Can someone help me think of a computer system as a specific relationship?

[splooge gook]

In the way more abstract concepts are solved by simpler concepts in Computer Science, is it more like a brain or say, an atom.

People need to start using analogies to find objective meaning in things

looking at the HD thread it seems like if you wanted to understand how your device works, you should seperate the head from the body and breaking the HD is essentially leaving someone braindead while the other parts of the technology wait around it to perform their more specified actions like organs being signaled from the brain. the code of the HD disk is the CNS while the outputs that extend from the HD act like a spinal cord and a PNS. some wonder if code resembles a brain isn various ways, i would say in that scenario it would resemble less of a brain and more like a simple-bodied organism with those features as well as their unique ones.

0000000000
low sensory input/depression/boredom due to stagnancy of system

1010111110
regular input and regular mood input, depending on scenario and reception

11111111101
high input in either highly efficient or highly active areas

my theory for schizophrenia is that dopamine hyperexcitability in the patients caused them to develop delusions because of the processing limits their own brain had maxed out on logic before it could on problem solving, which may also explain why schizophrenia typically occurs in the later years. well that would only explain delusions. it would be sort of like having a computer OS downloaded that's 2 versions too complicated for your computer. It may still sort of work, may even be enhanced partially, but overall it functions from a lacking central conherency


does binary code represent a neural system too? i have no idea if as part of a way the program works is that it inputs a 1 for every 0 and a 0 for every 1 sort of like a receptor going for equilibrium (though that equilibrium may not be perfectly 1:1.

body and brain because vision (was gonna elaborate on this but forgot)

[splooge gook]

i have a great spatial relations theory that assumes that all real data can be expressed qualitatively, quantitatively, and graphically. we have a large emphasis on research in the former two which is what most of our modern educational system is dedicated to. "visual mathematics" and geometry should be concurrent to any numerical and research data on the subject. Textbooks do have some of them but I mean taking into account the person one might do better on a science test if it's explained verbally, another might feel more comfortable looking at the equation, what about for all of us who like to process the world around us for the actual physicality of its relationships? Do any of you disagree that elucidating and implementing this could lead to major micro- and macrocosmic explanations for the self referential, repeating, huge existence in us.

[equanimity]

Are you feeling alright, splooge?  Did you maybe change up your psychiatric medications recently?

[splooge gook]

you are solely conscious to solve personal and objective problems. with that imperfectly clear mental sketchpad you re-experience how you solved those problems throughout your life, and random neurons firing while that thought re-fires connects those neurons. everything you think of is, do, and experience is using detailed visual/auditory/sensory input to fill your hedonic spider instincts, either long term, or short term. empathy and altruism is the sort of tribe mentality that probably has a genetic basis from things like ants. it's still self serving, because it benefits your community collectively and enhances the reproductive rate of your offspring

technology is our competing species

euphoric

you experience your thoughts as subdued, retrospective, centrally-themed versions of reality in various contexts and problem solving scenarios. this includes auditory, visual, physical input and otherwise. no different then a low volume grainy movie that's about you that makes you egocentric and is hardly any different then the conscious experience of dreams except in vividness of detail and amount of weirdness from which of the 24 hours of brain activity that we inherently consider the real world. this movie teaches you how to solve problems in times that require references from thoughts you've previously had which have become linked to you through your subconscious processes, unless we're conscious and then subconscious afterwords

what i wonder isn't why we're conscious as much as why we're the consciousness that we are and instead of the consciousness next door or 300 or 3000 or 30000000000000 miles away



so time is literally the sum of all probabilities before it + the next probable or improbable scenario that will during the next "shift" from a solid moment in time to the next. each probability generated is the output accounted for every possible change in an environment, time is the shifting of one solid state to the next over a choice of many hypothetical figures, which is why a hypercube rotates into itself. it's shifting from one scenario to the next moment that occurs like a vector, which is why i have the next probability be x/y and every other probability to account for that succeeds it

sigma from symbol *, representing the moment time began {(x/y1,2,3,4,5...)}. lim0 is our current state and the next probability generated is the next piece that adds to the sigma. you can think of all the possible probabilities as many small cogs which work together and equalize to provide exact, precise shifts in the big cog under it. the big cog would be the result of all the previous shifts, so would the big cog be a fifth dimension or an "all" as known by our current perceptions of past, present, and reality

 so:

sum of all time states and the probabilities within them starting from the big bang + shifting to the next probability by change inherent in electrical disproportionalities

past + 1future = present
past + 0 future = past
past + 2 future = future

p + 2f = >
p + 1f = o
p + 0f = <

>o< = all

 time = sum of all probabilities + next probability = >o< = all

 that sounds like a fourth dimensional object viewed as a singular entity rather than "all" being another dimension. maybe it would have to do with how the theory that there could be infinite universes that never interact with each other but are also just slight variations of the preceding universe. if the fourth dimension is "all", then the fifth dimension is everything along with shifts of everything along to an alternate vector. this keeps on projecting in increasing complexity until i assume it becomes too complex to be reasonable, idk. but yes, basically we are fractals.

this would also support a theory for higher consciousness, because the shift that's occurring on the 5th, 6th, "more expansive dimensions" is still just seeded in the formula of our reality with variables. very high dimensions may become unstable. but the highest dimension is the one that is the most pertinent and all-encompassing. then if we look at the microscopic scale, we find the underlying laws that may affect the build of these larger structures, because if we are only seeing and experiencing in four dimensions, that means the first dimension is a "seed" that all reality grows out of. with the self-referential nature of the universe, it wouldn't be surprising or rather seems intuitive that there is a unifying theory of physics and everything..the difficultly is just defining what the bridge point in between the microscopic and macroscopic formulas are

time = (pn)pn^3 = n^4 ; 5th dimension: time + (>o< x pn^4) = n^5

>o< = f(time vector)

