—“No one ever assumes they’ll be the one with a gunshot wound in the back of their head after their glorious revolution.”— ( “Wus” ) That’s not true. I think some of us just wanna see how many we can take with us first. Gutless cowards on the other hand say bullshit like that so they can feign courage or wisdom while waiting until the men with balls to the dirty work before they step into the parade, say hoo-rah, and take some of the credit as if like-mindedness is some sorta contribution to the cause…. 😉 The only people whose opinions matter are those who fight. Everyone else is either enemy or enabler…..
Source: Original Site Post
-
Is Objective Morality Possible? how Do We Know?
It’s actually pretty easy: 1) Empirically, (in-group) law evolved everywhere using a test of reciprocity. Even norms demand reciprocity. All that differs is the local organization of rights and obligations that produce various forms of reciprocity under various group evolutionary strategies. 2) Empirically, (out-group) international law, that is insulated by differences as a compromise between differences is reducible to reciprocity. 3) Logically, (internal consistency) all questions of conflict are in fact decidable by the test of reciprocity, and it is the only decidability that exists that I know of. 4) Scientifically (Axelrod) (operationally), no organism can both cooperate (produce outsized returns), and not (a) preserve defection (cheating), and (b) require reciprocity (prevent parasitism), and (c) buy options on cooperation (invest) to incentivize cooperation, and (d) practice altruistic punishment (costly punishment) in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate without going extinct. So: 0 – Parties must be able to negotiate a contract for cooperation and remember success or failure for cooperation to exist. (We cannot cooperate with animals. They aren’t conscious enough to do so, or to hold to commitments.) 1 – Objective morality (reciprocity) is in fact ‘reciprocity’. 2 – Moral norms (networks of reciprocity) 3 – Moral intuitions ( individual intuition of reciprocity given one’s reproductive/survival needs) 4 – Moral actions are limited to fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. And 1 – Restoration of reciprocity by forgiveness (investment in future forgiveness) 2 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution 3 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution and punishment 4 – restoration of incentive for reciprocity by restitution and death. Ergo 1 – one may take no action one may not perform restitution for. All of which pretty much are reflected in the common law of tort.
-
Is Objective Morality Possible? how Do We Know?
It’s actually pretty easy: 1) Empirically, (in-group) law evolved everywhere using a test of reciprocity. Even norms demand reciprocity. All that differs is the local organization of rights and obligations that produce various forms of reciprocity under various group evolutionary strategies. 2) Empirically, (out-group) international law, that is insulated by differences as a compromise between differences is reducible to reciprocity. 3) Logically, (internal consistency) all questions of conflict are in fact decidable by the test of reciprocity, and it is the only decidability that exists that I know of. 4) Scientifically (Axelrod) (operationally), no organism can both cooperate (produce outsized returns), and not (a) preserve defection (cheating), and (b) require reciprocity (prevent parasitism), and (c) buy options on cooperation (invest) to incentivize cooperation, and (d) practice altruistic punishment (costly punishment) in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate without going extinct. So: 0 – Parties must be able to negotiate a contract for cooperation and remember success or failure for cooperation to exist. (We cannot cooperate with animals. They aren’t conscious enough to do so, or to hold to commitments.) 1 – Objective morality (reciprocity) is in fact ‘reciprocity’. 2 – Moral norms (networks of reciprocity) 3 – Moral intuitions ( individual intuition of reciprocity given one’s reproductive/survival needs) 4 – Moral actions are limited to fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. And 1 – Restoration of reciprocity by forgiveness (investment in future forgiveness) 2 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution 3 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution and punishment 4 – restoration of incentive for reciprocity by restitution and death. Ergo 1 – one may take no action one may not perform restitution for. All of which pretty much are reflected in the common law of tort.
-
As Such, It Is We Who Are Gods, for … We Are All There Is for A Gods to Be.
—“I laugh at people who discredit Christianity in favor of big bang. Something created us.”— Charlton Ward An infinite number of monkeys randomly typing keys, in an infinite amount of time, will (must) eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. If we were ‘created’ rather than ‘an accident’ then the universe should look a lot less like an infinite number of monkeys, trying an infinite number of permutations, over a nearly infinite amount of time. We know of a periodic table, and below the periodic table a set of particles, and below those particles a very small set of fields(charges), and those fields certainly appear to consist of a single something at different levels of excitement. The very thing that produces the passage of time (Entropy) creates the opportunity for the conservation of energy, and life concentrates and transfers energy between time. No one created us. We are a probabilistic anomaly An accident. As such, it is we who are gods, for … we are all there is for a gods to be. And those of us with the agency to look truth in the face laugh at those of you who cannot.
-
As Such, It Is We Who Are Gods, for … We Are All There Is for A Gods to Be.
—“I laugh at people who discredit Christianity in favor of big bang. Something created us.”— Charlton Ward An infinite number of monkeys randomly typing keys, in an infinite amount of time, will (must) eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. If we were ‘created’ rather than ‘an accident’ then the universe should look a lot less like an infinite number of monkeys, trying an infinite number of permutations, over a nearly infinite amount of time. We know of a periodic table, and below the periodic table a set of particles, and below those particles a very small set of fields(charges), and those fields certainly appear to consist of a single something at different levels of excitement. The very thing that produces the passage of time (Entropy) creates the opportunity for the conservation of energy, and life concentrates and transfers energy between time. No one created us. We are a probabilistic anomaly An accident. As such, it is we who are gods, for … we are all there is for a gods to be. And those of us with the agency to look truth in the face laugh at those of you who cannot.
