Goes back to the "tolerance to deviation" dimension. Soft/hard protocols.

certainly better definitions, words, and labels might help this?

Class 2, Does Memory Matter? Why Are Universities Studying Slavery and Their Pasts? by David Blight for [[YaleCourses]]

Naming things with respect to future search functionality and capabilities can be useful.

What is your profit in this? Think about it.

for - paper review - Hard Problem and Free Will: An Information-Theoretical Approach - Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano & Federico Faggin

annotation by time

5:54 - what is awareness (or consciousness)? - it is the "feeling of the information processing

for - David Chalmers - hard problem of consciousness - citation - Federico Faggin - Giacomo Mauro D'ariano - Hard Problem and Free Will: An Information-Theoretical Approach

Comment - Federico Faggins, in other talks emphasizes that - consciousness is not an epi-phenomena of materalism, but rather - consciousness is a foundational experience and materialism is derived from it -

for - Giocomo Mauro D'Ariano - Federico Faggin - Hard Problem and Free Will: An Information-Theoretical Approach - consciousness research

reference - youtube discussion of this paper by Giocomo Mauro D'Ariano - https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDb1XyS8gTo

for - quote - no cloning theorem - quantum mechanics - extended to consciousness and qualia - Frederico Faggin - hard problem of consciousness - no cloning theorem and private inner world of qualia - Frederico Faggin quote - no cloning theorem - quantum mechanics - extended to consciousness and qualia - Frederico Faggin - (see below) - What I feel what I feel is private. - What you feel is private. - You cannot transfer it to me - In order to tell you what I feel, I must translate that private feeling into classical information bit saying what I say. - The symbols must be this. - They must be sharable. - They must be copyable to share. You need to copy. Yeah. - My inner experience cannot be copied. And there is something in physics that cannot be copy. - In Quantum state, there is the "no cloning theorem", which says do not copy. - Not only that, but the maximum information that you can get if you make a measurement of the quantum state is one bit per quantum bit. - Olivas theorem says that and we have or Labor's theorem ourselves. What I can say about what I feel is much, much less

name for typewriter collectors via LogInternational2253

for - Federico Faggin - quantum physics - consciousness

summary - Frederico Faggin is a physicist and microelectronic engineer who was the developer of the world's first microprocessor at Intel, the Intel 4004 CPU. - Now he focuses his attention on developing a robust and testable theory of consciousness based on quantum information theory. - What sets Frederico apart from other scientists who are studying consciousness is a series of profound personal 'awakening'-type experiences in which has led to a psychological dissolution of the sense of self bounded by his physical body - This profound experience led him to claim with unshakable certainty that our individual consciousness is far greater than our normal mundane experience of it - Having a science and engineering background, Faggin has set out to validate his experiences with a new scientific theory of Consciousness, Information and Physicality (CIP) and Operational Probabilistic Theory (OPT)

to - Frederico Faggin's website - https://hyp.is/JTGs6lr9Ee-K8-uSXD3tsg/www.fagginfoundation.org/what-we-do/j - Federico Faggin and paper: - Hard Problem and Free Will: - an information-theoretical approach - https://hyp.is/styU2lofEe-11hO02KJC8w/link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-85480-5_5

for - hard problem of consciousness - Federico Faggin

for - Hard Problem and Free Will - an information-theoretical approach - consciousness research - Federico Faggin - Giocomo Mauro D'Ariano

for - progress traps - Nora Bateson - response to interviewer's comment on everyday example of complexity - parent encouraging children to go to school - example of mitigating progress traps - complexity is hard!

Read [[Martha S. Jones]] in A New Face for an Old Library Catalog

Discussion on harmful content in library card catalogs and finding aids.

The methods used to describe archive material can not only be harmful to those using them, but they also provide a useful historical record of what cataloguers may have been thinking contemporaneously as they classified and organized materials.

This is another potentially useful set of information to have while reading into historical topics from library card catalogs compared to modern-day digital methods.

Is anyone using version control on their catalogs?

