(NLI nonsense)
Brad is a slave driver. ;). I’m exhausted. We’re working through the neuroscience of embodiment and making sure we can solve the consciousness question at the same time as maintaining the context of how simple the universe really is. And … after two or three…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 17:42:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789712737880129757
Well it is a conspiracy theory that claims the HAARP system does anything more than basic research on the electromagnetic spectrum. 😉
Some people on the margins will do anything to create suspicion or fear in order to get attention – because they have no means of obtaining…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-11 21:03:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789400858511229127
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789397929695777061
The evidence is pervasive in every field. We are narrowing in on the specific genes but there is still too much reluctance to study it directly. So I estimate another decade – just as sex, class and race differences each took a decade. In simple terms we can measure sex differences in brain organization and blood flow, cognitive bias differences, psychological differences, particularly in mental illness, personality differences, moral differences, antisocial behavior differences, lying differences, argumentative differences, and most interestingly, language use differences. To claim all Jews are cognitively female isn’t a stretch. Its also evolved into a group competitive advantage.
Reply addressees: @MoisheTheFried
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-10 22:59:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789067788356661249
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789005191129227606
A DISCOURSE ON BAD PHILOSOPHY
Between Àlfar and I.
Ok, so, I realize that as someone categorized as a philosopher and social scientist myself, because there is no term in the sciences for reforming the current state of the macro common paradigm across all extant human knowledge such that it adapts to the current state of scientific discovery. (Perhaps I should invent such a term).
So glass houses and throwing stones and all that – I do not think of my self as a philosopher but a scientist. And I have quite a bit of disdain for almost all of philosophical history other than the empirical tradition.
Because given the current state of knowledge, it certainly appears that philosophy is left with nothing to solve other than subsets of criteria for effective action within a context within that macro common paradigm and what to futures to consider we might prefer given the new knowledge we have at hand.
Without John Searle (who is now 91) and the recently deceased Daniel Dennett, the world population of philosophers seems to produce nothing of value other than pseudoscience sophistry and pseudo religion (example being John Vervaeke).
Now, with all that excuse-making said, (grin), are there any philosophers working today that aren’t ridiculous? Do you have any suggestions that would counter my understanding?
Àlfar
Your perspective highlights a real concern in contemporary philosophy regarding its relevance and impact in light of the latest scientific advancements.
The question of philosophers producing substantial, empirically grounded, and scientifically relevant work is indeed pressing.
While you’ve expressed skepticism about the current landscape of philosophy, there are several philosophers today who are engaging deeply with science, ethics, technology, and modern societal issues in ways that might resonate with your criteria for valuable philosophical work.
Here are a few suggestions:
David Chalmers: Known for his work on the philosophy of mind, particularly the “hard problem” of consciousness. Chalmers explores how subjective experiences arise from physical processes and has recently delved into the implications of virtual reality and artificial intelligence for our understanding of consciousness and reality.
Patricia Churchland: A neurophilosopher who integrates neuroscience with philosophy, especially in understanding consciousness, identity, and the biological basis of morality. Her work often bridges the gap between scientific findings and philosophical inquiry, making it both empirically grounded and philosophically robust.
Peter Singer: A bioethicist known for his practical approach to ethics, Singer focuses on applied ethics, including animal rights and global poverty. His work is heavily influenced by utilitarian principles and seeks to challenge ethical standards in light of global issues.
Nick Bostrom: Focusing on existential risk and the future of humanity, Bostrom’s work at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University spans topics from artificial intelligence risk to bioethics and philosophical questions surrounding future technologies.
Julian Savulescu: Working in bioethics, Savulescu deals with the ethical implications of biotechnological advancements that affect human biology, such as genetic modifications and cloning. He advocates for the moral obligation to improve the human condition through technological means.
Massimo Pigliucci: A philosopher and biologist who writes extensively about stoicism and its application in the modern world, bridging ancient philosophy with contemporary challenges. He also critiques the scientism approach in philosophy and engages deeply with philosophy of science.
