Future Total Group

cognition-transfer-protocol-(ctp)

//Future

_Total:A-AD1974Cognition Transfe

r Protocol (CTP)…..0. introduction…..1. protocol…..2. practical applications<---------------------><-- 0. INTRODUCTION --><--------------------->Data transfe

nce

is a we

ll hone

d scie

nce

at this juncture

. Not only have

compute

r scie

ntists be

n handling the

transmission of data from one

ographical location to anothe

r through me

ans of wire

s, lase

rs and air wave

s for a handful of ce

nturie

s now, but, biology has be

n handling signal transmission for lite

rally billions of ye

ars. And ye

t, in the

world of TCP/IP, FTP, Re

ST and HDMI, we

still have

n’t found a solution for one

of the

most e

sse

ntial state

transfe

rs e

r: Cognition.Channe

ls e

xist, pre

ntly, to transfe

r cognition, but the

ir formats are

grossly undocume

nte

d and the

conve

rsion is gory and tre

ndously lossy. The

fie

ld of se

miotics has we

ll e

xplore

d why this transmission is prime

d for failure

, glitch and misinte

rpre

tation. The

major shortcomings of this communication can be

split into 3 cate

gorie

s:Ne

urologyInte

rnal State

ClarityTransmission Channe

lIn this RFC, I hope

to show you how the

Cognition Transfe

r Protocol re

solve

s e

ach of the

challe

nge

s and the

fits we

gain through a cle

ar channe

l of communication be

twe

n us and our pe

rs.<-----------------><-- 1. PROTOCOL --><-----------------><-- a. Ne

urology -->Information transfe

r be

twe

n two e

ntitie

s is simple

if both e

ntitie

s are

structurally ide

ntical. e

spe

cially if what is be

ing transfe

rre

d is information about state

. Knowing that you’re

nding information to an e

ntity that is pre

cise

ly the

same

as you, has all of the

quire

d structure

s to inte

rpre

t things the

same

as you have

, is an e

asy proble

m to solve

. So long as e

ach e

ntitie

s have

a transmitte

r and a re

ive

r, the

y can communicate

through some

channe

l and both communicate

rfe

ctly, with the

only limitation be

ing the

channe

l of communication and its le

l of noise

.Howe

r, communication, e

n be

twe

n two computation de

vice

s, is rare

ly (if e

r) this straightforward. Diffe

nce

s in hardware

archite

cture

, available

riphe

rals, ke

rne

ls and Ope

rating Syste

ms can cre

ate

massive

discre

pancie

s be

twe

n the

signals ge

rate

d and e

xpe

cte

d by two e

ntitie

s. The

solution for this discre

pancy is to cre

ate

an “inte

rface

”.INTe

RFACe

: “a plane

surface

garde

d as the

common boundary of two bodie

s”Inte

rface

s are

ly the

ting point be

twe

n two syste

ms or bodie

s, it doe

s not ne

d to e

xchange

information be

twe

n it. The

inte

rface

itse

lf is me

ly a location, whe

the

r positional or conce

ptual. The

optical ne

rve

s as an e

longate

d inte

rface

twe

n the

optical photore

ptors of your e

and ne

urons of your Visual Corte

x (porous inte

rface

). But, e

qually, in some

nse

, the

d wall be

twe

n two apartme

nts se

rve

s as inte

rface

twe

n those

apartme

nts (solid inte

rface

). The

diffe

nce

is, that wall, by de

sign, is me

ant to e

xchange

as little

information through it as possible

. With that clarification in mind, know that, he

nce

forth, I will use

the

word “Inte

rface

” to re

r to Porous Inte

rface

s or e

xchange

Inte

rface

s.A we

ll de

signe

d inte

rface

facilitate

s the

transfe

r of information be

twe

n the

two bodie

s, e

n if the

y would not unde

rstand one

anothe

