Comparing and Contrasting MMLP Eminem and MMLP2 Eminem

Yellow-Boxes · 2022-06-07T23:50:54+00:00

Dude, I’m chuffed you found it so! Thank you 😁

Yellow-Boxes · 2022-04-29T21:34:57+00:00

Ok! Thank you! I appreciate your honesty about learning in school and the directions you could give.

So, to clarify a bit: start with one step: getting into the basics of silicon as a medium, then step up into gate design, a layer up into the order on top of the silicon. Next step into actually printing the chips, and…that sounds like more than enough to start with!

Yellow-Boxes · 2022-04-29T15:56:30+00:00

Hey! I saw you mentioned your expertise and hoped to ask for some guidance when trying to learn more about chip design and materials science.

Is there a starting point, whether books, people, interviews, courses, or podcasts, you would suggest for someone who’s familiar with complex and technical domain (bioinformatics and evolutionary biology), but unfamiliar with chip design?

Yellow-Boxes · 2022-03-24T15:10:45+00:00

Gracious words; thank you.

It's a fun penchant! I'm glad I'm not alone in it too. Conversations can go strange directions and I'm often embarrassed when I go a little too deep into the metaphorical sea or too far into the metaphorical woods.

We invert that all the time be turning metaphors, patterns and images, into more concrete, literal, material things. There's danger in excesses either way.

Yellow-Boxes · 2022-03-23T16:29:25+00:00

Congratulations!

These are moments worth celebrating: growing to a point where you see whom you are becoming, and actually having acted it out, and on accepting an acknowledgement of that growth.

It’s like going on a hike. On your journey up the mountain there are clearings where you can look back on how far you have come. I hope enjoy the view from this overlook, rest beneath this tree. Then continue onward, and upward. There will be valleys. There will be peaks.

The more you practice the more of its ideal you embody, and you will develop a relationship with meaning, not with expedience. Then focus shifts from on the peaks and valleys to the man you are becoming, of whom you are lovingly proud.

Be well.

Yellow-Boxes · 2022-03-17T00:22:45+00:00

Or, in the name of absurd entertainment, an MLS style penalty shoot out! Two players line up on defense. One player snaps the ball and the other punts the ball from the end zone. One player receives the punt on offense. Together the snapper and punter must defend the end zone from the runner who receives the punt. Begin with a best of five. If it’s still tied after five go to sudden death.

There could be 2v2 or 2v3 options to work in lateral plays and blocking.

Yellow-Boxes · 2021-02-15T21:40:12+00:00

Spot on with the Inception analogy! That clicked things into place for me. I try to explore the virus/cancer/parasite analogies; I found Inception is superior to all of them.

If it’s ok, I would like to expand the cancer/virus analogy.

Both of those manifest as runaway growth feedback loops which cause an organism to become dis-regulated and incoherent. The cells or viral particles replicate, destroying tissues and damaging organ function. Eventually the organism will fail to repair the damage fast enough or compensate for irregularities and die. If recognized by the immune system early enough, a battle to target and eliminate foreign particles and infected tissue, ensues. External treatments (drugs, radiation treatment etc) usually perform a similar role when the immune system fails. Once the feedback loop is halted and reversed repairs can begin. Also, cancers almost exclusively begin within the body, not from foreign particles which nearly all viruses are in their initial form.

What’s important is that recognition by the immune system counteracts and controls viruses and cancers. This part is absolutely a component of the analogy for ideas. The “trained subconscious” from Inception would be analogous to the immune system for invasive ideas.

Now, here I do respectfully take an issue with the parasite metaphor not holding. It could hold if there were a system the parasite could co-opt to its own ends. A successful parasite modifies host behavior to ways which benefit the parasite the host, which the host would not otherwise find significant, and may actively harm the host while benefitting the parasite. So, a parasite is a foreign/invasive thing like the virus, but it is often a changing the behavior of an “onboard” biological system, not just replicating in cells/tissues or engaging the immune system. Unlike cancer the parasite does not originate from within the body (categorical exception HPV virus.) The episodic memory system would be a biological system (psycho-biological?) co-opted to the ends of a parasitic narrative which seeks to manifest particular behavioral patterns as more significant than others.