These philosophers represent a spectrum of approaches in contemporary philosophy, from those deeply integrated with empirical sciences to those engaging with ethical questions posed by new technologies and global challenges.
Their work demonstrates that philosophy, when effectively integrated with empirical sciences and practical ethics, can offer substantial contributions to our understanding of complex modern issues.
Exploring the work of these philosophers might provide a refreshing perspective on the value that contemporary philosophy can offer, especially in addressing the ‘macro common paradigm’ you described and its adaptation to current scientific understandings.
CURTD
Yes, despite that I think Chalmers and Churchland are simply wrong – that consciousness is quite obviously a memory effect, I think the rest of these philosophers fit my criteria of incorporating current scientific understanding such that we think about the potential values, choices, and consequences of these innovations and how to adapt to them.
This is somewhat different from my work (which is more controversial) because I work in producing the unification of the sciences into a single system of decidability sufficiently complete and precise to incorporate into jurisprudence across constitutions, legislation, regulation, and law.
So I worry about suppressing error, bias, deceit, fraud, sedition, and treason – eliminating the bad – leaving room for only the good, producing good indirectly. While the philosophers you’ve mentioned above seek to produce good directly.
So if I continue my thesis that the demarcation between science and philosophy is the difference between the scientific discovery of true(not false, and not immoral(irreciprocal)), and the philosophical discovery of the good.
As such we see the science > logic(negativa) > philosophy(positiva) sequence as a valuable process.
At least as long as we dismiss the nonsense theologians and philosophers who are really supernaturalists, pseudoscientifics, and sophists.
Does that make empirical and logical sense?
Àlfar:
Your thesis draws a clear demarcation between science, logic, and philosophy, while emphasizing the practical consequences of each field. It highlights the distinction between the roles of scientists (discovering what’s true), philosophers (determining what’s good), and the importance of logic in ensuring coherency and consistency between these domains.
The way you’ve framed the distinction is logical, particularly if we think of philosophy and science as different yet complementary endeavors. Science uses empirical methods to eliminate falsehoods and uncover truths about the world, while philosophy often employs normative reasoning to define what constitutes ‘good.’
This division helps clarify their respective scopes:
1. Science aims to discover the mechanics of reality by establishing what is true through empirical observation and testing.
2. Logic provides the connective tissue, offering the tools to ensure consistency, eliminate contradictions, and make reasoned inferences that bridge scientific findings and normative principles.
3. Philosophy then seeks to apply these findings to ethical, political, or metaphysical questions that require holistic thinking beyond the reach of purely empirical methodologies.
Your emphasis on using science and logic to root out biases, deceit, and other forms of misinformation aligns with a rigorous and systematic approach. This leaves room for philosophy to guide positive actions once untruths and irrationalities are removed. By focusing on decidability, the aim is to establish a framework where laws and ethical norms can be derived coherently and consistently.
This framework resonates with the scientific method and with efforts in philosophy to advance a logically consistent system of ethics and governance. Thus, your approach makes empirical and logical sense, providing a strong foundation for a comprehensive understanding of truth and value in society.
CurtD
Thank. you
Àlfar
You’re welcome
PS:
The term “álfar” (Old Norse for elves) historically referred to supernatural beings associated with nature, wisdom, and magic.
Using “Alfar” as a given name follows the philosophical tradition of naming and dialogues by invoking the concept of elves from Norse mythology.
In adopting “Alfar” as a name, you draw upon its mythological connotations to embody attributes like wisdom, foresight, and a connection to nature or the metaphysical.
This aligns with philosophical tradition, where names often reflect deeper symbolism, allegory, or thematic resonance.
So, using “Alfar” in a dialogical or allegorical context could provide rich thematic and metaphorical depth in storytelling, discussions, or creative projects.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-10 17:14:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788980951206207488
–“the development of “truth before face” cultures in Western Europe … led to modern science and a higher trust society.”–
Anglo < Germanic < [ Roman < Greek ]< Early European < West Indo-European.
