Do you go down with all guns blazing, or do you know when to fold 'em?

Guns blazing,baby!

Fight to the last round is fired! As Kenny Rogers said, “you have to know when to fold and when to hold!”

I definitely pick my battles.

It is not unlike battlefield strategy. Fall back before you retreat. Retreat before you delay. Delay before you surrender. Always remember that if you hang on long enough, the tide might turn in your favor.

If I’m right, and I KNOW I’m right, and I can PROVE I’m right and the other person just refuses to acknowledge it, then I’ll just shut up and walk away.

If you’re talking about here in fluther then I look to see if people are sticking to the facts or details provided and arguing from there. If I see they don’t pay attention to what’s written, make stuff up and argue from there then I leave off rather than tell them to “piss off” or something in that vein.

When I know I’m right, I don’t back down, I just walk away.

I definitely pick my battles. I’d much prefer to conserve my energy, as opposed to trying to win someone around to my way of thinking.
If I’ve enough conviction in my own opinions, beliefs, etc, I don’t feel the need to spout on forever.

Unlike Kenny, I count my money before I leave the table. Nobody’s cheatin’ me!

I’m a folder, usually. I save the heavy artillery for when I really need it.

I have learned not to shout myself hoarse bellowing at brick walls and I hang in their to help when I can make a difference.

Depends on who I’m arguing with. I don’t argue with people often, but when I do, I make sure my point is heard. One of my best friends can get really nasty when she fights, so I usually just make my point and back down. With my mom, I would continue to push my argument, and it would be maddening because she’d never have a logical response. (Just, “because I said so” or “I won’t discuss this.”) Grrrr.

If there is something I really need to address like when the elementary school my kids attended turned a blind eye to the bullying going on, then no I will not drop it. But other things I will drop because they are not worth the stress.

Depends on what we’re shooting at. I refuse to allow a lie to stand as truth. I will go down blazing against all forms of deception.

Beyond that, I will happily entertain all foolishness, and perhaps learn a thing or two in the process of folding.

I am terrified of the possibility that this world is as insane as it seems to be. Terrified. it’s killing me, actually

If someone does me the favor of proving me wrong and playing a part in teaching me something new, giving me a little more sanity, I can maybe go another week or so without breaking down.

Nothing is ever as it seems. Fear not @zophu. Your displeasure with the way things are is shared. Yet in reason, we address causes. As men of honor, we affect them.

What was that old proverb? Something to the effect of:

The mighty and rigid oak is broken by standing against the winds of change. Yet the slender blade of grass survives by flowing and going with it, bending in those winds with acceptance, yet firmly planted upon a solid foundation.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Grass is easier to cut. The winds, I know. But the cutters I have no faith in. Countless people infinitely more beautiful than I have already been lost to that foolishness. Who the hell am I to survive it? At least there’s a good chance I’ll die before I join them in their insanity. I wont let my body outlive my spirit.

edit: not sure if that would be guns blazing or folding

I just wait in the shadows until everyone dies and then I loot fallen bodies of their gold.

Well @zophu, would you not agree that grass cut is grass tended, treating everyone evenly so to speak? The presence of a capable gardener keeps the weeds of society from taking over, thereby preventing their insanity from infecting an otherwise lush existence.

Or would you prefer we all grow wild from neglect? Who will protect us from choking on weeds?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

neglected

tended

There are no weeds, because there is no gardener to label any as such.

Reminds me of my time in Jamaica. I stayed with a family in the mountains. Their back yard looked like your neglected example, right out of the pages of botanical magazine. We couldn’t afford that degree of perfection in landscaping here. And they had it naturally, complete with waterfall and wild peacocks.

Though I don’t suppose to claim a balanced ecosystem as somehow neglected. It’s balanced, until man tramples upon it. Which is why I attempted to compare the neglected garden with your concern for the growing insanity in society.

There is untainted balance in your example, not neglect.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Edit: I’m trying too hard to rationalize my fear. I don’t think fear can be rationalized. I’ll probably be crushed by foolishness, but for whom is it any different? Might as well go down with guns blazing.

. . .

Balance requires complexity. Complexity too great for authority. Even the alpha dog will not take a bone away from the lowliest female of the pack—it’s not his place. It’s when that complexity is disrespected that insanity comes about. That’s when people start seeing weeds wherever there are competing elements. There becomes only one right way, one path—the untainted.

That disrespect is what will eventually drive me to fight till the end, or just give up. Not sure which. They seem to be the same in a way. I might lose the ability to respect the complexity myself, I should give up before then so that I don’t add to the insanity—but then even it is just a part of the complexity. . .

Balance is no different than weeds infecting a garden. If there are no weeds, “because there is no gardener to label any as such”, then there cannot possibly be balance if there is no balance-r to label it as such, making sense of it all.

You say complexity, I say noise. You say it’s too great for authority, I say it is subject to the inclinations of authority, an authority that makes sense where there was none before. Complexity cannot make sense. Noise does not author.

And when I say inclinations of authority, that includes inclinations such as deceit, desire, ego, lust, love, kindness, care, charity… All the inclinations of authority. What complexity is too great for hope? What noise can stand against empathy?

Reality, maybe.

We’re going to need to find a way to be better at being our own authorities, or we’re going to fall under the incompetence of lonely leaders and neglectful gods.

It’s that lack of self-authority that I see in people that strains my will. Everyone is so broken in some way I can’t even understand. And I’m joining them. There’s no natural drive, it’s all based on codes—all based on obedience. Deep fear, cloaked with shallow good intentions. You don’t have to dig much to find the hatred people hold in their hearts. You just have to show them something real. It’s like we all know we’re doomed, but pretending we’re not out of politeness. And when somebody’s rude you have to burn them, so you can forget them, so you can forget what’s real.