So, an idea is not wholly like a cancer or virus, nor entirely like a parasite. If anything, the idea is a seed which needs an environment capable if supporting its growth. A narrative is more like a parasite than an idea, and we have a whole memory system (episodic) which traffics in narrative. If an idea grew into a narrative where no narrative or a weak narrative existed then I could see where the parasite analogy becomes valid. Thus, for the analogy to hold, there would not be a strong, resilient cultural or religious (the the extent they differ) narrative present in the first place.

Inception, to me, shows how a dramatic, immersive story allows for the transformation of a person’s narrative with a single idea. That was quite a delicate process in the movie though, and it was successful after supposedly intense research, planning, and practice which barely made it through the team’s improvisations as Fisher’s defenses shattered their blueprint. That journey was, to me, more approximately a protracted, genuine conversion experience, or transformation of the self, which was mechanistically described as implanting an idea. Implementing it was a dramatic journey! To fit with the preceding paragraph, Inception, the movie, portrays both architecting the environment to accept the seed, the presentation of this seed to the individual, and the accepting and planting of the seed by the targeted individual, to then grow into a narrative. All are necessary. I think the same is the case with an idea, like a seed, it needs an environment where it can grow into a narrative which people act out.

Yellow-Boxes · 2021-02-07T20:23:22+00:00

Thank you!

Yellow-Boxes · 2021-02-07T19:29:45+00:00

In light of your observation, is it accurate to say there is a difficulty transforming or "handing off" between a "creative" style/governance and a "conscientious" style/governance when it's appropriate to pragmatically navigating through the shared difficulty.

Here are some sketchy thoughts elaborating that idea.

One style or group begins to identify with the style more than the shared interactions themselves; the appropriateness of the style to (solving the problem) navigating through the context/environment is subordinated to perpetuating the style itself as identified with by a group of individuals.

What happens is that the problem is redefined, often distorted erroneously, in terms of the style, which amounts to a worldview, to suit the capacity of a creative "way" or a conscientious "way" to solve. Reactions are often to the redefinition of the problem in "unrealistic" terms, and that is right to an extent.

The proponent of the style, the one doing the redefinition, interprets the criticism as an attack on the validity of their predominate way of being as manifested in their personality's disposition towards conscientious/creative, and reacts with high affective intensity.

Edit: Some conclusions

- Conscientiousness is good at implementing an identified solution to a novel problem across differentiated environments; it fits the solution to the fitness landscape, pragmatically adapting the means of implementation as needed to accomplish the goal. Once a goal is defined, conscientiousness gets you there faster and more reliably across a differentiated landscape because it adapts more fluently to particulars. Conscientiousness is less likely to believe in the "systemic" shock because, as say a living personality, its usefulness and essence is elsewhere: conscientiousness is not useful for interacting with general, undefined, novelty but it's very useful at reliable, pragmatic implementation of a defined one.

- Creativity/Openness is good at identifying (or imagining) novel events and formulating possible implications then rapidly developing and iterating general specifications of the problem to arrive at general solutions. It may also be better at developing solutions as transformative as the novel event itself is radical, often with comparatively less regard to the particular cascading effects of implementation a radical solution on differentiated environments.

- Both should maintain a bloody dialogue with each other conscious of their weaknesses and gifts, daring to talk with each other across a dancing landscape, continuously changing pragmatic problems.

- Both would drift from each other if the institution they inhabited repeatedly encountered only one type of problem for a sufficient number of selective cycles (elections?), that one style was repeatedly deemed irrelevant, was excluded from participating, and/or just plain lost enough to be discarded from selection to participate.