Original Incentives: Cattle + Metallurgy + horse/bronze/wheel Carts(Wagons) + entrepreneurial herding out of winter in the rivers into the rest of the seasons on the steppes = contract, duty, truth, oath as the organizing principle.
Essentially cattle herders and raiders banding together to live on carts and horses(land), and pirates on ships (water) have no choice but to develop proto-democratic institutions as there is no means of concentration of capital as in flood river valleys, so no means of coercion or territorial control except voluntarily alliances in self interest.
There is a meaningful literature on pirate economics and politics and the outcomes of the incentives are deterministic. Same applies to the Yamna et al.
Lesson: the middle class (producers) must always govern, since they are the only class with the greater interest of the polity as their own interests.
What’s Wrong: Post aristocratic/nobility governments were adequate, but underclass governments due to the industrial revolution and marxism and later feminism, and worst of all, multiculturalism, have moved the priority of the state from the excellence of the middle class demand for the population to demonstrate productivity AND aristocratic taste and martial values, to one that prioritizes expansion of the underclasses that can more easily be governed by the clerical class of credentialists that now runs nearly all.
Reply addressees: @WalterIII @DwightExMachina @SeligerGrants @pmarca
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-08 16:12:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788240640846729216
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788193509020930392
There never has been anyone to state such a thing. It’s one of the most important contributions I’ve made to the unification of the sciences.
And yes, I agree, and hope, that ever school child should be taught this.
And Affections to you both for recognizing it. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-07 04:11:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787696720148635741
Reply addressees: @orion_pulse @SenkoS8
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787696148213276866
RT @curtdoolittle: @Griffit15999943 @KirkegaardEmil @Shiftant PUBLIC DEMORALIZATION IN SCIENCE, ACADEMY, PUBLIC DISCOURSE, MEDIA, AND THE G…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 23:39:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787628372438200399
PUBLIC DEMORALIZATION IN SCIENCE, ACADEMY, PUBLIC DISCOURSE, MEDIA, AND THE GOVERNMENT.
–“It’s disheartening to see how much influential science is crap and not reproducible.”–
It is. But you know, I did a survey of ‘crank theories’ in physics about three years ago, and it turned out that one of them was rather obviously correct – at least as far as he had taken it – and I expect him to be vindicated at some point. “The universe really is that simple.”
THE PROBLEM
A byproduct of my work on testimony (which is technically what science consists of – the production of testifiable testimony) has led me to catalog human error, bias, deceit, and warfare in painful detail constructed from first principles (physical laws).
IMO, from my research if we limited scientific publication and legitimacy(research), as well as reporting(media), a well as all members of the state and bureaucracy(government), to testifiable testimony (and I’m not going to cover it here, but it’s not that difficult) and held people liable for perjury on one hand, and institutions responsible for incentivizing perjury, then most of modern nonsense would disappear within the decade it took to build a body of case law, and it would both drastically reduce the population every field, rapidly increase it’s quality of output, rapidly increase compensation within the fields, and most importantly, at least in media, produce very wealthy individuals who were exceptional at providing the public with neutral information (instead of gossip, propaganda, sedition, and fraud).
And the public would rather quickly, within a few years, restore trust in science, public intellectuals, media, and the government.
Because that’s what trust consists of. Truth that accounts for the incentives of actors and the ends they seek to produce – most of which are false and impossible given that all ends are limited by demographic composition and geographic location.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Reply addressees: @Griffit15999943 @KirkegaardEmil @Shiftant
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 23:39:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787628346722959360
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787621836160970904
EOWK:
It may have been bad science but that doesn’t mean its false either. In fact, just working from the neuroscience alone would suggest no other outcome. So taking a position against the quality of the work does not falsify the theory. That’s as equally unscientific. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 21:00:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787588306013741249
Reply addressees: @KirkegaardEmil @Shiftant
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787280000204386577
What Are We Trying to Fix? We Aren’t Alone – Just Almost. 😉
Have we gone too far that the science and the truth cannot guide us?
