1:32 PM
me: a little something for your neurons to chew on

http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/01/19/joe-quirk-author-singularity-sociobiology-sex/
1:33 PM
remember that discourse in waking life with the guy talking about the realisation of human and neohuman potential? the crazy scientist guy?
might be a futurist or transhumanist like this dude
10 minutes
1:43 PM
Kapil: it looks like fun. i think i'll put a feed to 10zen monkeys.

the earlier article you linked me too was pretty fascinating.
11 minutes
1:55 PM
me: about the talkin parrot?

cleverer than some people i know

Kapil: i'm not through it yet - was interrupted by an email.
1:59 PM
me: so zen vot else

Kapil: working in the field, i'd like to address some of the stuff that they're talking about
2:00 PM
like machines appreciating james brown, for instance.
2:01 PM
there's a dichotomy in the definition of AI between creatingn programs that act/think like humans and programs that act/think rationally

me: mm. doubt it, though... ask any schizophrenic -- there's too many intangibles, things without nomenclature, that exist to be described as language
2:02 PM
Kapil: yes, exactly. my field is inherently human-centered (though the techniques used often aren't) and we often evaluate against human performance on the same tasks

me: i see wat ur saying... most of our behaviour is coloured by experience and perception, and rationalism itself is only relative
2:03 PM
okay, help me thru something...

Kapil: well, i'm saying that the human condition is one speck (or a smattering of specks) in a vast space of possible consciousnesses
2:04 PM
me: despite what physicists proved, that there is no absolute frame of reference for motion
2:05 PM
... is it that inconceiveable that there is an absolute frame of reference for reality
2:06 PM
Kapil: and if if we are to create/evolve an artificial consciousness, either singular or networked, it will be a vastly different type of sentience, unable to share a lot of things with individual humans, but a sentience all the same.
(right i'm done here)

to answer your question, it is to me.

it is for humans, rather.
2:07 PM
me: but if you try to step outside your human-ness, what if you were observing 'reality' from outside of itself

or yet, what if the observer and the observed were one and the same

okay im blabbing

utter bilge

Kapil: do you talk just about physical reality?
2:08 PM
me: physical and metaphysical
2:09 PM
Kapil: i consider it impossible because i think you need an infinite number of perspectives.

but maybe i'm missing your point.
2:10 PM
me: wat im trying to say can perhaps me better explained by the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_Explicate_Order_according_to_David_Bohm

or maybe not, its a horribly written edit
2:11 PM
Kapil: i can't understand it.

me: bad stub bad stub
2:12 PM
hold on, lemme find summat a leetle more crisp

Kapil: still reading it.
2:13 PM
but, yeah, his points still aren't clear

me: okay, might as well...

what bohm calls 'enfoldment'
2:14 PM
Kapil: he seems to be saying that all the order we've theorized about is wrong. and that's all i can glean from this.
2:15 PM
me: in a hologram, each part of the photographic plate through which it is observable contains the whole 3D image

only at a lower resolution

so even if you illuminate only a part of the plate, you still see the whole image

Kapil: and at some level, he seema to talk about the same notion of the unifying theory of physics.

really? i know nothing about holograms.
2:16 PM
me: the point is, the whole of the hologram is 'enfolded' within each little part

Kapil: okay

me: the whole exists within each infinitesimal constituent
2:17 PM
so what if all reality were like a hologram, and we inhabit only a miniscule speckle within it

but each speckle contains the whole structure enfolded within it
2:18 PM
so essentially, in my typically long-winded way, it sorta leads to this...

Kapil: i see what you're saying in an abtract sennse

me: if we're a speckle within the whole, there's got to be a frame of reference which lies outside the whole, just like someone looking at a fully illuminated hologram
2:19 PM
and that frame would be absolute

Kapil: that's your conclusion, not his, is it?
2:20 PM
me: well, its hardly a conclusion, just collided two ideas

but bohm goes on to say that both matter and consciousness are enfolded
2:21 PM
if u can decipher this, you win a trillion bucks

For example, in the case of matter, entities such as atoms may represent continuous enfoldment and unfoldment which manifests as a relatively stable and autonomous entity that can be observed to follow a relatively well-defined path in space-time. In the case of consciousness, Bohm pointed toward evidence presented by Karl Pribram that memories may be enfolded within every region of the brain rather than being localized (for example in particular regions of the brain, cells, or atoms).
2:22 PM
so somehow (unbelievably!) this comes back to your neural networks