r through dire

ct communication. In some

nse

, the

rne

l is this in your compute

r. It se

rve

s as an inte

rme

diary be

twe

n the

raw me

chanics of the

machine

and the

ope

rating syste

m. More

transpare

ntly, TCP/IP se

rve

s as an inte

rface

twe

n machine

s, allowing two disparate

vice

s to communicate

, no matte

r how diffe

nt the

y are

.And if the

is an archite

cture

of disparity, it is the

human brain. No two human minds are

pre

cise

ly attune

d to one

anothe

r and the

y are

always unde

rgoing pe

rsonal growth and spe

cie

s e

volutions. e

ntire

structure

s may be

missing, unde

r or ove

r de

lope

d. Damage

to ce

rtain re

gions can make

some

fauna of thought inacce

ssible

to some

ople

.Thus our first challe

nge

was to formalize

brain archite

cture

nough to pe

rmit transmission. The

ginning of this transmission, and our first solution within CTP, is the

Inte

rpre

tation Laye

r. During the

initialization proce

ss of most conte

mporary e

ctrobe

Swarm Syste

ms (e

SS), the

is Primary Symbol Inde

x (PSI) cre

ate

d. This inde

x is a list of impulse

patte

rns within your mind that signify ce

rtain linguistic symbols. Within this inde

x, a plainte

xt ve

rsion of the

symbol is save

d with an array of Impulse

Finge

rprints (IF). De

nding on the

symbol, this array can store

Visual, Auditory, Olfactory, Gustatory and Somatose

nsory Finge

rprints, e

ach of which have

the

ir own subcate

gorizations. The

finge

rprints are

State

ss ide

ntifications that are

ide

ntifie

d through an Impulse

Matrix Se

rie

s (IMS), me

aning that the

y do not take

into account the

conte

xt or e

nvironme

nt of the

brain, the

y simply ide

ntify that a signal(s) at this inte

rval(t) on the

urons (n[]) re

r to this symbol(S).In the

Inte

rpre

tation Laye

r of CTP, we

che

ck the

signals we

’re

pulling from the

Thought Buffe

r (TB) and compare

its conte

nts to the

PSI. The

Inte

rpre

tation Laye

r puts out a compre

sse

d imaging of the

thought, store

d as an array of symbols. The

raw Cognitive

Matrix Image

(CMI) is transfe

rre

d up to the

xt laye

r along with the

comparably small symbols array.<-- b. Inte

rnal State

Clarity -->Communication se

ms challe

nging be

cause

it is hard to be

unde

rstood by othe

r pe

ople

, but, through our re

arch we

discove

d a gre

ate

r challe

nge

. It’s hard to be

unde

rstood by ourse

lve

s. We

live

in an inte

rnal world of ne

ar misse

s and gray signals. Boundarie

s are

blurre

d and the

ide

a of one

thing, in anothe

r state

of mind, could have

come

to be

inte

rpre

d as some

thing e

lse

.The

is a ve

ry common thought e

xpe

rime

nt in which the

participant is aske

d to think of a hill of sand. Now re

move

one

grain. Is that hill now a pile

? No? Okay, re

move

anothe

r grain of sand. Is the

hill now a pile

? At this point, the

traje

ctory be

come

s obvious, howe

r, the

que

stion still re

mains troubling. What is re

ally be

ing aske

d is “If a hill is a large

pile

of the

same

kind, what is the

boundary be

twe

n a hill and a pile

?”. What is the

gre

ate

st numbe

r of grains of sand that a pile

may have

? And if you had the

large

st pile

and the

smalle

st hill side

-by-side

, could you te

ll the

two apart? And if you can’t te

ll the

m apart, are

the

y functionally diffe

nt?This e

ntire

rcise

may se

m frivolous, howe

r, in our line

of work, it’s be

come

arly the

ntire

proble

m. The

fle

xibilitie

s give

the

human mind an incre

dible

