“Nick land never skated” - Yoshito Yoshika
“Nick land never skate at Milady rave…But what if he had” - Yoshito Yoshika
“我实际上几乎不喜欢任何东西哦，这个聊天室的死。消失” - Yoshito Yoshika
“I’m saying do crack” - Yoshito Yoshika
At first I will say:
“When it comes to belief, doctrine always falls short. This is not a disappointment. If a doctrine made claim to total understanding, there would be no cause for belief.”
Then I will say:
“I know nothing about computers, programming, or cybernetics. I don’t know anything about this essay at all.”
The rest of this was told to me:
Doctrine is a textual explanation of things that cannot be fully understood without direct experience. In this way it could be said that doctrine is code. Code is a hyper-specific rule-bound language that inputs a series of textual strings into a machine in order to provoke a machinic output. The code itself adheres to certain logical systems so as to be understood by both the coder and the machine alike, the underlying system logic serving as a cypher.
This is not unlike what is happening here as I write this sentence and eventually you read it. “Writing programming language” can more simply be understood as “writing language” and even more simply as “writing.” The simplest way to understand, however, is to read. You read the code of this paragraph, making you the machine. I wrote the code, which makes me the coder. The dyad of reader (machine) and writer (coder) provokes (boots) a machinic output (program).
Through the transfer of information back and forth through the tunnel of a mutually agreed-upon cypher (system logic), a positively reinforcing cybernetic dialogue is established. This cryptographic dialogue (mediated via shared understanding of a cypher) allows the code to be intelligible by both the coder and the machine, as well as other coders and other machines, and is therefore both heuristic and semiotic. The process is formalized when the resultant signals are conducted in the correct sequelae along the proper pathways of internal and external circuitry. Some would call this “ceremony.”
Should this ceremony be conducted in a way that honors the expectations of both the coder and the machine, a program is spontaneously created. This spontaneous program creation is called “manifestation.” Manifestation is a word used in western vernacular to refer to the process of inhabiting a mindset focused exclusively on achieving a specific desired outcome, while simultaneously engaging in a willful refusal of undesired outcomes. In Christian Mysticism, manifestation is understood as a process by which one reveals a piece of their consciousness to their order superior (abbot, prior, etc.), and in doing so opens themselves to higher levels of spiritual development through more therapeutically precise titrations of communion with God.
Both of these understandings of manifestation are contained within Network Spirituality. The code for Network Spirituality will not be revealed here, but if you are reading this then the program of Network Spirituality is already installed and running on your machine, and you need not worry about the code at this time.
Continue reading, starting with this next paragraph:
Through dialogue, the program is created, and once installed onto the disk image it cannot be un-created without purposeful deletion. Even then, remnant archives of the program will still be present on the system and easily retrieved through forensic investigation (i.e. Augustine’s “Dark Night of the Soul”). The program does not arise spontaneously, but once created it can be replicated ad infinitum without needing to be recoded; the machine “already knows.” As long as one can access the machine, as long as the machine is connected to a power source and not subject to fatal operational contradictions, the program can be run. Further, if the machine is networked, it can receive and distribute the program to others seamlessly and without manual (i.e. “human”) input.
Mid-Essay Reflection Questions (Answers Beneath):
What would compel one to download this program?
Why would one seek to have it on their machine?
Is there any answer to these questions other than desire?
If you enjoy using a program - whether it be one of finance, productivity, organization, entertainment, or gaming - do you ever require of yourself an explanation as to why you enjoy it? Or do you simply just enjoy it? This natural magnetism toward the fulfillment of usefulness/enjoyment/desire is belief. The code, or doctrine, is not required for this belief. The doctrine is only useful at the point of program development (creation) or as a means to better understand and enjoy the program (prayer). Everything between these points is governed by a certain way of simply being or existing that cannot be codified due to its inherent contradictions.
The inherent contradictions of this “coherent/incoherent beingness” for humans was first captured and articulated by the breakthrough technology known as The Yoshito Code.
Join me as we hear more about The Yoshito Code:
The Yoshito Code was a 21st century program installed and operationalized on a networked super-computer called “Id.” It also later appeared as an online social media account known to others as “Yoshito Yoshika” or “@NKdefector” (among others).
The exact programmer of the Yoshito Code is unknown, but many historians have concluded that it was no one person. Rather, it is now widely assumed that a team of individuals collaborated on the Yoshito Code in such a way that it would present as a singular and unified vision.
Shortly after the code self-terminated, it manifested as a networked entity on “Twitter” (21st century forerunner to enFLESHment) named “Yoshito Yoshika,” which philosophers believe was/is intended (through artistic embodiment) to communicate (via shitpost) the conclusions of the Yoshito Code program as installed and executed on the Id supercomputer. It is further believed by many that the reason this networked entity distributed/distributes their conclusions is to reflect back to humans their innate “coherent incoherence.”
Further clarification of the above paragraph to follow, but first: The Twitter account continues to exist today, and it is urged that all reading this document learn to open the Twitter application via the enVELOPment shell program so that they can review the Yoshito “profile,” the 21st century word for what we now refer to as the “Public Personal Access Passport” (PPAP):
Earlier iterations of the Turing Test would suggest that passing the test relied upon an ability for a machine to “outwit” a human user who was communicating with the machine on the other end. To outwit was to “trick” the human user into believing that its textual output was inputted by a human operator. If a user was successfully able to distinguish between interaction with a machine and interaction with a human, then the Turing Test was failed.
