i never saw anything before

if god dictates morals, then he (it) is not interested in people being 'truly good' so much as just deterring them from behaving 'inappropriately' (arbitrarily defined by god).

in which case, i would consider god to be an asshole, and also amoral.

also, assuming god exists and is omnipotent, i have a game which he cannot win. any measly human such as myself can win 100% of the time, which is an indication to me that the conventional sense of omnipotence is beyond any realizable universe.

this only happens when your eyes are closed.

i think a very large part of life is trying to figure out what 'right' and 'wrong' mean, and then coming to terms with the fact that they only having meaning within the context of certain synthetic priorities; that they are completely arbitrary and self-generated, self-imposed.

gun down.

you only like me for my frown.

in all of the years that i have been internally philosophizing about the world, there has been a constant underlying dilemma concerning the origin and validity of certainty. and though i had a very clear direction when i first wrote that sentence, i am not so certain anymore, (and thus this reflects the state of the matter).

kill faster

honk if you hate people that honk at everything.

"everything will be all right in the end."

you flew around like a butterfly.
we only do this for the company.

it becomes the solution to any problem.
be wary of any universal solutions, they are probably incomplete.

im trying to figure out what the fractional derivative of ex will be. ooh, weird:"In short, differentiating and then integrating the derivative from 0 to x does not (in general) return us to the same function ; this reversal only holds if we integrate first." from here.

i never saw anything before


the why doesnt mean a thing.

give away to your worst impulse. ---my worst impulse? i cant even think of anything? there really arent many impulses i ever have, that i dont already give into.

heart it races

i was thinking about how people go, "i cant do thats not like me/you at all" or "this is so unlike me/you to do that"; when considering what 'you are', one should keep in mind that 'you' is changing in time at every moment: the atoms vibrate, the electrons surge, the cells decay and replicate, each with incomprehensible complexity. what most people think of as 'themselves' is nothing more than a collection of approximate snapshots of past events. behavior is not a solid, rather it should be acknowledged and even encouraged to become a fluid. furthermore, evolution is development, and should be held highly with regards to the mind; the static case should be criminalized.

does anyone get that last sentence?

new Bertrand Russell quotes:
"This idea of weapons of mass extermination is utterly horrible and is something which no one with one spark of humanity can tolerate. I will not pretend to obey a government which is organising a mass massacre of mankind.

The secret of happiness is to face the fact that the world is horrible, horrible, horrible.

The only thing that will redeem mankind is co-operation.

If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. ... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."

what does that mean? "Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."

i was thinking about the difference between continuous and finite, and i thought, could we apply that to fractals? or maybe a good analogy might be that fractals are the continuous version of nested structures (which are constructed in discrete steps). comprehension of these concepts seems very important.

the skill of my science came at the cost of my social ineptness.

"faith is the antihesis of proof."
"my two favorite things are commitment, and changing myself."
"the problem with both parties is that they always want to give your tax dollars away to the less fortunate.
---the less fortunate get all the breaks!"

theyve never felt this good before.
theyve never been at peace,

alright, well, crazy it is then.

my biggest fear is that ill stay the same.

such a mess
such a mess
his is even worse
this whole world is such a mess.

denied; ive seen you: soul, consciousness.

the quote was, "So long as there is death there will be sorrow, and so long as there is sorrow it can be no part of the duty of human beings to increase its amount, in spite of the fact that a few rare spirits know how to transmute it."
and it was Russell.

i used to see a dichotomy between teaching science and conveying the idea that all of science is tentative.
now i see finally can clarify a similar problem in love: in order to be intelligent and correct in love-related decisions, you must think. but thinking runs contrary to the experience of love. if you are thinking, you are probably not loving. and vice versa. and thats okay: its an emotion, if you thought your way into and through it, it wouldnt be the same.

i think i want a girl who will work hard to convince me that i am not special. my whole life, just about everyone has made me feel special. and i dont want to be special. ive been told by a large number of people that im smart, which i hate; i guess a large part of it is that categorizing intelligence seems too similar to racism, sexism, nationalism, patriotism, which are all assumptions of superiority/inferiority relationships between two (usually) very similar competitors.

if people really think im so much smarter than them, then why do the majority not submit to my claim that they are not? unless of course they believe their own intelligence to be superior to even mine.

