Feb 13, 2020, 2:38 PM by James Dmitro Makienko [M]y wife is an aspie, and she is in a fashion industry, which is rife with GSRRM. She tried everything, until she “read Doolittle” (c) and learned some P-concepts. Mainly she uses a meta-term “manipulation” as a catch-all for GSRRM and other feminine cognition shit they use. She calls them out on manipulation. They usually respond with more GSRRM. Then she says “you are using ORRGSM+M(manipulation) to manipulate me into going against my interests, and I am not falling for it”. Then they try it again. She repeats herself and adds “and since you use manipulation, instead of logic and reason, you are a bad person, with a dark agenda, who is trying to take me for a fool, but I am not falling for it”. She keeps repeating it until manipulators run away – when you expose them they run out of options they can use. She also read up on dark triad traits on manipulative behaviors of sociopaths and narcissists and found things like “Framing” – (“if you are a good girl/christian/X you will do Y and go against your interests to serve my interests”) which are also used with GSRRM. Calmly exposing manipulative tactics with a precisely defined technical term works for her to disarm those who use GSRRM.
Form: Quote Commentary
-
SOVEREIGNTY (NATURAL LAW) VS SUBMISSION (THEOLOGY) —“…The concept of “obeyin
SOVEREIGNTY (NATURAL LAW) VS SUBMISSION (THEOLOGY)
—“…The concept of “obeying the commandments gives ultimate freedom” was the biggest oxymoron to me for most of my life. I have my merits, it should be good enough… Maybe this is just my inner /r, I have found a level of peace as I accepted my place in the machinery of life.”—Anne Summers
It gives people an easy way of avoiding conflict over status and position so that they can work in harmony by simple rules.
We just use sovereignty in western civ (scientific and legal) and take accountability for our actions, and supernaturalists use an excuse NOT to take accountability for their actions.
In other words, sovereignty for the strong, and submission for the weak.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 09:44:00 UTC
-
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/84618660_206573627407465_54729035663
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/84618660_206573627407465_547290356631207936_o_206573620740799.jpg PHILOSOPHY BEING MADE….
Luke Weinhagen:
As I understand it, even in a symbiotic arrangement this effect – harm to the practitioner and harm to the non-practitioner, is classified as competition –
We could use “Internecitic Religion” pulling from “internecine: destructive to both sides”. –
Internecitic Religion – harm to the practitioner and harm to the non-practitioner
And for completeness add – Neutralitic Religion – no benefit to the practitioner and no cost to the non-practitioner
Bill Joslin:
To point out the obvious, this isn’t specific to just religion but maps the calculation of reciprocity – its the algorithmic map of natural law.
Luke Weinhagen:
Yeah, it just came up in the conversation about religion so that is what I started with in its application – if it holds up I can see it being useful in many ways.
Check out the link above and read the first comment – I am trying to flesh out a bit of the scope. Help/feedback is appreciated.
Bill Joslin:
The one element that’s missing is porportionality
(man this is fantastic)
Luke Weinhagen:
Missing proportionality is part of why I am suggesting symbiosis may be a superior frame to compatibility.
The ratios/proportions are not static. Each discovery opens up new opportunities for decidability, each decision under decidability opens up new possibilities for interaction that step into what we do not know that we do not know. The interplay is always fluid at the limits.
Bill Joslin:
I was thinking something similar. initially i was gazing at the graphic wondering if disproportionate reciprocity would simply be a means falling back to another category. for example a disproportionate mutualism would be calculated as commensalism. but this doesn’t work, because the calculation would be that of opportunity cost, and we can’t calculate a foregone cost. so now I’m not sure proportionality is required. as long as the option of returning to neutralism is preserved (right of disassociation, preserve the right to defect of boycott) then market forces would naturally approximate proportionality (so there isn’t a need to calculate porportion)
Bill Joslin:
And further to that, the calculation of harm vs benefit, being one of cost benefit (whereby asymmetric benefit being benefit, and asymmetric cost being harm) would fill this calculation gap
Luke Weinhagen:
Exactly – “market forces would naturally approximate proportionality (so there isn’t a need to calculate porportion)” <- this is exactly where I was going.
Bill Joslin:
So afaics this might be a complete graph of natural law
Luke Weinhagen
Introduces graceful failure to resolving market entry and market exit
(also addresses a possible “why” people have such a strong intuition for the necessity of belief systems as it demonstrates that role in this graceful failure into and out of markets)
Bill Joslin:
Religion, from an evolutionary stand point may have been the first means by which we made these calculation – or at least religions that survived did so because it afforded an intuition on calculating reciprocity (but also maybe included ways of compensating for irreciprocity)…
So maybe the argument that humans have evolved religiosity may actually not have anything to do with religion but rather to have a system to calculate these transactions and also for systems of graceful failure, which we view as religiosity.[image: By Ian Alexander – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71067142]
https://www.facebook.com/luke.weinhagen/posts/10218928910706454PHILOSOPHY BEING MADE….
