Category: Evolutionary Computation and Systems

  • I am not interested in anti-jewish literature or arguments. I”m not interested i

    I am not interested in anti-jewish literature or arguments. I”m not interested in anti-anyone arguments. I’m interested in how we can defeat group evolutionary strategies – not how to GOSSIP about them.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 06:13:00 UTC

  • FIRST QUARTER SURPRISE WAS AGENCY That was the last piece of the puzzle. Markets

    FIRST QUARTER SURPRISE WAS AGENCY

    That was the last piece of the puzzle. Markets evolve agency.

    The rest has been largely work on religion – and the battle of the east and west against the steppe and desert peoples who were unsuccessful at transitioning to farming and developing farmer genes and farmer ethics and farmer cultures.

    At present I’m doing pretty well on the core of the book. Lets see how well I do this time. So far, no roadblocks. No “dammit, I have to solve that now.”


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 09:14:00 UTC

  • “Q: CURT: WHAT DO YOU THINK OF WOLFRAM’S NKS?” —“I was wondering what you thou

    “Q: CURT: WHAT DO YOU THINK OF WOLFRAM’S NKS?”

    —“I was wondering what you thought about his ideas generally, and how you think they relate to your work specifically, if at all.”—

    Well, I think it’s a bit of marketing to call it a ‘new kind of science’.

    Yes, it relates very much to my work.

    Because instead of aggregate mathematical models that calculate ‘top down’, wolfram’s involves a simulation using operations from the bottom up.

    So it’s operationalism in practice.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 10:24:00 UTC

  • The Dimensions of Sentience: SENTIENCE (decidability) > …. ALGORITHMS (COMPUTA

    The Dimensions of Sentience:

    SENTIENCE (decidability) >

    …. ALGORITHMS (COMPUTABILITY) >

    …. …. MATHEMATICS (deducibility),

    …. …. …. SETS(membership) >

    …. …. …. …. IDENTITY.

    with each removing dimensions of the previous.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 15:06:00 UTC

  • genes favor evidential superiority over evidential commonality. why? survival do

    genes favor evidential superiority over evidential commonality.

    why? survival does not depend upon the comfort of the parent.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 10:31:00 UTC

  • Evolution makes sense. Evolutionary narrowness can make sense (specialization) E

    Evolution makes sense.

    Evolutionary narrowness can make sense (specialization)

    Evolutionary fragility doesn’t make sense(overspecialization).

    Complex systems (all life) benefit from stress, and develop fragility without stress. Because Lack of stress causes misallocation of resources. (Just try to think of some evolutionary system where this isn’t true).

    Humans can EXPRESS traits (specialize) by selection. We can specialize by selection without mutation or epigenetic variation. We can do so simply by increasing the reproduction of some part of any one or more of our distributions at the expense of some other part of any one or more of our distributions. And as long as the distribution(reproductive inventory) exists, we can change or reverse it.

    But reproductive expression is a slow process, and leaves us vulnerable to shocks (rapid changes) during which we might experience large losses. (fragility).

    Ergo a distribution not optimized for only the market order, but optimized for all possible orders is in fact ‘optimum’. And all attempts to create a single optimum are actually attacks on specialization and adaptation.

    All we can say at this point is that it appears that there is a point at which we succeed at sufficient sexual dimorphism and (maturity) pedomorphism, that further attempts produce negatives (the asian problems at the extreme and the african problem at the other extreme).

    So you might say “for people in my gene pool and in my social class who have these ambitions, at present these might be good pedagogical objectives” What you can’t say is that there exists some perfect, universal, individual ideal. Or at least, you can’t say it except in ignorance.

    We can see a range of social classes (in fact).

    we can see at least three main ruling classes (priestly/public intellectual, remunerative/commercial, and warrior/legal, and reactive/technical, on top of the familial.) And we can see a range of family structures needed for the abilities of different classes. And we see moral codes reflecting the needs of those different classes. We see a range of cognitive abilities that at about every ten points dramatically alters the cost and rate of learning good (>105) or bad (<95). We see depth of sexual maturity and rate of sexual maturity that causes variation in group needs. We see that different groups have been more (whites/asians) successful than others (everyone in the middle) and much more successful than others (equatorial peoples), at culling the size and rates of reproduction of their underclasses. And we can see that these differences accumulate in vastly different quality of life, because they permit vastly different forms of institutions. Hiqh quality high trust institutions are dependent upon reducing the cost of institutional enforcement – the underclasses, if for no other reason than it it is not possible to create a voluntary organization of production (market economy) if the market value of the goods producible by the polity are insufficient to pay for the incentives necessary to organize production voluntarily through a hierarchy of marginal differences in compensation.

    Every institution matters. Like Anna Karinnena’s limited humber of healthy families, or the the planet’s limited number of domesticatable animals, many things must function at once to produce positive ends – and the falure of any one leads to negative ends. Hence the uniqueness of western civilization in ancient and modern worlds. For ancient reasons we ourselves did not grasp, we made a subconsious choice in prehistory that caused us to produce many good things in concert quite my accident (or rather, without intent).

