RT @NoahRevoy: HERDs form by “accident” when a sufficient number of herbivores gather in the same spot. Entry to the HERD is unearned.
HER…
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-06 21:22:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1247273381839413249
White law is slightly different:
“Cooperation requires reciprocity. Cooperation is preferable. But it is only preferable until it is not. When it is not then conquest and eradication are preferable to cooperation. “
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-06 16:53:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1247205689489063938
White law is slightly different:
“Cooperation requires reciprocity. Cooperation is preferable. But it is only preferable until it is not. When it is not then conquest and eradication are preferable to cooperation. “
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-06 12:52:00 UTC
Either you act by display word and deed according to European tradition of Trifunctionalism: “Military, Law, Faith. Each in its place”. In a MARKET competition, preserving our group strategy of adaptation, and our competition between elites.
Or you are the enemy of our people.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 15:06:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246816421163737088
Reply addressees: @MillikanTamzin @DudeMaximus
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246815869084274689
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@MillikanTamzin @DudeMaximus I don’t care what you believe. I care only whether you display speak and act with reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, including speaking the truth warrantied by due diligence against ignorance error bias and deceit.
You don’t. I’m accusing you of false testimony.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1246815869084274689
MORAL DEFENSE OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS
by Tim Kay (wow. well done)
Making an argument is a service to the intellectual commons (or to put it better, it’s at least not imposing a cost on the commons). Failure to do so imposes a cost of maintaining the intellectual commons onto others.
Reciprocity demands mutual norm maintenance, which is violated by GSRRM. The reason GSRRM is permissible in self-defence, and commons-defence, is that it is a) reciprocal, but more importantly b) like violence, no means of achieving one’s ends is off the table, but it must be directed responsibly.
You can’t extirpate GSRRM anymore than you can violence (working with nature not against) but you can make a proportional response which returns the favour of costs against reputation. Individuals of this type whose arguments (such that they are) amount to ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use GSRRM yourself’ need to understand the answer is: yes, sort of.
I retain all means necessary to defend myself and the commons, whether it be shaming, or violence.
In light of the point about violence one may then say ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use violence’ and we can better see the nature of that statement.
I say: no, we want a more technical reason NOT to use it.
Because using it is the default. Why should I not use all means necessary in self-defence, when you’re effectively stealing from me and others?
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 14:05:00 UTC
MORAL DEFENSE OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS
by Tim Kay (wow. wll done))
Making an argument is a service to the intellectual commons (or to put it better, it’s at least not imposing a cost on the commons). Failure to do so imposes a cost of maintaining the intellectual commons onto others.
Reciprocity demands mutual norm maintenance, which is violated by GSRRM. The reason GSRRM is permissible in self-defence, and commons-defence, is that it is a) reciprocal, but more importantly b) like violence, no means of achieving one’s ends is off the table, but it must be directed responsibly.
You can’t extirpate GSRRM anymore than you can violence (working with nature not against) but you can make a proportional response which returns the favour of costs against reputation. Individuals of this type whose arguments (such that they are) amount to ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use GSRRM yourself’ need to understand the answer is: yes, sort of.
I retain all means necessary to defend myself and the commons, whether it be shaming, or violence.
In light of the point about violence one may then say ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use violence’ and we can better see the nature of that statement.
I say: no, we want a more technical reason NOT to use it.
Because using it is the default. Why should I not use all means necessary in self-defence, when you’re effectively stealing from me and others?
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 12:55:00 UTC
Another difference between men and women. For men, you’re in the group unless they throw you out. And it’s relatively hard to get thrown out. And pushing someone out can get you hung for having tried. Conversely, Women, are always afraid of being out without constant confirmation, and it only takes one b-tch to knock you out, and women reward the b-tches. If you don’t try to make men think like women, it’s pretty hard for women to get thrown out of men’s groups.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-04 23:07:00 UTC
THE G-MUST-RISE AXIS (AND ITS ERROR)
by Giego Caleiro
So the problem I see in Sloan Wilson and Schmatenberger mostly concerns missing The G Must Rise axis of the discussion. If indeed we are experiencing cognitive decline masked by the Flynn effect and genetic engineering will continue to be prohibitively costly as a large fraction of how new minds are created, and we don’t make an AGI deus ex machina, THEN we must keep the basal genetic and hereditary structure generators that provide us intelligence and safe tech design above some water level. There needs to be at least X people above Y Intelligence for the continual prevention of X-risk and catastrophic risks.
The G Must Rise people seem to strongly mired into politics, and sometimes I suppose that prevents their memes from becoming widespread among people who want to save the world, EAs etc… the focus on differential reproduction, and keeping intelligence afloat is insufficient if we don’t also consider the risks and damages of loss of autonomy and individual intelligence and offloading that intelligence to higher levels, hive minds etc… Forming superorganisms has trade offs, and isn’t a panacea, as the G must rise people sometimes seem to advocate.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-04 14:59:00 UTC
GENDER(SEX) COMPATIBILISM
Yes, I’m and advocate for COMPATIBILISM. Not equality but compatibility in a division of reproductive, productive, cognitive, and temporal labor.
Which is why I always make sure I have women around me when I run companies. Because I am like most men, blind to some range of the senses, just as most women are blind to some range of the senses.
P relies on compatibilism with reciprocity in display word and deed (including that reciprocity we call truthfulness). We pair off on opportunities so to speak in a market competition that calculates the best for all if irreciprocity and falsehood are suppressed.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 11:23:00 UTC
WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF MORALITY IF NOT XXXX?
Very simple logic.
Why should the strong not conquer, rape, pillage, and murder the weak?
Because cooperation and numbers can be more rewarding over the long term.
When are cooperation and numbers more rewarding than conquest, rape, pillage, and murder?
When behavior is reciprocal.
What does reciprocal mean?
Do nothing that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly – and conquer, rape, pillage, and murder anyone who does.
And how do I do nothing that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly, or indirectly?
Limit your display word and deed to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality,
The consequence: the most moral condition humanity can possibly create.
Such men are the gods among men.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:53:00 UTC