Kapil: oh wow. i really can't see the relation he's making.
2:23 PM
me: only in an organized and complex piece of matter such as the brain can stuff like 'memory' and 'thought' be enfolded

there's no way any artificial sentience could have the same kind of consciousness
2:24 PM
Kapil: don't think i've gotten this enfoldment idea down exactly. all i see is that he claims that there is an underlying order, a pattern, an organization, seen at every level of abstraction from basic matter to life to the universe. is that close?

me: okay he breaks it up into an implicate order and an explicate order
2:25 PM
the latter represents the obvious, space, time, particles occupying discrete points in space, so on...

Kapil: yeah. didn't quite understand that. is the implicate one the one i'm describing?

me: yerp.
2:26 PM
Kapil: interesting.

me: implicate im guessing means that the whole universe exists within each individual constituent of it
2:27 PM
Kapil: but what part of the whole universe?

me: ALL of it
2:28 PM
but im guessing, the smaller the part one observes, the fuzzier the whole becomes

Kapil: in a hologram, each piece contains the image, but not the thing itself. i see his definition as something like that.

me: the hologram is the thing!
2:29 PM
Kapil: hmm... okay. i think i see. slightly.

fractals?

me: yesssssss!!!!
2:30 PM
gawrsh, u gotta read summat first before we continue this

in brief

Kapil: send away. i'm ust finishing the 10ZM article
2:32 PM
me: Colossal void may spell trouble for cosmology
Cosmologists are shocked by the recent discovery of a monstrous void of empty space spanning nearly a billion light years in diameter. The void – the biggest ever observed – challenges the standard picture of how structure has formed throughout the universe's history. No one's sure how big of a problem the void is for standard cosmology, but it certainly flies in the face of generic predictions.


There is, however, a group of rebel physicists who did predict the existence of such a mind-bogglingly enormous structure. Back in March, I wrote an article entitled, Is the Universe a Fractal?, detailing the ongoing debate between mainstream cosmologists, who assume that the large-scale universe is homogeneous, and a band of physicists led by Luciano Pietronero, who claim that the structure of the universe is fractal.

The standard model of cosmology – that is, the big bang, cold dark matter universe – is founded on the assumption that the distribution of matter (both normal and dark) becomes evenly spread at sufficiently large scales. Look in one spot in the sky and then another and they should appear nearly the same, they say. There shouldn't be a big hole in one spot and a giant cluster of matter in another.

The fractal guys argue that, on the contrary, matter continues to clump into ever-bigger structures even at the largest scales. It's like this: imagine you could have a bird's eye view of the universe (obviously impossible, but play along) and you zoom in to look at a single star. Then you begin to zoom out and you discover that the star is part of a galaxy. Keep zooming out and you see that the galaxy is part of a cluster of galaxies and the cluster of galaxies is part of a supercluster of galaxies and and the supercluster of galaxies is … This is where the debate begins.
According to the standard model, there's nothing bigger than a supercluster. When I interviewed mainstream physicists David Hogg and Daniel Eisenstein for my article, they were claiming that the pattern should start to smooth out at about 200 million light years. According to the fractal guys, it just keeps getting bigger.

As is, mainstream cosmologists have a hard time explaining the existence of structures as big as superclusters, but they make it work by invoking something called a bias parameter. The bias parameter is there to make up for the difference between the distribution of normal luminous matter and the distribution of mysterious dark matter. The bias is declared to be 2 – which means they are assuming that the dark matter distribution is twice as smooth as what we see with our eyes (and telescopes).

A deciding factor between the two models, then, is the distribution of dark matter; in particular, whether or not there is dark matter lurking in the voids. If the mainstream guys are right, the voids should be full of evenly spread dark matter. If the fractal guys are right, the voids should be truly empty … and huge. "If the cold dark matter model is correct, then there should be dark matter in the voids," Hogg told me.

