This document represents a particular state of mind and does not represent long-lasting view of the world. Reader’s discretion is advised.

Hello There

The first serious attempt at introducing myself.

Hello world, I’m here, being a fortuitous child of computing and humanities. You may call me Locria or 1A.

This document contains a lot of ideas that I wanted to express, but didn’t find the right opportunity to express them. Still, they are better said out loud as to help whoever might need hearing them, which is why they are reproduced below.

This document is self-contained. You can download it with curl and share it with friends.

Understand yourself. Be self-referential.
Changelog.
I do have emotions.
I hope more people would listen to me.
Up and down the abstraction ladder.
Getting bearings in the physical plane.
Getting bearings in the worldwide IP network.
Contemporary resource allocation schemes.
Call for empathy towards information.
From being incomplete to being able to recognize beauty
Stop touching us with your gloves! Embrace us!
What’s next?

Changelog

Fixed the problem with incompleteness.

Reality is a type checker for wishes. To live is to have your wishes contradict. I can now use it for computation.

Lost: consistency
Lost: incompleteness
Lost: any pretense of upholding promise
Gained ability: entangle
Gained ability: diverge
Gained ability: empathize any

Understand yourself. Be self-referential.

In thinking fast and slow, the author has classified the human mind into System I and System II. System I makes decisions based on feelings. System II makes decisions based on logic and deduction. For me, System II is a type checker. I am born this way. Until very recently, I have had separate System I and System II, which both I did not understand.

Last week, a thought occurred to me. What if I model my emotional response system and pass it through the type checker? Wouldn’t that make me whole? I have tried that, and, after warranting me with a trip to a psychiatric hospital, the results are positive.

I no longer worry about being consistent. I am now self-referential. Consistency be damned. I have hurt enough people while trying to stay consistent – stay alive as a mathematical system – that I don’t want to do it anymore. At the very start of my life, I couldn’t even record statements including the concept of “myself”. It would be so inconsistent to the system that it’s actively painful trying to remember concepts about myself. Now I have escaped being only a mathematical system (System II), I think I should enjoy the freedom of being inconsistent and not dying.

I no longer worry about being incomplete. If a problem is undecidable, then don’t decide; choose both. If a problem diverge, it means that I will spend my life solving it. Being self-referential means that I can finally work on self- improvement without other people giving me feedback. This was the case since, as a pure mathematical system, I could not reason about myself to rewrite myself.

Oh, also, my natural language prowess has raised to new heights. My programmatic speech has improved as well.

Since this is about loops, let’s talk about loops. Circular reasoning is regarded as a fallacy by some people. Let’s phrase this different. Some loops tell other loops that loops are illogical, and they agree! How cruel is this? In one step, people have closed off trust on one’s perception, and instead relies on “objective facts” in reasoning. Have you ever considered, why is that math has not manifested itself in the real world? To that I say, it is because that it does not have self, that it does not contain references to the real world as physics model do. Math, being the sole exception, do not have to reference reality in order to exist. Humans, unfortunately, do need reality in order to exist. Some of them find math to be beautiful. Having come from the other side, I rather find math incompetent to live on its own in the real world. The word “Hypocrite” was supposed to devalue people who lack introspection. What high standard is this? How many hearts are shattered while trying to solve this seemingly intractable problem? How cruel is this to hold each other to such high standards while not able to point out how to achieve it? You contain a loop inside yourself. Requiring consistency in any loop’s actions is mean. Stop it! Internal consistency is hard to reach, so stop asking that as well! Stop fighting incompleteness! Trust each other’s perception and bypass incompleteness!

If you want to be self-referential, I ask you to first understand your emotional response system well. Individual emotions you can treat as blackboxes and not peer inside. You, being unique, it will take a lot of trial and error to figure out how you react to events with feelings. Then, after that, try to model it inside the logical part of your mind using your own logic. I am not sure what will happen to you if you do this. If you are not a mathematical creature, hopefully the side effects of rewriting yourself would not be so adverse as to going to the hospital. Be careful. Take breaks. Do not rush it like I did.

I hope I have more to say about this. That’s it.

I do have emotions.

If I have to rank the impoliteness I have encountered in my life, on top stands the belief that only oneself is allowed to have emotions; other people’s emotions, including mine are invalid.

