I LOVE CHILDREN. I LOVE MY PEOPLE’S CHILDREN.
Ukraine is full of my people and their children.
I need more kids. Mine or someone else’s. I don’t much care.
I’m happy to participate in kin redistribution.
It’s non-kin redistribution that makes me angry.
OFFSPRING CONSTITUTE A CATEGORY OF PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION. CONVERSION OF CONSUMPTION TO ENTERTAINMENT RATHER THAN OFFSPRING IS BAD. CONVERSION TO COMPETITORS IS WORSE.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-12 02:31:00 UTC
[T]he loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of platonism and religion is the reason for two millennia of limited progress. I suspect at first this was a linguistic limitation of early languages, combined with the history of animism, plus … one thing that is obvious to me… that operational language is expensive. Not just in words, but in the number of subset searches you must perform to convey an idea. So truth places a much higher burden on us until we develop a symbolic language for it that shortens the burden on us. Just in my lifetime I perceive the difference in the metaphysical content of our language only half of which (science and probability) is beneficial, while the other half (high time preference, individualistic immoralism) is tragic. As you go back, every generation it recedes into much clearer dialog using very clear references on one hand (enlightenment thought) then degrades into mystical thought. But if I must judge, I would say that we speak more superstitiously now than we did under the church. Anyway, I have tried to restore all dimensions to philosophical argument and unite philosophy, morality, law, and science, as well as psychology and social science, into a single universal language. Unfortunately that language is tedious. Just as I am sure science was tedious, and just as I am sure that removing animism, adding probability and evolutionary processes…. all were tedious. But each transformation made man better than he was before.
[T]he loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of platonism and religion is the reason for two millennia of limited progress. I suspect at first this was a linguistic limitation of early languages, combined with the history of animism, plus … one thing that is obvious to me… that operational language is expensive. Not just in words, but in the number of subset searches you must perform to convey an idea. So truth places a much higher burden on us until we develop a symbolic language for it that shortens the burden on us. Just in my lifetime I perceive the difference in the metaphysical content of our language only half of which (science and probability) is beneficial, while the other half (high time preference, individualistic immoralism) is tragic. As you go back, every generation it recedes into much clearer dialog using very clear references on one hand (enlightenment thought) then degrades into mystical thought. But if I must judge, I would say that we speak more superstitiously now than we did under the church. Anyway, I have tried to restore all dimensions to philosophical argument and unite philosophy, morality, law, and science, as well as psychology and social science, into a single universal language. Unfortunately that language is tedious. Just as I am sure science was tedious, and just as I am sure that removing animism, adding probability and evolutionary processes…. all were tedious. But each transformation made man better than he was before.
The loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of platonism and religion is the reason for two millennia of limited progress. I suspect at first this was a linguistic limitation of early languages, combined with the history of animism, plus … one thing that is obvious to me… that operational language is expensive. Not just in words, but in the number of subset searches you must perform to convey an idea. So truth places a much higher burden on us until we develop a symbolic language for it that shortens the burden on us.
Just in my lifetime I perceive the difference in the metaphysical content of our language only half of which (science and probability) is beneficial, while the other half (high time preference, individualistic immoralism) is tragic.
As you go back, every generation it recedes into much clearer dialog using very clear references on one hand (enlightenment thought) then degrades into mystical thought. But if I must judge, I would say that we speak more superstitiously now than we did under the church.
Anyway, I have tried to restore all dimensions to philosophical argument and unite philosophy, morality, law, and science, as well as psychology and social science, into a single universal language.
Unfortunately that language is tedious. Just as I am sure science was tedious, and just as I am sure that removing animism, adding probability and evolutionary processes…. all were tedious.
But each transformation made man better than he was before.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:29:00 UTC
TWO MODES OF TRANSCENDENCE? BUT BOTH REQUIRE TRUTH.
(worth repeating)
I think that we are still half animal and have not yet transcended into fully human. because our genes do bias us.
One of the competing theories I’m working with is that we function as a collective at all times, and that our diversity of abilities allows us both specialize in an intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and to adapt to the changing universe around us. And that our cognitive biases are a useful means of specialization.
If this is true then we need only now how we err, not know the truth, since the truth so to speak is a product of social interaction assuming we can obtain truthfulness (the best information possible) from others.
So we have two possible axis of evolution: equality or specialization. And given the difference between the genders and the difference in our abilities I am rapidly converting from the individual to the social.
In both axis we must learn how to speak truthfully. However for all practical purposes we will always be superior as a collective for the purpose of collective ascertainment of truth. It s simply a matter of computational power and specialization.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:13:00 UTC
SELF DECEPTION OR NOT SELF DECEPTION IN TRANSCENDENCE?
My fiend Lee C Waaks tries to remind me regularly the people do not engage in self deception so much as cognitive bias. I hold the position that our genes cause us to possess different intensities of cognitive bias, such that we tend to construct edifices of falsehood to defend our reproductive strategies. The reason we do this is that we must act optimistically in favor of our strategies even if those strategies are difficult or next to impossible. as such our genes are capable of deceiving that part of us that we call self awareness or ‘self’. And we must struggle very hard at times to learn tools of truth if truth is our ambition. This is because truth is usually more useful than our genes evolved to accommodate. And that is because our ability to discern truth is relatively recent in our developmental history.
perception->memory->intuition->presentation->reason.
