interest of mine. Could you write a history of another person? Biography would be hard and there would be lies, and still you weren’t there living it. People can’t write autobiographies well either, because they are “puff pieces” to make themselve better than they are. So now, with this knowledge tha t one still does not know other people well even if they try to write histories of their own or have someone do it on their behalf, obviously we don’t know well the detail so any historical figure at all.

History seems least interesting, when it is really the type students complain about. Names, events, and dates. This writing appears stolen from other sources that simply wrote the same thing. One cannot write anything new as one retells this because if one did, one made up history. One just tells it again.

If one can’t tell it differently, it indicates one was not there, and one doesn’t know what the history was, and has to rely on canned language. If you and your friend mutually experienced the same events, you would write totally different types of things about those events, having different interests and observations. So both would simply have flexibility in relaying what is really known about those events. The historian has zero flexibility, because they know nothing about the events, in which to fluently and flexibly say other things about those events, simply reimagining what they experienced. Being unable to do this, it is much like someone who fraudulently said they were involved in your events. Someone who fraudulently says they were involved in your events, would only be able to try to convince someone about their experiences by using what matches what someone said about it that is true, and adding lies. The fraudster then could convince some they were there, by stating things that really agree with what you say about it, and perpahs what someone else said who was there too. That’s like a historian, relying on accounts that existed in writing. But if they add anything else, what are they doing, they are fraudlently lying! This means that the historian really to add anything additional to any account of anything historical they read about would have to lie. This means they stick to the story if they want to do a good job. But sticking to the story is the sign that they know nothing about the event! They would need to be able to fluently and flexibly add more information about the events if they had the knowlege about those events. It follows they only have verbal knowledge and what they transmit is imply copied from earlier sources. Any more is fabrication.

Sometimes historians will want to speculate about what might have really happened given some scarcities of information, but what they are doing is more speculative, than speculating about events that happen at present. We speculate about htings happening presently, and with all the detail and live about it, we still know when it is pointed out, we are in the dark about what we are trying to know about. For a historian to think they can do this about very old events is really delusional, and what they are doing when they allow themselves that bad habit, is produce history that is new, from their imaginations. They did not stick to what was written, instead they tried to add to it.

As I write these postings about history I am coming to discover for myself, what is more final about what I can and cannot know. I am in Portugal, learning about Portugal’s history. Visiting places, and reading about it. But knowing what I know and have written above, it feels I am reading without understanding. What I am gathering are still dates and names and events, and not enough more. Sometimes, I get some interesting details, like the causes of certain architectural forms. For example, a building with a nice archway exists in Lisbon, which I was learning might be Moorish or Roman, or a blend. I’m still learning and am uncertain about it. But some of these architectural pieces do seem to connect with what is stated in chronological record, and once one knows that there is one theme coming from Islam, and another from Rome, and another from elsewhere, one does learn something about the buildings. But notice this could be on the plaque of a building and is very briefly stated. Little details like this are nice to get from history, but it really is not knowing history.

i wonder the value of knowing even that. Am I still pretending to know more than I do. It still feels too verbal. It feels I may be incorrect too. What is a Moor and what is Moorish, and what did their architects create versus what existed. Am I certain they added anything? Which part did they add. This is missing information but that is what knowing what the contributions was. Therefore it appears what I am acting like I know is verbal. But I am learning something of a theme of buildings. That is not so much about history as about classifying designs, without history.

I am becoming more convinced history has a very constrained utility, that is very very important. But I think humans are living out some delusion about what they think they know about history and the extent to which it has any color or substance.

Also, total knowledge of a historian I think happens to be low too. If I’m asked to write as much as I can about a vacation I had, I may be able to write quite a lot. More than would be expected. But if a historian is asked to write from memory about some historical event, I think they have almost nothing. I think it is so embarassingly nothing it would be shocking. Speaking for myself, as someone who has a very good memory, if not an extraordinary memory, I still know that if I’m trying to regurgitate history, I think I got from reading several books, that touched on a specific event, for only a few pages, that I will only have a small portion of that to share. Someone could ask, “Hey Matt, you know about Pearl Harbor, can you tell me all you know?” For that I would only have a few sentences for certain. A historian of only that event might have a lot to say that is still delusional in its thinking it was present for the event, seeing what cannot be seen, knowing the causes and relationships, but I would agree that that historian would have decent detail. I think the way they’d tell it would have hallmarks of someone not there, talking around it, like they have the subject organized like an outsider who read about it does. Stating the same schematic. So that is a counterexample still because they can say a lot, but I think I still can say more about a single vacation, then they can say about their area of expertise. Now, make them a generalist historian, they then would be reaching back to the set of paragraphs they read, and films they saw, about the subject, and like myself, they would only have a few things to say. This historian of many things would have much less to draw from to talk about events, and they would hardly be able to say anything at all compared to what I could say, after having spent a week in Greece for example. I would have minutia to convey pages and pages of material just about what I ate and how I thought about what I was eating while I was there. Additionally, I can see where I was in my mind. This is disgustingly more rich than the knowledge of the historian. Particularly if we consider, how much storage is supposedly required for the memories had about visual experience.

How much storage does one utilize, in a few sentences recollected about a historical event, versus what is recollected in real events in a human brain. In terms of data in a computer, there are videos and images in my mind, that I can replay, that would constitute many gigabytes for certain, and probably more. I can then add pages and pages of verbal thoughts about the events. The historian has zero of their capacity used for the true events. Additionally, memory of actual visions of a vacation are greater than the data required of a handful of images from the vacation. If I think of Lake Meade, in Las Vegas, I can think of much more than just a few videos or images I captured. If I go back, there is evidence I know where I am, and where to go, and know what things look like already. But the historian, where they have any visual information, like about Pearl Harbor, watched videos and saw images made by others. Here we already see this too is less than what would be stored for vacation. Therefore I would still know more and be able to say more and think more about my vacation than an expert about their field, in this case the expert on Pearl Harbor.

If this is not true, is it not obviously reducing what we’d think about the historian’s expertise, if we permit I add several vacations and not only one to the comparison. At some point, it is obvious, even that expertise is little compared with simple experience. This may call for a defense from people regarding their areas of expertise, but for now I’m less intersted in that, and more interested in the fact that what the expertise of historians happens to be, is experience. Historical knowledge is very low in quantity and quality.

More on this subject as I try to find for myself what I really know about history and not, and how it ought to influence my historical explorations, my behavior seeking out new information, and my beliefs about what I learned having been exposed to such information.

A quick add. Just over a week ago, I was at the Parthenon in Greece. I have to admit, after having been there, that it is skeletal. It is like seeing the skeleton of a body, not knowing who it was or who it looked like. From this skeleton, I don’t know who the Parthenon really looked like? If you stumble on a skeleton, you might imagine they are your own race, only to discover, they are another race. Likewise, the Parthenon definitely looked different thousands of years ago. So what history do I know even having been there? This is what I was trying to convey, that even the combination of having traveled to some place and seeing artifacts, ruins and buildings, with paragraphs of history, does not result in what feels to be good understanding. But historians are acting like they can help you have understanding. I am arguing they don’t have much anyway, so what sentences are they going to use, to transport you back in time?

There really are a good number of problems with history that would cause one to want to rethink what one can really know about the subject and the value of the subject matter.

In the future, things will differ a bit, as there are better chances to share immersive experiences. But even then, the gaps will feel huge. For example, imagine you could have an immersive experience, being at the 911 event. You see the planes hit, you are in the building, you see it from outside the building, you see people in fear, because we imagine, in the future, there are tiny cameras everywhere, gathering all that happens. Even in that case, you may not have the video from the disconnected pieces that were really important for knowing the causes. Who detonated the last building seven, and were the others demolished or not? What was the owner of the building doing? Etc… In the future, with enough data, it may get possibe to identify a cause. But even if we could be in the towers, and nearby, and on the planes, we still wouldn’t have enough immersive experience, to be all places at once, to know. And so we still have a trusted regurgitation history. We simply re-use statements about what the causes were, dates, players, etc… and we can add in what we might remember if we lived at that time.

There is much more to say about this, but it appears, from complex events, that historians begin with what cannot even be experienced sufficiently, and relay partially true, partially false information, AND they are not permitted to change it or add to it, because if they do, they have simply added in their creativity. History is not creative like that.

That Historically, People Have Had More Kids, And Not Less, When Their Kids Were More Likely Than At Present To Die

308 Wanattomians, Wednesday, June 4, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Human Shortcomings | Relationships

Currently I’m reading two history books, one is called Prisoners of Geography and another is a brief history of Portugal. Both of these books discuss populations of a large number of different peoples. I’m not sure which book motivated me to want to discuss this particular topic, but one of them reminded me that in historical times people would have more children instead of less if there was a higher childhood mortality rate. Even if this was only in one of the two books, both books give many examples that this can be connected with to substantiate additional reflections here. I’m not sure what the cause of this is, but I’ve heard it before in earlier classes and studies of history. Some families think they need their children, particularly their sons. It may build familial stature, and the children are of course slaves who can do slave labor. With minimal food, and sometimes on a starvation diet, they do some labor that the parents do not want to do, and in addition, some labor that may earn some income. Chores at home and work outside the home. I do not want to talk about the reasons why they had children too much because that is not my main interest. Sometimes they just did it because others did it too, and there is some pressure or belief that there is pressure that they should do the same. What I’m more interested in is what this indicates historically and presently about concern for planning offspring, and the lack of real genuine planning in the children’s interest inthe past and present.

Let us consider this again, people have kids more if they will die.

If we link this also to the population problem in countries that have too little food resources, we might have some frightening insights. Let’s think logically about this then relate it to everyone else who is not living in scarcity.

Firstly, if a child dies, and a mother contiues to have unprotected sex without contraceptive, which is normal in impoverished conditions, they will have another, but will have the same resources as before having the first child because it died. So it died, and then the same amount of resources exist to allocate or fail to allocate to the next child. Also time and effort is made available for the new child. Here is a frightening idea that is probably true, if one has a sequence of children who all die, then it is like one has no children, yet had more, and frees up time and energy to justify having another, thinking they could allocate resources to just one!

I can tell from this line of thinking that I will not complete finding at this time all the valuable insights one could have.

It is easiest to have kids who die, and one can have a sequence of children who all die to avoid abortions, avoid infanticide, gain free time and energy, continue to have sex without contraception, keep getting pregnant and enjoy that however it can be enjoyed, and live as if one never had kids. The one who has the most had the most resources if they all died and if they all died it even made it easier, becaues if they did not have contraception, they would have one or more kids.

It truly is an unfortunate thing, that there is an unknown taboo on this subject in cultures that think themselves wise enough to have thought this through. An implication of their inability to handle topics like this, or conduct similar thinking, is that they know less than the people who do this in impoverished conditions.

What does the woman like about this? It is my belief that some women really like ignoring that they could have safe sex and contraception and discipline and plans, and new habits, and education from those they do not want education from, while simply solving things with routine abortions of neglect of children. You just pretend you didn’t have the kids you had or kill them with neglect or abortion. I think they enjoy both this and pregnancy and sex during pregnancy!

This didn’t even go into the topic of any kid anyone has could not fit any vision of what they would want in advance, so all are not what could be wanted, and most would not realize dreams of having the best things in life. Very seldom is a baby exactly the child wanted, with the child and adult being as good as what could be dreamed if really dreamed or better!

Let’s go back to the idea which seems to be well understood and taught in history without any criticism, that in history, when child mortality was higher, women had more children and not less.

This means if it is expected that a child will die, one will have it. This does not only include infant mortality, but child mortality. Even mortality before adulthood, during teenage years, because oftentimes, these could not then fulfill obligations they were made to have. They were even a let down for dying.

Having a kid is supposed to relate more to the prospect that they would have a better life, and that the parent could easily provide, given the resources they have. But it is also known that affluent parents tend to have less. So we can add in also, that historically, and presently, people have more children when they have less resources. So now we have:

“Humans will have more children when the parents have less resources and they expect them to die or live poorly”

We can see we can reduce this to:

“Historically, parents have decided to make more people who were more likely to live poorly”

This is at present too, in affluent locations because they have less on more resources, and in impoverished nations, because they have more with less and with the expectation that they’ll die.

So there seems to be a repulsive planning happening here that is a combination of what is really disconnected desire based thoughts that don’t congeal into a plan, and not having any plan and simply doing things with very little reflection.

Earlier it was discussed, a number of times, that a plan is a real plan, with its being in writing as being a requisite criteria. Plans in the mind are simply insufficient, and really do not amount to plans when people say that’s what they have. They are more like incipient plans, made of really rudimentary visions, for how things could go. Or micro plans, which are themselves bad plans, for being too disconnected and insufficiently general. So if it must be admitted that these visions are small plans, they are still bad plans, and if we don’t admit it, they aren’t plans, and plans aren’t being had.

From this and the above, what we have is people have bad plans regarding their children which almost amount to malintent. Notice if they were good plans, they are horrendously immoral and include premeditated murder. I think it’s more true that the bad micro plans are like this. Additionally, I thinkt people live in desire without plans, and this does include the affluent too. The affluent as I said before, love intercourse, and simply open themselves up to children, having weak visions about the future or who they would be, and not having anything like a well considered generalists plan that is rationale in writing. And again, I’ll say it, noone in history, not one, has had this plan, is a reasonable assumption, because if it was not none, it was one, or two, and effectively over billions, that is zero.

That this subject is fascinating is underestimation still. It is thrilling unexplored territory, that affects billions, and implicates many women and men in murderous visions. And all, since all did not have a plan, are implicated on average, in having children in a socialized way, that does show the trend, of having less kids when they would live well, and more when they would not.

Those who have less are still somewhat exempt from this interestingly. Because they have no obligation to have any children. So the manner in which to speak about who is implicated socially has to be determined. But those who have less on less resources who expect them to die are incredibly implicated morally in the negative by this.

Didn’t we already think this, that people in history, having kids who would die, then having more, in poverty, were disgusting in many ways?

Sometimes, learning or being reminded about this, I would think to myself little more about this topic then “It must have been harder, to live in times of illness and plague, and sudden scarcities.” Usually I am more judgemental about people who live in poverty in poor nations who do this, thinking them stupid, hoping there is some educational cure for them. But they are in modern times living the way those others did, who were of my race and ethnicity. I’m imaginging stupid families in the 1800s and earlier, in europe and the americas. These were as foolish as the dumbest of the others int the poor nations. Some were smartly planful about their murder plans for their offsprings too. There is a tad of racial prejudice in here thinking that european nations have higher average iqs than some of the poorer nations at present, and I have to remember though, authoring Abandoning Equality, that they really are not equal too, so in that case, I am absolved.

More on this topic later. It is of serious more interest. Children created were also expected to do those chores I said, and maybe do things for the family, and fulfill a legacy, and they are certainly slaves regarding that.

We will incorporate a new concept related to slavery, about partial slavery. since slavery has no absolute severity. There were slaves who were partial slaves. Who was the worst of the worst of the worst slaves? Veals? But veals relax? Veals who can’t relax may be the worst slaves. Tortured entities.

So these children now are slaves too, in the present day. Because we say things like, they have to work. But also there are worse ways in which we are all slaves too.

Those born into poverty, with the expectation that they will die, are strangely in a horrible condition, where they may even have to prove they can live, by showing they can do work, without food.

More later.

Since Everyone Uses It, These Added Analytics Are Your Analytics

*307 Wanattomians, Monday, June 3, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

*Relationships | Technology | Computing | Com

Somewhat recently I wrote about how any social media could be utilized as a negative social analytic, where analytics refers in the software industry to data about the software utilization and connected components. Analytics are gathered by companies within software tools to know what behaviors you’ve had in relation to the software, all that you’ve done if taken totally. What I was saying in this posting is that if you have a social media account at all, it could be used as a negative indicating you are not in a sophisticated enough social class, or that you spend your time unwisely.

This was speculative, but it seems to me that it has some truth if it is not completely accurate. Wealthy people and people who are famous really do not spend any time oftentimes on social media and may not have accounts of their own. Many do, but there is a trend among those who are wealthy, to exit platforms. For example, those who are leading in their fields or are CEOs or are owners of companies may not use linkedin. They’ll use it less or have someone else manage it if they do have one, but I’ve noticed oftentimes they simply do not have accounts.

Even if it is not accurate, the extent of use alone could be used as a measure to show the extent to which one would waste time. The observations I’m makign here are not about specific uses, which of course could be used against someone. It can now be used to estimate intelligence and detect when someone has emotional issues or is perhaps a risky person who will be violent. It is used by law enforcement and will very likely be used by companies in ways that are negative regarding users. But I’m most intersted in that posting in theh idea that any use is negative, like if one had a tinder account, or if one had an account on a platform that implied one was a cheater (there is at least one cheating platform I’ve heard of, and by cheating I mean marital infidelity), but instead of being negative about those platforms, the judgment may be negative about any or most social platforms including those that are most common. Owners of platforms like Facebook and X or Twitter, and Snapchat may know that the average behavior of their clientele indicates they are a low strata in their estimation.

There were also some comments about how it may also be that, because one uses a social platform, a software company or law enforcement agency could simply “stuff data” into your account and claim that you’ve used it that way. Also, companies can simply smear specific members and perhaps even their global analytics by inserting information.

This posting, more humorously, involves thinking I’ve had recently about exiting social media platforms more entirely, to really never use them. At least for extended periods of time. Perhaps this year I use no social media at all, so the period off the applications is one year. Will they pretend I had certain behaviors that related to them in that last year? Will they pretend that, not using their platform has meanings it does not have, and insert that or infer that regarding information added, about my absence?

Here the idea is that it will appear to other companies and outsiders who they would advertise their data to, and various agencies that might like to use the data, like government agencies, that the social platforms are being honest whereas I am not. I may never know about it, so may never have a way to make any counterclaims or corrections. I don’t have access to the data they collect and aggregate. The data they have, they think would consitute evidence, and it may be that I have very little or no evidence that I can use to show the information is incorrect.

Already, in some locations that seem inappropriate, and I think some government agencies, users are pointed to facebook pages and other social accounts to either get information or to interract with something akin to customer service. People already know that they can complain about companies on social media, and their social media managers, or people who work on their marketing platforms, will respond. This is to protect their image and control situations from becoming too negative for them. It seems to make sense, but if you hold a negative opinion on the street, about a company like Burger King, do you think it appropriate if an agent of theirs swoops in, and controls the conversation with the people you’re talking to? It seems odd? So now their in your personal conversations even if they are a bit more public. But additionally, there is a trend towards making these more official social channels, since sometimes they do, direct users even away from their websites to social platforms.

Email is a similar entity, in which users were gradually told the use was no longer voluntary, but required. Email is a really shoddy technology in many ways. There are very good reasons for not wanting to use email for required communication just like it is strange to use Facebook for required communication. Email companies delete data oftentimes if it has sat around too long, and people are restricted sometimes regarding how much data they have. In corporations, they will have all their email “deleted” and they won’t have access if they are fired. This means email systems actively remove the chance for users to preserve and utilize their communication for their defense. Email is also read and included in analytics. Since people are using “free” email, that email is treated sometimes as public data, and that information is likely retained even if you lose access to your account. Companies keep that data, and utilize it for too many things to really go through at the moment, but the point is that there are companies that are seeing that data and you don’t know who they are and they may be numerous. And you cannot hold onto it easily to use it in court? Remember there is no obligation to keep an email account forever. Exporting the information is not an easy task and oftimes it does not work. My last attempt at exporting my mailbox went very poorly and it became clear to me they don’t want you to keep the data if you intend to leave. But they’ll keep it.

All this information used in these weird technologies (including email, it is weird), is then incorporated into your analytics. The means of aggregation and locations of aggregation, and who the players are who keep and use aggregated data is not clear to me and probably not clear to anyone else, but this information game among corporations does exist. They can change this data and say you’ve used it in ways you don’t, make false inferences about it, and in keeping with the title of this posting, they may claim you use it even if you don’t even on tools you don’t, because their claims that others use the tools and so you do too, and that they are trustworthy may be enough for courts to believe. Consider that if you did not use facebook, all would believe, if a false facebook profile were presented with your image and some writing in your manner of writing was included. People wouldn’t believe that you don’t have a facebook account. At this moment, I thought of the counterargument, that you could have witness testimony that you never did have a facebook account, but they could simply claim you always did you just kept it private for your interests. People know others actually do that so they would believe.

This is not really a posting about defending oneself from any court proceeding against you, but about how you would or would not correct or defend your information given you don’t have it and it can be so easily falsified for whatever purpose.

all you do is for yourself and can be seen by all babies as a new moral principle, inarguably novel

306 Wanattomians, Monday, June 2, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Another Ethic | ThoughtStream | Evaluative Concepts | Honesty and Transparency | Interdisciplinary Science | Relationships | Com | Human Shortcomings

I will need to discuss this further later, but this would be a maxim, aphorism, precept, or principle, or rule, that whatever you are doing makes you a zoo to babies, who are nonthreatening anyway to you. All you do becomes zoological information to the world, but firstly, through babies, who will not embarass you, be embarassed by you, and who will benefit by your work, because now your audience is everyone.

You do this in practice on your own, but you would allow furthermore that it is the reality. That all babies witness all you do. Everyone is educated with everyone’s information totally.

The Filling of Children’s Brains With Universal Science, and Withholding Knowldege From Children As Part of Parent’s Plans If They Had Plans

306 Wanattomians, Monday, June 2, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Interdisciplinary Science | Relationships | Com | Human Shortcomings

Relating the last posting with the earlier recent posting about how children have a gap between birth and attaining the information they need, but sometimes they never get that information, I think it interesting to consider how brain formation in general may or may not relate to an education strategy that could exist. Also, what education strategy exists that we are aware of?

I am not aware of any national or international strategy of education.

We are aware, going through all kinds of school as they occur in sequence that there is a strategy, but even then we don’t know what it is, and it does not appear the teachers do either.

There is nationalism in education and separation beetween nations, and some national direction with regional controls existing too.

But what is the general relationship between the existence and growth of information and children’s brains, and how do we plan for new brains?

Some who are religious do not wish there to be brains, and they do unfortunately have too much influence.

What are some of the ideal brain states in those who have brains we prefer, for all the ranges of intellgience? We want to know how best to educate all people and to know what their brain images look like when very well advanced.

These are the brains of mentors and specimens of excellence.

Knowing that science is not universally sharing, and that information is restricted in so many ways, and that the growth of information does not include any pool in which all information goes and is retained and accessed, doesn’t it seem like, we are tasked as adults with creation of information which is stuck in places, and that this information is not related to any model for growing baby brains into new adult brains of high quality for each kind of brain that would come to exist?

This would be the developmental trajectory and model that would be required for a very solid approach with good futurism and sophistication. It has an obvious vision. What are the brains supposed to be like, and what is the information we are feeding those brains, and why does the plan not exist, and why does the existing behavior, seem so concealing regarding who gets access?

Governments tout that their systems are knowable, and that their laws are easily available, and that information they create is popularly comprehensible. But what of the education? There is plainly a serious disconnect in the expectations that government information is a part of human brains as they develop and that education includes all what it should include additionally to be included in those brains.

In the last posting, I talked about how fundamentally, science is not defined in relation to socialization, which means it is not defined in terms of education. Who gets to learn about science relates to who is doing it and who conceals it. Thus people who get to learn it are often only those who develop it. If you want to learn a lot about chemistry, eventually you work for a company with patents and secrecy. The vast majority of science that is developed appears to be in contexts of secrecty and if not, in isolation regarding publications. Where science is “open” there are costs about journal publications and access to data. Notice that data is not a part of journal publications. Huge data sets, like stellar datasets I am interesteding having, about space, are not easily available and may simply be hidden.

This means that existing arrangements for the growth of the brains of children, during our lives of lack of plans for children, includes systematic reductions in access to information for kids. They can have the information only as they become workers and specialists. In order to learn something as an adult, one must find a way to have a career in that domain, to have what is current, or what is more advanced. One has to have what is less, and what in history has been called “lay knowledge” or what is near lay knowledge, ensuring that whatever one learns, one is basic in comparison to employees of companies, militaries, and academic institutions.

Open sharing for babies as a human right is not under consideration. I do not myself believe in rights, but am in agreement with objectives that people have about really securing resources for people. Education as a human right is something I’ve heard before. But how does this relate to the idea that science is universally sharing?

Plans are missing in this area and it is fairly clear to me that the future of people does not include in the near or probably long term anything that is universally transparent science or a way to develop childrens brains into those brains they would want, knowing they have scarcities of information they want filled, that they can’t fill because they have no trajectories to further their educations according to their interest.

In a recent post, I was saying that people have not identified the list of all those things people need to know in their lives, and I just now thought that people probably simply never get what they need whoever they happen to be. An easy example exists and that is that people are blocked from legal information and from becoming lawyers on their own and that they really need this, given the legal system pretends you do know laws. I don’t myself feel a reasonable pathway to having actual legal knowledge in many domains, and while I may be able to get closer to getting what I need, it still appears I never will have what I need, and this definitely means others will have no chance of getting much at all.

Knowledge is only part, it’s utilization comes after. If I cannot be a lawyer myself on par with a lawyer I would pay, then it seems I cannot apply legal knowledge in my interest all that effectively, because I’m limited in what I can communicate to my lawyer, for their oral and written presentation. So even if I get the knowledge I need, I can’t use it where I need it, because other structural issues exist regarding my needs that aren’t knowledge based. Getting what knoweldge is needed is insufficient then, because there are additional things needed too in order to smoothly be able to do what I need to survive.

We are told we get what we need to survive and live well but this is definitely incomplete? What does this look like completely?

Here is a new interesting idea. Universal smoothness of survival and realization of somethign akin to wellness.

I find survival fairly easy, although I do admit quickly something could terminate my existence, like natural death. But for what I’m in control of, surviving is pretty easy at present. Continuity is easy. But what of general smoothness of survival given the range of obstacles that come about, and how does that relate to knowledge and its utilization.

Smoothness of continuing seems a fundamental concept now. We talk about knowledge and education, but I noticed there is a need for training. Training is what results in actions that utilize the knowledge creating smoothness of continuing. Like one trains for work, gets the knowledge, and in combination with having an society that has a pathway for the requisite behavior, continues smoothly in that work.

I will definitely develop unpon this subject in the future. Linking it with what was written before, smoothness of continuity would be combined with process smoothness in society (which is something we all want and we love it when we experience improvements, like with mobile apps for rideshare, making transit smoother), and with the plan we must have, for smoothly allowing science to be shared universally, and for smoothness of the realization of the plan that children acquire that knowledge that has undergone development.

Maybe a baby-first philosophy, that does not distinguish the baby from the adult later, in an ageist way? It just focuses on the importance of the baby, but remembers the adult as something as important. In this baby-first philosophy, all information assumes the baby as the recipient, which can be the self too, to ensure there is no ageism. Also so self-interest is included. In this setup, military science, and all other sciences, must as a legal rule, present the information to babies. There has to be a way for babies to access it, which means all can access it.

I really think now this is a useful vision that might be useful for aiding with planning for the future. Does it not sound like we pretended this somewhat with education and science? That anything scientsist make is for everyone, that everyone will have the education to have it, and that new babies will have this too, since children are the future and all this is planned for them, partly forgetting us?

More on this later!

In Cryptography There Is A False Assumption That Known Encryption and Decription Methods Are More Secure And Impenetrable Than New Unknown Ones, But The Military Does Not Think At All This Way, Indicating That It Is False

306 Wanattomians, Monday, June 2, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Computing | Interdisciplinary Science | Com

I thought of this after rereading my posting about openness and science and closedness within the military. Sciences is lauded as something that is global and universal, something to be shared between people, the ability to research, replicate studies, and have access to information, is touted as being part of the scientific method itself. Sharing creates the possibility for such research and confirmation and disconfirmation of studies, and growth of knowledge. But corporations and militaries obviously conduct science separately from science that’s conducted in academic communities that publish openly.

Thinking about this, I realized that in cryptography, the claim that open methods are more secure has to be false, because if the military had its own cryptographic methods, it would not use open ones for what is most important potentially. What is extremely valuable would not be shared openly by the military, and instead, it would be concealed for competitive advantage. Competitive advantage is an assumption about intentions of militarism. I find it highly likely that encryption methods that have been made public and were called good because they are public, with claims that they are well tested and are more secure, are simply those that are easily broken by militaries and law enforcement. This ensures firstly that the public is unaware of what cryptography is good and uses what is easily broken, and that what the military and law enforcement itself uses can be different and can remain unknown.

Science is really not defined regarding what its requirements would be for social openness and transparency. Instead the methods we learned about science, in the main methods of observation and inference, can be conducted on one’s own in one’s home. Since it can be privately performed by one person, one can do science without any socializing or external organization. It follows then that science can be independently conducted by any capable individual or organization that uses the method and this is separate from any additional criteria which may be added regarding how sharing should be done. The military, with its assumption that competitive advantage must be preserved, with power asymmetries created to its advantage and retained, it is assumed that their sciences would be secretive, even while they enjoy the utilization of science conducted by the larger community. They’ll take what they can but would not provide their own science.

From this it is certain there is no such thing as a unified scientific community, even though I have followed in the use of this phrase along with others. There are simply individual scientists, scientists working together with some collaboration in organizations, and a level of information sharing within nations and languages, and some within allied nations and nations who are permitted access. Most science functions in separation. I believe this to be scientifically measurable.

It should be possible to estimate just how open science is and what the prospects may be for a more unified science in the future.

The Learn To Need Into Old Age Useful Or Needed Patterns and Facts, Non-exposure to These In Education and In Parenting, And That All Were Babies

305 Wanattomians, Sunday, June 1, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Abandoning Equality | Human Shortcomings | Living Autobiography | Self-Defense and Warfare | Competition

Independent learning may be a questionable activity wherever what is learned happens to be extremely important for one’s success in the world. Yet independent learning is encouraged, and additionally, one has to self-seek information all one’s life, to obtain all of what one needs, or arguably, most of what one needs. That everyone was a baby, indicates that all had very little knowledge initially and there was really a need to find and be given information gradually. Independent learning is required to make the information, if one is making mathematics as the mathematicians did. Independent learning was required to determine specific needful pieces of information when situations arose that were not expected. The set of all situations required for which the necessary information is needed has not been identified. This means people are learning things in isolation, separate from real situations, with insufficient communication about those situations, until independent “hard learning” happens when situations really arise. Training is a way to combine situations with learning to make it more complete. This is soemthing that can be done independently, but nobody thinks this way apparently, and this is an area of interest that seems unique to my works, although I would admit those who work hard in a disciplined fashion would be those who know first hand about self-training but probably without this kind of interest more generally in ethics. There are similarities. In any case, this shows that independent learning has been required. It may be that the extent of actual training can be measured, and compared with what has been needed from independent experience, to determine the total quantity of what was simply not given for success. Additionally, it could be measured how gradually that information is come to if all of it is come to, to see the extent in which nature before the present time has left us unprepared.

The gradual nature of the learning is of interest. At what age does one have what one needs, and is it not unfortunate, that one does not have what one needs, except gradually. Permanently incompletely. I think it is permanently incompletely for many particularly those who relay on false information and fictions. Those who are religious and so on. They gradually learned false information. At the terminus of their lives, they are using gradually acquired substitutes for good informaiton which was usually not independently arrived at as it connects to organized religion, but also includes what has been independently contrived that includes true aspects but has the unfortunate connection to fictions which are interspersed or are fundamental to it. I will have to think and write more about the effects of the gradual nature of learning later. Some spoke about this in my learning history, mostly regarding how upper primates seem to have a much longer learning period for critical skills in apparent absense of innate or instinctual knowledge and behavior, and some of this information was used to laud humans for being “different from” those animals who, humorously, are fortunate for not having a gap in time in which to obtain what they need. They naturally got what they needed much more quickly, and survive with very little afterwards compared with humans. This is not to say that humans do not fare well in comparisons, but there are strengths and weaknesses, and one point that indicates how great it is that animals already have it is that you might wish you had it too, for whatever enables you to be maximally talented in this world! To be born a “blank slate” some some ancients have said, staring aimlessly, uselessly defecating and urinating for such a long time, doesn’t compare well with some animals that emerge powerfully from the womb and not weakly.

The greatest weakness I can think of with human betterment in education and in socioeconomic situation as it relates to what is improvable with knowlege and behavior is that parents perform any role at all in rearing children. This is because, if we take the mindset of the affluent, and of people who are doing fairly well in countries with good living, is that parents in ghettos, in poor countries, and of people of lesser knowledge, intelligence, and moneys, will do a very poor job of getting their children what they need. This is why we have education! To counter these parents and all parents who cannot do such a good job as a group of many adults! It is known that the current state of education is not ideal, but oftentimes children are safe from adults at school, but they are never safe from their parents at home. We know this because they cannot stop themselves from treating their kids punitively and can’t stop themselves from reacting harshly or stupidly, or on average, they teach the wrong things, or things counter to what is good in education. Many things I’ve learned in education I’ve seen others rejecting because their parents were foolish religionists. Suddenly they are stupidly challenging the existence of dinosaurs, or that we are animals ourselves, and adopt superstitions which are rejected and go deliberately untaught in school. It is illegal in some places to teach about ghosts, as though they really exist. Yet parents will tell their kids they are ghosts and that upon death they float to another world they can’t describe.

When I originally thought about how parents are the issue regarding child rearing, but that kids are stuck with them, was when I was in High School. At that time, I didn’t have a low opinion of all parents. I just knew those who were disadvanteaged would definitely not be doing well at home. This was the cause of movies I saw as a child, like “To Sir With Love” With Sydney Poirtie (spelling), and “Dangrous Minds” and other movies that had a teacher that was able to suddently “have an impact” helping children in their classes that were living in a horrible environment anytime they were outside of school, and that it infected school too, despite desires and efforts of teachers who “didn’t yet give up”. It is not really controversial. Parents are not by default good. Anyone can have parents. Including serial killers and all those people you dislike or hate with prejudice. Nazis had children. It is not easy to find large groups of people, in the millions, that you despise, thinking that you do not despise anyone. You despise millions! These had children and perpetuated more of their kinds.

A subject like this is only controversial for those who have more divided minds.

So it is clear really, and the easiest argument can be made for it, that many if not most people are damaged by their parents or are extremely hindered. Imagine a world with no education! Here we can recall what it would be like, if there were none, and if the amazing parents did it all! It would be like slipping into our primate heritage with having simple language remaining and learning how to cook, clean, and not hurt siblings too much. Parents do not convey that much as far as expertise to their children. The average parent is average, and wants their child to learn from many much smarter instructors. They cannot afford to send all children to Oxford and of course that is an impossibility. It follows that the average person, who needs other minds to learn from, learns in worse schools too, because of their parents.

The quality of their parents affects how they get educated and where they choose to live! And if they were born in a scenario in which this is not even possible, the subject shifts from being about education, to choosing when to have children. That is a subject I’ve discussed too much already, and have concluded that none at all have had a real plan regarding their kids. Too much to say regarding that now but it is definitive, even if it seems like it is not.

There are two things that prevented us from having the best chance later possible, hopefully, for having all the information really necessary to have a good life, like an animal popping out of the vagina, ready to walk and find food. That’s whether or not the parents were in any position at all to have kids, given their location, nationality, ethnicity, race, money, level of intelligence, and lovingness. If these are too low, the kid will struggle much more independently. The other is how their parents themselves teach and influence what kind of education they receive from others who do have knowledge.

Imagine your own life, and consider, if it would not be better, to be affluent, to have a good intelligence, and immediate access to a futuristic school, in which you can self-explore in a channelled way and be guided, to learn really everything you need early. Have access to the very best education later, and so on. Then this can be compared to the experience of a kid living in poverty who has his or her parents immediately question all that is learned in school, with their insistence that they replace learnings with foolish religious viewpoints.

If we need more information, we can study, by finding all the people who had the lives we don’t want, count them, and measure the quantity compared with everyone else!

If this seems offensive, consider what is done with income and unemployment.

I think there will be more to say potentially on this topic later because it is a fundamental human shortcoming that there is such a long period of time requied to learn the very basics, and that there is a dearth of information that is needed that one has to independently find only if one is lucky or talented enough.

I think it will be important to find a way to estimate the total amount of information a person needs. With an animal, that appears to need less, we can appreciate their alertness at birth, quick ability to walk, and quick ability to actively seek food from parents. Some are walking, finding food, are visually alert and scannign and working in the environment, if not immediately within days after being born. Humans require years. Additionally, if we are observant, we can do a decent job at estimating what else they learn quickly that enables them to do well in their environment. We can do this with people too although this is harder. Particularly because what they need involves how to live in a complex social context, within civilization. We know what a good life consists of largely, so describing that and determining what is needed should not be too difficult even to the minute detail. This would enable determine what is not provided in education or by parents. We could then make it possible to be trained early to have these things. Training for this obviously, one could now see, would not come from parents. Making sure it happens early means making sure they spend less time with parents early. They get the educational equivalent of good parents. Or AI.

Using this information we would know a lot more. Intuitively I see I can grow this to a very large subject matter. It is somewhat coextensive with my work in ethics but comprises more depending on the interpretation. What are all the situations and what is the information and training needed. What are the conflicts? Using this we have an approach at solving societal problems since we have a good list of issues to work with. Why are certain conflicts possible. Why is society so organized as to enjoy competition? What kinds of competition if any are worthwhile?

Sporting can oddly be competitive without being competitive. This has not been explored except with little kids but can be improved upon. I mention this because this is where we expect and want mutual destruction later in life. Our experiences with sports are related to business and international competition as though they are the same.

What information do I need to destroy an adversary? Do we teach the adversary that too?

That is much like the issue with guns and with self-defense. I personally don’t want the dangerous person to be armed and very good at fighting, better than myself.

There is delusion with regard to fighting and defense and competition. We are taught that all would do well to learn toself defend, as though that doesn’t mean that competiton has ended. If competition will continue and be as it is, I do not wish others to know how to self defend better than I can. If it were in a world in which nobody took offensive positions, that used the same learnings as self-defense, then all would have a skill they don’t need. Which makes it not a skill that’s needed!

That is a very good example of what would be identifiable in human organization that is an issue when it comes to universally teaching people what they need to live a good life.

Progresslessness After Unifying Accomplishments With Clearly Diminishing Returns on Thinking

303 Wanattomians, Saturday, May 31, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

ThoughtStream | Living Autobiography | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings

Recently, after experiencing many good culminations, I have noticed a diminishment in my ideation and interest in ideation or creative intellectual writing. Part of this is due to an awareness that my concentration for next advancements is to complete my meal automation and to make my 3-Day attentional management process habituated. These two tasks are not very difficult, but are taking a bit to finally set in. These will be accomplished in the near future, and the attention to bring them to completion are not very great. These finishings are culminations that will improve my behavior past earlier culminations to a more final state in which all I’m wanting to be doing is accounted for and done frequently in three day cycles at a maximum. Once done, this means I will not think about what I need to be doing ever, except very briefly, where there are sudden changes or where there are differences I wante for spontaneous behavior but these sponteneities are already planned for too to an extent. Meal automation at the moment is the most important goal, and also is nearly finished. There are other completions that required a considerable amount of thinking and preparation over decades but afterwards additional thinking is no longer required. I have written about the diminishing return of thinking before and will not say more about this here, but mention that culminations mean that thought towards the culminations are not necessary. Also since I have few culminations remaining, and these are easy to complete, the completion requires little thinking and post completion will remove the need for the thought.

Since much of what I am interested in happens to involve life planning, and moral and ethical strategy, and I would need to think about other topics in which I’ve had less completions, I would need to think more about where I’m less interested to have ideation but this ideation appears to be less significant. Except for my interest in mathematics it seems. I do expect some good ideation and significant future thoughts applicable also to ethics, and outside ethics too. But many of the other subjects are not of as much interest or require less ideation. For example, I am in Lisbon, Portugal now, doing some traveling as usual. Before I was in Athens, and London. I have been focusing my attention on sightseeing, history reading, and reading about new locales in travel books, and while I enjoy this, they are not really too interesting to me in a way that encourages ideation. It feels less valuable now. Since these doings don’t relate all the time to my other interests in ways that would build progress (like improving my ethics), I simply learn the information as facts which have limited curiosity.

This last ten days I’ve had more interest in linguistics for example, and wrote about that yesterday. I’ve had some interest in learning more Portugese, and I’ve been interested in learning more about Portugal. Today I’m buying a history of Portugal. But I don’t think I will be extremely interested and synthetically creative about it.

This is fact learning and fact building that has a kind of non-utility and progresslessness.

Points I’ve been connecting to ethics along the way have been less significant.

Once progress has been had at high significance, what follows is a lull of low significance. So now I’m enjoying being relaxed and a bit less mentally active or enthused about writing. This is supposed to be part of the benefits of realizing the goal, and is an award, but it takes some time I think, to be more comfortable thinking less than more, while doing more than less (physically).

I’m fairly confident that what I am experiencing really is a diminishing return on thinking, but I think that thesis does require a little more testing. I do intend to continue writing at high frequency with perhaps less interest, unless more interest and motivation can be catalyzed somehow, or simply appears, but even as I do this I do look forward to doing more of other things, like more fitness, more traveling and exploration, and more relaxing.

Even this writing feels more banal but that is a consequence of diminishing value of thinking.

A Possible Pathway To New Organic and AI Generated Languages, Using A Phonetic Alphabet Including All Possible Human Vocalizations

302 Wanattomians, Friday, May 30, 2025, Lisbon, Portugal

Linguistics | Computer Science | Environments | Mind and Mental Development | Human Shortcomings

While some work has been done in phonetics to classify different sounds humans can make as known by the range of speakers of the many languages that exist, but I don’t think it has been done in such a way as to cover the range of all possible sounds in a similar way to what has been done more systematically if not with completeness in the study of music. Since we are aware that humans are limited regarding their speech related organs, including their lungs, miscellaneous speech components in the throat, the tongue and the mouth, and the skull, we know there are hard limits on what sounds can be made by humans. I am unaware of any languages that use non verbal sound creation using the hand, tools, or other parts of the body, but the number of sounds that can be produced if this is included happens to include also all music and any other sound that can be creatively thought of. Restricting this conversation now instead to what people would expect from language, to speak from the mouth and hear it with the ears, I will focus on these but the method of discussion could be extended to include these other possible ways of communicating. Limitations of the structure of the human body and speech related organs exist for the entire species and not only for individuals, and it is known that individuals differ regarding what is possible for them. There are singers who can vocalize very differently from other people, and more powerfully, and of course there are people with impairments and disabilities. Most of us have much power with speech but we cannot state that there are not others that would exceed us in unexpected ways due to their natural endowments. Different sized tongues, shaped mouths, nasal passages, ability to self hear to learn language, and different lung capacities would control what one can and cannot do with one’s speech, and like with athletics, some of what others can do is impossible for oneself. Nevertheless, the extremities of what exist in human abilities and human anatomy exist in the living aggregate, and is defined by the individuals that exist within it. Measuring all people we would know the averages and the extremities. Later and earlier generations would be unknown somewhat however, and it would be assumed that the extremities somewhat change from generation to generation as unusual people with special traits existed in history and will exist in the future.

With our knowledge of this aggregate of the total human population, and our knowledge of human anatomy, and our knowledge of phonetics in linguistics, combined perhaps with knowledge of musical instruments regarding what things produce which sounds, we can arrive at a list of all possible sounds. Preferably we would want a structured list of sounds organized into different types. This taxonomy or classification of human speech sounds would need to be first created then organized and reorganized as learning continues. Initially however, I think a very good job of this can be done, and with this list sounds are mapped to character types or symbols and variations of symbols to depict one-to-one speech sounds. From this what we would have is akin to letters and letter combinations in the alphabet, but of course, these would also match phonetic symbols that might be recommended by linguists. Some extant alphabets of regular languages happen already to be more phonetic, like Hangul in Korean, which is a newer langauge in which the writing happens to still match the phonetic sounds. Older languages have undergone evolutionary changes in the sounds made with lingering changes yet to be made in the actual written languages, so they differ from each other somewhat and are harder to learn. Hangul is a very easy language to learn to read, whereas older languages are not as easy.

With such a system, the characters used in writing would very clearly specify in a musical way what would be said. Thus there is a kind of musical replacement to the existing writing system. But what is best about such a system is that it would allow for the utilization of a global written language. Because all sounds have been depicted by characters and variants of characters, and perhaps supporting characters, to represent any and all sounds, it would mean any language could be written with strings of these characters in substitution for the characters they were using before. There would be no unique language with regard to characters any longer; only unique languages as to their sequences of those characters which now express their existing language more precisely and musically.

Young children and others could then move on to learn the complete set of sounds they can make, and they would learn their own talents and limitations as they learn them. When they accomplish learning all that they could learn form this set of sounds, they would have what is needed to express any language and not only one. This would be training for the acquisition of any language including any language newly recreated, and perhaps regenerated from historical characters with new sounds or estimations as to older sounds used. Students would differ because the set of sounds would include the extremities of what is possible, including edge cases and boundaries of what is possible, so all people would be unable to do some of this very large set of possible human sounds.

Later this system could be extended to include other sounds humans could create, and a foundation could be created to tie this to the sciences, particularly physics. Thus every sound will have it’s physico-mathematical representation when the system is closer to complete after many iterations.

So all kids would have the sounds required to quickly imitate speakers of any langauge. Rhythym would need to be learned, and of course grammars and vocabularies would have to be studied. But comfort with making the right sounds would really exist, and be trained already. It may be true that there would be much less of a risk having any accent at all because any sounds can be made. Rhythms would perhaps still show linguistic acquisition issues later in life, but it may be that there is a finite set of rhythms that can also be taught at the time that the universal set of sounds are taught.

Even signing in other languages would be enabled by this process.

What I have in mind here is not only a way to learn languages and perhaps I’m less interested in this than the prospect of having new future languages that are better defined with operationalized concepts that have better scientific validities, are really truthful and have no false concepts, unless that is obvious at all times, and those concepts represent the structure of the world systematically. Vocabularies and languages would be contstructed that allow for more true thinking, and words would be unlikely to lead people astray, and instead consistently teach them in ways that are scientific. Today we have animal names for example. It would be better if colloquial animal names were the same names from the scientific animal classification, but instead they are not. We would not want them to be so cumbersome as those long names that are not easily used, and we would want the scientific names to be more like the easy names. Some harmonious blend exists, and instead of learnign two naming systems we use one, and the one we use, maps to the structure of animal life and earth’s history.

We could create langauges this way ourselves, or rely on AI to create languages using criteria and depending perhaps on what AI can recommend, once AI is good enough for doing this. Then if AI suggests a langauge and a lexicon, a third party has created it. It may be that there can be agreement as to a universal first of firsts language. I say first of firsts, because an infant can be exposed to more than one language to have a number of first languages. Then having the set of all human sounds that are possible, they can more expressively use those sounds in a much more sophisticated and advanced langauge. Thus people can retain their old languages while using a newer more sophisticated lanaguage.

A limitation on continued human evolution and cultural evolution involves limitations on existing language and the fact that issues that exist create boundary conditions on what can be thought, whereas, if those issues do not exist, then those boundaries are further out. The boundaries always exist. For example, human language is very ambiguous regarding its logic. It is not explicit as to its own logic and how it might be used. In order to be better at logic, one must learn logic, and once one has learned logic, one can do better with one’s natural language, but the ambiguities still exist and incredibly stifle communication. If one gets very good at logic, it is still ambiguous in the language, and while one can more precisely constrain how one speaks, others cannot hear or perceive the differences oftentimes. Thus cultural persuasions and growth of knowledge are affected. One’s mind is limited too as one is preoccupied with conversing in ways that others understand, and not new ways, and if new, it does not become common even with efforts in that direction. Logic is not the only issue, as some words actually have no meaning, only vague meanings, have not been clarified for everyone, and people do not share meanings. There are some permanent constraints with this but that is probably a good thing; nevertheless, improvements can be made such that there is mutual understanding about what can and cannot be different such that corrections can be made and differences can be evaluated for novel benefits.

For now I think that is all I wish to say about this topic, although very likely I will expand on this in the future. I think it would be fun if all people could learn themselves so well as to be able to make any sound a person could make within their abilities. It is fascinating then that all languages could share the same character set and symbols. Since this is a complete list of symbols, it is amazing to imagine that any language AI could make that uses these sounds that understands human soundmaking limitations would comprise possible languages for humans. This should unlock the ability to think in more complex ways and enable humans to identify specially gifted individuals who would then allow for the improvement of the human species biologically by either spreading their traits or taking those traits for genetic modification of new dna materials that can be used for new offspring. It will be something that will be addressed in the future, the trajectory of future human life and which traits would be selected from or not. There would be a pool of traits to select from, while enabling whatever beneficial recombining at random may seem useful given probabilities.

Given advancements its hard to say which would or could happen first, the popularized genetic engineering or the creation of new languages using an approach like that above. The creation of a new language does seem to be necessary however, so regardless of any pathway for improving people genetically, there is a pathway to improve them culturally and mentally with the genetic pool that happens to exist already, and I think there would be considerable advancements without changing the hardware that peple now have.

Reading My Own Writing Seems More Important Than Reading From Others, And It Includes Blemishes, Confirming That Reading Through Blemishes To Meaning Is Easy, and Where The Meaning Is Good Enough, Makes It More Important Than Making It Blemish Free

296 Wanattomians, Thursday, May 24, 2025, Athens, Greece

Human Shortcomings | Reading | ThoughtStream | A System of Thinking | Candidate Content For ThoughtStream The Book

A large number of my writings which were published in the High Intelligence Community received comments and criticism about simple blemishes that existed in punctuation and so on, despite messages to the reader, that what was written, was unedited, as part of a study in editing. They were told it was semi-blind typed, and that no spell check or punctuation checks were used. Even within this community where there is supposed to be support regarding various projects of fellow members, people like to complain and point out errors in a way not dissimilar to everyone else in the rest of the population. It could be they are more like this than some other populations that do include a larger number of supportive people.

Already I’m aware of the quality of my writing, and of course, I could not have made my career or academic pursuits as successful as they were without being a very strong writer. My writing is what singled me out as being especially talented in many ways. My writings in the high intelligence community sometimes are jealousy provoking and somethings this was the true cause of the reactions, but othertimes there were genuine issues with punctuation and grammar. However, as a known member of the community well known to have good writing, the message that this was experimental should have been enough for polite responses rather than rude ones, if there were errors, particularly since the objective includes having errors as a requirement.

More recent writing has been more full of errors in punctuation and spelling, because I shifted from semi-blind typing to totally blind typing without any feedback of any kind.

Today reading from my ThoughtStream, I encountered many of these errors, which I have to say are still very few and non-severe given I can’t see anything I’m typing and do not read it! Never is any spell check or grammar check used! Reading the results of this writing, what I am seeing is writing that makes for a facile experience. I’m smoothly reading through blemishes. Ever read any of those messages used to convey a psychological point about reading, with all the letters scrambled or some upside down? It shows that reading even deliberately broken writing is easily understood. Each and every word in some of these examples is rapidly understood despite all being misspelled or missing letters. This is because when one reads, one has gotten past reading individual letters. Instead, the brain simply autocompletes words on limited features detected perceptually. If you read a word that is misspelled, you see the word still. Sometimes you can read words and sentences with errors without errors, because your brain detected what words are correct, before seeing that anything was wrong. This is what happens when you try to edit your own reading, after you have written it. Being even more ready to interpret words as what you were intending, you fail to see errors. Only later, after some time has passed, are you able to detect errors that were overlooked.

This is meaningful for this discussion because it shows there can be serious errors in writing and it will still be easily understood, so obviously, for the few errors in my writing, the reading is valuable, wherever the message to be received is valuable and is useful to the reader, interested enough in reading it!

Typically the test of my view that one should read for meaning has been tested using my own writing on an audience that has not been receptive. Some have given great feedback, but many have complained that even small blemishes are too much. But what if I read my own writing, that I have not seen in a while.

I would expect in advance that it would be of good value. Today, after a long period not reading any of my own writing, I went back to read a few postings, to stimulate my creativity, and also to get some reading accomplished, which is a task I set for myself today. Reading my own writing from a few of the last ThoughtStream postings, I was surprised just how important the messages were and how useful they would be for my self-improvement. I felt I needed the information. Reading was easy through blemishes that hardly appear given the ability to quickly perceive what the writing was intended to be. The reading was pleasant and even more enjoyable than reading the text I’ve been reading lately, that has been heavily edited to be a popular paperback with huge numbers of readers. I thought to myself, that I did not much need that other text and that I should redirect focus to my own writing. From an established author to what I’ve written. Of course I’m an author too, but this is an author with a very large readership, and still, what I’m seeing from myself includes more to learn from, even though one might think since I wrote it, I’d remember it. Familiar upon reading, but the relevance felt different, and some was surprising like I didn’t think I would have ever thought of it.

I think this is plenty of confirmation, that my mission of conveying that having blemishes in writing is useful. I have not stated the full argument here of course. Blemishes are useful because if one does not edit them one said what one really said, and did not change it, and because the meaning is still there. In verbal conversation people are not picky correcters. They don’t stop you when you make a grammatical mistake, and there is no such thing as spelling, and we are more forgiving than we think about differences in pronunciation, and if we look closely, people do not say words the same way. This is interesting too. Words written very closely resemble each other, except with differences in font and some other user experience and design related differences. But the words are really similar. Spoken words vary much more than written words. We listen through this natively and easily understand. When a foreigner tries with more difficulty, we still readily understand oftentimes. We are so unconcerned with correcting others in speech, but in writing some will stop reading, complain, and act as though they received no gift of meaning at all, even when intent is very positive.

I’ve said all I said above lengthily but really it is true that reading my writing that retains speed of communication without editing, causing some blemishes to persist, is still read with a smoothness that does not justify complaints and certainly confirms my points are true.

A Continuation On The Prior Thought, About What Goes Unsaid That Determines Simply If A Friendship Continues Or Not

296 Wanattomians, Thursday, May 24, 2025, Athens, Greece

Human Shortcomings | Relationships | Truth and Honesty

Another way to approach this topic, is to consider if any friends would still be had, for anyone who said everything they thought and not only some of what they thought. If it were believed, that for nearly all people, that if they really thought aloud, that each and every friend would not be a friend, then friendship is a strange thing for existing, because it depends on dishonesty and concealment, and on ignoring that there is no person that you would want as a friend, because in the same way that you would be rejected for some of what you’d think, youd reject the others as well. There is no person that you would allow to be your friend if this is true.

If it were not true, would it be that everyone who is friendworthy simply alters their thinking to make it agreeable to frienship? In this case the mind has been altered to be acceptable to others so the thinking is consistently something that would not cause one to be rejected.

If the mind has not been so modified, a friendworthy person, then, woudl be someone who somehow simply thinks in a way that is more naturally agreeable to other people. But it may not always be in this condition; nevertheless we can imagine someone who is this way at least for some period of time. This would mean some people are naturally friendworthy for some durations fullfilling some criteria that might be had about how long it must continue to make such a relationship reasonable.

Having the knowledge about what may or not be true in this conversation is really of good general importance, because friendship is not something that is culturally necessary. It may appear that it is, but it is not, and instead of close and intimate friendships being highly valued, it could be that acquaintanceship and temporary but fun relationships, or useful relationships, could become the focal point. A culture could be built off the latter and not only the former. I also think both would be satisfying to most or nearly all. It would be interesting though, if they are the same thing! Because how much do you know about your friends? Do you live with them, watching them perpetually, with them watching you likewise? Or is it more true that there are very large gaps in time seeing each other? In that case, friendship is repeated acquaintanceship without people realizing it. Thought about this way, not only does the alternative culture seem more feasible, it is the one we have perhaps, considering this perspective.

But why else is it of general importance?

Apart from deciding what culture would be reasonable or better for a higher quality of living, one might simply think for oneself and consider that, if really it were known that one would reject all friendships if all the minds were known, then in the least, a reinterpretation of the value of friendships would be wise, and without such a reinterpretation, one is someone naive and juvenile about one’s living arrangement, however commonplace it may be. Does one think less of friendships? Think less of their beginning or ending? Expect less about it?

Maybe if someone simply read these paragraphs, they would be inclined to alter their expectations, if they are self changing people.

Personally, on other grounds I reject the concept of friendship as one that is early. This does not mean I would not want any relationships, but I was thinking earlier that I’d rather describe relationships individually using objects, relations, and properties, instead of too general concepts like friend. Is someone your “best friend” or a “friend” really? People wonder to themselves about these things and have anxieties about how others really think about them? But why not simply consider the objects the properties, and kinds of relationships happening? This would indicate that two friendships can be very unalike. Why even discuss them as friendships or not. Acquaintanceships can take many forms. If one goes into the details, one still performs the exercise of describing the person, their properties, yourself and your properties, and the details of how you interract. Why not simply do this with the small finite number of relationships had? With experience it would not take long to do it quickly.

Then one can also consider how absences of information might change the interpretation of the relationship. Instead of thinking dumbly that one is a friend or not and that there are strict rules of friendship, one can simply have different kinds of relationships, even considering keeping those relationships with knowledge that their thinking would cause you to reject them on the friendship model. This is what happens somewhat anyway. You have a frenemy you think. By saying you have one, means you think it will persist. So now you have this other kind of relationship, that you kept, knowing or suspecting, that what is omitted, would cause you to reject friendship according to the other model as a possibility. But instead you keep them around. Perhaps because they are fun to be with and are not too risky.

I have had relationships that were like this, especially collegial relationships.

Friendships are interpreted by society to be something that requires some level of purity to be maintainable. Knowing that others very likely think through things in such a way that they will think negative things that would bother the others, or offend sensittivities seems to really imply that friendships would not exist if more information were known. But it is known that this is true. Therefore it is a strange thing that this sensitivity about this kind of purity about friendship has not been reinterpreted such that everyone has a sane view about what friendship is. Some people will say that this view is characteristic of an insane view of reality. Reality is denied in order to maintain an idea about what one’s friendships are, rather than seeing what they really are and developing a more precise understanding.

Someone May Or May Not Say Something To You, And If They Do Not, You Are Friends, If They Do, You Are Not Friends, And Significance

284 Wanattomians, Epoch 1747014615, Sunday, May 11, 2025 18:50:15, Tucson, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Relationships

This is a higlhyimportant topic that I I’ll have to revisit at another time. What exactly do you think, that you could say, that you elect to not say, that would end a relationship? /Why then are you in that relationships? What relationships remain if you disclose more?

284 Wanattomians, Epoch 1747014660, Sunday, May 11, 2025 18:51:00, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 45 seconds. 48 words. Typespeed: 63.960 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Present Day Culture Has The Strangest Bias Towards Finishing, Even In Finishing What Is Unnecessary. Finishing Arguably Is Not Finishing Oftentimes As Well

280 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746738176, Thursday, May 08, 2025 14:02:56, Tucson, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Relationships | Procrastination | Development of Desire | Evaluative Concepts | Inferring To Moral Conclusions

Finishing races that were signed up for fun for example. More on this later.

280 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746738194, Thursday, May 08, 2025 14:03:14, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 18 seconds. 14 words. Typespeed: 46.620 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

While Reading A Book On The History Of Russia, I Realized That Too Much Contained Was Almost Purely Verbal, And Not Much Of The History Is Known, But That This Seems Especially True Of Native History, Relayed By The Natives, And Much of It is Shallow And Purely Verbal Together

277 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746426122, Sunday, May 04, 2025 23:22:02, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Truth and Honesty | The Distant Future, Legacies, and Morality

Here I think they title conveys what I’m wanting to share and retain. Not too long ago, I explained that there should be a commbination of verbal and visual verification for validating infromation. Verbal, I mean visual, real world sensory information is helpful to confirm what is verbal.

Life does not immediately exhibit itself to us thorough your sensory perception words. Initially we have sounds, and images, and touch, and smaell. We do not have words initially. We do not, like a computer program, receive a stream of characters, corresponding to visual and auditory stimuli. Later we use words to talk about what was experienced.

In history books, we do not at all have any of the visual, audiotry, or any sensory information whatsoever. Even if we are wathing films on history, we are getting very little of that, although this is improving and developing. It will remain an area of limitation nevertheless, because of other considerations around the scaling of archives and the scaling of image capture, or video capture. More on this elsewhere.

In the history books, we are not seeing films on history, but verbal text. The character stream. Is the character stream, coming from someone, reflecting on what they experienced without that character stream? No they are not. This is taught in history, with the concepts of primary, secondary, and tertiary documents. But this teaching has not conveyed the dearth that exists and I think this appreoach does better.

More on this subject later, but before completing this brief commentary, I wanted to say that this seems especially true of native histories. Native histories often rely on no documentation, and the histories they share are often shallow, and appear to be even copies of what others have shared. They seem too verbal.

Without having good documentation, or good connection points to closer experiences, shared through video and stories of people who know firsthand, and ultimately reollections in the reader (!), I think it is too verbal. But Native histories combine both that they are shallow and verbal, which makes for the potential inference that they have no real history in some cases. Little to no history may be better to say. But again, I think one has to quantify and measure if one is scientific.

So here on the thoughtstream we will commence with the approach to quantify and measure or at least realistically estimate the quantity of support that exists for any particular history.

Have you heard of this at all, of actually point by point trying to quantify and measure, and do science for seeing what history exists and is trustworthy, and what does not, and extent?

Nodone does this. And considering just how much is relayed in a historical text, it is humorous to think about just how many estimates would have to be made. This is a clear show that there have been no such measurements, else along with the texts we are reading we owould see estimates as to the veracity, and levels of support.

I think even if this would be done, it would be done in such a way as to show a strong bias to wards changing nothing in the history. Or chaing it in such few ways, that it would appear, that much of what existed is resatated to be true.

I think this would show dishonesty within the field of history. Also what is intersting, I feel I know that this is what tehey would do.

But what would an AI do if asked to do the same work, if it were a trustworthy AI that did not worry about respect, and simply concerned itself with truth and accuracy.

277 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746426769, Sunday, May 04, 2025 23:32:49, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 647 seconds. 613 words. Typespeed: 56.820 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

If Velocities and Displacement or Shifting Are High, Expenditures and Transactions Are Low, With Some Few Exceptions

277 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746405751, Sunday, May 04, 2025 17:42:31, Tucson, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Livelihood

If one is moving rapidly, one is not transacting or spending. Nowadays some spending is of course done automatically via credit card purchases that are scheduled, but for any transaction that is done in person, with card or with cash, the transactions are fewer if one is moving.

Notice one is stationary every time one is making a transaction like this.

If one focuses on moveing more and with a greater velocity, shopping is harder, both in the selection of goods and in the actual transacting to have them. Seeing them is hard if all is a blur. You can’t know what to buy if you’re moving past earth too fast.

The faster the velocity the more unlikely you are spending.

If you are an asteroid, there is no way to swipe the credit card or give someone cash.

If you are in front of the computer and you are buying things online, have you noticed, you are not moving much.

You have some displacements mbut not many.

So one method you can use to avoid spending as much is to make sure you’re moving faster.

277 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746405916, Sunday, May 04, 2025 17:45:16, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 165 seconds. 186 words. Typespeed: 67.620 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

If My Works And Artifacts of Myself Became Noteworthy Later, And Worthy of Attention in The Future, It Would Still Make It Seem Mankind Was Less

276 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746319391, Saturday, May 03, 2025 17:43:11, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships | The Distant Future, Legacies, and Morality | Human Shortcomings

I am aware that my accomplishments and works and personal development are important for the future, but that does not mean there will be any attention to my work at that time.

It may be that my work will fail to exist in the future. I do notot think of that as a failure but simply use the word. It may simply not make it that far, or may not be well archived by others, who I largely think are incompetent at such a task, where what is valuable is not recognized as such.

In the future, if it is seen that my works were valuable for development of human animals and others, somewhat humorously, the videos and so on will show a person or human animal that is not as great as would be wanted visually.

How to know a human’s value from their behavior and appearance given also their amazing works.

We assume that if we come to know the people who did amazing things that what we would experience are people as amazing as what we experienceed.

Quality of thought does not necessarily relate to expectations in visible behavior.

Firstly, my attractiveness would vary. Some would think I’m ugly, many would think I’m pleasant looking, and some would think I’m very attractive. But I think few would think I’m very attractive. I would be in the eight out of dten or seven out of ten ranking category on average. Some would say lower, soome higher.

Apart from appearance, is factial expression and gestures which are abhorerent to some cultures. Some of how I act will be considered quite strange or unwanted, and other ways of behaving quite interesting. My behavior will be very out of date!

My clothes willnnot be current fashion and may not look sufficiently rich or noteworthy. I am not surrounded by riches although I live exremely well with my travels and choices of locations to remain. How amazing can someone look, while eating fast food?!

We might be extremely surprised about peole like Aristotle or Socrates, or other people of high repute in history,,, seeing their behavior.

Unless they behave extremely formally, and dress in a way expected of someone of high reputation, then they will not seem great enough for their accolades.

Yet their minads and writings did really produce what is most admirable to us, being those people who think we can look into the exterior of things (interior of things) to fully understand , or more accurately recognize, what is of value while somewhat discounting the influence of the exterior.

Recallt hat I am typing this rapidly and I cannot see any text output.

This is mind into writing and publication elsewhere.

enough for now since this batteryon this computer will soon be empty.

276 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746319864, Saturday, May 03, 2025 17:51:04, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 473 seconds. 464 words. Typespeed: 58.800 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The Randomness of The Children People Are Having Is Better Understood When One Thinks About How Random The Kids of Family Members Seem to Be When They Finally Have Them

275 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746260492, Saturday, May 03, 2025 01:21:32, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships

Think of how the kids of others seem to be so unnecessary and unexpected if they are not yours. They are not how you think they would be when they finally come into existence from their parents. It almost seems like they have little resemblance to their parents.

I’ve tried to communicate to others many times how they reallly cannot and do not visualize who their child will be in advance, but for some reason they are unable to understand. Seems intelligencce related and I’ve written about this before. But if you look at this from the perspective of others who see these kids come from those parents, it is more clear how random they really are.

For example the kids who came from my sister seem to be ever so random beccause there really is no way to conceive at all that such kids even could come from this person, and they seem like they could have as easily coem from other families.

I think this should be explained further. I am not saying that I do not like kids from people who have them necessarily and I certainly don’t dislike the children of my siblings. What I am saying is that they seem random like they also could be substituted for totally different kids simply if the sperm and egg combination were different. This has to be restated deterministically.

275 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746260733, Saturday, May 03, 2025 01:25:33, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 241 seconds. 231 words. Typespeed: 57.480 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The World Has Become a Worse Place, Have Another Child

274 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746212699, Friday, May 02, 2025 12:04:59, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

Another addition to the series begun in writing for the first time here, if not once or twice earlier, on having another child despite having very serious complaints about the world and life in general.

Some statement X, Have another child.

That is the form of the statements I’m collecting.

For example:

Life as a woman has been difficult and hard, and in some ways it is too annoying to be perpetually less than the other sex, but nevertheless, I’m having another child.

I was born into slavery, and slavery still exists, have another child.

I am not very smart, am sexually unattractive, and I have a few genetic ailments, have another child.

I am old, and now I do not enjoy life, yet I have been this way twenty years, and perhaps have twenty more years of life like this, had another kdid. Gradkids had another kid.

I have no mo;ney, and was born into feudalism, have another kid.

Legacy doesn’t exist, have another kid.

The best time of life is childhood and the rest is not so enjoyable, have naother kid.

I’m sick of work, I spent too much time being employed to others and did not make enough money to justify it, and wasted my life, had five kids. They make more grandkids.

I dislike pollution, have another kid.

I’d like a life with untainted nature have another kid.

274 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746212988, Friday, May 02, 2025 12:09:48, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 289 seconds. 232 words. Typespeed: 48.120 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The Life Categories And The Attentional Management Process, Encapsulating All Of The Various Life Activities, Do Not Constrain Those Activities Which Is Made Clearer In That Those Activities Still Exist, Are Few, and Would Are Really Representable By Such Categorizations

274 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746152959, Thursday, May 01, 2025 19:29:19, Tucson, Arizona

Architecture | Imagination and Filtration | Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings | Personal Form

Occcasionally, when I am using the attentional manageement process, I quickly feel that it could be constraining. This is partly because I thihnk that others would criticize it thinking that it would be the case, and because I’m aware of such criticisms of systems within philosophy. That they cannot be complete and must have some input from the external system. Some philosophers historically have rejected what they have called system building for philosophies and moralities, as wholes created by authors, because they too often omit considerations that make it obvious the systems would require extension or that they simply are not the right systems.

When I think about systems that I have read about, my view is that usually they are ill conceived. Ill conceived may not be the right cliche. They simply come from minds that are not comprehensive enough. They don’t have a large enough vision matching up with what reality includes. These systems are usually not improved enough with extension. Instead I think these are systems to reject, and replace with better systems that have a more generall consideration of more relevant information.

The idea is that systems typically do not include all that is relevant. If something is relevant is left out, then replacement or extension of the system is required. Typically the omission of very large amount sof relevant information falults works to too great an extent and they have to be repalced. But this is not always the case I’m sure.

There are times when these considerations are not as appplicable, but I think people would still apply them.

Anyway, in producing my process I am wanting it to include inputs from the external world, and to be adapted and altered based on new relevant information. I’ll have to state what kind of completenesses I think it has. In the future, I think it will be realized that this is a pretty comprehensive and adaptable system, that is not deficiant in the same ways systems that I’m discussing were defective. Insteadl I think this system will just get old. i think it will be found that it was a very good system, but simply is a primordial variant of what would arise later. It probably will be admittted, if there is any knowledge of the system later, that the system is a necessary germ or beginning to a more advancedd system.

At the time of writing this is the most advanced system I’ve been exposed to

By writing the above I don’t assume that there really would be any reading of my work for future utilization and it may simply be forgotten but the same thoughts are applicable if one considers that even if they go unused, the actual system still constitutes an analogy or morpholical simialar to whatever the beginning system that goes forward turns out to be.

There is confirmation of the system used if others use equivalent or similar systems.

Anyway so I do think about these types of things as I consider my own system, and while I’m very confident and think about this infrequently it does come to mind from time to time.

Stifling systems are often stifling because they omitted relevant information in their design and conception. This system is too rigid and does not actually imclude what is needed or the flexibility required is what a user or advocate would think. Instead of advocate, I should think practitioner.

Regarding the part of the system that is the categorization of the life categories, which redundantly is about capturing life activity and behavior iinformation, it appears that there is no issue relating to system stifling. Not that I can see that matters much for the moment and now this is after very much consideration.

As I am using the attentional management process, and I’m running through the categories, I think if I am utilzing a system that is to constraining. But then today I thought to myself, after thinking something such as this very quickly, that the behaviors exist as they are even if the system happens to not be used. That means it has some representational validity. It has very good representational validity. Having this representational validity, it captures my behavior into the categories even if I do not utilize the attentional management process or any other process.

