Theme: Causality

  • Gak. No. Confusing Arousal with Consciousness is like confusing the light switch

    Gak. No. Confusing Arousal with Consciousness is like confusing the light switch with the light. Just ’cause we can turn off the switch doesn’t tell us how the light is created.

    We can interfere with any number of parts (Colostrum) and shut down experience. That doesn’t tell us anything.

    The question is, how does that mushy wetware synthesize past memory present experience, and future prediction, from millions of nerves (measurements) into our rather amazing conflated experiences of past, present and future? (cortical hierarchy, parahippocampal, perirhinal, entorhinal cortices and subiculum.)

    How do we shift between narrow focus, near perception, environmental perception, self perception, and deep introspection and imagination? (thalamus)

    Why is it we can react so quickly that we can hit a curve ball with a bat? (basal ganglia, cerebellum, and cortical prediction)

    How do we Assemble memories and experience them? (Hippocampus)

    What is that feeling of me? (mostly, hippocampus)

    Why can’t we pin it down.

    “Cause it’s a verb not a noun”.

    The continuous change in state in a hierarchy of ever smaller cycles of time….


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-03 21:45:00 UTC

  • “Invisible Hand of Nature”

    by Martin Štěpán I have used the term “invisible hand of nature” in the last post. This is deliberate to create an association between nature and market because that is what nature is, a market. A self-correcting system, constantly trying to approach an equilibrium it can never reach because there’s too many variables involved. I expect anyone with a basic understanding of economics without a belief in evolution to have much firmer grasp of natural laws than some leftist defending evolution just to pawn the religious conservatives because economic laws are natural laws. One only needs to start accounting for exchanges of both positive and negative value on demonstrated interests (property-in-toto). Illustration: A rabbit meets a fox. An exchange is initiated. Fox has the option to avoid the exchange or spend calories for a chance to obtain more calories. This will generally be preferable option for the fox. However, such exchange is highly disadvantageous for a rabbit because he spends his life in exchange for nothing. The option to simply refuse isn’t open to him but he can spend his own calories in exchange for a chance to survive. Neither option is productive for him but that’s just the way it is. The outcome is either that fox gets more calories that it can then spend as it chooses, for instance, to make more foxes, and that the local supply of rabbits goes down and increases their value, or that the fox wastes its calories, is less successful and risk losing its chance at reproduction while the same happens to the rabbit but his chance to increase the supply of rabbits remains positive. On the market of nature, we’re all both entrepreneurs and products at the same time.

  • “Invisible Hand of Nature”

    by Martin Štěpán I have used the term “invisible hand of nature” in the last post. This is deliberate to create an association between nature and market because that is what nature is, a market. A self-correcting system, constantly trying to approach an equilibrium it can never reach because there’s too many variables involved. I expect anyone with a basic understanding of economics without a belief in evolution to have much firmer grasp of natural laws than some leftist defending evolution just to pawn the religious conservatives because economic laws are natural laws. One only needs to start accounting for exchanges of both positive and negative value on demonstrated interests (property-in-toto). Illustration: A rabbit meets a fox. An exchange is initiated. Fox has the option to avoid the exchange or spend calories for a chance to obtain more calories. This will generally be preferable option for the fox. However, such exchange is highly disadvantageous for a rabbit because he spends his life in exchange for nothing. The option to simply refuse isn’t open to him but he can spend his own calories in exchange for a chance to survive. Neither option is productive for him but that’s just the way it is. The outcome is either that fox gets more calories that it can then spend as it chooses, for instance, to make more foxes, and that the local supply of rabbits goes down and increases their value, or that the fox wastes its calories, is less successful and risk losing its chance at reproduction while the same happens to the rabbit but his chance to increase the supply of rabbits remains positive. On the market of nature, we’re all both entrepreneurs and products at the same time.

