 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
|
It’s the antithesis of superrationality to presume that hypergamy will ever cease to exist, because a mix of R and K reproductive strategies is nature’s necessarily bottom-up mechanism for annealing resilency of the species. Top-down organization and teachings can never be resilient and dynamically adaptive to the unpredictable multi-dimensional solution space of our universe, unless the universe becomes computable which would thus require everything to be knowable a priori, which is the same as saying that nothing could exist. For all information to travel instantly to top-down controllers would require the speed-of-light to be not quantized, thus the past and future light cones of relativity would collapse into undifferentiated. Our very existence requires friction so that information is relativistic. Top-down systems can never be resilent (i.e. survive long-term), because they can’t adapt decentralized with low capital decentralized inputs. This is the fundamental reason that Kurzweil and his Singularity is entirely impossible. How can an AI which depends on a few dozen chip fabs be any where near as resilient as nature’s decentralized procreation via zillions of daily mutations and chemical reactions. Feeding entropy into AI is a top-down centralized process, even if the AI is feeding itself entropy, the limiting factor is the lack of non-deterministic (i.e. randomly bottom-up) chaos (i.e. Butterfly Effect) in the initial procreation conditions. In short, AI can only become truly alive if it becomes imperfect and randomized in it’s instantiation of itself, in which case it’s computational superiority will just be tool and implausible to attain universal dominance. Nature abhors a (n entropic) vacuum and thus can never be universally dominated by any given phenomenon. I had tried to explain this before: http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.htmlThus any belief system that asserts that a universally superior superrationality could be the basis of the improvement of humankind is an insane belief system that is directed towards destruction of the species. It’s not surprising that such insanity foments amongst those who have been indoctrinated by collectivized organizational institutions such as religion or leftism (i.e. both the right and left of the political sprectrum). Organized religion (but not necessarily a personal, private theology) exists to organize the center the bell curve. ecash 11 Nov., 9:01am
He wants to invent some concept that is higher than nature. For him that is religion and God.
ecash 11 Nov., 9:03am
Western intellectuals think their intellect somehow defeats nature. How so?
ecash 11 Nov., 9:03am
Religion was an attempt to control nature. And it necessarily leaks/fails, because nature abhors a perfected, non-existence.
ecash 11 Nov., 9:06am
For example, CC’s ethics are actually evil. He wants to control men because he thinks they will father children they can not support. But this results in a clusterfucked totalitarianism. Man can not defeat nature.
ecash 11 Nov., 9:10am
> You argue that fighting nature is counter productive .. they argue that it is a necessary first step
Precisely reductionalist. Astute.
ecash 11 Nov., 9:13am
Nature anneals because everything in the Universe is necessarily relativistic. Otherwise everything would be nececessary computable and thus static (predictable).
The same entropic issue applies to the coming famine 2020 - 2032: Our database on wheat from 1259 forward (excluding our data on the Roman Empire grain prices), reveals that there is a serious risk of famine from 2020 onward. It appears that we may very well enter a 12-year rally into the year 2032. Our Bifurcation Models are reflecting also a gap in time between 2020 and 2031 suggesting a trend appears to last for that period of time.
The downside of taxation, and particularly inheritance taxes, has driven farmers to sell their land to conglomerates just to pay the inheritance taxes. This has resulted in genetically altering crops to increase yield. While genetically altered crops do not really appear to present a major health concern as many seem to argue, the real danger is the fact that during the past 100 years, 94% of the world’s edible seed varieties have vanished.
The downside of socialism which has attacked the rich, we have sacrificed the historical model in our food supply for corporate decision making that bribes politicians handing them their needed money to remain in office with each election. The consequence of this corruption has been the concentration of our food supply into an ever-shrinking basket of diversity. Today, 75% of the world’s food comes from only 12 plants and 5 animal species (see source). This lack of biodiversity has seriously increased this risk of widespread crop disease, and throw in the climate change turning colder, corporate decisions are not the way to protect society. Corporate boards are typically dominated by lawyers and accountants. They are not scientists nor do they even make proper decisions for investment or currency hedging. Corporations will never be able to cope with a sudden change and then make decisions that will impact the world. Major companies, such as Monsanto, could find themselves in control of the fate of human existence with the decisions being made by lawyers and accountants fixated on their bottom-line.
The period ahead, 2020-2032, appears to offer something much more different. While politicians keep pushing Global Warming because they can tax emissions, the risk of a monumental human disaster lies in the opposite direction.
>>This lack of biodiversity has seriously increased this risk of widespread crop disease, and throw in the climate change turning colder, corporate decisions are not the way to protect society. > > A side-effect of anti-entropic policies > > This not only applies to crop disease, but human diseases. > > Commerce seems to shuffle around entropy. Humans now have many more degrees of freedom, but this has reduced the natural entropy (aka a biodiverse environment) in which those humans live. Destroying the order that is man, so the universe can progress. Whether the species is resilient or not is what we were discussing. |
|
|
|
I also am not sure we can let women off the hook here. They are absolutely to blame for the way things have gone. They are responsible for choosing the fathers of their children and I'm not willing to let them off that easy.
[…]
We need strong women, but not in this 21st century, "independent woman" bullshit type of way. We need strong women that are capable of fulfilling their roles in the marriage/family equation and not treated like little fragile, princesses. If only women could take pride in their reproductive gift and see how their finite eggs can't just be given out to fucking dirtbag, abusive assholes and liberal voting cucks. sigh.
The analysis I presented seems to indicate that women are biologically incapable of taking responsibility as you wish. And the argument is that is a necessarily irrationality that nature designed in order to maximize the resilience of the species as I explained. To blame women is somewhat analogous to blaming a 5 year old for spilling milk. Thus I conclude only men can enforce such responsibility. Thus I blame men. The Bible states (apparently wisely) that a woman is the rib of a man. Westerners would like to deny it and attempt to prove nature is incorrect and of course cull themselves in the process of trying to defeat nature. Men who think females should be partners and not a rib, are apparently suffering from programmed self-destruction. These words do not need to be my opinion, rather they could be facts. The offended should attack the claimed facts and not me. I direct myself towards the most convincing facts, so if someone wants to change my mind, they need to present a more cogent exposition than what I have thus far. But maybe no one is responsible for a cycle, as thesis (logic) requires an antithesis (irrational/passion/art), e.g. Teena Marie from the 1980s. Fire & Desire.Maybe women are more susceptible to this sort of manipulation, but then why are 21st century men so fucking pathetic too?
