Bootlace fatalities: so you think you know how to tie your shoes?
Last year, while hiking, I had a bootlace snag on a speed hook on the other boot, and went down. It was like a low tackle: your feet stop moving, and your weight is still moving forward. A while before, an acquaintance had inexplicably fallen to his death while working on a roof—wearing workboots. I had a theory, looked online—and found Professor Shoelace: https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/. Fatalities are regular. But though the good professor records them, he doesn’t offer the solution: which is to switch to a one-sided bow, looped only on the outside—my new practice. (You should consider it—may save your life.)
However, he does explain the sad normalcy of bastard bows—slipped granny knots, where the slipped reef knot is the ideal. It lies flatter, and is more secure. I had spent my life tying slipped grannies, and had to carefully rehearse the amended procedure. I fear that the daughter who had so much trouble with bows coming undone was a victim of my misguided tuition.
It was a Transvestite Housewarming Party, put on by me and two room-mates for our new off-campus digs—fascinated as we carved our foam breasts. His girlfriend—Margaret Minsky, if memory serves—stole the show, in knee-high boots and a black leather bikini, carrying a bull-whip. Not actually obeying the premise, but no-one complained. At the party, he was still all about the L5 Society. He swerved to nanotechnology later that year. Smalley became fascinated, then trashed him, en route to a Nobel—while naming Fullerenes after another wild visionary, who thought cities could float in the sky; and really won it only for a fairly obvious generalization of Kekule’s 1865 snake-dream vision. The compulsion to imagine must be honoured, and the compulsion to winnow must as well. Let neither become arrogant; their synergy is intelligence.
I realized I was still somewhat baffled about the thermodynamics of bear spray, and what the pretty graphs really measured, called in Gemini for backup, and… wow. If you read that post more than an hour ago, it’s worth another look.
ReMVIR: the discipline of sensitive engagement, focused by theorems (whether so named or not), which makes communities superconductive of knowledge.
The acronym stands for Resolution by Mutual Verified Iterative Ratiocommunation. Ratiocommunation is understanding perception and its rationale well enough that the agent will acknowledge your expression of them as sound. Iteration zooms in, increasing resolution at the point of divergence until it is clearly imaged.
Operative in many areas; a central activity of real science. The procedure of mutual mind-debugging. Giving it a name, and enjoining the use of a clear label for perceived critical facts, creates a confidence of being heard which changes everything. The set of theorems that need to be identified as points at issue depends on the structures of belief which are being reconciled and fused.
Proof is simply a structure of observations of implicitude which are self-evident to the audience in the context of presentation, extending from a shared knowledge base to the theorems.
I mention this because I have some very important theorems to present, counter-cultural enough that my initial presentation of them here was disallowed on Bayesian grounds of prima facie implausibility (very normal and understandable), and a community amenable to and interested in formalizing a discipline of the communal practice of intelligence creates opportunities that do not otherwise exist.
Congratulation on inventing a word “ratiocommunation” that Google search never heard about. It is a rare achievement.
Apologies if there is a substance behind what you wrote, but to me it mostly sounds like word salad (and possibly AI psychosis). Seems like you are pointing at a concept of “one person understands what the other means” but for some reason you invent complicated words and theorems and proofs.
If you are using an AI, maybe ask it to explain the entire thing using words that a 5 years old would understand?
The crucial recognized requirements are verification & iteration, & by articulating your impression you’re doing some of that. If we persist here, earnestly, one of us will end up corrected, & benefiting—right? Either I have nothing important to say, which I would benefit greatly from realizing, or I haven’t been clear enough (benefit again), or you haven’t understood an actual insight (benefit if it ends up catalyzed). That’s the point. I’m not saying it’s brilliant—it’s simple, not assimilated, & if turned into a protocol which our groggy minds agree to follow, changes behavior & outcomes - & in fact guarantees resolution. As for ratiocommunation: “understand feeling, perception & rationale”; don’t think there was a word clearly meaning that. A template that drives engagement, but in a limited way unless verification is added. We tend to languish in basins of illusory lucidity forever if we don’t offer our conclusions for critique. Real science is based on fervent continual mutual debugging, and the compulsion renders communities superconductive of knowledge. It’s great. Counterfeit sciences where nothing like this happens exist—economics, prominently. That’s a ratiomechanical spec of what real science is, presented for critique; if accepted, one that economics hugely fails, with tragic results—so one whose assimilation would be a revolution. My specimen case is {currency accounting stunts borrowing power} - simple news, verifiable math fact, 204 years old, many proponents, still unassimilated. Currently, mortgage rate is 6.6%; with indexing, 1.8%. It’s a tragedy, and ReMVIR would make it impossible.