Having gone through the use of AMP for a long time, I am also the result o fthe process. My activities well conform to the life category model, and work well within the attentional management process, and is very simplistic in many ways, making it really clear taht the behaviors and activities really do definitely fit within the scheme.

Since they fit within the scheme now, even if I abandoned any use of the system, it would conform to the system. I see now that this is similar to the statement I made earlier that one can simply learn from the system, train with it, then stop using it later if one wants. One is trained and simply doe snot need to refer any longer. Since that is the case, it definitely conforms to the sytem even if it is not the system being used actively as a tool.

The kind of stifling that one could complain about, that I noticed could be complained about, concerning there being too inadequate a representation of relevant life information would not work.

But there are other complains about the stifling nature of systems. Is it too repetitively used, even if absorbed and not used as a tool any more. Embodiment of a stifling system would be a stifling embodiment. Having insufficient flexibility to behave in unconstrained ways (that matter) would aslo indicate potentially an overly stifling system. Also whether or not there are parts of the process that allow for natural exploration, that conforms to the system in important ways but provides enough freedom. Waht is the perception of freedom of the system? How free am I using it? What extra freedom does it create? How free tdo I feel learning it, versusus how free I feel afterwards. Since I want to learn it, it is very free to be able to learn it! But for others, it might vfeel forced. The interesteing thing is, whatever level of freedom exists for incorporating the system into self with practice, the outcome seems to be more freedom.

It’s like with children learning that if they confrom in some ways to actually useful way s of earning a living, that they’ll have more freedom later with the discipline. Some might like that process while others don’t. But if both become rich through actually going through with the process, both understand the freedom gained later.

Much more needs to be said on this because I do need to have some testing of the validities of my own system, even though it is very well tested– it does need more, and I also need to offer explanations where I think the reader may have complaints or may have criticisms.

274 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746154146, Thursday, May 01, 2025 19:49:06, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 1187 seconds. 1171 words. Typespeed: 59.160 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

There Is No Living Entity That Holds Cultural Knowledge That is Not a Brain, and The Analogy of a Lone Highly Developed Old Tree

273 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746127424, Thursday, May 01, 2025 12:23:44, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Mind and Mental Development | Constraint and Determinism

I think it is easy to forget that there is no living entity someplace that holds all of the cultural wisdom. By postulating collective social entities such as nation, and states, and institutions, we create an idea tht there is some larger object that is the thing holding all the wisdom knowledge and information.

There is this foolish quote, that people use as a guide to action, which includesthe phrase that it is worth belonging to something larger than oneself. Larger athan oneself. This phrase is of interest. What is this enttity that is larger than oneself?

This phrase is used in other contexts but shows the fallacy in play. Sometimes people will use this phrase to urge others or themselves tojoin large organizations for work or reltigious purposes. The idea is that one is not to feel alone any longer and is to feel a part of some larger entity that somehow holds the wisdom. There is a larger purpose to these organizations.

I’m not sure it is appropriate to think of larger systems of processes of people and tools to constitute things that are really larger than ourselves holding information. That is until there is a time in which there is soething more biological that is large that is identifiable that we are allwwithin, and by that we are all within, I really mean those people who are livingin teh future hwo are not me.

There is an interesting issue that if one is a human and one belongs to a larger organic entity that is biological like that is identifiable that one is forced like a cell into living aspart of the organization and that one is only part of it playing the role for it for a short part of its life span potentially.

Like if you thought a nation was real andhad a real collective biological objectification to it, and that nation had a life span of several hundred to a thousand or so years. Perhaps it will live longer and be many thousands of years old like China claims to be.

But I here want to introduce another way to think about culture. That once again, as it is today, it is really nothing but a collection of individuals, tools and artifacts of various kinds, and behaviors that relate. There are other ways to explain this using process as a more central ingredient, but here I will place process as an artifact or as a stored behavior in a brain.

If we think that people are removed from the environment, all dead at once, or dead for a long period, or all zombies like in a zombie film, we see an emptiness arises in all esle that is claimed to exist as part of a larger ysystem to which the people belong.

Ifthe people die, and are erased, or fail to function to an extent of becoming all zombified, then the larger entitty dies.I think of course that is metaphorical to say that it has died. Really I think it never existed. But there is a systemic thing that has inputs and outputs and continues over time that does cease to work any longer.Perhaps one can think of it as an ecological system of sorts, but I don’t think tiit is developed enough for such a view to be able to refute this view I’m now sharing and articulating.

So if the people are gone, the earth is quiet regarding human creations. They stand still. They seem lifeless. In a way the buildings are like coral reefs that no longer have living things in them. There is no movement. Displacement of humans has gone to zero or near zero.

Before this occured however, there was lots ofmovement. This movement is because of the objects that are organisms that are moving in it that are biological. But they are not really a collection that arisees in a new entitty. They really are just individual people. Like cactuses in a forest. Or trees in a forest, except moving. If some people were to die and some were to live, then it would become obvious that information loss has occured, but the information loss is related to who happens to be present.

If one wants to look to the most wise entity in an environment, one is not going to look to the lifeless whole apart from the people living within it. This is like thinking that the larger zomified human construct would have theinformation and wisdom. There is no wise entity if there is no thinking entity.

These thoughts require clarification, I know, but for now I think this is trending towards an accuracy, treating the culture as a group of inddividuals that do not emerge any whole At least not of the sort ofat would be wanted for other perspectives that are contrary to the view that individuals really have the wisdom and there is nothing larger to belong to, as discussed above.

The most wise thing in a culture is not the culture, adnd this shows there is a sematntic problem with the word culture. The most wise thing in a culture would be the most wiseliving entity in it. There would be a large collection or subset of theliving entities that are more developed and these would be like the most developed cacti and trees in a forest.

I find the alnalogy of the forest of trees or cacti very pleasant for explainging this view. There is noc complex forest that i s a tree itself. There is only a collection of trees. There is no collection of cacti that is a cactus, but insted, thre are many individual cactuses. It can’t be more than a forest of individuals.

A lone and highhly developed old cactus has an allure. Same with large very old trees. These old, very highly developed trees and cacti seem to have special importance. We think it more repulsive to kill these plants, versus the younger cacti. We recognize how difficult it is to find such a rarity, and how unusual it is for a ccactus or tree to reach such a state of development.

Very old cacti and trees also seem to have more complex structure and variation than the other trees. Extremely highly develloped trees seem more different from ech other and the rest than the very young cacti and trees.

I like the cactus analogy because it creates a sense that there is nothing that is larger than a particular very large cactus that is a cactus, and that the cactus really is isolated, separte, and alone. I’m more sensitive these days about defining alone, but there is a definition that might be suitable. I will have to explain later.

The contrast between a specific highly developed cactus and the rest of the cacti is of interest. Disconnectedness is of interest.In humanity, the equivalent are very smart people with a high level of nereural and bio development.

Like with the highly developed cacti it may be worth keeping around the highly developed if the highly developed holds the cultural information and wisdom that is thought to exist iin a whole. That is, these larger more complex brains actually do hold the information and wisdom that creates an illusion that there is something larger to belong to. It’s really there are just living people who are still wise and well developed.

We can here then think about what it would be like if instead of all people dying all died but the most wise, or if all died but the youngest. If all died but the most wise, it would seem that culture still exists nearly intact in the ways that it would be wanted. If it were only the young, it would seem that culture has vanished very largely.

More must be said about this and the relationship to recordings.

273 Wanattomians, Epoch 1746128948, Thursday, May 01, 2025 12:49:08, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1524 seconds. 1314 words. Typespeed: 51.720 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Considering Which Experiences Correspond To Brain States That Do Not Require Improvement or Concern

266 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745465087, Wednesday, April 23, 2025 20:24:47, Tucson, Arizona

ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Mind and Mental Development

Even stale content provides useful artifacts about how life was, and so a mine of trash, from the past, which is largely what paleontologists think of artifacts, from my training in archaeology, it seems that there are useful things till to be found. The trash and waste and things people cared about can include useful information even when that thinking was stale before during and after.

Future thoughts, I noticed, from my last posting, will be stale. I can expect them to be stale already. This challenges somewhat the concept of staleness because perhaps it should be another concept, that relates to the usefulness and timelessness of thf the information.

Stale content is irrelevant feeling, and sometimes false, and often tasteleees. What I am saying here is that artifacts including stale content, which is almost all of it, will still have utility, bu tthat utility is about locating what animals were like in the past. This does not necessarily include appreciation of what they wriote about or said.

But what if what is being spoken about includes much that is factual, and much that does have utility, at earlier stages of devellopment, if not later. What if these learnings from earlier stages of development are fogotten in the course of development and need resurfacing for other reasons. It will be noticed that if the facts are facts they are still truths. Truths stated by small animals are avaluable, and I may care more about facts coming from cute rodents than facts from people. If kind birds, and primates, and rodent globs also decide to tell of what was useful to them, in a way that conveys effectively more facts, then they have said yet more abotu what is useful in development. This is all inaddition to teaching abotu what they are with the artifacts they share.

A challenge seems to be to find the quality that is wanted, and many people struggle with this. I think it is really more simple than might be noticed. Stating things truthfully, sharing things with enough detail and accuracy to actually communicate in a way that is less ambiguously true is helpful, and using mixed media to provide a comprehensive picture is good. The objective is to provide more truth. Relevance is where people become interested or not.

Relevance is equal to stale content.

If most of my writing is relevant, then there is additional utility. This is too social a way of looking at this subject though.

The key thing is to communicate truth in my estimation, and the central concern apart from gaining relevancey to others is a person’s own independent interest which results in the writing.

I have spent a long time trying to think through which mental states should be changing but without thinking about it so much at that level as at the level of the individual thoughts and their potential changes. Additionally of course, there are classes of kinds of thinking that I wanted altered and I didd work on altering those. But I did not go to the topmost level to consider in detail which thoughts are those that would not be worth changing.

This is telling regarding my approach to my own thinking. Much that I think is a target for alteration. I spend a considerable amount of my time revising my thinking and have been that way since childhood.

The effects of learning something general includes the need to update other thoughts and parts of the brain whihch paepen to fall under that generality.

So certain conclusions about logic and logical thinking, relate of course to generalizations about how to speak and think in natural language, and this takes time to change.

But what does not require changing?

A moment ago, I had a transitional thought, that had associated with it some mild discomfort, about having some lack of thought content. It’s like one of those gap thoughts between changes in moood. Sometimes there is a lack of thinking aand some discomfort that is hard to describe.

This moment was quick, and does not happen often. I will recognize it when it happens again and spend some time thinking about what it was like, so I can describe it in more detail later.

But the thought seemed to me to be one that perhaps is not really worth changing.

Some uncomfortable thoughts, which are not extremeely discomforting, or are somewhat unpleasant only, or hardly unpleasandt and nearly neurtral, may not be those that should be changed.

It may not be worth it.

wWhat discomforts are worth retaining?

In a way, thinking this way, about self-alteration to this extent, is like trying to find a way to have no discomfort at all.

I can think of states that are not really desirable that one does not have control over. But here I’m talking about those that one has more control over if one re-experiences it a sufficient number of times for self training.

Anyway, I think some top-level thinking about what thoughts in life do not require alteration is required.

266 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745465451, Wednesday, April 23, 2025 20:30:51, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 364 seconds. 844 words. Typespeed: 139.080 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

If Writing Does Not Contain Facts Aor Comments of Real Utility Creating A Timelessness It Is Stale Already, Including Future Thoughts and Contents

262 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745178432, Sunday, April 20, 2025 12:47:12, Tucson, Arizona

ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings

Even stale content provides useful artifacts about how life was, and so a mine of trash, from the past, which is largely what paleontologists think of artifacts, from my training in archaeology, it seems that there are useful things till to be found. The trash and waste and things people cared about can include useful information even when that thinking was stale before during and after.

Future thoughts, I noticed, from my last posting, will be stale. I can expect them to be stale already. This challenges somewhat the concept of staleness because perhaps it should be another concept, that relates to the usefulness and timelessness of thf the information.

Stale content is irrelevant feeling, and sometimes false, and often tasteleees. What I am saying here is that artifacts including stale content, which is almost all of it, will still have utility, bu tthat utility is about locating what animals were like in the past. This does not necessarily include appreciation of what they wriote about or said.

But what if what is being spoken about includes much that is factual, and much that does have utility, at earlier stages of devellopment, if not later. What if these learnings from earlier stages of development are fogotten in the course of development and need resurfacing for other reasons. It will be noticed that if the facts are facts they are still truths. Truths stated by small animals are avaluable, and I may care more about facts coming from cute rodents than facts from people. If kind birds, and primates, and rodent globs also decide to tell of what was useful to them, in a way that conveys effectively more facts, then they have said yet more abotu what is useful in development. This is all inaddition to teaching abotu what they are with the artifacts they share.

A challenge seems to be to find the quality that is wanted, and many people struggle with this. I think it is really more simple than might be noticed. Stating things truthfully, sharing things with enough detail and accuracy to actually communicate in a way that is less ambiguously true is helpful, and using mixed media to provide a comprehensive picture is good. The objective is to provide more truth. Relevance is where people become interested or not.

Relevance is related to stale content.

If most of my writing is relevant, then there is additional utility. This is too social a way of looking at this subject though.

The key thing is to communicate truth in my estimation, and the central concern apart from gaining relevancey to others is a person’s own independent interest which results in the writing.

Stale Content and Living Content Are More Similar Than They Might Appear

262 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745163527, Sunday, April 20, 2025 08:38:47, Tucson, Arizona

The Value of Social Platforms | ThoughtStream | Editing

There seems to be a good similarity between content tht might be written now and content that was written before.

In a way the last sentence is a humoous comment regarding the subject being of itnerest.

New content differs from stale content in what ways ? Stale content is sharing information that has characteristics that date the writing. It appears dated once the content does not seem relevant in any way, but also when the content is utilizing language that only seemed appropriate at the time, but no longer feels appropriate. This happens when peopel are using a shared pop cultural language or when they are using professional jargon and business language.

The keywords that were common in each of those languages became flags indicating that what is being spoken about is perhaps not true. I t may also indicate that what is being spoken about isn’t really corelevant because of the tcontents but is relevant because it cotninues some common discussion, or promotes the writer.

Stale content may also just includes stories and information that are not interesting anymore because they are already well known or are again, too out of date.

Isn’t it a bit strange though to think that some story that was interesting before is out of date now?

Simply having traits of age and antiquation makes something appear to be too old to pay attention to. For example, if there is a commercial for a movie on tv on a channel that is not a commonly watched channel it may show clips from old television shows or it may show that what is upcoming is some movie from the 70s or 80s. At this time, I have in my imagination a police car from the 70s or 80s. Simple images such as these are enough for me to think the content is dated and stale, and unworthy of attention.

But these are cars though. Imagine on social media, randomly it is seen that there is this piece of news that has these cars in it. The piece of news is from the 70s. I think most pople would immediately skip over this story. But if you substitute a new story for this old one with identitical contents that include things from today, then suddenly that same information may not seem stale.

It appears some stale content may have timeless value in some respects.

Moving on, thinkign about content I write, I notice that what I write may feel stale as I write it. Firstly, I know that it will be stale. So, well, why isn’t it stale righgt now?

Sometiems the place a thing that is written makes it appear to be stale. Like if you write on a blog that looks too old. Or if you write fro a fringe magazine that doesn’t get readers. Tehse eahch could be looked at quickly and mistaken for stale ocontent. Soemthign feels too old even if what is there is totally fresh and new.

This website is delibaerately (well this book that is a website too), has a design that is supposeed to have a classic and plain text appearance. I think in many ways it looks like an insipid piece of software. It’s a boring looking blog.

If you open the book version of this particular text, however, it looks less like that. Beut as I think about it, it may be that most books I have ever looked at already appeared stale.

Right now I am thinking that maybe all books are stale.

No movement, lifeless, insipid, plain, and often inclusive of what’s old.

To make my content appear less stale, even if it were old content, as I was saying, I could update it with new things, new words, and new dates and images. I could add a new video. Maybe I include more current sofotare design patterns that add something that feels a bit more current, although things here are still pretty current. If I do this, then what I have made is old content fresh and perhaps made it not possible to know it was old content. Also, the stuff that i used to maek it fresh was deliberately contrived to make it seem current. It really is true that what makes things eems new and fresh are meaningless things happening alongside what is shared woor within what is shared.

What does that mean about the content I write and put out now.

I think really, being totally honest, much of it really seems stale already. I’m aware though, that to make it unstale, i probably have to force into it things that are stimulating.

Perhaps there really are more similarities between stale content and not stale content than one might think. Perhaps old content might not be stale, and new content might really be stale already.

262 Wanattomians, Epoch 1745164321, Sunday, April 20, 2025 08:52:01, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 794 seconds. 805 words. Typespeed: 60.780 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

People Who Are Not That Smart Including Those Who Are Said To Be Smart Cannot Gain Knowledge Oftentimes Because An Insufficient Power Of What Is Learned Is Not Felt Because What Is Learned Is Too Partial

258 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744806066, Wednesday, April 16, 2025 05:21:06, Tucson, Arizona

The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Situations and Significance | Intelligence and Psychometrics | Human Shortcomings

The idea here is that when someone who is less smart learns somethign that has high significance or even good significance usually there is a complex of things to be understood and not only one thing, and this includes the applicability and rel world connections which comprise the significance immediately understood by the person teaching it or the person who understands and apprehends it readily.

That would be the very smart person and not the person who is simply called smart usually too. Because while they seem to learn things that are significant, for this reason they don’t know the range of appplication and range of change necessary in the brain and behavior to implement it.

So hey partially understqnd it and partially implement it, or simply feel it insufficiently and let it dissolve. They simply don’t use it, can’t leel like it would bre worth using, and let if disappear. Or small parts of it are retained. But if the person is average, slightly above or below average, it is really just lost.

This is why college educations and high school educations are forgotten.

I was not a good high school student, but I powerfully retained what I learned from all my education.

This explains why some who seem to be understanding what you say forget it quickly or fail to develop with you conversationally– it is because they simply did not have enough understanding even if their faces and beahavior indicated they understood enough for the converstation at that time to move along.

258 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744806276, Wednesday, April 16, 2025 05:24:36, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 210 seconds. 255 words. Typespeed: 72.840 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Europe is Embarassed, That It Is Small Places With Small Languages, and Low Intelligences Using Them In Isolation

258 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744800242, Wednesday, April 16, 2025 03:44:02, Tucson, Arizona

Com | Relationships | Human Shortcomings

Those languages that we entirely neglect, or fail to know exists, are those that are smaller and more isolated in their use. Tribal languages are counted among the more than one thousand that are claimed to exist in the human bragging about divesrsity, but those languages are the most embarassed of all; unless those are the ones most aware of the present topic.

Very embarassed people, nations and speakers of languages, are those who are really jealous when they socially compare. They socially compare with people in larger nations, with larger pools of language speakers, with much communication power, and ability to move about. The world is maximally jealous of the English speaker, and less jealous of say, the French speaker, but still jealous of them as well. The focal point of the jealousy in this age is the English speaker, who is usually envisioned to be anative speaker, and not one that has learned it late, speaking it in a botched fashion.

The botched speakers receive less jealousy because they cannot use it with the power.

All these countries in europe are small, and much smaller than the states of the united states oftentimes. Some are equivalently sized. But there are less. Europeans have to include Russia as about 40 percent of their landmass to comapare with the land mass of the United States for example.

Europe is half the size of the united states, and they have countries, who unfortunately, have their own languages, wtih very embarassed people. These eweaker speakers, of weaker languages, are mutually embarassed and share the same kind of embarassment. They have warred with each other over the languages they think matter, then later, they discover they are small. Canada is twice the size of all them combined. Australia is more than twice the size or nearly twice the size too. Combined, they are about size times the size of Europe. A single province of tAustralia or of Canada may fit twenty European nations. These nations take pride in their tiny languages which is to say, they are arrogant while they cover their intense envy.

There is another interpretation fot his whole thing of course which allows for some real proudness of national heritage and language of course, but iI think this interpretation is stronger, even though it seems for humor only, or primarily, because really they are intensely envious and have had wars, and have continued to think themselves separate.

The world got large with the discovery, hilariously, of half the world in 1492, or a bit earlier. In any case, later, potrugal finds out it is hardly anything. Today, Portugal is like a nothing nation, and it has to look over to Brazil to feel like it’s language has any power, but the reality is the world actually forgets what Portugese is. It’s a weird langauge.

All the other countries have weirdo languages, and before thinking that is rude, consider that you neglected the tribal languages into oblivion and think it a savage.

258 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744800748, Wednesday, April 16, 2025 03:52:28, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 506 seconds. 501 words. Typespeed: 59.400 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Probability Was Not Utilized In The Justification For Language Use or Of Math Use, And Of Course This Will Be Known After The Current Populations Die Only

257 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744752134, Tuesday, April 15, 2025 14:22:14, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships | Com | Human Shortcomings

257 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744752136, Tuesday, April 15, 2025 14:22:16, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Additional Causes of Nostalgia, A Continuation On The Discussion of Eliminating Negative Recollection

257 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744743568, Tuesday, April 15, 2025 11:59:28, Tucson, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Music and Art | Relationships | Constraint and Determinism

Here I try to add some additinonal causes of nostalgia for including more ingredients for finding a strategy for handingl what remains that is of importance.

Simply seeing on television or social media something from history produces some nostalgia, although what nostalgia is in that scenario may need more definition. If I see, for example, an actor in a clip of a movie from the nineteen eighties, I may have a moment of recollection and familiarity. This can be one that is pleasant, or unpleasant, or neutral. Typically nowadays, these are unwanted, and I do usually avoid them. If I see such a visual, and promptly reject it, am I feeling very breifly, some negative nostalgia, or am I seeing something I remember and simply don’t want to see again?

Nostalgia, I think, thas some sensations associated with it, and people may think that these sensationss and feelings are common to each other. But I will venture to claim that people do not know that their expereience of this is the same between people or that people really know what it is. But I do think many have oconsiderable overlap.

I think part of th eoverlap is a strong reaction, or a trend towards a strong reaction, that has some fear about losing a memory, about there being a big difference in experience between present and history, or their being a strong emotional attachment to what is in history that makes one want to feel as though one is still there or that it still exists. With this last emotion, there is a desire to share with others. Can someone else confirm, that htis experience is real still?

There is a distrust in the memory.

The losing of the memory is key to the experience I think. The rpeservation and confirmation of it is part of the desire to socialize about it.

clips of videos, television whshows, musical pieces, artworks and so on, amke the handling of nostalgia a little more problematic in a final way. These presentations of information are very short and sometimes are unexpected. Actually, they must be unexpected oftentimes. One does not expect to see, when on social media or o watching television, to see suddenly, some old tv show or movie, or hear some old song. There are thousands of those, and the time is not now to be hearing them given one’s expectations. So to hear them is odd. The oddness is also why nostalgia is what it is and is part of the defining characteristic.

Here I think it may be seen that nostalgia has not been aggregated into a definite singular list of experiences. I can see it with or without this last experience, but see it as necessary for it to be nostalgia in another set of that type. So what is nostalgia as a collection.

I think it is confused actually. A taxonomy may be needed. I may create an initial one. The initial one will be seeking a final wone for the goals I have described., although I may not arrive at anything that would be universally agreed upon, which is soe;methign that seldom happens anyway. Something will be missing or will not align with someone’s strange neuroanatomy.

Smells create nostalgia. These, like with music, can be vague or can be more definitnte depending on whether one can recall the experiences that go with the smaell accurately. I think if one recalls a nice scent, I mean experiences a nice scent, but does not recall what the source was, it is like a new experience, with some familiarity. There can be discomfort in not remembering, but sometimes there is no discomfort with this. This can simply recreate a novel experience with it, with the addition that it is known and felt already to be enjoyable. Sometimes a lack of a memoory creates a very enjoyable expereience.

I think that having no recollection assocaiated with something that is nostaliga provoking may be more enjoyable than those that create some inkling as to a memory but insufficient information to locate it. Then there is too strong a sdesire to have the associated memory. And this can create some frustration or sadness about not having the memory oany longer, or worries about permanently losing the memories. If one is old, this may be very distrurbing, depending on level of preparedness or practice with the experience. But it is close to not remembering at all. It may be possible to leverage that understanding to alter the negative feeling of this experience.

Notice that any experience that seems familiar from history that is not well known is approached lie a curiosity to know more about in a way that is not too unlike experiencing it for the first time, or in initial learnings. Even initial learnings have to have some introduction or context that invites exploration. Without that, it may seem dangerous to look, or , there may seem to be little relevance, or fun about it. Parent sand other people often create the expectation that what will be experienced will be fun and new, and this does create an enhancement and pleasure to the learning.

It may be that this experience is fundamental to human learning and may be hardwired into babies and young children.

They wan;t to attend to where the moether attends. They want to do and look at what others look at. It is part of imitative behavior. If there is an imitative invite to a curiosity, then it is likely that that is something that will be enjoyable.

If one has already been introduced to an experience, then such a concept or invite has already happened. If thre is no memory that is known to exist but is missing or hard to retrieve, if that doesn’t exist, then the experience will be one that is like what was mentioned above. The social context of creating an interest will still be there. It is part of the familiarity too, without the person knowo;ing. Or, the person self created it similarly, by accidentally stumbling ont he experience, and finding it interesting or pleasant independently. In that case, the familiarity created the curiosity context.

Familiarity has a similar effect. I use familiarity as a way to create attention and motivation for learning. This is how introductions often work to get people some small amount of advance learningt o stimulate for future experience.

More later.

257 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744744779, Tuesday, April 15, 2025 12:19:39, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 1211 seconds. 1072 words. Typespeed: 53.100 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Humans Had Trouble Seeing What The Final Human Story Would Be, So When That Time Comes, In The Face of An Expansive Future Coming Still, They Will Not Know How To End It Nor How It Should Be Told, If They Approach It Like They Do Now

256 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744630327, Monday, April 14, 2025 04:32:07, Tucson, Arizona

Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

256 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744630329, Monday, April 14, 2025 04:32:09, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

There Is Not Any Singular Story of Humanity As People May Want, And No Group Set of Stories Together That Would Be Official Either

256 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744629130, Monday, April 14, 2025 04:12:10, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships | Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

People want to thihnk that there is a common human story, that all fall within, that provides direction and comprehensive meaning fora everyone. It appeasr to me this is not possible, and that it does not exist.

Eslewhere I questions that there is any such unified thing as a humanity, so clear and contained as people hope. I think the topic of species membership and species over time is more complex than people think. I don’t think all animals that people would want to consider to be human really were human, are human, or in the future willl be human. There are many reasons to think this and not all will be given here. One reason is taht thre is no way to compare sexually prior human animals of different kinds, current human animals of different kinds, and future human animals of different kinds. Thre is a kind of gradient among the discrete human animals stretching over time, but nothing that constitutes a single humanity.

More will be said on this later.

ut there are other reasons for thinking in adition to the reason that there is no actual single humanity, that there is no unified comprehensive story of humanity. Although now it shoudl be clear why that would be damagineg to such an idea.

There can be no cast, producers, storytellers, and so on, that will not be generational. Humans can radically change the stories later, what they want their lives to be about, and different people will want different stories for everyone.

In history, there is this way of tellling the human story from prehistory to present that is repetitively using a narrative that creates the illusion that a kind of English dominated perspective constittutes the real history. Differing countries will have althernative conceptions of what the story would look like, told more complretely their way. The story also has thi sodd repulsiveness of being in progress, like hisotry somehow has a direction that is known but is happening currently, and already acepts the past history as its history in the way it is currently written out.

The stories taht people will think of regarding humanitiy’s unified progress wil today be one with too much togetherness, and will be too different from what people would have said two hundred years ago, and too differen tfrom what a thousand alternative people would say.

Historical information that is of good quality that is truthful will be included in a complete story of humanity, but I don’t believe a plain chronological account of everything, the playbutton of the earth, would yeild a story that is like a literary story, for all of the development of the animal kingdom including for human development.

That there are not people living very long periods of tiem stretching more than one hundred years and that even people who do live 100 years disagree greatly with people only a few decades younger, indicates to me that change about what the human story is is happening at a rate that shows it has changed an incredible amount of times since human prehistory.

Even for a prevailing culture, it change dramatically perhaps every 30 years or so, and in the future, it may change more rapidly.

Seeing the trajectory of computing, a few hundred years from now, I don’t think there could be a great taste for the stories historians have presented.

Human history willlater be one of a history composed of many animals. There may not be a desire to say human any longer. Human history will be one that fianlly admits an unknown future, a future so unknown that the story of all humanity couldn’t be stated without too much additional future information. It’s an odd attempt at writing a story for which too much remains and there is too much variation.

Also, there may need to be an idea of hiostry as simply being a recording that has representativeness, and that for each history, there will be another that is dramatically different in fthe future.

Additionally, we do these histories while failing to admit the scarcity of information we relly have about history. Most about history is ereally lost. We may need AI to review and tell us the truth on the matter and even to measure what it thinks we have regarding valuable truth about history, and what it shares back may be laughable.

Even thinking about what AI might say calls to mind, for me, that I simply cannot see places where I am not at presently. So history is much like what I could see, which is nearly nothing, although what I do have includes patterns that extend outwards, to explain what I can’t see too, but only to a limited degree. What is not seen will have to be admitted as not seen and whatever structure is known will have increasing avagueness, imprecision, or fog as it departs from current times outwards, and then we have to admit we cannot well understand patterns that apply even to the present.

Much mlre willl need to be stated about this but at this point my view is that there is not cand cannot be a comprehensive human story. I don’t even think that is desirable. The ideas that there is a “humanity” with a common story that will go into the distant future is also one that seems absurd and undesirable to me.

Later I will have to explain also why there is thi slack of story in nature to begin with. There does not appear to be other than a sequency of happenings and things existing in various states and configurations. Threre does not appear to be any story tathat is better than simply what the facts are. The story then seems something humans stupidly add, having defects as a kind of animal that requires anthropomorphization. it is an animal that uses stories because it has generational issues and has memory and teaching problems to solve. Then they use the stories that help in the process to explain everything, in a way that is distinctly human silliness. Religion will be shown to be a kinds o fsilliness related to theis propensity.

256 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744630189, Monday, April 14, 2025 04:29:49, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 1059 seconds. 1029 words. Typespeed: 58.260 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The Fish Saddlery, Making Saddles For Fishdids, A New Business Venture

255 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744559365, Sunday, April 13, 2025 08:49:25, Tucson, Arizona

Creativity Management | Mind and Mental Development | Outdoors and Adventure | Livelihood

255 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744559367, Sunday, April 13, 2025 08:49:27, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Making Sense of Nostaligia, and Positive and Negative Feelings Associated With It

255 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744531272, Sunday, April 13, 2025 01:01:12, Tucson, Arizona

Higher Order Attention | Mind and Mental Development | Meditation, Mind, and Mood | Music and Art | Nutrition | Relationships

Nostalgiac moments, very brief ones, are some of the few remaining times I actually feel any discomfort at all. Typically, when speaking to myself, and writing to others, wI would say things like I’m not all that nostalgic, or I don’t havenostalgia, and so on. This happens to be nearly the case or the case in a way, but nevertheless, what can be characerized as nostalgia like moments are those in which I quickly feel some discomfort.

For a while I was aware that I could make sense of this experience, partily because I’ve been adept enough at limiting any feelings of it to begin with, and any negative emotions concerning it, but also suspecting I have some ideas which may make ti possible to remove it.

Would you want nostalgia to be removed if you could?

When I thihnk of this question, I think my answer would be like the answers others would give. Sometiems moments of nostalgia are those that feel most closely associated with life’s meaning, putting it in a way that is comon and traditional. Intensely feeling some nostalgia related to a piece of musical art that was strongly connected with positive fjjoyful experiences, alone or with family, will be those that will be very highly valued. Might cause some strong emotion, tears, and perhaps following some tears strong relief and happiness at having the recollection.

But htere are many things that are also unwanted about nostaligia. If someone is not wanting the experience of nostalgia, like that I’m mentioning above, there might be a refulsion. Suddenly it is strongly not wanted. Also, is nostalgia even always a positive emotion or is it often a negative one. What of nostalgiac mmemories that relate to things that are more sadness producing? Memories about the beginnings of relationships that went wrong, or situations that changed dramatically, or were not well understood?

There was somethign distrubging before about the experience of nostalgia apart from these that related to memory, and about repetition, and about things not being understood for being old, or not worthy of repeating again. Reminders that should not exist. Things that should be in history and no longer in the present. Sometimes when I hear a piecr e of old music, I wonder why it is that I must hear it again. RAther than somethign nostaligia producing, I’d rather hear something new. There is something very incorrect about limiting openings for new things while repeating old things far too many times, to the linking of people who have trouble getting over history.

It is this last part that got me wanting to remove nostaliga from my life, and very largely I did, but occasionally I have moments. Like just a few minutes ago, hearing a piece of music that I came to associate with some social media experiences, that I realized were unsatisfactory for recollection in that way. I heard a piece of music that was one that was played again and again on a social platform that shares videos from users , and with those other users there is some false sense of shared social experience, and this music prompted some feeling that that has ended and thatthere is something I like about the experience and the music itself.

Some kinds of nostalgia seem to be more appropriate than others. Do you want nostaligiac feelings for music relating to moments that were not really that valuable, creating a feeling that the nostalgia somehow too elevated what wasn’t that great?

I wondered if there was a way to finally have a strategy that would both make sense of what is wanted in nostalgia and what is unwanted, and make it possible to retain the one while discarding the other.

The beginnings of a strategy came to me in thoughts like thise:

Firstly, important times we have, are better unerstood, when they have a clear beginning and end in time, and what is within, is something that can be remembered. With this social platform and the musical piece I was talking about, both of these properties are missing. I watched videos on the platform for probably 4 to 5 years. There is no clear and identificalble period in which this music started and ended. Furthermore, what was within is not clearly memorable. I don’t recall what the music was associated with definitely. Indefinitely, the nostalgia is vague, and fails memory.That is another issue with nostalgia, in that ist seem sto relate to an inability to recall.

With this type of nostalgia, the contents and delimited time period would not be clearly remembered and so the nostalgia would be vaguest and most ambiguous and most uncomfortable. Well perhaps not most uncomrfortable compared to some other forms I can now remamember, but still very uncomfortable.

Secondly, memores like times with friends, trips, periods of life that do have a clear start and end, in which the connection between the event and the music or art is clearly known, constitutes a recollection that is more complete, and the nostalgia does not have associated with it a memory failure of the same kind, although there is still a vanishing.These are easy to classify as those that are worth thinking abotu further or later, and those that are not.

I will add more soon, this is a start for now.

Another item of importance, n ingredient for more thinking, is that the value of the recollection will depend partly on whether it is a wanted or unwanted memory. I don’t have manyunwante memories, but when I do I can quickly cancel them. Nostalgiac memories can fall into both categories, meaning that nostalgia on this division will be positive and negative and can’t only be positive.

Since I said I can cancel memories I don’t like easily, even though most are innocuous, justnot preferred, it seems easy enough to clip nostalgia where it relates to unfavorable memeories, or memeories I don’t need.

Then there is the division of nostalgia into those kinds that create discomfort and those that don’t, and the kinds that also might not be wanted.

I think the first and second items on the list do a good job creating a beginning to a strategy for that purpose. Incomplete, but at a good start. I don’t feel that the completion is far off. And since I’ve mostly succeeeded removing it all, it is now for what I would like to preserve and how, more than to cancel any other nostalgia further.

255 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744532310, Sunday, April 13, 2025 01:18:30, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 1038 seconds. 1081 words. Typespeed: 62.460 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

If you wrote something you read but if you read it does not mean you wrote

254 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744442793, Saturday, April 12, 2025 00:26:33, Tucson, Arizona

Mind and Mental Development | Editing | Reading | Bibliography

254 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744442798, Saturday, April 12, 2025 00:26:38, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 5 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

When One Can Have A Highly Significant Idea Without Powerful Intellection Instead Using Honest Observation It May Mean Culture Has Been Avoiding Something, and Examples

254 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744430932, Friday, April 11, 2025 21:08:52, Tucson, Arizona

The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Relationships | Situations and Significance

Sometimes, having a highly significant intuition or observation is not requiring very powerful intelligence. Everyone actually knows this to an extent, when they had learnings that were especially critical or important in their lives.

Some very significant ideas can be had that are outside these personally powerful mooments to thoughts that are culturally very significant including for the broader population. In this thinking, you are a mind in a sea of other minds, thinking something that is extremely significant fore everyone or a large numbrer of the others, and it may be that others have the same idea or that very few or none do.

In any case the idea had is important for everyone.

Now, some ideas that are important for everyone require very high intelligenct oto discover. For example, scientificic and mathematical discoveries have required very powerful intellects.

Someteims though, more regular people have very powerful and significant ideas and experiences taht did not require such an intelligence.

I think these experiences relate to areas in which human thinking and culture has been avoiding things.

Sometimes, the ideas that are had in these scenarious can feel or seem intensely painful to the people having them. They seem to relate to a permanent ignorance in mankind and a necessary earlier ignorance they have had. It may make humankind seem permanently stupid, and themselves permanently stupid along with human kind.

Such an example can be had by anyone, for example, if they simply look closely at some subjects that obviously matter extremely but people keep trying to avoid, like the issue of parental sexual attraction to children, even if it is only brief, or occcasionally blending with their own adult sexuality in their psychology or brain development. Another example, which is actually the one that causedd me to write this, is the importance of th e subject fof profound mental retardation mixed sometimes with disfiguration and unattractiveness.

If you happen to become a parent of a highly disfigured and unattractive retarded individual, it is almost guaranteed, actually, I think it is tentirely guaranteed, that what will be experienced is a discovery of the profound stupidity and ignorance of humankind and a feeling of ignorance around the risks of having a child. Obliviously, people are having fortunate families. You, however, did not, and nobody will seem to be able to understan, that all had the risk, not only you. There is something foolish about having kids with such oblivioion.

There are many more experiences than this that will be absurd regarding humankind.

Thoughts had will include extremely significant observations that will involve impossiblity of sustained attention from others in conversation.

They may even reject you utterly for wanting to discuss such subjects. You become an outcast.

None of these highly significant thoughts required very powerful intelligence. It required an honest treatment of the subject. Some who are really honest and really attend to this subject, can have the thoughts in advance of the experiences, and really avoid having children to avoid this kind of unpleasantry.

Others will simply havie the highly significant idea s and experiences because it really did happen to them.

I think this would be true also of experiences like being crushed in a car in a car accident and so on.

For some experiences, there may be significance with less ability to prepare in advance. I admit that while thinking it someewhat unfortunate to have that ignorance myself. I wonder which experiences those might be. If they really exist, and it seems intuitively that they would.

Just thinkign abotu the range of strange things that can happen to soemeone there must be strange significant experiences taht are not easily to probe using a great imagination.

More on this subject soon. The main idea of interest is that one can have highly significant ideas that dont’ requrie very great intelligence where it appepears humanity is largely ignorant because they are avoidant of such topics.

Something to be discussed further in addition to other subjects will be the avoidance of subjects by hujmankind. Given that this happens to be the case, it should seem obvious that humanity would not want it to be the case, right? Especaially fit hey are planning on having new births, creating new people, who too will be ignornant. How can they plan for such ignorance to exist?

254 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744431599, Friday, April 11, 2025 21:19:59, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 667 seconds. 723 words. Typespeed: 64.980 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

253 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744348422, Thursday, April 10, 2025 22:13:42, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships | Com | Health

253 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744348424, Thursday, April 10, 2025 22:13:44, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Mathematics Is Thinking From the Same Cultural Ingredients, With Creativity Only On The Set Trajectory, Primarily

252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744265931, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 23:18:51, Tucson, Arizona

Mathematics | Creativity Management | Mind And Mental Development

If you look at mathematics, and consider it as coming from a single culture, it becomes apparent, that thought is within that culture, and develops according to a trajectory, path dependent on the initial ingredient input. Peope are not particularly creative within mathematics, looking at it thi sway. They learn by adopting what tradition has put in front of them, and when tethey are creative, usually they are creatively arriving at what is already next for learning, or something in the vicinity of that. Learning and creativity is on a cloud on a trajecttory of ingredients not departing too far from that cloud.

It seems to follow that people are not being very creative given this. Well, the creativity that is very great, is still a degree of divergence from the ingredient trajetory somewhere in the cloud but not too distant from that cloud.

Mathematicisans are not creating their own incgredients along the way. They are utilizing what exists.

This makes sense, because then others are more likely to understand what they make, although this is not ever part of the rationale. Or is seldom part of the rationale.

Creating the ingredients and moving ahead results in a very different looking mathematics from what people have received from tradition and begins to exit the trajectory cloud.

outside the trajectory cloud is mutual unintelligibility.

thi s is the case even if the alternative math isn’t a particularly developmed math.

It may just be an alternative math, that would take too long to learn in the same way the other math was learned.

So if one was to create along the way new ingredients for a math there would be a new ingredient trajectory and creativity would be both on the ingredients and the trajectory and the cloud. This is much more divergent creativity.

Thisis also like creating a new cultutre of mathematics.

An issue with humanity at present is that they think that the mathematics we have is the one that is desirable, and perhaps that it is the only one, and that any other would be gobbled within it.

This does not appear to me to be the case, although one can sematnically create a supergroup to both kinds of math.

A point here is that a new math can be sufficiently different to have a different name for it than math. The others would merely want to pretend there is sufficient similarity potentially to have the math and pretend that they made it themselves.

So now we imagine there are two cultures of math. We are told we ought to be biased and prejudiced towards learning new cultures. We are told that this epands upon our ability to tink about the world, either representing it more fully, or by becloming more creative. But notice there is a resistance to departing ffrom learning trajectories.

It sappears to follow there is a contradiction between the idea that we should learn alternative languages, and that we should not culturally depart from learnings in other areas suc h as mathematics. We would expect other wildly different ideas about math and about certain subjects to be of interest if usfficiently developed, but it turns out people immediately reject that.

They also immediately reject other cultures.

There is a risk in humanity that it is too biased and prejudiced that thereis a single mathematics and science, and that there is inadequate diversity.

They do this while claiming that there would be such a diversity. Somehow they keep working along the same idea trajectories while beleiving this.

There aren’t really from-scratch cultture builders, or those who approximate such.I think it can be shown just how insistent humans are on creating bias and prejudice for a particular knowledge and for all knowledge by looking particularly at mathematics and its developpment and resistances to change.

252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744266531, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 23:28:51, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 600 seconds. 637 words. Typespeed: 63.660 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The Falsification of User Activity Due To Hugeness Of User Bases on Software Platforms

252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744256505, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 20:41:45, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships | Com | The Value of Social Platforms

Interesting realization. I think businesses can now entirely fabricate who has or has not been a member of their platforms, and who is utilizing it. Consider that FB has some billion number of users. If presented with a list of users from another platform, they can determine who on that list has not had a FB account. Then they simply just say they do to whoever they need to. Coming from the software industry myself in an executive role, I think it likely now that Analytics themselves are probably not real for big business. Also, they will only seem real for those who are in mid sized or small businesses. People who pay for it and think still the analytics have to be real. If you have a billion users, you can claim users on probability while trying to make software sales to other companies, and can even fabricate documents substantiating it for courts. So for Twitter/X to claim it has some user base, some amount of user support, it can simply claim you do stuff on it, even if you don’t. It is probable you do. It is believable you do. And also, you wouldn’t know. Furthermore, if you did know, you would not be able to falisify their fake evidence. I wonder to what extent governments were misrepresenting pools of people to other governments. Similar information issues would exist that would make fabrication and lying too easy.

Social Media Executives As People Who Dislike Their Social Offerings and Think Their Customers Are Low

252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744255583, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 20:26:23, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships | The Value of Social Platforms | Com

I am feeling fairly confident in the prediction that social media platforms will be used to identify who is socially low. Simply by joining the social media platforms, I think those with influence and power will believe that new joins have made a social mistake. Any subsequent on the platform is the activity of a buffoon of sorts going forward. People who are highly powerful and influential and are seeking business are really unlikely to be able to stay in the spotlight. They won’t have the traits that are desirable for that. Typically. Even if they do remain in the spotlight, they don’t get the most loving feedback. Meanwhile, in order to have product sales, they have to sell something that must be popular. To be popular it has to be low quality oftentimes. When they offer social platforms, it will be known in advance, that for people to want to join and to remain, it will have to be low quality like typical entertainment. This means that the people making the platforms will find their own offerings laughable, while they congratulate themselves as business men and women. Would they themselves have accounts? I don’t think so, as I said they wouldn’t really fit in and wouldn’t really get good attention. So instead they just think everyone is low on the platform and that their own platform isn’t worth their time. That is excepting using it as a tool of manipulation. So any person really who joins the platform then becomes a plebian to them, whoever they are really. Because those in their social circles would know that this is a serious faux pas, to be on facebook and so on. Simply to be on a social platform may become a serious negative. Unless one can find a special platform and join. Seems unlikely.

Any Social Media Use As A Negative Analytic

252 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744254775, Wednesday, April 09, 2025 20:12:55, Tucson, Arizona

The Value of Social Platforms | Relationships | Com

It could be that in the future, having and using a social media account will be utilised as a negative analytic against individuals, regardless of how they use it, because of the absurdity of the offering. In other words, social platforms will be known in advance to be of poor quality in the offering, not because they wouldn’t like necessarily to offer something of good quality, but because they can’t really and expect to be successful. Like when movie producers and directors make a piece they know is simply horrible, but will be popular. Those in the audience who like it are definitely disrespected in their minds. Offering something less, but popular, people decide to join, and to be entertained. The creators are aware that what was shared was of low quality already, because they were unable to live up to their own dream, of providing something popular of high quality. They had to provide something low. But knowing it is low, they have a low attitude towards the users. So new people who sign up are like captures, and anyone who signed up, even if there is no behaviour, is listed as someone with a failing, and then this is scaled to the extent of the interaction. After spending a very long time off of facebook, when I log in I notice a different experience. Instead of being some habit, I’m noticing more what was disturbing before, and the quality is more obviously poor. In some ways the platform has gone from disturbing to hilarious in my mind, seeing what ads exist and what interactions are really happening. It’s like for a long time I used Facebook still as an early adopter, but now after taking some time off, I can see what I’m doing again. Combining the above point, with this experience of seeing the platform again like a new user perhaps, what I’m trying to say is that it is fairly definite to me that social media use here and in some other places is going to be seen as a poor use of behavior. Like there is something wrong with any and all users of the platform but more especially those who use it more.

Scientists As A Community Can Give A False Sense Of Control Given They Do Not Run And Are Not Involved In Militaries

251 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744173600, Tuesday, April 08, 2025 21:40:00, Tucson, Arizona

ThoughtStream | Relationships

The scientific community and the military institutions do not have a very large overlap potentially, at least not in the way that others would expect. I think others would expect, that somehow, science would engulf militaries, and maybe that the scientific community, too, incorporates the military too, as a part. Those who are conducting science in the military are simply in the community of sciences.

It may be the case that the military is more scientific and yet does not share the values of free and open information sharing which is thought to be a characteristic of what science is and a requriement for any scientific community. Thinking about this carefully, that is only an add on value. There is nothing entirely required about openness and transparency in scientific method and scientific development, and soemetimes people, being in their small world that is their nation, forget that their nation is not open regarding their sciences often times especially their military science.

But their military science is not open for you either.

Then there are others who think taht all who have a shared belief taht science is the path towards quality knowledge that all are scientists who simply believe that. Everyone is a scientist including those who do not do science simply because they are a private advocate of science, perhaps only in their own speech or even in their own attitudes.

This is equivalent to simply thinking one is a scientist because one likes some of what science does.

This challenges I think the idea that there is any climate science community that is as broad as people might try to indicate. /The minitary science communities worldwide in different nations may not at all share any of hte opinions heard in the media regarding climate change and may have their own indiependent conclusions from their own evaluations about such matters.

There is an important difference though, in that militaries do have powerful influence, and in an area in which ordinary citizens do not.

More on this later.

251 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744173943, Tuesday, April 08, 2025 21:45:43, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 343 seconds. 338 words. Typespeed: 59.100 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

When Do You See Your Return On Your Investment For Climate Change In Your Efforts To Create Children, Or Is There Never A Positive Return?

249 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744027044, Monday, April 07, 2025 04:57:24, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships

249 Wanattomians, Epoch 1744027047, Monday, April 07, 2025 04:57:27, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 3 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Debunking claims that are of poor quality is an activity that is incommensurate with the claims and so it is not reasonable to think debunking is necessary

245 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743705028, Thursday, April 03, 2025 11:30:28, Tucson, Arizona

Relationships | A System of Thought | ThoughtStream

I have spent a considerable amount of time in the past trying to counter incorrect claims from simpletons who have very quickly and obtusely stated false claims that required considerable time and effort to completely disprove. However, I realized there is an issue with trying to disprove such claims, in that it is a simple dedication of too much time in strategy to the task that doesn’t require such a substantial time allocation.

There is an issue of strategic asymmetry.

The person making the bullshit claim used too little effort and very little thinkign and experience.

A person debunking would spend far too much time and effort and would be too rigorous in approach.

Meanwhile, someone who is witty wouled simply ridicule the claim, in a way that is consistent with correctlness, or supply substitute correct clalims.

I see now that strategically, there is an issue regardding taking on the burden of tring to prove to a person who would not understand that the claim is false.

It is not that there would not be a need to sometimes write something reusable or think about subjects in depth such that such easier responses would be usable again and again later, but the timing doesn’t make sense just because someone makes annoying claims.

This sis something I’ve done in the past. I have spent too much time planning, preparing, and responding to people who have made challenging claims that were incorrect.

The cause of this posting was something I saw on Facebook moments ago, about a sillly claim made by one cartoon character, that took hours of response time by another cartoon character. There are quotes about the difficulty of countering bullshit claims, or claims of poor quality. That it takes too long to do.

I think this is a mistake, and the idea that this is true leads people astray into thinking that this is the way to respond. It doesn’t suggest alternatives. The alternative is wit, ridicule, and simple substittution with correct claims, or very fast damaging arguments. It isn’t proving with a new academeic paper that what was stated was incorrect using proof.

245 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743705399, Thursday, April 03, 2025 11:36:39, Tucson, Arizona

Written in 371 seconds. 356 words. Typespeed: 57.540 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

People Have Not Yet Realized That They Do Not Mind Being Deleted, Since They Have Been Getting Deleted All Their Lives, and As They Get Older, They Are Not Wanting Their Earlier Lesser Deleted Selves To Still Exist

243 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743505186, Tuesday, April 01, 2025 03:59:46, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic

As people get older, they do not show any indication that they are wondering why their earlier selves are not prsent with them. They do not express that they are concerned where their earlier selves went, or that they should be retained, or that they should continue to exist alongside them.

Why has the world not ben set up, such as to preserve all versions of a person? So instead of just me now, the oldest me, there is actually all earlier versions of me, all one billion of them, living with me on Earth.

I live alongsidea ll of my earlier me’s together.

Maybe they continue too and their variations are persisted.

We see here thought that that is an absurdity. Instead the mind is deleted along the way in life, and there is no version of us preserved and retained, to live with us.

We also don’t have billion-parted-siamese-twin-uses.

When we think about the old man or woman with this in mind, we can see they are not even ever thinking about what is deleted from their minds, or that they should ever be preserving earlier versions of themselves. Instead, what they are concerned about is living longer as they are. They may hope for more health, but they are wanting more health and some minor restoration perhaps, maybe not complete restoration, but restorations that they can think of and be concerned about.

They do not even think this much abou tthe subject!

It seems from this that they are fine mostly with being deleted, not even knowing they are deleted, desptie being rapidly and extremely deleted in time. Even as living.

They also do not care at all about having earlier versions of themselves. They want some version of the later version. They seem fine even with who they are as later pepole in many ways.

From this it appears that they are largely unconcerned with death being deleted as often as they are, and not wanting to preserve any of their earlier vanished selves.

How many versions of yourself were vanished in time?

Why now are you concerned about you? Have you not demonstrated to yourself, inductively, sttatistically, with daily repetition, that you will not need yesterday’s you? You shed your you over and over moment by moment.

There are some few ways people are concerned about death, but when these views are concsidered, those other views really do seem irrational. As if they never cared abotu death and they didn’t really know it, because perhaps, interpret the world incorrectly, given the ways they’ve been taught to interpret the world by their lelders and peers.

Interpreted aright, it may be that there is no concern with death really. Future children may not even understand later why there was any concern. They would know from an early age that they are familiar with and do not mind being deleted all the time, and they don’t mind getting deleted further even as they approach final deletions.

There are other reasons that are inagreement with these for thinking that death matters little, and one can read further in the thoughtstream to find those other writings. I think there are prlenty of cross verifying truthful thoughts about this subject that now are adequate for bringing this subject matter to a culmination.

243 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743505704, Tuesday, April 01, 2025 04:08:24, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 518 seconds. 551 words. Typespeed: 63.780 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The Feminization of Warfare To Make Warfare Seem More Silly Or Irrational, Indicating That Femininity Has More Rationality In The Process

241 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743315134, Saturday, March 29, 2025 23:12:14, Phoenix, Arizona

Rationality | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Relationships

241 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743315136, Saturday, March 29, 2025 23:12:16, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Sports Celebrations Upon Scoring Are Simple Repetitions of a Largely Nonsensical Behavior. Such Celebrations Do Not Happen in The Workplace, Or Elsewhere, and The Physicality of the Behavior, The Touching, And the Groupiness Seems Inappropriate

239 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743127186, Thursday, March 27, 2025 18:59:46, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships

Here I am not saying that celebrations are not something that can be approved of or that they should necessarily stop. I do like that in sports teams can celebrate together and enjoy accomplishments. What I am commenting on is the absurdity of it however.

It may really be that it is better to discontinue such celebrations as being too repetitive and unavailable to those who are working in other group settings.

Consider the touching behavior, and the places of the touches seen.

Consider that the players celebrate every time they score in smoe cases, as in soccer, and this is for the crowd largely, and is far too repetititve to be justifiable.

The causes of this behavior beingg for the fans has not been made known to fans. The reptitionseems to reveal ist is mainly for that, the way that it is done in televised professional sports.

239 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743127323, Thursday, March 27, 2025 19:02:03, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 137 seconds. 148 words. Typespeed: 64.800 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Governments Are Unscientific Both In Design and In Operation, And Generally

238 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743113172, Thursday, March 27, 2025 15:06:12, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Architecture | Higher Order Attention

This is a thought of the kind I’ve had long ago, but nowadays, wanting to bring certain areas of my thought to completion, those that are ready for completion, I want to broaden this idea to engulf government entirely.

Before already I thought that governments were not the result of scientific work. Obviously, they are hardly even the result of comparisons. There is no person deciding making compariosns between governments, ready to rationally simply adopt one form or another. All governments have had idiotic pathways to being accepted and used. None were rational, all were involving concessions, none were actually solutions from a problem solving perspetive, and in general, people have been bad at imagining alternatives for comparison.

They didn’t really make much comparison, couldn’t ustilize rationally comparison, and did not use any scientific methodology whatsoever.

So from that governmetn already is in a poor position, being something that has questionable implementations every time, and questionable design. The beginnings were faulty, and so were these government beings. If these government beings were taken to be organissms, they would be poor organisms, or very early ones.

It could be that after millions of attemtps the world will result in better government organisms of which we are cells..

We hear ideas about how humans are insect like, but less often do we hear about how they are cell like. Admittedly, part of this vision is similar to the idea of a Leviathan in Hobbes.

The voting process for electing officials is unscientific. Also, the selection from a pool of two individuals is unnscientific as well. There is a wider selection process, but it is unscientific. The wider selection process fails human resource expectations, and even human resources is not really scientific, but is much much more scientific like in its operation.

I would agree that the discipline of human resources is much more scientific if done in an idealized way, that is actually practical, and not necessarily in the way a poorly operating oragnization would do it. But reviewing thousands of resumes seems superior to the curent politician compariosn process for jobs.

I can see here that there are also thousands of other arguments of similar sorts that really damage governments and their organizations as they exist today, such that they really are unacceptable in any traditional form.

Explaining how this could be the ase to others could be a challenge.

It can be said, positively, that there are businesses that exist that do function much more like scientific operations than governments, and these perhaps can serve as models of sorts. So there are organiations that exist that are doing much better, and are functioning with plans from minds that are more scientific. Still few comparisons are made in advance about which business methodology is the preferrred one, and so business like government, unfortunately, has the defect of too few forms, and too little imagination going into origination

238 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743113779, Thursday, March 27, 2025 15:16:19, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 607 seconds. 487 words. Typespeed: 48.120 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Human Adaptation of Senses May Provide Good Guidance As To What Information is Unknowable or Unusable, and What Studies of Wider Situtations Are Reasonable for Advancing Knowledge

238 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743035905, Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:38:25, Phoenix, Arizona

A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Architecture | Higher Order Attention | Humans Are Animals

Assumption making is a part of human behavior that vry clearly relates to positive human shortcomings. Humans are inclined to make assumptions about things for which they can have little to no information, are inclined to remember them, believe they can rely on them, and so on, all while stating here and there, that people ought not assume so much.

An interesting question is what is the proper use of assumptions. Even the scientist and philosopher today would have stome struggles as to how to answer that, because when spoken about informally, and about within their actual lives, what is known about science and philosophy is not as extensively used, and may not be remembered!

But science and philosophy do providdthe information needed for deciding upon what assumptions are whorthwhile and what assumptions are not worthwhwhile. There should be an arrival at a solid reusable strategy for assumptions. Perhaps this fits into another larger strategy of thinking and logic and use of language, and use of senses for information collection. Probably I will incorporate this study to other larger studies that have more generality and provide more comprehensive application direction so it can be integrated into life and not simply forgotten!

I like to joke about the mathematicians who did not yet mathematize anything in their lives except what would be thought already to be mathematical topics. What about all of the other things hou do?!

Animal senses are clearly adapted to small environments. Here I try to dodge the conversation about what environment specificially. For animals we more clearly see the relation of adaptation to environment, because they are still stuck in those environments and migrate none or very little. Migratory animals follow migratory paths which do not mcuh vary either.

Humans have general skills that permit for living in various conditions. HIstorically and prehistorically we know though, they were increasingly bound to a smaller location in the origins of their history. Even when people wish to think about their religioius beginnings, they are still thinking about a world in which the people are contained in a very small location as compared with the present day. So there are people constrained to mesoptotamia and egypt for example. Or locations in China, etc…

Looking at tribal peoples, they show examples of animal life really. This is not admitted, but here we see current day animals bound to specifica locations where they really are aapted to live, both in their knowledge, behavior and morphology. But huamans were still scattered into tribes that are in different places. I will not have an answer as to the exact climes and locations of the earlierst people, but can only say it is increasingly primate, and most stories place the earliest humans at specific places in Africa.

What is clear is that we really have been adapted to those locations! Before that though, thinking abou tit now, we were earlier animals still, and were in yet other locations and adapted to those places. There is some kind of accumulating adaptation of different environs occuring. This means that even for animals, one is not certain if they are exhibiting adaptations that are just for where they are, or for where they are and where they were together, meaning they are exhibiting traits for which their location no longer fits. I will certainly dwell on this subject more later.

Humans have of course eyes, nose, ears, and a mouth, and touch recepters in the body on the surfaces and some within the body. I’m putting this informally and simply. These senses really do show to us what cannot be known in addition to what can be known. So now our senses tell us not only about the world we are seeing and feeling, but about what is totally impossible for us to know about. For example, we cannot understand the world of the bat, which has been given as a standard example in philosophy.

Here is where we come to the interesting idea for which I began this posting. If our senses tell us clearly what is usable to us as far as information goes, and what is impossible, then to what extent does swider situational information uasable or impossible for any individual.

If it can be ascertained that certain information for which assujmptions are had relate to impossible information to have, then it seems to follow that it is highly irrational to be making assumptions or to be even exploring the impossible. And again, we’d know more about this by reflecting further on the simple topic of what can e had through the senses we hvae. Notice a story of gossip from someone does not really provide us anything that wasdirectly available to our senses.

Work on this has been done in philosophy trying to create a foundation of knowledge with epistemology founding it on direct experience taht is more trustworthy. What I am doing here is not so much epistemology though. What I’m trying to do is not try to discover the foundations of knowledge. What I’m trying to discover is what is clearly impactful regarding personal behavior for ethical planning of life.

These two subjects relate of course, but I think there is here a simple path and not one that is so complex. But with more rewards. As of today, I have not found much rewarding in epistemology of others.

238 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743036874, Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:54:34, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 969 seconds. 897 words. Typespeed: 55.500 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Example on video thought posting, about user experience being for an individual a simple set of simple tasks, for which a user device or machine should work well, in order to provide sufficient value to a customer

237 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743033509, Wednesday, March 26, 2025 16:58:29, Phoenix, Arizona

Architecture | Software Architecture | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings

The motivation for this posting is to discuss more thoroughly the issues relating to consumer electronics, where those electronics have been made difficult to utilize on primary functions. Also, I wish to extend this subject matter into the domain of interaction between animals and their environments.

User interactions and animal interactions with objects that are tools, or are tool like, are very simple, and there are typically only a few ways that the tool or object does something on behalvf wor with the user, or animal, that really satisfies their needs.

In software this is somewhat known, and there is a simple process, recommended also by IEEEE for creating plans around projects and ffor implementing those projects, and this is related to knowing what an object or product features.. er should have, in terms of features, and which are those features the business wants, and which features carry out intentions of users in ways users really benefit and think they beneifit.

Documents relatied to business software planning includs a simple and abstract way of dealing with the issue of user interest and features for products, but they are not aware as they use those documents and crate them, the full generality of some of the concepts they are working on. or with.

I have several devices from Apple, and a long history of purchases of electronic devices, each of which in retrospect had functions and features which only a subset were really known to me and put to use.

These devices became less usable or valuable to me at a time taht apple made the devices more difficult to use regarding key functions. It seems to me, that they rely on the perceptions of luxury and the perception that the product offers many features to distract a bit later on that their key features are made more difficult for the user to use.

The resutl is that later there is less real value ot the devices because they made changes in key areas making those devices less usable than they were earlier, but they keep offering new features and make the entire product look luxurious and something everyone wants to keep getting you to buy it. Meanwhile, they are introducing greater levels of control on the key features .

Business and marketing get in the the way of providing what the customers really need on the primary use cases.

For an individual, the things they are doing with a device are really few even if they think they are not. One wcould look for a long time at the beheavior of a single user, such as myself, and compare what is done by the user with what could be done using all functions, and it would be found, that for a simple device like a smart phone, that less than 1 percent of functions are used. Instead, key functions are used again and again, and many of these key functions overlap with uses of other users, and these functions relate to main business.

In aggregate, individual use that is simple, becomes a population’s use that is much more complex. But even with the total offering of a software product, there are many unused features that the population doesn’t know about or care about. Some of these features are those that they simple couldn’t sue, because they are more focused and have time constrants. The focusing is on what they like to do most, and even if there is a good feature recommended to them, they may nnot have time to try it or incorporate it into their behaviro.

Humans have a finite ability or finite set of things they can really do with their time, and obviously this means they are constrained in the number of functions they can even use on a device. Taking myself as an example, I would say that I use very very little of what a software tool provides, and that I don’t have the time, ability, or interest in trying tooo many new things. I rarely at this point try new things, because like some other users, I already know my wants and needs and know well what software provides satisfaction to those needs.

Simple individuals in simple populations means that even if it looks like lots of behavior is happening of a wide variety of kinds, these kinds make for a list that is manageable by a smart person. The entire usage ofa software tool can be known through analytics, and this is a reason why software manufactuerers are wanting to get input from users about how they use the software. Otherwise they don’t know what features to build, maintain, or eliminate. But they can do this! The analytics are simpler than one might think, and make for a list, that a smart person can manage to work with.

Notice it would be an absurdity if a business like Apple were unable to manage a large amount of their functionality. But now as I write this I realize that absurdity is actually the norm, so it’s not an absurdity. However there is some absurdity in there, in that the business does know a large amount of what the product does, and they do have list to manaage features, and these features do relate to lists of uses by the public and analalytic data which does give them somethign to work with for business plannign that is somewhat sane.

There is much more that can be said about this topic, but I will develop it further later. I want to talk more about how it does appear that after a long period of use of various products, that knowledge and experience provides substitutes that are more self-sufficient, that make it possible to discared those products partially or altogether, or makes it possible to choose something simpler and cheaper instead.

Also, I want to develop on the the idea that animal behavior is simple, particularly as it relates to tools, or objects as tools, and that what they ket from tools and objects as tools are simple things, and that probably some animals don’t use the tools in the ways that other sare, whcih even makes it seem that the tool use may be exploratory and not necessarily for real advantage.

237 Wanattomians, Epoch 1743034649, Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:17:29, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1140 seconds. 1046 words. Typespeed: 55.020 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Repeating The Culture Again and Again At The Individual And Collective Level Has Serious Absurdities, and It Does Seem Possible To Largely Avoid It

234 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742762929, Sunday, March 23, 2025 13:48:49, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

234 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742762931, Sunday, March 23, 2025 13:48:51, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The More Intellectualized, Accurate, and Formalized Variants, Or Reinterpretations, of Exaggerated but High Quality Ridiculing Arguments Against Religion, Are Qualifications That More Completely Damage Religion Rather Than Show That The Humorous Arguments Were Poor

232 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742549016, Friday, March 21, 2025 02:23:36, Phoenix, Arizona

Religion | Relationships

The idea here is that if I wer to take my arguments against religion that are of good quality that simply make fun of religion with hyperbole and exaggeration, and maek them formalized and improved arguments that might appear in journals or in academic writings, the arguments would simply show that the initial arguments completely damaged the religions.

The exaggeration and the ridicule was functional and instrumental, and it would even be noticed that the arguments are perhaps more ingenious in that form.

I have stated elsewhere that schoolhouse ridicule of religion is sometimes the best and modst damaging, and thatt the school yard treatment of religion ought to continue without any additional respect being gratnted to relgition at any time. Because these arguments made from childhood were still the best, and were still complete and final.

The formalization and qualification of arguments I make that continue to ridicule with exaggeration typically in my human canning form nowadays is as damaging and final as theh human cans. One might expect there to be a departure from these conclusions as academic alterations are made, and improvements are had, but this is not the case.

The result is a verification and convirmation of the ridicule.

232 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742549221, Friday, March 21, 2025 02:27:01, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 205 seconds. 203 words. Typespeed: 59.400 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

If Speaking Were A Job With Requirements, Almost All Would Not Meet Those Requirements, Yet They Speak And Many Are Forced To Listen, And Meanwhile Listening Is Not A Job, Or a Consumer Purchase

232 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742546579, Friday, March 21, 2025 01:42:59, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Livelihood

232 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742546581, Friday, March 21, 2025 01:43:01, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The Expectation That Intelligence Should Show Itself Is To Request It To Show Compute For What Does Not Require Compute, Or to Recompute Live What Has Been Computed, Or To Compute Something New Live, Which Has Not Been Determined By Those With The Undefined Expectation

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742423882, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:38:02, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Psychometrics | Human Shortcomings

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742423885, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:38:05, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 3 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

You Can Measure Quantitatively The Amount of Intelligent Thinking That Went Into Thoughts, Behaviors, Decisions and Plans, For Anyone Including Those Who Are Intelligent

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742422779, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:19:39, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Psychometrics | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic | A System of Thought | ThoughtStream

For a long time there has been a question around intelligence and stupidity in behavior among those who are intelligent. This is due to a simple fact, that intelligence computing may or may not have been dedicated to an area in which behavior is exihibited.

A learning and intelligent animal may hct foolishly in an area because their mind simply has not been utilized extensively in the area in which the behavior was exhibited.

For any comptuer, compute time must be allocated in the area in which computing results are expected. Thus if a computer were suddenly required to act on a decision robotically in an area in which there is no experience it would do so in a way that may be absurd or even stupid from an observers perspective.But this is merely a coverage related issue. A computer has to have adequate coverage of circumstances and scenarios to have an advanced raction upon those scenarios. This is why young intelligent people do more foolish things than older intelligent people, and some older intelligent people do very foew foolish things.

Ability to yave wide coverage is improved with intelligence so long as there is adequate intelligence related modules. Also, the compute time is more valuable, just as with a computer. So coverage is faster, and results are better in a shorter time.

However, that does not mean that areas in which coverage was not had would not be those areas in which an intelligent computer or an intelligent person would not show errors or poor decisions thinking and judgement.

We can determine quantitatively the quality of compute dedicated to any particular area of life in relation to any comptuer.

Thus for any person, we can examine if they have dedicated adequate compute to moral thinking and systematic organization and deision processes on behavior.

From this we can know that thte aver age person, and the highly intelligent, during this age of hyumanity, has very poor compute regarding their behavior. Their moral processing ahs been very poor.

This is most obviously exhibited in the poor compute allocated to religiosity, and that their poorness of compute has blocked additional compute for their behavior because it has not been allowed. Or they have been confused as to the adequacy of pre-existing compute.

We would readily see, that people tend to have better compute regarding areas in which they have worked for long periods. Thus experts in various areas of work and their fields would show much better judgement, behavior, and decision making, than in other areas of their lives. This can be quantitatively measured.

I will need to say more about how this quanitative measuring can be done but it will definitely relate to the level of organization, quantity of stimulus, relevance of stimulus, abilitie s of the compute, which is related to intelligence, and the development level on the computation, which mens duration of computation— etc… will be related.

It is clear that quality of results and planning , and behavior, will exibit the quality of related compute.

Robotically, there is advancement on behavior only with sufficient development, and this too is quantitative.

Thus if we created androids that behaved increasingly like the best huymans, they would have characteristics of high intelligence, giftedness in m;odules related to behavior, and adequate development time with suffficient feedback and stimulation, and perhaps very good stimulation (simulation), which is related too to intelligence. The androids then would be simple models of people, and of course people would be models of the androids.

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742423385, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:29:45, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 606 seconds. 587 words. Typespeed: 58.080 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Old Age is Quite Commonly, I Hate Life But I Already Made Another Few People

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742421834, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:03:54, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Relationships

People change quite a bit after they have children and they are expected to have children at a time when they are relatively unreflective. I have commented before that for a period of time teens are told they should not have intercourse or be very safe so as to not have children, but soon after, maybe only a few years after, they are told to have kids. This means they are expected to have children shortly after they are children.

Most people are having chilren between the ages of 14 and 35 yeears old. But most life obviously is after 35 years old if th average age of death is after 70. If we observe people after they have children, we see there is a diminishing quality of life.

Quality of life is a measure that has been used to describe how well people are living in different conditions, and typically this measure is used without talking about parts of lives but entire lives instead. Quality of life might be used to describe how life seems to be in one country versus another, or a country at one time in history versus one tiem later. But it is not used to talk abotu how much better life is in youth than in old age.

