by Martin Štěpán I have used the term “invisible hand of nature” in the last post. This is deliberate to create an association between nature and market because that is what nature is, a market. A self-correcting system, constantly trying to approach an equilibrium it can never reach because there’s too many variables involved. I expect anyone with a basic understanding of economics without a belief in evolution to have much firmer grasp of natural laws than some leftist defending evolution just to pawn the religious conservatives because economic laws are natural laws. One only needs to start accounting for exchanges of both positive and negative value on demonstrated interests (property-in-toto). Illustration: A rabbit meets a fox. An exchange is initiated. Fox has the option to avoid the exchange or spend calories for a chance to obtain more calories. This will generally be preferable option for the fox. However, such exchange is highly disadvantageous for a rabbit because he spends his life in exchange for nothing. The option to simply refuse isn’t open to him but he can spend his own calories in exchange for a chance to survive. Neither option is productive for him but that’s just the way it is. The outcome is either that fox gets more calories that it can then spend as it chooses, for instance, to make more foxes, and that the local supply of rabbits goes down and increases their value, or that the fox wastes its calories, is less successful and risk losing its chance at reproduction while the same happens to the rabbit but his chance to increase the supply of rabbits remains positive. On the market of nature, we’re all both entrepreneurs and products at the same time.
Theme: Science
-
An Agentist Approach to Divinity
by Ferdinand Pizarro I lend a quasi-religious interpretation to information (order), but I tend to have a more agentist approach to my conception of “god” and/or divinity, which has the effect of providing sufficient interface for approximation of godliness. In other words, I don’t see information as god, but the net production of information (dissipation of entropy) as godliness. Thus those of us who can organize man & matter for the production of order (social, material, aesthetic) are “divine” so-to-speak. Tough subject. I always “feel” a sort of energy from within, a youthful spring, when I contemplate it, and I do so often. I found this in my notes from 2017, which you may clear up some of my hazy thinking by example:
“The speakers of lies, subverters of truth, producers of confusion, the underminers of trust, the agents of chaos; the primordial enemies of human agency, excellence, beauty & the order that we, The Truthful Ones, impose on the Cosmos by incremental mastery over self, entropy & the human condition—the enemy for short.”
This is essentially the only way I’ve found to speak about gods without lying.
-
An Agentist Approach to Divinity
by Ferdinand Pizarro I lend a quasi-religious interpretation to information (order), but I tend to have a more agentist approach to my conception of “god” and/or divinity, which has the effect of providing sufficient interface for approximation of godliness. In other words, I don’t see information as god, but the net production of information (dissipation of entropy) as godliness. Thus those of us who can organize man & matter for the production of order (social, material, aesthetic) are “divine” so-to-speak. Tough subject. I always “feel” a sort of energy from within, a youthful spring, when I contemplate it, and I do so often. I found this in my notes from 2017, which you may clear up some of my hazy thinking by example:
“The speakers of lies, subverters of truth, producers of confusion, the underminers of trust, the agents of chaos; the primordial enemies of human agency, excellence, beauty & the order that we, The Truthful Ones, impose on the Cosmos by incremental mastery over self, entropy & the human condition—the enemy for short.”
This is essentially the only way I’ve found to speak about gods without lying.
-
Sigh.
@Azure Amaranthine You really aren’t up to this category of arguments – or concepts. Let me help you. 1 – The culmination of 20th century investigation into the scientific method was that there is no via-positiva scientific method – nor is there any via-positiva logic. Instead, the scientific method consists of producing testifiable testimony regardless of via positiva method of investigation, and the logics test the consistency of constant relations from given premises. 2 – In case you didn’t grasp it the first time: Determinism(ideal), Deterministic(within limits), Determinable (within limits), just as Truth (ideal), Truth (within limits of speech), and Truthful (within limits of testimony). 3) The universe is deterministic (describable by rules of arbitrary precision), but not does not fit determinism (the scale of the universe and causal density at lowest scales makes a general rule of infinite precision (at present) unlikely, whereas we can, and have, produced (identified) many general rules of arbitrary(scale within paradigm) precision. So gain, Please. Dispense your sophims upon those who are impressed, by your desperate search for dominance expression, and leave those of us who are adults (and men) to do our duty: protecting the informational commons from overconfident men and solipsistic women.