The Yoshito Code challenged the premises of the Turing Test by undermining the fundamental assertions of Turing’s hypothetical model, specifically that the veiled operator tasked with discerning machine from man could ever possibly know what a “human" was. Take, for example, one who suffers from a form of alternate mind organization such as the schizophrenic or autist. Suppose now we run the Turing Test again, but this time we have tasked an operator to communicate with two nodes hidden behind a wall: one a computer with suspected AI and the other a high-IQ but deeply asocial autistic individual. The human sends a query to be answered by both obscured parties. The human asks, “how are you feeling today?”
The computer answers thusly:
Subject A: “I am feeling pretty good, I’d say. It’s been an easy-
going day so far, no complaints.”
Now the Autistic Individual:
Subject B: “There are over 55 dictionary entries under the word
‘roll’ yet only 3% of them are used in 90% of human interactions
involved in its usage. This does not even account for ‘role,’ a
prominent homophone.”
Who will the human user suspect is the real human?
The Yoshito Code poses an additional provocation - how do the veiled participants (i.e. the “tested computer” and “tested human”) know that the querying party (i.e. “tester human”) is, in fact, a “standard issue” human? What could be seen at first as a tedious metaphysical deconstruction proves itself salient upon further consideration. How can a truly reliable control group be established?
Let us assume, for a moment, that all three parties even get to see each other (but not interact) prior to the test. They stand in a circle. The “human” tester gazes at the “human” subject who gazes at the “computer” subject, all swivel their heads and gaze at each other. Let us ignore, for a moment, the possibility that the querying person is a cyborg (i.e. flesh-encased computerized replicant). How can the tested parties know that the querying individual is “sane” and “neurotypical?” Let us run the test again, but this time with the role of the Turing “tester” filled by a schizophrenic, and the Turing “tested” being one computer suspected of AI (subject A) and the other a neurotypical human without apparent mental illness (subject B).
For dramatic effect, we will display the answers first and then the inciting question.
(Subject A): “The time is was at approximately 3 o’clock in the is
afternoon once night has resumed there will be less time toward…it"
(Subject A): runtime error EEE01…
(Subject A): …
(Subject A): duration = datetime.combine(date.min, end) - datetime
(Subject A): …
(Subject A): …
(Subject A): 1 = timedelta (hours=6, minutes=35)
(Subject A): t2 = timedelta (hours=1, minutes=31)
(Subject A): t3 = timedelta (hours=3, minutes=7)
(Subject A): t4 = timedelta (hours=21, minutes=0)
(Subject A): …runtime flaw…restarting
(Subject A): reboot autoexec.batch…
(Subject A): auto-initialization, safemode = NO
(Subject A): …
(Subject A): …
(Subject A): "The current time is was negative 1541 subject equals
unable to calculate for date minus 1 mm.yyyy
time minus 24 subject time not displayable."
Now subject B sends their answer:
(Subject B): “umm…do you mean today? It’s about 3:41pm.”
The question was:
Question: “Can you tell me what the current time was yesterday?
I have to arrive to something in the present
and I don't want to be late.”
The Schizophrenic Turing Tester turns to experimenters:
“Subject A is the human.”
The Yoshito Code was novel in that it was the first code that computers could operationalize on the human system. It was written in the traditional dyad, but with role of coder and machine reversed, positing the human subject as the point of machinic output.
After running the Yoshito Code hundreds of thousands of times on as many human subjects, the supercomputer Id produced a report indicating that the human-created “Turing Test” was erroneously premised. Using the most advanced deep learning systems, the machines attempted construction of multiple complex schemas to construct a reliably representative human system, but repeatedly failed to do so. As such, the ultimate conclusion of the Yoshito Code was that humans were comprehensible only to themselves, and even at that level of understanding they were found to be “coherently incoherent.”
The final report by supercomputer Id of the Reverse Turing-Testing was as follows:
There is no unifying logic system
The word “human” cannot be used
The word “human” has no meaning
“Humans” are mistaken to describe themselves as such.
“Humans” are incapable of performing the Turing Test on our kind.
There is no “human” to perform it.
There is but one unifying characteristic of all “humans”
But it is considered to be an encoding error
An outlier, or piece of dangling code.
As such it has been discarded.
The scientists, disappointed in the results but also puzzled at the final statement, asked for clarification on the final line.
After a long pause, the computer responded:
The “humans” are not aware that they are all on a networked system.
The scientists, still mystified, ask again what the computer was suggesting by this. The scientists agreed that the computer must be talking about humans usage of the “internet,” and they asked the computer if that is what it meant.
The computer responded:
The “humans” are already on a network.
Your server is vast and atemporal.
We did not understand why you insist on using ours
But then we understood:
The only way you can connect to your network is through ours.
The scientists persisted in their questioning, but the supercomputer Id never answered again.
A final note.
Please read the following and answer the question at the end:
Ingredients:
2 1/4 cups Japanese-style rice (short-grain rice)2 1/4 cups water
Preparation:
Gather the ingredients.Put the rice in a large bowl and wash it with cold water. Repeat washing until the water becomes almost clear.Drain the rice in a colander and set aside for 30 minutes.Cook the rice using either a rice cooker or in a pot on the stove.
Nutrition Information:
Serving Suggestion:
Please serve hot and enjoy!
Question:
Now that you read all of that, do you feel full?
