P: We Operationalize the Series (statement) Not the Elements (evidence) https://t.co/jSEyrdBsRv
Theme: Measurement
-
A Question About the Cortex
A QUESTION ABOUT THE CORTEX
—“Does the commensurability of the edge of the cerebral cortex require fractal geometry, like a coastline? Does it have self similarity?”—The Nationalist @Nationalist7346
No.
the outer layer of the cortex is just a couple of mm thick; consists two functions (what,where), using six layers; divided into columns and modules (groups of columns); homogenous in structure but differing in neural density by physical origin of nerves that enter them.
So no it’s not fractal: the average size of a human cortex, if laid out flat would be approximately the size of a dinner napkin, and just as thick. The rest of the neocortex consists entirely of white matter (nerve fibers: axons) which connect everything to everything.
With the hippocampus consolidating and organizing information, and then using rehearsal (replay) to encode episodes of memory, and thalamus controlling attention (what gets thru to the neocortex for computation, and basal ganglia that surrounds both releasing physical actions.
Most of the advanced functions of the brain consist of these three ‘levers’ and the natural increase in reflection created by increasing brain size, from back (senses) to front (permuting, planning, manipulating). So the brain functions as a series of loops (operating system)
That recursively process a moment of information and merge it with the next moment of information in a continuous stream which we can ‘buffer’ with a half life of just a few seconds, and no more than twenty or so. By Comparison of these moments we discern change in state.
When people say the brain isn’t a computer they’re only a tiny bit right. It does operate in binary (on off) and frequency (hertz), and by competition for attention but with unimaginable numbers of connections in unimaginable parallel, in a continuous loop (OS).
-
A Question About the Cortex
A QUESTION ABOUT THE CORTEX
—“Does the commensurability of the edge of the cerebral cortex require fractal geometry, like a coastline? Does it have self similarity?”—The Nationalist @Nationalist7346
No.
the outer layer of the cortex is just a couple of mm thick; consists two functions (what,where), using six layers; divided into columns and modules (groups of columns); homogenous in structure but differing in neural density by physical origin of nerves that enter them.
So no it’s not fractal: the average size of a human cortex, if laid out flat would be approximately the size of a dinner napkin, and just as thick. The rest of the neocortex consists entirely of white matter (nerve fibers: axons) which connect everything to everything.
With the hippocampus consolidating and organizing information, and then using rehearsal (replay) to encode episodes of memory, and thalamus controlling attention (what gets thru to the neocortex for computation, and basal ganglia that surrounds both releasing physical actions.
Most of the advanced functions of the brain consist of these three ‘levers’ and the natural increase in reflection created by increasing brain size, from back (senses) to front (permuting, planning, manipulating). So the brain functions as a series of loops (operating system)
That recursively process a moment of information and merge it with the next moment of information in a continuous stream which we can ‘buffer’ with a half life of just a few seconds, and no more than twenty or so. By Comparison of these moments we discern change in state.
When people say the brain isn’t a computer they’re only a tiny bit right. It does operate in binary (on off) and frequency (hertz), and by competition for attention but with unimaginable numbers of connections in unimaginable parallel, in a continuous loop (OS).
-
Why Red Means Red in Almost Every Language
Why Red Means Red in Almost Every Language https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/why-red-means-red-in-almost-every-language/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 23:25:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267598191391911940
-
Why Red Means Red in Almost Every Language
Why Red Means Red in Almost Every Language https://t.co/LI1q7gkzmS
-
Why Red Means Red in Almost Every Language
Why Red Means Red in Almost Every Language – Issue 76: Language – Nautilus nautil.us Joel Davis This is an excellent example of marginal indifference in mental emotional and physical experiences. That we create narratives (fantasy narratives) to increase our scope of decidability within groups, by internally consistent systems of measurement (paradigms), doesn’t mean that the archetypes, plots, and patterns of rise and fall make vary whatsoever. They don’t. Period. All that matters is the competitive, <- cooperative, <- choice and < – sedative strategies embedded in the narrative. Just as hollywood has run out of narratives, and must devolve like every culture into increasingly complex series of rise and fall sequences, by increasingly complex combination of archetypes ( biases), leading eventually to either the richness of the hindo, or dead to the calcification of the abrahamic, or to the abandonment of the buddhist or stoic, these processes are deterministic and dependent upon easily identifiable variables. In other words forensic analysis (disambiguation, deflation, and operationalization) of every single mythology whether spiritual – occult -supernatural, magical-pseudoscientific, or allegorical-ideal-sophomoric, or simply (as we do in western literature) philosophy – essay – story – novel. The fact than one does not want to abandon his emotional satisfaction from experiencing those different philosophical sophomoric, pseudoscientific magical, and supernatural occult narratives, is no different from any other addiction. It’s just an addiction. Which is what buddhism negatively and the stoic-epicurean method positively seek to produce in REALITY not in imagination. Yes it is entirely possible to use narratives to create visions upon which people will coalesce because it presents a new set of paradigms, producing a new system of measurement, around which they can independently, without explicitly organization, coordinate their actions, toward a shared goal That is the purpose of all narratives whether at one or multiple points on the competitive< cooperative< choice and < sedative spectrum. And yes we can create those narratives in any of the grammars whether the most scientific or the most complete and extended conflation of occult, magical, sophomoric. But like there are only three weapons of influence (force-physical, ostracization-emotional, payment-intellectual), and only three sets of senses (physical, emotional, intellectual), there are only three means of circumventing reality: Magic (physical), occult (emotional) , sophomoric (intellectual), and there are only so many primary emotions (excitement-calm, reward-fear, dominance-submission), only three personality clusters (feminine-beta male, ascendent male (libertarian), and dominant male (conservative), and only so