Why we don't fall into the Sun

In 4space Earth is a toroid which sits securely at the corresponding height of Sol's gravity well. Initially a shortsighted observer may find it necessary to pack and/or unpack the dimension of time into one's perception when extrapolating this stance. For instance, the Sun is a sphere when considering Earth's toroidality, yet becomes a toroid itself when considering it's revolution about Sagitarrius*. We may only fall into a gravitational well at the rate at which its source is able to draw in the surrounding space. This seems to be true if space can be seen as having some energy/mass of it's own (being an extremely dilute plasma) because then as mass is added to the bottom of the gravity well, the angle would begin to open wider and wider. Huzzah! This is why singularities appear invisible to us! They are not a "hole" in the fabric of 4space this is impossible as we have just defined space as a dilute plasma. Rather, a singularity is an extremely massive tho compact (perhaps the center is energy itself with no extance at all) toroid whose pull downward on the surrounding 4space is felt over such vast interstellar distances that the angle of the well approaches 180 degrees. This would confer direct invisibility as we have evolved to perceive appreciable gravity spikes. The further we zoom in/out on our familiar world, the further we depart from our proprietarily evolved algorithms for interpreting our surroundings. However one blessed with acumenical (sic) thinking would realize a toroid may just as easily sit at the bottom of a gravity well. When considering what the center hole of the toroid would have upon the fabric of 4space I run into difficulties. Similarly this model breaks down in the relativistic sense. If considering the massive/compact well of Sol, we can imagine the Earth's toroid sitting at it's proper height. However when considering the location of Luna's toroid we realize in order to incorporate relative effects over distances (read: Sol has a much weaker effect on Luna than does Earth) we need to incorporate a model that conveys density of space. A model of this already exists in the form of topographical maps of elevations on a 2D map. This can be applied in a 3D computer generated representation where space is akin to a translucent gas of differential coloring of the visible spectrum which would correspond to a legend (which would change dependent upon the scope of the recreated area of space). In such a model we would be able to begin to push out into an increasingly objective view of our universe.


Bereft of Center

Where shall one point if asked where is the first cell that was "you". This line of thought helped me to understand the trite assurance by physicists that there is no center to the universe. This, because I've held the view for some time that the difficulty in finding the organic/physical boundary pursues an erroneous task due to mismatch in scale. On the scale most "organisms" are familiar with (ie Earth), there are extremely locally unique limited resources. Yet on the scale of stars within a single galaxy, we currently perceive the landscape to be relatively homogenous. This may merely imply a difference in competitive pressures which are the direct inputs to which the time throttle of evolution is adjusted. From this viewpoint, seeing as how competition on cosmic scales is much tamer, we may then begin to see why there exists only one type of body which actually appears to feed on like types: singularities. Excluding these, all other forms of change arise from (similarly gravitational) affectations upon the body's own components. Zooming all the way out one then begins to ask what would the universe appear to one able of perceiving merely energy densities per unit space (assuming space bends/shifts much slower than energy flows, space seems suited as the denominator. Tho, then again, space is only bent due to changes in energy concentration, commonly in the form of matter... Chicken and the egg? Or another false dichotomy?...)
Zooming back in we can then extrapolate from this assumption that maximizing competitive pressures on a system may serve as a variable to increase it's relative rate of evolution. Especially in the context of an evolved AI which will have to find a way to circumvent all the physics that has taken place since the first thing we would call an organism evolved from component nonorganic parts... (anticlimax: life doesn't necessarily require procreation but it seems a useful tool in the context of increasing pressures. Hopefully virtual lessons of "survival" learned from cellular automata may even be applied to our own survival, up to and inclusive of the point when an intelligence beyond my own solves the overly-accepted whole business of the dyings.)


Chaotic Determinism and Other Contradictions

How can a system be simultaneously chaotic (and thus unpredictable) and deterministic? 