The supposed machine or social sense organ just doesn’t work; ReMVIR is the missing line in the software. Debugging isn’t about brilliance—it’s about function.
Could I get you to run this prompt on your AI, & report the output & your reaction?
The prompt:
At current rates − 6.6% mortgage, 3.8% inflation—what rate would an indexed mortgage charge? Please note that conventional definition of “real interest” misses the fact that elimination of 3.8% inflation-offsetting charge also eliminates tax on it: 21% for institutional lenders in USA. There is tax on the tax—an iterative compounding effect which raises the 21% to 27%. 0.27 x 3.8 = 1.026
though, asking AI with such a biased prompt is a bad idea, so I refuse to read the output beyond a skim nor write about my reaction after reading. It also feels disrespectful that you didn’t even offer your opinion and demands the reader’s opinion.
It was a desperate attempt at communication. The rate drops from 6.6 to 1.8 - enough to change the world, an inconceivble bonanza. Mods rejected a straightforward post pointing it out
The prompt isn’t biased. Most people never notice the tax effect.
News too good to believe, because the context seems incomprehensible. Thought getting an AI to say it might forestall rejection.
For the record, I didn’t downvote you. I don’t live in the US and don’t find it immediately worthwhile to understand. I won’t verify the prompt’s truthfulness, but the prompt is biased even if it is all true facts, just by the way it demonstrates the user’s position on the matter. Biased in the sense that it will predictably cause AIs to lean towards one position more than the other.
Bootlace fatalities: so you think you know how to tie your shoes?
Last year, while hiking, I had a bootlace snag on a speed hook on the other boot, and went down. It was like a low tackle: your feet stop moving, and your weight is still moving forward. A while before, an acquaintance had inexplicably fallen to his death while working on a roof—wearing workboots. I had a theory, looked online—and found Professor Shoelace: https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/. Fatalities are regular. But though the good professor records them, he doesn’t offer the solution: which is to switch to a one-sided bow, looped only on the outside—my new practice. (You should consider it—may save your life.)
However, he does explain the sad normalcy of bastard bows—slipped granny knots, where the slipped reef knot is the ideal. It lies flatter, and is more secure. I had spent my life tying slipped grannies, and had to carefully rehearse the amended procedure. I fear that the daughter who had so much trouble with bows coming undone was a victim of my misguided tuition.
I was running downhill holding my 3yo daughter’s hands when this happened to me. Not fun.
Spawn and winnow: Eric Drexler at my party, 1977
It was a Transvestite Housewarming Party, put on by me and two room-mates for our new off-campus digs—fascinated as we carved our foam breasts. His girlfriend—Margaret Minsky, if memory serves—stole the show, in knee-high boots and a black leather bikini, carrying a bull-whip. Not actually obeying the premise, but no-one complained. At the party, he was still all about the L5 Society. He swerved to nanotechnology later that year. Smalley became fascinated, then trashed him, en route to a Nobel—while naming Fullerenes after another wild visionary, who thought cities could float in the sky; and really won it only for a fairly obvious generalization of Kekule’s 1865 snake-dream vision. The compulsion to imagine must be honoured, and the compulsion to winnow must as well. Let neither become arrogant; their synergy is intelligence.
I realized I was still somewhat baffled about the thermodynamics of bear spray, and what the pretty graphs really measured, called in Gemini for backup, and… wow. If you read that post more than an hour ago, it’s worth another look.
My new mantra: “Look past the screen of mirage villains,
to see comrade victims of deception.”
Rewiring my mind, to keep the urgency while hearing the still sad music of humanity.
ReMVIR: the discipline of sensitive engagement, focused by theorems (whether so named or not), which makes communities superconductive of knowledge.