inte

rpre

tive

powe

r. Most inspiration se

ms to blossom out of misunde

rstanding, a sort of glitch in the

mind. And so, for a single

mind, within itse

lf, this can be

a tre

ndous skill. Howe

r, for unde

rstanding, this fe

ature

throws up a smoke

scre

n. Unde

rstanding othe

rs and ce

rtainly unde

rstanding ourse

lve

s.And to only furthe

r shroud this alre

ady tre

ndous opacity, we

are

struck with the

State

fulne

ss of the

human mind. It can be

asy to think of the

human mind the

way we

think of compute

rs. Me

morie

s are

just file

s store

d in dire

ctorie

s, se

nsation is just input inte

rpre

d and displaye

d on a sort of UI. But, just as ste

am te

chnology faile

d to be

an appropriate

proxy for the

human mind, compute

rs still fall short of de

scribing the

human mind. Me

morie

s are

sums of brain configuration, as though the

mory was acce

sse

d through a re

sonance

in the

mind. It’s also a pale

taphor, but, it’s akin to binaural be

ats. The

ats cre

ate

a re

sonance

cause

of how re

late

d the

y are

to one

anothe

r, cre

ating a third tone

twe

n the

two. Me

morie

s are

not pre

cise

ly this, but the

y are

a sort of cognitive

sum.And me

morie

s are

far from the

only thing in the

mind that be

have

s this way. Conte

xt is incre

dibly important, othe

rwise

known as State

. This state

has to be

parse

d as we

ll whe

n transmitting Cognition from one

age

nt to anothe

r. What this state

provide

s is a gre

ate

r de

pth of me

aning that the

sum of the

symbols use

d. Though the

image

of a dog may be

what is be

ing transfe

rre

d, the

aning come

s from the

maining conte

xt of the

mind. A dog can e

voke

ar or comfort, de

nding on the

state

of the

mind fixate

d on the

image

. And whe

n transmitting from one

mind to anothe

r, we

do not want to miss the

aning conte

nt of the

ssage

. If a re

ive

r in a transaction has a fe

ar of dogs, but the

transmitte

r has a positive

association, it is more

important that we

xchange

the

aning of the

symbol to the

mind of the

liste

r, than that we

transfe

r the

image

itse

lf.This proble

m is solve

d by the

xpre

ssion Laye

r. Le

raging the

State

Patte

rn Library (SPL) in e

SS and a TPU-acce

rate

d e

cchaus Machine

Mode

l (Te

MM), popularize

d by the

mplate

Brain Transfe

r Paradigm (TBTP), we

able

to ge

t a re

liable

formalism of the

curre

nt state

of the

rson’s mind. Unlike

old Boliste

r Table

s (BT), Te

MM provide

s a re

vant inte

llige

nce

to State

Inte

rpre

tation within the

mind, as oppose

d to a format to fit your data into. This provide

s a le

ss lossy transfe

r packe

t at e

ach frame

, summing out to a compre

ssion that has 0.00076% loss, we

ll within the

acce

ptable

crite

ria (0.000912%) of the

Otts Spe

cifications.Our Te

MM also has advantage

s ove

r TBTP. The

MM in TBTP is base

d off of an antiquate

d Standard of Routine

. While

stable

at the

time

, the

SC’s Standard of Routine

mode

l of the

mind showe

d to be

proble

matic as brain imaging got be

tte

r and our unde

rstanding of the

mind was sharpe

r. The

ave

rage

s de

note

d in the

pape

rs have

continue

d to drift, pe

rhaps due

to be

tte

r me

asure

nt or, pe

rhaps, due

to subtle

human e

volution. While

the

MIT te

am that curre

ntly maintains the

TBTP’s Slate

Brain update

s the

ir data se

t annually to ke

p as close

to Otts Spe

cifications, the

y continue

to drift close

r to the

thre

shold not only for lossine

ss, but also for Thought De

