Curt Doolittle

Theme: Causality

  • To say we all need mindfulness: personal, interpersonal, social, political, and

    To say we all need mindfulness: personal, interpersonal, social, political, and metaphysical is nothing more than to state we need to limit the cost of a neural economy frustrated by incalculability of status in the chaos outside the life of the hunting-gathering tribe.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 14:25:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264563253948166144

    Reply addressees: @HanielAzzi @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264562502597324801

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @HanielAzzi @DegenRolf Simple people need lies and social construction to reinforce them in order to sedate their neuroticism from the pressures of low status and low agency – providing the illusion of understanding and control. It is sufficient for them, just as fairy tales are for children.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1264562502597324801

  • Define: Determinism

    Feb 11, 2020, 7:49 AM All events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to human thought (will). We categorize this limitation as constraining causality to realism (the universe exists) and naturalism (causes are independent of human thought and human thought has no influence on causality except through action). Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. In science, determinism means that the universe demonstrates regularity and therefore we can identify general rules (laws of nature). I don’t pay much attention to philosophy – it’s mostly nonsense. If you can’t say it in testimony: math, logic, science, economics or law then it’s probably nonsense. And yeah. The vocabulary, grammar, and logic of economics includes psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy.

  • Define: Determinism

    Feb 11, 2020, 7:49 AM All events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to human thought (will). We categorize this limitation as constraining causality to realism (the universe exists) and naturalism (causes are independent of human thought and human thought has no influence on causality except through action). Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. In science, determinism means that the universe demonstrates regularity and therefore we can identify general rules (laws of nature). I don’t pay much attention to philosophy – it’s mostly nonsense. If you can’t say it in testimony: math, logic, science, economics or law then it’s probably nonsense. And yeah. The vocabulary, grammar, and logic of economics includes psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy.

  • What About Causality in Thought?

    Feb 11, 2020, 8:58 AM

    —“What do you call the interplay between human thoughts, if not “causality”?—Ben Quimby

    Auto-Association to Free Association to Focused Association. A chaotic (‘idiosyncratic’) accumulation of neural patterns using the grammar of the body (that’s our neural grammar), produces an equally idiosyncratic free associations, that due to thee regularity of the perceivable universe, and the regularity of the grammar of the body, converge within the limits of tolerance for error of the neural network. So just as causal density at the pre-particle level is chaotic within the limits of the grammar of particle formation, so is the causal density chaotic at the pre-rational neuro-associative level within the limits of the grammar of body’s sensory associative formation. Grammars (language) in everything.

  • What About Causality in Thought?

    Feb 11, 2020, 8:58 AM

    —“What do you call the interplay between human thoughts, if not “causality”?—Ben Quimby

    Auto-Association to Free Association to Focused Association. A chaotic (‘idiosyncratic’) accumulation of neural patterns using the grammar of the body (that’s our neural grammar), produces an equally idiosyncratic free associations, that due to thee regularity of the perceivable universe, and the regularity of the grammar of the body, converge within the limits of tolerance for error of the neural network. So just as causal density at the pre-particle level is chaotic within the limits of the grammar of particle formation, so is the causal density chaotic at the pre-rational neuro-associative level within the limits of the grammar of body’s sensory associative formation. Grammars (language) in everything.

  • Judge Men’s Sanity

    Feb 11, 2020, 9:50 AM SANITY TEST

    —“I’ve adopted Hume’s argument that we should judge men’s sanity by the extent their decisions appear determined by the external causes.”—Martin Štěpán

    Smart.

  • Judge Men’s Sanity

    Feb 11, 2020, 9:50 AM SANITY TEST

    —“I’ve adopted Hume’s argument that we should judge men’s sanity by the extent their decisions appear determined by the external causes.”—Martin Štěpán

    Smart.

  • Free Will and Determinism (deterministic Universe)

    Feb 11, 2020, 2:26 PM

    —“Could you say then that free will is a sort of emergent property of determinism?”—Andy Lunn

    Maybe I don’t understand that question enough. We have will. That’s a fact. We evolved for graceful failure in exercise of our will – so that is what we interpret as somtimes lacking free will. We evolved for incremental improvement of our knowledge, and then our will as a consequence. The degree to which we develop our will (ability) into agency (successful application) depends on ability, experience, training and general knowledge. So the question isn’t do we have free will, it’s that we evolved will and the capacity to develop agency with it. But we are limited by our knowledge. We do not appear to be otherwise limited simply because we are so good at building tools that extend our sense, perception and action. Now, within that context, if you mean, that without a deterministic universe (the scientific definition of determinism, not the sophomoric and philosophical definition), then yes, we could never develop agency because there would be no regularity, and without regularity no use for memory, and without memory there would be no use for will reason, or agency. So in that sense, yes. But only in that sense.

  • Free Will and Determinism (deterministic Universe)

    Feb 11, 2020, 2:26 PM

    —“Could you say then that free will is a sort of emergent property of determinism?”—Andy Lunn

    Maybe I don’t understand that question enough. We have will. That’s a fact. We evolved for graceful failure in exercise of our will – so that is what we interpret as somtimes lacking free will. We evolved for incremental improvement of our knowledge, and then our will as a consequence. The degree to which we develop our will (ability) into agency (successful application) depends on ability, experience, training and general knowledge. So the question isn’t do we have free will, it’s that we evolved will and the capacity to develop agency with it. But we are limited by our knowledge. We do not appear to be otherwise limited simply because we are so good at building tools that extend our sense, perception and action. Now, within that context, if you mean, that without a deterministic universe (the scientific definition of determinism, not the sophomoric and philosophical definition), then yes, we could never develop agency because there would be no regularity, and without regularity no use for memory, and without memory there would be no use for will reason, or agency. So in that sense, yes. But only in that sense.

  • When It Doesn’t Make Sense, Test First for Stupidity and Emergence – Not Intent.

    Apr 15, 2020, 12:26 PM

    —“I have to consciously remind myself to “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity [ignorance]” – that’s “Hanlon’s Razor”. And the similar mantra to “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by emergence”.”—Brad Chambers

    Remember, the female perceives all as in intent. The male perceives all as systems of incentives. Be all the man you can be.