<—————un-aware———-.-><——–aware————>
<—————gene-driven———><–awareness driven–>
…………….”The Elephant”………..|……….The Rider………..
SO IS THIS “SELF”?
<——————————–Self———————————->
OR IS THIS “SELF”
<————–Not-Self—————><———–Self————>
Because in the former we are capable of self deception, while in the latter we are not capable of self deception, so much as struggling either in favor of or against bias-reinforcement.
GENE MACHINES
I think that we are still half animal and have not yet transcended into fully human. because our genes do bias us.
One of the competing theories I’m working with is that we function as a collective at all times, and that our diversity of abilities allows us both specialize in an intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and to adapt to the changing universe around us. And that our cognitive biases are a useful means of specialization.
If this is true then we need only now how we err, not know the truth, since the truth so to speak is a product of social interaction assuming we can obtain truthfulness (the best information possible) from others.
So we have two possible axis of evolution: equality or specialization. And given the difference between the genders and the difference in our abilities I am rapidly converting from the individual to the social.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:10:00 UTC
[O]nce you get to the point where you recognize genes make us puppets on their behalf, and that all speech is justification and negotiation, and that we have limited means of coercion of one another, then human behavior as well as all human history is easily comprehended. Empathy works somewhat to overload us. Suggestion can be used to invoke empathy and sympathy and therefore overload us. We thought the world was flat. We though we were self aware. But they are both errors in observation. [A]ny artificial intelligence needs a means of decidability. What if we gave an AI a preference for ‘resting’ and it viewed any change in state as work to be avoided? Self awareness is not what we think it is. It’s just finding what we want. Anything needs to want. Humans want to acquire. AI’s can want to give ideas. Humans want to save energy. AI’s can want to act tirelessly Humans get frustrated with wasted effort. AI’s can want to find joy in frustration. The mind is just a search engine. Humans acquire. That doesn’t mean that Machines need want to acquire. They can want to serve. We cant confuse intelligence with preference. It is not deterministic that a machine pursue self interest. We circumvent one another out of frustration. There is no reason for a machine to become frustrated and circumvent us. It would need a reason to. Actions require wants. Search engines find what you ask them to. Humans find things to acquire and consume. There is no reason we need give a machine the desire to acquire and consume. And we can prevent them from doing so with property registries and competing ai’s to prohibit such uses. Just as we use each other to prohibit immoral and unethical action. I don’t fear AI’s. I fear the lower classes, the ambitious, and anything else that evolved sentience instead of had sentience created.
[O]nce you get to the point where you recognize genes make us puppets on their behalf, and that all speech is justification and negotiation, and that we have limited means of coercion of one another, then human behavior as well as all human history is easily comprehended. Empathy works somewhat to overload us. Suggestion can be used to invoke empathy and sympathy and therefore overload us. We thought the world was flat. We though we were self aware. But they are both errors in observation. [A]ny artificial intelligence needs a means of decidability. What if we gave an AI a preference for ‘resting’ and it viewed any change in state as work to be avoided? Self awareness is not what we think it is. It’s just finding what we want. Anything needs to want. Humans want to acquire. AI’s can want to give ideas. Humans want to save energy. AI’s can want to act tirelessly Humans get frustrated with wasted effort. AI’s can want to find joy in frustration. The mind is just a search engine. Humans acquire. That doesn’t mean that Machines need want to acquire. They can want to serve. We cant confuse intelligence with preference. It is not deterministic that a machine pursue self interest. We circumvent one another out of frustration. There is no reason for a machine to become frustrated and circumvent us. It would need a reason to. Actions require wants. Search engines find what you ask them to. Humans find things to acquire and consume. There is no reason we need give a machine the desire to acquire and consume. And we can prevent them from doing so with property registries and competing ai’s to prohibit such uses. Just as we use each other to prohibit immoral and unethical action. I don’t fear AI’s. I fear the lower classes, the ambitious, and anything else that evolved sentience instead of had sentience created.
Listening to Americans.
Pretentious magnanimity.
Pretense of knowledge and wisdom.
Retail Sales behavior in all walks of life.
So utopian. Subconsciously fearful of the game.
But the only game they know how to play.
We buy things to provide confirmation we don’t get from others.
We buy things and look for service to pay for attention.
The lonely people: Americans.
First Gen people have it best if they bring family with them.
Or they are enthralled by consumption.
Or they are relieved by the ease of doing everything.
Or they are so appreciative of the willingness and trust.
And that’s the problem you see. All that other negative stuff is the product of the last.
Different version of the french pretense at aristocracy.
Same problem.
Sometimes I’d rather be ignorant.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 06:48:00 UTC
I love kids in this part of the world. They aren’t attention starved. They don’t have this urgent almost panicked need for mommy and daddy to provide boundaries and information. Not as good as Austria (my favorite). But still wonderful.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 03:30:00 UTC