  • Yep. Agreed. But until we find a candidate case I can’t go there. It’s probably

    Yep. Agreed. But until we find a candidate case I can’t go there. It’s probably just general vulnerability during natal development, and god knows how few molecules of whatever at what point produce developmental failure. So likely both direct(viral) and indirect (immune) causes.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-30 14:57:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167451302881837056

    Reply addressees: @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167444819137970178


    IN REPLY TO:

    @JayMan471

    @curtdoolittle https://t.co/wJYCGEsOmZ

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167444819137970178

  • I haven’t seen anything new on this subject in over twenty years. AFAIK, it’s a

    I haven’t seen anything new on this subject in over twenty years. AFAIK, it’s a family tendency, it’s caused in utero, it’s immuno-related (like many things), and a developmental defect (left handedness, sexuality, prefrontal maturity).


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-30 14:31:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167444625981943810

    Reply addressees: @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167227882369933313


    IN REPLY TO:

    @JayMan471

    I said that this would be everywhere, I didn’t think it would be so fast.

    What happens when they talk about the other things these type of studies have shown?

    “Major new study says no single ‘gay gene’ exists, but genetics do have an impact” https://t.co/pYNIczAvpa

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167227882369933313

  • No, Mutation Rate Is Not An Argument Against Natural Selection (Core)

    (Core)Sorry All But, No. Mutation Rate != Evolutionary Rate

    (a) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly differentiating – just one gene. For example, 20% of neurons in the cortex are regulatory. That number varies by region. The same is true for genes. It certainly appears that the vast majority are either dead (not expressed), suppressing (turning off), or regulatory, and some percentage of the rest are expressive, and some cause profound variations between ourselves and the other apes. We just don’t know what percent are expressed. So all mutation rate tells us is time difference between ancestors – it does not tell us difference in genetic expression over that ancestry.

    (b) Some changes are profoundly consequential (delay in maturity : neoteny – just hormonal development is largely what varies between human races)

    (c) Genes do not produce linear effects (machine parts) but are causally dense (program code) with anything from zero consequence (noise, or regulatory), some of tiny consequence (rates of expression), and some profound.

    (d) One Single Additional Protein (molecular machine) may cause billions of consequences. So;

    (e) Of our evolutionary history, regardless of the RATE of migration, it could be only .001% of those mutations that cause 99.999% of competitive evolutionary variations.

    (f) We make a big deal out of 3% difference from chimpanzees but we have no idea the scale of difference provided by each of those variations. intelligence appears to be affected by hundreds if not thousands (a concert problem). Neoteny appears not to be (a small number of hormonal channels). Yet together the effect of these two sets is profound with just small changes.

    (g) As far as I know almost all evolutionary change is driven by:

    – demand for success in the local environment (ie: black resistance to malaria). – failure in the local environment (loss of height in southeast islands, loss of fire making, tool making, by austronesians.) – utility (white consumption of milk adding 40% more calories to the diet) – social animal sortition (variations in demand for competitive traits) – age of the carriers (rate of mutation or degradation) – errors in replication (genes – which happen all the time – cancer etc ) – conflicts in integration (male and female genes) – random mutations. – combinations of all of the above. On statistics:

    While history has led us to the error that mathematics is justificationary – it is not. It is falsificationary, like all the logics. This is, in itself, the most significant insight of the 20th century experiment in both philosophy and the sciences – there are no via positiva methods of inquiry other than free association. All other logics, correspondences, operations are falsificationary: falsifying errors, confirming statements of possibility, not not providing truth (perfect parsimony).

    There isn’t much evidence that we are capable of using statistics on any causally dense phenomenon with any greater precision than a single regression. Period.

    You can’t average an average, and statistics must be operationally explicable or they’re meaningless. (correlation is not causation, and operations produce correlations)

    The reason you are (most are) misled by statistics is that they are not accompanied by operational constructions (proofs: demonstrations of operational possibility – which is what ‘proof’ means).

