Theme: Causality

  • Logic <->Physics<->Economics<->Sentience

    Logic <->Physics<->Economics<->Sentience


    Source date (UTC): 2019-05-15 13:32:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1128654466268508162

  • Predict or explain. As determinism decreases (from the physical to the economic

    Predict or explain. As determinism decreases (from the physical to the economic to the conceptual for example) theories can explain the data, and only within the limits of their arbitrary precision but they cannot predict the future.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-05-05 12:16:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1125011322851221504

    Reply addressees: @Scientific_Bird

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1124761167883325451


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Scientific_Bird

    A good scientific theory makes predictions about a phenomenon.

    Consequently, a big part of progress in science should be centered around understanding how we can become better at making robust and reliable predictions.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1124761167883325451

  • RT @DegenRolf: The propensity to experience the basic emotions is substantially

    RT @DegenRolf: The propensity to experience the basic emotions is substantially determined by genes, though genes play a greater role in ne…


    Source date (UTC): 2019-04-26 14:36:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1121785117230411778

  • a) they haven’t ruled out arson unless they’ve found the source of the fire and

    a) they haven’t ruled out arson unless they’ve found the source of the fire and its cause. If they had that information they would publish it. It takes time to do it. When they say where it started, how, and by whom, and why then we can end the stress but we don’t trust ‘you’.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-04-16 16:10:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118184846407417856

    Reply addressees: @jftaveira1993

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118183501562556416


    IN REPLY TO:

    @jftaveira1993

    According to French authorities, the blaze appeared to be the accidental result of renovations work—not terrorism or arson. But that hasn’t stopped far-right extremists and wingnuts from floating conspiracy theories about the #NotreDameFire. https://t.co/zDG3DwhnJc #NotreDame

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118183501562556416

  • The Scientific Explanation of The Spiritual

    November 5th, 2018 10:32 AM THE SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE SPIRITUAL

    —“What do you tell people who have had very spiritual experiences that they attribute to their religion? Tell them they just imagined it? I don’t see how that’s going to work.”— Mitchell Ryan

    They had the experience. They felt it. That it was produced by imagination is no different than if they imagine a ghost in the dark, or a car coming around a corner that isn’t there, or an argument with a loved one that didn’t or might happen. We feel all these things. We experience both the imagination of the context, the imagination of what might happen, or is happening, and the feeling of being in it, and we remember it. Our brains work all the time by filling in with memory or prediction the ‘model’ our senses are continuously composing for us out of sense, memory, and prediction, with continuous recursion of the context. Those Experiences existed. The conditions that cause them are either real or imaginary. We possess the ability to predict or forecast. That is the purpose of memory. We can predict all sorts of outcomes and then ‘feel them’ (imagine ourselves in them). The fact that you can imagine yourself in a ‘religious experience’ or imagine yourself as king arthur and feel that experience, is just a matter of context you imagine and practice. Most ‘intense’ experience I ever had was being very ill with a fever, reading a conan novel, and then experiencing myself in his place. it’s STILL the most intense experience I have had. Is it a religious experience, or is a religious experience just a different story in just a different dream? The question is only whether you are an addict reinforcing your addiction or not. Most of us no. Some of us yes. The question is whether you retain your agency (and experience) or retain your addiction in lieu of agency (and experience).

  • Why Do Our Brains Construct Two Opposing Explanations?