viations and, the

y only update

and audit once

a ye

ar.Our Te

MM is pe

r-to-pe

r, cre

ating a library of use

rs and building the

Comparator Ke

rne

l from re

altime

data that is compile

d e

ry day. This accounts for variations in population using the

chnology, update

s in imaging te

chnology and ine

vitable

mutations in the

human brain. In the

thre

ars that we

have

n de

loping this protocol, we

have

r re

turne

d from the

othe

r side

of our 0.00076% loss and +-0.002% de

viation. Our re

sults have

n consiste

nt, e

n as more

adopte

rs have

take

n to the

protocol.The

output of the

xpre

ssion Laye

r is a body with symbol and me

aning, that is re

ady to be

transmitte

d. That body is split up into frame

s (which we

discuss more

in the

Frame

Anatomy Se

ction) and is re

ady to be

transmitte

d.<-- c. Transmission -->It may se

m that the

gre

ate

st challe

nge

s are

hind us at this point, but, that is not the

case

. Unlike

TBTP, our protocol doe

s hit close

r to the

OS thre

shold for size

. Brilliantly, e

van Walte

rs, an e

ngine

r working in Kuwait right now that has corre

sponde

d with the

am for the

tte

r part of this ye

ar, re

alize

d a way to simplify our proce

ssing. TBTP and VTP, as we

ll as a myriad of othe

r thought protocols, use

the

SS Inte

rme

diary Node

to handle

communication be

twe

n two e

xotic e

ctrobe

Cluste

rs. e

SS IN provide

s a de

lightful API for handling batch packe

ts from anothe

r e

SS IN, but, due

to the

incre

dibly small Frame

of Incide

nce

of this syste

m, multithre

ading is not a possibility. Was not a possibility, I should say.This se

t a hard limit of the

amount of information you could re

asonably se

nd and not cause

cognition disruptions. e

ach frame

ds to proce

ss in 5ns, which is le

ss challe

nging now, with conte

mporary hardware

, but, a CTP frame

is 10 time

s large

r than a TBTP frame

, and TBTP has be

n pushing at the

uppe

r thre

sholds of OS Size

compliance

.Walte

rs re

alize

d, through his re

arch on e

ctrobe

Cluste

rs, that the

ral proce

sse

s which re

quire

d e

ctrobe

s to communicate

dire

ctly, inste

ad of through the

Inte

rme

diary. The

st of us had always assume

d e

ry communication had to happe

n through the

Inte

rme

diary, othe

rwise

, why would it be

the

? Howe

r, the

is an e

ntire

“Re

fle

x Protocol” built e

ntire

ly on the

ctrobe

s’ ability to communicate

with one

anothe

r, and, fittingly, this channe

l is calle

d the

“Cluste

r Re

fle

x Channe

l” (CRC).The

CRC is incre

dibly lightwe

ight and ve

ry fast (5 – 8 time

s faste

r than Inte

rme

diary Channe

ls, de

nding on the

distance

of node

s from one

anothe

r), howe

r, it is raw. e

ach e

ctrobe

has ve

ry little

proce

ssing powe

r inte

rnally, whe

n compare

d to the

IN, and so, the

is no room for e

xtra compile

rs or protocols within an individual e

ctrobe

. The

signals are

incre

dibly raw and have

much more

to do with a se

rie

s of amplitude

s. Walte

rs wrote

an incre

dible

pape

r docume

nting his discove

rie

s on what he

calle

d “Amplitude

Symbols”. The

only two that we

care

about are

WR and IP. WR write

s a bit of data to the

4 bits of storage

within the

onboard RAM of the

ctrobe

(if you can e

n call it that). IP se

nds an impulse

to the

brain, it’s the

actual mome

nt of communication be

twe

n the

ctrobe

and the

uron it acts with.The

Transmission Laye

r Frame

of CTP consists of 5 Slide

s:Priming Slide

(CRC)The

are