    Metaphysics, Psychology, the Social Sciences, and economics in particular are vehicles for that branch of pseudoscience dependent upon innumeracy.Innumeracy is a member of the set of sophisms including:

    1. sophism(verbal),
    2. innumeracy(numerical),
    3. pseudoscience(scientific and technological),
    4. magic-supernormalism(natural),
    5. mysticism-supernaturalism(supernatural).

    The Four Falsifications Against ID Are:

    1. God’s silence, 2. God’s inaction, 3. The lack of evidence, and 4. The universe looks exactly like a godless universe would, and not at all like a Christian universe would, even down to its very structure.

    Of course this is true if you think gods are material beings. If instead you think gods are software distributed in the minds of all of their worshippers, producing synchronicities because of the software, then that’s quite different. The Falsifiation Against God is:

    5. Information can only be stored in some memory or other. And  information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume fewer calories and less volume than the original matter plus its changes in state over time. That information cannot be stored except in the universe itself or across universes themselves. Yet if Christianity is but a set of parables (wisdom literature) then Scientifically (Logically, Rationally, Empirically, and Operationally ):

    6 – The five rules of Christianity are, logically, rationally(incentives), scientifically(empirically), the optimum prisoner’s dilemma (incentives for trust building) strategy, and I cannot falsify either or their relation. There is a reason christian working and lower classes are wealthier than competing cults. Christianity is the reason.

    The Five Rules Are:

    1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. (Forgiveness) 2) the extension of familial love to kith and kin. (Investment) 3) the eradication of impulses that burden the commons (Sacredness) 4) the demand for personal acts of charity and personal cost, (Charity) 5) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. (Tolerance)

    We bear the costs of discipline, investment, forgiveness, tolerance because it is the optimum strategy for producing cooperation at scale.

    In Western (European) Civilization, these Christian (Literary) traditions, exist in competition with our Indo European legal (empirical) traditions:

    1. Truth before Face: Truth regardless of cost to the competence/dominance hierarchy (“Reporting”, or “Testimony”) 2. Heroism, Excellence and Duty (investment in the commons) 3. Individual Sovereignty, Reciprocity and Accountability

    Together which make possible:

    4. Universal Adjudication of Differences by tests of demonstrated interests (investments) – what we call ‘Natural Law’. 5. Common Law of Tort, Judge Referee, Jury Decision, and Nullification

    And leave possible only one means of social organization:

    6. Voluntary Cooperation and Markets in All Aspects of Life:

    1. Association 2. Cooperation (production) 3. Production (goods, services, information) 4. Reproduction (mating, marriage, family) 5. Commons 6. Polities 7. War

    The consequence of which is the fastest possible means of adaptation, innovation, and evolution, that is possible for man – at the cost of suppression of reproduction of the underclasses that cannot compete in the markets for cooperation – the only empirical  (demonstrated) measure of the value of individuals, families, and groups, to others.

    Which is the Secret of Western Civilization: Via Positiva Hard Markets and Via Negativa Soft Eugenics. And Finally;

    7 – I cannot falsify evolution and every single dram of evidence from the fundamental structure of the universe to the imagination of man is a product of a very small number of possibilities in very great permutation, just as limited numbers of sounds, characters, and numbers can be arranged in infinitely complex permutations. Truthful speech can only consist of what I can testify to – “Report on”: I can only testify to that which is:

    1. categorically consistent 2. logically consistent 3. empirically(observably) consistent 4. operationally consistent 5. rationally consistent 6. reciprocally consistent where;

    7. the causality is parsimonious 8. scope is consistent 9. and fully accounted 10. within stated limits and where;

    11. due diligence has been demonstrated, in the above ten dimensions. and where;

    – one’s statements are warrantied by restitution if one errs. therefore;

    I cannot testify to anything other than. 1. Realism, 2. Naturalism, 3. Operationalism, 4. Rational Choice, 5. Reciprocity (Voluntary Exchange), 6. My Due Diligence Performed, 7. My capacity to perform restitution if I have engaged in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking or deceit.Nor can anyone else. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • No, Mutation Rate Is Not An Argument Against Natural Selection (Core)

    (Core)Sorry All But, No. Mutation Rate != Evolutionary Rate

    (a) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly differentiating – just one gene. For example, 20% of neurons in the cortex are regulatory. That number varies by region. The same is true for genes. It certainly appears that the vast majority are either dead (not expressed), suppressing (turning off), or regulatory, and some percentage of the rest are expressive, and some cause profound variations between ourselves and the other apes. We just don’t know what percent are expressed. So all mutation rate tells us is time difference between ancestors – it does not tell us difference in genetic expression over that ancestry.