    November 5th, 2018 10:25 AM —“Q: WHY DO OUR BRAINS CONSTRUCT TWO OPPOSING EXPLANATIONS?”— Question: “Why have our marvelous brains formulated two diametrically opposite explanations?” Answer: Cognitive Division of Labor: Predator (action, dominance, science) — vs.– Prey (mindfulness, submission, religion). Problem: Demand for mindfulness increases with uncertainty. Post tribal life removes resource uncertainty at the cost of social uncertainty (female herd equality, male pack hierarchy). Scale increases uncertainty. Production cycles decrease availability of positive reinforcement (status signals, fitness signals). Consumerism buys signals, at cost of increase in isolation. Diversity (market polity) increases isolation. Choices: (a) Personal Rituals: Stoicism (Self Authoring) > Sophism (Philosophy) > Pseudoscience (“Church of TED, Marxist Economics”) > Religion (Old Age) > Magic (New Age) > Occult (literature – post-reason). (b) Social Rituals: Hunting > Sport > Commerce > Civic Groups and Clubs > Politics > Religion (academy, media, cult) > Fringe Movements (outcasts) > Occult (‘escapists’). What’s the Underlying Problem?Neural Economy. (Physical Economy(Stress), Emotional Economy (Stress), Neural Economy(stress)). Regularity provides certainty and decreased neural cost. Plenty provides personal decrease in neural cost but increase in cost of collective coherence, consistency, correspondence, and (frame) decidability. In other words, manageable neural cost provides anti-fragility (mindfulness) and suppressed neural cost (infantilization) increases fragility. The problem we face satisfaction of demand for predatory ( consumption, acquisition, opportunity, signals/status) vs prey ( consumption, insurance, certainty, not-sticking-out/equality). Markets (Economy) in everything: Unfortunately we have constructed a cognitive model of monopoly under both universalist abrahamic religion, justificationary philosophy, universal democracy, legislation (rather than tort law), and constructivist mathematics (and positivist logic). Despite the fact that the uniqueness of western civilization’s ‘salvation’ of mankind from superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, endemic violence, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature – was the product of anti-monopoly “Markets in All Walks of Life” under individual sovereignty, tort law of reciprocity, evidentiary (testifiable) truth regardless of cost to face, status, dominance, or competence hierarchy, duty of the commons regardless of station, decision jury, judge and rule of law, leaving the only remaining method of cooperation “as markets in all aspects of life” that resulted in our innovations of reason, empiricism, and science. Ergo, between religion, philosophy, (and that counter-empiricism we call the ‘enlightenment’ and it’s capture of power) democracy, followed by the revision of monopoly Abrahamic Monotheism( judaism, christianity, and islamism), that we call Marxism(Pseudoscience), Socialism(Monopoly Property), Postmodernism (monopoly sophism), and Feminism (monopoly female control vs compromise familial control) – we repeated the same process as the ancient era (resulting in the destruction of every civlization of the ancient world) and attempted in the current era to undermine (destroy) that social order that made our salvation from natural condition possible: non-monopoly markets of competition (calculation) using discovery by trial and error at the cost of soft eugenics (suppression of the reproduction of those who force burden by moral hazard onto others). The questions are one of knowledge and one of choice. Lacking knowledge one cannot make a choice. Possessing knowledge what choice does one (or all) make? The answer is divided between the predator and pack’s preservation, or the prey and herd’s submission. 😉 Maybe that will add to the discourse. 😉 -Cheers

  • The Scientific Explanation of The Spiritual

    November 5th, 2018 10:32 AM THE SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE SPIRITUAL

    —“What do you tell people who have had very spiritual experiences that they attribute to their religion? Tell them they just imagined it? I don’t see how that’s going to work.”— Mitchell Ryan

    They had the experience. They felt it. That it was produced by imagination is no different than if they imagine a ghost in the dark, or a car coming around a corner that isn’t there, or an argument with a loved one that didn’t or might happen. We feel all these things. We experience both the imagination of the context, the imagination of what might happen, or is happening, and the feeling of being in it, and we remember it. Our brains work all the time by filling in with memory or prediction the ‘model’ our senses are continuously composing for us out of sense, memory, and prediction, with continuous recursion of the context. Those Experiences existed. The conditions that cause them are either real or imaginary. We possess the ability to predict or forecast. That is the purpose of memory. We can predict all sorts of outcomes and then ‘feel them’ (imagine ourselves in them). The fact that you can imagine yourself in a ‘religious experience’ or imagine yourself as king arthur and feel that experience, is just a matter of context you imagine and practice. Most ‘intense’ experience I ever had was being very ill with a fever, reading a conan novel, and then experiencing myself in his place. it’s STILL the most intense experience I have had. Is it a religious experience, or is a religious experience just a different story in just a different dream? The question is only whether you are an addict reinforcing your addiction or not. Most of us no. Some of us yes. The question is whether you retain your agency (and experience) or retain your addiction in lieu of agency (and experience).

  • Why Do Our Brains Construct Two Opposing Explanations?

