Theme: Measurement

  • Many thinkers produce meaningful methods of categorization. Few thinkers produce

    Many thinkers produce meaningful methods of categorization. Few thinkers produce those that are continuously correspondent (causal) and meaningful. It isn’t something that I want to look into, but just as I was able to explain meyers briggs in terms of big five, I am pretty sure I could do the same with Wilber. In other words, there are many systems with explanatory power, but few if any that survive use in DEDUCTION. Any ‘true’ model must survive deduction. When we say a statement is either true or false, that is itself false. A statement is either true or false for the purpose of deduction in the comparison of two or more statements. The “TRUTH” is that statements are either false (certain), true(contingent), undecidable, incoherent, or unknown(Null). Logical ‘means’ that constant relations are preserved between the two states. The problem is, we must deflate quite a bit to isolate and understand the constant relations that we are measuring.
  • Many thinkers produce meaningful methods of categorization. Few thinkers produce

    Many thinkers produce meaningful methods of categorization. Few thinkers produce those that are continuously correspondent (causal) and meaningful. It isn’t something that I want to look into, but just as I was able to explain meyers briggs in terms of big five, I am pretty sure I could do the same with Wilber. In other words, there are many systems with explanatory power, but few if any that survive use in DEDUCTION. Any ‘true’ model must survive deduction. When we say a statement is either true or false, that is itself false. A statement is either true or false for the purpose of deduction in the comparison of two or more statements. The “TRUTH” is that statements are either false (certain), true(contingent), undecidable, incoherent, or unknown(Null). Logical ‘means’ that constant relations are preserved between the two states. The problem is, we must deflate quite a bit to isolate and understand the constant relations that we are measuring.
  • David (all) It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and value

    David (all)

    It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and values to a correspondent, consistent, coherent, and commensurable set of references.

    And as far as I know we can also simulate the same changes in state within the machine that we experience via our reward systems (emotions).

    Now, just as some people can’t imitate your actions, sympathize with your thinking, and empathize with your feelings, because the differences in frames are too hard to overcome, I suspect that machines will ‘get it wrong’ with some of us now and then.

    Some people want to work with the neural network architecture. And NN’s are exceptional at reducing inputs to symbols (objects, relations, values). And in my opinion the NN ceases being useful(cost effective and controllable) at the point at which we develop symbols (objects, relations, values).

    Beyond the construction of symbols, the game engine (algorithmic) architecture appears to be a better solution.

    We can create transparency, auditability, and yes, conscience, as long as we use such an architecture. For example, imagine that you could only act upon what you could vocalize?

    I’ll also stay on message that the fundamental problem any intelligence faces is taking action to conduct tests. Ergo the primary problem with ‘superintelligence’ or even ‘general intelligence’ as I understand it, (and I have been at this a long time), are the same as the primary problem with knowledge creation in any other field: cost, logistics, and permission to organize a network of actions.

    There don’t seem to be many other people in AI that have both an understanding of computer science, an understanding of economics, and the economics of the increasingly complex problem of experimentation whether personal, political, entrepreneurial, technical, or

    It is, believe it or not, within one lifetime, possible for a human being of adequate ability and time to comprehend the limits of each and every major discipline. And it is equally possible to ‘keep up’ with the current status of those disciplines.

    As far as I know computers will not mine much that is good out of the existing base of knowldge.

    The primary difference is that machies will be able to think and act faster than us in work capacities.

    In creativity? Creativity isn’t a process of reasoning but free association, and experimentation.

    The problem in every field today is that where it took one person to solve a scientific problem a century ago, it takes armies of them today.

