forms-instances   12

Reconsidering epistemological scepticism – Dividuals
I blogged before about how I consider an epistemological scepticism fully compatible with being conservative/reactionary. By epistemological scepticism I mean the worldview where concepts, categories, names, classes aren’t considered real, just useful ways to categorize phenomena, but entirely mental constructs, basically just tools. I think you can call this nominalism as well. The nominalism-realism debate was certainly about this. What follows is the pro-empirical worldview where logic and reasoning is considered highly fallible: hence you don’t think and don’t argue too much, you actually look and check things instead. You rely on experience, not reasoning.


Anyhow, the argument is that there are classes, which are indeed artificial, and there are kinds, which are products of natural forces, products of causality.


And the deeper – Darwinian – argument, unspoken but obvious, is that any being with a model of reality that does not conform to such real clumps, gets eaten by a grue.

This is impressive. It seems I have to extend my one-variable epistemology to a two-variable epistemology.

My former epistemology was that we generally categorize things according to their uses or dangers for us. So “chair” is – very roughly – defined as “anything we can sit on”. Similarly, we can categorize “predator” as “something that eats us or the animals that are useful for us”.

The unspoken argument against this is that the universe or the biosphere exists neither for us nor against us. A fox can eat your rabbits and a lion can eat you, but they don’t exist just for the sake of making your life difficult.

Hence, if you interpret phenomena only from the viewpoint of their uses or dangers for humans, you get only half the picture right. The other half is what it really is and where it came from.

Copying is everything:
Philosophy professor Ruth Millikan’s insight that everything that gets copied from an ancestor has a proper function or teleofunction: it is whatever feature or function that made it and its ancestor selected for copying, in competition with all the other similar copiable things. This would mean Aristotelean teleology is correct within the field of copyable things, replicators, i.e. within biology, although in physics still obviously incorrect.

Darwinian Reactionary drew attention to it two years ago and I still don’t understand why didn’t it generate a bigger buzz. It is an extremely important insight.

I mean, this is what we were waiting for, a proper synthesis of science and philosophy, and a proper way to rescue Aristotelean teleology, which leads to so excellent common-sense predictions that intuitively it cannot be very wrong, yet modern philosophy always denied it.

The result from that is the briding of the fact-value gap and burying the naturalistic fallacy: we CAN derive values from facts: a thing is good if it is well suitable for its natural purpose, teleofunction or proper function, which is the purpose it was selected for and copied for, the purpose and the suitability for the purpose that made the ancestors of this thing selected for copying, instead of all the other potential, similar ancestors.


What was humankind selected for? I am afraid, the answer is kind of ugly.

Men were selected to compete between groups, the cooperate within groups largely for coordinating for the sake of this competition, and have a low-key competition inside the groups as well for status and leadership. I am afraid, intelligence is all about organizing elaborate tribal raids: “coalitionary arms races”. The most civilized case, least brutal but still expensive case is arms races in prestige status, not dominance status: when Ancient Athens buildt pretty buildings and modern France built the TGV and America sent a man to the Moon in order to gain “gloire” i.e. the prestige type respect and status amongst the nations, the larger groups of mankind. If you are the type who doesn’t like blood, you should probably focus on these kinds of civilized, prestige-project competitions.

Women were selected for bearing children, for having strong and intelligent sons therefore having these heritable traits themselves (HBD kind of contradicts the more radically anti-woman aspects of RedPillery: marry a weak and stupid but attractive silly-blondie type woman and your son’s won’t be that great either), for pleasuring men and in some rarer but existing cases, to be true companions and helpers of their husbands.
- Matter: a change or movement's material cause, is the aspect of the change or movement which is determined by the material that composes the moving or changing things. For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.
- Form: a change or movement's formal cause, is a change or movement caused by the arrangement, shape or appearance of the thing changing or moving. Aristotle says for example that the ratio 2:1, and number in general, is the cause of the octave.
- Agent: a change or movement's efficient or moving cause, consists of things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter, or a person working as one, and according to Aristotle the efficient cause of a boy is a father.
- End or purpose: a change or movement's final cause, is that for the sake of which a thing is what it is. For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom.
A proximate cause is an event which is closest to, or immediately responsible for causing, some observed result. This exists in contrast to a higher-level ultimate cause (or distal cause) which is usually thought of as the "real" reason something occurred.


