Theme: Causality

  • “CURT, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE?” —“Where a

    “CURT, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE?”

    —“Where are you on the ‘origins’ questions, life and the universe? Do you think it matters if we are here by chance or by design?”—Matt Lawlor

    As far as I know we are nothing but a consequence of emergent complexity as life is the only known means of defeating entropy – with cooperation a multiplier, communication a multiplier, and intelligence a multiplier.

    So just as we see particles (wave effects) culminating in the components of atoms, culminating in elements, culminating in materials, culminating in cycles, culminating in biology, culminating in advanced life forms, I just see our existence as the net result of trial and error made possible by relatively ideal conditions in our rather rural safe zone in the galaxy in the relatively ideal conditions in this zone of the universe.

    It’s a beautiful thing that we exist, and we exist at this very young stage of the universe, and it’s possible or likely that we are a relatively rare thing in this galaxy if not in the universe, but the fact that sentient life exists is probably a relatively deterministic consequence of the value of conservation of energy in the face of permanent entropy.

    I think we are rare and the only crime we can commit is not seeking to be the gods we can be, in case there are no others yet, because of infrequency of conditions.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 18:01:00 UTC

  • THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF HOW PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL, OR THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT O

    THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF HOW PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL, OR THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL?

    1) while I must understand how people came to their group strategies (habitual, normative, traditional, intellectual, institutional, and technological), I must also understand the outcomes (externalities) produced by those strategies.

    2) if the world dislikes you and your people and their behaviors and their externalities, they must have a reason for it.

    3) So the question is, if you and your people have failed in every social, economic, political, and technological, possible dimension except malthusian reproduction, and the world dislikes you, do they have a reason to?

    4) People invent excuses for employing their group strategies. Otherwise those strategies would cause mental and emotional labor, and openness to failure of that strategy.

    We all just negotiate on behalf of our personal, gender, class, and group strategies.

    5) Our feelings then are mere reflections of success with or failure of our actions in correspondence with our justifications(habits). So the excuses (justifications) we use are a measure only of correspondence with our strategies, but that tells us nothing about the good/bad, morality/immorality of our actions and our strategies. Or more simply put, our emotions are reflections of the competitiveness of our strategies.

    6) So as westerners we tend to consider the individual and his emotions, yet his emotions are just a reflection of the success or failure of his strategies. As such, what are those strategies and are they good/moral/constructive, or bad/immoral/destructive?

    7) War and Genocide have an illustriously successful history. And islam and judaism have been more destructive than all other forces combined other than the great plagues and diseases. You have to get to the black plague even if not malaria before you’ve killed enough people to match the death, destruction, and dark ages created by islam, judaism(communism), and christianity(anti-aristocracy). Communism has been murderous under the pretense of ‘good’, and Islam has been nearly ten times as murderous under the pretense of ‘good’. Christianity was spread as a means of undermining the western empire from within by the syrians and byzantines, and ‘old europeans’. Islam was spread by force, and resulted in the destruction of the great civilizations: egypt, north african, levantine, mesopotamian, persian, roman, and eventually byzantine.

    8) Despite its beginnings in the 600’s, islam had conquered and exhausted the assets of the great civilizations of the ancient world by 1200, and declined rapidly thereafter, brought only into survival by the migration of the turks and their adoption of islam.

    9) At present we are fighting judaism(communism, libertarianism, neo-conservatism), postmodernism(French catholicism), and islamic fundamentalism, all of which originate with rabbinical judaism. (Christianity is a Jewish heresy and Islam a Christian heresy).

    So by the logic of caring ‘what people feel or think’ instead of “what is the result of what people feel and think” we should allow our civilization to be overrun as were all other great civilizations, and leave only the chinese, japanese, and koreans holding back the tide of dysgenia, ignorance and violence?

    Islam has been at war with the west for 1400 years and if you do nothing more than review an animated history of islamic raids and conquests in europe and the number of deaths they perpetrated, and the change in standard of living under those conquests, and the absolute destruction of all knowledge after 1200, then our conquest of the americas pales by comparison – if for no other reason than we used the wealth generated by it to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of the ignorance produced by judaism, christianity, and islam.

    We were able to resist islam only because of our advanced technology, and because the turkish empire had exhausted itself under islam as well – and could not develop a european network under rule of law, or an asian network under rule of professional bureaucracy, or an indian network under rule by cast and religion. Instead, islam created iteratively dysgenic ignorance and tribalism.

