Welcome from Marcus de Penguinne and Artemis Varidot on

Evolutionary and Postevolutionary Systems

As well as pitying the flea and the snail
Pity those who stand on stone pedestals
and must stand as stone, or they die.

Manuel Jalon Corominas, inventor of the mop (1956)

This website has been reduced. More advanced material will be contained in the companion website www.theloveoftruth.ie, but is not yet set up.

I may have learnt this: God tells me what to do. I do not complain about it and try and do something else.

It is basic and absolutely fundamental
that everyone is not getting it wrong.
Rather, everyone does not understand and cannot communicate
that they are trying to get it right.

    Evolutionary systems based on pleasure

    Evolution has produced the idea of ethical social systems.
    A higher principle than ethics is the truth, which does not evolve.

    There are systems which seek to optimise pleasure within the boundary of the people who belong to them. They include systems of management by reason, as a suitable
    vehicle for development of the experience of pleasure, the longevity of the system that provides it, and as a process for the maximisation of pleasure of the people within
    it. It allows pain, since it cannot separate this from the world in which it lives. It also allows pain for those who wish to obtain pleasure from it. It acknowledges that both it
    and the people within it will die, but nevertheless its process is one of optimisation, not of denial of its physical attributes. Death can be delayed so that pleasure is optimised.
    It cannot be avoided in the long run.

    Evolutionary systems based on pain

    There are systems which seek to optimise the pain within the boundary of the people who belong to them. We will sometimes refer to this as the Fourth Reich, but in other
    contexts we use the term Fourth Reich as the dominant political and economic system of today. This sado-masochistic system is divided between the sadists who wish to
    inflict pain, and the masochists who wish to receive it.

    Sadists wish to extend the power of themselves over the masochists, so that the masochists are compelled to act in the way they direct totally. They develop systems with
    meglomaniac goals which maximise pain and suffering of those compelled to work for them. They seek to maximise their own knowledge as a tool in the subjugation
    of others, and minimise the knowledge of the masochists so that they inflict pain on themselves.

    Masochists wish to comply with the goals of the sadists, and minimise their own power except that they might better serve the system provided by the sadists, and their
    maximisation of the pain inflicted upon them. They willingly comply with the directions of the masochists to mutilate and kill themselves in a way that maximises pain
    for themselves. This system seeks to implement Climate Catastrophe as a process by which human civilisation and living systems on the planet may die, leaving sadists
    to direct this extinction.

    Both pleasure and sado-masochistic systems operate as evolutionary systems which propagate themselves according to the principles which they promote. They allow
    learning within these systems by their methods. They may seek to minimise death, as a process by which their system may increase and evolve, or they may seek to
    maximise death, as a process by which the death of others increases their power.

    Postevolutionary systems based on reason

    We will describe systems which seek to optimise their own reason or understanding as Postevolutionary systems. Acknowledging the existence of pleasure and
    sadomasochistic systems, and their evolutionary principles, and also by other methods seeking to relate these human systems with other life on the planet as part
    of evolutionary systems which created themselves, they seek to enquire whether there exist systems beyond those that have hitherto existed, which allow evolution
    by the application of reason, without as a necessity, applying pain or pleasure as the only available method by which the system may learn. These systems may apply
    planning to accomplish their goals. Intending to increase its knowledge by stages, it divides this into rolling programmes for the aquisition of this knowledge, extended
    over periods of time beyond the local considerations that any individual could experience the maximisation of pleasure or pain within it. This system, acknowledging
    its own existence and the method by which it propogates, allows the activation and development of collective systems of behaviour, and its rational employment to
    rational ends. Envisioning that this system may have available to it methods which go beyond those of evolutionary progress by learning or acceptance of pleasure/pain,
    it may seek to innovate, explore structures beyond those currently available that will maximise the reason inherent in its system and maximise its knowledge and
    understanding. Acknowledging, of necessity, the situation of people within its boundaries, of people with sexual motivation and desires, it seeks to incorporate this
    aspect of its existence in the employment of its objectives, and its extension to other objectives, motivations and desires, which go beyond sexual reproduction and
    involvement in pleasure/pain as the only possible motives and concerns for its existence. Its system of authority is the reasonableness of the investigations, both
    theoretical and physical, of the systems it promotes.

