—“The funny thing is, that we can all be superior in one domain or another.”— Moritz Bierling
Well that’s the whole trick now isn’t it? Find one that others want you to be superior in, that no one else is superior in. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 13:21:00 UTC
Yes we are smart. Yes we are creative. But what makes us different is that we are trustworthy. We are trustworthy either by nature(genetics) or training or both. It is increasingly obvious that it is BOTH. This is why other peoples cannot duplicate the western model. Our trust is a high tax. No other people will pay this tax other than perhaps the Japanese. Why: homogeneity.
Once you figure it out you realize how much lying is going on under cosmopolitanism. Once we end financial parasitism our ability to exercise our creativity and intelligence and trust will multiply once again. Once we eliminate centralization of the state, our creativity and intelligence will multiply once again.
Once we are no longer preyed upon our numbers will increase and we will multiply again.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 06:37:00 UTC
by Propertarian Frank
(1) Language and human action are inseparable, i.e. one cannot understand language separately from action (this reveals most of philosophy to be contentless)
(2) Names make sense exactly to the extent and via the structure they refer to actions (spectrum of measurements determine the scope and limits of names)
(3) Commensurability is the best language can do, because:
(i) To discern is an ACT of measurement
(ii) Indiscernible things are informationally null
(iii) Ergo one can only fully convey (without informational loss) names discernible to one’s interlocutor
(iv) Ergo we can only talk in dimensions of commensurability (measurements both parties can enACT)
Apply (i-iv) reflexively (talking to oneself): informational content in conceptualization is determined by the set of novel measurements (and ways thereof: meta-measurements or measurement-measurements, recursively) introduced.
In other words, commensurability exhausts the reach of language.
In other words, magic don’t real.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 06:23:00 UTC
I am not sure we should be so fascinated by IQ over 110. Maybe even 105. I mean, as far as I can tell, demonstrated intelligence – or maybe we should call it ‘wisdom’, which is sufficient for action in all walks of life – which we should differentiate from intelligence – or the rate at which we can learn abstractions, seems largely a problem of eliminating impulse, bias, ignorance, and attempts at upgrading our status by ‘cheating’ using various means of verbal and signal deceptions. We can train people into wisdom just as we do in to reading, mathematics, and sciences. So if we produce a narrow distribution, that’s just fine. The problem is the bottom.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 19:59:00 UTC
CAN AN AI TESTIFY?
—“Can AI perform statements?”— Skye Stewart
Brilliant question. The question is, who is speaking? The AI, or the developers, or the information providers, or the managers of it?
In propertarian ethics, an AI is always owned like a pet. We may not harm it but that does not mean we grant it peerage. (I am not sure we can).
But that said, even if we grant an AI rights by proxy of ownership like we do corporations, (which is what we will do), then can we punish an AI for false testimony? Can an AI make false testimony? Can an Ai speak without due diligence? Or would we have to punish the programmers that produce an AI that could lie or couls speak without due diligence?
As far as I know you have to give an AI a means of decidability, and that humans have many incentives to produce falsehoods and ai’s have none of them. Our problem is instead, reducing error in GENERAL AI’s (remember that all current ai is not general ai). And to do that we need vast stores of information, and human-speed search and retrieval across all those domains.
My personal view is that AI’s cannot report but not testify. AI’s can report but it is their producers and owners it proxies for.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 11:24:00 UTC
DRIVEN BY GENES, ELEPHANT OR RIDER?
False assumption.
Neither a top down or bottom up hierarchy.
Instead the competition between impulses, intuition(searching), and reasoning (comparing), creates a MARKET for SUCCESS that is gradually captured by genes (impulses), intuition(memory), and reason(expertise).
Intertemporal division of cognitive labor.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 12:27:00 UTC
Observation is limited to reduce our costs.
Memory is limited to reduce our costs, improve our speed of recall, and maximize our storage.
Reconstruction of experience is limited to that which is necessary for action.
Reconstruction requires stimuli necessary to access memory – it’s fragmentary.
Free association (imagination) is useful in searching for opportunities thereby reducing our costs.
To say that the observed world is a fiction is very hard to agree with since we can sense and perceive pretty much the full range of the universe where actions and reactions are possible for man. It would be a wasted cost (evolutionary drag) for us to sense and perceive that which we cannot act upon.
To say our values and judgements of that world are INCONSISTENT is evidenced by the effects of different drugs and circumstances on the interpretation of every phenomenon. To say they are false is something else it is hard to agree with. Since we readily reinterpret those perceptions when returning to normal state.
To say that our MODELS of reality are questionable, is highly variable by individual, and that’s demonstrable in all walks of life. For some people, modeling is exceptional. To say that our imaginations are fantasy, that’s true. To say that some people’s models are but fantasy that’s true.
