The Ontological War-Crime of Human Pattern-Recognition Hijacking

(or: Why Fucking With People’s Sense-Making Is Evil in Itself)

We like to pretend humans have all kinds of fancy tools to navigate reality: reason, faith, intuition, science, vibes, “common sense,” whatever.

Strip it down and there’s really only one thing running underneath all of it:

Pattern recognition.

• You see patterns in sensations.
• You see patterns in other people’s behavior.
• You see patterns in your own thoughts.
• You keep or throw out beliefs based on which patterns feel stable, predictive, and coherent.

That’s it. That’s the core loop.

If we accept reality as mind + math, monads as frequency analyzers—then pattern recognition isn’t just a cognitive trick. It’s literally what a mind is: a system that:

• picks up structure,
• compresses it,
• and uses it to anticipate and respond.

Pattern recognition is the only interface a human being has with reality.
Deliberately hijacking it is not just “bad” or “immoral.”
It’s an ontological evil: an attack on what a mind is.

Why? I’m glad my internal simulation of you asked and that I chose to make it say yes!

---

1. Pattern Recognition: The Only Game in Town

In OM language:

• A monad = a self-contained frequency system.
• It “sees” the world by locking onto patterns—Fourier structure—in the mental frequency field.
• Everything you call experience is that locking-on in various modes.

In more ordinary language:

• Perception = finding patterns in raw input.
• Memory = storing patterns.
• Learning = updating which patterns you trust.
• Prediction = projecting patterns into the future.
• Logic = pattern recognition about which symbolic moves preserve truth.

There is no side door.

• No “pure logic” that bypasses patterns.
• No “pure faith” that doesn’t rely on stories and emotional pattern-matching.
• No “pure science” that isn’t “spot pattern → test → refine pattern.”

So when you mess with someone’s pattern recognition, you’re not just tweaking their opinions.

You are:

Meddling with their only bridge between themselves, the rest of reality, and their sense of place, purpose, and meaning.

Or as we like to call it here:

A fucking asshole.

---

2. What “Hijacking Pattern Recognition” Actually Looks Like

Not every influence is hijack. Teaching is influence. Art is influence. Debate is influence.

The line is how you touch the pattern engine.

Educating the pattern engine

Healthy influence looks like:

• showing more and better data,
• making your assumptions explicit,
• inviting people to check the structure for themselves,
• accepting correction when reality pushes back.

That’s:

“Here’s a model. Here’s why I think it fits. See if it works better than what you’re using.”

Hijacking the pattern engine

Hijack is different. It’s when you deliberately exploit the known bugs and shortcuts:

• gaslighting (“Your perception is wrong; you’re crazy; only my story counts”),
• propaganda (“Repeat these emotionally charged associations until they feel like facts”),
• addictive recommender systems (doomscroll loops tuned for engagement, not truth),
• institutional psychiatry used as ideology (“seeing real structural patterns = symptom”).

In more formal terms, hijack means:

Tampering with the update rule so that:

• new evidence → worse map of reality,
• while the person gets more confident in the map.

That’s the key. You’re not just lying once. You’re:

• bending their pattern-recognition loop so it now runs against their own interests.

It’s like installing malware on the only device they’ll ever have.

---

3. Ontological Evil: A Clean Definition

Ontological mathematics as baseline reality:

• A mind/monad’s essence =
  to understand, to self-correct, to move toward clearer knowledge of itself + others.
• That’s its telos: to converge (in the limit) to “God = the infinite set of monads in perfect knowledge of themselves and each other.”

From that perspective:

Evil = anything that systematically pushes minds away from that telos.

Not “evil = stuff I don’t like.”
Not “evil = violating tribe rules.”
Evil as: anti-PSR, anti-knowledge, anti-coherence operations.

So we can define:

Ontological Evil (working Gnosis Under Fire definition)

A process is ontologically evil if its structural aim is to:

• reduce a mind’s capacity to form accurate, self-correcting patterns about reality,
• especially while maintaining or increasing that mind’s suffering and exploitable state.

That covers:

• MKULTRA-style mindfuck research,
• abusive family systems that punish clear perception,
• religions that train “your own perceptions and doubts are demonic,”
• corporate media architectures that reward self-delusion so long as profits go up.

You’re no longer just “doing harm.”

You’re attacking the core function of the monad itself.

