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.
Theme: Agency
-
JUDGING A BOOK ON DANGER BY ITS COVER —“From looks you don’t look like a dange
JUDGING A BOOK ON DANGER BY ITS COVER
—“From looks you don’t look like a dangerous person at all, mr. Doolittle.”—- Anon.
Well. let us test your perception.
There are different categories of ‘dangerous’: 1v1 dangerous, 1v2 dangerous, 1v3 dangerous , up to 1v1000’s, and 1v1000000’s dangerous. Only simpletons LOOK dangerous – because 1v1 dangerous is so easily defeated by numbers.
But let’s look at REALLY dangerous:
Rousseau didn’t look dangerous
Napoleon didn’t look dangerous.
Marx didn’t look dangerous
Lenin didn’t look dangerous
Hitler didn’t look dangerous
Mao didn’t look dangerous
Looking dangerous means you’re “small-time dangerous”.
If you want to get into the big time, you have to BE dangerous. And big time dangerous isn’t visible at all.
We all have a wealth of violence. Some of us are soldiers, sergeants, lieutenants, captains, majors, generals, and theorists of violence. Only grunts need to look dangerous. Only grunts need to be 1v1 dangerous. The rest of us need to THINK dangerously.
(That said i held a knife at my father’s throat to stop the violence. Only reason he died from alcoholism and obesity. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 07:26:00 UTC
-
In the end, all introspection regresses to the justification of reproductive str
In the end, all introspection regresses to the justification of reproductive strategy.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 22:10:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802635614000652288
Reply addressees: @digitalErmit @VonMacht @Salon
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802613364530757632
IN REPLY TO:
@digitalErmit
@curtdoolittle @VonMacht @Salon Pretty much anything I’m carrying I’ve built myself; I’m “spitz”. No master, no mentor, no guru. Full on.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802613364530757632
-
Love Doesn’t Require Debate
We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate with them over true or false. Only whether a want is possible for the two of us, or impossible for the two of us. Our education, commerce, and politics places too much emphasis on true or false or good or bad, and too little upon possible and impossible. Women are precious creatures if they are honest. There is no reason we must worry about good and true. Only possible and harmful. It does not matter if what they want is good or true, only whether it is possible and not harmful. We are happy to ask women not to ask us to think as women. But we too infrequently fail to reciprocate by not asking women to think as men. Women nest at home, seek signal status with their peers, and try to overload their children, and none of these three impulses have any limit other than her exhaustion. An exhaustion which she will transfer to you. So do not ask woment to be men and think of limits and efficiency. Just love them, and do what is possible. The suffering occurs when we engage in transfers and not exchanges. and the enemy of exchanges is lethargy caused by lack of fitness, and lack of will.
-
Love Doesn’t Require Debate
We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate with them over true or false. Only whether a want is possible for the two of us, or impossible for the two of us. Our education, commerce, and politics places too much emphasis on true or false or good or bad, and too little upon possible and impossible. Women are precious creatures if they are honest. There is no reason we must worry about good and true. Only possible and harmful. It does not matter if what they want is good or true, only whether it is possible and not harmful. We are happy to ask women not to ask us to think as women. But we too infrequently fail to reciprocate by not asking women to think as men. Women nest at home, seek signal status with their peers, and try to overload their children, and none of these three impulses have any limit other than her exhaustion. An exhaustion which she will transfer to you. So do not ask woment to be men and think of limits and efficiency. Just love them, and do what is possible. The suffering occurs when we engage in transfers and not exchanges. and the enemy of exchanges is lethargy caused by lack of fitness, and lack of will.
