Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Yes we do. Heck I’m teaching a class in it. Consciousness isn’t that complicated

    Yes we do. Heck I’m teaching a class in it. Consciousness isn’t that complicated. It just took until the last few years to get enough information to explain the missing piece (space).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-23 20:46:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176236504491970561

    Reply addressees: @emailmikelowry

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176235945470750720

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176235945470750720

  • Of course we know what ‘they’ are …. various states asymmetry of energy, and i

    Of course we know what ‘they’ are …. various states asymmetry of energy, and it’s few stable states.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-23 20:45:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176236276854480897

    Reply addressees: @emailmikelowry

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176235092307369984

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176235092307369984

  • What cosmic energy systems. As far as I know we can enumerate all forces, that a

    What cosmic energy systems. As far as I know we can enumerate all forces, that affect us. What forces do you refer to?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-23 20:36:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176233981945307137

    Reply addressees: @emailmikelowry

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176233666202046464

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176233666202046464

  • Um. As far as I know, astrology refers to that category of pseudoscience includi

    Um. As far as I know, astrology refers to that category of pseudoscience including reading signs, entrails, tea leaves, cards, palms, numerology, scriptural interpretation. Except artifacts of human reproductive cycle produce minor seasonal character variations b/c testosterone.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-23 20:26:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176231489102602241

    Reply addressees: @emailmikelowry

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176192218408685568

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176192218408685568

  • I don’t think I’ve published the section on religion. I include a propertarian d

    I don’t think I’ve published the section on religion. I include a propertarian definition of religion that you would call scientific. And a prescription for satisfying the demand for religion, and that we tolerate christianity but show intolerance for every other cult.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-23 17:17:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176183815611604992

    Reply addressees: @financydrew

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176181784020750342

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176181784020750342

  • No The Universe is (exists as) not a ‘mind’

    No The Universe is (exists as) not a ‘mind’ https://propertarianism.com/2019/09/23/no-the-universe-is-exists-as-not-a-mind/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-23 15:26:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176155905064394755

  • No The Universe is (exists as) not a ‘mind’

    —“How do you demonstrate that the universe is a mind?”—Sam McPhail

    [F]or the equivalent to calculation to exist requires possibilities (disequilibrium). For mind to exist requires and a means of storing state, and (a) prediction, (b) permutation (c) choice (d) action from a history of states. The function of what we call mind is to allow us to predict candidate actions such that we can outwit the determinism of the universe and capture the energy thereby resisting entropy. How the universe or anything in the universe can do something, or anything, close to ‘mind’ would require we discover the means of information storage and the means of using that information storage, and the possibilities predictive using it, and the means of selecting choices from those possibilities, and the means of acting to seize those opportunities (choices), for some purpose (caloric gain). As far as I know the universe is purely operational (limited in transactions) at every scale. And that our current ignorance because of our inability to measure (observe), has left us uncertainty as to whether the universe and its contents are the same or separate things, and whether there is one or many, and whether they are interdependent (frothing so to speak).

  • No The Universe is (exists as) not a ‘mind’

    —“How do you demonstrate that the universe is a mind?”—Sam McPhail

    [F]or the equivalent to calculation to exist requires possibilities (disequilibrium). For mind to exist requires and a means of storing state, and (a) prediction, (b) permutation (c) choice (d) action from a history of states. The function of what we call mind is to allow us to predict candidate actions such that we can outwit the determinism of the universe and capture the energy thereby resisting entropy. How the universe or anything in the universe can do something, or anything, close to ‘mind’ would require we discover the means of information storage and the means of using that information storage, and the possibilities predictive using it, and the means of selecting choices from those possibilities, and the means of acting to seize those opportunities (choices), for some purpose (caloric gain). As far as I know the universe is purely operational (limited in transactions) at every scale. And that our current ignorance because of our inability to measure (observe), has left us uncertainty as to whether the universe and its contents are the same or separate things, and whether there is one or many, and whether they are interdependent (frothing so to speak).

  • Fields, Not Ideals, Truths, Or Favorites

    —“What are people’s take on the Fermi paradox? Like what is most likely scenario anyone have their own theory on it?”—Sam McPhail

    [T]he question is rather strange – because of the odd human desire for certainty. As far as I know there are a field of possibilities, and we simply do not know. Some of us are able to tolerate fields of possibilities, and some of us are unable to tolerate fields of possibilities. As far as I know this behavior is driven by the feeling of whether one is in or out of control of one’s circumstances, and this conflation exists because we humans lack the ability to compartmentalize: our brain can literally associate anything with anything, which is only productive until it’s not.

  • Fields, Not Ideals, Truths, Or Favorites

    —“What are people’s take on the Fermi paradox? Like what is most likely scenario anyone have their own theory on it?”—Sam McPhail

    [T]he question is rather strange – because of the odd human desire for certainty. As far as I know there are a field of possibilities, and we simply do not know. Some of us are able to tolerate fields of possibilities, and some of us are unable to tolerate fields of possibilities. As far as I know this behavior is driven by the feeling of whether one is in or out of control of one’s circumstances, and this conflation exists because we humans lack the ability to compartmentalize: our brain can literally associate anything with anything, which is only productive until it’s not.