Oct 14, 2019, 9:07 AM Three axis of Causality in Religion vs Science. 1) Intelligence, 2) Empathizing vs Systematizing. 3) Degree of familial indoctrination in Religion vs Science. So The demarcation isn’t just IQ, but IQ and the Competition between Feminine Feeling vs Masculine Thinking. I was raised very catholic it simply ‘lost’ the battle just like religion won the battle for others – and everyone else somewhere in between. Yet among they thought leaders here, most of us have a religious background and far more people than you’d think have studied religion, or considered a religious career. So I don’t see a difference in our objectives, just means of achieving the masculine or feminine distribution. And the Pagan is definitely masculine – extremely and unapologetically, and some of us ‘feel’ the masculine not the feminine. Conversely Atheism is definitely a feminine cognitive expression. So as in nearly all our differences in understanding of the world, the question of religiosity is largely genetic and less so environmental, and the genetic difference is explicable as differences in one of the only substantial variables in the human brain: gender dimorphism. — Working On This — (Female) Reactionary Atheism (preference, monopoly) -v- Resistant Agnosticism (truth, markets) (Male)
Theme: Causality
-
There Is No Fermi Paradox
Oct 30, 2019, 10:36 AM As in all things there is no paradox, just an open question, no paradoxes exist. One can falsify the fermi question. It is falsifiable.We have failed to falsify it. One cannot disprove, only fail to provide a proof of possibility in an axiomatic system like mathematics, and reality is a theoretic system, not axiomatic. At present it is falsifiable, un-falsified, and undecidable, and therefore all we can say is that “we don’t know yet”. The most obvious reasons are: 1 – Technological (EMR is a primitive technology) 2 – Differences are such that we would be of no trading (cooperative) value; interfering would only create a competitor; and it is too early for a colonization effort to have reached us given the recent development of EMR broadcasting. 3 – Time and distance window of opportunity 4 – We are in a calm location between arms, in a calm (dying) galaxy, and have had long enough period of growth to ‘bake’ in necessary conditions 5 – I am concerned that the spinning liquid iron core of our planet that creates its defensive field is rarer than we imagine, and as such it is much harder for life to have time to bake. taken to the extreme, the question may be, now many planets can survive four to five billion years, in a safe rural area of a galaxy, in the habitable (water) zone, while maintaining a spinning liquid iron core?
-
There Is No Fermi Paradox
Oct 30, 2019, 10:36 AM As in all things there is no paradox, just an open question, no paradoxes exist. One can falsify the fermi question. It is falsifiable.We have failed to falsify it. One cannot disprove, only fail to provide a proof of possibility in an axiomatic system like mathematics, and reality is a theoretic system, not axiomatic. At present it is falsifiable, un-falsified, and undecidable, and therefore all we can say is that “we don’t know yet”. The most obvious reasons are: 1 – Technological (EMR is a primitive technology) 2 – Differences are such that we would be of no trading (cooperative) value; interfering would only create a competitor; and it is too early for a colonization effort to have reached us given the recent development of EMR broadcasting. 3 – Time and distance window of opportunity 4 – We are in a calm location between arms, in a calm (dying) galaxy, and have had long enough period of growth to ‘bake’ in necessary conditions 5 – I am concerned that the spinning liquid iron core of our planet that creates its defensive field is rarer than we imagine, and as such it is much harder for life to have time to bake. taken to the extreme, the question may be, now many planets can survive four to five billion years, in a safe rural area of a galaxy, in the habitable (water) zone, while maintaining a spinning liquid iron core?
-
Red Queen?
Oct 30, 2019, 3:53 PM
—“I’m still not exactly sure what do you mean by defeating the red queen because to me, red queen is part of the natural law (or rather one of its causes) and defeating nature is something leftists think they can do.”—Martin Štěpán
Hmm. i mean staying ahead of the red queen?
—“So, staying ahead of whoever happens to be in competition with you at the moment.”—Martin Štěpán
Hmm broader. This planet is really dangerous and we are in a very ‘quiet’ period. This solar system is pretty dangerous and we are in a quiet period. This galaxy is in a pretty dangerous, and we are in a quiet period. I mean, until we are able to run around the universe we are kinda in competition with the red queen. After that WE ARE THE RED QUEEN.