McCullough, David. “David McCullough Interview with NEH Chairman Bruce Cole.” Humanities 23, no. 4 (August 2002). https://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/david-mccullough-biography.

Compare with: https://hypothes.is/a/yEFMHoCkEeyl34fItJe__w (Luhmann on thinking/writing in Sonke Ahrens)

for - adjacency - self construction - judgment as simplification - imagination is hard work

adjacency - between - self construction - judgment as simplification - imagination as hard work - adjacency statement - We construct the self of others because we are lazy. - It takes hard work to construct a complex picture of another human being. - It's easier to just pass simple judgment and create a label for the other.

58:00 "anteilig haben sie bei afghanen ein vielfaches an sexualdelikten als beim durchschnitt der bevölkerung. statistik. denk ich mir nicht aus." - "und davor wollen sie die jugend auch schützen?" - "ja, davor will ich auch die jugend schützen, jeden, auch sie."

ich glaube kaum, dass die gut in mathe ist. eine "bedingte wahrscheinlichkeit" (P von A wenn B) berechnen wird auch dadurch erschwert, wenn das ergebnis "schlechte stimmung" verbreitet.

mit der letzten antwort hat beckamp den vogel abgeschossen : D weil bevor linke sich von "nazis" helfen lassen, vorher friert die hölle zu!

54:20 "was würden sie sagen, wie viele ein-und-zwei-personen haushalte haben wir in großstädten wie in köln und düsseldorf?" - "viele." - "anteil? prozent?" - "ich bin ganz furchtbar mit zahlen." - "75 prozent."

warum eskaliert die gleich von "weiss ich nicht" zu "ich bin ganz furchtbar mit zahlen"?<br /> und warum erinnert mich das an den kontrast zwischen religion und naturwissenschaft...?<br /> religion im sinn von "my feelings dont care about your facts!!"

• for: the real BIG LIE, elephant in the room - wealth inequality, working class driven to hard right

• for: hard problem of consciousness - sensory motor theory, explanatory gap

• for: hard problem of consciousness - sensory motor theory

• for: explanatory gap

• comment

• insight
  • there is very little research on the role of language in the explanatory gap of the hard problem of consciousness

• for: quote - consciousness, quote - mind body problem, quote - hard problem of consciousness, quote - Thomas Nagel

• quote

  • Without consciousness the mind-body problem would be much less interesting. With consciousness it seems hopeless.

• comment

  • consciousness is primordial and
  • stable, observable patterns that emerge in our field of consciousness is also primordial
  • the primordiality of these two, awareness and stability of observable patterns WITHIN awareness itself, are the two pillars that constitute the mind-body problem
  • in particular, the pattern of "other consciousnesses" is also another pattern that arises from within consciousness itself
  • The brain is a construction, a synthesized idea that emerges out of a dynamic amalgamation of countless accumulated patterns
  • In this respect, it is no different in quality than other complex constructed ideas we humans create, it only differs by degree and by kind
  • Were we to purely sense a human brain, for instance when a surgeon opens the skull in an operation, without the vast associative network of ideas associated with it, could we even consider how brain and mind are connected except in the most naive way?
  • Language is deeply encoded in every culturally conditioned modern human. Then advanced education in a specific field of knowledge encodes even more esoteric and deeper types of language conditioning.
  • Husserl's idea of phenomenological reduction, or epoche taken to its logical conclusion results in an impossible task, for we cannot severe the deeply entangled nature of meaning that our entire lives of cultural conditioning has enculturated into us.
  • The symbolosphere is now a part of us. We cannot undo such deep conditioning easily. You cannot simply dissociate meaning from the letters and words of your native and learned languages. Indeed, it is this deep symbolic conditioning that spans the decades of our childhood and adolescence that allows us to observe a symbol and effortlessly associate meaning to it.
  • Epoche, no matter how carefully crafted cannot uncondition such deep conditioning
  • It can, however, give us insight of the unconditioned from the perspective of the conditioned consciousness
  • We cannot become feral people even if we wanted to, nor, I suspect, would we want to experience reality permanently in that state
  • This brings up the question of what the process of spiritual enlightenment is designed to achieve
  • Is it a temporary suspension, an incomplete epoche that provides us with sufficient insight to lead to some kind of permanent shift where the insight stays with us and affects our lives in a beneficial way?

