so many words! I’ve definitely found my kin among you guys. Is *this* what people experience when I write a lot? Wow… ok, lemme digest.

so many words! I’ve definitely found my kin among you guys. Is *this* what people experience when I write a lot? Wow… ok, lemme digest.


oh wow – he’s WAY smarter than me with interests in similar topics. LOVE what he says here about GOTO and programming:

His idea of a COMEFROM [an {I came from a GOTO] is simple brilliance. I miss GOTO. Our brains work more like spaghetti code and NOT like object oriented programming. Good to see someone with his caliber of brain-matter spotting a power I’ve noticed forever and bringing it to another level I never thought of… such a simple “finishing of a thought” that I never made. I’m starting to like him already.


I’ll check more of him out later but if I find myself agreeable to more of what he has to say, I think I just might watch his ted talk here. My skepticism is hard to win over but he might just do it.


Seems we’re in the level of “using words properly” . Tricky territory but doable.

The thing is, we’re using the same imperfect tools to describe reality in a fashion we refer to as “objective”.

Can we then say “these imperfect concepts” are more perfect (objective) than “those imperfect concepts” (illusion)?

The same systems (humans) created both.


The world exists whether we’re here to process it or not. I agree.

But we are the processors. The experiencers. The ones talking about it.

Nobody else is. If we’re using imperfect processes to process reality, what else have we to work with?


An alien book of “object fact” didn’t fall into our laps.

We wrote that book. We also wrote fiction.


If we take a direction whereby we attempt to determine:

a) what makes our descriptions of objective reality better than our descriptions of subjective experience ?

That’d be fine.

But our role in the construction of all of this can’t go away. So far, we’re it for all of it.



I don’t want to say “ok then, it’s all an illusion” _nor_ do I want to say “all is exclusively physical” because processes aren’t physical – they’re “happenings”.

But the separating line between “brain and mind” is more the difference between “noun and verb” than it is “true vs illusion”, no?
  OK: I think I found a way I can reconcile choice of words with my own.Consciousness-as-a-fixed-entity is an illusion, BUT
Consciousness-as-a-process is NOT an illusion.I can work with that I think.
  My process of consciousness has always been fragmented and very “internal narrative” heavy. I have an unfortunate excess awareness of the comings and goings of what’s bubbling into my consciousness and out again. It’s very very annoying.I’d love it to come together in a cohesive whole but that hasn’t been my experience unfortunately. For me, it’s always ongoing internal narrative construction and when it’s not, I just feel “split apart”.
  When I look at colors, they “vibrate” of their constituent parts. [not always RGB but whatever my mind figures is good]. I have to ignore that most of the time.Objects have distinctive outlines, likely because I’m very nearsighted and so I have to consciously outline fuzzy objects when the glasses are off.I won’t even go into what sounds + music processing is like. And nerves? the skin nerves at times like to scream all at once. I do lots and lots of conscious ignoring of physical processes.
  The unconscious? I can do nothing about. It does what it does.My point of entry (and there *is* a me there) is when they enter that tiny little realm within which I have _some_ say in the matter. The rest of it just does what it does.
  I don’t experience the constant seamless process. That’s the thing. Maybe you do and perhaps others too and I think that’s marvelous.I was a chronic stutter ’til the 3rd grade. Not as bad as some thankfully. A multiple of possible word choices comes in ALL AT ONCE and I don’t have time to choose.I had to learn to take a small breath. That’s what they taught me. Tiny little breath. Use the little space to slow down my pace. It helped. But whatever it is that pushes out possible word choices mechanically in my brain still likes to show them to me all at once when I’m talking.When I’m writing I have more control. My issue is the “pace”. If I have control of the pace, I can work with whatever the brain’s doing. But if I don’t have control of the pace, it tries to make me do everything at once.
  I don’t control the machine that spits out two dozen word choices, all of which would equally work well to convey *some* kind of thought that I don’t even know what it is fully until I’ve finished, look back and go, “Yeah, I’m ok with that output”.That’s mechanical. The multiple word spitter.But I pick the words from the set.
  The word predictors in AI are getting better though. I was playing with the one Steven Hawking uses on his chair last year. After some training, it does a pretty decent of guessing what might be a set of possible words I could choose from.But I still chose it. That’s my point in this. Maybe some people don’t and just go with the “most popular possible word here”. I feel sorry for them.
  I consider myself a unique amalgam of experiences laid on top of whatever genetic hands were dealt to me.I’ve had millions of situational role models. TV, movies, people experiences, my own thoughts in my head. Maybe billions. Every possible thing I might possibly express is likely pieced together from a slew of models that accumulated over time through my learning processes.

But unique is the key word here. You can get two twins raised identically but they’ll always be looking through different sets of eyes and different nerves and brains.

They’re each unique beings. So even *if* “all is sketched out ahead of time in some way, the UNIQUENESS of each being makes it SEEM LIKE there is free will because you CAN’T predict singularities. Might as well call that free will.

You’re a singularity. Zachary Tanner Lyle is a singularity.

It’s amazing any of us have anything in common at all tbh.

  A somewhat distressing result of this to me though is also the reason why I’m careful what I consume in documentaries and such:

If you get 40 million people to watch a single thing from a single (camera) perspective with a same narrator with the same music following the same logic that they were taught in the same way to process…

… when it comes to *that* particular thing? Their processes *might* work in an identical fashion *because* in that case, they did not take advantage of the native natural uniqueness of their perspectives by instead conforming to a “view in common” with others.

this of course builds subcultures and helps with communication for a shared experience leads to less and less uniqueness, making a “group of people” who can think-as-one about certain things.

So, 1984, while overplayed and overdone as a trope, nevertheless has basic truisms to it.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

one × 3 =

Leave a Reply