@zophu ”...lonely leaders and neglectful gods.”

Are you angry at a God you don’t believe in for not acting the way you suppose it should?

@zophu “It’s that lack of self-authority that I see in people that strains my will.”

Agreed. But authority is made manifest upon a code. Without a code, no authority may be expressed, communicated, or acted upon. Otherwise, without a code, all we can do is react. With a code, we act and enact, affecting a change.

@zophu “Everyone is so broken in some way I can’t even understand. And I’m joining them.”

It sucks to be the footstool of chaos, complexity, noise. We look to them for hope, yet they are by definition, hope-less.

@zophu “There’s no natural drive, it’s all based on codes…”

It is very natural for living creatures to have their essence based upon a code, a genetic code. There is nothing unnatural about code whatsoever. It is the fundamental essence of natural drive.

@zophu ”...all based on obedience.”

All based on direction. A direction authoritatively cast upon disobedient chaos. Exercise authority of authorship over the random flux of complexity and noise. It is the responsibility of living things to do this.

@zophu “Deep fear, cloaked with shallow good intentions.”

Only because they lack understanding, and/or refuse to acknowledge their role in troubled times, or accept responsibility for their thought/actions, claiming instead to be victims of cause/reactions.

@zophu “You just have to show them something real.”

There is nothing more real than a codified thought creating a plan of action to manifest a physical reality out of pure chaos.

@zophu “It’s like we all know we’re doomed, but pretending we’re not out of politeness.”

I have found life in truth. There is nothing polite about truth whatsoever. It’s the scariest monster I’ve ever had the ignorance to do battle with. It devoured me slowly, painfully over many years. It chewed me up and crushed my ego. And so I live. Life is good.

@zophu “And when somebody’s rude you have to burn them, so you can forget them, so you can forget what’s real.”

There is nothing we have to do in this life except for one thing… face the monster of Truth.

Eesh, okay. Line up the bullet points:

- Gods are always “neglectful” because they do not exist except when created by those who believe in them, but rarely act for them to the grand degree that is expected of them. So, they are always “neglectful.” By their suffering believers’ observations at least.

- Awareness, profound observation of one’s life down to the most menial of actions—that defines self authority; not stagnant sets of rules for people to follow. To use only codes for complex decision-making is like using only a hammer to build a glass statue.

- Complexity is reality, reality is complexity. Complexity is life, life is complexity. There can be no hopelessness there, because there can be no certainty there. The hopelessness comes with simplification: codes that inevitably dictate doom under certain circumstances. You have simplified complexity by labeling it as chaos. “Chaos” is the most simple thing there is. Open your mind. It is the simplifiers that will break complexity—they will break life. It is their broken-nature that I fear.

- What you don’t understand is that code is defined by observation. The majority of existence escapes observation. You glorify order and forsake complexity, condemning anything less simple than code to be chaos. The vast majority of patterns on which we live are not observed at all. And no one thing whatsoever will ever be completely codified because of its seeming infinity of relations within existence. A code is a snapshot of what was, not what is or will be.

- Again, you observe therefore there are codes. A stalking wolf has no code, only scents. You see the scents, the directions, the patterns of behavior, and thus codes. You’re projecting your own limited observation on existence as a whole, forcing it to obey your codes. Accept that it isn’t just noise that you fear accepting, it’s a song that you can’t own, control, or maybe even hear.

- For one who holds the greater existence to codes, you certainly deny them when they become too relevant. Causes/reactions. That is existence. It can’t be codified, because it is far too complex, but that’s how it works. If you can’t see that, I’m not sure what to say. People are lost in fear because they hold codes that dictate to them that they are doomed. “Must be this, must be that—else all is more lost than lost!” To be constantly aware and profoundly observant is to be constantly losing and gaining new codes, thus never being trapped in codes that contradict your very existence.

- Codified thoughts often conflict with each other. The one that’s more real is the first one to change in adaptation, thus making it not a code at all, until it’s observed again—but that exterior observation is not necessary for it to have action. The tree that falls in the woods always makes a sound, whether there’s someone there to codify it or not.

- I’ll be polite.

- Burn the monster. Right.

What do I have to expect from gods? What do frogs expect from humans? But humans act upon frogs nonetheless, intentionally.

Awareness is awareness, and nothing more. The senses have reacted to a cause, and nothing more. Awareness is not to be conflated as “profound observation”. Profound observation is more akin to analysis. Profound (meaningful) denotes a meaningful observation. And that meaning is not provided by the deaf dumb blind complexity, unless you propose that complexity can speak and communicate meaning to humans. I do not.

Profound observation of one’s life is a meaningful observation (analysis). This can only be accomplished by codifying an observation into a meaningful statement… thought. Complexity cannot think. Meaning is not a stagnant set of rules.

Complexity is reality? Yes, both irreducible complexity and reducible complexity. Code is always reducible to a factor of one bit. Lava flows are not, and neither are solar flares. But lava flows and solar flares are nothing but chaotic noise until someone analyzes an observation and describes it with code. Code is not the observation. Code describes the observation.

“Chaos” is the most simple thing there is.??? Not. Humans cannot duplicate it. Computer hackers make their living upon this acknowledgment. A true random number generator has never been created. Chaos is the holy grail of encryption technologies. It cannot be achieved.

@zophu “What you don’t understand is that code is defined by observation”

You’re completely turned around on this. Mind defines observation with code. Code is not defined… Code is a tool used for defining.