.

similar to plan your work and work your plan

• comment
  • Michael does not know what the format of the answer to the hard problem would be
  • Attempting to explain the experience of consciousness begs the question
    • what is explanation?
  • The explanation often attempts to rely on measurable 3rd party observations and the scientific theories and models behind those observations
  • However, as Michel Bitbol points out, the models themselves emerge from the same awareness of consciousness
    • https://hyp.is/gQt0wlg_Ee6ftXcrEi3Z-g/docdrop.org/video/bzPu_USZ-0o/
  • In spiritual teachings, it is often claimed that the observer is actually an expression of the universe that see's itself
  • Seeing itself - what does this mean in scientific terms? Could it mean resonance, like the kind used by musicians to tune string instruments like guitars?
  • Do all the patterns that we sense become sensible precisely because they are all an intrinsic part of us, and vice versa?

• paraphrase
  • Karl Friston takes Andy Clark's perspective
    • the real problem is a meta problem
      • why do we spend so much time trying to make sense of our sense-making?
  • Karl talks about futures and different pathways to the futures
  • Humans seem to have this unique property to plan futures, some of which are counter-factual

• for: hard problem of consciousness

• for: question, question - hard problem of consciousness, question - Micheal Levin - Michel Bitbol

• question

  • What would Michel Bitbol think of what Michael Levin claims here?
  • What does Michel Bitbol think about Michael Levin's research and the hard problem of consciousness?

• for: key question, key question - hard problem of consciousness
• key questions
  • how could there be natural phenomena that are private and thus independent of physical processes
    • or how come they seem private?
  • what is the exact relationship between cognitive content and phenomenal consciousness?

• for: nonduality, non-duality, duality, dualism, hard problem of consciousness, explanatory gap, relativistic theory of consciousness, human INTERbeing, human INTERbeCOMing, Deep Humanity, DH
• title: A Relativistic Theory of Consciousness
• author: Nir Lahav, Zahariah A. Neemeh

• date: May 12, 2022

• abstract

  • In recent decades, the scientific study of consciousness has significantly increased our understanding of this elusive phenomenon.
  • Yet, despite critical development in our understanding of the functional side of consciousness, we still lack a fundamental theory regarding its phenomenal aspect.
  • There is an “explanatory gap” between
    • our scientific knowledge of functional consciousness and
    • its “subjective,” phenomenal aspects,
  • referred to as the “hard problem” of consciousness.
  • The phenomenal aspect of consciousness is the first-person answer to “what it’s like” question, and
    • it has thus far proved recalcitrant to direct scientific investigation.
  • Naturalistic dualists argue that it is composed of a primitive, private, non-reductive element of reality that is independent from the functional and physical aspects of consciousness.
  • Illusionists, on the other hand, argue that it is merely a cognitive illusion, and that all that exists are ultimately physical, non-phenomenal properties.
  • We contend that both the dualist and illusionist positions are flawed because they tacitly assume consciousness to be an absolute property that doesn’t depend on the observer.
  • We develop a conceptual and a mathematical argument for a relativistic theory of consciousness in which
    • a system either has or doesn’t have phenomenal consciousness with respect to some observer.
  • Phenomenal consciousness is neither private nor delusional, just relativistic.
    • In the frame of reference of the cognitive system, it will be observable (first-person perspective) and
    • in other frame of reference it will not (third-person perspective).
  • These two cognitive frames of reference are both correct,
    • just as in the case of
      • an observer that claims to be at rest
      • while another will claim that the observer has constant velocity.
  • Given that consciousness is a relativistic phenomenon, neither observer position can be privileged,
    • as they both describe the same underlying reality.
  • Based on relativistic phenomena in physics
    • we developed a mathematical formalization for consciousness which bridges the explanatory gap and dissolves the hard problem.
  • Given that the first-person cognitive frame of reference also offers legitimate observations on consciousness,
    • we conclude by arguing that philosophers can usefully contribute to the science of consciousness by collaborating with neuroscientists to explore the neural basis of phenomenal structures.

