Theme: Science

  • “Education is a backwater. They don’t accept science. … people just use their

    -“Education is a backwater. They don’t accept science. … people just use their hunches. … Cognitive traits and educational achievement are the most inherited traits. They are going to have to deal with evidence. Eventually, they’ll take genetics seriously.”-Robert Plomin


    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-07 01:42:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368376380040298497

  • Well that’s not really true. There is a short period when the physical sciences

    Well that’s not really true. There is a short period when the physical sciences were producing absurdly revolutionary returns. Then came Darwin/Menger/Spencer/Nietzsche. Then came the Marxist-neo-marxist-postmodern-woke counter-revolution against them. And it’s just peaking now.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-07 01:17:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368370158293647369

    Reply addressees: @Ayaan

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368213033324003338

  • Sorry, but the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is solved. It’s taken me a year a

    Sorry, but the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is solved. It’s taken me a year and a half to figure out how to explain it but once you understand it, like many things, it’s not a hard problem at all – it’s rather simple and obvious. (Philosophers look like idiots in retrospect.)


    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-06 23:40:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368345765907693574

  • Science: Use of logical, sensory, physical, and applied instrumentation to ident

    Science: Use of logical, sensory, physical, and applied instrumentation to identify, observe (measure), and describe increasingly parsimonious causal relations (consistency under realism, naturalism) by eliminating ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.
    Social Construction: lying.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-06 23:01:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368335931854438402

    Reply addressees: @RichardDawkins

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368259842222268421

  • Judging from course materials from the top universities psychology courses are n

    Judging from course materials from the top universities psychology courses are neurology and behavioral economics for stupid people. ;).

    Neural Economy. Behavioral Economy. Cooperative (social) Economy, Economics proper, and Political Economy.

    Know the ECONOMY of the subject.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-06 22:30:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368328244097867780

  • DO COMPLEX NUMBERS EXIST? (foundations of #mathematics ) I should publish a pape

    DO COMPLEX NUMBERS EXIST?
    (foundations of )

    I should publish a paper on this subject as yet another of the many problems of mathematical idealism(analogy) vs mathematical operationalism (reality). Because “i”, just as |absolute value|, solves a problem of ambiguity in mathematics: the language and logic of positional names.

    Sabine correctly identifies the convenient use of “i” in simplifying oscillations (geometry). But why can’t we identify the square root of negative one as negative one? Because of the Conflation of Direction(geometry) and Position(arithmetic). The use of “i” is necessary because as a general rule we’re conflating arithmetic (position) with geometry (direction).

    Is this solvable? Of course. Is “i” simply denoting the use of geometric (directional) math versus arithmetic (positional) math? Yes. Is it any more complex than that? Absolutely not. Math is a trivially simple language (paradigm, logic, vocabulary, grammar, syntax) under mathematical operationalism. It’s all the nonsense we piled on it, that makes it difficult to learn.

    Unfortunately, while the operational revolution was identified in math, in physics, in economics (and less so in law) it only stuck in some parts of physics and not in mathematical physics, or in mathematics. This is why (in my opinion) computational revolutions are occurring in computer science where the limits of mathematics are openly exposed (the domain of the operationally calculable is greater than the domain of mathematically reducible.)

    We can’t reform mathematics because the operational revolution failed in math – we got a set foundation (idealism) of math instead. And IMO the problem Sabine is continuously exposing both in her book and in her videos, is this underlying failure: that mathematics fails in economics and below the quantum level for the same reason: the underlying mechanics are operational and either we lack the information to describe that geometry or the underlying geometry isn’t mathematically reducible beyond the quantum level. We all assume it’s the former but it just as likely is the latter.

    (numeral=glypth for cardinal position in and order. number= position, as a ratio, produced by a function. iow: all numerals are x/1 )


    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-06 17:04:48 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105843935685349261

  • Yes, we know what consciousness consists of.

    Of course we know what consciousness consists of. We’ve known for at least the past ten years. The effort of teaching the average person enough neurology so that can they understand it is a bit of work, but I’m producing a course on it, and the research is all out there. Even a populist like Michio Kaku answers the question. Kuhn makes a living NOT answering the question of consciousness, and interviewing marginal characters (mostly old folks) and many of whom are intellectually embarrassing (philosophers and theologians) – thereby preserving the supernatural bias in the majority population while satisfying curiosity among both materialists, idealists, and supernaturalists. Roger Penrose has a particular strength in that he follows einstein and uses mental models in addition to his mathematics. But otherwise, Roger is a mathematical platonist. Most physicists are stuck in what we call ‘mathiness’ – no mental model. The research on consciousness is done today by those of us who rely on both neurology and computer science to reproduce it. In simple terms, consciousness is just the merger of sensation with memory of memory into a competitive set of predictions. Qualia is just a vast parallel hierarchy of variations on embodiment. Consciousness is simple. Most of our brain predicts a continuously updated (revised) world model, then indexes salient experiences as episodes, and predicts candidate episodes from a competition between episodes, and we regulate that function with attention. When people say consciousness is an illusion that implies an observer that doesn’t exist. The only observer is a hierarchy of memory that we perceive as constant, just like we perceive movies as constant. The root “you” is in the brain stem that’s concerned about orientation, homeostasis, and reward-seeking. All the “you” in the sense you know yourself is distributed around the neocortex as memories. The experience of being you is integrated across the brain and organized into the hippocampal region. Qualia is rather trivial to explain from there onward. If you were to ask if other species would experience the same qualia we can only say that their qualia would be understandable if they were at least able to communicate at our level. But that vibrations in the universe whether through solids, gasses, space, and from subsonic to sonic to electromagnetic, would be the same. Some people see impossible colors even today. Some are color blind. A different creature might experience time differently (faster or slower), or instead of having two hemispheres might have, four, or six, or eight (or more) – and that would be the only substantive difference. But to ACT in the real world generates demand for convergence on similar range of senses and qualia.

