We process what we can act upon nearly all of the texture, tasted, smell, temperature, physical vibration, sound vibration, electromagnetic ‘vibration’ we can act upon. Like most animals we evolved a distributed ability to ‘sense’ through our physical distribution, communication and territorial monitoring.
Evolution was ‘smart’ in the sense that we cannot sense information we cannot act upon. There was little value to us in increased precision of any of our senses, because it would interfere with decidability, and decidability is limited to to that which is actionable.
Conversely, we can augment our senses mechanically and we are able to generalize almost infinitely, and so with sound, smell, vibration, taste, sight, and speed enhancements there is no evidence that we could not process the information. All it would do is reduce our need for numbers to distribute the acts of perception over distance.
So I’m hinting here at the error of individualism when judging our senses, perceptions, calculations, and decisions. And that ones judgement of our senses is determined by ones preference for social and political order. And ones preference of social and political order, is a reflection of one’s experiential, reproductive, cooperative, strategy.
So if one is hopeful for liberty in a heterogeneous order one sees the limits of senses being the individual. If one sees homogenous kinship order at scale, one sees the limit of the senses being the band, tribe, polity, or nation.
If one desires to circumvent an order, or to dominate an order, he may desire additional senses beyond that which he can act upon, and which others can act upon. But if one desires to operate within that order, he desires only to ensure the quality of information within that order.
Ergo, I would seek to improve the quality of information within that order.
Now, as to ‘illusion’ we can find very little evidence of this. What we find instead is that because of heterogeneous strategies, heterogeneous interests, heterogeneous values, heterogenous information, and outright disinformation, and lack of ability to deflate this heterogeneity, we IMAGINE that we sense and perceive falsely, and we IMAGINE many relations between events, and this CONFUSION may convince us that see very little. But this problem can be solved either by expanding the quality of the information available to an individual despite its in-actionabilty, or we can expand quality of information available to members of the group for both individual and group actionability.
Since liberty is only existential when actionable, and actionable only possible in a polity, then the answer is rather obvious…
So I want to improve the quality of information in an increasing division of perception, cognition, action knowledge, and advocacy;
And given that we cannot know what is true, only what is false;
And as far as I know, given the wide variation of cognitive ability,
Then, this can only be achieved through providing in environmental context (Institution, tradition, norm, environment and information) that which prohibits DISINFORMATION.
Ergo. Natural law in all things.
If one has the power to change the narrative (contextual information) and and the metaphysics(assumptions) within it, and the general rules within it, one can choose the degree of truthfulness (deflation) existential in the method of narrative.
The only question then is whether one possesses the knowledge to do so, and is willing to pay the higher cost of imposing truthful and deflationary rather than untruthful and conflationary models.
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
We Can Improve Our Individual Senses and Not Improve Actionability or We Can Improve Our Environmental Information and Improve Actionability
We process what we can act upon nearly all of the texture, tasted, smell, temperature, physical vibration, sound vibration, electromagnetic ‘vibration’ we can act upon. Like most animals we evolved a distributed ability to ‘sense’ through our physical distribution, communication and territorial monitoring. Evolution was ‘smart’ in the sense that we cannot sense information we cannot act upon. There was little value to us in increased precision of any of our senses, because it would interfere with decidability, and decidability is limited to to that which is actionable. Conversely, we can augment our senses mechanically and we are able to generalize almost infinitely, and so with sound, smell, vibration, taste, sight, and speed enhancements there is no evidence that we could not process the information. All it would do is reduce our need for numbers to distribute the acts of perception over distance. So I’m hinting here at the error of individualism when judging our senses, perceptions, calculations, and decisions. And that ones judgement of our senses is determined by ones preference for social and political order. And ones preference of social and political order, is a reflection of one’s experiential, reproductive, cooperative, strategy. So if one is hopeful for liberty in a heterogeneous order one sees the limits of senses being the individual. If one sees homogenous kinship order at scale, one sees the limit of the senses being the band, tribe, polity, or nation. If one desires to circumvent an order, or to dominate an order, he may desire additional senses beyond that which he can act upon, and which others can act upon. But if one desires to operate within that order, he desires only to ensure the quality of information within that order. Ergo, I would seek to improve the quality of information within that order. Now, as to ‘illusion’ we can find very little evidence of this. What we find instead is that because of heterogeneous strategies, heterogeneous interests, heterogeneous values, heterogenous information, and outright disinformation, and lack of ability to deflate this heterogeneity, we IMAGINE that we sense and perceive falsely, and we IMAGINE many relations between events, and this CONFUSION may convince us that see very little. But this problem can be solved either by expanding the quality of the information available to an individual despite its in-actionabilty, or we can expand