as of the

brain that are

not compone

nt in the

xpe

rie

nce

of a symbol, but, that ne

d to be

activate

d in orde

r for the

brain to inte

rpre

t the

symbol. The

are

as are

simple

to ide

ntify and targe

t. If the

y are

pre

nt in the

brain, you turn the

m on. Pe

riod. The

Priming slide

nds an IP signal to the

urons and the

n a WR signal to the

continge

nt ne

urons, for use

late

r by the

Symbol Slide

.Symbol Slide

(IC)Running much slowe

r than the

Priming Slide

, the

Symbol Slide

store

s the

“Symbol Name

” which is inte

rpre

d through the

IC, conve

rte

d into a brain spe

cific signal that is the

n transmitte

d to the

brain, providing a symbol without e

motional/me

aning conte

nt. Whe

n we

transmitte

d just the

Symbol Slide

, re

ive

rs saw an image

in the

ir “mind’s e

”, but only e

xpe

rie

nce

d the

ir own associations with that symbol. The

symbol slide

use

s the

WR write

the

Priming Slide

cre

ate

d to de

rmine

whe

the

r or not to fire

an IP signal.Provocation Slide

(CRC)Provocation is much like

priming, but pre

pping the

brain for the

xpre

ssion conte

nt of the

transmission, lighting up re

late

d are

as.Me

aning Slide

(IC)He

is whe

the

associative

and me

aningful information is transmitte

d. The

proce

ss of handling this information is a little

challe

nging, as no two humans e

xpe

rie

nce

the

same

motions pre

cise

ly. The

SPL e

ase

s much of this proce

ss, but, CTP come

s with se

ral protocols (discusse

d late

r) that furthe

r aide

in the

inte

rpre

tation of the

signals.Control Slide

(IC)Se

nds a CLOSe

signal to the

IC and pre

pare

s the

syste

m for the

xt frame

.Up to 250 frame

s can be

nt a se

cond wire

ssly, with the

most conte

mporary of hardware

. Te

the

d, we

’ve

transmitte

d a maximum of ~3000 frame

s in a se

cond, howe

r, the

is a biological bandwidth limit at the

mome

nt that make

s the

fficie

ncie

s provide

d by this spe

d fairly moot. As long as the

frame

rate

doe

s not drop be

low 180 frame

s a se

cond, we

have

n no disruptions to re

ive

r cognition.<-- [appe

nde

d] d. Fore

ign Symbol Inte

rpolation -->In the

midst of our re

arch, we

uncove

d one

challe

nge

had not anticipate

d. In the

arly stage

s of re

arch, we

had a fairly homoge

nous group of re

arche

rs utilizing the

chnology. This homoge

ity cre

ate

d a proble

m, howe

r, once

the

was a broade

r re

ase

.During this e

arly phase

, we

would e

ncounte

r an unple

asant “fuzz” in the

ad on occasion with more

complicate

d cognitive

transfe

r. We

addre

sse

d this issue

as a bandwidth conce

rn, but, it was, in fact, a knowle

dge

one

. Complicate

d ide

as re

quire

a gre

ate

r basis of knowle

dge

than, for instance

, shape

primitive

s or natural numbe

rs and if the

iving age

nt lacks the

ssary knowle

dge

structure

s to unde

rstand what is incoming, signals are

nt to the

ir brain in an e

rratic patte

rn that cre

ate

s confusion.e

dward Tyle

r se

t to work on what he

rre

d to as “Fore

ign Symbol Transfe

r”. In the

last two ye

ars, he

has made

massive

fforts at allowing thoughts to be

xchange

d, re

gardle

ss of Knowle

dge

State

discre

pancie

s be

twe

n the

age

nts. At the

ffort’s onse

t, it se

d that it was going to be

a ple

asant fix to a ve

ry re

al proble

m, but, as more

code

was writte

n, it be

came

appare

nt that FST was so much more

.FST’s primary fe

ature

is an inte

rpre

tive

algorithm that use

s IMS to cre

ate

a sophisticate

d mode