    November 5th, 2018 10:25 AM —“Q: WHY DO OUR BRAINS CONSTRUCT TWO OPPOSING EXPLANATIONS?”— Question: “Why have our marvelous brains formulated two diametrically opposite explanations?” Answer: Cognitive Division of Labor: Predator (action, dominance, science) — vs.– Prey (mindfulness, submission, religion). Problem: Demand for mindfulness increases with uncertainty. Post tribal life removes resource uncertainty at the cost of social uncertainty (female herd equality, male pack hierarchy). Scale increases uncertainty. Production cycles decrease availability of positive reinforcement (status signals, fitness signals). Consumerism buys signals, at cost of increase in isolation. Diversity (market polity) increases isolation. Choices: (a) Personal Rituals: Stoicism (Self Authoring) > Sophism (Philosophy) > Pseudoscience (“Church of TED, Marxist Economics”) > Religion (Old Age) > Magic (New Age) > Occult (literature – post-reason). (b) Social Rituals: Hunting > Sport > Commerce > Civic Groups and Clubs > Politics > Religion (academy, media, cult) > Fringe Movements (outcasts) > Occult (‘escapists’). What’s the Underlying Problem?Neural Economy. (Physical Economy(Stress), Emotional Economy (Stress), Neural Economy(stress)). Regularity provides certainty and decreased neural cost. Plenty provides personal decrease in neural cost but increase in cost of collective coherence, consistency, correspondence, and (frame) decidability. In other words, manageable neural cost provides anti-fragility (mindfulness) and suppressed neural cost (infantilization) increases fragility. The problem we face satisfaction of demand for predatory ( consumption, acquisition, opportunity, signals/status) vs prey ( consumption, insurance, certainty, not-sticking-out/equality). Markets (Economy) in everything: Unfortunately we have constructed a cognitive model of monopoly under both universalist abrahamic religion, justificationary philosophy, universal democracy, legislation (rather than tort law), and constructivist mathematics (and positivist logic). Despite the fact that the uniqueness of western civilization’s ‘salvation’ of mankind from superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, endemic violence, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature – was the product of anti-monopoly “Markets in All Walks of Life” under individual sovereignty, tort law of reciprocity, evidentiary (testifiable) truth regardless of cost to face, status, dominance, or competence hierarchy, duty of the commons regardless of station, decision jury, judge and rule of law, leaving the only remaining method of cooperation “as markets in all aspects of life” that resulted in our innovations of reason, empiricism, and science. Ergo, between religion, philosophy, (and that counter-empiricism we call the ‘enlightenment’ and it’s capture of power) democracy, followed by the revision of monopoly Abrahamic Monotheism( judaism, christianity, and islamism), that we call Marxism(Pseudoscience), Socialism(Monopoly Property), Postmodernism (monopoly sophism), and Feminism (monopoly female control vs compromise familial control) – we repeated the same process as the ancient era (resulting in the destruction of every civlization of the ancient world) and attempted in the current era to undermine (destroy) that social order that made our salvation from natural condition possible: non-monopoly markets of competition (calculation) using discovery by trial and error at the cost of soft eugenics (suppression of the reproduction of those who force burden by moral hazard onto others). The questions are one of knowledge and one of choice. Lacking knowledge one cannot make a choice. Possessing knowledge what choice does one (or all) make? The answer is divided between the predator and pack’s preservation, or the prey and herd’s submission. 😉 Maybe that will add to the discourse. 😉 -Cheers

  • (FB 1542560560 Timestamp) USING SERIES TO TEST A LINE OF CONSTANT RELATIONS ACRO

    (FB 1542560560 Timestamp) USING SERIES TO TEST A LINE OF CONSTANT RELATIONS ACROSS SCALES —“Always love this structure of Aphorism”— A Twitter Friend danqueseq (referring to use of series to illustrate a concept) One point – an ideal, or ideal type – tells you nothing. Three points to test a line. More points falsify the line such that it is increasingly free of ignorance, error, bias and deceit. Hence, demand for definitions in series as a defense against conflation, inflation, and fictionalism. -hugs brother.

  • (FB 1542560560 Timestamp) USING SERIES TO TEST A LINE OF CONSTANT RELATIONS ACRO

    (FB 1542560560 Timestamp) USING SERIES TO TEST A LINE OF CONSTANT RELATIONS ACROSS SCALES —“Always love this structure of Aphorism”— A Twitter Friend danqueseq (referring to use of series to illustrate a concept) One point – an ideal, or ideal type – tells you nothing. Three points to test a line. More points falsify the line such that it is increasingly free of ignorance, error, bias and deceit. Hence, demand for definitions in series as a defense against conflation, inflation, and fictionalism. -hugs brother.