Theme: Causality

  • It takes a bit of work to understand @EricRWeinstein’s ‘take’ on physics. But it

    It takes a bit of work to understand @EricRWeinstein’s ‘take’ on physics. But it’s based on three very clear talents, the first is disambiguation of causal dimensions; and second extraordinary skepticism until he’s achieved that disambituation; and the third is the usual…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-08 00:25:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710813640792637784

  • It takes a bit of work to understand @EricRWeinstein’s ‘take’ on physics. But it

    It takes a bit of work to understand @EricRWeinstein’s ‘take’ on physics. But it’s based on three very clear talents, the first is disambiguation of causal dimensions; and second extraordinary skepticism until he’s achieved that disambituation; and the third is the usual Ashkenazi excellence in explanation by storytelling. And lastly, in opposition, or fourth, he is a better critic than innovator himself – which might sound like a criticism, but it’s more of a recognition of a specialization and a specialization that’s due to his self described “learning disability” (dyslexia?) and frustrations with the university’s inflexibility.

    I had to listen to his speech at Harvard on his theory of what I consider ‘the direction of the solution to the problem’ but not a solution in itself. Then at some point I heard him explain a disambiguation of dimensions. And it was this latter that helped me understand how his mind approaches problems. Tonight, I just heared him use the same method to address a very different problem and recognized his method again.

    It’s not dissimilar from my work on disambituation in to first principles. He’s just doing it with physics and mathematics(cardinality) and I’m doing it with behavior and operationalism(natural order).

    He’s improved quite a bit over the past few years. Although I would prefer that he take on the hard job of proposing actionable solutions. I mean, everyone can compain. Producing actionable solutions is something else entirely.

    In my experiencde, producing a consitution that isn’t ridiculous and is an improvement on our own required a profound effort on my part. And whenever I hear someone talk about our constitution or our law or our political system, I’m tempted to suggest they write a constitution that isn’t even worse.

    It never hapens


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-08 00:25:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710813640574509056

  • Disambiguation: Empathy > Sympathy > Understanding (Three points test a line of

    Disambiguation: Empathy > Sympathy > Understanding
    (Three points test a line of causality)

    The terms “empathy,” “sympathy,” and “understanding” are often used in discussions about emotional and cognitive responses to others’ experiences. While they share similarities, they are distinct concepts that operate on different levels of emotional and cognitive engagement. Here’s a comprehensive breakdown:

    Empathy
    Emotional Resonance: Empathy involves feeling what another person is feeling. It’s an emotional alignment that allows you to share someone else’s emotional state.

    Cognitive and Emotional Components: Empathy can be both cognitive (understanding someone’s feelings and the reasons behind them) and emotional (actually feeling what the other person is feeling).

    Action-Oriented: In its most evolved form, known as compassionate empathy, it involves not just understanding and sharing feelings but also being moved to help, if needed.

    Sympathy
    Emotional Distance: Sympathy is feeling for someone, not with them. It’s a form of caring that maintains emotional separation.

    Less Nuanced: Sympathy doesn’t require you to understand or feel the other person’s emotions; it’s a more general feeling of concern.

    External Expression: Sympathy is often expressed through external actions, such as offering condolences or sending a sympathy card.

    Understanding
    Cognitive Process: Understanding is a purely cognitive process and doesn’t necessarily involve any emotional component. It’s the ability to grasp the nature, significance, or explanation of something.

    Broad Application: Unlike empathy and sympathy, understanding can apply to concepts, subjects, and phenomena, not just emotions or experiences.

    No Emotional Requirement: You can understand something without feeling any emotional engagement with it. For example, a doctor might understand a patient’s symptoms without feeling empathy or sympathy.

    Comparative Insights
    Depth of Connection: Empathy involves the deepest emotional connection, followed by sympathy, followed by understanding that may involve no emotional connection at all.

    Scope: Understanding has the broadest scope, as it can apply to anything that can be known, not just emotional states.

    Actionability: Empathy is most likely to lead to supportive action because it involves both emotional and cognitive engagement. Sympathy may lead to supportive actions but is less likely to be as nuanced. Understanding alone may not lead to any action unless combined with empathy or sympathy.

    Reply addressees: @Tysenberg


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-06 20:12:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710387475552612352

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710134270960759142

  • Projected is unlikely. But otherwise, the data is about right. Part of it is exe

    Projected is unlikely. But otherwise, the data is about right. Part of it is exercise, part diet, very likely pesticides, and likely part estrogens in plastics.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-06 15:13:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710312315151655396

    Reply addressees: @ShadBannon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710300240056610854

  • WHY DOES SEX EXIST? In the context of the hierarchy of evolutionary computation,

    WHY DOES SEX EXIST?
    In the context of the hierarchy of evolutionary computation, it’s odd that mitochondria in eukaryotes fulfill the male strategy of energy production within cells, but they’re inherited from the female. The perception it’s an oddity only makes sense when we see the emergence of sexes. Because sexes divide labor. And the emergence of sexes only makes sense in a constantly changing and ‘hostile’ environment. (Blame god it’s his idea.)

    1. Sex Evolves When Selection Changes Over Time
    2. Sex Evolves When Selection Changes Over Space
    3. Sex Evolves When Organisms Are Less Adapted to Their Environment (Stress)
    4. Sex Evolves When Populations Are Finite (Lack of Resistance)
    In other words, sexes and sex increase evolutionary computation in time when under pressure. So sex defeats time. And that’s why it exists.
    Or stated otherwise, asexuality is dangerous to organizational complexity.

