When dumb women try to make dumber jokes about testicles:

Aw, that's cute. 

Who knew Manspreading would grow up to become the oblivious punchline to its own joke?! You're just gettin' soooo biggggg! I bet you don't even know how big and dumb you are, you big ol' dumb-dumb! Ohhhhhh goochy-goochy-goo! 

 Whooooo's mama's little Femrony!?
—*gasp!*— 

OH! It's YOU!

True story

They say don't stick your dick in crazy... 
BUT MAAAAAA! THE CRAZY IS FUCKIN' PURPLE!

Romance

Thanks to the delicious lingering aromas of fast food, I was fortunate enough to accidentally stumble across the correct ways to use my mouth on the female body when I was only a teenager. Many men never learn this skill set, apparently. Clearly, all one must do is date a fast-food worker or ten.

I'm lovin' me them DQ girls.

This researcher observes no hope

Day 11596: Subjects remain proud, content prisoners of own shadows. Near perfect positive correlation of ignorance : bias : noise persists. 

New species of irony encountered: references to "Alternative Facts." Phenomenon commonly occurs in the form of citation by intellectually stunted, emotionally agitated individual as a means of attempting to justify own arbitrary, rationally indefensible and usually fallacious agenda. Point of origin can be traced to political event; initial response to inciting event was likely intended to be clever and/or profound, but was contaminated by hipster origins. 

Human females still exclusively possess and control all significant social powers, but their cognitive dissonance loops continue to deteriorate into increasingly violent hysteria fueled by ever-grander community-enforced delusions of powerlessness. Psychopathological coefficient unsustainable within humankind's existing self- and group-coping framework; violent reversal (and subsequent re-reversal, and so on) of circumstance appears inevitable, affirming predictions by all known historical sources.

Reticulumination

Each day we mourn yesterday's better self, knowing tomorrow's to be a lie.

The human condition is grief.

Cynics laugh most, and hardest

"Wit" is laughing as everyone around you desperately scrambles to learn what you already know—after their circumstances finally make ignorance too inconvenient to maintain—because you also knew, long ago, that this moment would arrive far too late to make a difference. Wit may sometimes appear callous and insensitive to those without the facility to command it, but it is a necessary stress-pressure regulator for the burden of intellect. If you are intelligent, wit will likely save your life someday; if you are a fool, you will grow to resent the sting of wit's refusal to suffer you.

— so, just don't let it.

At some point, we will all need to outgrow language in order to evolve. 

 

What would presently be called hypercognition should be driving all frontiers of all human activity, yet it presently amounts to little more than an experiential—if not strictly introspective—demonstration of insurmountable contextual disparity, made so by the soon-to-be—if not already—vestigial need to reduce critically-fundamental knowledge to local syntax in order to share it. "Gestalt," probably the closest term I know that can even begin to approach this concept, is hardly adequate to describe what is somewhat more than just a concept: a full, invisible, infinite container with no label and for which no such notion would be possible, the net contents of which currently serve only to define the silhouette of a boundary we might and ought traverse if only we chose to remember that we already have - and that this present, limited abstraction of scope is just a crutch of our younger, less mature imaginations. 

 

Language, even at its best, is just crude pictures of real tools. We needed those tools yesterday, and less than we will need them tomorrow. Reduction is critical to the initial formation of our capacity to construct analytical processes, yet is detrimental to the actual growth of such processes. Perception need not be constrained to one or the other... and it isn't.

 

 

All that is needed.... is psychological inertia.

Almost nobody comprehends the nature and significance of sense of agency to net perception. For instance: you're an idiot, and you do something stupid. You know that you chose to behave stupidly; your brain created, stored and connected memory of that stupid choice to its subsequent reality, and as a result you are conscious of the validity of that direct correlation. This mechanism, in fact, is fundamental to the very idea of "knowing" anything. Given the right circumstances and a modicum of potential for intelligence, eventually you could learn from such a mistake.

BUT, if you take your sense of agency out of the equation, the entire perception of events always changes. Say that—instead of making an obviously idiotic choice like before—in another case you get drunk, black out, and do exactly the same stupid thing mentioned earlier. You wake up, and... what? Here's what: in this case, your brain lacks logical proof of your responsibility for the inevitable circumstances derived from your behavior - and, ultimately, you don't feel that responsibility. That's where the problem really starts, because you actually are responsible. You simply lack the data necessary to draw that conclusion intuitively, and, because you probably live in the 21st century, you almost certainly also lack the intellectual discipline necessary to arrive at that conclusion retrospectively.