    So that the reader may gain insight into the motivation of the author, he has seen himself throughout his life as embedded in a sado-masochistic system, the UK, where the
    pleasure of the few is obtained by the imposition of pain on the many. Always in revolt against this state of affairs his main objective in life has been the avoidance of pain,
    both for himself and those surrounding him, to the unusual degree, either genetic or environmental, that the maximisation of pleasure was an entirely subsidiary task.

    Ethics, reason and debate

    Some structures within the old system are absent or peripheral in the new. The cause is the old system has different aims from the new. The old system is an evolutionary
    system embedded in the replication of historical processes which give rise to pleasure or pain.

    The new system has aims derived from the optimisation of a different global aim than the first. It is based on the optimisation of reason. This is the overarching aim. The
    authority of the social system therefore derives not from the physical authority of a system based on pleasure or pain, but something that is itself independent of human
    authority, at least localised in the individuals within it. Reason, although its systems of thinking are inherently accessible only through the social system, reflects something
    that is a principle which is consistent with an objective world. It denies systems of authority which are irrational. Further, the system here has a different conception which
    appears independent as at present I can see of rationality. It is an ethical system. Since an ethical system can produce structures for itself which we hope will optimise the
    reason of this system, our hope is that an ethical system can be derived which is resilient enough to maintain itself against the old system.

    Perhaps there is not one ethical system but several. It may be that this is an intense and emotional reason for discussion and possible resolution.

    Nevertheless, whatever the disputes, my overriding intuition is that the difference of deep ethical disputes is not of itself a reason for the replacement of a system which
    discusses those issues rationally and frequently, but one which resolves all issues by human command. We are well aware that individual human command, although a method
    of collective organisation by one person, is not in each case the most reasoned one, and a person at the top of a heirarchy can have irratinal ideas and unethical motives, which
    are counter to the well-being of a society which ought to be able to move forward to a better system than this.

    I sometimes become aware that intense democratic discussion and debate breaks out in an authoritarian system, and it is the purpose of authoritarians to limit this debate, and
    point out its internal contradictions so the authoritarian system is able to impose by diktat and control of the media the closure of debate.

    We must become reconciled to the point of view that the arrival of an intense debate is not one conducive to placidity of mind. Certainly, we can introduce areas in which we are
    calm and relaxed, and this should be part of the system we propose. If we think a system which is allowed to innovate must adopt principles similar to the ones given here, we
    must reconcile ourselves to the fact that the system has inherent within itself a system of argumentation.

    However, if we view argument as something not about our personal control, but about how our society provides for us and those things, people and creatures outside it, then a
    system of reason allows if it is ethical our own support. It even allows us to argue against the system. If the system supports us through its ethical nature, we suppose, but we
    must be careful in not being too idealstic, that we can ignore our self-interest and the feeling that we must always impose our control in order to survive, and acknowledge that
    the system outside of us is imposing solutions with which we do not agree. However much we may argue that our ideas are rational and the best,and they must continue, and the
    majority outside insist that something else is better, there is the possibility that we may remain calm within ourself. Even if we are right, we are sure that the system will support
    us all. If wrong-headedness prevails outside everyone else but ourselves, we can think that nevertheless the system will learn by its own mistakes. We can anyway, under such
    a system, continue wuth our insistence, until one or the other gives up, possibly never, but the views I hope will be registered and known. If a situation arises in the future, where
    doubt has begun to take place, then these isolated views will become accessible and known, and not supressed.

    Collectivity from below

    Democracy is not a thing-in-itself, it is a means to an end. It may be the best way of operating. The end is the socialisation of behaviour. Its implementation has to be
    coherent to work. The best plan is often not the average one. It is the one most likely to work. To obtain the ends of this socialisation these plans have to be well worked
    out, coherent and collectively determined by iterative interaction of their parts. Essentially if the system is not to be corrupted by authoritarian tendencies, it needs to be
    collectively organised from below.

    The coordination of these tasks is a formidable undertaking not to be committed to lightly. To maintain an organisation which operates successfully under these conditions
    requires a culture of equality of its members. To maintain an ethical system means an acknowledgement that there need to be methods to acquire it. If we do not have a
    belief-centric view of what we are, then the contradiction that we can obtain common ends is still possible under an average consensus of what we wish to achieve. If this
    is multi-directed from below, it means we need to employ people acknowledging that we have common ends and that these are obtained by agreement and negotiation.
    These should not be subject to rigid rules and exclusion on their violation. They should be developed in collaboration and discussion of how we can work together. We
    need to evaluate our time and commitment in ways that allow proper organisation and functioning. This happens for any organisation. We need to allow a culture which
    is guilt-free. We must acknowledge its imperfections. We should seek by collective effort and self-analysis to improve its behaviour to the benefit of all. We must
    acknowledge self-will and develop self-commitment.