A common trend I've found in attempts to predict states is the obligatory necessity of the variable of time into the equations of said system. How else are we to pinpoint when each successive state should occur? This though seems to be a carryover from an antiquated absolutist perspective rather than one of relativism. Here we encounter a problem of identity. One may very well define states in terms of contributing causative variables, which would be instructive in an if/then sense, however we must eventually relate this information back to a location if any prediction is to be had. I propose recursively analytically redressing the state in question's composite variables into equations descriptive of their own states as being necessary before we may do so with a more abstracted subject. Building up the inputs thusly as equations themselves defines them in terms of time on a more subjective aspect which may then be more correctly combined to a generalized view. Similarly, where time is used to specify location, so too must we necessarily include terms for spatial localization, as one without the other conveys incomplete information. This may very well require us to define equations in parallel while holding all but one dimension as constants. We may then finally combine these equations into it's generalized form. From the assumed 4 dimensions of classical physics, if lack of specificity continues to propagate after all other potential variables have been ruled out we may then be forced to used our best 4space predictive equations and use them to attempt an analysis of some associative predictive value among the 4 known dimensions to infer some hypothetical n extra dimensions (or at some limit as dimensionality approaches some value, etc). Assuming independence of dimensions (as one must for them to be truly unique and so defined) we would only be able to know beyond the observed dimensions probablistically and so would eventually have to identify a means of directly observing said dimensions. As I, for one, continue to perceive with difficulty the 4 that are to be known as such (though I do understand spatial percepts to be just as subject to emotional state as time is known to be) I fear knowledge beyond this to be the domain of any eventual constructed intelligence to ponder. Not to be outdone though we may then set such a successful AI to the task of developing a codec to convey this new perspective to us. If we are to assume, if this point is reached at all, that 5 would be an unlikely maximum we may then see that perception may still be conveyed as a rapidly rotating representation of 3 directly perceivable dimensions at a time, so that others may be seen as represented in terms of our minimally necessarily evolved 3 "known" spatial ones. An analogy of this (itself analogous) construct may here be appropriate. If we, for instance, wished to expand our visually perceivable range of the EM spectrum, this may be accomplished by rotating views of the usual range, a red-shifted "thermal" range, and a blue-shifted "UV" range. By doing do we may begin to form associations between familiar objects of natural experience with their presented representations as seen in outlying spectra. Insodoing we may be actively introducing the very circumstances which will serve to naturally select our own evolution. The requisite area of competition however may be shifted from the domain of survival of subspecies over to an evolving economy subject to market forces associated with the survival of brain-compute interface products. As the level of brain-computer interfacing increases, the relative proportion of organic computation remaining will begin to dwindle, representing a possible completely fluid evolution from organic to synthetic organism. Wow, getting all Ship of Theseus on ya...


The Illusion of the Vector of Time

Followup to: Testing Bidirectional Temporal Causality

Hypothesis: That the human perception of time is proprietarily directional.

Similarly, the magnitude of such a vector is called into question, and assuredly relativistic. Whereas (assuming General Relativity) the local background magnitude of time is established at a gravitational baseline, organisms capable of perception may still perturb this standard. When danger is perceived, adrenal hormones activate the sympathetic nervous system which upregulates the rate at which we process our percepts. This has evolved in us because it's selected for organisms who, when in danger, were able to sufficiently rapidly perceive the situation and extricate themselves from harm's way. In this way we already have a shaky relationship with the historical conception of absolute and objective time.

Typical detractors of temporal bidirectional potential usually fall into the "free will" camp. They affirm that if the future could affect the past, then an observer of an effect could act to prevent its future cause from ever occurring. This is a fallacy for three reasons. Firstly, the acting agent is assumed to already understand the very retrocausal linkage between the future cause and past effect of which is intended to be disproved. Otherwise how can he be supposed to know the effect precedes it's cause? Secondively, the contained assumption of free will belies a belief of being independent of physical laws. At once they have the power to effect change in the world, while necessarily also existing outside of the causal relationships (uni- or bi-directional) which led to the foreseen event. However there are not separate causes for physical and organismal processes, this is a false dichotomy possibly due to a human-centrist viewpoint. The inability to consider the view under consideration therefore stems from incomplete immersion in the possibility. They are in effect standing in their worldview and looking over into another and attempting to show it to be false by arguing with assumptions retained from their initial stance.

My personally chosen bias for the deterministic stance (sic) leads me to reason that regardless of the perceived directionality of time, co-inhabiting agents within the same universe will necessarily have an extraordinarily diverse system of causality among themselves. (My instinct tells me that this expanding network of complexity may be a physical correlate to Darwinian natural selection. This, that causality among interactions of organisms and the physical environment results in the differential survival of organisms possessing very disparate qualities, which are then upregulated by successful procreation. Perhaps more on this in a later post.)