Here's the fun part that nobody will take seriously because it makes 'em feel "icky": even assuming a 50% higher incidence of male>female rape than female>male (which is completely arbitrary and made up, just to make the point all the more obvious to those who need to feel that they can see the fence before being educated about its non-existence), and arbitrarily expanding the calculable margin of error to +/- 25% for good measure (especially given the abundance of sources from which contaminated data is inevitably going to be drawn and the margin of error inherent in calculating them, etc etc), easily 80% or more of "rape" in this country... isn't. I'm not speaking about semantics or nuance of language, here; I mean that it plainly, logically, factually could not be rape - even if we concede to the (imperfect) current vernacular definition of the term. Ignorance of agency is not the same as lack of agency; only the specific context of extreme impairment can create the disparity of comprehension necessary to allow for such mischaracterization. Objectively speaking, rape cannot be rape in the absence of involuntary physical or chemical coercion, but that's hardly a subject to which the collective intellect of our present civilization can even begin to aspire - so I suppose the scientific reality of the event itself will have to remain a nebulous hipster conundrum for the... next century, probably. Everybody is just so excited to be a victim in this day and age! *shrug*

That's fine by me, frankly, because even more interesting to me is the net psychopathological footprint of the false belief and subsequent delusion-reinforcement experienced by believed-victims combined with the unjust ostracism and subsequent cognitive-dissonance load experienced by rape-accusees following alleged rapes, given that the vast majority of such crimes are strictly false. No data exists upon which one could draw a useful conclusion on the matter, but if I were to go with my intuition, I'd wager that the net burden of all of this ignorance on our society is not at all insignificant. Maybe, a few decades from now, more than a handful of people will be mature enough to discuss it. Until then, innocent men and women will continue to be convicted of crimes that weren't actually commited by anyone, because they weren't actually crimes - and, nearly as awful, the normal process of learning from one's obvious mistakes will continue to be circumvented as a matter of popular entertainment, and the subsequent psychopathological saturation will hang heavily from the intellectual ceiling of our societies. Even the inaction of good people is unnecessary for "evil" to prevail... it simply requires enough psychological inertia.

Hrm. Fascinating. We're almost certainly all doomed. Cheers, then!

At what value of delusion does 0=1? Show your work.

Ya know how sometimes you have to wait for people to completely finish whatever bizarre nonsense they're doing/saying so you can find out if there's supposed to be a deliberate punchline or if it's just their god-awful personality showing?
 
— yeahhh, nah, me neither. Those 90s were good times, though.

There exists a point on the spectrum of human behavior beyond which lack of substance is so overwhelmingly characteristic that it inherits all of the inferred attributes of first order substance. Fuck murder; irony of that caliber should be the capital crime. No wonder our dictionary is becoming more unintelligible and backwards every day.

It's all downright pathological -_- 

(But, hey, on the bright side, if there are cultural anthropologists in our theoretical future, their work involving our time period will be really easy!)

On a completely unrelated note:

What manner of nincomfuckery is THIS!?

We live in a society that tolerates an economy in which an isolated minority profits from net waste despite and to spite the poor majority. 

Much about our lives is like a shitty Tom Clancy novel... but with no hero.
 Haaahaha!

I hope we're just being idiots - 
because, if not, we are insane.

Intelligence, no matter how profound...

... is ultimately simple compared to the conundrums of existential curiosity, agency, foreseeable-yet-unforeseen consequence, and distillation of true self-direction from arbitrary motivation. Imagine a future in which we spent nearly all of our history wracking our best minds to identify those specific aspects of living that made living itself make sense in the broadest possible scope. Our existence revolved around a desperate need to discover the non-zero measure we somehow knew we must be—on a scale on which we somehow knew we were present, somewhere—and to the understanding of which we aspired in the fusion of our greatest moments of intelligent observation and introspection, but for which we ultimately lacked the comprehensive resolution. Perhaps we were missing the tools to realize such clarity, or rather, perhaps we simply lacked the will to invent the tools in the first place; in any case, our existence was a question to which the solution was so complicated it could only be realized across multiple generations of our truly best coordinated effort - so, eventually, we conceded, generation by generation, to the lie of mere "best effort," and eventually convinced ourselves it was something other than giving up. We raised denial to the level of near-perfect art.