quality of information available to members of the group for both individual and group actionability. Since liberty is only existential when actionable, and actionable only possible in a polity, then the answer is rather obvious… So I want to improve the quality of information in an increasing division of perception, cognition, action knowledge, and advocacy; And given that we cannot know what is true, only what is false; And as far as I know, given the wide variation of cognitive ability, Then, this can only be achieved through providing in environmental context (Institution, tradition, norm, environment and information) that which prohibits DISINFORMATION. Ergo. Natural law in all things. If one has the power to change the narrative (contextual information) and and the metaphysics(assumptions) within it, and the general rules within it, one can choose the degree of truthfulness (deflation) existential in the method of narrative. The only question then is whether one possesses the knowledge to do so, and is willing to pay the higher cost of imposing truthful and deflationary rather than untruthful and conflationary models. -
The Joy Of Moral License to Use Violence
Men need moral license. They are all too happy to use violence when they have any chance of survival. There is nothing more spiritual than hunting, and nothing more exciting than hunting men. And once they experience it, they like it so much, they are often hard to return to previous condition. There is nothing more dangerous to a people than the soldiers who return for the peace.
-
The Joy Of Moral License to Use Violence
Men need moral license. They are all too happy to use violence when they have any chance of survival. There is nothing more spiritual than hunting, and nothing more exciting than hunting men. And once they experience it, they like it so much, they are often hard to return to previous condition. There is nothing more dangerous to a people than the soldiers who return for the peace.
-
The Objectively Best Strategy for Women and Possibly for Mankind.
The objectively best strategy for a group is for women to seek reproduction with the most alpha male that they can, while at the same time trading sex and affection for reliable resources, status, and defense from non-alphas. And as far as I can tell, this is what they do. And they vary their strategy based upon the availability of men. Just as men vary their strategy based upon the availability of women.This would mean we would likely only see monogamy in upper classes, and that the upper classes would improve the mean and develop into a caste, and the lower classes would regress to the mean or below it.Unless of course it is nearly impossible to survive without the cooperation of members of a family – since a woman without a husband only places additional burden on the carrying capacity of her birth group.And this is what we see.The strategy for the aristocracy then should be to use their abilities to obtain positions of rule, and specialize in developing an aristocracy, and taxing the daylights out of the underclasses that do not imitate them, while accepting all those who can demonstrate membership in aristocracy through their actions. The problem is that we live too long. If we died at 40 that would be one thing. But it is very hard to survive late in life on one’s personal productivity, in a world of increasing competitiveness given the rest of the world is no longer so intellectually, technologically, and institutionally far behind. And so larger and larger households will likely continue to evolve, and mobility will decrease since the absurdities of the 20th century are no longer possible.The likely scenario is that the wealthy and able will insulate themselves behind automatons that do not have to be incentivized and the rest of mankind will revert to near animal barbarism. That is the next source of speciation that I see on the horizon. -
The Objectively Best Strategy for Women and Possibly for Mankind.
The objectively best strategy for a group is for women to seek reproduction with the most alpha male that they can, while at the same time trading sex and affection for reliable resources, status, and defense from non-alphas. And as far as I can tell, this is what they do. And they vary their strategy based upon the availability of men. Just as men vary their strategy based upon the availability of women.This would mean we would likely only see monogamy in upper classes, and that the upper classes would improve the mean and develop into a caste, and the lower classes would regress to the mean or below it.Unless of course it is nearly impossible to survive without the cooperation of members of a family – since a woman without a husband only places additional burden on the carrying capacity of her birth group.And this is what we see.The strategy for the aristocracy then should be to use their abilities to obtain positions of rule, and specialize in developing an aristocracy, and taxing the daylights out of the underclasses that do not imitate them, while accepting all those who can demonstrate membership in aristocracy through their actions. The problem is that we live too long. If we died at 40 that would be one thing. But it is very hard to survive late in life on one’s personal productivity, in a world of increasing competitiveness given the rest of the world is no longer so intellectually, technologically, and institutionally far behind. And so larger and larger households will likely continue to evolve, and mobility will decrease since the absurdities of the 20th century are no longer possible.The likely scenario is that the wealthy and able will insulate themselves behind automatons that do not have to be incentivized and the rest of mankind will revert to near animal barbarism. That is the next source of speciation that I see on the horizon. -
If we eliminate the status signals available for childless parents, then we will
If we eliminate the status signals available for childless parents, then we will eliminate childless parents. If we eliminate the subsidy of the underclass, and if we sterilize those on the lower margin, the problem will correct itself.
