Context Machines
February 19th, 2026
It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. —Henry David Thoreau
We are context machines. We hold ideas and frames in our mind to a certain extent, and that context determines what we can listen and understand to.
Context switching requires changing that context and effectively change our understanding of facts presented to us.
Facts and contexts are tricky things, they're hard to nail down.
Abstractions help reduce the size and ask of context, and upon asking and delving deeper we can draw more details into our context window and memory.
My question to you is, how do we form effective context windows?
And my next question is, how do we gather the right information to form a whole context window?
And my follow up question after that is, do I still believe that given information all people will act the same way?
Determinism in People
I do believe people are deterministic to an extent, and free will is kind of an ambiguous term. I think in a Wittgensteinian sense, either early or late, it's rather elusive what free will actually is. Free will in what context? That we have the justification to judge a person by their actions? Or free will in the sense that we choose what to do in the executive function sense—it's all a tricky puzzle.
We won't ever know for sure, and for whatever reason and however reason we are able to carve out such a category in the realm of our reality is somehow beyond me. Perhaps it really is in the context of right and wrong and if societal or political consequences ought to be enacted.
Do I believe people should be accountable? I really think whether I think that or not depends on the people I surround myself with.
That's like asking if I believe in Laplace's demon, that everything is some wonderous deterministic machine. I don't know. But I think that we should hold ourselves accountable just as ants move food to the ant hill to keep their hill fed. We are all automaton and we should all believe in ourselves being positive, evolving actors in a changing system.
The consequences of me believing in Laplace's demon is moral forgiveness for all, yet accountability to strive for better systems. The tradeoff is that I don't have a moral compass or standard, whatever that means, and I'll have a tendency to just believe that "better" is whatever aligns to the greater society, with no strong sense of moral objectivity.
What is "better?" I'll struggle with that, sense if all things tend to one way or another, do I really have a choice? Does really anyone have the moral superior edge that makes them better and reduces harm?
What is harm? Is harm just against right and wrong? You say murder is wrong, but in terms of murdering your brother's murderer that could be considered good and just in many societies. What is right and wrong, and is that any different than alleviating suffering vs. causing suffering?
If I deny Laplace's machine, and say that somethings are consequential but many are just a machination of free will, then what? We should hold people and judge them for being morally unsound? I do not know what to think of this.
Telling people they are right or wrong, even though it's that their life has moved them towards one way or another. From Step A they believe Fact A, then Step B to believe Fact B, how am I to judge otherwise?
It is simply the accumulation of experiences that lead to the person to who they are and what they believe in this day and age.
And yet, some tugging feeling in my mind tells me that Laplace's demon is not right, and that there is simply some notion of free will still there.
But a feeling is a feeling, and emotion begets emotions. Thinking is thinking, and thought begets thought.
Why do I feel like free will exists? Because it does? Because of passion? Because of meaning? Because of the existence? Because of anything at all?
Because of love. Because of my girlfriend. My love. Because if I don't believe in free will, then me getting together with her is not special, is not valuable, and is as simply as the wind blows, and doesn't that just kill the romance?
That I chose to be with her, that I chose to stay with her, that I chose to love her, that all these things are just deterministic consequences, like falling dominoes, and not in some passionate swing of choice.
Wouldn't that be so sad?
Re-evaluating my understanding of the world, understanding what choice truly means, I do not know.
Perhaps there is truth and untruth, but in any sense, the most effective compassionate and empathetic context is to believe that people are the result of their experiences, and for any choice no matter how irrational or poor use of "free will" it may equate to, it's that their experiences have informed them that was the correct choice, regardless if it falls into anti-pattern.
Context Windows - Thought
Understanding what context windows are are impeccable. Prompting myself and others for more information always lends to more information.
Decisions are best made when context is available, and information gathering is an important skill to have. The question is, what is the best framework to gather information?
Curiosity is a high signal word. It's used in many contexts. Ownership is another. Accountability. Curiosity. Open-mindedness. Understanding. Compassion. Empathy. These are high signal words that people use to signal communication skills.
It is hard to describe and learn these because it feels almost more art than science. There's no scientific way to learn to communicate better, it's an art that comes with lots of practice and self-reflection.
When I practiced drawing, some people would never improve. I would too, and that's due to a lack of egoless self-reflection.
Others improved quite quickly, and the question is, why? Why did they and why did I not? What makes someone good at an art vs. good at a science?
Or perhaps, I wish to understand better what it means—perhaps information is good, but perhaps the subconscious information in the experiences are even more valuable.
Thought Experiment - Shoes
If you were born as someone else, and you were in their shoes, would you end up living the same exact life as they are? Would you end up making the same exact decisions as they would?
We'll never know the answer to this question, but I know that for certain that if I were born in my shoes with the same knowledge I had then and there at that time and place, I'd end up in the same spot I am today.
Somehow, that feels wrong to say. Perhaps it's that I won't know. That's moreso the truth. I don't know if I were born as Hitler would I start World War II, or if I would have the free will to have chosen differently.
To claim to know is to claim to have seen it for yourself, to know such an experience to be true is that to have experienced yourself.
The truth is, I don't know! And I feel myself becoming more certain of my uncertainty by each growing day, and by each time I talk to someone and learn more about them, I see that I know so very little about anything and everything.
I'd have to place my soul in the soul of Hitler to confirm this determinism, and by golly, I haven't had a chance to do that quite yet, haha.
To Listen
Perhaps I am understanding more of the world and what I am—I have no confirmation of any philosophy of truth. There are too many problems, too many contradictions, and too many conclusions that do not allow me to see the world as anything other than that is the case.
Wittgenstein to repeat, "Don't think, look!"
It's a wonderful thing to listen.
Tacit Knowledge, Flow State
The most convincing I have ever been when there wasn't a single thought in my mind.
The master of learning tacit knowledge is a baby, the master of learning explicit knowledge is a teenager.
Perhaps there is truth to both, but I am interested in the know-how, the play. The baby is superior here, the empty mind, the beginner's mind.
You can't force flow state, but we perform best and our tacit knowledge is at full prowess for this moment.