Theme: Causality

  • All of these hypothesis are attempts to attribute a single origin or cause, when

    All of these hypothesis are attempts to attribute a single origin or cause, when we’re very well aware of the various origin stories that were folded into the jesus mythos in an attempt to attribute greater ‘cosmic’ legitimacy to a minor figure who had returned to the region (we don’t know where he was), wanted to imitate john the baptist, and was a bit of a revollutionary as much against how jews treated one another as against the romans.

    They had about two hundred years of my-bulding to put together the four versions of the narrative, and then even longer to elaborate on it.

    Reply addressees: @demontage2000 @DwightExMachina


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-09 20:46:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788671799934214144

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788670990459047961

  • IS LOGIC OR LANGUAGE CAUSAL TO THE OTHER? Is logic dependent upon the language f

    IS LOGIC OR LANGUAGE CAUSAL TO THE OTHER?
    Is logic dependent upon the language facility, or is language dependent upon the logical facility?

    Well, logic is the application of the origin of the nervous system in the sequence of acquisition of calories, the movement then, with the addition of memory, wayfinding (navigation), and it’s search for and test of identity, consistency, correspondence, and action to bring about change (movement).

    So while there is a simple logic to evolutionary computation in the physical and biological domains, logic in the neurological domain exists prior to all other faculties the depend upon memory: the test of constant, regular, transient, inconsistent relations between stimuli in time on Bayesian scales our brains and minds are incapable of introspection upon, and require our research into the collective cooperative organization of their function to understand.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-07 02:00:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787663697583779841

  • (NLI Note) Self-Organizing – In both embodiment and the physics chapters I have

    (NLI Note)
    Self-Organizing – In both embodiment and the physics chapters I have not adequately explained that the result of the discovery of opportunities and cooperation between assemblies (cells etc) to seize those opportunities, produces ‘self organizing’ behavior as a result. This term is well understood, particularly in economics, which does operationalize the reasons why (Incentives and exchanges) humans produce self organizing.
    However, outside of economics we require the work in this volume to explain what we currently know of self organizing – though as Michael Levin has pointed out we aren’t sure exactly how bioelectric cooperation between cells produces body form (though I suspect I could enumerate possible ways and that they’d be be small in number and likely obvious (polarity, accumulated bias in charge).
    So we’ll have to go through the two chapters and ensure that we’ve tied the disciplines together with the use of that term.
    Why did we miss it? I think because we were so concerned about integration of the inputs transformations and outputs that we didn’t tie the disciplines together with the term.
    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 15:20:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787502733437648896

  • (Explanations) P-Law(operationally) and Wolfram’s Ruliad(symbolically) explain t

    (Explanations)
    P-Law(operationally) and Wolfram’s Ruliad(symbolically) explain thermodynamics as the flow of energy, potential energy, and mass – reinforcing one another’s claims.

    So, understand the important points WalterIII’s making here:
    a) P-Law provides an operational “Ruliad”,
    b) reflecting thermodynamics,
    c) and boundaries(limits),
    Then:
    d) It creates a “cooperativity science” equivalent to thermodynamics at scale, and,
    e) Parallel’s “Wolfram’s (Ruliad) explanation of entropy, which depends on both scale and point of view, just like in thermodynamics.
    f) It’s all the study of energy flow, potential energy, and mass.

    (Thanks Walter because you’re composing a narrative that’s accurate and accessible and explicitly links Wolfram’s generalization (up) into Ruliads, and my reduction (down) into operations – together which provide evidence of coherence and correspondence for both.)

    Hugs all.

    cc: @stephen_wolfram, @getjonwithit (jonathan gorard)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 14:28:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787489590455975938

  • I can’t make sense of that. So please try with complete sentences that explain c

    I can’t make sense of that. So please try with complete sentences that explain causal relationships. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-04 19:39:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786843084044534026

    Reply addressees: @EgregoresGalore

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786841154232955139

  • SIMPLE SYNTHESIS: |Evolutionary Leaps||: Pressure (Entropy) > … Density (Spin)

    SIMPLE SYNTHESIS: 
    |Evolutionary Leaps||:
    Pressure (Entropy) >
    … Density (Spin) >
    … …Proximity (Matter) >
    … … …Production(Cells) >
    … … … …Selection (Life) >
    … … … … …Cooperation (Sentience) >
    … … … … … …Calculation (Consciousness) >
    … … … … … … … ExtraPhysical Manipulation (Machines) > … … … … … … … … Extrasensory Perception (Technologies) > (? Scale ? )


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-04 14:50:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786770260491743232