If we so accept to have evolved in order to adjust the magnitude of time to suit our survival needs, what then is contained within temporal direction which precludes it from variability? Given our common, proprietary evolution it is unlikely that humans will be capable of themselves internally reversing this direction. However, if we assume the possibility of the creation of an artificial intelligence, we may then set upon the task of interpreting the process of intelligence as we know it in terms of time. Once this is realized we can then change the constancy of directionality into a variable, and in so reverse it. If this were to be possible, while also retaining the requisite codec for human communication, the result would be that once the AI was activated it would be able to immediately convey all that it has learned whilst perceiving backwards in time, over the duration of it's lifetime. From this view, birth and death also become subjective labels for the restraints of an existence. Our perceived eventual destruction of such an AI could likewise be seen as it's creation. 

If this is not immediately obvious, note that the womb of a woman becomes her stomach in reversed time. This however creates a vacuum with regards to our creation. If we are to fully assume the disregard for temporal directionality, everything will need to be understood on such terms. However, this self-delivered ignorance would then place us perspectively upon the stage of true fourspace. Once this is achieved, perhaps additional extant dimensions will slowly make themselves known to us in a similar fashion as time had, only indirectly at first. This hypothetical future would then enjoy a revolution in science and lifestyle. 

Revolutions in human history are the phase transitions of punctuated evolution which are alone responsible for our progress as a species. All bystanders merely perform the role of consumers necessary to provide tangible incentive. Indirect gains of such revolutions are often more prized by society in retrospect. The average life expectancy of humans has dynamically fluctuated around 18-35 years throughout the majority of known history. That is, until the advent of the Industrial Revolution, ever since which we have enjoyed a Moore's Lawsian increase of life expectancy by 3 months for each subsequent year. My dream is the increase in slope of  life expectancy until such time as we are able to experience a year's increased expectation for each year. This alone demonstrates the utility associated with an objective change in the perspective of our species. 

That science should be enough to deliver this change ignores the diversity of needs of our population. The utility of physical or cosmological revolutions have never been associated with objective benefits likely due to the fact that the knowledge itself only possesses subjective utility, and to an ashamedly small subset of people at that. Attempting to change perspectives without accounting for the associated fear at the realization of prior ignorance, is doomed to failure. There needs to be a demonstrable short-term benefit to the change in thought. This will lead to accelerated widespread adoption and therefore increased realization of the subsequent benefits of such. Consistency in our progress assures that it is not "if" this projection comes to pass, only how and "when".


A Second Look at Percepts

Followup to: A View of Perception

Disillusionment is the purpose of scientific inquiry. As subjective individuals we are plagued by (arguably) useful illusions. The severe schizophrenic is only decided to be experiencing hallucinations in that, when compared to his peers, those percepts result in less than competitive behaviors (as interpreted by local ethics and ideals). Hallucination is therefore seen to enter into the field of relativism.

Psychologists interested in elucidating perspectivism often turn to child development for answers. A child is born with an equivalent compliment of sense hardware that an adult possesses. The difference in abilities of a newborn and an average adult is therefore one of apperception, of which, an excellent example lies in the field of neurolinguistics. Child A is alone in a room with a toy. A scientist stands on the outside of a one way mirror viewing the room with child B. Child A is seem to place a toy plane under the bed and exits the room. Another scientist then enter the room, removes the toy plane from under the bed and places it in the toybox. Child B is then asked "When child A goes back into the room where will he look for the toy?" The interesting bit is that until the age of about 3+1/2 child B will invariably answer that child A will look in the toybox. The hypothesis goes that until around this age children have not yet formed a theory of other minds. Such concepts as "knowledge that I know, but that I also know that you don't know" are not yet realized. 

Even more interesting is that around the advent of sign language there was an all deaf school in Nicaragua. The method of how best to teach these children was a difficult one, and tended to focus on written composition, most of the lessons going over the students' heads. However when at play the children, over time, developed their own way of communicating using their hands to sign, which was then passed on to subsequent years of students. When the first generation (class) became adults they performed this same experiment on them, and surprisingly they gave answers in line with the under 3 group. When the later classes were tested, who were using the same language of signs that began with the now adult students, they answered correctly that Child A would check under the bed because he did not know the plane had been moved in his absence. It seemed that the early form of the sign language had only one concept of knowing (positive or negative), while the younger children had developed the language to have 12 distinct concepts of knowing. This progression of abstraction in language mirrors their progress in abstract thought. 