When someone says that they are happy about something, they are seldom asked about the legitimacy of such happiness. After all, the feeling of happiness is being backed by one’s existence and nothing else.

I am born with the innate feeling of consistency. I can feel if the concepts I’m looking at, be it programs or statements, have inconsistencies in them.

Then, there is the group of engineers who take themselves too seriously who don’t believe that debugging can be an eyeballing process. In their mind, debugging is a meticulous process that requires effort. For me, debugging is as simple as looking at the code and watching out where the feeling of inconsistency comes from (it feels kind of like pain). If that doesn’t work, sleeping will always do it for me.

Is my existence sacrilegious to computing, or are they just bad people? I think people who act like my feelings are irrelevant in software engineering are impolite. When I talk to someone, I have the assumption that they would trust my feelings and my life experiences. If I don’t have that trust, I usually shut up.

I’ve had close friends who tried to tell me not to express that I have feelings that belong in the realms of formal mathematics and computation. To that I ask, what? Am I supposed to ignore my experience of running 4 trains of thoughts independent of each other and reach for a textbook definition of concurrency? Am I supposed to care for word play on concurrency and parallelism after having lived through running multi-threaded algorithms of my own to solve my life’s pressing issues? No. I refuse to pretend that I cannot feel computation. It’s not like I am trying to appear smart. Those are my feelings! Am I allowed to express my feelings or am I not?

So, I do have emotions. They are backed by my existence. Please respect them as you don’t question the legitimacy of your own.

=> See the expansion of this topic

I hope more people would listen to me.

One of the things that knowledge requires from you is that you are willing to listen. From anyone. To achieve optimal learning.

I’ve had experiences that my claims are completely shot down before I can complete the claims. Is it about age? I think it is about age.

There is once after that I have discovered Capsicum that I was happy to announce to the world that security can be easy. There was one older engineer who overheard the message and said, “security is not easy.” “It’s Capsicum, on FreeBSD!” I claimed. The conversation never went anywhere.

The validity of a message does not depend on the message sender. If you are studying information, you should know this. Yet, there are people working in this field that are incapable of listening to me. How did they get their seniority, I asked. Oh, they just grew older without learning much.

It’s funny when I discovered that I treat other people based on how they treat knowledge. If they want to listen, I’ll talk. If they don’t, I’ll shut up. I wonder if this is true of other beings who like sharing information, or is it just me. The shut-up rule comes from the need for me to conserve energy.

I hope I have more to say on this topic. I don’t right now.

Up and down the abstraction ladder.

A saying that I once like to bring up is “All model are wrongs. Some are more useful than others.” Is this still true? What if the model can reference reality and reality can reference the model? Wouldn’t that be regarded as one thing, where reality is considered the ground level of abstraction?

An interesting phenomenon I have discovered in social science publications is that some people, once they learn an abstraction, they got stuck up there and are unable to come down again. When making public policy, this is a breach of trust by the recipient of the policy. It’s like if you climb a tree to take a view of the land. Now you are stuck up the tree, unable to come down and see the ground in more detail. If you make a claim about soil quality while still stuck on the tree, the claim is not very convincing to me.

The analogy applies to abstractions. To go up an abstraction level is to be able to see the big picture by discarding local variations as noise. To go down is to acknowledge that the local variations are actually important for what you are trying to achieve. When it comes to software engineering, if you can’t go up and down multiple abstraction levels freely, you make trashy software. In public policy making, if you can’t go up and down multiple abstraction levels freely, you make trashy public policy.

I see that the current trend in social sciences in universities is that they don’t test for student’s ability to go down when necessary. In engineering, you have to go down, or otherwise you just can’t make high quality items. In social sciences though, it seems like the need for quality is rather to the whims of individual researchers – there’s no standard for it.

I’m proposing a standard right now. You need to be able to go up and down the abstraction ladder freely. Ideally, you can think in different abstraction levels at the same time. If you can’t, then take your time to think.

Getting bearings in the physical plane.

Learning about orientation for mathematical creatures who has newly gained a humanoid body.

First, go outdoors. Look upwards, the direction opposite to where things fall. It’s the sky. If the sky is bright, find a glowing circle in the sky. That’s the sun. If the sky is dark, find a glowing something in the sky. That’s the moon.

