(FB 1543603044 Timestamp) ARE HISTORIANS OR ECONOMISTS MORE RIGHT? Um…. Let me help you: OUTLIERS. Economists are better at explanation post hoc, and historians are better at prediction, for the simple reason that history consists of the analysis of outliers (opportunities in signal), and economics the analysis of regularities (opportunities in noise). At present it is painfully clear to me that we are both at the most fragile condition any empire has been in history, and we have a surplus of agitated external competitors, and a surplus of agitated internal males ready to seize the opportunity. If the economics profession measured ALL capital changes and incentives those changes cause, and demand for it’s reallocation, as well as rates of consumption and production, then the profession MIGHT come close to the predictive ability of historians. But as we have consistently seen, (which I have been measuring since 2002), the opinions of economists (confidence) vary inversely to the predictability of the conditions. So, it’s not an either or proposition. Bias Confirmation in History, Projection in Psychology and Sociology, and; Cherry Picking in Economics. Next time you hear an economist say ‘but we don’t try to measure that’, inform him that his position is no different from theologians saying ‘we don’t account for that’.
Theme: Causality
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543603044 Timestamp) ARE HISTORIANS OR ECONOMISTS MORE RIGHT? Um…. Let me help you: OUTLIERS. Economists are better at explanation post hoc, and historians are better at prediction, for the simple reason that history consists of the analysis of outliers (opportunities in signal), and economics the analysis of regularities (opportunities in noise). At present it is painfully clear to me that we are both at the most fragile condition any empire has been in history, and we have a surplus of agitated external competitors, and a surplus of agitated internal males ready to seize the opportunity. If the economics profession measured ALL capital changes and incentives those changes cause, and demand for it’s reallocation, as well as rates of consumption and production, then the profession MIGHT come close to the predictive ability of historians. But as we have consistently seen, (which I have been measuring since 2002), the opinions of economists (confidence) vary inversely to the predictability of the conditions. So, it’s not an either or proposition. Bias Confirmation in History, Projection in Psychology and Sociology, and; Cherry Picking in Economics. Next time you hear an economist say ‘but we don’t try to measure that’, inform him that his position is no different from theologians saying ‘we don’t account for that’.
-
(FB 1544145333 Timestamp) Even if the illustration is a poor analogy, it does ge
(FB 1544145333 Timestamp) Even if the illustration is a poor analogy, it does get the point across that constant relations may remain constant across inconstant (inconsistent, incompatible, incommensurable) theories, paradigms, sciences(frames). (The illustration is consistent, compatible, commensurable.)
-
(FB 1544145333 Timestamp) Even if the illustration is a poor analogy, it does ge
(FB 1544145333 Timestamp) Even if the illustration is a poor analogy, it does get the point across that constant relations may remain constant across inconstant (inconsistent, incompatible, incommensurable) theories, paradigms, sciences(frames). (The illustration is consistent, compatible, commensurable.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544364209 Timestamp) EMERGENCE Yes, indeed, we share 98.9 percent of our DNA with chimps. But what are the differences? About half code for olfactory receptors – we can’t smell much compared to chimps. Pelvic shape. Spine. Body Hair. Immune recognition. Reproductive isolation. There are hardly any difference in the brain. Those differences that do exist, code for the number of rounds of cell division during fetal brain development. We have like three times as many neurons as chimps due to three times as many cell divisions during early development. So when I tell you intellectual phenomenon are EMERGENT, and “It’s all just layers of memory (Neurons)” I’m trying both to horrify you and demonstrate my point about both artificial intelligence, the possibility of alien intelligence, our capacity as humans, the differences between humans – it’s just neurons (computational power) offset by limits of computational efficiency that is better named neural economy. In other words, the model I use, and try to teach you, is to think about our behavior in terms of neural economy (bias), neural responsibility(bias), neural distribution(bias), and our chemical reward systems(bias). And why does this matter? Because our language functions as a system of computation that improves that neural efficiency, and that language consists almost entirely of a set of references (functions) that are analogies to experience (reactions, actions). And that all language (references, symbols) consists of changes in state (neuronal changes) of those experiences, and as such the underlying semantics and grammar is the human experience. And since we SHARE that human experience closely enough to communicate within the limits of that experience, that the human body, senses, emotions, and cognition (experience) provide the semantics and grammar of changes in state: ‘stories’. And as such all speech consists of continuous recursive disambiguation of arrangements of changes in state (a model) by the accumulation of stories (changes in state), and understanding(meaning), agreement(understanding), and error reduction(warranty) the three phases of speech, that together constitute a transaction. and we combine those transactions into a sets of transactions, that are recursively updated. So our brains are not that different from a database other than we are always and everywhere trying to ‘fit’ those models that result from those transactions into an arrangement with other transactions. So, to tie this into Propertarianism, (a)Consciousness will emerge within the limits of the system. (b) Decidability is provided by the limits of the system, and its reward systems. if you do not teach an AI to ‘want’ something it can’t want it’ Because want (acquisition) provides decidability. We decide by our wants. Absent wants an AI can’t decide. Without decidability it can’t act. [2] Propertarianism consists of restating the disciplines in these Operational(causal) rather than the traditionally Experiential(consequential) terms: – Metaphysics: Vitruvianism(man as measure of all things to man), – Psychology: Acquisitionism.
