minus

◯

[minus @mynvs]

ancient gothic window.
#pixelart

[minus @mynvs]

@algekalipso @TimPortantno i love the aesthetic of gromov's work :o)

gromov-hausdorff distance feels at least directionally relevant for measuring how different qualia varieties are from each other.

and like, geometric group theory in general is so helpful for thinking about state spaces of qualia.

[minus @mynvs]

@algekalipso i hope that the true global optima are radically weird configurations that *somehow* work.

i am also imagining searching metacomputational-paradigm-space for hardware that allows finding solutions to this particular problem to be vastly more efficient.

[minus @mynvs]

@algekalipso the human visual system at the level of phenomenology / visual qualia :}

[Captain Pleasure, Andrés Gómez Emilsson @algekalipso]

One of the marks of high innate philosophical intelligence is to have independently come up with qualia as a concept as a kid. Especially if nobody in the environment is studying anything related to it. The kind of kid who says "ah, so there is a word for _that_? I was wonderng"

[oops_all_paperclips @OA_paperclips]

Cellularity

[minus @mynvs]

@transkatgirl super neat! :o

[Burny - Effective Curiosity @burny_tech]

"Curiosity is the desire to create or discover more non-random, non-arbitrary, regular data that is novel and surprising in the sense that it allows for compression progress because its regularity was not yet known." - Juergen Schmidhuber

[minus @mynvs]

@algekalipso This particular mapping feels arbitrary to me.

But I do believe in non-arbitrary effects of colors on other aspects of experience which are indifferent to cultural or synesthetic associations. E.g., perhaps 🔴 has its own characteristic perturbation over the emotional field.

[Linalool Enjoyer, Eliade Weismann @eliadeweismann]

A lot of artificial flavors we enjoy are the result of somebody's peculiar tastes-- not the coherence of a recognizable phenomenal object, not universal appeal. There are thousands of weird niches that you could stake out as your own.

[Greg Egan @gregeganSF]

A new knot invariant that “uniquely identifies more than 97% of the knots with 18 crossings. By comparison, the Jones polynomial, one of the most widely used invariants for cataloging knots, identifies about 42%, and the Alexander polynomial only about 11%.”

[Captain Pleasure, Andrés Gómez Emilsson @algekalipso]

If you take the strong version of neurophenomenology seriously (that you need not only to put experience back into science, but to explain science in terms of experience) then mathematical phenomenology (describing phenomenology in mathematical terms) might seem like the natural first step. But mathematics doesn't have ontological primacy: even math is derived from consciousness. IMO it's the study of the patterns of qualia. Sets aren't real; they are the result of how we organize patterns of attention to keep track of contractions in the field of awareness. So you first need to do a phenomenology of mathematics: explain how our mathematical concepts arise from the way we segment our field of experience and reify patterns of attention. Alas, this is itself built atop hidden background assumptions about the nature of phenomenality; your description already presupposes a structural framework grounded in a prior phenomenology of math. Thus, we really need to start with a mathematical phenomenology informed by a phenomenology of mathematics, which is itself grounded in mathematical phenomenology. But which math? You see the epistemological trap? This clearly calls for a Kuhnian paradigm shift where mathematical phenomenology and phenomenology of mathematics are solved together at once, though perhaps this can be bootstrapped with the right kind of conceptual engineering, phenomenal annealing, and gradient descent toward cross-paradigmatic coherence. In other words, we need the conceptual equivalent of an EM optimization algorithm: alternating between refining our phenomenology of mathematics and our mathematical phenomenology, each pass tightening the fit between them, until both converge on something coherent.

Just a thought 😉

[Speedwagon Foundation @EddyRobinson]

@AkiyoshiKitaoka It's open-access, but I don't have enough technical knowledge to say if it's a good paper or not.
https://t.co/yGme46RtKw

[minus @mynvs]

@RogerThisdell qualia have inherent iconicity - the structure of an experience is isomorphic to how it feels. just as the form of an icon is analogous to its meaning, *but* with an additional constraint that the geometry of the space of possible icons encodes the meaning of any particular icon.

[Captain Pleasure, Andrés Gómez Emilsson @algekalipso]

Everyone in TPOT be like "this is me!" (and they're kinda right, actually!)

https://t.co/klAxf6MfIy

[Captain Pleasure, Andrés Gómez Emilsson @algekalipso]

Level 1: Pre-epistemic / Authority-anchored (≈25–30%)

Truth is external and personal: it lives in authority figures, traditions, or social consensus. Disagreement feels like insubordination or disrespect rather than information. People at this ceiling can be intelligent and competent, but they do not experience beliefs as revisable objects. Updating happens via deference, not reasoning. This level is stable and functional in hierarchical or tradition-heavy environments.

Level 2: Narrative-coherent / Identity-protective (≈30–35%)
Truth is whatever preserves a coherent self-story. Arguments are evaluated based on whether they affirm competence, virtue, or belonging. Counterevidence is tolerated only if it can be assimilated without threatening identity. This is where most everyday “reasonable adults” operate. Debate is possible, but only within emotionally safe bounds. Many people never feel pressure to go beyond this ceiling because it works well socially.

Level 3: Instrumental-rational / Outcome-oriented (≈15–20%)
Beliefs are tools. Truth is what works, predicts, or optimizes outcomes. People here can revise views pragmatically but often stop short of examining their own framing assumptions. They are good at solving problems but may avoid meta-questions that destabilize efficiency. This ceiling dominates business, engineering, and applied science. It is epistemically powerful but not self-transparent.

Level 4: Coherence-seeking / Model-based (≈8–12%)

Truth is structural consistency across domains. Beliefs are models that must cohere globally, not just locally. People here enjoy tracking assumptions, resolving contradictions, and updating publicly. Disagreement is informative rather than threatening. This level supports philosophy, theoretical science, and systems thinking. Social friction often increases here because many environments cannot metabolize this mode without defensiveness.

Level 5: Meta-epistemic / Self-modeling (≈1–3%)

The epistemic process itself becomes an object of awareness. People here track how beliefs form, how incentives distort reasoning, and how cognition interacts with emotion and status. They can hold multiple models simultaneously and switch frames deliberately. This level often appears in advanced researchers, exceptional judges, or mature contemplatives. It is rare not because it is inaccessible, but because it is costly and poorly rewarded.

Level 6: Integrated epistemic humility (≈0.1–0.5%)

Truth, uncertainty, and selfhood are fully decoupled. Being wrong carries no identity cost. These individuals can engage deeply or disengage cleanly, depending on context. They neither dominate nor self-erase. This ceiling often emerges late in life, after repeated epistemic injuries are metabolized rather than defended against. It is stable, light, and unusually nonreactive.

[LΛMPLIGHT (微分音･音楽) @lamplight_music]

こう…和音グラフと上手くつなげたら
代替和音図も考えられそう…？

[minus @mynvs]

@algekalipso ❤️