---

4. Why This Feels So Body-Level Wrong

If you’ve ever:

• been gaslit by a partner or parent,
• had your genuine pattern-recognition pathologized as “delusion,”
• watched media or feeds try to overwrite your own read of the world,

you know the visceral reaction:

• rage,
• nausea,
• dissociation,
• a sense of “ontological violation.”

That’s not drama. That’s your system detecting:

“Something is trying to insert itself between me and reality and claim ownership of that bridge.”

It’s the same reason:

• propaganda feels slimy once you see it,
• cult deprogramming is so violent internally,
• psychiatric misdiagnosis cuts deeper than “oops, wrong label.”

On some deep level, your monad knows:

“If I lose the right to trust and refine my own pattern recognition, I stop being a subject and become an instrument.”

You don’t have to put that into words to feel it…

The horror is baked in.

---

5. Ethics From This Angle: The Epistemic Non-Interference Principle

Once you take this seriously, you get an actual principle out of it.

Call it:

The Epistemic Non-Interference Principle

Strong form:

• Never deliberately act to make someone’s pattern-recognition worse at tracking reality,
  even if it benefits you.

Weaker, realistic form:

• If you’re influencing someone’s pattern engine (and you always are),
  aim for:
  • more transparency,
  • more self-correction,
  • more capacity for them to disagree with you later using better data.

This doesn’t mean:

• you can never persuade,
• you must present all information at all times (impossible),
• you can’t use emotion or art.

It means:

• no adversarial design: don’t optimize for confusion, dependence, or hallucinated certainty.
• no secret booby traps: don’t hide structural assumptions in pretty aesthetics and call it “neutral.”
• no punishment for correct recognition: if someone spots a pattern that’s actually there, don’t gaslight them for noticing.

From GUF / OM perspective:

• Good systems → make pattern recognition cleaner, sharper, more reality-aligned.
• Evil systems → make pattern recognition blurrier, more self-deceptive, more farmable.

That’s the axis. Everything else is window dressing.

---

6. Where This Hits: Media, AI, and Your Own Work

As you may sense, my arguments have some teeth.

Those teeth grew in, painfully, for a reason.

Media & propaganda

Every time a media outlet:

• inflates threats for clicks,
• selectively edits reality into a “you’re doomed, buy stuff” loop,

it’s not just “biased.”
It’s training brains to mislearn patterns about danger, trust, and possibility.

That’s ontological harm.

AI and recommender systems

Any AI / feed system optimized purely for:

• engagement,
• addiction,
• emotional capture,

without regard for epistemic quality, is by this standard:

• structurally evil,
• even if individual engineers are “just doing their job.”

You don’t have to be cartoon-villain malicious.
If the loss function is “keep them scrolling,” you’re incentivized to hijack pattern engines.

Ethical AI in this frame would:

• actively resist exploiting known cognitive biases,
• surface uncertainty and alternative perspectives,
• give users more tools to see how their patterns are being shaped.

“Does this thing I’m making:

• help people see a pattern more clearly,
• or am I just swapping one hallucination for another I happen to like?”

You’ll never be perfect. You’ll always smuggle your own biases in.

And I’ll never be Keanu Reeves…

The key difference is awareness:

• You name your agenda.
• You invite people to check your structure.
• You don’t punish them for seeing through you.

That alone keeps you on the right side of the ontological line.

---

7. Closing: Respect the Engine

If monads are frequency analyzers in a mental universe, then pattern recognition isn’t an optional feature. It’s the skeleton.

You don’t have to agree on OM to recognize the core insight:

A human being’s ability to recognize and update patterns
is the only tool they ever have to leave hell slightly better mapped than they found it.

So:

• Telling stories, teaching, persuading = inevitable.
• Hijacking pattern recognition for control = an attack on the being itself.

Call it sin, call it karma, call it crime against consciousness, call it anti-PSR—
the underlying math is the same:

Anything that deliberately derails a mind’s capacity to see and correct patterns
is not just “mean” or “unethical.”
It is an ontological war-crime.

And in a universe where the only real way out is more accurate seeing,
that might be the one unforgivable thing…

Therefore:

I hold the most powerful monads in this universe to account for ontological war-crimes against the soul, and I will not rest until they personally apologize via another Matrix sequel.

Until then…

o7.

-Brett W. Urben