When you see the universe as nothing but in formation in different states, the whole bundle of frustration with other peoples becomes not one of ill intention, but of lagging genetics and bad information.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 15:17:00 UTC
Theme: Causality
-
WHERE HOPPE HAS IT RIGHT. if you have two false premises, but from them draw a t
WHERE HOPPE HAS IT RIGHT.
if you have two false premises, but from them draw a true conclusion, then use that conclusion as a premise from which to draw further conclusions, you will still come up with true conclusions. In Hoppe’s case the difference between his opinion and mine is the possibility of the formation of a polity that lacks property in toto as the basis of rule of law. In other words, hoppe’s presumptions are false, his conclusion is true, and that conclusion (property) when used as a premise provides him with more precise explanatory power than rothbard. By correcting hoppe’s premises and using the language of science, my work merely IMPROVES upon hoppe’s.
Whenever he is talking through a set of incentives he’s right. When ever he is justifying property rights he’s wrong. Whenever he is explaining the consequences of respecting property rights, he’s right.
The problem is he’s proud of the stuff that’s false, and doesn’t appreciate the contribution he’s made by demonstrating what is true:
THat all rights private, common, and evolutionary, are reducible to property rights continent only upon a sufficient scope of property rights that will enable a polity to survive in competition with those that do not provide those rights.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-31 15:28:00 UTC
-
DO YOU SEE WHAT I’M TRYIN’ TA’ DO THERE? 😉 identity – constant properties(categ
DO YOU SEE WHAT I’M TRYIN’ TA’ DO THERE? 😉
identity – constant properties(categories)
logic – constant sets
math – constant relations
algorithms – constant causality (operations)(closed change)
evolution – constant self modification (open change) (reactionary)
awareness – forecasting of possible futures (choice)
consciousness – choice of self modification via possible futures.
sympathy – awareness of intentions of others,
cooperation – assistance of others.
negotiation – persuasion of others.
truth – due diligence in negotiation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-22 08:47:00 UTC
-
Reasoning via negativa. You know a rather large number of my positions are drawn
Reasoning via negativa.
You know a rather large number of my positions are drawn from the observations of the kinds of errors humans make, rather than some particular insight about the subject matter.
you can, if you have the time, master pretty much every field on this earth in one lifetime. You cannot master it’s protocols, processes, and habits, but you can at least grasp the methodology each discipline employs – and they’re all relatively similar. The fact that each is expressed in teh class and IQ range of the practitioners simply confuses us – we think it is all more complex than it is.
And if you know what common ingorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading/framing/overloading, obscurantism/pseudoscience/pseudorationalism, and various forms of deceit people engage in then you can seek for examples of those things in the field, and then suggest alternatives.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 19:43:00 UTC
-
We must act. But our actions are LIMITED. It’s informationally less expensive to
We must act. But our actions are LIMITED. It’s informationally less expensive to remember the minority of what works than the majority of what doesn’t. Just as it’s informaitonally less expensive to remember bits and pieces of relations than to store a full record of stimuli. Our brains had to develop with the rate of electro chemical processing possible in wet systems. I mean we take about 90-100 watts to operate, and that’s pretty cheap really given how expensive brains are.
limits exist. The fact that we categorize ‘that which is not limited but actionable” is just a discounted means of storing the information we need to act with.
So limits to actions exist. The world exists as limits to actions. We categorize these limits to action as positives (connections) because positive connections are actionable, and we associate emotions with them so that we are excited to pursue what is actionable and beneficial.
This is a very simple system in practice. We just use billions of very cheap neurons to do it.
so when one say x doesn’t exist (without saying how it exists) that’s false. limits exist. if the limits exist the inverse exists. a unicorn exists the way jesus exists: as a memory of a common narrative that can be verified by reciprocal agreement on the symbol we communicate when we use the term.
Unicorns exist like words exist, like stories exist, like jesus and aristotole exist. Except that the limits we place on unicorns are different from the limits we place on aristotle and jesus.
I can believe that jesus and aristotle existed, and that aristotle composed the ethics, and jesus gave the sermon on the mount.
but I cannot believe that unicorns exist given my current understanding of the meaning of the term.
nature exists. man can bring objects into existence. men can bring ideas for objects into existence. men can bring ideas in to existence by recreating them each time he desires to. The question is merley a verbalism. Do we bring a unicorn into existence as the imaginry experience? Or do we bring about an imaginary experience by the reconstruction of the symbol we call ‘unicorn’?
The answer is that the experience exists, not the unicorn.
The word unicorn exists. The imaginary memory exist. The experience of activating that memory exists. Does the unicorn exist?
IT exists the same way that the square root of two exists: as a verbal convenience. Neitehr the squre of two or the unicorn exists.