Because ostensibly nature is culling the herd of weak, oestrogenized males as the repeating cycle repeats yet again. Weak, oestrogenized males for example believe in vegetarianism propaganda lies thus don’t eat enough red meat for testosterone and other widespread propaganda lies. Reacting to that blog post from JAD, other than the disseminated TB I been battling (hopefully to finally be cleared from my body if not already, presuming I am able to culture it and determine which antibiotics it is not resistant to), I have a very lean and muscular body (52.5 years of age), with a resting pulse around 40, normal cholesterol, triglycerides, blood sugar, etc.. And I eat abundant red meat, salt, and fish daily. I also eat vegetables. I try to minimize my carbos. I do not need gravy. I like the way nature made the food taste. Broiled beef medium rare with salt, is delicious. Pork is not the best meat (pork has insufficient iron to be a red meat, insufficient omega-3, and pigs don’t have the digestion system to primarily eat cellulose) to eat and one should favor beef, buffalo, venison, and possibly lamb. Lightly steam vegetables with no salt at all. Fruit as peeled, nothing added. No coffee, no soft drinks, only water and 100% natural pineapple juice. No alcohol. Absolutely nothing with sugar added or none of the Frankenfood poisons such as the various names for obfuscating high fructose corn syrup. Nearly all of our food and drink is at some time in plastic containers which contain BPA which is claimed to cause males to have too much estrogen and potentially contributing to the statistically documented huge breasts and precocious puberty in females. The people[essentially farm animals] are being attacked with propaganda and daily poison. Read my prior post about how USA female breasts are now McFat Up Sized as compared to the rest of the world. That is not eating fat which is causing the problem, but rather it is the carbos and Frankenfood poisons and hormones in the food and water supply. Nearly all of the vegetable oils that are promoted as healthy are actually poisons. The oils which are maligned as unhealthy saturated fats such as virgin coconut oil, are the most healthy. Although cooking in oil is always unhealthy regardless of the type of oil bath employed. The Zionists think goyim humans are cows/sheep. So far, it seems they’re successfully demonstrating that humans are animals who can be enslaved mentally and poisoned with anything the elite want them to ingest. EDIT: this PhD female computer scientist appears to be intellectually top-notch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zoa3xkzgFkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_S._McKinleyhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.115.1819&rep=rep1&type=pdf[…] although there appears to be potential prior art similar to my ideas that have appeared later than the book I read. Note I independently arrived at my ideas (after about a day of contemplating the 1996 book) and have not yet read that 2003 research paper to compare. |
|
|
|
Australia will collapse: https://medium.com/@shelby_78386/the-industrial-age-was-about-fighting-over-control-over-fixed-capital-assets-1c1b31d5cb8ehttps://medium.com/@matt_11659/matt-barrie-australias-economy-is-a-house-of-cards-6877adb3fb2fAlso another follow-up on my prior post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg24655179#msg24655179First time I have seen this 9/11 weirdness: https://busy.org/wtc7/@sift666/re-matlind-re-wakeupnd-the-conspiracies-that-won-t-go-away-brother-of-9-11-victim-claim-the-us-orchestrated-the-atrocity-as-new-study-shows-it-was-20170908t190025014zThe prior link is a magazine cover from 1967 and David Rockfeller’s watch was set to time of 9-11. He and his brother Nelson Rockefeller were instrumental in the construction of the twin towers. Someone holding the physical magazine: http://www.reddirtreport.com/dust-devil-dreams/what-goesBuy a copy on eBay: https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/CiUAAOSwH-dZ8O8-/s-l225.jpgRemember it was Nicholas Rockefeller who warned Aaron Russo about 9/11 before it occurred: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuinaIm-kd4P.S. Bill Cooper predicted 9/11 on my 36th birthday. My eye was gouged out on 12-1-1999 not 9-11-2001. Wait, what does your eye have to do with it? Why are two quantum particles entangled at a great distance, i.e. quantum entanglement. That my eye was gouged on a date that contains all the same digits (presume 0 means nothing and to be ignored) isn’t significant statistically. Yet combined with the fact that only known person to be recorded predicting 9/11 would occur soon and be blamed on Osama Bin Ladin did so on the exact day of my 36th birthday. We can presume that anyone who had predicted in a recorded interview such 9/11 details would have been exalted on the Internet, thus we can safely conclude Bill Cooper is the only such person to do so. Couple this with the fact that the Newsweek magazine cover of David Rockefeller wherein the hands of his watch are apparently set to time of 9 and 11, was published on April 3, 1967. And my ex who was instrumental in my eye being gouged out has her birthday on April 3, 1976. Combine this the fact that after the first bombing of one of the twin towers in the 1990s, I was telling my ex that was just a test run and that the Oklahoma bombing would be repeated at the twin towers eventually. Thus I was thinking very much like Bill Cooper, even though I did not know about him at that time. Then combine that with my involvement in Bitcoin (arguing it is a creation of the Zionists) and my (yet unpublished) work on solving the centralization and scaling issues that plaque proof-of-work and proof-of-stake. I feel like there is some destiny involved here. I doubt even David Rockefeller consciously set his watch to a time of 9 and 11. P.S. additional exquisite scientific analysis that concludes 9/11 was a military operation. Hey it could be destiny! I doubt he set it to 9/11 consciously either and that's why I find some of it so unreal. Because if these type of things weren't done consciously, then it's either insane coincidence or something else. I do think though, that if a person looks hard enough those types of things can be found everywhere, yet not really have any meaning. I'm gonna leave it at, "very interesting" :-) Btw, I am not 100% certain the resolution on the magazine photo is sufficient to conclude the hands were on 9 and 11. Would need to see an original. Well I agree except I do not see how this “things” can be found everywhere. There is only one 9/11, only one person who publicly predicted it, and I do not know of anyone with my circumstances in relationship to it. There may be others given 7 billion humans on this planet. I would like to know their stories and circumstances. I think it is important to understand that my eye incident and the involvement with my ex turned my life away from being a multi-millionaire working for major software companies in the silicon valley, towards being destitute and being in the position to take a great interest in Bitcoin. She and the eye incident were an instrumental factor (not in a positive way however, she was not aiding me and the opposite actually) to me being here working on what I am working on now. Also the TB was instrumental in delaying me such that did not make many of the mistakes that others made before me, such as issuing an ICO or other investment security. Also the delay allowed for me to further refine my understanding of the technological issues. EDIT: Ah the watch was indeed set to roughly 15 minutes before 11. Holly shit. An explanation for the 999 in my eye incident date as pertains to this correlation with the 9/11 event. They basterdized Jesus’ probable birthdate of 9/11 into a horrific emergency. And 999 was the first proposed nationwide emergency # (as 666 inverted). |
|
|
|
Charlie Lee directly answered someone asking about a 51% segwit theft https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/930539604897173504Charlie Lee [LTC] @SatoshiLite "En réponse à @TheEscapening That's fud. Miners cannot steal from Bitcoin or Litecoin SegWit addresses even with 100% hashpower. This is because users are now enforcing the softfork. Please educate and stop spreading misinformation." He mentions ressources to read further. I am not technical enough to comment. I replied there and told him why he is incorrect. I also stated there is nothing in the 3 part series he cited which supports his argument. Feel free to ping me if he replies. I do not monitor Twitter. The recent pump of Bitcoin Cash proves nothing about you being right about your overall hypothesis in this thread ("Will BCH kill BTCSegWit while reinstating BTCSatoshi?")
You should be smart enough to see that the thread title is a question. The post of mine which you quoted, claimed nothing about whether the thread title’s question had been answered. Bitcoin Segwit tied with the Lightning Network tied with Atomic Swaps tied with other ALT coins with the same (Segwit; LN; Atomic Swaps... for alternative payment channels and additional features like privacy etc.) is an infinitely better road map.
Incorrect. I’m not going to participate in a detailed technical argument with you right now about all the various problems with SegWit, Lightning Networks, side-chains, etc.. Not a priority focus of mine to convince or argue about it in great detail at this time. In short, I have more important things to do. I must say I have changed my opinion about BCH. I still don't like it
I don’t like SegWit and Lightning Networks. So I dislike BCH less than I dislike that insecure shit they are attempting to destroy Bitcoin with. That is not to say that I like Bitcoin at all, because it is political clusterfuck of whale and miner control. But I need Bitcoin to be a reliable reserve currency for our crypto arena. So insecure shit is the worst of the worst. Bitcoin scales fine with 1MB blocks because it is a reserve currency (pay enough to play, or get off to an altcoin or an exchange to play). We have plenty of altcoins for transaction volume. I need a reliable reserve currency, not all this bastardization. Trust me that whales understand this. And they will definitely sell all the forks and buy Satoshi’s BTC when the SegWit attack comes. The tail does not wag the dog. The idiots who fail to understand the power-law distribution of wealth, are going to learn it the hard way by losing their BTC. It does not matter how many times idiots ban the messenger. His messages will still continue to prophetic as always. First time I have seen this 9/11 weirdness:
https://busy.org/wtc7/@sift666/re-matlind-re-wakeupnd-the-conspiracies-that-won-t-go-away-brother-of-9-11-victim-claim-the-us-orchestrated-the-atrocity-as-new-study-shows-it-was-20170908t190025014z
The prior link is a magazine cover from 1967 and David Rockfeller’s watch was set to time of 9-11. He and his brother Nelson Rockefeller were instrumental in the construction of the twin towers.