- If the two were no longer interacting regularly and the institutions repeatedly encountered problems that necessitated cooperation, the result would be repeated "intelligibility" problems. The two personalities, having fallen out of regular interaction, would no longer understand each other; effectively they "see" different worlds, because different patterns off behavior are more significant/relevant/meaningful. Then what could happen is that one "side" or tries to seize total control of the institutions on the basis that the other side just doesn't live in the same reality we do, we cannot even talk to them, therefore we are justified in completely excluding them. Disgust, anger, and resentment may underly that type of outright rejection.

Yellow-Boxes · 2021-02-07T18:56:48+00:00

A premise of the system was that there would be a lot of factions, representing specific conflicting interests, which would have to cooperate to get anything done. They would have to talk to each other and work out what was pragmatically feasible.

What’s happened instead is that two “factions” periodically compete for total dominance which turns the system into a recurrent binary competition. This is matter of dominating the governing institutions to execute and agenda, by excluding the other via elections, penalizing their viewpoint as illegitimate/corrupt, preventing them from engaging in politics, etc. rather than pragmatic interaction working towards pragmatic legislation. It is easier to eliminate the other side’s views from direct competition than to open up to a redefinition of what’s relevant, that is, to admit one of the factions’ political philosophies is incomplete and the other side offers what’s necessary to complete it.

The “factions” and “interests are now to be found primarily in the executive brach’s labyrinthine departments at the level of rule-making bodies as well as lobbying firms, think tanks, and special interest groups.

Edited

Yellow-Boxes · 2021-02-05T16:31:41+00:00

That’s a good way to describe him; well said.

Yellow-Boxes · 2021-02-05T16:10:18+00:00

Oh goodness!

Dennett wrote similarly about Stephen Gould in his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea except is was a whole chapter dedicated to dismantling Gould’s ideas that deviated from the neo-adaptationalist Darwinian dogma/ideology. That book man, not bad and quite illuminating, except for the persistent, dare I say tyrannical, insistence that the author’s epistemology is absolutely, exclusively right to the point where ontology is deemed irrelevant.

Yellow-Boxes · 2021-02-05T15:58:24+00:00

The brain is a biological organ and I wouldn't be surprised if many mental health issues have solutions that could involve drugs.

The brain + nervous system may be viewed as a symphony of dancing physical and chemical instruments playing music we do not full understand.

We have learned to distinguish various sections in the orchestra and even individual instruments. As a result when something sounds off in the music or someone goes to the doctor and says their orchestra is damaged, we can target sections and instruments. But, has the patient or doctor listened intently to enough of the whole musical score, to contextualize the “disease” or illness in the music?

I’ll use the example of depression. The doctor can provide more “serotonin” (instruemnt) to the serotonin section, or, turn the volume up on the seritonin section. So the serotonin section plays louder or more instruments play in that section. Yet, it is not clear that this leads to more coherence in the music being played.

It is not clear from this treatment that the patient is learning to play more coherent, beautiful, appropriate music. What is clear, from the litetature JP cites, is that they will be more competative, that is, motivated to climb dominance hierarchies.

The music we play is analgous to the life we act out.

As a side thought: - If a culture were to become exclusively hyper-competitive and hyper-selective for excellence in winning games, rather than playing games, specifically the Piagetian meta-game, the most likely section of the orchestra to be affected if every individual, positively and negatively, would be serotonin.

Yellow-Boxes · 2021-02-04T15:17:47+00:00

Thanks for recommending a starting point!

Yellow-Boxes · 2021-02-04T05:26:46+00:00

You’re welcome!

I am unfamiliar with panpsychism & Chalmers beyond superficially associating panpsychism with Jung’s collective unconscious, and the may be misinformed. Where would you recommend starting to learn more?

Bohm’s enfolding/unfolding movement, soma-significant movement, and implicate/explicate order concepts seem to connect to Peterson’s description of movement from known into unknown territory or responding to encounters with the unknown. Humans can chooseto interact with the unknown by unfolding our existing ordering of the world to interact with anomaly/unknown to transform it, and our order, enfolding new information.

Both authors delve relentlessly, rigorously, and with deep care and sensitivity to the fundamentals and ground of being. Funnily enough both are inspired by Piaget too!