The difference is we might some day be able to technologically bring a unicorn into existence (actually, we can already make the horns exist by planting horn buds). But as yet, they do not exist in that THEY CANNOT PERSIST WITHOUT MAN’S IMAGINATION TO EXPERIENCE THEM
Conflation of existence (persistence) with existence (memory) is either error or deception.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 11:22:00 UTC
-
Yes. And they are working on a similar issue of expression the consequences of c
Yes. And they are working on a similar issue of expression the consequences of constant relations as superior to set operations (which they, and I ) clearly agree are problematic (and in my opinion, one of the reasons for 20th c pseudoscience, and the failure of 20thc philosophy to contribute anything meaningful.)
My view goes something like this (and I don’t know if its been touched on in math before):
Properties > Operations > “Categories”(incl math cat) > Sets (sets of categories) > (repeat iteratively vs decompose recursively).
This is a language of constant mathematical relations that in my opinion is a reflection of verbal (theoretical) semi-constant relations expressed by the universal epistemelogical process:
Free association > pattern > wayfinding > hypothesis > theory > Law (repeat iteratively vs decompose recursively).
In other words mathematics functions as a test of constant relations, and that is the best that we can do until we discover the underlying operations.
Moreover, think of it like this: We evolved to think at human scale, and just as we use mathematics to describe relations about which we do not know the causal operations, to explore the GRANULAR, we also can engage in combinatorial ‘categories’ at higher and higher levels of abstraction in order to imagine (envision) greater and greater patterns. So that between math for reduction, and language for expansion, we are starting from the conceptual middle (human scale) and working toward the finite (descriptive) and the infinite (imaginary) using the tools of higher precisino (math, operations) and the tools of opportunity generation (langauge, free assocaiaion).
By the processs of imaginatino and reduction we attempt to construct that which is OPERATIONALLY POSSIBLE at HUMAN SCALE.
I think this is the most profound way that I know how to unify the range of human thought into a single explanatory narrative.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 10:41:00 UTC
-
Evolution makes sense. Evolutionary narrowness can make sense (specialization) E
Evolution makes sense.
Evolutionary narrowness can make sense (specialization)
Evolutionary fragility doesn’t make sense(overspecialization).
Complex systems (all life) benefit from stress, and develop fragility without stress. Because Lack of stress causes misallocation of resources. (Just try to think of some evolutionary system where this isn’t true).
Humans can EXPRESS traits (specialize) by selection. We can specialize by selection without mutation or epigenetic variation. We can do so simply by increasing the reproduction of some part of any one or more of our distributions at the expense of some other part of any one or more of our distributions. And as long as the distribution(reproductive inventory) exists, we can change or reverse it.
But reproductive expression is a slow process, and leaves us vulnerable to shocks (rapid changes) during which we might experience large losses. (fragility).
Ergo a distribution not optimized for only the market order, but optimized for all possible orders is in fact ‘optimum’. And all attempts to create a single optimum are actually attacks on specialization and adaptation.
All we can say at this point is that it appears that there is a point at which we succeed at sufficient sexual dimorphism and (maturity) pedomorphism, that further attempts produce negatives (the asian problems at the extreme and the african problem at the other extreme).
So you might say “for people in my gene pool and in my social class who have these ambitions, at present these might be good pedagogical objectives” What you can’t say is that there exists some perfect, universal, individual ideal. Or at least, you can’t say it except in ignorance.
We can see a range of social classes (in fact).
we can see at least three main ruling classes (priestly/public intellectual, remunerative/commercial, and warrior/legal, and reactive/technical, on top of the familial.) And we can see a range of family structures needed for the abilities of different classes. And we see moral codes reflecting the needs of those different classes. We see a range of cognitive abilities that at about every ten points dramatically alters the cost and rate of learning good (>105) or bad (<95). We see depth of sexual maturity and rate of sexual maturity that causes variation in group needs. We see that different groups have been more (whites/asians) successful than others (everyone in the middle) and much more successful than others (equatorial peoples), at culling the size and rates of reproduction of their underclasses. And we can see that these differences accumulate in vastly different quality of life, because they permit vastly different forms of institutions. Hiqh quality high trust institutions are dependent upon reducing the cost of institutional enforcement – the underclasses, if for no other reason than it it is not possible to create a voluntary organization of production (market economy) if the market value of the goods producible by the polity are insufficient to pay for the incentives necessary to organize production voluntarily through a hierarchy of marginal differences in compensation.
Every institution matters. Like Anna Karinnena’s limited humber of healthy families, or the the planet’s limited number of domesticatable animals, many things must function at once to produce positive ends – and the falure of any one leads to negative ends. Hence the uniqueness of western civilization in ancient and modern worlds. For ancient reasons we ourselves did not grasp, we made a subconsious choice in prehistory that caused us to produce many good things in concert quite my accident (or rather, without intent).