• comment

  • This is a promising approach to solving the hard problem of consciosness

As long as you know and understand what you're writing, use as many languages as you or your zettelkasten wants or needs.

I'm often working with ideas from other languages and cultures which have no direct translations into English, so I use those native words interspersed with English. Sometimes I don't have words in any language and make up a shorthand phrase in English until I can come up with a better word. Often I'll collect examples of the same "foreign" words in multiple contexts to tease out their contextual meanings as was comprehensively done with large group zettelkasten like the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae and the Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. I also frequently use mathematical symbols, equations, and other scientific notations, graphs, drawings, color, etc. to make my meanings clear.

I've also worked with historical figures who have had names in multiple languages over the centuries and cross index them in a variety of different languages based on context. As an example, I've got at least 11 different variations of names for Ramon Llull in almost as many languages and variations of transliterations. I try to keep each one in its original context, but link them in my index.

There are certainly zettelkasten out there written in four and more languages as suited the needs of their users. S.D. Goitein certainly used Hebrew, English, German, Arabic, Aramaic in his and may have likely had other languages (Yiddish, Coptic, Egyptian?) interspersed to lesser extents. Adolph Erman certainly used Egyptian hieroglyphs along with German in his. It can easily be argued that their zettelkasten and work required multiple languages.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180627163317im_/https://aaew.bbaw.de/wbhome/Broschuere/abb08.jpg A example zettelkasten slip showing a passage of text from the victory stele of Sesostris III at the Nubian fortress of Semna. The handwriting is that of Adolf Erman, who had "already struggled with the text as a high school student".

At the end of the day, they're your notes, so write them as you like.

reply to dandennison84 at https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/comment/17921/#Comment_17921

I've written a bit before on The Two Definitions of Zettelkasten, the latter of which has been emerging since roughly 2013 in English language contexts. Some of it is similar to or extends @dandennison84's framing along with some additional history.

Because of the richness of prior annotation and note taking traditions, for those who might mean what we're jokingly calling ZK®, I typically refer to that practice specifically as a "Luhmann-esque zettelkasten", though it might be far more appropriate to name them a (Melvil) "Dewey Zettelkasten" because the underlying idea which makes Luhmann's specific zettelkasten unique is that he was numbering his ideas and filing them next to similar ideas. Luhmann was treating ideas on cards the way Dewey had treated and classified books about 76 years earlier. Luhmann fortunately didn't need to have a standardized set of numbers the way the Mundaneum had with the Universal Decimal Classification system, because his was personal/private and not shared.

To be clear, I'm presently unaware that Dewey had or kept any specific sort of note taking system, card-based or otherwise. I would suspect, given his context, that if we were to dig into that history, we would find something closer to a Locke-inspired indexed commonplace book, though he may have switched later in life as his Library Bureau came to greater prominence and dominance.

Some of the value of the Dewey-Luhmann note taking system stems from the same sorts of serendipity one discovers while flipping through ideas that one finds in searching for books on library shelves. You may find the specific book you were looking for, but you're also liable to find some interesting things to read on the shelves around that book or even on a shelf you pass on the way to find your book.

Perhaps naming it and referring to it as the Dewey-Luhmann note taking system or the Dewey-Luhmann Zettelkasten may help to better ground and/or demystify the specific practices? Co-crediting them for the root idea and an early actual practice, respectively, provides a better framing and understanding, especially for native English speakers who don't have the linguistic context for understanding Zettelkästen on its own. Such a moniker would help to better delineate the expected practices and shape of a note taking practice which could be differentiated from other very similar ones which provide somewhat different affordances.

