Swap published columns for 24 entries from random.md

Retract the seven published columns into drafts/ and promote the 24 per-date
entries split out of Notes/random.md. Bodies are verbatim; titles, subjects
and slugs are new.

Make publication a matter of location. Notes/Notes.11tydata.js gives anything
under Notes/ permalink: false unless tagged `column`; drafts/drafts.11tydata.js
renders drafts at their real permalink under `yarn dev` and excludes them from
collections entirely in a build, so no template can surface one. Publishing is
now `git mv drafts/<file> columns/`, and moving it back retracts it.

Untagged notes were previously rendered into _site/ and deployed — including
Notes/random.md, which was live at /Notes/random/.

drafts/do-people-think.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+title: Do ~~Machines~~ People Think?
+date: 2026-04-02
+layout: column.njk
+tags: [column, philosophy]
+permalink: /columns/2026/do-people-think/
+---
+
+## Rough Notes
+- Thinking:
+    - Can we flip this around, and define it by reduction? What isn't thinking?
+        1. Reaction
+        2. Reflex
+        3. Conditioned behavior
+    - But what part of thinking isn't grounded in some conditioned behavior? Some reflex triggered by a problem to solve?
+    - But thinking seems to involve "modeling," and for our purposes, we mean a mental model.
+    - This mental model gets tested, calibrated, exercised.
+        - So how is this different than a program?
+    - Digital vs. Analog?
+    - Inputs, the decisions, are much fuzzier for organic mental models (and thinking)
+    - Computers are (seemingly) deterministic
+        - But, if we shed this assumption, what happens to our distinction?
+    - If computers can "approximate" the fuzziness with digital values...
+        - same question, what happens to our distinction?
+    - Thinking as a survival skill
+        - Thinking as communication
+        - Socialization
+        - Connecting with neighbors and "vibing."
+        - Thinking as an emergent behavior, among a pool of people
+        - Maybe the mob mentality is the purest expression of thought.
+            - Without self, or ego.
+    - What does it map to, in the scheme of things?
+        - I keep thinking about connections
+        - And how stifling it is to exist in isolation
+        - But to become ingrained in something
+        - And to connect with the people, the pieces
+        - To have an exchange, that's the essence of thinking
+    - Some kind of transformation, born from the coordination and interaction of many players
+    - Bottling it within youself, just as senses, impressions without a voice, with no expression or transformation
+    - We form groups, we organize, and we process together. That's thinking
+
+
+## Quotes
+> "[he thinks] that the idealistic creations of his mind... also represent reality." - Claude Bernard
+
+> "Much thinking is done in completely personal, idiosyncratic terms, so much so that how it is done is incommunicable." - Gerald Weinberg
+
+
+## Questions
+
+- Who is Claude Bernard?
+    - Famous French Physiologist (1813-78).
+
+- How would I define "thinking?"
+
+- Is "thinking" in isolation really thinking? Or, is thinking in a social / anthropological sense a connector?
+
+- Do machines Think?
+    - Yes
+        - True thought has structure, a sequence, clear logical steps.
+        - It is neither random nor unpredictable. It follows clear, irrefutable logic.
+        - Anything else is noise
+    - No
+        - Machines are bound by rules. They can only follow a pre-programmed sequence of steps
+        - The sequence may have rich variety, but lacks in originality.
+        - Thinking is about novelty. Making leaps of intuition and instinct.
+        - If we can pave the way between with logic or reasoning, that's nice, but not essential.
+    - I reject this approach as flawed, lacking both nuance and merit.
+        - Total aside: the point shouldn't be to subscribe absolutely to one side or the other, and claim it the undeniable truth.
+        - These are devices, anchor points around which we can scaffold our reasoning, and draw tighter bounds around the concept being examined.
+        - They themselves are not to be confused with the subject at hand.
+            - by extension, we won't say that one or the other, both or neither are the thing itself.
+            - Like confusing the map for the terrain.
+                - these are navigational aids
+    - So probably not a single definition of thinking
+        - there's the intuitive kind, that machines might struggle with
+        - There's the expansive, logical kind, machines are better suited for.
+
+
+## Links
+[1] - Hamming, R. (1997). The art of doing science and engineering: Learning to learn. CRC. <https://archive.org/details/artofdoingscienc0000rich>
+[2] - Weinberg, Gerald M. An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. Wiley, 1975. Internet Archive, <https://archive.org/details/introductiontoge00gera>.