Extracting knowledge from pre-language children is much more prone to conjectural bias. In what ways has the evolved form of our brains prepared is for perceiving? As a species we seem to have large agreement in at least what we are able to communicate via language. How then has the form of our brain biased our perceptions? It seems likely that the subspecialties of our brain (spatial orientation in the parietal lobe, complicated stereotypic pattern recognition such as faces in the temporal lobe, etc) evolved by relatively conferring greater advantages to individuals with more of what we have now. This forms the substratum processor however all perception must come from individual experience. The evolved structures just make it more likely that when you see, for example, a human face you will recognize it quickly. In this way the OS functions as a hierarchical if/then system, itself evolving through greater and greater experience. In this way, the more we experience the real world, the more we can propose hypotheses as to why our ancestors evolved thusly. For example: why is our visual range 390 to 750 nm?

Overlapping perceptions in parallel likely evolved to minimize vulnerability and time until independence. Sensory inputs bereft of learned rules of thumb seems to be disorienting to a human child. Visual input may take the form of a changing wall of various colors. Repeated exposures to human faces activates a selected for empathy reflex to mimic the emotion perceived. Thus when the child cries it may be perceiving something negative. The fact that he/she is then consoled into complacency mirrors telling a schizophrenic individual that their percepts are hallucinations. Early child percepts are thus tied to relative hallucinations required some sort of additional info to clarify. For instance, how can a child know anything about a table until they have combined the percepts of touch with the visual (hopefully at a low velocity). From these perceived events in parallel we then begin to form rules of thumb, which then may become streamlined as legitimate worldviews. These, I would argue, only rarely deviate significantly from the consensus since they are necessarily processed within our ancestrally evolved and inherited neuronal framework.

In a strict deterministic stance, a subjective consciousness such as that as humans possess may be said to describe a one-dimensional universe from the perspective of the brain. This assumes defining your own path as a straight line and realizing that what is normally perceived of as 3- (or 4-) dimensional turns in relation to the Earth is merely a proprietary view. One may only guess if any scientific investigation departing with this view would complement the increasingly useful philosophy of relativism. 


A View of Perception

Most of us take the perceived world around us as received truth. So when I first read the philosophies of Plato (and Pythagoras) about how there is the perceived world AND a super-sensible world which is invisible to us (as described by non-empirical sciences like math) I immediately called shenanigans. That is, until I consider that everything man-made is customized to our limited range of the EM spectrum. I am aware of no such bias in the natural world. Snakes hunt by perceiving thermal radiation, bats navigate using sound waves, and platypi use electroreception (ie locate their prey in mud partly by detecting electric fields generated by muscular contractions). I have no idea how each of these animal's worldviews compares to that of humans, but it is not fanciful to suppose they would be significantly different. These example species too would initially be of the opinion that their perception of the world is it's true nature. Would they be wrong? Are we wrong to assume it similarly? Of course not. But it would be wrong if we then went on to presume a single perspective can fully describe any system.

Increasing rates of adoption of the philosophy of science among innovators is what has accelerated technological progress in the past century. This suggests a view that objectivity is being socially selected for. Capitalism too can be seen fundamentally to be an outgrowth of democratic principles in that manufacture of a given commodity is upregulated by individual purchasers (subject to thresholds). The will of society is thus demonstrated to be directly linked to the concepts of both objectivism and economy.

If we may assume science is the pursuit of objectivism (universal agreement), and further assume that objectivism is merely the summed synthesis of subjective perspectives (as communication approaches infinity), then many unquestioned opinions held from childhood begin to float to the top: becoming subject to the scrutiny of informed analysis and choice, rather than an incorporation due to a blanket trust of authority. (Note: Behavior need always be subject to authority, while thought on the other hand fully requires rebellion and independence in order to thrive towards originality). Descartes says that ultimately we are able to control our own thoughts and nothing more. With this in mind I further clarify it impossible to change the minds of others. Even if it were accomplished how would we then know it to be so? Only through the lens of behaviors, of which the antecedent motives are impossible to be known except to their author. If we then take Descartes' view as an axiom and combine it with the previous axiom of science as objectivism, we find that it follows that one should increasingly upregulate the objectivity of the self. But how can this be? Wasn't the self previously alluded to as being the very essence of subjectivity? Yes, but upon realizing this, an individual so inclined may then work towards adopting a more universal approach to life. This is the lesson of Game Theory. As an individual increasingly incorporates and adjusts for the desires, preferences, and motivations of others whom they significantly interact with in their life, a subsequent outgrowth of cooperation is realized. Significant interactions here may be defined as sources of competition or perceived prevention of the attainment of personal goals. This expectation follows when rational individuals realize that probability theory demonstrates the product of probability and summed profits is maximized over time by cooperation. Taking cooperation to it's logical extension we see that any economy of pure cooperation is solely driven by positive sum innovation: a profit which benefits all. In such a society the selective pressures of education and creativity would evolve to an increased level of valuation.

