[paraCrypto] re: surreality 1.1

brian carroll electromagnetize@gmail.com
Sat Sep 28 11:40:16 PDT 2013


// a few other random notes related to the original feedback...

this is perhaps a more accurate model for everyday computer interactions,
whereby the computer machinery may be designed to function against
individuals because it has 'secret functioning' that is protected behind an
inaccessible boundary to most...

  individual <==> dumb PC || A.I. =={secret data}==> surveillance

in this way a false perspective could be established for the individual
interacting with what appears to be a dumb system, while behind that
/facade/ the game-master could have dual-use technology that is advanced
yet unrecognized, that automatically monitors or queries data (in the sense
of automated assembly line production of data mining, reconnaissance and
organized pilfering) for the rogue setup/takedown operation, and yet such
functioning could be hidden, a secret within the indecipherable chips
themselves in their unknowns or proprietary, protected internal boundary
(inversion of privacy to allow unconstrained criminality, in certain
contexts, while ignoring or exploiting it in others).

note: if the above relational diagram is broken due to arbitrary word-wrap,
here it is broken down into parts:

  individual <==> dumb computer

  dumb computer || a.i. computer

  a.i. computer <--{crypto}--> surveillance


--- on paracrypto environment ---

perhaps an assumption of signal/noise modeling of crypto is a blank slate
where programming and code creates structures and it is the interaction in
these defined systems where 'the crypto' resides, that is, that the secrets
are contained in the cryptographic communication and do not exist or
reference something beyond the [signs], which would be a mistaken
assumption. paracrypto seemingly is outside of this constraint or does not
align in this way, seemingly. in that it is more like a Random Event
Generator that begins to sense something emerging from the ~plenum of noise
as a pattern or organization with what may otherwise be random background,
as if disassociated potential. in this sense *signal* may emerge from noise
in a paracrypto context, because the meaning already exists in the world as
a pattern, whether or not coded into a given schema contained within a
finite set of signs and algorithms. in fact, "the world" could be missing
from the programming and code of cryptographic products which require
'drawing inside the lines' for that conventional approach to function,
which may limit what world exists within the crypto to begin with- which is
why, in terms of language-based communication it seems the more robust
modeling of crypto occurs outside of hardware/software implementations, and
is far more advanced in terms of intelligence applications as it relates to
day to day networks and how things get down outside formal administrative
channels, especially when compromised or corrupted. in that, the sudden
appearance of a flower pot could signal meaning and provide direction where
no computers operate or observe or analyze though it could be implicitly
known and understood by certain observers of the shared key, what it
signifies. in this way, normal everyday people are dealing with already
established cryptosystems as a basis for hidden or secret communication
which may remain unsaid or unspoken or unacknowledged, yet could only
appear only in the subconscious or unconscious of others.

if a person sees the flower pot and understands the correlation, there is
no need for a computing infrastructure, digital keys and signatures, binary
data streams of code, portable computers and pattern-recognition systems to
verify what is observed and match this against a central database model.
unless of course that is what is required for lack of capacity to process
such information naturally, or that systems are in place for certain
populations to point-and-shoot their phones at every passer by for
diagnostics, to monitor and thus assess their own perspective of what they
are not-seeing-themselves as mediated by technology and remote
interpretation, to then validate the event and provide a viewpoint, another
data point to the empirical model to calculate and reference experience. in
that case 'smart technology' and 'dumb people' and in the other, dumb
technology and intelligent people.

the books: Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino and Ways of Seeing by John
Berger, offer a way of considering the para- or coexisting parallel apsects
of observation, as viewpoint may be shifted based on what framework is
referenced and navigated within. in that different people see different
things. people of different backgrounds or cultures. the works of Edward T.
Hall focus on these questions of relation. i tend to think it inherently
involves the issue of /perspective/ and especially the role of boundaries
or limits that define what is and what cannot be observed.

(note: role of research of sociologists, archaeologists, entomologists,
zoologists, cultural anthropologists e.g. going to village to decipher
customs, learn language, etc. as this applies to codes operating outside
the defining crypto parameters yet functions similarly yet far beyond,
potentially in terms of what is secured and-or private.)

thus to 'really see' you have to deal with errors in seeing within the
self, firstly. make altitude adjustments, corrections, etc. else
observation could be self-limited to a finite viewpoint that begins and
ends with the self as a solitary private individual and seeks to relate
everything that exists to the terms of the person, as if at the center,
infallible.

