“The Democratic Majority Fallacy” |CAUSALITY| .01% -> 1% -> 20% -> EVERYONE ELSE. That is that historically it only takes 1-2% and no more than 3% of a (male) population to cause revolutionary destructive harm, just as it takes only 1-2% to create revolutionary productive good. The success of either end of the spectrum depends upon the state of development of the people, their degree of heterogeneity, the consequential degree of disparity, the consequential degree of competition, and the percentage of the populace that will practice alternative norms. Norms create a market for cooperation. Markets for production AFTER the market for norms (cooperation), and markets for commons after production, and markets for polities after commons. So no. It matters more if 1% of immigrants are hostile than it does if 1% of citizens are fully domesticated. Don’t let democratic reasoning fool you. The Pareto rule and the power laws ALWAYS rule – FROM EVERY DIRECTION. .5% of a hostile populace is enough. Abrahamism, particularly militant, fundamentalist, irreciprocal, equalitarian, anti-reason abrahamism, is the equivalent of a single cancer cell. It spreads rapidly and kills everything it touches from the inside out. Judaism was bad, christianity, worse, and islam the very worst. Islam(Judaism, Christianity) = Monopoly. Paganism = Markets. IT’S NOT COMPLICATED: MARKETS IN EVERYTHING TO EVOLVE, OR DEVOLUTION AND REGRESSION.
Theme: Causality
-
Dangerous Minorities
“The Democratic Majority Fallacy” |CAUSALITY| .01% -> 1% -> 20% -> EVERYONE ELSE. That is that historically it only takes 1-2% and no more than 3% of a (male) population to cause revolutionary destructive harm, just as it takes only 1-2% to create revolutionary productive good. The success of either end of the spectrum depends upon the state of development of the people, their degree of heterogeneity, the consequential degree of disparity, the consequential degree of competition, and the percentage of the populace that will practice alternative norms. Norms create a market for cooperation. Markets for production AFTER the market for norms (cooperation), and markets for commons after production, and markets for polities after commons. So no. It matters more if 1% of immigrants are hostile than it does if 1% of citizens are fully domesticated. Don’t let democratic reasoning fool you. The Pareto rule and the power laws ALWAYS rule – FROM EVERY DIRECTION. .5% of a hostile populace is enough. Abrahamism, particularly militant, fundamentalist, irreciprocal, equalitarian, anti-reason abrahamism, is the equivalent of a single cancer cell. It spreads rapidly and kills everything it touches from the inside out. Judaism was bad, christianity, worse, and islam the very worst. Islam(Judaism, Christianity) = Monopoly. Paganism = Markets. IT’S NOT COMPLICATED: MARKETS IN EVERYTHING TO EVOLVE, OR DEVOLUTION AND REGRESSION.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. MAGICAL THINKING –“Magical thinking is the a
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
MAGICAL THINKING
–“Magical thinking is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation. In religion, folk religion, and superstitious beliefs, the posited correlation is often between religious ritual, prayer, sacrifice, or the observance of a taboo, and an expected benefit or recompense.”–
As you move east and south this seems to increases rapidly
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-18 01:09:43 UTC
-
MAGICAL THINKING –“Magical thinking is the attribution of causal or synchronist
MAGICAL THINKING
–“Magical thinking is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation. In religion, folk religion, and superstitious beliefs, the posited correlation is often between religious ritual, prayer, sacrifice, or the observance of a taboo, and an expected benefit or recompense.”–
As you move east and south this seems to increases rapidly
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 21:09:00 UTC
-
I still think the effect is overstated. Of course excitement of the network occu
I still think the effect is overstated. Of course excitement of the network occurs, and of course it reaches threshold and is measurable – all neural networks must do so. The study would need to measure how we imitate others motions yet do NOT move.We need to eliminate not prove.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-14 14:19:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018138021621837824
Reply addressees: @DegenRolf
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017021354627956737
IN REPLY TO:
@DegenRolf
The Libet experiment, one of the most influential neurological experiments ever, passes an exact replication – with a few qualifications. https://t.co/lV7J96TvBA https://t.co/I8YWsJI5yP
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017021354627956737
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post. THERE IS NO FIRST MOVER All existence is a consequ
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
THERE IS NO FIRST MOVER
All existence is a consequence of randomness generated at the moment of recreation, and the very small number of laws that arise from whatever the universe is actually made of in… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156482471517264 â¦
–“The issue with the “monkeys on typewriters” is that we know that Shakespeare’s works were created and not random. So what this whole thing tells me is that people like you are not actually equiped to understand reality or that your metaphysics are incredibly poor (they are).”—
—“There isnât even an attempt to grapple with Aristotle in his comment. Strange.”—-
—“Modern atheists love to prattle on about Aristotle but love to forget that his main work was on METAPHYSICS and that he basically came up with monotheism. They also hold a bunch of pre-socratic beliefs without realizing.”—
Anything you cannot testify to is indistinguishable from a lie. Aristotle could not understand the concept of self organizing forces,and so proposed a ‘first mover’.Aristotle was primitive by modern comparisons. He did not propose ‘monotheism’ as much as fail to solve the problem.