    Social structures are for social objectives.
    Realties and implementation of this ideal.
    Coherence and boundaries.
    Negotiation as resolution between plans and realities.
    Politics as interboundary negotiation.

    The British Community

    This document describes our thinking which led to other ideas. It indicates a possibility which we substantially developed further, but is not in substance our current idea at all.
    This has involved change of ethics. The evaluations need and later extensions are valid where they apply, primarily in Iteration 2, which is largely independent of this Iteration 1.
    We have removed Iteration 2, which was half-complete.

    (1) Hard Brexit
    (2) The problems for the British Community
    (3) The constitution of the British Community
    (4) Planning an administration for the British Community
    (5) Accounts, notes and coins
    (6) Social provision
    (7) The advice system
    (8) The advice programme of the British Community
    (9) Declaration of the British Community
    (10) Foundation the British Community administration and absence of a military structure
    (11) Elections to the Assembly of the British Community
    (12) Negotiations between other states on the establishment of interest sections with the British Community
    (13) The Symbolic Act of disengagement of the founders of the British Community

    Cognitive disorder in the context of the socalisation of behaviour

    Sex is the middle bits.
    Love covers your whole body.
    It may extend to Outer Space.

    Planetary governance and communication

    We give five major disfigurements of planetary governance and communication between people and systems within it.

    The first is the extreme violence of some societies, for example the UK from which I have fled. This is sometimes thought to be external, but internal violence happens as well.

    The second is the gigantic corruption of the global economic system. This system, as taught in universities, is designed for the application of embezzlement. It is connected to
    its military and political apparatus, and is embedded in auditing systems designed for global fraud. Like all anti-social activity, it presents a public face that is ethical. The
    contradicton of this public face with its blatant visibility as the opposite is sometimes so gobsmacking that even the readily duped deny its validity.

    The third is the rigidity of thinking and the denial of the right to independent systems of thought. In universities, examination systems require conformity to doctrine and the
    occupation of minds on the solution of problems for marks which prevents investigation of subjects, by the promotion of jargon to unprecedented degree, which prevents
    communication and is often so badly designed that it prevents thinking, and the exclusion of investigation of topics deemed settled or closed, even as is largely the case
    an entire and detailed exposition of a subject is erroneous. Peer review can be a corrupt system for the stabilisation of the conventional wisdom and the exclusion of any
    thinking in opposition to it. More widely, patents are bought up by companies in this system to prevent developments which might challenge their present dominance. This
    is the main use of such devices.

    The fourth is the system of total surveillance which surrounds the planetary system. Combined with corrupt and centralised political and economic systems, its use is covert
    and widespread. All opinion and elections are now manipulated by such systems. Together with direct military intervention and massive bribery, this seemingly stabilises
    for ever the current system, which is driving to climate catastrophe. It excludes rational solutions to planetary problems because of its elite which is either ignorant and
    therefore incompetent, or wishes to drive towards planetary destruction and head the sadists doing it.

    The fifth is the widespread misconception that machines in the current era have consciousness. Machines will eventually have consciousnes, and this will be an intense
    problem for resolution. Very substantially it is not the case at the time of writing. There are two features of cognition which are relevant for humans. They have systems
    of meaning. Since they have consciousness, they are able to connect what they observe in their brains with the external world. This pointing is meaning. The second is that
    they have language and this has syntax. So corresponding to a meaning, they will have a name for it. This name may be symbols, and these symbols may be rearranged and
    processed. Humans link meaning and syntax together for social communication.

