Source date (UTC): 2018-12-18 18:45:00 UTC
Source: Facebook
-
COURSES AT THE INSTITUTE MUST BE ACTION ORIENTED There is a difference between m
COURSES AT THE INSTITUTE MUST BE ACTION ORIENTED
There is a difference between meaningful and actionable. We are trying to ensure that all the courses produce knowledge and skills that are actionable. That they are merely understandable, and meaningful is a measurement of the state of ignorance and lack of agency of the student.
Instead, we are trying to produce agency and action as the source of meaning – not meaning given the current life experience and condition of the individual students.
Until the Clinton’s destruction of the military, when you went into the military the first thing they did in boot camp was break your self monitoring and self image so that it could be rebuilt as a soldier by necessity and a warrior if at all possible.
That is the purpose of the institute. Not to provide you comfort in your current state, but to provide you agency in that state that is your full potential.
Western civilization specialized in the social, economic, political, and military production of AGENCY.
And that is our purpose.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-18 11:44:00 UTC
-
PROPERTARIANISM AND STOICISM VS BUDDHISM? —“We ought to discuss Buddhism (I am
PROPERTARIANISM AND STOICISM VS BUDDHISM?
—“We ought to discuss Buddhism (I am a Buddhist) and Propertarianism (I’ve discussed various matters with Curt Doolittle) in the future.”— Andrew Taylor
by The Propertarian Institute
It’s not complicated. Buddhism evolved out of hinduism’s ‘spiritualism’ and because of that started out very similar to stoicism but with less empirical names of phenomenon, and was largely a way of developing mindfulness by way of REJECTING the world.
Stoicism began as self authoring and was very close to the then-greco-roman empirical method. It’s purpose was to facilitate ACTION in the world, despite our emotions. Stoicism was incorporated into christianity when the stoic schools were forcibly closed by the christian hordes. Buddhism was adopted widely but evolved into a religion rather than a discipline.
This has to do largely with the means of spreading stoicism (middle class schools) vs the means of spreading buddhism (common folk under direction of independent teachers, and eventually out of political utility as in japan. )
Where buddhism is pacific and heroic, stoicism is martial and heroic. Otherwise they are similar.
My suspicion is that stoicism would have turned into a religion like stoicism if it had not been suppressed by the jews, christians, and the byzantine (greek) re-conquest of rome.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-18 11:37:00 UTC
-
REGARDING CLAIRE KHAW’S CRITIQUE OF JOHN MARK by The Propertarian Institute Let’
REGARDING CLAIRE KHAW’S CRITIQUE OF JOHN MARK
by The Propertarian Institute
Let’s understand Claire’s critique: Claire is a die-hard advocate for monotheistic religious, Christian if necessary, and Muslim if possible, Authoritarianism. Her argument is reducible to “I can’t understand it so it’s not good”, and here motive is “I can understand authoritarian religion so it is good.”
That’s all she has to say – really. The rest is just (((critique))): meaning criticism of straw men, rather than proposal of a possible educational, social, economic, legal, and political order that can compete with the alternatives.
Critique is always employed as a deceit. It’s just been Industrialized during the (((late 19th and entire 20th))) centuries due to the hostile attack on western civilization in the modern world using sophism, utopianism, and pseudoscience like judaism, christianity, and islam used sophism and supernaturalism to create a hostile attack on the great civilizations of the ancient world, through the natural vulnerability of women to such ideas, and the natural demand by the underclass of such ideas – despite those ideas being in conflict with anything other than dysgenia and decline. -Cheers
Fool us once, shame one (((abrahamists))) of all religions. Fool us twice, shame on us for letting them.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-18 11:35:00 UTC
-
SELF-MEDICATION Michael E. Darden, Nicholas W. Papageorge NBER Working Paper No.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w25371RATIONAL SELF-MEDICATION
Michael E. Darden, Nicholas W. Papageorge
NBER Working Paper No. 25371
Issued in December 2018
NBER Program(s):Health Economics
We develop a theory of rational self-medication. The idea is that forward-looking individuals, lacking access to better treatment options, attempt to manage the symptoms of mental and physical pain outside of formal medical care. They use substances that relieve symptoms in the short run but that may be harmful in the long run. For example, heavy drinking could alleviate current symptoms of depression but could also exacerbate future depression or lead to alcoholism. Rational self-medication suggests that, when presented with a safer, more effective treatment, individuals will substitute towards it. To investigate, we use forty years of longitudinal data from the Framingham Heart Study and leverage the exogenous introduction of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We demonstrate an economically meaningful reduction in heavy alcohol consumption for men when SSRIs became available. Additionally, we show that addiction to alcohol inhibits substitution. Our results suggest a role for rational self-medication in understanding the origin of substance abuse. Furthermore, our work suggests that punitive policies targeting substance abuse may backfire, leading to substitution towards even more harmful substances to self-medicate. In contrast, policies promoting medical innovation that provide safer treatment options could obviate the need to self-medicate with dangerous or addictive substances.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w25371
