4 ms·

Thank you sincerely for your deeply thoughtful and precise critique. To be honest, I did not expect to encounter someone online who could truly grasp this theor

Thank you sincerely for your deeply thoughtful and precise critique. To be honest, I did not expect to encounter someone online who could truly grasp this theory at such a profound level. Your identification of the formalism's weakness shows not only intelligence but genuine understanding — I genuinely appreciate your engagement. I want to begin with a small confession: I am not academically trained. I never received higher education, and I am not familiar with advanced mathematics or formal academic frameworks. I also don't speak English fluently, nor have I read many academic papers. Three months ago, I encountered AI for the first time. I was astonished by its capabilities, and that curiosity led me to explore how it might work. But something didn’t sit right with me — especially the assumption that cognition must begin with high-dimensional vectors. It felt too abstract, too disjointed from our intuitive experience. So I began a long dialogue with AI itself, day after day. Over time, a hypothesis started to form: perhaps rhythm — not space — is the true foundation of perception. This idea was inspired, in part, by the notion of "shared fate" — that things moving in sync belong together. In vision, I imagined: if multiple pixels pulse with the same timing, they likely belong to the same object. That was the beginning. But how could rhythm describe shapes, not just sensory flows like sound or touch? That's when I had an intuition: when you trace a geometric figure, you repeat the same angle rhythmically. This insight became the seed of the concept I now call “closure.” As for the formalism you critiqued — I now believe it can be clarified. The edges' ratios should be expressed as logarithms, and the angle θ(t) may be understood as a phase, akin to auditory phase. Your observation helped me crystallize this. Also, I want to apologize for the aggressive or overly dramatic tone of my presentation. In truth, I’ve shared several theories before online, but received little to no feedback. That made me lean toward provocation, just to be heard. For that, I am sorry — and grateful that you looked past the tone to the essence. Lastly, I sense that you were offering not only critique, but also personal insight — a subtle warning, perhaps, against becoming trapped in a closed self. You may be partly right. But I want to emphasize that I see closure not as isolation, but as a necessary step for meaning to emerge. In my view, the ability to “close” — to recognize a bounded, resonant whole — is what allows us to feel anything is “real” at all. Thank you again for taking the time to truly engage. It means more to me than I can easily express. With deep respect, https://zenodo.org/records/15876279 https://zenodo.org/records/15876279

