This is what the market wants, and no one will build it. Forget the soft top. make it hard top only (better security anyway), and aside from the axles and tires its a pretty cheap vehicle that will literally go anywhere. You don’t need 500 hp in these vehicles. You just need to know you can go thru sand, snow, water and brush with them at the cost of expensive tires and brakes ever 50k miles.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 12:57:00 UTC
Does anyone know what model of car this is? I mean, ditch the rally interior, but otherwise I think that’s probably a pretty awesome summer and snow car.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 12:54:00 UTC
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.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 12:53:00 UTC
—“What is it that we mean by “metaphysics”? Is it the reverse-engineering of human cognition? Is it really so useless to try to reverse-engineer the mind? I could accept something of the sort of: “doing metaphysics even of the sort of naturalistic inquiry that you profess requires the sort of social institutions or commons that would be too vulnerable to parasitism”.”— Adam Voight
Short Answer: Metaphysics is looking for means of cheating.
What I think we call metaphysics is the discipline of trying to create a fictional narrative that justifies our means of survival, competition, prospering, and signaling given our abilities, means, and conditions. So an ‘ontology” (paradigm) that ‘lets me get what I want’. Where my approach is ‘here is the paradigm’ now negotiate within it for what you want, don’t make an excuse that what you want is ‘good’ so that you can engage in all sorts of discounting (cheating).
The rest of the ontologies (paradigms) are just networks on top of that base ontology (paradigm) of human action (perception, cognition, memory, calculation, speech, negotiation, action).
Well, I mean I worked on AI, and now we have cognitive science, and we have language that expresses the content of the mind, so it’s pretty easy.
I mean, I think I have a pretty good understanding of how the mind works, and I’ve come to understand it’s actually not complicated, it’s just an emergent phenomenon of enough hierarchical memory, and the devotion of so much of that memory to the continuous production of serialized speech so that we can negotiate cooperation with others, because cooperation produces such ridiculously outsized returns on calories that language and cooperation are more valuable than any other caloric expenditure.
In my book I teach that the human body, intuition, and mind provide a the system of measurement we work with because it is all that we can work with because it is the only comparisons we are able to make – and that all language consists of measurements culminating in transactions.
The question is only the precision of those measurements on the one hand, the correspondence of those measurements, and the ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in those measurements.
I then use that system of measurement (operational language) to provide commensurability, and reframe all human experience, knowledge, and disciplines in that commensurable language.
Then I document every known method of deflating language to produce increased precision and decreased opportunity for conflation.
Then I document every known method of inflating language to engaging the masking of ignorance, and the generation of error, bias, and deceit.
Then I account for costs.
In other words the Metaphysics of Action turns out to be the only non-false model. The metaphysics of speech limited to action turns out to be the only non-false model. And the tests of costs whether at the physical or human level turns out to be the only non-false model.
This turns out to be what we do in court already when prosecuting a crime.
Which is why the west developed reason, empiricism, science: it all evolved out of our natural common law of sovereignty.
The moment you base your cognitive hierarchy on sovereignty (the individual) then there is no conflation available by which to ignore costs. This sentence is very profound. if you base it on anything else you invite (make excuses for) the unaccountable, adn the undecidable, leaving room for authoritarian or communal calculation.
This hierarchy of concepts is quite important really. It explains why so many thinkers went off the rails and why there is a proliferation of incommensurable ‘fictions’ in philosophy and theology and opinion.
“How can I cheat others?”
“How can I use cheating to rally large numbers of others?”
“How can I use cheating and rallying large numbers to obtain power?”
I see history as a few people trying to create truth and productivity, a lot of people lying and cheating, and a lot more trying to get by with the lies, cheating, and stealing that they can get away with in the current context.
Because I study science and the law and economics and not philosophy ,theology, literature, or what passes for history but is largely propaganda.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 12:50:00 UTC
ARISTOTLE AS OUR LAWGIVER, vs
THE PROPHETS AND THEIR LIES.
The first reason to reform Aristotle by translation of his works into operational language is to lionize him and make him the founder of western thought – the via negativa, to the Nihilism of Socrates and the Idealism of Plato, and the lies of the Abrahamists whether Abraham, Saul, or Mohammed.
This form of heroic Idolization anthropomorphizes the character (and his military peer alexander) such that we can engage in hero-competition with competing civilizations and their advocates, and our own sophists within, (b) and anchor western civilization as a continuous tradition from our origins in European customary law of sovereignty and tort, to the present anglo common law of tort.
The second reason is to falsify all the pseudo-philosophy and theology that exists between aristotle and the present.
Now re-writing Aristotle in operational prose would be the equivalent of the work undertaken to produce the king james bible, and the basis of a western education – particularly the Ethics.
When combined with the foundational myth of the Trial of Achilles (taught to children by dividing up the work and memorizing it by chanting – given that vast parts are repeated over and over again – and presented by classes as a holiday play). We would have the Hellenic tradition restored.
Doing the same for each series of festivals for the old germanic and celtic in fall and winter, and preserving Easter for the christian and mayday would be relatively simple.
We can re-ritualize our civilization as historical play. Because, as Nietzsche taught us, it is the participation of the chorus, whether in games, play, ritual, church, or prayer that provides the mindfulness of associating the sacred and collective with the mythos that binds them.