So here we are, with a void nearly a billion light-years across that is truly empty – no stars, no dark matter. Does that mean that the universe is fractal? One observation isn't enough to support a definitive conclusion – but it seems the fractal guys, who have long been shunned by the mainstream, deserve to be heard.
The reason their ideas have been considered dangerous is that if the universe is fractal, it's back to the drawing board for all of cosmology. But as I wrote back in March, "If the voids are full of dark matter, then the apparent fractal distribution of luminous matter becomes rather insignificant. But if the voids are truly empty, the fractal claim requires a closer look."

except from the newscientist spaceblog
2:35 PM
the mind boggles, the brain toggles, the eye goggles
2:36 PM
Kapil: fantastic

the brain "toggles"?

me: between states

Kapil: ooh. nice
2:37 PM
me: like a switch

so i figure that it isnt just the universe, but all of reality is a fractal
2:38 PM
and all constituents or 'objects' within this reality are in a state of constant replication

and transmutation

subject to laws such as natural selection
2:40 PM
it couldnt be a fractal if the individual parts didn't copy themselves at smaller and smaller magnification
2:41 PM
and only in a fractal could the whole be evident within each fragmentary constituent
2:43 PM
Kapil: fair enough. i remember touching upon this thought once when i was stoned in oxford.
2:44 PM
me: it's the perfect framework within which the whole 'system within system within system' infinite regress could work

nested to infinity both ways

Kapil: i think the exact thought was something along the lines if "what would the view from a tiny subatomic particle be like?"
2:45 PM
would it be really different from the view from this little dustball surrounded by all these other similar looking things?

me: depends on who's looking
2:46 PM
because the vastness of the space around you would totally dwarf actual extra-terrestrial space

Kapil: the thing is - your theory is that life is part of the fractal pattern too?

me: yup, 'life' as such is a system within reality

and within life, different categories, sub-categories

...
2:47 PM
Kapil: fair enough. i mean consciousness then. it arises from reality, no doubt.

me: is life the only conscious and sentient system? i would probably wager not
2:48 PM
or maybe 'life' is everything. even non-animate simple molecules are laced with 'life'
2:51 PM
http://www.tribunes.com/tribune/art97/crom.htm
2:52 PM
scroll down, there's a rocking explanation of enfoldment or 'undivided wholeness'

and read about geoffrey chew and his bootstrap approach. fascinating stuff

Kapil: fair enough. but the sort of singular self-awareness that we have (naturally a product of the agglomeration of life rather than a single human) seems interesting. it's like we're on one level of the fractal, studying the levels above and below, gradually expanding our view.
2:54 PM
me: i think it's more like we're at the intersection of many convergent levels, almost as though we were stationed in multi-multi-dimensional space

gradually expanding our view exactly!

In the 1970s and 1980s, Chew, together with several collaborators, developed a 'bootstrap' approach to subatomic particles in which no particle is to be considered as more fundamental than any other. In fact, in this approach, there are no fundamental objects of any kind, whether they be particles, laws or equations. Instead, the universe is represented as a self-consistent web of interrelations. Chew regards consciousness as forming a part of this web, so that matter and consciousness are part of an undivided whole.
2:55 PM
so essentially beginning from a point and working outwards, deciphering and decoding the web of interrelations
2:56 PM
Kapil: _Instead, the universe is represented as a self-consistent web of interrelations_
you've just described the brain
2:57 PM
me: totally. but the brain enfolds all reality

so the same must apply at both smaller and larger scales

Kapil: i don't mean just physically. that's my abstract view of knowledge within the brain
2:58 PM
but we can't recognize this level of organization when we look above or below (at the meta-organization at the galactic scale and the micro-organization at the level of bacteria and atoms)
2:59 PM
me: i see what ur saying... but u cant really 'see' it in the brain either
3:00 PM
consciousness is only an emergent property of the brain, it isnt a byproduct of it

and it's all likely to be warped because only one brain can really look at another brain
3:01 PM
Kapil: but the self-reflective capabilities of consciousness don't seem... hang on, what you're saying actually makes sense to me

me: at least that makes one of us

Kapil: oh, wow. now that's something to think about
3:02 PM
well, combine what you said with something i said when we started this conversation

me: and you explain god?
3:03 PM
Kapil: about how human consciousness occupies one small speck (or distribution of specks) in the possible space of sentiences

you remember that, right?

me: yerps

Kapil: now. we're looking at the entire universe as a fractal. layers of organization of self-repeating patterns
3:04 PM
me: stop teasing me...
3:05 PM
Kapil: i asked why we don't see the same sort of sentience, the introspective capabilities of human sentience, in other levels of organization from molecular physics to cosmology.
3:06 PM
me: because it's the culmination of that system called 'life'
3:07 PM
Kapil: but, we wouldn't see it all. if you go back to the cartesian view and human sentience is just a speck in this vast plain, we'd only recognize sentiences that most resemble our own.

