>I hypothesize all humans and sub-groups just enumerate until they are super-grouped, rinse, repeat. Same as neurons and dendritic cells.
It seems more like our memory center is like a bladder or lung that we can train to get larger, increase the density of, or provide more synonyms/abstractions/examples of a single memory grouping point. Given all this, when does memory become profitable to another communicator? At what point is it sufficiently saturated/reliable/complex for others to seek rewarding it, or can identify their own reward from seeking it?
Some examples.
~ENUMERATING~
Let's say I'm an oracle that stores A* answers to all P-questions, which allows for asynchronous N-querents. I can satisfy queries that fall into data/fact/information categories and distribute the A* answer at regular intervals. Basically I enumerate memory on demand and pop out the answer at the next prescribed interval.
~GROUPING~
Let's say I'm a grouper of A* querents to P-answers of N-questions, meaning that I generate automata that can path their way to polynomial answers of arbitrary queries and upon satisfaction they self-apply a unique label, which they advertise and reinforce.
~TRUNCATION~
Let's say I'm a serial killer of A* persona/ego/identity to P-humans of N-cities, meaning that I isolate and eradicate memories/perspectives that do not yield to A* pathing. Meaning I can go kill all those that would be considered epsilons/infinitesimals of society.
There is no such thing as a universally sane conversation/grammar/language when it comes to why the memory that reads/writes these words chooses 'that' interpretation to carry over to 'that/this' memory. We're all just globs of memory and data that only achieve unique expression/representation as a result of brute-force repetition, which normally culminates in whatever birth name or identifying label said memory holder presents.
Would it not make more sense to believe that memory itself is linear, but time is not?
It seems more like our memory center is like a bladder or lung that we can train to get larger, increase the density of, or provide more synonyms/abstractions/examples of a single memory grouping point. Given all this, when does memory become profitable to another communicator? At what point is it sufficiently saturated/reliable/complex for others to seek rewarding it, or can identify their own reward from seeking it?
Some examples.
~ENUMERATING~
Let's say I'm an oracle that stores A* answers to all P-questions, which allows for asynchronous N-querents. I can satisfy queries that fall into data/fact/information categories and distribute the A* answer at regular intervals. Basically I enumerate memory on demand and pop out the answer at the next prescribed interval.
~GROUPING~
Let's say I'm a grouper of A* querents to P-answers of N-questions, meaning that I generate automata that can path their way to polynomial answers of arbitrary queries and upon satisfaction they self-apply a unique label, which they advertise and reinforce.
~TRUNCATION~
Let's say I'm a serial killer of A* persona/ego/identity to P-humans of N-cities, meaning that I isolate and eradicate memories/perspectives that do not yield to A* pathing. Meaning I can go kill all those that would be considered epsilons/infinitesimals of society.
There is no such thing as a universally sane conversation/grammar/language when it comes to why the memory that reads/writes these words chooses 'that' interpretation to carry over to 'that/this' memory. We're all just globs of memory and data that only achieve unique expression/representation as a result of brute-force repetition, which normally culminates in whatever birth name or identifying label said memory holder presents.
Would it not make more sense to believe that memory itself is linear, but time is not?