Luke Weinhagen:
As I understand it, even in a symbiotic arrangement this effect – harm to the practitioner and harm to the non-practitioner, is classified as competition –
We could use “Internecitic Religion” pulling from “internecine: destructive to both sides”. –
Internecitic Religion – harm to the practitioner and harm to the non-practitioner
And for completeness add – Neutralitic Religion – no benefit to the practitioner and no cost to the non-practitioner
Bill Joslin:
To point out the obvious, this isn’t specific to just religion but maps the calculation of reciprocity – its the algorithmic map of natural law.
Luke Weinhagen:
Yeah, it just came up in the conversation about religion so that is what I started with in its application – if it holds up I can see it being useful in many ways.
Check out the link above and read the first comment – I am trying to flesh out a bit of the scope. Help/feedback is appreciated.
Bill Joslin:
The one element that’s missing is porportionality
(man this is fantastic)
Luke Weinhagen:
Missing proportionality is part of why I am suggesting symbiosis may be a superior frame to compatibility.
The ratios/proportions are not static. Each discovery opens up new opportunities for decidability, each decision under decidability opens up new possibilities for interaction that step into what we do not know that we do not know. The interplay is always fluid at the limits.
Bill Joslin:
I was thinking something similar. initially i was gazing at the graphic wondering if disproportionate reciprocity would simply be a means falling back to another category. for example a disproportionate mutualism would be calculated as commensalism. but this doesn’t work, because the calculation would be that of opportunity cost, and we can’t calculate a foregone cost. so now I’m not sure proportionality is required. as long as the option of returning to neutralism is preserved (right of disassociation, preserve the right to defect of boycott) then market forces would naturally approximate proportionality (so there isn’t a need to calculate porportion)
Bill Joslin:
And further to that, the calculation of harm vs benefit, being one of cost benefit (whereby asymmetric benefit being benefit, and asymmetric cost being harm) would fill this calculation gap
Luke Weinhagen:
Exactly – “market forces would naturally approximate proportionality (so there isn’t a need to calculate porportion)” <- this is exactly where I was going.
Bill Joslin:
So afaics this might be a complete graph of natural law
Luke Weinhagen
Introduces graceful failure to resolving market entry and market exit
(also addresses a possible “why” people have such a strong intuition for the necessity of belief systems as it demonstrates that role in this graceful failure into and out of markets)
Bill Joslin:
Religion, from an evolutionary stand point may have been the first means by which we made these calculation – or at least religions that survived did so because it afforded an intuition on calculating reciprocity (but also maybe included ways of compensating for irreciprocity)…
So maybe the argument that humans have evolved religiosity may actually not have anything to do with religion but rather to have a system to calculate these transactions and also for systems of graceful failure, which we view as religiosity.
[image: By Ian Alexander – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71067142]
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 14:33:00 UTC
-
Example: Hard eugenics is ir-reciprocal; but so is NOT having soft eugenics.”—
—:Example: Hard eugenics is ir-reciprocal; but so is NOT having soft eugenics.”— Brandon Hayes
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 10:25:00 UTC
-
“(((Emanuel Celler))) fought the 1924 Act and then spent his whole career trying
—“(((Emanuel Celler))) fought the 1924 Act and then spent his whole career trying to get it overturned.”—Matt LawIor
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 09:52:00 UTC
-
Alexander Brown The March 06, 1957 independence of Ghana was the product of an a
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/482762-utah-senate-committee-unanimously-approves-bill-to-decriminalizeby Alexander Brown
The March 06, 1957 independence of Ghana was the product of an act of parliament in England. The Ghana Independence Act 1957 was passed on February 07, 1957 to take effect on March 06, 1957. Were this law to be repealed today in England, Ghana may remain a sovereign and thanks to international recognition of it’s statehood.
In 1896, the United States Congress extended statehood to Utah on condition that it would end POLYGAMY. Given that the State of Utah is in the process of decriminalising polygamy [ 1 ] in our times, could this constitute a violation of the congressional mandate of 1896? And if it does, would Utah revert to a territory and no longer a state? Or like Ghana’s recognition, US federal recognition may supersede the consequence of violating the 19th century congressional mandate?
INSIGHT: There is a brewing right wing wave that aim to fracture and separate the United States into agreeable, homogenous states of all markets possible from the cosmopolitan, globalism – welcoming leftist states. Could happenings in Mitt Romney’s Utah illuminate the coming re – structuring of the United States?
I do not know for certain. But, this could be very interesting overall.