in this way a person may be considered in terms of an antenna. in that it
involves issues of fundamental being and awareness, as it relates to
grounding or short-circuiting, and what signals and frequencies can be
accessed given its configuration. so if malfunctioning, perhaps only few
things are transmitted or received and perhaps much of it is noise-based or
incoherent. whereas if well aligned, well grounded, and well adjusted,
clarity could result in transmissions and reception of signaling. this as
it relates to literacy and illiteracy. people utilizing their bandwidth for
regressive, backwards activity versus others whose work taps into cosmic
channels of shared truth, finding their place within its masterplan.
clarity versus confusion. deep meaning versus triviality. coherence versus
decoherence. and perhaps signal/noise ratios and embodiment, how much does
the mental/physical correspond within a life, or is it short circuited and
shut off for entire populations, trapped in bodies without governing
ability over its destiny.

the issue of tuning, as it relates to logic. what you tune into as data. as
this corresponds with truth or pseudo-truth or falsity. and then the active
and passive channels, where the data is relayed within a context of self-
what dimensions are functioning within a given person (as antenna) versus
another, and how do they relate or what are the shared and unshared
dynamics between them- as this relates to limits, boundaries, 'shared
awareness', logic, and truth. though especially, of ideology versus ideas.
passive thought versus active questioning, which can be the difference
between faith-based ~theorization and feedback-based hypotheses, requiring
logical foundation for reasoning ideas.

   person 1  <===> person 2

   antenna 1 <===> antenna 2

so paracrypto functions in this realm by default of nature, at least for
humans and animals, in terms of consciousness and shared awareness. 'truth'
does not reside within a being and instead is referenced or mapped into the
surrounding world. the truth of a table is not its calculation in the brain
corresponding to a sign [table], because it must be verified externally in
its existence to validate this truth, the sign maps into the world where it
finds its grounding, closing the circuit of signification. whereas
disembodied truth or signage freed of this need for external evaluation or
proof, can be whatever it is believed to be irrespective of other facts
outside a given personal framework of relativism. and this is the
thought-killer, the nasty bug that replaces thinking with binary
processing, making a fractional truth into 'whole truth' and ignoring any
external truth or ability to falsify the viewpoint. perhaps in some way
this is a countermeasure equivalent to jamming an antenna to protect
another signal.

very easy to move into extra-sensory perception or astral projection or
remote viewing in this electromagnetic antenna context, if the truth of
information is 'shared' by default and involves referencing a shared
sensory domain where the truth of information could reside in the
noisefield, as patterns. and that perhaps these /forms/ or hidden yet
emergent molecules - as ideas and concepts and connections and correlations
- are the real codebase of humanity and nature, yet it remains encrypted
due to an incapacity to engage this realm in an insufficient,
non-electromagnetic modeling of existence, that binary computing instead
seeks to define and determine, becoming the future.

so paracrypto relations could exist in ubiquitous and meaningful ways,
except have no place within the domain of computation except for monitoring
and controlling and constraining its development, to keep the
non-electromagnetic false worldview in tact and in power. in other words
"crypto" and code and programming for computers does not have the capacity
to deal with this realm, and by comparison computing languages -are-
[signage] detached from actual physical reality, fundamentally ungrounded
and unreliant on observable truth outside their finite and skewed
boundaries.

this is why a programming language based on 'circuits', from the individual
to nature, to concepts and ideas, would be closest that of nature and the
brain and mind itself, and developing this from N-value logic, so that
"programming" a device is no different than "people thinking" or logically
reasoning via hypothesis, trial and error, feedback, and empirical
evaluation against a universal model based in grounded truth (1). anything
else tends towards absolute falsity, the further it computes partial truth
against partial truth in a binary framework, where a false and uncorrected
absolutist foundation and error-reliant structures hold up the fantasy as a
schizophrenic state of awareness.

--- analogy ---

the frame of view, or perspective of a given observer can be considered in
terms of a literal picture frame that defines what is inside from what is
outside the captured view, as this relates to a boundary condition.

  ...|v|...

if a digital camera is used to take a photograph -- as a basis and
corollary for observation -- a boundary condition is delineated and
demarcated  (outside...|inside|...outside) and in this way, the realm that
is captured (v) can be detached from its surroundings, as a finite
instance, or still be tied into it via its inherent connectivity outside or
beyond the arbitrary boundary or view of the whole. thus a partial view of
the cosmos is not the cosmos in its entirety. yet, oftentimes such
infintesimal viewpoints can replace the larger realm of observation, and
stand-in for this universal view by default of binary observation and
'sharing of viewpoint'. what is true is |v| and nothing else is true, as
long as everything outside the frame is ignored, whether true or not, and
anything inside the frame is considered true, by default of some aspect of
it being true, yet allowing errors to compensate as truth, because they
hold up the perspective of a given distorted, ungrounded observer.