    The problem is cost.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-08 16:35:00 UTC

  • David (all) It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and value

    David (all) It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and values to a correspondent, consistent, coherent, and commensurable set of references. And as far as I know we can also simulate the same changes in state within the machine that we experience via our reward systems (emotions). Now, just as some people can’t imitate your actions, sympathize with your thinking, and empathize with your feelings, because the differences in frames are too hard to overcome, I suspect that machines will ‘get it wrong’ with some of us now and then. Some people want to work with the neural network architecture. And NN’s are exceptional at reducing inputs to symbols (objects, relations, values). And in my opinion the NN ceases being useful(cost effective and controllable) at the point at which we develop symbols (objects, relations, values). Beyond the construction of symbols, the game engine (algorithmic) architecture appears to be a better solution. We can create transparency, auditability, and yes, conscience, as long as we use such an architecture. For example, imagine that you could only act upon what you could vocalize? I’ll also stay on message that the fundamental problem any intelligence faces is taking action to conduct tests. Ergo the primary problem with ‘superintelligence’ or even ‘general intelligence’ as I understand it, (and I have been at this a long time), are the same as the primary problem with knowledge creation in any other field: cost, logistics, and permission to organize a network of actions. There don’t seem to be many other people in AI that have both an understanding of computer science, an understanding of economics, and the economics of the increasingly complex problem of experimentation whether personal, political, entrepreneurial, technical, or It is, believe it or not, within one lifetime, possible for a human being of adequate ability and time to comprehend the limits of each and every major discipline. And it is equally possible to ‘keep up’ with the current status of those disciplines. As far as I know computers will not mine much that is good out of the existing base of knowldge. The primary difference is that machies will be able to think and act faster than us in work capacities. In creativity? Creativity isn’t a process of reasoning but free association, and experimentation. The problem in every field today is that where it took one person to solve a scientific problem a century ago, it takes armies of them today. The problem is cost.
  • David (all) It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and value

    David (all) It is quite possible to reduce human categories, relations and values to a correspondent, consistent, coherent, and commensurable set of references. And as far as I know we can also simulate the same changes in state within the machine that we experience via our reward systems (emotions). Now, just as some people can’t imitate your actions, sympathize with your thinking, and empathize with your feelings, because the differences in frames are too hard to overcome, I suspect that machines will ‘get it wrong’ with some of us now and then. Some people want to work with the neural network architecture. And NN’s are exceptional at reducing inputs to symbols (objects, relations, values). And in my opinion the NN ceases being useful(cost effective and controllable) at the point at which we develop symbols (objects, relations, values). Beyond the construction of symbols, the game engine (algorithmic) architecture appears to be a better solution. We can create transparency, auditability, and yes, conscience, as long as we use such an architecture. For example, imagine that you could only act upon what you could vocalize? I’ll also stay on message that the fundamental problem any intelligence faces is taking action to conduct tests. Ergo the primary problem with ‘superintelligence’ or even ‘general intelligence’ as I understand it, (and I have been at this a long time), are the same as the primary problem with knowledge creation in any other field: cost, logistics, and permission to organize a network of actions. There don’t seem to be many other people in AI that have both an understanding of computer science, an understanding of economics, and the economics of the increasingly complex problem of experimentation whether personal, political, entrepreneurial, technical, or It is, believe it or not, within one lifetime, possible for a human being of adequate ability and time to comprehend the limits of each and every major discipline. And it is equally possible to ‘keep up’ with the current status of those disciplines. As far as I know computers will not mine much that is good out of the existing base of knowldge. The primary difference is that machies will be able to think and act faster than us in work capacities. In creativity? Creativity isn’t a process of reasoning but free association, and experimentation. The problem in every field today is that where it took one person to solve a scientific problem a century ago, it takes armies of them today. The problem is cost.
  • DO GODS EXIST? THE ANSWER. (REALLY) Gods exist like numbers, counts, weights, an

    DO GODS EXIST? THE ANSWER. (REALLY)

    Gods exist like numbers, counts, weights, and volumes exist: their objective function is to provide a standard of weight and measure, and to do so for those human values that assist us in cooperating on some given group evolutionary strategy.