-
Sigh.
@Azure Amaranthine You really aren’t up to this category of arguments – or concepts. Let me help you. 1 – The culmination of 20th century investigation into the scientific method was that there is no via-positiva scientific method – nor is there any via-positiva logic. Instead, the scientific method consists of producing testifiable testimony regardless of via positiva method of investigation, and the logics test the consistency of constant relations from given premises. 2 – In case you didn’t grasp it the first time: Determinism(ideal), Deterministic(within limits), Determinable (within limits), just as Truth (ideal), Truth (within limits of speech), and Truthful (within limits of testimony). 3) The universe is deterministic (describable by rules of arbitrary precision), but not does not fit determinism (the scale of the universe and causal density at lowest scales makes a general rule of infinite precision (at present) unlikely, whereas we can, and have, produced (identified) many general rules of arbitrary(scale within paradigm) precision. So gain, Please. Dispense your sophims upon those who are impressed, by your desperate search for dominance expression, and leave those of us who are adults (and men) to do our duty: protecting the informational commons from overconfident men and solipsistic women.
-
PEA BRAINS ARE A REAL THING NOW (science humor)(but yeah, really)
PEA BRAINS ARE A REAL THING NOW
(science humor)(but yeah, really)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190829150824.htm
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-30 15:09:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167454185341759488
-
Yep. Agreed. But until we find a candidate case I can’t go there. It’s probably
Yep. Agreed. But until we find a candidate case I can’t go there. It’s probably just general vulnerability during natal development, and god knows how few molecules of whatever at what point produce developmental failure. So likely both direct(viral) and indirect (immune) causes.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-30 14:57:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167451302881837056
Reply addressees: @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167444819137970178
IN REPLY TO:
@JayMan471
@curtdoolittle https://t.co/wJYCGEsOmZ
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167444819137970178
-
I haven’t seen anything new on this subject in over twenty years. AFAIK, it’s a
I haven’t seen anything new on this subject in over twenty years. AFAIK, it’s a family tendency, it’s caused in utero, it’s immuno-related (like many things), and a developmental defect (left handedness, sexuality, prefrontal maturity).
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-30 14:31:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167444625981943810
Reply addressees: @JayMan471
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167227882369933313
IN REPLY TO:
@JayMan471
I said that this would be everywhere, I didn’t think it would be so fast.
What happens when they talk about the other things these type of studies have shown?
“Major new study says no single ‘gay gene’ exists, but genetics do have an impact” https://t.co/pYNIczAvpaOriginal post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167227882369933313
-
The principle difference between wisdom literatures: history, science, philosoph
The principle difference between wisdom literatures: history, science, philosophy, wisdom lit (china, india), theology(semitia, europa), and mysticism is in the dimensions of permissible content and operations on it. Philosophy is a derivation of law, and Science of Testimony.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 15:38:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167099217933996039
Reply addressees: @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167098504214437893
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz Syntax no. Grammar yes. Grammar meaning “Rules of continuous disambiguation limited to given constraints and the vocabulary likewise limited ot such given constraints.”
In other words science, philosophy, theology (formal) vs opinion, justification, moralizing, psychologizing.Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1167098504214437893
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz Syntax no. Grammar yes. Grammar meaning “Rules of continuous disambiguation limited to given constraints and the vocabulary likewise limited ot such given constraints.”
In other words science, philosophy, theology (formal) vs opinion, justification, moralizing, psychologizing.Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1167098504214437893
-
One does not agree with evidence, it is simply what it is. And empirically you a
One does not agree with evidence, it is simply what it is. And empirically you are incorrect. Which doesn’t surprise me. 😉
Now go play in the kiddie pool and leave adult arguments for adult minds.
Don’t waste my time. Thanks.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 15:29:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167097054415507461
Reply addressees: @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167095287480864769
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/1167095287480864769