Next werk's blog title: The Republic of McGillicuddy (lulz)


Gravity Musings: Antenna + Spherical 4space Compression Wave edition

Research more about: MiniGRAIL, how antennas work/different types, limits of detection of gravity waves, feasibilty of broadcasting with a minigrail/Mario Shenberg construction (frequency/distance/size/materials??).


Approach/Avoidance I

I am very interested by anthropological patterns of approach/avoidance behaviors and what they may reveal about the incorporation of taboos into cultures. In modern society the quickest way to determine an individual's self-imposed borders is via language. By adeptly titrating perceived cultural taboos into the conversation, one may determine one's relativisitic level of open-mindedness and as a secondary result, that individual's go-to methods for coping with unexpected situations. Thus forming the quick sketch of an individual in the archetypal first impression.


Testing Bidirectional Temporal Causality

Since we have evolved to generally perceive causality as proceeding forward in time it is at least implicitly counterintuitive to propose that causality may be in fact temporally bidirectional. To suppose such a hypothesis is liberally tantamount to an insult (or at least conservatively indicative of a lack of esteem) towards science as a whole. However as systems become increasingly chaotic our current standard for predictive power begins to approach the limit of its power (e.g. weather, population growth, and the evolution of celestial magnetic fields). Increased accuracies, accommodation of initial conditions, and iterative inclusion/exclusion of increasingly predictive variables does not seem to be appreciably accelerating the curve of this differential. I, therefore propose that our perceived relation to the dimension of time to be a proprietary one. Taking into account that evolution selects for merely the minimally subjectively competitive traits (i.e. in this case, calibration of the senses) we should be careful to not take our conscious experience to be anything more than a locally objective standard. By extension then the pursuit of any truly objective knowledge must follow a comparable course of critical competition if the result is to be the same: evolution.
In science we seek to avoid bias, the most paradoxically challenging one to foresee implicitly being expectation bias itself. Moving forward in time we tend to use statistical algorithms (e.g. Monte Carlos, Metropolis) that follow energy through time since in any open system energy will move downhill. I propose following a disparate variable backward through time will minimize any tendency towards bias, while also adding power to any algorithm that seeks to predict the state of a system for any given time. Extrapolating this reductionistic physical perspective even allows for the tracking of variables (mass, space, energy) linearly through the spatial dimensions as well. Quadratic equations modeled in parallel, holding each dimension constant in turn, will describe the system from the multiplicity of perspectives possible (themselves potentially to be modeled together with a Monte Carlo-like random statistical algorithm). Then since objectivity is merely the sumof all possible subjective states, these proprietary equations may then be combined to give greater discriminatory power for the prediction of the system's state. This information can then be retrofitted back to human perceptual bias as needed for translation into non-mathematical languages.


Transhumanism + Writing Wrongs = ...

Ima write a book now about philosophy. See ya.


Who Do I Bill for My Ideas?

The economy of intellectual property and virtual merchandise is on the precipice of a shift. Where does it go to? Let me guess at you:

* Ad-served: Hulu and Pandora have been successful at providing extremely varied content to users for free. This will likely be standardized throughout the virtual merchandise field to capitalize on the market lost to illegal downloaders. This may be accomplished by developing any system that is comparable easier/faster at delivering the music of interest to the end-user as a way of outcompeting the illegal access. The speed category will be harder to compete in as the speed and availability of wifi networks increases, but ease of integration has no foreseeable ceiling. Legitimate/commercial sources should never be outcompeted by open source if managed correctly. Regardless of philosophies, the commercial industries have more resources at their disposal. A greater shift of investment to research & investment would clinch this advantage by (at least temporarily) reducing competition, and increasing the positive-sum opening of novel niches within the market. Any perceived advertising bubble could easily be avoided by only selling ads for concrete products on these services.

