It’s a more general set of attributions without the reduction to first causes that I (we) depend upon – but it’s not wrong.
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 22:10:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843413578080235813
Reply addressees: @DwightExMachina
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843395728967602288
RT @TheMcMullan: @curtdoolittle Yet Marxism thrives using sophistry to convince people of the reversal of causality… that the absence of…
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-25 22:28:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839069599259832612
RT @bierlingm: We are (over)due for a collective reappraisal of what the earth actually is and what it’s arteries, diseases, homeostatic co…
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-24 14:16:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1838583219404574775
RE: “Evolutionary Psychology is False”
This is an overstatement. (a) Yes, we should and can eventually explain all behavior by evolutionary computation (development) from first principles. (b) No, unless you can explain behavior by evolutionary computation from first principles at the scale of expression of the trait, and hopefully the evolutionary computation of the first principle of the previous scales, meaning you can find the biological and genetic markers for it, then you cannot ‘rationalize’ (imagine) the development of a behavioral expression.
We know the entirety of the marxist sequence is pseudoscience, just like we know its predecessor in the abrahamic sequence of religions is supernatural sophistry.
The truth is that sex differences in behavior are trivial to explain in ording and evident in neural organization of the developing brain as an organ, just as much in the physical organization of reproductive organs.
As such, yes all human behavior is deterministic within some set of limits, and yes sex differences are the origin of all differences in behavior other than those that are due to differences in neotenic evolution between groups, and genetic load within and across groups.
In other words the malleability of humans, the equality of humans, and the end of scarcity, are as much a left wing fallacy as evolutionary psychology can be a right wing fallacy
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @CulturalRadical @SexyIsntSexist
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-09 12:59:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833128135681880064
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1830169135210529146
Your tendency to drill down until all differences are exposed (normal for most intellectuals) vs my tendency to trace origins so that all causes are exposed (relatively unique).
I think there is something to do here with my emphasis on the values, logic, and metaphysics implied by the grammars and your emphasis on the resulting variation in those applications.
I think we run into this difference all the time.
I would say that you are correct in that I should start with the abrahamic to marxist series but insert the leninist (and related) movements before the rest of the marxist sequence I use in the charts.
That’s probably smart.
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-01 20:24:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1830341098390306816
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1830327120318341521
Accusation without evidence.
Auto-association without causal relation is the evidence of a childlike mind open to suggestion by others.
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-01 16:11:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1830277198713864276
Reply addressees: @gallows95269706 @TheMcMullan
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1830201340922073457
Consciousness is the natural outcome of sufficient memory (neural volume) organized in a sufficiently recursive hierarchy (humans it’s back to front), combined with the origin of all cognition as organization of the body (particularly the bilateral body) for movement, and the evolution of that movement for the purpose of wayfinding. If you have a sense of homeostasis, memory, hippocampal region’s indexing of memories,, even the most elementary development of it, and enough recursive volume (hierarchy) you will develop consciousness simply because the capacity to predict increasing variation of potential increases in wants (consumptions), is a function of the neural volume to do so, and recursion of that memory hierarchy produces the ‘experience’ of continuousness – with humans its around three seconds.
It’s not even complicated. Even Qualia is trivial. What else to you expect stimuli to feel like? Why would you think colors would be experienced as they are when there is no other way to organize them such that we perceive them.
Reply addressees: @bierlingm @SMcfarnell
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-24 19:06:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827422186191171586
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827267927537549395
There are no infinities that we know of.
Present evidence suggests that below the quantum background there is one more layer of ‘most discrete’ causality.
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-13 13:07:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823345708935622742
Reply addressees: @repairmanscully @martinmbauer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1822072239652528632
RT @AutistocratMS: Arguing against tribalism because it makes people less cooperative is completely inverting the causal chain. People coop…
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-10 00:08:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1822062465745813929
Michael (@drmichaellevin)
Question:
I’m watching the bioelectric theory with curious but rationally skeptical interest.
And while yes, one of the observable evolutionary laws demonstrates that if transportation of information by physical, chemical, or electromagnetic means can occur, it will occur, because evolution exploits every possible opportunity even if it’s a redundancy that later specializes.
But a simulation that suggests the possibility of information transfer is not the same as demonstration of information transfer.
And while I would expect some sort of ‘herding’ behavior during development and expect charge differences to encourage it; and while I can see the utility of genetic expression because of it; and possibly spatio-temporal maintenance after maturity – I don’t see the evidence yet, and this paper doesn’t help.
So what do I need to read or grasp that I yet don’t?
Thanks
Reply addressees: @drmichaellevin
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-06 14:45:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820833619964821504
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820635397187420481