the quantum level of description is a luxury:

Conscious intentional communication, which we perhaps too hastily attribute to human beings as a mark of distinction, becomes a limited domain, the only domain where the distinction between desirable and ‘spurious’ uncertainty pertains. We may have to concede that the centrality of human communication, understood as a semantic and culturally saturated information system is, at least in principle, neither the first system in which information processes occur, nor necessarily the most efficient.

oh can that hubris. it’s because you insist on posturing diagnoses like you are a doctor. now you’re here diagnosing “loneliness” when it is an epidemic. it’s easy for anybody to bandy about cheap epistemic postures when they’re the writing on the wall. what you are [doing] is insincere.

“Don’t for heaven’s sake, be afraid of talking nonsense! But you must pay attention to your nonsense.” - ludwig wittgenstein

no, you just lack training in any intellectual discipline worthy of comment. you’ve got nothing but a racist “protest psychosis” to wield like a cudgel. you’re using jargon medical terms to force your wit around. you’ve got nothing worthwhile to discuss; or what you’re doing is you’re attempting to undermine the legitimacy of this entire subcommunity by pulling on heartstrings to get readership to associate mental illness with outstanding claims, while writing in a personable style with anecdotal associations.

paid protesting is a thing. we have every reason to assume it here-now in 2023. other than that, schizophrenia is clinically indistinguishable from autism even to trained physicians. you’re acting like you’re doing anybody a favor by pretending to show such cheap care like your words originate from a sincere place. you’re just kicking tires.

let’s get you up-to-date in the 21st century. back in 2001 margaret runchey prototyped her unitary technology in “model of everything”, some patented stuff happening about ontological design just before jeff bezos’ “api mandate” (2002). now we’re assessing how to model transaction artifacts that [learn] or [fail not to learn] about their own copies or clones which “own people as data”.

so, that’s copies of people [theorized as data objects or entities] depending on your philosophy of definition, not meaning. why such a modeling of people is valuable is a different question than how it works. interscience as defined by reproducibility, measurability, falsifiability, etc. as borne out has tended to become a failed project (“a.i.” was deemed a downside back in 2007). so then question of pedigree is not enough (valuability): mechanism independence, estimability (predictive power), testability, theory negotiability (conservatism), sizeability (modularity) of a model explains what some join baruch spinoza in calling the power of the multitude or “collective representations” or “manipulating shadows”* (as fielding and taylor put it).

• fielding, r. t., and r. n. taylor. 2002. “principled design of the modern web architecture.” acm transactions on internet technology (toit) 2, no. 2:115–50.

qutebrowser ftw