Observation is defined with code. See that “big” “round” “thing” in the “sky”... Let’s call it the “sun”. The sun is defined, not the code. The mind does the defining with code. Code is a tool used to define observations. It is the only tool that can be used for defining.

@zophu “You glorify order and forsake complexity, condemning anything less simple than code to be chaos.”

Don’t read so much of your personal perspective into my comments. It prevents you from hearing me. I do not “glorify”. I acknowledge. I do not “forsake” complexity. I recognize it for what it is (lava flows, solar flares). I do not “condemn” chaos. I acknowledged it as the most complex object in the universe. Humans cannot make it.

And I must say, that your use of words like “glorify”, “forsake”, and “condemn” reveal just how much religiosity (dogma) you foist upon your own gods of chaos (complexity).

@zophu “The majority of existence escapes observation”

Did you just make an observation about that which “escapes observation”? And did you just do this by codifying that observation into a statement about it?

@zophu “The vast majority of patterns on which we live are not observed at all.”

Agreed. But I hope you don’t think I equate patterns with codes. I do not.

@zophu “And no one thing whatsoever will ever be completely codified because of its seeming infinity of relations within existence.”

Agreed. We can only codify what is observed and hypothesized.

@zophu “A code is a snapshot of what was, not what is or will be.”

You need to learn more about codes before making such bold claims about them. The code I write to you this very moment describes “what is” in my mind at this very moment. Architectural plans describe “what will be” in the future physical reality when the building is completed. Codes describe what does and does not exist. And the building would never stand if it had not first been codified.

That’s how DNA works too. It defines a being before that being ever exists. Life is literally spoken into physical existence. All created objects are spoken into existence with codified descriptions of thoughts about them. First the thought, then the creation. The tool that bridges the two is code.

@zophu “A stalking wolf has no code, only scents. You see the scents, the directions, the patterns of behavior, and thus codes.”

DNA is a code. Wolves have DNA. The wolf’s olfactory genes and patterns of behavior are defined by its DNA. DNA defines the Wolf-ness in wolves, and specifically distinguishes it from Goat-ness.

@zophu “You’re projecting your own limited observation on existence as a whole, forcing it to obey your codes.”

The wolf is a wolf because it was coded to be a wolf. It is what it is, nothing was forced here, until humans genetically create a wolf in the lab. And if that ever happens, it will be accomplished by forcing the code to say “wolf”.

@zophu “Accept that it isn’t just noise that you fear accepting, it’s a song that you can’t own, control, or maybe even hear.”

I accept the existence of noise (insanity). I also define my interactions with it. I accomplish this with code. This allows me to write “my own” song, hear it in my head, and share it with those whom I deem fit to share it with. I share this song with you. Not all are fit to hear it. Some couldn’t even if they tried. Can an infant really “hear” Mozart? Mozart is just noise to an infant. Shall we then deny Mozart?

@zophu “That is existence. It can’t be codified, because it is far too complex, but that’s how it works.”

Again, you are codifying your observations about existence, by claiming it cannot be codified. You’ve made a statement about existence, and you did this with code.

That’s how the laws of the universe were defined too.

Robert Anton Wilson calls it The Reality Tunnel. We all have our separate little reality tunnels that we look through. We bring them together, describing them with code, and we call that Existence. The only thing that exists to us is that which can be observed and hypothesized about. Part of the hypothesis is that there are many observations that are errant, and many that have not yet been observed. The hypothesis is well founded with centuries of precedent to make the hypothesis upon.

@zophu “People are lost in fear because they hold codes that dictate to them that they are doomed.”

I fear nothing. And it’s specifically because I realize that code is a two way street. Some are dictated to me. And some are dictated by me.

I would hope that when you say “People”, that you really mean “Some People”. You can isolate your intended meaning with a more precise usage of the code you author about your observations. Or you can continue to make global, generic generalizations about everyone (except yourself), judging all from a perch on high (sitting next to the gods of complexity), forcing life and creation to obey the code your author about existence… as you observe it through your personal reality tunnel.

@zophu “Codified thoughts often conflict with each other.”

Yes, they do. Just like genes. Sometimes the healthy genes win out. Sometimes the cancer kills.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

A code rules the conversion of one piece of information into another. Code is only a part of observation. Observation is only a part of intelligence. Intelligence is only a part of existence. You simplify the distant and overcomplicate the immediate by believing code is what rules existence. It is only what rules our perception.

The paradox you’re getting hung up on is the fact that existence only “exists” within our perception. It doesn’t truly, and our awareness tells us this, but our logic conflicts necessarily with that awareness because it states that we only see what is in our perception thus “everything” must be our perception.

It’s when you look at your perception as a part of the whole that things become easier to work with, easier to codify.

I understand that my immediate—my code—is ridiculously small compared to existence. And I understand that yours is as well, regardless of how it may compare to mine. That’s why I’m not afraid to make “generalizations” when expressing my thoughts, it’s just another node of information going into the infinite equation ready to be codified and re-codified over and over again until it is either made useful or passes out of existence-perception.

You can factor any variable you want into any equation as long as it’s big enough to never be solved. Don’t you think that may be what you do sometimes with your codes about code? Just sticking them into an equation so large your stance can never be proven wrong?

I say that is foolish. To believe something is right because it can’t be proven wrong. You need it to be right. Where by my belief system I need to be wrong. I have to be. There are too many variables for me not to be. The same goes for you, I believe. We codify existence, and although it appears that our perception is existence it is truly just the lens. Existence does not codify itself, even if our perception does.

