https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea4mEnsTv6Q
OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS :
The literary mind still struggles to find place in modernity. As Weber could foresee all life is increasingly reduced from intuition to calculation.
Overcoming our cognitive bias:
1 – “Markets” (competition between opportunities and limits) describe the behavior of the hemispheres.
2 – We struggle to overcome justificationism (the narrative of moraliy and religion) instead of competition and markets (survival, and the competition between imagination and falsification).
3 – Justification developed as did grammar: storytelling (describing)
4 – Cost is missing from morality, philosophy, religion. This is why thinkers in those fields remain backward (late medieval),
Evolutionary constraints:
0 – lateralization of the nervous system was necessary for cost reasons.
1 – consequential specialization was necessary for cost reasons.
2 – opportunity (right) cost (left) = predators(right) prey (left)
3 – competition between opportunity generation and constraint (costs, limits).
“Kuhn etc;”
1 – a paradigm consist of a network of constant relations. All changes in knowledge consist of reorganizing constant relations in memory, to respond to newly identified constant relations, and pruning and growing new relations. It is our failure to speak in constant relations between states, and our reliance on storytelling (literary analogy) … a problem of literary vocabulary.
“Unstable Position”:
1 – Market maximization. people prefer and benefit from operating at the maximum of their capacity to obtain successful reinforcement. This is just an example of neural economics at work.
THE LITERARY(conflationary) VS THE OPERATIONAL(deflationary)
The language of artificial intelligence and cognitive science avoids the ‘pseudoscientific literature’ of psychology. Even if it is more enjoyable to learn through literature (storytelling). Why? Operations (measurements) vs mere verbal associations (conflations).
There is far more to be said about why one prefers the literary (philosophical and psychological) rather than the scientific (operational) and economic (equilibrial) than is to be learned by the study of philosophy and psychology. However, the literary conveys to the speaker and the audience greater confidence in these fictions than exists in practice. This is not so important when we are discussing the conversion of philosophy and psychology to science. It is however, more important in preventing the use of loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, that is the vehicle by which old world abrahamism (judaism, christianity, islam) and new world arahamism (neoconservatism, libertarianism, marxism, postmodernism, and feminism) have been successful in undermining the ancient and modern worlds.
OMG. The rest of the talk descends into the literary equivalent of gossip. Such drama.
THE UNIVERSE IS VERY, VERY SIMPLE. All human life is very very simple. The human mind is very simple. And the current or coming completion of the enlightenment (interrupted by the abrahamic dark ages) will end this pseudoscientific nonsense in the economic, political, social, and psychological, just as it ended it in the physical. Finally.
ALthough I have no doubt that we will see another generation of Marx’s Freud’s Baoz’s Cantor’s creating a new literary fantasy – another moral fictional literature under another guise.