Theme: Causality

  • by Pat Ryan To recap, stem cells are coerced into specialization as a byproduct

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-12 03:57:00 UTC

  • EMERGENCE Yes, indeed, we share 98.9 percent of our DNA with chimps. But what ar

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-09 09:03:00 UTC

  • Even if the illustration is a poor analogy, it does get the point across that co

    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.)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-07 01:14:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070848941804175360

    Reply addressees: @Nationalist7346 @SteveStuWill

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070845608477507589


    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/1070845608477507589

  • yes but what would we disagree upon? i would provide a biological explanation, c

    yes but what would we disagree upon? i would provide a biological explanation, causing pursuit of their strategy. etc.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 01:41:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067956806146801665

    Reply addressees: @frederick_3210

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067946821807468544


    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/1067946821807468544

  • the development of sight

    the development of sight.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 23:55:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062131890625372171

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062131401749942273


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle Give me one example of an EP hypothesis and it’s independent verifier.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062131401749942273

  • As categories increase in plasticity prediction decreases. So the unverse can’t

    As categories increase in plasticity prediction decreases. So the unverse can’t choose at the micro level but causal density is high at the environmental level. This problem expands further under sentience, and cognition. Economics cannot be forecast but are explicable.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 23:47:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062129868098412544

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062128888011280384


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle Do historians claim that history is a science?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062128888011280384

  • Um… mathematical elegance in physics is another way of saying the universe tak

    Um… mathematical elegance in physics is another way of saying the universe takes the lowest cost route – because it has no choice.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-08 00:54:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060334691083988993

  • Um… mathematical elegance in physics is another way of saying the universe tak

    Um… mathematical elegance in physics is another way of saying the universe takes the lowest cost route – because it has no choice.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 19:53:00 UTC

  • THE SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE SPIRITUAL —“What do you tell people who have

    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).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-05 10:32:00 UTC

  • Well, the difference is, you extrapolate a line (trend), and I try to find it’s

    Well, the difference is, you extrapolate a line (trend), and I try to find it’s equilibration (limits). Via negativa in everything.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 15:50:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057298637540204545