    Such an anthropomorphized standard of weight and measure told in narrative form is both intuitive independent of one’s knowledge and ability, and insulated from rational argument and therefore contrived mismeasure.

    Whereas, buddhist rituals, the stoic virtues, deliberate choice of rational philosophy, or purely scientific knowledge each increase the demands upon the person, and increase his choice.

    The beauty of tort law, pagan gods, and western hierarchical disciplines all of which provide a means of mindfulness is that they adapt to the individual and provide a market for individual needs.

    The beauty of monopoly gods is that they are very inexpensive, require little or no comprehension, and create a monopoly and relative equality of understanding the world.

    The fact that monotheism brought about a more than one thousand year dark age via monopoly should not be lost on us. Whereas but a few centuries in the ancient and modern worlds using the market for mindfulness by a hierarchy of increasingly complex technologies that like virtue, rule, and outcome ethics, or myth, wisdom literature, reason, and science, can mature with each of us.

    It is a fallacy to ask whether or not gods exist. Standards of measure exist. Gods are a standard of measure. A rich standard, like numbers are a rich standard – with many applications. So gods exist as standards of measure.

    Do they exist as in ‘persist’? Then no. But neither do numbers. Nor do positions. The universe cannot remember so it cannot use positions, only states and forces in time.

    So gods to not exist in any other form than as a various set of weights and measures by which we are provided mindfulness and decidability in personal, interpersonal, and community strategies of cooperation, satisfaction, fulfillment, conflict and war.

    Now, we humans can speak of constant relations in many different grammars:

    from logic to math, to algorithms, to processes and procedures, to models and simulations, to markets and reality’s high causal density, to descriptions, to ideal fictions lacking understanding of causality other than internal correspondence, to fictions that inform by analogy or inference, to the conflationary fictionalisms that combine magic(technology): pseudoscience, myth(history): Pseudo-history, wisdom literature(law): pseudo-rationalism.

    And those grammars either provide continuous relations between the physical universe and speech describing our imaginings, or they do not.

    Some of our grammars produce ‘stories’ that correspond to reality and some that don’t, some to a possible reality and some that don’t, and some to parable that corresponds somewhat or not, and each of these correspondences provides us with mindfulness or not, and agency in reality or not.

    Thankfully we can measure both mindfulness and agency, and their consequences.

    And in general, like anything else, there exists an optimum medium between the twin axes of (a)mindfulness and worry, and (b) correspondence and fiction.

    And it’s fairly obvious (empirically) that it’s cheaper to teach mindfulness and allegory by fiction(acceptance), and more expensive to teach worry and truth (ambition).

    And that higher intelligence discounts the cost of teaching truth and lower intelligence limits us to fictions.

    Intuition (analogy) is always cheaper than reason(measurement).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-08 15:27:00 UTC

  • Do Gods Exist? The Answer. (Really)