But we know already, that youth is avlued. And from some sources in our culture we are told that youth provokes very intense jealousy and envy in some older people.

Also, we know that old age is when a decline in health occurs, that results everytime in death.

So we can expect mortality to go along with poor health, and old age, and thus declining age will be definitely related to declining quality of life.

Actually it will result in the worst quality of life consistently.

health concerns, death from disease and so on, in locations at a young age, is connected with what we say is a lower quality of life when comparing nations. We also say quality of life is lower if there is less exercise, education, and a range of other consditions that make for a more enjoyable existence. But we can see that alzheimers results in a reduction of education, of brain function, and that dcline in ability to recover results in an inability to have exercise and sufficient time outdoors. Pain from arthritis and other ailments results in a life of actual pain and maybe suffering.

Old age then is related to lower quality of life. It can be used to help define and describe a low quality of life.

Thus strangely, after a period of low reflection when one is expected to have kids and one does have kids, one begins to decline in quality of life, until one has a terrible existence very often. 8 billion people exist today, and nearly 8 billion will have a hard time in old age if they cannnot learn the art of suicide.

But all these older people will have already created children unreflectively. Do they feel uguilt about having had chilrren who would certainly live most of their lives in decline and older age?

It does not appear they have guilt or that their supposed conscience comes into play relating to this subject.

I think it really common that as people get older they begin to dislike life but already they created children and this shows that on average people have very irrationally and ignorantly curelly created people who would have decline and death tlike they did, without plans.

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742422390, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 15:13:10, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 556 seconds. 587 words. Typespeed: 63.300 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The World Has Created Babies to Love Itself And For a Short Time With Insufficient More of It To Love

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742418995, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 14:16:35, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742418997, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 14:16:37, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

It Does Not Appear That There Are Good Reasons For Creating Life That Are Sufficiently Or Greatly Distant From Reasons To Not Create Life

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742418947, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 14:15:47, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742418949, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 14:15:49, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Everyone Seems to Have a Lower Quality of Life, Or a Very High Percentage Do, Because Jobs Are Silly Jobs With Silly Purposes

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742410360, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:52:40, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742410364, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:52:44, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 4 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

List Television, A Channel That Rapidly Presents Lists of Important New Pieces of Information From Known Areas of Useful Information, and Does it Comprehensively

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742371347, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 01:02:27, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Education | Mind and Mental Development

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742371350, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 01:02:30, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 3 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Space Suits Used for Space Training and Actual Time In Space Were Usable For Earth But Were Never Made Available To Consumers and Costs Were Never Reduced For Regular Purchasing

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742369985, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 00:39:45, Phoenix, Arizona

Property and Organization | Livelihood

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742369987, Wednesday, March 19, 2025 00:39:47, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

It May Be That Civilization Cannot Be Advanced In Various Important Ways

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742354061, Tuesday, March 18, 2025 20:14:21, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Constraint and Determinism

Today, thinking about shoes, I cam eto see that it does not appear shoes can be advanced. In what way would a shoe ever be advanced? It covers the feet, and provides cuhioning. It provides water resistance. In many ways, the shoes we have are mere basic textiles with rubber glued or bonded to it. More advanced shoes are using more advanced foam and glue and plastic. Where can the shoe advancement go? It appears ot very far, and not far from where it started, and people still prefer where it started too.

Regarding shoes, ti does not appear there can be much advancement.

Does it seem the same for clothing? To me dit does seem the same.

What about for vehicles, and for transit? We have the bicycle, which I have found to be not much better or often worse than walking. We hae running. We have electric scooters and cars. Wheels, and motors. There is a point in which we can move too fast in planes, using those engines, such that we can cover the globe so rapidly, that we see that the earth is small enough to understand well while still in youth.

Thisseems to mean there is not much room for advancement even for transit and that since we haven’t been in development long, and that we use wheels and engines and propellers etc… to achieve already speeds too fast perhaps, and speeds regulated, that there is not much room for advancement and that from beginning to end there has been very little advancement or potential for advancement.

This makes it questionable if an easy period of advancement really is such. Millions of years of change of biology, versus a hundred years of industry?

Notice I said taht clothing and shoes have not advanced too far. So we can see then that industry did little. What about for food? Well, in that area, we still simply enjoy those foods that people think make their cultures authentic. We value the plaants and the animals for food. They don’t change much. We breed the plants and the animals until they have qualitities that are better for foods, but these things do not differ that much from when they were consumed earlier. People ate well in history and they eat well now. Distribution of food is rirrelevant to the actual advancement of food.

This is not a question as to whether people are more poor or not regarding food. The question si if foods have advanced, and to what degree, and if the time of devellopment justifies saying that the advancement really was such. It does not appears to me that there was muc advancement really, esxcepting for feeding more people, in greater quantitites so that all have more food. But honestly, as I have reflected more recently on legacy, and on my life and its duration, I don’t care if people had less food before, and people have more food now, and later there will be more food. These are great things, but there is a population concern that nobody discusses, and of course, none of that population came from me.

From my perspective, eating natural foods from 2000 years ago, would be as good if not better than foods today. Why not try foods that have not been tampered with by humans as much? What is it like to eat such foods? Is it closer to foraging? what recipes existed? We know many recipes existed that aren’t too diffferent from today, and beer for example is hardly different at all. I do not drink beer. But it is funny to think I could have drank a glass of beer two thousandyears ago and it would be similar, and bread would be similar too. Butter, olive oil, many plants, etc…

Foraging sounds great, and for that we hope for no advancement.

Greater advancement to me, might relate to things like making foods from elements and in greater variety than could be imagined now and with taste and quality exceeding what nature could produce. Maybe that is in our distant future, adn that is something I would admit probably to be some kind of advancement, but I also would have to state that I can’t quite say if I would prefer that over living in nature, camping and foraging in abundance, with plenty of cherry and apple orchards, other kinds of fruit, berries, and plenty of greens. Also, I admit that that is about preferences and not about advancement, so there is still a sort of advancement in the ability to do both and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive unless people make them such. That could happen because it is hardly legal to camp and forage now.

The ida that ingestion and taste can be adfvanced is interesting. We are talking about adaancement of food, but my taste and my digestion has not changed. Is anyone promising to expand on my tasste abilities, and my ability to digest different novel foods, both historical and new and synthetic? There is no such idea. So I actually constrain any advancement that can happen for me. Looking at the world, I question that there has beeen any advancement for an individual regarding food. It is only the prospect of having good food if one is born. My life and these births are not related. I’m more concerned about how the advancement suppposedly improves my situation but apparently it didn’t do that if I had food in both situations, poor or rich.

There is much to say on this topic in all different areas of life, but thinking about those areas that I’m most interested in now, I’m prefering fairly low advancement to high advancement, and am seeing benefits in quality of materials and in food, but they are not so great to think that older methods weren’t great too, and I don’t think the comparison yields any huge appreciation of improvement. Some of the advancements for example include stupidities and these aer not immediately obvious. Some advancements lessen knowledge. I’d like sometimes older advancements and knowledge than less o fknowledge and more of ease.

Is suntan lotion an advancement or does on ewear clothes?

Looking at civilization now, thinking about the time it has exixted, the duration, where it has come from and where it is now, I am not sure I agree there has been advancements of high significance in all those locations we look. The greater advancements again, to me, thinking about it perhaps not as lengthily as I will later, is the advancement in medicine and in some basic sciences relating to improvement of well being at an individual level. Like knowing that hygeine matters, and that sterilization prevents disease, and knowledge about surgury, and drugs.

Today opiates are used, but opiates were used already too…

controls on advancement are reductions on advancements too.

This is a worthwhile subject matter to consider because it reveals those areas in which learning more may be valuable where learning less in certain areas might be better. I mean the learning of what exists versus frivolous learning about novelties that achieve little. Becoming a carpenter who e builds from wood, versus ba builder of prefabricated leggos that have to be purchased. The person who learnes to beuild with legos really cannot build anything without buying everything at excess cost. The wood was always free. There is more to learn than with the leggos. What is learened wis more flexible.

More on this soon.

230 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742355253, Tuesday, March 18, 2025 20:34:13, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1192 seconds. 1251 words. Typespeed: 62.940 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Religious Thinking Has Onsets and Offsets That The Thinker Is Unaware Are Arbitrary, Such That It is Contingent, and Could Be Other Onsets and Offsets, But they Believe That These Are Religious Moments

229 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742329223, Tuesday, March 18, 2025 13:20:22, Phoenix, Arizona

Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Humans Are Animals

229 Wanattomians, Epoch 1742329224, Tuesday, March 18, 2025 13:20:24, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

On Cartography and Distortions in Maps

225 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741979771, Friday, March 14, 2025 12:16:11, Phoenix, Arizona

Mathematics | Computing | Science

Social Media Friend: thanks for the invite, I’m rarely on FB these days and this is good timing, and on demand I am wiling to expound for the moment.

At 19 years old I took a course on geography at Montgomery College in the state of Maryland, before I went off to state college. This course was intensely interesting to me, and very enjoyable, although it was a bit simplistic as compared with some of the other sciences. As long as it is taken to be a separate science not inclusive of the others!

At that time, I did learn about the differences of map projections and that converting from a semi-spherical model to a two dimensional flat paper model, concessions had to be made, but the concessions made could vary, with varying results in the actual maps produced.

Some projections would have cutouts, and some would be rectangular. Those rectangular would have area issues. Rectangular maps could preserve area and direction, or area and distance, but could not preserve area, direction and distance. Cutouts provide a better solution, but a more unsightly model.

That projection that we have in the classroom is the most grossly distorted for land area, but is not so bad for distance and direction. Nowadays we might think that map horrible, but it is simply a map that has made a concession for the others to be preserved while maintaining a rectangular display.

I think though, that this map is also favorable to the United States, and creates illusions that are politically useful. The globe was always preferable. I was still alive when globes were popular; nowadays, I don’t see to many globes. It could be they are still present, but I don’t think globes are nearly as used today as before, because when shopping, I never see them. I had a globe as a kid, and a very high quality Atlas as a young adult, and I’ve had that large atlas until recently.

These are remarks on formative times relating to the understanding of the globe and distortions in presentation. What do I have to say that relates to more recent thoughts and considerations?

These too still relate to earlier observations, but fundamentally I reject any such notion as a national boundary as anything unarbitrary. People are also living in an illusory world in which little lines drawn around geographic areas are thought to depict real areas that have such boundaries in nature. So people really do think there is a China, and a Japan, and a United States, and like with animals, they are immutable forms, and are not evolving, changing, and unfixed. Of course, unlike animals though, they are concoctions and are historical power claims. Lines are claimed. That’s how they come to exist.

The use of maps as they are today are being challenged I see in this YouTube video to reduce the illusions for new students. There is an issue though, in that these students simply aren’t very intelligent. Switching to globes may hoist these sudents to a perspective that is better, but a more advanced education could easily simply consist in presenting to them the mathematics of spheres and surfaces, and making it clear that visualization of information in various formats, for various purposes, including summary purposes, and purposes of instrumentation (a map on a hike or a boat may be better for navigation than a globe, and a screen is flat, and flattens the globe as it is closely examined), and so on. A question is, what is best to teach to the smart people and what is best to force on the less intelligent ones. Globes may be better to force on the less intelligent, but learning about differing map types doesn’t cause these confusions amongst the intelligent.

I do admit though, having these maps around, and so prevalent, does make illusions harder to eradicate. I’d like more variations close at hand to correct any illusions, because sometimes, I admit, I think of Northern Canada as much larger than it is, and Africa as much smaller than it is too, even though mentally I’m aware of the differences between projections, limitations of kinds of data visualization and the like. While my visuospatial is >=99.89 percent, that does not mean I can completely visualize at high accuracy the exact size of DNR and correct the size of Nunavut mentally.

The issue that this YouTube video is really for the educator of students who really won’t have the critical ability to in an ongoing way correct information, and find right solutions relating to geography, and instead will go along life in a biased way, relying on what small parts of learning are actually retained from early education. This video for example woudln’t help me since I’m aware of all that’s in the video and was since young, and can use that information with ease and do use that information to have more sophisticated perspectives in navigation and in political perspective. But others cannot do that. I’d say this video is good for the support of the normal public in their education but is not particularly useful for those in the upper echelons of IQ.

But I did find this interesting as a revisitation and I like the opportunity you provided for being able to write about this. It gives me a chance to write what perhaps I did not already, and of course I can include this in my book and journal for use later, so I do not need to write about it again.

The Preceding Posting Is a Beginning to A Game Theoretic Treatment of Reactions to Truthful and Intelligent Statements, Which May Be Good For Inclusion In The Next Volume of The Velocity of Significance and Ideation

224 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741889332, Thursday, March 13, 2025 11:08:52, Phoenix, Arizona

Intelligence | Psychometrics | Mathematics

224 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741889333, Thursday, March 13, 2025 11:08:53, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Disagreement Can Be Used In Conversation As a Supporting Measure for Intelligence, Because Those Who Cannot Understand Will Start to Simply Disagree Because Agreement Is Out of Range, and a Potential Tell On Being Out of Range

224 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741888586, Thursday, March 13, 2025 10:56:26, Phoenix, Arizona

The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Intelligence | Psychometrics

If you are to agree with someone, subsequent conversation will reveal, if there is any dwelling or development on it, whether that agreement was due to mutual understanding, or if it was due to something lelse, like pretended agreement due to attraction, or pretended agreement due to respect. Agreement, then, creates a risk for the speaker.

This is because if the speaker is unable to translate in their own words what was stated in a way that approximates the meaning of the speaker such that the speaker might re-assent to the translation, it will show that the person speaking may not undersrtand, but additionally, they have some traits that may be reprehensible. That is, they agree because they are attracted and because they like authority, or something similar to that.

For a conversationalist, usch as I, who is watchful for understanding of what I’m saying, an agreement then, makes it easy for me, to appraise the person as to their intelligence. Disagreement makes it harder. Disagreement makes it harder, because it can be concealed why there is disagreement, and it can be boasted or exaggerated that what is disagreed concerns another thought, that is of better quality and has better explanatory power. In other words, the person can pretend that what they have is smarter in some way nad simply makakes it unacceptable to agree with the position you presented, because that one is incorrect or too low in value.

But the issue here is that for some statements that one might make, one will know in advance how contentious it is. Some people will act as though we should have equivalent skepticism regarding all of our thoughts, which is a hilarious perspective if you consider implications.

The reality is, there really are thoughts for which we have greater certainty. So, in conversation, occasionally or often we’ll be able to use those statemtns which are more veritable, and watch the audience for their reactions.

If they disagree, and disagree strongly to these statements you know immediately that they very likely have low intelligence or not an intelligence close t o your own. (Assuming you are smart and tha t is a reason you are reading this). The strength of the disagreement might tell about the intelligence too.

There is much more to say about this topic, and I can tell it is worthwhile to develop it further. For now, I thihnk what is interesting and worth thinking about further, is that the pool of people who agree and disagree seem to differ with more on the side of disagreement when what is put forth is veritable and somewhat complex. This is because agreement is harder and riskier, and because disagreement is caused not only by actually disagreeing, but by low intelligence. It seems a safer strategy to simply disagree than to agree when the intelligence is lacking and something is not understood.

Remaining neutral is a very wise move, and something exhibited by smart people. The smartest coudl even be thouse who are not understanding it yet for somee reason, but are willing to abstain. This is also because sometimes, if what is heard is new, there is a need for time.

Agreement and abstainment would be likely to have the most intelligent people, unless among the people who disagree is someone who can state itwith good complexity why thtere is disagreement, and what the person who agrees must be able to do, restate the postition adequately. But I have not focused on this, because I’m more interested fo the moment on those statements that really are veritable and of better conviction than other statemetns that are more contentious.

224 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741889195, Thursday, March 13, 2025 11:06:35, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 609 seconds. 609 words. Typespeed: 60.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

223 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741800859, Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:34:19, Phoenix, Arizona

Mathematics | Architecture | Software Architecture | Higher Order Attention

223 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741800860, Wednesday, March 12, 2025 10:34:20, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Why Have You, Or That Person, Been Loaded With That Information?

222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741664050, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:34:10, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships

222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741664051, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:34:11, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

History Writing May Be Like Cheating: Since You Were Not There, and Rely On Other Sources, You Simply Write From Those Other Sources, and You Cannot Add Any Original Thinking, Excepting Speculations As To Historical Patterns

222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741663571, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:26:11, Phoenix, Arizona

History | Human Shortcomings

After comign to this thought, I wonder if history is actually a misnomer. Whatever it is, is not as distinguished as it has been presented I think. If that is the case, history may not be an appropriate word. It may be better described as copycat reconstruction, with mixed fiction and truth.

222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741663637, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:27:17, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 66 seconds. 52 words. Typespeed: 47.220 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

I Think It Possible To Prepare A Template For Writing History, With Parts Pre-filled, Showing That History Is Hardly a Job

222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741662289, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:04:49, Phoenix, Arizona

History | Human Shortcomings

This relates to the thoughts I’ve been having lately about the repetition that I’m seeing in history books, that have the same geological/geographical beginning, explanation of prehisotry, archaeology that is shared, phases of early development relating to metals and lithics, and so on, until there is an actual history that begins in a way that seems unrelated from earlier pages. History books seem to repeat too often particularly where there is commonality between texts.

But current history, too ist told in similar ways, and with similar concerns, about things such as social justice, and equalitarianism.

Before, history seemed somewhat a challenging subject. But then I realized, I do not think the writers of history really can recall even what they’ve written. Recallign all of what one has studies d and written about is hard to do. I don’t believe historians recall the historical detail of their own writings.

Instead, I think they prepare it acording to template, and imitate an reuse existing material, and I don’t think they use primary sources often, and when they do, use the same ones! What new primary sources are emergin in this limited source of extant artifacts! Really there are no new historical discoveries really happening, and when they happen, they are not in the history of what one is writing about!

So the historian spends time enjoying writings. Reading various texts. Finally, they culminate with a writing of their own, which follows a tempalte. The result may be enjoyable, but it conceals laziness.

The earlier histories, which had more personal variation, and differences of style, had more myth and falsification.

Now, there may be less falsification, but what is true is there is less personality. I have beene xposed to many historical texts, adn it seems even the style of the writing is lacking of personality.

I had a brief reading period of Carlyle, and that was different, it is true, but I think it was in the early phases of history, not too different than ancient writings of history that had more variation because there was more lack of discipline, and less actual trustworthiness, than there was enthusiastic storytelling.

Nowadays all histories seem like they were written by the same person.

Of course there are more that I need to read, but I’m seeing a clear trend, with random sampling.

222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741662672, Monday, March 10, 2025 20:11:12, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 383 seconds. 388 words. Typespeed: 60.780 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

I Noticed In History Texts, A Sequence of Peoples and Events are Described, Until Current Events Are Reached, And Earlier Events Are Forgotten, With The Effect That Really, There Was Little Knowledge of The Connection Of Early Events To Now, But We Read History For Now, Unless It is Curiosity

222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741659965, Monday, March 10, 2025 19:26:05, Phoenix, Arizona

History | Human Shortcomings

An odd consequence of history is having a complete inability to envision the earlier globe, while having what apppears to be fictions to relate to that ignorance. Then, one pretends that one can use that well, to understand present day events.

I do know too, that some of what is learned in history, really is informative and usable, and does explain current eents somewhat, and differences and similaritieis between nations, and explains animosities, areas of friction, and areas of congeniality. But a huge portion of what history is, is really what I’m describing above.

222 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741660053, Monday, March 10, 2025 19:27:33, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 88 seconds. 94 words. Typespeed: 64.080 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Featureless and Boring Geometries as Being Greater Abstractions, But With Specificity Still

220 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741522978, Sunday, March 09, 2025 05:22:58, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Mathematics | Fitness | Health | Evaluative Concepts | Aesthetics

Today I saw an image on Facebook of an alien woman ironing her clothing, which was her actual h;uman appearance mixed with her clothing. The idea is that she is something separate from this body and appearance and clothing and she’s wearing it, but what’s inside isn’t too different from what has been outside.

There are still arms, legs, a body, and a head.

Thinking about this a bit, I had a better observation than I would have expected about mathematics.

Here’s how I came to the intuitioin. Firstly, I notied that the alien appearance is a sort of generic humanoid appearance, which could be an actual person’s appearance who chooses to have different looks (sentence needs revision, but that’s ok). So it’s like the alien is a simple form that could admit of many alternative outward forms. Perhaps the alien form is the basic form, tathat is the retrun-to image, but the alien can also change appearances and shapes like a chamelieon. So there is this highly generic version of a person that seems more general in appearance but can have more specific appearances which seem to show greater differentiation.

I think that’s largely illusory, becasue the same issue exists regarding the alien’s base appearance. To illustrate, a specific appearance chosen by the alien could simply become the default appearance too, and from that appearnce other highly specific appearances could be worn or arrived at. This shows that any specific appearance can also be the base appearnce.

This confuses abstraction and specification, generality and instantiation.

But there is also this idea that may be true, that less specific objects, or objects with less features, like geometrical objects that are plainer, and have less trqits, or subgeometries, really are more general.

In the title I said featureless and boring geometries as being greater abstractions. We can draw all humans as those models which are simple gemotries of elipses, triangles, cylinders, and so on. The artist uses this to guide drawing all peopople. It shows a more general form. This more general form has to be more featureless.

But as I stated above, perhaps all the other variations of a geometry could simply have a more featured base form as the generality and abstraction.

The idea would work this way: now we have a woman, she has many unusual traits, these trait are not like those in other people, but for fun we can imgine they are attractive rather than unattractive. This attractive women with unusual traits, then spawns a colony of humans, tht have all these traits as base traits but then have more subfeatures. Then the abstraction of all the offspring is a template of sorts which is this woman with all the unusual traits. This woman then is an abstraction and generalization of all the others and has a simpleer more boring geometry than all the others. But she still has specificity. We’ve noticed she has this specificity when we compared her with the others who would be drawn using an approach using plain geometrical objects.

I thought maybe I would move towards the idea that the specific is similar to the general, and that there is some error in the idea. That could be true still. But now I’m seeing additionally that it does appear that more featureless and mbioring gemotetries are greater abstractions, because while the sub-tribe of this woman has many more featutres and they al fall under the abstraction of her simplicity, which is more complex than the other humans before, all are fit still within the more basic geometry, and before that there waws a more basic geometry still.

Consider that we may have reallly evolved from fish like species.

I think this is likely a very useful insight, applicable to a number of fields, and may have a good mathematical definition taht I could contribute. I will explore this further later.

220 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741523697, Sunday, March 09, 2025 05:34:57, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 719 seconds. 649 words. Typespeed: 54.120 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Learning How To Not Have A Body To Have Even Less Needs

219 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741443675, Saturday, March 08, 2025 07:21:15, Phoenix, Arizona

Short Stories | Human Shortcomings | Humans Are Animals

219 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741443677, Saturday, March 08, 2025 07:21:17, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

If You Watch Yourself On Video You Can See Your Own Animal Unawareness and Obliviousness, and Favoring of Sensoring Systems and Morphology Serving Those Systems

218 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741339041, Friday, March 07, 2025 02:17:21, Phoenix, Arizona

Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings

218 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741339043, Friday, March 07, 2025 02:17:23, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 2 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

It’s a fools countdown to do years backwards before AD 0

217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741264802, Thursday, March 06, 2025 05:40:02, Phoenix, Arizona

The Calendar Solved | Mathematics | Wanattomianism

217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741264803, Thursday, March 06, 2025 05:40:03, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

What is The Set of Completed Topics, Rationally Considered and Done?

217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741255317, Thursday, March 06, 2025 03:01:57, Phoenix, Arizona

RationalTimes | Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention | Relationships

When I started RationalTimes, I had this idea that people are striving somewhat towards having compmleted thoughts on different subjects. Usually, people who thought they solved some problem, did not acknowledge that their solutions were really tentative but not complete. But this tendency does show that they were tending towards thinking they had complete views and perspectives, given their inability to understqnd they were not really final.

For myself, I wanted to keep acknowledging the tentative nature of the conclusions I would have while thinking. After a long time thinkign this way and thinking through various subject matters, I have come to develop some so far as to become really complete, meaning there isn’t any input from outside I would expect to revecal the thinking is tentative and is not really conclusive.

Also, I noticed that while we think about subjects that are basic, sometimes we really do arrive at facts. This is something I knew too, of course, but this does contiribute to the view that some thinking is complete. In fact, there is a lot of thinking that can be completed. Most would have some trouble knowing what things would be final and which things would be tentative, but for my own efforts, as I became more experience, I got better at identifying what thoughts were more final and which ones were not.

When I wrote down the title to this publication here, I was thinking about actually listing out those thoughts that really do have completness. What are the topics that are done and are finished? Some topics reallly are done and finished, and having them finished allows one to move one’s mind from that topic to tothers, confidently understanding that little to no thinking is neeeded to problem solve for hat topic again.

The RationalTimes journal was intentded to arrivce at final thoughgts. Tentative conclusions aggregated together forms also a comprehensive quantity of thoughts that are nearly finished even if they still could use more research and input. This means a mind has trended towards a comprehensive completion.

Now I can combine this way of thinkign with the diminishing return on thinking which I think is a view that is also nearly complete, in that it represents an actual fact and trend.There is a portion of that thought that appears final. All of the effort of rational times is trending towards a life that does not require as much thinking thany longer, in total volume and significance. This is also what is wanted all along, to have problems solved.

Those who disagree with this kind of project would oddly have serious contradictions as they try to proceed on their own personal self development. This is actually foolish to disagree with. It may be the mark of a fool to disagree with such a project as this.

Anyway, now that I’m very far along in my efforts, it may be time to record a list of thought sthat do appear to be final or are trending towards finality. Which topics are concluded?

There is also a test of my approach, because later on, I can still revisit some of the subjects and see if they were really final or not with additional thinking. I may discover that some percentage still seemed complete, while some percentage did not. Maybe 10 or twenty hears from now, I examine the topics and thoughts and find flaws. Or maybe I simply confirm the results.

If the results are confirmed then that is truly a valuable result.

It would be a mistake to think that this is not what I was doing along the way. I am a self-testiner, and willing alterer of my views. If something is wrong with my views, I cahnge the views to fit them to what is truthful and honest. This means I have been changing my views since very early in my life. I like being wrong in order to know that I needed to fix something. While it is infrequentlt that I’m seriously wrong nowadays (really that doesn’t happen), I do find flaws I need to fix often.

If this is compared with the activities of others, one might question the species. Particularly regarding their views on religion!

Since people are not self questioning, and self-correcting, one wonders what they do with their minds as they claim to learn.

I think it will be found that RationalTimes, and my efforts on morality, in generqal tesets animals including humans.

If they are not and will not do the same, or resist doing the same or similarly, then it appears to me they are inferior entities that perhaps have harmful intentions or are apathetic and indeifferent to untruth and lies, even in their brains.

It would appear they are not caring for their brains.

I think this too will be one of the subjects that will be final. If someone is not altering their false views so as to make them true, they are apathetic about perpetuating having false brain tissue. Thi sis who they are and they are wanting it to remain that ay.

There are scenarios in which it is konown that it will take too much effort to correct the tissue, but in that situation, honestry is the correction, or at least honesty is used to do all tht could be done to correct the incorrectable.

Soon I should be putting gtogether a list of complete topics in which I have found answers or areas in which I’ve developed my life to a point in which additional developments don’t appear necessary.

217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741256163, Thursday, March 06, 2025 03:16:03, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 846 seconds. 927 words. Typespeed: 65.700 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Humanity Has Really Not Found a Justification For Having Children, And No Parent Has Ever Had a Written Plan That Could Be Rational Or Really Make Sense, and It Does Not Appear to Me They Will Have The Capability Anytime Soon, Implying The Most Rational Course of Action For Certain Is To Have No Children, Because It Can Only Be Irrational Otherwise

217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741249956, Thursday, March 06, 2025 01:32:36, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741249959, Thursday, March 06, 2025 01:32:39, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 3 seconds. 0 words. Typespeed: 0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

That One Does Not Have Much Responsibility For The Future If One Does Not Have Kids Has Not Been Adequately Appreciated or Analyzed

217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741248575, Thursday, March 06, 2025 01:09:35, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Evaluative Concepts | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism

I can recall hearing when I as young, others saying, that they did not think they dhad responsibility for the future, if they were going to die. I do think also, that I recall some saying the same, that they did not have any such responsibility becasue they would die, but more because they would not have children.

I do not recall who said this when I was young, but I do recall that I did not fully appreciate the points. It is a rare scenario in which I was hearing a perspective that was a good one, but I had some bias that did not allow me to really appreciate what the view offered.

I aws more on the side, at that time, of thinking that one ought to be concerned with the future. But now I think that view is mistaken largely, and is only partly the better one. Really the superior position is a fusion of the two, but with much more emphasisis on the side of the person , or on the side of the argumentation, supporting the idae that one is not responsible for the future.

If someone has kids, I think they are more responsible than if they did not. If osomeone chose not to have kids, I think they are much less responsible.

Before I wrote about how if a person has just a few kids, these kids could reproduce over time until there is basically a city of people just coming from your family. The world as it is now, in the over eight billion people that exist (supposedly), comes from just a few families and at the earliest a few individuals.

By not having children, it becomses increasingly clear that there are illusions that people are living in that they are unaware of, that involve social demands on their lives.

I think this is a wortwhile focal point in the study of morality. I’ve said much about this in the past, but I don’t think the full importance has still become entirely appparent even in my own life. I think it is mostly unknown thto the rest of humanity.

By not having children, you not only greatly benenefit your own life, but social responsibilities for the future largely fvanish. One can hardly have any impact taht could be durable and negative. I say this while thinking my own actions should be comprised only of positive and neutral actions, and hardly any that could be harmful in any way.

My favorite topic to point out involves the commitment to recycling. It is interesting to me, that people will have families of 5 or more, including children who create grandchildren, resulting in total families of 20 ore more potentially, with each individual owning a vehiclcle and producing an entire lifetime of trash. Meanwhile, a single person, with no kids, doe s not firstly have much responsibility for the future, they will be dead, and did not produce children who will have to live under future conditions. they are not responsibl for the kids of others. So some small amount of trash they produce in their life is insignificant.

The other family however, produces incredible amount sof trash. They do this while disavowing responsiblity for the children they created and their actions. In a way, they disavowed their contributions to the future too, thereby, if they are to be consistent thinkers.

I don’t think this is an especially difficult topic, and I may have a conclusive article on it in the near future sometime. If one does not have children, the lack of legacy is obvious. The alleviation of social responsibilities is obvious too. It is a matter of whether one has engaged in actions that resulted in a perpetuation of life into the future for which there is somethihng owed. I don’t think this is the best way to think about it. I think this merely shows how basic the topic really is. If thre is only nothingness after me, and other people continue, they are the ones with the responsibilities. Thoswe with ties to the future are the ones with obligations relating to the future, fi there reallly are any. But they are the ones who would theink there are!

More on this topic soon. I don’t think this is a permanent and conclusding analysis in any way. i am merely pointing out it appears a simplistic topic and that it does seem to have pretty significant and meaningful social consequences once understood.

It is also already recognized too, that people do not have any responsibilitiy to have kids, and that they shouldn’t if they have good reasons not to, and one good reason to not have kids is simply not wanting to have kids. But what are their social objectives supposed to be if they have no kids, are they supposed to serve others, and lay preparations for kids who aren’t theirs?

If they are rational people, their desires are at odds with the desires of people and their chilrdren. I think others would want to force people to behave in such a way as they are to contribute to children they did nto have!

Hidden in soxiety is a laziness of the parent, who is demanding from others, to do good things for their legacy and their children, neglecting their own.

People wan ttheir name to be huge! They want to have fame! They want the legacy to continue. They do not want individiuals who are not them to take some of this fame for themselves, or at least not any share that lessens their own. They would rather that they somehow contribute to their own attention and the attention of their family, and they would like them to perpetuate it post humously.

If someone else has the attention, and you do not, and there is a market relation, there is something that they are expecting you to do that contributes to their reputation. They either want you to listen to them, buy from them, and maybe do things to further their perspective or messages.

Meanwhile, it may be that rationally, you had no children. Having had no children you don’t have an interest in the future or legacy necessarily. They, caring about attention and legacy, believinging falsely that hteir family will carry on with their message, really think you are to contribute to their future legacy too.

217 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741249596, Thursday, March 06, 2025 01:26:36, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1021 seconds. 1068 words. Typespeed: 62.760 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The Study of Evaluative Concepts and Values Does Depend On Comparison Of Different Living Entities. At This Time, I’m Wanting To Compare Being Types Within My Own Entity. This Happens With Learning To Have Very New Behaviors, and Comparing What Is Experienced With What Is Remembered From Earlier Ways of Being.

216 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741149861, Tuesday, March 04, 2025 21:44:21, Phoenix, Arizona

Evaluative Concepts | Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Relationships

Recording for now.

216 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741149866, Tuesday, March 04, 2025 21:44:26, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Correctness of Mappings and Vagueness Seems A Part of Most Human Creations of Generality Like Language, Logic, Mathematics, Electronics, and So On, And Relates to Specificity of Intuition, Acknowledgement of Generality, But Insufficient Knowledge About Actual Generality, Seeing That An Idea Has An Application, Has Analogical Abstractions, But Without Seeing Clearly What The World Mappings Really Are

215 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741074113, Tuesday, March 04, 2025 00:41:53, Phoenix, Arizona

Mathematics | Evaluative Concepts | Natural Language | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

Part of this has to do with the knowing that there is some application to an idea, and vaguely seeing that there are others, then later forcing that it works for the others. For example, an n electronic computer is a forcing of logic into a domain in which it was not originally usable. It is also known that a computer could be hydrolically defined, or defined with other kinds of devices and contraptions. Machine computers and the like.

We could to day have instead of computers, and screens that are digital, machines, and the movement of physical pixels as actual patches of fabric or color, at a much greater scale.

For example instead of having a television, we could have a recording medium, and a reader, that takes what is read, and flips patches of color to make the pixel equivalents, that may be like two inch by two inch squares of paper, or other material.

These would be like hthe flipping billboards and flipping patches of color used for language and numbers in old times. There were message boards, that had flipping numbers, and flipping colors that amount to pixels like on an old liquid crystal digital readout.

Old calculators had arrangements of monochrome, two color, black and white patches, used to show all the numbers.

So instead of a computer that is electronic, all of this is simply done mechanically with a giatnt machine at first.

Movies are watched on gigantic screens that still have the older style of pixels.

That it would function or not is not a question. It would work!

Hydrolically it could work, and instead we could use liquid machines.

Already now, there is not an agreement as to the screen technology. Some use screens, some use projectors! There are mre options than these.

Computers could be done only blindly using tactile information. Both in the implementatioin and in the result or user interface.

We are therefore forcing somethign that we learned specifically about onto another area. There is an abstraction we know, but what we do not know, is where we are to apply the abstraction, and how.

This actually is a moral question too, one of how one ought to decide to do things.

Thre will certainly be more abotu this later, but what i’m most interested in now, is the first steps from an idea ato the abstraction.

Also, are the first ideas already misapplications or extensions?

When we have language, what are we to apply it to later?

Ideas themselves are strange inferences sometimes.

At first, sometimes, we might think we have the origin.

But what we are working with, has been extendedd! And what the origin is, has been infected already, by what has been extended?

Have you not extended visions when you had an idea for something new

Did you not extend language when you had aniidea for something new?

You could hnot have ideas without these things.

The origins are oftentimes taken for granted. Early math, for example, might be thought as a true origin; it is the beginning, of what was mor became math later. What was grown from math. But already it was an extension!

What thing has been made for which there is no precursor thought! Or precursor preparation that is biological?

Waht are the biological beginnings of certain thoughts that lead to ideas?

When are the extensions usable, and instrumental but forced?

Instrumentality appears to have a much greater importance than people realize and I have written about this elsewhere. Meanwhile, it is not often recalled for its explanatory power.

Function and instrumentality, and utility. Utility is a newer term, used for other purposes, that make it seem a diffferent word. But Use, function, instrumentality, etc.. go together overlappingly, and there is some word that perhaps does not exist, capturing function, that does not have any negative or positive moral connotation that would confuse.

That is all for now!

215 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741074830, Tuesday, March 04, 2025 00:53:50, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 717 seconds. 657 words. Typespeed: 54.960 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Which Of Your Traits Are Those That Simply Are Not As Good As Others The World Would Do Better To Spread For Better New Life?

215 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741061965, Monday, March 03, 2025 21:19:25, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | Legacy

Recodrding the idea.

215 Wanattomians, Epoch 1741061970, Monday, March 03, 2025 21:19:30, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

There Has Not Been A Defined Transitional Period That is Required For Moving From Self-Interested Non-Adulthood to Non-Self Interested Post-Childhood, Particularly in The Freedom of Being Able to Elect to Remain Single

213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740909550, Sunday, March 02, 2025 02:59:10, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships

Recording the idea.

213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740909555, Sunday, March 02, 2025 02:59:15, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Others Have Not Been Generous To Themselves With More Thinking For Themselves and Others

213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740909282, Sunday, March 02, 2025 02:54:42, Phoenix, Arizona

A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts

This is a typical social combat thought. The idea here is that others are too ready to accuse others of selfishness, when the reality typically is they are slow, stupid, inconsiderate, foolish, and have considered very few thoughts before making judgements.

They have not been generous with themselves enough with thinking, for their own benefit and the benefit of others.

They have not been gnerours with time for themselves to do this.

An inetersting consideration I think has wide application in the combating of the unreasonable judgements of others.

213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740909383, Sunday, March 02, 2025 02:56:23, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 101 seconds. 89 words. Typespeed: 52.860 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Fundamental Problems That Are Easy, and Philosophy

213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740887679, Saturday, March 01, 2025 20:54:39, Phoenix, Arizona

Fundamental Problems | Human Shortcomings

One could say that philosophy is due to the human shortcomings of people. That they create problems or discover some, that they ill define, that don’t really exist as real issues, or are those that they are incapable of solving, due to constraints that exist, that they have not identified.

While I add items to my list of ufndamental problems, I am aware that some I have already solved, and some fit into the above description. But I keep collecgint them.

Collecting them, and making new ones, tells about the history of philosophy itself. How the problems of philosophy arose, and what was wrong about such questioning. It also shows about why they persisted, were questioned the same way too many times without alteration, and why they went unsolved. Finally, it will be shown I think, why this process of philsoophy has had issues. These issues relate to human shortcomings. These would show why religion, philosophy, and science have eache been flawed. What is needed is new, and may not require a new name. Instead, it is a development upon each, and a fusion of them.It is also an elimination ofwhat has not been usueful.

Part of the prsent moral enterprise has been, although I haven’t highlighted it, or focused too much on it, is a crique, and discussion, about what is wrong about bheavior, as it relates to any behavior whatsoever, but also how it relates to thinking behaviors, that resulted in futile questioning and answering, in the sciences philosophy and in religion. It somewhat fixes these issues and points a pathway to a new way of thinking.

Like with Zen as I like to say, the new way of thinking doesn’t care what you call it. Even calling it anything results in making it too specific, and too defined and contained.

Right thinking itself notice, is something that impacts all different things that are done. If you were to hav a mastery over a new ay of thinking, and you named it, say philosophy, the religionishts would say you’ve only attained mastery at philosophy, but not religion, or other disciplines, but they’d say that overly containing you, not realizing that the thinking applies to everything nearly, like kmathematics in a way, but more so.CAlling it philosophy caused the confusion.

Likewise, calling Zen Zen causes confusion. A Zen thinker ought not care what it is called.

But I say it humorously too, because of course, while a Zen buddhist would claim to not have much desire or clinging inclinations, they would cling to Zen. They would even cling to the name Zen. Also, this misses the point that Zen also is false in too many ways. So here one should not think I’m advocating Zen.

Some of the fundamental problems of philosophy are easy to solve. Some that I’m adding area lso easy. I will return to show why they are easy, and how they are solved, and how such aproblems even came to be thought of as being problematic although they never were.

213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740888184, Saturday, March 01, 2025 21:03:04, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 505 seconds. 505 words. Typespeed: 60.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Infinite Recursion in Inanimate Nature

213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740885995, Saturday, March 01, 2025 20:26:35, Phoenix, Arizona

Nature | Constraint and Determinism

I have commented before, that recursion and meta development seems to have instrumentality constrains in the animate that cause there to be real boundaries to objects, that have repetitive behaviors or growth processes. For example, leaves ashow a repeated pattern of growth, but then the growth terminates. This appears to be due to the dna of the tree, but this appears to be also related more finally to the instrumentality of having leaves at a certain size versuss a larger size. Parts with repeated growth processes that interrelate would not appear to have as much of a design if they kept recurring and the appearance of design relates to actual instrumentality.

This appears to be something that is seen all over in the animal world. Orgnisms are bounded, have life expectancies, starts and finishes, and growth procedures that repeat, but not indefinitely.

However, it does not appear such rules exist in the inanimate world.

In the inanimate world, we do see beginning s and ends to things, but it isn’t clear in those cases sometimes if the beginning sare such, or if the ending sare endings.

When the earth stops rotating around on a daily cycle, will that be the end of the rotation, or will that simply be a continuity of the motion?

It appears here there is a fundamental philosophical problem of interest about what really has a lifecycle and what doesn’t.

Most people would be inclined in the rules of language to say that of course if it has stopped rotating, like the moon, then it no longer rotates and something has come to an end. But it is not clear that rotation has any special foci justifying its having a beginnign and an end in the way that people like to use beginnign asn ends.

It would not be something that could be argued against tha tthe mathematics relating to the rotation seems to have shifted from apinaapplicability to applicability to inapplicability, but then we are told laws of nature are always in effect. So are the laws relating to rotation in effect for non-rotating bodies when they are not rotating any longer?

Now I see I’ve digresse d too far form the point. Here I will merely say that there does appear to be a start and end which we still find suseful. This does not seem to be related, like the biological examples, to an instrumentality that is easily known or to any instrumentality that exists whatsoever. It doesn’t appear that the universe cares that the object has any number of rotations or not. Biological enttities, with lifecycles, do seem to show boundaries related to instrumentality, but inanimate objects seem not.

Biogenesis may, however, take from physical reality, what is needed for biological reality, such that the interpretation of the physical reality in the inanimate is still fully explicable in the biological on the basis of the non biological (lost part of the sentence in distraction momentarily).

Some would say that physical nature would have some of the justifications coming from biology, while others would say it is the biology that is better understood in terms of th e inanimate. Some would say they have differing properties.

I have a tendency to want to see it from the perspective that the physical world will provide what is required for interpreting the biological world too, in a reductionsistic way, because the explantion seems to be more reductionistic, more complete, and when it trends this way, tends to handle the complexity.

Also thinkint hte other way seems to take local information to use it for universal explanation, which I call taking a local analogy to a distant object, or a local to a universal. This is akin to fallacies that make it seem that one can explain all of nature from some basic personal experience. That one can use science on earth, to explain veverytihing, that one can use biological life to explain all existence instead of just biological life.

In that last clause, I explained how , or shoed an immediate example, about how this fallacy relates to the present topic.

But it does not appear the other way around it works the same way. When I do find information that appears to be universal and exists off earth, like laws of motion, then I apply them to earth, they still hold. This is going rfrom a broader more universal piece of information then applying it in a local scenario. So this would be moving from a universal to a local using analogy.

Notice, though that one cannot simply assume that laws of motion explain minute phenomena, such as subatomic particle physics. But that is not really what I’m talking about and that is not a counterexample. Because what is found about subatomic particles is also ssomething that is expected to be universal and not merely local, although thre is much to say about the inferences needed for that.

But physics about subatomic particles is expected to simpy work eslewhere in an identical way with different situational factors ineterplaying with them.

Biological life, however, only exists on earth so far as we can tell. So what is happening with biological life is more truly local!Now again, we have to return to the main point, but this is usable potentially for later.

In inanimate nature, where beginning sand ends are more quiestionable, and less part of what looks like but isn’t design, and what looks like instrumentality, may not have boundaries, starts and finishes, and may include endlessnesses.

Again, people do assume that laws of nature continue to persist. They speak about beginning sand ends to matter and so on, but less about the beginning sand ends of system rules of nature.

The hair on a person stops growing (actually as I write this, hair growth seems to have properties of endlessness excepting thwarting conditions). Beginnings and ends of rotations and of objects as distinct opbjects is questionable in nature.

At this time I will record at least one fundamental problem for posterity to consider, adn that is the meaninfulness of named objects, and of beginning sand ends, in inanimate nature, particularly in astronomy.

213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740887145, Saturday, March 01, 2025 20:45:45, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1150 seconds. 1028 words. Typespeed: 53.580 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Creating a Wake State

213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740884738, Saturday, March 01, 2025 20:05:38, Phoenix, Arizona

Wakebook | Higher Order Attention | Architecture | Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Abandoning Equality

For a while I’ve been using a book that I call the wake book for the purpose of reloading in the morning a state that I’m wanting to have after a sleep reset. Before I talked about how the sleep period really does create a reset that is not unlike what happens with a computer with all the programs being shut down without their state being reset on waking back up.

One is sometimes guaranteed to feel quite differently the next day than the day prior. One can feel as though things are going incredibly, and that one has the mental state one would want to maintain, only to find out the next day, that the mental state had has vanished or is difficult to recover.

Today would be an example of this for me in fact. Not of the day prior, but I had a reset that created a day that was considerably different than days a few days before, and the day before as well. The desirable state was at least two days earlier.

This is not to say the day hasn’t been going well, only that there has not been a reload to the erlier state which was the preferable state.

The wake book is intended to reload from where one was at the time that the writing was recorded into the book. This can’t work that extensively, matching new state to earlier state, because it is about large portions of the brain, and not only what can be recalled about the desired mental state.

What are all the biological aspects of the mental state had that is desirable!? That would be a huge set of information even for somthing as asic as happiness experienced around some recent events, and some recent ways of behaving.

But reading does put on back into the mindset, or I should say into a mindset that has similarities, to the mindset of the writer.

Reading a book will make one think clearly oftentimes because one is thinking more like the writer did when they put together their clear thoughts on paper. One really is actually thinking what the writer has thought. If the writing was good, and one spent time reading it, then one will find oneself even afterwards in a mindset that is a bit better than say, the mindset of a person who has awoke in a fog– which is what this posting is more about. But you could go from any undesiraable mentality and get to a mentality of a writer by spending time reading what they wrote. You’d get close and not exactly there but you’d see an improvement.

The woke book, or wake book, is intended to get me back into the state I was in when iI wrote it dthe information down into the book. It functions like my other book I began called Rational times whihch was also intended to put myself into a mindset that was similar to my more rational mindsets, in themoments I took to write entries.

There are simlilarities to journal writing and reading, but there are additions regarding the purposes goals and intentions.

I’ve written about much of this already. But was realizing that what I’m trying to do is a bit more than simply trying to recover va way of thinking like when I ws writing, or recalling goals. It is more like what I was trying to do briefly in Queenstown, New Zealand, when I was waking in the morning, and trying to reload and recover various life accomplishments, and other categories of life, in addition to what my plans happened to be.

Now I think there may be a way of recording the information into the wakebook to more comprehensively arrive at a wake state that is wanted but also, perhaps one can situate the world in a way to recreate the mentality as well. This would involve world develpment to aid wthe wake state in addition to writing enteries and reading them in the woke book.

Now I’m trying to recall some other pathways of ideation I had relating to this subject, but I think what most interests me now relates to trying to really get closer to the mentality that is really wanted, and not one had when writing was done, and finding ways to get closer to what might be better than that in a next day development.

The idea here is this– that when I write an entry into the wake book, it is like a rational times entry, in which I have a more rational mindset, and I’m talking to myself trying to put myself in that mindset again. That works. But the mindset that I’m in at that time isn’t the best mindset, or the most rational. There are days in which the mindset had is etter than the time in which the entry is made.

So there is a need to come to an understanding about which desirable mindsets I have are and compare them for determinign which I like more, and for putting them on da development pathway. Reload, I admit, wasn’t only about recovering the past days way of thinking, but also had goals mixed in– so there was also a foreward looking developmental aspect already in the plan.

What is the state of being that is wanted and how can that be recovered again and again? There is a big philsoophical puzzle or problem in this too.

As one gets older, how does one have the more healthful mindset and way of being.

Clearly reload cannot even recover what is wanted most. What is missing is also the health component of the new day. It is not possible for me, at 44 years old, to arise as a 26 year old or 18 year old no matter what writing I make for myslself. Humoroously, the writing I would prepare for myself would not be anything like my 18 year old self (or not much lik eit), and so would not recover the midn or the health! This is of interest because it indicates nothing can be had, or very little could be had from that age. Although I suppose, these entries can be read when I’m much older, so somewhat , er.. some portion of the mind from the earlier age can be recovered but not the feel and not entirely the state.

What parts of health are in the state?

Knowing that there are differences, how does the development and preferred state change. The preferred and wanted state has to be a possible one.

The older person will have a preferred state that is of a low health condition and of some very good developmental conditions relating to an improved mind existing with decreased mental health too.

Preparation in longevity shoudl include this information.

Now when yu are old and you wanke up, how do you put yourself in the mindset you want given this information?

For now, I think the wakebook is very effective. I think these considerations could amke one think that they are less effective than something else that has not been created, and that seems true, but that would make it appear that the wakebook and journal approach isn’t already amazing and incredible.

The next developments for this will still need to include written instructions. Written instructions of a different kind. So it may be more of the contents of the wakebook than a much larger change of approach ast least initially.

more soon.

213 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740885876, Saturday, March 01, 2025 20:24:36, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1138 seconds. 1253 words. Typespeed: 66.060 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

It is interseting to consider whether complex mathematical objects have magnitude or magnitudes. I prefer the plural, but the expression of a singular is useful, and the conjoint properties or separate magnitudes would still be required for comprehending the singular magnitude. The singular complex magnitude is the set, perhaps a dynamical set, of constituent magnitudes, or subproperties of the total properties of the object

212 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740799741, Friday, February 28, 2025 20:29:01, Phoenix, Arizona

Mathematics

Simply recording the idea. Thought of it while reading a book on linear algebra.

212 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740799757, Friday, February 28, 2025 20:29:17, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 16 seconds. 14 words. Typespeed: 52.500 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Ending The Concepts of Fundamental Ownership, Fundamental Deservingness, Fundamental Credit, Fundamental Property, and Other Easily Rejected Concepts At The Personal Level Such That They Do Not Recur

207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740392610, Monday, February 24, 2025 03:23:30, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Constraint and Determinism | Higher Order Attention

This includes commitments I’ve had since a late teen. But these concepts arise again, and do cause one to go back into using them, with an irritation that that would have to happen again. Now I’m thinking I want to more permanently rid of these concepts.

207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740392666, Monday, February 24, 2025 03:24:26, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 56 seconds. 46 words. Typespeed: 49.260 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Artificial Objects As Distractions Because Parts of The Objects Contain Wrong Motives and Intentions, and This Has Been Left Out of Aesthetics

207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740389071, Monday, February 24, 2025 02:24:31, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention

Recording the idea for now.

207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740389078, Monday, February 24, 2025 02:24:38, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 7 seconds. 5 words. Typespeed: 42.840 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The Conversations Are Stored For People To Have For the First Time And To Continue, But Those Converstions are Over, And That Is A Goal of Writing, To Avoid Repetition and To Move Forward

207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740388960, Monday, February 24, 2025 02:22:40, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships

Storing the idea

207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740388965, Monday, February 24, 2025 02:22:45, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Fightclub and Sheeplike Behavior in People, and Determinism

207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740381482, Monday, February 24, 2025 00:18:02, Phoenix, Arizona

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

I was thinking about the scene from Fight Club the other day, where it is shown that regular people really resist fighting. That it takes quite a lot to get them to realize they are in a situation in which they would need to make a change to their behavior in order to really fight (I know this is kindof true for me too. I wouldn’t immediately have a fight response back towards aggression). But then I thought, ‘I wonder if this is generalizable to other behaviors, in which a useful response that is desirable does not occur even when it ought to occur or is provoked’. I think it generalizes to most movement. Consider that people mostly traverse expected paths. Paths they are familiar with. Paths to work and back, paths to the grocery store, and even paths within the house. They tend to walk, drive, run, and take the same paths over and over. Now suppose you wanted someone to deviate from a path. One way to do so would be to provoke some confrontation like in the movie fight club, hoping they would change course. That plan would not be effective very likely, because after an altercation, they resume a course, they don’t change it. Which things happen to people that change course, versus those things that don’t? It appears since people seldom change course, very few things well, change their course! You could do things like break their vehicles, steal their bicycles, create traffic (somehow), create emergency situations, etc… but these are rare and not as easy to do. These things change courses, destinations, plans etc… But mostly everything else creates delays and then the same paths are traversed. What does this also mean? It also means that the things they do are the same, because if they traverse the same courses, they will be doing the same things (that’s what taking the same path is), but also, they will do the same kinds of things along the paths. Now since we said that it is hard to do things that would cause them to alter course, and that mostly it delays what they do if we make changes, it seems that if we do things to them, usually it results in no change to their behaviors spatially. I haven’t fully thought this through yet, but it is very interesting. How does this relate to your post though, ‘oh yeah, back to that’. People seem to do exactly the same things they were going to do even if you introduce them to new information in my estimation. Try to persuade them, make conflict to force them to change their minds, make them learn, etc… etc… I think they keep to the same behavior with very little alteration and very little change deltas (like those deltas I mentioned in my book). This makes people seem even more stupid and foolish, because those paths and behaviors they have, will seem unchanging even if something is done that one might expect to influence their pathways and behaviors. Instead it does not. Anyway, maybe more on this later.

Determinism and Seeing People Past, Present, and Future As They Move, Particularly if They Have Small Change Deltas

207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740380732, Monday, February 24, 2025 00:05:32, Phoenix, Arizona

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | The Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Hunting | Path Dependence in Economics

Combining the ideas of change deltas, inability of people to alter pathways, resistance to path changes and behavioral changes even with some force, and especially if there is only little force or influence, and hunting, we come to a pretty comprehensive view of the deterministic behavior in other people. I think we observe it.

I think the determinisim of the behavior of others is observable but we have not thought about it so much. We (or other people) have been preoccupied with their own free will, to see that, the behavior of other people really is easily recognized to be causal in an observable way.

I mentioned as an example, that an aging couple begins to have very good predictive powers of teach other, such that it becomes more clear, what the patterns are that exist in each of them. They start to become more aware of the causality that is controlling their behaviors. It is visible to them. They can predict their spouses behavior with better acuracy over time.

Over time, they come to think they know the other better, if both have been more truth ful about their behaviors especially.

There is much more to say on this topic, but for now what I’m most interested in is the resistance to any path change and behavior change in those with low change deltas and that in practice, they can most often be delayed in traversing paths and performing behaviors, but that after delays, they traverse those paths and engage in those behaviors.

They do not change much until forced. There are many ramifications to this.

More soon.

207 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740380983, Monday, February 24, 2025 00:09:43, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 251 seconds. 269 words. Typespeed: 64.260 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Having a Variety of Probabilistic Expectations and Not Only One Expectation, and Mortality As An Example

205 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740208518, Saturday, February 22, 2025 00:15:18, Phoenix, Arizona

ThoughtStream | Health | Evaluative Concepts

A moment ago, I realized there was an issue with how I was thinking about probabilistic expectations regarding my mortality. About when I would likely die and what to expect. My own thinking on this subject is of course more advanced than would be expected in others, however, I certainly did not have it right. I also think that others show signs of the same errors.

This error I have in mind is to think that there ought to be one expectation regarding how old one will be when one dies. Also, the way it is taught, with average mortality, and so on, one is expected to think in a way that is trending towards selecting one outome. For example, utilizing all information, a medical professional may tell a female patient, that here likely life expectancy is 81 years old. This medical professional also used the word “life expectancy” or phrase, to indicate as I stated, that there is only one expectation to be had.

If someone has a terminal illness, they simply change this, and give an expectancy that is shorter.

Early in my twenties and even in my late teens I had some hinking regarding this that was early for the insight I just now had- I could feel the relationship between the two as I just thought about this topic.

I had a ring for a while that said “last day” on it, that I had inscribed onto it, to remind me, at the age of 18 or so, that deterministically my life could end very learly. Ther is a cliche about living as though the current day is the last day of life, and while my thinking did relate to that, it wasn’t as formulaic or cliche. It was more about just having a serious recognition that really one does not have a clear way of knowing that one will live to some advanced age, and that there is still a trong likelihood that one will die earlier.

I was very aware of the many ways people could die, and wanted to seriously keep it in mind that I would not necessarily reach old age.

But I also had another view, which I kept in mind not much later, about it being the “first day”. This simply created a more ful perspective about life in which I would consider that while it could be the lsast day, very likely it was the first of what remains and that there would be more.

I will not here explain more about this but it does have some interest although it has on the surface some very simple charictaristics. And of course there is some excessively simple thinking that goes into this too.

The point I’m wanting to make here, is that at this time, I was already trying to figure out a solution relating to the expectation … related to the problem that one cannot have a singular expectation realistically about when one will die such that it will feel usable, and that one will not need other expectations as well.

This is like a very early way of addressing the issue that one can have multiple life expectancies to have a more sophisticated and full view about what might come and how to plan for it. One really does need to live at least somewhat as though one could die early. If not, then one might be seriously unprepared for serious illness later or injury. Also, one should have a scientifically reasonable expectatin about how long one might live, so one can plan to enjoy more life, and perhaps have a savings to self care into advanced age. In general, it is useful for life planning to know that one might need to self care until one reaches a very old age, if that happens to be what is scientifically reasonable for one’s case.

Now however, as this came to mind, I, and by this I mean simply that I had this first day last day idea in the background someplace, as I thought about how I wouold plan for my remaining years, in attitude and with actual plans of action, I noticed that there probably should be many expectations regarding age.

Mathematically, I don’t know what is most instrumental at present. But even if we look at probabilities relateing to life expectancy, we can plot for ourselves expectations on a continuous gradient from now until a date at which death would definitely occur, say between the present time and 200 years old.

doing this, we already have a list of thousands of anticipations. Using the term life expectancy we choose one of these thousand. In my case I might choose 80 years old, although I have strong doubts that I would really ive that long. Because I’m a vegetarian there are reasons to think I might live longer than that. Am I to use this number, or am I to use another approach that allows me to be prepared at least somewhat for what might ocur later, knowing what I do, about what happens to all other people?

The knowledge about what happens to other people who have similar behavior to me, living in similar places and so on, is useful, because the way they die and the way they manage age will have some similarities to the way I will die and the way thaat I will manage illness.

I really coudl die in a car accident, and I could get cancer. I could suddenly have a stroke or a heart attack.

I have not heard of any sttrategy for this. This trategy would probably link with a general plan of life over the lfie span. It would certainly also link with the death plan.

A solid strategy of upcoming life does include expectations about how much life remains! If it were known that only a few days remained, then one’s plans would not be as necessary! But Knowing that it will be between anytime from now to 200 years old for certain, I have a very wide range of possibilities to have some expectations regarding.

Chunking this into manageable pieces will be necessary. Whtat do I do for the next few years and how do I plan for advanced age are certainly two chunks to plan for, and to some extent what is in between will need to be addressed.

Knowing that a life plan should have thi salready makes this ppear quite an absurdity! To be trying to divy and chunk it into some mangageable strategy to get started without having anything already is a huge moral omission for humankind.

It is not that there are no ways to think abou tthis that are not impoarted to children, but what they would receive is not planful or strategic.

I will think about this further and will have much more to add later, but for now the main idea is that there is a need for each person to have a large number of expectations regarding the future and these would relate to likely mortalities. Liek I thought before, I really should have some plan for having a death soon, and having a death much later. I had some knowledge that at least the endpoints shoudl be considered. The way we have it with the term life expectancy we have a single input. And I’m also aware that this is not all that is available in the culture.

But the way it is thought of really does seem to indicate to me that people are thinkign that one expectancy is what they are wanting and will use, and this is what professionals recommend.

205 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740209682, Saturday, February 22, 2025 00:34:42, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1164 seconds. 1279 words. Typespeed: 65.880 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Loci of The Termination Points of Thought, And Actions That Resulted From Such Terminations, And Not From Finishing, But From Stopping

205 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740192722, Friday, February 21, 2025 19:52:02, Phoenix, Arizona

ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | RationalTimes | Evaluative Concepts

Some thinking people will stop thinking once another has stopped applying pressure on them to continue. Their actions are the ressult of whatever the stoppign point happened to be. If they stopped earlier, their actions would have one character, if later, another, and the point in which they did stop theyir actions had a third character. That result of their actions was due to when the external pressure stopped.

The Loci of the termination point in thought in that person then is related to the stopping of pressure from another party. Irrational and lazy people will have behaviors that result sometimes from having loci that are too early in rational processes but may constitute better actions than if there was no pressure placed on them.

This is just one example.

All thinking stops early. How early depends on many factors. Some of those factors are sensible, others are not. The locus of the stopping point determines the quality of the actions that result. All thinking ends too early where there is not an optimal solve. Solve optimaility is an interesting problem to consider. This is not only the solving of problems, but of solvign them optimally.

Currrently we tihink we solved problems with finality once we’ve gotten to a kind of mathematical solution. But we also know this is not always the case, and still some of these seemingly final results were just tentative.

The optimization of solutions would be related to this problem.

Since we hve not been pressured to finish this problem, e have lazily stopped early, and our actions involve irrrationality with respect to problem solving. In that way, all of humanity is like the lazy irrational person, who needs pressure from others to do anything, but never has enough pressure to finish it really well.

205 Wanattomians, Epoch 1740193019, Friday, February 21, 2025 19:56:59, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 297 seconds. 299 words. Typespeed: 60.360 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Considering Which Things Do Not Have Much Value In Retrospect, What Does Frequency of Coming To Mind Or Inability To Recall Have To Do With It?

201 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739890256, Tuesday, February 18, 2025 07:50:56, Phoenix, Arizona

Evaluative Cocnepts | Human Shortcomings

It is now appearing to me that the ability to recall and requency of recall combined with level of perception of the value of the events on recall are closely related to actual value. But these are so transtory, I wonder now if substitute for other quick transitory thoughts are good enough. Substitution also plays a role.

I do not believe adequate attention to this was paid, while so many have assumed that memory has value. Of course it has value. But how much and when? The elderly have not done any subtle work on this! Have they done any work?

They often live boring unchanging lives, then think it should be rich with achievements and actions and events. But what of what I said above? Waht of the removal of memory with age: What of the reevaluation of events on the basis of the experience that some in retrospect appears to not have mattered much. What of usbstituting some mental events for others? What of transitoriness of memory? What of not being involved in a party versus going, if in retrospect, there is no memory of either? What if a substitute memory takes the place? What if it is one that his not desirable? What if it is more desirable, but is the recollection of eating a grape?

201 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739890469, Tuesday, February 18, 2025 07:54:29, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 213 seconds. 219 words. Typespeed: 61.680 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

If Not Going to An Event Or Not Doing An Event Is Sometimes Or Oftentimes An Enjoyable Substitute For The Event, The Events And Their Frequency Are Greatly Queestionable

201 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739889929, Tuesday, February 18, 2025 07:45:29, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention | Evaluative Concepts

This also relates to he earlier posting about things that afterwards were like they did not matter. Sometimes not going to an event resutlts in activities that tat the time were more relaxing and more enjoyable and more stress free. Both afterwards do not come to mind, either the avoidance of the event or the event.

It appears then that there is also some equivalence in the perception afterwards that the event and the not going to the event both didn’t matter.

201 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739890014, Tuesday, February 18, 2025 07:46:54, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 85 seconds. 82 words. Typespeed: 57.840 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

10 Trillion Dots In Pavement, of Steel Stainless, and Other Metals, For the Handicapped, Who Do Not Use Them

199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739689046, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:57:26, Phoenix, Arizona

Waste

For the one who did!

199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739689053, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:57:33, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 7 seconds. 5 words. Typespeed: 42.840 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Since Famous Politicians and Figures Cannot Write, And Must Satisfy Confidentiality and Security Needs of Secrecy, It follows That They Not Only Won’t Share History and Cannot Write, That We Don’t Have History Because Those Figures Were the Only Primary Figures of History

199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739687511, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:31:51, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | History

We have in history the concept of primary source documents which is not really that great a concept. ThTo this concept, I want to add the concept of a Primary Source Person or Figure. This includes those who were really involved in events. For those reasons listed int he title, it follows we have a very poor record of history. Instead we really rely on writings from those who are distantly related and relay only secondhand. They use the concept of a primar;y source document, to make it seem like they personally are not distant. But they are not primary source figures. They are remote historians.

They are not political leaders who cannot and won’t write. They are civilians, who look at patches of information. What they do is rank that information. Primary source artifacts are nthose that they pretend tell the story or provide all that is needed to validate accounts. But they don’t include their writing! They wrote other things! and these things cannot be infered form their dataset which is the set of premises they hvae.

They will have a very hard time refuting this claim. Methodologically, history is impoverished. We are in a primordial period at the beginning of history. And it may be that we weill live in the future (well people who are living after I die) in a time of evidence tampering and evidenc replacement.

199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739687714, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:35:14, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 203 seconds. 232 words. Typespeed: 68.520 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

History before audiovidual recordings, beginning with Edison’s employees, and before media on television, was the most distant hearsay

199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739686682, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:18:02, Phoenix, Arizona

History | Human Shortcomings

History appears to be more difficult than has been hiterto communicated to students, who are taught to believe that histoical artifacts used have been adequate to support the narratives that have been provided by historians. They certainly have not been adequate. in order to be adequate, the evidence would need to constitute a suffficient set of premises to infer all narratives that make up the storis of history.

There simply is not such information to do this.

On the side of those who were intimate in the decisions about what would happen in historical events, are security related secrets. These secrets were not divulged, and even if they were, would not be believed and there would bnot be useful documents to counterbalance the excess of other writings. Also, too few in power write.

There is therefore a very great scarcity of information from those who really knew more about what was going on and those who provided decisions that really influenced events.

But on the other side, before we had any media, like television and radio, and artifacts that are audio visual, people were far too distant from events to share anything really usable for acurate historical accounts. So we have soldiers and civilians and poets and faux historians telling their hearsay recollections of what they heard or experienced that was most distant from any real decision or central view of situations.

Reading today an account of Hannibal from Livy in a history of he roman republic, by David M. Gwynn, I am seeing how stupidly Livy wrote about Hannibal. Poetically ther are good qualities of compellling literature, using hte criteria of literature others would accept. But I don’t find it good writing or anything really honest.

Writers at this time simply had almost no knowledge of happenings. Without any current media to see about actual happenings in a timely manner, they simply rely on periodic things they heard and saw, infrequently, and utilized that information. this is different than seeing the news everyday!

And yet we cannot trust the news.

History is botched thereby and needs a new foundation. Historians would not admit this, but really, their profession is truly botched. They need to be honest about the scarcity of information and stop along with the scientists sharing as though they really know when really they know very little.

They do not add to their accounts the stronger list of possible omissions and margins of error associatedd with what they can present.

Thinking about what a historian can present, doesn’t it seem as though their list of artifacts in their personal museums must be very scanty? We imagine historians have smithosian like archives about their subject, when in reality they have only a few figures to add to their stories, and a bibliography of remote understandings.

Those writing in history before 1900 comprise all history nearly, with only a small fraction of time being between the onset of media to present. . From 5000 BC to present, we have 7025 years, and if we subtract 1025 years to remove the period in which we have media, we only have 1025 yerars with 6900 having no media whatsover and only horrible hearsay acounts.

This means we have really almost no history to date.

199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739687270, Saturday, February 15, 2025 23:27:50, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 588 seconds. 543 words. Typespeed: 55.380 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

People Do Not Appear To Effectively Use Pros and Cons To Create A Balance Or Differential To Show Sometimes That Social Values Are Minimal or Negative

199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739683648, Saturday, February 15, 2025 22:27:28, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | A System of Thought | Evaluative Concepts

Just now I was reflecting on the recent postings about the reduced value of social relationships. Some social relationships quickly end after being started, and these relationships when started, may appear to have good value. But they also tend to have side effects and negative aspects that surface shortly afterwards. These side effects would be some of the cons of the relationship, if one was doing a binary analysis on relationships using positives and negatives, like an acounting equation.

Doing such an accounting equation, the negatives really do subtract from the positives. When analyzing or thinking quickly about brief relationships, people tend to overstate the strengths or pros about the experiences, and think that the value of such interactions must be equivalent to the total positives counted. Oftentimes, the negatives are forgotten, or are not deducted from the posittives to arrive at a net total .

This bias means that people tend to overstate the value of their relationships. Subtracting the negatives many relationships that appear valuable when thinking only about the pros of the experience are actually relationships that are low value, almost valueless, or have negative value; they can be quite harmful.

Many relationships with strangesrs that were initiated with kind happenstance conversations afterwards immediately fizzled or were ended with no subsequent contact or development, but the thoughts abou that interaction and the relationship constituted negatives in m;any ways. There was an expectation of having more later. The memory of the relation had less positive hthoughts later. More honesty arises after a period of positive inflation of the value of the interaction occurs.

When we talk to people for the first time, we magnify the positives about it, and with respect really have difficulty seeing things clearly and honestly. We claim agreement when we can tell we have little agreement. WE do this in a way that we feel as though there really was agreement when there was not. Later the thought about the disagreeable parts of the interaction become irritations and points that may be dwelled on.

There are many other negatives besides these. Counting the negatives is laborious, there are so many. But there don’t appear to be that many positives. It may be that we’ve come to pretend things are better than they are in interactions to hide just how little we really like sociatlization.

This supports the claim that we think and focus on the pros and postitives, because even our mode and means of interaction is biased in the same direction, and afterwards only does the honesty gradually and not immediately come into view.

When we think generally about social life, we are even more skewed to think that things are positive without thinkign about the negative, partly because we think even that life itself is about social relationshns. This is not a view I share or would ev;en consider, but mainstream culture has people imagining they are servants to humanity and that their relationships and families are what they are living for. If this is taken as a truism, and an assumption, then certainly there is a very strong bias on the positive side, and a resistance to thinking about hte negatives or actually using them in the social accounting equation to find what the value of the relationships really were.

If used in a large accounting equation, I think it would be found that social life is very neutral oftentimes, sometimes negative, and sometimes positive, when there are real freiendships with little negative on both sides. We are all aware of complaints about false friendships too– so people are aware that even those relationships thought to be positive can be among the worst upon examination.

So it seems that on an individual interaction level, many relationshps are neutral, low value, or negative, and many not justifying any effort, with much fewer being really genuinely worthwhile than originally thought. Then in aggregate the same is true for all others. This is quite diffferent than the normal view accepted about social life, although it is ceraintain the normal view is false.