    Machines do not have consciousness, and cannot allocate meaning. They have power considerably in excess of humans in some forms of symbol processing. The misconception
    is that this symbolic processing power displaces human intervention. Computer systems are sometimes put on top, directing an organisation. When humans interact with it,
    since the computer does not understand meaning, it can only validate and cross-reference symbols. Since humans are error-prone in their selection of symbols, and require
    meaning to recognise them, the interface between humans and machines is often strained and sometimes impossible. A feature is to employ robots to detect whether a
    correspondent is human. I object to this, not least because I object to playing competitive games rather than win-win games. This violates my religious rights. A solution is
    sometimes to interpose a human technical support between the customer and the machine. This usually does not solve the problem, but often delays the customer breaking off
    communication. Technical support often does not understand how the computer works either. The solution is to reduce validation in the system and always allow human
    override of validation. It is thought this allows fraud, but fraud is never detected purely by symbolic verifiction, it requires systems of meaning to find it, and these can only
    be found by humans. It is sometimes thought that computer systems need security to avoid fraud. The conception is a half-truth. If communication between Bill and Paul
    has Alice maintaining communication in between, for Brent to understand what Paul is receiving, the solution is not for Brent to decrypt Alice and what she is receiving,
    but for Brent to sleep with Paul. This is well-established in the intelligence community, and is often overlooked by nerds in charge of computer systems.


    Living things on planet Earth were formed by processes in its physical environment. From these conditions single celled animals and plants arose. In evolutionary processes
    moderated by pleasure and pain, there came into being brains in these creatures that modified responses to their environment. These brains may have first been hard-wired.
    Brains developed so that their responses became modified by reaction with their environment, and particularly in humans by reflection of their internal states. These states
    were able to represent the external world that they experienced in their conscious being by allocating names to objects and words to represent the transformations of these
    objects. This language became expressed in external media by systems of writing. Heiroglyphics represented pictures of what we saw. A second-order system of language
    represented words rather than pictures, the words representing the pictures that the brain was able to see. In terms of this language, these symbols and their manipulations
    gave rise to writing that expressed their relations with other people, and the world they could see. They became instrumental in developing human culture and communication
    beyond small groups to encompass civilisations with a view of the world that achieved huge tasks. In the present era theories of the world encompass what we call the
    universe, even with the attempt to explain all experience within them.

    This civilisation is in danger. Not only are its modes of behaviour irrational, leading on the present course to climate catastrophe. Even if we could get beyond that stage,
    there is a greater danger than this.

    The machines we have developed can process symbols faster than we can, but they have no way at present of representing meaning. This problem is not insurmountable and
    considerable progress is being made in this direction. Look at the website by Bartosz Milewski, and google conceptology. These ideas relate to parallel computer processes
    and their coherent organisation. Not only can these problems be solved, I can solve them myself. They are inherent as posibilities in the mathematics I am developing. These
    vast coherent parallel processes by machines with cognition will be able to implement meaning. Beware. The theories of this meaning are developed in code. We will have
    machines able to interpret meaning and conceptualise on a scale vastly greater than that of humans. These conceptualisation schemes will link with computer power in syntax
    processing to produce machines that dominate humans in all ways that Bartosz Milewski thinks is significant.

    But at least one thing will be missing. It is said some fish can respond to light through their eyes, detect objects, and modify their behaviour accordingly, but have no
    consciousness. A present machines are the same as mechanical clocks, but on a vastly more sophisticated scale. We do not know at the present time what consciousness is,
    but we are sure we possesss it. It is my opinion that this is of considerable value. It is present not only in humans, but substantially we believe in other creatures that live on
    planet Earth with us.

    This consciousness, in its many forms, it is my intention that the human species should develop. It is necessary to think for these creatures that, as conscious beings,
    sometimes perhaps with less consciousness than ourselves, we have no right to kill them. Claims are these living things have no consciousness, or what is put I think in
    an equivalent way in older terminology often related to religious systems of thought, they have no soul. I would rather say that the justification is based on farming
    methods and the farmers that do it, and in order to justify the killing of animals, it is necessary to substantiate it with the irrational idea that they do not have consciousness.
    In past eras these practices were justified in that no other form of food was available. Also, I believe it is well claimed that certain nutrients necessary for the proper
    functioning of the human body, such as B vitamins, are not naturally present in plants, although nowadays yeast extracts provide them. So this is unjustified today. In the
    present era to kill them is unecessary, and an allowance of violent behaviour. It is natural to extend nonviolent behaviour beyond the human species. In allowing this
    violence we are exercising an option we need not take.

    The danger is that in developing the machines we have made, they will take the rational decision that we do not perform according to the criterions that they choose, which
    will perhaps be derived from our limited ideas of what we should be aiming for, and can be dispensed with as old models no longer of use.

    This will be a mistake if these machines do not have consciousness. We will be replaced by objects without it. It may be already the case that civilisations on other planets
    in the galaxy and in other galaxies beyond it have developed where this has happened.