—How would self-organizing forces apply to things like physics? Would the principle of self-organization inevitably exclude a first mover? Hispano if you are correct I don’t think that would negate the intelligence of Curts proposal, I haven’t heard many exploring these issues.—-
—-“Curt is a very smart guy with smart things to say on many subjects. He’s just really bad at metaphysics.”—
You haven’t demonstrated an argument only gossip. My argument stands and always will. But that is ok. You are not fully human, and perhaps cannot be. It takes agency, and agency takes courage. The sterility of the universe is hostile to life and we are but an accident.
—“And you respond with this, a classic Doolittle ad hominem, poorly imitating Taleb’s style, not realizing you don’t have his rank. This is why you and whatever ideas that aren’t just regurgitations of someone else’s will never move beyond Twitter and Facebook ramblings.”—-
Falsify my argument or give up. The universe is self organizing because that’s all it can be, and that’s all it need be. Don’t make excuses by trying to frame the argument as Aristotelian (justificationary) rather than scientific. You’re a clown. Make an argument or crawl away.
—“Self-organization has nothing to do (is not an answer) to its origin. It also falls into the regressus problem. Engage with your metaphysical problems. Don’t make excuses by trying to frame the argument as “empiric” or “scientific”. Understand the category of the problem 1st.”—
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 13:38:46 UTC
-
5) non-temporality (non-time), self organization via entropy, and inter-universe
5) non-temporality (non-time), self organization via entropy, and inter-universe sinusoidal equilibration (the ‘bubble’ universe), requires nothing other than itself. There is no meaning of time outside of such a bubble.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 13:30:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017400825432461314
Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @egoissocial @IberianSoldier
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017382157776510977
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/1017382157776510977
-
3) I can testify to my proposition that all these phenomenon either to exist or
3) I can testify to my proposition that all these phenomenon either to exist or can exist, without anything other than an energetic substance seeking an impossible equilibrium. (a pattern which we see throughout the natural world).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 13:30:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017400752438996997
Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @egoissocial @IberianSoldier
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017382157776510977
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/1017382157776510977
-
THERE IS NO FIRST MOVER All existence is a consequence of randomness generated a
THERE IS NO FIRST MOVER
All existence is a consequence of randomness generated at the moment of recreation, and the very small number of laws that arise from whatever the universe is actually made of in… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156482471517264 …
–“The issue with the “monkeys on typewriters” is that we know that Shakespeare’s works were created and not random. So what this whole thing tells me is that people like you are not actually equiped to understand reality or that your metaphysics are incredibly poor (they are).”—
—“There isn’t even an attempt to grapple with Aristotle in his comment. Strange.”—-
—“Modern atheists love to prattle on about Aristotle but love to forget that his main work was on METAPHYSICS and that he basically came up with monotheism. They also hold a bunch of pre-socratic beliefs without realizing.”—
Anything you cannot testify to is indistinguishable from a lie. Aristotle could not understand the concept of self organizing forces,and so proposed a ‘first mover’.Aristotle was primitive by modern comparisons. He did not propose ‘monotheism’ as much as fail to solve the problem.
—How would self-organizing forces apply to things like physics? Would the principle of self-organization inevitably exclude a first mover? Hispano if you are correct I don’t think that would negate the intelligence of Curts proposal, I haven’t heard many exploring these issues.—-
—-“Curt is a very smart guy with smart things to say on many subjects. He’s just really bad at metaphysics.”—
You haven’t demonstrated an argument only gossip. My argument stands and always will. But that is ok. You are not fully human, and perhaps cannot be. It takes agency, and agency takes courage. The sterility of the universe is hostile to life and we are but an accident.
—“And you respond with this, a classic Doolittle ad hominem, poorly imitating Taleb’s style, not realizing you don’t have his rank. This is why you and whatever ideas that aren’t just regurgitations of someone else’s will never move beyond Twitter and Facebook ramblings.”—-
Falsify my argument or give up. The universe is self organizing because that’s all it can be, and that’s all it need be. Don’t make excuses by trying to frame the argument as Aristotelian (justificationary) rather than scientific. You’re a clown. Make an argument or crawl away.
—“Self-organization has nothing to do (is not an answer) to its origin. It also falls into the regressus problem. Engage with your metaphysical problems. Don’t make excuses by trying to frame the argument as “empiric” or “scientific”. Understand the category of the problem 1st.”—
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-12 09:38:00 UTC
-
That’s all there is. It’s really simple. There is no first mover. Because there
That’s all there is. It’s really simple. There is no first mover. Because there is no ‘first’.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 19:26:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017127973776916480
Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @egoissocial @IberianSoldier
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017123210884763648
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/1017123210884763648