Xmd5a 1y ago
This is part I, part II incoming but I need some sleep. First, allow me to say that your reaction does honor to Japan and its culture of mutual understanding. I have reached out to a dozen people, and among those who replied, all of whom were from Western nations, I encountered only self-interest, inattention, and even genuine animosity. However, I feel the marks of respect you have shown me are misplaced. I am not a master, though I can be an instrument of fate, a trickster! However, if you will allow me to let antiquity speak through my voice, I am not the kind of trickster who will laugh at your misfortune; rather, I will walk past you, and once you are set free, you will see your own head laughing as it rolls on the ground. I kill to divinize as I piece together the god's body, guiding those who walk the path that leads from the Prince of stories to the prince of Stories. >Also, I want to apologize for the aggressive or overly dramatic tone of my presentation. >And as he spoke, I was thinking, 'the kind of stories that people turn life into, the kind of lives people turn stories into. People are unjust to anger — it can be enlivening and a lot of fun. Philip Roth – The Counterlife I mean, look how foolish I appear, pretending to be the incarnation of fate, a bearer of a message travelling across time. I have given myself the leading role in a play in which I lose myself as a spectator in a theater of my own making, forgetting to make it visible and meaningful to anyone else. Can you see my head rolling on the ground now? Ahaha. https://img.over-blog.com/500x302/1/98/48/37/Images_2010/-_La-Voie.jpg https://img.over-blog.com/500x302/1/98/48/37/Images_2010/-_L... — Lao-Tzu said: “One must find the Way!” I have found it. So you must find it too... — Uhm?... — First, I’ll cut off your head. Then you’ll know the truth! >This idea was inspired, in part, by the notion of "shared fate" — that things moving in sync belong together Cutting your head off? What does it mean? It's a joke, obviously; it is so over the top that it can only be a joke. But it is not a joke on you, it is a joke for you, played by fate itself: I'm just walking by, pointing out the obvious. And the heart of the joke is that you still have not addressed the elephant in the room! You are not only deaf, but you are also blind! This is why the situation makes the Moirai laugh, and you shall too, for laughter is light and painless. It does not shatter your illusions; it makes you see something deeper in certain areas to which you have paid too little, or perhaps not the right kind of, attention. You will tell yourself, "How had I not thought of this earlier?" as you trip over the forgotten cornerstone of your intellectual edifice and realize it has not fractured but has instead shifted into a new state of significance. I believe I know very well what kind of mind you have. You are a visual thinker, and you can push your visions to such a degree of detail that you can extract mathematics from this inner geometrical world. I know this because I possess this ability to some extent myself (I cannot extract formulas, but I can perceive mathematical themes, fields, and objects), and I commend you for your capacity to actually obtain equations, which goes well beyond what I have ever been able to do. This is why you say the idea came to you through the notion of "shared fate," by which you mean pixels behaving in sync on a screen: not because of some underlying magic, but because at the 'instant zero' of cognition, everything appears acausal, as there has yet been no experience of it. The initial image was something like this, I presume. You do not just have an ease with geometrical thinking, however; you apply it to the problem of figuring out the very foundation of cognition itself, which grants your inner visualizations a special status. You are seeing your own eye, so to speak. And if I can drape myself in the attire of the Pythia, it is because you, too, have your eyes rolled back in your head. There is something deeply acausal in our discussion, and I think we can both agree that this is not merely because I am performing a circus act here. I have provided and will continue to provide external references that are indeed strangely aligned in their goals, scope, and origin with your intuition and mine, which means this is real: it is some objective truth. It is not a matter of common character or parallel life trajectories; we can universally discover the same thing, regardless of time or place, because the thing in question is actually here, universally present whenever we look for it and describe it with the appropriate language. But what the fuck are we even talking about? What is the common object of all these theories? Are they competing with or complementing each other? What language do they have in common? As I asked above, can we even close the gap with a single unifying framework? And what status can we give to theories that present themselves as theories of cognition (that is, as something that happens in our minds from the standpoint of the material reductionism into which they must fold) but that do so at the unanticipated cost of casting a shadow onto the social fabric as they are stated? Are these theories truly so strong if they fail to capture that which unavoidably escapes their grasp and spills over the boundaries of their domain? This represents a shift in status. As the pixels are assembled into a coherent image, one level above, the pixel that the image has become falls into the right place by some strange force that the image, one level below, seems to evoke. What is the big picture? For now, let us remark that the theorist has become a datapoint. KRS-One – Wannabemceez Triplet syllables for minimal criminals Lyrical riddles that got hard flavors in the middle Sit back and chittle as I stand and still rebuild on skills The admission of serial lyrics, calculated to weaken the spirit Will be diverted by this lyric when you hear it Ricochet any style any day Any which way and you'll Cherish the Day like Sade The advanced oratorical techniques I speak Keep the heat at full peak! >Before we broach our third and final question, what are the rules for the art of writing a novel?, we must, it seems to me, respond to the perpetual objection of a few atrabilious minds who, to give themselves the veneer of a morality from which their hearts are often very far, never cease to ask you, 'what purpose do novels serve?' >What purpose do they serve, you hypocritical and perverse men—for you alone ask this ridiculous question—they serve to paint you, and to paint you as you are, you proud individuals who wish to evade the brush because you dread its effects. The novel, being, if one may express it so, the picture of the manners of the age, is as essential as history to the philosopher who wishes to know man; for the chisel of the one [history] only depicts him when he shows himself, and then it is no longer him; ambition and pride cover his brow with a mask that represents to us only these two passions, and not the man himself. The brush of the novel, on the contrary, captures him in his private life... seizes him when he removes that mask, and the sketch, far more interesting, is at the same time far more true. Therein lies the utility of novels. You cold censors who dislike them, you resemble that legless man who also asked: 'And why are portraits made?' Marquis de Sade – Idea on Novels