    Islam, south america, india and africa, all have the same problems: by adopting political systems favoring the increase in the size of the underclass, those underclasses are such a heavy burden that they cannot participate in the modern world economy.

    If we stack countries by IQ we find their economic performance.

    If we stack people by economic, and social class, we find IQ, personality, and physical attractiveness largely rise and fall in concert, with the upper middle class the peak, and the upper class consisting of random outliers.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-26 09:20:00 UTC

  • Given the age of the universe, the number of generations of stars necessary to c

    Given the age of the universe, the number of generations of stars necessary to create fundamental elements, the time it took to produce simple life on earth, the relative pacifism of our region of space, and the strangely beneficial acceleration of evolution due to catastrophes, it is just more likely that we are either the first or one of the first complex life forms. Now, given the rather rapid rate at which we developed technology once crossing the linguistic and intellectual chasm, means that assuming a life form can continue to harness increasing amounts of energy, it’s possible that there are others, and it’s possible that there are others ahead of us. But I am increasingly convinced that if such life exists, their means of using that energy is not yet available to us – we are still too early in our understanding of the universe. That said, I think it is even more likely that we’re very early.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-24 19:42:00 UTC

  • Economics of Neural Networks

    Any “general rule of arbitrary precision” must include a limit (time delineation) in order to categorize and test an outcome(consequence), since we may categorize consequences at any point in the time line in which actionable or deducible constant relations are identifiable. In other words, searches for prediction of futures are change (state) dependent. This may be heavy but it means that your prediction of future events from any state may vary by the utility you prefer. We must operate by general rules (categories) because that is all we can act upon (a concentration of constant relations during which we can effect a change in state.) We all bias our utility (judgements) on similar timelines if not only due to ability, but also on commensurability. Ergo, we develop out of necessity time preferences and the more expertise we develop in any time frame the more related (dependent) associations we develop in concert. This isn’t just choice it’s the economics of neural networks, and that economics is no different from the ‘economics’ of physics, biology, and sentience. (for Andy Curzon) Apr 18, 2018 9:59am

  • Economics of Neural Networks

    Any “general rule of arbitrary precision” must include a limit (time delineation) in order to categorize and test an outcome(consequence), since we may categorize consequences at any point in the time line in which actionable or deducible constant relations are identifiable. In other words, searches for prediction of futures are change (state) dependent. This may be heavy but it means that your prediction of future events from any state may vary by the utility you prefer. We must operate by general rules (categories) because that is all we can act upon (a concentration of constant relations during which we can effect a change in state.) We all bias our utility (judgements) on similar timelines if not only due to ability, but also on commensurability. Ergo, we develop out of necessity time preferences and the more expertise we develop in any time frame the more related (dependent) associations we develop in concert. This isn’t just choice it’s the economics of neural networks, and that economics is no different from the ‘economics’ of physics, biology, and sentience. (for Andy Curzon) Apr 18, 2018 9:59am

  • Any “general rule of arbitrary precision” must include a limit (time delineation

    Any “general rule of arbitrary precision” must include a limit (time delineation) in order to categorize and test an outcome(consequence), since we may categorize consequences at any point in the time line in which actionable or deducible constant relations are identifiable. In other words, searches for prediction of futures are change (state) dependent.

    This may be heavy but it means that your prediction of future events from any state may vary by the utility you prefer.

    We must operate by general rules (categories) because that is all we can act upon (a concentration of constant relations during which we can effect a change in state.)

    We all bias our utility (judgements) on similar timelines if not only due to ability, but also on commensurability. Ergo, we develop out of necessity time preferences and the more expertise we develop in any time frame the more related (dependent) associations we develop in concert.

    This isn’t just choice it’s the economics of neural networks, and that economics is no different from the ‘economics’ of physics, biology, and sentience.

    (for Andy Curzon)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 09:59:00 UTC

  • I finally have you Jordan. I understand your mistake. You confuse justification

    I finally have you Jordan. I understand your mistake. You confuse justification with cause. You love parable by which to indirectly educate and inform the feeble, weak, and broken – a narrative, a fiction, rather than a calculation that is arguable among men who are able, strong, and hale.

    You do not understand the west at all.

    Just the stories mothers and grandmothers tell to children to get them to conform; the excuses of the middle classes that long for the power they do not have. The priests who take credit by recasting the achievements of others.

    But, the law of the initiatic brotherhood of warriors isn’t written down. It in’t spoken. It’s demonstrated. It’s inherited generation by generation. And it is the most truthful epistemology ever created: ‘testimonial reporting of observations in the field’.