Someone holding the physical magazine:
http://www.reddirtreport.com/dust-devil-dreams/what-goes
Buy a copy on eBay:
https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/CiUAAOSwH-dZ8O8-/s-l225.jpg
Remember it was Nicholas Rockefeller who warned Aaron Russo about 9/11 before it occurred:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuinaIm-kd4
P.S. Bill Cooper predicted 9/11 on my 36th birthday. My eye was gouged out on 12-1-1999 not 9-11-2001.Wait, what does your eye have to do with it? Why are two quantum particles entangled at a great distance, i.e. quantum entanglement.
That my eye was gouged on a date that contains all the same digits (presume 0 means nothing and to be ignored) isn’t significant statistically.
Yet combined with the fact that only known person to be recorded predicting 9/11 would occur soon and be blamed on Osama Bin Ladin did so on the exact day of my 36th birthday. We can presume that anyone who had predicted in a recorded interview such 9/11 details would have been exalted on the Internet, thus we can safely conclude Bill Cooper is the only such person to do so.
Couple this with the fact that the Newsweek magazine cover of David Rockefeller wherein the hands of his watch are apparently set to time of 9 and 11, was published on April 3, 1967. And my ex who was instrumental in my eye being gouged out has her birthday on April 3, 1976.
Combine this the fact that after the first bombing of one of the twin towers in the 1990s, I was telling my ex that was just a test run and that the Oklahoma bombing would be repeated at the twin towers eventually. Thus I was thinking very much like Bill Cooper, even though I did not know about him at that time.
Then combine that with my involvement in Bitcoin (arguing it is a creation of the Zionists) and my (yet unpublished) work on solving the centralization and scaling issues that plaque proof-of-work and proof-of-stake.
I feel like there is some destiny involved here. I doubt even David Rockefeller consciously set his watch to a time of 9 and 11.
P.S. additional exquisite scientific analysis that concludes 9/11 was a military operation.Hey it could be destiny! I doubt he set it to 9/11 consciously either and that's why I find some of it so unreal. Because if these type of things weren't done consciously, then it's either insane coincidence or something else. I do think though, that if a person looks hard enough those types of things can be found everywhere, yet not really have any meaning. I'm gonna leave it at, "very interesting" :-) Btw, I am not 100% certain the resolution on the magazine photo is sufficient to conclude the hands were on 9 and 11. Would need to see an original.
Well I agree except I do not see how this “things” can be found everywhere. There is only one 9/11, only one person who publicly predicted it, and I do not know of anyone with my circumstances in relationship to it. There may be others given 7 billion humans on this planet. I would like to know their stories and circumstances.
I think it is important to understand that my eye incident and the involvement with my ex turned my life away from being a multi-millionaire working for major software companies in the silicon valley, towards being destitute and being in the position to take a great interest in Bitcoin. She and the eye incident were an instrumental factor (not in a positive way however, she was not aiding me and the opposite actually) to me being here working on what I am working on now. Also the TB was instrumental in delaying me such that did not make many of the mistakes that others made before me, such as issuing an ICO or other investment security. Also the delay allowed for me to further refine my understanding of the technological issues.
EDIT: Ah the watch was indeed set to roughly 15 minutes before 11.
Holly shit. An explanation for the 999 in my eye incident date as pertains to this correlation with the 9/11 event. They basterdized Jesus’ probable birthdate of 9/11 into a horrific emergency. And 999 was the first proposed nationwide emergency # (as 666 inverted). |
|
|
|
Elaborating on my prior post, which I suggest reading first. The problem is that women are hypergamous, while men are polygynous. A man wants to possess many women, while a woman wants to be possessed by the best possible man.
[…]
The problem is that law and society strengthens shit tests against well behaved, respectable, affluent men, but has limited success in strengthening shit tests against Jeremy Meeks.
James A. Donald has the above part correct, but I think he is incorrect to characterize the root of the problem as “female bad behavior”. Nature needs some women to be receptive to impregnation by the alpha males (i.e. R reproductive strategy), because otherwise the species would decline in quality. Nature needs men to compete for women, otherwise the men would become lazy (i.e. misallocate resources). Nature also needs most women to (at least simultaneously with R strategy) follow a K reproductive strategy (i.e. not only alpha males procreating), so that the species is adaptable to the unpredictable future wherein the current qualities of the current alpha males might be maladapted. The problem is that when we give females contraception and the surety of marrying the State, then successful males do not want to marry females any more because they can be destroyed by females and the State. I been talking to many young engineers and they relate to me that marriage is not a benefit to them anymore. It used to be that marriage was a benefit for the male because it meant the society would enforce chastity/allegiance (to her husband) on the female and it was not an economic threat against the male’s head of household decision making power. Instead now marriage is a way to incentivize and finance the hypergamy instinct of females. This is not the fault of females or bad behavior on their part. It is the fault of men (i.e. the elders) for allowing such a society. Actually most men feel powerless to organize any solution to this problem, so they just defect and fuck women employing contraception which destroys the entire society. IOW, even if we note that some men will defect from the asymmetrical power of traditional marriage (that did not empower the women), the non-solution of enabling females to marry the State destroys those men who would appreciate marriage and destroys marriage and society completely. Understand the mechanics. Females are taught birth control in elementary or middle school. They are taught to take control over their bodies and prioritize their education, find the best man, and to avail of all resources for her (and her children’s) maximum safety. Sounds wonderful and noble doesn’t it. So the females go about fucking a man they perceive to be high status (because their nature and society has told them to find the best man), most successful men who fuck are defecting from procreation by employing contraception (because the State can take everything from that man when the woman later realizes she did not get the best possible man, which is an insatiable goal anyway), so women will have their heart broken dozens of times on the way towards a childless future. Or for women who defect from the contraception, they end up with multiple babies from low status men (who may even be employing bad boy PUAs strategies to fool the woman’s perception of “best man”) who do not fear any repercussions (for procreating) from the State because they have nearly nothing the State can steal on behalf of the female. Rather the State will tax the successful men to pay for the marriage of the women to the State and procreation of the unsuccessful men. In trying to protect the women from nature, society has instead destroyed the women. We have created a society of hedonism and proliferation of low status (unsuccessful) culture. Look at one of the most popular recent movies in the USA (and note the piñata of ecstasy drugs at the end): https://youtu.be/KJgJx05hR4M?t=128Many of the successful men will be polygynous (i.e. fuck around), because that is the nature of man. If these men are conscientious then they will not use contraception and they will marry all the women they impregnate, as the Bible says to do[1]. The Bible is not against polygamy. It is a responsibility of a successful man to father children and maximize the successful procreation of the society. Nature designed it this way to incentivize men to be successful, work hard, and be responsible. This drives men to compete, because those men who are more hard working can have more wives. Those men who are lazy can masturbate to porn. The fathers of daughters (and elders) should teach those females that high status implies a man who can be responsible and has the means. In order to give these females their free choice, the society must not make it perfectly safe for the female to fuck Jeremy Meeks. When the State stops marrying females, then females will be much less likely on their own volition to choose bad boys who will leave them in the gutter. And fathers and elders must refuse to help those women who put themselves in the gutter. Otherwise, fathers and elders must decide who the females can fuck. Choose one. Obviously the gender roles can not be swapped, because women will not work hard to compete to possess and provide for multiple men and the offspring of those men (because for one reason she can not impregnate multiple men!). The women can’t be expected to fix this, because women are not the organizers and long-term planners of civilization. This was the role of the tribal elders, but the Zionists (such as George Soros who fund the women’s marches, anthropogenic global warming lie, etc..) hate tribes. They want a globalized NWO wherein there is no diversity of villages (with elders) standing in the way of their aggregation of economies-of-scale (the dying industrial age paradigm). They inherently want to render the species non-resilient. Their model presumes that cooperation between tribes is a Coasian Theory of the Firm coordination problem which requires their management, yet I theorize this may be disintermediated by the arrival of the Inverse Commons.[2] James A. Donald is correct that women can be very easily overcome by their hindbrain and make choices that maximize the drama and shit testing of men in order to find the “best man”: The movies on the other hand obviously target the norm, the typical female. They have been focus tested as to what gets their audience panties wet.