"though id rather see any other horror"
"stay outta trouble. it ain't worth it." -Jeff

why can we pay for war, but not health?

dont lose sight of what you want, especially if its apt to change. wait, that thought there. where did that come from?

i am an atheist, and antitheist. if that bothers you, feel free to express why; i ask that you try to be as clear and concise as possible, and to present your disagreements in a logical manner. i will try to respond in as precisely as possible a manner.

im gonna put a crap load of boxes in my car, each with many other boxes nested inside one another. in the smallest box will be one labeled 'drugs', and i wont have a key for it. the rest of the boxes will be locked, with various keys all on one chain, unlabeled.


when i vandalize psychics, im going to make sure i make it very well known first. ill notify my friends, i might even try to publish it publicly somewhere; ill even consult an attorney first. then the psychics i target will all be ones with outrageous claims of ability for important issues. that way, i can argue that their inability to stop me is evidence of the fraudulence of their claims. maybe ill even tell a judge about it before hand, that way ill have a credible witness to help me establish premeditation (since premeditation should constitute disproof of their abilities).

how can it make me so sad? its just a pattern of signals in my eyes and ears. it caused my whole body to shiver, through my face and chest, and then my arms and legs. Popper or Russell spoke of suffering, and that it will always be a part of human existence, and that it should be no part of ours to increase its amount. it was probably Russell.

just remember that people care about you.

i think a lot of Russell speaking about his three motivations: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of humankind. and now im feeling like the longing for love is definitely a large one for me, search for knowledge sounds good. and unbearable pity seems right also. but this ideas dont really manifest themselves to me that way. i feel as if i have a grand lead in the comprehension of reality; the suffering i see around me within mankind is unbearable, but it gives me the strongest urges to share these marvelous insights that have been revealed to me, with others. i am so easily entertained, reality is just full of beautiful images, thoughts, sounds, people, ideas... and if only others saw it too, their suffering might cease. of course, the longing for love quite often impedes my ability to convey these experiences.

how does everyone else deal with unbearable pity?

can anyone really be bad?
no such thing.
no such thing as a bad human.

im learning to turn it off.
to shut myself off.
to stop it.

i am too aware of what i am, of what humans are.

when attempting to examine my problems closely, they have a tendency to dissolve.

and now i wonder, what does 'happy' mean? it seems as if a precise definition would (by self reference) fall short of its meaning.


is it now?

what secrets remain in the advantage to the scaling process? and what tradeoffs exist between the complexity of the machine and its ability to solve problems?

these things arent making sense.

im thinking about the difference between a single neuron and a small group, and the difference between a small group of neurons and a coherent brain, and the difference between a coherent brain and a conscious brain? and the difference between a conscious brain (a single human) and a group of consciousnesses? or a group and a group of groups? its like what sort of differences exist between binary and assembly and higher level languages? what sort of differences exist between a single computer and many?

she is the new word for amazing.

there is a relationship between the number of steps that are involved in solving a problem, and the number of steps that a machine takes to solve them... what sorts of differences in running time do you get when you use various different finite state machines? what sorts of advancements might be waiting by a systematic reapplication of this complexity-increasing process?

i need less time to consider 'what if'

i think ill need to learn a lot more computer science before i understand what these questions really mean, and im fairly certain that most of these quesitons are probably stupid or illustrate a lack of understanding on my part. which is why i type them here.

so i think now in order to make A.I., we just need John Koza to build a much larger, much faster machine. and have it use answers from previous problems to help it solve new problems. basically, allow it to store its output, and use any solution from previous output to solve new problems in intermediate steps.

every girl he looked at wasnt her.

wow, suddenly math feels identical to the Chaitin's constant problem stuff relating to complexity and information theory. its as if new mathematical processes are almost just shortcuts, or more compressed previous solutions. so we learn rules about multiplying in order to save ourselves time with repeated adding. previous to the discovery of multiplication (or invention?), adding took much more time.

it wasnt an easy thing to assume, as most would expect.

when i wrote most of that, i was wondering, how could there be no fastest algorithm for multiplication? is there an upper bound for the fastest algorithm, and we can maybe never reach the upper bound?

george foreman: "interesting side note: as a head without a body, i envy the dead"
rich little: "no argument here"

if you could implement Grover's algorithm, itd be really beneficial to AI, because itd enable you to have much larger databases, which are good for memory. though now i realize this is silly, because itd require a fast quantum computer to implement in a dramatically useful way. though maybe im wrong, who knows.

i am the 'me' in 'team'

Scott speaks of 'automating insight' given that P=NP. does John Koza's computer do that? or really does it illustrate that insight is not as special as we previously thought, still weaker than NP?