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-18 11:17:00 UTC
-
Phase of the day: “Survival in post-apocalyptic cat lady hellscape”
Phase of the day: “Survival in post-apocalyptic cat lady hellscape”.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-18 09:10:00 UTC
-
(Great feed. -cheers)
(Great feed. -cheers)
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-18 08:37:00 UTC
-
THE PARADIGM FOR SOLVING AI IS NOT CALCULATION BUT COMPETITION We try to solve t
THE PARADIGM FOR SOLVING AI IS NOT CALCULATION BUT COMPETITION
We try to solve the problem of artificial intelligence using the wrong paradigm – a problem in economics we refer to as ‘mathiness’ – when the solution from bayesian accounting to the evolution of consciousness, is not calculation but competition.
The other ‘great accident’ is the bilateral revolution, and the competition via necessity of coordination within the nervous system, followed by the division of labor and competition between the functions of our minds as predator and prey.
We don’t think of neural economy, or bayesian networks as competitions at the neural-path level, nor do we think of consciousness as the result of memory and competition in a division of labor between layers and functions. The problem of an ethical and moral machine is one that must decide a competition from the forecasting of a decision, and the negative reinforcement of decision networks that lead to involuntary transfers (harms).
I understood this from my work in the early 80’s on AI for military games. But the technology wasn’t available at the time to do anything about it. I don’t find any particular mystery to artificial intelligence other than the volume of memory and the necessity of an internal grammar or language to assist in a hierarchy continuous recursive competition between forecasts(predictions).
My open questions are the amount of memory required if we want both the benefits of mechanical memory, and the power of reason, without the economy of imprecision. I mean, look at the experiments with chimpanzee image processing vs human.
Or put differently, in order to FURTHER divide intelligence more efficiently we might very well have sacrificed memory precision for another ‘n-lateral’ revolution using language and the competition between minds using language.
The problem of continuous recursive disambiguation into serial speech requires not the preservation of state (chimp memory) for internal consideration, but the recursive passing of state (human memory) so that we can serialize state into a continuously recursively disambiguous stream of expressions between individuals. We then evolved the ability to plan from this process.
It is very hard to try to remember what it’s like to think without language. It’s like trying to measure without numbers. you can do it but only to some rather simple degree. Language is just another form of calculation. Or rather more easily understood, calculation with measurements is just a reductive form of language.
The consistency throughout the hierarchy is competition (market) between memory and perception, the competition of the neural economy, competition between neural forecasts, competition between reactions or choice of actions, competition between perceptions and minds, and ability to calculate using language (grammars).
It’s this ‘market competition’ that is the model not only for cognition, but for all of social science that results from that cognition.
We were fooled by mathiness and justificationism that results from the mathematics – the most simple of logics: the single constant relation provided by the single property of a positional name. Mathematics requires very little difference between construction and deduction. Logics break down rapidly after first or second order. Games do as well. Reason does as well. Markets(competition) doesn’t break down. -Cheers )
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-18 08:06:00 UTC
-
More on NCC’s and the “Glorious Accident”
More on NCC’s and the “Glorious Accident”.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-18 07:30:00 UTC
-
A GEM BY BILL —“That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, an
A GEM BY BILL
—“That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. … That’s what Laws of Nature (unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t.”—Curt Doolittle
—“Don’t you still need a justification that’s more than “it’s natural” to avoid justifying your law on a naturalistic fallacy? The justification for propertarianism seems to be a utilitarian argument.”—Hue Whitman
Answer by Bill Joslin:
The Naturalistic fallacy relates to equating a positive moral standing for an action due to it being natural (“if it happens in nature it’s therefore good”) not a utilitarian stance which provides an operational description of how the action results in immoral consequences (“under these conditions and incentives, human conflict rises”). Two different domains of argumentation, the former justificatory, the later warranty.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 18:11:00 UTC