– Sociology: Compatibilism . – Ethics: Propertarianism – Law: Sovereignty and Reciprocity. – Politics: Markets in everything. – Epistemology: Testimonialism. Together they produce high trust. adaptive velocity. at some non-trivial cost to neural economy. Greater neural capacity increases adaptive velocity. higher neural capacity more high investment to create the same neural economy. The greatest adaptive velocity you can produce for your people is not necessarily the improvement of the individual, but the culling of FRICTIONS from less competent individuals, increasing overall neural economy. (remove friction and error from the system). Together these function as the highest correspondence with reality at the cost of greater demands for neural economy. So The White Law provides the highest correspondence, consistency, identity, and constructability, with the most complete explanation that man has provided to date. One Continuous Consistent Explanation of The Human Experience from Subatomic Physics to the Wonder of Mankind’s Arts. Cheers [1]primate info is quoted from Sapolsky who uses this example frequently) [2] This was the end result of my study of AI in the early 80’s, and, it’s why I stopped working on it – technological limitations (cost) in that era. -
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544364209 Timestamp) EMERGENCE Yes, indeed, we share 98.9 percent of our DNA with chimps. But what are the differences? About half code for olfactory receptors – we can’t smell much compared to chimps. Pelvic shape. Spine. Body Hair. Immune recognition. Reproductive isolation. There are hardly any difference in the brain. Those differences that do exist, code for the number of rounds of cell division during fetal brain development. We have like three times as many neurons as chimps due to three times as many cell divisions during early development. So when I tell you intellectual phenomenon are EMERGENT, and “It’s all just layers of memory (Neurons)” I’m trying both to horrify you and demonstrate my point about both artificial intelligence, the possibility of alien intelligence, our capacity as humans, the differences between humans – it’s just neurons (computational power) offset by limits of computational efficiency that is better named neural economy. In other words, the model I use, and try to teach you, is to think about our behavior in terms of neural economy (bias), neural responsibility(bias), neural distribution(bias), and our chemical reward systems(bias). And why does this matter? Because our language functions as a system of computation that improves that neural efficiency, and that language consists almost entirely of a set of references (functions) that are analogies to experience (reactions, actions). And that all language (references, symbols) consists of changes in state (neuronal changes) of those experiences, and as such the underlying semantics and grammar is the human experience. And since we SHARE that human experience closely enough to communicate within the limits of that experience, that the human body, senses, emotions, and cognition (experience) provide the semantics and grammar of changes in state: ‘stories’. And as such all speech consists of continuous recursive disambiguation of arrangements of changes in state (a model) by the accumulation of stories (changes in state), and understanding(meaning), agreement(understanding), and error reduction(warranty) the three phases of speech, that together constitute a transaction. and we combine those transactions into a sets of transactions, that are recursively updated. So our brains are not that different from a database other than we are always and everywhere trying to ‘fit’ those models that result from those transactions into an arrangement with other transactions. So, to tie this into Propertarianism, (a)Consciousness will emerge within the limits of the system. (b) Decidability is provided by the limits of the system, and its reward systems. if you do not teach an AI to ‘want’ something it can’t want it’ Because want (acquisition) provides decidability. We decide by our wants. Absent wants an AI can’t decide. Without decidability it can’t act. [2] Propertarianism consists of restating the disciplines in these Operational(causal) rather than the traditionally Experiential(consequential) terms: – Metaphysics: Vitruvianism(man as measure of all things to man), – Psychology: Acquisitionism.
