DEFINE “YOU”
If I put your ashes in an urn, is that you?
If I put your dead body in a casket is that you?
If I read your written words, isthat you?
whenever you use the word ‘is’ you are engaged in a self or other deception, because it means “i don’t know how this exists”. When you use the word ‘you’ as referencing the physical body, or ‘you’ as the potential interaction of mind and body, or ‘you’ as the acting interaction between mind and body…. which are you asking?
Because ‘is’ and ‘you’ questions aren’t philosophical questions, their grammatical errors positioned as a pretense of philosophical sophisms.
I consist of the consequences of the continuous operation of my body, and in particular my brain.
the written word consist only of potential experience until
a mind puts it into motion by reading it. the body consists of biomass until a brain causes it to move. A brain consists of reactive nerves, until the that experence we call mind emerges from the continuous persistence of states.
Just as we cannot observe the frames of video, we cannot observe the cycles of changes in state of the mind, and so we ‘average them’ through the persistence of stimuli across cycles.
We do have a sense of self awareness that functions pre-cognitively, and can best be understood as that moment you awake in the dark and are unaware of your circumstances.
It is this awareness of changes in state and like and dislikes that is ‘I’? Well, that is governed by genes. Is that ‘I’? Or am ‘i’ the combination of those genetic biases, that very simple state monitor, or at the other end, am ‘I’ that combination of body and memory in motion that you experience as a set of contsant relations ‘me?’.
To the mentally ill person ‘i’ consists of a body in its current state. To the observer ‘i’ consists of a set of patterns of behavior given the experiences. To others (norm, law), ‘i’ consists of the rights and obligations to the host body.
etc.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Language Is Trivially Simple : A Market Competition Between Grammar And Sematics
Language is actually trivially simple: continuous disambiguation in grammar, and continuous ambiguity in semantics. The evolutionary problem is achieving in imagination the same level of modeling that we have in body movement. Once we had complex body movement (our neural density is far higher than other creatures) and complex motion-planning, it was somewhat deterministic that we could gain complex verbal planning. These problems seem difficult until you work with recursive neural networks long enough. Then the brain is a very simple thing that just far more neural computing power than any of our competing life forms. An octopus for example, is interesting, because while we have a spine that extends our brain into our body so to speak, the octopus has eight of them, and they do a lot of their own processing the way our heart and lungs do their own processing. Far too much ‘cheap’ philosophy, not enough ‘expensive’ physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. Learn something substantial. Philosophy can assist us in determining choice, preferences and goods It is notoriously if not catastrophically faulty at anything we call ‘truth’. -
Language Is Trivially Simple : A Market Competition Between Grammar And Sematics
Language is actually trivially simple: continuous disambiguation in grammar, and continuous ambiguity in semantics. The evolutionary problem is achieving in imagination the same level of modeling that we have in body movement. Once we had complex body movement (our neural density is far higher than other creatures) and complex motion-planning, it was somewhat deterministic that we could gain complex verbal planning. These problems seem difficult until you work with recursive neural networks long enough. Then the brain is a very simple thing that just far more neural computing power than any of our competing life forms. An octopus for example, is interesting, because while we have a spine that extends our brain into our body so to speak, the octopus has eight of them, and they do a lot of their own processing the way our heart and lungs do their own processing. Far too much ‘cheap’ philosophy, not enough ‘expensive’ physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. Learn something substantial. Philosophy can assist us in determining choice, preferences and goods It is notoriously if not catastrophically faulty at anything we call ‘truth’. -
Why Isn’t Curt So Active Online Over The Past Month Or So?
And yes, I have something like 500 posts to move to the website. First, it’s increasingly obvious that I don’t need the internet to test ideas any longer, or to make arguments. And instead, I use it to socialize or practice. I have a group of friends who are quite good and will shoot holes in my attempts to create aphoristic narratives. But if you want to argue beyond a certain level it’s just not possible in this format. So fighting the good fight is fun. And giving people arguments to play with is fun. But I see my ideas all over the right and alt right today, so I’ve had the impact I want to there. And I’m more interested in the less accessible work now. Secondly, when I finished Grammar and Semantics I was exhausted from the effort. Seriously. When I started in August I knew it would be hard, but I didn’t know how …. involving and exhausting it would be. Or how much it would change my thinking from operationalism as a technique, to all grammars just expansion and contraction of semantic dimensions. And I was having a very hard time working. So I needed a break. So since the middle of December – thanks partly to two FB Bans in a row due to (((stalkers))) – I’ve been working on our product, and at this point am partway through a total rewrite – from scratch. When we first started, the tech just wasn’t there – we knew it and took the risk anyway. Last year, I don’t think the tech was quite there and I found React very buggy and leaky. We worked with a very small team – originally two devs and usually three or four. (The hardest part was communicating the business rules.) So we sprinted for six months, then did a rewrite (refactoring really). A year later we did a rewrite (refactoring). A year later we did a rewrite (refactoring). A year later we got to feature complete, but didn’t get in a rewrite. Last year I started rewriting the backend. Started on the front end, but my health was’t improving. So I spent about eight months just trying to get my health back together. Today the tech is there – and I’m finally in good health. Really. I feel almost fully recovered. (more sleep, more food, lots more vitamins) and i’ve lost that prematurely aged look that I had last year. I look like myself again even if my asthma continues to … get worse Anyway, the tech is finally there, and moving quite quickly. But I have to rewrite everything from the bottom up and the only thing I’ve saved so far is some of the domain data from the database. But the difference is great modularity, great performance, and – no memory leaks. In doing so I’ve made sure it can easily scale and shard across any number of servers. A lot of work to do yet but I’ll keep at it until I get a burning desire to write, and then toggle back and forth until they’re both done. It keeps me from burning out on one thing or the other. Thankfully my family tolerates my workaholic-ism – although I do do a lot of the cooking. Oddly, the UK government has apparently tolerated our ‘in development’ status (they have shorter limits than we do in the states), and so has our Bank, so while I still have to move the investors to a US jurisdiction, in the meantime we are still able to operate without urgently bearing the costs of movement. FWIW: The costs of operating an R&D effort outside of the states is just prohibitive. Brits are far more concerned with stopping an unearned penny than creating an earned dollar in innovation. But I still love them. lol So what does this mean? It means that I’m working on the product and that it’s going pretty well, even if it’s a tremendous amount of work. -
Why Isn’t Curt So Active Online Over The Past Month Or So?
