(Philosophy) Towards argumentative proof of hyper-dimensional consciousness

"Hyper dimensional consciousness" is effectively an idea I like to think about from time to time as an answer to a question I think is sometimes in some folks minds:

What if nature and the universe is actually a massive intelligent being that I am part of?  Could this be in some way true? 

My answer is then effectively well it could be; since we essentially confirm our existence by copying it on other matter; literally anything that reproduces also itself in concept in nature through cycles and as abstract principles essentially should effectively also be "alive" in its own way too. In reverse too; everything we use to represent our aliveness that exists everywhere else in nature could also be producing forms of consciousness for one here on earth and for another somewhere else in the universe. Either as a literally localized collection of atoms or as in some view a abstract stitching together of spans of atoms vastly spatial separated by viewed in such a way that …

(Philosophy) Egyptian Magic and Theory of Computation

This post is a philosophical one discussing the essential motives of the theories underpinning Egyptian magic and how it relates to our modernized concepts of computation.

Egyptians had the belief that things called "words of power"*1 existed.  People who knew these words of power invoked them to do crazy things apparently like parting water into blocks and stacking the blocks to search for things beneath the water; rejoining animals and man's heads when they had become detached from their bodies etc. But the essential concept was these collections of words that when said caused certain effects.

Essentially this means that using language you could invoke properties of the universe and use them like a mechanism to do you your bidding. This is sounds fantastical and mystical of course - we today know assumedly no such "words of power"; we cannot say things with our mouths that have any of the effects the Egyptians describe in their scrolls.

But we do have this al…

What is computation? An introduction for humans

It occurs to me that in this age ruled by computers many people do not know what computation is.

If you feel you know what makes a computer "compute" you must be able to describe it no? What renders a lifeless collection of transistors and voltages into a working all emulating computer? If you cannot answer then your entire understanding of computers is completely spiritual and religious in my view - an entire practice of assuming (its not wrong its just not provably correct)! A simple experiment I always play on my non-Computer Scientist friends (perhaps very cruelly lol) is to ask them how a computer manages to check if two numbers are equal? "How do you write or design a machine that computes equality? Does it just magically calculate it as equal? How does it "weight" the numbers? Well how does it know the weights are the same?"

This illusively counter intuitive question brings to light the very underpinning of all logic on computers: equality and of …

What Hegel would have said about Closed Source Software

Hegel if you don't know was a man who invented profoundly unique and introspective ways of thinking that are still shaking the grounds we walk our ethics on today. In this post I'll talk about how you can appreciate one mode of thinking that was inspired by his writing called dialeticism and how it can show you the utter nonsense rhetoric that motivates non-open and free-ness of software.

Dialectical deconstruction and The Halting Problem
Dialtecticism for the most part is about understanding that everything that exists; can be argued as dependent on things that define its non-existence. Essentially all existence works like a donut; the part of the donut that is missing is also part of the donut - life is only in existence because death (its complete opposite and "unexistor" must also exist). Another way to wrap this up is to use (what will potentially become) a very popular dictum: every identity depends on the identification of non-identity too! In order for the i…

Software already runs inside your head!!

(Cross post from another blog - enjoy!)

Strung together some rhetoric/theories about why software must already exist in your head: Slavoj Zizek during an interview mentioned something about how things would probably change once we can truly interface software with brains. Here I produce some words on why I think that has actually always been true. Enjoy :)

I would have words about the reality of software not already existing in your head. I would argue that the very idea of what software does is evidence that the algorithm has already representatively been ran inside your head (this convoluted rendering of the software itself is entirely the practice of software. Since it is entirely a collection of such convolutions of instructions and patterns at every level of its existence therefore your head and your ideas of software do not escape this collection as part of the existence of the software).

This must be true (software is in your head what it is in the computer exactly) since if the…

Neo-Nietzschian Decadence of Choice in Closed Source Software

Lots of folks probably don't know who the Gnuru is (Richard Stallman). The dude who's code has been in every open source operating system since before most of the noobs running around musing themselves with nonsense rhetoric about why close source programs make sense for anyone besides the people who make money off of it. This man has been talking himself half to death trying to carefully explain very simple reasons why closed source programs do not benefit users; and of course his argument extends beyond security and into the realms of civil liberties and privacy.

Essentially Stallman's position is that close source non-open and free software has malicious features in them - these claims are not those of a man who has lost his mind or is being overly paranoid. People will think that maybe because they are deluded by his capability as a reverse engineer - I have no such delusions about his skill; pretty sure he can reverse engineer the shit outta anything; pretty sure he …

Public Disclosure Shaming SO HOT RIGHT NOW

Obviously I'm going to employ that very popular zoolander meme. Because i think InfoSec (not exempt unfortunately in its vulnerability to group think hypnosis) is becoming this meme.

Critically speaking:
The amazing culture that has taken over what seems to be a large section of the InfoSec community is to shame and lambast people who publicly report bugs. This is done with the notion that exposing potential attackers to knowledge of the bug somehow makes matters worse.  (If i understand it correctly)

Couple interesting questions:

Will lambasting and shaming cause more people to make us aware of the bugs?Does it really make things worse for users?How much worse is this worse for users? Can we argumentatively determine the weight of the worse-ness for users?Is it always always better to only report to the vendor?Is every bug when reported publicly immediately worse in effect before the vendor responds? Now that last question is the ringer for me. I'll start with this one: "…