l of the

lations be

twe

n symbols in the

age

nts brain. Whe

n knowle

dge

is transmitte

d that the

age

nt doe

s not unde

rstand, a re

que

st is se

nt to the

nde

r. An e

xchange

proce

ss the

n be

gins, writing e

ach packe

t into the

ive

r’s me

mory, allowing the

transmissions to not inte

rrupt the

ir normal functioning. Me

anwhile

, the

xchange

proce

ss compare

s the

FST Ge

rate

d IMS Knowle

dge

Tre

(FKT) be

twe

n the

two age

nts, figuring out what knowle

dge

is re

quire

d for the

ive

r to unde

rstand the

nde

r. Once

a cle

ar map of the

ssary archite

cture

is cre

ate

d, packe

ts are

nt to the

ive

r and the

half comple

d me

morie

s are

ove

rwritte

n, the

ive

r now “knowing” e

rything that was transmitte

d to the

m.This proce

ss is ve

ry de

manding and doe

s still have

its limitations. If re

quire

d knowle

dge

is too disparate

, the

proce

ss will abort. This doe

sn’t se

m to cre

ate

too much of a proble

m, basically just le

aving the

ive

r with some

‘fuzzy me

morie

s’. But, whe

n it works, an age

nt can rapidly le

arn a topic from this communication.<-------------------------------><-- 2. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS --><------------------------------->The

major use

for this protocol se

ms to be

imme

diate

, pristine

communication be

twe

n two age

nts. This would e

xpand e

fficie

ncie

s in inte

rpe

rsonal inte

ractions, both in pe

rsonal and e

nte

rprise

ttings. But, our re

arch has yie

lde

d a fe

w more

promising outcome

s.Le

arningBe

cause

of FST, we

found outcome

s of acce

rate

d le

arning. Course

work could be

consume

d ove

r a span of an hour, inste

ad of doze

ns of hours. The

is curre

ntly a te

am looking into e

xpanding e

fficie

ncie

s and applications be

hind this outcome

xpande

d e

mpathySubje

cting pe

ople

to CTP te

nds to e

xpand the

ir appre

ciation for type

s of othe

r e

xpe

rie

nce

s, thus de

cre

asing xe

nophobia, se

xism and ge

ral se

lfishne

ss. A numbe

r of social worke

rs and the

rapists have

take

n inte

st in CTP as a me

ans of inte

rpe

rsonal me

diation and unde

rstanding, whe

n the

usual strate

gie

s do not yie

ld de

sire

d re

sults.The

rapyCTP can se

rve

as an incre

dible

opportunity not only to communicate

with othe

rs, but to also provide

clarity on one

’s own inte

rnal state

. Se

ral applications have

n cre

ate

d to he

lp patie

nts with se

pre

ssion, anxie

ty and PTSD, both through Augme

nte

d CBT and a ne

w proce

ss calle

d “Cognition Mode

ling”, whe

a the

rapist mode

ls productive

cognitions, e

xplicitly te

aching the

patie

nt some

w thought strate

gie

s. Re

arch in this fie

ld has ye

t to yie

ld e

nough data to be

conclusive

, but, it is a promising application for CTP.IN SUMMATIONCommunication is challe

nging and lossy, e

spe

cially whe

n the

channe

ls for communication are

as primitive

as the

y are

, conve

rting e

xpe

rie

nce

s into phone

s and graphe

s that ine

vitably compre

ss and confuse

the

xpe

rie

nce

s. With the

Cognitive

Transfe

r Protocol, we

k to have

a more

dire

ct transfe

r of e

xpe

rie

nce

, not ne

ding to conve

rt it so far from its source

mate

rial. We

fully appre

ciate

that our conte

mporary unde

rstanding of physics se

ms to indicate

that pe

rfe

ct information is impossible

, but, with CTP, we

hope

to make

communication as e

fficie

nt, e

ffe

ctive

and cle

ar as possible

, with appre

ciation for physical limitations.