—“Okay, now I see. “You have to keep moving to stay in the same place.” I don’t think we can ever afford to stop moving so to me, ever defeating it remains out of the question. Staying ahead is right.”—Martin Štěpán
-
A Major Part of Darwin’s Book
Nov 20, 2019, 11:50 AM by Don Miguel A major part of Darwin’s book is this: 1) Any trait that does not vary in a current population will also not vary among its past ancestors nor its close relations. 2) Conversely, any trait by which an existing creature differs from a near relative or its recent ancestors must also vary among the currently-existing population. Morality clearly falls into the latter category. We differ in our moral intuitions from chimps, and we thus differ in our moral intuitions from other extant relatives
-
A Major Part of Darwin’s Book
Nov 20, 2019, 11:50 AM by Don Miguel A major part of Darwin’s book is this: 1) Any trait that does not vary in a current population will also not vary among its past ancestors nor its close relations. 2) Conversely, any trait by which an existing creature differs from a near relative or its recent ancestors must also vary among the currently-existing population. Morality clearly falls into the latter category. We differ in our moral intuitions from chimps, and we thus differ in our moral intuitions from other extant relatives
-
Thoughts on Consciousness
Dec 28, 2019, 9:09 AM Consciousness is deterministic with scale, and biased by body form. Any being with sufficient neural capacity will develop similar intuitions and behaviors. Consciousness means modeling recursive future states by grammar of action. And we are programmed by action in reality. There is no mystery to consciousness. The nervous system is a lovely, profoundly simple thing, and there is trivial difference between a transistor and a soma, and the organization (adaptation) of the nervous system by dendritic wayfinding is indifferent from wiring circuit boards other than the infinite untraceable unmeasurable complexity of any given set of excitements. I am pretty confident of the structure of each major region of the brain and how it processes information, and there is no magic to recursive memory by thalamic preservation of state, and hippocampal production of indexes, and hippocampal rehearsal to store memories during break, rests, sleep. The experience of awareness is just a concert, like the experience of consciousness and it’s all just a constructed spectrum of preservation of networks. And anyone who has written an A* search for way-finding a maze can simply relabel variables and functions with brain regions and grasp the concept. Neural networks approximate that complexity, functions abstract that complexity, classes abstract that complexity further, but the underlying process is the same. Software must make address connections between simulated neurons and serially process calculations, while the brain only makes physical dendritic connections in infinite, inexhaustible, complexity and permutation. At present I dont know (maybe no one does) the provisioning of new episodic indices, and whether they are permanent or temporary. And the reason we can only produce robots at present is simply one of scale given the problem of serialization. I suspect we will solve that problem as evolution solved vision, which is to break the problem into pieces producing a symbolic input to a hierarchical system of prediction. I don’t see why we can’t do that other than the current cost would be ridiculous although it’s clear google is trying to use pre-processed information (search content) the way the financial business uses pre-processed information ( prices). I don’t know what they’re doing but as far as I know, it requires the development of symmetries (think, metaphysics) and a grammar (think thought, emotion, action) and a vocabulary to do that for the same reason humans needed language to think more deeply (system of measurement). Right now all I see is categorization (identification), and prediction and I don’t see anyone producing a metaphysics, grammar, and vocabulary bounded by similar rules to language, which will be necessary for machines to communicate because shared hierarchical memory would be slow (other than for the predator-prey division of labor), and protocols (languages) are necessary to encapsulate patterns such that access to (chaotic) underlying memory structures (neural networks and the training that got them to a given state) is unnecessary.