MONOPOLY IS THE ANTITHESIS OF THAT SUBCONSCIOUS CHOICE. UNIVERSALISM IS A SEMITIC AND IRANIAN VALUE IN REACTION TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
The west has always practiced the estates of the realm and provided different values for each estate. It is only under the lies of the enlightenment (or perhaps counter-enlightenments) that we used democracy and universalism to destroy that ancient bias.
Sovereignty.Markets in everything.
War and law for the aristocracy
Philosophy and literature for the middle class
Religion for the workers and the slaves.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 16:00:00 UTC
-
PLATONISM IS JUST FRAUD. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. There is no matter except as a functi
PLATONISM IS JUST FRAUD. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
There is no matter except as a function of the limits of our actions.
As far as we know existence is constructed of forces.
The relations between those forces exist.
From that set of relations between those forces, some set of operations are possible.
The states of equilibrium that those forces rest within.
Everything is constructed from the operations that are possible between those forces.
Our experience of the universe is limited by the limits of our actions.
The universe is not capable of introspection, planning, or choice.
We can, because we can remember, search, model, and forecast, identify the forces and operations at various scales of the universe starting with human scale and working in both directions large and small.
We can make and test observations and create those theories of observations we call ‘facts’.
We can use operations to attempt to transform that which we observe between states.
We can create stories (narratives) theories to attempt to explain those transformations (we call these stories ‘theories’)
We can create many ‘crutches’ to assist us in memory, recall, comparison, and operation given the limits or our actions (the limits of our perception, memory, categorization, and comparison).
We call these crutches by many names.
But they are must memories.
They exist as memories.
Memories limited by our ability to act (change state).
Fragmentary relations subject to constant revision the construction of which we are unable to analyze through introspection.
The experience of which we cannot analyze through introspection but can analyze through mechanical inspection.
And through that inspection we can easily observe some variation of (overly simplistically stated) a brainstem that operates purely mechanically.
a lower brain that senses change in state and rewards or punishes.
a midbrain that produces wants and incentives.
an upper brain that performs various complex functions of memory and recall.
a forebrain that organizes into the language of negotiation the wants of what operates beneath it.
And our consciousness consists of the experience of what we can judge within a 2-3 second window worth of iterations of stimuli mixed with those memories and fed to different brain regions and the rewards and punishments that our brain gives us as instructions produced through millennia of evolution.
As far as I know the forces in different states, and the opportunities to change state that we call operations, and our memories exist.
Giving other-worldly names to nothing other than the experience of memories and the associations we find by searching those memories, is to conflate the physical changes in state, the results of those changes in state upon our ongoing iteration of perceptions, and the reality that exists whether we imagine it or not.
This conflation, like all forms of conflation, is the origin of deception of the self and others. Conversely, the west is the only civilization to successfully create and retain deflationary truth. We did so because the adults practice law out of necessity, and the warriors pay the price for wishful thinking and pretence. And the priests and the little people including the philosophers are simply malcontents trying to create excuses to circumvent that law and steal.
SUGGESTION
We think by suggestion, we communicate by suggestion, we understand by suggestion, but we truth-test through criticism (due diligence).
And we have a name for those who fail to perform due diligence in order to negotiate on behalf of their wants:
FRAUD.
As far as I know, all platonism is fraud. fraud by learned habit. fraud by convenience. fraud by intent.
BUT ITS JUST FRAUD.
Humans seek to acquire. If you cannot acquire truthfully, then you are acquiring untruthfully.
FRAUD.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 14:51:00 UTC
-
THEORY VS FACT VS A PRIORI This is one of those things that i have to explain ov
THEORY VS FACT VS A PRIORI
This is one of those things that i have to explain over and over again.
1) THEORY: we are capable of only one epistemological method (EM) of describing cause and effect relations:
observation > free association > idea > wayfinding > hypothesis > criticism > theory > public criticism > law > survival in widespread application > incorporation into normative metaphysical value judgements.
2) A FACT: A fact is a special case of the EM, in which we create an hypothesis, theory, and law to describe an OBSERVATION.
3) THE A PRIORI: an apriori is a special case of the EM in which once we discover an hypothesis, we cannot imagine a false condition (I use the incidence of prime numbers as an example of special cases). Almost all non-reductio apriori statements fail unless they also include limits and full accounting. this does not prevent the use of apriori concepts. it limits that which can be deduced from apriori statements to ‘very little’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 10:54:00 UTC
-
Q&A: Martial Epistemology
—“Where did you learn that the roots of science are in martial epistemology? Who on your reading list?”— Well, it’s not a novel idea. I just frame it more precisely. I think I intuitively understood it just because of all the history I’ve read. But it was the sequence Marija Gimbutas > J. P. Mallory > Karen Armstrong that provided such consistency that I was able to make use of it.
IMHO Karen Amstrong does the best job of the worldwide analysis of the age of transformation, and the foundations of our differences as the martial structure of that time. That said, Taleb also covers it in the Black Swan when he says that military people are the least ideological because they have the most skin in the game.