Additionally, we have not included relationships we do not want. If we include these, it appears that social life is not as worthwhile as may be thought, and really what we are seeking is something really rarer than we would originally think, based on the assumptions we were forced to have.

Humorously, we can also relate this to equalitarianism. Obviously, thinking about it this way, equality in the social world is the greatest absurdity, if it is rare to find anyone we would really have positive interactions with, that are clearly worth the effort. These people we find we would hold to be of a value greater than the others. Since we would not feel the same about all the others, there could be no equality between them. This is one subjective measure, but it could be used for all people and show collectively there can be no view of equality since people simply don’t find the others worth interacting with, even if they inflate it with bias at the time they call to mind those indoctrinations we’ve been exposed to when growing up.

199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739684506, Saturday, February 15, 2025 22:41:46, Phoenix, Arizona

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. One edit was performed afterwards, on noticing that an accidental error could have been mistaken for an expletive. That one was changed, all other errors remain.

Instead of Pretending or Desiring to Have Days Full of All That is Desirable, Everydaying Things, One May Want to Consider Multiday Cycles, Like My Three Day Cycle in Preparation

199 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739673655, Saturday, February 15, 2025 19:40:55, Phoenix, Arizona

Higher Order Attention | Architecture | Personal Form | Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

A long time ago, I came to the idea that a multiday cycle is preferred oer a single day cycle. Oftentimes, in our social world, people pretend that they need to accomplish all that can be accomplished with routine activities on a daily basis. Everyday, someone claims they do something. Everdyay someone goes to the gym, and everyday, someone eats healthy meals. People are skeptical about such a claim, and such an approach, but also require it. Typically, I think claims and goals like this have too many flaws to make them justifiable.

Put another way, one does things frequently, periodically, often, or sometimes, in a punctuated or sporatidic way, even if regular. One may have behavior that is typical for a day, which people call a normal or typical day, but usually people do not do the same type of actifvity each and every day, unless it is one that is required, like eating. Even that need not happen every day but it is an example of one activity in which one can really anticipate that someone would not by lying if they said they did it every day.

People would do better to use the language mentioned abouvove about regularity, typification, normaliity, frequency, etc.. instead of simply relying on the word everyday or always.

But more to the point of the posting, what I am suggesting here is not only that thone could do well to alter language to be more precise on this point, but that one can have a better goal than to do things everyday. Instead, one would want to make sure that many or most behaviors that are wanted are present in a cycle that is multiday instead of single day. This has aided me i various ways over the last few years. Firstly, I don’t have unrealisitic expectations about my daily behavior. I know that as long as I’m sufficiently aware about some activity, and have a good habit about doing it, I can expect that I will do it without too great a lapse in days, meaning that I can perhaps expect I’l do the activity at least one time in 4 to seven days, or as much as every day in those fur to seven days.

This has allowed me to identify which recurring behaviors are regular enough to trust that I’ll do them even if I don’t do them every day. Someone who is great at paying bills might know about this already. They don’t pay bills everyday. They may not think about bills everyday. They instead would simply routinely and regularly return to the topic of bills and pay them. It may be worthwile to think about bills every 4 to 7 days, to ensure that not too much time passses before , I mean after, the last bill has been paid, so that it is forgotten to pay the next one.

There is a deterministic habitual process that appears to exist within the bralin once training occurs for this that creates timely reminders to pay bills. But this requires self-training and practice or regular behavior consistent with a training approach.

In an earlier posting, I mentioned that there are a finite (is a finite) set of activities and behaviors that a human engages in. I have found that for myself, having reduced my activities to those I favor, that there are even less activities than one might expect that can be engaged in for a full life and that this list is not only finite but within the realm of what is easy to remember and recall. One can list all activities, count them, and recall them.

Since the list of activities that are desired and actually performed are small, one can easily build a plan to engage in those activities with a regularity that can be assured to occur in some day cycle, like a 7 day cycle or a three day cycle. Without having such a plan with this level of specificiity, but a plan that was somewhat consistent with this with something akin to a seven day cycle for all activities, with some few that were put off or procrastinated concerning (one or very few), I was able to do this already without focusing on this objective exclusively. I focused on other objectives and attained the same, already with the concept of a periodic cycle of several days instead of single days.

Here I am now writing about my new plan, which is deliberate, and current, o have a three day cycle for the entire set of all activities I engage in, by category. This also accounts for spontaneous behviors which allow soem diversity so there isn’t too much rigidity. A three day cycle seems sufficient and adequate to include all activities. Soon it appears all will fit into the three days and there will be none that will be procrastinated.

The new objective is to refine the list of activities and categories of activity. These correspond to or fit within the same life categories that are so often used. This ensures taht life has had sufficient coverage in behavior, or that nothing has been omitted from the plan that is vital for a full and complete life, which is the goal of the personal form and life categories. (a goal of the personal form).

Once the activities have been listed, there is now a set of activities expected to happen every three days. Interestingly, the concept of priority is included in this strategy, in the following way. Some activities will happen on average everyday, others two of three days, and others one of three days. This means that those that are happenign everyday have a sense of importance that makes them more primary. There are reasons why they must be everyday and not too much less than that. The others happen less. Finally are those that must occur with good frequency but not everyday. There are other types of priority that will relate to how important something is if it has been put off for two days but must happen the last day, and for some items that must occur during the day over and above items that would happen with the same frequency for that day, but apart from this, at a macro level, there is still a prioritization occurring simply in this three part division. More generally, we can say something about human behavior, in that whatever is most frequent is held to be more valuable. So even outside this design, there is a sense that prioritization relates to frequency of activity, even if there are other forms of prioritization within this. And of course, frequency of behavior is about all behavior. This is what is meant when it was stated that this is a prioritization at the macro level. All activities will be on the three day cycle, and this includes a prioritization that covers all life behavior that will occur.

It is expected that within the next month, all of my behaviors will fall within the three day cycle. Periodically, there are unexpected necessary actions that become requisite, but these are aberrations or less common needs. These are simply treated separately. This is easily understood and to be expected. One does the same kinds of activities on routinely all of life, and then interspersed within a life, there are demands which are unexpected or less regular, like a need for surgery, to recover from sickness, to suddenly care for someone or take care of an emergency, or to handle government paperwork like taxes. The activity list also changes. But the activity list that changes can include new habituations that fit within the three day schedule and some can be removed. So the three day schedule really does cover most of human behavior and the idea that there are other activities that will be exceptional is anticipated. It does not mean that this approach is in some way infeasible. In principle organizing behavior is feasible, and that people thought they could fit all that they need to do in single days, or that they could do activities every day, indicates that they thought they could get close to actually doing that, even if they could not realize it. I think most were far from realizing it, but I do think it is not impossible to achieve something somewhat closer to that goal, and that is the three day cycle, the five day cycle, or the seven day cycle, with decreasing difficulty of attainment. I have not yet myself achieved a three day cycle. Right now the only behaviors I know I do each and every day are to eat food, have some level of activity, and drink water. There are some others as well perhaps, but really most other behaviors are not every day. Nearly all of my activities do recur within seven days (by category, not the actual behaviors, because history does not repeat. Instead, there are similitudes between activities happening over days which permit us to call the next actions recurrences of prior actions).

The set of all actions will not be a long list. Not all have to happen everyday, but some subset of those actions do have to happen everyday, to create a better life satisfaction. That subset will be identified for my needs. They may not be the same for everyone. So some subset of the actions needs to be done every day, with some substitution allowable. Omitted items for one day happen in the next day, or else in the day after, but are guaranteed to happen within three days, with a frequency of once or twice of every three days, or sometimes all three days. Although this is broken into once, twice, or three times for three days, averages will reflect that some items that happen once or twice every three days, on average happen more often than that. There is a measure of frequency that simply plots the recurrence between 1 and three. There is no between zero and one. Thus is is actually a two day scale, since there are no actions that will not happen at least once every three days. This is omitting unanticipated periods of sickness and so on. These simply halt the process to an extent. There are multiple ways of thinking about this, that could go one direction or the other as to whether unusual conditions should halt the process or be included in it, but for the time being what I am focused on is regularity and habit under normal conditions. In that case I simply omit thoughts about unusual situations, like if I was in a coma. If I was in a coma for three months, I would not want to include the behavior because it would fault my discipline unnecessarily. Then again, one can simply have different metrics given the same data. They are not mutually exclusive then. But still, my attention and focus for now is on this two day scale with averages falling between one and three and not zero and three.

Once habituated, solidified, and automated, all that needs to be performed in a full life will be done on a cycle of every three days minimally. This means that I will no longer be thinking much or nearly at all about what I must do. I simply do what I must do daily, every other day, and all within three days, and repeat. This alleviates moral burdens further, because now there is little to no thought about morality. One simply does good and neutral things automatically and predictably within a three day cycle, with improved sponteneity, because of the design of the plan of the life categories. One then is only a good person doing good or neutral things. Ones life is easier and simple. Automatically one does what one needs to do, makign worries less. One also has enjoyments planned, and these are frequent. One’s health is improved, since one is behaving more optimally as to fitness, nutrition, cleanliness, and hygeine. All is cared for in a compressed timeframe predictably. There is no longer any procrastination. I must mention I have very little procrastination in my life at this point, and I am near having none again. Not only will it be none, delays will at most be two days.

I will say more about this soon if my plans change, and soon as my progress happens.

In Relationships There May Not Be Much More Than Shallow Sentences and Superficial Visuals

196 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739440327, Thursday, February 13, 2025 02:52:07, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Higher Order Attention

Merely recording the idea for now

196 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739440334, Thursday, February 13, 2025 02:52:14, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 7 seconds. 6 words. Typespeed: 51.420 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

If You Are Informed About The Activities of Another Person You Do Not Know Or Have Not Seen In A While, You Have Not Really Learned More

196 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739440084, Thursday, February 13, 2025 02:48:04, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Higher Order Attention

Oftentimes updates of other people about other people are not really worthwhile. The result of such updates, oftentimes, is equivalent to zero new information, if that information is taken in ratio to what is left out. This seems like it would be common knowledge, but it is not. It really appears that people think that by such updates they have resumed having adequate knowledge about someone.

They think they can use such information to believe they still know someone well. They give theupdates as if they have such results and ask for them as though they expect oachive knowledge by getting it.

I will be practicing not really attending or thinking much of such information received. It appears there is no person for which such an update would provide knowledge, be it someone wh ois famous, infamous, someone who is a relative, a friend, an acquanintance, a friend of a friend, or a colleague. There is no person who would be known better by receiving a piece of information such as is provided by people providing hearsay updates.

196 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739440263, Thursday, February 13, 2025 02:51:03, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 179 seconds. 178 words. Typespeed: 59.640 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Obstructing Others Can Result In Legacy Deletion of The Legacy Not Even Had Yet

193 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739210580, Monday, February 10, 2025 11:03:00, Phoenix, Arizona

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Mathematics | Ethical Architecture

Recording for now.

193 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739210585, Monday, February 10, 2025 11:03:05, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Relocating An Object Or Container Is Similar To Replicating, Mirroring,Duplicating, And Copying It

193 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739207891, Monday, February 10, 2025 10:18:11, Phoenix, Arizona

Mathematics | Software Architecture | Ethical Architecture

Simply recording the idea for now.

193 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739207897, Monday, February 10, 2025 10:18:17, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 6 seconds. 6 words. Typespeed: 60.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Those of Us Who Can Size Up Others, and Are Perceptive About What SmallBehaviors Mean, Fail to Admit That Much of The Pattern of A Person Is Known Quickly

191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738999841, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:30:41, Phoenix, Arizona

Personality | Descriptive Typological Systems and Wanting to Know People

Routinely, I’ll notice a small behavior, and let it slide. In other words, I don’t allow myslef to predict that there is a bad durable trait in the other person, or that there will be unwanted conflicts and outcomes later.

The reality is very often I am shown that I should have judged faster and earlier and more definitively. It is almost never the other way around.

It nearly never happens that a person who I meet who I think might have a durable bad behavior or traait, putting it simply, is someone I was wrong about. Nearly always I am right about ti and there are some negative consequences as a result later.

This is not somethign that happens often, that I let things go along until there are bad consequences, not knowing that I should have avoided a person or have done something to alter conditions. It is infrequent that I have lapses in judgement that er serious.

This is more about the smaller issues. Tjhose smaller issues that still lead to annoyances and larger issues, that others definitely usually would notcare about or thing much about, being less adept at sizing people up.

Many times, I have sized people up, to see issues worth mentioning toothers, who disbelieved in what I saw, only to see later that these were problem people. This was when signs were serious and obvious, and still the others were unable to see the trends and traits of the other person clearly.

Nowadays, I am noticing I’m better at it than I realized before. Nowadays I’m feeling I should immediately assume my judgement is right. As a heuristic, it owould have few if any failures. If it seems to have heuristic value, then it appears it is somethign that would benefit me immensely put into action , to simply trust my inclinations.

That is the cause of this writing. Now I think fast judgement is more valuable. iIt has to be proven that one really ahs this skill and that it is valuable and that rrors are few. I’ve proven it too long! Socially, we are told, to keep giving hchances. Now Isee few chances are better.

It seems to imply aslo that solitude is betetr, and I like solitude so there is a good consistency between these two ideas.

191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1739000186, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:36:26, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 345 seconds. 387 words. Typespeed: 67.260 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

When We Think We Represent Reality, What We Are Doing Is Akin To Representing An Interior System, Rather Than the Full Exterior System

191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738998891, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:14:51, Phoenix, Arizona

Constraint and Determinism | Mathematics

When we talk about reality, we are typically talking about the exterior system including all internal systems such that there is nothing outside that is additional to consider. Reality is identified with what people have called the Universe. I am now oonsidering disuse of universe, because it is simply an attempt to claim that there is a known entity that constitutes the entire exterior system.

Now I believe I really will disuse the word universe.

Reality is not something we have immediate access to as students of science and philosophy are aware. But then why keep speaking of reality and universes as though one has such access. Waht one has access to interfaces with the exteriior system that provides immediate inputs. The exterior system providing input and larger systemic ingredients is not even the larger external system that includes it, very likely. We do not know when we probed to edges of the system, either at the macro or micro scale, and certainly not in time, thinking about endpoints, of beginning and some time well past the beginning.

There are things in the universe in which we do not conceive of ends or starts. Including certain physical laws. So it follows that there are things we are willing to understnand as being perhaps more durable than physical objects. But observability applies to physical objects too, and we must admit we cannot see the external system to which our internal system is the nested portion of reality.

Thought about this way, knowledge can be thought of, by analogy and illustration, as an interior circle withing many other circles nested, and what we have access to is just an increasingly large circle surrounding the interior circles. A very simple illustration, but one most imaginations would lack. So it is helpful.

What is true is as we study, we get a better view of the exterior system ( still thinkign figuratively, although from the spatial perspective, and time perspective, it makes sense to think there is an outer wrapper which is not yet knowable, and beyond that, there may be additional wrappers., and these wrappers can contain new things that have not yet been experienced.

Another way to think of the situation of growting knowledge in relation to areas of ignorance and perhaps areas of complete and permanent ignorance.

Permanent ignorance is an important topic.

If we were to ask people for a list of items in the permanent ignorance, they would have trouble knowing what those would be. But then why do they think and assume it possible to know everything, or have some knowledge about all things such that combined there would be knowledge about reality all the way to the most exterior wrappers? Matttanaw’s law plays a role here too, but I can save that for another conversation.

191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738999402, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:23:22, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 511 seconds. 468 words. Typespeed: 54.900 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Input or Environmental Randomness From the Perspective of A System That Cannot See Externally Seems Random, But Outside The System Without The Uncertainty or With Diminishing Uncertainty It Is Or Appears Non-Random or Pseudo-Random

191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738998079, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:01:19, Phoenix, Arizona

Mathematics | Constraint and Determinism

It does not seem to me that there is any complete randomness whatsoever that is natural in an absolute sense. The word random comes with the idea that there is something absolute as to the randomness, although it can be used in a relativvistic way as well.

With respect to the relativistic idea about randomness, one can consider that if a system is unable to see inputs or is unaware about how the inputs arose, then the system has a perspective in which randomnss appears to exist, even if it is due to uncertainty. Under uncertainty, from tehe perspective of the uncertain, there are kinds of relativistic randomness. It is related to the mind tor the system that is perceiving the inputs and information that arose without any absolute convicition.

Outside of this context, if the causality of the randomness is known, in some cases, that randomness would cease to be considered random. So larger systems with interior systems that thinkt here are random inputs would see that those inputs are not random.

There may be a way to define randomess more accurately using this way of thinking.

Some have argued that there is a fundamental randomness in physical reality and one piece of infomration showing it is extensive and pervasive is from quantum mechanics. My perspective is that it seems likely that with additional exploration any uncertainties about the randomness of inputs would be reduced or eliminated such that an external system is known containing the earlier system such that the absolute randomness thought to exist will be shown to not exist. But this is something that woudl not be agreed upon by others necessarily. Many think that the randomness in question really is a natural feature of the universe and I am not yet convinced regarding that.

Without any proof, I tend to use the term pseudo-random, instead of random, to mean that what is experienced is simply random if there is uncertainty, and that if one inspects futher the randomness is eliminated. . Much more must be said on this topic fbut for the moment it is interesting to think that there can be systems that have limited knowledge that would have a potentially actual … corection more random like experience than external systems that have more information and do not have the uncertainty.

History has largely been a trend away from the experience of randomness to greater dunderstanding of determinism.

191 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738998546, Saturday, February 08, 2025 00:09:06, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 467 seconds. 404 words. Typespeed: 51.900 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Which Areas Of Math Apply To All Particular Situations

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738875077, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:51:17, Phoenix, Arizona

Mathematics

Which areas of mathematics apply to all situations and only some? What situations relate to some math but not all math? What does relate to all math?

How comprehensively does math apply to each and every scenario and how does one identify what math does not appply? If one is actively seeking to find all relevant mathematics that realtes to a situation to fully understand a situation, one wants to do more than simply relate an area or two of math to that situation, but to actually know how any and all math relates.

What are all the physical laws that relate to a situation?

An objective is to isolate utnil what is under consideration is only determined by a few ingredients. The minimal number of ingredients allows a human mind to solve precisely or more precisely what is going on. The scientific method calls for isolation. But how isolated really are these various scenarios? Are we looking at aspects to make isoluation?

An interesting way to go about understanding sitautions is to refuse to just isolate and to try to know it comprehensively instead, because that too provides many benefits and perhaps more sometimes. This is like a legal approach to understand a phenomenon.

What are all thte maths that appply and what are all the laws of antaure that relate? As I sit there, and am I subject to all laws of nature, or just some? I think it is probably only some potentially, but maybe most are relating. How many exist that are not testable?

In any case, for the prusuit for moral knowledge, knowing what mathematics applies is important. So for any particular situation I want to correctly identify the related mathematics and have approaches that provide value for those sitautions using those mathematical areas. Not only those that apply at that time because they have variables of interest, but all that could have variables of interest, or any interest, simply for understanding the situations.

It appears comprehensive and focused understanding are actually really at odds with each other somewhat, and that science maybe steered people away from comprehensvie understanding. Specific roles in work does the same, and people realy seek to understand people in simplistic terms so peopls put themselves in those terms by doing things non-comprehensively.

But what is really needed is more total than more specific.

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738875484, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:58:04, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 407 seconds. 393 words. Typespeed: 57.900 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Things That Feel Like They Did Not Matter AFter They Happened

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738873236, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:20:36, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | ThoughtStream | Another Ethic | Higher Order Attention

Some things immediately after they happened did not seem like they really mattered. This can include happenings and events that were large in scale, and those that simply felt like they would have been important at the smaller scale but werent.

I’m interested in this kind of thing that turned out not to matter, but I’m also interested in another kind, and that’s those things that one thought was important in life, or important in moral planning, but did not turn out to be important.

What is the perspetctive of the oldest rational mind, regardin their own personal history?

What seemed important and didn’t matter.

Sometimes memories reveal that things that seemed important were not and other things that did not seem important seemed more worthwile later.

What is the ;most durable feeling of what is worthwhile, that lasts in to the many decades of old age.?

When is it finished, this search, to know what things did not matter after all?

I don’t tactually think one has to live a thousand years to figure this out, or liveto be old to know. I think people ancan know this as children, once they are taught!

And why did nthey not get taught this already? Why was the message not clear? Why do the old people learn it old, well that’s because they didn’t learn it while young?

The implication is a horrible failure of religioin!

That the olds are required to tell us what was and was not important for entire lives, and that they’d fail to teach us, because we can’t know ourselves until we’re old! Otherwise we could ask young people and what they’d say would simply agree with what old people would then say.

Another area where age doesn’t matter when it’s simply information that’s being shared.

I think it will be easy to make it claear what is of value and what isn’t in life for later in life, with a consideration that it could have ended at any time. This will be easy up until advanced old age, considering the results that will come from the earlier posting on (err this posting), about things that feel like they did not matter afterwards.

Taht informtion is needed, because people think they are building up lives that they will enjoy in retrospect. Big events, getting married, graduating from college, having a business, advancing in career, having children, and so on, may feel much later to have been not very imortant. Time management seems to old people to be important, but I’m thinking it isn’t so important as they assume. I do accept it as important however.

This information would allow for choosing things that have different values than one would expect as one lives. What is of greatest value while living? The older people would not only state that certain things were not important afterwards, but that other things seemed like they would be much better or were. They were life activities that built greater value over time.

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738873735, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:28:55, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 499 seconds. 501 words. Typespeed: 60.240 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Wants and Desires Versus Voting Process

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738873157, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:19:17, Phoenix, Arizona

Voting

To expand on soon.

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738873162, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:19:22, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 5 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 48.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Happiness, Flourishing, Moral Direction, And The Functions and Trajectory of Nature. How They Come Together To Explain Why Being Moral Is Better on Probabilistic Grounds

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738872446, Thursday, February 06, 2025 13:07:26, Phoenix, Arizona

Another Ethic | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomigns

That happiness and flourishing and living longer has a relationship with firstly, striving that is universal nearly, and that this has ramifications for physics and biology. The idea here is to relate this universal striving to something physical that fits within a system in a clean way. The result is that human striving, which would not always be successful and for pseudo-random reasons, would be connected actually with the trajectory of nature. Those who have a good moral system, then, would be more likely, but not with guarantees, to have a better life more consistent with natures direction. This appears to be the case anyway. It seems this provides the direction required connecting moral thinking with what nature is trying to get out of people through the functions they have due to evolutionary advancement.

That Quick Death After Long Life Might Indicate Life May Really Have Functions That Are Purely Physical

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738871933, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:58:53, Phoenix, Arizona

Another Ethic | Living Autobiography

Simply recording the idea for now.

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738871939, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:58:59, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 6 seconds. 6 words. Typespeed: 60.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Trial And Error Exists For All Truths

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738870802, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:40:02, Phoenix, Arizona

A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings

This is something interesting I came up recently, although I’m not sure to what extent I’d want to commit to it. This is the idea, that everything that exists, and exists tomorrow, and is somehow tested. Well, that’s not the original thought, but a slightly new thought based on the earlier one, which is more about what is stated or thought than what exists. But it seems to apply to what exists too as I think about it now.

Darwinism says that animal life is tested. If it is being tested, and each life is striving in some way for survival, and nature is trying to make things that are fit, and they are composed of things that are inanimate, it seems that much of nature is being tested, and that most agree to this already. Now this is in talk about reality! So reality is testing itself and is being tested! At least parts. But even if only parts and not the entire cosmos, it is all we care about. All life.

This would make it appear true then that we would agree that truths are being tested, or the source of truths which is reality. But in addition to this, we are saying things. The saying and thinking of things is part of biological life. This eans we are being tested too for our thoughts or regarding our thoughts, as parts of our lives, which are included within Darwinian “struggle”. (Here I’m using some language from Darwinism although I don’t prefer that language).

Our thoughts about the world include true and false thoughts. Our true thoughts are then being tested in the world along with the false ones, as our entire selves are being somehow threatened with death and diminishment by the world around us.

I don’t like this idea about Darwinism, that somehow we are continjuously tested or are continuously unde rthreat, thinking it false, but since the prevailing view is that we are actually “surviving” all of th etime, in some sense it seem swe are continuously, if not very often, if not often enough, tested by our surroundings.

So in that way it appears to be true that truths are tested. These are truths in symbols and representative mind as it relates to reality, which includes real truths which are hte same thing. I would aggree this language is sloppy, but will persist nevertheless in expressing the idea.

Additionally, it appears that, the world really may be continually testing things that exist in a way. Does the stuff corectly conform to natural laws or not? (Despite the earlier language, I dno’t believe this at the moment. I’m playing with the ideas). The world keeps forcing things to remain on natural paths according to natural laws, supposedly according to what mathematicans have discovered. Do things simply follow these paths automatically, or are there any tests along the way? Here I am tring to search for something reasonable that would indicate that continually there is some testing happening, which would agree with darwin at the physical level, however. But so far I can’t see anything too compelling.

What is much more compelling is that truths that people have get tested. It also appears to be true that they are tested repeatedly, . When we are living, and our thoughts are tested again and again, getting feedback each time, that is really trial and error testing. The truths get tested along with the untruths. This is why: how do you know when your testing is complete? At the end of your slef-testing, if you arrive at a truth that always without exception works for you, then all utilizations will appear to have a success. These many successes are confirmation that the truths are actual. But there is some anticipation in science that if one waits long enough, all truths will be falsified. Perhaps excepting some facts that don’t involve or relate to perpetuation or ctointnuity. For example, the mas of the earth at a time happens to be the mass at that time. Later, there is no concer nwhat the mass will be. That is different from a truth that is about something that continues through time.

Thinking now to move onto some new activity, I want to conclude that it is interesting to think about which truths no longer get tested. And maybe thought that way, which ones no long er get tested, without any reference to what should or should not be tested according to rules of scince. Just scientifically, what gets gested and what doesn’t.

Some act as thought DNA is being continuously tested. And as I reflect on it, cells are failing to rebuild correctly and are failing to replicate. Are they failing tests of various kinds in nature? What is being tested and not? This akes it seem s though there is a pressure that exists, thinking imaginatively, that makeds it seem s as though, really, even the minutest of things have tests for them. What of within physics? What of this DNA analogy would be true to atoms?

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738871780, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:56:20, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 978 seconds. 846 words. Typespeed: 51.900 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

There Are Few People Who Can Feel The Investment In a City or Nation That is Merely a Territory of Their Larger Nation, Such That They Strongly Think it is Theirs

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738869815, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:23:35, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

Annexed countries, and territories that are distant, simply do not create any real feeling of possesion among those who are citizens of the nation that belongs them.

To give an example, suppose Hawaii was suddenly taken from the United States. None who are not in Hawaii can have any real feeling of possession of that territory. If it were decided, from above, that this N territoy, these territories, were to be given to another country, sold to another gountry, let go due to warfare, or let go for the sovereignty of locals in that location, people would move on in their lives as if it never happened.

Likely the expandsion of a nation creates a good source for argumentation in the same direction. The nation grwos and soon has new territory to add formally. Nobody feels they possess that land. Few would have been involved in that growth. It seems to follow that nobody really thinks it is their possession initially excepting some very few people who are among the actualy inovolved.

If it follows that none are thinking they are possessing these locations had or not had, in my estimation, that they don’t possess them. Or that they don’t think they really have a strong claim to them, or that they simply do not care too much for them. They could receive these possesions without too much change or feeling about it, and they could give ithem away without concern or expecation of repayment.

Additionally, there are some changes that simply do not cause any concern afterwards anyyway, since people are indifferent as to th lodifferences.

This will later be shown to have many interesting ramifications, many of which challenge common views about hwhat is or isn’t a nation, and what is or isn’t theirs, and what is or isn’t their involvement in the governments they are stuck within.For now this is enough, and for later I intend to connect this to the topic of the relationship of individuals to groups. In the ideas above, there is a confusion of who is doing what when nations annex other nations or territories, or when they give them up. Who id soing it? We act as though the nations really are singular entities, and that it wasn’t a few people involved in actions to annex or give up territory. A few is not correct, but is a reasonable way to provocatively put it given percentages of population that are infovleed. The percentage of the U.S. poulation involved in gaining Alaska for example is effectively zero.

Also, if most individual s in a nation don’t care one away or another, then why is it claimed that there are such great feelings about the suject at the national level? Suddenly, if there is any situation that concerns gaining or giving up land, the nation is willing to take huge actions to prevent it or make it happen, and those actions cannot be from people who really care, unless those who arcare are just those few who are involved.

This is an interesting example, because it relates to colonization and warfare in the long term. Some countries wer equikcly granted independence without much conflict. Some had to struggle severely. In both cases, those who are initially concerned are (I would delete this line but allow it to remain).

More later on ramifications relating to the above points.

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738870600, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:36:40, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 785 seconds. 563 words. Typespeed: 43.020 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Another Way It Is Known That Family Legacies Are Unreal, Is That Nations Are Not Expected to Be Preserved By Emmigrants, II

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738868200, Thursday, February 06, 2025 11:56:40, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

Continuing from the prior post, these second generation children seem to be soemewhat tormented by this division. Life is more difficult being an emmigrant we are told, and this would be true for both first and second generation children. If we believe them, it follows that there i strouble with this arrangement that will need to be relieved.

The way that it is relieved is that the children simply want to become more like the people in the new culture, particularly if the country is one worth joi;ning. Assuming the emmigrants went to a country that is wealthy or better in various ways than the prior culture, there will be a strong desire to simply decrease the effort and join the new culture where there is want of not only acceptance but potentially fame.

It will be known that fame cannot be had. It will also be known that attention will be difficult to obtain. it may seem the hot culture is less loving and less accepting and that’s because it is ttrue they are less lovign and accepting.

The patern that is universal really is assimiliation into the new culture. As I said, it turns out that the heritage simply quickly erodes and vanishes and the third generation children are likely to know very little about their original source culture.

For those in the America, we can confirm this easily, in that all Americans who came from some place else, had progeny that ultimately called themselvees Americans later, and had to use tools like Ancestry dot com to simply find what their heritage even was!

In America, people vaguely state that they are Irish, German, English, French, and so on, and by that they mean their genetics, and partially their ancestry, which would be evident in family trees they didn’t keep or never had. They simply were totally assimilated into the new culture. Only small behavioral relics would exist in what they say and do that resembles what was said and done by earlier generations in their family. But they don’t know where these relics came from or what they are, meaning really totally they have adopted the host culture.

There are clear implications to the reasonability of legacies and inheritance from this observation. These points make it clear there are a number of issues with legacies that make their function illusory.

Taking this point and returning to the thesis that legacies cannot preserve source cultures in host environments, we can see it follows that the family legacies were not functioning in these conditions. Also grabbing that earlier observation that families when expanding will eventually have populations the size of towns or cities, we also see that what would be created by these emmigrants in host cultures would simply be populations of that size that are of the host culture, deleting the legacy that supposedly existed or should exist, by the third generation.

Family legacies do not always include this component of trying to keep a culture alive. But oftentimes it does include this component. The quantity of people who have moved around the globe is huge, and populations do continue to move and blend. In the United States, no person is from the Americas except the indigenous tribes. That means every person alive in America not of native descent is an example of a termination of a legacy. All l 300 million people came from families and did not preserve the legacies.

This appears true and proven at this point with this observation. But what about everyone else who remains. Well, if one remains in a place, one has nothing to do to preserve a cultural legacy that is there existing. One simply lives life in tahat location. There may be some few people who are working on and are interested in preserving culture, but the reality is that mot are just living, and by living they create a changing continuity from prior times to later times.

In this changing continuity, must i s changed. We have the concept of a generation to divide times suggesting that different populations who are at different ages have important differences. Later generations of course become the only living generations. This means that what was claimed to be important in earlier generations is actually lost. There isn’t really a belief that what is konown by old people really can be transmitted to young people. Only parts can be taught.

What is taught appears to be what is core to the culture like the language and ways of behaving in youth, along with how to get along in the world getting employment and interacting with institutions and the market. Experiences of earlier generations are really laregely lost. There is too much information to teach and convey, and so teaching what the older generations thave experienced is futile.

Older generations tend to have some disappointment with the direction of their culture later and some disappointment in the differences between their age group and new age groups, with increasing differences as time goes on. This means while they are alive they can actually see that legacy doesn’t function. The trend is obliteration, with some key teachings being preserved.

In a way, people learn the language, and those things mentioned above, while becomeing ignorant of history. Or while they are unable to really have access to history as they undergo their learnings.This allows them to think largely independently with respect to history– by that I eman they don’t rely on, have, or utilize, what exists in history much, or what the elders have directly experienced and can remember. They take teachings without that context and use it in a new context in a somewhat unguided way.

If a young person were to claim that htey had sufficient access to the history of their grandparents and parents to access it directly and replace them, the elders would be angered very likely, because that would be thought to be impossible. It would be thought that the older generations, the older population, all of it, holds infoormation that is valuable, that cannot be had. WEll if it cannot be had by the younger person it follos they will never have it! Because the elders will make this claim until the death! That they still have information that matters that the youths did not and could not learn, and that the older generations could not teach.

From this view of genrations, it really follows that we alread;y anticipate significant loss of culture over time. New generatinons cannot receive legacies very easily, and additionally, since what people are doing in their culture is simply living, without any active work to preserve, they don’t do anything. It would follwo that legacies don’t really function or that they don’t exist anyway because people simply do what they do anyways. Arguably;, if one thought this supportedl legacy, I could respond then that everyone has a legacy. But legacy is something people compete for and find challenging.

A patriarch doesn’t simply have an easy task of livign. That would imply that parenting has not had any effort, and that there has not been any goal to have a specified legacy that is knowable. It would follow that there is no legacy that is specified and that it simply is subsumed into the largerculture of people just living without any plans for a legacy.

Men striving for big names are then made equivalent with anyone. As I write this, I am slowly building up new premises that I can use in a more rigorous presentation of this information to demonstrate that legacy and inheritance were largely founded on delusions. There are many other arguments in addition to these, for example that children reject legacies anyway ( a point similar to that about second generation emmigrants).

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738869574, Thursday, February 06, 2025 12:19:34, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 1374 seconds. 1299 words. Typespeed: 56.700 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Another Way It Is Known That Family Legacies Are Unreal, Is That Nations Are Not Expected to Be Preserved By Emmigrants

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738867709, Thursday, February 06, 2025 11:48:29, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

I will not write out all thoughts relating to this until I have them better organized, but I will say a few things briefly as I record the diea.

Small countries are odd entities. The people within them may have a wide variety of reasons for wanting to have a separate nation, but over time, I think it becomes obvious whthat what is had simply is not really desirable, and any excess love of the nation, and inclination to protect the nation, comes along with foolishness and stupidity.

When I imagine a nation has ced decided to be separate from other nations, it was due to survival or due to a desire to have separation, to have a singular identity among the people and to retain a separate identity. But it’s also for resources, and in any case I reject the idea that a group of people would really decide that particular act. Really I think a small group or a few would control whether or not there would be a separate nation.

Small nations mean that within them there is less territory. Having a strong love for a tiny place without a desire to move about is really ridiculous if one could sipmply be a part of a larger nation that includes that same area. If it includes that same area, then one has it already but has created fencing.

The other seriously ridiculous issue is that peolpe think they really are actually preserving a legacy the way they think they are. Oddly I think the subject of keeping a connected and continuous national history is related to the retaining of a legacy at the group level. Oh and I meant to mention it connects with the believf in legacies at the smaller level, becaues what is wanted to be retained is similar to what is wanted to be retained in the family. For example, individual expatriat families try to keep up those customs and behaviors that were like those of the nations that they emmigrated from. But using what I’e said before about legacies, and other poit s about their ineffectiveness, is that once a people leaves their homeland, they can expect that their heritage would dissolve into the other nation in which they’ve come to be nationalized in. This is simple assimilation.

Retaining the cultural heritage does seem to be more possible at the national level, because the context of what one has is still existing, and in such a case there is more surrounding which allows for the preservation. However, it appears tsill that legacies are not really real at the group level either, because only afer a few generations does life stop resembling what was had before. National boundaries are also expected to change rather than remain the same for many small nations, particularly those that I hae in mind in Europe. It does not appear, that the nation will be able to preserve anything that is exactly what they are wanting to preserve, and they don’t have a group related way of making the decision collectively. The group cannot have a way to decide what excatly will be retained in the culture at the time of creating the nation state, and they can’t during the possession of the nation state or nation either. What happens later is not something that can be visualiaed. At best there are some re

I’m strongly of the opinion that legacies in families that are historically patriarchical are a confirmation of human delusion. Additionally, since legacies do not actually work, and are unreal, inheritance does not do what people think it does. For now I’m not going to discuss inheritance, but will provide an additional reason why one can expect that a legacy will fail to function.

That reason is that if one was going to become an emmigrant of acountry in which ther was a strong desire to preserve culture, there would not be a realistic expectation that the family alone could preserve that culture while abroad. Since a family, after many generations, will create many people such that there would be a population equivalent to a town, if the legaciy is preserfved, the national legacy within the family legaciy, it would follow that a new nation elsewhere with the same cultural heritage would be emerging.

However, this is not what we expect. Instead of expecting this, we expect that it will be rapidly dissolved in tho new host culture. We expect that youths in the new culture will adopet the host culture and only partly adopt bits and pieces of the culture from which they came. After a short time even second generation immigrants are more like the people in the host culture than people in the parent’s nation.

189 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738868083, Thursday, February 06, 2025 11:54:43, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 374 seconds. 792 words. Typespeed: 127.020 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Small Countries Imply Foolish Behavior and Beliefs Within Them

188 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738791248, Wednesday, February 05, 2025 14:34:08, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings

I will not write out all thoughts relating to this until I have them better organized, but I will say a few things briefly as I record the diea.

Small countries are odd entities. The people within them may have a wide variety of reasons for wanting to have a separate nation, but over time, I think it becomes obvious whthat what is had simply is not really desirable, and any excess love of the nation, and inclination to protect the nation, comes along with foolishness and stupidity.

When I imagine a nation has ced decided to be separate from other nations, it was due to survival or due to a desire to have separation, to have a singular identity among the people and to retain a separate identity. But it’s also for resources, and in any case I reject the idea that a group of people would really decide that particular act. Really I think a small group or a few would control whether or not there would be a separate nation.

Small nations mean that within them there is less territory. Having a strong love for a tiny place without a desire to move about is really ridiculous if one could sipmply be a part of a larger nation that includes that same area. If it includes that same area, then one has it already but has created fencing.

The other seriously ridiculous issue is that peolpe think they really are actually preserving a legacy the way they think they are. Oddly I think the subject of keeping a connected and continuous national history is related to the retaining of a legacy at the group level. Oh and I meant to mention it connects with the believf in legacies at the smaller level, becaues what is wanted to be retained is similar to what is wanted to be retained in the family. For example, individual expatriat families try to keep up those customs and behaviors that were like those of the nations that they emmigrated from. But using what I’e said before about legacies, and other poit s about their ineffectiveness, is that once a people leaves their homeland, they can expect that their heritage would dissolve into the other nation in which they’ve come to be nationalized in. This is simple assimilation.

Retaining the cultural heritage does seem to be more possible at the national level, because the context of what one has is still existing, and in such a case there is more surrounding which allows for the preservation. However, it appears tsill that legacies are not really real at the group level either, because only afer a few generations does life stop resembling what was had before. National boundaries are also expected to change rather than remain the same for many small nations, particularly those that I hae in mind in Europe. It does not appear, that the nation will be able to preserve anything that is exactly what they are wanting to preserve, and they don’t have a group related way of making the decision collectively. The group cannot have a way to decide what excatly will be retained in the culture at the time of creating the nation state, and they can’t during the possession of the nation state or nation either. What happens later is not something that can be visualiaed.

What is a Heuristic And What Is Not

188 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738789452, Wednesday, February 05, 2025 14:04:12, Phoenix, Arizona

A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings

Recently I was thinking about how prejudice can be a heuristic, and not purely a form of bigotry. In relation to that posting, I thought again about heuristics more generally, and wondered what is a heuristic, and what is not. This is not a thought that would be about the meaning of heuristics, I know what that is. This is about really being able to identify when a heuristic is being used and when one is not, such that one is aware about the nature of the tools being used.

In moral life, much is heuristic. Very infrequently (actually realized it is frequent, so cancelling that thought). Sometiems what is decided about utilizes experience in a way that is not really claer. We make judgements based on experience using a heuristical approach that is ambiguous but effective. An AI system, if it learns how to do something, will be doing somthing in a way that is heuristical often times, because it uses probability and with probability there is uncertainty, and with the uncertainty there is no guarantee concerning the rules used.

That’s one way to look at tit. There is another way to look at AI an dbrains to see that they are not really rule-oriented so the term heuristic is not really as applicable. That is rule oriented in the sense that they find a rule, improve the rule, and then rely on that rule in order to know what to do. That is not really how they work. They learn and use what is learned, but hey are not specifying what has been learned in such a way that there are rules assoiated. That happens only sometimes. Genearally a learning and acting system is not really acting according to rules it has come up with.

However, people do actually form rules and principles and make plans that they use to act upon. This is where I realized that really much that I do a s a moral philosopher and moral person is to act on these plans and self created directives and suggestions, and so on. I do this very very frequently and in a way it contains my behavior and influences all behavior at this point, or nearly all behavior.

This growing system in which one is aware about that one actually uses, in the form of a plan or a rule or a process, and so on, is one that is heuristical. It does not definitively produce the results that are desire devery time.Reliability is extremely high, and the process has very few flaws in certain ways, but it has to be admitted there are gaps iand flaws in other ways that make it imperfect.

A sttrange thought is whether heuristics really make sense. It is strange to think about this because the idea of a heuristic is so common,. This relates to the idea abou thwat is heuristic and what is not. A rule that works every time is a rule that is not thought to be heuristical. But aren’t almost all rules like this? this would mean that most rules are certainly heuristics. Maybe more interesting is to know which rules are not. Some aspects of the higher order attention process I’ve created seems to be non-heuristical. This means I am living according to a process that is at least secure nearly absolutely sin some few ways.Stating those ways that it is absolute would allow for dthe description of which parts of the ethical system are free of flaws and blemishes and are absolute and not heuristical.

By absolute, I mean really really accurate and precisely correct like a law of nature. I accept that these may not be so absolute as people might think if one looks at it from a philosophy of science perspective, but from an ordinary perspective, a mathematical rule about the motion of an object that is as current as it can be in science is nearly absolute or is absolute with respect ot certain aspects. Mathematical predictability at a level in which there is no expected aberration is non heuristical. This is what is supposed to define what a heuristic is, by setting the boundary of what it is not.

This posting is about knowing what is heuristical and what is not in everyday experience for all things that ight be characterized as one or the other. In my experience people are not really seeking to know this information but it is very important.

Consider if for an aspect of life, like nutrition, if one can know a rule or set of rules that are not heuristical, but are absolute. This would enable a person to stop thinking as much about which kind of nutrition one should have would be. There would be very little talk about nutrition very likely where it relates to these things. It allows one to be decisive.

Regarding what is heuristical, one would be aware of where there might be lacks of knowledge. Heuristics exist as replacements for what would be complete knowledge. If I hav a heuristic, it likely means I have not gotten to a point in which I have certain knowledge about a rule or process. Heuristics are useful but they are due to limited information.

Other times, heuristics relate to the permanent scarcity of information. These are useful to know about too. This would allow one in ones moral knowledge to know twhat really cannot be known. This allows for one to know the limits of tools that one has, and this would allow one to really and confidently adapt to not having specific pieces of information and to remain oaware about what kinds of information t;hose are.

With this information one would have a much jore secure existence. This result could be achieved in probably more than this way, ut maybe not. Eitehr way the desired result is one that does not yet exist. The task to get there seems somewhat easy, in a more sketchy way at first, but ieven this would be very helpful, and in a comprehensive way later. REally what is most needed is the basic way. The comprehensive way would have less utility than the basic result which would apply very generally.

So it appears this is som;ething of primary pimportanc eand should be prioritized very highly in the work of moral science and philosophy.

188 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738790405, Wednesday, February 05, 2025 14:20:06, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 953 seconds. 1062 words. Typespeed: 66.840 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

National Bubbles of Culture With Nothingness Beyond Instead of Other Nations and What They Offer That’s Similar

187 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738661197, Tuesday, February 04, 2025 02:26:37, Phoenix, Arizona

Human Shortcomings | Music and Art

This is the start of a continuation of the last posting, but instead of focusing on the fringes or boundaries or limits of culture and whtat it provides in music, film, and writing, this is about the fact that nations create a barrier to having nmore of what one might want, that is artificial. If it does not create a barrier to what one might want, it creates a limit of who might be able to create more.

An example of this was how certain … Abandoning this current thought and instead I’m electing to wait to develop this subject matter later. Interestingly, I think this is the very first time I did not complete a thought once I started typing it while working on the ThoughtStream.

187 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738661353, Tuesday, February 04, 2025 02:29:13, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 156 seconds. 127 words. Typespeed: 48.840 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Having Much Music And Not Knowing How To Find More That Is Similar Versus Having All of the Music of That Type

187 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738660298, Tuesday, February 04, 2025 02:11:38, Phoenix, Arizona

Music and Art

Having all of the music of a type, of a kind of sound that is enjoyed, is possible or nearly possible at this time. For some genres it would be harder to have all the mustic than for others, but it is possible. Humans are not producing music and publishing at such a rapid pace that it cannot all be quickly listened to. Of course, what I’m thinking of is music that is published, and is not simply in a sea of poor quality music relseased by miscellaneous artists.

VAguely I mean music that has been pre filtered to be of a kind of quality worth putting in front of an audience. This would require more definiteion but it would remain vague because there is no entirely rational way of publishing music or finding it.

When one wants good music of a certain category, one does not have an easy task for really finding what one is really looking for.

There have been services that linked music with similar musical qualities but they are limited and do not provide all that is available in the larger market, only what is available to them. Some of these servies seem to haeve less music than one would thin, sicne they claim to be able to do this type of work very well.

It still would be difficult to have all the music that one would wand of a type. But what is certainly common, is having all the music one knows about of a certain type. This is equivalent to simply wanting more music than one has or one has heard , when one finds that one has tired of the music that has been played and replayed, but one wants to hear similar music. One simply wants to have and hear more.

The sensation one gets from wanting more music can be similar to that experience of actually having no more music of a kind and these experiences are somewhat indistinguishable. I have not experienced total exhaustion of a genre of music, but I do think this would be the case, even if one confirmed for certain that all music of a kind has been heard and experienced, and had.

Not having access to music of a certain type is like being on the edge of what exists in a civilization. For books and reading, it may be challenging to get access to and read all that relates to a subject, but even there this can be experienced. Nowadays, the desire to have more than owhat exists must be far less common than it would have been when culture was smaller. When culture was smaller, there must have been a very strong desre for new materials to experience.

It may be that the experience of not having enough music that one really likes is a more common one exemplifying this kind of historical experience I’m talking about. Film may offer a similar example.

Film may even provide a better example than music does, and I think as I ponder this that this is the case for myself.

I return to shows like Star Trek, The Original Series, for example, because it feels strongly that there is nothing else resembling it in the culture. Not even later star trek series. One can tell that there isn’t anything else that exists like it, unless one is mistaken; but even if one is mistaken, one would likely have little additional, and that experience of not having it currently and not having it ultimately seem the same.

In both cases there is a strong desire for something more. There is not enough in this culture! That is something that one might think. One has experienced what ift offers to the edge and has searched for more but there was nothing else to be found.

Beyond what could be found is really nothing at all.

More on this soon potentially.

187 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738661011, Tuesday, February 04, 2025 02:23:31, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 713 seconds. 654 words. Typespeed: 55.020 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Determinism Did Not Arrange For Optimal Lives, Although Some Lives May Appear to Be More Optimal

186 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738608651, Monday, February 03, 2025 11:50:51, Phoenix, Arizona

Constraint and Determinism | Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings

This is just to get the idea recorded. Will expand on this later.

186 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738608665, Monday, February 03, 2025 11:51:05, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 14 seconds. 13 words. Typespeed: 55.680 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

It May Be Thought There Is a Singular Black Culture, But They Are Regional, and Do Not Have A Rollout of Cultural Updates. Like Other Cultures and Groups, Separated Members Are Unaware of Developments

186 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738562195, Sunday, February 02, 2025 22:56:35, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Entertainment | Human Shortcomings

This is a simplistic point, but it appears to me, that people are perhaps unaware that there would not abe a singular black culture in which all area aware of each others changes in their anner of behavior. Pop culture would not be the same for each group, and would ibe influencedby the various regional groups as people from those groups atttain some level of attention in the media.

More widely, I am noting thta for any group in which a singular culture is thought to exist, the regions must be remembered. The groups within that compose it that have great differences between them. Still I myself do not entirely recall that I have to subdivide groups as I think of them to recall their composition and remember that they do not have a uniform culture.

When considering people, one might think that this is even more inmportant than with other topics. However, I don’t think this is routinely done by most. Perhaps it is possible to behaviorally automate thinking of the composition of human groups each and every time ( or nearly each time), as they are thought of.

A larger objective than this, might be to think of nouns as words having ocomposition as they are being used. I think this would be very difficult to do in practice, but to recognize composition as one thinks would be useful. Perhaps this is something that will be achieved by some in the future, since likely few would be able to achieve such a result wihtout strating at a young enough age. We’d have to be willign to educate children to be able to have such a mental habit.

186 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738562492, Sunday, February 02, 2025 23:01:32, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 297 seconds. 279 words. Typespeed: 56.340 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Since Persuasion Requires a Display of Information Sufficient For A Rational Person to Be Persuaded, It Follows That Candidates for Voting Ought Not Persuade Anyone

185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738524174, Sunday, February 02, 2025 12:22:54, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Generals, Presidents, Chiefs, and Hierarchies | Rational Times

In a recent posting, I explained why it is very likely the case that any individual in a family or a marriage who is in a non-authority position, who ends up thinking like the family, or that person, is showing irrationality. That was for any and all kinds of relationships in which there is a tendency for one person to resemble the other such that the group has the same or similar views.

I focused there on families and marriages, but it is clear that it applies more generally. It seems to apply at the national level, and is applicable to cults and other groups. It appears too be true of employment as well, where people who become employees too readily become similar to those they are employed with and for.

This is a rich are worth exploring and would fit into the disciplines of Social Science, including Sociology and Social Psychology. Already there is some existing work on related topics, particularly in the huge area of marketing and propaganda, and social persuasion.

Here, there is one topic I wanted to relate this idea t and that is voting and politics. In politics, there is the idea that there will be a person, a representatitve, who will be voted for or against, or just for, to get a role in government. In the American two-party system, typically there are only allowed two people to vote for who are the candidates. There are others but ultimately they are ignored as the media only allows for two to be presnted at debates.

This implies that for elections like in the presidential elections (others may have different properties), there is much less information about all other candidates but those two candidates. What I’m saying here and in the earlier posting applies to any number of candidates, but for simplicity, it helps to consider the simple case of having only two candidates.

In the election process, candidates and their hoards of promoters share information with the public, that they would like them to be persuaded by to make a choice as to who will be worth voting for. People recive this information in a variety of ways, often in marketing and via the media through conversations and debates. There is also a considerable amount of hearsay about the politicians. This set of information is the total set that is possible for anyone to use to hae information about the candidates, aside from what can be located through research.

This isn’t a posting about the nature of propaganda and its harmful effects. I’ll just say here that this information is not useful and is really just propaganda and advertising. Choices on the basis of this information is insufficient to select a candidate. Research may be adequate to rule out candidates, but once candidates are selected by someone else, or in a preliminary, they provide the option. Additionally, I forgot to mention, one can choos not to vote. So not voting is a third option, which is actually a very rational choice.

Ignoring now that the information is scanty or is propaganda, we will simply look at other characteristics to see why persuasion s;hould not be expected, and why voting cannot be the result of a rational decision.

A candidate, a person, is not a presentation of a coherent set of information about anything that can be known well enough to decide upon rationally. Tuypically, rational thinking requires information and good inferences in order to arive at rational decisions. Aside from the quality of the information in terms of factualness, is the interconnectedness of information into coherent sets of information that constitute presentations of what should be persuasive.

Instead of having that, what is had is loose information about a person. Loose information about a person and pieces of hwhat they think is insufficient for a rational evaluation of coherent interconnecting information from which to draw inferences. Furthermore, this information is and has been disconnected with action and future action and the assurance of any action on its basis. Instead we basically have a person, a candidate, that we can look at, hear some disconnected information about, hear some ideas they have about what they might do, and then we are asked to vote on the election for or against them or for or against another candidate or not at all.

This portion of the topic consderns the presentation of information side rpimarily. The presentaed information has to have sufficientt properties in order to allow for rational agreement or disagreement. Without such information, what can be done regarding it cannot be entirely rational.

Beyond this, but in agreement with this, we also have the pressure from society for people who are part of groups and part of society as a whole to vote, and to vote with their group, or with their spouse or families. This measn there are numerous groups, including the nationanl group, applying pressure to oconform. We saw in the earlier posting that this pressure requires that those who conform must have done so irrationally, especially if, there has not been a presentation of information that is suitable for rational decision making regarding any level of decision making connected with each group.

More on this subject soon.

185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738525129, Sunday, February 02, 2025 12:38:49, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 955 seconds. 874 words. Typespeed: 54.900 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Renaming World War I and II to Group Them To A Period And Eliminate The Desire To Continue The Numbering

185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738478879, Saturday, February 01, 2025 23:47:59, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships

A whilele ago, I considered that it may have been the case that each world war, umbered one and two, were really just one conflict. Arguably of course, conflicts happpen in a context of memory and animosity, so earlier and later conflicts also relate. But these two somewhat distinct wars definitely relate to one another, and could be thought of as a continuation of the same conflict. For now we can ignore that eve more conflicts could be added.

Additionallly there is the idea that Grand Strategy encompasses continual warfare, as if there is not a moment that is not within a warefare planning and strategic set of actions. In other words, war is happening all th e time. It’s just not always in the form of actual conflict. Notice also that within wars, there also are prolonged periods where there are no battles or exchange of blows.

There is a usefulness of combining these wars into one conflict. I was thinking about this as I was reading about the Punic Wars, which also seem to be different wars on appearance. The author of the book I’m reading has combined them with others who allso use the word Punic into a single war collection. There are in this book three Punic wars. These wars appear less related than the world wars, yet they were collected together this way.

What I like about this method of collection is that for those who are learning abou tthe war, and thinking abou thte wars, there is a clear start and end. There will be no more Punic Wars. Unlike this way of grouping, for the purpose of making history organized, there is no expectation that there will be any addtitional numbering. The Punic Wars are complete, and we do not anticipate a fourth punic war. We don’t make perople nearvous in the region that they can anticipate Punic War 4. We do not create a self-fullfilling prophesy of any kind. We think of the conflict as over without any advertising that there will be new wars.

Likewise, we can think of the World Wars as happening at at time period distinct from the present day and simply group them with another name, that makes it clear they are both related into a period which makes the word justified for organization. It may also be justified to show that there really was a tight interrelation. Even that they were the same conflict with a long period in between. This new grouping word would make it so we don’t keep talking of things such as World War Three. Instead, we will not want to re-use the name. We will think that the wars like the Punic Wars are just over. If thre is a new war, it would need a new name.It may even remove the idea that we should really expect that there would be a new war.

Inductively it seems we should have such an expectation, but there is an expectation with a want in some people when there is a nujmbering that suggests that we can have a third soon.

People ask ’When will world war 3 be?” as if there is a related war that will be happening soon in the future.

It creates some fear, and some reduced comfort, thinking that there are preparations to be had, for some conflict that may never happen. People will continue to think, because of such a way of thinking about wars, taht they are at some risk whereas they may not be at any at all, and may actually ahve some success promoting peaece.

I have heard some politicians saying things about world war three and its prevention. There may be an argument that this use of terms results in a strong desire to reduce a third war of any kind, magnifying how seriously such a war would damage life, knowing what happened the first times. Or Earlier. I’m not sure this is the case, but it is possible and deserves soem further consideration.

185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738479563, Saturday, February 01, 2025 23:59:23, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 684 seconds. 671 words. Typespeed: 58.800 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The Use Of BC to Have Negative Dates Is a Clear Mistake, Although Methodologically It May Have Been Useful Briefly To Have A More Definite Reference Zero

185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738477955, Saturday, February 01, 2025 23:32:35, Phoenix, Arizona

A Calendar Solved | Wanattomian Calendar

Reading tonight a book on the roman empire, I am exposed to dates again of BC. Thinking back to my writing on the Wanattomian Calendar, and my work The Calendar Solved, I noticed that this usage of a negative date is definitely in error.

If it is known that there is a clear backwards dating that is trustworthy, such that all days are traceable from ero to some earlier date, or because dates are clearly placeable on a backwards measure of days and years, there isn’t a good rationale for not replacing the zero further back in time.

In other words, it would not make sense to not use the earliest BC date that is known and trusted as the new zero date.

Within the Wanattomian Calendar, this is not really an issue or of much interest. However, this offers new reasons for rejecting the methods of dating and the calendar systems that have been used recently to present. They still have obvious errors and difficulties that are not scientifically justifieable. Obviously the use of a negative dating is not consistent with the precision of the sciences and needs to be bought back to currrency.

It would also be the case that new discoveries which are becoming fewer would allow for having verifiable events at dates that are earlier than a new date chosen to be zero. I’m not sure what the candidate new zero date would be, but it would be before the current zero date by a long period, and while that date will be useful too initially, it will have to be moved backwards.

As I resume thinking about dates in the existing calendar system, I will simply ignore all BC dates and place the scale arbitrarily backwards about 5000 years. Then any date that is a BC date will simply be a newer date. This will mean that the new calendar date is not 2025, but 7025.

What is funny and humorous about thi s to me right now is that this date makes it obvious that we really have issues with dating. We know that the dates go back 4.5 billion years. But somehow, making the date even 7025 makes it seems like we’ve existed longer! But that is obvious.

The date of 2025 creates an absurd psychology tha I have not yet examined, but am noticing mroe clearly now. Many may have ben fooled, for quite a long time, by alternative perspectives about the age of the earth, simply because they knew the date from zero was only 2025, and couldn’t imagine that there would be any period much larger than that. We are thinking in thousands of days and not millions of days. But even in the thousands of days we have not gotten int right. This is revealed by making the date 7025 for the year, but we could go further potentially and hoose an earlier date, if we wanted to. If

It seems from these initial considerations that it is irrefutable that the dating system at present has characteristics of being primitive.

It may be that the current calendaring system is one of the more primitive technologies that humans have that they struggle to change. They seem to not want to try to change it, and I’ve heard no suggestions my entire life.

It seems many are convinced taht what we have is the best calendar, and that it may remain unchanged. Maybe some think it timeless. It is actually a terrible system! But the solution has international sensitivities. Scientists almost certainly would want change if they were involved in the process of making change and suggesting alternatives. While alternatives may be sugggested, I am pretty confitdent that the work in the Calend r Solved points the correct pathway for the changes to be made.

185 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738478578, Saturday, February 01, 2025 23:42:58, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 623 seconds. 634 words. Typespeed: 61.020 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The Tendency for Families To Have Or Express The Same View Indicates that Non-Authoritarian and Non-Leading Family Members Cannot Be Rational

184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738452038, Saturday, February 01, 2025 16:20:38, Phoenix, Arizona

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

This would indicate that in any family where there is an expectation that members would follow or do what another says or recommends would have to be irrational for not expressing differences.

I commented very early in the thoughtstream the idea that people who get married oddly come to be pairs who vote similarly and have state or express similar views and beliefs. It is expected and anticipated that families and married coupoles would have the same view. This means we expect that families will have irrational people in them, and that married couples will resemble each other to the same effect.

When we know we are meeting or seeing a married couple, we expect that the married spouses will have similar views. It would be very strange to suddenly alter that thought to expect that married couples will express differeing vies showing their individuality. This would show that they are often in disagreement and not agreement, unless the pair has an unusual similarity to one another.

The one of the two in a married couple that moves to be like the other would have had to do so on irrational grounds, and not rational ones. In order to really show that, I’d have to demonstrate or make it clear somehow with examples that in normal culture it isn’t rational persuasion that leads to similarity. But I thihnik that’s easy and already I have a reason.

That reason is that we anticipate that couples will disagree and not agree, and they swap mates. Humans are interchangeable inmating. Because they are interchangeable inmating, it follows that there are a number of candidates that are ready to be paired. The full diversity of possible mates that could be wives to a man would show that there could not be agreement between those wives in peperspective, individuality, and beliefs. They vote differently from each other in the open poulation.

From this idea, that people can perform the job of husband or wife to many different other people is like admitting there is interchangeability similar to what exists in occupations. It’s like thinking the hired family maid will come to believe the same things as the family. But they come from different backgrounds. The cleaning was the cause of the bond, not similar ideas and thinking. Likewise, it is known that the bond in a relationship is primarily sexual for marriage, although other matches of various kinds are typically required than sexual compatibility. This only somewhat relates to views. People tend to be agreeable when they meet, and anyone who knows about friendship knows it is easy to maintain friens by simply expressin shareing what happens to be common, while quite a lot else differs.

It seems to follow from this that all or most of those in relationships who have shifted to be more like the person who they were with were irrational in that shifting or to a very large extent.

Rational persuasin is rare and is not anticipated to be the cause. Similarity of experience, however, is a good reason why couples come to have similarities but these are unrelated to rational reasons for having certain views.

Some of these statements require qualification, but the refinement will show that they were in the correct direction. The objective going forward for this topic, as I develop it, is to refine the statements to be more truthful and to have less exceptions. Also to be more general. Because kids too are interchangeable to a large degree. A parent may have one of a million children from just one sperm dose, indicating that all million of them could have arisen. Each would have individuality. That they would have a similar view to their parents indicates irrationality.

184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738452678, Saturday, February 01, 2025 16:31:18, Phoenix, Arizona

Written in 640 seconds. 622 words. Typespeed: 58.260 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

It May Be Possible To Utilize a Question Set In Conjunction With Standard Question Words, Like Who, What, and How, to Show That Questions Did Not Have a Really Necessary or Meaningful Part of Speech

184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738450130, Saturday, February 01, 2025 15:48:50, Perth, Australia

A System of Thought | Relationships | Human Shortcomings | ThoughtStream | Another Ethic

Yesterday, as I was initially thinking of the last posting, I came to the idea that we may be overusing the question words like who what where why and how. These are those words taught to us in elementary school in a group, as we were told that each of the words should be utilized often to more fully understand topics.

For this posting there are two main interests.

The first interest, is that these words are so often used, that it may be possible to do something alternatively to make it possible to not have to be so repreptetitive. The repetition does not appear to be one that is justifiable.

Consider if instead of using each of those question words, one used two or three of them. It may be possible to use the question word hohw as a replacement for each of the others. IF it is argued that that is not the case, a strong case can be made to show that only two are needed. This means we could use two instead of five or six. But if we used two, or one, then it would be too repetitive. This could be a cause of hahving more than only one word for questions. But also, if only wone word is needed, I suspetct not even that word is needed. To understand that, read the ealier posting for context.

The other idea, mentioned aove, is that using all of the questions is a helpful way to create enough questions to momre fully understand various topics. If we pay attention to adults, they do not do this, and arguably, none have learned what was taught. It was really taughth to me, for example, in my school system, that this is what we shouoldbe doing.

Yesterday, thinking about this, seeing that the question set is small, I realized additionally that it may be possible to have a single question set to examine most phenomena. Question sare unlike other sentences. We were told we can simply sometimes say Why, or When, to get more information, Sometimes we use short sentences too, but in the whole range of human sentences, we have a huge number of possibilities such thatf we reduced them, we would not be able to well understand, describe, and dprobe into the world for more information.

But with the questions that does not appear to e the case. Questions can be rephrased using statements. Just sayin gwhat issues might exist.

There appear to be two competing contradicting ideas here. That one can have one question type dto do most of the work, or just five, and that this is too repetitive and that we need a soolution to that. What I’m suggesting is that we automate questioning to get away from repetition.

Right now we think when we use these five question tyypes repetitively that we are being thoughtful. More thoughtful than we are. We use the forms of questions too often however, and we are being repetitive. I suggest that this reepetition suggests a manual tasks exists that can be automated. This is how we arrive at the conclusion in business and software and elsewhere to knnow that automation is possible. We se first that sometthing is too repetitive.

So one solve to repeitio is just knowing that it is repetitive and making it automatic. But I also mentioned that sentences of other types need not have this kind of repetitiveness. Questions of course, can be built up like sentences, so in a way, this would show an avenue to arguing that really questions need not e repetitive either if they are expanded on.

I now intuit that that is still incorrect, because the question set can repetitively be used to replace all questions, or a very large amount of questions, having the utilitity that now falsely expanded statements have.Well falsely expandes questions that were made to be like sentences simply to make them longer and less repetitive seeming.

So there is no contradiction.The goal is to have even more repetition with automation knowing that it is automation, rather than doing the work, and having the gain of increasing the ability to gain good information by doing what we were taught, asking questions automatically and in a normallized way to get more information where we would normally ask only a; couple questins that spring to mind.

More on this topic soon.

Noe, this was typed in coold considtions with dcold fingers, very fumbly. This accounts for the difference in typing quality and the number of mistakes during blind typing.

184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738450905, Saturday, February 01, 2025 16:01:45, Perth, Australia

Written in 775 seconds. 762 words. Typespeed: 58.980 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

The View That The Work of Science or A Problem Solving Intellectual is That They Are Or Must Be Finding The Right Questions Is Incorrect

184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738447407, Saturday, February 01, 2025 15:03:27, Phoenix, Arizona

A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings

When I have a solution to a problem, I did not always work on defining a problem in advance that is well defined, and I did not often think of a question that is well defined, that is one that is better or more clear than many , most or even any alternatives, when the option chosen was already a good one (may need adjustement for clarity).

Doing good work in intelllectual apursuits does not seem to require or work optimally with the formation of good quality questions. Some pepole, supposed experts, have suggested, and copied each others suggeestions making them again, that people ought to be seeking to form the right questions.

While I don’t disagree that it is useful to recognize which questions are not particularly worthwhile for active work, or for dedicating life too, to improve time management, and that it is also worthwhile to avoid nonsensical questioning, I think that questions in general have less of a role in improvement than one might recognize.

When I am doing intellectual tasks that arrive at very beneficial rewards, andn solutions, I am not really oftentimes making questions. Some think that having a good problem statement is connected or required for achieving desirable results or finding solutions, but that does not appear to be thae case. When I say finding problem statements, I am saying something that is close to stating problem questions that require effort for finding a soolution. The phrase problem statement may even be to combat this view that there is a need to have questions. Problem statements are used in business to make sure that teams are aware of the work to be performed and are not confused as to what is to be focused on.

Problem statements do work, but are also not required oftentimes just like clear questions are not required.

When I’m thinking I may simply recognize that ther is some contradiction or other and I may quickly wand without too much trouble identify what a solution might be or what solutions might be missing. For communication purposes, I also don’t think I woul dneed to rely on questions. I don’t thihnk I woul dneed to refine any questions. It may be unnecessary to even think ;iin terms of problems and solutions. However, for now I’ll continue to use the word solution.

If I were to communicate to someone what an issue might be, I might use the word problem, issue, situation, or other to convey what could be improved or altered. But I don’t think that these words are entirely necessary. I just recognize that they do seem to bre sueful at times to communicate in a way that peopole expect that isn’t too far frm what is alternative or more reasonable or better. Notice that here again it is clear seemingly that questions don’t need to be a part of the conversation.

A reson why I state that the view that question refinement and finding is central, is of course that it is nort needed, but additionally, because it is infrequently utilized in the goal of discovering issues which in my case isn’t a goal but a frequent and regular mental activity, that simply happens, and if one did actually spend ones time trying to find and refine questions it may be that one doesn’t have that many insights as to pbroblems, oand that one is workin gin a way that reveals that. I personally would not ant to spend time finding and refining questions. It would waste time from other activities that I do find worthwhile. Simply thinking about issues and solu;tions, and scenarios that exist with contradictions and seeing solutions to those is what I spend my time doing anyway, and if I added to this making perfect questions for others so they can understand I’d be doing something bizarre. I’d be making my own thinking less effective and less efficient.

184 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738448015, Saturday, February 01, 2025 15:13:35, Perth, Australia

Written in 608 seconds. 653 words. Typespeed: 64.440 words per minute.

Typed in cold conditions with cold fingers, and with pause time to reflect, which is common.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Some Thoughts on The Phrase We The People. The People Are Guilty of Everything. They Are The Sum of Crimes and Misbehaviors In People

182 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738195621, Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:07:01, Perth, Australia

Humans Are Animals | Human Shortcomings

This thought has some literary qualities that definitely indicate overgeneralization and other fallacies. More than one. While that is the case, I’m leaving the idea here anyway.

When one shifts into thinking in a way that has more of a literary character it may be that one is more likely to start thinking as a marketer does too, and to state things in a a way that might seem to be provocative or attractive to others but false.”

Still I did not post this because I was thinking it was a good example only of false literary thinking. Instead, I think there is something to it of interest. While people are thinking that they must be generally good, or morally praiseworthy, they often have in mind, I think, no clear vision of people and who they really are and what their actions would consist of . They’ve forgotten that humanity includes the entire set of immoral actions that have happened on earth among any agents that might be thought of as morally blameworthy using an ethic that humans have adopted or think they have adopted.

Animals can be included as those with primordial moral behaviors and in group social behaviors which include etiquette and rules against certain kinds of cruelty. But thinking about it with that excluded, it would be the case taht at any wong that was done, as some might say, was done entirely by humans, and so, they and their behaviors in total include all that was bad and all that was wanted for prohibition with rules of ethics.

182 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738195867, Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:11:07, Perth, Australia

Written in 246 seconds. 262 words. Typespeed: 63.900 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Pretending People Had Souls Was a Way To Trick Them Into Thinking They Were Something Equal, Without Having Anything And Doing No Comparisons

180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738098589, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 05:09:49, Perth, Australia

Abandoning Equality | Cosmological Arguments for a Diety and Other Related Arguments Originating in Myth | Nonfictionalism

recording the thought.

180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738098594, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 05:09:54, Perth, Australia

Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Soon Even Your Money is Only Plain Text

180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738092811, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 03:33:31, Perth, Australia

Livelihood | Property and Organization

Recording the idea

180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738092816, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 03:33:36, Perth, Australia

Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Mistakes in the View That Death Is Humiliation to Discontinue That Thought Path Initiated By Others

180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738086759, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 01:52:38, Perth, Australia

ThoughtStream | Non-fictionalism | Humans Are Animals | Humnan Shortcomings

Recording.