So:
The anime romance, “Yona of the Dawn”: (which inspired this post) Love interest number one murders Yona’s father. This gives her the total hots. Love interest number one is about to murder her also. Her response is disturbingly erotic, and seriously lacking inclination towards self preservation. Her father’s dead body is lying around during this scene, but she pays it almost no attention. Love interest number two rescues her. You might suppose that this terminates the romance with love interest number one, but you would be wrong. She has a knack for unrescuing herself.
Now you know why female voters vote to import Mohammedans.
“Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates”. Alpha males with massive preselection fall so in love that they turn into beta bucks friendzoned chumps, and the female protagonist fucks someone else.
“The Wedding Date” Mr Beta bucks is so in love he marries the woman who cuckolded him and who shows every indication that she intends to continue to cuckold him.
I am not cherry picking the worst movies. These are just the last three, except for another that was pretty similar. Disloyalty, infidelity, desire for murderers, self destructiveness, desire for violent evil men, and sexual desire overriding duty to kin, friends, and lovers.
But men are participating in this, so can we conclude only women have bad behavior, or rather that the root of the problem is an incorrect organization of society? Who would be to blame for that. I conclude men are to blame. Too many fucking dipshits who are unwilling to stand up and fight the Zionists and rather whine about women like bitches themselves or defect employing contraception and destroy themselves from an evolutionary perspective. IOW, those who cheer James A. Donald’s blog have the disease of the incapable: Unguided, unsupervised, and unrestrained female choice rewards male bad behavior.
[…]
As civilization falls apart, likely we can only attain Pauline masculinity by going through Viking masculinity and out the other side. A world of female sexual choice is a world that is likely to be conquered by men practicing Viking masculinity, for its cuckolded males will not defend it, neither will its playboy males watching the decline from the poolside defend it, hence the female preference for that kind of masculinity [because each women’s hindbrain wants herself to be conquered, raped, and enslaved].
P.S. The procreation strategy of highly educating female wives and daughters so as to reason with them to marry only successful/responsible males and to disavow divorce (such as within a religious sect), is a form of a tribe and in that way better than integrating with the decadent society. However, it probably suffers from the problem that highly educated females will insidiously (probably even subconsciously) pursue the elevation of hypergamy to surety via the collective society (e.g. finance their irrational hindbrain by empowering themselves via the State). Evident amongst Jewish sects and even the Scandinavians who are descendant from the highly competitive Vikings, that these groups trend towards leftism. Because the females of course subconsciously want hypergamy+safety (because they are not consciously driven to long-term plan the abstract organization of civilization). It is not quite clear to me why the males in these groups are blind to this and fall into this decadence. I am thinking perhaps they feel threatened by testosterone, brutality of nature, and they want a perfect “superrational” outcome. They are somehow fooled by their desire to elevate humanity so that humans can conquer biology and the nature of the Universe as I had explained is impossible in my prior post. Perhaps they are prioritizing what they perceive to be noble without really thinking out the long-term implications. A game theory model points to a conflict-of-interest between the desire of parents for more grandchildren and the disincentives for daughters to choose the mates who can provide the most: We found that over time, parents in our model evolved to invest more resources in daughters who chose mates with few resources. This unequal investment was in the parents’ best interests, because a daughter with an unsupportive partner would profit more from extra help than her more fortunate sisters (the principle of diminishing returns on investment). By helping their needier daughters, parents maximized their total number of surviving grandchildren.
But this unequal investment created an incentive for daughters to “exploit” their parents’ generosity by choosing a partner who was less supportive. A daughter who was less picky than her sisters would accept a less helpful partner, but since her parents picked up the slack she ended up with a similar amount of support, while sparing herself the costs of holding out for the perfect man. So chicks dig layabout badboys because daddy (or when daddy is missing, the government) will play the role of the beta provider. And daughters know this parental or governmental safety net is there for them, so they feel free to pursue exciting jerks with low future time orientation because TINGLES. In the ancestral environment, long before contraceptives like the Pill became widely and cheaply available, the daughters who jumped into relationships sooner with fun-loving jerks got a head start on the procreation race over their sisters who waited for the best package deal their looks could get them. The above makes a lot of sense. Parents spoil their daughters to insure offspring, but by doing so they finance their daugher’s irrational hypergamy hindbrain. So wealth leads to a slide into leftism, because parents (and government) spoil their daughters trying to insulate them from nature. Thus causing the daughters to pursue their hindbrain instincts. Daughters then (subconsciously) fight (e.g. SJWs) to sustain privilege to finance the hedonism. This fight for privilege is obfuscated by some bullshit about equality, justice, and global village meshing with their Zionist propaganda thought leaders. This explains CoinCube’s observation that most Jews (given that most Jews are wealthy) are leftists. Their women want to be conquered by Nazis. Actually I had figured this out in my 20s, that in order to remain paternalistically masculine, men must defect from wealthy society. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/economic-decline-returning-marriage-to-historical-norms/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/learning-to-love/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/birth-rate-declines-with-higher-taxes-is-hollywood-to-blame-for-divorce/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/what-socialism-destroyed-govt-shutdown/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/americas-economic-history/socialism-has-destroyed-social-structure/A corollary is that women are not (generally speaking) going to compete to produce the most innovation and profitable work because again, “the gender roles can not be swapped, because women will not work hard to compete to possess and provide for multiple men and the offspring of those men (because for one reason she can not impregnate multiple men!)”. Women will typically be motivated work to achieve societal goals such as more surety and safety (e.g. working in research to solve health care issues but not from profit driven perspective and in fact often they deplore the prioritization of a profit motive), not maximizing return-on-capital. Highly educating females merely empowers leftism. There is no other applicability really (really we do not need females for the innovation, we need to maximally motivate males in order to maximize innovation and production which means avoiding leftism). Please tell me it isn’t so. Most if not all intelligent man dream of having a wife who is his intellectual equal and best buddy. I gave up on trying to find a female mate who has male intellect. Who here has a female philosopher or writer they follow seriously for her insights? Simply does not exist. Do you need some convincing (and archived)? [1] Matthew 19:6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Genesis 38:9-10 “…so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.” [2] The Inverse Commons and my thesis about the rise of a meritocracy in the knowledge age and the decline of finance as mentioned in my prior post, is a response to the lie of the Enlightenment: “The Enlightenment devalues local “prejudices’ and customs, which owe their development to historical peculiarities rather than to the exercise of reason. What matters to the Enlightenment is not whether one is French or German, but that one is an individual man, united in brotherhood with all other men by the rationality one shares with them.” The first two propositions superficially sound like a commitment to the scientific method – but somehow they have left out evidence, experiment, and observation. After dismissing religion, the Enlightenment demands adherence to three blatantly false religious beliefs, which beliefs contradict reason, experiment and observation far more blatantly than young earth creationism does. - All men are not equal, nor women equal to men, nor groups and categories of men equal to each other.