– Sociology: Compatibilism . – Ethics: Propertarianism – Law: Sovereignty and Reciprocity. – Politics: Markets in everything. – Epistemology: Testimonialism. Together they produce high trust. adaptive velocity. at some non-trivial cost to neural economy. Greater neural capacity increases adaptive velocity. higher neural capacity more high investment to create the same neural economy. The greatest adaptive velocity you can produce for your people is not necessarily the improvement of the individual, but the culling of FRICTIONS from less competent individuals, increasing overall neural economy. (remove friction and error from the system). Together these function as the highest correspondence with reality at the cost of greater demands for neural economy. So The White Law provides the highest correspondence, consistency, identity, and constructability, with the most complete explanation that man has provided to date. One Continuous Consistent Explanation of The Human Experience from Subatomic Physics to the Wonder of Mankind’s Arts. Cheers [1]primate info is quoted from Sapolsky who uses this example frequently) [2] This was the end result of my study of AI in the early 80’s, and, it’s why I stopped working on it – technological limitations (cost) in that era. -
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544605074 Timestamp) by Pat Ryan To recap, stem cells are coerced into specialization as a byproduct of endless bacteriophage and virus flow perpetually offsetting the magnificent exponential power of mitosis. Having one universal cell for all time proved to be impossible due to potentially fatal delays in energy availability. AKA energy isn’t universally abundant for the singular cell and so pressures selected for different cellular strategies. Mitosis speed variation, thickness in membranes, organelle placement and function, replication techniques, DNA structure, RNA methodology, etc. Each variable tuned ever so slightly per generation and tested under the crucible of entropy and bacteriophage. Specialization was inevitable under these circumstances. Cells do “cooperate” in a manner that their structural biases assume other systemic pressures will be reliably available. For example, most cells don’t handle their own immunological defensiveness because they have grown to assume an immune system is actively on the job. This is less a “cooperation” in an empathy sense and more of a “we don’t know any better, we just do one thing” ecosystem adapting to its own metastructure.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544605074 Timestamp) by Pat Ryan To recap, stem cells are coerced into specialization as a byproduct of endless bacteriophage and virus flow perpetually offsetting the magnificent exponential power of mitosis. Having one universal cell for all time proved to be impossible due to potentially fatal delays in energy availability. AKA energy isn’t universally abundant for the singular cell and so pressures selected for different cellular strategies. Mitosis speed variation, thickness in membranes, organelle placement and function, replication techniques, DNA structure, RNA methodology, etc. Each variable tuned ever so slightly per generation and tested under the crucible of entropy and bacteriophage. Specialization was inevitable under these circumstances. Cells do “cooperate” in a manner that their structural biases assume other systemic pressures will be reliably available. For example, most cells don’t handle their own immunological defensiveness because they have grown to assume an immune system is actively on the job. This is less a “cooperation” in an empathy sense and more of a “we don’t know any better, we just do one thing” ecosystem adapting to its own metastructure.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547142603 Timestamp) —“What is it that we mean by “metaphysics”? Is it the reverse-engineering of human cognition? Is it really so useless to try to reverse-engineer the mind? I could accept something of the sort of: “doing metaphysics even of the sort of naturalistic inquiry that you profess requires the sort of social institutions or commons that would be too vulnerable to parasitism”.”— Adam Voight Short Answer: Metaphysics is looking for means of cheating. What I think we call metaphysics is the discipline of trying to create a fictional narrative that justifies our means of survival, competition, prospering, and signaling given our abilities, means, and conditions. So an ‘ontology” (paradigm) that ‘lets me get what I want’. Where my approach is ‘here is the paradigm’ now negotiate within it for what you want, don’t make an excuse that what you want is ‘good’ so that you can engage in all sorts of discounting (cheating). The rest of the ontologies (paradigms) are just networks on top of that base ontology (paradigm) of human action (perception, cognition, memory, calculation, speech, negotiation, action). Well, I mean I worked on AI, and now we have cognitive science, and we have language that expresses the content of the mind, so it’s pretty easy. I mean, I think I have a pretty good understanding of how the mind works, and I’ve come to understand it’s actually not complicated, it’s just an emergent phenomenon of enough hierarchical memory, and the devotion of so much of that memory to the continuous production of serialized speech so that we can negotiate cooperation with others, because cooperation produces such ridiculously outsized returns on calories that language and cooperation are more valuable than any other caloric expenditure. In my book I teach that the human body, intuition, and mind provide a the system of measurement we work with because it is all that we can work with because it is the only comparisons we are able to make – and that all language consists of measurements culminating in transactions. The question is only the precision of those measurements on the one hand, the correspondence of those measurements, and the ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in those measurements. I then use that system of measurement (operational language) to provide commensurability, and reframe all human experience, knowledge, and disciplines in that commensurable language. Then I document every known method of deflating language to produce increased precision and decreased opportunity for conflation. Then I document every known method of inflating language to engaging the masking of ignorance, and the generation of error, bias, and deceit. Then I account for costs. In other words