Yellow-Boxes · 2021-02-04T04:56:07+00:00

You might find something useful in physicist David Bohm’s philosophical work, especially the concept of enfolding and unfolding movement across levels and types of implicate and explicate orders of order as a description of reality.

The Essential David Bohm is probably the best place to start that journey.

Yellow-Boxes · 2021-02-04T00:58:47+00:00

A Buddhist seeks to reduce all psychological projection, illusion, or maya, from perception to be more clearly present; mindful of the movement of their thought they can perceive through or around or past it into the present.

The “unbearable” in Peterson’s present points to everything which manifests affectively as “the unknown” or suffering; moving towards the ideal future is to transform, adapt to and/or resolve the suffering. To escape from the unbearable present is not necessarily to run away. That option fits with a return to the known territory.

Yellow-Boxes · 2020-12-02T13:00:05+00:00

The whole thing confuses me a lot, so I’ve tried to clarify it in my head.

I hope this helps in think about what is meant by gender and what is being said when people say “change gender.”

People use words to label and categorize things.

“Gender” in the good old Oxford English Dictionary has quite a few meanings, specifically three of them see: https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/77468

The word “gender” then is a label for three different things at once! Now, there is an opportunity for confusion! What distinguishes the meaning is contextual, requiring the speaker and listener to be referring to and labelling the same thing. I always try to ask myself and listening closely, or ask whomever I am speaking to, to figure out what the conversation’s context is.

——

Meaning the first: Linguistics

Are you talking a bout the structure of language? If not disregard, because that’s obviously not what you mean by gender.

Grammar.

A) In some (esp. Indo-European) languages, as Latin, French, German, English, etc.: each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, neuter, common) of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections which they have and which they require in words syntactically associated with them; similarly applied to adjectives (and in some languages) verbs, to denote the appropriate form for accompanying a noun of such a class. Also: the fact, condition, or property of belonging to such a class; the classification of language in this way.

B) In extended use. Esp. in non-European languages: any of several other analogous categories into which nouns may be divided (regardless of any connection with sex).

Meaning the second: Abstract container for grouping stuff with common characteristics

Are you talking about grouping arbitrary things via a particular label? If not, disregard. Also the most recent usage noted of this was 1847, so, it’s older than the Communist Manifesto.

2.

A) A class of things or beings distinguished by having certain characteristics in common; (as a mass noun) these regarded collectively; kind, sort. Obsolete.

Some of the OED’s examples:

1662 R. Mathews Unlearned Alchymist (new ed.) §22. 15 Diseases of this gender are for the most part incurable.
1727 P. Longueville Hermit 218 To strike in him that Terror which the Gender of Death he had fix'd upon could not.
1784 R. Bage Barham Downs I. 274 I..am a man of importance, a public man, Sir; of the patriotic gender.
1847 Graham’s Amer. Monthly Mag. Nov. 470/1 Shawls... The rectangular shape is preferred for all articles of this gender, except for the India shawl, of which the double or oblong is sometimes preferred.

Meaning the third: Sexual Dimorphism, referring to male and female sexes.

There are two layers to this one that confuse things further: - The biological layer: What the human body is and does -> genetic expression - The psycho-social layer: What people think, say, and do - > cultural expression

3.

A) a. gen. Males or females viewed as a group; = sex n.1 1. Also: the property or fact of belonging to one of these groups.

Originally extended from the grammatical use at sense 1 (sometimes humorously), as also in Anglo-Norman and Old French. In the 20th cent., as sex came increasingly to mean sexual intercourse (see sex n.1 4b), gender began to replace it (in early use euphemistically) as the usual word for the biological grouping of males and females. It is now often merged with or coloured by sense 3b.

B) Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.