Of course, as the history of naming scientific principles and mathematical theorems after people shows us, as soon as such a surname label might catch on, we'll assuredly discover someone earlier in the timeline who had mastered these principles long before (eg: the "Gessner Zettelkasten" anyone?) Caveat emptor.

examples of high protein (hard) wheats: - Khorasan - Durum - Hard White Wheat - Hard Red Wheat - Red Fife

Good for breads, pizza, and things where chew is more valuable.

When Academic Historians Tackle Hard Histories by [[Martha S. Jones]]

too generic

Example of someone ("davecan") with a specific reason for using unique identifiers in the titles for their digital note taking.

https://www.pendrivelinux.com/universal-usb-installer-easy-as-1-2-3/

run-time dynamicness vs. hard-coded values hard-coded values = fixed secret

Generative ambiguity is the process of giving names, potentially tentative, to a nebulous collection of nascent and unclear ideas in an effort to help make sense of them both to themselves as well as others.

http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/DesigningGoodPageNames

Designing good page names

Tinderbox really is a fantastic name for a note taking / personal knowledge management system. Just the idea makes me want to paint flames on the sides of my physical card index. https://www.eastgate.com/Tinderbox/

syndication link

It's tough to do your own marketing and naming is hard. If you have an obscure short title, be sure to have a sharply defined subtitle, both for definition but to hit the keywords you'll want for discovery and search (SEO) purposes. Though be careful with keyword stuffing, if for no other reason than that Luhmann had a particularly sparse index.

Zettelkasten doesn't have much value for for native search (yet). Who besides a student that doesn't really want to buy it searches for a book on note taking?! Creativity, Productivity, and Writing are probably most of your potential market, so look at books in those areas for words to borrow (aka steal flagrantly). Other less common keywords to consider or throw into your description of the book, though not the title: research, research methods, literature review, thesis writing, Ph.D., etc.

Perhaps you've limited the question Scott. Instead ask everyone: What title would you want to see on such a book that would make you want to buy and read it? Everyone should brainstorm for 3 minutes and write down a few potential titles.

I'll start:

Antinet Method: Thought Development for Creativity and Productive Writing

Antinet Zettelkasten: A Modern Approach to Thought Development

Antinet: The Technique of Unreasonably Productive Intellectual Work (and Fun) [h/t F. Kuntze]

Mix and match away...

https://slate.com/culture/2022/06/book-titles-eleanor-oliphant-women-fiction.html

This article has a nice number of examples of the naming convention: "Protagonist Does a Thing"

I am a bit shocked to see Hypothes.is indicates that there are 31 (private) annotations on this particular page. What is going on here?!

Sadly, I've already forgotten his self-defined version of IP and I can only think of intellectual property. Is footnote mention linking it to intellectual property certainly didn't help things.

This is part of why using popular acronyms that aren't descriptive or clever is a bad naming practice.

from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Continuing with the idea above about the shift of Sunday morning talk shows and the influence of Hard Copy, is social media exerting a negative influence on mainstream content and conversation as a result of their algorithmic gut reaction pressure? How can we fight this effect?

There's something here that's akin to the idea of bikeshedding? Online communities flock to the low lying ideas upon which they can proffer an opinion and play at the idea of debate. If they really cared, wouldn't they instead delve into the research and topics themselves? Do they really want Taibbi's specific take? Do they want or need his opinion on the topic? What do they really want?

Compare and cross reference this with the ideas presented by Ibram X. Kendi's article There Is No Debate Over Critical Race Theory.

Are people looking for the social equivalent of a simple "system one" conversation or are they ready, willing, and able to delve into a "system two" presentation?

Compare this also with the modern day version of the Sunday morning news (analysis) shows? They would seem to be interested in substantive policy and debate, but they also require a lot of prior context to participate. In essence, most speakers don't actually engage, but spew out talking points instead and rely on gut reactions and fear, uncertainty and doubt to make their presentations. What happened to the actual discourse? Has there been a shift in how these shows work and present since the rise of the Hard Copy sensationalist presentation? Is the competition for eyeballs weakening these analysis shows?