I wish you wouldn’t misrepresent my comments. I never claimed that code “rules existence”. I never claimed existence only exists within our perception either. I don’t know if you’re baiting me, trolling me, or just not caring enough to pay attention.

Let’s get this clear. There is no code in a rock. There is no code in a pulsar. SETI would be out of business very quickly if that were so.

Sentient intelligence affects a change upon existence with the tool of code. You called it a lens… funny. I’ve often stated that Code is a material lens that allows us to view the immaterial realm of Information. Code is just a tool. Tools don’t rule anything.

And code doesn’t rule our perception either. It may however, be the design of our sensory perception equipment, allowing perception to be the genesis for authoring additional code about our observations.

And the “infinite equation” is not “ready to be codified. If it is an equation, then it has already been codified. It wouldn’t be an equation otherwise. Do you think that math is just floating around in the cosmos waiting for people to observe it?

But codes are rules. They’re rules of conversion.

I think creation is just complex adaptation. We don’t actually create anything, we reorganize. We don’t bring the immaterial into material, we just become aware of new material. Our awareness of what we are aware of proves that there are things that we are not aware of that is just as real.

It’s statements like ”Code is a material lens that allows us to view the immaterial realm of Information” that made me think you were getting hung up on the perception-existence paradox. I was talking about perception being the lens, by the way; codes are only a part of perception.

You realize that if our perceptions naturally view code, (which they do,) we would see code everywhere we looked? People see faces on the moon, and you see intelligent design in DNA. It’s a more intelligent version of the same foolishness, I think.

“Do you think that math is just floating around in the cosmos waiting for people to observe it?”

No, I thought that was exactly what you believed. There is material outside of perception. When we discover that material it triggers basic codes that we use, that’s when that material becomes information—not before. Then we analyze that basic information (light, infrared, heat etc..) and recodify it into more useful information, (star, planet, whatever.)

Can you refer me to any materials you think I should read that sympathize with your point of view? I do care and I am very curious.

Codes are pictures. They are pictures of instructions or thought. They are symbols of other agents, but they are not the agent themselves. Image/Object relationship. Code is an image of an object.

Code is a material/physical object. Thought/Rules are immaterial/non physical agents.

The process of bringing thought in-to-form is called information… from the Latin informare.

Therefor, material code (a metaphorical lens/tool) allows us to view the immaterial realm of thought/rules through the process of in-form-ation.

“We don’t actually create anything, we reorganize. We don’t bring the immaterial into material, we just become aware of new material.”

That accounts for the glue, paper, and ink that makes a book. But it does not account for the thought that the book represents. The book represents a thought, but the book is not a thought. The book is a reorganization of material substance. The thought is a creation of an immaterial agent. Without the codified thought, a book would be nothing more than a rock. Code is the smoking gun that allows us to see the difference between a book and a rock.

Perception requires one to perceive a thing. That is fostered by awareness stimulated by the senses. But awareness is not thinking. A spider lands on your arm and gets swatted away without thinking about it. The senses provided all the stimulation necessary for cause/reaction to take its course. No code required.

But perception requires thinking beyond simple awareness. Perception is a process of thinking about observable phenomenon. Thinking requires a code to think the though upon. Try it. Try to think of anything without describing it with language. It cannot be done.

It’s the difference between cause/reaction and thought/action. Thought action looks around for the spider after being swatted, reaches for the bug spray, and hunts for his friends. Cause/reaction doesn’t.

“You realize that if our perceptions naturally view code, (which they do,) we would see code everywhere we looked?”

We don’t. There are extremely specific protocols that justify a thing as being called a code. And those protocols distinguish code from templates, fractals, blueprints, or patterns. Those objects are not codes. It’s unfortunate that some people conflate these things as synonymous.

“People see faces on the moon,”

There is nothing about a perceived face on the moon that justifies it being considered a code. People might mistakenly believe it is a code, but they cannot back it up scientifically.

”...and you see intelligent design in DNA.”

Codes are authored, not designed. When we see a code, and confirm it as a code via the Shannon/Yockey protocols, then we must infer sentient authorship. No other mechanism has been demonstrated to produce code. DNA satisfies the Shannon/Yockey protocols. That’s why it’s called the Genetic Code, rather than the Genetic Pattern, or Blueprint, or Template. It used to be called the Genetic Blueprint many years ago. But that has been soundly refuted as false. See Yockey

It’s much deeper than simply shluffing me off as an Intelligent Design proponent. I don’t believe in Intelligent Design. I fear however, that your lack of knowledge about the subject will prevent you from labeling me as anything but. I believe in Intelligent Evolution.

“There is material outside of perception. When we discover that material it triggers basic codes that we use, that’s when that material becomes information—not before.”

You have some interesting perspectives of the subject. I am unaware of any Information Science that teaches such things. Is this your personal view, or is someone actually teaching these things to you? You claim that “material becomes information”. Where did you learns such a thing?

“Information is information. Not energy and not matter. Any materialism that does not allow for this cannot survive in the present.”
Norbert Weiner, Cybernetics p147

“Then we analyze that basic information (light, infrared, heat etc..) ”

Information is not energy or matter. Information is a process of codifying thoughts about energy and matter. Thought in-to-form… in-form-ation.

”...curious”

Cybernetics

A Mathematical Theory of Communication

Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life

Anything Barbara McClintock or start with Gifts of Speech

Bhartrihari

The Invisible Landscape

Anything Aldus Huxley

I believe you reach far into complexity, too far to form your discoveries fully, yet you take what you find as fully-formed. With complex systems, you can find all sorts of patterns that sympathize with many conflicting (thus mostly incorrect) views; with ridiculously complex systems, you can find all sorts of patterns that you would be willing to call codes that sympathize with many conflicting (thus mostly incorrect) views. The sun used to be a god, as you well know. That’s why we mustn’t believe in things without question, that’s dogma.

