Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    (FB 1545136259 Timestamp) More on NCC’s and the “Glorious Accident”.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    (FB 1545136259 Timestamp) More on NCC’s and the “Glorious Accident”.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547142813 Timestamp) CONVERTING PHILOSOPHY INTO SCIENCE (worth repeating) Philosophy can be laundered such that philosophizing (imaginary and verbal) and theorizing (existential and actionable) are essentially identical, by the use of: 1) operational language, 2) the full accounting of costs, and 3) declaring the method of decidability in the choice of preferences and goods as those of: … (a) the feminine equalitarian herd (dysgenic), or … (b) the masculine hierarchical pack (merit). However, if you do that you will end up with the natural law by selecting 3b, and a network of excuses and lies by selecting 3a. You can’t get out of it.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547138370 Timestamp) THE ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OVER METAPHYSICS —“Anytime you utter the word “emergent phenomenon”, you automatically need another science. In order to count as such, a science needs to satisfy what constraints?”— Help me understand this because there is no limit that I can imagine to the scale of a neural (bayesian) network, and no limit to the cognitive ability of a hierarchical and recursive network – other than inputs and outputs. The limits we have today are mechanical – we have built the wrong kind of computers. Even such, at great heat-cost, we are able to replicate those networks. So for ‘speech’ to emerge just like for the touch ui to emerge we require hardware (biological ware). So somehow (random selection, intentional manipulation) the real-world interface determines what can be ‘identified, predicted, and judged’ by that recursive, hierarchical, network. —“real”– As far as I know real = existential = persistent = observable = observable directly, by instrumentation, or by deduction from deduction using instrumentation, where that instrumentation can be either physical(external) or logical (internal). As far as I know ‘real’ in the colloquial, refers to ACTIONABLE. As far as I know the only open question is an empty verbalism: experiences are constructed from a combination of perception with memories of perceptions, limited by the grammar of conception, which is brain structure, which appears to be little more than the neurological homunculus – which the more I understand, the less ‘human’ I feel. So do experience (concepts, etc) exist, or do they have the potential be experienced, and do they persist if and only if some number of us share the potential to experience them? Once we operationalize these questions they turn out to be quite simple. Do unicorns exist? Well, No. Do does the word unicorn exist? Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) of that word. So it we have knowledge of it. That knowledge persists in some distributed and fragmentary form. But it only exists as POTENTIAL. Whereas that which we claim exists already does so. Does that idea of a unicorn exist? Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) that can be accessed by that word, and using that index (word) we can recall some combination of fragmentary images of a unicorn (mine are the scenes in Blade Runner and after that, Legend of all things). So in Does the referent exist? Well, No. Does the index of the referent exist? Well, Yes. Does knowledge of the referent exist? Well, Yes. Yet again, we see, that a series stated in operational language solves the problem of the sophism of reductive questions. Unicorns don’t exist. An index (word) appears to have little or no direct sensation of itself. An index evokes a network of fragments, that recursively reflect additional fragments, and so on until we have exhausted our memories. the cortex (brain) is a continuous prediction system using fragments , and we can apply that prediction system to the real, the linguistic, and the imagined. What we call mind, probably an consequence of either cooperation, communication or language, or the sequence in total, consists largely in the direction of that forecasting (attention) and recursion (concentration). Is knowing this the same as experience? well no. Knowing this is however, defensive: eliminating the errors, bises, and deceits, that we and others engage in, with ourselves and others. WHAT ABOUT “NEED” – HUMAN DEMAND FOR COMFORTING FALSEHOODS Demand for Falsehoods today are driven by signal pressure and alienation pressure. In the past they were driven by signal pressure, competitive pressure, alienation pressure, and suffering pressure. We cannot fix signal pressure since it is necessary for selection, but we can fix mindfulness. We can’t fix alienation pressure but we can improve mindfulness and the civic society to reduce it. We can limit competitive pressure through the civic society and political ethnocentrism. And we can dramatically (and have) eliminated suffering pressure through mindfulness and medicine. Yes, the truth is that comforting lies (sophistry pseudoscience, the occult and denial), cults and groups, and sedation by alcohol, an drugs are CHEAP and DISORGANIZED means of providing mindfulness in the face of signal, alienation, competitive, and suffering pressures. However, we can likewise take and ORGANIZED and EXPENSIVE means of serving those market demands by non false and healthy and productive means. But like all contemporary problems (a) the collection of rent-seekers that will be displaced by the efforts to produce that order will fight desperately against these reforms (improvements) just as they will the legal and financial, because rent seeking that leaves people subject to pressures but gives them false hope is the most profitable industry of all. (b) not enough of us (yet) have taken up arms to alter that circumstance. NO MORE LIES

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547142813 Timestamp) CONVERTING PHILOSOPHY INTO SCIENCE (worth repeating) Philosophy can be laundered such that philosophizing (imaginary and verbal) and theorizing (existential and actionable) are essentially identical, by the use of: 1) operational language, 2) the full accounting of costs, and 3) declaring the method of decidability in the choice of preferences and goods as those of: … (a) the feminine equalitarian herd (dysgenic), or … (b) the masculine hierarchical pack (merit). However, if you do that you will end up with the natural law by selecting 3b, and a network of excuses and lies by selecting 3a. You can’t get out of it.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1547678816 Timestamp) https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nemewx/scientists-just-made-human-egg-cells-from-human-blood-for-the-first-time

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1547678816 Timestamp) https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nemewx/scientists-just-made-human-egg-cells-from-human-blood-for-the-first-time

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    (FB 1547823137 Timestamp) NO IT’S NOT AN IDEOLOGY. IT’S JUST SCIENCE AND ITS APPLICATION. —“You most likely have explained this but in one or two sentences, how would you describe the ideology of Propertarianism? Keep it up and stay reciprocal 🙂 “—A Friend Propertarianism is not an ideology. It’s the completion of the scientific method, and it’s application to human knowledge – particularly social science. Using propertarianism I have described perfect government. And I advocate for perfect government. Because for european peoples, perfect government is possible. That said, it is possible to produce ANY government using propertarianism. You just have to do it truthfully and procedurally. Monarchical, Republican, Classical Liberal, Democratic, Night Watchman (anarchic). This is because all of these can be constructed under rule of law of reciprocity, an independent judiciary, a militia, and a prohibition on falsehood. Conversely, you cannot produce an islamic or jewish or christian, or other theological state because these are predicated on falsehood. This is the “SHORT VERSION” https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156923009867264&set=a.43196237263&type=3

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    (FB 1547823137 Timestamp) NO IT’S NOT AN IDEOLOGY. IT’S JUST SCIENCE AND ITS APPLICATION. —“You most likely have explained this but in one or two sentences, how would you describe the ideology of Propertarianism? Keep it up and stay reciprocal 🙂 “—A Friend Propertarianism is not an ideology. It’s the completion of the scientific method, and it’s application to human knowledge – particularly social science. Using propertarianism I have described perfect government. And I advocate for perfect government. Because for european peoples, perfect government is possible. That said, it is possible to produce ANY government using propertarianism. You just have to do it truthfully and procedurally. Monarchical, Republican, Classical Liberal, Democratic, Night Watchman (anarchic). This is because all of these can be constructed under rule of law of reciprocity, an independent judiciary, a militia, and a prohibition on falsehood. Conversely, you cannot produce an islamic or jewish or christian, or other theological state because these are predicated on falsehood. This is the “SHORT VERSION” https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156923009867264&set=a.43196237263&type=3

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1548143428 Timestamp) DATA DOESN”T LIE