me: you wouldn't see it, but you'd be able to conceive it

Kapil: so we'd expect to see this sort of intelligent organization only in levels of abstraction immediately surrounding our own.
3:08 PM
me: gimme an example

say if you consider the sentience of a protozoa. couldnt be farther from resembling our own

Kapil: one example is this concept of networked sentience. humanity as an organism
3:09 PM
it's a level of abstraction higher ("higher" in the traditional sense of hierarchies)

but we're seeing fairly fascinating patterns in behaviour at that level.

me: agreed. but sadly, the only thing that can look at humanity is humanity
3:10 PM
Kapil: right. exactly. if sentieance exists all along the fractal, we wouldn't be able to recognize it at all

me: and that viewpoint is liable to be coloured by the idiosyncracies of individual perspectives

Kapil: because it's too far removed from our own.

me: aaaha...
3:11 PM
so in effect, reality could be teeming with 'life'

just not life as we know it

Kapil: we can make sense of humans, humanity as a whole, nature (a level of abstraction "below"). but after that it's fuzzy, and we come up with physical laws to explain what we think we understand

exactly
3:12 PM
it's... just something to think about

me: heh. had this argument with shem the other day... at what point does 'information' become 'knowledge'
3:13 PM
and, more specifically, if there were no such thing as human sentience to perceive what information and knowledge are, then would information still exist
3:14 PM
and dude btw, that universal sentience that would be unrecognizable to us peabrains is probably what they refer to as 'the cosmic spirit'

Kapil: all of existence is teeming with what-begs-to-be-classified-by-humans-as-information

me: maybe there

maybe there

Kapil: we aren't talking about a single universal sentience
3:15 PM
me: why not? maybe there's a common undercurrent of a sentience running through everything, a universal consciousness

Kapil: the existence of sentience at every level.
3:16 PM
that's a tempting thought, yeah.
3:18 PM
me: maybe those are the kind of epiphanies humans have, either on drugs or in deep meditative trances

a oneness with the cosmos

ya heard of fritjof capra? the guy who wrote 'tao of physics'
3:19 PM
Kapil: yeah. although a friend of mine says the tao of physics is rubbish

i have another book by him

me: he said that one day in meditation, he began to see everything (including himself) as vibration

energy, pulsing, dancing

which one?

Kapil: ironically called "the hidden connections"

really?

me: yeah... he worked with david bohm and geoff chew
3:20 PM
Kapil: i wonder how different deep meditation is from altered states of consciousness

me: and his whole viewpoint on science is built up from his experience with psychedelics :P

Kapil: are you serious? i want to read him then

me: he was the quintessential 60's flowerchild

Kapil: if nothing else, i'm sure it'll be fascinating to try and comprehend how he sees the unverse

me: with a bent towards theoretical physics
3:21 PM
Kapil: heh. yes, those hippie theoretical physicists.
3:22 PM
me: back to altered states. meditation's a path to access them

scheisse. how opportune. call of nature brb
3:23 PM
Kapil: have you seriously tried it?
3:24 PM
blast, i think i have to get on with the insignificant activities of everyday life.
3:25 PM
i'm going to save the tribune article for later.
3:26 PM
this has been a wonderfully mind-expanding morning. later, then.
3:30 PM
me: once you're done with this annoying little thing they call a thesis, we should write a book
3:31 PM
even if its pop-sci

elucidating our ideas

Kapil: heh, we should

me: in all seriousness

Kapil: i ws about to turn away to the day and read the first few lines of the tribunes artice.

now, i have to finish it

me: yay
3:32 PM
Kapil: i=our theories don't differ much from bohm's, do they?

me: or chew's
3:33 PM
because they're exquisite ideas. just beautiful in essence

stash this conversation in a safe. we might need to revisit this frequently
3:35 PM
a bit like darwinism. so elegant, but never verifiable

or non-verifiable, for that matter

forever doomed to be locked in some theoretical purgatory of sorts
3:36 PM
hehe... excerpt from the tribune article: 'These concepts are reminiscent of Bohm's work. Indeed, in Fritjof Capra's excellent book, 'Uncommon Wisdom', Chew acknowledges that the 'two approaches have so much in common that they might well merge in the future.' '
3:37 PM
Kapil: interesting. yeah, i haven't gotten that far yet
3:39 PM
me: incidentally, chew also espoused the view that time is not continuous, but is actually seen as discrete chunks at the sub-quantum level
3:40 PM
and its continuity emerges purely as an averaging out of all the individual packets
3:41 PM
Kapil: oh.