- Ultimate causation explains traits in terms of evolutionary forces acting on them.
- Proximate causation explains biological function in terms of immediate physiological or environmental factors.
gnon  philosophy  ideology  thinking  conceptual-vocab  forms-instances  realness  analytical-holistic  bio  evolution  telos-atelos  distribution  nature  coarse-fine  epistemic  intricacy  is-ought  values  duplication  nihil  the-classics  big-peeps  darwinian  deep-materialism  selection  equilibrium  subjective-objective  models  classification  smoothness  discrete  schelling  optimization  approximation  comparison  multi  peace-violence  war  coalitions  status  s-factor  fashun  reputation  civilization  intelligence  competition  leadership  cooperate-defect  within-without  within-group  group-level  homo-hetero  new-religion  causation  direct-indirect  ends-means  metabuch  physics  axioms  skeleton  wiki  reference  concept  being-becoming  essence-existence  logos 
july 2018 by nhaliday
John Dee - Wikipedia
John Dee (13 July 1527 – 1608 or 1609) was an English mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occult philosopher,[5] and advisor to Queen Elizabeth I. He devoted much of his life to the study of alchemy, divination, and Hermetic philosophy. He was also an advocate of England's imperial expansion into a "British Empire", a term he is generally credited with coining.[6]

Dee straddled the worlds of modern science and magic just as the former was emerging. One of the most learned men of his age, he had been invited to lecture on the geometry of Euclid at the University of Paris while still in his early twenties. Dee was an ardent promoter of mathematics and a respected astronomer, as well as a leading expert in navigation, having trained many of those who would conduct England's voyages of discovery.

Simultaneously with these efforts, Dee immersed himself in the worlds of magic, astrology and Hermetic philosophy. He devoted much time and effort in the last thirty years or so of his life to attempting to commune with angels in order to learn the universal language of creation and bring about the pre-apocalyptic unity of mankind. However, Robert Hooke suggested in the chapter Of Dr. Dee's Book of Spirits, that John Dee made use of Trithemian steganography, to conceal his communication with Elizabeth I.[7] A student of the Renaissance Neo-Platonism of Marsilio Ficino, Dee did not draw distinctions between his mathematical research and his investigations into Hermetic magic, angel summoning and divination. Instead he considered all of his activities to constitute different facets of the same quest: the search for a transcendent understanding of the divine forms which underlie the visible world, which Dee called "pure verities".

In his lifetime, Dee amassed one of the largest libraries in England. His high status as a scholar also allowed him to play a role in Elizabethan politics. He served as an occasional advisor and tutor to Elizabeth I and nurtured relationships with her ministers Francis Walsingham and William Cecil. Dee also tutored and enjoyed patronage relationships with Sir Philip Sidney, his uncle Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, and Edward Dyer. He also enjoyed patronage from Sir Christopher Hatton.
mind meld

Leave Me Alone! Misanthropic Writings from the Anti-Social Edge
people  big-peeps  old-anglo  wiki  history  early-modern  britain  anglosphere  optimate  philosophy  mystic  deep-materialism  science  aristos  math  geometry  conquest-empire  nietzschean  religion  christianity  theos  innovation  the-devil  forms-instances  god-man-beast-victim  gnosis-logos  expansionism  age-of-discovery  oceans  frontier  multi  twitter  social  commentary  backup  pic  memes(ew)  gnon  🐸  books  literature 
april 2018 by nhaliday
"Really six people present": origin of phrase commonly attributed to William James - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange
Whenever two people meet, there are really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the other person sees him, and each man as he really is.