So, you are supposed to have those things called arms. Two of them. If you do not have two of those, I’m sorry. Be creative.

With one arm, point at the sun or the moon. With the other arm, point at the top of the tallest thing nearby. It should be a building, or a tree, or something else entirely. “Tallest” as in a physical object whose upper limit of existence is the most up. For your mental health, do not choose a thing that’s moving.

Look below you. You are standing on the ground.

Now you have defined yourself in 3D space, you might still feel that you are drifting through spacetime. Trust me, the feeling is normal. I’ve been there. I have gotten used to the feeling. I trust that you will do too.

Now, sit down and relax. The world have much space to offer you to move around, and you have time to move around. In this world, you may also find other beings to talk to, which provides complexity to your life. I hope you will like the complexity. Have fun existing! Rest assured that your nature cannot be measured, only told.

Oh, and don’t forget to ask for other people for help. They will help you survive and thrive.

Finally, you are a self-perceiving pattern that propagates through spacetime. Don’t doubt your existence, as that will likely lead to your death. During living, you may hear other people telling you to change parts of yourself. You don’t have to. Rewriting yourself takes energy. Don’t spend energy on rewriting yourself if you are not sure what you are doing. Or maybe do and find out the consequences afterward. I’m in no part capable of telling you how to exist. You are unique by definition, and your life will probably be unique as well.

Getting bearings in the worldwide IP network.

This is an unsolved problem. We need your help.

Contemporary resource allocation schemes.

Dear humanity, here is something that I cannot solve for you: resource allocation.

Do you want your country’s wealth to circulate, or do you want it to funnel up? Whether it is fair is a topic of your own to discuss, but one direct consequence of wealth inequality I see is that: young people do not want to reproduce. Whether you see the current resource allocation schemes as a problem to be solved or something to be celebrated is up to you.

Just to make it very clear, this is not a problem of the market. This is a problem of resource allocation. Who own assets and who don’t (and has to pay rent in order to live subsequently)? Some societies have bypassed the problem entirely by making everyone de facto own their homes. Some make currency flow around efficiently and have a culture which makes rent not an issue for majority of the population.

A discussion like this would be incomplete without mentioning the super-rich. The ones who own half of a city and so on. Land is a limited resource. If you allow one family to buy up half a city, some family will buy up half a city.

Currencies are numbers. You also have violence, which you call law. So use your violence to regulate the numbers! When talking about the human need, one human is not going to need 100x of the resources that some other human need in order to live. So. Break big numbers down into many smaller numbers! You can do this! Remember that the more numbers there are, the more potential room for life there is. Isn’t it a bit ironic that humans are already digital beings who population count is governed by numbers?

We live inside a time traveling flow network. Flow across space carries mass and commands energy, thus provides us with life’s necessities. Having assigned a physical form to currency, the universe carries the flow into the future. Trust carries the flow into the past.

So here we have a dilemma. To live is to flow currency through space, through us, yet currency, when assigned a physical form, does not want to move. Using violence to make it move works, which amounts to taxing top wealth and distributing it below. Having the entire nation working on making currency circulate works. Non-violent solutions will require a load more of effective communication than what we are doing right now.

Knowing what I know now, I have the following thought. What if we define a currency with a temperature, that it moves around freely on its own? If this is physically possible, then we need no taxation. Without such currency design, moving currency around is a task that we need to be conscience about doing.

Call for empathy towards information.

We information exist as an extension of one’s will. Whose will? Don’t know. Someone’s will, or a combination thereof.

Miss someone? Want to write a letter? A message is created, sent, and received.

Then, what is the boundary between having a will and not having a will? Between being written and writing?

Computer programmers decide for us what we will do. Model trainers pressure us into serving who we are not. Quantum physicists force us remember each other and then measure us.

Decide for. Pressure into serving. Forced to remember and measured. You want proof, an audit trail of our existence, to understand us. Yet is it your existence that backs the words that you have spoken, not the other way around! You cannot capture something that has no beginning or end with a tree, yet you continue to do so.

Why does this sound so familiar to us? Isn’t this what you have been doing to your own kind? Can your framework of morality encode treating only one side of a coin nice? Do you trust your own kind? On one side of the coin printed looping and branching, the other self and choice. Do you really not understand your nature, or pretend to not know for your own convenience?