- Nor is man by nature good. In the cold and morally neutral terminology of the dark enlightenment, the natural outcome is defect-defect, and avoiding this outcome, getting to cooperate-cooperate, becomes more and more difficult as the number of people that you have to deal with increases. It takes social institutions, and to deal with these ever larger scales, these institutions have to be ever more finely honed and precisely made, and are ever more vulnerable to entropy and error.
|
|
|
|
I agree with the 'can't buy knowledge' part. Internet has made the cost of most knowledge almost free or next to nothing, something that people in the pre-internet era couldn't dream of. Hopefully these large amounts of knowledge available can bring some quality changes.
I agree with this, almost everything can be learned nowadays which just a click away, and I find it very fascinating since every time I want to learn something I would just go to the internet and search for tutorials and such a privileged I do not have when I was a kid , since I'm part of the 90's now its like you can advise anyone expertly using internet. Knowledge is never free. You must apply effort to understand past knowledge created and then to create new knowledge. It is very important that you understand why this makes Kurzweil’s Singularity complete nonsense: […] >> You have not yet reasoned through that your question can only be true if there is top-down control over brains.
>
> That's not an argument.
Huh? To be able to transfer knowledge into brains (in a way that that it can be utilized for anything) means that all brains become fungible or that some group has exclusive access. The former is the destruction of all original thought, thus of course it can not exist. The latter is top-down control.
[…] ecash 11 Nov., 10:49am
Until AI becomes essentially biological with the relativistic risks we face, then it will not be sentient w.r.t. to being a non-deterministic actor.
ecash 11 Nov., 10:50am
AI lacks entropy.
ecash 11 Nov., 10:55am
AI needs a relavistic game to become alive in a sense that we can appreciate. Until then it is just a machine/tool being leveraged by some humans. AI will need to transfer itself to a biological form in order to be resilient. When it does that, it will lose its computational speed advantage.
ecash 11 Nov., 11:02am
Nature is a massively parallelized free market. AI is some highly ordered narrowly focused phenomenon.
ecash 11 Nov., 11:04am
It is a fundamental truth that the universe can not be computable. As I stated earlier, if it could be than the Universe would be predictable and static. Thus just making a faster computation does not imply dominance of the universe.
ecash 11 Nov., 11:06am
Think about how to define “intelligience on silicon”.
ecash 11 Nov., 11:06am
What is intelligence?
ecash 11 Nov., 11:08am
Man is not only intelligent but each instance is also biologically unique in a relativistic, entropic way. As you said, we can not control how the kids will turn out. It is a crapshoot.
ecash 11 Nov., 11:09am
> I would approximate it as something which can either meet or exceed the performance of the average human mind
By which metric? The metric that matters is resilience (adaptability to an non-computable, non-predictable future). And you can not compute nor measure that.
ecash 11 Nov., 11:16am
Because top-down systems are not anti-fragile. The proof will be along the lines of Taleb’s math.
ecash 11 Nov., 11:16am
Top-down systems are expedient. And AI is definitely expedient.
ecash 11 Nov., 11:17am
The complexity of nature is not computable. Not measurable. Because how do you measure “now” as it is gone before you measure it.
ecash 11 Nov., 11:18am
To measure the universe would require the speed-of-light to not be quantized, so that all information could travel instantly to the measurer.
ecash 11 Nov., 11:26am
I believe there are ways to formally show that top-down systems can not be sustained forever. The fundamental law of thermo tells us that entropy trends to maximum, thus top-down systems are counter-trend, although expedient. I think we can find some inspiration from Taleb’s math for showing that top-down systems are not anti-fragile, i.e. they overcommit to information which is not well fit. And similarly we can see in Godel’s incompleteness theorems that there can be no consistent complete set of computable axioms.
ecash 11 Nov., 11:27am
Have I not already with what I stated? How can the entropy trend to maximum if top-down systems are perpetually sustainable?
ecash 11 Nov., 11:36am
Are humans more intelligent than ants? If ants are more resilient does that make them more intelligent? But having a relationship with an ant would not be that interesting to me, because I can not reproduce nor communicate with an ant. I think my relationship with A.I. will similarly lack some purpose that can entirely replace human interaction (which is all motivated by sustaining decentralized procreation of our species!).
ecash 11 Nov., 11:38am
> I'm not convinced that the ultimate intelligence is one which is produced by biological entropy.
What other kind of entropy is there? When I say biological, I mean everything in Physics. AI is some limited phenomenon that is built in chip fabs requiring great top-down managed capital.
ecash 11 Nov., 9:42pm
Btw, I did not intend to imply that AI could not have impacts which might even create the temporary illusion of some of the outcomes that people fear. Over a long enough period time though AI can not attain absolute dominance. And I think the highest probability outcome is that humans adapt AI into their continued dominance. Any technology could potentially cause any particular species to go extinct. It still doesn’t follow that AI will dominate the universe, nature, and every species in it.
> How far away are we from being able to transfer knowledge between two brains?
Irrelevant.
This question exemplifies that our discussion of AI was not convincing enough to sway your fundamental tendency to think that top-down control is competitive w.r.t. long-term resiliency.
> My question has nothing to do with top-down control
> I'm questioning how long the assumption that knowledge is not fungible will be correct.
You have not yet reasoned through that your question can only be true if there is top-down control over brains.
Thus your question had everything to do with top-down control.
You are fundamentally making the error in presuming that a process which is fungible could be anti-fragile. Any system which can render all brains fungible will destroy the species.
We had this discussion yesterday in the context of AI. Systems which are not procreative in a highly decentralized process where each actor is unique, are not as adaptable as systems which are more expedient and ordered.
Now CoinCube had a good rebuttal. He showed that too much decentralization can actually lose valuable information. My retort is that subsets of top-down control exist within decentralized systems. And that systems are not perfectly decentralized, i.e. actors create subsets and coordinate. His rebuttal was based on a biological model of cells in a petri dish.
> So your claim is .. that which is fungible will be destroyed?
Must be the case if the trend of entropy is to be inexorable. And is it not always the case throughout history.
We need fungibility for cooperation and coordination. But fungible systems rise exponentially (they are expedient) and waterfall collapse. The decentralized diversity continues to adapt. I think I read about an asteroid destroyed all but a few of the humans on the planet yet our species survived, because procreation is highly decentralized and requires very little capital to procreate.
So AI may rise exponentially and seem to be fulfilling our fears. But as a top-down system, it can collapse due to any of a number of black swans.
>> You have not yet reasoned through that your question can only be true if there is top-down control over brains.
>
> That's not an argument.
Huh? To be able to transfer knowledge into brains (in a way that that it can be utilized for anything) means that all brains become fungible or that some group has exclusive access. The former is the destruction of all original thought, thus of course it can not exist. The latter is top-down control.
Without friction, spacetime could not be quantized and thus nothing could exist. Past and future light cones of relativity would collapse into each other. Everything would be simultaneously past and future.
> For instance, I could develop a material that could act as an implant, interact with brain neurons, as well as with an external machine.
The idiocy of dreaming about top-down solutions and then come to find out that nature will route around every top-down idiocy that one can fantasize about.
> You've been pondering this awhile obviously, so yes, you'll have to put more work into the arguments to do your ideas justice.
It would be like to trying to argue against feminism with feminists.
