Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • @RedPilledWorld @voxday Oh. I know Vox’s “Math” and as an explanation: non corre

    @RedPilledWorld@voxday

    Oh. I know Vox’s “Math” and as an explanation: non correlation without explaining causation. Now, the means of falsifying this particular argument is relatively simple and someone has already done so in this thread.

    For example, there are about 100M neural columns in your head. They manage to predict and iteratively test and re-predict a model of the world within a few milliseconds. This EVOLUTION of disorder into order you call perception is possible because those 100M neural colums work in PARALLEL. And they do so by adversarial competition for prediction over time. And those columns that correctly predict contain neurons that get fed for that correct prediction. Now, evolution works the same way. In massive parallel and variation and hybridization and variation and speciation and so on. So the (moronic) oversight of such calculations as vox has stated is presuming that taking an average rate of mutation in a stable life form that by its stability limits mutations is sufficient to statistically represent the wide variety of rates of mutation, the wide variety of selection criteria, and the massive parallelism that occurs as this wide range of potentials compete. Now, of course, the correct answer is that because evolution (evolutionary computation) is the function (first principle) of the universe, and because of the absolutely stupid-simple method of computation by which the universe computes increase in the capture of energy as existence – a stable relation, that anything that can be computed will be computed.

    And the rate of computation is simply the set of methods of evolutionary computation, the rate of trial and error, the rate and number of regulatory processes, the complexity of the exchange between the cellular biochemistry and the production of molecules, the rate of reproduction, the degree of parallelization, the number and frequency of speciation and recombination, the division of responsibility between cells, organisms, and complex organisms, and the chaos of the selection criteria produced by the environment, resources and competitors. Not how few of those factors are present in the ‘moron math’ of vox day. And how easily you morons are fooled by a basic incomprehension of basic statistics.

    The big ‘oops’ for example is the capture of mitochondria by one cell that tried to eat another cell. This allowed cells to divide by providing external resources of energy production, and the nucleus to divide the genetic material without increasing genetic mass, and without accounting for energy production. This ‘oops’ is not the only ‘oops’ that appears to have happened.

    SIMPLE MATH VERSION
    Any math that ends in infinities is false.
    Any math that is non-correspondent is false.
    Any math that cannot provide an operational construction is false.
    Because all of these failures are evidence of a failure to account for variables – what we call ‘hidden variables’.

    Vox’s math (which isn’t his by the way), is false.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 22:37:49 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764768384038667

  • @Snidely_Whiplash @RenegadeScoutr @voxday Explain why you think that is the case

    @Snidely_Whiplash@RenegadeScoutr@voxday
    Explain why you think that is the case and I’ll explain why you’re wrong. 😉

    The difference between generations of pre-human to human primates is largely in regulation of the expression of growth stem cells by migratory distance from the neural tube. This is not a genetic difference expressed in the composition of proteins it is a regulatory difference in expression of processes that is most likely the result of regulating the production rate of protiens or transports instead of additional complex molecules.

    This is why there is so little difference in SNP variation between chimps and humans. We can only measure some of the informational content of the DNA. It also means we are a long way of closing the gap between genetics and medical treatment, unless as in rare cases the genetic deficiency is one or two simple SNPs.

    It’s not complicated. It was just complicated to figure out. DNA analysis does not retain the expression (state) of sections of the genome.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 22:10:05 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764659371452306

  • @asomd2021 @ScuzzaMan @voxday 1) Changes happen because mutation (fragility) has

    @asomd2021@ScuzzaMan@voxday

    1) Changes happen because mutation (fragility) has not been eradicated from the replication process for reasons too technical to go into here. What we don’t yet know is why some organisms are so good at controling limited mutation and some are not (cancer cells) or why some cells are within the norm of mutation and some are extrme outliers with 100M times as many mutations in the same generational series.

    2) Evolution isn’t the paradigm of evolution it’s the paradigm of existence itself. In other words, evolution is the first principle of the universe. I cover in normie prose in this interview:

    These three sections explain the evolution as the function of the universe, and my position on Christianity and comparative religion.

    0:11:00 – Evolution: Explaining Continous Recursive Disambiguation of Disorder into Order – A Hierarchy of Stable Relations: Existence.

    0:25:47 – Curt’s understanding of god. Christianity and Religion and General

    0:37:16 – European Evolution of Trifunctionalism vs Everyone Else’s Failure into Monopoly.

    3) So why it happens is that the universe is under pressure either by an inability to expand or a pressure to contract. This results in the energy content of the quantum background (which is terrifyingly huge in every single cubic centimeter, and every single Planck unit). So the universe can only use entropy to dissipate energy or use evolution to capture energy in a higher stable relation (state). All existence (mass) is the result of the capture of energy in complex combinations of electromagnetic bonds, where each bond assists in producing the stability of the related bonds. In other words the universe will never run out of evolutionary pressure until it ends – if it ever ends.

    4) As for one species evolving into another, I’m not sure I understand that statement, since a ‘species’ is just a taxonomy we use to represent a stable relation of a genome expressed in a life form, for some stable period of time. For example, humans are still evolving, and have evolved rapidly over the past ten thousand years, and we speciating into at least four new species before the agrarian revolution. Humans are sexually opportunistic, and sexually hyperadaptive, so we are less likely at least in the norm, to limit homogenization by hybridization. So a stable state of any organism just means it’s adapted to its environment such that limited change occurs and only slowly. Yet under duress, we see punctuated equilibriums created by the opportunity for adaptation given the potential to express adaptive mutation that was previously limited by competitors. And this allows for increase in mass by capturing those new niches. So a ‘spiecies’ is a ‘photograph’ of a common state of a related genome at a point in time so that we can measure (perceive) differences, and from those differences, learn something.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 21:52:23 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764589743421199

  • @no_slunk @veraticus @voxday Again. You’re proving my point that abrahamism teac

    @no_slunk@veraticus@voxday Again. You’re proving my point that abrahamism teaches you to claim knowledge you do not have, to lie, and to socially construct falsehoods.

    Can you testify that I’m not just covered in sweat from the summer heat, and inability to regulate my body temperature becasue I lack a thyroid, and take a number of allergy medicationst that exacerbate the problem?

    No, you can only lie.

    You lied. I know you are going to lie. Because christianity is a lie and all abrahamic religion consists of is a vast compilation of lies, using the female means of lying and denying using pilpul, gssrm, critique, social construction, lying and denying.

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 21:41:40 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764547609755200

  • @veraticus @voxday Funny. It’s you cognitively femine who avoid the argument. I

    @veraticus@voxday Funny. It’s you cognitively femine who avoid the argument. I use the same masculine paternal strategy as always: I stay with the central argument, improve the argument, insult the opposition for lying, denying, and then repeat until I’ve amassed a body of argument that I can copy, paste into a long form, for others to learn from. You know why this works? You pussies run out of the ability to use female GSRRM, Jewish-Marxist-Pomo Critique, and abrahamic pretense of knowledge before I run out of consistent, coherent, correspondent, complete, argument. And why? Because of course the argumentative context doesn’t matter. What matters is illustrating that I”m correct and that we can identify female means of deceit used for both abrahamic theological of the old world and abrahamic pseudoscientific (marx, pomo, woke) of the new world. 😉

    And you suckers take the bait every time. Why? You are so desperate to defend your socially constructed, heavily malinvseted, lies that your moral outrage causes you like a pavolovian dog to yeet yeet yeet in response.

    It’s hysterical really. That’s why christians are the world’s ass clowns.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 20:27:49 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764257226154564

  • DEBATE AS RESEARCH FWIW: I use the ‘smart’ tactic as bait. It causes self-defens

    DEBATE AS RESEARCH

    FWIW: I use the ‘smart’ tactic as bait. It causes self-defensive and moral outrage in the opposition, and it’s from a position of moral outrage we are most likely to state our truthful intuitions. This is why I rely on the king of the hill (adversarial) method of research on social media. It’s also why people tend to think I’m holding a position that I don’t, I”m just investigating by running tests – and it’s mostly why people (somewhat justifiably)come to hate me. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 20:22:20 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764235674579531

  • @xxxlrx @voxday @JFGariepy (FWIW: I use the ‘smart’ tactic as bait. It causes se

    @xxxlrx@voxday@JFGariepy (FWIW: I use the ‘smart’ tactic as bait. It causes self defensive and moral outrage in the opposition, and its from a position of moral outrage we are most likely to state our truthful intuitions. This is why I rely on the king of the hill (adversarial) method of research on social media. It’s also why people tend to think I’m holding a position that I don’t, I”m just investigating by running tests – and it’s mostly why people (somewhat justifiably)come to hate me. 😉 )

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 20:20:56 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764230133421239

  • @xxxlrx @voxday @JFGariepy Not sure who you’re talking to. I called in to suppor

    @xxxlrx@voxday@JFGariepy

    Not sure who you’re talking to.

    I called in to support JFG’s book by crash reading it the day it was released, in order to support him because I’m a fan. I’ve had one back and forth with him on the subject (at least that I recall) becuase we misunderstood each other. I had interpreting him making a general observation to educate the public and I think his theory is that is operational (it’s exactly what happend). Which means that I misunderstood him. I pretty much don’t disagree with JFG except when we talk past each other. And that’s becasue I have to determine what’s decidable in court by decidable means. And JFG is more often in the philosophical (and skeptical) tradition of deciding what is useful, beneficial or good. This is a difference in framing that causes talking past one another. it’s not a disagreement.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 20:18:42 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764221349527400

  • @RenegadeScoutr @Snidely_Whiplash @voxday You just lied again by 1) equating dev

    @RenegadeScoutr@Snidely_Whiplash@voxday You just lied again by

    1) equating devotion (religion) to trust (science)
    Faith (religion) > Belief (Philosohy) > Trust (Action (economics, law))

    2) equating science(testifiable) to a faith(specifically because its untestifiable)

    3) equating the absence of trust in the untestifiable (science) with faith(religion) in the untestifiable specifically because it is untestifiable.

    4) science consists of the application of testimony outside of the field of its origin in the law. In the adversarial marketplace to falsify competing statements, that which survives falsification is the truth candidate. This is not true of faith (social construction of a falsehood). Instead, that which is desirable survives and propagates. Not because it is true – but because it is false and desirable. Why? We only need to know what is true in order to resolve conflicts. We can invent truth, falshood, fraud, and deceit in order to coerce others in to giving us what we want.

    This is why abrahamic religoin spreads: its a lie simple people want to be true. Because it means they are good by social constuction not by the evience of their actions in life.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 20:11:13 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764191934489504

  • @xevious2030 I don’t know you so I’m not really sure which argument you’re tryin

    @xevious2030 I don’t know you so I’m not really sure which argument you’re trying to make. But (a) if you can’t make the argument you don’t understand it yourself. (b) I can make every single argument whose assertion I offer. (c) As is noted in most of the journals the primary problem with the failure of most modern scientific publications is a lack of understanding of statistics, or the evolutionary conditions under which any evolutionary process competes. (we call this a failure of full accounting).

    a) the first article says nothing related to the topic
    b) the second article seeks to demonstrate the rate of reproduction but does not include the rate of genetic variation, or the conditions of selection
    c) the third article uses ecoli to illustrate that in a healthy long-surviving single-cell organism, the mutation rate is constant, and most surviving mutations are beneficial. In other words, the purpose of the article is to express how much work we have to do to understand how cells process information such that harmful mutations rarely succeed (and unlike cancer cells, don’t hyper-reproduce destroying the colony of cells).
    d) the fourth article states the obvious that every time we refine our measurements we discover that there are more bacteria living under more conditions in more niches than we had estimated – fulfilling the theory that ‘bacteria are the most durable adaptive and successful form of life’.

    CONCLUSION
    So what you have tried to do, if I understand, is pretend that these articles are relevant to the discussion, that you possess sufficient konwledge to participate in such a discussion, and that you possess sufficient knowledge to hold an opinion, and that your opinion has any merit.

    And in doing so you have confirmed my accusation that Abrahamic religions and that you are employing the female strategy of deception by claiming your disapproval is equal to falsification, then lying denying and socially constructing a falsehood to obscure your equation of approval with truth, the pretense of knowledge, competency, merit (ie: lying).

    So yes. You just proved again that I was right on my accusation that Abrahamic religions teach you to lie. using the female method of deception that was institutionalized – not as reason, science, technology, economics, and law as in the west, but as supernatural deceit in the middle east.

    You know. (a) it’s very unlikely you (or anyone else for that matter) will approach being smarter than I am in such matters. Largely because my work has resulted in a certain level of skill in lie detection that is unique. (b) and because I’m quite careful about the difference between decidability, undecidability, opinion, and trash talking for amusement. (c) it is however possible to know something I don’t – but then you’d have to demonstrate it. And by your actions you’ve demonstrated that you’re that category of person who neither possesses such knowledge nor would be able to employ it.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 20:05:12 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764168282988316