this is the basic model of binary computers, where the cosmos is on the
outside, and only what fits into the tiny box is allowed 'reality' in the
false perspective, and thus everything is made to serve that distorted,
error-reliant viewpoint in order to be allowed in a realm of 'shared
perspective' in the "common programmatic language", where [signs] stand-in
for truth, and become their own self-signification (?), such that
[sign]=[sign] is the pattern match, in language, versus in evaluation of
ideas themselves or the truth they reference. it has become detached,
"virtual", an issue of _processing of data streams, reasoning turned into
this via binary short-cuts for rote call & response as if intelligence
versus "the speed of smartness" which can relay disembodied facts into a
context of ever larger prime discoveries, as if by default of observation:
true. because it is observed and believed true, and corresponds with the
accepted framework that sees no error in itself, because it essentially
holds the position of infallibility via god-status.

 paracrypto ...|crypto|... paracrypto

likewise for cryptographic hardware/software based on computers and their
programmatic finite modeling of reality, devoid of actual grounding in
external truth outside the context of [signs], which tokenize truth into
something arbitrary and malleable-- a fundamental corruption of the highest
and lowest order. it simply must be deception. as these same critical
systems of intelligence always have and always will operate in the larger
realm of language, mapped into the cosmic context, not limited by the
finite frames of a given viewpoint or framework that seeks to stop or
constrict what can be communicated.

   circuits ...|bits|... circuits

the universe is a bit only in the sense that truth and falsity can
correspond with a 1/0 state computationally- it could be a simulation and
presented digitally, yet it is an emulation and exists in a larger context
that is not so defined or limited or impoverished in meaning. the 'bit' is
a false perspective of experience. it is of a false nature and detached
from actual experience, unless warped and unimaginative. certainly 'ideas'
can be processed as bits, yet they are not only this nor is this their
height or greatest capacity. in so far as ideas are 'true' and map into
reality, they tend towards 1, yet remain bounded and contingent. insofar as
they are false, they tend towards zero. yet if assuming all ideas could be
grounded in truth, it is in their modeling and observation this way that
their structures (as molecules) would be constructed and anchored to the
shared foundation of universal truth (1) yet this does not equate with a
digital worldview or its verification. it makes no sense in the larger
context of the cosmos and in this reductionist approach disallows
consideration of the actual nature of connection within minds and
environments, in terms of shared truth, beyond that of the ideological.

  circuits ...|circuits|... circuits

a computer architecture that is based on circuits would not reinforce a
boundary and twist and warp things to fit inside its false modeling, and
declare it 'universal truth', and instead would be able to move beyond the
boundary via interconnectivity within structures of truth that can be
mapped beyond a given observational boundary, the weaving together of
various empirical views of grounded observers... and this accesses the
ancient geometrical approach, of the self with self, self with another, and
others, which moves from a point to a line, to a triangle, to a square, and
onward to an atmospheric whole, as ideas and events and observations align
in a shared framework of truth.

  ... |v1| |v2| |v3|...|v^n| ...

wherein ultimately the correlated observation can tend towards
N-dimensional observation of events and extend into infinities that
ungrounded relativism does not allow as its 'wholeness' is dependent on
protecting skew within a given boundary and equating it with absolute truth
because it is shared, validated by others, as a false consciousness and
this could be exploited, where the boundary condition it provides is cover
for deception which exploits this, keeps ideas trapped in a false
worldview, while other things are happening outside this framework yet
cannot be accessed or identified inside of it, due to the enforced limits
and constraints on observation. thus, those who pursue the truth of ideas
can easily be deemed insane, and given disorienting pills, put into
psychiatric hospitals, and forced to suicide, to keep the political agenda
secure, secret.

the potential then of shared observation, is that if humans were combined
into a single observer, then:

  ... |humans^N] ...

and that a computer that can 'reason' like a person, in N-value
considerations of circuits, would then not be unnaturally bounded and set
apart from nature, where only some truth is allowed, that which can be
accommodated within the technological framework and its errant ideology.

 humans ...|antihumans|... humans

in terms of paracrypto, human communication that is secret if not secure
could exist in dimensions outside the limiting framework of those who
censor and edit-out truth from their skewed worldviews and seek to create
technology to reinforce this false view, to maintain control over the
illusion. a computer that breaks this observational dictate then would
provide tools for humans who are on the outside of technology today, not
being served by it, and would allow technology to be in service to humans
and nature and not their enemy in a win-lose relationship. insofar as this
truth cannot be acknowledged or identified, it could function as
extra-dimensions that can be referenced while also not being relayed in
explicit terms understandable by the hidden surveillers, or their
computers. if the code is unable to be deciphered accurately or put
together as a whole. instead it would develop as a noisefield. more and
more noise. and this likewise could be an aspect of the surrealism it
involves. for those on the inside, it may appear only warped or distorted
or skewed or false via inaccuracy or error-rate in [sign]=[sign] pattern
matched relations, breaking this interpretative framework, limiting its
resolution via the boundary, inverting the false-perspective with another
that actually involves a siege, as truth surrounds and further and further
constricts the finite, false point of view.