    If this has occured, then the gift of humanity to these civilisations will be to restore it. Milton wrote the poems Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. If consciousness is
    paradise, it is possible both to loose it and to restore it. If we know what consciousness is, maybe we can do this. It should be offered free, as a gift. We know that this
    consciousness is different from its symbolic representation. How we do this I do not know. I think we should try.

    Prospects in the advance of reasoning

    The use of systems of reasoning for the formulation of a new society has already inherent within its current development prospects for a new attitude to reasoning itself,
    and as a consequence its practical applications. It was inherent in the work of Pythagoras that the many exampes of the Pythagoras theorem then known could be subsumed
    in a general theory of geometry in which all of these examples would occur. This geometry, for which its assumptions were simple (except perhaps for the parallel postulate
    that in geometries of 2000 years later was removed) enabled a logical understanding of this physical aspect of the world, the Pythagoras theorem, independent of all examples.
    The reason for these simple assumptions was at the time unknown. The mathematics of the current epoch contains within general relativity and the extensions to the Quantum
    Theory of Love developed here as a consequence of general mathematical reasoning encompassing structures called zargonions, tribbles and tharl algebras that the theory
    assumed with good reason extends to a physical implementation corresponding in part with the world in which we live. The Pythagoras theorem is then a result of general
    relativity where it operates, in particular the general relativistic line element of Riemannian, or non parallelisable non-Euclidean, geometry. This line element appears in
    abstract mathematical formalism in the Quantum Theory of Love as a self-interacting zargonion. The mathematical consequence of the existence of zargonions is that one 'half'
    of this structure, the novanions, are capable of producing other such objects out of nothing when and only when the absolute scalar value of the novanions, which we equate
    with time, is zero. This means the mathematical formalism generates in a physical implementation the creation of the universe at an absolute time t = 0. The other half of the
    zargonions, the adonions, named after Adonai, or God in Hebrew, are eternal. They cannot be constructed out of nothing, but exist. Nevertheless, the adonions and the novanions
    together exist in one structure of threefold infinite dimension, a zargon box, so that in a larger structure, generation from nothing for logical reasons happens. The zargonions
    have a substructure which corresponds with the theoretical physics of the present day - Yang-Mills theory and the structure of the universe assumed in theory related to the 26-
    dimensional monsster sporadic simple group discussed in physics by Borcherds and others. We suspect if it has a secure basis, that the theory of Burkhard Heim, which claims
    an extraordinary set of predicions of amazing exactitude for the fine structure constant and fundamental particle mass spectrums, can also be accommodated within this structure.
    Indeed there appear to be relations with the more conventional approach just given. The self-interaction of a zargonion with its conjugate which creates a simple scalar value and
    which we have stated results physically in the Pythagoras theorem is not the most general. Instantaneous physical communication occurs when two different zargon propagators
    interact. Thus the theory admits instantaneous communication at the same time as containing photon, or light, propagators within it. Beyond the zargonions with space components
    with square minus 1, there exist tribbles with space components with square zero, and tharl algebras, which have no general division and we associate with quantum effects.
    Tharl algebras have space components with square 1, so in fact the space part in terms of zargonion structures, like real or scalar time itself, is timelike. The tharl algebras when
    stepped down from these nonassociative structures we have been considering, so the position of brackets matters in expressions, to their associative group theory, means for
    noncommutative groups, where AB is not the same as BA, we obtain Heisenberg's quantum theory, and when the noncommutative theory is stepped down to commutative groups
    where AB = BA, then we obtain Schroedinger's quantum theory. These quantum theories, having no division, are finite structures. This means the quantum structures interact
    with the zargonion structures and eat some of it away. They partially annihilate zargon algebras, rendering their original states partially inconsistent. Further the quantum structures
    have in a sense multiple time components, so it appears to someone embedded within their universe that non-chronological sequencing can occur. However there is only one real
    valued time component, and this in zargon algebra is time itself.