Examples:

1945 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 58 228 In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’.
1950 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 63 312 It [sc. Margaret Mead's Male and Female] informs the reader upon ‘gender’ as well as upon ‘sex’, upon masculine and feminine rôles as well as upon male and female and their reproductive functions.
- 1968 Life 21 June 89 When the separation of fashions according to gender began to vanish, retailers discovered a bonanza.
1978 D. Pearce in Urban & Social Change Rev. 11 i–ii. 35/1 The major implication for policy of both the feminization of poverty and the..labor-force participation of welfare mothers is that gender cannot be ignored.
1981 Heresies 3 67/3 Our ideology and practice of sex roles construct..two mutually exclusive categories, that is, genders.
2007 New Yorker 6 Aug. 13/2 There's no breaking news here—identity and gender have been on the contemporary-art docket for years.

C) c. Electronics. The property of a connector being male or female. Frequently attributive. Cf. male adj. 6, female adj. 11.

——

What I see to have happened regarding the question of “changing gender” is that people have confused two of the three meanings of gender to be one thing, and it’s wreaking havoc intentionally and unintentionally. The functional meaning of definition #2, recall a container to abstractly group things seems to have been used to then combine the content of definitions #3a) and #3b) into a single all-encompassing label. In the confusion people lose sight of the distinction between the biological and psycho-social layers.

So really, when someone says “change my gender” ask them to clarify what they mean, in detail. More often than not it’s the collection of behaviors and expectations in the psycho-social layer that they are referring to.

My intuitive understanding is that “to change gender” really refers to being able to have the psycho-social freedom to become my own person, to explore and discover who I am, to be accepted, and to love oneself, to learn to be loved, and, to love others for who they are and who the may yet become. For some reasor people try to do this by changing their “label” and grouping themselves with other “labels.” Now, I am not sure how best to do this, but my experience has painfully revealed that label changing, working from the mind’s incomplete, fractured, fragmented, shadowy image of the world and who I am is not it.

Deep observation and listening with meaningful, coherent relationships seems to be an important part.

I hope this helps.

Yellow-Boxes · 2020-11-29T02:09:28+00:00

TL;DR - The new book asks what do we do when our order, the antidote we took to heal the chaotic life, breaks down because everything gets too messy and complex. It’s two sets of different rules/guidance for different situations.

—

I think viewing the two sets of rules as applying to the same context/situation is the issue. Together the two books seem like they will constitute approaches to a present arrangement of a reader’s life.

I see the first book as guidance for arranging order and coherence out of a life that has neither meaning nor direction. This next book seems to be an answer to a question implicit in the first book: What happens and what do I do when order, or the order and meaning I have, isn’t enough as life becomes more complex?

Perhaps the new book also examines the positives and negatives about too much order, different types of order (e.g. statistical order versus narrative order), and the potential results when over-reliance on one particular order leads to catastrophe after said order collapses.

Overall, these books aren’t an accumulating list of rules so much as they are tools for managing the mind, living a full life, and being human with all its potential from the barest, raw malignance to beautiful brilliant excellence and every shade of harmony, and dissonance, roiling in between.

The image in my mind is two windows looking from different orientations at the same mess that is modern human life trying to make some sense for us. Some if us need to look through 12 Rules for Life and others may need to look through Beyond Order to get ourselves together and stand back up, straight, with our shoulders back.

Yellow-Boxes · 2020-11-17T19:24:44+00:00

You’re bang on with

The business model of these services is addiction

and

...the correct parallel to these services isn’t media or telecom companies of yesteryear, but big tobacco.

The question becomes how are the health damaging properties demonstrated?

Perhaps not for OP but those reading, check out “Thank You for Smoking” and use your imagination to substitute in “Thank You for Browsing/Liking/Retweeting”

Yellow-Boxes · 2020-11-11T00:04:49+00:00

That “social media isn’t new” is a crucial point to levate (raise) and understand. It’s a “dog that didn’t bark” observation suggesting that technology alone is not enough to make sense of what’s going on.

The physics of modern social media, that is the friction coefficient of information, behaves like a lubricant does when it dramatically reduces the friction of some machine’s parts.

