Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Pattern Emerging (Core)

    Pattern Emerging (Core)

    13E99871-E051-4148-B5C2-7C086DB31746
    triangles

    (to expand, see grid cells, location cells etc)

    —“…when there are four choices, a quantum search can distinguish between four alternatives in a single step. Indeed, four is optimal number. This thinking also explains why there are 20 amino acids. In DNA, each set of three nucleotides defines a single amino acid. So the sequence of triplets in DNA defines the sequence of amino acids in a protein. But during protein assembly, each amino acid must be chosen from a soup of 20 different options. Grover’s algorithm explains these numbers: a three-step quantum search can find an object in a database containing up to 20 kinds of entry. Again, 20 is the optimal number. In other words, if the search processes involved in assembling DNA and proteins is to be as efficient as possible, the number of bases should be four and the number of amino acids should to be 20—exactly as is found. The only caveat is that the searches must be quantum in nature.”—

  • Pattern Emerging (Core)

    Pattern Emerging (Core)

    13E99871-E051-4148-B5C2-7C086DB31746
    triangles

    (to expand, see grid cells, location cells etc)

    —“…when there are four choices, a quantum search can distinguish between four alternatives in a single step. Indeed, four is optimal number. This thinking also explains why there are 20 amino acids. In DNA, each set of three nucleotides defines a single amino acid. So the sequence of triplets in DNA defines the sequence of amino acids in a protein. But during protein assembly, each amino acid must be chosen from a soup of 20 different options. Grover’s algorithm explains these numbers: a three-step quantum search can find an object in a database containing up to 20 kinds of entry. Again, 20 is the optimal number. In other words, if the search processes involved in assembling DNA and proteins is to be as efficient as possible, the number of bases should be four and the number of amino acids should to be 20—exactly as is found. The only caveat is that the searches must be quantum in nature.”—

  • Updating Arthur C Clarke

    Updating Arthur C Clarke https://t.co/kZyxzrZWiG

  • Morality = Reciprocity

    MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines. You are welcome to falsify (a) goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected (b) morality refers to reciprocity. (c) it’s a necessity of the physical universe. (d) the human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality. All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to falsify them. FWIW I’m probably the best person working today on this subject so you might want to try to learn something by questioning your premises.

  • Morality = Reciprocity

    MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines. You are welcome to falsify (a) goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected (b) morality refers to reciprocity. (c) it’s a necessity of the physical universe. (d) the human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality. All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to falsify them. FWIW I’m probably the best person working today on this subject so you might want to try to learn something by questioning your premises.

  • P: We Operationalize the Series (statement) Not the Elements (evidence)

    Sep 28, 2019, 8:31 AM P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)

    —-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations are extrapolations (grammar “word->word”, non-operational, but well condensed.”— Twitter

    (That’s a great question. Very few people have the insight to ask it.) The Methodology: Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization. Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous). Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement. The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.

  • P: We Operationalize the Series (statement) Not the Elements (evidence)

    Sep 28, 2019, 8:31 AM P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)

    —-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations are extrapolations (grammar “word->word”, non-operational, but well condensed.”— Twitter

    (That’s a great question. Very few people have the insight to ask it.) The Methodology: Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization. Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous). Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement. The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.

  • A Question About the Cortex

    A Question About the Cortex https://t.co/kCHzJcfTXK

  • A Question About the Cortex

    A Question About the Cortex https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/02/a-question-about-the-cortex-3/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-02 00:46:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267618451813793795

  • 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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)

    5. 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.

    6. 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).