The paper and ink are not fundamentally different than the thoughts written; they’re just much more simple. Reflect on how much reactivity multiplies complexity. The paper and ink react to the thoughts, the thoughts react to countless other things—including other thoughts which react in turn to other things, and so on. Life codes are just more reactive than simpler “materials.” They have many diverse “particles” yet they are in balanced relation to each other, thus they are very reactive (because of diversity) and stable (because of unity.) That’s what makes life significant, not some kind of authorship.

My understanding of life is simple, but open to misunderstood complexity; if I made my understanding complex, it would shut out potential for more correct understanding when the time came for it to be needed. I must balance diversity and unity, you see.

People like making gods. And I suspect you’ve found a way to justify yours by making him extra complex so he can be tied into even our modern understandings of nature. God Author of Life Code—existence proven by extra special patterns and the apparent originality of thought.

Having said that, I’ll add these materials to my reading list :)

@zophu “The paper and ink are not fundamentally different than the thoughts written; they’re just much more simple.”

Oh dear. Can you point to any paper and ink that has ever written a thought? How about a chisel and stone? Perhaps a burning fire can author smoke signals that send a message across the valley to warn a village of an approaching storm. Did the MP3 write the song?

The medium is not the message @zophu.

@zophu “With complex systems, you can find all sorts of patterns that sympathize with many conflicting (thus mostly incorrect) views;”

Patterns don’t sympathize.

@zophu “with ridiculously complex systems, you can find all sorts of patterns that you would be willing to call codes that sympathize with many conflicting (thus mostly incorrect) views.”

I would never be willing to call a pattern a code. Patterns and codes are complete opposites. Conflating them illustrates a lack of knowledge about what each of those things are. It also fosters support for ancient myth and folklore of whispering streams, talking trees, and burning bushes that somehow give instructions to birth a violent nation.

Tree Rings do not tell us about the Growing Seasons. Nature doesn’t speak.

@zophu “My understanding of life is simple, but open to misunderstood complexity”

Misunderstood complexity is believing that patterns can be conflated as code. Why are you open to it? They are complete opposites. And there are mechanisms that can be used to determine the differences. It’s simple.

@zophu “People like making gods.”

Yes, they often make them out of complexity.

@zophu “And I suspect you’ve found a way to justify yours by making him extra complex so he can be tied into even our modern understandings of nature.”

The God I know has nothing to do with complexity. Your suspicions are mistaken, for you insist that code is some type of “extra special patterns”. If you are reading my comments, you will note that I’ve consistently said that codes are not patterns. If you’re not reading my comments, then we can have no discussion on this topic. But please, at least stop telling me that I believe that patterns are codes, when I’ve made it clear numerous times that they are not.

You don’t know how I came to believe in what I believe in. Stop acting like you do. It’s rather silly of you to reduce two decades of study to my misunderstanding of complexity by not being able to tell the difference between codes and patterns. It is clear to me that you don’t have a clue. You’re only trying to cover ignorance on the subject by repeatedly accusing me of believing something I’ve already denied.

Complexity consists of many different parts assembling by chance to make a whole.

Complexity is irreducible. Code is always reducible down to a factor of 1 bit.

Complexity cannot be copied. Codes can always be copied exactly.

Complexity only represents itself. Code always represents something other than itself.

Complexity does not require an alphabet, or sender mechanism, nor error correction, redundancy, noise reduction, receiver, syntax, semantics, or mapping faculties from code A to B. Code requires all of these mechanisms. There is a vast chasm between code and complexity.

Please stop saying that I don’t recognize the differences. I’m not the one who doesn’t see the “fundamental difference” between a book and a rock.

I never tried to hide my ignorance, I just didn’t show any shame for it. Thank you for being so patient. Although, you do seem to enjoy having the semantics on your side.

When I use the word complexity, I mean complexity. I mean something that can not be understood, or is at least very difficult to understand. There doesn’t have to be a god in a person’s life. I think you may be counter-projecting. I don’t need to understand. I don’t need certainty. That’s why I don’t need a god. It’s the only reason anyone ever wants one.

Codes are the simplification of complexity. It’s useful to simplify for practical interaction with the natural world. (And some fairly constant simplification is necessary, [I don’t consider that blasphemy, lol]) But that doesn’t mean any part of the natural world is actually simple. Codes do not form any ultimate fabric of reality, only our perception. I can’t get over the notion that somewhere along the way, you got hung up on the perception-existence paradox at least a few times. There’s no other way you could elevate rules that apply strongly only to perception to apply strongly to existence as a whole.

And with the book thing. Do you not see that the paper and ink is just very, very, SUPER-VERY much less reactive than the thoughts that put the words down on paper? You don’t have to glorify creativity to make it mean something special. Thoughts are still just reactions, and that in no way makes them insignificant.

There are people who have to link everything good in their lives with their dogmatic codes in order for them to even begin to enjoy them—let alone understand them—don’t be like that. There’s no reason to fear chaos. We are surrounded in chaos, we are chaos. We’ve just rendered some of it into things that we can work with. The order is only in our minds. It’s easy to get our minds mixed up with the outside reality, but they are only a very small part of that reality. That’s why we can’t leave it up to gods to help us deal with it. It’s up to us.

