Is this anecdotal, or research-based? I’ve always heard somewhat the opposite regarding your second point. Although, I could not find any significant sources on the subject.
gvn
Karma: 1
One day I realized that when asked to explain things to someone, I reach for the precise words in my own private vocabulary to match the idea in my head, as opposed to finding the words that unlock the idea in theirs. Sometimes, when I try to visualize this shift in behavior within myself, I imagine it as the difference between a hammer and a river.
A hammer is a tool that strikes at one point until it pierces straight through, as if nothing were there in the first place. The wood can crack, and the absence becomes a pressure. The hammer’s journey starts and ends in one direction, the only evidence of an other being the force of its strike.
A river meets its banks, and finds the cleanest path around them, with a certain cosmic patience. If its course stands to be corrected, it travels onward, pivoting to the lesson of its substrate. And, the river doesn’t stop at the soil; it nourishes life near and far, endlessly cycling water, as an event, not an object.Here’s a question:
Do we think in terms of language, or is there something more atavistic about thinking? Is there a language of the mind? Does this lie in the subconscious, the conscious, both, or neither?
gvn’s Shortform
Two questions in one! I suggest responding to both, with whatever attention you’ll lend them, though they are ostensibly unrelated.
Is everything that impacts reality a part of reality? What would this entail? What would this assume?
My take
One could argue that a hypothetical, crucially unobservable/undetectable, extra-dimensional interloper could be ‘manipulating’ events. However, I would like to suggest that the boundaries of a [stable?/percieved?] reality possibly shape the execution of that act. The isolated-impactor meets friction, as a river meets its banks (an appealing aphorism to take with an appropriate portion of salt.)
One could mention that a consciousness, in alleged isolation, is condemned to the acts of perception and/or rationalization. I would say the question then becomes whether that generated opinion impacts behavior. The question of whether that behavior has an observable cause to an outside perceiver is also a critical question. After all, does reality lie only in one’s perception, or beyond it?
So, now back to the interloper: what if one’s perception of reality was 100% accurate? Well, I’d gather that one’s understanding of themselves would also be 100% accurate, and it would be necessarily defined in the terms of every individual actor (as in external agent, or the collective “other” that sits on the opposite side of what we define as ourselves). In that case, the interloper would be at least a complete simulation of reality, and an agent within it on top of that… a frightful thought for a brain that can only approach reality, like some unforgiving asymptote.
But that’s what’s critical: reality is so unforgiving that the friction pushes us toward the line. We start defining each other as interconnected systems, and developing predictive models to shape our interactions with the world around us.
So, my final question would be “whose reality,” followed by “mine, the object’s, or something in between?”
Does a rock impact itself? Is a rock aware of that? What about a thermostat, or a lookup table? Can a lookup table reference the process itself?Why would a GitHub repo (mine) have over a thousand more clones than it has unique visitors? Should I be alarmed, optimistic, or indifferent?
My take
I have a few theories:
(Most confident) The local usage of agentic IDEs is interacting with a clone tool in ways not anticipated.
A standard, benevolent automated archival service is storing prior versions of the repository for safekeeping.
The code is being programmatically ingested for model testing/training.
(Least confident) A collaborative network of real individuals have deemed the code useful for study.
Here is the repo, if you’re interested enough to take a look; and, here is the traffic data
Thank you for the opportunity to connect and learn!
I feel like any close, empathetic inspection of human history grants you decent access to that claim.