Source date (UTC): 2019-01-18 21:21:00 UTC
Theme: Science
-
NO IT’S NOT AN IDEOLOGY. IT’S JUST SCIENCE AND ITS APPLICATION. —“You most lik
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
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-18 09:52:00 UTC
-
Untitled
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nemewx/scientists-just-made-human-egg-cells-from-human-blood-for-the-first-timehttps://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nemewx/scientists-just-made-human-egg-cells-from-human-blood-for-the-first-time
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-16 17:46:00 UTC
-
NORMIE VERSION OF “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” (via Bill and Curt) Propertarianism
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”.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 11:23:00 UTC
-
THE BIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR RELIGIOSITY? NOPE. by Bill Joslin The biological arg
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.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 13:07:00 UTC
-
All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide
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.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 22:33:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083854416552308738
Reply addressees: @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083850051489689606
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/1083850051489689606
-
The Pretense of Wisdom in the Tempo of Syllables, and the power of suggestion by
The Pretense of Wisdom in the Tempo of Syllables, and the power of suggestion by loading and framing inarticulate and untestable prose. “Woo Woo” for the post-theological era. Science requires knowledge. “Woo” takes advantage of ignorance. Leftist or right lies are indifferent.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 21:59:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083845877314322432
Reply addressees: @MatthausAnsatz @Imperius__13 @DataDistribute @torinmccabe @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083838163171168257
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/1083838163171168257
-
SO WHAT DOES GA BRING TO DERRIDA’S TABLE? All I see is a series of publications
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.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 17:41:00 UTC
-
CONVERTING PHILOSOPHY INTO SCIENCE (worth repeating) Philosophy can be laundered
CONVERTING PHILOSOPHY INTO SCIENCE
(worth repeating)
Philosophy can be laundered such that philosophizing (imaginary and verbal) and theorizing (existential and actionable) are essentially identical, by the use of:
1) operational language,
2) the full accounting of costs, and
3) declaring the method of decidability in the choice of preferences and goods as those of:
… (a) the feminine equalitarian herd (dysgenic), or
… (b) the masculine hierarchical pack (merit).
However, if you do that you will end up with the natural law by selecting 3b, and a network of excuses and lies by selecting 3a.
You can’t get out of it.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 12:53:00 UTC
-
THE ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OVER METAPHYSICS —“Anytime you utter the word “emerge
THE ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OVER METAPHYSICS
—“Anytime you utter the word “emergent phenomenon”, you automatically need another science. In order to count as such, a science needs to satisfy what constraints?”—
Help me understand this because there is no limit that I can imagine to the scale of a neural (bayesian) network, and no limit to the cognitive ability of a hierarchical and recursive network – other than inputs and outputs. The limits we have today are mechanical – we have built the wrong kind of computers. Even such, at great heat-cost, we are able to replicate those networks.
So for ‘speech’ to emerge just like for the touch ui to emerge we require hardware (biological ware). So somehow (random selection, intentional manipulation) the real-world interface determines what can be ‘identified, predicted, and judged’ by that recursive, hierarchical, network.
—“real”–
As far as I know real = existential = persistent = observable = observable directly, by instrumentation, or by deduction from deduction using instrumentation, where that instrumentation can be either physical(external) or logical (internal).
As far as I know ‘real’ in the colloquial, refers to ACTIONABLE.
As far as I know the only open question is an empty verbalism: experiences are constructed from a combination of perception with memories of perceptions, limited by the grammar of conception, which is brain structure, which appears to be little more than the neurological homunculus – which the more I understand, the less ‘human’ I feel.
So do experience (concepts, etc) exist, or do they have the potential be experienced, and do they persist if and only if some number of us share the potential to experience them?
Once we operationalize these questions they turn out to be quite simple.
Do unicorns exist?
Well, No.
Do does the word unicorn exist?
Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) of that word. So it we have knowledge of it. That knowledge persists in some distributed and fragmentary form. But it only exists as POTENTIAL. Whereas that which we claim exists already does so.
Does that idea of a unicorn exist?
Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) that can be accessed by that word, and using that index (word) we can recall some combination of fragmentary images of a unicorn (mine are the scenes in Blade Runner and after that, Legend of all things).
So in Does the referent exist?
Well, No.
Does the index of the referent exist?
Well, Yes.
Does knowledge of the referent exist?
Well, Yes.
Yet again, we see, that a series stated in operational language solves the problem of the sophism of reductive questions.
Unicorns don’t exist. An index (word) appears to have little or no direct sensation of itself. An index evokes a network of fragments, that recursively reflect additional fragments, and so on until we have exhausted our memories. the cortex (brain) is a continuous prediction system using fragments , and we can apply that prediction system to the real, the linguistic, and the imagined.
What we call mind, probably an consequence of either cooperation, communication or language, or the sequence in total, consists largely in the direction of that forecasting (attention) and recursion (concentration).
Is knowing this the same as experience? well no. Knowing this is however, defensive: eliminating the errors, bises, and deceits, that we and others engage in, with ourselves and others.
WHAT ABOUT “NEED” – HUMAN DEMAND FOR COMFORTING FALSEHOODS
Demand for Falsehoods today are driven by signal pressure and alienation pressure. In the past they were driven by signal pressure, competitive pressure, alienation pressure, and suffering pressure.
We cannot fix signal pressure since it is necessary for selection, but we can fix mindfulness. We can’t fix alienation pressure but we can improve mindfulness and the civic society to reduce it. We can limit competitive pressure through the civic society and political ethnocentrism. And we can dramatically (and have) eliminated suffering pressure through mindfulness and medicine.
Yes, the truth is that comforting lies (sophistry pseudoscience, the occult and denial), cults and groups, and sedation by alcohol, an drugs are CHEAP and DISORGANIZED means of providing mindfulness in the face of signal, alienation, competitive, and suffering pressures.
However, we can likewise take and ORGANIZED and EXPENSIVE means of serving those market demands by non false and healthy and productive means.
But like all contemporary problems
(a) the collection of rent-seekers that will be displaced by the efforts to produce that order will fight desperately against these reforms (improvements) just as they will the legal and financial, because rent seeking that leaves people subject to pressures but gives them false hope is the most profitable industry of all.
(b) not enough of us (yet) have taken up arms to alter that circumstance.
NO MORE LIES
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 11:39:00 UTC