Curt Doolittle

Theme: Causality

  • That’s not the way to bet is a sophism. Reality is reality. Minor variations in

    That’s not the way to bet is a sophism. Reality is reality. Minor variations in testosterone production produce a long chain of developmental changes. One variable(skin) was a better symbol of fertility than all others. Small things have vast consequences. Milk defeated eurasia.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 17:22:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177634527231037441

    Reply addressees: @wil_da_beast630 @FernandoLeanme

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177633782591115264

    IN REPLY TO:

    @wil_da_beast630

    @curtdoolittle @FernandoLeanme Eh. It is technically accurate to say that a 1-2% difference in genotypes could cause a 2,000% variance in cultural success, but it’s not the way to bet – especially given that NON-Caucasians such as Japanese and Barbadians vary less but perform on par with the West.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177633782591115264

  • how is that expressed in lifetime cognitive development? What was the difference

    … how is that expressed in lifetime cognitive development? What was the difference in evolutionary pressure during the agrarian phase, and why is aggregate IQ declining in the industrial era? Because groups succeeded or failed at suppressing underclass reproductive rates.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 14:29:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177591083620016128

    Reply addressees: @wil_da_beast630 @FernandoLeanme

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177590591745593345

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @wil_da_beast630 @FernandoLeanme Why is it that over time we sort by verbal ability? Why is it that some of us cease verbal development early, some by twenty two, some of us slow but never, and some of us don’t slow at all? Why is language vs math/space gender dimorphic in brain structure, and …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177590591745593345

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @wil_da_beast630 @FernandoLeanme Why is it that over time we sort by verbal ability? Why is it that some of us cease verbal development early, some by twenty two, some of us slow but never, and some of us don’t slow at all? Why is language vs math/space gender dimorphic in brain structure, and …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177590591745593345

  • I’m Adding “Outrage” to GSRRM. Adding “Shifting” Shifting Blame or Cause

    I’m Adding “Outrage” to GSRRM.

    Adding “Shifting” Shifting Blame or Cause

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 11:49:00 UTC

  • Define Supernaturalism

    Supernaturalism

    A category of animism, under which phenomena are attributed to utility(disutility), benefit(harm), or intent(will), rather than natural (equilibrating) necessity by that which is not subject to the constraints of realism (physical existence) and naturalism (deterministic processes), and empiricism (observation and measurement), and therefore testimony (truthful speech).

    I could work on it a bit but I think that’s both sides of it.

  • Define Supernaturalism

    Supernaturalism

    A category of animism, under which phenomena are attributed to utility(disutility), benefit(harm), or intent(will), rather than natural (equilibrating) necessity by that which is not subject to the constraints of realism (physical existence) and naturalism (deterministic processes), and empiricism (observation and measurement), and therefore testimony (truthful speech).

    I could work on it a bit but I think that’s both sides of it.

  • Supernaturalism A category of animism, under which phenomena are attributed to u

    Supernaturalism

    A category of animism, under which phenomena are attributed to utility(disutility), benefit(harm), or intent(will), rather than natural (equilibrating) necessity by that which is not subject to the constraints of realism (physical existence) and naturalism (deterministic processes), and empiricism (observation and measurement), and therefore testimony (truthful speech).

    I could work on it a bit but I think that’s both sides of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-24 16:35:00 UTC

  • MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It does

    MORALITY = RECIPROCITY

    You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines.

    You are welcome to falsify (a) goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected (b) morality refers to reciprocity. (c) it’s a necessity of the physical universe. (d) the human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality.

    All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to falsify them.

    FWIW I’m probably the best person working today on this subject so you might want to try to learn something by questioning your premises.;)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-24 08:36:00 UTC

  • Of course we know what ‘they’ are …. various states asymmetry of energy, and i

    Of course we know what ‘they’ are …. various states asymmetry of energy, and it’s few stable states.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-23 20:45:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176236276854480897

    Reply addressees: @emailmikelowry

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176235092307369984

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176235092307369984

  • What cosmic energy systems. As far as I know we can enumerate all forces, that a

    What cosmic energy systems. As far as I know we can enumerate all forces, that affect us. What forces do you refer to?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-23 20:36:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176233981945307137

    Reply addressees: @emailmikelowry

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176233666202046464

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176233666202046464

  • No The Universe is (exists as) not a ‘mind’

    —“How do you demonstrate that the universe is a mind?”—Sam McPhail

    [F]or the equivalent to calculation to exist requires possibilities (disequilibrium). For mind to exist requires and a means of storing state, and (a) prediction, (b) permutation (c) choice (d) action from a history of states. The function of what we call mind is to allow us to predict candidate actions such that we can outwit the determinism of the universe and capture the energy thereby resisting entropy. How the universe or anything in the universe can do something, or anything, close to ‘mind’ would require we discover the means of information storage and the means of using that information storage, and the possibilities predictive using it, and the means of selecting choices from those possibilities, and the means of acting to seize those opportunities (choices), for some purpose (caloric gain). As far as I know the universe is purely operational (limited in transactions) at every scale. And that our current ignorance because of our inability to measure (observe), has left us uncertainty as to whether the universe and its contents are the same or separate things, and whether there is one or many, and whether they are interdependent (frothing so to speak).