Since we're a remarkably recombinant system, the supposedly unemployed are always employed. We're just not paying them!
And even when we do, we never distribute pay according to what we're actually worth to ourselves!
Otherwise, we'd have no Output Gap! And, HP would always know what HP knows, and be able to act on it with agility!
I'll leave it to astute readers to connect this essay to currency operations. Use your imagination. :)
While swapping some puns about Brits burgering the bovines and politicians - and other puns crossing linguistic as well as semantic borders - we closed with the following question, entirely by happenstance.
"Has our imagination outpun our utility polls?"
While it's total nonsense in one, restricted coordinate system, it's actually crucial to note how and why that last phrase reminded me of something fascinating from my neurophysiology days.
There had been periodic attempts to better discriminate how well inmates fit in insane institutions, using implanted reporters (more on that later) that are, by definition, out of place.
One jarring fact was that all such attempts I'd read about quickly failed.
Invariably, even if sane people tried to act insane, the truly insane people would immediately notice and say "you don't belong here, you're not one of us." I still wonder what that really implies.
We could go many directions from this point, so please entertain this particular direction for as long as it takes. The speed readers who've already left are excused.
What clues were so noticeable in people >2 std deviations apart on diverse sane/insane behavioral distributions? Whatever the defined "distance," and whatever it means, do "insane" people always recognize the "sane," and see paths back to joining them, but just don't find it attractive? Is it only "sane" people that don't get practice recognizing the signposts to infinite flexibility - aka, imagination - and therefore struggle to go back and forth? That brings up the questions of who needs whom, and how much? What's that say about imagination and the art of the possible, versus Luddites and their dull, plodding reality? What's it say about courage versus fear? Does our definition of insanity largely overlap with no fear in exploring imagination, aka boredom and impatience?
And, why have so many sane people - throughout history - made such efforts to be periodically insane? Are all "mind-bending" efforts - whether voluntary or induced - simply a way to accelerate hyper-sampling of pattern-space? Isn't pattern-space, or options-space always our real BattleZone? And isn't controlled, hyper-imagination no different from controlled hyper-mutation?
If so, then adaptive rate of our control systems is rate limiting for our adaptive capabilities. Specifically, adapting our control-initiating steps defines the moment of adaptive jerk - the next derivative of Adaptive Rate. Adaptive outcomes really depend most upon what we still discuss last, the subtle, Fast Transients, catalysts or co-factors, buried n-layers deep in every example of institutional or process momentum. Philosophers noted this hundreds of years ago, and coined the phrase "to know the truth, ask 'why' 5 times."
Why don't our schools train students to look at the source of group momentum, rather than letting them flounder in tactics dictated by previous group momentum? Is it only fear of uncontrolled insanity itself that we have to insanely fear?
To have arrived at current reality proves controlled selection of many prior leaps into what were then fearful unknowns. Yet to go further still is for many still too fearful a leap into the unknown? What have we done wrong? Have we shielded our own students from too much of the history defining their own, social momentum? You'd think that it would be obvious that we can't win by arbitrarily lying to ouselves! Our selections should at least be more adaptive! We absolutely must select vigilance and the selective effort of thinking. Otherwise, obsolete habits can always be resurrected faster than adaptive habits can be selected. Have we heard that before? Misery loves company?
Why do we both "have" reality and explore it's unpredictability too? If we're going to see further every generation, don't we absolutely need our own, giant, Luddite behavioral patterns, whose lumbering shoulders we stand upon? Don't stop doing #N! Yet do add behavioral component N+1?
That question actually highlights an informally well known paradox in neurophysiology. Humans reason by analogy, or by recognizing the "fit" between patterns in different data sets. Our seemingly innate "logic" = the "wiring" and feedback methods we use for comparing current input patterns to previously stored patterns. Once described that way, it's clear that the same process occurs in all organized systems, whether neuronal or cultural. Deep logic, gut feelings and even cultural responses must, by default, equate to summing nested pattern matches and triggering established network reflexes ... PLUS occasionally accommodating exception handling to parse the next, unpredictable step. How do you construct a pattern-recognition network that is:
1) infinitely scalable, AND
2) fully preserves return-paths (to escape dead ends), AND
3) features exception-handling upon demand, AND
4) always maintains coherence across all nested layers?
Quantal Quip Tunnels, Batman! If you knew the answer, you sure as hell wouldn't bore yourself tinkering with Intelligent Design! Surely you'd just move on?