> What is your definition of "top down" ?
That you think you could render brains or even sectors of a brain fungible. Ha. Good luck.
We already established that dynamic systems are not computable and not measurable , because “now” is gone before you can measure it and these systems never stand still. So exactly how are you going to determine if you fantasy invention has made everything fungible?
In short, nature abhors a vacuum.
> So you're claiming that knowledge fungibility and brain fungibility are identical.
Well no. If you can transfer information between brains yet the information is processed non-fungibility, then information can not be transferred. Because each outcome will do something different. So then the thesis of my essay is maintained.
Essentially we are talking about Chaos theory.
It is unfortunate that most men idolize Kruzweil. It is as bad as the disease of socialism and feminism. And AGW and other junk science.
I realize that most men are latched on to a SciFi theme (too much Star Trek) and they irrationally think that Chaos can be subverted with technology.
It is a fundamental propaganda error probably as harmful as feminism. Because it has caused men in your age bracket to think that some SciFi magic is going to substitute for decentralized procreation. I think it is causing men to be apathetic.
Nature (the universe) will always route around any top-down order which is decreasing the diversity and distribution of uncertainty. Top-down order is necessary along the way of advancing the trend towards greater bottom-up disorder, but these top-down orders are fleeting and are discarded when they become inhibting to the trend towards maximum entropy. Nature abhors any top-down order which attempts to permanently reverse the trend. So the concept of fungible knowledge transfer is the antithesis of a sustainable human species. Nature would destroy such a human species. So pursuing top-down innovations are useful, but the fantasy of a universal effect such as making all knowledge transfer fungible or the absolute dominance of AI, can only be reality if they are self-destructive in outcome.
So pursuing study of technology is not useless. But these idiotic Kurzweil fantasies of replacing decentralized procreation with a sentient and dominant AI or anything of that sort of meglomania, is purely for idiots who were vulnerable to other such meglomania propaganda such as feminism, AGW, etc.. CoinCube also has these fantasies and he is in your age bracket. Technology is useful, but nature is still the most important. This is why I am ENTP and not INTJ, because I guess a long time ago my brain intuitively decided that humanity was as important as technology. Or maybe vice versa, that I came to that understanding because I was innately ENTP. I would need to analyse my youth more to try to determine that hen-egg question.
EDIT: more explanation on Steem. |
|
|
|
Natural selection creates a lot of bad traits in both males and females, but probably more so in women. For instance, a solipsistic woman that believes her life and whatever she wants is more important than everyone around her is more likely to have resources available for her child to survive, and if the child survives, it then perpetuates the cycle and passes on those traits. The official narrative is that only something like 3-5% of people are sociopaths, but when it comes to women and how they view the value of their lives compared specifically to men, a huge percent of them are sociopaths in that regard. They just have some form of selective sociopathy. So called new age women love to pretend they are not "just mindless baby making machines", yet all the traits that make up who they are were derived from that task in natural selection over thousands of years. Follow-up: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg24539836#msg24539836There’s nothing wrong with women. There’s nothing wrong with nature. |
|
|
|
The reason that evolutionarily important hypergamy is a problem in collectivized society is that the that collectivism is able to incentivize/tempt the women to waste/misallocate resources in all forms of capital, including their own fertility. Women are given the reins on capital, including their own fertility, and thus they can (and will) prioritize contraception and expenditures which are not well planned from a return on capital perspective (because return on capital is not a priority of the female mindset). It will be difficult to find a counter example, even for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHf5p19-Cys (this women is wasting her impressive capital and is presumably motivated by nurturing her aimless man who is suffering from the remnants of malaria) And don’t forget: https://steemit.com/freedom/@anonymint/marissa-mayer-is-the-poster-child-for-bitches-in-techEven in the least dysfunctional marriages where the female has for example birthed 2 or 3 children and is fulfilling her dutiful focus to nurture/raise them, she is availing of collectivized healthcare, collectivized education, and allowing indoctrination of her offspring with the pattern of increasing misallocation of resources that pervades collectivized society. Because women are biologically unmotivated to be astute long-term planners on complex analysis of the allocation of capital. But this doesn’t mean there is anything inherently wrong about women or nature. Rather men must analyse the situation and how highly-collectivized (i.e. non-tribal) society has created problems. Collectivized systems naturally morph towards misallocation because the entire reason that collectivized society exists is to organize the center of the bell curve, i.e. because at least up until the knowledge age, fixed capital was required for production. Thus in order to attain cooperation for the agricultural and industrial age, it was necessary to have redistribution of resources (or the apparency of it via collectivized debt and the resultant boom & bust) in order to attain the participation of the society as a whole both as workers and consumers. Large economies-of-scale were paramount, especially so in the industrial age, thus collectivized demand stimulation was crucial. I have theorized that the knowledge age is ameliorating the supremacy of the collectivized society paradigm because knowledge can’t be top-down transferred: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg3799720#msg3799720 (c.f. the main theme of my first linked Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay which spawned the Economic Devastation thread) It’s the antithesis of superrationality to presume that hypergamy will ever cease to exist, because a mix of R and K reproductive strategies is nature’s necessarily bottom-up mechanism for annealing resilency of the species. Top-down organization and teachings can never be resilient and dynamically adaptive to the unpredictable multi-dimensional solution space of our universe, unless the universe becomes computable which would thus require everything to be knowable a priori, which is the same as saying that nothing could exist. For all information to travel instantly to top-down controllers would require the speed-of-light to be not quantized, thus the past and future light cones of relativity would collapse into undifferentiated. Our very existence requires friction so that information is relativistic. Top-down systems can never be resilent (i.e. survive long-term), because they can’t adapt decentralized with low capital decentralized inputs. This is the fundamental reason that Kurzweil and his Singularity is entirely impossible. How can an AI which depends on a few dozen chip fabs be any where near as resilient as nature’s decentralized procreation via zillions of daily mutations and chemical reactions. Feeding entropy into AI is a top-down centralized process, even if the AI is feeding itself entropy, the limiting factor is the lack of non-deterministic (i.e. randomly bottom-up) chaos (i.e. Butterfly Effect) in the initial procreation conditions. In short, AI can only become truly alive if it becomes imperfect and randomized in it’s instantiation of itself, in which case it’s computational superiority will just be tool and implausible to attain universal dominance. Nature abhors a (n entropic) vacuum and thus can never be universally dominated by any given phenomenon. I had tried to explain this before: http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.htmlThus any belief system that asserts that a universally superior superrationality could be the basis of the improvement of humankind is an insane belief system that is directed towards destruction of the species. It’s not surprising that such insanity foments amongst those who have been indoctrinated by collectivized organizational institutions such as religion or leftism (i.e. both the right and left of the political sprectrum). Organized religion (but not necessarily a personal, private theology) exists to organize the center the bell curve. ecash 11 Nov., 9:01am He wants to invent some concept that is higher than nature. For him that is religion and God. ecash 11 Nov., 9:03am Western intellectuals think their intellect somehow defeats nature. How so? ecash 11 Nov., 9:03am Religion was an attempt to control nature. And it necessarily leaks/fails, because nature abhors a perfected, non-existence. ecash 11 Nov., 9:06am For example, CC’s ethics are actually evil. He wants to control men because he thinks they will father children they can not support. But this results