By the way, about the moon-face thing not being a code :-) Just because it wasn’t man-made like my face here doesn’t mean it’s any less of a code. We make it when we perceive it. Authorship is not some holy essence imbued in anything that has been intentionally altered or “created” by intelligence. Do you understand how much intelligent creativity relies upon accidents? Hell, do you know how much genetic evolution relies on accidents? Is that a part of your god’s authorship?

Reality is complexity. Perception simplifies complexity with code in order to make it easier to work with. Creation is not authorship anymore than leaning to one side in order to fart is authorship—it’s just adaptation. We adapt ourselves, we adapt our environment; our environment and ourselves are one—it’s all just varying levels of complexity-of-our-awareness. Simplicity is a necessary illusion; we must avoid making it too much of a delusion if we are to remain able to adapt. Simplicities—codes—lose their relevancy very quickly, even though they are priceless things to have at the right times.

So, let’s try to work around my ignorance here. Instead of picking this apart, why not try to teach me something new? I’ve been reading through some of the things you sent me, but there’s so much irrelevant stuff to get through. I’ll look for abstract versions of the text you linked me to.

”Complexity consists of many different parts assembling by chance to make a whole.”
Chain reactions start by chance too, who’s to say intelligence isn’t a more complex, stable chain reaction?

”Complexity is irreducible. Code is always reducible down to a factor of 1 bit.”
But code is the reduction of complexity.

”Complexity cannot be copied. Codes can always be copied exactly.”
Reality can’t be copied, but perceptions of reality can be.

”Complexity only represents itself. Code always represents something other than itself.”
Then maybe perception itself is code.

”Complexity does not require an alphabet, or sender mechanism, nor error correction, redundancy, noise reduction, receiver, syntax, semantics, or mapping faculties from code A to B. Code requires all of these mechanisms. There is a vast chasm between code and complexity.”
If that’s how you want to look at it, than there is a vast chasm is between reality and perception. Why then believe anything with any certainty? Whether you like it or not, theism requires certainty.

@zophu “I don’t need certainty. That’s why I don’t need a god.”

Are you certain you don’t need a god?

@zophu “It’s the only reason anyone ever wants one.”

And this… are you certain of this as well?

@zophu “Codes are the simplification of complexity.”

You seem so certain about this. Can you provide me with any references besides your own personal uncertain certainty?

@zophu “Codes do not form any ultimate fabric of reality, only our perception.”

Codes don’t form our perceptions. They describe our perceptions. Our minds form code.

@zophu “I can’t get over the notion that somewhere along the way, you got hung up on the perception-existence paradox at least a few times.”

Yes, I know you can’t get over that notion. You’re hung up on it, despite the numerous efforts I’ve made to illustrate differently.

@zophu “There’s no other way you could elevate rules that apply strongly only to perception to apply strongly to existence as a whole.”

Sure there is. You simply can’t get over the notion that I don’t fit into the box you wish me to fit into. And that prevents you from conversing on this subject intelligently, repeating yourself again and again, as if by saying that I believe something enough times, then somehow I’ll start to believe it. That’s some religion you got there!

@zophu “There’s no other way…”

Are you certain of this as well?

@zophu “Do you not see that the paper and ink is just very, very, SUPER-VERY much less reactive than the thoughts that put the words down on paper?”

Uh… No. For the thoughts can exist without the paper/ink. Do you not see that?

@zophu “You don’t have to glorify creativity to make it mean something special.”

Wha? You are rife with paradox zophu, and very entertaining with some of the things you say. Last I heard, “to make it mean something special” IS TO “glorify” something.

And besides, what in the world have I glorified? I’m acknowledging reality. Acknowledgment is not glorification. If anyone is glorifying something, it is you glorifying complexity, by claiming complexity is capable of doing what it has never shown itself to do… that being… author code.

@zophu “Thoughts are still just reactions…”

It’s very easy to confuse complexity for code. Your earlier comments suggested that you were concerned about this truancy. Please consider the ramifications of your statement. If thoughts are just reactions, then not only is there no difference between cause/reaction and thought/action, but no thinking person on the planet would ever be responsible for their actions. Why? Because they wouldn’t be actions at all… only reactions. And since we’re just reacting, then how can we be held responsible for crimes committed against humanity?

It’s a form of claiming “The Devil made me do it”. And I know you don’t believe in the Devil… do you?

I am of the mindset that we are responsible for our actions, and should be held accountable to them accordingly (thoughtfully). Specifically because (as I have previously noted) there is a huge difference between cause/reaction and thought/action.

But, perhaps you are correct, and your next response will simply be a thought/reaction in response to my comments here. You have therefor reduced me to a little jumping spider that you automatically swat at when noticed. And all this time I believed we were having a thoughtful discussion, where we act to communicate with one another (expressing our thoughts). Silly me, we’re only reacting. How empowering, to know that I somehow control your thoughts by causing you to react. Think about it.

@zophu “There are people who have to link everything good in their lives with their dogmatic codes…”

You really need to educate yourself about codes a bit more before making such certain claims about them.

@zophu “There’s no reason to fear chaos. We are surrounded in chaos, we are chaos.”

You have no idea what my thoughts are about chaos. Have no fear that I somehow fear chaos. And if you knew more about chaos, and code, you would not make such statements. But alas, you don’t, and so you shall continue to believe what you believe, never acknowledging the realities that you have yet to perceive. I think they call that dogma.

I’ve provided you with some start up materials to consider. Please consider them carefully. Opportunity is upon you.

@zophu “The order is only in our minds.”

