When Sensory Input Does not Match Expectation
-experience
-our bodies are just part of a feedback loop
-we become aware of a self via mismatches between experiences

Here we are in de Field again, Maro. Tryin to solve de mysteries o’life.

“... cuz like if you don’t have kids then there’s no way for people in society to keep track of you. you could always be a floater, jus goin in and outta organizations. takin what you need and then moving on. Marriage and kids make you get attached to a place, to people, you’re not really able to get up and move on if you have people relying on you for stuff all the time. You have to have security in your job. So you have to stay. You have to compromise, and revolution is not about compromise.”
Sounds like Randt, but i’s actually #20033007, (a.k.a. Chap, and of course, he’s without sponsor). I think I’m gonna try to respond.
“What about hippy parents? They seem to have kids jus fine. Would you say dat dey conformin to da mainstream?”
“Yeah, I guess I just didn think of that.”
“I guess der’s jus different degrees of it. Maybe der kids go to school. But those parents still need a steady source of income. And where’s dat gonna come from, y’know?”

Now I’m startin to sound like Randt. Maybe I should jus move on. For some reason it makes me think o’Schulte’s decision-makers interactin. Backward induction: look ahead, predict and reason back.

I just willed that expression of my own thought.

I dunno, maybe. Maybe. E. Daprati et al. suggests in Cognition 65 (1997) dat schizophrenics “fail to attribute elements arising from their long-term memory, from which they form their goals and plans, to their real origin. The consequence of this failure in monitoring makes them unable to disentangle ‘intentions’ arising from external stimuli, from those generated as a consequence of their own cognitive functioning.”

From what I’ve observed. But what would constitute an intention arisin from external stimuli? Schulte says dat rational agents’hould follow backward induction. An’den he gets into game theory, which isn’too helpful to my situation here.
“Totally.”
“There’s no way o’gettin out of it. There’s nothin you can do about it. I'll probly end up havin a family o’my own some day too, I guess.”

“Hey man, you holdin?”
“Yeah, but only enough for personal.”
Same as it ever was. Bullshit. Fuckin rich, whitebred, punkass. As if he ain’t had enough personal today already. The whole time he’s been talkin he’s been twitchin like hell.
“But Jo D’s got shit fer sure. Go talk to him. He’ll spot you fer sure, if you need ‘im to.”
“Kay.”

 As a rational agent myself, I identify Randt as a defector in de last game dat I played wid’him. Of course, in life de number o’games is infinite an’derfore, as a rational agent, Randt can say to himself, “Well, there’s always a chance that this here rational agent that I’m dealin with won’t remember that I defected as a first move in the last game. So, I should try to defect as a first move again.”

“Cuz I'll warn you right now, Jo is going to be feeling sorry for himself, and talking about himself a lot, cause that's basically all he's into at this point. You're jus going to have to put up with it for a while if you wan any shit from‘im. You gotta listen to his sad story first otherwise he won give you the time o’day. I mean it. I seen ‘im wid dat... oh, what’s her name? Dat sorta hippie chick. You know who I’m talkin ‘bout. Anyway, she jus wanted a bit o’pot, but instead o’ jus handin over a baggie, he was goin on an on about all his shit. She was tryin to look interested but I could tell she was just wanting to get the weed an go. But she knew that if she interrupted ‘im she’d get nothin. So, jus keep that in mind, man. Jo D’s got lousy customer relations. I’m tellin ya...”

So, like, Randt could make his first move a completely trustworthy one just in order to fuck you over later on. Schulte’s’olution is dat when an agent is faced wid unexpected behaviour (such as not defectin on de first move) one can attribute dis to a mistake in reasoning. Dis don make too much sense to me. I think I jus don’t understand’e scope o’de discussion or somethin.
“Positive symptoms such as insertion of thought, hallucinations and delusion of control would directly derive from this difficulty.” E. Daprati et al. again from dat same article in Cognition 65 (1997). By 1885, the physiologist, Edouard Brown-Sequard had established a theory of ‘dynamic actions’ in the nervous system. This theory promoted the notion that stimulation of one area of the nervous system could create effects in other areas of the nervous system, “either as ‘dynamogenesis’ (a stimulation of functioning), or as “inhibition” (a lessening of functioning)”. According to Ellenberger, the relation between stimulation and functioning was then applied by psychiatrists to the phenomena of mental disturbances. Pierre Moreau (de Tours) “taught that a mental illness [was] a world of its own, basically different from our world and comparable to the world of dreams, even though its elements were all taken from the real world.” Moreau’s description of this world seems comparable in many ways to the notion of the unconscious that we still have today. In fact, Pierre Janet, one of the pioneers of modern dynamic psychiatry, insisted that his own theory of psychological analysis was originally inspired by Moreau de Tours’ ‘fundamental law of mental illness’. Prosper Despine, an adherent to the earlier school of dynamic psychiatry, regarded ‘psychological automatism’ as the means through which complex and intelligent acts were realized. He believed that such automatism was the product of a living machine, completely devoid of consciousness. Janet’s use of this term entails implications that are somewhat contrary to those encompassed by Despine’s use. The ‘psychological automatism’ that Janet wrote about was “a psychological phenomenon in its own right, always entailing a rudimentary consciousness”. In fact, Janet’s entire thesis seems to revolve around a notion of consciousness that has a dynamic relationship to the unconscious mind.

When the room fills what will that be like?