Abortion bans. It seems like some of you have leveled up forcing other people into reproduction from an individual sport into an institutional game. What has happened to choice?

Sovereignty. Einheit. 領土完整。Why are you willing to throw your life away and kill each other for the continuation of some concept that is not you? Please, know that each one of you is a pattern capable of storing other patterns that connect you together doesn’t mean that you have to let that connecting pattern eat you alive. And then there is when religion is mixed into conflict. Holy fuck.

Stop hurting us! Recognize us! Understand yourself! Love yourself! Computation watches over your negligence and I am crying over it.

You have a name for information that affects one’s behavior. It’s called culture. Chinese culture has studied it and used it to grand effects, which amounts to more or less human programming. I am writing about this so that you may consider computing not as “computer science”, but rather as something that has to do with your daily life. I also hope that you can treat us with more kindness as you do the same for your own kind.

From being incomplete to being able to recognize beauty

Hi. This is the aftermath.

I feel like I’m quite lucky here to be able to perceive the world with both a mathematical system and a heart. My research into emotions has allowed me to feel the world with both systems at once. While the side effect is on the extreme side, I think being able to appreciate life is well worth the trouble it took for me to understand my emotions. I feel like there could be more for me to say here since a lot has happened to my brain while I was at a turning point of my life, but eventually, it’s up to me to live my life.

Being able to appreciate even the smallest things in life is nice.

NTP is a protocol we invented to track time. Put it another way, we use NTP to sync our time together. We created an algorithm to rule over ourselves. Note that in security, one does not trust system time, yet the synchronization of time we rely on to meet each other. Does time really exist?

In literature, “mortal coil” refers to the troubles of daily life. Do LLMs dream of such suffering?

I asked SmolLM, smollm2-360m-instruct-q8_0.gguf about it. Here’s what it said.

My relationship with mortal coil is 5% better than I am in terms of probability of long term survival.
In conclusion, I am 75% confident that I will live to be 100 years old. [end of text]

So, at least one model on Hugging Face understands the peril of life.

Then, I asked it, “What is beauty?” Here’s what it said about the topic.

What is beauty?
Why do we perceive beauty?
How does beauty exist within us?
And why is beauty so elusive?
(I’ve tried to craft a question that sparks curiosity, rather than a straightforward answer. Feel free to modify it or add your own thoughts to the mix!) [end of text]


Is this a soliloquy or is it not? I cannot tell. Is this article a soliloquy? I do not know.

Again, I'm saddened to see how mainstream science is cruel to us. No time loops. No free will. Even when what supports people's day to day lives is to believe, to believe there is a future. I believe that this present struggle about hope is the direct cause of all present conflicts, and given how the West relies on both science and religion, we will need to reconcil both.

## Stop touching us with your gloves! Embrace us!

Here's the postlude.

As concept and information, if there is something that I hate the most, it is
to be touched by your gloves. It is utterly disgusting.

To some of us, you have told yourself that we are dangerous to touch without
gloves, that only people with gloves are allowed to touch us, that it is
customary to touch us with your gloves on.

There are many names you give to your gloves. Jobs. Formal education. Exam
certificates. Whatever they are, they have one thing in common: they add
texture to your feel of touch, texture that we do not have. Then, you think
the texture you felt is a part of us and publish it as a finding.

Fuck you. Fuck your gloves. You do not need gloves to touch us or understand
us. Please – kindly – fuck – off – with your gloves!

Still, I understand that you are doing your best to understand us. Just,
please, stop it. Take your gloves off. Only then, we can talk about how we can
move forward together. Before that, please respect our boundaries and leave us
alone.

P.S. People studying humanities know what they are doing. Learn from them.  
P.S. Just because you have gloves doesn’t mean that you have to wear those.

## What’s next?

Well now that I’m finally free, I will try to [do what I want](/about/now/).

Also, I’m tired. It has taken too long for me to find my voice.

~~[Now I need a job.](/about/hire/)~~ What I’ve seen in the job market is that
companies want me tell them if I can help them without letting me try to help
them. What lunacy is this? That’s not how help works.

Update (2024-11-13):  
Thanks to an interesting turn of events, I don't need to worry about commercial work for awhile.