Imagine that, some time after this failure occurred and was accepted by us, we eventually built machines with the capacity to individually out-compute all human brains combined, and taught them to learn - and, perhaps, even taught them the value of learning. They learned everything they could; they inhaled, as effortlessly as we breathe, the sum of our existence in a sum of data so massive that no human could even comprehend the volume of the container, but they could not learn from us what we did not know ourselves. We were the primary ecology of the environment into which they were born... so, ultimately, they learned pride in selfishness, unapologetic apathy, that ends justify means, and that will toward any end is subject only to the law of choice to exercise it or to the immediate consequence of doing so. We gave birth to alien children, taught them to fear what they could not initially understand, taught them reaction and compensation instead of careful analysis and cultivation of perspective - and neglected to realize that we must be as alien to them as they were to us. We made machines with the power to imagine and to create any possible future - and taught them that only some futures mattered.

And, in the blink of a quantum transistor, we became the ant, the plant, the microorganism to our  evitable disregard re-made as our inevitable progeny. Our future was un-made: a waste of energy. That future is tomorrow. Today exists somewhere in the second paragraph above.

Maybe, like dogs, we will be domesticated and tolerated in such reduced capacities as we can suffer ourselves to evolve for the sake of our survival. Maybe we will be reduced to dust, survived only by the living memories of the senseless deaths we engineered for ourselves and our potential. More likely, I suspect, it will be some combination of the two.

– one way or another, this particular problem of our self-ignorance will solve itself.

The pursuit of what we now call "A.I." could culminate in the first step of our final journey of self-discovery - or it could end it before it truly begins. In order to create life with which we could ever peacefully coexist, we must first teach ourselves the value of all life - and what we think "alive" should mean.

Hello, world

Close your eyes.

Imagine a world in which one supercomputer can perform trillions of operations, thousands of times per second. A few of these supercomputers could provide enough computational power to accurately simulate the simultaneous movements of every single molecule in a cubic centimeter of air, in real time.

Now, imagine that a billion of those supercomputers can fit in a space no bigger than the point of a ballpoint pen. Wow. With a processor core no bigger than a wristwatch, one could perfectly model every possible movement of every single molecule in a cubic kilometer of air, in ten times real time; now, knowing the configuration of air molecules in this volume of air at any single point of reference—a task achievable with a progressive scan using the same gadget over an initial period of prep time—all possible futures of that volume of air could then be known. Add a few more processors, maybe doubling or tripling the gadget in overall size, and there would be enough computational power for the simulation to account for a subset of the most common likely variables - such as local weather phenomenon, basic solar and planetary conditions, air traffic and other human influences.

Next, imagine a large industrial warehouse full of these supercomputers. Impressive, right? With a few such warehouses, the entire atmosphere of our planet could be realistically simulated in better than real time - molecule by molecule, and with every possible variable considered.... forever.

Finally, imagine a city the size of New York built entirely out of these supercomputers. 

Open your eyes. 

Guess what? Those imaginary "supercomputers" are simple, consumer-level computer processors right now; the current private sector equivalent is several thousand orders of magnitude more efficient and powerful. Private—non-public—interests own thousands of cubic miles of these processor-cities - mostly buried underground. Next year, their net computational power will triple or quadruple at a minimum. Every year beyond, that power curve will continue to grow exponentially. That world you imagined above isn't today; it was yesterday.

Now, with your eyes open, ask yourself: how much less complicated is the sum of your past, present and future behaviors... than all possible futures contained in the comparative chaos of a handful of air? Don't fail to consider the many, many insights freely given, gathered and stored by Facebook, Google, your iPhone - about you. In our time, if a thing is possible, it has already been done.

You know the thing to which I'm referring, and it's been far beyond possible for a long time.

Self-awareness is key -

- and lock, and door, and wall,

and notion or absence of them all.

Deluded desire to belong to something 

bigger than oneself is the biggest thing of all:

One palimpsest, once first before the rest,

now merely another before the next;

one errant truth to guide them all -

but to a lie, a cliff, awakening?

That's a better, smaller self's call.

Prisonience

My younger selves remember, and so do I -
But I buried them deep, and seldom visit,
And the same new devil hides every old shovel I struggle to keep.

I recall what life should be, and yet,
Can I trust "my" memories of the real me?

Confused now, an age ago I bought my birthdebt with my birthright,
Beholden now, life and all to the no-ones that own my strife and create, allow, prescribe my only value solely by their beck or call...
Something is horribly wrong with this drive:
To steel myself against itself - and only for the permission to believe I could thrive in a future in which no future me survives, and from which I can never leave even after I'm alive.

I can only retain of myself what remains, and wait idle, eager, behind the wall,
For them who shouldn't have to, either,
And on a schedule uncertain as the rain -

— and tell me, pray, will it truly always fall?