    Gods exist like numbers, counts, weights, and volumes exist: their objective function is to provide a standard of weight and measure, and to do so for those human values that assist us in cooperating on some given group evolutionary strategy. Such an anthropomorphized standard of weight and measure told in narrative form is both intuitive independent of one’s knowledge and ability, and insulated from rational argument and therefore contrived mismeasure. Whereas, buddhist rituals, the stoic virtues, deliberate choice of rational philosophy, or purely scientific knowledge each increase the demands upon the person, and increase his choice. The beauty of tort law, pagan gods, and western hierarchical disciplines all of which provide a means of mindfulness is that they adapt to the individual and provide a market for individual needs. The beauty of monopoly gods is that they are very inexpensive, require little or no comprehension, and create a monopoly and relative equality of understanding the world. The fact that monotheism brought about a more than one thousand year dark age via monopoly should not be lost on us. Whereas but a few centuries in the ancient and modern worlds using the market for mindfulness by a hierarchy of increasingly complex technologies that like virtue, rule, and outcome ethics, or myth, wisdom literature, reason, and science, can mature with each of us. It is a fallacy to ask whether or not gods exist. Standards of measure exist. Gods are a standard of measure. A rich standard, like numbers are a rich standard – with many applications. So gods exist as standards of measure. Do they exist as in ‘persist’? Then no. But neither do numbers. Nor do positions. The universe cannot remember so it cannot use positions, only states and forces in time. So gods to not exist in any other form than as a various set of weights and measures by which we are provided mindfulness and decidability in personal, interpersonal, and community strategies of cooperation, satisfaction, fulfillment, conflict and war. Now, we humans can speak of constant relations in many different grammars: from logic to math, to algorithms, to processes and procedures, to models and simulations, to markets and reality’s high causal density, to descriptions, to ideal fictions lacking understanding of causality other than internal correspondence, to fictions that inform by analogy or inference, to the conflationary fictionalisms that combine magic(technology): pseudoscience, myth(history): Pseudo-history, wisdom literature(law): pseudo-rationalism. And those grammars either provide continuous relations between the physical universe and speech describing our imaginings, or they do not. Some of our grammars produce ‘stories’ that correspond to reality and some that don’t, some to a possible reality and some that don’t, and some to parable that corresponds somewhat or not, and each of these correspondences provides us with mindfulness or not, and agency in reality or not. Thankfully we can measure both mindfulness and agency, and their consequences. And in general, like anything else, there exists an optimum medium between the twin axes of (a)mindfulness and worry, and (b) correspondence and fiction. And it’s fairly obvious (empirically) that it’s cheaper to teach mindfulness and allegory by fiction(acceptance), and more expensive to teach worry and truth (ambition). And that higher intelligence discounts the cost of teaching truth and lower intelligence limits us to fictions. Intuition (analogy) is always cheaper than reason(measurement).
  • Do Gods Exist? The Answer. (Really)

    Gods exist like numbers, counts, weights, and volumes exist: their objective function is to provide a standard of weight and measure, and to do so for those human values that assist us in cooperating on some given group evolutionary strategy. Such an anthropomorphized standard of weight and measure told in narrative form is both intuitive independent of one’s knowledge and ability, and insulated from rational argument and therefore contrived mismeasure. Whereas, buddhist rituals, the stoic virtues, deliberate choice of rational philosophy, or purely scientific knowledge each increase the demands upon the person, and increase his choice. The beauty of tort law, pagan gods, and western hierarchical disciplines all of which provide a means of mindfulness is that they adapt to the individual and provide a market for individual needs. The beauty of monopoly gods is that they are very inexpensive, require little or no comprehension, and create a monopoly and relative equality of understanding the world. The fact that monotheism brought about a more than one thousand year dark age via monopoly should not be lost on us. Whereas but a few centuries in the ancient and modern worlds using the market for mindfulness by a hierarchy of increasingly complex technologies that like virtue, rule, and outcome ethics, or myth, wisdom literature, reason, and science, can mature with each of us. It is a fallacy to ask whether or not gods exist. Standards of measure exist. Gods are a standard of measure. A rich standard, like numbers are a rich standard – with many applications. So gods exist as standards of measure. Do they exist as in ‘persist’? Then no. But neither do numbers. Nor do positions. The universe cannot remember so it cannot use positions, only states and forces in time. So gods to not exist in any other form than as a various set of weights and measures by which we are provided mindfulness and decidability in personal, interpersonal, and community strategies of cooperation, satisfaction, fulfillment, conflict and war. Now, we humans can speak of constant relations in many different grammars: from logic to math, to algorithms, to processes and procedures, to models and simulations, to markets and reality’s high causal density, to descriptions, to ideal fictions lacking understanding of causality other than internal correspondence, to fictions that inform by analogy or inference, to the conflationary fictionalisms that combine magic(technology): pseudoscience, myth(history): Pseudo-history, wisdom literature(law): pseudo-rationalism. And those grammars either provide continuous relations between the physical universe and speech describing our imaginings, or they do not. Some of our grammars produce ‘stories’ that correspond to reality and some that don’t, some to a possible reality and some that don’t, and some to parable that corresponds somewhat or not, and each of these correspondences provides us with mindfulness or not, and agency in reality or not. Thankfully we can measure both mindfulness and agency, and their consequences. And in general, like anything else, there exists an optimum medium between the twin axes of (a)mindfulness and worry, and (b) correspondence and fiction. And it’s fairly obvious (empirically) that it’s cheaper to teach mindfulness and allegory by fiction(acceptance), and more expensive to teach worry and truth (ambition). And that higher intelligence discounts the cost of teaching truth and lower intelligence limits us to fictions. Intuition (analogy) is always cheaper than reason(measurement).
  • TARGET SHOOTING FALSE CONFIDENCE When shooting (pistol) a moving target, if it’s