The acronym stands for Resolution by Mutual Verified Iterative Ratiocommunation. Ratiocommunation is understanding perception and its rationale well enough that the agent will acknowledge your expression of them as sound. Iteration zooms in, increasing resolution at the point of divergence until it is clearly imaged.
Operative in many areas; a central activity of real science. The procedure of mutual mind-debugging. Giving it a name, and enjoining the use of a clear label for perceived critical facts, creates a confidence of being heard which changes everything. The set of theorems that need to be identified as points at issue depends on the structures of belief which are being reconciled and fused.
Proof is simply a structure of observations of implicitude which are self-evident to the audience in the context of presentation, extending from a shared knowledge base to the theorems.
I mention this because I have some very important theorems to present, counter-cultural enough that my initial presentation of them here was disallowed on Bayesian grounds of prima facie implausibility (very normal and understandable), and a community amenable to and interested in formalizing a discipline of the communal practice of intelligence creates opportunities that do not otherwise exist.
Congratulation on inventing a word “ratiocommunation” that Google search never heard about. It is a rare achievement.
Apologies if there is a substance behind what you wrote, but to me it mostly sounds like word salad (and possibly AI psychosis). Seems like you are pointing at a concept of “one person understands what the other means” but for some reason you invent complicated words and theorems and proofs.
If you are using an AI, maybe ask it to explain the entire thing using words that a 5 years old would understand?
The crucial recognized requirements are verification & iteration, & by articulating your impression you’re doing some of that. If we persist here, earnestly, one of us will end up corrected, & benefiting—right? Either I have nothing important to say, which I would benefit greatly from realizing, or I haven’t been clear enough (benefit again), or you haven’t understood an actual insight (benefit if it ends up catalyzed). That’s the point. I’m not saying it’s brilliant—it’s simple, not assimilated, & if turned into a protocol which our groggy minds agree to follow, changes behavior & outcomes - & in fact guarantees resolution. As for ratiocommunation: “understand feeling, perception & rationale”; don’t think there was a word clearly meaning that. A template that drives engagement, but in a limited way unless verification is added. We tend to languish in basins of illusory lucidity forever if we don’t offer our conclusions for critique. Real science is based on fervent continual mutual debugging, and the compulsion renders communities superconductive of knowledge. It’s great. Counterfeit sciences where nothing like this happens exist—economics, prominently. That’s a ratiomechanical spec of what real science is, presented for critique; if accepted, one that economics hugely fails, with tragic results—so one whose assimilation would be a revolution. My specimen case is {currency accounting stunts borrowing power} - simple news, verifiable math fact, 204 years old, many proponents, still unassimilated. Currently, mortgage rate is 6.6%; with indexing, 1.8%. It’s a tragedy, and ReMVIR would make it impossible.
The supposed machine or social sense organ just doesn’t work; ReMVIR is the missing line in the software. Debugging isn’t about brilliance—it’s about function.
Could I get you to run this prompt on your AI, & report the output & your reaction?
The prompt:
At current rates − 6.6% mortgage, 3.8% inflation—what rate would an indexed mortgage charge? Please note that conventional definition of “real interest” misses the fact that elimination of 3.8% inflation-offsetting charge also eliminates tax on it: 21% for institutional lenders in USA. There is tax on the tax—an iterative compounding effect which raises the 21% to 27%. 0.27 x 3.8 = 1.026
https://claude.ai/share/8940c08e-c01a-4c41-af9d-6eb77c0c6cbd
though, asking AI with such a biased prompt is a bad idea, so I refuse to read the output beyond a skim nor write about my reaction after reading. It also feels disrespectful that you didn’t even offer your opinion and demands the reader’s opinion.
It was a desperate attempt at communication. The rate drops from 6.6 to 1.8 - enough to change the world, an inconceivble bonanza. Mods rejected a straightforward post pointing it out
The prompt isn’t biased. Most people never notice the tax effect.
News too good to believe, because the context seems incomprehensible. Thought getting an AI to say it might forestall rejection.
Sorry to have annoyed you.
For the record, I didn’t downvote you. I don’t live in the US and don’t find it immediately worthwhile to understand. I won’t verify the prompt’s truthfulness, but the prompt is biased even if it is all true facts, just by the way it demonstrates the user’s position on the matter. Biased in the sense that it will predictably cause AIs to lean towards one position more than the other.