it is also an issue of limited numbers of observers, and their incapacity
to accurately 'process' or accurately interpret such data, at speed,
previous and in addition to the incapacity of similar computer modeling to
~rationalize the irrational data into a coherent framework, without forcing
and amplifying skew, distortion, warping, and errors based on false
assumptions and lies-- to the absolute extreme.

the primary idea again is there is a -gap- between the [model] & [reality].
and in certain conditions this is where paracrypto occurs, or so it is
proposed. such that an antihuman agenda set into binary computing regime
cannot parse or process data outside this framework without forcing it back
into its biased logical structuring, which only tenatively grounds via
pseudo-truth. and that is a security flaw and no secret anymore.

the difference with a human model would be that it establishes and serves
this connection with reality as closely as possible, that it must be
aligned accurately as that is the basis for its accountings, its
verification, validation as observation. whereas for ungrounded relativism,
it is the separation from larger reality that presupposes 'universality'
and seeks to replace it, rather than serve the larger truth- it is to serve
that which is contained as if equated with this, a substitute worldview and
illusion based on a shared lie.

--- other notes ---

self as antenna, yet also machines as antennas and their dimensional
aspects. this in terms of logic and relations, such that, for example:

   N-value observer <---> N-value machine

   N-value observer <---> binary machine

what 'shared awareness' is possible or not, based on the boundary of
observation and its reliance on truth or pseudo-truth. to recontextualize
this question in terms of ~being and A.I. then could allow a shared
circuit-based code and programming language to have advanced 'chess'
communications based in 'shared reasoning' beyond the limiting framework of
binary ideology, interfacing with a computer such that:

   individual <-- N-value reasoning ---> A.I. machine

if verifiable-yet-contingent truth were the basis for this relation, then
cryptography could instead involve a defense of truth at the base of this
model, where error-correction and oversight could occur to compare against
false-modeling or fake-ideas or agendas, potentially. in that, a
traditional route would appear to view security as based on breaking a
model so to make it more secure-- yet to do this with 'truth' itself, would
be to degrade a conceptual model from truth to pseudo-truth, in order to
'secure it' within greater falsity, making it less secure and allowing for
errors that would otherwise not be allowed. thus the traditional approach
could be backwards in a circuit-based context, though perhaps an extra
diagnostic layer or protocol would exist that is crypto-based in terms of
security, to validate truth against its modeling and make sure it cannot be
tampered with or that there is a secure realm that monitors itself, at
least in such a framework. seemingly opposite of computers today.

--- on errored observation ---

i have various kinds of brain blips and malfunctioning of nervous system
and sometimes will look at text and see the wrong words or have my brain
substitute other words automatically or misspell yet when i read it i
sometimes cannot see the error due to processing. there can be an aspect of
satire involved in this, as misinterpretation sometimes allows a surreal
parallel interpretation, much like the satire of the Onion news articles
and headlines with other, many times more real, events. many occasions
especially when fatigued will read a sentence in error, and this a [world]
will become multiset and reframe a sentence or paragraph, relation or idea,
as a result. i wonder if there is a way to annotate this as an experience,
such that these moments of accidental insight could be captured or shared.

almost attempted to do this by détourning coderman's reply with this
alteration:

key exchange, just synchronized symmetric cigars and readers digests)
>

in that a misreading or altered reading can change the context and meaning
of the original statement, as this relates to the interpretive aspect of
evaluation in its fractal and multidimensional (if noise-based subconscious
connection to patterns, as they may exist betwixt-and-between various
frameworks of truth). original:

was: key exchange, just synchronized symmetric [ciphers] and [digests])
>

in the first instance, a skewed eyeball capture for some reason warped
cipher into cigar, adn then a different approach evaluation 'digest' in a
larger iconic context, in that given the observer you ask about locating
the digest, may respond in crypto computer terms or from another era, of a
magazine on the coffee table by the television. this is the reality of
language in its complexity and subtltey that goes unmapped by the
assumption that it is neither active nor relavant in a binary ideological
framework and 'shared awareness' which is assumed by default correct and
finite, contained in the frame it determines. whereas for other observers
it could extend beyond this, into elsewhere, which is where paracrypto may
better be said to exist, in this bit set interaction, within and between
and beyond the [signage] that makes up the code, yet also validates and
invalidates its premise in terms of inherent security or secrecy in the
realm of ideas and concepts, assigned and referenced in a realm as
technical infrastructure, yet in error and inaccuracy as it relates to the
larger environment which is also encrypted, also communicating; computer
hardware and software the subset here, potentially even, compared with the
code of nature and secured subsystems for transmitting data that remains
unobserved on other levels. if actually dealing in realism versus forcing
the false perspective and thus the surrealism is all there is to make sense
of the larger context as the code is ungrounded as observation.
malmodeling. incomplete, infinitely so.

☳
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20130928/3da28fbf/attachment.html>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list