How might this all relate to low level mansplaining as well? What are men really trying to communicate in demonstrating this behavior? What do they gain in the long run? What is the evolutionary benefit?

All these topics seem related somehow within the spectrum of communication and what people look for and choose in what and how they consume content.

Byline Times. (2020, October 25). Google doing its job here. Our revelations about the Koch funded libertarian think tanks behind the discredited Herd Immunity theory is public interest journalism [Tweet]. @BylineTimes. https://twitter.com/BylineTimes/status/1320322956837425152

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Martha S. Jones</span> in An Unexpected Connection - by Martha S. Jones (<time class='dt-published'>04/14/2022 09:17:10</time>)</cite></small>

https://hardhistoriesjhu.substack.com/p/a-colonization-connection

There are now enough colleges and universities looking into the overlap of their own histories and that of slavery and its effects on their development that there is now a consortium of them (the Universities Studying Slavery (USS)) and two day long conference.

https://hardhistoriesjhu.substack.com/

Taking a moment to send a warm thank you to all the work (both visible and invisible) that Dr. Martha S. Jones and her lab are doing for the Johns Hopkins Community and far beyond. Where ever you live, I heartily recommend their newsletter Hard Histories at Hopkins.

The hard problem of consciousness is still outstanding.

Could anthropological and philosophical linguistics be included in this trans-disciplinary analysis? I think language also plays a central role, as we are already sophisticated language users by the time we consider the possibility of raising this kind of question.

This is a very salient point. The experience of consciousness of a (multicellular) human being is the experience of a biological superorganism. While normativity may apply to the both single and multi-cellular beings by extension, we cannot infer from that alone that our experience of consciousness has an analog at the cellular level.

Plessner defines the interiority and exteriority condition of a living organism, giving a biological context for the hard problem of consciousness.

why is it so difficult/hard?

Good move. Rather than having 2 different methods, and requiring people to "go out of their way" to "opt in" to using chunks by using the longer-named javascript_packs_with_chunks_tag, they changed it to just use chunks by default, out of the box.

Now they don't need 2 similar but separate methods that do nearly the same, which makes things simpler and easier to understand (no longer have to stop and ask oneself, which one should I use? what's the difference?).

You can't get it "wrong" now because there's only one option.

And by switching that method to use the shorter name, it makes it clearer that that is the usual/common/recommended way to go.

more trouble than it's worth

• creating more complexity than it cured

"I'm not an expert, but it seems to me..."

I love that Frank calls his personal wiki / digital garden / online commonplace book "Frankopedia".

I should come up with a more clever name for mine.

How to work hard with clearly defined, externally imposed goals?

1. learn not to lie to yourself (i.e. avoid the truth) (e.g. procrastinate is a form of refusing to acknowledge the deadline)
2. not to get distracted
3. not to give up when things go wrong

"Courageous conversation is a strategy for breaking down racial tensions and raising racism as a topic of discussion that allows those who possess knowledge on particular topics to have the opportunity to share it, and those who do not have the knowledge to learn and grow from the experience." Singleton and Hays

Confusing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure) says

Not to be confused with tree (graph theory) "Tree (graph theory)"), a specific type of mathematical object. but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(graph_theory) redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure is in category Trees (data structures) So is one a subtype/hyponym of the other ... or what?? How are they related? Skimming the articles a bit, esp. the first paragraph which clearly states as much ( :) ), I believe the answer is: a tree (data structure) is an implementation (in a programming language) of / or a "type that simulates" a hierarchical tree structure. a tree (data structure) is the computer science analogue/dual to tree structure in mathematics

What, then, is the difference between a semantic domain and a semantic field? The way they are used here, it's almost as if they are listing them in order to emphasis that they are synonyms ... but I'm not sure.

From the later examples of basketball (https://hyp.is/ynKbXI1BEeuEheME3sLYrQ/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_domain) and coffee shop, however, I am pretty certain that semantic domain is quite different from (broader than) semantic field.