Here's a graph of the number of references of the phrase "really six people present" Click on the first range (1800-1017) and you'll see this, which attributes this statement to Oliver Wendell Holmes. What's perhaps relevant is the reference to "John and James"--I'm guessing two placeholder names.
q-n-a  stackex  quotes  aphorism  law  big-peeps  old-anglo  illusion  truth  anthropology  psychology  cog-psych  social-psych  realness  dennett  biases  neurons  rationality  within-without  theory-of-mind  subjective-objective  forms-instances  parallax  the-self 
march 2018 by nhaliday
What Does a “Normal” Human Genome Look Like? | Science
So, what have our first glimpses of variation in the genomes of generally healthy people taught us? First, balancing selection, the evolutionary process that favors genetic diversification rather than the fixation of a single “best” variant, appears to play a minor role outside the immune system. Local adaptation, which accounts for variation in traits such as pigmentation, dietary specialization, and susceptibility to particular pathogens is also a second-tier player. What is on the top tier? Increasingly, the answer appears to be mutations that are “deleterious” by biochemical or standard evolutionary criteria. These mutations, as has long been appreciated, overwhelmingly make up the most abundant form of nonneutral variation in all genomes. A model for human genetic individuality is emerging in which there actually is a “wild-type” human genome—one in which most genes exist in an evolutionarily optimized form. There just are no “wild-type” humans: We each fall short of this Platonic ideal in our own distinctive ways.
article  essay  org:nat  🌞  bio  biodet  genetics  genomics  mutation  genetic-load  QTL  evolution  sapiens  survey  summary  coding-theory  enhancement  signal-noise  egalitarianism-hierarchy  selection  tradeoffs  immune  recent-selection  perturbation  nibble  ideas  forms-instances 
november 2017 by nhaliday
Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » Why I Am Not An Integrated Information Theorist (or, The Unconscious Expander)
In my opinion, how to construct a theory that tells us which physical systems are conscious and which aren’t—giving answers that agree with “common sense” whenever the latter renders a verdict—is one of the deepest, most fascinating problems in all of science. Since I don’t know a standard name for the problem, I hereby call it the Pretty-Hard Problem of Consciousness. Unlike with the Hard Hard Problem, I don’t know of any philosophical reason why the Pretty-Hard Problem should be inherently unsolvable; but on the other hand, humans seem nowhere close to solving it (if we had solved it, then we could reduce the abortion, animal rights, and strong AI debates to “gentlemen, let us calculate!”).

Now, I regard IIT as a serious, honorable attempt to grapple with the Pretty-Hard Problem of Consciousness: something concrete enough to move the discussion forward. But I also regard IIT as a failed attempt on the problem. And I wish people would recognize its failure, learn from it, and move on.

In my view, IIT fails to solve the Pretty-Hard Problem because it unavoidably predicts vast amounts of consciousness in physical systems that no sane person would regard as particularly “conscious” at all: indeed, systems that do nothing but apply a low-density parity-check code, or other simple transformations of their input data. Moreover, IIT predicts not merely that these systems are “slightly” conscious (which would be fine), but that they can be unboundedly more conscious than humans are.

To justify that claim, I first need to define Φ. Strikingly, despite the large literature about Φ, I had a hard time finding a clear mathematical definition of it—one that not only listed formulas but fully defined the structures that the formulas were talking about. Complicating matters further, there are several competing definitions of Φ in the literature, including ΦDM (discrete memoryless), ΦE (empirical), and ΦAR (autoregressive), which apply in different contexts (e.g., some take time evolution into account and others don’t). Nevertheless, I think I can define Φ in a way that will make sense to theoretical computer scientists. And crucially, the broad point I want to make about Φ won’t depend much on the details of its formalization anyway.

We consider a discrete system in a state x=(x1,…,xn)∈Sn, where S is a finite alphabet (the simplest case is S={0,1}). We imagine that the system evolves via an “updating function” f:Sn→Sn. Then the question that interests us is whether the xi‘s can be partitioned into two sets A and B, of roughly comparable size, such that the updates to the variables in A don’t depend very much on the variables in B and vice versa. If such a partition exists, then we say that the computation of f does not involve “global integration of information,” which on Tononi’s theory is a defining aspect of consciousness.
aaronson  tcstariat  philosophy  dennett  interdisciplinary  critique  nibble  org:bleg  within-without  the-self  neuro  psychology  cog-psych  metrics  nitty-gritty  composition-decomposition  complex-systems  cybernetics  bits  information-theory  entropy-like  forms-instances  empirical  walls  arrows  math.DS  structure  causation  quantitative-qualitative  number  extrema  optimization  abstraction  explanation  summary  degrees-of-freedom  whole-partial-many  network-structure  systematic-ad-hoc  tcs  complexity  hardness  no-go  computation  measurement  intricacy  examples  counterexample  coding-theory  linear-algebra  fields  graphs  graph-theory  expanders  math  math.CO  properties  local-global  intuition  error  definition 
january 2017 by nhaliday
What’s the catch? | West Hunter
Neanderthals and the Wrath of Khan