that's bizarrely hard to think about
3:42 PM
He [Bohm] developed a direction for quantum physics in which both relativity and quantum theory were themselves abstractions (i.e. approximations or limiting cases) of the underlying implicate order. He also formulated a consistent mathematical description of this implicate order.

a consistent mathematical description?

me: yeah even capra mentions it in 'uncommon wisdom'

i'll believe it when i see it

Kapil: i need to read that book then
3:44 PM
has chew written anything that can be understood by the mind untrained in physics?
3:45 PM
me: erk. dunno. these guys were geniuses, so probably way beyond our earthly realms

i'm also trying to fit in pauli's theory of synchronicity
3:46 PM
somehow... into the discretization of time thing

Kapil: i don't know what that is

me: that events such as coincidences, for example, are those which happen outside of time

ie, they don't follow linear causality
3:47 PM
Kapil: oh.

yeah, i don't understand it.

the wikipedia article on chew is woeful
3:48 PM
me: hehe. indeed
3:49 PM
"Surprisingly, synchronicity has captured the attention of some well-respected scientists. As one might suspect, the scientists have experienced it themselves! Carl Jung said the synchronistic events he witnessed in his life might appear unbelievable, yet he couldn't deny their reality!

Jung once counseled a woman he described as having a disposition of total rationality. She couldn't free herself from this attitude to explore things from a different perspective. One day, she was in his office describing a dream about an Egyptian scarab beetle. To the Egyptians, the scarab was a symbol of rebirth or new awakening. Jung heard a tapping on the window behind him and turned around to see that just such a beetle was bumping against his window! Catching the beetle, he presented it to his patient. The occurrence of such an irrational event so stunned her way of thinking that it provided the breakthrough for his treatment of her problems!
"
3:50 PM
maybe PKD is right after all.

hoooolllly shit
3:51 PM
Another synchronistic experience described by Jung, involved his analysis of the fish symbol. He believed symbols in legend and literature were universal indicators of an underlying psychic structure common to all. He'd been studying the significance of the fish for some time, when the following chain of events occurred on April 1, 1949.

Finishing an inscription containing a figure that was half-man, half-fish, Jung went out to lunch, and was served fish. Someone at the meal, with a slip of the tongue, mentioned the custom of making an "April fish" of someone. Later that afternoon, a former patient he hadn't seen in months showed him some pictures of fish. That evening, someone showed him a piece of embroidery filled with fish. The next morning, a patient he hadn't seen in ten years, described a dream she had the night before about a large fish. A few months later, after writing about this series of events to use in another paper, he walked to the bank of a lake. He'd been to the same spot several times already that morning, and no one else was present. Now, however, there was a sizable fish laying on the sea wall with no explanation for how it got there.
3:53 PM
Kapil: wow. not to be dismissive, but we've had similar experiences, haven't we? everybody has, i imagine.

me: full article at http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/Special/themindofgod.html

Kapil: where do you find these links?

please don't lose them

me: they're safely stored in my gmail chat history now
3:54 PM
dude, that schizoid episode i had in goa - i was outside linear causality

Kapil: oh, here's another possibly related anecdote. i saw it on QI last night
3:55 PM
me: it's very different from a coincidence, cuz you're physically excluded from the real world

at least, in your head

QI?
3:56 PM
also indubitably mind-numbing: "Pauli saw parallels between modern physics and Jung's theories of consciousness. He even postulated a revision in the theory of evolution.

