Recognition nand Thought?

Painting - Adriane Strampp

NAND: Not and.

Whether it be color spectrums, jellyfish, or the periodic table, these items have distinct categories in themselves, even when equal in how they'll carry out their functions. While it's safer knowing the difference between a pine moth caterpillar and a southern flannel moth one, the human story relates more to its change mechanisms – a large one being belief. At a glance, though without operator notations, Raymond Smullyan's belief type reasoners from doxastic logic amongst many others:

  • a conceited reasoner: Believes his or her beliefs are never accurate.

  • a timid reasoner: Believes that he or she believes in a statement but doesn't in reality.


  • a reflexive reasoner: Believes that for any statement x, there's a statement z for which believing in z is believing in x.

Could to a good degree apply to many humans, regardless of entourage or location.

Yet, location – via cost of bandwidth and processing falling 40x and 60x respectively in the last 10 years (The Internet of Things, Goldman Sachs) is shrinking in distance, between mere awareness and live analysis. When pointed to Moore's law of integrated circuits capability doubling every two years (Moore, G. Cramming More Components Onto Integrated Circuits), more recently the blockchain's role in pushing processing speed still alludes to a more telling note. Consensus mechanisms (validating transactions without a central authority on the blockchain) and 'even' bitcoin mining have very game theoretic notions governing their competition structure, from the miners' willingness to pay for computing energy for an eventual reward, to an audit trail stretching from an immutable lemma for interdependences. In this swelling microeconomic realm, where opportunity costs need to benefit from public friendly market design (Roth, A.What have we learned from Market Design?), the heterogeneity of offers still allows to ponder – through computing power, will market thickness avoid congestion with betting terms? Not with dry powder, but ontologies: coined information term, from the sum of set attributes, classes, events, functions, relations etc. Ready for a trixie?
It's a given that transaction speed still requires specificity, this conveys the impression that fine and useful art must be in one place. For thought to overpower simple recognition of exactness, or vice versa, I'll argue – duality is the scalar. Speed and rapport should be cast as interchangeable. One recognizes fast because of consonance, but one also finds consonance faster just if they can recognize. The klein bottle's two mobius strips: I can relate to X because it's specific, but X is specific, only because I can relate to it.

How can these following two expressions be interchanged without one inherently referring to the other's possibility:
1. I'm exercising my zygomaticus major (facial expression muscle allowing one to smile).
2. I'm smiling.

The second seems to have a clear ending - only because of its purpose that can be defined interactively. More than a symbol, it's an act.
The first however is mostly described a little in terms of the smile. Why if the smile weren't the fine art piece to relate the muscle movements to, speak of that muscle's demonstrative, specific and recognizable role?