* Facebook model: I don't know enough about economics to know how this will come about in practice. Somehow a relative relationship between competing products would be monitoring based on use and ratings (e.g. "likes"), which would then be correlated to a corresponding "virtual share of the market". Ok fuck I just got it. Integration with a stock market-type system of investment would allow a pool of money to be available to flow to the producers. Perhaps even as information technology advances, investment into specific products rather than mere corporations would create more precise selection pressures to drive innovation.

* I just feel like I should have three bullets: That's better



I like metacritic becuz I like myself.

I waits till someone says they dun like Whitney Houston so I can get mad and say "Hey that's a very misogynistic thing to say becuz she's every woman"

Added demographic: idiots who like wordplaydates and indie jokes -- this way I spare the fb of my itchier sayings.

Bird of Paradise Lost

I remember when I used to want to teach a parrot to repeat longer and longer phrases. Then I would've taught him to argue that he is producing conscious thought but that he is deaf and blind so cannot respond to specific questions. But then I realized to make it believable I'd probably hafta really blind him... So I've changed it to a cockatiel instead.


Smell und Taste? *blank stare

My cowerker was talking at meh about some Dateline report about such and such nasal spray drug may cause loss of sense of smell. That almost got me thinking... and then suddenly, it did. I wonder what the bioeconomics (not a real word) of getting rid of your smell and taste senses would be. Oxford style debate begins now!

Pro: As Americans we need to constantly be moving towards improved health and fitness. The deletion of increasingly detrimental peripheral senses such as taste and smell would be beneficial for two main reasons. The fast food industry has taken off by creating superstimuli-containing products that serve to overstimulate senses which have evolved over time for location of sources of nutrition. Unfortunately, as subjective experience benefits from only minimal discriminatory power the conditions in which these senses developed have increasingly been used against us. According to the CDC's death most recent statistics on the leading causes of death for Americans, a full 45% are directly attributable to these superstimulating diets (e.g. heart disease, stroke, and diabeetus; source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm). This is not to mention the potential for contributory causality in some cancers and secondary causality for CKD in both heart disease and diabeetus. Read this as you are equally likely to ultimately die from what you are eating as all other causes combined. We have progressed to the point that we can consciously decide what is healthy to eat independent of these outdated senses, and loss of pleasure in food would likely push the average diet more towards the healthy end of the spectrum this sentence feels like a runon what do you think? (Oh and caloric restriction is associated with longer healthy lifespan even in macaques). Any potential venue for mitigation of this epidemic should be investigated. Its so ez to do in practice too: just spray botulism toxin up your nose and cut off thine tongue with rusty shears in the bathroom.

Amateur: Changing the human condition so drastically immorally is tantamount... uh tant... wait... what the?! *buggered face*

Pro: A fully disparate potential avenue for goodifying ourselves is the fact that brain real estate is at maximum capacity in the short term. Thus to maximize competitive fitness psychosocial evolution must therefore supercede the reproductive flavor. In this vein, eliminating unnecessary and clearly detrimental sensory inputs would actually free up room (at least) in the quickly reassigned neocortical columns that had been occupied by taste and smell processing. This would allow additional networking of progressively iterative abstractions such as other sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought and language. I, for one, clearly have too much neocortical resources assigned to language based on this blog.

Con: I mean "with".

The Oxford style I referred to in the jump was actually Oxford, Kentucky. Hope that clears up any rash you likely have.

Revised demographic: just me.

Should I add a picture? I am not finding one of rusty shares clipping off a tongue in a batheroom... hrmmm... Do me a favor and just imagine it. Kthx.


Writing Wrongs

I start writing agains now. If not, mebbeh I forget how to use my Englishes (but whut are odds of that scenario occurratizing?). I can't believe I'm finally going to get paid to write this stuff (disclaimer: only indirectly, I'm writing this at work.) If there's one thing about me its that I'm dynamical (eg: I avoid regular sentence formatting).

Forecast: This is gunna be a chimera of thought-provoking essays and funny doodoo talk that is in essence embelished versions of my fb statuses.

Proposed Reader Demographic: People who want to take longer to laugh at simple joax (the essays) and people who have itchy brains.

*Stands back and looks*


Reminder to self: write about what you think about what you read (well I think that's rubbish). See if you can't not combine psych/econ/computer with a fully-functioning rofflecoptormobile. (If you forgot where you hid your itchy reading links you emailed it to the one of you that lives in Walnut Creek.)