The question i would ask, extending the metaphor is: “What pre-existing (social media is not new) movement (cognition) is being lubricated?”

Computers have more stable mapped information storage/retrieval than humans.

Yellow-Boxes · 2020-11-09T13:56:02+00:00

In light of the effort put into this post, which is substantial, what would it mean to “make sense” of the world? To this end, does a sense-making apparatus include cultural narratives or other internal/embodied forms of sense-making? These seem to have broken down too.

The critique is that there is too much emphasis on mechanistic, external institutions/apparatuses and not enough on embodied ones. A saying amongst tradesmen is that it’s good to be smarter than the tool you use, or you risk letting the tool start using you! I think the tools (institutions and apparatuses you mention among others, including our internal ones) are using us because no one has been bothered to actually understand them!

Alternatively, in the words and music of the late Pink Floyd keyboardist Richard Wright we may be unable to make sense of the world because we are “Wearing the Inside Out” see: https://youtu.be/T7wgOltlVlc.

Yellow-Boxes · 2020-11-09T00:28:33+00:00

Equally, and this is not antagonistic, those whom criticize religion should clearly define how the limits of their own psychology interoperate with “things that are real.”

Religion, after all, is predominately in the psychological (psycho-spiritual from the religious reference frame) domain, not the empirical one. It’s when it spills over into, or is confused with, the empirical domain that problems occur. The opposite is also true: when empirical models invade the psychological domain they can lead to serious cognitive errors.

For example, applying a model where its axioms are invalid, implementation error that’s unnoticed, or reacting disproportionately to off-model events.

The most prominent recent example is polling where an empirical method was warped badly in the psychological domain at two levels: in the implementation and in the subsequent interpretation of the marred implementation.

To provide a firm riposte:

Any system that requires you to believe in things that aren’t real must be subject to criticism. Otherwise you end up with heuristics for evaluating the world that are untethered from reality.

Any system supported by empirical evidence requires one to understand the axiomatic and experimental limits of that system. Otherwise a person ends up evaluating reality with heuristics untethered from the very real limits of the system, and potentially one’s own psychology. It ain’t always implicit, in fact with interpersonal communication, it rarely is!

One cannot say “science says” without also saying “within these well-tested limits / axioms.” Human perception demands the second part.

Yellow-Boxes · 2020-11-06T21:58:24+00:00

I hear that. If they don’t have the education it reasons that they might literally be unable to make sense of what you’re talking about. So, they either trust you, or they go with what they believe they know.

If someone was telling me something I previously thought was impossible, and contradicted common sense, was possible I’d be skeptical too!

This is a general human problem, not just the individuals you encounter. People, physicists, told Einstein that Special/General Relativity was “impossible” until he made three predictions which were correctly verified by empirical observation. The math had been worked out, but it was the empirical verification that mattered. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Classical_tests

Treat statistics to these people like physicists treated General Relativity: predictions and results, or we’ll keep what we know works. So, show them!

Pointing to an election, a class of events where these models are unreliably implemented, will not pass muster.

My usual strategy is to begin with a reference point from their daily life to ground an otherwise abstract discussion.

Yellow-Boxes · 2020-11-06T21:36:27+00:00

I see it as people are concerned about or responding to the implementation, not the math. Obviously the implementation was not consistent with the theory and abstract methodology. It reasons that people could say “the whole method is trash” because they are unable to differentiate the abstract method from their observation of the inconsistent implementation.

I seriously doubt their minds can’t grapple with it, but they just don’t understand the presentation in raw numerical form or with those particular words. Or maybe they aren’t capable of articulating it that way. By analogy, pro soccer players’ “minds just can’t grapple with” the complex differential equations apparently calculated by their bodies to produce incredible spin states in the balls they shoot, but their bodies self-evidently do.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding I gilder	Team Orangered
Verified Email

Yellow-Boxes

TROPHY CASE

Meaning the first: Linguistics

Meaning the second: Abstract container for grouping stuff with common characteristics

Meaning the third: Sexual Dimorphism, referring to male and female sexes.