mallowdram

I suspect so. The case was made in 102 minutes, a NY Times book detailing how 18 people on or above the South Tower's impact zone managed to escape in one of the partially collapsed staircases. Were the stairs built to firecode specs in place in 1966, and not in the flimsy manner expedited by Rockefeller, these stairs would have easily survived intact long enough for many more than 18 to survive.

Any mythic/causal statement (lightning causes fire) is a lie of folk science.

Cant's solve narrative distortion with another sci-fi satire narrative. Solve the words or go extinct.

Article neglects that the WTC defied NYFD building codes on egress. If the code was applied as existing in 1966, it would require 8 or 9 fireproof staircases. Instead Rockefeller asked for and got a pass and the building instead had three staircases embedded in six layers of drywall, which is far else than the then standard fireproofing (brick encased). Not only that, they had non-standard transit corridors that wove egress routes around the two sky lobbies.

Recommend The One-Straw Revolution An Introduction to Natural Farming by Masanobu Fukuoka, it's a mind blower of botanical re-engineering.

Mosura is correct, there was never a consensus reality world. Consensus post-domestication is built from coercion into centers. This requires a steady diet of myth or religion that explains phenomena. If you think consensus is agreeing that this particular god made that lightning, then consensus is ultimately devolutionary. Myth is unfortunately the basis for causality: this statement stands in for the correlational phenomena we're witnessing. Once we were subsumed by myth, status and hierarchy became dominant to truth statements. Look at everything you see here, status controls statements and their validity. There's never a correlational reality accessible through cause and effect statements competing for domination. The myth never solves the phenomena, but kicks it downstream into what appear to be more accurate forms like news. But if you study news, history, law etc, these are mythic constructions that embed cause and effect locally, rather than solve the initial phenomena (like murder).

We have to face truth constructions are lures in folk science societies like ours, they are not valid. Science is not understood (correlational thinking) or accepted b a majority of the population anywhere on this planet.

Claiming to imagine a workaround like "virtue" will solve the embedded primate bias inherent in our lossy signaling like words and narrative/causal statements is worse than wishful thinking, it's uniformed and positivist/idealist.

Humans like all primates, are easily deceived by arbitrary signals, which is almost all of our signaling. No narrative is true as it's always a construction reducing cause and effect to a local illusion. We're trapped in a highly competitive chain of subjective statements in news, history, politics, none of which find a legible scientific ability to correlate reality and other statements. Read any news story about murder. The story details the conditions for the murder as causal, but we know from science that not every condition the news describes ends in murder. The news is rather fantastical in that it pretends to explain the cause while denying the scientific reality of any event. This is simply what words and narratives provide. Grammar competes for attention and status, that's its primary function. To embed status, control, even manipulation PRIOR to the signal making sense or being true. That's fundamentally flawed.

Humans did not build a system for shared communication, rather for subjective statements that build value. That's an individual premise of survival, and it infects all of our signaling. This is the central tenet of evolution, and language does not evade it or provide a workaround. The idea we are collective in language is a fantastic illusion that this principle of evolution rigorously maintains at the cost of our collective survival. All the evidence supports this, from language dispersal, diffusion, to mistranslation or untranslatable, to lexemes. It's the arbitrary all the way down. Even the binary is about the individual before it's about the collective.

People have to confront what we built here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d-ODky2MzGuTCoFCKWPw6Jx2...

Baehr and Curtis are still trapped behind the edifice of evolution. We're primates, we compete for status at any cost that has better benefits, including epistemological loss.

The problem is actually quite simple, we use words, which are lossy, arbitrary, and narratives which are rhetorical same.

There's no virtue ability that overtakes these incredibly leaky systems, they're illusions laypeople accept while those in higher status operate as bypasses to extract value. Narratives are not only illusions, they entrance audiences into whatever deception the control system requires: they're state-mythical, they're time-wasters in entertainment, they convince the audience that events are knowable, like news, they convince people that behaviors are malleable as in history. Yet we know we make the same mistakes as countries, as families, as individuals.

That's the narrative being spun in the press and politics, but the facts are different it appears from this analysis.

Probably, nothing can be believed in the political sphere, nor it's retelling in the news now.

I'm an anthropologist who's delivered papers at the presidential level at the AAA, which outside of authoring monographs is about as high as it gets. Now I'm training to be a neurobiologist. Not only do I know what science and logic is, it becomes obvious you're not trained in these.

sorry, I've tuned you out. Probably I'm not an AI considering typos and agreement errors.

That's a precise, incisive observation: OpenAI is trivial (any AI provider is), supported by evidence as demonstrated. It has no claim to operating software that's specifically distinct from others.

There is no relationship between history (which is subjectively narrated), logic (which is an abstraction) and politics (what are arbitrary).

If you had an understanding of what history is, you'd understand it has no scientific validity.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537995/how-history-gets-thin...

As there is no scientific basis for history, and there is no logic to politics (it is irrational), nothing stated by Alexander is valid.

It's philosophy, Michael Huemer is a philosopher, not a "political philosopher" which is oxymoronic. Nature is neither rational nor irrational, nor is it logical or illogical.

By nature, irrational things or behaviors are not logical, which means politics has no basis in logic-derived axioms as propagated by Alexander.

Please adhere to a scientific, or axiom-based argument. Your replies are extremely irrelevant.

Nothing you're stating is empirically valid.