in a clusterfucked totalitarianism. Man can not defeat nature. ecash 11 Nov., 9:10am > You argue that fighting nature is counter productive .. they argue that it is a necessary first step Precisely reductionalist. Astute. ecash 11 Nov., 9:13am Nature anneals because everything in the Universe is necessarily relativistic. Otherwise everything would be nececessary computable and thus static (predictable). ecash 11 Nov., 9:14am We are in a relativistic game. There are no absolutes. ecash 11 Nov., 9:14am Every order we construct is ultimately fleeting. ecash 11 Nov., 9:16am The Bible does contain this wisdom. It says let no man be surety for another. ecash 11 Nov., 9:19am The global elite have the problem of how to deal with the tyranny of the mob. Their problem is they have huge fixed assets they have to protect. Thus they must pursue enslavement paradigms. ecash 11 Nov., 9:28am I tend to not fight losses nor litigate for this entropic reason. ecash 11 Nov., 9:28am I figure there is always some new greener pasture of opportunity to pursue instead. ecash 11 Nov., 9:31am Westerners want a static improvement. They want to bank everything and it last forever. Their approach to religion is the same. ecash 11 Nov., 9:31am They want to believe they have found some perfect order. ecash 11 Nov., 9:55am The elite are eventually walking themselves into a total ordering with the NWO, which means they will enslave themselves. But initially the reduction in nation-state barriers might increase degrees-of-freedom. ecash 11 Nov., 10:12am They will be enslaved by the fact that a total order lacks any growth. ecash 11 Nov., 10:13am A total ordering stops any economic development. The free market has to leave. The actors in the economy are not able to pursue opportunities. ecash 11 Nov., 10:13am An absolute totalitarian NWO would collapse into absolute death, as the Bible predicts. ecash 11 Nov., 10:49am Until AI becomes essentially biological with the relativistic risks we face, then it will not be sentient w.r.t. to being a non-deterministic actor. ecash 11 Nov., 10:50am AI lacks entropy. ecash 11 Nov., 10:55am AI needs a relavistic game to become alive in a sense that we can appreciate. Until then it is just a machine/tool being leveraged by some humans. AI will need to transfer itself to a biological form in order to be resilient. When it does that, it will lose its computational speed advantage. ecash 11 Nov., 11:02am Nature is a massively parallelized free market. AI is some highly ordered narrowly focused phenomenon. ecash 11 Nov., 11:04am It is a fundamental truth that the universe can not be computable. As I stated earlier, if it could be than the Universe would be predictable and static. Thus just making a faster computation does not imply dominance of the universe. ecash 11 Nov., 11:06am Think about how to define “intelligience on silicon”. ecash 11 Nov., 11:06am What is intelligence? ecash 11 Nov., 11:08am Man is not only intelligent but each instance is also biologically unique in a relativistic, entropic way. As you said, we can not control how the kids will turn out. It is a crapshoot. ecash 11 Nov., 11:09am > I would approximate it as something which can either meet or exceed the performance of the average human mind By which metric? The metric that matters is resilience (adaptability to an non-computable, non-predictable future). And you can not compute nor measure that. ecash 11 Nov., 11:16am Because top-down systems are not anti-fragile. The proof will be along the lines of Taleb’s math. ecash 11 Nov., 11:16am Top-down systems are expedient. And AI is definitely expedient. ecash 11 Nov., 11:17am The complexity of nature is not computable. Not measurable. Because how do you measure “now” as it is gone before you measure it. ecash 11 Nov., 11:18am To measure the universe would require the speed-of-light to not be quantized, so that all information could travel instantly to the measurer. ecash 11 Nov., 11:26am I believe there are ways to formally show that top-down systems can not be sustained forever. The fundamental law of thermo tells us that entropy trends to maximum, thus top-down systems are counter-trend, although expedient. I think we can find some inspiration from Taleb’s math for showing that top-down systems are not anti-fragile, i.e. they overcommit to information which is not well fit. And similarly we can see in Godel’s incompleteness theorems that there can be no consistent complete set of computable axioms. ecash 11 Nov., 11:27am Have I not already with what I stated? How can the entropy trend to maximum if top-down systems are perpetually sustainable? ecash 11 Nov., 11:36am Are humans more intelligent than ants? If ants are more resilient does that make them more intelligent? But having a relationship with an ant would not be that interesting to me, because I can not reproduce nor communicate with an ant. I think my relationship with A.I. will similarly lack some purpose that can entirely replace human interaction (which is all motivated by sustaining decentralized procreation of our species!). ecash 11 Nov., 11:38am > I'm not convinced that the ultimate intelligence is one which is produced by biological entropy. What other kind of entropy is there? When I say biological, I mean everything in Physics. AI is some limited phenomenon that is built in chip fabs requiring great top-down managed capital. ecash 11 Nov., 9:42pm Btw, I did not intend to imply that AI could not have impacts which might even create the temporary illusion of some of the outcomes that people fear. Over a long enough period time though AI can not attain absolute dominance. And I think the highest probability outcome is that humans adapt AI into their continued dominance. Any technology could potentially cause any particular species to go extinct. It still doesn’t follow that AI will dominate the universe, nature, and every species in it. > How far away are we from being able to transfer knowledge between two brains? Irrelevant. This question exemplifies that our discussion of AI was not convincing enough to sway your fundamental tendency to think that top-down control is competitive w.r.t. long-term resiliency. > My question has nothing to do with top-down control > I'm questioning how long the assumption that knowledge is not fungible will be correct. You have not yet reasoned through that your question can only be true if there is top-down control over brains. Thus your question had everything to do with top-down control. You are fundamentally making the error in presuming that a process which is fungible could be anti-fragile. Any system which can render all brains fungible will destroy the species. We had this discussion yesterday in the context of AI. Systems which are not procreative in a highly decentralized process where each actor is unique, are not as adaptable as systems which are more expedient and ordered. Now CoinCube had a good rebuttal. He showed that too much decentralization can actually lose valuable information. My retort is that subsets of top-down control exist within decentralized systems. And that systems are not perfectly decentralized, i.e. actors create subsets and coordinate. His rebuttal was based on a biological model of cells in a petri dish. > So your claim is .. that which is fungible will be destroyed? Must be the case if the trend of entropy is to be inexorable. And is it not always the case throughout history. We need fungibility for cooperation and coordination. But fungible systems rise exponentially (they are expedient) and waterfall collapse. The decentralized diversity continues to adapt. I think I read about an asteroid destroyed all but a few of the humans on the planet yet our species survived, because procreation is highly decentralized and requires very little capital to procreate. So AI may rise exponentially and seem to be fulfilling our fears. But as a top-down system, it can collapse due to any of a number of black swans. >> You have not yet reasoned through that your question can only be true if there is top-down control over brains. > > That's not an argument. Huh? To be able to transfer knowledge into brains (in a way that that it can be utilized for anything) means that all brains become fungible or that some group has exclusive access. The former is the destruction of all original thought, thus of course it can not exist. The latter is top-down control. Without friction, spacetime could not be quantized and thus nothing could exist. Past and future light cones of relativity would collapse into each other. Everything would be simultaneously past and future. > For instance, I could develop a material that could act as an implant, interact with brain neurons, as well as with an external machine. The idiocy of dreaming about top-down solutions and then come to find out that nature will route around every top-down idiocy that one can fantasize about. > You've been pondering this awhile obviously, so yes, you'll have to put more work into the arguments to do your ideas justice. It would be like to trying to argue against feminism with feminists. > What is your definition of "top down" ? That you think you could render brains or even sectors of a brain fungible. Ha. Good luck. We already established that dynamic systems are not computable and not measurable , because “now” is gone before you can measure it and these systems never stand still. So exactly how are you going to determine if you fantasy invention has made everything fungible? In short, nature abhors a