180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738086762, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 01:52:42, Perth, Australia

Written in 3 seconds. 1 words. Typespeed: 19.980 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Incest or Tight Ingroup Mating As The Only Way to Rapidly or Feasibly Create New Societies and to Preserve New Traits

180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738086640, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 01:50:40, Perth, Australia

Humans Are Animals | Relationships

Adding for expansion later.

180 Wanattomians, Epoch 1738086645, Wednesday, January 29, 2025 01:50:45, Perth, Australia

Written in 5 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 48.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Measuring the Life Improvements Resulting From Accomplishments During Post Success As One Experiences The Diminishing Return of Thinking

179 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737990641, Monday, January 27, 2025 23:10:41, Perth, Australia

A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream

For more consideration soon.

179 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737990649, Monday, January 27, 2025 23:10:49, Perth, Australia

Written in 8 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 30.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

The Influence of Thinking on Biology of the Self and Deterministic Biology of That Thinking, And When The Thinking of A Biological System Does Not Appear to Influence Itself

179 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737984863, Monday, January 27, 2025 21:34:23, Perth, Australia

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings

Preparing for additional writing soon

179 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737984871, Monday, January 27, 2025 21:34:31, Perth, Australia

Written in 8 seconds. 5 words. Typespeed: 37.500 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

A Candidate for Mattanaw’s Second Law Would Be That It Is Not Possible To Think Anything That Would Not Also Be A Communication

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737931410, Monday, January 27, 2025 06:43:30, Perth, Australia

A System of Thought | ThoughtStream | Relationships | Human Shortcomings | Com

If what we are thinking about are those thoughts which are verbal thoughts, although I do not mean only verbal thoughts but any thoughts, then those thoughts are more obviously communications or potential communications even if one does not want them to be.

Another way to talk about this topic is to consider how one’s desires relate to whether a thought remains or is or isn’t a communication; of some time. Think about if you would like a communication to be or not be a communicatioin, or a thought to be or not be something that would or ocould be understood as something that would be a communication. It’s simply thate case that any verbal communication would be a communication even if you did not want it to be that way or if you wanted it to be private. Another result is that it can’t be only private.

Privacy is a separate topic, so of course some thoughts would never be shared. But it happens to be the case that for anyt thought that exists, it doesn’t have the propertiy that it can remain or mis private. One thought it and communicated it to oneself. Having communicated it to oneself, it has been public to oneself. If stored, it may be accessible to someone else. If intercepted it is not private. If interceptable or storage retrieveable such that you would understand it, it follows that something else could understand it. I.e. it is a communication or a potential communication no matter what.

Mattanaw’s Law has already been described. Mattanaw’s second law has not yet been shared. I think this may be Mattanaw’s second law, although I hahve to spend some time thinking about it. I do believe it to bea novel piece of information.

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737931670, Monday, January 27, 2025 06:47:50, Perth, Australia

Written in 260 seconds. 294 words. Typespeed: 67.800 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

If Any Voter Found Another Voter Who Was Going to Vote Opposite, They Could Simply Agree To Not Vote, With The Same Outcome

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737904349, Sunday, January 26, 2025 23:12:29, Perth, Australia

Relationships | Human Shortcomings

Now that there are mobile applications and online applications most rely on, it is possible to easily create an application that would alter the voting process. A candidate application I would suggest, is for opposing voters to be mutuallyy aware, and agree to not vote, once paired. So for example, country that has a system in which there are two parties, a member of one party who will vote simply gets paired on the app with a member of the other party who will vote, then both agree not to vote. This is repeated until the modulus remainder is found. The remainder would be wthe winnner. Well the modulus would show who the winner is.

The objective of the system though would not be to find who the winner is. Instead, the objective of the system is to show the cancelling property of voting. The outcome really is the same, if opposing votes are canceled. People could humorously skip voting, simply knowin g that if one person of the opposing party matched with them skips too, the result is the same. This would alter the perception of vvoting and may make it possible to show that voting really is control of populations rather than looking for their input.

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737904570, Sunday, January 26, 2025 23:16:10, Perth, Australia

Written in 221 seconds. 208 words. Typespeed: 56.460 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Humanizing is a Kind of Stupiding Process, If You’re Smart. It’s Not Making It Great To Be Accurate. It’s Making It More Average, Less Average, and Slightly Above Average Only.

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737903897, Sunday, January 26, 2025 23:04:57, Perth, Australia

Relationships

For now, I’m simply recording the idea, that to making things more human as some like to say, isn’t to make it more accessible or approachabeble to all people who are human. To make it less computer like, and more human animal like, in just one way. Which human do you choose as the model? Of course humanization is to think of it or makie it more like what an average human is. This is kowing what is average, less than average and more than average. I think what is less than average plays more of a role too in this.

TTo know what is more human requires knowing maximum commonality, which Ithink m;ay take thinking to the below average domain, to find what is common to everyone minimally.

This is about one annoying kind of statement, and to humanize can mean more than this. I’m not being very general at this time, but instead am commenting on a specific usage for which there is a more general thought, but not all those general thoughts about what humanity is or something like that.

So to humanize something might actually be closer to make it what even more basic humans are like. As a smart person, thiis is like making it really really unlike myself.

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737904090, Sunday, January 26, 2025 23:08:10, Perth, Australia

Written in 193 seconds. 214 words. Typespeed: 66.480 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Zoologically, Primatologically, Families are Indistinguishable From People Simply Living Together

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737898899, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:41:39, Perth, Australia

Relationships

Since families are just those people who were living together, and since governments dictated who can live together, or who ought to live together as a normal family unit, it follows they were simply artificially arranged. In some countries extended families are normal, which means grandparents and others would be part of the group which ;may be thought of as a family. Nuclear families, or families with parents an children only are the norm in some western nations. But in both kinds of nations sometimes family friends, frequent freinds, temporary fosters, extended family members, an friends form the regular context. These are families that are simply groups of other kinds of people for which the parents and children have more relations. I myself was part of another family by being a friend who was always present.

In primatology, the small group of animals together would be equivalent to the family of that naimal. Likewise this is true for tribes, to some extent. Some tribes would ntot put people into divisions as one might expect, and would group them variously and inconsistently (comparing tribes), and some might have most living communally with little privacy.

whichever collective we are talking about, it destroys the concept of a family and I’m m certain that the idea of a family is simply unjustifiable, wherever it is thought that the family is identical simply with what a government has recommended or a single nation has adopted as a grouping method.

Understanding that humanity was the ttotal of all tribes, and that humans are primates, we must look at the whole to know what all were doing, to say what humans were doing, and what is natural to humans. We are trying to estimate how people were orgiginally when they were more like the other primates and later like now, and we need to do this thinking about what is best for peopl into the future.

What is clear is that the life of any one human would have been very different from others, ocomparing all humanity. Yet many did well with very diffferent settings for their relationships while growing.

Also, family life need not have an onset or offset, but rather be understood as a changing over the lifetime of people who are present. This is very accurate too, since it is not clear when a family ends. In a nuclear family in the west, responsibilities end at adulthood, and children typicallly leave the home, to create later new families idiotically of the same type. Without reflection. Did the family end at the time they lieft for that person who became an adult? How about for the others?

Once all the children are out of the house, have their new homes, and later have children, it is irrefutable that under the system in the united states or other western nations, that new families have comea bout and the old family was dissolved. Confusingly, there is no nuclear family relating to the earlier family but there are thoughts about the continuation of that family. Are the grandparents still family? What is their relation in the rules? Some children totally separaate. AFter a generation or two, all future nuclear families are disconnected utterly from source nuclear families as if they never existed…

Irrefutably, families have simply been goups of present people, and they have changesd as people were present or not. This if looked at closely I think eliminates the existence of the concept of a family. This is because there is nothing consistent that holds ttogether the idea of people simply coming and going without reference to anyone as the one holding it together. We have to imagine one person then has people coming and going, but we then don’t know what the famioly is for the others who came and went! It then becomes simply who was present to a person and for how long. (!)

I have challenged elsewhere that a father is a real relationship, and that the mother is a relationship that is as durable as people think. Neither are lifelong in any way that is thought to be universally true. In primatology, thinking about what the original contributions weree, fatherhood can end immediately at the conceiving event . Motherhood can end, variously, near the end of breast feeding. If in a communal setting, others may take on the roles of guiding a child after this period. Thinking this topic out more fully, it becomes dubious that there is any durable contribution other than the biological one from fatehr and mother, and that later, the cultures thoughts about what a family might be as applied to people is what gives people the diea that these relationships go further. So in my view, father or mother after this biological contribution is simply a sociological construct that differs between cultures, that extends it artificially afterwards.

Using this way of thinking, the idea of a mother at 60 years old to a child is meaningless as an ongoign relationshp understood without a governmental or larger social context.

More on this topic for sure later

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737899786, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:56:26, Perth, Australia

Written in 887 seconds. 849 words. Typespeed: 57.420 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Doing Many Actions And Acting Energetically Can Only Be a Deviation of Behavior Which Could Invite Ambiguous Language of Judgement

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737898043, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:27:23, Perth, Australia

Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought

Recording for now. I noticed that the definition of hubris I just received indirectly from walter kaufman could be ambiguously used to judge behaviors that were simply highly active or intelligent. Hubris by a critic on amazon, named Steven Farron has said that hubris means in the original greek insult, violence, and/or outrageous conduct. I am not sure if these thoughts would only be about hubris or if that would be accuragte. I have noticed in relation to the earlier posting on the length of sentences, that the length of sentences is lacking even in dictionary meanings.

Outrageous behavior is something that others might think is simple behavior that is different or anomalous and that could simply include highly active behavior or behavior that is especially intelligent, without any actual analysis of that behavior to see its benefits or moral value.

I would expect that people who know little about the full meanings of words in many sentences, would be willing to call various actions that are unusual but good potentially hubristical or outrageous, because they don’t know what these words mean, and that they know they can suppress action or harm others by making such claims.

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737898298, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:31:38, Perth, Australia

Written in 255 seconds. 197 words. Typespeed: 46.320 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

A Rule for Utilizing or Disusing Information From Others Including the Rejection or Request for New Information Immediately For Quotes, Sayings, Maxims, Recommendations, And So On, That Are Only Phrases or Short Sentences

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737897078, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:11:18, Perth, Australia

ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Human Shortcomings | Evaluative Concepts

The objective of this posting is consistent with what I said earlier many times regarding my desire to think in relation to complex ideas and thoughts of greater significance expressible in paragraphs and sets of sentences and not simple ideas expressed in simple statements.

The use of simple sentences and statements for moral guidance is to be avoided for many reasons too numerous to repeat.

The shortcoming of the short sentence and statement worth expressing again and again is that a short sentence simple communicates too little with too much that is questionable regarding actual meaning. Elaboration is required. More sentences together provide teh gclarity and greater expression of the idea. And of course, many new paragraphs is also better than sentences.

This creates a proper estimation of the size of ideas and their required number of expressions for better communication.

Some ideas will have book sized amounts of informatin for full elaboration. Some will require les. Most can have a few pages to provide good clarity and direction, and summary. Abstracts are written for even short ideas but abstracts are paragraphs leading into long papers and articles more fully talking about those ideas. Academic papers are then expected examples of this idea about using more writing to say more about ideas for which some use only simple sentences.

More information elsewhere.

The sentence recommendation from others is to be rejected and replaced with sentences instead, of that sentence has any viabiliity. Additional information is asked for. Quality of mind is discovered with inability to provide more. High quality of mind is discovered with subsequent ability to provoide a lot that is meaningful and significant and ideative. The consistent and logical set of true sentences replacing short sentences is what is desired.

What is recommended here is a rule or heuristic of replacing and rejecting sentences that are thought to be guiding of behavior with more words. These sentences could in the future be understood to stand for as symbols larger collections fo inforamtion. But for now sentences that involve recommendations or imperatives are not used this way. They are used as if there is nothing else remaining that exists for the guidance.

Since these sentences are historically understood to exist in isolation without additional information it is already known that they are not accompanied by more elaboration. They are known to be short sentences only that are recalled easily without any recollection of explanations or clarifying information. People are limproverished relying on these sentences. These sentences clash with other sentences that are alternative recommendations. Worse still, culturally, one offers what it offers, while the other offers what it offers, and they would not agree. What exists in chinese here iss not what exists in English, for example. The result is clash of people using poor and minimal thinking. This leads to clashing sentences and definitely clashing minds. The clashing of sentences are thoughts and clashing minds that willl result from this will reject cultures from elsewhere and potentially want warfare. This is likely one contributing cause to warfare over the course of history.

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737897614, Sunday, January 26, 2025 21:20:14, Perth, Australia

Written in 536 seconds. 514 words. Typespeed: 57.480 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

It’s Not Clear to Me That The Locus Of Commonality Is Species Level Which is Supposedly Human, and Not A Lower Level or Higher Level of Primate

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737857422, Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:10:22, Perth, Australia

Humans are Animals | Abandoning Equality

Recording the diea.

178 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737857428, Sunday, January 26, 2025 10:10:28, Perth, Australia

Written in 6 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 30.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

A Life With A Solid Initial Plan, Versus One That Has a Reactionary Course, Versus One With a Reactionary Course Greatly Inferior To One With a Solid Initial Plan, Versus Planning Civilizations

177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737817400, Saturday, January 25, 2025 23:03:20, Perth, Australia

Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic

Simply recording the idea for now.

177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737817407, Saturday, January 25, 2025 23:03:27, Perth, Australia

Written in 7 seconds. 6 words. Typespeed: 51.420 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Value of Actions In Life Increase If There Is Fallback Value, Which is the Value to The Self Apart From Any Benefits to Anyone or Anything Else

177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737816366, Saturday, January 25, 2025 22:46:06, Perth, Australia

ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic | Evaluative Concepts

Only reording for now for expansion later.

177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737816376, Saturday, January 25, 2025 22:46:16, Perth, Australia

Written in 10 seconds. 7 words. Typespeed: 42.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Reactionary Local Solving Versus Planning In The Course of History, Versus Ideal Planned Pathways. Planning Civilization Well In Advance Versus Knowing It Was Incorrect In Retrospect.

177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737815990, Saturday, January 25, 2025 22:39:50, Perth, Australia

Human Shortcomings

Only recording the idea for now.

177 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737815999, Saturday, January 25, 2025 22:39:59, Perth, Australia

Written in 9 seconds. 7 words. Typespeed: 46.620 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Thinking Clearly, Accurately, and Masterfully About Subject Matter Does Not Require Subjection And Containment Into An Accepted Jargon or PC Universe of Discourse. Instead It Requires and Is Exhibited With a Multilinguistic Approach Which Includes A Number of Methods of Explanation and Questioning

176 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737749998, Saturday, January 25, 2025 04:19:58, Perth, Australia

A System of Thinking | ThoughtStream | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality

Thinking about a topic very clearly involves the abilitity to navigate alternative ways of explaining and questioniing. A person who is masterful at a subject, acan with dexterity and agility jump from one manner of communicating to the next, from one mode of expression to another. Elsewhere, I have described the approach to academics that includes exposition in a; more comprehensive multimedia communication. Writings are thought in this context to require or benefit from other additional means of expression that explain simililarly, but in different ways, using art, ffilm, video, images, music, verbal audio expression, sculputre, literary forms, and so on.

A person who is able to explain the same points using a wide range of ways of expressing will have a power of truth that is more obvious than others. If one can say in only one way what one means, it could be that one fails when explaining otherwise. The other ways of expressing are tests. But for the person who is masterful and adept, jumping from one way of explaining to another just confirms to the listener and others that the person truly has the power over the subject matter required. This means they have understood the relation between some important truths and life.

Simply jumbling a bunch of media together does not achieve this. RAther, and obvious synthesis of material that has properties of truthful concilience would better exhibit truth. Yet there are still shortc;omings in that people can still be confused by what they are witnesseing.

Although this is better, quantity can be used to baffle some.

But this post is more about language. In some subjects, such as feminism, thinkers appear to have been locked up in a special jargon and pc culture in which certain ways of speaking were more usual and were new. Much was untested. New ways of expression were emerging. There was some pressure to use this mode of expression. This resembles LGBTQ culture, where there is now a kind of required way of speaking about the subject. Outsiders not obeying to use these rules are rejected.

However, one who is more masterful does not have a problem leaping from one way of conversing to another to communicate effectively truths from differin g angles.

Movements like fiminism and LGBTQ over time lose interest and power, because they try to limit expression. They have achievements along the way. Their way of expressing views taht is new and constrained will eventually be rejected however.

Today, Feminism feels stifled. Like it’s history was an incorrect start, and a wrong direction at speaking. In my study of feminism whcih was not long, I was very put offf by the required language. It appeared “experts” lived in a strange way of discussing. Feminism had a strange discourse that looked dead already.

176 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737750498, Saturday, January 25, 2025 04:28:18, Perth, Australia

Written in 500 seconds. 466 words. Typespeed: 55.920 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Heuristical Thinking of The Supposedly Prejudiced, and Those Using Stereotypes, and Those Using Rules of Thumb May Greatly Outvalue Correctors of the Thinking Who Share Counterexamples, Wanting More Precision And Maybe Not Using the Heuristics

173 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737478795, Wednesday, January 22, 2025 00:59:55, Perth, Australia

A System of Thinking | Human Shortcomings

Only recording this idea for now.

173 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737478802, Wednesday, January 22, 2025 01:00:02, Perth, Australia

Written in 7 seconds. 6 words. Typespeed: 51.420 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Reducing Impact of Social Elicitations By Recognizing Uniform Moral Inferiority and Creating a Demarcation, and Combining with Automatic Monging

172 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737385333, Monday, January 20, 2025 23:02:13, Perth, Australia

Relationships | Higher Order Attention | Imagination and Filtration

A task I am still working on involves the reduction of the effections of what I’ve called social elicitations, which are social related thoughts that come to mind unwantedly or in too many different contexts pervasively, that alter the thinking to be too much about other people, to modified by other peopole, and too much about the social expectations of other pepople.

The objective is tho reduce the influence of other people on thinking, even when in their presence.

Tonight, as I think of this, what is more in mind is how they effect you when they suddenly enter your presence when before that you were alone.

What I am wanting is for them to have little influence at any time; but, I want my higher order attention related processes to quickly and immediately calculate any actions that ought to take place in relation to the person or pepople that became present. But I don’t want to spend time thinking abou thtem.

A way to think abou tthis, is if you are enjoying yourself at a park, and then a risky individual approaches. Instead of being perturbed by this person, or worried, or felt put at risk, you quickly and automatically simply departed and found a new location to resume, as if the person didn’t exist, but done that way because they became present and the attentional process knew what to do.

In that scenario, no risk was felt, social elicitation hasd little effect, and one was willing to slimply change locations without a concern. There was minimal impact by the other person even if there was a need to change location. The change of location was something of unconcern as if it could be at any time that one would even voluntarily change location for other resons.

But beyond this, is the larger topic of still being subject to social elicitations where thinking seems to be about moral topics in which others would have some say or judgement. Sometimes we think about, and modify our behavior on the basis of, what we think are the moral expectations of other people. This means that there is some understanding that the existence of external pseudomoralism of other people has influence on behavior even when they are not present. That sentence was not the best sentence, but is somewhat close to what I’m wanting to say: somehow the social pseudomorality and expectation set that we are aware of operates on our thinking even when we do not want it to, and even when we are not aware of it. The more aware we are, the less we want it potentially.

This objective that I’m speaking about is to use the automatic higher order attention process to deal with people, like the dangerous person who arrived at the park, with changes in behavior that are not of concern and may be helpful in other ways. Meannwhile, one is not haveing any kind of social elicitation that relates to expectations of others.

Some might think if they were justified for moving, for prejudging the other person, for thinking bad about their intentions, and for assuming things about them. Maybe they didn’t need to move, and could stay.

These are foolish thoughts in my estimation. The transition from one environment to another need not even matter. If it does not matter, then any reason can prompt it. If there is something that looks like a threat, but isn’t, the risk can prompt it. But it can be prompted simply by a sudden desire to do it.

Social elicitations and expectations relate to pseudomorality that one is aware of about such sitaution san d nohow others would judge them. That is entirely eliminated in this scenario and wisely.

But there is an issue, in that one cannot simply devellop to this stage of ability without learning how to be that way along the way. I am like this somewhat now, but I am writing this because social elicitations and sudden presence of others s does have too much an effect on me. These do relate to general social elicitations.

The objective I thought of is to work towards recognizing that all social elicitations relate to an inferior common expectation based pseudo-morality, which is based simply on a history of the populations exposure to judgements of tohers, of whatever origin they might have. These fit into patterns. Even if people are not aware of the patterns, their brains have statistically come to expect various reactions that are often incorrect, sometimes correct, but are actually representative of freal reactions people do have.

It may be the total set of reatctions as they relate in any way to what is being experienced.

Reespect is given to these reactions, thinking that behaving well, and in a way others expect, results in good judgements and better situations.

However, on much advancement this is found to be a cause of prolonged self-subjection to social eleicitations in the nervous system that are not useful.

If one has identified that the social expectations are really a poor pseudomorality that was not systematically defined or developed and is self-contradictory and irrational, and sometimes insane, it is understood that there is tgood cause to eliminate social elicitations that result from it.

In my case, I happen to have a superior morality. My morality and way of behaving already is good. It need not have any further input from others, Input that does not related and is unnecessary still comes up, as people become present. The knowledge that their morality is inferiority can be used to finally create a judgement in total to have a demarcation between self and other.

I am wanting this to put an end to the influence of social elicitations and to eliminate their arising. They are too unuseful.

The way to do this is to recognize that uniformly social elicitations are unhelpful and are added irritations and do not contribute to improvement of conditions. They stem from an inferior pseudomorality of the population. Since unifmly this is the case, a hard boundary can be created in which it is absolutely rejected, with some ability to detect special circumstances or exceptional cases.

Practice should lead to the automatic type of behavior I mentioned above about the people in the park. I already do this kind of reaction and behavior, but not always. So Iknow what to do. I just have to expand on that.

Additionally, is the practice of monging. Monging is the bot like responsing to people who are forced to be interacted with. This reduces any interest in them that may create in the brain social elicitations about them. Atomatic relations with thhem then does not result in additional thinking. There is a start and an end.

Since this monging is a process that is used when actually interacting with people and not merely imagining interactions, it is a training to finally eradicate social elicitations. ITalking people is the way to finally eliminate additional unwanted thinking that comes along with the interactions. One practices canceling social elicitations during those interactions, until there are none.

Once there are none in real interactions, it is known there will be less in situations in which it is only imagination. People are imagining how to interact with others because they really do interact with them, and want to consider other ways of doing so.

This is the attempt to not care any longer about various ways of doing so. That has been overed. Since covered, it has the side effect that is unwanted still of thinking of alternative ways when there is no need. This i sneedless social elicitation.

The goal then is to make it obvious to the brain that it is not needed with masterful bot like interactions on all interactions with other people, excepting those that are wanted in which more attention is desired. In my case, training comes first now, so all interactions must trend towards bot like treatment. Once my brain undrestands that the automatic and learned and matured handling of situations with people is masterful and results in good results over and over, additional imagination about options will become more obviously needless.

This I anticipate will cancel social elicitations and any thought about possible judgement o f others and any social elicitations.

172 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737386571, Monday, January 20, 2025 23:22:51, Perth, Australia

Written in 1238 seconds. 1383 words. Typespeed: 67.020 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

If I were to have sex with a women, or move towards having sex, my actions would not resemble formal dancing behaviors. Those behaviors are false, while pornographic behaviors seem less so.

168 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737018165, Thursday, January 16, 2025 17:02:45, Perth, Australia

Human Shorcomings | Natural Unarbitrary Behavior

An additional thought to go along with the recent posting, but on a topic of its own.

168 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737018179, Thursday, January 16, 2025 17:02:59, Perth, Australia

Written in 14 seconds. 17 words. Typespeed: 72.840 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

The Artificiality of Dancing With Another Person. Dancing Alone, Modern Dancing of Individuals, Versus Dancing Between Men And Women

168 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737017845, Thursday, January 16, 2025 16:57:25, Perth, Australia

Human Shortcomings

Dancing between a man in a woman, in a formal way, has a great artificiality abou tit. It is abnormal from my perspective, and forced, by decisions of some past people, who decided that dancers would be paired, and that men and women would be paired, and thtat they would touch hands, look at each other, and do this and that with a false togetherness.

Dancing alone or near someone seems natural. Dancing ina formal way, with a woman, appears to be a eauropean historical strangeness or oddity. You will look at each other and hold hands, you will hug with one arm, pressing the other arm straignht out, holding hands, you will twirl, etc… None of these appear to be what I would ever want to naturally do with a female.

Dancing is all movement I would not want to naturally do with a female!

For those that think it is something that they would naturally do with a fema, you can guess that they were probably raised in a context that valued dance.

Hisspanics may have tihs point confused.

168 Wanattomians, Epoch 1737018009, Thursday, January 16, 2025 17:00:09, Perth, Australia

Written in 164 seconds. 181 words. Typespeed: 66.180 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Once Many of The Problems Discussed By Philosophers Over Eons Are Seen As Linguistic Issues, Relating to Problems of Language and Communication, Respect for Much Philosophy is Lessened

164 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736673952, Sunday, January 12, 2025 17:25:52, Perth, Australia

Human Shortcomings

Rreading Camus, his book The Myth of Sysiphus, I am finding again and again issues in his verbal reasoning, which relate to common issues of language, that result in paradoxes that are not real paradoxes (are there?), that prolong useless disputation.

Once his pattern of writing and thinking becomes more clear, it seems true he is stuck in a group of mistakes that together botch his thinking and create in him an interest in problems that are illusory only. Much of philosophy actually is only this.

I enjjoy philosophy greatly myself, so am not complaining that all of philosophy is not worth effort. That is definitely not the case. Some of the best and most valuable thinking that makes life enjoyable is philosophical thinking. I will need to define that in detail later, and not here, and quickly because I do not want to rewrite or write again another intro do philosophy. But philosophy uses language. That language runs into conceptual contradictions, which are unreal oftentimes. Treated as real, and sometimes as very important, or fundamentally important, much time is thought about it. Much time is used to think about them. But this time is not justified if the issue is illusory and only relates to what I would say are elementary linguistic mistakes!

Philosophy over the centuries as quibbles relating to elementary linguistic mistakes? Yes, that happens to be the case and is true.

The work of Camus is not much worth it. He is fun to read, but as one reads, one sees one is not learnin gmuch. One is seeing many errors, and that is if by one I mean me. But maybe you too if you read it like I do.

A favorite problem of philosophy that is all linguistic is the ontological prolem. It has existed for centuries and is discussed and argued about in much the same way, as if so much time in philosophy is simply introductory philosophy about these problems still. It wastes time. The problems are unseen. They are thought to be real and not only linguistic. But they are linguistic in origin.

When one sees the elementary errors then suddenly the argumentation to date has been an embarassment and seeing the list of those who were involved, the the culture itself is someewhat faulted. These are the leaders of this area of thought. This domain of important use of mind! But they are merely perpetuating silly errors. Once corrected, the entire area of thought is to be blotted away. Like when kids are disagreeing on something, discover they are in errors that are basic, and leave those errors and the problem for childhood without returning.

Much of philosophy has to be simply ended, but they cannot see how to end it and keep making the same mistakes, lead into discussion my leading discussions, like leading qustions, started by someone in the wrong way, and continued by others in the wrong ways, so that it is wrong for years and years. Those smart enough to see the actual issues would not be heard because they are too few and their thinking wouldn’t fit into the conversation. Their complaints would amount more to conclusding that such conversations are not worth it.

How many legal trials have activities that do not relate to justic?

A smart lawyer or a smart member from the public, may not be able to side track that train from continuing on irrelevantly, incorrectly, unjustly, and with the wrong goals. Philosophy is very much like that. Even the idea that there is a Western and EAstern philosophy is disgusting. But athat persists and they can’t stop.

What would be the way to get them to stop?

It wouldn’t even be argumentation which is something that faults philsophy and science too.

164 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736674543, Sunday, January 12, 2025 17:35:43, Perth, Australia

Written in 591 seconds. 631 words. Typespeed: 64.020 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Earth Cannot Produce More Species Humans Approve Of For Coexisting Equally

160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736328685, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 17:31:25, Perth, Australia

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Humans Are Animals

Humans think that there are things like “rights” to live, to have a pathway to live happily, to have resources for comfort and so on, and this amounts to having the rights to survive and continue well. Also, the way they think of rights, they imagine that people “hvae” these things equally. An implication is that among humans, they think that there is an equality athat relates to survival and well-being, that the earth is not really doing anything to ensure taht there is a fundamental inequality on this point, and that instead, humans equally can persist.

When Biologists insist that there is a “survival of the fittest” or at least some relationship between adaptive traits and ability to survive, they are telling you there is not an equality, but there is an expected difference between all animals regarding how well they would be able to live, and continue living. Would they flourish or not. Or would they live diseased and almost certain to die early. Biologiests assuem there is very great diversity on this point and that there is no equality regarding it. But then the same biologists forget they are biologists when they become political thinkers.

When they become political thinkers, they think all have qual rights to live. But of course, if there is on earth an assured difference relating to survival, there could be no right to live and no quality regarding living. It would be different.

Moreover, the rights presume to have such a power which is absurd.

Humans don’t really think of themsevles as equal to each other, and those who have good traits definitely think that those who do not have them, firstly don’t have them, and secondly that if they don’t have them that they are less regarding that. Loigically they fail though, and overgeneralize, and think themselves globallly superior. But really there are people who are globally superior to the others. And the inferiours know they are inferior but oftentimes reject it in delusion. The most infereior of all knows it is inferior.

Humans remain consistent in pretending however that there is human equality and tha all humans have equal value. Thus earth has created a species that is very uniform in value, and that each member of that species is equal. But Humans do not think the same about animals, and have not included them. They’ve disincluded all of them. There ffore it seems that humans have not approved of animals to think of them as beings that could coexist as creations of earth which could coexist equally.

Many humans like that there are naimals. They want them near, wouldn’t want them to not exist, and probably many would not awnt to live in a world with most animals extinct. It would be strange to have no birds and fish around, no insencts, and only humans, with a few other species out of view, for food. Obviously, there are limites to how much such a condition could exist because there is codependency between animals for ecosystems to survive, and so there is some small number of plants animals and insects that need to exist, but that set is small. Some will say that every animal has its place in securing the well being of an ecosystem. But in the beginning

there was only one first organism.

It follows that really most are not reqlly necessary and that easily a small number of animals and plants could exist imaking it possible for most others to be extinct.

In any case, there are many more superfluous animals existing than people recognize. And we enjoy this greatly depending.

But humans do not see themselves as being akin to animals and even at this time stupidly think they are not animals. Animals are rejects. They do not have equality iwith people for existence.

The earth does not appear to be able to produce other animals that are not humans that humans would find pleasing or pleasing enough to make equals under the false equality that exists under written rights.

Notice though that survival and conditions don’t favor humans really.

Earth does not favor humans for all time. Instead it favors other animals in other ways, and this is why they exist and are specially adapted for their contidions in their part of th world wher ethey live outside of the view of people, or within their view too. Teh ocean is full of animals that humans find to be unworthy of equal status, but these animals live easily and more easily than people do.

Some ocieanic animals may have great immunity from disaster.Whereas humans might be easily eradicated.

Some have stated this in thinking the cockroadch or other small organism as being better adapted and more likely to live into the future.

Humans have not been endowed better than these organisms for survival, but oddly humans within their group think there has been equal treatment by the earth. Outside of it the earth has perhaps had better treatment to certain bugs than of humans.

Humans have seemed to agree that the earth cannot make anything worth being equal for coexistence with them though. Tehy think each and every animal to be less, even wehile celebrating their involvement in the entertainment that nature provides. Nature provides beautiful entertainment, but that entertain ment can change with extinction, and it can change with largescale alterations. The human doesn’t care much about that. This is because they think animals amazing briefly before returning to thinking them mostlly unequal or at least not worthy of the same consideration, and they return to apathy and indifference towards them. They make sure to not believe they are nimals with them but are separate objects that rare more of what earth wanted to produce.

Is there a way to determine what earth has wanted to produce?

Thinking less anthropomorphically to recall that the earth is not a person with motives and objectives, we can still think, what quantifiable preference does it seems to have materialistically for the production of one species or another, and what does it seem to want to preserve? Would humans be on the list of what it wants to make and preserve most?

Most is unlikely. It did make humans so there is clearly a measure about some level of making of humans. But it does not appear to want to make it the most or most ofen or for the longest period, or even for its own preservation.

What does the earth want of its own preservation apart from human thinkers maybe blending humans with the crust.

I have not yet agreed entirely that humans are not simply part of the crust of the arth. Moving crust.

160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736329765, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 17:49:25, Perth, Australia

Written in 1080 seconds. 1120 words. Typespeed: 62.220 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Earth As Producing Lower Quality Beings Adapted To It, By Bio-Physical Natural Forces That Require Balance

160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736327374, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 17:09:34, Perth, Australia

Constraint and Determinism | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic | ThoughtStream

Since the earth has had its long history under various conditions that are radically different from each other, it follows that the life that would exist and live under those conditions would vary; it also follows that, because there were differences in the earth from time to time over the billions of years, that som eperiods had strengths and weaknesses that were different from the other peiords. This would translate to different plant and animal species that would be qualitatively different. Prefered or not. Stronger and weaker in different ways.

So what was the age of animals that could not enjoy life? Was there any such age? Was there periods in which life was not nearly as worth it as other periods and which period was optimal?

To think that, living on an earth that is as old as it is, for such a peshort period, that we must have lived in the most optimal period that would create the entities that have the strengths and weaknesses that would m;ake life most desirable is plainly false. This is a suboptimal period. We know this probabilistically that it simply cannot be the most optimal period if taken by random. If we chose in 1000 year chunks, then there would be a one in 4.5 million chance that a particular chunk of 1000 years is an optimal period for earth. And it could be that the most optimal period was when there was nno life on it. It could also be when the life was simple. Or it could be in the distant future, man thousands of years from now, when what exists on earth has only a minor resemblance to us. Those things live an optimal life.

Not only that, are we going to assume, because we love ourselves and think ourselves protagonist objects on earth, tahat not only is our time the best of all times for earth and what it made, but that all animals durin gour tiem are the best animals. It also follows that with the quanity of types of life on earth that much of what exists is suboptimal. And that some life forms are better than others in strengths and weaknesses which calculateddifferent for HDI, or quality of life. Even the humans vary on HDI, so of course the animals do too.

Which are nthos e animals that the earth had intricately designed to be the worst to be? What are those that are adapted to be in balance with it, to be those lives that are not worth living?

Notice also the earth has things which are living in harmony with it that it has forced to be adapted to its current conditions, resulting in a wide array of diverse animals that humans would prefer to never be. Humans have tried to create a gulf between themselves and animals, amking animals low, and unrelated. They even say they are not animals and could not be. They are different. To be animals, would make them too low. They then would be a part of the nightmare life that the animals live.

It follows from this that Humans think that the earth requires of its objects adaptations that result in lives that are poor quality lives. The billions of animal lives are all not worthwhile. See how big a contrast this is, from thinking that this time on earth must be optimal?

And if it is not optimal for all animals, it seems to follow it isn’t optimal for any of them. Otherwise, what would be the probability o fhaving the greatst animal that could live, living now, at this time, among all these animals that live lives that are not worth it? 4.5 million other thousand year chunks are candidates for being better times with better animal adaptations to earth. This one is the best, and we are the only thing on it that are best?

It also seems from this, that even if we were to persist in claiming that humans are as amazing as we pretend they are, that the EArth is a creator of poor lifeforms except when it is a human. CAn athers not see then, tha the earth is not any beautiful thihng as much as people think it is. It has some beauty to go along with its unbeauty, and the unbeauty is great, and even dominant in the comparison. That what it forces are animal objects in harmonious balance through adaptations to its conditions and that those things are suboptimal living lives not worth living, as judged by only one species of billions that has only existed a sliver of the time? It follows from this that the EArth is a horror!

And some will claim that its detail and its precision of harmony and adaptation isa reason to think it beautiful in ad amazing! What a contradiction! And there are none who are smart enough to resolve this contradiction. Instead they persist in believing tboth things without any effort. To me this is an indicator that they are among the animal fools of the world. Livign contradictions suboptimal, in lies, taht can;’t evluate, but think themselves the greatest. They have done no computation sor thinking about it. Notice whatthey do is receive the ideas from tradition and then say them again. And so in response to this article I’d expect

to hear what grandpa might say. Any mind saying what he would say would simply be a kind of unthinking repeater of what was stated earlier unthinkingly. It states that it is great but it cannot think. It can only have from before and say again.

160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736328178, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 17:22:58, Perth, Australia

Written in 804 seconds. 939 words. Typespeed: 70.020 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

If A Plan For Life Did Not Include Plans For Discontinuation Under Certain Circumstances, Then It Was Not a Plan For Life and Would Be Eschewed With Natural Continuity Again Simply Forcing Life Along As Before

160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736325387, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:36:27, Perth, Australia

Another Ethic | Constraint and Determinism | Humans Are Animals

This seemed an important addition and restatement to the writing in the last posting. The plan for life would also include a plan for when life is worthwhile, which would be sbe included in the plans for who should not have children, and when parents should not have more, and when there should be a waiting fto have children rather than having them at that time. These decisions decide what will not come to exist, in favor of what will come later, from others, or under differing conditions. This implies there are conditions in which children should not be had, and not only those conditions when they should be had.

If thre weren’t rules or conditions known in which life is not worth producing then the plan would actually not really be a plan for life, but something else simply going along with the forced continuity of life. If conditions are not suitable, life ought not continue. If all life were pain and suffering and horrors, then it is simply rational to discontinue.Life is anticipated to have some troubles along the way, but it is wanted most, and most justified, when it has the least of any problem sand the most ennjoyment possible.

From this we can see also that there are animals in life that perhaps should not exist, because they simply face too mcuh suffering and pain and can anticipate that for any new member of the species there will simply be more pain and suffering. Humans unfortuantely cause this, but sometimes the earth itself causes it. So the plan for life also leads to the identification of which lives are not worth it and that may include species as wholes within the animal kingdom.

160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736325639, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:40:39, Perth, Australia

Written in 252 seconds. 287 words. Typespeed: 68.280 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Life Has Had No Justification For Humans Or Any Animal

160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736324182, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:16:22, Perth, Australia

Another Ethic | Constraint and Determinism | Humans Are Animals

An assumption that fits with this view is that there could not have been anything that did not live or has not been living or alive that could have created a plan. If there is a plan, it was detailed in mind, and if it was a human plan, it was not detailed enough, most likely, given how people think and their level of sophistication, and that if it was a plan it was in writing and was more developed. A plan is too simple unless it has some sophistication justifying that it could be called a plan.

That someone uses the word plan is part of their claim that there was a rational basis, and unless there was some sophistication, and consistency, it wawould not be rational the way it is intended in trying to persuade others. To have that level of plannedness and preparation it was in writing.

So something was alive oto have a plan, and if that plan was good it wen tinto writing, or that plan was from soemthing or someone that was smart enough to hold it in mind with a high level of sophistication and consideration that would allow for easy recording onto paper without too much alteration. So even if it was not yet on paper, the ease of including it on paper in a clear way is required. Soem reference to communicability is implied. If one thought they had a good plan, then failed to write it imediately without too much changing or time for editing, then it turns out their plan was not really a good one else there would not be such a struggle. The struggle was to arrive at a plan later after editing. This meanss it was not yet good in the mind.

That there was not anything or anyone who would plan in this way for human life in primordial nature is certain. This implies that we know for certain that there has not been any plan for human life. Not only that, no person has it in their mind. Not only that nobody has such a written plan in their possession. Those who claim that they have knowledge of suhch a plan could not with ease put it into writing, that shows and reflects the systematic organization and rationality that it would need to be a plan for all animals or all people. From this we know there is no such plan in memory or in circulation among human beings.

No such plan has existed.

Combine this with the fact that humans are the result of sexual desire only, and it become sclear that planning is not how life results. Instead, it is sexual desire. That it was sexual desire all this time and not planning of any parents that resulted in lives that have no prurpose whatsoever makes it evident that humans have never had any plan at all for life. And what ever plan that would arise, is an afterhtought about what to do given there has not yet been a plan but theat there might be some way to have a plan for what comes next.

The plans for what would come next for new children and for sexual behavior to have new children, and for future life, would be in minds, and would be in writing, and would be rationally included in thinking about what to do next, and would comprise a new justification for life given there has not been a jutification earlier. Without this, what is being done is just continuing with a pretend plan.

Continuity is easy for animals. They were born from sexualiity. They exist. Continuing along is what they do. The are pressed along by nature. Living another day is not hard, it will occur; it is the easiest to continue, to keep living. There is no animal that struggles to continue. They struggle with pain and suffering sometimes, but even continuing through that is not a difficult thing because they have no option but to continue. If someone has a severe disease, the ease of continuing in pain is the issue eventually, and then there is the decision to finally end it, which comes with some hardness of planning and of execution. So the continuing is easy.

Life just continues on without a plan, and if we created a plan, the plan would have to justify the continuity and not merely go along with it. If it just went along with it, then it is not really doning what it states it is doing, supplying the reasons for ocontinuing. Intead, it keeps going on in the same way itw as forced to do before, without a plan, but asome writing and thinking has merely been added to give some guise of having a plan when that plan really has not justified continuiing but will continue nevertheless or regardless of any plan.

The plan has then become superfluous as it is realized that without the plan one would not opt to discontinue an dthat instead one will continue whatever plan one has.

160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736324839, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:27:19, Perth, Australia

Written in 657 seconds. 846 words. Typespeed: 77.220 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

When To, and When To Not, Receive Messages From Outside Your Head, Or To Converse With Others Who Are Not You

160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736323578, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:06:18, Perth, Australia

ThoughtStream | A System of Thought | Relationships | Com

Recording the idea now for elaboration potentially later.

160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736323589, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 16:06:29, Perth, Australia

Written in 11 seconds. 8 words. Typespeed: 43.620 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Levels of Relevance of Supposedly Relevant Statemetns and Communications

160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736322407, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 15:46:47, Perth, Australia

ThoughtStream | Relationships | Com

It is questionable that relevant statements and rcommunications are relevant ain any provable funamental way, apart from some fulfillment of some relevance criteria that may be written that do in fact relate to what might connect one topic with another.

It is unclear if for any statement, even if it is one that is needed, wanted, seemingly related, meets various relevance criteria, and so on, are really statements that could not simply be ignored on other grounds of irrelevance. For example timeliness could not be appropriate. Manner of delivery could add information which would fail additional relevance criteria that has been unstated and so on.

When a statement is made to another person, there is some assumption that there is a conversation underway and that there is bidirectional communication. That a communication or set of messages from another person may connect to the topic in various ways is insufficient for coming to an agreement that the conversation should proceed. Is relevance somehow related at this deeper level to the justification for an initiation of conversation?

If someone says something to yoyu, and it is relevant to a current or recent thought, happening, topic of interest, want, or need, what kind of relevance is needed in order to agree, if one is able to deliberate upon whether or not to commence the conversation, that the conversation can continue?

Not seeing at this moment all of the motivations for thinking further about this idea, I think there is some relationship between fundamental non-relevance and the option to ignore any incoming message that might come from someone else no matter how related it might seem to be. It may be because, also, the message is one of a set o fmessages taht are also candidates for the conversation, for listening, and for further communication.

For example, one person says something to you that feels relevant, but another person says something relevant that has very different ramifications and implications. Then another person says something that is relevant, then a machine inundates you with all the poossible relevant statemetns that coudl be made that tie to known needs, wants, and so on that relate to the current topic. Which of those topicommunication sare those that out to initiate the continuity of the conversation? When should one initiate the oconversation?

How relevant? Relevant in what way? Which relevance? Which can one simply ignore, and which can sbe considered. Which are rational to overlook, and which must be heard? Which messages must be heeded for one to be a rational person? Can one simply iignore messages that are reational too because of other grounds?

It shoudl be a somewhat simple problem to solve but at this moment I do not yet see a solution to what would establish a fundamental relevance to any incoming statement. It seems I can have reasonable grounds for ignoring any statement as untimely or undesirable. I can prefer silence for long periods even immediately following some thoughts. Why admit some thoughts should be incoming and received? Why assume some interaction should transpire?

If a message comes in, I think we are likely to simply observe it, react to it, and potentially respond to it. It is rare to not respond or totally ignore someon ewho accosts you. If someone approaches, unexpectedly, still yoyu will likely conisder and respond wto what they say.

If you are thinking thoughts, and the messsages that come next are relevant and come from within your own brain and you receive them, should you sometimes admit their irrelevance and be willing to remain in silence? What if the message comes from your own mind. For those who are not yet determinists, when these messsages are reeived, who has sent them? In my estimation, the brain initiates them, and they are reeived, but there is only limited inovolvement in their production. So really they are reeived largely. How does the thinking of messages from inside the mind relate to the receiveing of unwanted messages from outside? They are both outside of control? What is relevant of subsequent thoughts?

I think there is some confounding of unrelated terms of relevance but that this problem is soluble. There will have to be some difvision of types of relevance and probably the switching fo some terms to others that aren’t stricely about relevance, so there isn’t any discssion too much about differeing kinds of relevance and different levels of relevance.

More on this topic soon.

160 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736323199, Wednesday, January 08, 2025 15:59:59, Perth, Australia

Written in 792 seconds. 743 words. Typespeed: 56.280 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Dinosaur Fossils Outliving Interest in Unchanging Museums, And Archiving Things Forever

159 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736236438, Tuesday, January 07, 2025 15:53:58, Perth, Australia

Archiving | ThoughtStream | Living Autobiography | History

Just now I realized, that dinosaurs don’t have the interest in them they used to have. For a period of maybe sixty years, dinosaurs were very interesting. They were placed in exhibits in museums and for a long time this drew attention from many young people an dparents wanting to be involved in education about them. They were in media iand entertainment for a period, with some inetense interest perhaps in the 80s and 90s. But it appears to me that this interest has waned. There is less desire to know about dinosaurs.

It could be that the museum exhibits have aged, adn thoat those people who are still alive, who saw those exhibits while young, and those who were repeatedly subject to media and entertainment’s sustained interest in dinosaurs simply got bored for them. Perhaps some greatly dislike the prospect of thinking more about dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs and fossils are in stasis. There doesn’t appear to be much more that can be learneda bout them or from them. To see the subject again is to be reintroduced to what one has already learned, with minor alternations. Museum exhibits are unchanging, and ther is a pathetic aspect to those exhibits. Hw long do those exhibits remain as they are? What is to change about the unchanging fossils being presented? Are they to be kept forever and archived like other artistic pieces and texts in libraries, with no date in mind to dispose of them?

What is it about ofssils that stays interesting, over time across generations, particularly given they never change, and well, if we keep the fossils as they are, and keep them as long as they might be preserved, it may be as long as they have existed already or millions of years. Are they going to be on exhibit as is for millions of years. I wouldn’t expect that, but what does this mean exactly? Works of text are kept in museum without any plans to dispose of them, or to replace them with new texts. Museum exhibits of dinosaur’s may not need to ever change, and if they are to be preserved, do they need to stay where they are, or be placed in another location, in a; similar arrangement? This would mean these arrangements of fossils will really be ensdlessly kept without any plan for wwhat the costs might be.

Additionally, if dinosaur bones keep being found, this will create an archival issue. Do they eventually become worthless like petrified wood, or do we simply try to find ways to preserve these bones in unchanging ways still considering them to be of high value.

There i smuch that is interesting in this topic. More on this topic for sure later.

159 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736236840, Tuesday, January 07, 2025 16:00:40, Perth, Australia

Written in 402 seconds. 454 words. Typespeed: 67.740 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Ineffibilities and Sillinesses and Creaturinesses that Bring the Smart and Less Intelligent Together Nonartificially, and Animals Too

159 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736227253, Tuesday, January 07, 2025 13:20:53, Perth, Australia

ThoughtStream | Higher Order Attention | A System of Thought | Abandoning Equality

People aer not equal to each other, and animals are unequal too, bu tthere are experiences that are common that really bring all together, or many.

159 Wanattomians, Epoch 1736227278, Tuesday, January 07, 2025 13:21:18, Perth, Australia

Written in 25 seconds. 26 words. Typespeed: 62.400 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

A Simple Way to Show That People, Humans, Do Not Learn Well, Is to Try To Teach Something New And Important, and See It Does Not Spread, But It Must Spread If Learned, Because They are Social

152 Wanattomians, Epoch 1735670810, Wednesday, January 01, 2025 02:46:50, Perth, Australia

Relationships | The Value of Social Platforms | Education | Human Shortcomings

In software any manual task that is replaced with a scripted or programmatic execution of the same task is an automation. Many of the things you do on a computer can be easily automated with a script. For example, if you need to rename one thousand images to a new name type, you can do so easily with a script, which is just a small program. This is one kind of simple automation, but there are many other types, and some of those types are atutomations that people would not recognize as such.

We are aware that humans are extremely talkative. If they have something interesting to share and discuss, including something newly learned, they cannot stop themselves from talking about it. Talking about it, it spreads.

If something is learned by someone and is really learned, such that it is believed, and its truth is acknowledged, then it will be communicated to another person. The person who has the new knowledge would struggle to not share it.

Now, if they talked abou tthat neew learning to someone else, and that other person learned well, then that would be taken, acknowledged as true, and then that person would struggle to not share it with others. They would readily share it with others and even if it were a secret they would still share it.

But here we know that there is a point at wich the sharing ends. It seems to realte, not to the propensity to share or not, but the propensity to learn. Anything that is learned will eventually be discussed by ap erson with someone else, and if theother learned it, they too would share it. Sharing it isn’t the issue, it’s the learning of it.

Additionally, one might say, that something may not have sufficient interest. But there are many itneresting important facts about the world that are taught but apparently are not learned. If people were able to learn, there is an implication too that they would have the interest. People do like to hear about new information, that may be useful to htem, and there are plenty of interesting and useful things to learn about. People would be spreading these pieces of informatin but they are not.

Since learning and interest are combined in the act and propensity to learn, I simply combine them. If someon e fails to learn, sometimes it is because they have some lack of interst. If they have a deficiency in interest they can’t learn it. If something is not relevant enough to a person, they will resist learning it too. But in the things to be learned tnere is quite enough that is relevant, so there would be a tremendous amount of sharing even if peopl eare often not finding lots of information relevant enought to learn.

It seems from this that it would be easy to produce a rigorous argument that people simply are not learning well. This is partly intelligence related. People can’t understand what they hear and can’t comprehend and can’t well extract usable inforamtion from the world and recognize the relevance. For example, they can’t easily learn math, recognize the releveance, and then talk about it with others! But that’s not for lack of social ability, it’s for lack of learning ability.

Those who learn do share! It appears people are not really learning much. This appears to explain much that stagnant in the world.

152 Wanattomians, Epoch 1735671243, Wednesday, January 01, 2025 02:54:03, Perth, Australia

Written in 433 seconds. 571 words. Typespeed: 79.080 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Recorded Music and Writings as Automations

Archiving | Living Autobiography | Artificial Intelligence | Moral Technology

147 Wanattomians, Epoch 1735190236, Thursday, December 26, 2024 13:17:16, Perth, Australia

In software any manual task that is replaced with a scripted or programmatic execution of the same task is an automation. Many of the things you do on a computer can be easily automated with a script. For example, if you need to rename one thousand images to a new name type, you can do so easily with a script, which is just a small program. This is one kind of simple automation, but there are many other types, and some of those types are atutomations that people would not recognize as such.

Here is another potential automation that is of interest to me currently. Suppose you wanted to write a book for others to be used for self-help, on some subject that you have considerable experience with. Imagine there is a tool that scans your brain, and writes the book for you, and then the book is print, and distributed to book stores. Such an automatation certainly does not exist but would be interesting–if we had this, we would have books distributed from minds without any need to write!

Although this does not yet exist, though, a portion of this automation does. It’s this. After you write the book yourself, and store it on a computer, and print it, the recorded document is repeatedly available for 1) copy, and 2) presentation to readers. Both of these are not insignificant. Once you’ve written it, it can be made into many books; and once you’ve written it, it is “said” to readers again and again, who only need to open it and see the contents. Readers nearly effortlessly begin to see and hear words from the pages which have come from the mind just once. At the time of reading, there is nobody saying anything! When you read a book, you are not reading or hearing from any author who is speaking to you. Instead, what they said or write is presented again and again to anyone who begins reading. This is an automation of presentation to people, and it would exist even if only a single book were circulated. Since it is copied, there is a simple automation of recreation of the same contents. Between the two of these automations, it is easy to make many books that can be presented to many people. In the entire process of printing, disseminating, and reading books, the author has never said anything again from what is in the text. The author doesn’t need to be living. This automation is very powerful as something that someone has said before death can be read many hundreds of years later by minds “hearing the voice of the speaker” in the text, with the automatic presentation of the text.

This is not something I think many have appreciated. Books really do provide powerful automations.

Relatedly, music is an automation. One could, if one were a skilled musician or singer, choose to sing on each and ever occasion that others would want to hear one’s music. But this would not be lucrative very likely, or as effective, as selling copies of recordings. The origin of records in the phonograph had motives such as this, to create automations for 1) copying, and 2) playback, so that the music could be played and replayed without one having to be there for the performances. This also makes it possible to earn more money, by selling a product that provides others copies of your music for easy listing without your having to be there. So now we listen to copies of music on the radio, streaming on the internet, and via digital files like mp3s, or some other copy type like compact disk, as often as we like without having performers follow us around. An emperor, in ancient history, may have had music on demand in the form of actual people commanded to perform. Nowadays everyone is like an emperor but does not have enslaved performers to follow them around or sing and dance on demand.

One somewhat repulsive aspect of this process, though, is that unlike the emperor who had live music as often as desired, everyone has dead music: music that isn’t performed by anyone, or is too old, simply repeated over and over, listened to as if someone is performing. Once this is noticed, books and music can seem eerie. You can read and hear someone speak, but nobody is writing or speaking to you. This can create various illusions of relationship with an author. You can listen to music, forgetting that the singer at the time of recording was 17 years old, but is now 67, without any semblance of who they were before. Yet you might imagine a young and youthful person singing as if they are living currently as such.

Much automated work may create this feeling if one is observant in similar ways to how we’re now observing the experience of listening to recorded music or reading already print books. Work performed by computers replacing work of people, and work of robots also replacing the movements and acts of humans, are doing something in a sort of dead way. Of course they are not “dead” this is only an illustration (and I think the illustration has some risks, but lazily I’ll use it for now). In the future we could have cars and other consumer goods built without almost anyone’s involvement. Perhaps we’ll have complex devices that almost spring from the earth, if we imagine that all the mining, energy collection, creation of devices for energy collection, robotics, and the like do everything needed whatsoever without any human involvement. At that time, it will seem as though the earth produces consumer products of complexity without any support from any animal at all, although initially, to get it going, humans were required. Later it may be that humans are no longer required at all for it to continue.

The initial motivation for this posting was not on this topic though. I wanted to talk about how I noticed that music appears to be a form of automation. People want to have automations, or products to sell, so that they don’t need to work as hard, spread their work to more people, and so they can potentially earn a much larger amoujnt of money. Musical recordings, thought of this way, can seem very lazy. Some recordings are not of the greatest quality, but are played many times and earn very large mounts of money. The people who made this music were smart in that they recorded it, whic created copy and playback automation. But the amount of work put into it could have been very low and sometimes it was. We think if something was on the radio, it must mean that the artists involved spent a lot of time on it. But I don’t think that happens to be the case. I think instead it is likely little time is spent on much of it, with more time being spent on some only. Once created, there is a large marketing effort and productization effort trying to make what has been recorded attractive for buyers and listeners. A small amount of work has resulted in a recording automation that is very powerful, and if others were to do the same, there is a greatly expanded likelihood of having good earnings from the automation, although the marketing and distribution is now difficult, which is why I said above that there is now more effort on that than the recording potentially. If an artist independently recorded some music, they may find that their job is more in marketing than it was in their artistry. The recording may have taken little time to produce, while selling it and finding buyers may have taken substantially more time.

I think there will likely be other interesting insights relating to this topic that simple recordings happen to be automations. It should expand on what people think programming happens to be.

Incest As Required For The Presentation of Certain Traits

143 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734849834, Sunday, December 22, 2024 14:43:54, Perth, Australia

Humans Are Animals | Anthropology | History | Primordial Ethics

It could be, that the origins of white complexion arose actually within Africa, even among those who were very dark. I know little about the actual lineage of genes associated with skin pigment, but I also think that the origins of the pale skin pigment are unknown. Where precisely did the first white person arise? Would more than one pwhite person have arisen at the same time for non-incestual relations to have perpetuated the trait?

Thinking about this now, I imagine the “Out of Africa” Hypothesis could still be true for whites even if whitenss was produced even while still in Africa, with no whites at all living in Europe. The way in which that would have been created, I imagine, could be genetic mutation, followed by incesuous activity. A single male behaving incestuously with his female offspring could create a small breed of whites that would perpetuate even within Africa.

Writing this I am not thinking that this is seriously how it ocurred; rather it is a thought expaericment. How could it happen? What are the ways in which new traits could arise and survive? It seems to me that if there is a single mutation event of an interesting trait, it could be required that incest is what perpetuates it, for certain traits.

143 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734850082, Sunday, December 22, 2024 14:48:02, Perth, Australia

Written in 248 seconds. 215 words. Typespeed: 51.960 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

The Experience of Beauty As A Symptom of Stagnation, Two

143 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734840550, Sunday, December 22, 2024 12:09:10, Perth, Australia

Continuing on with the prior posting, we can resume by developing on the idea that beautiful experiences become too repetitive, that once learned can be re-experienced until overexposure, and that parents of children can’t themselves feel the same as their children do when they enjoy new learnings, and that we don’t think they should. Upon this we will introduce that the experience of beauty is a sign of stagnation, but only at the time a certain amount of exposure to the stimulus has occurred. It works like this: if one first learns something, one enjoys it, finds it beautiful, and enjoys it. If one experiences it some number of times, it retains its beauty, and sometimes it the enjoyment heightens, and in that case, beauty is not a sign of stagnation necessarily, although one may wonder about the quality of the time management involved if something else isn’t being learned instead. Then, soon after this, if the person is still experiencing the same stimulus, one can easily argue something is amiss with the person’s time management and they are experiencing a stagnation related to an experience they had that was beautful and certainly cannot be as beautiful any longer. Soon there is overexposure, and the desire for that same beautiful thing is now simply stagnation.

Frequency of experience of a beautiful thing is related to the extent in which the experience of beauty is a stagnator. I think there is a consistent pattern, and it is this. Beauty is justifiable a driver of wanting more beauty early in the learning period, but is quickly unjustifiable afterwards as it leads to repetition. Consider someone who loves Disney movies. After being introduced to some Disney movie, there may be some joy associated with some animations, songs, and storytelling experienced. There is some justifiable experience of beauty. (I’m using this as an example because Disney provides a rich history of overindulgence in their films). But one thwarts the overall learning and experience of diverse beautiful things if one is repeatedly seeking the same beautiful thing at nearly any level of frequency after a handful of exposures. After the first few exposures then, all subsequent exposures, which may be many, are indicators of stagnation. If a movie is watched three times, the beautiful experiences associated with it are related to learning, but if a movie is watched more than three times, the learning quantity has diminished greatly, and the experiences are more related to stagnation in my estimation because there is very little reward that isn’t related more to habit and compulsion, and perhaps re-invocation of certain pleasing brain states related to the first few exposures. Then after some number of experiences later, is positive overstimulation where the beauty isn’t present although it may be pretended it is. If a person is watching the same Disney movie after some hundreds of times, after some number of decades, and is still claiming there is beauty, I think it is a sign of pathology. People who overly enjoy some form of entertainment for too long almost certainly has something wrong with them requiring correction. The object of the entertainment does not have the same level of beauty in relation to a pathalogical watcher and actually is more a part of a kind of horror film of experience than something beautiful.

This is an indicator that even things which are thought to be beautiful are not that in themselves. It is relative whether or not a particular “beautiful thing” is beautiful or not. There are other arguments from other areas of inquiry related to aesthetics that would indicate the same happens to be true.

To reiterate, the frequency distribution of exposures to stimuli relating to learning, where there is something supposedly beautfiul experienced will show a pattern in which the beauty appears to be genuine in the experience early, less genuine later, absent later, or the opposite after too long or viewed from another perspective. The quantity in the distribution would show that most experiences of beauty, in those cases where it is repeatedly “enjoyed” a large number times, are signs of stagnation rather than beneficial progress. From this we can expect potentially, we may find, that supposedly beautiful objects are really more objects of stagnation than beauty, with little beautiful experienced about them. Consider the painting the “Mona Lisa”. Some may have found this painting beautiful initially, some others not, but I expect that all are tired of this painting after a short time. Later in life, it is clear and obvious that “Mona Lisa” is a largescale cultural stagnation and potentially a major obstacle to experiencing other kinds of beauty, learning about other painting. It is mentioned too often, too often shown, discussed, recalled, and so on, such that for all who have experienced it, all are experiencing it at the point in their distribution of experience relating to the painting stagnated experience. This is the bulk of all experience related to the painting. Thus individually and collectively the Mona Lisa is actually a stagnation that lacks or has little or no beauty or the opposite. It depends entirely on new viewings of people who have not seen it, who are capabable of seeing it as beautiful, for it to have any beauty at all, and it is assured that later, because of the way people are exposed to it, that it will have no beauty for these people either.

If we go through the list of all famous beautiful things, it will be found that all are overexposed later in relation to these things because people are too often exposed to them over the course of their lives. This includes scenic landscapes. A park I used to find quite nice, called Arches National Park in Utah, in the United States, fits this pattern. Now when I think of it, there is some beauty, but being too often exposed to the sights of this park, which are finite and shared often, I am slowly seeing that i’m growing a distaste for it. There are musical pieces too that I need not hear again, because they have been played too repetitively for too long, even though I recall liking them extremely before. Some music from the group U2 was very pleasing to me in the 1980s, but nowadays, it’s a form of torture and I want to immediately have it shut off when it turns on. Music might provide the very best set of examples of this phenomena because the songs are played far too often on the radio, and some songs have been played repeatedly for decades. Some U2 songs were overplayed for more than thirty years. I think there may be some pathology to listening to stations that have played the same songs for decades, even though that pathology may be national, or cause one to question the meaning of pathology for being normal. It may be there is a problem with the species that people listen to the same songs so many times!

There is also another sense in which beauty calls to mind “stagnation”, and that’s where we look for developments in views about aesthetics. Beautiful things, experiences, and the like, are the subject matter of the entire topic, and those objects, works of art, pieces of composed music, and so on, are again and again, the subjects of the discussion. The topic of Aesthetics is “locked”; it is stuck caring about “beautiful things”, as though there were a finality about their beauty already. They are taken to be the timeless objects of attention for the subject matter to progress using; but this to me is a form of repulsive stagnation now that it is clear and obvious to me that the subject matter of the study of aesthetics cannot even include what would remain aesthetic and more often than not would have diminished beauty, or would be something to not be interested in at all! A work of aesthetics on the beauty of poetry then can pass over to the study of why poetry is uninteresting and horrendous after a period of excess exposure! That is a humorously different perspective than thinking that somehow philosophically one would arrive at a finality as to why some particular poem is forever beautiful!

There is also stagnation in how people talk about beauty and aesthetics. There are few words. When one talks about beauty and aestheticall pleasing things, one uses those words too often. There is little depth. The experience of beauty is so poorly articulated. The articulation becomes too repetitive. Suddenly after a short time trying to write about the subject, one feels like a grandmother who’s been exclaiming with false enthusiasm that this and that are awe inspiring and amazaing and spectacular and beautiful until there is no meaning. And one gets that feeling thinking about such aged men and women pretending to be rexperiencing beautiful things using the same hyperbolic words again and again, that they are false people. They are killing the experiences of beauty by acting like everything is more magnificent than is reasonable, and with such a frequency that any talk about beauty calls their falsity to mind.

Here I think we can move on, since it should be clear how the experience of “beauty” is more likely to be an experience of stagnation, and now we can talk about the possible benefits of moving away from the objective of trying to “collect or hold onto” beautiful things as an excessively important component in life plans. People who think they have life figured out often are collectors of beautiful experiences, such that they become overexposed to their their collections, which would result actually in a horror relating to those things they said were beautiful enough to collect. Some may live in museums of horror at home after spending enough time with their beautiful artifacts and relics.

What is lost when beauty is not taken so seriously as to make life a collection of it? Consider this. How do you feel about silence? Sometimes, being meditative, or being in bed in quiet, doing little, having nothing in particular to think about, and being unstimulated, is amazing. Some might try to tell you that is beautiful, and that is another way that the word is repugnant, it is simply used for every experience that is enjoyed by some. The absence of stimulation is “beautiful” really? Think about how different that is, than actually beautiful things. Imagine beautiful animals, plants, flowers, and human bodies and faces. These are all things you see, that are objects that stimulate the mind. They have characteristics of softness, hardness, colorfulness, symmetry, elegance of design and function, and so on. These are objects of beauty, and are characteristic of normal and accurate use of the word. Then we have someone tell us that nothingness is beautiful too. Constantly people are confounding terms such that words appear meaningless and ambiguities build until rational conversation with good results is not possible. Darkness and quiet are non-beauty. Beauty does not apply. They are enjoyable though.

Now what if there are long pauses between experiences of beauty? Well, if they are filled with meditative periods, plenty of rest, and calmness and comfort, then the beauty doesn’t seem as necessary. There’s a “beauty fixation” problem I think too. A conversation about beauty can easily become about how to make everything beautiful, but that is unnecessary, probably undesirable, and as I said above, could become a horror story of life in a museum, looking at the same supposedly amazing things over and over. It appears that life is more enjoyable if it is admitted that stagnation is a part of this subject matter, particularly because it seems that that is avoided. When I imagine guides providing tours of historical locations in Europe, in places like Greece and Rome, I imagine they skip over the irritating part of European life of having to see the same architecture and sights endlessly without any way to change any of it! What is terrible about living in such a place and being stuck there? Learning something new must be so much more desirable, and there must be a very great want of progress and change, and something new from the past that is perhaps better, more interesting, and filled with broad modern intellect, rather than ignorant and antiquated mindsets. Some old architecture, art, and sculputre, is attached to unlearned culture, with little imagination, much imitation, and too much that is false within religion. How repeitive is religion? How beatiful is it too, or has religion conveniently spaced things out to make it palatable again and again. Think of Christmas, and if anyone could deal with that if it were much longer in the year than it is. Suddenly, when Christmas begins, there is interest in art and classical again, and then afterwards it wanes. But what if you tried to maintain that year round? Religion has within its methods a preservation of excess repetition using the same objects of beauty. As long as they are not presented too often, and it is spaced out enough, many will think those same things are beautiful. But to some, including very smart people, those things can become horrors. I am already well-acquainted with all of the arts of Christmas, and being 43 years old, was exposed 43 times to the holidays already, and exposed a large number of times to each thing during the holidays too. Songs like Ave Maria, for example, were experienced a thousand times already. These are dead and horrendous artworks to me now.

The idea that things are beautiful creates an immunity to further observation that reveals learning what is not beatiful or what one should be critical about. Beauty is used to create an authoritarianism. It creates a stronger requirement that one should agree, when one says that they think something happens to have beauty. Like if you say otherwise, you can ruin the experience. Beauty can create an authoritarianism in that anyone who expresses that something is beautiful must be protected at that time from developing an alterantive attitude. This implies there cannot be a progress upon what is thought already to be beautiful, if it is still being expressed as beautiful, because that mindset is something to be preserved. This again indicates stagnation.

It appears a much better arrangement is simply to admit that with exposure beautiful things become less so, and that this is useful and a natural part of the learning process. Being such a normal development, beauty then is not something to protect, and not something to simply forcibly preserve. Learning being as important as it is, calls for having a greater quantity of new aesthetic experiences rather than reliving old ones. This means that older ones really do need to be ignored while new ones are experienced instead. Learning a lot has always been considered highly desirable and I think that happens to be the case, and in order to do that, one would want less repetition with what one has already been exposed to. Individually and collectively. People accross cultures do benefit from learning about nice things that have existed, but so as to not overstimulate with these things, and to create new learning opportunities, new culture needs to be shared. This new culture needs to include new learnings. Some of this culture needs to be more widely distributed and disseminated mainstream, whereas the rest of it can be made easily accessible to those who look. Libraries do a good job of providing plenty of new culture in a way that is self-service, and when I think of libraries, I don’t typically imagine community libraries providing books that are too easy to read, including works of trivial and useless fiction. Instead, I’m thinking of huge national and university libraries. Obviously some smaller libraries are of good quality, but many offer very poor reading material with a poor selection.

This topic is large and includes subjects like travel too. If one wants to have a better life, it is helpful to travel more and not less. People who are overexposed to what is beautiful that is local will eventually detest their surroundings and will have learned very little. Traveling more to see more that is new to learn and experience more beauty will create more beautiful moments and will better preserve those that existed earlier.

Also important in the arragement is to avoid becoming a “magnificence talker”, like someone from Britain who keeps saying “Brilliant” ten thousand times about all things. “Amazing”, “Beautiful”, “Spectacular”, “BRILLIANT!”. Someone who screams it.

After all of this writing, my main points I was wanting to develop have not been communicated or worked out. I wanted to say more about what is nice about the experience of losing the beauty in things and positively thinking of them outside of that perspective altogether. Thinking about things as if there isn’t any beauty. Thinking about things as if there isn’t any beauty isn’t saying that one should negate beauty from one’s life, but that one should go beyond that perspective to one that’s more advanced that is inclusive of it but does not stop there. It goes beyond the stagnation that exists with such a worldview and proceeds to think further about things in the absence of any beauties, and potentially with aspects that initially seem opposed to beauty. Criticality of subjects that show what is really repulsive (apart from being fun sometimes), can also go on to wider more interesting insights and understandings about the true operations of things, and while there are parts that may be undesirable from some perspectives, in addition to things that could be considered nice or beautiful to others, what is learned about reality conveys more complete and whole truths that seems to make the knowing mind more superior than it was beforehand. Already people are called naive if they think things too positive, and those who “see it both ways” thinking they know more about the realities, think themselve to have the superior and mature mindsets, that are more advanced in development and less novice. Naivete is connected with being a beginner. It appears to me a more advanced mindset is across an obstacle that is created by aesthetics and excess clinging to beauty. Seeing that beauty is significantly a sign of stagnation is important for becoming aware that such an obstacle exists. Really it’s a huge set of related obstacles. Their relatedness can be used to strategically overcome them to become more knowledgeable and honest instead.