    –“…even though asexual lineages do arise, they rarely persist for long periods of evolutionary time. Among flowering plants, for example, predominantly asexual lineages have arisen over 300 times, yet none of these lineages is very old.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-06 09:53:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710231699743703040

  • It’s meaningless. All life must acquire. Life can acquire without movement, or w

    It’s meaningless.
    All life must acquire.
    Life can acquire without movement, or with movement.
    Movement increases probability though at the cost of movement.
    Memory allows for prediction, though at the cost of memory and movement.
    Involuntary cooperation allows for multipliers not possible by individual organisms at the cost of selecting predictions for the outcome of cooperation.
    Voluntary cooperation allows for multiples not possible by individual organisms and involuntary organisms, but allows for the costs of defection, cheating, harming.
    The division of temporal labor between the sexes: female short term hyperconsumption and risk evasion causing evasion of responsibility for commons, vs male long term hyper capitalization at the cost of risk mitigation, causing status by competition for responsibility for commons.
    The amount of memory (neural volume) increases the number of parallel predictions (the field of predictions) an individual human can choose from, over longer periods of time, over greater populations, and over greater complexity.
    The variation in neural volume, neural fitness (adaptation in time) determines the division of labor between individuals in addition to the division of labor between sexes creating the division of labor between classes.
    The variation in systemic knowledge, general knowledge and experience, and specific skills further determines the division of labor between individuals, classes, and sexes.
    The organization of metaphysical presumptions, group strategy, sex strategy, class strategy, individual strategy combines with the organization of individuals into families, clans, tribes, nations, civilizations, and races.
    The organization of knowledge production, invention, prediction, production distribution, trade and consumption by the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, institutions and war, organizes people with and a cross clans tribes and sometimes nations.
    This organization is habituated by metaphysical presumptions, group strategy, mythology, institutions, traditions, norms, habits, and fashions- and humans are highly resistant to modification of the accumulation of above networks of understanding and relationships – in no small part because only about ten percent of humans do and can think – the rest merely react and then way-find a justification to their reaction given the above stack of indoctrination, habits, knowledge and incentives.

    THEREFORE
    Acquisition is meaningful
    Cooperation is meaningful
    Reciprocity of cooperation is meaningful.
    Division of labor by many dimensions is meaningful
    Cooperation in overlapping networks at increasing scales is meaningful.
    Because we are all more affected by the behavior of those we share a polity with than we are our own words and deeds (actions).
    As such it is the production of commons that is more meaningful than the production of individuals.
    As such the purpose of law is to prohibit interference in the potential of cooperation in divisions of labor at increasing scales.
    And the purpose of policy is the production of commons that remove frictions to cooperation, including the reduction of free riding, irreciprocity, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, rent seeking, corruption, lawfare, and authoritarianism – granting priority to the capital produced by the inter generational family before that of the individual, who, until producing offspring is a dead weight on accumulated spectrum of physical, behavioral, and genetic capital.

    Now if you’re competent to make a judgement sufficient to hold an opinion, just in that sequence what did mises get wrong before we even begin to attack his epistemology – which upon his later years, he quietly recognized was false.

    Reply addressees: @StephaneGeyres @LudwigArisleib @FromKulak @ViandeTiede666 @paulericblanrue @arthurhomines


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-02 21:49:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1708962526862487552

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1708943167473557720

  • I haven’t taken this approach. What you’d look for in trifunctional or ternary i

    I haven’t taken this approach.
    What you’d look for in trifunctional or ternary is -,=,+.
    And I am not sure that works,
    So, instead, you could look for a sequence of causes, in which it requires three points to make a line – proving the line(causality) and disambiguating the sequence.
    And I think that’s what I’m seeing in your suggestions
    And I think it’s a good project to work on.
    And I like what you’ve done so far. 😉

    Reply addressees: @EnverLigia


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-27 03:56:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706880462159843328

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706877762714366454

  • That has never in my experience been the case. As in most cases causal density i

    That has never in my experience been the case. As in most cases causal density is very high and I’m looking at all of them – the field – and perhaps I see a bigger picture or at least a different prism of causalities that is deterministic instead of intentional. And the…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-23 23:22:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705724234973036549

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705714728864043169

  • Again what does this tell you that is spica le to man? What difference between t

    Again what does this tell you that is spica le to man? What difference between the species of chimps and the bonobos that are an isolate of chimps is comparable in consequence to the standard deviation in intelligence between Europeans and south Eurasian’s and they and Africans?


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-22 01:11:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705027107351400509

    Reply addressees: @Callisto_ILUV @tim47386 @chinkypox31 @whatifalthist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1705025721352048762

  • After a couple of coronas at after eleven pm I can’t recall the research off the

    After a couple of coronas at after eleven pm I can’t recall the research off the top of my head, but I’m pretty convinced this is the cause, for the simple reason that it is the most parsimonious and logical solution that satisfies all the criteria.

    The other way to frame it to screw with people is: if you have gay men in your family your mom likes to F—— more and more easily than other women.

    That usually will start fascinating conversations. I know I’ve started some household emotional fires with that one, while whistling Dixie and walking away.

    Reply addressees: @evo_homo @JayMan471


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-21 03:24:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1704698026411921408

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1704696950191431889