Curt Doolittle

Theme: Causality

  • 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 11:49:00 UTC

  • “Did you use your natural instinct for science for that [criticism of climate sc

    —“Did you use your natural instinct for science for that [criticism of climate science]?]”—

    Not sure what you’re getting at, but my particular ‘talent’ is purely mechanical – and a form of obsessive compulsion for order. I do not have autobiographical (perfect) memory but I have a very good memory, and a lot of general knowledge about many subjects. And so I ‘feel’ when ‘that doesn’t fit’- I just have to work at what I ‘feel/sense’ until the ‘urge to correct disorder’ goes away. (It never goes away otherwise and makes me crazy).

    Propertarianism is a universal language that helps everything ‘fit together’ into a single unified model. (That’s why I developed it.)

    And so I sort of specialize in identifying uses of argument that are various attempts at fraud. And I saw that in the climate data.

    Now, as for the climate science crew, I worked on the “Two Degrees” initiative (clinton foundation, microsoft, etc) until november 2009 when the evidence came out that they had be manipulating the data and suppressing competing research. At that point everyone walked away from it. And I lost the 200K invested in the program. So I have personal knowledge of these people, their organizations, their incentives, how they approach the data, and the political ambitions they had (and careerism) and tax revenue goals they had.

    So that’s where I come by my opinion. yes we are having some impact on the climate but it’s not clear it’s meaningful, or that it can’t be fairly easily corrected by (a) nuclear power, and (b) reducing underclass reproduction.

    SO:

    “Just ’cause most people with lots of life experience don’t engage in running a free classroom online doesn’t means some of us don’t. I don’t have a university classroom, access to a pool of grad students to do research, or a team to put grants together with. Instead, I use the equivalent: fb/websites as my classroom, the hard working people who wont or cant waste their time in universities, and my own an my followers resources to run my ‘class’ and ‘do my research’.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 08:58:00 UTC

  • THIS WOULD BE MY PRESUMPTION —“Gerard ‘t Hooft conjectured that: “We should no

    THIS WOULD BE MY PRESUMPTION

    —“Gerard ‘t Hooft conjectured that: “We should not forget that quantum mechanics does not really describe what kind of dynamical phenomena are actually going on, but rather gives us probabilistic results. To me, it seems extremely plausible that any reasonable theory for the dynamics at the Planck scale would lead to processes that are so complicated to describe, that one should expect apparently stochastic fluctuations in any approximation theory describing the effects of all of this at much larger scales. It seems quite reasonable first to try a classical, deterministic theory for the Planck domain. One might speculate then that what we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an ingenious technique to handle this dynamics statistically.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 19:58:00 UTC

  • What we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an ingenious technique

    October 28th, 2018 7:58 PM THIS WOULD BE MY PRESUMPTION

    —“Gerard’t Hooft conjectured that: “We should not forget that quantum mechanics does not really describe what kind of dynamical phenomena are actually going on, but rather gives us probabilistic results. To me, it seems extremely plausible that any reasonable theory for the dynamics at the Planck scale would lead to processes that are so complicated to describe, that one should expect apparently stochastic fluctuations in any approximation theory describing the effects of all of this at much larger scales. It seems quite reasonable first to try a classical, deterministic theory for the Planck domain. One might speculate then that what we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an ingenious technique to handle this dynamics statistically.”—

  • Explaining Consciousness Indirectly

    October 28th, 2018 1:03 PM EXPLAINING CONSCIOUSNESS INDIRECTLY

    —“Where does “the present” (initial, whole experience) as opposed to memory and the rest (post hoc, partial translations) fit into your model?”— Ben Quimby

    [W]e create the latter in order to increase our chose and volume and intensity of consumption of the former.

    —“But it *is* something that stands alone outside of all these categories, yes? Part of each moment, necessarily, does not carry over into any translation, making said parts, by definition, “ineffable”, correct?”— Ben Quimby

    Well, you know, if you ask it that way I have to defend against misinterpretation. “experience” is our ultra-short-term memory continuously learning and forgetting the cacophony of stimuli from our nervous system, and the ‘echoes’ that they produce in from our memories, and the consequent chemical responses (feelings) that those echoes produce Memories require we merely ‘choke’ our senses and focus on (not sure how we do that, but I assume it’s the hippocampus) the echoes rather than the perceptions (senses). I know it’s related to how we focus our vision, and I know it’s an evolution of the prey drive, but that’s all I know. So there is no difference except focus. All experience is RECONSTRUCTED from the combination of sensation and memory. We just bias our focus on present(sense) vs past(memory) within that stream of stimulation. So there are not two separate things, but simply the resources devoted to senses vs recalls so that we experience greater now than the past. GIven that our brains allow us to do both of these at the same time only enhances the illusion.

