Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • “Just like ‘intelligent design’ vs ‘evolution’ …. why limit yourself to just o

    —“Just like ‘intelligent design’ vs ‘evolution’ …. why limit yourself to just one?”— Tristan Roberts

    “Truth vs Lie, That is why.”

    The universe is deterministic in that it consists of invariant and therefore non-discretionary rules. Intention of any kind requires discretion.

    As far as I know the universe consist of a single something in different stages of excitement, the combination of which produces.

    One is existential (descriptive), and the other is a fiction (analogy). One is possible (permutations on frequencies), and one isimpossible (cognition would need to arise from ‘somewhere else’ other than the deterministic consequences of the universe itself.

    Even the periodic exterminations on the planet are the result of passing thru the higher density of the galactic median.

    The primary advancement in all human thought is to replace our intuition of discretion with mere determinism of constitution.

    But people want their comforting lies for very obvious reasons.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-12 10:19:00 UTC

  • DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body

    DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body in a casket is that you? If I read your written words, isthat you? whenever you use the word ‘is’ you are engaged in a self or other deception, because it means “i don’t know how this exists”. When you use the word ‘you’ as referencing the physical body, or ‘you’ as the potential interaction of mind and body, or ‘you’ as the acting interaction between mind and body…. which are you asking? Because ‘is’ and ‘you’ questions aren’t philosophical questions, their grammatical errors positioned as a pretense of philosophical sophisms. I consist of the consequences of the continuous operation of my body, and in particular my brain. the written word consist only of potential experience until a mind puts it into motion by reading it. the body consists of biomass until a brain causes it to move. A brain consists of reactive nerves, until the that experence we call mind emerges from the continuous persistence of states. Just as we cannot observe the frames of video, we cannot observe the cycles of changes in state of the mind, and so we ‘average them’ through the persistence of stimuli across cycles. We do have a sense of self awareness that functions pre-cognitively, and can best be understood as that moment you awake in the dark and are unaware of your circumstances. It is this awareness of changes in state and like and dislikes that is ‘I’? Well, that is governed by genes. Is that ‘I’? Or am ‘i’ the combination of those genetic biases, that very simple state monitor, or at the other end, am ‘I’ that combination of body and memory in motion that you experience as a set of contsant relations ‘me?’. To the mentally ill person ‘i’ consists of a body in its current state. To the observer ‘i’ consists of a set of patterns of behavior given the experiences. To others (norm, law), ‘i’ consists of the rights and obligations to the host body. etc.

  • DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body

    DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body in a casket is that you? If I read your written words, isthat you? whenever you use the word ‘is’ you are engaged in a self or other deception, because it means “i don’t know how this exists”. When you use the word ‘you’ as referencing the physical body, or ‘you’ as the potential interaction of mind and body, or ‘you’ as the acting interaction between mind and body…. which are you asking? Because ‘is’ and ‘you’ questions aren’t philosophical questions, their grammatical errors positioned as a pretense of philosophical sophisms. I consist of the consequences of the continuous operation of my body, and in particular my brain. the written word consist only of potential experience until a mind puts it into motion by reading it. the body consists of biomass until a brain causes it to move. A brain consists of reactive nerves, until the that experence we call mind emerges from the continuous persistence of states. Just as we cannot observe the frames of video, we cannot observe the cycles of changes in state of the mind, and so we ‘average them’ through the persistence of stimuli across cycles. We do have a sense of self awareness that functions pre-cognitively, and can best be understood as that moment you awake in the dark and are unaware of your circumstances. It is this awareness of changes in state and like and dislikes that is ‘I’? Well, that is governed by genes. Is that ‘I’? Or am ‘i’ the combination of those genetic biases, that very simple state monitor, or at the other end, am ‘I’ that combination of body and memory in motion that you experience as a set of contsant relations ‘me?’. To the mentally ill person ‘i’ consists of a body in its current state. To the observer ‘i’ consists of a set of patterns of behavior given the experiences. To others (norm, law), ‘i’ consists of the rights and obligations to the host body. etc.

  • DEFINE “YOU” If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you? If I put your dead body

    DEFINE “YOU”

    If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you?

    If I put your dead body in a casket is that you?

    If I read your written words, isthat you?

    whenever you use the word ‘is’ you are engaged in a self or other deception, because it means “i don’t know how this exists”. When you use the word ‘you’ as referencing the physical body, or ‘you’ as the potential interaction of mind and body, or ‘you’ as the acting interaction between mind and body…. which are you asking?

    Because ‘is’ and ‘you’ questions aren’t philosophical questions, their grammatical errors positioned as a pretense of philosophical sophisms.

