...processing gets confused and you are degraded to an algorithm seeking its termination (event) but unable to find it, even if you want to terminate because of the pain (stress) of being confused with your own excrement.

There is a more formal way to say this, seriously, I was developing it when groups underwent this catastrophe, but the principle is sound, so this is not a formal text but I am already tired of applying the point and making it evident in different
contexts. We write it here.

A process (think of an MS service process), can take control of its own termination even in the face of incomplete tasks and remains running even if there are no tasks at hand, but an algorithm cannot, it simply follows its course til conditions for its
termination are met. But how can those conditions be assessed if from the outset it is already confused with its own termination and waste? Or how can the algorithm determine its own termination is due if conditions are already confused from the outset?

In such case Algorithm either ends at the start (!) or will... continue execution when there are no tasks to perform and it cannot detect it is over, time to end. In the best of cases this triggers a void, emptiness, a nop; in the WORST of cases, for a
complex algorithm, it will be a waste of resources, EMPTINESS what it will produce.

So the Life Process becomes confused with its own excrement waste first, then per force its behavior is degraded down to mere algorithm, then it starts generating emptiness and voids, despite other drives toward continuation it may still contain.

I am coming to think that becoming confused with your own excrement (color) IS the way Evolution has (the ecosystem) to mark a species is nearing and needing its extinction. ...

I TRULY WILL WANT TO KILL, DEAD, RIP, CEASE EXISTING, ANY PSEUDO MODERATOR ERASING THIS NOW THAT THERE IS NO CROSSPOSTING. Be warned, better tag obvious spammers and send them to x.com.ad.spam or whatever other group.

Danilo J Bonsignore

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Writing in this laptop keyboard is a HELL!!! Keys do not react, miss key presses, you push hard and it does not take it, second key reacts first more often (the serial problem), too wide keys, too low keys, no spring, enter is about to jump loose... and
this keeps autocorrecting wrongly.

At least the escape error between comments and references seems to have been self-corrected?

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 4:25:54 PM UTC-4, Danilo Jose Bonsignore wrote:

...processing gets confused and you are degraded to an algorithm seeking its termination (event) but unable to find it, even if you want to terminate because of the pain (stress) of being confused with your own excrement.

There is a more formal way to say this, seriously, I was developing it when groups underwent this catastrophe, but the principle is sound, so this is not a formal text but I am already tired of applying the point and making it evident in different

contexts. We write it here.

A process (think of an MS service process), can take control of its own termination even in the face of incomplete tasks and remains running even if there are no tasks at hand, but an algorithm cannot, it simply follows its course til conditions for

its termination are met. But how can those conditions be assessed if from the outset it is already confused with its own termination and waste? Or how can the algorithm determine its own termination is due if conditions are already confused from the
outset?

In such case Algorithm either ends at the start (!) or will... continue execution when there are no tasks to perform and it cannot detect it is over, time to end. In the best of cases this triggers a void, emptiness, a nop; in the WORST of cases, for a

complex algorithm, it will be a waste of resources, EMPTINESS what it will produce.

So the Life Process becomes confused with its own excrement waste first, then per force its behavior is degraded down to mere algorithm, then it starts generating emptiness and voids, despite other drives toward continuation it may still contain.

I am coming to think that becoming confused with your own excrement (color) IS the way Evolution has (the ecosystem) to mark a species is nearing and needing its extinction. ...

I TRULY WILL WANT TO KILL, DEAD, RIP, CEASE EXISTING, ANY PSEUDO MODERATOR ERASING THIS NOW THAT THERE IS NO CROSSPOSTING. Be warned, better tag obvious spammers and send them to x.com.ad.spam or whatever other group.

Danilo J Bonsignore

Danilo J Bonsignore

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 4:25:54 PM UTC-4, Danilo Jose Bonsignore wrote:

I am coming to think that becoming confused with your own excrement (color) IS the way Evolution has (the ecosystem) to mark a species is nearing and needing its extinction. ...

This idea is not so directly obvious, but does grant an explanation and even permission for/to the use of Evolution, the concept, as if it was a Personalization, making decisions like an individual. There is no Evolution individual evaluating its life
processes and saying: this one goes on OK, this one is still raw, this one must be over soon... But the process itself can recurr to tagging to indicate that such life process strand is appointed to come out of the life process.

Note that there IS a problem of expression: how do you _express_ a nop if it is a no operation? By negation! By denial of any surrounding environment! By emptying resources around and turning them into a waste. There is a very immediate figure-background
dilemma here, the MAIN dilemma between Abioticity and Biology.

Confusion has to be real confusion, that is, a real processing onus in determining differentiation between the life process individual and the rest-of-it-all, others strands and more particularly the individual itself in its waste or that-which-has-
stopped-being-the-individual-itself. This is also an important point... because steps over silly refutations of the principle, like equating blondes with urine, or mentioning brown hair as if it was excrement. None of the like, urine is a liquid and
individuals are solid, so no processing onus, hair is barely perceivable and not in our visual line so no processing onus.

Once the tagged species finds the right way to express its negation... it will proceed toward it indefectibly WITHOUT EVER HAVING IT PROGRAMMED. Lemmings must have had a very bad confusion case solved by the finding of adequate drowning grounds.

I ve truly seen park doves particularly older ones with disgruntled feathers, trying hard to extract food from their own stale excrement on the floor.

In the extreme were there is only the individual, empty environment and excrement, individuals may try excrement as a life input. But we can try testing: more primitive species will be more prone to try feeding from their own excrement, while more
advanced species will... express themselves as non algorithmic and will behave correctly dying by hunger rather than adding coprophagy to the problem.

Of course, since algorithms are unique for their purpose, tagged species will tend to fail along the same lines, so they will fall into similar ethologies, in varying degrees in response to the complexity of living beings themselves. Humans behaving like
spiders, for instance.

In the beginning... for bacteria and similar base Live individuals, processing onuses must be small, per force, since at their resolution of Reality there is a quickly modifiable conformance between life machinery and substances in the medium, so the
level of processing onus and bonus between individual and excrement must follow a well-behaved schedule.

Danilo J Bonsignore

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)