Theme: Causality

  • “Lake Toba is the site of a massive supervolcanic eruption estimated at VEI 8 th

    —“Lake Toba is the site of a massive supervolcanic eruption estimated at VEI 8 that occurred 69,000 to 77,000 years ago,[2][3][4] representing a climate-changing event.

    It is the largest-known explosive eruption on Earth in the last 25 million years.

    According to the Toba catastrophe theory, it had global consequences for human populations; it killed most humans living at that time and is believed to have created a population bottleneck in central east Africa and India, which affects the genetic make-up of the human worldwide population to the present.[6]

    It has been accepted that the eruption of Toba led to a volcanic winter with a worldwide decrease in temperature between 3 to 5 °C (5.4 to 9.0 °F), and up to 15 °C (27 °F) in higher latitudes. Additional studies in Lake Malawi in East Africa show significant amounts of ash being deposited from the Toba eruptions, even at that great distance, but little indication of a significant climatic effect in East Africa.[7]”

    Lake Toba (Indonesian: Danau Toba) is a large natural lake in Indonesia occupying the caldera of a supervolcano. The lake is about 100 kilometres (62 miles) long, 30 kilometres (19 mi) wide, and up to 505 metres (1,657 ft) deep.

    Located in the middle of the northern part of the Indonesian island of Sumatra, with a surface elevation of about 900 metres (2,953 ft), the lake stretches from 2.88°N 98.52°E to 2.35°N 99.1°E. It is the largest lake in Indonesia and the largest volcanic lake in the world.[1]

    Recent advances in dating methods suggest a more accurate identification of 74,000 years ago as the date.[5] “—


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 15:38:00 UTC

  • ONLY REASON NOT TO GUT TALEB BEFORE NOW WAS UTILITARIAN. Now it’s time to take h

    ONLY REASON NOT TO GUT TALEB BEFORE NOW WAS UTILITARIAN.

    Now it’s time to take him down. Let moly make the correlative argument and I’ll make the causal argument and explain what taleb got wrong, why his project is a failure, and why he writes as he does in the grammars that he does, and why he ridicules the people that he does.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-22 13:47:00 UTC

  • by Bill Joslin Compatiblism – degrees of bounded freedom. It’s about accounting

    by Bill Joslin

    Compatiblism – degrees of bounded freedom.

    It’s about accounting for the causal chain and if the actor contributes to the causal chain (opposed to a causal chain being proof of no will). We can contribute to our causal chain because we can imagine alternate states of affairs. In that imagining we affect the causal chain.

    So the effect of that imagining will be varied. You can imagine via nonsense or reason – post-structuralism or post-positivism, mysticism or naturalism.

    You can chose, but you can’t avoid the consequences of that choice, no matter how much you imagine the state of affairs to be different than it actually is.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 09:20:00 UTC

  • THE ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OVER METAPHYSICS —“Anytime you utter the word “emerge

    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


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 11:39:00 UTC

  • “Curt, is your field (philosophy) art or science?”— Francesco Principi As I un

    —“Curt, is your field (philosophy) art or science?”— Francesco Principi

    As I understand my work, given that science is an extension of the law, these are the three options:

    1) Law, Sciences(Logics/Mathematics), Measurements. -vs- reality, competition, and testimony w/ warranty THE TRUE (EXISTENTIAL/REAL) – I consider this a ‘a science’.

    -vs-

    2) Philosophy, Literature, History, -vs- sophism, justification, and deceit w/o warranty THE IDEAL – I consider this an ‘art’.

    -vs-

    3) Theology, Scripture, Mythology -vs- supernaturalism, authoritarianism, and deceit w/o warranty THE FANTASY(IMAGINARY) – i consider this a ‘fraud or deceit’

    In other words, I am not sure that the old versions of these terms have any meaning. I consider philosophy that which is yet unsolved in the narrow sense, OR the imagination of possible worlds (fantasy literature) in the broader sense.

    So in the narrow sense I see philosophy closed (completed), and what was philosophy of ‘the big questions’ are solved. In the broad sense of imagining and reconstructing relations that we might prefer or that might be good, there will never be an end to that category of philosophizing.

    As far as I know theorizing about the true and possible has replaced philosophizing, and theorizing completely under testimonialism has replaced the limited theorizing of the 19th and 20th century sciences.

    So I tend to say I am a philosopher of natural law because it is all people can understand in the historical context of the available term.

    But, technically speaking, what I understand that I am doing is the science of the law. Which in itself I think is what natural law must eventually mean. Where natural law and the laws of nature are separated only by conscious choice.

