by Brandon Hayes
—“Do you believe there are any objective measures of good and evil?”—Tim Allen Musse
I would use the term Righteous and Evil. Evil < Bad < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good > Righteous Measures for a given action are put up against a test of reciprocity. Evil is harm done for harms sake. Good = Productive Bad = Unproductive Righteous is the extinguishing of Evil.
by Brandon Hayes
—“Do you believe there are any objective measures of good and evil?”—Tim Allen Musse
I would use the term Righteous and Evil. Evil < Bad < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good > Righteous Measures for a given action are put up against a test of reciprocity. Evil is harm done for harms sake. Good = Productive Bad = Unproductive Righteous is the extinguishing of Evil.
(LessWrong February 25, 2020 9:07 PM) [I]’ve been working on the problem since about ’92 and like many things, the curatorial function performed by the top handful of intellectuals alive at any given time is not able to keep pace with the volume of pseudoscience, sophistry, ideology, propaganda, and marketing over the past thirty or more years. This is not the first time there has been a rebellion against science and reason. It happened in the ancient world and resulted in the medieval dark ages. That the rebellion against science and reason is nothing more than a reflection of a rebellion against western evolutionary pressure is less obvious. If not for immigration it appears that we would have succeeded in falsifying the Jewish pseudoscientific counter-enlightenment just as we survived the German Rationalists (kant et all an the german secular theologists) and the French Moralists (Rousseau et al and the French Revolution). The difference being that the Jewish counter enlightenment (exemplified in Cantor-Bohr, Boas-Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Trotsky-Strauss-Kristol, Derrida, Friedan, and ongoing by Krugman-Stiglitz-DeLong et al ) is so broadly based, covers the entire scope of the disciplines, and is united in the past century, just as were Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the ancient world, to resist Evolution. Or stated more simply, the current debate remains the same, which is dysgenic female equalitarian strategies, vs the eugenic, male, hierarchical strategies. In other words, both the ancient world religions and the modern world ‘cults’ of pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial, are united in a single purpose, and that is the suppression of evolution by competitive, hierarchical, market meritocracies, of any kind, whether genetic (hindu), bureaucratic (chinese), or technical (european). So in summary, (a) democracy combined with underclass or out-class immigration has created continued market demand for falsehoods. (b) resistance to the increase in market demand for falsehoods has created market demand for counter-arguments. (c) monopoly democracy (selection of priorities for the application of scarce resources) is incapable of suppression the increase in demand for falsehoods. (d) the Finance, State, Academy, Media, Entertainment, Advertising industries benefit from the the sale and distribution of these falsehoods. So yes, market demand for falsehood is increasing market demand for conflict, which cannot be resolved due to the cheap cost and incentives for the distribution of falsehoods, and suppressed the production and distribution of truths. And that is why yes, intelligence, education, the quality of information, and the curatorial function of intellectuals have all declined. Either you have a eugenic polity whose wealth is limited to productivity independent of increases in population, or you will have a dysgenic polity whose accumulated genetic, behavioral, cultural, institutional, territorial capital are consumed by a small number of generations. This isn’t a novel theory. The cycles of rise and decline have been studied by multiple historians for thousands of years. The chinese found a method of persistence through vicious prosecution of criminals, intolerant colonization and forcible integration, and perhaps most importantly agrarian and financial eugenics that over three generations continuously cull family after family from the reproductive pool. America was founded by eugenicists -they just didn’t use that terminology. They used ‘people of good character’. And we maintained the eugenic movement through the first world war. It was the intentional effort of the post war eastern european ashkenazi that worked full time every day to underming every single institution. Conspiracy? No It’s their way of life. Just like islam is the muslim way of life. Just like sovereignty and markets are the european way of life. Just like harmony, hierarchy and bureaucracy are the chinese way of life. Unsubscribe (from all emails from LessWrong) or Change your notifications settings