    MONOPOLY IS THE ANTITHESIS OF THAT SUBCONSCIOUS CHOICE. UNIVERSALISM IS A SEMITIC AND IRANIAN VALUE IN REACTION TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

    The west has always practiced the estates of the realm and provided different values for each estate. It is only under the lies of the enlightenment (or perhaps counter-enlightenments) that we used democracy and universalism to destroy that ancient bias.

    Sovereignty.Markets in everything.

    War and law for the aristocracy

    Philosophy and literature for the middle class

    Religion for the workers and the slaves.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 16:00:00 UTC

  • Can evolution have a higher purpose? No. Therefore decisions are decidable be ev

    Can evolution have a higher purpose? No. Therefore decisions are decidable be evolutionary means?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-20 17:44:00 UTC

  • (by Bill Joslin ) —“One consideration. With interspecies cooperation, for exam

    (by Bill Joslin )

    —“One consideration. With interspecies cooperation, for example, badgers and coyote are hunting groundhogs together, the overall chance of killing game increases for both over the long term. This gives the incentive to tolerate a competitor. The notion of cooperation born of outgroup warfare presupposes an outgroup which is already cooperating.

    The distinction between non-cooperative social species (deer, apes, monkeys) and cooperative social species rests with resource gathering.

    Non-cooperative social species do not cooperate in resource gathering. Each provides for themselves but do so in a proximity to others. This reduces the chance of death due to predation (run faster than your mate). This fits your above model – defense against outgroup threats.

    Cooperative social species work collectively to gather resources with a rudimentary division of labor (Wolves hunting in a pack – rely on each other for survival – a deeper form of cooperation). In these cases pack size increases and decreases in proportion to the success of the pack. Caloric access would stand as a bigger driver.

    Familial structure and development of reason may provide some indication as to which applies to humans. Cooperative social species tend to have more developed “mind reading” than non-cooperative, and will seek out help from another. Social structure forms around the family structure as a single unit (mother, father, juvenile offspring, young offspring) oppose to harems.

    This suggests to me that human lines were different than current primates in that we may have been predators (cooperative social animals) while they remain predominate scavengers with occasional hunting.

    One other which comes to mind is interspecies cooperation, for example, coyotes and badgers hunting ground hogs (badgers are good at digging but not chasing escaped ground hogs – coyotes are better at chasing than digging.) Resource gathering and collective gains over the long run affords an incentive for each to tolerate the proximity of a “competitor” (tolerate each other) to the extent that they cooperate.

    There seem to be two different incentive sets which result in cooperation as a survival strategy.

    The later (cooperative social species) I think has a direct and stronger incentives to develop cooperative strategies, whereas the former tends to demonstrate looser ingroup bonds (loose half your troop to defection after a lost battle with a competitor).

    These differing strategies may have converged in humans.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 20:40:00 UTC

  • Hierarchy of the Sentient Being

    HIERARCHY OF THE SENTIENT BEING – Sense: change state in reaction to changes in information state. – Movement: physical change in state in reaction to change information state. (automatic) – Perception: changes in state by sensations (memory and anticipation) – Sentience: identity : positive/negative rewards/punishments in reaction to changes in anticipated state of the organism (automatic) – Consciousness: perception of changes in state and expected state of memory (automatic) – Apperception: scaling (organizing) an idea into a body of knowledge.(automatic) – Cognition: (wayfinding) (automatic) – Reason: (intentional)(comparison and judgememt) is a faculty of our minds. It consists of a very small set of operations. – Philosophy: (intentional) recursively re-organizing: commensurability

    Rational Instrumentation – Identity – Rationalism: non-contradiction – Logic: set comparison – Algorithm: process comparison – Model: equilibrial process comparison. Physical Instrumentation – counting – measurement – change – magnification (scale) – time Relational Instrumentation – numbers (identity) – arithmetic (operations) – mathematics (sets) – geometry (space) – calculus (relations) – statistics (scales) – post-euclidian (logical) Cooperative Instrumentation – voluntary exchange – narrative, parable, argument, proof – numbers, mathematics, accounting – economics
  • Hierarchy of the Sentient Being

    HIERARCHY OF THE SENTIENT BEING – Sense: change state in reaction to changes in information state. – Movement: physical change in state in reaction to change information state. (automatic) – Perception: changes in state by sensations (memory and anticipation) – Sentience: identity : positive/negative rewards/punishments in reaction to changes in anticipated state of the organism (automatic) – Consciousness: perception of changes in state and expected state of memory (automatic) – Apperception: scaling (organizing) an idea into a body of knowledge.(automatic) – Cognition: (wayfinding) (automatic) – Reason: (intentional)(comparison and judgememt) is a faculty of our minds. It consists of a very small set of operations. – Philosophy: (intentional) recursively re-organizing: commensurability

    Rational Instrumentation – Identity – Rationalism: non-contradiction – Logic: set comparison – Algorithm: process comparison – Model: equilibrial process comparison. Physical Instrumentation – counting – measurement – change – magnification (scale) – time Relational Instrumentation – numbers (identity) – arithmetic (operations) – mathematics (sets) – geometry (space) – calculus (relations) – statistics (scales) – post-euclidian (logical) Cooperative Instrumentation – voluntary exchange – narrative, parable, argument, proof – numbers, mathematics, accounting – economics