many personality traits derived from them (maybe 4-6), only so many archetypes that can be derived from them (maybe a dozen), and only one root narrative (rise -fall in some combination), and only so many plots (at most 30 or so). In other words, there is no narrative that any human being can compose for the purposes of providing a paradigm for individual, group, or national action, that is not reducible to a very simple strategy of acquisition using those variables. So when you say I have no theory, it’s simply not true. Its the most precise, fullly accounted theory ever developed and the reason is simply because the 20th gave us so man y political failures, but it gave us information as the unit of measurement for modeling all of the universe, it gave us programming(directed) and AI(self organizing), it gave us cognitive science, and it gave us biochemistry, and genetics. And sorry but my work is built upon nothing but entropy upward competing with evidence top down. And i know it is humiliating for sophists (verbalists) who concieve of the world verbally, as it is for occultists who concieve of the world emotionally, but this is the story of our evolution of knowledge: the incremental reduction of ignorance by the incremental increase in the precision of measurement of categories, by reducing them to sets of constant relations coherent, consistent, correspondent, and existentially possible, in the universe under those deterministic rules we call realism, naturalism, and operationalism
-
Why Red Means Red in Almost Every Language
Why Red Means Red in Almost Every Language – Issue 76: Language – Nautilus nautil.us Joel Davis This is an excellent example of marginal indifference in mental emotional and physical experiences. That we create narratives (fantasy narratives) to increase our scope of decidability within groups, by internally consistent systems of measurement (paradigms), doesn’t mean that the archetypes, plots, and patterns of rise and fall make vary whatsoever. They don’t. Period. All that matters is the competitive, <- cooperative, <- choice and < – sedative strategies embedded in the narrative. Just as hollywood has run out of narratives, and must devolve like every culture into increasingly complex series of rise and fall sequences, by increasingly complex combination of archetypes ( biases), leading eventually to either the richness of the hindo, or dead to the calcification of the abrahamic, or to the abandonment of the buddhist or stoic, these processes are deterministic and dependent upon easily identifiable variables. In other words forensic analysis (disambiguation, deflation, and operationalization) of every single mythology whether spiritual – occult -supernatural, magical-pseudoscientific, or allegorical-ideal-sophomoric, or simply (as we do in western literature) philosophy – essay – story – novel. The fact than one does not want to abandon his emotional satisfaction from experiencing those different philosophical sophomoric, pseudoscientific magical, and supernatural occult narratives, is no different from any other addiction. It’s just an addiction. Which is what buddhism negatively and the stoic-epicurean method positively seek to produce in REALITY not in imagination. Yes it is entirely possible to use narratives to create visions upon which people will coalesce because it presents a new set of paradigms, producing a new system of measurement, around which they can independently, without explicitly organization, coordinate their actions, toward a shared goal That is the purpose of all narratives whether at one or multiple points on the competitive< cooperative< choice and < sedative spectrum. And yes we can create those narratives in any of the grammars whether the most scientific or the most complete and extended conflation of occult, magical, sophomoric. But like there are only three weapons of influence (force-physical, ostracization-emotional, payment-intellectual), and only three sets of senses (physical, emotional, intellectual), there are only three means of circumventing reality: Magic (physical), occult (emotional) , sophomoric (intellectual), and there are only so many primary emotions (excitement-calm, reward-fear, dominance-submission), only three personality clusters (feminine-beta male, ascendent male (libertarian), and dominant male (conservative), and only so many personality traits derived from them (maybe 4-6), only so many archetypes that can be derived from them (maybe a dozen), and only one root narrative (rise -fall in some combination), and only so many plots (at most 30 or so). In other words, there is no narrative that any human being can compose for the purposes of providing a paradigm for individual, group, or national action, that is not reducible to a very simple strategy of acquisition using those variables. So when you say I have no theory, it’s simply not true. Its the most precise, fullly accounted theory ever developed and the reason is simply because the 20th gave us so man y political failures, but it gave us information as the unit of measurement for modeling all of the universe, it gave us programming(directed) and AI(self organizing), it gave us cognitive science, and it gave us biochemistry, and genetics. And sorry but my work is built upon nothing but entropy upward competing with evidence top down. And i know it is humiliating for sophists (verbalists) who concieve of the world verbally, as it is for occultists who concieve of the world emotionally, but this is the story of our evolution of knowledge: the incremental reduction of ignorance by the incremental increase in the precision of measurement of categories, by reducing them to sets of constant relations coherent, consistent, correspondent, and existentially possible, in the universe under those deterministic rules we call realism, naturalism, and operationalism
-
Diagrams: Disambiguating “Propertarianism” Into Its Constituent Components
DISAMBIGUATING “PROPERTARIANISM” INTO ITS CONSTITUENT COMPONENTS
- P – Method
- P – Method to Politics
- P- Politics to Western Civ.
-
Diagrams: Disambiguating “Propertarianism” Into Its Constituent Components
DISAMBIGUATING “PROPERTARIANISM” INTO ITS CONSTITUENT COMPONENTS
- P – Method
- P – Method to Politics
- P- Politics to Western Civ.
-
Gender and The Brain as A Market for Attention
GENDER AND THE BRAIN AS A MARKET FOR ATTENTION The brain functions by a market for attention. Differences in brain structure especially between genders, provide increases or decreases in attention achievable by different regions, with urgent attention provided by fears, and long term attention provided by incentives. Attention is easier for men because we compartmentalize our brains with less interaction, and harder for women because their brains are more integrated. Worse, the ability to suppress impulse from the frontal region and back to the hippocampal region and own to the thalamus varies by individual regardless of gender. Worse, men are more dominant and less agreeable by a bit, and as such are more likely to express physical urgencies, where women verbal urgencies.