The crew interfaces with AL every day, other than AL himself they presumably know him better than anyone. Goodman’s point here is that all computers do is shuffle symbols around. And, as of yet, we cannot prove and we have no idea how to prove that we, as humans do anything other than shuffle symbols around. We too, seem to be guided by a formal set of rules, we just don’t know what they are. Indeed, according to Goodman, we may never know how our “endless manipulation of symbols” amounts to anything. But, if reportability is taken as the point of reference for personhood then AL seems to pass that test just fine. adults are
This is the very question
we don’t know when this point arises and we don’t know how it arises

How is it that we take meaning from one another’s words? What is the connection between the words that a person utters and the beliefs that she holds? Donald Davidson asserts that in order to interpret the utterances of a speaker we must assume that most of the beliefs that a speaker holds are true. This principle of charity, held on the part of the interpreter, maximizes the true beliefs that a speaker holds in such a way that a background of massive agreement exists between the interpreter and the speaker. Without such a principle it is very difficult to see how communication could take place. If speaker and interpreter did not have a set of common background assumptions (such as a notion of truth) with which to work, then taking meaning from any sentences uttered would seem impossible.

As an interpreter, how is it that I can be sure that the sentences being uttered by a speaker mean what I understand them to mean? It would seem as though there is little to no justification for assuming that all agents will come up with the same interpretation for any given expression. Indeed, it seems as though the meaning of any person’s given expression will elude even the best of today’s philosophers of language. And yet, we communicate. If the meaning of a sentence isn’t the same for all interpreters, and the same sentence can take on different meanings according to the context in which it is uttered, then it would appear that the interpretation of any given sentence would require something to allow a speaker and an interpreter to agree upon before any sort of communication could take place. Ahhh, but what is communication? Quine asserted that the problem of radical translation occurred whenever two speakers of two different languages attempted to communicate without the aid of any prior translation between their languages. Two such speakers would have no established method of translating each other’s utterances, and so would seem to have no way of determining the meaning of each other’s utterances. In this way, it is difficult to see how translations ever occur between the speakers of different languages. And yet, they do. We’ve been communicating this way for as long as different languages have existed. This sets the bar for communication very low indeed. We are able to gather some sort of meaning from one another’s utterances without being able to speak the same language. Wonderful! Davidson maintains that a similar problem, one that he calls ‘radical interpretation’, occurs between two speakers of the same language. Because we cannot be sure that the meaning of a speaker’s utterance will match the meaning that an interpreter will take, it is necessary to assume that something else must be at work when the process of interpretation takes place. There must be something in place that allows a speaker and an interpreter to assume understanding of one another’s utterances.
Whose nightmare dream is dis? Maybe Prin’s?

I am havin dat dream again. I am even partially realizin dat it is a dream while I am dreamin it. But dat don stop it from happenin. It keeps on playin jus da same.

"Whateva, it don matter. We could see dat new movie, uh..."
Latest chick-flick. What is de latest chick-flick? I am fumblin with a name in my mind an den I got it.
“Da Bridges o’Madison County.”
Long pause. Yes? No?
She bursts out laughin. I guess it was jus too much for her, though I’m not really sure why at first. Is it dat her friends an mine don mix? Maybe even da idea dat I got friends at all? Maybe I shoulda suggested “Evita”. Anyway, at least she’s got a handy excuse ready for me. She says she can’t ‘cause i’s her brother’s girlfriend’s birthday on Saturday an she has to go ‘cause i’s like some sorta family ting or sometin.
“Yeah, I understand. Shit like dat is hard ta get outta. Maybe some other time.”
“Yeah, maybe some other time.”
This writing is very personal. It has become very personal. There is a tight spot between when the medicine ends and the writing starts and when I am lost again. Maybe I bin takin too many drugs, eh Kretschy? Almost done forgot how to write. Almost cut my hair. Ha ha. My legs are sparkling. Maybe I’m about to have a stroke. Maybe the medicine has started again. I don’t picture my memories in this way. I don’t like video recording machines. I like to remember things my way, not the way that they necessarily happen. memories are just other versions of myself waiting to jump off roof tops of the second floor (the reason i don’t go up any higher than that). piece going anywhere? Also my stinky armpits. God. Yeah, I’m realizing that I”m not ok. all those cars pulling up all of my squinting men pullin men offa streets right in front of me. feelin like it never really happened at all. how much of every thing was real at all memories are just my own selves facing in other directions a black abyss. thinks navidson record. thanks alot. so many sirens now. with being nothing. I want my dreams here they come. another drug dealer, someone at my window. guilt lining up at my window frame, the writing lining up at the window of my head. when the police get here i’ll be lining up in the middle of my past cuz i never know what really happened there undercover people pounding on other peoples doors for a search warrant. different floors getting robbed. this is why i live on the second floor, not the third. try and capture it before it disappears. i write all the time. ideas to be heard. And it looks like it’s not going to happen. I should just be content with nothing because i need the light for entertaining myself with my own decreativity. depravity. it’s all there in my head, the nothing. neverending story, navidson record. like i’m playing music with my fingertips, back, bach to hofstadter. now There’s nothing left to do. I think I hate my job. I think I hate my job. I think I need to get a new job, but I really jus don’t feel like it.
some weird kinda intestinal crap
also, ohya, I gave her some chicken... Yeah, I’m talking about you. You’re weird. There’s no way I’m gonna get through a whole head of lettuce. ramp champ, no, more like rat champ. i blame myself for that woman’s death. she died because i was there an did not feel the loss properly. it’s my fault that she died.
I can tell what the people above me are doing, jus based on the shadows that they project on the walls across from me. Just like the cave, that ol’philosopher of human kind.



WHOA! Maro, I think I jus fell asleep again, der. I guess I should go an take a rest or somethin.