The left is cognitively female (fear of lower priority, of inequality, of being left behind) and lacking cognitively male cognitive bias for political decisions (scarcity of resources infinity of demands), necessity of capitalization (saving) and CONSTRAINING population within.
Reply addressees: @blackseraphim2 @Breshvic @BlancheKnox5 @bydavidcrow @KatrinaManson @kadhim @WhiteHouse
Form: Definition
-
The left is cognitively female (fear of lower priority, of inequality, of being
-
The left is cognitively female (fear of lower priority, of inequality, of being
The left is cognitively female (fear of lower priority, of inequality, of being left behind) and lacking cognitively male cognitive bias for political decisions (scarcity of resources infinity of demands), necessity of capitalization (saving) and CONSTRAINING population within.
Source date (UTC): 2020-09-17 12:33:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1306571964212023297
Reply addressees: @blackseraphim2 @Breshvic @BlancheKnox5 @bydavidcrow @KatrinaManson @kadhim @WhiteHouse
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1306564710733676545
-
WHAT DOES STATE OF NATURE MEAN? —“Curt, is “the state of nature” purely allego
WHAT DOES STATE OF NATURE MEAN?
—“Curt, is “the state of nature” purely allegorical?”–Ryan Michael McDonald @ryanmcdonaldusa
It’s a reference to a presumption human instinctual incentives, and long-standing debate over human nature as moral, amoral, or immoral. The debate is over. Man is amoral (practical). Cooperation is just far more useful (and less stressful)- until conflict, violence, warfare is more useful.
That said, what natural conditions? Given stone, bronze, iron, or steel? On an island, a forest, a plain, or mountains? In the arctic, the temperate, the steppe, or desert? Alone, in a band, a tribe, a nation, or an empire? In the presence of kin, kith, competitors, or enemies?
By asking these questions we expose the bias, presumption, assumption (lie), of others. In my understanding, state of nature means what is necessary to survive at the least risk, lowest cost, greatest return, shortest time, greatest certainty.
ie: it’s all just physics. That is ‘nature’. Reciprocity is the only test of whether when humans act (interact) that we are not engaging in parasitism – a violation of physical laws.
Man is amoral. Even when moral, only as immoral as he can get away wit. Because that’s the cheapest (optimum) strategy. It’s called “efficiency”.
Western man simply suppressed as many parasitisms and falsehoods as possible.
Source date (UTC): 2020-09-08 16:46:00 UTC
-
The Extended Phenotype is a 1982 book by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawk
The Extended Phenotype is a 1982 book by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, in which the author introduced a biological concept of the same name. The main idea is that phenotype should not be limited to biological processes such as protein biosynthesis or tissue growth, but extended to include all effects that a gene has on its environment, inside or outside the body of the individual organism
Source date (UTC): 2020-09-04 16:41:00 UTC
-
Sorry, left wing is universalist. Right wing is nationalist. Both Left and Right
Sorry, left wing is universalist. Right wing is nationalist. Both Left and Right are authoritarian. Right doesn’t have to be because rule of law. Left has to be authoritarian because it can’t use rule of law, because rule of law forces markets and left is anti market.
That’s it.
Reply addressees: @Jyrkiboy_ @wax5800 @MD11dr @jimkelly522 @RealJamesWoods -
Sorry, left wing is universalist. Right wing is nationalist. Both Left and Right
Sorry, left wing is universalist. Right wing is nationalist. Both Left and Right are authoritarian. Right doesn’t have to be because rule of law. Left has to be authoritarian because it can’t use rule of law, because rule of law forces markets and left is anti market.
That’s it.
Source date (UTC): 2020-09-03 16:40:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1301560785458597892
Reply addressees: @Jyrkiboy_ @wax5800 @MD11dr @jimkelly522 @RealJamesWoods
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1301560189682884610
-
“Q: Can you explain capitalism in a single line?”— Rule of Law by the Natural
—“Q: Can you explain capitalism in a single line?”—
Rule of Law by the Natural Law Requiring Reciprocity in Demonstrated Interests in display, word, and deed will produce moral markets free of externality, and the Arbitrary Rule By Law against Material interests will produce immoral markets full of irreciprocity and externality we call ‘capitalism’.
In other words, Just as Rule of Law by the Natural Law of Reciprocity is more important than the method of government under it, Rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity is more important than the economic model under it.
The capitalism vs socialism debate was a cunning deception to circumvent rule of law vs arbitrary rule that made the debate even possible.
We were ok constraining the aristocracy from arbitrary rule. We created a system of government to constrain the republic from arbitrary rule.
We expanded the franchse AND abandoned arbitrary rule.
Then we licenced the industrialization of free riding, lying, defamation, propaganda, false promise, and baiting into hazard.
Natural Law = Empirical Law. Empirical Law = Empirical Govermnet. Empirical Government depends on Empirical Speech.
Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 23:58:39 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/104747074756443861
-
THE BIOLOGY OF THE SENSE OF WONDER Wonder: The sense of new opportunity from new
THE BIOLOGY OF THE SENSE OF WONDER
Wonder: The sense of new opportunity from new free associations (discoveries).
Now think about that a moment. Given that all human cognitiion is evolved for the purpose of acquisition, perservering in acquisition, and preserving acquisitions.
And surprisingly, our neurochemistry encourages pursuit of acquisitions (rewards), not the reward itself – it ‘sedates us’ from the cost of pursuing gains (wins).
What causes sense of wonder?
(percpetion of new opportunities)Why would we want to feel wonder for good reasons?
(incentive to explore new opportunities)Why would we want to feel wonder for bad reasons?