And yes, I have something like 500 posts to move to the website. First, it’s increasingly obvious that I don’t need the internet to test ideas any longer, or to make arguments. And instead, I use it to socialize or practice. I have a group of friends who are quite good and will shoot holes in my attempts to create aphoristic narratives. But if you want to argue beyond a certain level it’s just not possible in this format. So fighting the good fight is fun. And giving people arguments to play with is fun. But I see my ideas all over the right and alt right today, so I’ve had the impact I want to there. And I’m more interested in the less accessible work now. Secondly, when I finished Grammar and Semantics I was exhausted from the effort. Seriously. When I started in August I knew it would be hard, but I didn’t know how …. involving and exhausting it would be. Or how much it would change my thinking from operationalism as a technique, to all grammars just expansion and contraction of semantic dimensions. And I was having a very hard time working. So I needed a break. So since the middle of December – thanks partly to two FB Bans in a row due to (((stalkers))) – I’ve been working on our product, and at this point am partway through a total rewrite – from scratch. When we first started, the tech just wasn’t there – we knew it and took the risk anyway. Last year, I don’t think the tech was quite there and I found React very buggy and leaky. We worked with a very small team – originally two devs and usually three or four. (The hardest part was communicating the business rules.) So we sprinted for six months, then did a rewrite (refactoring really). A year later we did a rewrite (refactoring). A year later we did a rewrite (refactoring). A year later we got to feature complete, but didn’t get in a rewrite. Last year I started rewriting the backend. Started on the front end, but my health was’t improving. So I spent about eight months just trying to get my health back together. Today the tech is there – and I’m finally in good health. Really. I feel almost fully recovered. (more sleep, more food, lots more vitamins) and i’ve lost that prematurely aged look that I had last year. I look like myself again even if my asthma continues to … get worse Anyway, the tech is finally there, and moving quite quickly. But I have to rewrite everything from the bottom up and the only thing I’ve saved so far is some of the domain data from the database. But the difference is great modularity, great performance, and – no memory leaks. In doing so I’ve made sure it can easily scale and shard across any number of servers. A lot of work to do yet but I’ll keep at it until I get a burning desire to write, and then toggle back and forth until they’re both done. It keeps me from burning out on one thing or the other. Thankfully my family tolerates my workaholic-ism – although I do do a lot of the cooking. Oddly, the UK government has apparently tolerated our ‘in development’ status (they have shorter limits than we do in the states), and so has our Bank, so while I still have to move the investors to a US jurisdiction, in the meantime we are still able to operate without urgently bearing the costs of movement. FWIW: The costs of operating an R&D effort outside of the states is just prohibitive. Brits are far more concerned with stopping an unearned penny than creating an earned dollar in innovation. But I still love them. lol So what does this mean? It means that I’m working on the product and that it’s going pretty well, even if it’s a tremendous amount of work. -
The Cult Of Non-Submission
The chinese don’t even consider judaism/christianity/islam as meaningful. They look at the truthful things – even if truth is nearly impossible for them. They will us it whenever possible to gain competitive advantage. While the chinese place no value on human life and too much value on face (preservation of the dominance hierarchy), the are worthwhile competitors, as are the Japanese and the Koreans. Western man loves a competitor. The problem is, that we are being invaded and undermined from within, while they are not. We are fighting a two front war. The one for leadership against the east asians, and the one for leadership of our own against our Jewish and Catholic underclass priesthoods. And unfortunately, while we love a good competition with a quality competitor – nothing is more thrilling. We do not like whatsoever, being undermined by our own, and those whom we allow in our domain. No more tolerance. Ever. Zero Tolerance for Submission. What is western man? What is aristocracy, but the Cult of Non-Submission? -
The Cult Of Non-Submission
The chinese don’t even consider judaism/christianity/islam as meaningful. They look at the truthful things – even if truth is nearly impossible for them. They will us it whenever possible to gain competitive advantage. While the chinese place no value on human life and too much value on face (preservation of the dominance hierarchy), the are worthwhile competitors, as are the Japanese and the Koreans. Western man loves a competitor. The problem is, that we are being invaded and undermined from within, while they are not. We are fighting a two front war. The one for leadership against the east asians, and the one for leadership of our own against our Jewish and Catholic underclass priesthoods. And unfortunately, while we love a good competition with a quality competitor – nothing is more thrilling. We do not like whatsoever, being undermined by our own, and those whom we allow in our domain. No more tolerance. Ever. Zero Tolerance for Submission. What is western man? What is aristocracy, but the Cult of Non-Submission? -
Your Civilization Is At Least 5000 Years Old And Christianity Was Its Dark Age.
