Starchildren part 1, cognitive style

I have beginning thoughts on starchildren. Having trouble though, only a few things are crystal clear. I use Jack Ma as my Ur-example:

My favorite picture of him:

(“My planet needs me.”)

This post is about how I figure their heads work internally, and the reason they effortlessly navigate powertalk and gametalk. It’s going to be pretty esoteric and weird, so if you don’t follow that’s okay because it’s not really necessary to have a surface knowledge of their behavior (which I’ll cover next time). Approximately speaking, you’ll be okay assuming they can read your deep emotional states and intentions through your words and body language.

When a melon states something in powertalk that could mean A, B, C, or D, it’s kinda like a wavefunction. So the actual meaning could be a number of things, or something with shades of meaning in between those things because melonspeak is lawyer-like and good at creating ambiguity, but is still fairly restricted in scope (not a lot of possible meanings). Usually it’s restricted to at most 3 possible meanings because most civilized situations don’t allow for non-categorical actions (e.g. “What would you like to order for your meal?” “Are you going to vote with me on this?”).

Because starchildren have massive temporal lobes, we expect them to have cognition focused on emotional processing, memory, and waveform processing (making sense of auditory information). My theory is that by having waveform-style processing instead of multithreading-style processing, SCs can see all possibilities at once and are thus one/two steps ahead of m-backs.

So in quantum mechanics, one interpretation (that I hold) is called “hidden variables”, which says that outcomes are deterministic but we just can’t know what they’ll be due to measurement constraints. When you a pair of dice the outcome is normally “pseudorandom” because the human hand is too inexact for us to know what the initial conditions are (velocity, angular velocity, etc.). But the physics are still deterministic. If we *did* know the initial conditions we could predict the outcome. And we could design a very precise dice rolling machine that rolls the same thing every time.

In quantum mechanics, the hand that rolls the dice is always behind a veil called Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. It’s physically impossible to get a precise measurement of the initial conditions, therefore these can’t be known, therefore outcomes can’t be predicted. This is just a matter of scale because we’re talking tiny electrons and stuff. You can measure macro-sized initial conditions well enough for prediction, as with the dice-throwing machine. But electrons and stuff are more tricky to hold on to. Because their behavior appears random to us (with certain tendencies expressed as hills in a probability distribution), we can’t do controlled experiments to come up with controlled ideas of their behavior. Just patterns, as in electron diffraction.

Hidden variables says the behavior is simply complex and hidden, rather than truly random. So, rather than balls striking each other on a pool table and bouncing off in predictable directions, you might have objects that look more like asymmetrical molecules that strike each other and bounce off in what appear to be random directions. There may be tendencies, but no good rules to such a collision.

Anyway, this is a very roundabout way of saying that starchildren can read the hidden variables out of the distribution. Therefore they can know the intent and emotional state behind the powertalk. In normie terms, the wavefunction collapses. The way they do this is not entirely clear, but I believe it’s analogous to a Fourier transform (which is how we do sound processing in electronics). This is unfortunate, because it’s hard to draw analogies to something so esoteric.

Fourier series are used to approximate gnarly-looking wavefunctions in a relatively small amount of information. They’re used by cell phones to transmit voice information over the air, for instance. I figure starchildren use their giant temporal lobes to process everything back and forth through something like Fourier transforms, so that they can turn wavefunctions into small bundles of information that are easy to respond to, and the response is processed through the inverse transform to produce the “slippery” impression we get from their answers. So when a starchild hears powertalk, they immediately reduce it to a couple of bite-sized chunks of information and respond to the pattern. What it comes down to is something like mind-reading. Powertalk with somebody who can read your mind is futile.

Next post I’ll do a more properly archetypal explanation of behavior.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Starchildren part 1, cognitive style

  1. Koanic says:


  2. podrag says:

    Yes. Which is why SC vs TT is hilarious to watch.

    • podrag says:

      Just to me it’s obvious when he’s telling outrageous lies, but he does so in response to questions that are outrageous lies in their intent, which is a tactic that Thals just couldn’t pull off. This is why SCs just look so silly, but in context he’s wrapping the interviewer and the audience up in knots. To melons he has absolutely no line of attack, while he gradually picks away. It’s delicious to watch.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      TT is always either hilarious or sad to watch, there doesn’t seem to be much of a middle ground.

  3. Something to explore: how does head shape affect brain waves?

    See here:

    ‘But it’s not just alpha waves which are important. There are other waves discovered, that correlate to different experiences.

    Theta waves for example, correlate with flashes of creativity and intuition.

    And Delta waves are, in their words, associated to “altering reality.”’

    Asprey (mentioned in the article) is arch-Thal while Lakhiani is super-melon. Maybe melons have an easier time getting into delta?

  4. bicebicebice says: yeah I know. Melons are just fronting the empire, them SC be the smarts. Also, zero hostile physiognomy. Seem to be pretty small, overall.

    Real G(nome) shit.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Also, zero hostile physiognomy.

      I would say nonthreatening, it’s hard to say what their overall effect is.

      >Seem to be pretty small, overall.

      Yup, Jack Ma is five feet tall and that was approximately the size of the African one I knew. Will include in the archetypal description.

  5. Pingback: Starchildren part 2, behavior | Aeoli Pera

  6. Pingback: The function of ambiguity in powertalk | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s