  • Yes, we know what consciousness consists of.

    Of course we know what consciousness consists of. We’ve known for at least the past ten years. The effort of teaching the average person enough neurology so that can they understand it is a bit of work, but I’m producing a course on it, and the research is all out there. Even a populist like Michio Kaku answers the question. Kuhn makes a living NOT answering the question of consciousness, and interviewing marginal characters (mostly old folks) and many of whom are intellectually embarrassing (philosophers and theologians) – thereby preserving the supernatural bias in the majority population while satisfying curiosity among both materialists, idealists, and supernaturalists. Roger Penrose has a particular strength in that he follows einstein and uses mental models in addition to his mathematics. But otherwise, Roger is a mathematical platonist. Most physicists are stuck in what we call ‘mathiness’ – no mental model. The research on consciousness is done today by those of us who rely on both neurology and computer science to reproduce it. In simple terms, consciousness is just the merger of sensation with memory of memory into a competitive set of predictions. Qualia is just a vast parallel hierarchy of variations on embodiment. Consciousness is simple. Most of our brain predicts a continuously updated (revised) world model, then indexes salient experiences as episodes, and predicts candidate episodes from a competition between episodes, and we regulate that function with attention. When people say consciousness is an illusion that implies an observer that doesn’t exist. The only observer is a hierarchy of memory that we perceive as constant, just like we perceive movies as constant. The root “you” is in the brain stem that’s concerned about orientation, homeostasis, and reward-seeking. All the “you” in the sense you know yourself is distributed around the neocortex as memories. The experience of being you is integrated across the brain and organized into the hippocampal region. Qualia is rather trivial to explain from there onward. If you were to ask if other species would experience the same qualia we can only say that their qualia would be understandable if they were at least able to communicate at our level. But that vibrations in the universe whether through solids, gasses, space, and from subsonic to sonic to electromagnetic, would be the same. Some people see impossible colors even today. Some are color blind. A different creature might experience time differently (faster or slower), or instead of having two hemispheres might have, four, or six, or eight (or more) – and that would be the only substantive difference. But to ACT in the real world generates demand for convergence on similar range of senses and qualia.

  • This isn’t an ‘opinion’ or a ‘preference’ or an ‘ambition’. it’s a law of evolut

    This isn’t an ‘opinion’ or a ‘preference’ or an ‘ambition’. it’s a law of evolutionary biology, a law of nature, and it will never, ever change. If we discuss race differences we are discussing conflicts due to kin preference under different genetic distributions. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1368239207882297353

  • Do Complex Numbers Exist?

    In response to:     I should publish a paper on this subject as yet another of the many problems of mathematical idealism(analogy) vs mathematical operationalism (reality). Because “i”, just as |absolute value|, solves a problem of ambiguity in mathematics: the language and logic of positional names. Sabine correctly identifies the convenient use of “i” in simplifying oscillations (geometry). But why can’t we identify the square root of negative one as negative one? Because of the Conflation of Direction(geometry) and Position(arithmetic). The use of “i” is necessary because as a general rule we’re conflating arithmetic (position) with geometry (direction). Is this solvable? Of course. Is “i” simply denoting the use of geometric (directional) math versus arithmetic (positional) math? Yes. Is it any more complex than that? Absolutely not. Math is a trivially simple language (paradigm, logic, vocabulary, grammar, syntax) under mathematical operationalism. It’s all the nonsense we piled on it, that makes it difficult to learn. Unfortunately, while the operational revolution was identified in math, in physics, in economics (and less so in law) it only stuck in some parts of physics and not in mathematical physics, or in mathematics. This is why (in my opinion) computational revolutions are occurring in computer science where the limits of mathematics are openly exposed (the domain of the operationally calculable is greater than the domain of mathematically reducible.) We can’t reform mathematics because the operational revolution failed in math – we got a set foundation (idealism) of math instead. And IMO the problem Sabine is continuously exposing both in her book and in her videos, is this underlying failure: that mathematics fails in economics and below the quantum level for the same reason: the underlying mechanics are operational and either we lack the information to describe that geometry or the underlying geometry isn’t mathematically reducible beyond the quantum level. We all assume it’s the former but it just as likely is the latter.