THERE IS NOTHING IN CHRISTIANITY THAT WAS NOT PRESENT BEFORE IT. THE CHURCH “REVISED HISTORY” THE WAY THE MARXISTS AND POSTMODERNISTS DID IN THE CURRENT ‘DARK AGE’. While it is hard for us to imagine, there is nothing in christian culture that was not there before christianity. Nothing. Hence why so many contemporary thinkers argue that christianity is a western religion, and the result of western (or at least the result of anatolian-greek culture. The problem is, that as Nietzche tried to explain in his rather poetic german prose, we do not remember our pre-christian ethic in other than our northern european fairy tales and myths – even though it is endemic in the structure of our thought and in our traditions and in our laws. The church co-opted, reframed, and stole everything it could and took credit for appropriation as if it was invention. Even Bede simply fabricated a history that did not exist. The church created and instituted a culture of fictionalism (lying). THere is a very good reason that christianity was let into europe by illiterate south eastern europeans – as a means of moving power from the poorer more remote aristocratic west to the wealthier local theocratic east. I went thru the period of being angry with (((them))) for libertarianism. Then for marxism. Then for postmodernism. then for Christianity. Then for Abrahamism. Then for Platonism. Then for mysticism. Once oyu see the cancer and how it spread, it makes you furious that we have been defeated in the ancient world by (((lies))) and in the modern world by (((lies))) for no other reason than that we create sufficient wealth, security, and liberty, that priests, public intellectuals women and the underclasses can destroy us. why? because each demographic group wants reality to reflect its evolutionary advantage. The inferior prefer lies and R, and the superior truth and K. It’s not complicated. It’s just so many layers of lies it’s obscured. -
Your Civilization Is At Least 5000 Years Old And Christianity Was Its Dark Age.
THERE IS NOTHING IN CHRISTIANITY THAT WAS NOT PRESENT BEFORE IT. THE CHURCH “REVISED HISTORY” THE WAY THE MARXISTS AND POSTMODERNISTS DID IN THE CURRENT ‘DARK AGE’. While it is hard for us to imagine, there is nothing in christian culture that was not there before christianity. Nothing. Hence why so many contemporary thinkers argue that christianity is a western religion, and the result of western (or at least the result of anatolian-greek culture. The problem is, that as Nietzche tried to explain in his rather poetic german prose, we do not remember our pre-christian ethic in other than our northern european fairy tales and myths – even though it is endemic in the structure of our thought and in our traditions and in our laws. The church co-opted, reframed, and stole everything it could and took credit for appropriation as if it was invention. Even Bede simply fabricated a history that did not exist. The church created and instituted a culture of fictionalism (lying). THere is a very good reason that christianity was let into europe by illiterate south eastern europeans – as a means of moving power from the poorer more remote aristocratic west to the wealthier local theocratic east. I went thru the period of being angry with (((them))) for libertarianism. Then for marxism. Then for postmodernism. then for Christianity. Then for Abrahamism. Then for Platonism. Then for mysticism. Once oyu see the cancer and how it spread, it makes you furious that we have been defeated in the ancient world by (((lies))) and in the modern world by (((lies))) for no other reason than that we create sufficient wealth, security, and liberty, that priests, public intellectuals women and the underclasses can destroy us. why? because each demographic group wants reality to reflect its evolutionary advantage. The inferior prefer lies and R, and the superior truth and K. It’s not complicated. It’s just so many layers of lies it’s obscured. -
Public Apology
Some fellow named Insula Qui, who I know nothing about, repeatedly asked for time, and I’ve missed the previous meetings because they were too late at night. This time he set up I don’t have a lot of control over my environment here in the states. And the primary reason I’m still here rather than ukraine, is that my mother is quite ill, and more so than she let any of us in the family know. So this morning she had a significant episode, and I missed our third attempt. I didn’t so much care about this discussion as that it was moderated by TruDilTom who does know quite a bit about logic, and this would have been an opportunity to address the justification vs falsification vs competition between operationalism and falsificationism as the fundamental problem of rationalist thinking from plato and the abrahamists’ forward – and to have that context in a non-abstract format. I feel that I have exhausted the value of online discourse but this would have been an exceptional learning opportunity for everyone. So I apologize to Insula Qui, to TruDilTom, and to the community for failing everyone. thanks