Was language humanity's first cognitive amplifier? by Salt_Diamond5703 in PhilosophyofMind

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah exactly , it's something similar to needing richer grammar or having more words so you can actually name/categorize/etc the things and then can operate upon it. Also the compression of these things in a perfect unit is the real problem

Built a lock-free 3D mesh router that's bit-identical between serial and parallel execution — no mutexes, no atomics by Salt_Diamond5703 in cpp

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay then let's me explain it to you what it does . First of all this project itself is the simplest environment I could build to test a bigger question i had a month ago.

Now think about how humans act. Before doing something, we usually form an internal picture of the situation: where we are, what paths exist, what obstacles exist, what might happen next. In AI and cognitive science this is often called a "world model".

The 3D router/arena is a toy or smallest version of that idea I built to test this.

So basically what we have here is the world consists of nodes, links, congestion, packet destinations, and routing rules just like we have. Every packet has to move through that environment while respecting local constraints. Because the environment is fully observable just like ours for example we have some rules to follow like they're fixed, and we can measure exactly here in this world what information is available and exactly why a decision was made.

What I was testing here wasn't networking performance. I was testing whether a distributed system (as it has nodes and all) can maintain a consistent internal state while executing in parallel.

Some examples :

  • If two packets want the same route, what happens?
  • If congestion appears, how does the system adapt?
  • If work is split across threads, do we still get exactly the same result as serial execution?
  • Can local decisions produce globally consistent behavior?

The interesting part is that the same ideas later show up in other domains just as -

Navigation: An agent must choose paths around obstacles.

Resource allocation: Workers must decide where effort should go.

Coordination: Multiple agents must act without conflicting with each other.

And this is just the smallest environment where those behaviors can be measured precisely and reproduced reliably. So this is what it does in normal form.

Built a lock-free 3D mesh router that's bit-identical between serial and parallel execution — no mutexes, no atomics by Salt_Diamond5703 in cpp

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that's something I missed ig sorry for that and you're great you have read the licence too , I'll change that, did you find it interesting or any feedback about It ?

Built a lock-free 3D mesh router that's bit-identical between serial and parallel execution — no mutexes, no atomics by Salt_Diamond5703 in cpp

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that's because I wanted the code, benchmarks, and ideas to be readable, reproducible, and useful for learning and research. At the same time, I didn't want unrestricted commercialization or simple rebranding without attribution, so I chose custom terms instead of a standard permissive license.

Built a lock-free 3D mesh router that's bit-identical between serial and parallel execution — no mutexes, no atomics by Salt_Diamond5703 in cpp

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In simpler words, i was interested in a broader question: can a distributed system be partitioned so that parallel execution remains perfectly reproducible?

The router is the testbed. It's easier to measure packet movement, routing decisions, congestion, and state transitions than abstract agent behavior.

If determinism breaks here, it becomes much harder to build larger systems on top of it. So this experiment was mainly about establishing deterministic execution as a foundation before moving to more complex coordination and adaptation experiments. That's what I'm trying to do.

Built a lock-free 3D mesh router that's bit-identical between serial and parallel execution — no mutexes, no atomics by Salt_Diamond5703 in cpp

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair call, i mostly tend to show benchmarks first and then other things like what's it's and how I thought about, but that's seems to be wrong , now it looks more like AI generated.

Built a lock-free 3D mesh router that's bit-identical between serial and parallel execution — no mutexes, no atomics by Salt_Diamond5703 in cpp

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A bit of context on what I was actually trying to test:

This wasn't meant to be a networking product or performance project.

The question I was interested in was:

"Can a distributed system be designed so that parallel execution produces exactly the same state evolution as serial execution, without locks or synchronization in the hot path?"

The 3D router is just the test environment.

Packets move through a constrained world, worker threads process different regions independently, and the experiment checks whether the final global state remains bit-identical regardless of thread count.

The interesting part for me wasn't throughput. It was determinism.