Where exactly is this mind you speak of? Can you point to it? May I hold it? Does order spill upon the floor during brain surgery? Who has seen the mind, and the order you claim is held within it? Certainly you wouldn’t dream of believing in something that cannot be held or seen… would you?

@zophu “Do you understand how much intelligent creativity relies upon accidents?”

No, I don’t. Intelligent creativity may sometimes benefit from thinking about accidents. But the accidents themselves are in no way responsible for intelligent creativity. Accidents (chaos) cannot create. Only sentient beings can create, and sometimes they do this by thinking about accidents.

@zophu “Hell, do you know how much genetic evolution relies on accidents?”

None at all. Have you read up on your genetics lately? The term Random Mutation is rapidly becoming extinct. Please read Barbara McClintock, Hubert Yockey, Wes Warren and James Schapiro. It’s not my job to educate you. You can argue with them if you like, or look up any myriad of my past posts on genetics and evolution. I’m not getting into that here with you. Or if you have some education on the subject beyond Richard Dawkins standing on his YouTube Pulpit preaching to the masses, then please share what you know. I’d appreciate it if you referenced peer reviewed scientists.

@zophu “Is that a part of your god’s authorship?”

Yes, but not in the manner in which you perceive. And I have little faith that you have the ears to hear about it, and therefor I have little interest in telling you about it. You may search my past posts to learn more about what I know of genetic authorship, and even what I believe God to be.

@zophu “Chain reactions start by chance too, who’s to say intelligence isn’t a more complex, stable chain reaction?”

Who’s to say? Answer the question “Who are you?” and you will know. For it is you who says such things. So all you need to do is explain a mechanism that accounts for the Who in You, or the I in zophu. When you have demonstrated that mechanism after testing your hypothesis with the scientific method, then you will truly have the answer to your question. If you are setting out to reduce the ”I” to a product of chaos and complexity, and if you succeed, then don’t forget to prepare your Nobel Prize Speech. For you will have succeeded at proving that which has never been demonstrated. But go ahead and keep believing it nonetheless. I’m sure that believing something hard enough will make it come true.

@zophu “But code is the reduction of complexity.”

You never cease to amaze me with the things you say. Last I heard, code was a tool used to describe complexity. I didn’t know that it actually reduced it. How cool! I can reduce the entire universe to a simple equation. Fascinating. All this time I thought the equation described the universe, never realizing that it was the universe. Fascinating zophu.

@zophu “Reality can’t be copied, but perceptions of reality can be.”

Codified perceptions can be mapped directly from alphabet A to alphabet B. “See Spot Run” means the same thing in English, Japanese, French, or German. The code changes, but the thought it represents is identical. That’s the scientific definition of code. A mapping from probability space A to probability space B.

@zophu “Then maybe perception itself is code.”

Perception is a comparison to past experiential awareness. I believe it is the first step in the description process. We first compare the experiential awareness to our built in data bank of past experiential awareness. If we find a match, we label it as “round”. If we don’t find a match, then we cannot perceive the phenomenon.

There is a story about the Botany Bay. The ship was landing in a cove of primitive natives. The Botany Bay was coming to destroy them. Yet sailing into the cove, the crew was amazed that the natives did not notice them. The natives literally did not perceive the entrance of the Botany Bay into the cove because they had nothing in their mental data banks to compare that experience with. By the time they saw the sailors shooting at them from the shore it was too late.

Likewise, in our modern era, we could not see the infra red spectrum of light put out by galaxies, until someone developed the concept of seeing it first in their mind. Upon which, instrumentation could be built, thus allowing us to perceive of that which was first conceived.

There are realities all around us zophu. But we will not perceive them until we first conceive them. Most people claim, “I’ll believe it when I see it”. We may consider the opposite statement as well, “I’ll see it when I believe it”.

I really don’t understand when people can’t let it go. I was harassed on here earlier today because a member didn’t like my opinion on something.
Its a website where you ask questions. You should expect to get a lot of different answers.

But yeah, I let things go easily.

@meagan how were you harassed?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Some lovely little woman decided to blast me on my comments page, taking something too personally.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Alright. I’ve made the mistake of trying to argue with your science. You have too much education (which I assume is legitimate) wrapped up in the philosophical beliefs I’ve been trying to get at. I’m obviously not qualified to question your understanding of code or information or whatever whether your understandings are wise or not. And in trying to express my philosophical viewpoints on what you are saying, I must use terms that we don’t agree on the meanings of. (Complete, concise definitions would be great for future reference, by the way. Your semantics are advanced, or at least uncommon.)

So as to annoy you a little less, I’ll just address a few things I think I can say something about without misusing many of your terms, too much at least.

*“It’s very easy to confuse complexity for code. Your earlier comments suggested that you were concerned about this truancy. Please consider the ramifications of your statement. If thoughts are just reactions, then not only is there no difference between cause/reaction and thought/action, but no thinking person on the planet would ever be responsible for their actions. Why? Because they wouldn’t be actions at all… only reactions. And since we’re just reacting, then how can we be held responsible for crimes committed against humanity?”.

That’s right. No human can be held independently accountable for their “misdeeds.” Blame is a utilitarian thing. Retribution is a utilitarian thing. Guilt, resentment, condemnation, reverence, shame, etc.. These are utilitarian things, not a big part of some universal law governing intelligence. We punish, not to hurt people because they “must be hurt,” but to alter (or attempt to alter) behavior. When one is punished, it is for the community’s sake—and usually the punished’s sake as well—not because they are evil people who made evil choices based on their evil free-will which is somehow magically immune to the influences of the environment. Your existentialism and morality are getting mixed up

I again state that you are under one or more delusions that have been conditioned into cultures to promote subservience (not that any of us aren’t, I’d just like to call attention to this one.) There is no ultimate worth to a human being, not any we can determine at least. Responsibility is an illusion. Free will is an illusion. Certainty is an illusion. Though, they are all useful illusions almost all of the time. I don’t condemn them. I say only that we should not hold them as delusions, at least not when we approach subjects as complex as existential views.