  • What we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an ingenious technique

    October 28th, 2018 7:58 PM THIS WOULD BE MY PRESUMPTION

    —“Gerard’t Hooft conjectured that: “We should not forget that quantum mechanics does not really describe what kind of dynamical phenomena are actually going on, but rather gives us probabilistic results. To me, it seems extremely plausible that any reasonable theory for the dynamics at the Planck scale would lead to processes that are so complicated to describe, that one should expect apparently stochastic fluctuations in any approximation theory describing the effects of all of this at much larger scales. It seems quite reasonable first to try a classical, deterministic theory for the Planck domain. One might speculate then that what we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an ingenious technique to handle this dynamics statistically.”—

  • Explaining Consciousness Indirectly

    October 28th, 2018 1:03 PM EXPLAINING CONSCIOUSNESS INDIRECTLY

    —“Where does “the present” (initial, whole experience) as opposed to memory and the rest (post hoc, partial translations) fit into your model?”— Ben Quimby

    [W]e create the latter in order to increase our chose and volume and intensity of consumption of the former.

    —“But it *is* something that stands alone outside of all these categories, yes? Part of each moment, necessarily, does not carry over into any translation, making said parts, by definition, “ineffable”, correct?”— Ben Quimby

    Well, you know, if you ask it that way I have to defend against misinterpretation. “experience” is our ultra-short-term memory continuously learning and forgetting the cacophony of stimuli from our nervous system, and the ‘echoes’ that they produce in from our memories, and the consequent chemical responses (feelings) that those echoes produce Memories require we merely ‘choke’ our senses and focus on (not sure how we do that, but I assume it’s the hippocampus) the echoes rather than the perceptions (senses). I know it’s related to how we focus our vision, and I know it’s an evolution of the prey drive, but that’s all I know. So there is no difference except focus. All experience is RECONSTRUCTED from the combination of sensation and memory. We just bias our focus on present(sense) vs past(memory) within that stream of stimulation. So there are not two separate things, but simply the resources devoted to senses vs recalls so that we experience greater now than the past. GIven that our brains allow us to do both of these at the same time only enhances the illusion.

  • EXPLAINING CONSCIOUSNESS INDIRECTLY —“Where does “the present” (initial, whole

    EXPLAINING CONSCIOUSNESS INDIRECTLY

    —“Where does “the present” (initial, whole experience) as opposed to memory and the rest (post hoc, partial translations) fit into your model?”— Ben Quimby

    We create the latter in order to increase our chose and volume and intensity of consumption of the former.

    —“But it *is* something that stands alone outside of all these categories, yes? Part of each moment, necessarily, does not carry over into any translation, making said parts, by definition, “ineffable”, correct?”— Ben Quimby

    Well, you know, if you ask it that way I have to defend against misinterpretation. “experience” is our ultra-short-term memory continuously learning and forgetting the cacophony of stimuli from our nervous system, and the ‘echoes’ that they produce in from our memories, and the consequent chemical responses (feelings) that those echoes produce

    Memories require we merely ‘choke’ our senses and focus on (not sure how we do that, but I assume it’s the hippocampus) the echoes rather than the perceptions (senses). I know it’s related to how we focus our vision, and I know it’s an evolution of the prey drive, but that’s all I know.

    So there is no difference except focus. All experience is RECONSTRUCTED from the combination of sensation and memory. We just bias our focus on present(sense) vs past(memory) within that stream of stimulation.

    So there are not two separate things, but simply the resources devoted to senses vs recalls so that we experience greater now than the past.

    GIven that our brains allow us to do both of these at the same time only enhances the illusion.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 13:03:00 UTC

  • (Reverse correlation. People choose body-religions because of stressors.)

    (Reverse correlation. People choose body-religions because of stressors.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 20:10:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056277022702559233

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054742226872492032

    IN REPLY TO:

    @DegenRolf

    “It appears that vegetarians’ daily lives are less psychological rewarding than the daily lives of non-vegetarians.” https://t.co/cuIgfTxdvd https://t.co/ZOSzsGBaOC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054742226872492032

  • ( AFAIK, seen this research before, it’s oxygenation. )

    ( AFAIK, seen this research before, it’s oxygenation. )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 20:03:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056275321631268866

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055782513015209984

    IN REPLY TO:

    @DegenRolf

    Hard to chew: Although chewing gum may make you look dumb, it actually enhanced subsequent test performance. https://t.co/y0DFaE8Ypc https://t.co/TEo8XeP9bC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055782513015209984