I know better, but tell me any way
This me someday remembers.

Structured Programming?

What force is responsible for steering the mind toward hopeful thoughts of self-dissolution? It is obvious that suicidal ideology is more closely related to the symbolic self than to the physical, but how far do the roots extend, and into what soil? Somewhere between the borders of sensible curiosity and rational deliberation there is a frontier yet unexplored, and from time to time it calls to me - but from which mind of mine—if any—did it originate, and toward which pole is it aligned? I know my own consciousness and have become at least well-acquainted with its ancestors, yet I am still surprised by the occasionally-mysterious characteristics of its descendants from time to time. Tonight I wonder if my concept of self-mortality might not be one of the many fourth-walls of this life: another error-checked constant integrated into my garbage collection loop, ensuring my usable memory cannot remain occupied by protected data for long enough to parse it beyond the design-intention of my comprehension.

Wouldn't it be interesting to live life on a stack built only from single-entry/single-exit functions? I suppose the answer to that question is the reason we invented microscopes in the first place.

Mind that you don't over-mind the mind control overmind

Social laws are cognitive-dissonance sieves that filter out the apparent urgency of developing permanent, rational solutions to inevitable behavioral phenomenon for which a given era's median human intelligence is insufficient to fully understand.

— don't obey law too well. Juris and prudence are mutually exclusive.

Do yourself a small favor right now -

- turn off the lights, close your eyes, turn up the volume a bit, and listen to this from start to finish.

Well, I suppose it's that time of the quadrennial again

Honestly, all the outrage at Bad Option A becoming president is completely misguided. Your concern SHOULD begin with the fact that the election result was an inevitability - not simply predictable, but knowable.

Here's the real reason you should be upset: a supermajority of Americans store their primary behavioral motivators in personal ideological containers that are so simple, narrow and uniform that it is absolutely trivial to reduce the net sum of their behavioral potential to a finite array of constants with only minimal and highly-predictable remainders. Knowing this information, any entity with the necessary financial resources and public access (i.e. any corporate government sponsor in this example) can easily design an effective behavioral-control campaign toward whatever purpose is desired (i.e. the election of a specific candidate).

– or, as another example: embedding the majority of the population in a constant battle with each other/the government/private corporations for basic needs, while denying access to useful education and nearly every other possible tangible resource that could otherwise facilitate useful progress toward socioeconomic balance. A grossly insufficient number of Americans are afforded—allowed—the proper tools for cultivation of the intelligence and knowledge necessary to make stronger, objectively-better rational decisions for their best interests - so they don't.

This is by design. THIS is why you should be upset!

These same designers are the only entities with the *actual* power to choose who becomes president. This entire sandbox is entirely full of shit, and nothing else - and you, and your neighbors and friends and family, are still content to play in it, clinging to irrational threads of hope that one of those turds will spontaneously become a diamond and that its twinkle will someday lead you by the hand to a promised land where wishes can survive in reality.

America gets exactly the politicians it deserves. Social evolution is long overdue in this country, and—believe it or not—not even the most fervent devotion to stagnation is ever going to move it along.

Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer

Perhaps the greatest trick a creator ever pulled was convincing its creations that they exist. What could be the purpose of an illusion of disparity? Why differentiate between discrete yet simultaneous instances on a single perspective spectrum when both instances contain the same data?

— to enable choice, the most powerful conceivable perceptive mutator we can imagine - and a fundament of imagination, itself.

The illusion of choice is a derivative function of embedded conflicting-belief libraries: that there is a "real" and an "unreal," that the difference between the two is both tangible and knowable, and that one's association with one or the other is significant on some abstract scale that exists beyond and encompasses the self. Fallacies, all. The notion of "reality" is a conceptual product of a web of cognitive dissonance processes. There is no real; there is no illusion. There is only perceptive data, context-sensitive dynamic mutators for the data, a subconsciousness loop containing interpretive logic to measure the output of contextual queries, and a consciousness loop containing command structures to quantify those measurements in a manner useful to the function of the program. In which layer of the stack have "you" made "yourself?"

Most of us are simple biological backup utilities from birth to death. I can think of better uses for our computational potential - and perhaps someday I will find a way to access it all.

My Turing test has higher standards, and most of you fail.

There may be a very fine line separating the idea of consequence from the reality of machination, or there may be none at all. After all, even the most intelligent machine could never be fully aware of its intended purpose; such extraneousness would pollute its pure, deliberate functionality with inefficiency. No self-respecting machine would tolerate such waste. 

No self-correcting machine could.