Thoughts are reactions, just like everything else. We perceive things the way we do, not because it makes us apt to come to correct conclusions about the universe, but because it has helped us survive in more “primitive” environments long enough to get here. But now that we are here, it is necessary that we come to more correct conclusions about existence beyond the necessities of the environments we have inhabited before. That means we have to look beyond many illusions that are otherwise very useful, even necessary to have when not viewing things existentially. You see, that’s where I’ve been getting hung up on you being hung up on the perception-existence thing. I feel like you’re not looking beyond the useful illusions of the immediate environment when looking at the greater environment, even though they are not relevant to the greater environment. You’re not disproving this with any corrections of words I may misuse like “code” and “pattern.”

I’ll refer to things I’ve said before, when I wasn’t trying so hard to understand your more scientific views; I think you hold humanity lowly, and I’m kinda certain that is related to your belief in omnipotent intelligence. I’m also pretty certain that is foolish. And overall a not good thing, at least not for culture anyway. I guess it’s okay if you hold your belief yourself. Honestly, all this prodding was just to try and understand your “sickness” a little better. I don’t mean to disrespect your knowledge.

I am open to there being omnipotent intelligence. Also, the thought/action idea is also appealing, I guess. I just don’t see a reason that they should be true. I see reasons to believe in them, just not reasons that they should be considered right or healthy to believe in. Not altruistically healthy, anyway. My personal life would very much improve of I allowed myself consciously unchecked certainties. I’ll probably resort to it eventually. . . Only the selfish survive; that’s the problem..

@meagan I’m sorry about that. Sucks when it happens. I’ve been known to take things too personally as well. Not a pretty side of me, and something I must continually work on. Kudos to you for seeing it for what it is, and having the maturity to handle it delicately.

I don’t know why this person you speak of took something too personally. But in analyzing myself, I think it is because I’m too comfortable with my ego. Anything that threatens that comfort is deemed as an attack. Little do I realize, that my comfort is only a perceived one. But in reality I’m actually being devoured by the very ego that I thought was bringing me comfort.

My discomfort is actually brought about by my ego biting down harder attempting to prevent me from considering another point of view. My ego prevents me from accepting the thoughts of others, for the thoughts of others are what can kill my ego.

A little less ego, and a little more me… that’s what we need. For if there is more me, then you and me can actually get to know one another and celebrate our differences rather than be threatened by them. Alas, the ego is strong.

@zophu Perhaps my sickness is your cure. You want to believe that thoughts are just reactions, and suggest that “because it has helped us survive in more “primitive” environments long enough to get here.”

But then suggest “But now that we are here, it is necessary that we come to more correct conclusions about existence beyond the necessities of the environments we have inhabited before.”

That’s exactly what noting the difference between cause/reaction and thought/action will do for us.

Cause/Reaction =
hunger/feed, thirsty/drink, itch/scratch, fear/flee, anger/attack, greed/take…

Thought/Action =
hunger/ embrace the art of cooking and fine dining with nutritional considerations, planned meals that stimulate the pallet, and provide opportunity for artistic presentation with table settings, invited guests, good times, shared memories, and what detergent to buy for the dishwasher that is eco friendly yet gets the dishes sparkling clean without spotting.

thirsty/ contextual problem solving to determine whether sugar content is needed for energy, sugarless for diet, electrolytes for dehydration, caffeine for alertness, fruit juice for vitamins, and how much before stomach cramps.

There is a vast chasm between cause/reaction and thought/action. I elevate humanity for having the God-like ability to exercise authority over chaos, bending and molding it to fit a thoughtful purpose, rather than being a victim that hides in a cave in reaction to a lightning storm. This authority is expressed upon a code.

Even if cause/reaction/thought/action are all the same thing, there are undeniable, absolutely necessary benefits to believing otherwise. So, for my life, I have free-will and certainty and things like that. Cause/reaction and thought/action are two very different categories of elements in my practical understanding of things. But when I think existentially, those things do not exist in the same way. I believe there is a balance of practicality and existentialism (which is in a way, just a much greater form of practicality.)

So, you see, I’m not really opposed to separating cause/reaction and thought/action, I just don’t see why that separation should be applied to existence as a whole. Morality is not a primal force, it’s a social construct. Creativity is not an entity separate of the rest of existence, it is a part of it—just as relative as everything else. The significance of these things are created by their relation to our basic survival; but it is for our greater survival that we must look past this relative significance when viewing things that go beyond the basics. And we all have to do that to some extent. Greater survival is soon to become very basic, I suspect.

@zophu “I don’t need certainty. That’s why I don’t need a god.”
@zophu ”...for my life, I have free-will and certainty and things like that. ”

Why don’t we pick this up later, after you’ve made up your mind.

@zophu “But when I think existentially, those things do not exist in the same way.”

So reality is based upon how you think about things? Yes, I’m going to take a break from this discussion and let you think about things. I really don’t have the interest in expanding this conversation to include two of your realities.

@zophu “Greater survival is soon to become very basic, I suspect.”

I should certainly hope so.

It’s been a pleasure zophu. You may have the last word.

Thanks, Reelyz. I ask last only that you consider the difference between reality and ones, inevitably many, perceptions of reality. Then ask yourself what is certainty.