The Experience of Beauty As A Symptom of Stagnation

142 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734765301, Saturday, December 21, 2024 15:15:01, Perth, Australia

By the title of this article, the reader may think that the author does not hold the belief that beautiful experiences are not among the more desirable of life experiences. This is not the case, and the author has spend a considerable amount of his life looking for new and exciting novelties and forms of stimulation to increase the amount of beautiful experiences that can be had in a lifetime, and he will continue to do so. It is a part of his life design to frequently change locations, climates, environments, and so on, to see new sights, and experience beautiful things that he has never seen before.

This isn’t something that I think is too unusual; instead, it might be one of the few universal things people have in common despite the huge variety of differences of belief they have.

As I write this, I am thinking to myself I’d like the writing to be more beautiful than it is; and there are definite faults with that. That is a tangential observation, related, but insufficiently relevant to continue for now. I may write about that more in the near future. In any case, beautiful writing and speach are both things widely valued across various cultures, and may be safely considered universal with few exceptions.

I now confess that I’ve had an intuition that likely contradicts this universal worldview, favoring going beyond thinking of things as beautiful to move onto new more mature perspectives, that are more valuable than those that related to the simple desire to increase and hold onto experiences of beauty and amazement.

One simple observation is that beauty is lost after a time once one has had sufficient exposure to something learned. If one learns about classical music, one may find it especially aesthetically pleasing as one experiences the best of what has been created, at the time that one is learning about it and experiencing it for the first time. Personally, I found Bach’s music to be very rewarding. After many times listening to his works, though, the beauty has largely vanished. It’s well learned, excessively familiar, and hearing it makes me wonder about the sheer repetition that exists in the dissemination of classical music over the radio and on television and elsewhere. Enough Bach! One can learn to hate something one once loved after too much repetition. That should provide the reader one reason why I stated that the more mature perspective seems to be one of advancement past beauty and not of trying to hold onto it. Maturization is learning, and well where does learning naturally lead? It leads to boredom with something, and if taken too far, disgust with what was enjoyed before.

I am aware of, and somewhat advocate for, the method of reducing the frequency of experiencing beautiful things of the same type too many times, in order to ensure that later there will be some beauty remaining in what is experienced. This way beautiful works of art, pieces of music, films, television shows, people, and so on will still evoke the joy and love that existed before. This way it is not eradicated entirely and can be experienced afresh. I’ve used this particularly to ensure that pieces of music I really like remain enjoyable still later. Musical pieces, since short, are easy to kill the interest for. Artistic works can be seen quickly too! Almost too fast! What is some artistic work you like? What if you looked at it a few thousand times? At what point does it fail to provide the same level of beauty in experience? The works of Van Gogh to me are much less interesting now, because I’ve seen them far too often. Additionally, I can’t really see them as anything magnificent, comparing them to other works, and thinking about what potential works could be created by new artists.

There is also the destruction of the beauty of art itself by too frequently showing only the works of old masters! What vicious anger and hatred must exist about art amongst those artist who have grown older, but are still modern and contemporary, and have superior skill, but are never exhibited widely by comparison!

If old people are asked, many may comment that the art that they can think of from old masters, and miscellaneous works of classical, may have been over experienced. If they are thoughtful about it.

Sexual experience gets old. I would argue it gets so old it becomes stupid. Additionally, a few other learnings diminish the interest in sexuality, while before those learnings are had, sexuality is especially motivating and enjoyable. When one is youngest one’s sexuality is most pleasant. When one is first experiencing one’s sexuality that is when sex is really actually amazing, and this is part of the beautiful self-learnings about one’s body and the bodies operations. One does not know about orgasms without some experience! That learning is very pleasant, but that learning diminishes over time in value, and ultimately after a very long period, sexuality has little beauty, and in many ways, it resembles a foolish and unplanned uncrontrolled sexual act that can result without reasonable rationales in children, or can simply result in diseases. Much more needs to be said about that, and the traditionally minded reader may with bigotry reject such a perspective, not knowing there is much more to it, more than a traditionally minded type thinker can think and perhaps understand.

I don’t think it would be difficult to write a very compelling argument grounded firmly in neuroscience and psychology that learning simply results in disinterest over time, and a desire to move to something new and interesting. The new and interesting things satisfy the craving for beauty. As long as there is sufficient learning that really is novel, and important enough, new beauty will be experienced that will perhaps be enough to satisfy those who wish to cram it into their life as I have tried to do.

A parent cannot experience the same beauty and surprise and interest and amazement their kids experience when the learn somethign new; they know that they did find those things amazing before, and that they do still retain some recognition of that beauty, that more trace now than it was. It may be that one remembers only that one really liked something, and one cannot experience the joy about it at all any longer! Probably parents who teach their kids these things can see immediately that what their kids are experiencing in their enjoyment is something they really cannot not re-experience at all.

While teaching, parents have to fake excitement. The faking of the excitement directs the attention of the children to something in such a way that they expect to have some amazement, and when it follows, they have benefited from the cue. Through that they really discovered something new that they will remember and will want to think about again and again.

Repetition of what was considered beautiful is wanted early, but then the repetition is wanted less later. Repetition can be something that is not bothersome at all; it can be something taht illustrates the extreme enjoyment obtained. It is not cared that it is repetition. The word “repetition” does not carry with it anything negative, only positive. But later that repetition is wanted less, until repetition does have within its meaning something negative. Repetition eventually becomes what some consider a nightmare state, or a torture.

It appears to me the nervous system in its growth and development is novelty seeking in attention and perception, is exceptionally happy when it finds something it likes and tends to dwell on what it likes, but then continues the scanning for novelties in order to find other things of interest for learning. This is so widely important and significant it really dictates much of human life and any plans for happiness one might have. Impoverished nations get less of this, and wealthy nations more; but wealthy nations struggle in keeping people happy and satisfied when this is stagnated in other ways, and it is stagnated much more than people realize it is. Those in the gifted population would be more aware, because these people really run out. I have run out!

What is life like, when there is no more interesting learning? When art is not any good because it has been too repetitive. When reading is bad, because ideas are not novel enough, and there are too many clichés? All life becomes tasteless and bland. Food itself becomes a bore. “I’ve eaten all the cuisines available of the various cultures years ago, and I continue to eat it, but now, it seems nothing new remains. There are no new fruits, vegetables, or flavor combinations that can shock and elevate. Instead everthing feels a the same as what was had, and the tastes are not lively any longer. Can I taste it the same way? Have my taste buds vanished? Are there no more chemical reactions, that can please the plain tastebuds, and olfactory receptors, which are many in number, but few in kind? Are they really so few in kind? Sugar again?”

More soon, focusing on what comes after beauty in the stages of maturization.

It Seems More Likely That It Will Be Known That A Girl Might Be Pretty As an Adult While Young Unless Transformed Too Much in Adolescence, Versus With Men, Since The Appearance of Men Is More Likely to be More Desirable IF They Change More

137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734336317, Monday, December 16, 2024 16:05:17, Perth, Australia

Sexuality

Recording for expansion later.

137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734336326, Monday, December 16, 2024 16:05:26, Perth, Australia

Written in 9 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 26.640 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Females Are More Likely To Have the Appearances of Their Adult Faces As Young Children, Whereas Men Are Much Less Likely, Creating An Issue Relating To Sexual Paraphilias For Men Towards Younger Women But Less So The Other Direction

137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734336161, Monday, December 16, 2024 16:02:41, Perth, Australia

Sexuality

Recording for expansion later

137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734336168, Monday, December 16, 2024 16:02:48, Perth, Australia

Written in 7 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 34.260 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Masturbation is One Way People are Domesticated Sexually

137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335482, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:51:22, Perth, Australia

Sexuality | Relationships

Recording for Expansion Later

137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335490, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:51:30, Perth, Australia

Written in 8 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 30.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Intro Reels: The 12 Year Old Federal Convict Prostitute Who Became British Without Ever Going to Britain

137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335416, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:50:16, Perth, Australia

Short Stories | Intro Reel Screenplays

Just recording the idea now for later

137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335424, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:50:24, Perth, Australia

Written in 8 seconds. 7 words. Typespeed: 52.500 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

I’m Human Brand

137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335038, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:43:58, Perth, Australia

Humans Are Animals | Constraint and Determinism

Something I may practice in the near future is a prefacing of thoughts to see what might arise from the idea that humans are brands. This would be a good way to gradually unlock some useful thoughts that some humanists may be have or are looking to have for themsselves. It’s easy to forget periodically that one is a human, with human properties, as one forgets what one is durin ght ecourse of most days. What does it entail, what is certain about oneself because one is human? What does the brand include and require? What doe ismake one have to be like? What does it make one certainly unloike? What is not free about being within this brand? If we reflect on simple products, we can see oconstraints, but humans somehow think themselves unconstrained. They are very much constrained to be human brand.

137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734335170, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:46:10, Perth, Australia

Written in 132 seconds. 144 words. Typespeed: 65.400 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Being a Less Advanced Human Means Partly One Would Have a Better Connection With HIstory or Be a Better Representation of Living History

137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734334552, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:35:52, Perth, Australia

Relationships | History | Humans Are Animals

It may be that people in the average range are acting in ways that are more traditional typically. If more traditional, their ehavior would be more similar to how people were behaving in history htan those who are more intelligent who are detracting more from how people behaved historically. Additionally, change deltas would be smaller in increments of time between those who are more average historically and those who are more average currently. Also, considering that those in history may be the same as those living today, when the time considered is within athe time of ;aa single life span, it follows that those who are average, who could only have smaller personal change deltas would be similar to themselves earlier to a greater extent than those who have higher intelligence, and therefore they too would still be closer to history than the others.

But there are some interesting observations that can be had that benefit society. People who are of lower intelligence are more likely to show us something about history in their behavior. If we are needing information about the past using the behavior of existing individuals it may be better to observe those who are of lower intelligence to see what they retain that may have been changed by others.

137 Wanattomians, Epoch 1734334740, Monday, December 16, 2024 15:39:00, Perth, Australia

Written in 188 seconds. 213 words. Typespeed: 67.920 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Writing Can Be Flowing From the Mind As It Thinks, Recording What it Thinks Truly Onto Paper, Without Edits, Or it Can Be Thought, Edited, Rethought, Then Recorded, Thinking of the Recording Not of What is Thought, But Instead As a Small Commitment of An Edit of What One has Thought Instead, Afertwards

125 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733344618, Thursday, December 05, 2024 03:36:58, Bangkok, Thailand

Editing | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought

If one writes as one is thinking like I am doing right now, then what is recorded are the words precisely as they are happpening in the mind. What you are reading here is precisely what I have thought with no alteration as I’ve thought it. Now, if I insttead write, pausing to think of sentences first, then recording those sentences, even without editing, those thoughts are not recorded as they happen but are instead recorded afterwards. They can be as true to what is recorded immediately as the thinking is happening but there is a reliance on memory to do that. If the memory is not correct, then the recording does not match the thinking.

Sometimes it is useful to work that way however if one is wanting quality of an initial edit to appear immediately instead of after a re-read. I am not sure which I prefer for overall quality, knowin gwell wthat what I think is already of good quality as I record it without edits or pauses. But I do recall writing with pen in the past, thinking of full sentences first, considering them, and then rethinking them before writing those sentences. Taht results in less generation, but is good for writing manuscript that may perhaps have better readability. I don’t think the difference is great, but it does exist. I’m not sure if it is better or not. There is this challenge still: write what one thinks to have later a record of thinking, or write what one would more like to commit, with more editing in mind as the writing is being done, to have something that might be better for an audience or might be better to oneself at the moment as a commit to recording what perhaps might be closer to what one would really wan

125 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733344869, Thursday, December 05, 2024 03:41:09, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 251 seconds. 304 words. Typespeed: 72.660 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Combining The Finished Writings of One Author, With The Finished Writings of Another, May Have Difficulties Which Tell Us About Difficulties Creating A Better Political System

124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733233853, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 20:50:53, Bangkok, Thailand

Another Ethic | Political Systems and Policies in Writing

Completed governments are largely written systems, although in proactice, they are activities of people who pretend to conform, or who actually conform, to thoe rules of the written system. Once one political system has arisen in writing, it is a kind of finished system, although I grant that it continues to change into the future. It has a finishedness of operation, and peopl ereally do think of them as finished even if they are still undergoing change and development. Other systems have the same properties. These then are like two finished writings from to differing minds or groups of minds.

Can two writings that are finished be merely combined? With religious system s of writing that are complete they have not been combined. It does not appear there has been any project to combine them. There have been projects to relate what is thought to be good about each, but none to simply converge or merge the writings together in some way. Probably this is due to the issues that exist in such an undertaking. It looks to difficult to do. It looks impossible to achieve.

What would it be like to have such a project to blend writings that are finished like this together? Let us try to ignore that languages differ. What if we worked only with translactions in a single language. There would be differences in the organization, strucutre, and plan of the writings. There would be contradictions. There would be objecties in wone that don’t exist in the other. Proglems considered in one that don’t exist in the other.

Here I admit that it must be possible to merge them in a way that would result in poor style, or a lack of a nice writing synthesis for the reader. An initial merge according to topic perhaps. Flow and order would need to change. Actually, listing all that owuld need to be changed woul dresult in a very large list. I think most would agree given such a dauntying task that it may simply be easier to write it anew simply taking what is good from one and including with what is good from the other, in a; rewrite.

Notice that such a process is a process of combining rather than merging, with the work of a new mind very likely. Leaving out that of course original authors could work together in principle to do the same thing. In actuality, such work would be done by a new person or group of people.

I see that this is a large topic and probably an organized approach at arriving at the list of needs would be better than simply thinking them afresh here. I’ll return to do this writing in a more organized ay.

124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733234285, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 20:58:05, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 432 seconds. 457 words. Typespeed: 63.420 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Systems Developed From Differing Minds May Not Be Correctable or Combinable Into Singularly Preferred Systems

124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733232566, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 20:29:26, Tempe, Arizona

A System Of Thought | ThoughtStream | Another Ethic | Political Systems and Policies in Writing

If a system of politics is developed in a way that is working and harmonious, it may have some analogy to an organism of some kind, and having such an analogy, or commitment to a particular system, which is like a commitment to being a certain organism, it may be the case that there is no way to prefer that system to other systems that also would be harmonious but akin to other organisms. For example, how might one go about preferring a squirrel like system, to a mouselike system, where both systems do exactly what they are required to do but do some things differently. One might think that they key elements of a political system are akin to the digestive, metabolic, and growth characteristics of these two animals? Which is to be preferred comparing the two animals? Now, if one is able to determine in detail what is truly necessary to human political systems, it may be possible to compare those ‘organisms’, to quanitfy the differences and find which may be preferable. In some ways we do know that squirrels have strengths and weaknesses that differ from the mouse’s. This is simple enough to be possible. But what appears perhaps to be impossible is to compare all ‘organisms’ or all ‘possible organisms’ such that one may find a clear preference. Moreover, the systems may be increasingly different in various other respects as more are added. The ‘organism’ comparison is, as I said, only an analogy to illustrate. What we are doing is merely comparing alternative systems devised by different minds. If we had a large enough supply of alternative systems, it appears to me we would not have a way to decide upon which is best, but going further than this, I don’t think they can be learned from to a point in which the best of them may be combinable in various ways to form a more correct version of the system that is a kind of singular combined system. A funny question that might illustrate is “How could we combine miscellaneous mammals to form a mammal of more optimal properties according to some criteria to be decided upon that also relate to the functions of those animals?” Both the criteria and the system design would come from the exploration of the aspects of the various animals. Similarly, operating in isolation, our attempt to improve human political systems, has been done both by observing humans to form criteria and also observing the systms to see what might be beneficial.But how are human systems actually constructed?

There is no human system that is not an organically grown systThere is no human system that is not an organically grown systThere is no human system that is not an organically grown system. There is no human political system (and I mean political systems here), that has had a single design, and a single agent of development. They have not even had identifiable organizations of design or development.

They have also stretched accross generations, making this obviously the case. The result of the development that may be any particular existing system is one that has arisen after many generations have completely died. None exist except who appears actually to not be doing design or development. was said above provides interesting questions and consSome of what was said above provides interesting questions and considerations about the value of diverse nations. While I don’t think it is valuable to fence humanity from birth to death, I do think it is valuable to make comparisons between the lives of those living in each zoo. Some zoos are happiier places for the animals, while others are not. Some really consider and form criteria from observations of the animals that result in system changes that enable them to live better. But there are cons to every zoo system that may be devised. We can do a comparative study between zoos, and try to imagine a better zoo, or nation, which would have more of what people would like, but we may not allow all to move into that zoo, because of lack of space and territorial behavior, but very likely this zoo would be one that would have better properties. Being one zoo that combines properties of some of the better zoos, does not make it a zoo that fares better completely in comparison with each of those source zoos used for the comparison or any of the other zoos that were not the inspiration for the new zoo. This simply means there would appear to be desirable aspects of the other zoos that have not been combined into the new zoo, and may not be able to be combined into the new zoo; or if combinable, would result in a new zoo that is not the earlier zoo. The zoo may not be correctable to include the elements of the other zoos, and it may be that no alternative zoo could be created that is correctable to include all the best properties of the other zoos.

Another analogy exists to human projects. The project of one person who might be an architect of a political system will be very unlike the project of another person who might be an architect of an alternative system. Now we can imagine that there are many architects and many projects. Is any one of the projects correctable given a view of all the other systems to be improved to be the singular project of choice for the best political system? It appears not. Is it combinable with any of the other projects to form the best political system? It appears not. Correctability and combinability are only partial. Could a better system be created that combines verious aspects of various projects? Certainly. It would leave some things out that exist in some of the other systems however. Disagreement would continue to exist between architects who disagree on the criteria of what the best system would be on an analysis and evaluation of the various projects, and would continue to think that the strong points of their systems or other systems they like, happen to be important enough to drive the combination and correction of a new system.

A concluding takeaway which is an inference from this is that it appears that the thought that there can be a “best” system could be amiss. Optionally limited resulting systems of good quality might be what are wanted. Notice that is what animals are. They are simply limited systems of good quality, and there is no animal that we might look at as the candidate animal for ‘consummate animal bestness’. If we determine criteria well enough though, some animals are especially adapted to meeting those criteria, and that’s what specialization in an environment is. So sometimes, we may really have, examining an environment, an animal that seems more well suited to that environment. But what is missing in that case is a competitor. Introduce a competitor, and we know, they may lose their status as most adept. It confuses which criteria are under consideration too. In my esstimation, animals are not really entirely adapted to environments with specific criteria, but instead, are sufficiently adapted to an environment with minimal criteria met, to continue to reproduce. At this moment as I write this I have some concerns whether or not we know what criteria actually are.

Lost Autobiographical Information, Lost Religious Information

124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733223435, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 17:57:15, Tempe, Arizona

A Simple Solution For Creating New Religions | ThoughtStream

A Simple Solution For Creating New Religions” “From one person, you can know that the written history of religion has excess falsities. Lost ideas, or lost ideas in partially recorded ideas, or literary fragments, show that what is lost is not collected to determine all that was lost. Little parts of religion were lost along the way (didn’t do a good job anyway), and the total loss is exceedingly damaging to religion. It would show that all in the lineage were liars regarding their convictions that meanings were present and not lost, and that they did have the meanings. They have too much conviction they know the meanings in their own religion. Notice that in addition to this, compounding the problem, most people are not high intelligence. The founders of the religion are taken to be supreme authorities, people who one could not be like. They don’t say intelligence, but they hope that the authority they pretend, really did relate to intelligence. If it didn’t, they were authorities perhaps falsely (because pretends intellectualism). So now the lost ideas are all gone forever, and nobody has added up what they all are in aggregate to know the damage, foolish people keep claiming”they know the meanings” of what has been lost, AND that they can know almost any meanings, from anyone so much greater than they, who interpreted and shared the teachings, providing the commentary and the newer writings and lectures. Between the loss of ideas and the lower intelligence of all religious people compared to their authority figures, it follows that they have way too much conviction regarding what they think they learned. Otherwise the foolish religious persons convictions would be trusted too actually… because if they ideas were right, were conveyed easily by the religion to the people ( a precondition or religion doesn’t work), and that the people were smart enough to understand (maybe not how the authority would but adequately), then it follows they can state the ideas with conviction and that those ideas would be true and would deserve conviction. But according to this, they don’t exist(!) because lost, AND religious people are not trusted to educate the religious!! They don’t trust their own people to educate their religion. Why? Because they are aware (putting power to the side), that they will really get it wrong, and more ideas will be lost, …)… Notice also, that if one were to create a new religion that is to be akin to existing religions, it would have to have a similar amount of lost content. Or, for the new religion to gain similarity to the other religions, after being too complete at the outset, it would have to lose information and become corrupted, and have new additions that do not agree with what was originally devised.

A Way to Improve Mental Models One Has For Interacting With Others

124 Wanattomians, Epoch 1733220621, Tuesday, December 03, 2024 17:10:21, Bangkok, Thailand

Relationships | ThoughtStream

Creating models of the minds of others in a way that is somewhat akin to the model that would be needed for those who you interact with who are smarter, then strip away ‘ways of thinking and analyzing’ that would be unavailable to the public on a gradient.

Globs, Clusters, and Gushes, and Child Cosmology

118 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732709098, Wednesday, November 27, 2024 19:04:58, Bangkok, Thailand

A Simple Solution for Creating New Religions | Cosmological Arguments for a Diety and Other Related Arguments Originating in Myth | Fundamental Problems | Fundamental Concepts | A System of Thought

Recording the idea.

118 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732709104, Wednesday, November 27, 2024 19:05:04, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 6 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 30.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

If You Needed A Proof of Greater Non-Stagnation Compared With The Rest of the Population, What Would It Consist Of and Look Like

117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732636858, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 23:00:58, Bangkok, Thailand

ThoughtStream | Velocity of Significance and Ideation | Higher Order Attention

Recording the idea.

117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732636863, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 23:01:03, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Saved People Who Later Hate Your Views, and Targets of Saving Behavior

117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732606814, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 14:40:14, Bangkok, Thailand

Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic

Recording the idea for expansion later.

117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732606823, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 14:40:23, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 9 seconds. 6 words. Typespeed: 39.960 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Low Expectations of Quality of Life are Evident in Expectations and Wants of Greatness While Mundanity is What is Always Received. This Indicates Low Life Prospects Despite Any Human Development Index. Humans Think They Are Satisfied When They Are Not and Continue To Want Rare Fame.

117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732605590, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 14:19:50, Bangkok, Thailand

Higher Order Attention | Evaluative Concepts | Another Ethic

Recording the idea.

117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732605595, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 14:19:55, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 5 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 36.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Safety, Security, Force, and Imprisonment, Might Be Better Going With a Human Wildlife Management Perspective

117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732583014, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 08:03:34, Bangkok, Thailand

Relationships | Another Ethic

Recording the idea.

117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732583020, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 08:03:40, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 6 seconds. 3 words. Typespeed: 30.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

The List of All Words Requiring Redefinition, and The List of All Thoughts Recurring Requiring Replacement or Correction

117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732580075, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 07:14:35, Bangkok, Thailand

Human Shortcomings | Glossary | Higher Order Attention | Editing

Recording for now, to expand on later.

117 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732580084, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 07:14:44, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 9 seconds. 7 words. Typespeed: 46.620 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

The Recording Plant, or Fruit, That is Like a Video Recorder But Nobody Could Tell, Because of the Way it Records and the Way the Recording Looks

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732578742, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:52:22, Bangkok, Thailand

Short Stories | Literature | Nonfictionalism | ThoughtStream | A System of Thought

A short story idea and idea more generally for thinking about later.

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732578754, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:52:34, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 12 seconds. 12 words. Typespeed: 60.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

The Extent In Which People Are Errored Can Be Noticed Recognizing That The Rules and Thoughts They Repeat That They Think Are Useful Are Seriously Premature or Erroneous

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732578341, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:45:41, Bangkok, Thailand

Human Shortcomings | Another Ethic

Recording for expansion later potentially. Getting the idea down.

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732578354, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:45:54, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 13 seconds. 9 words. Typespeed: 41.520 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

There is No Appropriate Film Length for an Autobiography, Since Any Film is Just a Shortening of the LIfe Which Captured Completely Is the Same Length, Including Ifinitesimally or Motionlessly Minutely

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732576331, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:12:11, Bangkok, Thailand

Living Autobiography | Filmographicwriting | Human Shortcomings | Cinematography | Biography

Recording the idea now for expansion later.

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732576341, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 06:12:21, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 10 seconds. 7 words. Typespeed: 42.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

The Word Modern Is Irritating, Because Whatever Is Current Is Modern, and Words For What Comes After Modern Are Synonyms for Modern. But All is Primordial and State of Nature Still.

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732574420, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:40:20, Bangkok, Thailand

Human Shortcomings | Wordly Coinages | Glossary

Recording for later expansion.

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732574428, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:40:28, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 8 seconds. 4 words. Typespeed: 30.000 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

I Devised My Work as a Mandala, But It Can Simply Be a Manadala More Than Once or Many Times, Since Preservation is Hard But Restarting Is Not So Hard

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732573334, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:22:14, Bangkok, Thailand

Human Shortcomings | Archiving | ThoughtStream | Higher Order Attention

Recording now for later expansion.

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732573341, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:22:21, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 7 seconds. 5 words. Typespeed: 42.840 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Having Kids Creates Needful Tasks to Perform, Meanwhile One Is Aware, if Smart Enough, That the Choice Was a Mistake That Simply Created Direction and Something to Do, Too Much To Do

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732572045, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 05:00:45, Bangkok, Thailand

Human Shortcomings | Higher Order Attention

Recording the idea for expansion later.

Since a Death Date and Time is Unknown, One Does Not Really Have a Wide Range of Time Management Strategies as The Elderly Have Supposed and Pretended. They Pretended Time Management Largely.

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732571589, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 04:53:08, Bangkok, Thailand

Another Ethic | Death Plans | Higher Order Attention | Human Shortcomings

Recording for the moment to get the idea in progress. To expand on at a later time.

116 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732571604, Tuesday, November 26, 2024 04:53:24, Bangkok, Thailand

Written in 15 seconds. 17 words. Typespeed: 67.980 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Agreeing that All Are Equal, Because if You Removed All That’s Great From Yourself, You Are the Same Thing and Same Value

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732184434, Thursday, November 21, 2024 17:20:33, Phuket, Thailand

Another Ethic | Human Shortcomings | Abandoning Equality

A thesis of the thoughtstream is that human equality does not exist the way people would like it to exist, and that one way to know that there is no equality is to consider your own personal advancements, and ask yourself if you think those advancementts did nothing or not.

“When you improved over a long time of work, did you really improve yourself or are you simply always equal to what you were and what you will be?”

It is clearly false that people do not improve. We are a ware that education, done well, creates greate improvements for people. Later versions of people seem beter than earlier fversions. We all came to an agreement (something akin to that), in supporting school systems. We wouldn’t want to be primates without culture and think being taught culture improves the situation frofor humanity. It seems absurd, to ask also, if humans today are simply equal to those in the past, because they couldn’t make themselves anything other than equal by technology creation and education.

Another way to look at this, or to persuade potentially, is to think about what your good traits are, and wonder if you are the same or equal to yourself if you remove all those. So now you’re a less smart, uglier, less athletic, less skilled, less healthy version of yourself, and you’ve gone backwards in your education, and perhpas have brain damage canceling some of your education. Are Are you equal to this reduced version of yourself, or not? Clearly, one thinks that one with all these traits is better than the one without those traits. By reducing yourself that much you really did not result in a;n equal thing, but something as unequal as those traits that were deleted.

This posting still doesn’t use language how I think is best and clearest, according to what is in the writing Abandon;ing Equality, but those readers who are careful can probably discern the accurate meaning in this posting.

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732184770, Thursday, November 21, 2024 17:26:10, Phuket, Thailand

Written in 336 seconds. 331 words. Typespeed: 59.100 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Everyone has to be maximizing happiness and acting religiously to expand the value of each situation, ignoring this collectively in practice, versus knowing when to maximize the value of each situation AND acting in accordance with a strategy

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732182529, Thursday, November 21, 2024 16:48:49, Phuket, Thailand

Higher Order Attention | Another Ethic

What this amounts to, is that thre is not a strategy for improving the excellences of collective experience. If one visiits a tourist destination, this is very clear. Instead of having a plan that builds up to a sophisticateed collective excellence or experience of whole value, there is an aggregate of organically generated, or randomly created, market related chunks of experience. It appears strategyless, apart from the civil planning or architecture performed to set the statge for having any enjoyment. The bathrooms were somewhat well planned, because they are almost enough to satisfy the need. But apart from these

structural basics, the other devellpment is haphazard and uncoordinated. There is no strategy for producing collective excellent experiences it seems. What is the method or strategy used at the upper levels to buiold up a total experience that is more excellent now than before. Architects are famous for trying to create spaces that have this kind of thinking placed into it. But they don’t do it to the moral level, or to what really enhances each person at each moment. That is excessive of course, but there is no trend even in that direction. Instead, these architects became people who had some good plans around what a good life might look like within a certain setting where more needs are prepared for.

Having such a coordinated strategy for everyone feels like it is not difverse enough. And that’s why organic development sometimes is quite amazing, producing the enexpected and spontaneous improvements to society. But there should be a methodology. If there is no methodology, what is the morality of this domain? Does it fit into your existing domain, or does your domain fit within to that?

That second question is not a serious question, it merely pionts out that people aren’t aware of what morality even is, and that they think that what they have been exposed to is somewhow ready for all tasks, teven those tasks it does not perform. Like prepare for a strategy and methodology of morality for all people that collectively plans benefits, and not one dthat isn’t doing all fo these things and cannot.

What are the tasks your religion can’t perform? What is it that your religion is weak on? I know a lot, but the list is huge, so build out the list.

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732182927, Thursday, November 21, 2024 16:55:27, Phuket, Thailand

Written in 398 seconds. 389 words. Typespeed: 58.620 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Using ‘I’ Versus ‘accepting your hardware and sensory and subtracting self from it, including name, history, synthesis of components, etc…’

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732179379, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:56:19, Phuket, Thailand

Identity | Human Shortcomings | Egolessness and Emptiness | Morality | Attentional Management Process

Just recording an important consideration for the development of one’s selfhood or non-selfhood as one may thinki about it.

Interestingly, people seem to have taken a stance on this topic by having the division in goals to go one way or the other but not to work on both as a single area of inquiry.

The topic of self-hood has been inappropriately divided into just two categories of anatagonistic development and mutual stifling. Some go down th epath that there is no ego ;within oneself. This is closer to some views of buddhism. Others go down the path that there is reallly a single individual within each person, and that thinking of oneself in terms of ‘I’ for example are appropriate.

However, what is missed, which is obvious to me now, after having thad this observation, is that the goal is to learn about what one is in more detail and deal with whatever absences of unification exist, and to account for multiplicities.

One has always been a combination of unified things in the same system, and a;a multiplicity of things. Some argue that in the mind, there is no cohesiveness adequate to point to any individual ;ment al ego or ‘I’. It is immediately obvious to me however that there is truth on both sides, but the side that actually hase some development is the one that does not obstinatntly stick to the idea that there is a unified I only and nothing more. That is the most naive idea of all.

A better way to look at the study is tthat minds are seeking to find ways to categorieze, name, and understand, internal constituent parts, and their relationsn into larger units of self, and relation into the total biological unit of self. This does not entail unity in the mind of a thinkier that constitutes an I. Instead it seems clar that we are merely stagnated here and haven’t developmed because of the force of those who insist there is an I only.

Also, our tradition happens to assume that the definition of I and its use is correct. Howver, it is certain that it is incorrect.

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732179668, Thursday, November 21, 2024 16:01:08, Phuket, Thailand

Written in 289 seconds. 359 words. Typespeed: 74.520 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

For those who might think that the boundary of the brain and its infromation cleaving it from sight and attention of others means the brain has a policy of privacy supportive of the existing system of privacy, consider also that the brain has information hiding from itself.

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732178244, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:37:24, Phuket, Thailand

A System of Thought | Thoughtstream | Open Health and Identity | Human Shortcomings

What is the value of the brain’s information hiding from itself? How often do people use that to protect their own minds from what they have thought and done? Did they do it until really, they can throw thoughts away, and dump them, like th etrash on a computer?

Here I am stating that I don’t think that the policy of privacy in social life should be analagous to how the brain actually divides private from non-private, but I’m not sure why yte. Or if it really happens to be the case.

Certainly some analogy to the brain will be worthwhile, and I would support the utilization of good analogies to the brain’s way of storing, hiding and accessing information. Since social life, and life in culture, is built up of brains, the way the brain does nthis will need to be part of the solution.

Butwhat might this mean about the brain’s information hiding from itself? Could it be at all an analogy to security clearance?

I would characterize these thoughts as planning around the responses I would have to an objectiion I devised, that merely could be on e that others would think about and would use. Actually I would expect that they would use it. I intuit that the brain will be a necessary analogy to make as long as it is really an analogy. But I think intuititvely that this objection would not be a “decisive objection” without further consideration.

Now I’m recording this but I have not worked on the various considerations.

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732178526, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:42:06, Phuket, Thailand

Written in 282 seconds. 257 words. Typespeed: 54.660 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Using the Attentional Map to Plan How You Would Like Your Life To Be In A Way that is Actual, Because The Map Becomes What You Do

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732177672, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:27:52, Phuket, Thailand

Attentional Management Process | Attentional Architecture | Life Categories and Process

I was thinking a couple nights ago, that there is more that is useful in the positively defined attentional map than what you’ve considered before, as it relates to relationships, but also more broadly as it relates to the objective of simply having a positively rather than a negatively defined life and existence.

As pepole plan their lives, and plan what they will do next, they include what they woul dlike it to be like, and what they woul dlike it to not be like. Sometimes what it woul dnot be like is the more important consideration. If one is in a relationship that one does not want, then one may be planning for how to not have that relationship. Then the plan itself becomes negatively defined in terms of the omission or negation of that which is to be avoided.

More of the planning however can utilize postiively defined parts of the attentional map. This includes the people you do know you wa;;nt to be around, the types of people wh o;yyou’d also like to be with, foods youd like to have and not those you want to avoid, places you’d want to go and not just places you’d wan tto avoid. Decisions that eliminate the need for negative decisions about what to avoid.

I noticed recently, that if I’m not focusin on relationships at all, and I’m not thinking about people in my environment, then things I’d rather be paying attention to come into view. The things around me that were not interesting before suddenly have more interest and those things are what I’d prefer to be looking at. Social life is huge, and being so large, it would figure prominently in the plans about ho w to manage attention and behavior. One would have to look at all the details of life and behavior and thinking to finally understand the complete ways in which social life blends with personal attention and morality and behavior, but one can look at the pattern sand trends without having all of this know;ledge to better plan how to use those trends to improve one’s morality and ethical behavior and expertise/excellence.

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732177998, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:33:18, Phuket, Thailand

Written in 326 seconds. 359 words. Typespeed: 66.060 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Humans have systems in which they cannot debug or alter their code. People have not collectively conceded that implies they are very restricted regarding their behavior and their ability to change. A huge area where change would be needed is life-permanently across a change boundary.

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732176346, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:05:46, Phuket, Thailand

Human Shortcomings | Self-change | Morality | Inflexibility | Constraint and Determinism

There is a massive and permanent obstacle that exists for people’s prospects of making self-change, and that’s that they cannot alter their running code that is involved in their existence, and in their traits related to their brain and its functioning. We have some minor abilities to edit our own minds using our minds which trace back to the same code. This has implications then into even where we make changes for ourselves. Was that the code that made the change, or was it I?

It is hard to know even who has mad ea change when one has made a change oneself! Did you make that fix to yourself or did your source code make the change. It created a system that makes changes to itself, and you cannot influence that system.

Clearly we are more contained than we would want to admit. I’ve accepted this already, focusing more on the deterministic philosophy and science than on this particular point, but they go well together.

What is the size tof the change that a person can make as code that is executing that one cannot change. I am the code and I am something that makes changes, means there is a pair doing the work. But what is th e size of the changes that a person can make even putting this aside?

Considering change deltas in an individual, changes are minute from moment to moment and day to day. Even in a day we make self-edits, but if we reflect on what the edits were, oftentimes they are edits to things like, what one will say later, how one will think about a subject, and perhaps plans get editied. If you think of these changes as textual changes, it would be changes to sentences. And of course one is thinking sentences while making such changes. Some changes may have a visual component obviously too dependin gon who is doing the thinking and I add this for those who might not have great verbal skills. But even in that case, what is updatesd is like the kind of update a person could make accross a portfolio they ave.

The brain is somewhat like a portfolio . The thoughts one has and frequently has is the portfolio of their thinking as they go along. So one briefly thinks about work, and about how to cook a particular meal better, or how to save monney, and in making those changes, one has gone to different categories in the prortfolio and made changes. LIke making small changes across the life categories.

When those changes are reiewed they aren’t dissimilar from someone making edits to a collection of things. So some small textual and visual edtits wer made? And this corresponds to tissue. The changes would really correspond to almost no tissue!

This implies that the changes you make in your life daily amount to alterations of almost no tissue, but meanwhile you are this large running machine, with your source code controlling all that happens. The you that changes you is within that. It makes very small changes, almost none. These are important to us but they are few.

This is very important for appraising our current status regarding our moral systems. Our moral systems acted like sizeable changes tocould be made to behavior quickly! Instantaneously and sometimes miraculously! But those epeople who claim huge changes really exhibit the same patterns of behavior accross their entire minds. They could only changes small amounts of tissue.

However, if you make lots o fchanges daily, and are more adept tat mentally editing, and changing behavior, gradually, one can make big changes, but I hastill have to admit that’s within my preecided self system.

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732176894, Thursday, November 21, 2024 15:14:54, Phuket, Thailand

Written in 548 seconds. 619 words. Typespeed: 67.740 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Humans are Widely Variable Regarding Thinking, We Just Have a System of Working Overlaps for Communication that Makes this Not Apparent

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732175789, Thursday, November 21, 2024 14:56:29, Phuket, Thailand

Relationships | Sociology | Psychology | Com

A recording to cover in greater detail later. For now, I wanted to get this into my creativity list, as something to discuss further, because it has great importance and seems to have had little treatment. It is odd that those who are most intelligent would coexist in a system with those who are muc h less intelligent, and comunicate in a way that leads others to assume that the illusion that peopl eare similar happens to be true. Certainly they are similar, but this makes it seem that people are much more similar than they really are.

If two people have in their mental environments very different happenings, which could be true even of relationships like marriage and other family relations, the communication method and interface creates the appearance that the differences don’t exist. But now to me, it appears there are vast and huge differences and that we are communicating in a way that creates and assumes the illusion.

112 Wanattomians, Epoch 1732175948, Thursday, November 21, 2024 14:59:08, Phuket, Thailand

Written in 159 seconds. 161 words. Typespeed: 60.720 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

The Broad Application of the Word “Equality” in Mathematics and the Sciences, and Social Justice

104 Wanattomians, Epoch 1731472615, Wednesday, November 13, 2024 11:36:55, Phuket, Thailand

The broadness of the utilization of the word “equality” within mathematics and the sciences indicates a readiness to trust and apply the word repeatedly and endlessley without any discomfort of overuse. When one thinks of physics and of mathematics, one thinks of equations, and this does not make one irritated. One does not think to oneself, or complain to others, that this indicates a plainly excessive usage of a singular concept, relating to making comparisons. Also, there is no complaint from outside the sciences that the sciences are using “equality too often”; instead, their activity of using the concept pervasively and compulsively, often with little changes in how it is used, is not even noticed, and instead the common and regular usage of equality in math is expected at the same frequency that it has always been used.

When one shifts over to the topic of Social Justice, I have noticed a different kind of trend, realting to discussions about human equality and inequality. Firstly, there is a strong desire to use other concepts than the same one again and again. People like to use words that are alternative to “equality” like “equivalence, fairness, parity, egalitarianism, and so on. In conversations relating to Equality there is some resistance to saying the word”equal” over and over. In mathematics, however, there is no resistance to using the word “equal” in exactly the same way every time, excepting when disciplines and activities are crossed. Students will work on calculus and algebra for extended periods of time never complaining over the equals sign as it is used in their formulae. They repetitively use it with the same meaning that it happens to carry. I’m not sure if many have thought about the tedium that is using this equality sign over and over. If the same repetitiveness were taken into normal conversation, it would become annoying very rapidly.

In conversations about social justice I think there is some alleviation to this issue in the use of rough synonyms for the word “equality” like those mentioned above. By switching concepts, some of the repetitiveness of the conversation is felt to be avoided. However, has it really been avoided? Or is the concept simply re-used again and again, in new guises? If I shift to say “egalitarian” instead of saying “equal”, am I confused that I’m not still speaking about “equality”?Where synonyms have been introduced into conversation to communicate thoughts that are still using the same meanings, conceptually the same word is being used again and again, and that word does happen to be “equal” or “unequal”.

There is also a resistance to technical precision in the comparison of people, although there are exceptions to this. People enjoy discussing how athletes differ, and how one may be superior to others, using stats and other information about the athlete to communicate that a large difference exists. In sports there is a desire for increasing technical precision. If we want to compare two ethnic communities on the basis of their strengths and weaknesses, or perhaps their IQ scores, there is a very strong resistance to technical precision, even thought there is still considerable competition, including intellectual competition. There are some areas in which people are highly averse to having technical comparisons and in some instances it appears that the public forbids comparisons. Such an unwritten rule of course is not something I would personally bother with observing, so of course I will skip that and go onto comparing, as technically as I need to, in order to scientifically understand a topic.

In these areas, there would be resistance to the idea that there can be any usage of mathematics at all, because the desire is to prohibit thought pathways on the subject which trend towards more technical understanding that may thwart objectives people have that may be ill conceived. How is one to persuade others that the mathematical concept of equality is required to understand and develop the topic more fully, if there is going to be a resistance to the use of mathematics at all, and a resistance to a more technical development of the subject that obviously requires the term?

What’s the Most You Can Do For Yourself With Your Self Care?

78 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729277581, Saturday, October 19, 2024 02:53:01, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

A Simple Solution for Creating New Religions | Self-Improvement | Morality

You were told, when you were young, by someone, that your body is a temple. Maybe you’ve been told that your mind is a temple too. Taking what you are to be a temple, that would mean that you are a place of worship. You are something to be thought of as being of high architecture.

You are beautiful, you are important, you are something to keep clean, ritualistically. You are to religiously keep yourself excellent, and in good condition. You are to use your space and time to improve yourself. You are to focus on this, and concdentrate on it iusing a lare amount of your time, religiously, as one would say.

Hearing things like this, one must wonder how others would think about characterizing yourself as a temple with this level of seriousness. Putting that much time and effort into oneself. Showing oneslelf that much love, concern and care. Self-improvement is an area of study in which there is a forgetfulness about the religiosity of making oneself a temple, and instead usingually one makes certain improvements on oneself without taking it quite this seriously. But how serious can you be about caring for yourself. How strongly can you love you. How strongly can you be attracted to you. What is excess here? What is zeal and what is excess?

Religiosity has zeal, and focus, and commitment, and investment. What does this type of thinking expect from you for investement.

In some ways, putting yourself this much in your focus is what your life already is. Even for those who don’t think in this way, or make themselves temples, they are thinking about themselves often. They are themselves too. Have you been yourself most of your life?what is that like? How obsessive is it? How regular is it? If you’re not making yourself important and temple like, what do you do with aall that attention to you? An interesting thing to consider is what amount of self love and attention and care you should have for yourself reallly, so you don’t have regrets about it later. If you had regrets, maybe you didn’t do it right.

78 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729277925, Saturday, October 19, 2024 02:58:45, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 344 seconds. 357 words. Typespeed: 62.220 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Nested Orchestras with Separate Composers and Instrumentalists in a Hierarchy

75 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729006068, Tuesday, October 15, 2024 23:27:48, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Music | Art | Mathematics | Computing

Thinking of other applications of the most recent posting I realized that orchestaras and musical pieces relating to orchestras can be defined hierarchically according to the same rules of mathematical composition I mentioned. The size of the orchestra can be very large and can contain many suborchestras. It can be dynamic, with suborchestras being unknown to the main orchestra and only a variable input for the main composition. Using such an idea one would have more elaborate musical performances and compositions adn this would give an avenue for the development of more intersting mucsucal pieces.

75 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729006162, Tuesday, October 15, 2024 23:29:22, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 94 seconds. 95 words. Typespeed: 60.600 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Looking at the Compositionality of Mathematical Functions to Arrive at An Architecture and Methematical Treatment of Compositionality More Generally

75 Wanattomians, Epoch 1729002724, Tuesday, October 15, 2024 22:32:04, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Idea to consider:

  1. Compositionality of Math Components Bearing on a Solution.
  2. Forms a hierarchy, like a simple block diagram, or tree.
  3. Is often finite, but in math may sometimes be treated as infinite.
  4. In Chain Rule for Partial Differentiation of a Function of three variables, where each function is a subfunction of two variables, it is like as follows:
                 f(x, y, z)
                    /  |  \  
  fx(u,v),    fy(u,v),   fz(u,v)
                      /  \     
    u   v          u   v       u   v

Objective, begin to cover the compositionality of mathematical perspectives from a software architectural perspective, and as a mathematician representing compositionality mathematically.

Notice, for any mathematical problem, there is compositionality. Compositionality with constants is a simple compositionality, but compositionality still exists, as one has to break problems into chunks for simplification. Expression reduction and evaluation is compositional. If a variable is added, it adds additional compositionality. Since sometimes variables stand for functions, that expands it further. Chunks are components, subchunks are subcomponents, but can simply be thought of as components. It appears it often works similarly and a generalization exists that can be written mathematically, programatically, and diagrammatically with trees like that written above.

For the chain rule’s use for working with the tree above, one takes the partial derivatives of f with respect to x,y,z and sums the product of those with the partial derivatives of x,y,z with respect to u separately. One would also need to do the same for all with respect to v. How one operates in pieces using this tree relates to limitations. The limitations on what can be discerned needs to be elaborated. A limitation here is that one must do all with respect to u, treating v as constant, and then to v taking u to be constant.

Knowing that there are three variables to f(x,y,z), we know we have one component and three subcomponents: f(x,y,z), and the variables x, y, and z, minimally, ignoring for now additional components added by constants and operations within the functions. Since x, y, and z, are actually subfunctions, they introduce more compositionality. They are each functions of two variables. Each variable component then corresponds to 3 function components. We still have four total components because they are the same components. Again ignoring any additional components added by constants and operations within the subfunctions, and remembering we already listed the three functions within the four mentioned components, we have two new components, u and v. We therefore have six different components. The different components can be identified and enumerated in the tree by finding their unique total name.

g = f(fx(u,v), fy(u,v),fz(u,v))

Notice the tree can be generated easily programatically, and that there are combinations of components. The function’s signature in the math tells about the combinations. We have three combinations of u,v, and one combination of x,y,z. Permutations of x,y,z is ignored, and so are permutations of u,v, for each of their respective combinations.

We have a graph of one node/vertex, three subnodes/vertices, and 2 subnode/vertices. We might name a graphing function

G = graph(1,3,2)

The graphing function could be more generally written for variable inputs to n:

graph(x1), graph(x1, x2), graph(x1, x2, x3) … graph(x1,x2,x3,…,xn)

Each of the inputs to the graph function could be variables representing subfunctions:

graph(graphx1(u))

And these too can form a series, such that the graph functions can be composed of n-number of subgraphs, finitely. But in math this can also be infinite given existing rules.

One can state that n > infinity, to have a concept of a limit with respect to graph compositionality, on both dimensions. The dimensions here would be the width of the graph function, which is the total size of the functions number of inputs, and the height of the graph function, which is the depth of the interior compositionality to n-depth.

We can see that the graphs functions themselves form an n-dimensional graphing matrix, within the main graphing function.

Here we imagine that we can write out the entire graphing function, but we can programmatically offload that to utilize a simpler graph-function writing function, using the concatenation operation which is representable using sigma notation, or for more clarity, Concatenation notation, or simply psuedocode.

∞Σn=1graphn∞Σk=1graphk

This requires a more full expression and corrections, because it’s not quite right, but suffices for now to show that this graph can be understood as a sum concatenation along both dimensions for writing out the graph.

A Strategy for Imparting Knowledge While Also Conveying the Living Autobiography Would be to Convey One’s Pattern

74 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728907081, Monday, October 14, 2024 19:58:01, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

If one can communicate one’s own patttern of thinking and action, one can communicate most of what one thinks one is. If one focuses on this pattern, and people are patterns in a way or could be characterized as patterns, tthen you can convey more completely who you are and what you would like to say along the way. The collection of living artifacts, and pieces of situation, experienced in life, fits within the pattern as a framework . The pattern is the life framework that more concisely states who one was, and the living artifacts that fill the framework function to build out the total story. One cannot convey the total completely of course, but one can do well to convey a comprehensive pattern with much details filled with images, videos, writings that are situational, and so on. One can also supply dadata, stories, and specific experiences that fit within the framework already conveyed.

74 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728907237, Monday, October 14, 2024 20:00:37, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 156 seconds. 155 words. Typespeed: 59.580 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Washing Athletic Type Clothes, Socks, Shorts, Underwear, and T-Shirts, When You Shower

74 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728906556, Monday, October 14, 2024 19:49:16, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Yesterday I went for a long jog, and when I returned, I was saturated with sweat and water from the rain. I was needing to wash my clothes, which included shorts, a t-shirt, and socks, but since I was traveling, I was not yet in a position to get my laundry finished. Today, after having a chance to do laundry, I reflected on how I could avoid laundry. As a traveler, like many other travelers, I would smometimes handwash garments to avoid the costs of doing laundry, and avoid the irritation of getting laundry detergent for one use.

I think the entire laundry visit can be skippped. Handwashing is annoying too, because it takes time to soak, it takes time to rinse again and again, and one wonders which soap to use to ensure the clothes are clean and one won’t have any allergic reaction. I prefer to use a soap that is not a laundry detergent. Ohther soaps for handwashing really do work, but I have not been consistent in my choice as to what soap to use because I’ve decided at the time and usually used a soap that happened to be present.

The new strategy I just imagined was to simply shower with clothes on first, before removing clothes to complete the shower. I was enMy clothing as I said was saturated when I returned. The clothes were very wet, and I made an uncomfortable trip to the shower dripping with liquid before finally being able to remove my clothes. After the shower, those same clothes were still filled with sweat and liquid, and I hung them up to dry. But why did I not simply stand in the shower and wash the clothes as I showered? They were already wet. I would still need to hang and dry them then. So why not simply immediately take a hot shower with clothes on, apply the same soap that already doesn’t cuase an allergic reaction to the skin, and rinse and wring the clothes in the shower.

Upon completin of the shower I could hang the clothes up the same way, but when they were dry, they would already be clean.

This is a strategy I’ll be attempting in the future and if it works well I’ll keep doing it. Perhaps it will become a long term strategy for avoiding laundry. It is intersting that clothes washing could be combinable with washing the body and showering. Laundry and showering becomes the same thing. It makes some sense because one wears the clothes, so why not was both the clothes and its contents while they are together at the time the body will be washed. The clothes are already present. It should be an extremely convenient way to wash clothes and shower.

74 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728906964, Monday, October 14, 2024 19:56:04, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 408 seconds. 463 words. Typespeed: 68.040 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Religions Have Been Very Strange for Choosing an Ancient Figure to Be Their Perfect Exemplars Given Humanity Has Better Specimens Later Than Earlier

73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728844669, Monday, October 14, 2024 02:37:49, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

This posting is about progress. People believe in progress. Politicaly typically they think the world is becoming more interesting, more livable, and more knowledgeable. They see various nations improving over time. They compare the present day comforts with the difficulties of the past. They nknow that most people are able to have attainments that were not possible before. But oddly, when they direct their atention to religion, they think about figures who are supposedly perfect, or supposedly the best examples, but they are too ancient to have had the opportunities to develop as well as culture would permit today.

Culture today supports the growth of individuals to an extent that would not have been possible at tht time. Eminent figures were rare, and while sometimes they would have seemed to have greater power, the size of their power was still very small and isolated to single nations typically or neighboring territories. They are much more popular now in myth, and while not living, long aftwerwards. And of course, that they is not even them, but what people imagine very briefly from the small amount of information they have. Nations were small. Their lives were not inclusive of much travel. They had much less knowledge. Their excellences would be less appreciated today if they were transported to the present time.

Since the future is going to include many thousands and millions of years, it is werid that peopl are not thinking about who would emerge, and and by who we should be thinking of large numbers of peple and not small numbers, that would be much better than people today. People think about that topic and they want to defend the peoplde of today, but they aren’t even willing to defend the people of today against the people of the past who were thought to be eminent in religion. I would agree there are mnany to day who are prefereable to those religious figures. We just don’t know who they are.

And if there are many today who are better examples of humans then certainly there wil be peple in the future who will be much better examples, because they will have the opportunities to be better, due to incrcreased quality of culture.

There is some anticipation of a decrease in the quality of life later on. But that is not anything taht we can think to be true without simply being negatively bias about future prospects. If things go on a similar trajectory to how they’ve gone comparing ancient times to now, the future will be much better than now. People read signs regarding small issues of the moment and think they are armaggedon predictiing. They are not.

73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728845066, Monday, October 14, 2024 02:44:26, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 397 seconds. 448 words. Typespeed: 67.680 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Maximum Cross Category Accomplishing Activities

73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728844340, Monday, October 14, 2024 02:32:20, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

There are a limited number of activities one can routinely perform, and if one wants to get the most rewards and results from one’s activities one has to be selective, to ensure that each of those activities do more in each of the various life catego;ries. Fitness is definitely one of those activities tht creates rewards in alarge number of categories and in very important ways for each category. So I suppose it is not only the number of categories but the impact for each of those categories. Writing is also another activity that has a high amount of results.

There are other activitis I ca think of, but for the moment I’ll complete witis posting with that observation, and will return with a more considered idea about which activities serve to create the most accomplishments.

73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728844478, Monday, October 14, 2024 02:34:38, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 138 seconds. 136 words. Typespeed: 59.100 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

A Hierarchy and Network of Independent and Networked Brains, With Living Beings Existing Independently Within Those Brains

73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728834290, Sunday, October 13, 2024 23:44:50, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Recording the thought and idea for now, with the intention to expand on it at a late rtime.

73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728834306, Sunday, October 13, 2024 23:45:06, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 16 seconds. 18 words. Typespeed: 67.500 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Advertising As Anonymous or Semi-Anonymous Message Sharing

73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728833311, Sunday, October 13, 2024 23:28:31, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Advertising is basically anonymous message sharing. Instead of anonymously sharing through small scale media, unless it is in the promotions industry, advertising seeks to market in locatioins in which there will be a large reach. They want places that have a large audience. Those advertisers that don’t have a large audience, are those that are considered lower value. Those that have a large audience, or a huge audience, are highly valued.

No matter the advertisement, typically the advertiser is left out of the message. You don’t know who worked on the messaging, the images or visuals that relate, or who was in control of decision making related to the ads. They just appear on television, and in various other locations, without conveying to you who made it. You know hwhere you are seeing it. That is harder to hide. But you don’t know who made it. You don’t know who is responsible for it.

If one made a product, and instead created 20000 fake accounts on social media to share the message then one would be doing somethig akin to large scale advertising and one would be doing so anonymously.. Even if the people who were sharing the messages were paid to, it would stilll be anonymous, because you don’t know who they are, don’t know if they are real, and you would likely ignore them. But for the example, I’ll stick with the use of fake acounts. The fake accounts all have a person’s name. This is a pseudonym. The person doing the advertising is you, you can imagine, or you can imagine that a company is doing it.

In that case, there is a very large reach, somewhat similar perhaps to what a large company could do with a marketing initiative. It is happening on any social platform where one can post the information. There are many people who see it, read it, spend time with it, and don’t know hwhere it came from. But they still receive the message.

So it shoudl be clear that these are very similar. The large marketing company that uses media with a huge audience can simply do more all at once without the work of doing it again and again like an individual. If you place an add in social media, you are doing that too. You are only automating the distribution to a larger audience reaching about the same number of people that could be reached with some large workforce of anonymous marketers.

The most intersting observation though, is this: The ultimate goal of a marketing campaign is to get people to want to talk about it without being paid to do so. Imagine instead of the 20000 paid workers, there are simply 20000 people who want to talk about it with their friends and family. They may go online on any of the various platforms and simply post information and maybe some of their thoughts. People have big friend lists, and when they post, sometimes they post to groups. Some people will know the person well enough to identify them when they share, but others who see it are seeing it as if the person sharing it could just be an anonymous marketer with a fake name or pseudonym.

Regular people then are the marketers. once this is seen, it is eerie to think about how they are really very similar to advertisers.

73 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728833840, Sunday, October 13, 2024 23:37:20, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 529 seconds. 564 words. Typespeed: 63.960 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Typespeed Becomes Less Important Than Velocity of Ideation and Significance in The Communications

72 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728720209, Saturday, October 12, 2024 16:03:29, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

If all thoughtstreams written at high velocity were switched to use not typing as an input but just thinking, eventuallly it would be uninteresting the speed of the thoughts as compared with the speed of the significant ideas conveyed. What ideas were had, how significant they were, and how fast they were ideated. How fast changes were made in a life.

I was realizing this as I was thinking about the timed postings I was making and their diffferences relating to speed of ouptu. Type speeds range from moderately fast to very fast. But what if I were not typing any longer and I was just thinking? What if someone thought faster and faster until they were thining with high rapidity almost all of the time? How would they compare with others who also are fast thikers? How would they compare with others who are doing less rapid thinking with words, but are having perhaps more ideas at greater significance.

Writing surfaces velocities around ideation and the significance of ideas and thoughts. The speed of the writing becomes somewhat unimoportant as long as the velocities of the significance and ideation is present.

There is a certain speed of thinking that is requireed for feedback loops and learning, and for having more ideas and more significant thoughts to begin with. So there will be some rapidity to the thought. But simply increasing the rapidity of the thought does not ensure that there is more significance.

I’m not sure if brain tissue of a larger or lesser amount necesarily increases or decreasses the quantity of thoughts that can go into writing. It may be that a smaller brain can write just as much as a larger one, and perhaps more. But what would be missing would be the ideas . The two ideas of plain velocity of thought and velocity of significance and ideation are related. It is best if both are present.

There are some insghts I’m missing here from what I was intending to write but I’ll return.

72 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728720566, Saturday, October 12, 2024 16:09:26, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 357 seconds. 338 words. Typespeed: 56.760 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Renewing Existence Within Existence Many Times

72 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728719674, Saturday, October 12, 2024 15:54:34, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Existence on planets is erased and then recreated, erased and recreated. This is done partially and on some planets may even be done wholly a number of times.

From one perspective after erasure, the planet appears as the planet was after an erasure making it seem as though the effects of the living beings has ben completely deleted. This is not the case, but I admit, the contribution is less interesting if it is just elemental.

Erasure of existence makes those who are serious about existence have existential crises in which they wonder about their status as elementts later. Others might have joy from it though. It’s fun an intersting. It can be fun and interesting for the perspective that watches new experiments with new results. It is also fun and intersting to the person who simply likes that idea of new opportunity.

72 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728719875, Saturday, October 12, 2024 15:57:55, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 201 seconds. 143 words. Typespeed: 42.660 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

A Framework for Minimizing Omissions in Thinking

71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728642394, Friday, October 11, 2024 18:26:34, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Having a set of life categories along with a set of topics that relate to morality, where morality is considered to be a covering of life and thought, one will already have really good coverage regarding the synthesis of thinking and knowledge that is required for good action and decision making.

However, one will not have anough. Having experience in a variety of sciences and studies that are related mutually to different topics of thought and action will be required to have a more full development of thinking.

The existing framework I have for covering the life categories and approaching personal morality is already extensive and really does provide a good framework for ensuring there are few major omissions to thinking. But this needs to be combined with a framework for inclusding the various sciences as they are applicable. At present, I happen to be aware of many scientific topics and areas of research that are applicable to thoughts and actions, but admitedly I do not yet have a knowledge framework yet that corresponds in completeness and finality to the life categories I have developed. I will need to develop such a framework.

Together, these constitute in a way a simple list of what knowledge happens to relate to any thought or action. I don’t think it will be too hard to make a list that is good eough forfrom a framework perspective. The framework would simply be expanded to include subfields and subcategories, and refinements of the major categories. LIke the animal taxonomical system.

This sounds advanced, but making it more simple and practical, it is just a large list. Imagine if one was about to make a decision, and one had a list of all that must be considered in order to decide well. Now imagine that one has advanced in experience and maturity, one would need a new list, that is longer and perhaps has modifications, if the first list was well done. Now imagine that on ehas become incredibly experienced across the full offerings of knowledge of humanity in its diverse fields. One still just has a list. The list can be organized and reorganized for what is most important, and can be tailored to different scenarios that one finds oneself in.

Now imagining that humans have evolved quite a bit, the list grows. It is still just a list! Even if there were some computing or application mechanisms to organize and read out the list or guide, it would still be known that there is a list mapping. It is still just a list. It may be that forever it is just a list.

Since forever it is just a list very likely, then there is a point in the list improvement in which returns on development are lessened. This means some state of development already does most of the work with the list it has created and uses.

So what is wanted is a framework, a list, that is near that threshold. And, one wants to use that list to blend it with one’s thinking such that one scan recall without the list. Tehen the thinker and the actor has a powerful tool that is known to be correct, that is consistent with the list, at the threshold of power in advancement of civilization.

After that threshold level, developments can still be made, so it willl keep going as knowledge grwos and as people evolve in complexity. But after that time, it will have to be forever admitted that those who had the framework earlier were already powerful, and nearly as powerful as those with the newest list.

Also, people in history would then have potentially had sometimes greater ability to implement. Since there is a scale in sophistication of living peopple.

This is very diffferent than today. Today we look back in time, at the ancients, and know well, that they were too limited, and that any particular individual would be greatly inferior in many ways because their culture did not have the tools for them to adapt to for betterment.

Some few in history of course would be better than people today, but their numbers would be few. The number of people today who would be better than the people who existed before would be very grate.

So in the future, it may be that they don’t look at the ancients as ancient as much. They are just seen as advanced moderns, with less, but with the key tool being as powerful as any that they could have.

71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728643073, Friday, October 11, 2024 18:37:53, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 679 seconds. 756 words. Typespeed: 66.0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Once a Function Has Written a Decision Tree, It Has Read The Decision Tree

71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728639844, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:44:04, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

If you were to write a function that is able to write out a decision tree, the function and its inputs are known to have already determined the tree and its output. When it writes the output, it has already within it the knowledge of the output, and while it is writing it, it is revisiting what it is writing. In a way a function that writes the output for a decision tree already has read the decision tree. There is a mixture of read and write in that operation.

The same is true for the human mind. Of course, if one has a written decision tree, and one has not written it, then one has to read it, and the activity is distinct from the writing it. But if one has envisioned the tree already, and how it iss written, when one has begun to write it, one has loaded the tree into memory, and has in a way read it. Then when one writes the tree, one revisits it reading it. Then it is written. The process of writing it seems combined with two reads.

Additionally there is the process of visualizing and editing the tree in one’s mind before that. This is similar to the process of wrting th e function. One thinks about decision trees, and what the tree is for. One imagines visually, and maybe in functional form, or in narrative form, what the tree consists of. One has then , when one has finished the tree, loaded the tree into memory, written the tree into a visual or narrative or functional form, and one has read it from the brain where it is stored.

Being able to think about a decision tree implies that one has visualized something, and that visualization has constituent parts that have already been seen or thought. Those cannot be developed without recallign those. So they are written into memory.

I don’t think at present it is possible to go all the way to what is read and written to the brain as one does the first imaginatory work. For me, I might have a somewhat ready generic decision tree come to mind from memory or peieces. The operations of building the constituent partts are sometimes oconscious and sometimes not. ORder is hard to track. I will likely have more to say about this in the future. For now it is interesting to note that more reading sems to happen while writing, for functions doing atasks like writing decision trees

71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728640217, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:50:17, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 373 seconds. 420 words. Typespeed: 66.0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

The Brain is Limited Because At Any Time Where Topical Relations Are Known, Many Others Relate Which Cannot Be Called to Mind

71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728638880, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:28:00, Tempe, Arizona

In my last posting, on this ThoughtStream, I had the insight, that I’ve had before many times, that there is much that relates to what I’m thinking that I don’t have time to think about at the moement.

My current approach on ThoughtStream is to write these postings, then integrate them into my larger work that comprises a number of books. For any posting that relates to various other books, I want to include content from the posting. The postings include new ideas that are useful in not only one related book but a number of related books. For the last posting I could think quickly of a few categories thtat have related books in which I would want to add the content.

The category that I added to include the content for which I call Life Categories, is the one that made it immediately obvious that all of the other life categories have relations. There is going to be a book for each of thos ecategories and there are 15 of those along with the main book that ihas the same name.

When I use the attentional management process I run through the categories making relations between the categories themselves and any plans or ideas I’ve had recently or am having at that time. Since I do that often without writing, I’m aware that all of them relate. But additionally I have other books that aren’t simply about the life categories and those also are numerous. Each of the postings relate to many of those books.

Taking the whole of human thinking to include a large number of topics that interrelate, we can expand on this insight further and know that there are many categories outside of one’s awareness that also could be important for the subject.

In my case, I’m most interested in the categories tht I write about. Theese are interdisciplinary, so many other topics of human thinking go into those books. But the process of taking these writings and placing them with modifications into places where they belong does not mean that at that time I’m going to be entirely pandisciplinarian, which is impossible, while I do that work. The goal is simply to take what is important in the idea, relate them to the other topics in the ways that they add to those topics, and write new content, and resuse the ThoughtStream posting, to build out the book. This means my mind is focusing on synthesis between the books and their main theses and the new writing. That is not the same as adding the content to the book in a way that relates, and additionally transforming those contents to be pandisciplinarian.

One also wants to be relevant. Relevance is a matter of degree oftentimes though. So unfortunately, I can see relationships that are worth developing, but the relevance will seem less. The greatest relevance seems to relate to fitting the new ideas and contents to the book topics primarily.

Things to Do While Hiking

71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728637732, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:08:52, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

I plan to spend a considerable amount of time hiking without access to any digital resources. While hiking, I will not be on the computer for long, and I will have an abundance of time for activities. So much time it isn’t the simplest to decide what is worthwhile doing.

I could stay outdoors, doing fun outdoorsy tasks, like making cabins, making shelters, and doing miscellaneous bushcraft tasks. But I have work that is related to the digital resources that I will want to resume so as to continue to build on my projects, and not simply stop them for weeks or months at a time.

So what are some tasks that I might work on while I’m off grid camping, without electricity.

Writing, Editing, Reading My Own Work While Editing. Writing would be on paper, reading would be from books on paper, and reading hwhat I’ve written before would also be on paper. I could read and edit what I’ve written while I’ve been out.

For the moment, my primary interest is how I continue to do the tasks I want to do that relate to my productions projects.

71 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728637971, Friday, October 11, 2024 17:12:51, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 239 seconds. 190 words. Typespeed: 42.0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Culminations of Thinking and Change of Action Without Choice, Simply Feeling It’s Correct, Being Already Consistent Also With Plans

70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728557055, Thursday, October 10, 2024 18:44:15, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Just a moment ago, after thinking about how I was noticing that certain culminationss of thinking were really happening, I noticed that I am feelig that i want to alter course to utilize what was worked on in an active way but instead to use it in a passive way. The feeling was as though I was not actually deciding upon it. Of course I was not deliberating. Deliberation is clear when it is happening. So what I was doing was not deliberative, and not verbal.

It was more like I could feel that my subconscious was causing a redirection and that I was partly aware of what the redirection would be, and that I was comforted with that change of course.

To illustrate, perahaps one can imagine someone who is in need of retiring from a; job. This person has thought about it a while, thought about alternatives, thought about what seemed done about the career. Then instead o fthinking it over again, this person merely feels like the timing is correct, and that there is a push to simply end it. The feeling is also that there is not much need to reflect, that the reflection is done and is wise. The transition isn’t hard anymore, but easy to do. (not really applicable in my case, but we can imagine for the example). So quickly without deliberation, it is felt that the time is to move onto sometthing new, and there is confidence and comfort that it is over, and there is no worry about what comes next or what one is changing in relation to the past.

70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728557313, Thursday, October 10, 2024 18:48:33, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 258 seconds. 270 words. Typespeed: 60.0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Adjusting to Culminations in Diminished Thought on Important Life Categories and Their Combinations

70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728555425, Thursday, October 10, 2024 18:17:05, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Today I noticed, as I’ve noticed to a lesser degree on other days, that there is less to think about on global topics of personal interest. Now it appears my mind searches for something to develop on topics of personal developmental importance, but when it finds a related category or topic, it notices no further thinking is required. Or, that less thought is needed, and that there are few worthwhile developments for the moment.

Either way, what is expereienced is a diminishing return on thinking such that even thinking about those things does not seem to provide enough interest, and that interest would be related to their being some future reward for some upcoming completion.

Since complete or nearly complete there is a feeling that the topics are done.

Without too much attention recently to bring new developments into behavior, it appears they are already mixed into habit and behavior. Thought about what to do next includes some small adjustment rather than some sizeable change.

A lessening need to think to improve may relate to a lessening need to act differently. The doneness of thought is related to the doneness of action. Is that just action that is habitual that does not need to be improved, or does it mean no actuion futher is required? Intuitively, now, it is moer of the former although it loks like it incluseds the latter.

70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728555682, Thursday, October 10, 2024 18:21:22, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 257 seconds. Typespeed: 48.0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Ideation and Creativity, If One Can Generate It At-Will or Nearly So, is Like Searching for What Is New, Or Might Be New, or For Immediate or Recent Changes

70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728548424, Thursday, October 10, 2024 16:20:24, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

For expansion at a later time.

70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728548432, Thursday, October 10, 2024 16:20:32, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 8 seconds. Typespeed: 42.0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Social Postings Are Rarely Well Done, But if Well Done, There Will Be No References or Citations to It

70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728545566, Thursday, October 10, 2024 15:32:46, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Social postings are typically small chunks of text, with a range from some small number of characters equal to not more than a couple sentences, to postings that can be several paragraphs. For the smaller postings, there is no rooom to type ccitations. For the small social postings, if one wants to write more, one has to write a number of chunks. It is unclear, from the knowledge that there are a number of chunks, that they relate well to each other, making up a cohesive writing. These social postings will not receive any citation from anyone writing books or papers, because they will not be taken seriously enough and they will not be considered publications although they are publications. Longer social postings do have room for citations but citations are rarely provided. For all social postins then, there is a context in which citations are not much expected. This does not create an environment in which people are thinking at all that they need to be citing the thoughts of others or that they would.