It was assumed in the past that mutations within species occurred at random, and natural selection, then, favored the more desirable traits. More recently, however, scientists have pointed out that the selection of mutations by chance alone would have taken much longer than the age of the earth would allow for. Pauli suggested Jung's concept of synchronicity might account for how stressed organisms could produce changes in physical reality more quickly than by chance. "
3:59 PM
Kapil: sorry. call of nature. QI is a brilliant hilarious quiz/discussion show hosted by steven fry. there's a headquarters at oxford on turl street, which is a bookshop and cafe. i bought shemin a book from there.

me: yeah of coursa! didnt know there was a connection
4:00 PM
Kapil: back to the anecdote, it involves a particular species of bird. apparently, this bord had never been seen to do anything particularly intelligent, was observed learning how to open a milk bottle (or something else) in a rather clever way.
4:02 PM
this isn't the point though. this was seen in in england, and at almost the same time, at another place in scotland, i think.. miles apart, no way of communicating, same species of bird, but they had never beenobserved doing that before

me: yup. like in waking life, ethan hawke talks about everything being telepathically connected
4:03 PM
same revolutions, technological advances cropping up independently in diff places

Kapil: apparently this sort of stuff has been observed frequently in nature, like there's a species-level awareness

right. exactly. which reminds me that i need to watch waking life again.

the darwin anecdote is a good example

(in the article you linked to)
4:04 PM
me: the fish thing is even more bizarre

because i saw it right after i made the comment 'maybe PKD was right after all'

and PKD saw the symbolism of the fish on the woman

around her neck
4:05 PM
and his realizations of it being 50AD followed consequently

Kapil: yeah, i remember that bit in the essay. memorable.
4:06 PM
coming across the fish paragraph at the same instant is pretty coincidental.
4:07 PM
me: okay... bear with me on this, suspend your belief or watever...

if time is indeed discrete at sub-quantum levels

and if we accept synchronicity as a real phenomenon
4:09 PM
then could synchronicity arise because the same individual discrete 'packet' of time has appeared at more than one location?
4:10 PM
Kapil: i don't know whether i accept the link between synchronicity and discontinuous time.
4:11 PM
me: from the same article: Jung recognized meaningful connections between psychic and physical events, but the events appeared to exist outside of time, space, and causality. The existence of synchronicity has been recognized by other scientists as well, but it has eluded a clear explanation. Postulated theories include Kammerer's theory of "seriality," and Bohm's theory of an "implicate order." Jung described synchronicity as: "acts of creation in time." He believed the subconscious was somehow producing a physical manifestation in external reality.

acts of creation in time
4:12 PM
also, An experiment performed in May 1997 by a team from the University of Geneva showed that a measurement carried out on one photon particle had an instantaneous and identical effect on another photon, although separated by nearly seven miles! Physicist Nicolas Gisin, the team leader, said it was the equivalent of having two persons seven miles apart flipping coins. Each time one person would grab the coin out of the air his colleague's coin would simultaneously stop spinning and always land identically! This was repeated thousands of times in a row! Any connecting force would need to travel faster than light, something thought to be an impossibility. It implies an inter-connectedness or "whole" aspect inherent within matter itself.
4:13 PM
Kapil: wait a second. are you serious? where can we read about this photon experiment?
4:14 PM
me: not entirely sure. try googling
4:15 PM
Kapil: http://www.cebaf.gov/news/internet/1997/spooky.html

me: but to rephrase: if events can occur acausally, would that only have to do with the inherent aspects of matter (ie, the objects that are involved with the event) or with some as-yet-unknown property of time as well?
4:16 PM
ive heard of this before, except only with electron spins
4:17 PM
Kapil: i feel that it's time. not sure why.

me: if you flip the spin of an isolated electron, the pair-twin would automatically flip its own spin to keep the overall state constant
4:18 PM
even if held at opposite ends of the universe

Kapil: how was this tested?
4:19 PM
me: not sure. heard about it at some physicists' drinks evening in oxford

anyhoo, its almost 9 o clock and i shouldve been home hours ago
4:20 PM
and desperately need a faggot

all this constructive thinking cant be good for my nicotine receptors

Kapil: oi. you stopped.
4:21 PM
stay stopped.

me: no no, back with a passion

have been since i got an all-clear from the do

doc
4:22 PM
Kapil: no odc is going to tell you to start smoking again

me: he didnt have to

Kapil: just stop.

me: soon as he figured my chest pains were due to acidity and amoebiosis and nothing else, i reverted to familiar territory
4:23 PM
Kapil: oh. what about the morning with the blash phlegm?

black, i mean.

or ash.

but not blash
4:24 PM
me: disappeared. its all psychosomatic, i tell u

placebos work for a reason

anyhoo, im off. it's been most pleasurable
4:25 PM
got an hour

'hour's drive home

Kapil: ouch. okay then. it's been eye-opening.
4:26 PM
me: likewise. to be continued...

Kapil: indeed.

me: meow.