-
Thoughts on Consciousness
Dec 28, 2019, 9:09 AM Consciousness is deterministic with scale, and biased by body form. Any being with sufficient neural capacity will develop similar intuitions and behaviors. Consciousness means modeling recursive future states by grammar of action. And we are programmed by action in reality. There is no mystery to consciousness. The nervous system is a lovely, profoundly simple thing, and there is trivial difference between a transistor and a soma, and the organization (adaptation) of the nervous system by dendritic wayfinding is indifferent from wiring circuit boards other than the infinite untraceable unmeasurable complexity of any given set of excitements. I am pretty confident of the structure of each major region of the brain and how it processes information, and there is no magic to recursive memory by thalamic preservation of state, and hippocampal production of indexes, and hippocampal rehearsal to store memories during break, rests, sleep. The experience of awareness is just a concert, like the experience of consciousness and it’s all just a constructed spectrum of preservation of networks. And anyone who has written an A* search for way-finding a maze can simply relabel variables and functions with brain regions and grasp the concept. Neural networks approximate that complexity, functions abstract that complexity, classes abstract that complexity further, but the underlying process is the same. Software must make address connections between simulated neurons and serially process calculations, while the brain only makes physical dendritic connections in infinite, inexhaustible, complexity and permutation. At present I dont know (maybe no one does) the provisioning of new episodic indices, and whether they are permanent or temporary. And the reason we can only produce robots at present is simply one of scale given the problem of serialization. I suspect we will solve that problem as evolution solved vision, which is to break the problem into pieces producing a symbolic input to a hierarchical system of prediction. I don’t see why we can’t do that other than the current cost would be ridiculous although it’s clear google is trying to use pre-processed information (search content) the way the financial business uses pre-processed information ( prices). I don’t know what they’re doing but as far as I know, it requires the development of symmetries (think, metaphysics) and a grammar (think thought, emotion, action) and a vocabulary to do that for the same reason humans needed language to think more deeply (system of measurement). Right now all I see is categorization (identification), and prediction and I don’t see anyone producing a metaphysics, grammar, and vocabulary bounded by similar rules to language, which will be necessary for machines to communicate because shared hierarchical memory would be slow (other than for the predator-prey division of labor), and protocols (languages) are necessary to encapsulate patterns such that access to (chaotic) underlying memory structures (neural networks and the training that got them to a given state) is unnecessary.
-
DEFINITIONS: Red Queen, The Red Queen, Defeating the Red Queen
Human beings seek to minimize neural costs by seeking stability, stasis, constancy and harmony – but this is suicidal – stability means ne is falling behind others who are not static. This ‘cognitive error’ is a remnant of our hunter-gatherer instincts and only europeans appear to have systematically overcome it – and even then, only a minority. And this is the source of our ‘european creativity’.
From Wikipedia:
The Red Queen hypothesis (also referred to as Red Queen’s, the Red Queen effect, Red Queen’s race, Red Queen dynamics) is an evolutionary hypothesis which proposes that organisms must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate in order to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing organisms in a constantly changing environment, as well as to gain reproductive advantage.
The hypothesis intends to explain two different phenomena: the constant extinction rates as observed in the paleontological record caused by co-evolution between competing species,“ and the advantage of sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual reproduction) at the level of individuals.The phenomenon’s name is derived from a statement that the Red Queen made to Alice in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass in her explanation of the nature of Looking-Glass Land:
“Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.”
Van Valen coined the hypothesis “Red Queen” because under this interpretation, populations have to “run” or evolve in order to stay in the same place – or else go extinct.
-
DEFINITIONS: Red Queen, The Red Queen, Defeating the Red Queen
Human beings seek to minimize neural costs by seeking stability, stasis, constancy and harmony – but this is suicidal – stability means ne is falling behind others who are not static. This ‘cognitive error’ is a remnant of our hunter-gatherer instincts and only europeans appear to have systematically overcome it – and even then, only a minority. And this is the source of our ‘european creativity’.
From Wikipedia:
The Red Queen hypothesis (also referred to as Red Queen’s, the Red Queen effect, Red Queen’s race, Red Queen dynamics) is an evolutionary hypothesis which proposes that organisms must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate in order to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing organisms in a constantly changing environment, as well as to gain reproductive advantage.
The hypothesis intends to explain two different phenomena: the constant extinction rates as observed in the paleontological record caused by co-evolution between competing species,“ and the advantage of sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual reproduction) at the level of individuals.The phenomenon’s name is derived from a statement that the Red Queen made to Alice in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass in her explanation of the nature of Looking-Glass Land:
“Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.”
Van Valen coined the hypothesis “Red Queen” because under this interpretation, populations have to “run” or evolve in order to stay in the same place – or else go extinct.