    TARGET SHOOTING FALSE CONFIDENCE

    When shooting (pistol) a moving target, if it’s moving perpendicular to you, and at less than 12′ per second, and it’s wider than the depth of the human torso, then it’s nonsense.

    If your target is dashing at 12′ per second, is 12″ wide, and at a 15-30 degree angle, that’s realistic.

    if your target is falling and then crawling at 2′ per second and is torso shaped, then that’s realistic.

    If your target is shooting BACK at you while moving 6′ or less per second, then that’s realistic.

    If your target is behind concealment, at a distance, and firing at you every two or thee seconds, and you are scrambling for cover, while trying to find him, that’s realistic.

    If you think there is any cover indoors you’re wrong. There is only concealment indoors. For all intents and purposes, for modern arms, furniture and walls are little more than crepe paper.

    Be small, get a shot off, aim a shot, and land that shot. Otherwise be small, and shoot through whatever is in your way.

    I mean. I know most of this shooty stuff is entertainment, but lets not get overconfident here. It’s hard to shoot people in close quarters. And it’s easy to be shot in the open.

    The modern US military and teaches combined arms. At present no one on earth is anywhere close to americans in combined arms. (Even if only at present.)

    But in dirty revolutionary wars, we are talking largely about impeding, destroying, robbing, kidnapping, fire, gasoline, small arms, small numbers, sniping, urban and suburban settings, and utter chaos.

    And in that case, night, lots of friends, and lots of ammo, lots of fire, lots of smoke, and lots of planned exit routes.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-04 13:51:00 UTC

  • Target Shooting False Confidence

    When shooting (pistol) a moving target, if it’s moving perpendicular to you, and at less than 12′ per second, and it’s wider than the depth of the human torso, then it’s nonsense. If your target is dashing at 12′ per second, is 12″ wide, and at a 15-30 degree angle, that’s realistic. if your target is falling and then crawling at 2′ per second and is torso shaped, then that’s realistic. If your target is shooting BACK at you while moving 6′ or less per second, then that’s realistic. If your target is behind concealment, at a distance, and firing at you every two or thee seconds, and you are scrambling for cover, while trying to find him, that’s realistic. If you think there is any cover indoors you’re wrong. There is only concealment indoors. For all intents and purposes, for modern arms, furniture and walls are little more than crepe paper. Be small, get a shot off, aim a shot, and land that shot. Otherwise be small, and shoot through whatever is in your way. I mean. I know most of this shooty stuff is entertainment, but lets not get overconfident here. It’s hard to shoot people in close quarters. And it’s easy to be shot in the open. The modern US military and teaches combined arms. At present no one on earth is anywhere close to americans in combined arms. (Even if only at present.) But in dirty revolutionary wars, we are talking largely about impeding, destroying, robbing, kidnapping, fire, gasoline, small arms, small numbers, sniping, urban and suburban settings, and utter chaos. And in that case, night, lots of friends, and lots of ammo, lots of fire, lots of smoke, and lots of planned exit routes.