    And so I don’t see any difference between science and law other than warranty. And as we have seen, science without warranty of due diligence is largely pseudoscience. and pseudoscience is just another term for fraud.

    So as I understand it, truth = law, and all else are sub-grammars of that law if that is all that is required to solve that problem, or deciets that violate that law.

    1) The Physical Laws (invariability),

    2) the Natural Law (decidability),

    3) History, and Literature (meaning), …

    … are the only non-false domains and methods of inquiry remaining.

    Drug addicts defend their habits. There are many ways of drugging the mind. Lies are the most common of them.

    And stoicism, family, oath-feast-festival, and our nation of all those that came before, all those that are, and all those that are yet to be, are the cure for that addiction.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-02 16:27:00 UTC

  • I will still take this debate, but not interwoven with twitter-spam. (a) g measu

    I will still take this debate, but not interwoven with twitter-spam. (a) g measures what we attempt to measure (b) chance of success corresponds to a distribution of traits, plus the utility of those traits, in service of the population under the bell curve within 1 SD.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-27 20:26:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1078386743022444545

    Reply addressees: @nntaleb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076845397795065856


    IN REPLY TO:

    @nntaleb

    “IQ” THREAD

    “IQ” measures an inferior form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects, meant to select paper shufflers, obedient IYIs.

    1- When someone asks you a question in REAL LIFE, you focus first on “WHY is he asking me that?”, which slows down. (Fat Tony vs Dr John)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1076845397795065856

  • RE: Nassim Nicholas Taleb ON HIS IQ RANT I will still take this debate, but not

    RE: Nassim Nicholas Taleb ON HIS IQ RANT

    I will still take this debate, but not interwoven with twitter-spam. (a) g measures what we attempt to measure (b) chance of success corresponds to a distribution of traits, plus the utility of those traits, in service of the population under the bell curve within 1 SD.

    Those of us with exceptional abilities favor working with our region of the bell curve – puzzles – that are of INDIRECT value rather than DIRECT value. WE HAVE KNOWN THIS FOR DECADES.

    Lastly, we go to university etc to avoid the marketplace (‘work’). This is the value of higher education: to provide a non-market means of identifying selection. In this sense your criticism is correct. In the sense that you’re criticizing IQ measurements, you’re WRONG …PERIOD.

    All of this is OLD NEWS. If you want to encourage people to prosper by pairing their skills to those necessary to serve the market that they understand, then yes. If you mean very bright people are fooled by sophism, innumeracy, pseudoscience – then yes.

    But likewise, just as it has taken you many years to migrate from the positivist search for mathematical discovery of units of informational prediction, to the demand for warranty of due diligence (falsification), you too are vulnerable to innumeracy, pseudoscience, ‘literature’.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-27 15:37:00 UTC

  • The fact that we forecast a combination of real world an imaginary (fictional) m

    The fact that we forecast a combination of real world an imaginary (fictional) models is simply our ability (or inability to resist) conflation of the imagined and the real. People need frames to calculate action. They can have a mixture of false, analogistic, and true frames.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-20 23:06:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075890318178947072

    Reply addressees: @TrueDilTom @justecar @Imperius__13 @JohnMarkSays @torinmccabe @DataDistribute @MahmoudZaini @Dick71224996

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075884973331116032


    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/1075884973331116032

  • The fact that we can create imaginary models of all varieties and use those to c

    The fact that we can create imaginary models of all varieties and use those to calculate action in the real world is pretty simple stuff. The argument that you can make up whatever social constructions you want as long as people can’t falsify them is simply the at of lying.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-20 23:04:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075889827617357829

    Reply addressees: @TrueDilTom @justecar @Imperius__13 @JohnMarkSays @torinmccabe @DataDistribute @MahmoudZaini @Dick71224996

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075884973331116032


    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/1075884973331116032

  • Page is Actually OK. Surprisingly. Technically there is no meaning of life, othe

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_lifeWiki Page is Actually OK. Surprisingly.

    Technically there is no meaning of life, other than increasing the probability of genetic persistence for those within six or fewer generations of you. We say we want to find ‘meaning’ but this is nothing more than a word-association between the (Positive) experience we feel when we understand, and the fact that there is nothing to undrestand about life other than to make the best use of it that we can before we die.

    So the question isn’t whether there is meaning to life. THere isn’t. At best we can estimate a sort of accounting. The question is whether we can CREATE MEANING with our lives.

    Experiences, Friends, Family, Generations, Achievements. Leave the world better for having lived in it.

    We have but one shot at life, and we have only one choice, and that is how we make use of the time within it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-15 22:48:00 UTC