-
The Damage of Cantor’s Frame Depends upon Which Problem You”re Trying to Solve
So cantor’s argument is regressive because it reversed the trend toward historizing math and merging math and science. And it provided a generation with excuses to restore platonism. And it contributed to the misdirection of philosophy and logic in the 20th century just when we needed the opposite. So, you know, I am criticizing the tendency of abrahamists to make similar methaphysical fictions and cause damage by externality. So if you are only concerned with ‘meaning” then cantor’s fictionalism is a suppose a fairy tale that explains pairing-off (one to one correspondence) as a means of testing extremely large sets. If you are concerned with truth, then cantor is a fictionalist, and is leading to the confusion of generations of minds. If you are concerned with platonism and abrahamism as the primary means by which western civilization was destroyed in the ancient and modern worlds, then Cantor like Marx, Freud, Boaz, and Adorno is a half-liar undermining the very secret of western civilization: words are sacred, promise is sacred, and by creating moral hazards with language all the ‘liars’ contributed to the catastrophe of the present.
-
The Damage of Cantor’s Frame Depends upon Which Problem You”re Trying to Solve
So cantor’s argument is regressive because it reversed the trend toward historizing math and merging math and science. And it provided a generation with excuses to restore platonism. And it contributed to the misdirection of philosophy and logic in the 20th century just when we needed the opposite. So, you know, I am criticizing the tendency of abrahamists to make similar methaphysical fictions and cause damage by externality. So if you are only concerned with ‘meaning” then cantor’s fictionalism is a suppose a fairy tale that explains pairing-off (one to one correspondence) as a means of testing extremely large sets. If you are concerned with truth, then cantor is a fictionalist, and is leading to the confusion of generations of minds. If you are concerned with platonism and abrahamism as the primary means by which western civilization was destroyed in the ancient and modern worlds, then Cantor like Marx, Freud, Boaz, and Adorno is a half-liar undermining the very secret of western civilization: words are sacred, promise is sacred, and by creating moral hazards with language all the ‘liars’ contributed to the catastrophe of the present.
-
For Intelligence to Exist It Must Defeat Time
From the Universe to the particles, to elements, to DNA, to every idea in your head formed because it can form, and if it can form, and given enough opportunity, all that is possible to form will eventually become probable to form, and probably and therefore certain to form. The purpose of intelligence is to defeat time. otherwise there is no value of intelligence. If there was some divine being he has chosen NOT to defeat time, and therefore eliminated the only reason for intelligence. So why would an intelligent being pick the dumbest possible method requiring zero intelligence with which to create man – or anything. Ignorance of information is not the same as absence of information. Whether we know something or not is a measure of our ignorance. Why are so many humans afraid there is no pack-leader? Why is it that if the most parsimonious example is simply ‘really big numbers and really long times, eventually explore all opportunities for conservation of energy’? My standard of ‘fully human’ is that of fully transcending the animal. If you are not fully human then you will find excuses for satisfying the animal impulse just like a dog must circle three times before it lay’s down, or a cat sniff it’s food before it eats – and if it can’t it will starve. One must transcend the beast to evolve into the human. Once one is fully human one can transcend the body with reason, knowledge, and instrumentation. The beast, ignorance, and the capture of energy are all that prevent us from being gods. -
For Intelligence to Exist It Must Defeat Time
From the Universe to the particles, to elements, to DNA, to every idea in your head formed because it can form, and if it can form, and given enough opportunity, all that is possible to form will eventually become probable to form, and probably and therefore certain to form. The purpose of intelligence is to defeat time. otherwise there is no value of intelligence. If there was some divine being he has chosen NOT to defeat time, and therefore eliminated the only reason for intelligence. So why would an intelligent being pick the dumbest possible method requiring zero intelligence with which to create man – or anything. Ignorance of information is not the same as absence of information. Whether we know something or not is a measure of our ignorance. Why are so many humans afraid there is no pack-leader? Why is it that if the most parsimonious example is simply ‘really big numbers and really long times, eventually explore all opportunities for conservation of energy’? My standard of ‘fully human’ is that of fully transcending the animal. If you are not fully human then you will find excuses for satisfying the animal impulse just like a dog must circle three times before it lay’s down, or a cat sniff it’s food before it eats – and if it can’t it will starve. One must transcend the beast to evolve into the human. Once one is fully human one can transcend the body with reason, knowledge, and instrumentation. The beast, ignorance, and the capture of energy are all that prevent us from being gods. -
The Purpose of Stoicism(mindfulness)
The purpose of stoicism(mindfulness) is to allow you distance from your impulses so that you may train them rather than be goverened by the chaos of them. The difference between buddhism and stoicism is action. Stoicism/dominance vs Buddhism/Submission. Which people will argue with me, but the evidence is the evidence. People need mindfulness to limit calculability (difficulty in in formation processing). We can construct it by bad means (islamic submission), ok means (buddhist meditation), adequate means (homogenous kin groups and rituals), or exceptional means (stoic self authoring and incremental successes in competition in the real world).