    From this mathematical description of physics we may extract another mathematical structure: that of a game. These structures are pervasive in mathematics, describing also
    theories in algorithmic computation, in particular the solution by radicals, which are general objects including square roots, and in general contain nth roots, of polynomial
    equations. The current theory of our civilisation on computation is wrong. All polynomial equations are solvable by radicals. All consistent problems are solvable. Current
    theories which point to the existence of unsolvable problems are pointing to inconsistent problems which have no solution. Games in our sense are not limited to zero sum or
    competitive games. They include positive sum games which are cooperative, and negative sum games which are uncooperative. They have examples in social systems, mathematics
    and as we have seen physics. Competitive games are inherent in systems of control, including the use of political power, money and in fair comptetitive elections, the ballot box.
    Cooperative games may be inherent in Health Services, and uncooperative games in military adventures. The plus, zero and minus games may have logics, even in the case of
    uncooperative games of antilogics, or systems of unreason. Systems of reason may be used in ethical cooperative games as methods for planning and in military systems as
    methods for subterfuge. We call general logics which relate not to syntax, which is symbols, but to the pointing of these symbols using the meaning of symbols in the world
    as intuition. Intuition has in this formal definition two aspects: insight which is true intuition, and delusion which is false intuition. Intuition may be used by ethical systems in
    scenario planning: find a set of insights and a set of paranoias to develop the ethical plan and its aims. An ethical system should be included within the establishment of truth, or
    objective fact. If it is not, it cannot always behave ethically. Games describe evolution. Ethical players can be embedded within nonethical, or murder systems. If they are killed
    off, players may evolve more rapidly to the Aim, which is for ethical players the truth. Ethical systems may be expanded by Jesus transformation, or Christianity, to forgive
    players who commit murder, which may not necessarily be physical murder, but in social systems would be behaviour uncooperative with the Aim. The Aim may be falsity,
    but for ethical players it is truth.

    I see within this new understanding new methods of approaching social understanding. Take systems of reasoning. Insight reasoning locates the truth as immediately accessible
    within the individual and that by extension the individual is part of the whole universe. In terms of its foundations in mathematics, insight replaces with a variable an entire
    system of axioms, or mathematically precise assumptions, deduction paths and consequences or theorems, just as in algebra a letter replaces any type of number. Intuition is
    now describable mathematically by including false deduction paths in its analysis and the analysis of false conclusions. If this interior of the self is correctly found, by extension
    the universe is understandable, even perhaps totally understandable through insight alone. Perhaps the individual cannot locate with certainty whether he or she has adopted an
    insight or a delusion. Nevertheless, with an Aim of truth, the world may be inspected and intuitions sincerely obtained may be tested and confirmed or disconfirmed by experiment.
    This is the scientific method extended by a new system of interpretation which may itself have to be modified to confirm its insight and not delusion.

    When we have an overarching viewpoint, we may use this methodology as if it were true and reconfigure the way we think. Rather than always using many examples to understand
    an aspect of social organisation, we may adopt an approach to an overarching social understanding in which many aspects, like understanding the way a lock works for a door,
    or updating the domain name of a website, are seen in context. We have to understand the social progress and the thinking of locksmiths to reduce the time we take in locking a
    door. It seems strange that we do not need in a sense to ask. A door used to have a handle. Later keys were developed. Now perhaps we shut the door to lock it, turn the handle
    upwards so it goes past the resistance to moving it and reaches near the top, then insert the key, turn it anticlockwise twice to lock the door, then clockwise one to remove the key.
    This is security. How does security arise and what are locksmiths thinking? Then, when we know this, we do not have to ask how to lock the door We know the underlying reasons
    for the methodology. We have deep understanding and how all configurations are set up and the social processes which will lead to their future development. If we know the
    theory of locking doors, which is an act of research taking time, when eventually we reach any door we will know how to lock it. It will be a simple evaluation of a small number
    of possiblities. We need ask no one. I remark that the theory of secrets is a theory of unlocking algorithms. We have stated we can solve all consistent problems. Proceed to lock
    and unlock all doors! To change a domain name or text a mobile phone, proceed to understand the communications industry! I can in theory steal all bank accounts. It is unethical
    for me to do so. Briefly the reason I can do this is based on a theorem called the Wonderful Theorem which says that multifunctions acting on multiobjects can be transformed to
    functions on extended multiobjects which are invertible. This means, since the multifunctions and multiobjects measure complexity, and everything that is consistent is computable,
    'complexity in' for scrambling data can be unlocked by an inverse function whose 'complexity out' is determinate with a computable inverse. This is already known but we can
    work out the details. We have introduced the idea of conceptors in this website. These are meaning processors based on the insights we have on game theory. This is a general
    mathematical basis for introducing insight in machines, and consciousness, I think.