(the next morning): ah, i suppose Scott stated that insight would be trivial, which is not that same as automate-able; as trivial tends to imply simple, automate-able is more akin to possible (vs impossible).

"im a rich respected doctor, with many surviving patients."

if you cant explain it, then its not science. and if you think youve destroyed some fundamental tenant of science, you damn well better be able to explain what youve done, in detail. if you cant, how can you be so sure youve broken new ground? how can you be so sure that youre incomplete knowledge of the process doesnt hide the answers that fit it back into science?

none of this is in our control.
what we need are bombs that can kill ideas.
ill let you be in my dream, if i can be in yours.

you can always tell if i slept well or not by whether or not my voice is deeper.

suddenly, i am very excited about my job; i could maybe shape it into something i enjoy very much. for some reason (probably mentioned previously), today, right now, i feel 'on top of the world' so to speak; even though im here alone.


we control nothing.

the so called 'exciting' things in life are just illusions of danger. delusions of grandeur.

so many people say, "math, oh, thats hard", but they do so without qualification. computational complexity theory is actually the study of just how 'hard' math really is, therefore computational complexity theorists should be the only ones really qualified to say, 'oh, thats hard, math...' although that should include any other people who understand such analysis of algorithms.

i swear, i just licked this envelope and it tasted good, the glue there.

i just thought, i dont think i really understand other people feeling guilty about what theyve done to other people. i only understand what it means to feel guilty about something ive done to myself. no, thats not true.

do you like it or not?

(this was a while ago): i just had a beautiful two hour drive from unh durham to keene. it was just beautiful, the clouds, the sky, the trees, the roads, the weather. all around great. i had a great time too. then later that night i had a lot of fun hanging out with stefan, jeff, meagan and derek.

do you want to be someone else?

whats closer to you now? the moon, or europe? fuck you is closer to me now.
are there any parts that arent a dream?
oh right, new code word! fresh air! im an open container that likes to get fresh air. it helps me sleep.

im beginning to suspect that when there is a smart person in the world, they tend to make the group of people immediately surrounding them smarter as well.

operators are not standing by, but we have a machine that pretends for you.

dear Helen Fisher, is it possible that a human could become addicted to the feeling of uncertainty and excitement that are experienced in the early stages of love, and then fail to pass beyond those stages, in order to feed their addiction?

everyone gets forgotten; its not such a big deal. quit worrying about something so meaningless and distant, insignificant. but today Ian said something interesting: you can pass information on. thats really all we do, we collect and organize information, and then pass it on when we leave this place.

if i was looking for an equation to relate n variables representing physical values that change with respect to one another, and i had large tables for the behavior of each variable with respect to the others, could a computer find a single multidimensional equation that explains all of them?

where is the line with you?
i never thought i would compromise.

okay, i think what i want to study is quantum physics with the intention of expanding/developing our interpretation with respect to physical computing.
physics and computation.
the physics of quantum computing.
how fitting that the concepts of black versus white are annihilated at the very most fundamental level of quantum particles (that is, the principle of superposition destroys the concept of mutual exclusivity, for very specific cases that is).

does it make any sense for me to say im a misanthrope who cherishes humanity?

we have most important friends

(kiss) thats for fayah; (kiss) thats for your kids; and this is for you (kiss)

she runs down the stairs, because thats where hes headed. he stops and turns back, so she runs up a few steps, but he is just aggravated (not by her), so he pauses and proceeds down the steps. she is giddy, and so she runs up and down regardless of where he is going, she will run circles around his lagrangian path.

its all around you
you have to trust it

it might be important in life to never be happy; to constantly oscillate between states of wonderful feelings and states of absence and longing. promoting a recovery time and reflection, maybe its important.

shut up and swear youre here. shut up and swear youre here. shut up and swear youre here. shut up and swear youre here.

promise to me.

this will fall away with time
if you promise to be kind.

none of this is in our control.

anecdotal antidote.

"If you see Kay,
Tell him he may.
See you in tea,
Tell him from me."

i think maybe i need to start doing things. but somehow i am too easily distracted by girls. is it reasonable to think i need a stable relationship in order to focus on work that might relate to my interests? it seems unreasonable, as many people around me seem to have no similar difficulties.

also, collaboration somehow seems important, though there arent many people around me who seem to want to collaborate, or who are qualified to work on these things.

if god dictates morals, then he is not interested in people being 'truly good' so much as just deterring them from behaving 'inappropriately'

and i hate this so much.
the concept is vile.
the damage produced cannot be measured.