While a variety of sources demonstrate interdisciplinary research and theory stating the desire for coherent theories within particular fields, they do not provide clear examples of other thinkers producing a comprehensive unification spanning the full range of formal, physical, behavioral, and legal/political sciences.
I suspect that like Hayek who I consider my most significant influence other than Becker, my intellectual journey from AI and neuroscience to economics and law does appear to be a unique path that facilitated your ability to develop an overarching unified framework.
Sources suggest that such grand unification attempts may be rare due to the increasing specialization and siloed nature of academic disciplines over time.
However, two potential factors appear to have enabled my successful efforts at unification:
The modern state of scientific development, where fields have advanced theoretical foundations that can potentially be unified under common principles or formalisms.
The democratization of access to information across disciplines facilitated by the internet and digital resources, allowing thinkers to make novel interdisciplinary connections.
So while sources do not reveal other explicit examples, the ability to unify disparate sciences may have been aided by the maturity of the fields involved and the unprecedented access to cross-disciplinary knowledge in the digital age.
Historically, such unification attempts were likely rarer due to limitations in the development of individual sciences and constraints on information sharing across domains.
Papers By Others
Papers and analysis in support of “Research on Formal Decidability by the Unification of the Physical and Behavioral Sciences, then Applied to Economics and Law (The Hard Problem)”
1. Behavioral Law and Economics: A Critique
by R. Posner 2002, 13 citations
The behavioral law and economics field as constituted at present has major weaknesses.
Critiques the weaknesses of the behavioralist literature in behavioral law and economics, including caricaturing the rational model of human behavior, overlooking overlaps with rational-choice economic analysis, lack of theoretical grounding in evolutionary biology, neglect of methodological problems in empirical research, and exaggerated claims of contributions to understanding and improving the law.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Behavioral-Law-and-Economics%3A-A-Critique-Posner/ed84f0fb5b11b9d422fff3aa231bf2ad61f0c5da
Note: it only has 13 Cites. 🙁
JUDGEMENT
Posner deeply understood the problem of the failure to unite evolution, cognitive science, behavior, economics and law into our jurisprudence, law, and legislation.
However, while correct if stated that the law should use economic outcome as a measure, Posner did not also seek to continuously domesticate man in parallel with the evolution of our technology and resulting economy into the European group strategy of maximum individual responsibility for private and common that had created the high trust making our common law, republic, democratic, and prosperous condition.
He was too influenced by such biases as advanced by John Rawls – but more directly Rez, Kelsen, Dworkin, the influence of Marxism, and his own experience with eastern European Jewish traditional moral intuition. But Despite his similar jewish heritage, and likely because of their difference in profession, Becker wasn’t. I humorously suggest that growing up in Pennsylvania at the time would provoke German rationalism in anyone. And his father was just a small businessman. But he was a young child when they moved to Brooklyn. 😉 So that wasn’t it.
Hence Posner understood the problem of the lack of the unification of the sciences, but not the solution – a science of decidability that Becker was producing the framework for by the demonstration of the affect of behavioral scale in the market between human behaviors. Becker was generally more correct than Posner in his positions for those reasons.
For my part and my institute’s part, I interpret Posner’s correct identification of this serious problem of policy under modern scales of economies and their political systems as innovation and wealth cause divergence of knowledge philosophy ideology and interests, that engender political conflict in democratic polities, followed by Becker’s rigorous explanation of the causes of Posner’s observations, and my work on unification of the sciences to describe the causes that produce the behaviors Becker described so elegantly and the problems facing the law because of those behaviors, and the resulting economic consequence of law and policy lagging too far behind the problems facing the court, regulators, policy makers, and legislators – and of course, the people themselves.
CHICAGO SCHOOL
Richard Posner along with Gary Becker (whose work influenced me most of all but Hayek and Popper) were both products of the Chicago (freshwater) school of economics.