(LessWrong February 25, 2020 9:07 PM) [I]’ve been working on the problem since about ’92 and like many things, the curatorial function performed by the top handful of intellectuals alive at any given time is not able to keep pace with the volume of pseudoscience, sophistry, ideology, propaganda, and marketing over the past thirty or more years. This is not the first time there has been a rebellion against science and reason. It happened in the ancient world and resulted in the medieval dark ages. That the rebellion against science and reason is nothing more than a reflection of a rebellion against western evolutionary pressure is less obvious. If not for immigration it appears that we would have succeeded in falsifying the Jewish pseudoscientific counter-enlightenment just as we survived the German Rationalists (kant et all an the german secular theologists) and the French Moralists (Rousseau et al and the French Revolution). The difference being that the Jewish counter enlightenment (exemplified in Cantor-Bohr, Boas-Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Trotsky-Strauss-Kristol, Derrida, Friedan, and ongoing by Krugman-Stiglitz-DeLong et al ) is so broadly based, covers the entire scope of the disciplines, and is united in the past century, just as were Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the ancient world, to resist Evolution. Or stated more simply, the current debate remains the same, which is dysgenic female equalitarian strategies, vs the eugenic, male, hierarchical strategies. In other words, both the ancient world religions and the modern world ‘cults’ of pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial, are united in a single purpose, and that is the suppression of evolution by competitive, hierarchical, market meritocracies, of any kind, whether genetic (hindu), bureaucratic (chinese), or technical (european). So in summary, (a) democracy combined with underclass or out-class immigration has created continued market demand for falsehoods. (b) resistance to the increase in market demand for falsehoods has created market demand for counter-arguments. (c) monopoly democracy (selection of priorities for the application of scarce resources) is incapable of suppression the increase in demand for falsehoods. (d) the Finance, State, Academy, Media, Entertainment, Advertising industries benefit from the the sale and distribution of these falsehoods. So yes, market demand for falsehood is increasing market demand for conflict, which cannot be resolved due to the cheap cost and incentives for the distribution of falsehoods, and suppressed the production and distribution of truths. And that is why yes, intelligence, education, the quality of information, and the curatorial function of intellectuals have all declined. Either you have a eugenic polity whose wealth is limited to productivity independent of increases in population, or you will have a dysgenic polity whose accumulated genetic, behavioral, cultural, institutional, territorial capital are consumed by a small number of generations. This isn’t a novel theory. The cycles of rise and decline have been studied by multiple historians for thousands of years. The chinese found a method of persistence through vicious prosecution of criminals, intolerant colonization and forcible integration, and perhaps most importantly agrarian and financial eugenics that over three generations continuously cull family after family from the reproductive pool. America was founded by eugenicists -they just didn’t use that terminology. They used ‘people of good character’. And we maintained the eugenic movement through the first world war. It was the intentional effort of the post war eastern european ashkenazi that worked full time every day to underming every single institution. Conspiracy? No It’s their way of life. Just like islam is the muslim way of life. Just like sovereignty and markets are the european way of life. Just like harmony, hierarchy and bureaucracy are the chinese way of life. Unsubscribe (from all emails from LessWrong) or Change your notifications settings
Postmodernism is one of the counter-enlightenments against science and reason. It’s the most successful because it’s the purest form of sophistry yet: social construction by sophistry without dependence on theology.
#Conservatives #Republican @realDonaldTrump
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 15:01:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232682000273825792
Truth isn’t manipulation. It’s either information or it’s discipline. https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/truth-isnt-manipulation-its-either-information-or-its-discipline/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 21:35:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232418802207481857
—“Concerted, organized effort to shame western people into a pattern where were easily manipulated.” Like EXACTLY like what YOU do? You do realize that you perpetrate literally EVERY part of this against women. Of course you do, you’ve just found a way to capitalize on it.”— Crazy Woman
Truth isn’t manipulation. it’s prevention of manipulation. 😉 If we force truth then we can engage in trade. If you don’t want to trade and you want to preserve manipulation then why shouldn’t we conquer and enserf you? We certainly can. Easily. You are using GSRRM in your post (you’re probably mentally ill or mentally underdeveloped). Around 40% of women are mentally ill. We are just getting our arms around why that is. We aren’t sure yet. If you were an intellectually honest, mentally stable, and engaged in reciprocity (seeking exchanges), then you would simply say ‘Yes this is true, but what can we do about it?” You didn’t do that. Because you are a bad person.