[splooge gook]

the highest dimension possible would be absolutely everything possible, the lowest dimension is a single axiom that is used to build higher dimensions into complex structures.

so sort of like "heaven and the process of god"

[splooge gook]

the only thing that prevents technology from being the biological species that wipes us out is the relative inability for a machine to learn on its own, which is why i feel consciousness is essentially the working memory sketchpad that allows you to manipulate codes until the result "registers" with another application on the brain. neurons do not fire by degree of force but rather by frequency

this is what a certain neuron firing could look like if you consider each moment a single binary operator:

0000001000101011

this is what a piece of binary code could look like:

0000001000101011

here's how you can sum up how a human does arithmetic:

associations between the electrical input of the external enviorment and related neurons (neurons that fire together wire together) create concepts of numbers in the brain which are then manipulated by the neural coding of arithmetic to output a result from the subconscious, or the conscious if one feels the problem is difficult and requires taxation on the working memory system. how do we add those numbers?

neurons abstract from their basic all-or-nothing encoding

and certain operators arise which enable us to do these tasks with ease

50 + 18 becomes 010101010101010 and 0101011111110 and 0001010111011

the symbols of numbers and addition multiplication aren't relevant, because the 0's and 1's could just indicate something like colored in cells. But how does your computer process a representation of a plus sign with the program's own  coding and understand the concept of numbers? how does the binary or neuron-like sequence translate to more abstract operators, and how does the program catalyze those operators into new operators by those basic binaries. this seems no different to me than an animal that isn't self aware.

also, if computers are INCREDIBLY efficient at processing a certain thing, maybe it suggests that the binaries, shape, and engineering are analogies to perfectly designed biological systems that can react to a concept immediately because of their evolution. we might not have a hippocampus shaped liked a microchip, but we're able to put all of our thoughts together to produce one, thus the cognitions behind basic rationality are abstracted from other, less direct language. I wouldn't be surprised to find if their are correlations between certain grooves or ingenuities in data chips to anatomical brain structure. however, if we were to analyze the brain through the use of computers, it would be much more rational to do a review and reassessment of the very first computational technologies in a more modern, consciousness-oriented neuropsychological sense.

[splooge gook]

maybe heaven and hell are metaphors to the micro and macrocosmic scales? macro- being everything being "enlightenment", micro- would be how it's sometimes depicted to be located in a place inside earth, it's seen as "below us", it's very redundant and simple....

holy shit. hell is a depiction of particles confined to their own repetitive processes, which extend up towards our scale, which extends up to heaven, which is everything coming together as an equilibrium due to the totality of everything being accounted for, and no dys-equilibrium = bliss

[splooge gook]

does nobody else realize everything i'm saying is rational to question theoretically or is my giant internet iq penis getting stuck in your lungs bich

[Nasheeds and Lesbians]

scitzophrenia is linked to sulpher (or sulpha don't remember) in the brain but the scientists who were studying its IQs aren't refined enough yet

you've never actually met a scitzo person before have you?

[starvingniglet]

you've never actually met a scitzo person before have you?

who are you talking to

[splooge gook]

Her:
oh okay
i like the idea of time being a sum of probabilities, i think that goes with the multiverse theory where each decision makes a split multiverse

Me:
it's determinism
for determinism to happen, there are a bunch of things that occur at the smallest-unit scale
where it cant go any smaller
you can consider that a stage
what happens is because of some inequality in that stage, the electrical properties, whatever
it forces a frozen state to collectively move into another
you know what a tessarect is right?

Her:
sort of

Me:

that's an example of a square in the 4th dimension
n^4

Her:
okay yes

Me:
you see how its a cube inside several sides?
and it slopes into the next side?
the cube in the middle could be considered everything we see and experience in one solid state moment
because it's the three dimensions we sensually experience
how it shifts to the next side of the larger cube is (in my assumption) the present being "pushed" into the next solid image because of all the tiny inequalities, and since each image is based in probability, that would mean the sides out the bigger cube are either

Her:
and the fourth dimension is..

Me:
lol time

Her:
no word i get that
i meant in the context of the cube

Me:
the sides of the bigger cube are either the past integrating into the cube integrating into the future by the continuous movement of the cube in the middle
and each side representing a distinct probability that it didn't decide to shift to
it's sort of like a three dimensional object jumping around in a scale of constant energy burn and probability
and each of those probabilities are their own dots on a fourth dimensional object
because in reality they wouldn't really be cubes
they would be complex numbers building themselves into complex figures (also consider the constantly expanding universe) while self-referentially looping itself into equilibrium
and each dot or vertice could be considered a "multiple universe"
if you go to higher dimensions
^5, ^6, ^7
that produces more unique multiple universes of higher dynamic complexity

Her:
thats really cool

Me:
i got a 66 on the geometry regents

Her:
perhaps its just the image you sent me, but doesnt the inner cube move in a constant motion (one direction) or does the area it moves into change at   every move

Me:
i'm pretty sure in that picture every point touches every other poiunt

Her:
okay gotcha
how did u get a 66 on geometry and you can discuss time theory like a professor

Me:
idk lol

Her:
its insane

[Nasheeds and Lesbians]

the last post made me think the world might be ok someday

[mashleshmash]

Professor Sploo