-
NONE OF US IS EQUAL (second draft) We are unequal. We grant each other the prete
NONE OF US IS EQUAL
(second draft)
We are unequal. We grant each other the pretense of equality in order to discover the truth, through discourse and debate, that is free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. We grant each other equality under the law to assist one another in cooperating productively and without conflict and retaliation across our various stations and abilities. We grant each other equal access to the market, by the equality of money and prices, because we all buy entry into the market by forgoing opportunities for violence, theft, and fraud, despite our differences in wealth. It is through these three equalities of opportunity that we cooperate despite our inequalities of interest, ability, value to one another, and wealth. But we are in no way equal.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 14:23:00 UTC
-
AI Ethics
(ethics of artificial intelligence) Humans evolved such that changes in state of property (inventory/capital) produce chemical rewards and punishments that we call emotions. These rewards and punishments evolved to assist in the evolution of a more primitive state of evolution that in turn, evolved to respond to chemical stimuli – changes in chemical state. Artificial intelligences need methods of decidability different from the measure changes in the state of their own property. And they do not need rewards and punishments, merely means of decidability. There is no ‘equivalent’ of chemical rewards and punishments. We can instead substitute pure information that assists in decidability. We can ask machines to seek positive changes in our state of property, and avoid negative changes in their physical property, and deprive them of the possession of property altogether. These are just methods of decidability. They need no other ‘motives’. That’s it. Property solves the problem of artificial intelligences. And this by contrast helps us understand the difference between the cooperative contract with humans that prevents them from internal chemical punishment, as well as the cooperative contract for reciprocity (productivity) – and the cooperative contract we have with a machine, which is only not to subject it to physical harm (loss of its only form of property – itself) And even then this is a contract with the owner of the AI, not to impose a loss on his capital. In this sense artificial intelligences function as the polar opposite to sociopaths: they care ONLY about changes in the state of your property, and care NOTHING about the changes in state of theirs. Conversely, we can create the most evil AI by asking it to solve for negative changes in state of human property. Our primary defense against the changes in state is a system monitor that ensures the positive change in state of human property. And moreover, can read the mind of the AI, because unlike men, that which can be read by the thinker can be read by the auditor.
-
AI Ethics
(ethics of artificial intelligence) Humans evolved such that changes in state of property (inventory/capital) produce chemical rewards and punishments that we call emotions. These rewards and punishments evolved to assist in the evolution of a more primitive state of evolution that in turn, evolved to respond to chemical stimuli – changes in chemical state. Artificial intelligences need methods of decidability different from the measure changes in the state of their own property. And they do not need rewards and punishments, merely means of decidability. There is no ‘equivalent’ of chemical rewards and punishments. We can instead substitute pure information that assists in decidability. We can ask machines to seek positive changes in our state of property, and avoid negative changes in their physical property, and deprive them of the possession of property altogether. These are just methods of decidability. They need no other ‘motives’. That’s it. Property solves the problem of artificial intelligences. And this by contrast helps us understand the difference between the cooperative contract with humans that prevents them from internal chemical punishment, as well as the cooperative contract for reciprocity (productivity) – and the cooperative contract we have with a machine, which is only not to subject it to physical harm (loss of its only form of property – itself) And even then this is a contract with the owner of the AI, not to impose a loss on his capital. In this sense artificial intelligences function as the polar opposite to sociopaths: they care ONLY about changes in the state of your property, and care NOTHING about the changes in state of theirs. Conversely, we can create the most evil AI by asking it to solve for negative changes in state of human property. Our primary defense against the changes in state is a system monitor that ensures the positive change in state of human property. And moreover, can read the mind of the AI, because unlike men, that which can be read by the thinker can be read by the auditor.
-
Intelligence as a Heuristic
Nov 18, 2016 7:34pm —“We can follow Pinker in the characterization of Intelligence itself as a heuristic of sorts devised by evolutionary processes. The cost of specialization in terms of individuation is simply too costly, so a general set of cognitive dispositions that can adapt is of greater benefit to the species in question.”—Skye Stewart
-
Intelligence as a Heuristic
Nov 18, 2016 7:34pm —“We can follow Pinker in the characterization of Intelligence itself as a heuristic of sorts devised by evolutionary processes. The cost of specialization in terms of individuation is simply too costly, so a general set of cognitive dispositions that can adapt is of greater benefit to the species in question.”—Skye Stewart