    And, instead of parable, advocacy or tutelage, it is written via-negativa in our traditional laws and customs, not in the excuses mothers give to children, laments of the middle class, or deceptions of priests.

    The west has an artificially imposed cult of monopoly(christianity) in exchange for limited literacy and legitimacy of one tribal king to dominate, conquer, and seek rents from another.

    The West has had an internally developed religion: a host of archetypal narratives, the respect for heroes, culminating the tragedy (sacrifice) of Achilles, and the west has a prehistoric philosophy: the common law of tort, decided by tests of reciprocity, which is the only possible means of decidability between peers in the initiatic brotherhood of warriors.

    The entire history and success of the west is the *consequence* of sovereignty (meritocracy).

    We institutionalized the political economy of pirates that we kindly refer to as ‘liberty’ from constraint rather than ‘sovereignty’ because there are *none who can constrain us*.

    The west has always been tripartite, and priests deceive, middle class appeals, but the warriors – the militia and the aristocracy – ruled. Yet the propagation of propaganda was produced inversely.

    The priests with the falsehood of religion, the philosophers with the half truths of philosophy, and the jurists and warriors with the empirical, scientific, and truthful COMMON LAW, that we call the ‘Rights of Anglo Saxons” – but begins in today’s poland and ukraine as the law of dispute resolution between the initiatic brotherhood of warriors we today loosely refer to without understanding as ‘the militia’.

    Western civilization differs from the rest for the exclusive reason that men in the absence of concentrated capital (river valleys), must finance their own retainers, horses, chariots and armor before venturing out on raids, or supplementing those horses with even faster shallow water ships.

    The consequence of their common law is that the only means of decidability available to the population is demonstrated property (meaning investment), and as a necessary an inescapable consequence, we developed markets in everything from association, to reproduction, to cooperation, to commons, to politics, to war. And that is why we never developed monolithic religion, never developed monolithic argument, and never succumbed to the stagnation of every other civilization except when we were invaded by christianity that undermined the aristocracy, and islam, that undermined our trade routes.

    THe virtue of our sovereignty is that we develop markets in everything, and markets adapt faster than all other systems particularly because they make rents very difficult – and all other civilizations collapse from the accumulated stagnation produced by those rents.

    We were not first. We were fastest. And we were fastest not because of priests, philosophers, and authors – but in spite of them. All civilizations are best understood by their laws and the institutions by which they decide them. Everything else is just decoration.

    The west begins with the militia. And it will, if it ends, end because the militia ends.

    (Yes, that little bit of nonsense on the psychologism of pride made me angry)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 13:44:00 UTC

  • No it does not suffer the weaknesses of buddhism. It is a philosophy of action n

    No it does not suffer the weaknesses of buddhism. It is a philosophy of action not escape. Man discovered many methods of mindfulness.We can easily measure the consequences of each.There is nothing good in Christianity that wasn’t there before it, and all that remains isn’t good.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-29 18:05:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979419292117716993

    Reply addressees: @_Discouraged @LibertyGuy85 @ThomasEWoods @BobMurphyEcon @ComicDaveSmith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979415202767753216


    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/979415202767753216

  • We speak in emotions because we have not reduced them to cause. The need we feel

    We speak in emotions because we have not reduced them to cause. The need we feel always and everywhere is to reduce the effort of decidability. We call this mindfulness in some cases. Religion increases decidability and decreases costs of decisions. That is why it was successful.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-29 00:45:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979157534186622976

    Reply addressees: @karlbykarlsmith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979053702446309376


    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/979053702446309376

  • 3 – We compensate for those limits by reducing that which is beyond those precis

    3 – We compensate for those limits by reducing that which is beyond those precision to analogy to those precisions, and then working hard to insure that we do not imagine relationships (conclusions) that are not there, nor overlook those that are, no matter how counter intuitive.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-23 00:17:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976976223967510531

    Reply addressees: @MaganeUsoNoUso

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976975823931674625


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @MaganeUsoNoUso 2-The answer is that you can only trust your senses at the level of precision of your senses. You can only trust your intuitions given the precision and biases of your intuitions. You can only trust your reason given the precision of your (all of our) reason.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/976975823931674625


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @MaganeUsoNoUso 2-The answer is that you can only trust your senses at the level of precision of your senses. You can only trust your intuitions given the precision and biases of your intuitions. You can only trust your reason given the precision of your (all of our) reason.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/976975823931674625