consciousness consists in our experience of the recursive effect of constinuous perception’s causation of searches and short term memory, and the ‘persistence of vision’ of short term memory.
What I am unclear about is how we ‘focus’ on choosing between search results.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-02 03:04:00 UTC
NOT EVERYONE IS READY TO MOVE FORWARD
Ideological malinvestment is extremely difficult to overcome – it requires rebuilding your conceptual portfolio.
It’s harder if your malinvestment is in a sentimental, or rational, ideology rather than scientific evidence.
And it is harder if your self worth and social status are dependent upon preservation of the malinvestment.
This is why science progresses with the death of the previous generation – status preservation of malinvestment.
I don’t care what names people call me.Darwin, Newton,Galileo, Aristotle, and Socrates had worse. But True=True.
Sovereignty exists or not, Liberty is obtained by permission, freedom out of utility, subsidy out of signaling.
Sovereignty is only possible under the reciprocal insurance of property in toto by the promise of violence.
And the only institutions that are possible under sovereignty are markets – markets in everything.
And the only way of producing markets in everything is w/ natural,judge-discovered,common law of non-imposition.
…non-imposition against property in toto: to total elimination of the incentive to retaliate.
Tucker is a good person and I have affection for him. Not everyone is ready. They must lose hope in error first.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 20:51:00 UTC
Q&A: ON PORN – A LITTLE IS ONE THING, TOO MUCH IS A VERY BAD THING
—“Hey Mr. Doolittle. I love your work. If you don’t mind, could you do one of your famous write-ups on the harm of pornography?”—-
Porn is bad for (most) men really. Cuts our dominance and aggression dramatically, and our ambition along with it; and if you watch it enough it will hurt your libido just like many recreational drugs will hurt your pleasure receptors – perhaps permanently.
This has largely to do with the problem of novelty. Male arousal is largely a function of novelty. This is why good relationships combine frequent easy ‘nightly’ sex, with ‘novelty’ (like in places we shouldn’t have sex, or having sex under sneaky but fun circumstances.)
So frequently ‘using’ porn, ‘desensitizes’ your libido and forces you to search for ever increasing novelty to provoke a response. If you do this enough, then it is increasingly difficult to obtain a state of arousal or even ‘interest’ in real life. ESPECIALLY with your stable girlfriend/wife – and this is the problem. You can compensate by avoiding alcohol and pot. You can compensate a bit by physical exercise and competition, but the porn will draw down your desire for it. You can compensate by avoiding it entirely for six months or more. As far as I know you can get past it entirely if you stay away from it for three to four years (which is about duration of the human forgetting curve). But I haven’t seen good data other than about two thirds of men respond positively to long term avoidance of porn.
(Good research esp, out of Italy.)
HOWEVER, there is also research to suggest that the drop in crime among those men with TOO MUCH testosterone (you know who) has a lot to do with the availability of free porn, cheap high fat food loaded with MSG, cable television and video games, more so than any other phenomenon.
And it seems like now-and-then use of porn in your teens, can seriously help release the stress of being a young male. Which honestly, is distracting as hell, and in my memory, was a constant source of aggressive thoughts.
So you know, it’s one of those good and bad things.
If you’re in a regular relationship do not use it, and instead, be a little more creative. Porn is a cheap and easy spice for sex with your regular girl. But you pay for the discount. Instead, try higher investment activities: new places, higher risk, more kinky, or the old fashioned way: more sensual and attentive. (Although my generation was over-taught that strategy).
We have some interesting information from the past few decades of data collection, and it turns out that women like the ‘lower class’ men at times because they ‘think less and feel more’ and do it more aggressively. And just as a woman has a harder time ‘letting go’ in order to ‘get there’, men have to re-learn to ‘let go’ and get her there.
So when with her friends, love your inner gentleman. When you’re arousing, love your inner romantic, and play the romance game. But when in the heat of it, love your inner Gorilla. Surrender to him. Let him go. Use every drop of strength you have to move her. Girls don’t break all that easily. And most of them like the thrill of it. Just how it is.
RUN A BIT.
SPRINT A BIT
PLAY A LITTLE PAINTBALL
LIFT VERY HEAVY THINGS WITH YOUR WHOLE BODY
READ A NON-FICTION BOOK.
GENTLEMAN/ROMANCE/AND GORILLA THE HELL OUT OF HER.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 11:51:00 UTC
Sure we’re all naked apes flinging verbal feces as elaborate signaling rituals.But I still try to fling better verbal feces than anyone else
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-29 17:29:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803652127293702144
Sure we’re all naked apes flinging verbal feces as elaborate signaling rituals.But I still try to fling better verbal feces than anyone else
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-29 12:29:00 UTC
MORAL AI THE SAME WAY WE PRODUCE MORAL MAN
Neural Network based AI performs what we would call free-association, not reason. These AI’s use arbitrarily (or intentionally) set ‘weights’ or ‘points’.
Free-Association -> Solution: Idea ( candidacy or not )
…. Rational Wayfinding -> Solution:Hypothesis (possibility or not)
…. …. Ratio-Empirical Criticism -> Solution:Theory (survival or not)
…. …. …. Market Survival -> Solution:Law (survival or not)
But there is no defense against programmer error(competence), or intent (malice).
We can solve the problem of ‘dangerous’ AI by three incrementally rigorous methods that we already use in our own thoughts to regulate human thought and behavior.
1) The neural network uses property, inventory, and costs rather than points and knowledge.
2) Once a solution is identified by the network we try to construct a route to the solution “wayfinding” through a set of operations on property.
3) We use both in process and wayfinding approaches.
This is what the human mind does. Both.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 18:35:00 UTC
consciousness = valuation of various forecasts of changes in state of property in toto experiential weighting.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 13:07:00 UTC
THE LENS OF IQ
G is an average of the two abilities (of perhaps eighty) of the human mind that are the most correspondent with demonstrated life long ability to learn and adapt quickly. All other abilities scale in correspondence with those two. It is arguable that we should split this number: verbal(describing)/spatial(modeling) to gain a higher degree of precision. And it is arguable that we should round down to the nearest 5 points, but there is NO DEBATE in the scientific community over the correspondence of G with the rate of learning and adaptability demonstrated in reality. EXCEPT that personality defects, and life’s shocks, can further diminish the potential. And accumulating general knowledge and stoic discipline will allow you to maximize your potential. But the fact remains, that at every 15 points of difference we are very different ‘breeds’ of human. And at 30 points of difference we are analogous to different species.
Conversely, the problem facing those with lesser abilities, is the Dunning-Kruger effect, in which people with lower intelligence demonstrably overestimate their abilities. While people with higher intelligence, encountering the same problem, will question their abilities.
So, I would not argue with a baboon, any more than I would argue anything of substance with someone with a <100 IQ. It’s not so much that they’re stupid but they demonstrate an absurd overconfidence in their understanding and opinion that insulates them in a bubble of inescapable ignorance.
THE MODEL
I tend to look at IQ as the center of a lens of capability that slides up and down the IQ index. This lens is frosted around the edges. if others are too relatively dim it is hard to understand them. If others are too relatively abstract it is hard to understand them. But in general we can see seven points either direction pretty clearly, and 15 points either direction if we work at it. But beyond that it’s hard to make out more than vague shapes.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 10:14:00 UTC
CONTINUOUS SELF IMPROVEMENT BY ASSIGNING VALUE TO INTANGIBLES (VIRTUES) (THE REDISCOVERY OF STOIC METHOD)
by Moritz Bierling
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 09:34:00 UTC
Nov 15, 2016 8:09am by James Augustus Berens —“There is a belief popular amongst people who’ve never accomplished anything in life, the idea that one must merely dream or think of what he wants, which is almost always material in nature, and as if by some act of divine will his subjective wants and desires will materialize, with little to no effort expended on his part. Achievement isn’t an act of wishful thinking, only western millennials have had the privilege to maintain such illusions– it is an act of physically imposing one’s will onto the external world. Anything else is an admission that one is devoid of any significant form of agency.”— James Augustus Berens.