if someone were to try to create a Neanderthal a few years from now, starting with ancient DNA, they’d have to have worry a lot about data errors, because such errors would translate into mutations, which might be harmful or even lethal. Assume that we have figured out how to get the gene expression right, have all the proper methylation etc: we have modern humans as a template and you know there isn’t that much difference.

They might try consensus averaging – take three high-quality Neanderthal genomes and make your synthetic genome by majority rule: we ignore a nucleotide change in one genome if it’s not there in the other two. ‘tell me three times’, a simple form of error-correcting code.

But doing this would cause a problem. Can you see what the problem is?
west-hunter  sapiens  speculation  enhancement  archaics  discussion  genetics  genetic-load  🌞  gedanken  unintended-consequences  cocktail  error  aDNA  signal-noise  coding-theory  scitariat  wild-ideas  ideas  archaeology  perturbation  iteration-recursion  duplication  forms-instances  traces 
november 2016 by nhaliday

related tags

aaronson  abstraction  adna  age-of-discovery  analytical-holistic  anglosphere  anthropology  aphorism  approximation  archaeology  archaics  aristos  arrows  art  article  axioms  backup  behavioral-gen  being-becoming  biases  big-peeps  bio  biodet  bits  books  britain  buddhism  causation  christianity  civilization  classification  coalitions  coarse-fine  cocktail  coding-theory  cog-psych  commentary  comparison  competition  complex-systems  complexity  composition-decomposition  computation  concept  conceptual-vocab  conquest-empire  contrarianism  cooperate-defect  counterexample  critique  culture  cybernetics  darwinian  data  database  deep-materialism  definition  degrees-of-freedom  dennett  direct-indirect  discrete  discussion  distribution  duplication  early-modern  egalitarianism-hierarchy  emergent  empirical  ends-means  enhancement  entropy-like  envy  epistemic  equilibrium  error  essay  essence-existence  evolution  examples  expanders  expansionism  explanation  extrema  fashun  fiction  fields  film  frontier  gavisti  gedanken  genetic-load  genetics  genomics  geometry  gnon  gnosis-logos  god-man-beast-victim  good-evil  graph-theory  graphs  group-level  hardness  history  homo-hetero  humanity  ideas  ideology  illusion  immune  information-theory  innovation  intelligence  interdisciplinary  intricacy  intuition  is-ought  iteration-recursion  law  leadership  lens  letters  linear-algebra  literature  local-global  logos  math.ds  math  measurement  media  mediterranean  memes(ew)  metabuch  metrics  models  moments  multi  mutation  mystic  myth  nature  network-structure  neuro  neurons  new-religion  news  nibble  nietzschean  nihil  nitty-gritty  no-go  number  oceans  old-anglo  optimate  optimization  order-disorder  org:bleg  org:mag  org:nat  organization  parallax  paternal-age  peace-violence  people  perturbation  philosophy  physics  pic  popsci  presentation  properties  psychology  q-n-a  qtl  quantitative-qualitative  quotes  rationality  realness  reason  recent-selection  reddit  reference  religion  reputation  responsibility  rhetoric  right-wing  s-factor  sapiens  scale  schelling  science  scitariat  selection  signal-noise  skeleton  sky  smoothness  social-psych  social  speculation  stackex  status  structure  subjective-objective  summary  survey  systematic-ad-hoc  tcs  tcstariat  telos-atelos  the-classics  the-devil  the-self  theory-of-mind  theos  thiel  thinking  traces  tradeoffs  truth  tv  twitter  unintended-consequences  values  video  volo-avolo  vulgar  walls  war  west-hunter  whole-partial-many  wiki  wild-ideas  within-group  within-without  writing  🌞  🐸 

Copy this bookmark: