Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • On Bernardo Kastrup

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE … He’s all over the place. If all he’s saying is ‘in the mind of man, all things are measured by the body, emotions, and mind of man” then that’s fine. If he’s saying that “all understanding must be computationally reducible to some linguistic sequence – well that’s true”. If he’s saying that operational (scientific) descriptions are necessary to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, but that those descriptions are reductions of subjective experience then that’s true. If he’s saying that we correctly observe physical local reality sufficiently to act within it, but that we use narratives to predict (imagine) from that point then that’s true.

    … He’s using the problem of explaining Qualia (Phenomenal consciousness) as a precursor to consciousness. We can explain qualia. It’s not even difficult – now. It simply takes a great deal of knowledge. And no matter how we explain it, the language is always a reduction. His examples (centipede) are distractions from the argument, not an argument.
    … So all I see after enduring this sophistry is another continental (french and german, unscientific,) attempt to grant priority to experience in order to limit adaptation to the world, vs the anglo analytic (scientific) attempt to grant priority to the world so that we continue to maximize adaptation to the world. We must understand that Abrahamic (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) thought was a set of counter-revolutions against European reason and Persian wisdom – both of which demanded (high trust) adaptation of the individual, the group, the society, the polity, and the civilization. A counter-revolution that resisted adaptation and created dark ages, ignorance, superstition, decline, and dysgenia. And that the European restoration of Aristotelianism by the Italians and English in particular produced the French, German, Jewish then Russian and world counter-revolution against science (testimonial truth) again. So there is no difference between the French and Rousseau model, the Kantian model, the Marxist-neo-Marxist-pomo-pc/woke model, the Hindu model, and the Buddhist, and less so Confucian model. Each is a counter-revolution to resist adaptation, evolution. When it was Europeans (at least European aristocracy) alone, that discovered tort law as its first institution, and from that developed legal primacy, empirical and technological thought, market institutions, and so Europeans MOST discovered, adapted to, and applied the laws of the universe: formal, physical, cooperative(natural), and evolutionary laws. And so European civ evolved fastest in bronze, iron, and steel ages. Offset by the bronze age collapse, the Abrahamic dark ages, and now the second Abrahamic dark ages. Man does not want to pay the cost of continuous adaptation. It’s stressful. Worse, what the human mind desires is relaxed auto-association, or reasoning, or rationalizing, which are all cheap and easy (philosophizing). Science, Technology, Economics, and War require COSTS. In exchange for the gains (discounts) of ‘civilization’ we need increasing incentives to adapt. So social orders seek an equilibrium of gains and costs that are increasingly temporal (short term). This leads to every social, economic, political (bureaucratic), military, and strategic problem we ever face.
    … By the end of the first hour he’s devolving into Critique (undermining), devolving into psychologizing, moralizing, and distraction(Dennet). My work is in testifiable truth and the prosecution of the art of lying.
    … Joscha Bach is more right than Dennet. Dennet is more right than Kastrup. (I’m more right than Bach.) And as far as I know the debate is over, and philosophy is limited to the determination of choice within the limits identified by science. And all else is lying. And in Kastrup’s case, it’s lying endemic in continental civilization, because (thanks largely to the catastrophe of the french revolution), napoleon destroyed, and the world war one anti-german forces completed the destruction of the restoration of European thought in the ‘Prussian model (territorial-Sparta) leaving only the anglo (naval-athens), and the result of their conflict leaving the American (Combined Arms-Roman) with the remains of their civilization, and in doing so, opening the door for the second Abrahamic revolt against European civilization by Gould, Boaz, Freud, Marx, Frankfurt, Postmodern, PC-Woke and the surviving (almost entirely ignored, and certainly uninfluential) continental sophists.

  • On Bernardo Kastrup

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE … He’s all over the place. If all he’s saying is ‘in the mind of man, all things are measured by the body, emotions, and mind of man” then that’s fine. If he’s saying that “all understanding must be computationally reducible to some linguistic sequence – well that’s true”. If he’s saying that operational (scientific) descriptions are necessary to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, but that those descriptions are reductions of subjective experience then that’s true. If he’s saying that we correctly observe physical local reality sufficiently to act within it, but that we use narratives to predict (imagine) from that point then that’s true.

    … He’s using the problem of explaining Qualia (Phenomenal consciousness) as a precursor to consciousness. We can explain qualia. It’s not even difficult – now. It simply takes a great deal of knowledge. And no matter how we explain it, the language is always a reduction. His examples (centipede) are distractions from the argument, not an argument.
    … So all I see after enduring this sophistry is another continental (french and german, unscientific,) attempt to grant priority to experience in order to limit adaptation to the world, vs the anglo analytic (scientific) attempt to grant priority to the world so that we continue to maximize adaptation to the world. We must understand that Abrahamic (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) thought was a set of counter-revolutions against European reason and Persian wisdom – both of which demanded (high trust) adaptation of the individual, the group, the society, the polity, and the civilization. A counter-revolution that resisted adaptation and created dark ages, ignorance, superstition, decline, and dysgenia. And that the European restoration of Aristotelianism by the Italians and English in particular produced the French, German, Jewish then Russian and world counter-revolution against science (testimonial truth) again. So there is no difference between the French and Rousseau model, the Kantian model, the Marxist-neo-Marxist-pomo-pc/woke model, the Hindu model, and the Buddhist, and less so Confucian model. Each is a counter-revolution to resist adaptation, evolution. When it was Europeans (at least European aristocracy) alone, that discovered tort law as its first institution, and from that developed legal primacy, empirical and technological thought, market institutions, and so Europeans MOST discovered, adapted to, and applied the laws of the universe: formal, physical, cooperative(natural), and evolutionary laws. And so European civ evolved fastest in bronze, iron, and steel ages. Offset by the bronze age collapse, the Abrahamic dark ages, and now the second Abrahamic dark ages. Man does not want to pay the cost of continuous adaptation. It’s stressful. Worse, what the human mind desires is relaxed auto-association, or reasoning, or rationalizing, which are all cheap and easy (philosophizing). Science, Technology, Economics, and War require COSTS. In exchange for the gains (discounts) of ‘civilization’ we need increasing incentives to adapt. So social orders seek an equilibrium of gains and costs that are increasingly temporal (short term). This leads to every social, economic, political (bureaucratic), military, and strategic problem we ever face.
    … By the end of the first hour he’s devolving into Critique (undermining), devolving into psychologizing, moralizing, and distraction(Dennet). My work is in testifiable truth and the prosecution of the art of lying.
    … Joscha Bach is more right than Dennet. Dennet is more right than Kastrup. (I’m more right than Bach.) And as far as I know the debate is over, and philosophy is limited to the determination of choice within the limits identified by science. And all else is lying. And in Kastrup’s case, it’s lying endemic in continental civilization, because (thanks largely to the catastrophe of the french revolution), napoleon destroyed, and the world war one anti-german forces completed the destruction of the restoration of European thought in the ‘Prussian model (territorial-Sparta) leaving only the anglo (naval-athens), and the result of their conflict leaving the American (Combined Arms-Roman) with the remains of their civilization, and in doing so, opening the door for the second Abrahamic revolt against European civilization by Gould, Boaz, Freud, Marx, Frankfurt, Postmodern, PC-Woke and the surviving (almost entirely ignored, and certainly uninfluential) continental sophists.

  • THE HARD PROBLEM WAS BUT ISN’T ANY LONGER. 😉 Sorry, but the ‘hard problem’ of c

    THE HARD PROBLEM WAS BUT ISN’T ANY LONGER. 😉

    Sorry, but the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is solved. It’s taken me a year and a half to figure out how to explain it but once you understand it, like many things, it’s not a hard problem at all – it’s rather simple and obvious. (Philosophers look like idiots in retrospect.)

    Funny, but computational irreducibility (the inability to provide a mathematical description for some phenomena), isn’t any different from the impossibility of introspection.

    However, once you know the function (operations) you can describe all of human experience.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-06 23:47:48 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105845520375444486

  • It doesn’t do much good to spend time in vesting in Gab if people don’t share or

    It doesn’t do much good to spend time in vesting in Gab if people don’t share or invite others to follow. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-06 23:47:09 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105845517803833319

  • THE CAUSE OF DIVERSITY FRICTIONS Woke is a desperate attempt to preserve the pse

    THE CAUSE OF DIVERSITY FRICTIONS

    Woke is a desperate attempt to preserve the pseudoscientific anti-Darwinian movement. IQ, Sex, Class, Race differences are all true. BUT, due to delta in underclass size and resulting culture – and a problem of CLASS, kin-preference, culture, immigration, integration – not race.

    Sex value of Race(neoteny) will exist. Kin bias will exist. Power-seeking by kin bias will exist. But differences in political demand by kin preference are due to differences in size of classes. ie; only groups w/ same class sizes, same culture, reduce kin friction.

    This isn’t an ‘opinion’ or a ‘preference’ or an ‘ambition’. it’s a law of evolutionary biology, a law of nature, and it will never, ever change.

    If we discuss race differences we are discussing conflicts due to kin preference under different genetic distributions.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-06 18:10:22 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105844193549224298

  • DO COMPLEX NUMBERS EXIST? (foundations of #mathematics ) I should publish a pape

    DO COMPLEX NUMBERS EXIST?
    (foundations of )

    I should publish a paper on this subject as yet another of the many problems of mathematical idealism(analogy) vs mathematical operationalism (reality). Because “i”, just as |absolute value|, solves a problem of ambiguity in mathematics: the language and logic of positional names.

    Sabine correctly identifies the convenient use of “i” in simplifying oscillations (geometry). But why can’t we identify the square root of negative one as negative one? Because of the Conflation of Direction(geometry) and Position(arithmetic). The use of “i” is necessary because as a general rule we’re conflating arithmetic (position) with geometry (direction).

    Is this solvable? Of course. Is “i” simply denoting the use of geometric (directional) math versus arithmetic (positional) math? Yes. Is it any more complex than that? Absolutely not. Math is a trivially simple language (paradigm, logic, vocabulary, grammar, syntax) under mathematical operationalism. It’s all the nonsense we piled on it, that makes it difficult to learn.

    Unfortunately, while the operational revolution was identified in math, in physics, in economics (and less so in law) it only stuck in some parts of physics and not in mathematical physics, or in mathematics. This is why (in my opinion) computational revolutions are occurring in computer science where the limits of mathematics are openly exposed (the domain of the operationally calculable is greater than the domain of mathematically reducible.)

    We can’t reform mathematics because the operational revolution failed in math – we got a set foundation (idealism) of math instead. And IMO the problem Sabine is continuously exposing both in her book and in her videos, is this underlying failure: that mathematics fails in economics and below the quantum level for the same reason: the underlying mechanics are operational and either we lack the information to describe that geometry or the underlying geometry isn’t mathematically reducible beyond the quantum level. We all assume it’s the former but it just as likely is the latter.

    (numeral=glypth for cardinal position in and order. number= position, as a ratio, produced by a function. iow: all numerals are x/1 )

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-06 17:04:48 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105843935685349261

  • Yes, we know what consciousness consists of.

    Of course we know what consciousness consists of. We’ve known for at least the past ten years. The effort of teaching the average person enough neurology so that can they understand it is a bit of work, but I’m producing a course on it, and the research is all out there. Even a populist like Michio Kaku answers the question. Kuhn makes a living NOT answering the question of consciousness, and interviewing marginal characters (mostly old folks) and many of whom are intellectually embarrassing (philosophers and theologians) – thereby preserving the supernatural bias in the majority population while satisfying curiosity among both materialists, idealists, and supernaturalists. Roger Penrose has a particular strength in that he follows einstein and uses mental models in addition to his mathematics. But otherwise, Roger is a mathematical platonist. Most physicists are stuck in what we call ‘mathiness’ – no mental model. The research on consciousness is done today by those of us who rely on both neurology and computer science to reproduce it. In simple terms, consciousness is just the merger of sensation with memory of memory into a competitive set of predictions. Qualia is just a vast parallel hierarchy of variations on embodiment. Consciousness is simple. Most of our brain predicts a continuously updated (revised) world model, then indexes salient experiences as episodes, and predicts candidate episodes from a competition between episodes, and we regulate that function with attention. When people say consciousness is an illusion that implies an observer that doesn’t exist. The only observer is a hierarchy of memory that we perceive as constant, just like we perceive movies as constant. The root “you” is in the brain stem that’s concerned about orientation, homeostasis, and reward-seeking. All the “you” in the sense you know yourself is distributed around the neocortex as memories. The experience of being you is integrated across the brain and organized into the hippocampal region. Qualia is rather trivial to explain from there onward. If you were to ask if other species would experience the same qualia we can only say that their qualia would be understandable if they were at least able to communicate at our level. But that vibrations in the universe whether through solids, gasses, space, and from subsonic to sonic to electromagnetic, would be the same. Some people see impossible colors even today. Some are color blind. A different creature might experience time differently (faster or slower), or instead of having two hemispheres might have, four, or six, or eight (or more) – and that would be the only substantive difference. But to ACT in the real world generates demand for convergence on similar range of senses and qualia.

  • Yes, we know what consciousness consists of.