—“Concerted, organized effort to shame western people into a pattern where were easily manipulated.” Like EXACTLY like what YOU do? You do realize that you perpetrate literally EVERY part of this against women. Of course you do, you’ve just found a way to capitalize on it.”— Crazy Woman
Truth isn’t manipulation. it’s prevention of manipulation. 😉 If we force truth then we can engage in trade. If you don’t want to trade and you want to preserve manipulation then why shouldn’t we conquer and enserf you? We certainly can. Easily. You are using GSRRM in your post (you’re probably mentally ill or mentally underdeveloped). Around 40% of women are mentally ill. We are just getting our arms around why that is. We aren’t sure yet. If you were an intellectually honest, mentally stable, and engaged in reciprocity (seeking exchanges), then you would simply say ‘Yes this is true, but what can we do about it?” You didn’t do that. Because you are a bad person.
“The Case Against Reality” The case for woo woo pseudoscience. This is pseudoscientific nonsense. We see actionable reality at actionable scale, using some pretty amazing instrumentation. We ‘predict’ (imagine consequences from) our model of the world, that is not real. That’s simply a lack of discipline. I can and have, and others can and have, explained consciousness – and with recent work it’s not even complicated. I’d like to see the ‘math’ he’s talking about because I’m pretty sure he’s hand-waving. He’s using Truth as an undefined ‘woo woo’ term (hand waving). A fitness payoff (more correctly, return on cost of continuous production) An organism that sees the world as it is (processes unnecessary information) that models the world independent of it’s capacity for action will be out-competed by an organism that reduces the world model necessary for action to the minimum necessary for action, and just competes on what works regardless of any model of the world. Well, this is only true to the point at which organisms can voluntarily cooperate – because there are no competitors to return on cooperation. The camera obscura, and the camera, are a purely physical thing without consciousness. Yet we see what the camera records, without manipulating it. Sure, we can’t see all the same colors. Some of us see more than others. But that’s a difference in resolution of color not a difference in any ‘truth’ we see. “Space and time don’t exist independent of our perception.” Well that’s demonstrably false. Space and time are vocabulary we use to describe what we perceive through sensory information. “There are other consciousnesses out there”. OMG…. I would eat these morons for lunch. https://youtu.be/dd6CQCbk2ro
—“It would also be cool to watch you debate theologians. Not pansy ones either but the few who are also high level scientists.”— A Friend
[I]t‘s a very simple argument: What is a theologian claiming: Good and wisdom, or True and demonstrable? What can they testify to? How can they demonstrate it? How can they warranty it? What is their incentive? What are the costs if they lie? Why is the world of science good for man, and the world of religion devolutionary for man? Why is science of man good and the actions of god evil? Why did christians jews and muslims create a dark age? Why are the churches full of our least competent people? Why did the churches fail to reform? Why did Europe abandon christianity? Why did the evangelical movement succeed and why are Americans leaving the church and dividing half secular and half evangelical? What should the church have done when theology was continuously defeated by science and proven false? Why did the church resist literacy of the people. Why did the church resist the printing of the bible in the people’s language? Why did the monastic orders arise if not in response tot he corruption of the church? Why did the church need the vikings to fight the crusades? Was christianity adopted or was it enforced in the past as islam is still enforced today? Did the christians destroy the ancient world, it’s monuments, it’s arts and letters, its academies, its accumulated knowledge, and instead of restoring roman order, aristocracy, literacy, and greek knowledge, drag Europe and the pagan peoples into dark ages? Why is the abrahamic method of deceit used by jews, christians and muslims used again by marxists, postmodernists, and feminist to repeat the same destruction of the old world to destroy the new – this time with false promise of economic and political reward instead of life after death and political reward? Why do theologians use the same arguments as the marxists, postmodernists, and feminists who destroy this world. I have never found a theological argument I cannot defeat. We know too much now. Hence (a) there currently are, and have been, many gods. (b) all gods exist as information, (c) this information exists in the minds of man, (d) this information influences individual and group behavior (e) this behavior is often good, but vulnerable to conquest – which was the purpose of the church. (f) but as a consequence it produces an addiction response when threatened, and is defended by the abrahamic method of deceit rather than just the simple statement “I have faith that if I live my life by jesus’ teachings that my life, the life of those around me, the life of my polity, and of mankind, in this world, and in the next if there is one, will be better than if I did not.” If you must argue your faith. you have none. Faith needs no argument. That is what it means to have faith.