    I consist of the consequences of the continuous operation of my body, and in particular my brain.

    the written word consist only of potential experience until

    a mind puts it into motion by reading it. the body consists of biomass until a brain causes it to move. A brain consists of reactive nerves, until the that experence we call mind emerges from the continuous persistence of states.

    Just as we cannot observe the frames of video, we cannot observe the cycles of changes in state of the mind, and so we ‘average them’ through the persistence of stimuli across cycles.

    We do have a sense of self awareness that functions pre-cognitively, and can best be understood as that moment you awake in the dark and are unaware of your circumstances.

    It is this awareness of changes in state and like and dislikes that is ‘I’? Well, that is governed by genes. Is that ‘I’? Or am ‘i’ the combination of those genetic biases, that very simple state monitor, or at the other end, am ‘I’ that combination of body and memory in motion that you experience as a set of contsant relations ‘me?’.

    To the mentally ill person ‘i’ consists of a body in its current state. To the observer ‘i’ consists of a set of patterns of behavior given the experiences. To others (norm, law), ‘i’ consists of the rights and obligations to the host body.

    etc.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-10 15:54:00 UTC

  • Language Is Trivially Simple : A Market Competition Between Grammar And Sematics

    Language is actually trivially simple: continuous disambiguation in grammar, and continuous ambiguity in semantics. The evolutionary problem is achieving in imagination the same level of modeling that we have in body movement. Once we had complex body movement (our neural density is far higher than other creatures) and complex motion-planning, it was somewhat deterministic that we could gain complex verbal planning. These problems seem difficult until you work with recursive neural networks long enough. Then the brain is a very simple thing that just far more neural computing power than any of our competing life forms. An octopus for example, is interesting, because while we have a spine that extends our brain into our body so to speak, the octopus has eight of them, and they do a lot of their own processing the way our heart and lungs do their own processing. Far too much ‘cheap’ philosophy, not enough ‘expensive’ physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. Learn something substantial. Philosophy can assist us in determining choice, preferences and goods It is notoriously if not catastrophically faulty at anything we call ‘truth’.

  • Language Is Trivially Simple : A Market Competition Between Grammar And Sematics

    Language is actually trivially simple: continuous disambiguation in grammar, and continuous ambiguity in semantics. The evolutionary problem is achieving in imagination the same level of modeling that we have in body movement. Once we had complex body movement (our neural density is far higher than other creatures) and complex motion-planning, it was somewhat deterministic that we could gain complex verbal planning. These problems seem difficult until you work with recursive neural networks long enough. Then the brain is a very simple thing that just far more neural computing power than any of our competing life forms. An octopus for example, is interesting, because while we have a spine that extends our brain into our body so to speak, the octopus has eight of them, and they do a lot of their own processing the way our heart and lungs do their own processing. Far too much ‘cheap’ philosophy, not enough ‘expensive’ physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. Learn something substantial. Philosophy can assist us in determining choice, preferences and goods It is notoriously if not catastrophically faulty at anything we call ‘truth’.

  • LANGUAGE IS TRIVIALLY SIMPLE : A MARKET COMPETITION BETWEEN GRAMMAR AND SEMATICS

    LANGUAGE IS TRIVIALLY SIMPLE : A MARKET COMPETITION BETWEEN GRAMMAR AND SEMATICS

    Language is actually trivially simple: continuous disambiguation in grammar, and continuous ambiguity in semantics.

    The evolutionary problem is achieving in imagination the same level of modeling that we have in body movement.

    Once we had complex body movement (our neural density is far higher than other creatures) and complex motion-planning, it was somewhat deterministic that we could gain complex verbal planning.

    These problems seem difficult until you work with recursive neural networks long enough. Then the brain is a very simple thing that just far more neural computing power than any of our competing life forms.

    An octopus for example, is interesting, because while we have a spine that extends our brain into our body so to speak, the octopus has eight of them, and they do a lot of their own processing the way our heart and lungs do their own processing.

    Far too much ‘cheap’ philosophy, not enough ‘expensive’ physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence.

    Learn something substantial.

    Philosophy can assist us in determining choice, preferences and goods It is notoriously if not catastrophically faulty at anything we call ‘truth’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-10 14:24:00 UTC

  • What Is A Problem You Have Never Been Able To Figure Out?

    I have solved at least two significant problems in human thought, and while it takes a long time to do so, I have been able to ‘figure out’ everything I have set my mind to – and abandoned those that I understood could not be solved because we lack the information – not the reasoning ability.

