[FRIAM] mental imagery

[glen]

Yeah, I like it too. But I maintain my worry that what's important here is *our* ability to [un|re]bind the symbols. And what Marcus' "literate" code does is cajole us into a particular binding. It's a classic confidence trick. (To be clear, that's a good thing.) Rather than name one's variables "x" or "P", we name them mnemonically so as to share subjectivity with others. Mostly, we use positive affect names. Few people would find it easy to read code where the names were cuss words, words like "nazi", or violent. So we name them not only so as to communicate their *intended* purpose (never mind that intention can be wrong/misleading), but also as a coercive/rhetorical act.

Changing gears a bit, I ran across the "as if" personality <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_disturbance>. I can't help but wonder about a room full of agents "concealing their inner emptiness, living *as if* they had genuine feelings and desires." >8^D I'm at risk of Get-Off-My-Lawn, here. But 90% of the time, when I'm in a room with more than, say, 5 people, it *feels* to me like they're all philosophical zombies, maybe me included.

Are we all *actually* "as if" personalities? And those who think they're not are delusional?

On 11/24/25 5:06 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I'm finding your Lean4 fascinating for it's balance between intuitive enough to (almost) read and (known to be) formal enough to trust to be testable/executeable.
> 
> Reminds me vaguely of the semester I learned BNF and kept finding myself expressing (only to myself) observations about the world in that idiom... later Prolog captured that part of me (for a while) .
> 


-- 
¡sıɹƎ ןıɐH ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ
ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.