-
If we eliminate the status signals available for childless parents, then we will
If we eliminate the status signals available for childless parents, then we will eliminate childless parents. If we eliminate the subsidy of the underclass, and if we sterilize those on the lower margin, the problem will correct itself.
-
The Challenge of Monogamy and Prosperity: Dysgenia.
THE PROBLEM OF MONOGAMY AND PROSPERITY Unless women can reproduce with the best genes and obtain support from the rest of the genes in exchange for sex, then they will always be a dysgenic influence on mankind. Why? Their offspring are costly and they are capable of any self delusion possible in order to carry on the pretense that their poor choice of father has not resulted in an individual that is a dead parasitic weight on civilization. Monogamy keeps men from violence but forces dysgenia. Do you get it? Addition by John DowThe world is hierarchical and women have not been physiologically able to directly compete in hierarchies and have therefore not being continuously evolving to maintain competitiveness in hierarchies for a long time. Women merely compete with each other to mate with men as far up hierachies as possible. Hierachies naturally reward dominant personalities, therefore the more alpha the male, the more dominant his personality. Dominant women are therefore less efficient to cooperate with in mating than submissive women for alpha males as they seek dominance, and without female submission this forces both parties to pay the price of conflict to resolve disputes. Thus, selection will reward female submission to roughly the same proportion it rewards male dominance. As women seek dominance, and hierachies distribute power in pyramid (pareto) form, women will concentrate at the top of the distribution (where they will be subject to the most marginal dominance) and polygamy will occur by default, unless Men redistribute them. Therefore, monogamy is enforced by the upper class men only to recieve some marginal social benefit in reciprocity from the lower and middle class men (from which they receive peace), their upper class female partners (from which they receive greater psychological bonding and therefore loyalty) and each other (from which they mutually insure each other against “cheating” so they don’t risk being outcompeted by each other in quantity of offspring, to instead focus their competition on the quality of offspring, which is not eugenic to society at large, but highly eugenic to the upper class itself).
-
The Challenge of Monogamy and Prosperity: Dysgenia.
THE PROBLEM OF MONOGAMY AND PROSPERITY Unless women can reproduce with the best genes and obtain support from the rest of the genes in exchange for sex, then they will always be a dysgenic influence on mankind. Why? Their offspring are costly and they are capable of any self delusion possible in order to carry on the pretense that their poor choice of father has not resulted in an individual that is a dead parasitic weight on civilization. Monogamy keeps men from violence but forces dysgenia. Do you get it? Addition by John DowThe world is hierarchical and women have not been physiologically able to directly compete in hierarchies and have therefore not being continuously evolving to maintain competitiveness in hierarchies for a long time. Women merely compete with each other to mate with men as far up hierachies as possible. Hierachies naturally reward dominant personalities, therefore the more alpha the male, the more dominant his personality. Dominant women are therefore less efficient to cooperate with in mating than submissive women for alpha males as they seek dominance, and without female submission this forces both parties to pay the price of conflict to resolve disputes. Thus, selection will reward female submission to roughly the same proportion it rewards male dominance. As women seek dominance, and hierachies distribute power in pyramid (pareto) form, women will concentrate at the top of the distribution (where they will be subject to the most marginal dominance) and polygamy will occur by default, unless Men redistribute them. Therefore, monogamy is enforced by the upper class men only to recieve some marginal social benefit in reciprocity from the lower and middle class men (from which they receive peace), their upper class female partners (from which they receive greater psychological bonding and therefore loyalty) and each other (from which they mutually insure each other against “cheating” so they don’t risk being outcompeted by each other in quantity of offspring, to instead focus their competition on the quality of offspring, which is not eugenic to society at large, but highly eugenic to the upper class itself).