  • SIMPLE SYNTHESIS: |Evolutionary Leaps||: Density (Spin) … Proximity (Matter) >

    SIMPLE SYNTHESIS: 
    |Evolutionary Leaps||:
    Density (Spin)
    … Proximity (Matter) >
    … … Production(Cells) >
    … … … Selection (Life) >
    … … … … Cooperation (Sentience) >
    … … … … … Calculation (Consciousness) >
    … … … … … … ExtraPhysical Manipulation (Machines) > … … … … … … … Extrasensory Perception (Technologies) > (? Scale ? )


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-04 14:50:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786767702519861248

  • BTW: I agree with everything you’ve said. The difference is that I’m starting wi

    BTW: I agree with everything you’ve said. The difference is that I’m starting with first causes in neurology to explain differences, and you’re working from the evolutionary pressures to develop those neurological differences. This is similar to the video I posted yesterday that explained the difference between Rudyard’s, Jones’ and my explanations, despite agreeing, we act from different trifunctional biases given our experiences and knowledge accumulated in life.

    I think “the science and the method and the first principles” readily illustrate that when these points of view are coherent with one another and as such compatible, it’s evidence that all the compatible and coherent POV’s are correct.

    It takes a village of intellectuals so to speak. 😉

    Hugs

    Reply addressees: @LukeWeinhagen


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-29 20:13:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1785039791358128129

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1785030389066596678

  • QUANTUM MAGIC IN THE BRAIN? UM. NO. No there is no evidence of it, no need of it

    QUANTUM MAGIC IN THE BRAIN? UM. NO.
    No there is no evidence of it, no need of it, and I dunno what Penrose is putting in his tea when he pulls this nonsense out of thin air. Nor do I grasp why people treat the quantum background as mysterious. It’s not.

    We are very close to overcoming the mathiness pseudoscience that cantor, einstein, bohr inserted into physics, and the nonsense decades that resulted from the fiction of ‘space time’. As far as I can tell … is correct in that the universe is quite simple (see Neil Turok) and we’ve been lost in mathiness (me) and particles (him) meaning ‘words and pictures’ instead of materials and models – which we then describe with mathematics at least at the high level. Since at some point mathematical reducibility ends (See Wolfram) – which I think we have already seen in models of the quantum background (see Derek B. Leinweber).

    It’s true bioelectricity is finally gaining attention (See Michael Levin) in the cellular use of charge to assist in cellular organization and specialization. But this is just another example of (a) there are only so many forces and realistically, they’re all emergent from one cause (b) evolution isn’t picky and it will make use of ANY and EVERY means of information transformation and persistence it can discover – with my favorite examples being the number of ways cells can communicate across and thru walls, and the number of ways neurons can advertise, discovery, connect, and cooperate and then constantly modify to service neural economy – which is just mind-boggling in complexity. I probably consider it my favorite subject in neuroscience. Infinite computability is amazing.

    As for quantum effects – the present woo woo vehicle – there is ‘no room’ so to speak for information to travel through the medium but other than the means we already understand. Each emergent layer of complexity of organization effectively filters out variability within it, which is why evolution can maintain persistence despite lacking memory and intelligence of other than the structure of the dipoles>waves> particles>elements> molecules etc. (See Lee Cronin)

    The emergent effects of the brain are obvious, which is why even our primitive computers today, using analogous structures are demonstrating just how fast and powerfully higher faculties originate from nothing other than the universal law of grammar: continuous recursive disambiguation.

    I’ve been working on this nonsense since the 70s and endured each AI winter. But none of our assumptions, even from the 1950s have been wrong. It just took vastly more computing power to produce a simple equivalent, and none of us imagined we could brute force intelligence BACKWARD by massive training from textual data on the internet.

    That little bit there, even if it ends up being just an interface to agents that do all the challenging reasoning, calculating, and computing, was something even the guys who tried it didn’t know would work. And it worked far better than any of them imagined.

    Anyway. At this point I think we’ve almost overcome (at least at the developmental edge of research and development) the postwar venture into pseudoscience – not just in psychology, social science, economics, and political science, but in physics and mathematics as well.

    The one thing I find fascinating is the dethroning of math in favor of computation because of the greater reducibility of computation vs mathematics.

    The importance of this reform, which should have come from babbage in the 1830’s but didn’t, can’t be overestimated. Because we have wrongly treated mathematics as the gold standard and the number of conceptual negative consequences of losing greek geometry and engineering to the influences of persian astronomy and algebra. The profundity of that metaphyscal difference was very costly – repaired by Descartes and destroyed again by Cantor Einstein Bohr and their followers.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @MatthewParrott


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-29 16:40:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784986055986319360

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784975178901987334

  • Of course, although, just as a caution, we tend to engage in causal reduction in

    Of course, although, just as a caution, we tend to engage in causal reduction in thse matters when causal density is largely higher. This particular instinct is present even in sperm (speed) and egg (mass).


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-29 15:56:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784974962979225640

    Reply addressees: @DwightExMachina

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784964505341936110