If we have an education system (church limited by the natural law) that teaches mindfulness, history, the tools of calculation (reading, writing, numbers, economics, physics), reduce education to part time as soon as children are able to engage in part time work, and put as great an emphasis on apprenticeship as we do higher education, and limit ‘higher education’ to that which requires advanced calculation (stem+l) we can restore the civic society and eliminate the alienation and signal warfare endemic to consumer modernity.
If this church, which provides education, also serves the function of consumer banking, savings, and investment, with near-zero interest on durable goods, then we will have restored the ancient order and destroyed the entire network of parasites and rent seekers in academy, finance, and state.
We do not need to establish this church. We merely need to provide the economic incentives to do so, and the regulatory law that binds them to the construction of that common good.
The most notable exception would be the use of successful retired people in the administration and teaching of these things rather than those who have been insulated from market forces, market competition, and demonstrated market achievement.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 12:46:00 UTC
SHELVING ARCHAIC LANGUAGE: PHILOSOPHY
Again, I would simply use the terms existence, category, theory, and paradigm, rather than trying to keep alive heavily loaded archaic terms that have been used and abused in every possible way, such that they only invite frauds.
But as usual, the truth provides decidability, where the useful, preferable, and good are not truths (decidable) but choices (utilities, individual and group preferences). Truth provides decidability in matters of conflict between paradigms.
The higher the correspondence between perception, cognition, memory, speech, negotiation, action, and cooperation and reality the higher the discount at the expense of ignorance, error, bias, deceits, and frauds.
There is no argument to be had that we can defraud ourselves and others for utilitarian and preferential purposes. However, in matters of conflcit we can decide those difference REGARDLESS OF how badly we have invested in those utilities, wants, and frauds.
So I take the position that there is only one most parsimonious consistent correspondent and coherent paradigm possible and that this is the object of metaphysics.
And that we can use this most parsimonious truth to conduct more directly expensive but more collectively and indirectly rewarding methods of achieving individual and cooperative (and conflicting) means and ends.
If not, then metaphysics is merely the study of means of deceit, just as theology is the study of useful deceits, and the systems of measurement are nothing more than the prevention of useful deciets in those cases where they violate reciprocity.
As in all things – via negativa and via positiva in competition.
We may not know what its true but we know what is false.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 12:20:00 UTC
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
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 11:39:00 UTC
USING LOGIC IS WESTERN BECAUSE WESTERNERS ACCOUNT FOR COSTS.
—“Now, I’ve spent a lot of time on it, but you have to ask yourself, why, if mathematical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, arguments with tests of scope, completeness, and coherence exist, why it would be that you would argue by any other means.”—- CD
—“bUt UsInG lOgIc Is ToO wEsTeRn”– Rosenborg Predmetsky
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 10:14:00 UTC
YES, METAPHYSICS HAS BEEN OVERVALUED FOR 2500 YEARS
(very ,very, important concept)
—“The athenian tradition did not account for costs.
(1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today”
(2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests.” — CD
Adam Voight asks a profound question:
—“Does this mean that doing metaphysics has been overvalued for 2500 years?”— Adam Voight
Yes, (which is why I piss on the subject all the time) it’s just a means of trying to find a reason not to account for costs.
Which I think i’ve tried to state repeatedly, is that the universe operates on least cost principles because it has no choice.
Humans do also because they have no choice. We are more complicated than the universe because we have memory, can use that memory to predict, and therefore select delayed actions or early actions an capture that difference in calories as reward.
Measurement(math), Science (measurement), engineering (measurement), accounting/finance (measurement), economics(measurement), and Law (measurement) all account for costs.
Philosophy and theology and the Occult do not account for costs. IMO Popper and Kuhn did not account for costs. Hayek half-succeeded and half failed, in that law is the only ‘science’ and that all else is merely some fewer number of dimensions we consider under the law. Science and philosophy and religion evolved out of law, with economics and physics the only two to account for costs, and keynesian economics an attempt like philosophy and religion to NOT account for costs.
So here is the simple psychology of it:
Those of us and our disciplines who account for costs.
Those of us and our disciplines who avoid accounting for costs.
The issue: you can rally people politically very easily by not accounting for costs.
That is the secret to religion and philosophy versus science and law.
Hence my work at ‘fixing’ the law such that it is a cult in and of itself, that is extremely intolerant of not accounting for costs.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 10:06:00 UTC
QUESTIONS: FREE MARKET VS RECIPROCAL CAPITALISM
by Noah J Revoy
Let’s compare the trope “Free Markets” of Free Market Capitalism with “Reciprocal Markets”, of Reciprocal Market Capitalism.
Or stated differently, lets compare the IDEAL good of free markets regardless of externality – particularly knowledge, fixed, cultural, and genetic capital, with the MEASURED good of reciprocal markets under rule of law that prohibits the consumption privatization, or destruction, of such precious capital.
QUESTIONS:
1. How would you describe the differences between Reciprocal Capitalism as proposed under a propertarianism model and Free Market Capitalism as promoted by libertarians?
2. What problems does Reciprocal Capitalism solve (vs Free Markets)?
3. What are the libertarians missing?
4. How could Reciprocal Capitalism help solve some of the moderate lefts concerns about markets?
5. Both the left and the right have problems with the current “Free Market Capitalism” as practiced in the west. (Free market is a poor descriptor as its not truly free and often not even a real set of markets).
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 09:48:00 UTC