the Metaphysics of Action turns out to be the only non-false model. The metaphysics of speech limited to action turns out to be the only non-false model. And the tests of costs whether at the physical or human level turns out to be the only non-false model. This turns out to be what we do in court already when prosecuting a crime. Which is why the west developed reason, empiricism, science: it all evolved out of our natural common law of sovereignty. The moment you base your cognitive hierarchy on sovereignty (the individual) then there is no conflation available by which to ignore costs. This sentence is very profound. if you base it on anything else you invite (make excuses for) the unaccountable, adn the undecidable, leaving room for authoritarian or communal calculation. This hierarchy of concepts is quite important really. It explains why so many thinkers went off the rails and why there is a proliferation of incommensurable ‘fictions’ in philosophy and theology and opinion. “How can I cheat others?” “How can I use cheating to rally large numbers of others?” “How can I use cheating and rallying large numbers to obtain power?” I see history as a few people trying to create truth and productivity, a lot of people lying and cheating, and a lot more trying to get by with the lies, cheating, and stealing that they can get away with in the current context. Because I study science and the law and economics and not philosophy ,theology, literature, or what passes for history but is largely propaganda.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547138370 Timestamp) THE ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OVER METAPHYSICS —“Anytime you utter the word “emergent phenomenon”, you automatically need another science. In order to count as such, a science needs to satisfy what constraints?”— Help me understand this because there is no limit that I can imagine to the scale of a neural (bayesian) network, and no limit to the cognitive ability of a hierarchical and recursive network – other than inputs and outputs. The limits we have today are mechanical – we have built the wrong kind of computers. Even such, at great heat-cost, we are able to replicate those networks. So for ‘speech’ to emerge just like for the touch ui to emerge we require hardware (biological ware). So somehow (random selection, intentional manipulation) the real-world interface determines what can be ‘identified, predicted, and judged’ by that recursive, hierarchical, network. —“real”– As far as I know real = existential = persistent = observable = observable directly, by instrumentation, or by deduction from deduction using instrumentation, where that instrumentation can be either physical(external) or logical (internal). As far as I know ‘real’ in the colloquial, refers to ACTIONABLE. As far as I know the only open question is an empty verbalism: experiences are constructed from a combination of perception with memories of perceptions, limited by the grammar of conception, which is brain structure, which appears to be little more than the neurological homunculus – which the more I understand, the less ‘human’ I feel. So do experience (concepts, etc) exist, or do they have the potential be experienced, and do they persist if and only if some number of us share the potential to experience them? Once we operationalize these questions they turn out to be quite simple. Do unicorns exist? Well, No. Do does the word unicorn exist? Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) of that word. So it we have knowledge of it. That knowledge persists in some distributed and fragmentary form. But it only exists as POTENTIAL. Whereas that which we claim exists already does so. Does that idea of a unicorn exist? Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) that can be accessed by that word, and using that index (word) we can recall some combination of fragmentary images of a unicorn (mine are the scenes in Blade Runner and after that, Legend of all things). So in Does the referent exist? Well, No. Does the index of the referent exist? Well, Yes. Does knowledge of the referent exist? Well, Yes. Yet again, we see, that a series stated in operational language solves the problem of the sophism of reductive questions. Unicorns don’t exist. An index (word) appears to have little or no direct sensation of itself. An index evokes a network of fragments, that recursively reflect additional fragments, and so on until we have exhausted our memories. the cortex (brain) is a continuous prediction system using fragments , and we can apply that prediction system to the real, the linguistic, and the imagined. What we call mind, probably an consequence of either cooperation, communication or language, or the sequence in total, consists largely in the direction of that forecasting (attention) and recursion (concentration). Is knowing this the same as experience? well no. Knowing this is however, defensive: eliminating the errors, bises, and deceits, that we and others engage in, with ourselves and others. WHAT ABOUT “NEED” – HUMAN DEMAND FOR COMFORTING FALSEHOODS Demand for Falsehoods today are driven by signal pressure and alienation pressure. In the past they were driven by signal pressure, competitive pressure, alienation pressure, and suffering pressure. We cannot fix signal pressure since it is necessary for selection, but we can fix mindfulness. We can’t fix alienation pressure but we can improve mindfulness and the civic society to reduce it. We can limit competitive pressure through the civic society and political ethnocentrism. And we can dramatically (and have) eliminated suffering pressure through mindfulness and medicine. Yes, the truth is that comforting lies (sophistry pseudoscience, the occult and denial), cults and groups, and sedation by alcohol, an drugs are CHEAP and DISORGANIZED means of providing mindfulness in the face of signal, alienation, competitive, and suffering pressures. However, we can likewise take and ORGANIZED and EXPENSIVE means of serving those market demands by non false and healthy and productive means. But like all contemporary problems (a) the collection of rent-seekers that will be displaced by the efforts to produce that order will fight desperately against these reforms (improvements) just as they will the legal and financial, because rent seeking that leaves people subject to pressures but gives them false hope is the most profitable industry of all. (b) not enough of us (yet) have taken up arms to alter that circumstance. NO MORE LIES