Xmd5a 1y ago

This is part I, part II incoming but I need some sleep. First, allow me to say that your reaction does honor to Japan and its culture of mutual understanding. I have reached out to a dozen people, and among those who replied, all of whom were from Western nations, I encountered only self-interest, inattention, and even genuine animosity. However, I feel the marks of respect you have shown me are misplaced. I am not a master, though I can be an instrument of fate, a trickster! However, if you will allow me to let antiquity speak through my voice, I am not the kind of trickster who will laugh at your misfortune; rather, I will walk past you, and once you are set free, you will see your own head laughing as it rolls on the ground. I kill to divinize as I piece together the god's body, guiding those who walk the path that leads from the Prince of stories to the prince of Stories. >Also, I want to apologize for the aggressive or overly dramatic tone of my presentation. >And as he spoke, I was thinking, 'the kind of stories that people turn life into, the kind of lives people turn stories into. People are unjust to anger — it can be enlivening and a lot of fun. Philip Roth – The Counterlife I mean, look how foolish I appear, pretending to be the incarnation of fate, a bearer of a message travelling across time. I have given myself the leading role in a play in which I lose myself as a spectator in a theater of my own making, forgetting to make it visible and meaningful to anyone else. Can you see my head rolling on the ground now? Ahaha. https://img.over-blog.com/500x302/1/98/48/37/Images_2010/-_La-Voie.jpg https://img.over-blog.com/500x302/1/98/48/37/Images_2010/-_L... — Lao-Tzu said: “One must find the Way!” I have found it. So you must find it too... — Uhm?... — First, I’ll cut off your head. Then you’ll know the truth! >This idea was inspired, in part, by the notion of "shared fate" — that things moving in sync belong together Cutting your head off? What does it mean? It's a joke, obviously; it is so over the top that it can only be a joke. But it is not a joke on you, it is a joke for you, played by fate itself: I'm just walking by, pointing out the obvious. And the heart of the joke is that you still have not addressed the elephant in the room! You are not only deaf, but you are also blind! This is why the situation makes the Moirai laugh, and you shall too, for laughter is light and painless. It does not shatter your illusions; it makes you see something deeper in certain areas to which you have paid too little, or perhaps not the right kind of, attention. You will tell yourself, "How had I not thought of this earlier?" as you trip over the forgotten cornerstone of your intellectual edifice and realize it has not fractured but has instead shifted into a new state of significance. I believe I know very well what kind of mind you have. You are a visual thinker, and you can push your visions to such a degree of detail that you can extract mathematics from this inner geometrical world. I know this because I possess this ability to some extent myself (I cannot extract formulas, but I can perceive mathematical themes, fields, and objects), and I commend you for your capacity to actually obtain equations, which goes well beyond what I have ever been able to do. This is why you say the idea came to you through the notion of "shared fate," by which you mean pixels behaving in sync on a screen: not because of some underlying magic, but because at the 'instant zero' of cognition, everything appears acausal, as there has yet been no experience of it. The initial image was something like this, I presume. You do not just have an ease with geometrical thinking, however; you apply it to the problem of figuring out the very foundation of cognition itself, which grants your inner visualizations a special status. You are seeing your own eye, so to speak. And if I can drape myself in the attire of the Pythia, it is because you, too, have your eyes rolled back in your head. There is something deeply acausal in our discussion, and I think we can both agree that this is not merely because I am performing a circus act here. I have provided and will continue to provide external references that are indeed strangely aligned in their goals, scope, and origin with your intuition and mine, which means this is real: it is some objective truth. It is not a matter of common character or parallel life trajectories; we can universally discover the same thing, regardless of time or place, because the thing in question is actually here, universally present whenever we look for it and describe it with the appropriate language. But what the fuck are we even talking about? What is the common object of all these theories? Are they competing with or complementing each other? What language do they have in common? As I asked above, can we even close the gap with a single unifying framework? And what status can we give to theories that present themselves as theories of cognition (that is, as something that happens in our minds from the standpoint of the material reductionism into which they must fold) but that do so at the unanticipated cost of casting a shadow onto the social fabric as they are stated? Are these theories truly so strong if they fail to capture that which unavoidably escapes their grasp and spills over the boundaries of their domain? This represents a shift in status. As the pixels are assembled into a coherent image, one level above, the pixel that the image has become falls into the right place by some strange force that the image, one level below, seems to evoke. What is the big picture? For now, let us remark that the theorist has become a datapoint. KRS-One – Wannabemceez Triplet syllables for minimal criminals Lyrical riddles that got hard flavors in the middle Sit back and chittle as I stand and still rebuild on skills The admission of serial lyrics, calculated to weaken the spirit Will be diverted by this lyric when you hear it Ricochet any style any day Any which way and you'll Cherish the Day like Sade The advanced oratorical techniques I speak Keep the heat at full peak! >Before we broach our third and final question, what are the rules for the art of writing a novel?, we must, it seems to me, respond to the perpetual objection of a few atrabilious minds who, to give themselves the veneer of a morality from which their hearts are often very far, never cease to ask you, 'what purpose do novels serve?' >What purpose do they serve, you hypocritical and perverse men—for you alone ask this ridiculous question—they serve to paint you, and to paint you as you are, you proud individuals who wish to evade the brush because you dread its effects. The novel, being, if one may express it so, the picture of the manners of the age, is as essential as history to the philosopher who wishes to know man; for the chisel of the one [history] only depicts him when he shows himself, and then it is no longer him; ambition and pride cover his brow with a mask that represents to us only these two passions, and not the man himself. The brush of the novel, on the contrary, captures him in his private life... seizes him when he removes that mask, and the sketch, far more interesting, is at the same time far more true. Therein lies the utility of novels. You cold censors who dislike them, you resemble that legless man who also asked: 'And why are portraits made?' Marquis de Sade – Idea on Novels