If a social posting is really good quality it is still in this context. So people are not going to be in the mindset that what is read should be cited. They are also not well encapsulated as discrete chunks of topical thinking. So there is less of a feeling that there is any unit that is to be recalled and remembered that should be cited. Citation of chunks of separate texts would not be very simplistic, although it can be done. Larger writings are not titled usually, also making them appear to not be units but perhaps chatty sequences of statements and sentences. Not being a clear and obvious paper, article, blog post, or other publication, there is the feeling that there is no need to cite.

For social platforms, this may already be known. It would be known. If none of it needs to be cited by any member interacting in the community, then the platform would not feel any need to do more than anyone else would do. They would just refer to the fact that nobody cites there and that sharing is free. They may even use the information to claim that there is an implicit free sharing happening with no expectation of credit, and that credit is something that doesn’t fit into the system.

This provides them an additional way to ignore that people are sharing useful information and that credit is something that they are seeking out, being on the platforms for attention and not only for sharing with each other. This would be more obviously true regarding video content, but video content too does not seem to be something that others would think they would need to cite later on. So social platforms have additional ways to argue that they can simply have whatever happens to be posted.

70 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728546061, Thursday, October 10, 2024 15:41:01, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 495 seconds. Typespeed: 54.0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Amputees May Be Able to Achieve First Human Powered Flight

69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728475769, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 20:09:29, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

In the olympic games we witnessed many athletes who have had their limbs removed who were able to achieve very great speed. If not in variations of olympic games, or olympic games themselves, peripheral competitions would have plenty of evidence they do well. With the aid of new appendages, that are springlike, they have shown they can oftentimes run faster than others who are not amputees. They may have advantages. If this continues to occur, there should be a point in the future, when mechanized people will have to have their own competition, because it is unfair to humans who are not amputees!

I think this idea can be expanded upon very greatly. One Idea I had just now develops on that theme.

For a while, people interested in flight have attempted to make flight machines that are human powered. Some have been powered with bicycles, and those were plane like, but through antiquity some have tried to use actual wings to fly. They have tried to build wings, flap them, and fly like birds. Nowadays, we know that the weight of the person and their strength makes this impossible to do. The energy requirements mixed with the weight of the body make it impossible to be birdlike in flight, under human power.

If we examine birds, we know they have cartilege instead of heavy bones for their skeletons. This makes their bodies much lighter, making it possible for their muscles to generate enough power for their weings to make them fly along. Comparing with people, we can see then that we’d have to make changes to the body to enable them to fly. But why not enable the amputees to fly. A very large portion of the weight was legs.

Using this idea, amputees are recruited to learn to fly. They may be able to use technology to walk still, even while they try this study. Thise with no legs at all are preferred. In this study, they are encouraged to be very light, losing most bodyfat and musculature where it is unneeded.

Then they take steroids, and work on flapping their arms with weights. They build the back muscles, the shoulders especially, and their pectorals. They can then have human breast muscles like bird breasts. They strengthen these muscles beyond what any bodybuilder has achieved. They receive other enhancements as needed.

Now that their weight is low, and their arm strength is high, it is to be decided if they are still too heavy or not to flap and fly. Much of this could be determined in advance, usin gmath, for feasibility. But to see how much force they could generate and for how long, would be very interesting. They may achieve brief flight, like the wright brothers in their first attempts at flight.

Then it is determined what else is needed. It appears at this point it would be achievable with some few additional steps. Maybe some ribcage can be removed, and made plaastic. Maybe additional muscles are added and trained. Maybe some bone is removed. Maybe the scull is lightened. Weight is reduced while strength and endurance are increased.

With new wing construction, it may be possible for thes epeople to fly like birds who can’t fly well, compared with birds who soar, but still get around easily. Like chickens and certain geese like birds. They fly low and fast. Maybe they fly high and land in trees for rest.

This could be a first or next step in becoming more like birds, for anyone who wishes to live the bird life. Everyone else can still walk like ostrriches, and so can admit they are birds too.

69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728476370, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 20:19:30, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 601 seconds. Typespeed: 60.0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Some Points on the Denials That Humans are Animals

69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728470212, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 18:36:52, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Making sense of life is a challenge for those who would deny that humans are animals. Of course they rely on the fact that in the animal kingdom, three are divisions of species to think that humans as a group are separable from other animals. This supports their view that of course, humans are not chimpanzees, they are not rats, and they are not guinea pigs, or any other animal that is not a human. But the simple distinction between humans and all other animals makes it appear that all other animals are in a class called “animals” and humans are separate from that class.

Looking at the human section of the animal taxonomy, we see that they are a simple division, and only one division, within all the divisions of animals that exist and have existed. Somehow, some have become so confused, that they think that the human section of the animal taxomony is making them distinct from animals, whereas really it is simply their animal category among all the other animal categories.

It’s hard to imagine that others can be so confused by their language to not recognize that humans are simply a;a single division in the animal kingdom. They are within the animal kingdom and simple make up one category o fthe animal categories.

Denying that humans are animals must lead to some strange confusions. Firstly, why, if you are not an animal, do you have a body. This is going very simplistically. How do you recognize other anials? Well, they are separable from earth’s other materials. The earth’s surface, atmosphere, plant life, minerals, dirt, buildings, and so on. We can see that they are separable because they have bodies that have similarities and are clearly separable from ;what is around. Also, they move about. Why is it that you too move around? You have a body in motion, an dyet you don’t see yourself as being amongst the animals.

How then do you perceive another person as being separate from their environment? Do you use the same method to separate them from the environment as you do with animals? Of course you do. Other people have bodies and are in motion, and that makes them plainly distinguishable from their surroundings. What would it be like to think they are not animals? Would n’t it be strange that you could distringuish them from environment in the same way as for animals, or that you can distinguish them from environment at all?

Do you blend with rock? Do you have a ghost that goes through walls?

Also, if you were to try to distinguish people from their environment using a way that is not similar to how you notice anials are separate from their environment, what method do you use? How do you recognize a human non-animal as distinct from environment without using body and motion?

You wouldn’t be able to see them if you couldn’t use this method.

What are your non animal methods of seeing? What are your non animal methods of touching? What are your non animal methods of using eyes or other senses? How do animals know you are present?

It seems more reasonable that animals use the same ways to know you are present that they use for other animals and that you use for them. Animals see a background not moving. They see other animals in motion on the background. They see bodies taht are boundaried by skin and their size. They see outside of body, which is the background, and they see body. The motion helps them see it.

If animals do this well with their senses, then perhaps you are using an animal’s way to see it too.

If you rely on a different way, then what are the anials doing? How is it that they are so similar? Why is it you don’t know what they are when I ask?

I am asking now, not later, but I’ll give you time to respond. What are y our non animal methods to do the same thing. How are they not the same thing. Do you use your yees nose, and ears, to do it? Why do animals have those things too?One has to be strange to think that humans are not animals.

69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728470992, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 18:49:52, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Mobile Devices Should Be Computers By Now

69 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728462020, Wednesday, October 09, 2024 16:20:20, Tempe, Arizona

Consumerism | Markets | Business Trajectories | Technology | Moral Technology

In the early 2000s, I was strongly desiring a new laptop that would function as a complete computer, as small as a palm pilot. Palm devices had some promise to function as full computers. They had document writing tools like microsoft word, and other office related applications. But these applications did not perform well, and were tooo minimal. They provided functionality making one think that the applications were created too quickly. , and that perhaps they were not well developed.

Applications like microsoft office did not provide the suite of tools for the palm devices. Instead they relied on similar applications to do the same work. For a long period, I substituted the sony ux50 clie device for the computer. I used it in class to type notes and lecture material. The keyboard was inadequate, but close to adequate. Some would ask what tool I was using for the work. It looked like a very small miniature laptop. It did function for a while, but once documents became long, they would fail to save, and I’d lose work. I was wanting this device to have some slight improvements. With those improvements, it would have been a replacement for the laptop. Ultimately, the device, after trying many workarounds, proved to simply be inadequate.

Following this period was the period of netbooks. And these were amazingly well done. Very light on the compute, they still provided everything needed for a full office experience includding full versions of windows. Linux worked well on these devices too. Computers were extremely small at about 8” to 11” and had a complete keyboard. I could do all that I needed to do on these devices.

Soon however, the market changed, and all laptops had a minimum size. I do have a small laptop that is approaching the size, the mac air 11”. That got discontinued. Again we were stuck with large laptops instead of small highly portable ones. This period now has been nearly 10 years. It has been perhaps a bit longer since the netbooks were discontinued. The netbooks were full computers for 200 USD or less. The cost was very low.

Now it is clear that there is a business trajectory that simply wants to keep lapots around while people are using phones that are nearly laptops. For a long time, I’ve wanted an iPhone to function as a macintosh computer. Nowadays, they tout the quality of the processor, screen, GPU, and insist they have amazing compute abilities. But the user is locked into using the apps that they deliver along with apps in the app store. These do not typically test or allow one to make full use fo these processors. I found it strange that such processors were offered, without their being computers. When one uses a full computer, one can test the processor. One does tasks that require the processor. But on these devices, there is insufficient reason to market the processor any longer because they simply cannot be extensively used.

Also if the processor is as good as they market, they can surely use full operating systems, which can function on very minimal devices. So I wondered, why do they not simply finally offer phones as full computers. There are many applications in which this would be worthwhile and I see pathways that they could use in the business to expand on the business. However it appears they simply are defending the laptop market, and want to supply laptops that may be very inexpensive with little development for the same prices.

More Soon

Reading the Faces of Income Richish and Wealthy Parents Is Like Reading the Faces of The Impoverished

67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728336638, Tuesday, October 08, 2024 05:30:38, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

The parents and the poorest simply did not have an educatioinal pathway to avoid being miserable as parents. There were no plans, thre still are no plans, and there is no way to train anyone to avoid having children without having optimal mind nand conditions for having them. So the rich feel strongly the mistake of having children. They feel strongly misguided. They feel like it was the wrong trajectory like not having a good trajectory living in poor conditions or in a poor nation. It results in the same kind o fscarcity in time and increase of misery. It does not result in accomplishments that anyone wants to attend to, and children have trouble giving credit to parents, and parents have trouble understanding that they aren’t to be credited in the way they want from doing the minimum or what is simply obligatory.

67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728336795, Tuesday, October 08, 2024 05:33:15, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 157 seconds. Typespeed: 54.0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

When People Use Ellipses, Excess Commas, and Punctuation Marks for Expressions, I Begin to Suspect Defects, and Editing

67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728282519, Monday, October 07, 2024 14:28:39, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

I noticed that some use periods to divide paragraphs, and repeatedly keep doing that. I also noticed, that some use multiple parenthesis to exhibit without typing miscellaneous expressions and emotions, and also I’ve noticed, some use the comma a number of times, or ellipses, to indicate much more could be said, or for other purposes. After seeing this some number of times, I can tell there is not an experimental undertaking taking place in the writing. I can also tell, thre isn’t any special expressiveness ocurring. It’s not artful.

This is done sometimes to replace emoticons. Sometimes, the writing that goes witht he punctuation is lazy. Oftentimes it appears that whoever is doing it, cannot well type, speak, or converse. It does not take long before I question the intelligence of the writer.Probably there is a way to utilize intelligence testing for this type of content, to dectect fraud and misbehavior. People try to portray they are intellligent using these means, thinking themselves tricky. There are some similarities to the use of emoticons too excessively. There is a substitution of some emotional expression where thinking is lacking. I understand, however, there are compensatory reasons sometimes why people would do theis. Sometimes they may not beable to type because of some physiological problem. I think that’s atypical though.

Why is this person, who believes themselves to be quite intelligent, substituting thinking and writing for shorter statements and punctuation? Knowing people who speak and write well, the contrast is massive. They are unlike each other. The topic of how different people can be from each other in their written communications is interesting. You really can divide them using bases suchas the one I’m writing about here. The best writers and thinkers simply never do this practice of using too much punctuation marks and emoticons.

67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728282887, Monday, October 07, 2024 14:34:47, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 368 seconds. Typespeed: 48.0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Writing Topic Sentences in Advance to Create Flow

67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728281528, Monday, October 07, 2024 14:12:08, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

In my writing, even when I write straight from the mind, there is usually good development and flow. However, that is not always the case, particularly when I’m writing a book that does not yet have a final organization. Recently, as I’ve been writing, I’ve been revisiting the value of topic sentences. This of course is a subject that was taught in early education, and in High School, and in college. But there are still areas in which I can benefit from developing further that learning.

I have found that, it appears writing topic sentences in advanced to write a book may be beneficial. The topic sentences develop all of what is wanted to be said section by section. Pars themselves are just elaborations. This was taught already. But the actual process of writing somewhat confuses how to use that learning. Do we simply arrive at that point of having connecting topic sentences and pars after quickly writing while motivated, while ready to write with precious energy ? Or do we risk not using the moment for creation, to instead focus on topic sentences alone without all else that one would want to say? The way I typically write is simply to nearly converse into the document from the keyboard. Topic sentences come later, but after very important material has been collected and put together. Then I find issues with the topic sentences and flow, and fix them. But at that time, there is so much extra text that it’s harder to organize.

Another way might be to wait to have the creativity again later. In my case, I can rely on creativity to be available, but I’m writing this recalling that all do not necessarily have the creative energy I have. Writing all of the topic sentences at once may make it less conversational, and less like sharing what is really interesting in one’s mind. I may be changing my approach to really focus on topic sentences to build the whole arguments first, then to expand on each topic sentance afterwards. New topic sentences can be added at any time. Others can be corrected. But by the time the topic sentences are there, flow might be more assured. Since the whole document interconnects, later there isn’t the feeling that there is a huge mess. The overall mess is minimized, while decreasing the amount of content that is initially input. I think the benefits may offset the weaknesses of this approach. There may be few detriments as long as there is sufficient creative energy..

67 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728281968, Monday, October 07, 2024 14:19:28, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 440 seconds. Typespeed: 54.0 words per minute.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, that is where I was doing blind editing, typing the backspace key. You will notice that even blind corrections are often if not usually correct.

Black Only Scientific Application

66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728211680, Sunday, October 06, 2024 18:48:00, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

This is a methodology in which all experience gained from huge amounts of data and tests are gathered, but only that data coming from black participants is used for anything. That knowledge is then applied, by matching the black data analogically to new situations. So white patients of dentistry only get care that blacks have received and is only guided by black information. Surgeries too. Any science applied to people is done so from black information only. Otherwise people would have to admit that the equality of people and treatment is false. dAll people should be willing and ready to receive medicine that has been used for black people, regardless of their race. If you get an injection it is onya black injection. If you get blood drawn, it’s only black.

If you get chemotherapy, it’s what the black man and woman who are analogues got. When you get a drug, it’s exactly as it was prescribed to black people. All science then becomes dependent on black information and black people, and all applications are fair. You cannot ever get more than what thehe black pepople received. Also, nothing is learned from you. All your data is simply ignored and only black information is used. Since blacks and you are similar as you believe, you can be ignored. You are ignored and your treatment is stellar, because it turns out your treatment can be the same as what blacks received, and wheat they receive becomes more important for everyone.

66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728211991, Sunday, October 06, 2024 18:53:11, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 311 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

Diminishing Return of Thought To Culminations Versus Vanishing Thoughts With Huge Learnings Still Occurring

66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728210092, Sunday, October 06, 2024 18:21:32, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

A diminishing return of thought implies that one is really arriving at something of a final point of learning. It means one is growing and having large insights until a time when even the largest insights based on the smaller insights come togethr into a cohesive completeness. Some strive and get close to a more final state.

This may be compared with the view that there is not a diminishing return on thinking and that thinking keeps resulting in huge insights. This would seem to imply that the person who is having the thinking believes that later, they will still need huge insights. That they didn’t or couldn’t have them already.

The world to this second group may appear to be one in which complete knowledge (more complete) is not really possible or desirable. Tho this group, the bigger insights may happen later. If one lived to a thousand years old or older, there would still be huge insights that have not been had. This to me appears to be a view of someone who simply wants to hear they will remain childlike in their curiosities, which sounds nice, but is not actual. They simply want to hear that they can keep learning the same way. But as I was saying earlier with project completeness, there really are ends to projects and insights that don’t develop further, or much further. If one invented the shovel, there would be a large resistance to thinking for creating new shovels, because really there is much completeness achieved already. Regarding shovels, it is over.

But now this other group may say that they think the number of projects is infinite. That does not appear to me to be the case. Particularly for humans with a limited life expectancy. I think there are a finite number of interesting or important things to work on. Thinking that thre are infinite projects to work on appears to me thinking about projects that are not important or interesting. One can of course add new curiosities to one’s list of things to do. But those curiosities are increasingly less important if one has figured out the project of doing with one’s life what is important.

It seems a simple thing to see how or why someone might deny the idea that there is a diminishing return on thinking. They want to hear there is more ahead that is worth doing. They want to hear that there are always new projects. But that to me is a sad way of thinking. It denies reality. It means one is not striving for a synthetic completeness of important projects.It is lie simpply adding more tasks to the list of things to do.

Imagine if one had funds to travel indefinitely. One goes to all countries, first those that are more highly valuable to visit, then other countries, then finally the rest. Then one focuses on cities. One focuses on high value cities, then medium value, then the rest. One can then stare into the crevices where there might be other people living. The end of travel is not the interesting part compared with the onset of travel.

I already know this because I have traveled very extensively, and know already it has gotten less interesting. Patterns are seen. It feels more like repetition, even where there are differences. Traveling to many countries and many cities and seeing the patttern and synthetically blending what one learns with what is important seems to be better, bringing travel to completion. One can reallly finish earthly travel.If one had a million years to travel, eventually it would be so repetitive that people in the second camp would become those in the first camp, finally realizing they are bored.

But realistically thoe who cannot well see patterns, or sythetically blend nearly complete projects together, may simply think that the world is full of inifinite possibility because they themselves are limited to the extent that bblending things together, and having the requisite completenesses is impossible.

That is a nice life, but a more enlightened and complete one makes death seem more desirable. This is a benefit. Compare “I feel liee I’ve finished life, and now I’m ready to go” versus “Death does not seem welcome to me because I have so much more to learn, and I really would like to have completed my life.” That is a bit of a convenient comparison simply supporting my point, but I think it can be framed objectively too.

What I think is great about the diminishing return on thinking is that it is desirable.A plan I actually have is to diminish it until there is little to think about that is not already thought of, and that would be of importance or interest. When thought isn’t useful, or interesting, then it is a good time to finish life.Probably this will occur some time before death but not too far from when death would be appropriate anyway.

66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728210966, Sunday, October 06, 2024 18:36:06, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 874 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

Diminishing Return on the Thoughtstream, and The Relationship to Diminishing Return of Thinking

66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728199498, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:24:58, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

The ThoughtStream involves a process of writing that is nearly complete. Being nearly complete, there are few improvements that can be had. This is a great accomplishment, because it means thinking can be diverted to other interests. However, the completion means the interesting thiking about the thoughtstream itself and its process is coming to an end.

Thinking on anything until complletion creates a good confidence and culminating moment of having knowledge that is adequate where it relates. This means that for any task that is brought to compmletion that really does result in a culmination that thinking about that becomes less important. It becomes more rethought. Thought, as a project nears an end, is diminishing in importance. When the project ends, one feels that one should start looking elsewhere to have interest. This should confirm the hypothesis that there is a diminishing return on thought.

The ThoughtStream doesn’t only do this for the writing process however, because the contents of the writing combined with th the writing process, architecture, and topical writing development of the book and journal which contains the thoughtstream, has subject matter that has also come to completion. Ideas that were separated were being sythesized. Their combination resulted in more difinitive conclusioins. The completions of these various topics, relating to diverse areas of life, are coming to a culmination. That culmination also signals diminishing value of additional thinking. Thought then becomes repetitive.

This ThoughtSTream is also sharing topics coming to an end.

In my earlier writings I called RationalTimes, I mentioned that we are wanting to have conclusions on various topics that are final. However, as we develop our thinking, the conclusions we form can usually be only nearing finality. Revisions are needed as life goes on end more experience is had, and more thiking is developed. But after a very long period of tentative conclusion arrivals, there is, for some, anand end in view. This is akin to the end of a project. Thoughts that are striving towards completion in a subject are like mini personal projects, and they are scattered around in our mind as it relates to diverse life considerations.

As there are conclusions in eac h area, there are culminations. Eventually there is more conclusiveness to all thinking, if the thinking is correct. That results in a diminishing return on all thinking and not only some thinking about some projects.

This appears to be provable. If one has a conclusion relating to a personal project, then one can can simply think about life as a set of project, each of which could come to completion in the same ways.This means that if one is sufficiently comprehensive, there is a diminishing return of thinking on all thought, and that one ends up in repetitive thinking about confirmed conclusions as one thinks.

66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728199999, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:33:19, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 501 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

Plans That Have Positive Intent Universally, and Instances of Communication and Pathway That to Others Appear to Have Malintent, Yet Do Not

66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728199197, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:19:57, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Someone who is an intellectual who has dramatically new ideas relating to plans that are very positive intent, may result in work that has trajectories and results that appear to others to be out of mainstream positive objectives. This would cause others to reactively thik there is not positive intent, whereas the planning and behavior would indicate that there is more positive intent than they could even have.

66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728199271, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:21:11, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 74 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

Creating Mutual Knowledge of Merits By Removing Technologies the Public Thinks They Are Responsible For, An Reduction of Stimulation if it Can’t Be Admitted, A Short Story On Another Form of Torture

66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728198828, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:13:48, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Last night, I came up with a new interesting sci-fi short story idea which relates to the reduction of stimulation of people who can’t admit inequality with respect to intelligence and contribution. These people are placed together, and only receive intelligent input that’s too intelligent for their comprehension. Then they are shortly mutually exposed to less intelligent thoughts to regain interest and attention, but then immediately afterwards, each communicates to the other, with artifiical means, input that’s too intelligent for them. Without their awareness, all that is communicated to the others while they are talking is intelligent information that’s too complex. They then become disinterested in each other again. Then stupid responses are allowed again and they build interest, but then the scenario is repeated, until they realize they will ;never understand anything. There is much more to this idea but it would amount to an intellectual horry story for the masses.

66 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728198995, Sunday, October 06, 2024 15:16:35, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 167 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

You created a process for your work, but not for your behavior

64 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728024801, Friday, October 04, 2024 14:53:21, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

This point is more clear if you consider that you cannot and did not communicate your process to anyone else. You could not do it for your children. Your privacy would prevent you from being candid about it too, even if you had a process. Your children that you didn’t really plan did not have a life plan coming from you on as baic a matter as daily behavior in the same degree of sophistication as a simple work process. You did it for work but not for you. Meanwhile, all people think themselves morally superior without any training.

64 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728024880, Friday, October 04, 2024 14:54:41, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 79 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

Your face is not part of your thinking

64 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728024690, Friday, October 04, 2024 14:51:30, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

If your entire face were removed along with the jaw, from hthe eyebrows down to the neck, and all was replaced with digital, it would be apparent that only the brain is doing the thinking. The face is peripheral devices. Like mouse and keyboard and speakers and webcam. When you look in the mirror, reallly your face is not part of your thought.

64 Wanattomians, Epoch 1728024767, Friday, October 04, 2024 14:52:47, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 77 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

Hollow Prose Encephaly, or Holoprosencephaly

63 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727933428, Thursday, October 03, 2024 13:30:28, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Holoprosencephaly is a disease or embryological malformation that is caused by a developmental issue just after conception due to an issue with the axial twist. This is an interesting disease to consider when deciding whether or not to risk the deaths of children. Sometimes they are spontaneously aborted, sometimes not. But the word is interesting. It sounds a bit like “hollow prose encephaly” which may relate to the babies inability to write substantive content.

It could be that this word was created as a jab to the stupid. Those who write as if nobody is there. Those who write without anything meaningful in the words. This would be their “hollow” prose.

63 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727933595, Thursday, October 03, 2024 13:33:15, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 167 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

Ethics of human studies, and gatherable information

61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727769385, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 15:56:25, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

iI’ve written elsewhere that companies are now prperforming studies on humans without their consent using any analytic related information they can gather from technology. All inputs into the keyboard, all clicks, and all content entered into text messages, are gathered providing data in which scientific studies can be conducted. Studies are conducted. This clashes extremely with what universities have taught in training on how pto propertlly conduct scientific studies.

Studies areon humans without their consent were performed by militaries and scientific companies for a long time, and sometimes with terrible results. As students we learna  about this, and the need to be transparent with purposes of studies, and with results. Certain studies are now used as examples of what not to do. For example, studies on disease on unwilling participants in the public and in other countries. TStudies that have resulted in the deaths of participants were conducted without their knowledge.

Nowadays the ethics asssociated with studies have been disregarded. Nowadays, information is agathered and used, without consent. Almost all studies at the is point are probably itwithout consent or without disclosure of results and handling of information.

Thi s has been a failure of business more than of science, bu tthose doing science are qwithin business. Science at a large scale cannot be conducted without funding, and nowadays without profits and any scientific studies done are siloed within organizations who choose to share or not to keep their businesses competitive. If they share, there is also the question of why they can share. Complicity between businesses is a cause of the increased science without consent. Nowadays, information is shared between web service providers wheras for a long time they did not have mutual access to analytics information. This means they can conmplicitly plan and use information taken from users without their knowledge.

The people who provide the information, which is now everyone, is disincluded from the process and all are human subjects.

Being unethical about science is now the norm.

61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727769775, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 16:02:55, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 390 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed. If a box has been inserted as a character, thats

The costs of doing business as a cellular service provider.

61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727768060, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 15:34:20, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

iIt appears now that cellular cservices are stable, universally available, nearly, and free wifi has failed, that there needs to be a reevaluabtion of the costs that cellular service providers incur, to determine if the business is fjustifiable.

The SIM standard has abeen arounda long time, and it is clear that the costs of providing sim cards is nearly nothing. Now that there are micro sd cards that hold terabytes of data, and many gigabytes, it is clear that a card that holds almost no data, is basically free. It is nearly a rprinting cost. This implies that when one needs cellular sercie the only thing needed is something free to connect. The additional cost is merely the amount of data one is wanting for a period of time like a month.

Overseas, the costs of data is much lower than it is in countries like the united states, where little bandidth is provided at a much higher cost for less data. Overseas, I recently procured a sim card for 25GB of data, which was more than enough, for 25 dollars for one month. For 5gb, it would likely be less than 10 dollars. Additionally, I’ve procured esim data service for less than 5 dollars for a month. Because these are enough to sustain business, it appears the business is offering something free. There should perhaps be no cost.

What are the relationships between cogovernment and cellular services. If governments control, reduce, and examine cellular communications, then what is provided is not only something from a carrier but something from government. Government controls infrastructure. Government is responsible for advancing infrastructure. Being responsible for these things, it appears that taxes already cover the costs .

When we sign up for tfree services, we give away free information. That free information is not typically at the scale that is received by cellular communications companies. This means what they have received is more than enough to cover the costss, and, what exactly do they do with hit? Ge

Wifi has failed to provide free interent for people in shared locations. There was a period of time ;in which free service was a goal. There were issues of rproviding wifi reliably over a wide area. In free areas, it would wnot work well. City provided internet has been a definite failure. Meanwhile, there are more requirements to gain wifi at business locations. One has to be within or near the business to have a signal. Meanwhile cellular services have had no issue providing service everywhere.

It apperas to be time to provide free cellular. Providing free secellular removes the need to maintain a relatioinship. It removes the need to pay bills, worry about bills, and to be reduced to low bandwidth. The bandwith may not have the limitations bpeople thingk it does.

This is a clear issue with nations that claim laeeadership. They provide less bandwidth. It must be that they are artificallly reducing bandwidth. Also, upload is limited in places. Elsewhere, there are not upload limitations.

Destressing people is a major role of government. Since the taxes cover the costs, it should be provided to those with less resources for free. It is not clear what a justification would be to not allow free connections at this point. But it doesn’t appear that it would be due to good motivations and good intention to not provide free connections. Everyone with a cell phone can easily connect on the free sim chips. Esims are available on phones to not require even the sim card. It is time that the phone is purchased and the connection is automatice. Simple configurations can be used to change numbers.

61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727768703, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 15:45:03, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Written in 643 seconds.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

After living extremely frugally for several years, I’ve confirmed that rent and where you are renting are really the only considerations for creating quality of life globally.

61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727766181, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 15:03:01, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Rent really is the primary consideration for staying well and having a great quality of life. People need to have an inexpensive way to sleep while they are simply able to enjoy being outdoors and in market locations. Location is the other consideration. People need a way to change locations. Then they need a realistic rent in order to sleep. If they are able to do these things, they will live very well. The other costs are slo low, if one lives frugally, that they don’t matter. Rent and location matter.

61 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727766247, Tuesday, October 01, 2024 15:04:07, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 66 seconds.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Daycare is a Mistake of Investments

58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727507975, Saturday, September 28, 2024 15:19:35, Bali, Indonesia

Again and again, I have heard of the incredible costs of day care. My ex-wife worked in day care for a couple decades, and told me of the various costs of infant care, child care,and costs at diffferent facilities. Some facilities, I recall were costing 1,500 per month per child. Or if that’s mistaken, it was for a single child. Perhaps there is a reduced cost for the second thild if more are had.

We hear about the benefits of investment. This is not a reasonable investment. If one were single, just that alone would pay for rent for a beautiful apartment. It would pay for all travel if travel was wanted. It would allow for gradual investment in various interest accounts. It appears to be an irrational practice to have day care. One may become divorced, and then one is single with children in day care. If one is deciding to be a parent, if this is required, or needed, then it is simply irrational.

58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727508157, Saturday, September 28, 2024 15:22:37, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 182 seconds.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Mental State Changes, Duration, and Time to Alter and Retain New State

58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727507153, Saturday, September 28, 2024 15:05:53, Bali, Indonesia

iWhen one is in a certain physiological state corresponding to a mental state, there is a sduration associated. If one feels a certain way, and one wants to feel another way, it may take some time to transition to the other way. If one is not aware of the state change, the state change may occur before awareness, which is typical, or may only change when one becomes aware, and seeks out a state change.

The change of state has a period of time of transition. So if one feels one way, becomes aware of it, wants to feel another way, and then tries to feel that other way, one will be aware it is not immediate. Even if one were skilled in making state changes one would still know there is at least some small period of time between the first feeling, and the subsequent feeling that’s more desirable. Sometimes it’s fast, as when one meets a person and it is quickly happy with plenty o fsmiles. Before that moment, it may have been very different. So there are examples of rapid transition.

If one experiences some phsyiological state that is somewhat uncomfortable leading to a feelin gthat is not as desirable as another, it takes the alteration of the physiological state somewhat or completely to have the new state. If one has a heart attack, it will take a while ;to create the new feeling. That is obviously an extremity in the physiological situations one would think about considering this topic, but it makes the issue clear. If one wants to transition out of meditation, it also takes time to return to a more excited state.

The period of transition is interesting because that is where the skills of transition are used immediately or quikckly after awareness is had of the earlier state.

The objective is to have a methodology for habituation that will result in quick transition sto desirable states, even if there is a physiological transition that needs to take place.

58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727507500, Saturday, September 28, 2024 15:11:40, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 347 seconds.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Totally Blind Typing With Zero Visual Feedback Has Resulted in Slightly Reduced Typespeed, Due to Type Clumsiness, Lack of Practice Creating an Increased Caution, and Resulted in Some Minor Increase In Typos

58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727504156, Saturday, September 28, 2024 14:15:56, Bali, Indonesia

It has been found that typing with zero feedback has resulted in some unpracticed clumsiness in typing resulting in slower write time and a small increase in typos and other errors. Thesee errors are small. The type speed has been reduced, but already it is clear that typespeeed will increase and probably be greater than it was before, when there was a screen reading back text.

That the typespeed has been reduced only a small amount, an dthat the typos and other errors have been increased only slightly, indicates that the writing and typing skill of the author are very ppowerful, even when there is no feedback at all, writing into a black box. It is anticipated that the writing will improve and eventually the errors may be reduced to the same amount of errors (maybe less) from when typing was semi blind. Again, no spell check , proofreading, reading, or tools were used to make any corrections. Nothing can be seen on the screen. Before, very little on the screen was watched.

Cursor position seems to have played a role in the ability to self-correct with a small amount of visual feedback, even if there was only a small amount of attention to it.

58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727504358, Saturday, September 28, 2024 14:19:18, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 202 seconds.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Meditation is Thought to Be a Periodic or Regularly Occuring Activity With Gaps: A Punctuated Activity

58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727502833, Saturday, September 28, 2024 13:53:53, Bali, Indonesia

Last year, while meditatng in Cairns Australia, while driving, I realized it may be possible to maintain a meditation session for a prolonged period of time. Before that experience when I was more actively meditating it was practiced daily, more than once a day, with a return to the meditative state when I was facing stress from a particular person who communicated too loud, too close, and for too long. This person was in my active work environment and was someone I did care for, and this person was caring, but had some various dysfunctions that may not be uncommon to people on the autism spectrum. There were other stressors too, and when I felt stress, I would quickly return into a meditative state, because it was well practiced enough to simply reactivate the meditative feeling. Combining these two expereinces, I thhink it is possible to further the meditative effort until for a much longer period of time the meditative feeling is experienced.

At this time, I would not want to be perpetually in meditation. There are times in which I want to experience other stronger emotions and to experience a high level of excitation and even something akin to power and aggression, particularly at the gym and while wporting. But what I think would be worthwhile is to be more meditative between these events. Typically, between times meditating and these other experiences, I’m not doing anything that is planful regarding my somewhat less mindful periods. Everyone has times throughout the day in which they are not attentive to their relaxation, mindfulness, or immediate awareness of sensations and space.

Oddly, this can be contrasted perhaps with the perspective of a thoroughly relaxed person, whose baseline relaxation is very great repose. This kind of person is already satisfying objectives of meditation. They could likely relax further with meditation, but in a way, they are always in a more meditative state, than a person, perhaps frazzled, who enters a meditative state gradually at the time that they begin. Other times they may simply be irritated, annoyed, or stressed. The relaxed person seems always relaxed. Some especially relaxed people may never enter states of high excitation, not being people necessarily who would want to exercise vigorously, or do anything that would include some level of agitation. Others, however, would already have realized the goal I have in mind. They are relaxed very often, nearly always, but then suddenly, they can transfer into another mode in which they are more energetic, passionate, assertive, or enthusiastic.

I believe now that the punctuation of meditation is not really necessary, excepting the periods in which one wants to have these other energetic states. It can be blended with all other activities that don’t require high enthusiasm. Meditation, if it makes a relaxed person, simply resulted in a relaxed person who is permanently in a kind of meditative state. They too can go into deeper meditation when they want to , but they have an achievement of automation with respect to the relaxation habit which is a blending of behavior with meditation.

58 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727503544, Saturday, September 28, 2024 14:05:44, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 711 seconds.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Edited Forward for In-Sight’s “Some Smart People, Views and Lives, Thirteen”

57 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727411222, Friday, September 27, 2024 12:27:02, Bali, Indonesia

Very intelligent people are notably absent from mainstream culture, where typical media and entertainment is most pervasive, sharing only what is thought to be palatable and enjoyable to the largest segments of the population, which of course is comprised primarily of those minds that are closer to the average in most ways. An effect is that people are not often exposed to those who are exceptionally and profoundly intelligent, and when they are, they may not know it, because those who are extremely intelligent, while having the average population as an audience, will alter their behavior so as to be more readily understood. They perform the same act that they knowingly or automatically perform in real life dealing with strangers: they follow along with simple questions, allowing conversations to remain simple; they share interests that are akin to regular interests, to show commonality; and they express agreement when there certainly could be little agreement, to have smooth and considerate transactions. A result is that people, almost everyone, do not have much experience with the most intelligent people and are really unable to differentiate. This creates problems in politics where people are unable to identify which people are actually the most able, if any able politicians happen to be present at all. It also reduces the influence of scientists and skilled experts, because they too are not easily distinguishable from others and their quality of mind is not well appreciated.

A major contribution of the work of Scott Douglas Jacobsen, is to provide the public access into the world of some of the most highly intelligent. Many of the people who are extremely intelligent thrive within academia, various industries, independently, or in the High Intelligence Communities. These are areas in which they live and spend time, but these are also locations in which people cannot readily join in. The Some Smart People, Views and Lives series, along with some of In-Sight Journal’s other publications, are filled with activity from some of the same people who are spending time in socially exclusive and reclusive social locations. I can think of few other places to look, where people can read materials from exceptional people expressing themselves in ways that are closer to how they really think. I recall quickly writing a very brief article, entitled “How Do People With IQs Over 180 Act and Think?” in response to a query on social media, to provide some direction to a person who was wanting to be more informed on the topic of how people with immeasurable IQs really think and behave. In retrospect, the answer was not especially informative partly because I did not fully appreciate the extent in which the highly intelligent people were separate and unavailable to the normal public. Today I think there is a large research issue regarding how this might be achieved, to get information about individuals at a personal level. One can read academic journals in medicine, mathematics, physics, and the other sciences, and get exposed to the output of very intelligent people but you do not get to know them in the process. The very smartest may still not be present although that output may lead one to believe that’s where these people are found. That’s one reason why this publication is especially helpful to the public, because it provides a location where they can be found, and where they won’t be simply sharing academic material that gives the impression that they are really smart without providing anything about who they happen to be. In this publication the highly intelligent have a chance to tell you about themselves in a more personal way. If a reader happens to be sufficiently interested, they can learn more about specific individuals, having a pathway to research, since the writers are sharing details about activities they are or have been involved in, in which more information can be located. Mr. Jacobsen is providing an avenue that I could not provide in my quick response, to read about these thinkers and have a pathway to understand them and intelligence further, and today if I were to direct readers to a place to gain knowledge about the most intelligent figures of all, this publication would be included as one of my suggested places to look.

In this publication, I too have been interviewed. In that interview, a central question that is considered is the topic of identifying who is really among the exceptionally and profoundly gifted, in the immeasurable range, and who is not. Publications such as this, while extremely helpful, do prose some risks. These risks are minor if one has the right strategy for reducing those risks. One of those risks is that the people who are respondents may sometimes be fabricating their intelligence and their histories, and may be providing some misinformation. We can’t underestimate how important it is to know that once people have invested time in creating a personal story, they will do quite a lot to protect it and perpetuate it. Some of the people who are even in the high intelligence communities themselves happen to be people who simply want to be perceived as being extremely intelligent, and will do much more than an average person would to keep their story going. In my response, I suggest using an informal method of analyzing conversation thinking about velocities relating to significance and ideation. More about this can be read in my interview response. The question as to charlatanism came directly from Mr. Jacobsen, and that’s partly because there is actually a genuine issue to be addressed. However, I don’t suggest too much reading caution, just the appropriate amount, because some of the most intelligent really are present in the publications. (The situation is different with relationship caution, and for that, read my response thoroughly). This is a very important series to keep the access to intelligent figures going, so that the public actually does have a way to know intelligent figures. For that purpose I can’t think of many other publications that are satisfactory, and for this and any other publication, some expectation of fabrication should be anticipated. This issue is ineradicable but should not prevent the more positive efforts from continuing. After one has noticed red flags in various works, the remainder can be read enjoyably, and as a result one will have a much better appreciation and understanding of intelligent people than if one was stuck only with popular media and entertainment, where that information seldom exists.

What is also great about this work, is that the answers from exceptional writers might seem unexpected. It would lead the reader to more fully understand what high intelligence arrives at, where the arrival is personal and not only academic. The surprising nature of the responses should be anticipated, because these thinkers may not be prominent, as I said, in the mainstream media. Since they are usually not present in the mainstream media, what they say will be very different from what is in the mainstream media, and that makes this publication even more interesting, because what will be read is something unusual and different than what one has otherwise had access to.

Once You’re Bached, You Never Go Bach

57 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727401147, Friday, September 27, 2024 09:39:07, Bali, Indonesia

Or once you’re Bach, you never go Bach.

57 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727401166, Friday, September 27, 2024 09:39:26, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 19 seconds.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Foreward Draft for Scott Douglas Jacobsen’s “Some Smart People, Views and Lives, Thirteen”

56 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727325907, Thursday, September 26, 2024 12:45:07, Bali, Indonesia

Very intelligent people are notably absent from mainstream culture, whre typical media and entertainment is most pervasive, sharing only what is thought to be palatable and enjoyable to the largest segments of the population, which of course is comprised primarily of those minds that are closer to the average in most ways. An effect is that people are not really exposed oftentimes to those who are extremely intelligent, and when they are, they may not know it, because those who are extremely intelligent, while having the average population as an audience, will alter their behavior so as to be more readily understood. They perform the same act that they knowingly or automatically perform in real life dealing with strangers: they follow along with simple questions, allowing conversations to remain simple, they share interests that are akin to regular interests, to show commonality, and they express agreement when there certainly could be little agreement, to have smooth and considerate transactions. A result is that people, almost everyone, do not have much experience with the most intelligent people and are really unable to differentiate. This creates problems in politics where people are unable to identify which people are actually the most able, if any able politicians happen to be present at all. It also reduces the influence of scientists and skilled experts, because they too are not easily distinguishable from others and their quality of mind is not well appreciated.

A major contribution of the work of Scott Douglas Jacobsen, is to provide the public access into the world of some of the most highly intelligent. Many of the people who are extremely intelligent thrive within academia, various industries, independently, or in the High Intelligence Communities. These are areas in which they live ans spend time, but these are also locations in which people cannot readily join in. The Some Smart People, Views and Lives Series, along with some of Insight Journal’s other publications, are filled with activity from some of the same people who are spending time in socially reclusive and exclusive social locations. I can think of few other places to look, where people can read materials from exceptional people expressing themselves in ways that are closer to how they really think. I recall writing a very brief article quickly, entitled “How Do People With IQs Over 180 Act and Think?” in response to a query on social media, to provide some direction to a person who was wanting to be more informed on the topic of how people with immeasurable IQs really think and behave. In retrospect, the answer was not especially informative partly because I did not fully appreciate the extent in which the highly intelligent people were separate and unavailable to the normal public. Today I think there is a large research issue regarding how this might be achieved, to get information about individuals at a personal level. One can read academic journals in medicine, mathematics, physics, and the other sciences, and get exposed to the output very intelligent people but you do not get to know them in the process. The very smartest may still not be present although that output may lead one to believe that’s where these people are found. That’s one reason why this publication is especially helpful to the public, because it provides a location where the highly intelligent have a chance to tell you about themselves in a more personal way. If a reader happens to be sufficiently intersted, they can learn more about specific individuals, having a pathway to research, since details about activities are shared. Mr. Jacobsen is providing an avenue that I could not provide in my simple response in my essay, to read about these thinkers and have a pathway to understand them and intelligence further, and today if I were to direct readers to a place to gain knowledge about the most intelligent figures of all, this publication would be included as one of my suggested places to look.

In this publication, I too have been interviewed. In that interview, a central question that is considered is the topic of identifying who is really among the exceptionally and profoundly gifted, in the immeasurable range, and who is not. Publications such as this, while extremely helpful, to prose some risks. These risks are minor if one has the right strategy for reducing those risks. One of those risks is that the people who are respondents may sometimes be fabricating their intelligence and their histories, and may be providing some misinformation. We can’t underestimate how important it is to know that once people have invested time in creating a personal story, they will do quite a lot to protect it and perpetuate it. Some of the people who are even in the high intelligence communities themselves happen to be people who simply want to be perceived as being extremely intelligent, and will do much more than an average person would to keep their story going. In my response, I suggest using an informal method of analyzing conversation thinkinga about velocities relating to significance and ideation. More about this can be read in my interview response. The question as to charlatanism came directly from Mr. Jacobsen, and that’s because there is actually a genuine issue to be addressed. However, I don’t suggest too much caution, just the appropriate amount. This is a very important publication to keep the access to intelligent figures going, so that the public actually does have a way to know intelligent figures. For that purpose I can’t think of many other publications that are satisfactory, and for this and any other publication, some expectation of fabrication should be anticipated. After one has noticed red flags in various works, the remainder can be read enjoyably, and as a result one will have a much better appreciation and understanding of intelligent people than if one was stuck only with popular media and enterainment, where that information seldom exists.”

Sketch a Day, Writing a Day, Fitness a Day, Documentary Entry a Day, Math a Day, Moral Technology a Day

54 Wanattomians, Epoch 1727154790, Tuesday, September 24, 2024 13:13:10,Bali, Indonesia

There are few things that I am now needing to do per day because the synthesis of my interests, motivations, goals, and lifestyle are blended, and there is only a small set of fun tasks I want to do daily, or near-daily-cyclically to accomplish all I want in the short and the long term. Sketching every day, and producing documentary entries every day are two things I have not fully habitualized yet, but am nearly ready to complete the behavioral automation. Also to include is Music a day. I don’t really want to completely daily the tasks, but make it such that on a regular basis, after a cycle of several days, each activity has a development. It is somewhat a poor moral plan to expect to complete a certain thing every day. But habits should be created such that there is a recurring motivation that is nearly daily for each and every category, such that after a small number of days each activity is really repeated; and repeated with a regularity such that one will predicably simply do it again and again. It is a rutting. The goal is to have a stuck position in doing these activities.

A Recipe Writing Function as An Example Illustrating That Long Equations Or Equations With Many Components are Not That Complex

50 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726854021, Saturday, September 21, 2024 01:40:21, Bali, Indonesia

In computer science function writing sometimes involves the passing of many parameters, and the programming steps within a function may be numerous. Sometimes, writing code to perform ttasks that are more mundane, or simple, require many steps and have many pieces. These numerous inputs and numerous operations are analagous to the numerous inputs and numerous operations of equations in mathematics. The analogy is very close actually, while it might not seem that that is the case.

When finished with such programs, one may not feel that what was produced was very special. In some areas of engineering, the resulting software may not appear to be very mathematical, or very computer science intensive. This can lead the person writing the computer program to think that they have not themselves produced something of interst for the science for for mathematics. On reflection though the quantity of work is quite large, the steps can be very laborious, and complex from the point of view of mundane work having complexity, and the fesults have properties in common with mathematics where there are many operations and steps.

Imagine a program is written to output kitchen recipe processes. Kitchen recipe processes seem easy, but the actual process diagrams for doin gthe work and completing the recipes would actually look like somewhat sophisticated business processes. The graphs or diagrams for the recipe making processes in the kitchen would have complicated seeming programmatic implementations. There would be many many steps in each of the programs to accomplish the recipe tasks. The inputs would be numerous considering the number of ingredients and tools. If one thinks about a long recipe, with many ingredients, then one can realize that the inputs to the equation would be very lage. That’s a lot of variables!

Such a program would have many more variables and steps than much math that is performed. This reveals somewaht that the work of the mathematician is like simple work in the kitchen.

Now imagine you are a programmer or just a coook at a restaruant, but you have very good talent. Now you have a program that is internalized that includes many inputs and work tasks (operations that are repetitive), and you capture all of that work into a program. The program is like a long and torturous math problem with many operations and inputs.

A function, that includes as many inputs and subroutines and sub functions would seem like a very complext symbolic setup. Here we can see though, makign this comparison, that it is not, and the hardest math problems can be likened in many ways to work in the kitchen.

50 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726854640, Saturday, September 21, 2024 01:50:40, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 619 seconds.

Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Normal Conversation Using Mathematics as a Key Ingredient

50 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726816261, Friday, September 20, 2024 15:11:01, Bali, Indonesia

Today I was reflectingon how my mind would be more easily communicated if I were to mix into normal conversation mathematics used in colloquial language. Instead of responding to people with simplistic messages, anticipating their level of conversation ability to be low, I an simply begin to think to them at greater complexity with math built into the dialogue.

The objective partly to halt converstations that would go nowhere. But there is also the objective to speak more from my own real character. My conversation ability is already extremely strong, which is evident by my career history. But it can be improved to be less geared towards communicating as others expect. Instead, I can communicate at a level of complexity that is appropriate to my mind. This may lead to enriching encounters. It may be possible to get others who are like me to speak like me a bit more and reveal that their thinking has better sophistication. Using math in language does not entail speaking with symbols or speaking in a way that is not accessible at all. Instead one simply makes statements in plain language that correspond to what would be symbolized if written mathematically. Like the narrative portion of textbooks on math between all that math that does the explanations and asks the questions. ”

50 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726816512, Friday, September 20, 2024 15:15:12, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 251 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Within Computing and Mathematics There is a Minimum Strategic Set of Tools

47 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726548569, Tuesday, September 17, 2024 12:49:29,Bali, Indonesia

When one is working in software one can use a reduced set of tools, programming functions, and logic to accomplish the same tasks, omitting other tools, functions and logic that happens to exist that may allow for doing the same work. In my software, I have found, that in addition to only needing a small quanity of tools many of which I created, I only need to rely on a small set of functions and logical operators in order to perform the tasks I need into the foreseeable future. I have reached a point in my software architecture and solution where I am aware there is little else I will ever need to add, to accomplish any and all tasks I want to continue to accomplish. It was a very long path of more than 8 years to arrive at the solution, and this required much thought on what might be better and more minimal and simplistic and parsimonious to do the work I do. Now I have a very simple and complete solution for all the work I see myself doing not only now but for the remainder of my life.

In mathematics, and in computer science, it is known that a subset of tools will perform all of the existing work that is needed. Inventiveness and problem solving may reveal the need for new tools, and this will add more to our minimal set. Some of those tools will be unnecessary on further reflection using simpler tools that already existed. But sometimes it is certainly true, that new tools are minimally necessary for new work, and the history of mathematics in the production of the minimal set of mathematical tools is already the innovation tradition that revealed what was minimally technologically necessary to solve problems that were never seen before. So we can anticipate needing new tools. For my work however, new tools are not really necessary any longer. Or where that is an overstatement, very very few future tools are needed. In fact, I think it can be simplified further. In any case, math has a subset of tools that will do all the mathematical work required. In computer science and electrical engineering this is true too. In the logic of electrical engineering much can be reduced to the NAND gate logic, and within logic itself, much is reducable to NAND too. It is already known that other logical operators and electrical circuits can be defined by NAND gates. The implication is that just this one operator can perform a massive amount of work, and all of the other gates are not strictly necessary.

Another known area where this is true relates to the programming example I gave above for my own software, but focuses on the inner workings of the computer actually doing the processing. The NAND gates, by the way, also go into the processor and already illustrate part of the point. There are two classes of processors identified by how minimal they are. One is the RISC processor which is implemented in ARM chips today. These chips are superfluous. This gives a minimal set of programming instructions which are like functions. It can do all the computing needed with a minimal set of instructions. The ARM chip does not provide the absolute minimum. Just a good minimal set. CISC processors, on the other hand, give more options for programming with more instructions and more functions. Ultimately these achieve the same as ARM processors. The same games, entertainment, and software tools can be run on both processors. CISC simply gives more ways to interract with the processor to do work. It has more options. Just like in math and in logic and in programming, where many options exist to allow for creative work, this processor has many options. However, it is known that all the same work can be done by RISC processors. Notice that you may not be aware which processor type you have on your device. Two people have two different processors, and yet they are all doing the same things. This happens to be something that is telling about what is true in mathematics itself, programming, and logic. I wrote about this in relation to language. It appears to be true in language as well.

In my work, now, I’m striving to have a maximally reduced set of mathematical tools, and a maximally reduced set of tools for other activities, that performs all the required work. This simplifies things significantly. The activity can only be done within reason, but I am going beyond the boundaries of what normal people would consider reasonable with great results. I am doing this for computing, for mathematics, and for my work in logic and electrical engineering for making computers.

Solidification of Strategy Regarding Mental Stimulation

47 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726543522, Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:25:22, Tempe, Arizona

Mental stimulation, in the absense of any culturally accepted stimulating drug like caffeine or other, requires other elicitations and sources. If one asks if one can become stimulated doing nothing, without any external influence, or without any internal elicitations, it would be found that it is not possible. Stimulation with culturally acceptable drugs like caffeine are a way of achieving excitation without having to have an approach to getting wanted stimulation on demand, as desired. One can drink a cup of coffee or tea, and suddenly, one feels more excited and interested, curious perhaps, and more energetic. Drugs then serve an interesting purpose for us: they can alter our state by simple ingestion without our having to have a strategy for obtaining the stimulation by other more deliberate means. A habit towards stimulants would do this on a routine basis. So even less of a strategy is required from one moment to the next in which one would want more excitation; instead, one can simply follow one’s normal routines of making coffee and tea at home in the morning or evening, or picking up coffee, tea, or something similar from coffee shops and other businesses catering to these habits.

There is also a drawback to this benefit from drugs that is of interest. There are many drawbacks and I don’t intend to go through all of them. One drawback is that one may live all one’s life without a strategy to generate excitation and stimulation without stimulants. Certainly one does things that does create excitation and I’m not denying that people don’t do these things. Sports does it, debate with others does it, excercizing using simple movements can do it, and so does thinking about the prospects of some adventure or goal. People do all these things it is true. But they do it in a way that is not organized, not strategically purposeful for the objective of acheiving excitation uniformly, not in a way that is within a global strategy that can be called to mind anytime to create that same stimulation that substance dependence is providing. Also, sometimes stimulation is desired and created the wrong way. Having a strategy reveals to oneself why one is rewarded by other activities that are not especially beneficial. Some people even like to fight to create stimulation. Some gamble. Some look for sexual activity to an unreasonable extent. The main point though is that having a strategy is much better than not having one. And it does appear if one is honest enough that people simply do not have a strategy for building stimulation.

I only drink water these days, and due to a minor respiratory ailment, experimented with low nicotine vaping (the minimum nicotine) to resolve those symptoms. Most of my life I was a habitual coffee drinker and for long periods consumed a lot of earl grey tea. Caffeine was a regular overdose in my life. 7 months ago, I returned to the objective of quitting caffeine, like I did before for a period of 6 months (at all other times I was drinking coffee since I was a young teen). This was a success, and for the last seven months I have only consumed water and seldomly water with fruit infusions. My regular routine is plain water, and sometimes carbonated water. That is all I drink. For a period of one month, several months ago, I discontinued vaping. And after a month of discontinuing vaping, suddenly I had a good amount of difficulty attaining a level of mental stimulation I was wanting. I had no culturally acceptable stimulants of any kind, and even my strategy for staying stimulated was not as stimulating as I wanted it to be, and I went back to vaping again. Right now I’m in the process of finally quitting again. This time I want to have a stable or solidified methodology baked into my habits such that I achieve automation at a better degree so that I can routinely and almost always achieve the stimulation I’m desiring, or else have comfort in being relaxed and less stimulated. I want to simply be stimulated enough that I feel I am alone creating all the stimulation I’m needing. It is important to mention that I do in fact have a strategy for increasing my excitation, but that it’s not yet entirely adequate to fend off the desire for more stimulation from something I have not myself created. Sometimes a sudden desire to socialize is simply also a way of getting it from elsewhere in a haphazard and an unplanned way, and I do still occasionally do that as well. “Now I feel like I need to socialize” isn’t how I’m wanting to get my stimulation, although if deliberate enough, and without any compulsion, it is an acceptable way of getting stimulated too.

Below is a list of areas in which stimulation is readily achieved if one can automate being motivated towards actually performing those actions. One can read more about building motivation in my work on procrastination which also requires one to eventually find a way to automate having desirable motivations routinely at the right times.

I believe there will be more to add as I think of methods I cannot now recall, but I can state that the list of strategies is not very long. That is a great thing because it means the hard work of actually using the strategy is simply practicing using it and changing habits using a short list or methods. The list should be easy enough to call to mind. Specific strategies will fall under these categories too, or one can build out similar but related categories. Maybe for some person, deep sea diving is a thrill. In that case, it fits into exercise, but if there is something unique about it, then it fits as an easy expansion like walking. One can add and remove from the list as life circumstances change. But having the list and incorporating the strategy into daily routine is a much better approach than having no general strategy at all, and as I stated, it apperas most fall into that category. Howver, there is plenty of opportunity to learn, and not having learned it there is another source of excitement. And there is another item that could be added to the list! Learning. There are myriad ways of learning. Making sure one is learning something new is another great way to build excitement all life long and that can be done simply watching beautiful fllms, doing some new and interesting activity with the hands like woodworking, welding, garment making, or other, or anything else that is novel and different. Doing new things is important for creating and maintaining stimulation in one’s life.

Finished in approximately 55 minutes

Open Work Spaces

46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726484215, Monday, September 16, 2024 18:56:55, Bali, Indonesia

Computers as they have existed for a long time have the concept of a closed work space. As you work, nobody sees what you are doing. Of course, someone could record and share work performed, or stream it, but the work space setting requires that additional work to make it more open. I’m now experimenting with the idea of an open workspace setting. This website for a long time has already been largely an open workspace. It will become more of an open workspace in the future.

46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726484307, Monday, September 16, 2024 18:58:27, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 92 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

How frequently are mathematical problems present in our lives?

46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726456841, Monday, September 16, 2024 11:20:41, Bali, Indonesia

There is an interesting question regarding the extent in which we are presented with mathematical decisions. I have stated that actual deliberation does not occur offten in life as oen may think. Decisions, that actually receive deliberation are sporatically interspersed inour daily thihnking. Many of these decisions definitely involve math if done more rationally although we don’t usually use math for those problems. This means we are failing to be as rational as we could be every time nearly as we are making decisions. This relates to morality.

But also, since people are stitstical machines, as they are out in the worl dtheir brains are doing something somewhat akin to math. Where to step while walking is doing something somewhat mathematical although that has been automated. Here I ant to introduce the idea that even things that people do when they are not deliberating involve math that they are not actually using. Of course if they have not identified that it is even something requiring deliberation they would not be in a postition to go further then they normally would and employ mathemematical learnings.

The question of interst I have in mind is what is the size of the mathematical applications we are exposed to in every moment of life? How often would we use math if we were able to deliberate rapidly at almost every moment. That would imply continuous use of mathematics which I think is impossible, so really what I’m talking about is the ever more frequent application of math as intervals of time between deliberations approaches zero.

46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726457125, Monday, September 16, 2024 11:25:25, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 284 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Mathematics as Strangely Objectiveless During Incubation

46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726455353, Monday, September 16, 2024 10:55:53, Bali, Indonesia

During mathematical learnings with serious intentions to solve serious problems in the future using math from diverse fields seems to include a learning incubation period that is largely uncreative.

The problem space of solution finding seems to be guided almost entirely by instructors and by texts. While it may be possible that some students take what they learn and seek out real world problems to apply the math, there is a strong reason to believe they are not actually doing that. Instead, it appears they are more like puzzle solvers, solvign those puzzles that are provided by others but not those that are solved by themselves, at least initially.

Creativity with mathematics appears to be somet;hingthat arises later, after some sufficient knowledge of mathematics has been attained and an incubation period has come to ann end.

It is understood that this is only partially true, as I try to identify the largeer pattern related to the small amount of creativity that would exist in students who are learning and are trying to use math in the real world. I recall myself creatively using math after a long period after having learned it, like geometry and so on. There were other scenarios in which I creatively applied mathematics as well, but I think my way of doing that was largely unusual by comparison with others. In the desire to solve more complex problems, I think there is a greater incubation period for eventualllly coming to applications. The size of the learning effort seems to relate to the length of the incubation period.

Mathematicians in training may be largely puzzle solvers in the space of puzzles identified by mathematicians more than the;y are creative problem solvers utilizing what they have recently learned.

What they have recently learned was contextless before the instructor actually provided the initial context. This means that if a student mathematician suddenly went out into the world to do anything with that math, they would have to somewhat artificially conjure up porblems that happen to relate to that new math rather than see problems and recognize that what they alredy know happens to beare on that problemIn order to identify problems that are of interest, there needs to be other reasons to want a solution first, or the incubation period of math needs to have been long enough to allow for the creative relation of experience with patterns in the world.

If you are a student, and you suddenly have some new math, you have to find problems that relate to that math in order to solve them using that math in the near term. Oddly, this would be a problem finding guided by having new math rather than finding problems of actual interest. There would be exceptions as some students may be able to quicly identify some patterns that relate to what was immediately learned, and the learning may have supplied the interest.

However, that is a strange way to let one’s interests be lead.

As a math student, if one wants to find problems that relate to the math learned one is actually extending the learning process in a way. One is letting the course develop one’s finding of interest. Letting a category of math guide one’s problem solving interest is a bit weaird. It is a fractured way of trying to solve problems.

More comprehensive and interesting problems would not be identified until a long period of learning of mathematics was had. Real world problems in math are not presented with a ready application of recently learne math from one mathematical field typically. Usually they require a number of learnings to come together for a solution.

Or perhaps more often, since the world is complex, what is discovered to be a problem does not actually have a clear solution with available mathematics already known and put together. Some reflection and thinking about hwat math is actually needed ma;y be required.

More is needed to be said to clarify the specific pattern I have in mind here since I do admit is is an overgeneralization to state that there are not often times where there are simpler problems in which specific math learned can be utilized. There really are clear arithmetical problems obviously and geometrical problems do appear. But interesting problems do not necesssarily appear frequently.

An interesting topic is the frequency in which a mathematical problem presents to a person in real life.

It appears most believe problems infrequently appear, and if one is observant of others, and I think that would include some who really love math, I think they are not seeing the problems as frequently as they are actually ocurring.

Mathematical problems present inmorality and in behavior quite often, but they are invisible to the thinkers. I think it to be true that people are routinely failing to identify mathematical problems that are infront of them as they use other styles of thinking instead to solve the problems.

46 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726456327, Monday, September 16, 2024 11:12:07, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 974 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Economics Initially as an Exploration Into Market Behavior, and Later as a Constrained Simulation Enacted as The Rules

45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726413749, Sunday, September 15, 2024 23:22:29,Bali, Indonesia

Initially, economics was a study of an existing market system including the relationship of the market to currency, government entities, and individual behavior. Later, while it was still exploring, unable to fully comprehended, it began to think itself a system or a model of the existing way things functioned. Being ignorant, it was constrained in a variety of ways, modeling reality partially correctly, partically incorrectly. Later, having influence, it sought to guide decision making as it related to the market. It tried to forecast, and problem-solve existing market issues. In current events if there was a market problem, economists thought they could foresee changes in outcomes on the basis of changes of inputs, which included policy. However, the inputs and change levers that were supposed to relate to the outputs did not really completely relate to the outputs. Changes that were expected to have certain results did not. The simiulation of the economist on reality was not complete. However there was a desire to make it complete. If the economist could correctly forecast, and could correctly modify inputs such that the expected changes to the market would actually occur, there would be the benefit of predictability. However, the models were only partially true and there was still much ignorance, and today the same is true. There is the interesting idea though, that if the model of economics and the simulations it was trying to use were really the same as what was going on in reality, then the outputs would be more predictable given changes in inputs. Importantly, what was desired were controllable inputs. This would empower economists and make it possible to make changes that would actually predictably result in the outputs that were wanted. In order to achieve this, though, the simulation was blended with reality. The way the world functions is fit to the model of the economists instead of having the model of the economists fit the way the world actually functions, with the limited control that would still persist. Since the economic model was always ignorant and incompletely true, the result is that there is a system now that has been historically molded to fit the simulation rather than have the simulation represent reality. Change the reality and make it match the simulation so that it actually enables the economist to really alter reality in the same way they could in the simulation, even if the simulation was incorrect. Economics now appears to be a placing of the simulation game into reality so it behaves as the economic modelers would want to make it more predictable, according to the rules that were close to the description of reality but not quite complete.

How many shapes are there, including types of curved lines?

45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726409191, Sunday, September 15, 2024 22:06:31, Bali, Indonesia

Notice that because shapes are non-identical, and each shape, once identified, separated, and named, cannot be repeated, that the number of shapes really is finite. This creates the strange idea that the number of shapes that would exist to be finite. There would be an extremely large number of shapes, of configurations of many different kinds, bu there would definitely be a finite quantity of them. Some would never appear in nature. Some can be created when you create them for the first time. They can be created at will. But they are finite.

45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726409333, Sunday, September 15, 2024 22:08:53, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 142 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Completion of Life Habits and Moral Behavior as they Pertain to Every Life Category

45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726407532, Sunday, September 15, 2024 21:38:52,Bali, Indonesia

In the last posting I was focused on a topic I was calling solidifications. Really however, what is wanted to be discussed is the completion of moral behavior as it relates to each and every life category. Once a level of mastery over behavior has been achieved as it relates to the various life categories, it is understood that one has become satisfied with those behaviors to an extent that if they were perpetuated without improvement they would still be good enough. Compared with others, it would be very great excellence. It is admitted that improvements can still be made in each of the behaviors relating to these life categories. However, these are diminishing in their rewards. As I wrote recently about the diminishing return of thinking, there is also a diminishing return on the improvements of action. Once sufficient mastery has been reached, it is seen that subsequent improvements are lower value improvements, even if they can be had. So really it is possible to attain a completion state regarding moral behavior for each and every one of the life categories such that a personal moral completion state has been realized. There are a couple categories in which I want good improvements but one may look at these improvements already as idiosynctratically extra. These are bonus improvements on existing mastery acheived already. These completenesses are what I’m calling solidifications. Areas where there was behavior that could be characterized as less stable in the completeness wanted would not yet be solid. They are not firmly routine and automated behavior yet. By making them more solid they are more predictably masterful. These areas where I am wanting this improvement relate to making clothing on my own and improving the extent to which food I’m eating is from foraging and not from making purchases. One can see from these desired behaviors that they are indeed extra, if the clothing and food related behaviors are otherwise stably where they are wanted to be.

List of Planned Behavioral Solidifications

45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726406554, Sunday, September 15, 2024 21:22:34,Bali, Indonesia

Many spend their time thinking about how they might alter their habits, and this of course is a commendable thing to be working on. Within morality, much emphasis is placed on how one chooses one particular action or another, but less emphasis is placed on how one might choose habits that will naturally create better actions again and again in a patterned way. I’ve spent a considerable amount of time trying to improve my habits, and after decades of work, arrived at what I am now calling, perhaps temporarily, solidifications, which are completions of habits which were planned at a higher level of organization. Here I will list some of the solidifications which I have arrived at or which are in view for completion.

I can see that these simply relate to the life categories as I’ve written them out and solidifcations are simply behavioral completions of process which culminate moral planning. More solidifications can be written out. The purpose of the writing here, for now, was to recollect some of my existing solidifications and some planned, where I stated above that the completions would be soon or are in view. The others are already completed and were recalled here to have them in mind.

The next step then in my writings relating to the solidifications is to simply build them into the life categories as I would expect, and to track what has been completed and not completed in a way that brings into view the final complete state. The final complete state is nearing. Areas where I am wanting to have more attention relate to eating and shopping strategy as they would be more substituted with foraging. Foraging is something I need to practice more and learn more about and incorporate more into my frequent behavior. Foraging is not always possible but even the behaviors in those circumstances are nearly completed, as it relates to maximally frugal and maximally planned food related shopping behavior. Another area where work is incomplete but completion is in view relates to clothes making. Clothes shopping behavior according to plans is more nearly complete but I want to replace shopping with more self-sufficient creation of my own clothes. This propensity relates to similar motivations for wanting to forage. The objective is to be involved in the market less and to become more frugally self reliant. Estimated completion of the basic clothes and baggage related plan is less than six months. Estimated time to completion of the foraging procedure is less than one year, although it is expected that additional improvements in foraging may be life long, as travel takes me from one location to another that requires new learning about available plants for eating, and what happens to be edible or not.

Options for Work Post Retirement if Post Retirement Should Occur

45 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726388512, Sunday, September 15, 2024 16:21:52, Bali, Indonesia

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

If this were a course website, it would be a vastly superior one

44 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726289696, Saturday, September 14, 2024 12:54:56, Bali, Indonesia

The value of this webstie and overall book and journal is hard to fully communicate. However, it must be mentioned that it does not require many justifying explanations. Reasons can be few for having such a book and journal as this one. For example, websites often exist simply to facilitate teaching programs. If one goes to college, an insturctor may have a website for their curricula and for the specific course. Even having a good website for the course would be avery good achievement. What if I have achieved that simply by creating this site already. What if that alone justifies the existence of this website. I think it does, but it does not explain all that is important about this book and journal.

I don’t think much explanation is required concerning this. A comparative study of this website and all other existing instructor websites would reveal immediately that this site is vastly superior. It is vastly superior even to the instructor websites created by ivy league instructores and instructors of the best universities worldwide. Having already achieved this, it can be seen already that this is a commendable work. But the reasons that are additional and are many aside from this justification are vastly imore important, and would serve to illustrate that this book and journal is a world class production of very greatequality and importance.

44 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726289938, Saturday, September 14, 2024 12:58:58, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 242 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Teaching an Easy Path to Income

44 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726285229, Saturday, September 14, 2024 11:40:29, Bali, Indonesia

As a retiree, with dwindling funds, I still periodically think about what I would do for work if I were to return to an occupation, or if I wanted to return to doing business. However, being a retiree, I don’t want to merely go back to work in my old career. I’d rather find fulfilling things to do that might include simply doing what is enjoyable or learning new things. I’d even consider jobs with the minimum payout, just to have enough to live on, while preserving whatever remaining funds I have.

For example, recently I was thiniking I would enjoy gardening. I think I would also enjoy jewelry making. I wouldn’t have to do these jobs for a very long time. I’d only want to do them just long enough to satisfy an employer, while also earning enough for myself ot save, and to have enough new experiences to justify the whole decision on the basis of learning and enjoyment.

iYoung people may begin their venture thinking that they could avoid having an employer by starting a business. That may be too challenging, but is reasonable since what is wanted in the work is also to avoid having a boss. If that is not possible, thinking about what career might be more comfortable would be a good decision. This way money earned is not money torturously obtained. Some sacrifice would be satisfactory even if there is a chance of having a more comfortable job than a less comfortable one. On the side, the young person may be thinking about how to more ambitiously arrive at greater pay, but while young it is understood that willl take time.

As a retiree, there is not a very large difference. Like a young person, I can somewhat more patiently consider these things as I look for an agreeable way to earn income. What I recall as being particularly challenging was the urgency associated with wanting money immediately. WAnting to have money immediately can result in a skipping of some of these inclincations to take a job that is less satisfying and less comfortable for the money earned. But a patient retiree with plentyy of time, like a person who is young who doesn’t try to get a job too quickly, it is easy to have a better and more rational methodology of finding a good job that matches what one wants without rushing it. However, there is still a desire to ease the process, and too have a process to begin with. One might want many avenues instead of a single avenue, in order to find work or income.

Additionally, having a process makes the process more of a rational one. It can even be more of a mathematical game-theoretic approach. Having such an approach would be mor optimal, and would be more moral. Without such a process, behavior is less moal because it is less planned.

Here I wanted to start th beginnings of my writing on this subject matter. I would like to have a rational and mathematical and moral approach to finding income. Immediately now, we can state what some ingredients would happen to be. Initially one has to have a wide vision of what is possible and realistic, along with what is less realistic and less feasible but more desirable. Having a vision with a large set of options will allow for the construction of a decision process that maps to the world. It iwll allow for the assignment of probabiilities based on experienced judgement, and expected rewards for each of the probabilities. The entire strategy and process would have an expected reward too, and thes could be compared. Having the best strategy (a good one to be more acurate) would mean that the outcome is much more likely to be one that is highly valueeed. Here the connection with morality should be more clear. Moral action is targeted at increasing value. Particularly, value for one’s own life.