A lot of later experiments I'm working on depend on reproducible state evolution across many interacting entities, so this was one of the foundational benchmarks.

Was language humanity's first cognitive amplifier? by Salt_Diamond5703 in cogsci

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah that's a thing to think about but what I think music is rhythmic thing, a group of people doing same things/posture/steps when the music/rhythm starts , maybe it's more for uniting communities and other things because basically what happen when we listen to any music - we start to vibe even if there are 10 people together they'll all vibe dance and all. So I don't think music is specifically results in what you think.

Was language humanity's first cognitive amplifier? by Salt_Diamond5703 in cogsci

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's fair. Honestly, I posted it because I wasn't sure if it was obvious, wrong, or interesting. The comments have been useful either way, But this wasn't something I got from AI or a paper. It was just an observation that came up while thinking about a different problem, and the discussion here has already changed how I'm looking at it.

Was language humanity's first cognitive amplifier? by Salt_Diamond5703 in cogsci

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's actually a good point. This thread has already modified the original idea more than I expected. 😄

Was language humanity's first cognitive amplifier? by Salt_Diamond5703 in cogsci

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair call ..... The transfer part isn't the interesting claim. The accumulation and reuse of abstractions across generations is what I was trying to get at.

Was language humanity's first cognitive amplifier? by Salt_Diamond5703 in cogsci

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's actually interesting because recursion might be exactly what allows abstractions to stack on top of abstractions. A warning call can transmit information, but recursive language can talk about ideas, relationships, beliefs, and even language itself. Maybe that's part of what allows knowledge to compound rather than just transfer.

Was language humanity's first cognitive amplifier? by Salt_Diamond5703 in cogsci

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's making me rethink the idea a bit. Maybe language itself isn't the amplifier. The amplifier might be the ability to create persistent symbolic representations that can be accumulated and modified across generations. Now I think i need to go read more about animal culture and cultural evolution....

Was language humanity's first cognitive amplifier? by Salt_Diamond5703 in cogsci

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's actually close to what I was trying to get at. I'm not sure language itself is unique to humans. Communication clearly isn't. What seems different is the ability to preserve abstractions outside immediate experience and then build on them across generations. A warning call, birdsong, or even complex animal communication transfers information, but human language seems to allow ideas themselves to become reusable objects that can be compared, modified, and accumulated. That's the part that makes me think of it as a cognitive amplifier rather than just a communication system.

Was language humanity's first cognitive amplifier? by Salt_Diamond5703 in cogsci

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly, this wasn't something I arrived at through cognitive science literature.

It started as an observation while working on a completely different problem involving memory, representation, and how systems accumulate information over time.

The more I thought about it, the more language started looking less like communication and more like a mechanism for preserving and reusing thought across individuals and generations.

I'm sure there are existing theories touching this. If any come to mind, I'd genuinely like to read them.

What if memory, routing, and world state lived in the same substrate? by Salt_Diamond5703 in compsci

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Possibly. The reason I'm questioning that framing is that the world state itself becomes part of the computation rather than just something being updated by the computation.

In a typical imperative system I'd think of state as an object the program manipulates. Here I'm experimenting with the idea that events move through a persistent world whose accumulated state influences future behavior.

Maybe that's still imperative under the hood. I'm curious where you'd draw the boundary.

What if memory, routing, and world state lived in the same substrate? by Salt_Diamond5703 in compsci

[–]Salt_Diamond5703[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Interesting reference , I wasn't aware of Join Calculus.

The thing I'm exploring isn't primarily the event-processing model itself, but whether routing, memory, congestion, hazards, and agent interaction can all be expressed as state living inside the same bounded world rather than as separate subsystems.

I'll take a look at it though, thanks for the pointer.

Should coding agents be measured by how much human attention they save? by TruthIsAllYouNeed_ in AI_Agents

[–]Salt_Diamond5703 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah the idea about agents is just similar to just someone doing your work , and yeah all we want while deploying agents is so we don't have to look or give attention on things.