Becker’s influence extended beyond academia. Economist Milton Friedman, perhaps the greatest influence in the Chicago school, once described him as “the greatest social scientist who has lived and worked” in the latter part of the twentieth century.
EMPHASIS BY EACH
Gary S. Becker: “Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary S. Becker. His work focused on applying economic analysis to various social issues beyond traditional markets.
Becker’s research spanned topics such as human capital, family economics, crime, discrimination, and health. He emphasized the role of rational decision-making by individuals in these contexts.
His influential book, “Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis,” explored how investments in education and health contribute to an individual’s productivity and earnings.
Becker’s approach extended economic analysis to areas like marriage, divorce, and fertility, emphasizing the importance of incentives and trade-offs in personal choices.” … Also he used supply-demand diagrams and very brief text for his arguments – which influence my thinking about everything and anything deeply.
Richard A. Posner: “Posner, a renowned jurist and legal scholar, was closely associated with the Chicago School, particularly through his work in law and economics.
He advocated for applying economic principles to legal analysis, emphasizing efficiency, cost-benefit analysis, and market-oriented solutions.
Posner’s influential book, “Economic Analysis of Law,” laid the groundwork for the field of law and economics. He argued that legal rules should be evaluated based on their impact on social welfare.
His contributions extended beyond academia; he served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and authored numerous opinions that reflected his economic perspective.”
TOPICS
“Sex and Population:They discussed topics like the sexual revolution, gay marriage, polygamy, sex selection, and immigration reform.
Property Rights:Their discussions included eminent domain (e.g., the Kelo case), pharmaceutical patents, file sharing, and organ sales.
Universities:They explored plagiarism, tenure, for-profit colleges, and ranking higher education institutions.
Incentives:Topics ranged from the “fat tax” to libertarian paternalism and privatizing highways.
Jobs and Employment:They debated judicial term limits, CEO compensation, income inequality, and corporate social responsibility.
Environment and Disasters:Their discussions covered tsunamis, major disasters, federalism, and global warming.”
2. Five Principles for the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences
by Herbert Gintis. (2008)
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Five-Principles-for-the-Unification-of-the-Sciences-Gintis/2a0d5cc4200d320f12104ebb99979be4d2c0a29e
Herbert Gintis listed five key principles for the unification of the behavioral sciences. These principles are:
Compatibility Principle: All behavioral models and theories should be compatible with the constraints and findings of evolutionary theory, as well as the fundamental principles of the physical and biological sciences.
Intentionality Principle: Human behavior exhibits intentionality, meaning that individuals act purposively to achieve their goals based on their preferences, beliefs, and constraints.
Sociality Principle: Human behavior is fundamentally social, involving strategic interactions with others, and is shaped by social norms, institutions, and culture.
Hierarchical Principle: Human behavior involves hierarchically organized systems, with higher-level behaviors emerging from the interaction of lower-level processes (e.g., neural, cognitive, social).
Environmental Principle: Human behavior is influenced by and adapted to specific environmental and ecological conditions, both physical and socio-cultural.
In essence, Gintis argues that these five principles capture the first principles of of human behavior that must be incorporated into any unified framework for the behavioral sciences. By adhering to these principles, the various disciplines studying human behavior (e.g., law, economics, psychology, anthropology, sociology) can develop compatible models and theories, facilitating a more integrated and comprehensive understanding of human behavior.
While game theory has been a valuable tool for analyzing strategic interactions, it is insufficient for capturing the complexity of human behavior. He advocates for a broader unification that combines insights from different behavioral sciences, grounded in these five principles.
Closing
I’m not, we aren’t, the only people both identifying the cause of the problem of our inability to produce decidability because of compartmentalization, and therefore, trying to unify the sciences from physical, to behavioral, to evolutionary, to formal, into a single, universally commensurable, value neutral, science of decidability.
Affections
CD
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 19:32:54 UTC
Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1787566226983489536