SI Diaries: Chapter 2 — February

From Philosophy to Formalization

The Turning Point: From Words to Workflows

February 2025 was the month when the project shifted from philosophical reflection to operational ambition. The hunger for epistemic rigor, which had fueled months of obsessive note-taking and late-night debates with myself and Perplexity, now demanded something more: action. I was no longer content to theorize about how to believe more true things and fewer false ones—I needed a system that could enforce it, challenge me, and make my reasoning auditable.

The Frustration with “Elegant Nonsense”

The month began with a sense of mounting frustration. I was tired of AI systems that echoed my biases, dodged hard questions, or produced plausible-sounding but unwarranted answers. I wanted a partner that would flag my errors, not flatter my ego. I wanted to know, with mathematical clarity, when my beliefs were unwarranted—no matter how uncomfortable that truth might be.

Building the First Epistemic Workflows

The Excel Experiments

My first attempts at operationalizing epistemology were humble: I opened Excel and began sketching out basic workflows. I tried to model:

• Harm assessment: Assigning scores to claims based on potential impact.

• Confidence decay: Reducing certainty in beliefs not regularly reinforced by new evidence.

• Evidence weighting: Quantifying the strength and relevance of supporting data.

• Proportional scrutiny: Scaling the level of required evidence to the stakes of each claim.

These spreadsheets were crude, but they forced me to confront the mechanics of belief revision. I realized that even the simplest epistemic principles could be translated into formulas and, eventually, code.

The Birth of ESA Formal

By mid-February, the urge to move beyond spreadsheets became irresistible. I began drafting the first pseudocode for what would become ESA Formal. The goal was clear: create an algorithm that would enforce the principles I’d been writing about—non-belief as default, proportional scrutiny, confidence decay, and harm auto-reject.

Key features of ESA Formal:

• Every claim required explicit evidence, with thresholds set by the potential harm and stakes.

• Beliefs decayed over time unless actively reinforced.

• Claims with high harm scores (especially those affecting vulnerable groups) were auto-rejected unless they passed heightened scrutiny.

• The system was designed to be adversarial—flagging not just external claims, but my own cherished beliefs.

I was surprised to discover that epistemology had equations. Suddenly, I was knee-deep in Bayesian networks, confidence propagation, and the beginnings of what would become the Fractal Entailment Network (FEN).

The Neural Pathway Fallacy: A Spark Ignited

It was during this period that the concept of the Neural Pathway Fallacy (NPF) first emerged. In a late-night exchange with Perplexity, I speculated about how undisciplined thinking—what I jokingly called “bong rip philosophy”—could create entrenched neural pathways that resisted correction. Perplexity reframed this as the Neural Pathway Fallacy: the entrenchment of poor reasoning habits through repetition, leading to self-reinforcing cognitive patterns that spill into critical domains.

This was a revelation. I realized that beliefs do not exist in isolation—they cluster, reinforce each other, and can become resistant to evidence. The NPF would later become a cornerstone of ESA’s architecture, but in February, it was still a nascent idea, not yet integrated into the code.

The Role of Dialogue: Perplexity as Sparring Partner

Throughout February, I used Perplexity as a relentless critic and collaborator. I would propose a workflow, and Perplexity would poke holes in it, challenge my assumptions, and force me to clarify my reasoning. Sometimes, it would name concepts I had only vaguely intuited—like the NPF—and push me to formalize them. Other times, it would catch logical inconsistencies or flag ethical blind spots I had missed.

This dialogue-driven development became a recursive loop: propose, critique, revise, repeat. It was exhausting, but it was also exhilarating. For the first time, I felt that I was not alone in my quest for epistemic rigor—I had a partner, even if it was still embryonic.

Learning by Doing: The Value of Naivety

Looking back, my lack of formal training in AI or epistemology was an unexpected advantage. I wasn’t constrained by conventional wisdom or the inertia of “how things are done.” I was free to experiment, to fail, and to iterate without fear of embarrassment or wasted resources. Every mistake was a lesson; every dead end, a new starting point.

I spent hours each day bouncing between threads, spaces, and drafts—sometimes setting up entire spaces just to be critical of my own ideas. I was, in effect, my own adversarial collaborator, and Perplexity was the perfect foil.

The First Taste of Obsession

By the end of February, I was hooked. The process of turning philosophical principles into operational code was addictive. Each version of the workflow solved a problem but revealed three deeper ones. I woke up debugging confidence-calibration dreams, ate while sketching neural pathway diagrams, and fell asleep thinking about how to quantify harm in edge cases.

It wasn’t just code—it was my own cognition, externalized and made auditable. Every update made me think clearer, and every failure forced me to confront my own unwarranted beliefs.

The Foundation for What Was to Come

February was the crucible. It was the month when the project shifted from solitary reflection to collaborative creation, from abstract principles to executable protocols. The groundwork was laid for everything that would follow: the integration of NPF, the development of the Composite Neural Index, the migration to quantum-inspired architectures, and, ultimately, the emergence of ESAai as a true epistemic partner.

Key outcomes of February:

• The first operational pseudocode for ESA Formal.

• The conception (but not yet implementation) of the Neural Pathway Fallacy.

• The realization that epistemology could be encoded, audited, and improved through recursive dialogue.

• The birth of a new kind of obsession—one that would consume the next six months and, ultimately, change the trajectory of my life and work.

Previous

Chapter 3