    (b) Some changes are profoundly consequential (delay in maturity : neoteny – just hormonal development is largely what varies between human races)

    (c) Genes do not produce linear effects (machine parts) but are causally dense (program code) with anything from zero consequence (noise, or regulatory), some of tiny consequence (rates of expression), and some profound.

    (d) One Single Additional Protein (molecular machine) may cause billions of consequences. So;

    (e) Of our evolutionary history, regardless of the RATE of migration, it could be only .001% of those mutations that cause 99.999% of competitive evolutionary variations.

    (f) We make a big deal out of 3% difference from chimpanzees but we have no idea the scale of difference provided by each of those variations. intelligence appears to be affected by hundreds if not thousands (a concert problem). Neoteny appears not to be (a small number of hormonal channels). Yet together the effect of these two sets is profound with just small changes.

    (g) As far as I know almost all evolutionary change is driven by:

    – demand for success in the local environment (ie: black resistance to malaria). – failure in the local environment (loss of height in southeast islands, loss of fire making, tool making, by austronesians.) – utility (white consumption of milk adding 40% more calories to the diet) – social animal sortition (variations in demand for competitive traits) – age of the carriers (rate of mutation or degradation) – errors in replication (genes – which happen all the time – cancer etc ) – conflicts in integration (male and female genes) – random mutations. – combinations of all of the above. On statistics:

    While history has led us to the error that mathematics is justificationary – it is not. It is falsificationary, like all the logics. This is, in itself, the most significant insight of the 20th century experiment in both philosophy and the sciences – there are no via positiva methods of inquiry other than free association. All other logics, correspondences, operations are falsificationary: falsifying errors, confirming statements of possibility, not not providing truth (perfect parsimony).

    There isn’t much evidence that we are capable of using statistics on any causally dense phenomenon with any greater precision than a single regression. Period.

    You can’t average an average, and statistics must be operationally explicable or they’re meaningless. (correlation is not causation, and operations produce correlations)

    The reason you are (most are) misled by statistics is that they are not accompanied by operational constructions (proofs: demonstrations of operational possibility – which is what ‘proof’ means).

    Metaphysics, Psychology, the Social Sciences, and economics in particular are vehicles for that branch of pseudoscience dependent upon innumeracy.Innumeracy is a member of the set of sophisms including:

    1. sophism(verbal),
    2. innumeracy(numerical),
    3. pseudoscience(scientific and technological),
    4. magic-supernormalism(natural),
    5. mysticism-supernaturalism(supernatural).

    The Four Falsifications Against ID Are:

    1. God’s silence, 2. God’s inaction, 3. The lack of evidence, and 4. The universe looks exactly like a godless universe would, and not at all like a Christian universe would, even down to its very structure.

    Of course this is true if you think gods are material beings. If instead you think gods are software distributed in the minds of all of their worshippers, producing synchronicities because of the software, then that’s quite different. The Falsifiation Against God is:

    5. Information can only be stored in some memory or other. And  information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume fewer calories and less volume than the original matter plus its changes in state over time. That information cannot be stored except in the universe itself or across universes themselves. Yet if Christianity is but a set of parables (wisdom literature) then Scientifically (Logically, Rationally, Empirically, and Operationally ):

    6 – The five rules of Christianity are, logically, rationally(incentives), scientifically(empirically), the optimum prisoner’s dilemma (incentives for trust building) strategy, and I cannot falsify either or their relation. There is a reason christian working and lower classes are wealthier than competing cults. Christianity is the reason.

