(FB 1547246518 Timestamp) SO WHAT DOES GA BRING TO DERRIDA’S TABLE? All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism. GA tells us nothing that we don’t already know. So, what is it that GA brings to the table? What can we deduce from it? What application can we put it to? What purpose does this theory solve? I understand language as consisting of continuous recursive production of transactional measurements and linguistic competition for demonstrated results as improving measurements (truth) and biasing measurements (frauds and deceits). Whether a cliff or a climb is irrelevant. The central problem is one of computational costs in that production versus time and energy costs of that production. In other words, language tends to be pragmatically adjusted for precision over time, given the context. So what? That means we can tell truth and lie. It means that competitive ability highly reflects linguistic precision. It means that competitive ability provides competitive advantage. Because otherwise physical marginal indifference provides too little competitive advantage. So what does postmodern literary drivel bring to an otherwise well understood table? What I hear is that ‘its a useful means of manipulating people by deceit.’ People lacking knowledge, power, achievement, and capital like the priests of the middle east attempting to destroy the empire with christianity judaism and islam. Lies are a competitive strategy. The entire abrahamic artifice is based upon the competitive utility of lying.
Theme: Science
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547316451 Timestamp) THE BIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR RELIGIOSITY? NOPE. by Bill Joslin The biological argument for religiosity I find is flawed. Aaron Hill presented this to me a week or two ago. The mutual exclusion of reason and commitment which is often presented as the result of selection pressures due to religion. I’d offer an alternative hypothesis. we’ve evolved to err on the side of false positives and projected intention because this affords better risk management in regards to predation pressure. Whereas reason/investigation to ferret out a false positive would increase risk of predation. example to illuminate what I mean. An ape in the savanah hears a rustling in the grass beside them. Assuming the rustling is a predator (projected intention) opposed to the wind and fleeing would offer, on the aggregate, a better chance of surviving than investigating to verify the initial assumption wasn’t a false positive. This provides a selection pressure toward “faith” over reason and why reason does not come easily to us. (in other words the biology behind faith is not due to religion but rather predation pressure) Now, to take the biological responses we’ve inherited toward projected intention and false positives as justification for religiousity et al is to jump the is-ought gap. Just because we have these predilections (the “is”) doesn’t mean we “ought” to embrace them. The evidence is in – the incremental extrapolation of social and formal functions away from the church, religiosity and intuition allowed humans to break out of the Malthusian trap, move out from under discretionary rule and begin cultivating markets for agency across scale (individual – organizational, middle class). In short, the placebo effect and predilection for faith doesn’t warrant embracing obfuscation of causal relations when human progress has resulted from disambiguation across multiple domains.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547316451 Timestamp) THE BIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR RELIGIOSITY? NOPE. by Bill Joslin The biological argument for religiosity I find is flawed. Aaron Hill presented this to me a week or two ago. The mutual exclusion of reason and commitment which is often presented as the result of selection pressures due to religion. I’d offer an alternative hypothesis. we’ve evolved to err on the side of false positives and projected intention because this affords better risk management in regards to predation pressure. Whereas reason/investigation to ferret out a false positive would increase risk of predation. example to illuminate what I mean. An ape in the savanah hears a rustling in the grass beside them. Assuming the rustling is a predator (projected intention) opposed to the wind and fleeing would offer, on the aggregate, a better chance of surviving than investigating to verify the initial assumption wasn’t a false positive. This provides a selection pressure toward “faith” over reason and why reason does not come easily to us. (in other words the biology behind faith is not due to religion but rather predation pressure) Now, to take the biological responses we’ve inherited toward projected intention and false positives as justification for religiousity et al is to jump the is-ought gap. Just because we have these predilections (the “is”) doesn’t mean we “ought” to embrace them. The evidence is in – the incremental extrapolation of social and formal functions away from the church, religiosity and intuition allowed humans to break out of the Malthusian trap, move out from under discretionary rule and begin cultivating markets for agency across scale (individual – organizational, middle class). In short, the placebo effect and predilection for faith doesn’t warrant embracing obfuscation of causal relations when human progress has resulted from disambiguation across multiple domains.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547483001 Timestamp) NORMIE VERSION OF “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” (via Bill and Curt) Propertarianism is a method – it’s the completion of the scientific method, and that scientific method applied to EVERYTHING – including language, psychology, social science, economics, politics and group competitive strategies. So while propertarianism consists of the completion of the scientific method, what results from that scientific method, is scientific law, and scientific government, which makes it possible for us to cooperate in the post industrial era. And the benefit of scientific law and scientific government is that it ends parasitism and deceit in politics economics and law, and provides scientific solutions to the conflicts of politics economics and law. In the broader historical sense, propertarianism completes the greco-anglo empirical program to complete the sciences, and to eliminate bias, wishful thinking, deception, superstition, idealism, and pseudoscience from the the public discourse that we call ‘the informational commons”.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547483001 Timestamp) NORMIE VERSION OF “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” (via Bill and Curt) Propertarianism is a method – it’s the completion of the scientific method, and that scientific method applied to EVERYTHING – including language, psychology, social science, economics, politics and group competitive strategies. So while propertarianism consists of the completion of the scientific method, what results from that scientific method, is scientific law, and scientific government, which makes it possible for us to cooperate in the post industrial era. And the benefit of scientific law and scientific government is that it ends parasitism and deceit in politics economics and law, and provides scientific solutions to the conflicts of politics economics and law. In the broader historical sense, propertarianism completes the greco-anglo empirical program to complete the sciences, and to eliminate bias, wishful thinking, deception, superstition, idealism, and pseudoscience from the the public discourse that we call ‘the informational commons”.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1547678816 Timestamp) https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nemewx/scientists-just-made-human-egg-cells-from-human-blood-for-the-first-time
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1547678816 Timestamp) https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nemewx/scientists-just-made-human-egg-cells-from-human-blood-for-the-first-time
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547828677 Timestamp) Some men want prophets, some poets, some law givers, and some scientists. the question is why one would want one or the other. why does the individual and the market demand each? prophets (false promise), poets (possibilities), law givers (prohibitions), scientists (opportunities and limits).
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1547823137 Timestamp) NO IT’S NOT AN IDEOLOGY. IT’S JUST SCIENCE AND ITS APPLICATION. —“You most likely have explained this but in one or two sentences, how would you describe the ideology of Propertarianism? Keep it up and stay reciprocal 🙂 “—A Friend Propertarianism is not an ideology. It’s the completion of the scientific method, and it’s application to human knowledge – particularly social science. Using propertarianism I have described perfect government. And I advocate for perfect government. Because for european peoples, perfect government is possible. That said, it is possible to produce ANY government using propertarianism. You just have to do it truthfully and procedurally. Monarchical, Republican, Classical Liberal, Democratic, Night Watchman (anarchic). This is because all of these can be constructed under rule of law of reciprocity, an independent judiciary, a militia, and a prohibition on falsehood. Conversely, you cannot produce an islamic or jewish or christian, or other theological state because these are predicated on falsehood. This is the “SHORT VERSION” https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156923009867264&set=a.43196237263&type=3
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547828677 Timestamp) Some men want prophets, some poets, some law givers, and some scientists. the question is why one would want one or the other. why does the individual and the market demand each? prophets (false promise), poets (possibilities), law givers (prohibitions), scientists (opportunities and limits).