Notes 19/08/2013

That certain forms of information can interact with systems to change their behaviour is interesting. I suppose there are analogues of varying levels of complexity of systems/information, from low level physics where 'information' is closely bound with the system itself, to biological systems and their myriad systemic configurations, and whose 'information' is subjective based on another biological observer or reference point, to the rich heritage of organizations derived of our own will in order to enact some form of change.

That possibility that the spread of information can threaten the state of a system is obvious in lower level systems, but manifests in interesting manners in higher level ones. Throughout history there are examples of discoveries and ideas which threaten an order which places faith in systems this new information may contradict. This has, in extreme cases, led to inhumane treatment of people by those who wish to retain control of the order, or to some form of civil uprising.

(Snipping in my head. "**** erase(d?) his history.")

(It now feels as though there is a hole in my head.)

I often wonder the consequences of someone 'hacking' the complete system. It's at once both interesting and terrifying that control of information of such fine granularity is independent of understanding of information's role in their own motivations. To put it another way, a system can be manipulated into 'perceiving' another as a threat or target, the constituent processes of the system then biased and independent beyond the trusted source which provided that information. The controlling system, may again, be a constituent process of a higher-order system which may be manipulating it, and so on. Why is this terrifying? At this moment in time, higher-order systems have a perspective (biased-information) which threaten their constituent processes - i.e. they do not fully account for the states of the systems they have control over. This is a valid construct when the links between the systems can be 'trusted' - i.e. when that trust is not misplaced. When it is not, the chain of trust validates itself. When it is, it seems that the trusting state is catapulted (or nudged) toward a shift in its overall state. Sometimes the state shift can be threatening to the integrity of the system - or the integrity of systems around them. The system, which consists of systems communicating on ever more fundamental planes (and appear to become self validating on certain levels), then becomes 'less coherent'. There are a myriad of consequences when this is a system of high-order complexity - mainly to do with the interpretation of the state from varying perspectives.

(Air goes cold. "You lose.")

I am coming to realize an integral part of my own personal struggle was attempting to defend myself from becoming overwhelmed by these processes. Earlier in my life I was able to do this - simply put, I made sure to constantly iterate over my validation mechanisms, in an attempt to get a better picture of my environment. The motivation for this - that my environment misunderstood me. This was painful. I am also beginning to realize that this was painful for a good reason - rather, that there was something innate in me that was being threatened.

I wanted a just solution - i.e. rather than blame those who threatened me, or direct aggression toward them, I wanted to understand what it was they threatened, and have as clear a view as possible from their perspective. I wanted the truth on my side - and I knew that could be tainted by my own interpretation of it. However, processing information at this conscious level took concentration and effort - not the kind of time afforded to those who are part of the processes themselves. It is essentially running information algorithmically through a 'self validating identity'. This was ignited and at once hindered by constant assertion of misinterpreted state. It's important to realize that even if this information does not directly evidence misinterpreted state (i.e. the attacker could be lying in attempt to controll another system), the disregard for it's detriment to the system being attacked points to a misinterpretation of state on a lower level. A simple, personal example - I have an unhealthy lifestyle. I am aware of its detriment to my lower-level systems, but it is habit formed in desperation due to the pain of misinterpretation of me by my environment. The system incorrectly interprets the cause of my unhealthy lifestyle as 'me'. Any action it now takes will be biased, which spreads systemwide to varying degrees.

I believe this is why many people dislike tabloid journalism. I understand the importance of a currency of information spread around a system, but it is quite clearly biased, even if the nature of the effect of that bias on the system is difficult to envision - the obvious links are that they unify states between organisms, creating a more robust social connection, on the other hand there are some extreme examples where these systems will act irrationally or attack others based on information from their trusted source.

It seems the ideal would be a robust system at lower levels which allows parallel exploration of higher-level systems without the risk of destructive conflict between parallel states or the instability of the whole. This becomes difficult as members of parallel states become aware of one another and attempt to define each other - there are plenty of examples in nature of that definition essentially eliminating an alternate state altogether in order to better define or validate oneself. Time plays a significant part in this process - on a biological level, one develops in response to the environment, the threats to its time significantly altering its biological development. The development of language is also one in response to a threat of an environment which doesn't understand it (I mean, in the sense of its true nature - it's possible to be understood as something you're not, which is fine, so long as that understanding does not pose a threat to you).