(FB 1552147225 Timestamp) Look at this guy. My New Personal Hero: @[100023730521370:2048:Sarunas Navickis]
Source: Original Site Post
-
(FB 1552157453 Timestamp) Food and Govt before trade, vs trade and govt before f
(FB 1552157453 Timestamp) Food and Govt before trade, vs trade and govt before food.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552059953 Timestamp) AFAIK the only means of improving cognitive performance that has any basis is (a) disciplining your executive function (b) physical fitness and health – particularly water and oxygenation, (c) accumulated general knowledge, (d) investment in more than one discipline that forces you to settle competitions between the frames. Everything else is simply ‘learning’ not ‘improving’. Intelligence should consist of that information and repetition necessary for you to identify and permute upon increasingly divergent, increasingly recursive patterns in time. The only way to improve that is to cut the cost of pattern identification by ‘loading patterns’ – meaning ‘reading’ in the past and may be ‘reading and watching videos’ in the present. Simple Formula: “g” general ability both performance and verbal + Short term memory + general knowledge + work (personality traits) – stupid ideas(and there are a lot of those) = demonstrated general intelligence. Lift heavy things. Run fast a bit. Read Shit. Train Your Brain to Focus on what you want it to (mindfulness), and work your ass off.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552146749 Timestamp) You know, the IE religions were exceptional, producing western paganism, india’s hinduism and buddhism. And while I prefer far eastern Confucian, Dao, Ritual, and Ancestor worship for ‘ant colony’ people, and prefer western naturalism: aristotelian, philosophical, sport, Pagan (Heroes) Heathen (Ancestors and Nature), for our heroic people, what sticks out when you study world religions is that while the zoroastrians were trying to ally people under an ideal, the only peoples that invented evil and evil religions were the Semitic. Yet the worst possible religion is nothing but a network of lies to DEFEAT occupy and consume the great civilizations.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1552310724 Timestamp) DAY 5 WITHOUT POWER
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552334472 Timestamp) Surviving Asia In Two Words: “Situational Awareness”.
-
(FB 1552159422 Timestamp) Indic languages Indic languages are a major language f
(FB 1552159422 Timestamp) Indic languages Indic languages are a major language family of the Indian subcontinent. They constitute a branch of the Indo-Iranian languages, itself a branch of the Indo-European language family. In the early 21st century, Indo-Aryan languages were spoken by more than 800 million people, primarily in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.[2] Moreover, there are large immigrant and/or expatriate Indo-Aryan speaking communities in northwestern Europe, Western Asia, North America and Australia. There are about 219 known Indo-Aryan languages. [3] The largest in terms of speakers are Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu, about 329 million),[4] Bengali (242 million),[5] Punjabi (about 100 million),[6] and other languages, with a 2005 estimate placing the total number of native speakers at nearly 900 million.[7]
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552174894 Timestamp) i say that there is only one metaphysics but many fictions. And therefore the use of fictions is not in fact metaphysical. And as such people who claim otherwise are engaged in fraud. As far as i know the physical, cognitive, and linguistic sciences explain every concept metaphysicians claim in their purview. As far as time an causality these are subjects sophomorically conflated but causality exists, but like all else reduced to speech can never be complete, only necessary sufficient and contingent. The same for time : which time are we talking about? What makes the change in state possible, the rate of change vary, and our memory of passage vary, and our perception of the rate of change vary? all of these answers we know. zeno was a bit of a sophist. My current understanding is that there exists nothing that cannot be explained scientifically. and thats certainly going to hold. A scientific explanation is not the same as the experience we describe with that science – this is true. If we want a separate aesthetic language for the experience that is commensurable with the scientific then that is fine. if we want to discuss the different fictions that different groups operate under thats still one metaphysics and many fiction that allow people to conceive of that beyond their direct perception then that is a vehicle for hypothesizing by analogy. I am pretty certain i can produce a proof of construction that is so parsimonious it will survive all criticism. there is nothing left that i know of other than the relationship between personality traits and reward systems and i think others know this. But one cannot work on artificial intelligence My reductionist approach requires operational language under the argument that if you cannot do so you cannot claim that you know of what you speak, and that therefore cannot make a truth claim, because you cannot claim to testify what you cannot operationally describe. and even then you may not and likely may not infer anything from you explanation. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. that paradigm cannot be expressed as other than analogy to operational experience without the introduction of fiction. the narrative requires categories to limit sequential prose to that which is possible for human minds. all such paradigms worldwide are converging on the scientific (scientific naturalism small number of consisten universal rules). I mean. until you find a set of case that are not open to natural explanation anything anyone says about metaphysics is just nonsense. AFAIK philosophy is currently relegated to choice of preference or good an the rest is science. And i cant find an exception to that rule.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1552332255 Timestamp) https://chinadailymail.com/2013/10/15/six-wars-china-is-sure-to-fight-in-the-next-50-years
-
(FB 1552159318 Timestamp) Uralic languages Uralic languages, family of more than
(FB 1552159318 Timestamp) Uralic languages Uralic languages, family of more than 20 related languages, all descended from a Proto-Uralic language that existed 7,000 to 10,000 years ago. At its earliest stages, Uralic most probably included the ancestors of the Yukaghir language. The Uralic languages are spoken by more than 25 million people scattered throughout northeastern Europe, northern Asia, and (through immigration) North America. The most demographically important Uralic language is Hungarian, the official language of Hungary. Two other Uralic languages, Estonian (the official language of Estonia) and Finnish (one of two national languages of Finlandâthe other is Swedish, a Germanic language), are also spoken by millions. Attempts to trace the genealogy of the Uralic languages to periods earlier than Proto-Uralic have been hampered by the great changes in the attested languages, which preserve relatively few features and therefore provide little evidence upon which scholars may base meaningful claims for a more distant relationship. Most commonly mentioned in this respect is a putative connection with the Altaic language family (including Turkic and Mongolian). This hypothetical language group, called Ural-Altaic, is not considered by most scholars to be soundly based. Although the Uralic and Indo-European languages are not generally thought to be related, more speculative studies have suggested a connection between them. Relationship with the Eskimo languages, Dravidian (e.g., Telugu), Japanese, Korean, and various American Indian groups has also been proposed. The most radical of these claims is the massive Dené-Finnish grouping of Morris Swadesh, which encompasses, among others, Sino-Tibetan (e.g., Chinese) and Athabaskan (e.g., Navajo). The Uralic language family in its current status consists of two related groups of languages, the Finno-Ugric and the Samoyedic, both of which developed from a common ancestor, called Proto-Uralic, that was spoken 7,000 to 10,000 years ago in the general area of the north-central Ural Mountains. At its very earliest stages Uralic most probably included the ancestors of the Yukaghir languages (formerly listed as a Paleo-Siberian stock with no known relatives). Over the millennia, both Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic branches of Uralic have given rise to more or less divergent subgroups of languages, which nonetheless have retained certain traits from their common source. For example, the degree of similarity between two of the least closely related members of the Finno-Ugric group, Hungarian and Finnish, is comparable to that between English and Russian (which belong to the Indo-European family of languages). The difference between any Finno-Ugric language and any Samoyedic tongue would be even greater. On the other hand, more closely related members of Finno-Ugric, such as Finnish and Estonian, differ in much the same manner as greatly diverse dialects of the same language.