    Of course we know what consciousness consists of. We’ve known for at least the past ten years. The effort of teaching the average person enough neurology so that can they understand it is a bit of work, but I’m producing a course on it, and the research is all out there. Even a populist like Michio Kaku answers the question. Kuhn makes a living NOT answering the question of consciousness, and interviewing marginal characters (mostly old folks) and many of whom are intellectually embarrassing (philosophers and theologians) – thereby preserving the supernatural bias in the majority population while satisfying curiosity among both materialists, idealists, and supernaturalists. Roger Penrose has a particular strength in that he follows einstein and uses mental models in addition to his mathematics. But otherwise, Roger is a mathematical platonist. Most physicists are stuck in what we call ‘mathiness’ – no mental model. The research on consciousness is done today by those of us who rely on both neurology and computer science to reproduce it. In simple terms, consciousness is just the merger of sensation with memory of memory into a competitive set of predictions. Qualia is just a vast parallel hierarchy of variations on embodiment. Consciousness is simple. Most of our brain predicts a continuously updated (revised) world model, then indexes salient experiences as episodes, and predicts candidate episodes from a competition between episodes, and we regulate that function with attention. When people say consciousness is an illusion that implies an observer that doesn’t exist. The only observer is a hierarchy of memory that we perceive as constant, just like we perceive movies as constant. The root “you” is in the brain stem that’s concerned about orientation, homeostasis, and reward-seeking. All the “you” in the sense you know yourself is distributed around the neocortex as memories. The experience of being you is integrated across the brain and organized into the hippocampal region. Qualia is rather trivial to explain from there onward. If you were to ask if other species would experience the same qualia we can only say that their qualia would be understandable if they were at least able to communicate at our level. But that vibrations in the universe whether through solids, gasses, space, and from subsonic to sonic to electromagnetic, would be the same. Some people see impossible colors even today. Some are color blind. A different creature might experience time differently (faster or slower), or instead of having two hemispheres might have, four, or six, or eight (or more) – and that would be the only substantive difference. But to ACT in the real world generates demand for convergence on similar range of senses and qualia.

  • Do Complex Numbers Exist?

    In response to:     I should publish a paper on this subject as yet another of the many problems of mathematical idealism(analogy) vs mathematical operationalism (reality). Because “i”, just as |absolute value|, solves a problem of ambiguity in mathematics: the language and logic of positional names. Sabine correctly identifies the convenient use of “i” in simplifying oscillations (geometry). But why can’t we identify the square root of negative one as negative one? Because of the Conflation of Direction(geometry) and Position(arithmetic). The use of “i” is necessary because as a general rule we’re conflating arithmetic (position) with geometry (direction). Is this solvable? Of course. Is “i” simply denoting the use of geometric (directional) math versus arithmetic (positional) math? Yes. Is it any more complex than that? Absolutely not. Math is a trivially simple language (paradigm, logic, vocabulary, grammar, syntax) under mathematical operationalism. It’s all the nonsense we piled on it, that makes it difficult to learn. Unfortunately, while the operational revolution was identified in math, in physics, in economics (and less so in law) it only stuck in some parts of physics and not in mathematical physics, or in mathematics. This is why (in my opinion) computational revolutions are occurring in computer science where the limits of mathematics are openly exposed (the domain of the operationally calculable is greater than the domain of mathematically reducible.) We can’t reform mathematics because the operational revolution failed in math – we got a set foundation (idealism) of math instead. And IMO the problem Sabine is continuously exposing both in her book and in her videos, is this underlying failure: that mathematics fails in economics and below the quantum level for the same reason: the underlying mechanics are operational and either we lack the information to describe that geometry or the underlying geometry isn’t mathematically reducible beyond the quantum level. We all assume it’s the former but it just as likely is the latter.  

  • Do Complex Numbers Exist?

    In response to:     I should publish a paper on this subject as yet another of the many problems of mathematical idealism(analogy) vs mathematical operationalism (reality). Because “i”, just as |absolute value|, solves a problem of ambiguity in mathematics: the language and logic of positional names. Sabine correctly identifies the convenient use of “i” in simplifying oscillations (geometry). But why can’t we identify the square root of negative one as negative one? Because of the Conflation of Direction(geometry) and Position(arithmetic). The use of “i” is necessary because as a general rule we’re conflating arithmetic (position) with geometry (direction). Is this solvable? Of course. Is “i” simply denoting the use of geometric (directional) math versus arithmetic (positional) math? Yes. Is it any more complex than that? Absolutely not. Math is a trivially simple language (paradigm, logic, vocabulary, grammar, syntax) under mathematical operationalism. It’s all the nonsense we piled on it, that makes it difficult to learn. Unfortunately, while the operational revolution was identified in math, in physics, in economics (and less so in law) it only stuck in some parts of physics and not in mathematical physics, or in mathematics. This is why (in my opinion) computational revolutions are occurring in computer science where the limits of mathematics are openly exposed (the domain of the operationally calculable is greater than the domain of mathematically reducible.) We can’t reform mathematics because the operational revolution failed in math – we got a set foundation (idealism) of math instead. And IMO the problem Sabine is continuously exposing both in her book and in her videos, is this underlying failure: that mathematics fails in economics and below the quantum level for the same reason: the underlying mechanics are operational and either we lack the information to describe that geometry or the underlying geometry isn’t mathematically reducible beyond the quantum level. We all assume it’s the former but it just as likely is the latter.