Topic: Dark Enlightenment - page 2. (Read 69297 times)

No where in the above quote did I declare you are evil, nor did I declare what your ethics are.

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., 9:03am
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

I don't and haven't.

However, a grave and serious Judgement has be made against me by another. It is an extremely serious charge, serious enough that I am compelled to respond to my accuser.

To to declare someone's ethical framework as evil is about as dire an accusation as one can level. It's a spiritual charge the declaration that their morality is false.

How would you know why and what others see or can’t see w.r.t. an issue of faith. Elevating a personal matter to one of social commentary and judgment, is evil and potentially very dangerous as he points out in his video. I think you’re missing the point of his video, which is to look inside to yourself. If you find God there, then fine, but it doesn’t mean that his video is about the necessity of finding God and judging those who don’t find his God as failing to look inside themselves.

[...]

He captures some of the reasons that I dislike CoinCube’s presentation of God.

Stop boxing me in, and presuming your interpretation of a theological question is correct. God is a personal matter because it is always based on faith, not on rationality, logic, or reason. Allow me to do it my closet as Jesus said in Matthew 6:5.

We can box each other in on measurable phenomena. But God will never be measurable in our current understanding of spacetime.

In the face of such an attack it is important to clearly state what the foundations of my ethics are and I am entitled to demand the same of my accuser.

We are required to love our neighbor as ourselves even when they are very different at a biological level. This means treating women as you would have wanted to be treated if you had been born female instead of male with all the difference that come with that. It means putting yourself in the place of others and truly acting with a mind to not just your interests but theirs.

I am of the opinion that Jesus is telling us to be superrational but in a much deeper and fundamental way. Superrationality itself is simply an attempt to formalize that wisdom with only partial success.

Yes a female brain will always be different then a male brain. That does not make it worth less just different better at some things and worse at some things.

All women are still children of God and deserving the respect that comes with that as are all Men.

Yes there are very valid issues raised by those who are concerned about the disruption of traditional gender roles and the harmful effects that result from this. These are difficult problems that do not have simple solutions. However, the existence of these problems does not mean we are exempt from higher ethical responsibilities. Our challenge as men is to work towards finding solutions to these problems while simultaneously holding ourselves to a moral code in an era where morality and God is widely ignored and mocked. This no easy task but it is the burden of men to bear it.

STOP JUDGING OTHERS BY YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR GOD!
...

Stop boxing me in, and presuming your interpretation of a theological question is correct. God is a personal matter

CC’s ethics are actually evil.

We create and destroy with words, perhaps more so than we do with our hands - Ephesians 4:29

He said capacity, not capability. Capacity as in "empty space", of which his brain has a disproportionately large amount, compared to most readers here.

I would introduce my child to the concept of terrorism by first showing him the good done when there exists peace. Then I would show him the loss and destruction caused due to lack of peace then I'll make him decide what is right and what is wrong inadvertently showing him that it is terrorism and it is wrong..

Warning, this will exceed the intellectual capacity of most readers here. This is intended for the high IQ audience of Eric's blog.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5457696

---

I voted "most of them". I agree with ESR's comments:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424645

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238&cpage=1#comment-424636

"Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist, cultural critic, and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are in abnormal, social, and personality psychology,[1]with a particular interest in the psychology of religious and ideological belief,[2] " (excerpt from Wikipedia)


Jordan Peterson - Why Men Are Bailing Out
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LH16ympCb7Q

Jordan Peterson: Handling Your Darkest Feelings about Existence Itself
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nLRkG7PccPI

Jordan Peterson: The reason modern people can’t see God is that they won’t look low enough
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2py4aBpmko

Jordan Peterson - Do you believe in God?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIh1xQiuI8

There’s no universal truth. We pick a role. And every role is part of nature. And no, we’re never above nature nor above being an “animal” (as if a thinking creature is not an animal, lol)

Idealism is so dangerous like any good drug, because since they’re drugged on the “happy chemicals” of their idealistic delusion (lie), in exchange for swallowing the intoxicating blue pill, they’ll go to any extreme irrationality to maintain the delusion, such as junk science, forced sterilization, war, etc.. They drink their own Koolaid and truly believe their irrational “we’re making a better world”. News flash: the universe is constructed on ongoing randomness. If not, nothing would nor could exist other than as a static, prescripted recording. We’re not making a damn thing. The entropic reality is we’re finding ways to randomly destroy everything created— IOW by increasing the entropic diversity diversity of knowledge thus maximizing the distribution of uncertainty.

There is absolutely no way to protect women from everything and not destroy the natural incentives that men and women need in order to successfully maintain K strategy reproduction. The women marry the State when they marry a man, and they lose all their fear. Without fear, a woman does not need a man. She may for a while be enamoured with his status, but that will fade and she will move on to “discover herself”.

Any “man” who wants to protect all women, is a destroyer of everything. And he is not a man in my opinion. Protect you own woman and your own daughters from men you do not approve up. If you try to protect other men’s women, then you have destroyed society.

Men fuck around. They beat women. They are violent. And nature needs that, which is why women are attracted to that. Destroy that, and you destroy all your resources. Which is what is happening to the West now.

Again there is a biological reason that men should attempt to fuck around (and get stymied by men who protect their own woman and daughters) but women should have great fear when they do attempt to fuck around.

https://blog.jim.com/uncategorized/why-we-need-the-double-standard/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/what-women-want/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/chicks-dig-jerks/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/masculinity/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/why-female-status-limits-fertility/
https://blog.jim.com/war/why-feminists-support-islamic-rape-jihad/
https://blog.jim.com/politics/the-enlightenment-debunked/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/when-the-rot-set-in/


Again. If you try to protect all women instead of letting individual men protect some women (and thus all women losing fear of men), then what you get is the clusterfuck described in the above linked essays. Also women need to need men and need violent men to capture and “rape” them, because this how evolution maximally evolves. That is why women have a hypergamy instinct. Why do you think the emasculated men and the women of Europe are welcoming the rapefugees. The men have to compete to protect the women, but the betamales want to protect all women as a way of insuring they keep some women away from the alphamales, but that just clusterfucks the society and end up with wannabee Jeremy Meeks type of PUA fucking the women until they are old and childless and entirely wasted.

Even 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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3799720 (c.f. the main theme of my first linked Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay which spawned the Economic Devastation thread)

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”.

[…]

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=128

[…]

The women can’t be expected to fix this, because women are not the organizers and long-term planners of civilization.

[…]

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”:


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.

[…]

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.

James A. Donald describes the animalistic side of human nature, but his conclusions are false and invalid because all humans should be capable of the superralitionality and attainment of the universal wisdom of Christianity and/or Judaism.

He is describing the animal nature inherent in women and men. It is not just men who need to be superrational women need to be as well.

Every human is a unique child of God deserving to be treated with honesty and dignity.

To presume that women cannot be superrational because of their biology is essentially an argument that women cannot be devout and observant Christians or Jews and strive daily to follow the commands of God despite their biolgical desire to sin.

Superrationality depends on reciprocity.

Hedonism is due to both genders’ rejection of superrationality in favor of the “rational” animal nature which abandons God for sin and pleasure.

Encouraging men to behave more like animals will not reverse but rather accelerate the decline.

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.html

Thus 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.

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.

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.

Maybe women are more susceptible to this sort of manipulation, but then why are 21st century men so fucking pathetic too?

[…] 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.

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)?

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.

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].

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 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.

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-attention

This 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.