    The Five Rules Are:

    1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. (Forgiveness) 2) the extension of familial love to kith and kin. (Investment) 3) the eradication of impulses that burden the commons (Sacredness) 4) the demand for personal acts of charity and personal cost, (Charity) 5) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. (Tolerance)

    We bear the costs of discipline, investment, forgiveness, tolerance because it is the optimum strategy for producing cooperation at scale.

    In Western (European) Civilization, these Christian (Literary) traditions, exist in competition with our Indo European legal (empirical) traditions:

    1. Truth before Face: Truth regardless of cost to the competence/dominance hierarchy (“Reporting”, or “Testimony”) 2. Heroism, Excellence and Duty (investment in the commons) 3. Individual Sovereignty, Reciprocity and Accountability

    Together which make possible:

    4. Universal Adjudication of Differences by tests of demonstrated interests (investments) – what we call ‘Natural Law’. 5. Common Law of Tort, Judge Referee, Jury Decision, and Nullification

    And leave possible only one means of social organization:

    6. Voluntary Cooperation and Markets in All Aspects of Life:

    1. Association 2. Cooperation (production) 3. Production (goods, services, information) 4. Reproduction (mating, marriage, family) 5. Commons 6. Polities 7. War

    The consequence of which is the fastest possible means of adaptation, innovation, and evolution, that is possible for man – at the cost of suppression of reproduction of the underclasses that cannot compete in the markets for cooperation – the only empirical  (demonstrated) measure of the value of individuals, families, and groups, to others.

    Which is the Secret of Western Civilization: Via Positiva Hard Markets and Via Negativa Soft Eugenics. And Finally;

    7 – I cannot falsify evolution and every single dram of evidence from the fundamental structure of the universe to the imagination of man is a product of a very small number of possibilities in very great permutation, just as limited numbers of sounds, characters, and numbers can be arranged in infinitely complex permutations. Truthful speech can only consist of what I can testify to – “Report on”: I can only testify to that which is:

    1. categorically consistent 2. logically consistent 3. empirically(observably) consistent 4. operationally consistent 5. rationally consistent 6. reciprocally consistent where;

    7. the causality is parsimonious 8. scope is consistent 9. and fully accounted 10. within stated limits and where;

    11. due diligence has been demonstrated, in the above ten dimensions. and where;

    – one’s statements are warrantied by restitution if one errs. therefore;

    I cannot testify to anything other than. 1. Realism, 2. Naturalism, 3. Operationalism, 4. Rational Choice, 5. Reciprocity (Voluntary Exchange), 6. My Due Diligence Performed, 7. My capacity to perform restitution if I have engaged in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking or deceit.Nor can anyone else. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • SORRY ALL BUT, NO. RATE OF MUTATION TELLS US LITTLE OTHER THAN TIME. (a) mutatio

    SORRY ALL BUT, NO. RATE OF MUTATION TELLS US LITTLE OTHER THAN TIME.

    (a) mutation rate != yardage (or any other linear measure)

    (b) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly differentiating – just one gene. (20% of neurons in the cortex are regulatory That number increases by region. The same is true for genes. It certainly appears that the vast majority are either dead (not expressed) or regulatory. We don’t know what percent are expressed. So all mutation rate tells us is time difference it does not tell us difference in genetic expression.

    (c) some are profoundly consequential (delay in maturity : neoteny – just hormonal development is largely what varies between human races)

    (d) Genes do not produce linear effects (machine parts) but are causally dense (program code) with anything from zero consequence (noise, or regulatory), some of tiny consequence (rates of expression), and some profound.

    (e) One Single Additional Protein (molecular machine) may cause billions of consequences.

    So;

    (f) Of our evolutionary history, regardless of the RATE of migration, it could be only .001% of those mutations that cause 99.999% of competitive evolutionary variations.