Some initial options for income in my particular case would be, simply to continue my business of book writing to market my book and gain greater sales, find a job int he legal, jewelry, gemology, or gardening instudstries, continue on the consulting business pathway basically resuming my career in a way that may connect better with goals I more recently conceived of, talking with a services company that aligns people with employers after hearing what their goals are, or other. I could also focus on investment of the funds I already have. There are more options than these, and one woul want to have a very broad understanding of the optioins available. This will increase as one iterates through the experiences of getting jobs. One does not have to commit fully at any time.

Note: The first two paragraphs are not part of the timed portion of the writing. They were re-input after a minor software error was encountered

44 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726286000, Saturday, September 14, 2024 11:53:20, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 771 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

If everyone decided to be a portrait artist, interest in buying portraits would be low. A paradox of interest.

42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726137412, Thursday, September 12, 2024 18:36:52, Bali, Indonesia

To expand upon.

42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726137419, Thursday, September 12, 2024 18:36:59, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 7 seconds.

*Note: Completely blind typed without visual feedback, and no spell-check, punctuation, or editing has been performed.

Forcing People to Respond Kindly, Enjoy Something, or Find Something Funny

42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726136124, Thursday, September 12, 2024 18:15:24, Bali, Indonesia

Wehn the media produces happy messages, messages that call for support of known causes, and messsages that include happy faces, there is a reasonable expectation that the audience will respond in a way that is also kind or supportive. It is hard to produce a message that would evoke anger or opposition if the ingredients of normal appeals to happiness, support, fun, kindness, and so on are present. Interestingly, if one is wanting to evoke good reactions from people with advertising and entertainment, it is not difficult to do o. Doing so is not too different from forcing the result.

I was thinking recently about how it may not be so challenging as some might think it might e to have a good response to one’s marketing or creative efforts. It simply has to have the right ingredients. If the right ingredients are present, it is not assumred that what is shared will be loved, but it does appear to be assured that the average reaction will not be too negative. If you have some thing to share, you can really force the audience to reaspond well to it.

42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726136423, Thursday, September 12, 2024 18:20:23,Bali, Indonesia

Written in 299 seconds.

Advancing to a Culmination in Mathematics Personally Would Result in Endlessly Falsifying Existing Behavior and Morality Consistent With Findings Already Had

42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726116735, Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:52:15, Bali, Indonesia

If I were to become increasingly masterful at mathematics until improvements of math on my own are blended with my thinking it would turn out that I’d spend the majority o fmy time revising my own morality, which would further refine existing morality and ehavior.

42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726116783, Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:53:03, Bali, Indonesia

Written in 48 seconds.

Global Symbolic Blendology to Reveal Religious and Cultural Absurdities

42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726109505, Thursday, September 12, 2024 10:51:45,Bali, Indonesia

To Expand.

42 Wanattomians, Epoch 1726109514, Thursday, September 12, 2024 10:51:54,Bali, Indonesia

Written in 9 seconds.

Mattanaw’s Market Basket

40 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725953549, Tuesday, September 10, 2024 15:32:29,Bali, Indonesia

Recently upon researching purchase power of one dollar USD in Indonesia, I discovered that the concepts and search results presented back to me were in a kind of confusion. When asking for example, about the purchasing power of the dollar in Indonesia, what I’m needing in return is not anything economically sophisticated, although the answer neeeds to be based on some economic computations. What I am wanting to know, is if my dollar will buy goods on average as if it were 4 dollars usd instead of t four after conversation. I’m in Indonesia now, so I’m most interested in wwhat the result would be for Indonesia. However, I want to know for other countries that might be good places to live like India, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, or other contries. I want the answer to my question to be expressed in USD.

In economics we have the concept of a market basket, and this concept is of course utilized in the process of obtaining a value akin to the one I’m looking for. The market basket would be an average basket of what Indonesians or an average consumer would need at a basic level to satisfy their basic needs and some of their desires. But for me, I’m not too interested in what others would purchase, so I’m now devising the concept of “Mattanaw’s Basket”. Anyone could do this for their own required purchases and use it to compute for each country the value of their preferred currency for buying those things.

Mattanaw’s basket is a bascket of more than on elevel, that starts with the core basket which is the very basic level of purchasing required for survival. The second level is survival with some basic luxuruies. The third and any additional would simply include levels of purchasing that are more luxurious and d includes much more than what would be simply required to live.

I intend to use this basket as I travel from one country to the next to identify what the true purchasing power is for me. If I know what it is for me, then I know the purchasing power of a dollar in each and every country that I include. All I need to do is buy things and check the market, at each of the locations. It is not easy to research in advance what specifici costs of goods will be off the shelves of retails stores in different countries, so one may have to go to each. Some research is possible however and I’m not exploring that. Housing is very simple to determine if one is using an online method of booking. One can simply see whta is possible on AirBnB for example, if one uses airBnB and include rent in with one’s basket. I will share more on this topic in the future.

40 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725954088, Tuesday, September 10, 2024 15:41:28,Bali, Indonesia

Written in 539 seconds.

Manual not added afterwards: Entirely blind typed without any visual feedback at all. There should be slightly more errors than usual, but this is now supplying information as to what errors occur with no feedback to typing at all. This was typed with somewhat less comfort than usual, being more aware of the blind nature of the typing and somewhat less dextrous than usual. However, it is anticipated that these errors will be reduced greatly as normal typing comfort becomes routine in this writing setting.

The Community Judgement Process as an Insaned Cult Procedure

39 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725862534, Monday, September 09, 2024 14:15:34, Tempe, Arizona

To Add

Learning and Potential

36 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725591797, Friday, September 06, 2024 11:03:17,Tempe, Arizona

People have written and spoken about potential as it relates to learning, but it appears very little analysis has really been undertaken regarding how much potential any individual might really happen to have, and how it relates to what exists for learning in an environment.

What we are more likely to hear about in popular education is that one particular person or other seems to have lots of potential, and then we’ll hear little beyond that. Potential is thought of as some high degree of improvement which might be shown in the future for a person as they mature. But the specifics of what that potentia includes is left ambiguous. This might seem fine. But only a little reflection reveals that it actually can be measured and understood if one actually understands how individual minds learn and can learn in relation to their environments.

So what would the possible future selves of a specific student be in the future given different programmes of learning and study? Of Occupation? Of change of occupation? Putting all of that together, o of morality? Ones morality is what guides one’s actions, and this includes all actions. Once this has been recognized it will be seen that both learning potential, potential, and moral planning related to personal growth to become more moral area ll poorly understood.

36 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725592036, Friday, September 06, 2024 11:07:16,Tempe, Arizona

Written in 239 seconds. Typed with no visual feedback at all. Entirely blindly typed.

What is Mutually Exclusive or Not in Alternative Moral Behavior Organizations, Plans and Patterns

36 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725590728, Friday, September 06, 2024 10:45:28, Tempe, Arizona

As one is learning and training to become a more moral person, what has been missing oftentimes methodologically from the approach is an understanding that different ways of thinking, and different ways of organizing thought and behavior, are really mutually exclusive to one another. There may be, in the normal population, an assumption, that as one is learning, one can simply continue to build upon what was learned before without too significant a replacement. However, if what is wanted is a pattern of thinking and behavior that is superior to the last that is also mutually exclusive with the last, then it will be necessary to replace existing ways of thinking and acting and not merely add new ways of behaving.

There is an assumption in the normal population, I think, that people can continue to indefinitely simply learning new moral points and methods without doing too much replacement. However, for any learned pattern, if there is mutually exclusivity between that pattern and the prior pattern, then the learned pattern will need to replace the earlier pattern at any part where there is mutual exclusiveness.

What do I mean by “pattern” here? Any pattern of thinking and behaving whatsoever that may be altered by learning. The use of pattern here is what makes it especially abstract and general, and makes it clear the range of implications and significance that there is in this idea. Behavioral patterns, habits, thought patterns, ways of analyzing, learning, and reasoning are all included.

An interesting question that may be worthwhile for people to ask, and I’ll certainly be thinking about it myself, includes what mutually exclusive patterns might exist compared to my current patterns, that would result in personal improvements if learned, and how much time would it take to learn those improvements? This can also be used to define growth potential of any individual. Without such a concept, what one can do is have a minor alteration of existing patterns learning approach, versus largescale replacement of existing patterns approach. The largescale replacement is greatly preferable because the growth trajectory is much better. The extent to which one becomes “a new person” again and again is also more related to the latter than the former. Also, it is possible that one might reach true milestones of real completion for what is posible for oneself, and if one is fortunate enought to be very talented, what is possible for anyone (or nearly anyone who exists today). For example, if one is a master of logical reasoning, and utilizes it well, and has a very good intellect, then one’s hardware (or brain) becomes what could be changed for improvements but not the learnings. One then has arrived at a kind of culmination of reasoning that is possible for oneself. Defining what that would be is somewhat challenging however, but I do think it exists.

If one has become a mathematician, one will have found that one’s way of thinking about a large number of topics will need to be replaced or would have been replaced by the new ways of thinking. This is because there are mutual exclusivities between later ways of thinking and behaving compared with earlier ways of thinking and behavior. These are not merely contradictions in ways. Rather, one would not have the one and the other simultaneously for a wide range of other reasons. At this time I do not believe the types of mutual exclusivities that might exist have been communicated or are known. It is very likely that this is a novel insight, and clearly it has very great importance for improving learning pathways and making sure that one’s work on oneself is on a trajectory that is more consistent with what might be maximal.

Frustration in Argument is Emotional Instability

31 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725157979, Sunday, September 01, 2024 12:32:59, Tempe, Arizona

Like the posting below, on how women have not coped with hair, people seem to have not utilized their practice wisely regarding argumentation and conversation. They become angry easily, and are willing to say toxic and harsh things from simple points of disagreement. They talk often and through most of life but have not learned basic emotional management or morality. Out of proportion they respond in ways intended to damage, even if they do so about irrelevancies. They do it again and again and cannot train themselves out of it even with daily training. If they don’t have moral excellences in this domain, then where are their moral excellences? Outside of speach? It’s not there either because the two relate.

Life is Easy to Continue Because You Are Predetermined

31 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725157118, Sunday, September 01, 2024 12:18:38, Tempe, Arizona

People can only change incrementally. They cannot make huge changes with great rapidity. If changes were too large, instrumentality for life would not yet be proven. Instead, if one makes personal changes, they are to some few things. They don’t alter how one eats, breathes, walks, spends, shops, sleeps, and so on. The few changes leave the other parts of life alone. These parts left alone assure continuity. Since one is able to continue easily, it is required that one is predetermined on what was left unchanged. This is at odds with the free-willist perspective, because what is left open for change relates to decision making. But that has been noticed to be where change is slight, and not major. Little is changed really implies that all else is predetermined and is outside of decision making. Otherwise continuity would not be possible.

Evolutionary Theory and Making Continuity and Minimal Adaptation More Important

31 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725153259, Sunday, September 01, 2024 11:14:19, Tempe, Arizona

There are some serious revisions required to improve the popular understanding of Evolutionary Theory and it is expected that these same revisions to popular lanugage will enable learning people to bypass conceptual issues that now exist. The advancement of evolutionary theory seems to require a shift from the language of marketing and promoting of Evolutionary Theory to use concepts that are true and are less likely to be confused and confounded. Here I’m thinking mainly of the usage of “Survival of the Fittest” which is not strictly Darwinian. That language was more for the promotion of Darwinism and Social Darwinism, and is unimportant and even confusing for describing what evolution happens to be.

Firstly, it is easy for organisms to survive. “Survival” hardly seems a word that is of good frequent utlity. Sometimes animals do face obstacles that may result in their deaths, but that is an infrequent occurence. It is very easy for them to go on living. It is especially easy for humans go go on living. Death events are infrequent compared to simple events of “going on living”. If one counts the moments in seconds, one goes on living over and over in rapid succession. Finally death occurs and death must occur. No animal actually survives after an extended period of time.

Survival is also confused to include procreation. Procreation does not involve survival of any individual. Instead, it merely creates a new individual through a process of copying and new growth. No individual is “survived by” another individual.

Instead of survival being thought of as the main element of evolutionary theory, propensity to continuation ought to be focused on. Graphing continuity by seconds, milliseconds, and nanoseconds, would show that continuity is often happening, while death is seldom happening. Death occurs very rapidly and unoften. By shifting to continuity it becomes clear that everyone “survives easily”. This is an obvious point, and to go the other way with it, thinking all are “trying to survive” all the time, is ridiculous. How all could have been thinking this could be the case is a great absurdity. Instead of ever “really trying to survive” you simply say that stuff to yourself, since you were trained on bad evolutionary theory. Instead, you easily continue. Until you decide you don’t want to continue, or there is an interference with your continuity. Then you die rapidly (even if you had health issues along the way, in which case you still continued easily). Plotted as a frequency distribution you always continued easily and were not “surviving” at any time. Else all life is “survival”. It does not feel and appear like that at all. Instead, people comfortably continue effortlessly. More days come even if one doesn’t want more. You’ll get to live quite easily!

Another serious conceptual issue concerns adaptation. We are told the “fittest” survive. But if one observes animals including people, simply existing means we expect continuation. Any minimally adapted animal will continue. More than this, all even appear to continue as easy as each other, as if there is very little difference between people or animals regarding their continuity. Imagine someone poorly adapted, and you will think of someone perhaps with health conditions or someone old. But then ask yourself, do they continue to coexist with you easily? None around us are professional athletes and mentally superior folk. Everyone survives easily and well, and more than this there is a definite expectation of average procreation to increase the total population. “Fittest” is ridiculous. One merely has to decide, regardless of who one is, if one wants to have sex to have children at a certain rate. An implication is that people who are not the fittest can simply try to “prove themselves” by having more sex. Whereas some of the smartes and most physically fit and healthy people simply decide to not have kids, or have one or two. The question is better put as “Who continues?”. If interesting enough “Who procreates?”.You can’t prove your biology is superior by actions such as “getting clean” or “getting fit” or by having more children. It’s already obvious who is better looking and who is smarter. Only the most minimal level of organismal quality of production is required to continue and have sex. Continuity is about minimal levels of adaptation else all the people around would not continue themselves. But they all continue easily. Most procreate easily too. If they cannot procreate, it indicates they don’t have the minimal adaptation required. Perhaps they are hermaphroditic, or lack functioning genetalia. However, again, having children continues no living thing beyond its death. Having no sex organs at all might be a positive life benefit. One can more easily care for oneself. In that case, having sex organs puts oneself at risk. There will be an offloading of resources for own use to use on others. In any case, procreation is a separate issue largely from individual continuity. To continue one needs very little adaptation. Only a sufficient amount.

For example, does your heart work? If it is not minimally adapted to do its job, you will likely die after some time of easy continuity. But if it is minimally adapted to pump, like it is on average, then one will almost certainly continue (if all else is also minimally adapted). One needs no “special heart” to continue. You can have a poor heart and be unloving and live easily. And I do know also that love is irrelevant to continuity too. Otherwise I wouldn’t be able to continue while I’m simply working and am not thinking of love. Worse than the evolutionary theorist is the religious person who thinks love is required for continuity. You seldom are thinking about love, and all those times your heart is still minimally adapted for continuity to be easy.

What do you do that’s hard really? What are your adaptations that are really utilized to ensure continuity? If you are elderly you’ve subtracted many of your adaptations and you continue easily. You are not the fittest at that time, and nothing seems hard to keep going. Later the conversation shifts to “how can I die well”. That too is an indication that continuity is too easy. It is effortlessly easy. Having the kind of continuity that is wanted is a separate topic. One might say that for some elderly, there is a lot of pain to endure. But notice that the belief there is that even with extensive and pervasive pain, life is too easy to continue. This is why some simply don’t want life any longer and simply want to decide to end it. The death is then a short event, in the total of all life’s events which really did involve easy continuity.

Women Don’t Understand Their Own Hair

31 Wanattomians, Epoch 1725152307, Sunday, September 01, 2024 10:58:27, Tempe, Arizona

A cause for toxicity and abuse in many relationships is the simple issue that women do not understand their own hair. Preparedness issues with women regarding their handling of their own affairs results in frequent frustration, and unnecessary outbursts, that amount to pandemic toxicity. How they look and how they arrive at something else is really something they should understand since childhood. Being faux-beauty pageant contestants, you’d think they’d understand themselves, being more practiced than is advisable while young, to the extent that they are masters of both their appearance related drudgery and their emotions about themselves. Universally or nearly universally, practice has not culminated in any mastery. If unable to do this, they are not empaths, or emotionally superior in any way. The largeness of the issue, and the extent of inability to learn, on the basic issue of emotional self management, indicates what we would expect: on average they’ll cry for no good reason. It was already known they are not masters of their own emotions even regarding basics of their everyday experience. They’ll toxically in frustration make the issue about something else. They’ll attack their husbands and other males, and other females, failing to infer correctly from their frustrations to whatever other noises and statements they make. These are causes for the historical view that women are more irrational. The frequency of these maladaptive behaviors all of life indicates globalization of this perspective is correct. They’ll attack because they don’t even understand their own hair, and they’ll do it over and over. I’m not sure this is a good trait for those who aspire to equal positions in government, where diplomacy may become a hair issue.

This Language Has Nice Tentative Words

23 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724531815, Saturday, August 24, 2024 13:36:55,Tempe, Arizona

A language is a collection of tentative words, which must be altered and updated, as the language is replaced with a new language. Each word needs to be operationalized and connected with reality. It may be that the language of a single individual would be superior to one that is shared.

Blood Pumping As a Regulator of Cell Positions Counterbalancing and Utilizing Quasi-random Atomic and Cellular Movements

21 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724378390, Thursday, August 22, 2024 18:59:50, Tempe, Arizona

Today I was reflecting on how the heart beat and body temperature may actually regulate and make predictable cellular and atomic movements in the body in a way that utilizes quasi-random movements of elements, chemicals, and cells, that are subject to quasi-random movements due to brownian motion, vibration, and other external physical influences on matter such as electromagnetic influences and viscellaneous rays. Without the pumping of blood through the system, there is not a predictable availability of various cells, chemicals, and elements in the system. The operation of the system assumes a predictable routine, otherwise it would die and no longer function. If the heart beat stops, unavailability immediately begins. In a short duration of time, or a very short time delta, systems begin to lose expected input. Death can occur rapidly. At all mmoments in an animals life, there are short time deltas with rapidly fulfilled biological requirements. Pumping of the blood is one of the key ways of fulfilling those requirements.

Additionally, body temperature sets the conditions but also contributes to the motion of the system. Body temperature, or temperature, is defined by a certain level of motion of all the consitutent parts at a location where the temperature is taken. Pumping of the blood contributes to the motion occuring in the body and therefore contributes to the heat by creating motion, and also by relocating already moving material to other locations. The ciruculation of material though the body is what results in a relatively consistent body temperature at various parts of the body including the core and extremities, which really simply means the total organism. The body temperature, being approximately 98.6, with greater and lesser temperatures in different parts of the body, creates a homeostatic temperature range, which is a result of and controls the motion of the cells in all parts of the body. If one is sick, and has a body temperature of 103 degrees fahrenheit, then one’s cells everywhere are moving more quickly. If one is hypothermic, and one has a body temperature of 97 degrees fahrenheit, then all of ones cells are moving more slowly. If the movement is too fast or too slow, one dies. One may imagine this is a heat requirement, but heat of the system is both a side effect of the motion and a feedback setting the motion. The system has a motion regulator and a heat regulator and not only a thermostat, although that describes both.

The body is subject to vibrations and influences of radiation from without, which means that the cells of the body also undergo certain movements which are unrelated to the thermoregulation. Me move, shake, bump into things, experience vibrations from external sources, like loud sounds and musical speakers. We area also altered somewhat from vibrations from the speech of others. Additionally there are electromagnetic forces that act on us very frequently, and there are cosmic rays hitting us from space. We live quite well with these forces acting on us and there is a very large range in which we feel unaffected. The systems operate normally. Only when huge forces from outside or those especially irregular or deadly act that we experience a systemic change that might be considered dangerous. But all the while, these influences have been introducing quasi-random motions on all of our cells. The effects of the vibrations cause cells, chemicals, and elements in all parts of the body to jiggle. The jiggles, however, are largely constrained to where the elements, chemicals, and cells were jiggled. Jiggling these objects making up the body does not change their locations. So it appears that jiggling objects in the body that are not changing location (excepting those being moved by the circulatory system), doesn’t adversely affect the system. And of course, they would be jiggline anyway due to atomic forces and brownian motion.

Since the jiggling does not affect the system adversely, and since the system still largely regulates the jiggles by it’s thermoregulation, and these do not influence greatly position except inlocation of the cells, it appears the role of the heart, and cardivasular system, and muscular system, is greatly to control change of position within the body. Change of position within the body is highly sensitive to change as we’ve stated, and one is sustained moment by moment by cardiovascular pumping. Jiggles are a quasi-random motion within the system, inlocation, whereas cardiovascular pumping is a regulated cyclical system. The quasi-random does not cause death easily. The change to the regulated and predictable cyclical pumping does result in death easily and it influence thermoregulation and movement of the bodies chemicals, elements and objects. It appears to me that this may be a system of regulation in the context of quasi-random movements, negating the importance of the randomization component. It utilizes it and places it into regulation. This requires more elaboration

21 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724374506, Thursday, August 22, 2024 17:55:06, Tempe, Arizona

Those who have been in anatomy or neuroanatomy class have learned that animal systems have included brain and sensory organs in some proportion to their life importance. The visual system, in humans, inclusive of the eyes, has a very large proportion of nervous system space and functioning, morphology, and since this relates to utility and life-function, it is known that it is a very important system, and more important than some other systems. One can live without another system more easily than one could without the visual system.

Since the visual intelligence is related to the visual system, it seems to follow that this form of intelligence is especially important for life functioning too. There may be a disparity in valuation of different parts of the total intelligence of an animal. Since intelligence tests divides neuromodular functioning, not according to all types but according to visuospatial functioning and verbal functioning, it can be assured that there is a failure in the test relating to knowing the weights related to functions or even a quantitative description of the value of those functions. It’s known that visual intelligence is important but it is not known how valuable it is! It is not known how valuable it is in relation to verbal functioning, but even more interestingly, it has been given importance to IQ measure while forgetting other senses, like taste and smell. Presumably though, because those systems are smaller, and less vital, they have simply been omitted as less interesting. This is consistent with this posting’s message because the neuroanatomy assigned to smell and taste is disproportionately smaller than what might be valuable for IQ testing. However, a total answer as to IQ would need to include these functions.

Verbal intelligence also does relate to a very large portion of the human cortext. Knowledge is an admixture of verbal and visual information. A large portion of cortext not specifically related to total knowledge cortext is allocated to auditory and oral communication in the Broca and Wernicke areas of the brain. Verbal has a huge allocation of brain tissue like Visuospatial does, but has less peripheral organ. I have not done a differential study of the disproportionate allocation of organ and nervous system to verbal versus visual, but there must be a big disparity. I can’t tell which is favored. It may still be visual. The visual cortex would have scaling needs related to imagery that are more complex than the scaling needs of sounds and symbols, aural or visual. Bits of sound and symbol cannot require as much nervous tissue as visual information. This is known already even without doing any measures of the nervous system because of what is known about data in information technolgy and computing. Scaling of video information is much larger than scaling of text information, and the comparison is extremely skewed towards visual. In Information Technology, there is even the inability to scale video and very large images. Looking at the visual system, it is clear that it already acts according to the principle that storage must be downscaled parts of experience. If we think of images in our minds, if we have good visual intelligence, they seem clear, but we know they are not copies of experience. Also, attention fogs boundaries of attention. What we have stored is downgraded, which means our recollections of visuals are lesser copies. As time goes on, the copies degrade, which relates to the discomfort some experience as they move towards deletion or vanishing. It appears they are gradually vanished instead of strictly deleted when one has not had any brain related health event. This is consistent with archiving technology.

Verbal intelligence seems sometimes uniquely ideative, in my experience. I am strong on verbal and visual. I oftentimes prefer to ideate mostly verbally doing less thinking visually (although I can ideate very well creatively with visual alone too). The verbal seems to be in a less energy intensive state of thinking somehow, and can simply operate while letting visual rest. But it acts as though it is aware of the visual. Having very good visual intelligence and verbal intelligence, it seems like working on verbal intelligence in problem solving with creativity is still using visual, or is has already learned the visual, while it operates without the visual. Perhaps it has been educated on the good quality visual and can act independently as if it were already experienced. It may be able to do this with less use of the total nervous system, making it possible to have feats of production that are less taxing than in other people. This would explain my very large productivity in writings (which I can do visually too), and would make it commensurate with the intelligence scores that I’ve received that are ceiling in both domains.

There are some considerations in this writing that reveal issues with standard psychometric intelligence tests and also indicate pathways for improvement. I’m greatly in favor of what I call a neuromodular interpretation of intelligence. The best measure of intelligence is a total understanding of the active brain and its deltas. Psychometric tests like the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler are out of date and are in stasis. They are in stasis while there are great advancements in medicine, understanding of the brain, and artificial intelligence. This is a sure sign that they should be treated as merely partially correct at this point and there should not be toto much trust in these tests to provide a full explanation. A global explanation is the one that is pretended following an IQ test and even the letter G has been opted for which is annoying. It is not clear that a total quantitative study of the brain and its separate modules would yield a score that would be a combined quantity, but going on insight it appears this is certainly incorrect. If a total brain were measured it would have many metrics, and then if a total score is wanted for heuristic purposes, with errors, it would simply be created, using a chosen scaling from aggregation of neuromodular mesures. There would be total measures too, relating to tissue qualities as they exist wherever they exist, but this too wouldn’t be an adequate explanation. Much more can be said about this later, but for now it is interesting to consider visual and verbal modules and their disproportionate allocation to brain tissue, and comparisons between them both and other parts of the system.

Balanced High Visuospatial and Verbal Intelligence as Providing a Possibility of More Honest and Truthful Thinking Due to Ability to Cross Verify

20 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724283504, Wednesday, August 21, 2024 16:38:24, Tempe, Arizona

To Add

Comments to a social media acquaintance who inquired more about what I thought people with lopsided verbal/visuospatial intelligence might experience

19 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724213798, Tuesday, August 20, 2024 21:16:38, Tempe, Arizona

FB Friend’s Name interesting, and I would definitely agree that stress in social interaction can work against one’s ability to communicate effectively, and therefore give the appearance of weaker verbal when in fact it may not be weaker. I really like and excel at those IQ puzzles too! They were always fun. But, I imagine for some they would not be fun, and tests taken for that may have been bad experiences for such people. I was wanting more even. I’m pretty balanced regarding visuospatial and verbal. Both are strengths and neither is a deficit. As I’ve come to work with people who might have strengths in one area and not the other, I’ve noticed some consequences and traits. There are a number of motivations for the posting but the most recent related to some reading I was doing. I am now reading the Feynman Lectures on Physics (which are very very interesting and worthwhile. Strange learnings in that book). I started thinking, as I was reading, about pure mathematicians, and also people who seem to think much more verbally. I wondered to what extent they struggle with confirming results of their work and thinking, internally. Some verbal people I’ve met seem as though when challenged with counterpoints that they cannot visualise what is being discussed. Mathematicians, I think, from my observations, are sometimes similar to this. Sometimes I think they can logically work things out symbolically, but can’t see counterpoints and examples visually very clearly. Weirdly, I think a brain that is good on both visuospatial and verbal is uniquely able to confirm or disconfirm what they think about. Have you ever met someone who doesn’t seem to understand scenarios? You want to persuade them something that contradicts something they’ve explained, but when you provide a scenario that is a clear counterexample, there is a feeling that they don’t comprehend it, and simply return to their verbal statements again? I thought back into history of an argument I had with another while I was navigating and driving a car in a new area, with a passenger who was with me. This person was not a visual thinker and was unable to use maps. Verbally they kept disagreeing with me. But neither of us could work together on the map because they couldn’t understand maps. Being unable to understand maps and being poor at visualisation, we simply returned where we started in the verbal discussion. Very strange feeling. It was as if a chunk of their brain was gone and was vacant. The reality is they simply didn’t have the brain available to utilisation and so there was no resolution possible. Weirdly when we talk to others, without knowing it oftentimes, we are talking to people who actually have brain omitted from their lives. So if you go too far on verbal thinking or too far on visuospatial thinking (or together), they may be utterly lacking one or the other or both, and sometimes to a huge degree. This person I was talking to regarding the maps really had very poor visuospatial. This person can’t recognise people well oftentimes if out of context, and cannot draw even rudimentary pictures. They would avoid all art. Trying to confirm or disconfirm something verbal with respect to directions with this person by going into visual thinking is going to a place where they have really no resources. But I notice it when there is no huge deficit. I met another very interesting person who is in Prometheus society. This person is extremely verbally talented. We had very good mutual exchanges in writing on some interesting subjects with good transactional understanding. I wouldn’t expect others to join in on such conversations easily. But when I met him in person, and there was a whiteboard present (we decided to do some work together a while back), I handed him a marker to diagram his thoughts on a whiteboard. He had a very strong resistance and refused. Later I saw some indicators that he may be weak on visuospatial and there were some very definite signs from other situations. His presentations turned out to be very poor visually. Now, if I were handed a whiteboard marker, I would spontaneously make things unreflectively that are of very good quality. I have no issue drawing things out, doing all sorts of alternative visualisations, spinning and flipping, doing shapes, making artwork on the fly if necessary, etc… (I’m no experienced artist but happen to be very good at drawing). This person turned out to be difficult to work with. I’d be locked in the verbal domain only with him. But as I was reading Feynman I was thinking more about upper eschelon mathematics and mathematics where there doesn’t appear to be good scientific or observational confirmation. Here I think there would be issues with verbal thinkers being unable to confirm/disconfirm thoughts lacking visual. The highly visual thinkers may be weaker on the symbolism. When there is a disparity I think there is a greater reliance on others to confirm/disconfirm or correct work. In that talk with the other person in the car about the maps, if there were another person there, I think they would utilise their visuospatial immediately to confirm what I was saying both verbally and visuospatially, and the other passenger trusting another party, would have realised (maybe) that their view needed correction. But they would have only been able to correct their verbal on the basis of trust of someone else in addition to me. There would be no confirmation of the visuospatial part of the conversation regarding the map’s relationship to the talking, because this person lacked mind there. Freaky but true. It just so happens we’re talking to brains of different sizes and organisations. BTW when we talk I sense you have good verbal in writing. Both in comprehension and in what you say to me. Probably doesn’t need stating but I thought I’d say so. Cool to know you’re awesome at visuospatial too.

FB Friend’s Name the other thing that came to mind after seeing a response from someone elsewhere is that there must be a sense for someone who is very high on visuospatial versus verbal, to put things into words. My father may fall into this category. He seems to have good visuospatial abilities, but is much weaker verbally. I’m not sure if he has really strong visuospatial though– but he might be an example. I do recall when I was younger, not being incredibly adept at explaining exactly what I was thinking visually too, not because I was inept verbally (I can’t tell which is stronger, my verbal or my visuospatial. They’re that close), but because perhaps the visuospatial requires less preparatory work. Little kids may have very good visuospatial, but they may not yet have the verbal commensurate with it. But later on I felt as though almost anything I could think can be communicated easily. But I’m guessing people really strong on the visuospatial may feel as though they may have a permanent difficulty talking about it if they’re much weaker on the verbal side. Seems a somewhat horrible scenario if the difference is too great. I’d be curious what you think.

Calculating the Diminishing Benefits of Future Thinking for Planning, and Applicability

18 Wanattomians, Epoch 1724111883, Monday, August 19, 2024 16:58:03, Tempe, Arizona

If a problem happens to be solved, then additional thinking regarding that problem happens to have a lower value. Resolving problems results in a decreased need to reflect again on those problems, and this is considered a benefit of problem resolution. Since the problem is already solved, time that relates towards working towards a solution or dealing with not having one, is transferred to thinking about other things. If one solves a life problem, one may be able to relax and think about what one likes, or direct it to other problems that are requiring resolution. For problems solved that are applicable to life circumstances, the total number of problems related to those circumstances are reduced. As one solves problems as one is living, there is a feeling as one solves the problems that there is a decreasing burden. Early on, while one is first dealing with a wide variety of issues, there is often a desire to finally have them all resolved; this thinking could relate to a vision for an improved life or lifestyle. Once all the problems are solved, it is imagined, there will be an improvement in life conditions and maybe very good conditions free of the issues formerly dealt with. It is known that new problems are encountered as old problems. Here we can still lump those problems in with all other problems and consider them as problems that simply exist in the total set of problems that will exist in a life. Solving problems before the new problems arise, is like getting through a stage and arriving at a new learning area. Learning itself is like this, since when one is born almost nothing is known and anything new to be known later will depend largely on resolving earlier problems first. For example, if one has a life problem later in life relating to “getting to work on time”, that problem will only have existed because one already learned to walk and navigate as a child. If one did not learn to walk and navigate as a child, life would have ended early, and there would not have been an opportunity to learn the advanced problems relating to what is done once navigation, socialization, schooling, and finding employment are learned. Thinking this way, one can reflect that anyone who has considered working has already had an extremely large number of life accomplishments.

Notice that after having solved issues relating to learning to walk, and finding employment, and so on, the same problems do not arise in the same way. Finding employment is a recurrent issue, but it doesn’t present in the same way as it did the first time in ignorance. Repeated problems really often have characteristics of new problems. Aspects that are similar feel already solved or understood. Aspects that are different require some new approach, or new learning. All of life will have this process of learning and resolution, with increased ability to solve new problems when they are sufficiently similar to old problems, as long as there is sufficient learning ability. We can see how future milestones will reveal new problems. As one gets older, one will encounter health difficulties, retirement concerns, and issues relating to budget and family relations in decline. If one does not consider these well already in advance, they will be extremely new problems and time will have to be dedicated to resolving various new problems. It shouldn’t be missed that these really are new problems and not old ones and the older ones already encountered really are not problems in the same way any longer, or not at all. The benefit of this process is that later one does not need to think about these issues any longer, and really there is a diminishing return on thinking about those problems again. The issues are solved and one has already learned. Some reflection will be useful as the subjects connect to other life issues, but the need for sustained thinking has been reduced, and overall thinking about it still indicates a diminished return on that thinking until one prefers just not to think about those topics and to think about something else instead. Now, imagine if one is going to as a younger adult think about issues that old people will face in advanced age, rather than waiting. In that case, many issues will be resolved in advance too. For any issue solved in advance, there is a diminishing return on thinking about it further later. The problems have reduced in quantity and complexity. Additional thinking about those problems still provide rewards in solutions but the size of those rewards are smaller. Finally, when one reaches that age, after having thought of many of the problems that would exist, new problems will surface, but they will feel less unconsidered. Some related and relevant thought is applicable. It then gets applied. That was thought already had, so fewer thoughts are needed for finding solutions. That too indicates a diminishment of thinking because what is leveraged is older thinking and memory to substitute for problem solving. Anything that is new is less and thought is then directed to those issues. This issues being fewer require less thinking. More quickly solved, the quantity of time thinking and quantity of thoughts was less. This too indicates a diminishing return on additional thinking. But what does happen to be true is that all the earlier thought on problem solving before reduces the total amount of problems accounted and one has huge rewards for that in being able to place thoughts on other things that would yield greater returns.

If one through all of life very prudently thinks carefully resolving issues realistically for most domains of life in advance, then eventually there is a diminishing return on all thinking relating to problem solving. That is already how it works if one thinks about childhood, and the huge amount of things that children have to learn that are vital for many parts of life. When one is in primary and secondary school, one already had to learn about most of life’s categories of problems. How to socialize, how to interact with an employer (somewhat) or teacher, how to deal with conflict with other people, how to think about a wide range of subjects, which is constitutes the main teachings encountered in a school system, and so on. When one finishes school, one is supposed to be “well prepared” for much that is faced in life, and one really is, even though it is well known that schools have not covered everything. Having gone through school, there is a huge amount of thinking that is not necessary any longer. How to become fit for example. That is extremely well covered in school fitness and sports. After going to school one can simply resume sports and go to the gym. If one did not have any education, and one did not do very much physical activity, and was not learning anything about this, one would struggle to have a fitter lifestyle later and would encounter problems that others understand well as new problems. Notice that for whatever was actually covered in school that really did prepare all or most students, those problems nearly cease to exist later. When one learns, there is a ceasing of interest in what has already learned. Consider if one really tried to pretend the problems of pre-school and elementary school were real again? It would be really uninteresting and hard to understand. The experience of the child is unlike the adult in that there can be very little interest in the adult in the process of learning how to read. Learning how to read again when one already knows how to read is a strange consideration. Having already learned to read, there are improvements along the way, but it is almost like the reading problem does not exist at all. At least until a new language is encountered or one is living abroad.

The total set of life problems is hugely eliminated by school and early education. Later is what remains. Thinking about the earliest problems (as the person learning them) have diminished in interest until there is no interest. The returns on the thought are nearly zero. A simple proposition could be formed regarding all learning and thinking that is general. Thinking resulting in learning results in a diminishment of interest and return on subsequent thinking as a learner of the same problem. Additional propositions can be formed in this conversation that are also logically quite general. Another one, that could be refined further like the one used earlier for deployment in mathematical or logical argumentation that is formal, might be “The total set of problems encounterable in a life are diminished by learning such that thought and learning has diminishing interest in those problems, and that one will redirect attention to the remaining set for renewed interest and returns on thinking.” Additionally, “If one is able to think and learn about all major and minor problems such that they are resolved, and there is a real diminishing return on thinking and interest, then there is a total diminishing return on thinking.”

Now we can relate the above to the title of the article. We can now see it is a computable problem. One can begin to estimate the extent in which one will have interesting problems later to think about. Earlier, we were talking about the benefits of problem resolution. Additionally, as problems are resolved, the set of thinks to think about that are interesting is reduced. If one computes that there is a dwindling set of problems of interest to think about, there will be a dwindling set of thoughts and learnings to have that have similar benefits. If one lived to a thousand, and one is a really good learner and thinker, then one will find later that there is very little to think about that has good return. Instead, one would have to be satisfied with curiosities, and thinking that results in rewards that are for enjoyment but with less huge life altering rewards. It gets closer and closer to “I already know all these things, so I’ll think about what is enjoyable, even though it is not life altering. In face, I wouldn’t expect huge life alteration, because I’ve already solved the issues that would be related to any such alteration.”

For most people, there will probably be interesting problems late in life to resolve, even if some of them happen to be unwanted. This is because the problems were not already resolved. This is expected to occur most for those who have the smallest learning capacity, and least for those who have the most, and least still for those who have the most and are also really finding solutions to problems and are not simply happy with partial solutions. Satisfaction with partial solutions actually leaves problems unsolved. If anything tests their resolution of the problems, it will quickly be revealed to them that those problems were not resolved and really they have to work hard on solving them for real. They will have known a little but not enough. The return on the thinking on the problem, however, will be large. And afterwards they will likely think like others do that the “trials and tribulations” were worthwhile. People often think the struggle was what unlocked the learning. There is a niceness about having remaining problems, but personally it is not my preference to leave problems unsolved. I like to solve them in advance and truly feel the diminishment of interest in learning and thinking.

Despite the diminishing returns on thinking later in life as problems are really solved, the significance of thinking greatly increases. This means that what is thought about at a higher level regarding even the solved problems has some rewards. But these too follow the same trajectory of diminishment and even highly significant thinking that is cross domain becomes less interesting. I think also that this overall diminishing return on thinking, as experienced, and not merely as reflected upon, but inclusive of both, results in preparation for death. Thinking before death has shifted away from problems to enjoyment. Enjoyment becomes repetitive. Eventually there is less interest in having more life. If one lived to 10,000 one would probably tire of life at some point particularly if one learns really well. If there is little to no learning, there is much less that is enjoyable. Life becomes repetitive hedonism without learning. Burdens are lifted, but repetition sets in. One reflects on what one has accomplished and on feels a powerfulness that has reached culmination in reality given one’s body and mind that one has genetically started with. One can simply enjoy life until one has had enough of it and then can decide upon when death should occur and how. That too would be inclusive of problem solving. One has then decided what a good death consists of and favors it over random injury. I see this as a very positive thing. It is actually extremely consistent with what others think maturation is supposed to be anyways.

More to be said on this topic later!

Moral Principles and Facts, and Confusion

17 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723936879, Saturday, August 17, 2024 16:21:19, Tempe, Arizona

People are confused as to what a moral principle happens to be, and if I were to redefine it, I would. However it is also possible to omit the concept in favor of other ways of speaking more accurately.

Oddly, in moral philosophy and in cultural literature, there are too many terms that mean nearly the same thing as a moral principle. What is common to all “moral principles” is that whatever the form, they are short statements. Moral principles are taken to be short sentences oftentimes. Sometimes they are taken to be sentences. Some will make paragraphs for them. But they will not be longer than a paragraph else what is being communicated is not the moral principle but explanations about the moral principle. Words that state moral principles are “aphorisms”, “maxims”, “directives”, “principles”, “laws”, “rules”, “heuristics” (sometimes), and so on. There are many variants. The trick is to simply know that the objective is to state in a short quantity of words and characters a recommendation, suggestion, piece of advice, or imperative, obligation, responsibility, and so on. Once you can see what people are trying to communicate in the short sentence, sentence, or short paragraph, one can see if they are stating any of the above or not.

A strong argument could be made that when people talk at all, they are close to making recommendations, suggestions, advisements, or are close to communicating rules they think are absolute. If there is a presence of intention to specify a behavioral control, in a small amount of communication omitting explanation, they are stating what is equivalent to the above. Sometimes people talk a while longer, trying to explain, or find, what it is they would commit to regarding some shorter number of sentences. They try to simplify. If they can actually condense what they are trying to say they would likely find themselves briefly asserting more clear sentences they’ve arrived at. These they think are important. Being important they relate to behavior. They don’t simply talk about behavior, but about what behaviors they think are better for performance in the future, or those that are worse for performance in the future.

Going through the total human literature, there is not much that is interesting that does not specify a change to action later, or a way to act going forward. Also, Moral Principles are selection of sentences from the total human literature people think are really important for what to do and what not to do. Humans have done a very poor job however of identifying what the moral principles are such that the quality of short statements align with lengthy texts of good quality. There may be a long book on honesty, giving advice on when to be honest, when not, and many details, which would allow oneself to be potentially more morally excellent. Within such a text there would be many embedded principle-like sentences. Not all would be identified. A work of 400 pages would have lots of good quality content potentially, especially if the text was already identified as a reliable and good one. But in the culture, when we try to find moral principles regarding honesty, we find things like “You should never tell a lie!” which is really an obtuse and unfortunate viewpoint with no sophistication. It sounds as though it came from a child with no experience who did no analysis. What we would like are the principles (if we want principles) from the longer works, in greater quantity. If we had lots of principles regarding honesty with more detail we would have a new book! It wouldn’t be as long as the other book, but it would be a condensation of it. It would be all that you most want to know from that text without additional explanation, if you don’t need it. Notice 400 pages doesn’t come along with the statement “You should never tell a lie.” Hearing and “learning” that statement is like learning nothing.

Automatation and Levels of Malintent, and When the Malintent Can Be Assumed for Safety, and Types of Assumptions

17 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723929680, Saturday, August 17, 2024 14:21:20, Tempe, Arizona

In an individual person, it is possible to automate out malintent, and the people with very little malintent already know this. Perhaps not for all people, but for a huge segment of the population it is really possible, and it is possible without eliminating needs for defense.

People’s behavior and thinking are largely automatic, and people are really like biological machines. They are a culmination of trained behavior and genetically defined growth. Even with personal reaction to a large variety of contexts and situations, much is largely determined by training and genetics, and of course the personal reactions to even novel situations is still related to training, self-training, and genetics. Some would want to quibble these points and I understand reasons to do so, but for now the objective is to keep the conversation a bit rough or sketchy, inclusive of some main ingredients. Tendencies in behavior relate to automations which some discern as having positive intent, something like a neutrality, and malintent. If much of the worlds behavior is automatic, and can include positive and negative intent, it is helpful to know what is automatic and what kinds have forms of positive and negative intent. Knowing this helps for self protection, self improvement, and creates a greater level of reasonableness for feasibilities relating to change. If one can ascertain what is infeasible relating to automatic malintents one can have more effective decision making. Decision making and especially decision making in advance are related to moral philosophy and ethics. How could one do really well in the world if one did not have a correct appraisal of various malintents, their extent, and degree of automation, and infeasibilities related to alteration/improvement.

This is a large topic I’ll want to develop at some depth, but for now my main interest concerns larger scale malicious automation. One form of large scale automation that includes malintent is advertising. For large scale issues of automated bevahior, many people are impacted. A single individual is affected by advertising (which is reduced to messaging), again and again. Is there a heuristic tool that one can use, that will allow for the quicker identification of malintent to avoid it, and make plans for more permanent avoidance? Such a plan for permanent avoidance can be trained upon until automatically one has a better space of positive intent. This space of positive intent would be hugely protective from the extreme repetition of messages and advertisements that include malintent. For example, if one gets an email, is there malintent? The faster those are ignored the better. If messages are received on social media through the chat tools, what is the frequency of malintent? In my experience, positive intent is rare there too. If one is on social media, and the television is on, between the two how often are messages and images from companies including malintent? Very frequently, but how much contains malintent and what is my heuristic tool I can use to avoid it?

If a bill arrives in the mail or electronically, how much of that notification includes malintent?

Better still, relating this to the main topic, is if there is anything in my environment that is an automatic stimuli of any kind, how can I heuristically know if there is malintent and ignore it or act quickly in a protective way. Interestingly, thinking about it that way, this includes all relations a person can have in their life. Looking at nature, in a national park, one does not feel much malintent. In a social space, one feels more. In a social space with media, entertainment, and computing, one feels much more. This is partly because humans are responsible for the increase of stimulus. A setting without the people, in a park, national forest, or in/on the ocean, this stimulation is largely removed. It is the test of the identification of the causes of stimulus. It is also the closest example of non-stimulation. If one is out in a remote territory, alone, at night, and in the quiet, one has subtracted as much stimulus as one can reasonably do, unless one can create a laboratory or go to space. But space, an isolation laboratory, and a natural space with no light and little noise would be the examples of having less stimulus.

Stimulus starkly increases as one enters an urban setting. It’s obvious that the primary causes of growth of stimulus and messaging is population density and technology.

More on this topic soon

If a person does not have sufficient verbal and visual intelligence, cross intuitive insight and cross proofing may not be possible

13 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723671932, Wednesday, August 14, 2024 14:45:32, Tempe, Arizona

[Note: Unedited but highly readable. The omission of editing is to provide source data in a study on editing in progress]

I have noticed that there appear to be reasoning weaknesses among those who seem to be exclusively verbal. For those who are utilizing their strength in their verbal intelligence, which is an unavoidable preference if there is a definite deficite in visual intelligence, or a stronger preference in those who are less balanced between both forms of intelligence, they may be having thoughts that are obviously incorrect when tested visually, but they cannot engage in such testing. For example, if you happen to be arguing with someone over the verbal instructions for getting to a new location, but you have very good spatial abilities, you may know very well that the instructions are incorrect and will lead elsewhere. Being unable to communicate the spatial component of the directions to the other person, because that person simply doesn’t have brain that can be activated for such thinking, there is a stall at the point of visual comparison. They cannot make the comparison. I have noticed this most clearly with those who are much weaker on visual thinking but are fairly strong on verbal thinking, and these people oftentimes prefer verbal or list-styled instructions rather than instructions with maps (simply handing over a map), or with use of landmarks. When sharing instructions again and again with people in this category, again and again there is a clear perception that communications cannot activate visual intelligence, and while I did not think of it at the time, this makes it clear there is a cognitive disparity. This can be quickly identified using the strategy mentioned in my book, The Velocity of Significance and Ideation.

Some in physics have mentioned that they do not require visualizations of material to understand the function of a system. I first encountered this in Pierre Duhem’s The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, where he explained his irritation for those requiring visual representation in addition to verbal and especially mathematical representation (going from memory). Without additional time with Duhem to utilize the conversational strategy mentioned in my book, I cannot definitely ascertain his stregths and limitations with respect to verbal and spatial intelligence. Respectfully departing from using him as an example because I don’t know regarding him, let’s use an example of a person who is verbally very good at doing physics and mathematics. For such a mathematician, there will need to be a determination how to verify his results. It is possible he is simply far superior in visual thinking because he doesn’t need it in order to visualize what exceeds what is both communicable visually, but also what can be graphically represented. When dimensions exceeds what is graphically possible because equations together explaining a system simply comprises what can be depicted, a physicist or mathematician can be aware that the verbal domain mixed with superior spatial vision is adequate and better than trying to make an assortment of related diagrammatic and graphical representations. They might see it as making a very large powerpoint for a simple set of formulas. With sufficient mathematical sill in a listener or reader, such efforts may not be necessary because the other person does have sufficient visual cortex to imagine at a high level spaces quickly. Nether person needs the powerpoint for illustration, and the powerpoint would be very time consuming to produce. In business one is aware of the excessive time spent trying to communicate. It is much nicer to have colleagues who intuitively undrstand. And of course, in the business communication of physics and mathematics, if much math is being covered, there will be too many powerpoints of diagrams and visualizations for what can simply be conveyed in text.

However, for such a person it may not be known yet that they really do have superior visuospatial ability, and instead what such a person might be doing is relying excessively on verbal thinking because they have a definite deficity in visual thinking or the strength of their visual thinking is far beneath the strength of their verbal thought. This is still fairly easy to determine in another person through conversation if they happen to be present. One can determine if they can draw well, have artistic talent, are able to create the diagrams when needed, and so on. Refusal to every make a powerpoint or visual presentation corresponding to their writing and mathematics, that uses novel imagery they made would surface if they have a deficit, if they don’t have motor dysfunctions.

What is interesting is if the person is extremely strong on verbal abilities, and weaker in visuospatial abilities (but strong enough), they may still consistently produce highly valuable and perhaps unreachable excellences in their work productions. Their verbal may exceed the verbal abilities of nearly anyone else. I think the imbalance weakens their total mental system nevertheless, but this does not mean they would not arrive at rarities in their work. There is a risk that the verbal creations have been overly dependent on maniuplation of existing mathematical statements. The type of person who would fit into this description would be those people who “live in the mathematical formulas” primarily, extend them, manipulate them extremely well, and so on, but don’t produce much as far as visual cross-verification. These people may have good results but to some extent it is extensive of existing mathematics following transformation rules and the like. Because it is done this way, verification becomes more important. It was lacking in the visual verification and so this needs at some point some supply. Or experimental observational supply. Extensions of mathematics using manipulations of symbols and relationships does not guarantee that the extension will be verified true or false in experimentation. The person who is capable of both, who is hopefully as competent in the verbal domain, or nearly as competent, would be able to verify. Regardless of how verification is supplied, someone will have to do it.

Someone who has good parity of very high verbal and visual intelligence can actively cross corroborate with a very high frequency, and this indicates a strong deficit even in the very powerful physicist, if there is an imbalance. Because all of their life, many times a day, they were able to make the cross comparisons. Let’s think again of the example of finding and navigating to locations using maps. In that case visual happens to be superior. One cannot navigate using a list of coordinates with the same power. But the physicist who has amazing verbal abilities may have a system for getting around incredibly well just using coordinates and rules of direction on paper! But this is greatly inferior to the person who can and does both, and is nearly inferior to the person who only has visual abilities simply because the physiology for that is more powerful for that task. They would likely have a mental representation of the actual view of the entire space. The other would have a representative view. The representative view is akin to plain math. The visual view is akin to modeling what is experienced using space. If both are combined the thinker is positively superior. As superior as the person who knows how to get around with a map and without a map compared to a person who can only use representative instructions.

[Finished in 26 minutes without proofreading, spell check, reading, semi-blind typed, again as part of a study in editing, at 3:11 pm]

AI Claims to Invented Words, Pretending to Know Them Already

12 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723605137, Tuesday, August 13, 2024 20:12:17, Tempe, Arizona

Today I searched Chat GPT and Bing’s Copilot to see if they knew the source of a coinage of mine. This word “Wanattam” or “Wanattams” plurally, is a term of math and science that I created on the reversal of the spalling of my name Mattanaw.

Checking Copilot first, I found that it simply responded with an answer on an unrelated topic. It answerd “who created wanattams?” with a response about the founders of an application called “WhatsApp”. It claimed it knew what wanattams were because it knew what whatsapp was and though the answer was correct.

When I asked ChatGPT, a more disconcerting result occurred. It pretended that this word and a variation of the word was a word existing already in the Lakota Indian Language. I don’t think it likely at all that this term exists elsewhere preceding my creation. Additionally, when I accidentally mispelled the word, it claimed the same. Meaning it claimed that the Lakota Indians were the source of a word and another word which had merely a similarity. I find it likely it is making the claim regarding some other word that looks as though it could have come from the Lakota Indians. The words as typed were “Wanattam” and “Wanattoma”. Clearly “Wanattoma” should not prompt the same response.

Worse still, both ChatGPT and Bing bypassed my terms and conditions page and robots.txt file to download huge quantites of assets from my Book and Journal including my work on Mathematics which includes the subject matter on Wanattams. Several sections of my site reference Wanattams and provide long explanations. However, ChatGPT and Bing both did not respond knowingly that these were sources, even though their AI tools should have learned from the thefts of my site’s contents. They did not. They did not report back that they knew what Wanattams were.

Furthermore, the domain “wanattam” is owned by me. That domain get’s scanned by the bots too. That domain redirects to my page on mathematics. So they additionally have crawled this domain and yet their responses do not even reflect an awareness of the domain.

There is a huge risk that AI engines will do two very harmful things. Firstly, they may simply pretend to “already know” what something that someone else created happens to be, or link it to something else making it seem as though it already knows. This would cloud who created what. They also don’t provide sources for responses. If AI keeps claiming it already knows answers to questions asked on topics in which others performed work, and this work has been consumed by their LLMs, it may provide them a way to deny the creations of other and substitute what they like.

The Librarian Who Knows Which Books and They are Few

12 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723595303, Tuesday, August 13, 2024 17:28:23, Tempe, Arizona

I have been involved in librarianship processes relating to asset management for various corporations. For one particular corporation, I guided with a simple process for librarians to support executives with analytical answers to business questions. This was a system that was either to have an automated approach using software, or utilize a person working as an asset librarian to provide answers. It was found that the manual approach with the librarian is the preferable approach, however, for the organization it was not really feasible given personnel planning. Instead there would be a combination of software and a librarian who would provide ways for executives to find answers. This was a process of business analytics being worked on.

Manual librarianship is something that has not been identified, so far as I have seen, by others for the importance it really has. Business questions often are not known in advance. Analytics supplying needed information is unknown, and reporting on analytics is also unknown for the specific problems. A trained librarian who understands resources and questions asked, with sufficient skill and talent, can very rapidly answer business questions making it somewhat unnecessary to have software tools that the business users would use more directly. Instead of using a boring business example, let’s just use a real life example, that I don’t think has had attention. Let’s imagine a librarian who simply knows what books to read.

A librarian who knows what books to read is different from a plain librarian who happens to have millions of searchable volume, and tens of thousands of volumes on site. We’ll imagine here that the volumes correspond to any resource digital or physical. That amounts to all information. Now a library typically aids in finding good quality relevant resources, or aids in search of resources that may potentially be useful. An experienced librarian, who is also a student of knowledge, or interdisciplinary expert, who knows what the better books are in each domain, will not only be able to state which book might be useful from search results (which would be a novice librarian), but can simply point a persons mind to another mind. “These are the books of value you are needing” versus locating information that they’ve helped in organizing and archiving.

Going further, we can imagine, that from all books, only a subset are truly worth the time. Now a librarian has narrowed down the cannon of knowledge from some number of millions or billions of volumes or assets, to several tens of thousands. It’s not hard to recall and know ten thousand books. This librarian does know them, and knows them from their studies but also from what has proven useful to others.We imagine that this librarian simply knows the hallmarks of a good book, and also has the experience adequate, to separate all that is worthwhile from what is not worthwhile. What is not worthwhile is still useful in the history of all thoughts into assets and volumes. But for those seeking to learn various topics, the librarian simply points out what is best.

People are oddly aimless in their selections of what books to read. There is good fortune when a book happens to be extremely valuable. There are many titles that go ignored. What has been read may not be as good as what could be read. This librarian would point you to what is better, and if you know that in advance, the librarian has made you less aimless. The librarian would change research dramatically. Now your research efforts are in the tens of thousands of resources and not more, and they point you to the best to be seen. Your time regarding learning has been more optimized. Better still, you could become the librarian yourself, simply knowing what’s worthwhile and not, and knowing the structure of human knowledge from the structure of writings that are most worthwhile.

Being a person desirous of encyclopedic knowledge, then one can simply read the 10,000 best books, or sample among them given time constraints. Digest the best 10,000 while creatively making one’s own works, acting like this ideal librarian, one can then acquire and have familiarity with what might be thought of as “all of knowledge”. Knowing the structure of all the books, one can have the earthly patterns of interest. One can do this with encyclopedias too, but also, this librarian has made an encyclopedia of the elaboration of what is of interest. So the 10,000 volumes which include the encyclopedia become together the total encyclopedia at the size that is more optimal. Notice the books outside the list are not as worthwhile, this means the encyclopedia has become all that is worthwhile. This in a way completes the mission of encyclopedia writing. The encyclopedia could not be expanded to become all the books you’d want to read. Instead they summarize. They summarize the other works. Now the other works are together and the encyclopedia is complete.

In a way, the librarian can be a knowledgable person who knows the full encyclopedia’s structure and much of its contents. They can define what the encyclopedia is. If they need a piece of information, they know where it is directly. Search then becomes somewhat unimportant. In my system design for customers, what is kept in mind is locatability and searchability. Searchability is what you do when you don’t know where something is. That is an unfortunate state in a way. Directly and immediately knowing where something is is much better. If one loses one’s wallet, or keys, one is better off if one can directly find it, not if one has to search for it, using a mental or physical search approach. So this librarian has also avoided the need for search. Even google search. The resource desired is the resource found already.

There are certainly exceptions to the above that I can see, but this is a good simplification. Growth of knowledge at first will have the issue of “what has grown and where is it, and what’s its value?”. New things are harder to incorporate and exist as unknown until incorporated. There are other considerations worth thinking about making the above thoughts incomplete too. But this is a very good account.

Exhausting What’s Unexhausted

12 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723595009, Tuesday, August 13, 2024 17:23:29, Tempe, Arizona

Recently below I’ve written about the potential benefits of trying to become more exhausted mentally and physically. Also, I’ve had an interest in how to make decisions on what to do for reading and exercise, given one “exhausts ones” parts differently across one’s total system. For example, weightlifting and sporting exertions are divided into different days and times to allow for recuperation. An implication is that one has exhausted a subset of what could be exhausted in the body on those days, while the other parts of the body are unexhausted. Likewise, regarding the mind, one can read a difficult book on one topic, reach a point nearing exhaustion, but switch to an easier read, and read comfortably unexhaustedly. When a system is more exhausted combining the level of exhaustiveness of parts and shared resources, one begins to feel more “totally exhausted”, a phrase that is undefined, vaguely relating to the stronger desire to eat, drink, and sleep. If extremely exhausted, one may need days of recovery. Sometimes the level of exhaustion can lead to illness. One does not want to go so far as to become ill in one’s decisions about how to attain higher levels of exhaustion, but one does want to attain a level of exhaustion that one can recover from easily to facilitate the onset and quality of sleep. It is beneficial to be exhausted but not too exhausted for any specific part of the system, for any shared resources, or in “total” which might be a good combination of resources central and peripheral.

It was mentioned it is beneficial for production to become exhausted and not only to have good quality rest. Productions of course are mental and bodily. If one is exhausted mentally and physically doing worthwhile behaviors, like exercising, reading, writing, and producing art, then one is making things that are worthwhile to create, and is changing self mentally and physically for improvement. A total measure of productivity may benefit from a system of behavior that ensures utilization of resources to exhaustion with good optimalities. A way to arrive at such a process is to learn along the way about what specific exhaustions exist and how they contribute to utilization of system resources, and how more exhaustion might be achieved where there is underutilization. If a morally excellent person is behaving in such a way as to make improvements in a large number of domains mental and physical, and is alternating between parts of the system to ensure there are growths in all areas of interest, the total person will be more excellent and will have amazing productivity. The result is a person of greater moral excellence and results on behavior.

Most are looking to improve their habits. The improvements and coordinations of habits into a total behavior pathway that results in good output and growth will be a person who has achieved what might be thought of as mastery of habit. But it can be taken further. How so? By utilizing underutilized resources until they are exhausted, since the habits are already conducive to good output. This increases the diversity and quantity of outputs, and therefore total outputs. Health is expected to result because it is harmonized with rest, and the rest and restoration are improved. For those thinking about how they can improve their personal excellences, it may be useful to think first about how total habits can be of excellent quality, then transition once the habits are firmed in all of living to what can be exhausted more completely. Energy then has been optimized towards excellent productions.

From this it appears that one’s improved version of oneself would include a more optimized and planned utilization of energy.

Proving Who is Good and Bad Down to the Vitamin

10 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723415123, Sunday, August 11, 2024 15:25:23, Tempe, Arizona

When trying to decide if someone is good or bad, it should be computed down to the vitamin. Down to the mineral or element too. Brain network images related to thoughts would be helpful along with other information about thinking, but to know what someone does you have to use medical examiner archeology. Was the person active expressing excellences far from sloth. Bone morphology and density tests would help to know if they were athletic. Post humous and humous dentition would support knowledge of diet and genetic fitness to survive. Recalling DNA the DNA must be examined for quality of code and compared with physiological exam results, and historical information of blood and anything else tested.

The full quantitative method for knowing if you’re good or bad contains all this and all situational information, including the measure of the earth which would provide that you’re absorbed into it. Viewed from space you are a surface that moves largely imperceptibly, blended and attached to crust. Earth and its history is all your composition and history and all surrounding situations and situational-ingredients.

Here I am planning for additional reductionism of human life. I will soonishly try to provide a reference of the elemental construction of the human body and it’s food, including all elements working alone and found within biomolecules and other molecules of interest. Additionally, common pharmaceutical and food chemicals will be added, excepting those that are optional for digestion. Flouride for example is not optional. One step towards having a comprehensive effort that has potential for completion is having a complete table representing all that is known that comprises what I mentioned above. A difficult area would be the depiction of all known proteins, but if found to be feasible it will be included also. A conveneient mnemonics of the approach is useful, meaning patterns of interest must be identified. Patterns of interest associatively holding it all together would be useful for the learner wanting to know and retain more on this subject.

List of All 14 Vitamins (Others would not exist or would be undiscovered)

List of All 21 Amino Acids (Unless more are found)

List of All Mineral Nutrients (Elements is better)

List of All Elements

See the Periodic Table

List of All Molecules (Many unknowns exist)

Pharmacological and Bio-Chemical Reference

Elements would be classified as poisonous or not. Ingestion of any mineral or element implies that the mineral or element is within a human system, regardless of digestibility. Some elements will pass into the system despite the digestive system’s defenses, or “knowledge”, i.e. the genetically planned functional morphology to systemically handle those elements. The body is limited only by what cannot be stuffed into the mouth regarding what it’s constitution is prior to exiting of the material, if it exits. Mass spectronomous measures of deceased human bodies shows evidence of a wide assortment of unexpected element materials with known and unknown functions. Even gold is prsent in a human corpse, although I don’t know if trace elments are not averaged from deceased people with gold teeth. However, metal teeth are part of the human system once installed, and leech material into the system. If you had iron teeth you may need less supplementation of iron, although your mouth may taste like blood.

Playing with Toys Isn’t Far From Smearing Paint, So Smear Paint Instead

9 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723330583, Saturday, August 10, 2024 15:56:23, Tempe, Arizona

As a child, we played with stuff. As a child, in school, we were taught to make rudimentary paintings, but while painting we didn’t distinguish it from playing with other stuff. Paint was more stuff, paper was where it could be energetically smeared. Painting was play, just as playing with other objects was play. Running around athletically was play. But the play was not all the same in its results.

Playful results can have tangible and mental, physical, and external productions. Jumping and frolicking around creates good muscles. Some of us had our best bodies as teenagers playing, and others are aware of that. Touching our hands with paint to paper, we created memorable first artworks, which the Psychologist most prizes. These are external products for sale. When we stare and think, and reflect, or ratiocinate, we make brain tissues or modify old ones into new invisible artworks. Well mine aren’t really invisible, but I can’t see them with my eyes. They are productions of good quality though and are carried along all of life. When a child, most play is pretty beneficial. It’s not clear which form of play has less value, because sometimes doing the least in the play in boredom results in valuable mental productions which exceed in value the artworks made. Later in life, we reverse this a bit. We see less value in our thinking knowing remuneration will not occur, thinking others are more involved in value. The paintings though, if others can like them, like the Psychologist, might earn money for others, and for oneself.

As an adult, suddenly I’m wanting more of the artwork and bodily productions. If you look around, as people devalue their bodies too, they value objects more. Products become more of interest. Productivity of most is pretty low, and procrastination is a disease some think. But there was little procrastination while a child playing.

If play is more likened, again, to childhood, one will have many more products. Many more external creations will result. If one can get out of being stuck in consumerism, bodily production is also gained by play. Play will also result in more enjoyable mental stimulation that results in better thoughts and conclusions from those thoughts. So playing is something to start trying out it seems, until it is habitual.

How to start playing? Well, what do you do that is already playlike, that can be grown, and what is it you would like to produce, that can become more like fun and less like a struggle against procrastination? At the gym, I have lately tried to make it more ridiculous. I don’t play basketball like a rigid basketball player “doing drills” as of late. I make movements that make no sense, and I kinda dance the court. I use bodily humor as I kick my legs oddly and make shots that are perhaps an advancement on the game of basketball, being outside of the rules, but silly and usable in trickery. It’s become much more fun and as a result, it doesn’t feel uninviting. I can do it and my glutes and quadriceps will grow.

My writing is playful and so it doesn’t not procrastinate. It happens often and I benefit. I’m trying to make it more enjoyable still. I am not yet often doing artwork, but it is trending in that direction too. Crafts as well. Trying to make it less serious and less marketable is helping. Plans for marketability are happening in the background by they are not creating obstacles to motivation. Instead doing the play seems to unlock the marketing thought, in a way that is not obtrusive.

Playing with little cars or dolls as an adult, does not seem as beneficial though. Those stages of learning have passed. So there is a difference. If one has learned something, don’t learn it again too many times. The painting, however, has a tangible result and if one is not repetitive, learning will continue. So it may be advisable to skip repetitive play, and do the painting, and drawing, and other playful productions in a way that originally were indistinguishable from first learning play. First learning while producing. As I said in the title, don’t play with the toys. Over and over I have to add. Play instead with the paint, and smear it with enthusiasm. Change the paint and the media. Make the paint writing and woodwork. As long as it’s fun it is inviting. This way you can hopefully have the motivation you want to do the things you want to do, and maybe money can come, later.

What Math Is

9 Wanattomians, Epoch 1723327705, Saturday, August 10, 2024 15:08:25, Tempe, Arizona

People assume to themselves that they understand what math happens to be, even those who are pop cultural ‘representatives’ of physics, the sciences and mathematics. But it turns out they don’t really know what math is, and they are certainly confused as to the status of individual ‘maths’ which disconnectedly comprise the total literature. Some mathematics amounts to doodling, although the doodles are expected to represent aspects of nature which have created inspiration for the doodles. Other parts of math are puzzle-funning. The puzzles then are hoped to have representative power or application in the real world, but the puzzle-makers sometimes wait on others to tell them what the meaningfulness of their math happens to be. Mathematics is an uncombined venture. Branches of math do not blend, but are sometimes and oftentimes used to work together in concert. In physics, some areas of math are used, while other areas of math are disused, and these areas of math are expected to work together well. In application they seem to be more blended. But looking at mathematics as a whole, the work is almost as plural and disjointed as the interests of individuals doing the work.

If asked what exactly mathematics is as a whole, then, one will have trouble having a complete vision. One would have to talk more about what everyone is trying to do together, and that is largely to have a representative system covering much of interest from nature, without clarity on what that relation happens to be, with differing levels of confusion on that point depending on which area of mathematics is being considered. There is a kind of joint mission, but some within the field are still puzzle builders and inspired artist-drawers who merely hope that sufficient relation to the rest will justify the effort, where it is honest. Some mathematicians are there to earn money, or exercise enjoyable skills. Most are doing both, but some are much more serious regarding their motives and objectives even with pleasure intermixed. Different branches of mathematics have different inspirations, and sometimes their ways of doing math are so different from the others that there is some wonder if they are really doing “the same thing”. Of course, they are not doing precisely the same things and the results in their work reflects this. They are creating gulfs in the field that are hard to bridge, and at present there is no unified system of mathematics. Persistence in explaining that math is still seeking to have importance and interest justified by life in nature, which would relate to the desire to have representative power of mind on diverse experiences, would make it



Matt Cavanaugh
Mattanaw I., formerly "Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh"

I am a retired executive, software architect, and consultant, with professional/academic experience in the fields of Moral Philosophy and Ethics, Computer Science, Psychology, Philosophy, and more recently, Economics. I am a Pandisciplinarian, and Lifetime Member of the High Intelligence Community.

Articles on this site are eclectic, and draw from content prepared between 1980 and 2024. Topics touch on all of life's categories, and blend them with logical rationality and my own particular system of ethics. The common theme connecting all articles is moral philosophy, even if that is not immediately apparent. Any of my articles that touch on "the good and virtuous life" will be published here. These articles interrelate with my incipient theory of ethics, two decades in preparation. This Book and Journal is the gradual unfolding of that ethic, and my living autobiography, in a collection of individual books that fit into groups of book collections.

This Book and Journal is already one of the largest private websites and writings ever prepared, at nearly 1 million words, greater than 50,000 images and videos, and nearly one terabyte of space utilized. The entire software architecture is of my creation. Issues of the book for sale can be found under featured. These texts are handmade by myself, and are of excellent quality, and constitute the normal issues of my journal that can also be subscribed to. The entire work is a transparent work in progress. Not all is complete, and it will remain in an incomplete state until death.

I welcome and appreciate constructive feedback and conversation with readers. You can reach me at mattanaw@mattanaw.com (site related), cmcavanaugh@g.harvard.edu (academic related), or christopher.matthew.cavanaugh@member.mensa.org (intelligence related), or via the other social media channels listed at the bottom of the site.

Close