To say ‘consciousness’ is an illusion is something I have to deny for the simple reason that I have a multi-decade experience with frequently losing consciousness under the right (not rare) conditions. And each stage of ‘awareness’ is relatively obvious. There is a base ‘you’ which may or may not be in the lower or mid-brain, that awakens slowly as more and more information is available to it as you return to consciousness by full use of your senses and memories, generating some semblance of a model of yourself in the world. Now, that base consciousness doesn’t do much more than wait and feel and react, but in my experience, it is definitely ‘me’ with my memories and current context, continually altering ‘me’ through various stages, which I notice are less happy and more skeptical as each stage begins to fully participate. I assume that ‘me’ is ‘womb me’. So for me, this isn’t a theory. it’s an experience I go through with painful frequency. (I have asthma and allergies and when coughing and changing body position causes me to faint if I don’t manage it. It’s called “Syncope” )
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 14:21:00 UTC
Um. Postmodern nonsense. The problem is, that the more power you have the more empirical you must be, and the less, and less empathy you must rely on. People do not put you in charge because you have the ‘trivial’ skill of empathy. The put you in charge because you have the ‘rare’ skill of insulating yourself from noise and limiting yourself to signal. We have known this even before brain imaging gave us the photos of it. Just as we have known that say, conservatives have more hypothalamic activity (fear, purity, disgust, loyalty) and progressives less. Just as we have known that men and women illustrate their preferences differently – feminine for aesthetic openness and masculine for idea-openness. In other words, feelz vs reals. Or in more evolutionary terms, tools vs consumption.
The strangeness of these studies (and the method of identifying feminine or postmodern thought) is the freudian (vs Nietzschean) presumption of an ideal uniform monopoly (feminine) character, rather than hierarchical distributed market (masculine) character.
I mean. you know. If it wasn’t for the marxists, feminists, and postmodernists we wouldn’t have lost a century in the pseudo-sciences. sigh.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 13:56:00 UTC
ENDORPHIN (DRUG) ADDICTION: THE SECRET TO ABRAHAMISM.
THE ANCIENT WORLD’S PRACTICAL RELIGION
In the ancient world, the aristocracy (warrior caste) performed many of the ceremonies – it was a public duty.
1) –“it would always remain a public office. “—
2) —“there were four colleges for priests, there was no priestly class;”—
3) —individual expression of belief was unimportant, strict adherence to a rigid set of rituals was far more significant, thereby avoiding the hazards of religious zeal (endorphine-chasing) —
IN OTHER WORDS
Like the only other civilization to rely on reason: china –
1 – The religion was ritualistic, and mindfulness was achievable through ritual and NOT subject to self-induced-drug-addiction. It was a practical religion not an escapist one.
2 – The practice of the rituals was an administrative skill (see Japanese Tea Ceremony) available to everyone.
3 – There was no dedicated priestly caste that could gain material or political power through the use of deception (fictionalism) or the sale of experiences (self induced drug addiction).
IN OTHER WORDS
There are many ways to obtain the experience of mindfulness. Of them, the best appears to be stoic virtues, the next pagan rituals, the next buddhist meditation, the next pagan prayer. As far as I know the only ‘bad’ means of doing so are self-induced-endorphine saturation, and artificially induced endorphin saturation (drugs).
CLOSING
People’s addiction to self-induced endorphin addiction using abrahamic religion is no different from people’s addiction to self administered synthetic endorphin-addiction.
And their behavior in defense of their addictions whether alcohol, marijuana, opiates, hallucinogens, or fictionalist religion – any religion that can produce ‘Zeal’ (addiction-behavior), is the same – and it is the reason for their absurd behavior in defense of their addiction.
I have no problem calling drug addicts what they are. I have no problem prosecuting drug addicts. I have no problem denying drug addicts means of distribution of their drugs. I have no problem denying drug addicts access to the commons. And I have no problem imprisoning or killing drug addicts.
BECAUSE AS WE HAVE SEEN – ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOR IS ANTITHETICAL TO CIVILIZATION.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 09:00:00 UTC
LIFE IS HARD FOR VERY SMART PEOPLE
(from elsewhere)
Great piece. I found childhood brutal in many ways. It was very hard to be happy. As an adult it is hard to be happy.
1) BEST ADVICE I DIDN’T GET: “Don’t do it their way.” I have an orthogonal frame of reference: everything is easy. So I teach myself. I teach myself at my own rate. And usually one subject at a time. I work more slowly but grasp at far deeper depth. Everyone else is wasting my time. And all the great teachers are available in the great books in the library. The rest are very poor substitutes.
2) BEST ADVICE I DID GET: “We are a tiny minority. It’s their world, not ours. Help them navigate it. But don’t expect them to change, or it to change.”
3) BEST ADVICE I GAVE MYSELF: “Love others like they are children. Enjoy them. Do not try to control them or improve them. Let them learn about the world. If they ask, help them ‘just enough’. As a general rule try to compliment or help everyone you meet – in their way, not what you want to in your way. They will like you back for it.”
4) MOTIVATION: “Women”. I’m a competitor. I like women, good food, money, time-to-think, and power to do what I wish. So I had to learn those ‘ordinary’ skills. I had to ‘learn to try’ not in intellectual but social matters. And it paid off. I think this is a better direction for the hyper intelligent to pursue than additional mastery of additional fields of little potential return. It’s in the mastery of the ordinary that most of us find our only substantive challenge, and one that produces the most substantial rewards. The lost potential in the very smart is caused by their free riding on intellectual matters and never solving the most important one.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 19:43:00 UTC