    The first was the same one that troubles the physics community, and that is only because the costs of the necessary tests is still too high, and the community is distracted by mathematical pseudoscience for the simple reason that they lack the funds to conduct meaningful tests at necessary scales. This is why I didn’t choose that career. It is economic-progress bound, not idea bound.

    The second was general artificial intelligence, which after I understood the problem thoroughly, also understood that it was a problem only solvable by reduction of costs through continuous innovation. I have known for quite some time the answers to general intelligence, the general structure of the data and algorithms, and the problem of ethical(moral) conduct (transactions). The problem is, that … as far as I know … it is still a multi-billion dollar problem if for no other reason than turing’s advice wasn’t followed and the structure of current microprocessors inhibits development.

    The third is the same one that’s troubling Nassim Taleb and that is that we lack a unit of measure by which to determine the information necessary to measure changes in state of risk (outliers or paradigm-changers) that we see in high causal density phenomenon like economics where categories are not only fungible but inconstant. As far as I know we cannot achieve this until we produce a unit of measure and that unit of measure will be provided by the information necessary to cause changes in state from the production of a general artificial intelligence.

    I think we are a lot farther along in understanding and unifying the first full generation of thought across all disciplines than I’d originally assumed, or that anyone would infer from exposure to their various grammars, vocabularies, semantics, and truth tests. However, reforming all those disciplines, and the common vernacular takes a century or more. But just as the Greek enlightenment and the British Enlightenment both dragged humanity out of ignorance and superstition, the counter revolutions of Abrahamic pseudo rationalism in the ancient world, and Rousseuian-Kantian-Marxist-Postmodern pseudoscience in the modern, have struggled to restore the dark ages.

    Truth is not comforting.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-problem-you-have-never-been-able-to-figure-out

  • What Is A Problem You Have Never Been Able To Figure Out?

    I have solved at least two significant problems in human thought, and while it takes a long time to do so, I have been able to ‘figure out’ everything I have set my mind to – and abandoned those that I understood could not be solved because we lack the information – not the reasoning ability.

    The first was the same one that troubles the physics community, and that is only because the costs of the necessary tests is still too high, and the community is distracted by mathematical pseudoscience for the simple reason that they lack the funds to conduct meaningful tests at necessary scales. This is why I didn’t choose that career. It is economic-progress bound, not idea bound.

    The second was general artificial intelligence, which after I understood the problem thoroughly, also understood that it was a problem only solvable by reduction of costs through continuous innovation. I have known for quite some time the answers to general intelligence, the general structure of the data and algorithms, and the problem of ethical(moral) conduct (transactions). The problem is, that … as far as I know … it is still a multi-billion dollar problem if for no other reason than turing’s advice wasn’t followed and the structure of current microprocessors inhibits development.

    The third is the same one that’s troubling Nassim Taleb and that is that we lack a unit of measure by which to determine the information necessary to measure changes in state of risk (outliers or paradigm-changers) that we see in high causal density phenomenon like economics where categories are not only fungible but inconstant. As far as I know we cannot achieve this until we produce a unit of measure and that unit of measure will be provided by the information necessary to cause changes in state from the production of a general artificial intelligence.

    I think we are a lot farther along in understanding and unifying the first full generation of thought across all disciplines than I’d originally assumed, or that anyone would infer from exposure to their various grammars, vocabularies, semantics, and truth tests. However, reforming all those disciplines, and the common vernacular takes a century or more. But just as the Greek enlightenment and the British Enlightenment both dragged humanity out of ignorance and superstition, the counter revolutions of Abrahamic pseudo rationalism in the ancient world, and Rousseuian-Kantian-Marxist-Postmodern pseudoscience in the modern, have struggled to restore the dark ages.

    Truth is not comforting.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-problem-you-have-never-been-able-to-figure-out

  • Does Wittgenstein’s Conclusion On The Omnipotence Paradoxes Put An End To Them?

    Wittgenstein did not solve the problem that he sought to, Frege thru Kripke and the followers of Turing (meaning Chomsky) did.

    (a) there exist no paradoxes, only the application of the rules of formal (deflationary) grammars to colloquial (suggestive) and inflationary (fictional) speech. In other words, there exist no paradoxes that are not simply incomplete sentences (transactions).

    (b) wittgenstein and russell are correct: in the end, the investment in logic has been a waste of time. It’s nothing but tautology. Because we cannot use the logic of constant semantic relations (language) as we do the logic of constant positional relations (mathematics) to produce proofs. And the Intuitionists were correct: We cannot even do so in mathematics. So what the logics allow us to do is falsify statements, but not prove statements.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-Wittgensteins-conclusion-on-the-omnipotence-paradoxes-put-an-end-to-them