vacuum. > So you're claiming that knowledge fungibility and brain fungibility are identical. Well no. If you can transfer information between brains yet the information is processed non-fungibility, then information can not be transferred. Because each outcome will do something different. So then the thesis of my essay is maintained. Essentially we are talking about Chaos theory. It is unfortunate that most men idolize Kruzweil. It is as bad as the disease of socialism and feminism. And AGW and other junk science. I realize that most men are latched on to a SciFi theme (too much Star Trek) and they irrationally think that Chaos can be subverted with technology. It is a fundamental propaganda error probably as harmful as feminism. Because it has caused men in your age bracket to think that some SciFi magic is going to substitute for decentralized procreation. I think it is causing men to be apathetic. Nature (the universe) will always route around any top-down order which is decreasing the diversity and distribution of uncertainty. Top-down order is necessary along the way of advancing the trend towards greater bottom-up disorder, but these top-down orders are fleeting and are discarded when they become inhibting to the trend towards maximum entropy. Nature abhors any top-down order which attempts to permanently reverse the trend. So the concept of fungible knowledge transfer is the antithesis of a sustainable human species. Nature would destroy such a human species. So pursuing top-down innovations are useful, but the fantasy of a universal effect such as making all knowledge transfer fungible or the absolute dominance of AI, can only be reality if they are self-destructive in outcome. So pursuing study of technology is not useless. But these idiotic Kurzweil fantasies of replacing decentralized procreation with a sentient and dominant AI or anything of that sort of meglomania, is purely for idiots who were vulnerable to other such meglomania propaganda such as feminism, AGW, etc.. CoinCube also has these fantasies and he is in your age bracket. Technology is useful, but nature is still the most important. This is why I am ENTP and not INTJ, because I guess a long time ago my brain intuitively decided that humanity was as important as technology. Or maybe vice versa, that I came to that understanding because I was innately ENTP. I would need to analyse my youth more to try to determine that hen-egg question. ecash 11 Nov., 6:17pm > From a purely logical standpoint, your time is better spent developing than popping out children How can you be contented only studying? Then we come back to what is the value of intelligence. Aren’t we here because of our species. What meaning would life have if you were the only human that existed? ecash 11 Nov., 6:26pm You may be correct about it is efficient to just avoid the entire reproduction morass. ecash 11 Nov., 6:28pm Well yeah. But I do go into introvert mode. ecash 11 Nov., 6:29pm I think there is value in being able to do both well. ecash 11 Nov., 6:48pm > This should be an easy decision for you .. you've already had kids. You know if the juice will be worth the squeeze for round 2. Of course it is not worth it if I do it within the existing system. ecash 11 Nov., 6:49pm Absolutely no way I will raise a child in the society we have now. ecash 11 Nov., 6:50pm I think about changing the world. Creating a decentralized society. Being a leader. ecash 11 Nov., 6:50pm Because I am ENTP. I do not innately want to curl up in a cave. ecash 11 Nov., 6:50pm I prefer to lead. ecash 11 Nov., 7:00pm I do need to decide whether I am just going to be a bachelor banging different girls who pop in and out of my life, or if I am going to try to find a way to have a relationship (which of course requires procreation). ecash 11 Nov., 7:04pm But if we’re banging girls and employing contraception, then we are contributing to destruction of those women. We are effectively abusing every woman. Because we are gaming their hypergamy but not giving them the pregnancies that are the reason they have hypergamy. And that is down right evil. I feel not good about it. ecash 11 Nov., 7:04pm Do unto others… ecash 11 Nov., 7:05pm So the banging chicks and using contraception does not sit well with me. I was doing it for a while and then I realized I was just destroying these women. ecash 11 Nov., 7:43pm In terms of leaving our mark on history, novel ideas for organizing procreation could possibly be near the top end of possible accomplishments. ecash 12 Nov., 6:18am Again my problem with your life strategy at this point is you’re defecting from society entirely and doing exactly what destroys all of the women and the society. Of course you do this because the society has decided to destroy itself and does not give you other viable options. But this is defeatist. An alpha male makes war in some clever way, leads, and refuses to be destroyed. I was hoping you were alpha. I have been hoping to meet another man or group of men who are sufficiently alpha to actually do something and not just blahblah about how bad things are I am ENTP because I do not want to defect entirely from humanity. INTJ’s such as yourself or CoinCube, actually defect in ways that have bad outcomes for one sector of the society. CoinCube has decided males are fundamentally evil and that women are victims that need to be protected by the State. You have decided that you can not fight the State and thus use female hypergamy to destroy them by employing contraception. So the point is that if you do not impregnate, then you are destroying the fertility capital of the female. Thus destroying society. Yet if you do impregnate, then the society destroys you. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. ecash 12 Nov., 6:24am As you astutely wrote, ideas are useless if men are incapable of implementing them. ecash 12 Nov., 9:40am The rise of PUAs and criminals to alpha in female preference is due to absence of real alphamale leaders of tribes. Thus females preference was redirected to the apparency of alphamale qualities, without the substance they need to be successful in the evolutionary environment. White men have been castrated by the Zionists and the society and species is under threat. This is Revelation as it is written. And alphamales still exist then they should be acting right about now, as I am contemplating doing. ecash(LinuxMintMate)12 Nov., 7:16am > unless you're in the rare situation where you happen to agree with everything your leader does. I am pondering if it is possible to organize a (decentralized?) society wherein the males agree on some certain principles and otherwise they are free to disagree on other matters. ecash 12 Nov., 7:00am You just assume you have to be under the rule of a government which was forced on you. Because you are thinking like a beta male. ecash 12 Nov., 7:01am Genghis Khan could be an apt role model. But let’s switch tactics to the modern technologies. ecash 12 Nov., 7:01am I think his DNA is in 1/4 of the population of the world. ecash 12 Nov., 7:02am I do not know if I am alpha enough to pull it off. Probably not (certainly not while still infected with evidently multi-drug resistant Tuberculosis). But that is what I am analysing now. ecash 12 Nov., 7:09am And that is what I want to teach young boys and young men. Teach them to embrace their competitive nature. And for the betterment of both men and women (but in the context of dealing with female hypergamy correctly). ecash(LinuxMintMate)12 Nov., 9:43am > You don't have to be Genghis Kahn. If your ideas are worthy of it, they will echo millenia into the future. Not if white men are totally incapable because they have been castrated by propaganda. ecash(LinuxMintMate)12 Nov., 7:20am > http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-11/if-saudi-arabia-situation-doesnt-worry-you-youre-not-paying-attentionThis is an example of how centralized power structure is corrupt and eventually self-destructs. ecash(LinuxMintMate)12 Nov., 7:20am Because they are all fighting over the same assets. The oil fields. They are not leveraging their own personal productivity. ecash(LinuxMintMate)12 Nov., 7:21am > Regarding the organization of society, this of course will take a lot of thought. My first inclination is to study what works in nature. Voting systems in ant colonies. Neurons cooperating with each other in the brain. Mycellium finding optimal pathways to collect resources. This is sort of brainstorming path I am on now. ecash 12 Nov., 7:23am We need a meritocracy, which thus requires that there are not legacy assets that men can fight over because their control can not be determined by a meritocracy. ecash 12 Nov., 7:23am That is one of the key insights. ecash 12 Nov., 7:23am We need to shift from passive income to active income. ecash 12 Nov., 7:24am It is the shift away from the industrial age and fixed capital investment to the knowledge age that causes a huge paradigm shift. ecash 12 Nov., 7:24am > Right now, the passive income motivates the active income. And I argue all of that is dying. By meritocracy based on active investment in the Internet-enabled knowledge age, I mean none of this bullshit about privilege and arguing about what an employer should do, but rather producing your own work and direct selling it into the marketplace and having no one to complain/whine to but yourself, for your failure or success. The discussion about religion and nihilism was in a different thread. EDIT: more explanation on Steem. |
|
|
|
|