    (g) we make a big deal out of 3% difference from chimpanzees but we have no idea the scale of difference provided by each of those variations. intelligence appears to be affected by hundreds if not thousands (a concert problem). Neoteny appears not to be (a small number of hormonal channels). Yet together the effect of these two sets is profound with just small changes.

    (h) As far as I know almost all evolutionary change is driven by:

    – demand for success in the local environment (ie: black resistance to malaria).

    – failure in the local environment (loss of height in southeast islands, loss of fire making, tool making, by austronesians.)

    – utility (white consumption of milk adding 40% more calories to the diet)

    – social animal sortition (variations in demand for competitive traits)

    – age of the carriers (rate of mutation or degradation)

    – errors in replication (genes – which happen all the time – cancer etc )

    – conflicts in integration (male and female genes)

    – random mutations.

    – combinations of all of the above.

    On statistics:

    There isn’t much evidence that we are capable of using statistics on any causally dense phenomenon with any greater precision than a single regression. Period.

    YOU CAN’T AVERAGE AN AVERAGE, and STATISTICS MUST BE OPERATIONALLY EXPLICABLE OR THEY’RE MEANINGLESS. (correlation is not causation, and operations produce correlations)

    You have to explain both to make a truth claim.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-25 12:33:00 UTC

  • I think you are confusing yourselves. (a) epigenetic effects are minimal, and li

    I think you are confusing yourselves.

    (a) epigenetic effects are minimal, and limited to expression of proteins, by the alteration of tags, but these tags are removed prior to dna division… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=450262895570606&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 21:28:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162838557498728451

  • THE CYCLES OF HISTORY History does demonstrate a set of cycles, and it’s rather

    THE CYCLES OF HISTORY
    History does demonstrate a set of cycles, and it’s rather obvious and many people have written about them and they tend to be the great syntopical historians. Economics has made history more intelligible. And most of us study economic history – not literary – because of it.

    So, (a) we began local speciation , (b) the end of the ice age provided a food advantage (c) cows provided a 40% food advantage, (d) horse, bronze, and wheel with cows provided an extraordinary competitive advantage – at least across the eurasian plain with high production per square mile at high cost of defense and high cost of transport. Conversely, the flood river valleys provided an advantage with high concentration of production per square mile, at low cost of defense and low cost of transport. And the desert, steppe, and tundra provided low productivity per square mile, high cost of transport, and because of that the inability to produce concentrations of capital necessary for state formation, and the returns on capital commons.

    While this describes only a triangular model of geographic dependence, all others fit on this triangle somewhere, sufficiently to explain the differences.

    If we add homogeneity and heterogeneity of populations we see that homogeneous populations in the far east and far west were more successful than heterogenous populations in the center – although most of the races and cultures of the middle east have been eradicated over time, the Arab, Iranic, and North african remain. The turks arrived from mongolia fairly recently, the original caucasians and anatolians are almost lost to us.

    And it is rational and demonstrable that between the geography, demography, and social order at the Age of Transformation (state formation, empire formation, religion formation, civilization formation) that we developed at that point and persisted various grammars (paradigms, and attendant logics) that are expressions of our strategies, our laws that enforce them, and the narratives that justify them.

    MAN REMAINS A DARWINIAN ANIMAL
    We all follow Racial, civilizational, national, class, gender, and individual moral intuitions, which are nothing more than our genetic demand for persistence at lowest cost to us: greatest return in the shortest time at the lowest cost at the least risk with the greatest certainty.

    Now, a simpleton like you might come here and expect to learn everything from a drive by but the purpose of my work is to end the industrialization of lying, and the second attempt at an abrahamic dark age, thereby repeating the past.

    TRUTH IS ENOUGH
    Truth is enough.
    Reciprocity is enough.
    The law is enough.
    We are enough.

    The semi-domesticated animals are found not worth domesticating.

    Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.

    If this cannot be done peacefully.
    We will do it by non peaceful means.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-04 21:02:07 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102560728772667563