(therapy, relief from scarcity, but scarcity of what?)The not so false Promise of Science fiction (conquest of the universe). The false promise of ‘moving to another place’ (escape from political opposition). THe false promise of universalism (ending all forms of competition). The Church of Ted (pseudoscientific end of material problems). The false promise of endless growth(end of scarcity), The False Promise of marxism-socialism (ending status differences), The false promise of pomise of Postmodernism and feminism (ending of gender and identity differences). The false promise of a divine protector (false promise of freedom from life’s challenges), and life after death (death itself).
These are all false promises that sedate us into tolerating the intolerability of physical (scarcity and productivity), natural (reciprocity, markets, sortition) , and evolutionary laws (regression to the mean, eugenics, and red queen).
Everyone wants a ‘free ride’
This is what causes the resistance to P-logic and P-Law. We explain the truth, and we falsify the false. The only wonder produced is in a truthful promise: the coherence of phsycial natural and evolutionary laws, and how to discover, adapt to, and explain them.
But we all want a freebie. We want discounts on our acquisitions. We want conforking lies.
And we don’t like beind deprived of discounts.
And we rebel against suppression of our discounts.
Becuase discounts from falsehood and irreciprocity are crimes.
Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 23:51:04 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/104747044921704186
-
Boost of @curtd DECIDABILITY IS THE OPERATIONAL NAME FOR THE CAUSE OF FIRST PRIN
Boost of @curtd DECIDABILITY IS THE OPERATIONAL NAME FOR THE CAUSE OF FIRST PRINCIPLES
Philosophers often talk about the difference between seeking first principles, and seeking fit, commensurability, untility, choices or preferences.
—“A first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. In philosophy, first principles are from the First Cause method taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians. In mathematics, first principles are referred to as axioms or postulates. In physics and other sciences, theoretical work is said to be from first principles, or “ab initio”, if it starts directly at the level of established science and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and parameter fitting.”—
In propertarianism I call this the search for “decidability”. The point at which we can decide (must), versus choose (can), versus prefer (may). So in this sense, “decidabilty” is the operational definitino of ‘first principle”.
In the examples above, first principles (decidability) in mathematics is provided by position in an order (positional names), adding(increasing) to or subtracting(decreasing) from a position in that order. To say that mathematics instead consists of axioms is only partly true. The axioms are logical consequences of positional names. As such they are variables, and only first principles. For example, ZFC axioms in mathematics are statemetns of set theory (ideals) not operations (reals).
As I’ve written elsewhere, Kantianism is a psychological not operational system of thought in the german (conflationary) school of philosophy (and logic), versus the anglo analytic (depersonalized, or legal ) school of philosophy (logic), or what I suppose we should call today’s cognitive science or neural network school of logic – which is no longer philosophy but operational science. In Propertarianism I translate Kantianism’s apriori logic into formal logic.
THE NEW AGE OF PHILOSOPHY
So I would call the current era the Operational and Neural Network Age of Logic, leaving behind the second age of idealism (Platonism).What’s the problem with neural networks? We can’t introspect on them yet either (although we will).
EVOLUTION FROM FIRST CAUSES:
Myth: inter-Imaginary,
Law: inter-personal, and
Engeneering inter-physical
… … … … … Play … Literature ->
Mythology … History ————>
… … … … .. Theology (myth+law) ->
Law … Politics … Economics —>
…. … … … Philosophy(law+math) ->
… … … … … … … …. … ..Science ->
Engineering … Mathematics —–>
Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 22:27:52 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105752621694800353
-
DECIDABILITY IS THE OPERATIONAL NAME FOR THE CAUSE OF FIRST PRINCIPLES Philosoph
DECIDABILITY IS THE OPERATIONAL NAME FOR THE CAUSE OF FIRST PRINCIPLES
Philosophers often talk about the difference between seeking first principles, and seeking fit, commensurability, untility, choices or preferences.
—“A first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. In philosophy, first principles are from the First Cause method taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians. In mathematics, first principles are referred to as axioms or postulates. In physics and other sciences, theoretical work is said to be from first principles, or “ab initio”, if it starts directly at the level of established science and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and parameter fitting.”—
In propertarianism I call this the search for “decidability”. The point at which we can decide (must), versus choose (can), versus prefer (may). So in this sense, “decidabilty” is the operational definitino of ‘first principle”.
In the examples above, first principles (decidability) in mathematics is provided by position in an order (positional names), adding(increasing) to or subtracting(decreasing) from a position in that order. To say that mathematics instead consists of axioms is only partly true. The axioms are logical consequences of positional names. As such they are variables, and only first principles. For example, ZFC axioms in mathematics are statemetns of set theory (ideals) not operations (reals).
As I’ve written elsewhere, Kantianism is a psychological not operational system of thought in the german (conflationary) school of philosophy (and logic), versus the anglo analytic (depersonalized, or legal ) school of philosophy (logic), or what I suppose we should call today’s cognitive science or neural network school of logic – which is no longer philosophy but operational science. In Propertarianism I translate Kantianism’s apriori logic into formal logic.
THE NEW AGE OF PHILOSOPHY
So I would call the current era the Operational and Neural Network Age of Logic, leaving behind the second age of idealism (Platonism).What’s the problem with neural networks? We can’t introspect on them yet either (although we will).
EVOLUTION FROM FIRST CAUSES:
Myth: inter-Imaginary,
Law: inter-personal, and
Engeneering inter-physical
… … … … … Play … Literature ->
Mythology … History ————>
… … … … .. Theology (myth+law) ->
Law … Politics … Economics —>
…. … … … Philosophy(law+math) ->
… … … … … … … …. … ..Science ->
Engineering … Mathematics —–>
Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 22:27:52 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/104746717748472408