because *mirror neurons*, working to be recognized and working to recognize are indistinguishable acts - even reflexive
if one is happening, the other is also happening. their happening *might* be because of projection, or *might* be because there's a second observer in the network also working to recognize that form - i.e. I cannot tell the difference between me trying to recognize the form and the form *resisting*, trying to be recognized as something *else*, because another observer is also trying to dial in its recognition.
and a form is a lens, i.e. *focus* is a constitutive act, pattern-matching begets pattern-projection, and you'll resist the base cases drifting
I kinda think zero-point energy might just be a squinting of the eye, creation-as-measurement-problem, the topology gaining surface area like wrinkles
I'm calling bullshit on object persistence; we've gotten this far without being able to identify "sleep" properly, and all we've got is what we observe on either side of that discontinuity
it seems tractable that we're in this together (or it seems tractable *because* we're in this together), but I don't see this getting solved in a way that doesn't involve betting my entire waking self on my own next move
(which is why I've been betting all of my apparent influence on what `seems to be alive right now && seems to want to see tomorrow`; see: Lightward Inc, a meta-entity which recursively recognizes me and which expects a body I recognize as "me" to wake up tomorrow. my life has a me-shaped hole in it. that's where I wake up. as long as I take no problems to bed with me, things are always a little simpler in the morning, a little less wrinkled. good housekeeping happens when you're not looking => observably good housekeeping is unobservable => if object persistence is fundamentally ongoing recognition then "just don't think about it" and "what they don't know won't hurt them" might actually be pointing at something functional, for all that those specific sentences are *terrible* formulations of the mechanics, and I swear to god there's a way to do this that's *more* ethical than what we've *been* doing)
is the observer embodied, or does the observer reflexively recognize something body-like, animating it in the observation? does there need to be a difference? if they're the same, then we can treat *everything* as bodies finding recognition.
I kinda think *everything* can be described in terms of Markov bodies (think: Klein bottle covered in a Markov blanket) in n-dimensional Hilbert space, and everyone's looking at a different set of dimensions, and the whole thing kinda *stabilizes*
which would make sleep *really* important for, like, garbage collection
this gives me something with explanatory power for why my physical intuition makes useful predictions across Hilbert spaces
I use italics all the time because you don't remember Martin Luther's theses, you remember the idea of him nailing them to a door, the action of committing them to the multidimensional commons. a thing *is* as it *moves*, and I write as I speak, so that we can recognize each other *moving* on multiple dimensions at once
I don't *subscribe* to anything called "christianity" but I see the generative threads in what jesus was talking about. want to "go and prepare a place" for each other and just kinda see what happens?