[ 1 ].Updated Feb 13, 2020, 9:47 AM
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 09:47:00 UTC
-
“I believe an alternative name for Corded Ware culture was ‘Battle Axe’ culture
–“I believe an alternative name for Corded Ware culture was ‘Battle Axe’ culture but political correctness won the day.”–Arno Kæland
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 09:33:00 UTC
-
“The mandatory response to having ‘Incel’ thrown at you is to offer your sympath
—“The mandatory response to having ‘Incel’ thrown at you is to offer your sympathies for their dad issues and reproductive problems.”—Zach Edward
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 08:50:00 UTC
-
“Curt was trying to defend his statement that “Entropy is the prime mover” to re
—“Curt was trying to defend his statement that “Entropy is the prime mover” to refute the theistic claim that God is the prime mover. In the analysis of entropy, he reduced all phenomena to a “fundamental” component, namely “Differences in charge”.
There are plenty of other obtuse statements that Curt ought to defend in order to protect his reputation, such as his declaration that “philosophy is a pseudoscience.” That is a wildly hilarious and blatant domain error, that it ought to have disqualified anything Curt has to say on metaphysics or reason.”—- Josef Kalinin Prem Prayojan
1) Entropy/Charge: Any of the terms: entropy( order to disorder), equilibration (equalization of differences), energy(frequency), charge (energy in difference in states), pressure(effect of different states on one another), and difference satisfy the demand for truthful operational speech. The fact that we are as yet uncertain of the classical (geometric) structure of the universe that we describe with quantum mechanics, is a problem of our present technical inability to measure (observe) it. However, there is no evidence it is other than expressible in the same terms of differences in energy, organization, state, and available transformations (operations). No physicist of note will disagree with this statement.
2) Philosophy is a pseudoscience: Yes, as far as I know, the demarcation between philosophy and science is complete with philosophy limited to choice of preference, and science to decidability independent of preference. I can find no evidence that what remains of philosophy consists of other than the history of the evolution of science from philosophy. And I can find no evidence of those practicing philosophy for advocacy of truth claims instead of advocacy for preference claims engaging in other than deception. Part of the reason for this is that we have accumulated evidence of human behavior in large groups across mankind on one hand, and we have discovered the tediously simple method by which brain, mind, and experience are constructed on the other – although I do recognize I’m very current or ahead of the curve in that knowledge.
3) Domain error. There are no domain errors any longer. There is one most parsimonious operational paradigm across all grammars (paradigms) from the deflaitonary to the descriptive to the inflationary to the deceptive. That paradigm is language, because language is the system of measurement we use for thinking and speaking about the world.
It will be very difficult to falsify those arguments.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 08:44:00 UTC
-
NO MORE WOO WOO IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE PLEASE —-“A widespread misconception in m
NO MORE WOO WOO IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE PLEASE
—-“A widespread misconception in much of psychology holds that as vertebrate animals evolved, ‘newer’ brain structures were added over existing ‘older’ brain structures”
Your Brain Is Not an Onion with a Tiny Reptile Inside
A widespread misconception in much of psychology holds that (1) as vertebrate animals evolved, “newer” brain structures were added over existing “older” brain structures and (2) these newer,….. “All vertebrates possess the same basic brain—and forebrain—regions. … [None] are evolutionarily newer in some mammals than others. … even the prefrontal cortex, a region associated with reason and action planning, is not a uniquely human structure.”— Robin Hanson @robinhanson
A statement without meaning – there’s only one cell type in the nervous system, three subtypes, but almost countless variation that all functional regions in the brain evolved from. So what? Does that mean we can’t demarcate dramatic evolutionary leaps in function by organism?
To say that a fish is sentient and aware is true. To say it is conscious is to demand we define the spectrum of predictive models capable for the organism, and its ability to react vs choose vs reason vs calculate vs calculate transformations of state vs calculate cooperation.
So if the point is to clarify that the brain is just a collection of similar cells in various forms of organization, and that for all intents and purposes our brain is an outgrowth of our consciousness (modeling of our body and movement in space) yes.
To equate sentience (feeling of changes in state), and awareness (of change instate of environment) and semi-consciousness (prediction of future states and possible reactions), consciousness (prediction of future permutations of state), to transformations of state is a leap.
If the question is ‘who is the observer’ (which I suspect is the origin of most problems in philosophy and cognitive science) it’s memory of the last few memories recursively processed as a stream of changes in model in the hippocampal region.
Consciousness is a verb not a noun.
Why do I care? No more woo woo in cognitive science please. If you can’t pass the mirror test, the gesture test, sympathy test (cooperation), demonstrate natural operational grammar (language), and create multi-part tools, or enter into agreement (consent) then you’re far behind.
The difference between the engine of a 3d video game and the human brain turns out to be terrifyingly small. We just do everything in massive parallel and at a much lower voltage and current because of it, and we do the prediction as well as the construction.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-12 14:47:00 UTC