The framer has no valid framework. There are no such things as empirically valid statements in political science, as the field is composed of subjective narratives. There are no such things as political truths.

Are you kidding, it deals with phenomena and beliefs, do you understand the illusion of beliefs? What phenomena is?

It has no basis in psychological discourse, politics is by nature illogical. So creating logic games from arbitrary metaphors (what politics is based in and especially when each side is calling the other with the same arbitrary label) is like creating a card game that only let's the house win.

https://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/papers/irrationality.htm

Find it interesting that an entire field of coding is about to fall by the wayside based in irrational exuberance not panning out, and the adherents are relying on down-voting (status removal) rather than engaging with the problem at hand.

We ignore that AI, doesn't really work, it has to be propagandically branded as being/doing things it isn't really doing, must be supervised by experts who actually know what is wrong (which is a paradox - who is learning in advance of the units and their correlations that end up making the mistakes visible?).

In a real sense, technology doesn't make work less expensive, it segragates experts from minions faster, necessitating an entire class of managers who know more than their supervisors. It reverses the food-chain ensuring a revolt of experts over their handlers.

The whole concept of "enshittification" ignores that bureaucracy and mediocrity are sourced in primate laziness, which is output at the initial bottlenecks of symbols and metaphors. These are expediencies that engage our status drives.

Each stage of innovation embeds mediocrity and bureaucracy, even in institutions as early as settlements, religion and learning. Innovation is fleet-footed release from bureaucracy.

AI is simply an endgame stage of symbols. The overlord of bureaucratic mediocrity automated, which is the ultimate self-refuting software. It exists to destroy itself (or us) and begs for replacement in transformation. Run them as pretend communication, you create bureaucracy that has to be evaded, automate them in counting/binary, you massively embed mediocrity.

The paradigms are in initial conditions. This end state of binary/arbitrary/symbol/stat units are largely irrelevant. They're mindless proxies. They bear no relationship to the initial conditions. They're imagination-emasculated, they show no feel for the reality of real information signaling, merely an acquiescence to leadership expedience in anything arbitrary (like tokens).

Try to see the binary as an impassable ceiling that turns us into craven, greedy, status junkie apes. Mediocrity gone wild. That's the binary, and it's seeped already into language, which is symbolic arbitrariness. We don't know how to confront this because we've never confronted it collectively. There was never a front page image on Time Magazine that stated: Are we arbitrary?

Yet we are, we're the poster child for the extinct and doesn't know it sentient.

Each stage of our steady drive to emasculate signaling in favor of adding value displays this openly. Each stage of taking action and expression and rendering them as symbol, then binary, then as counted token, into pretend intelligence showcases a lunatic drive to double down on folk science using logic as a beard in defiance of scientific reason.

Writer fundamentally mistakes the evolution of communication as ascending through bottlenecks when in reality, our communication is bottlenecked at very indirect perception across units and formats, none of which provide good, sensible signal sharing. So Sora simply represents another lossy, calamitous descent into bottleneck upon bottleneck.

The entire scope of human storage or memory is not a constraint, but comes bottlenecked before constraints at arbitrary symbols, images and metaphors. The data even though it's analog, is still bottlenecked. Nothing specific even embedded or parameterized geometrically solves the bottleneck (AI can't do it, that's it's Achilles Heel, as it is ours). Think of language as a virus or parasite here, add symbols and logic, all a rendered from the arbitrary. How come nobody talks about this? We're mediocre thinkers using largely folk science in lieu of very evidently absent direct perception. In other words: we bought the sensation of language without ever verifying it, or correlating it to brain events or real events. The slow down to extinction was inevitable across all these mediums, technologies, preproductions, databases. Nothing solves it.

The anocracy variable is at the highest level since the first Civil War. Technically the system is blinking red, and the lack of street fighting is not an indication of Civil War, it's law-abiding discourse that separates polities from power access that determines Civil War.

This is spot-on. It's an example of the endgame of human communication, the ultimate function of arbitrary signals is to refute themselves.

These examples are brilliant illustrations of an internet endgame for symbols, representations, metaphors. In other words, "the internet: where primate communication came to die."

cat out of the bag is disautomation. the speed in the timetable is an illusion if the supervision requires blast radius retention. this is more like an early video game assembly line than a structured skilled industry

we gotta slay some dragon, otherwise we're just a pack of lazy apes

Fundamentally the issues precede the end states. Neither present-day software nor law-government are efficient enough to service the users to whom the possibilities (and deficiencies) are now apparent to the developers. Tech didn't create new formats it merely reformatted them into databases. Both are trapped in their inefficiencies which force the reduction of competition or their monopoly. The state is a myth we workaround by going global. Software operates arbitrary things and then automates them as expedient interfaces that disperse and charge access for what is ultimately specific (a good or service). Decent was a trial and error workaround that simply creates status.

Doctorow pretends these are the ultimate forms, which s how his answers are palliatives not solutions.

It's strange how bureaucratic Silicon Valley has become in relation to his bureaucratic prose, the tech industry once saw solutions beyond the available tech, now it's buried in consultancy rebuttal and Friedman myth ("competition is good").

We have behemoth Goliaths that are living dinosaurs that engage in hierarchical domination of what are really illusions: text, symbols, images. All we need now are the behemoths to mint their own $, copyright it and the circle is complete. Yet these are merely simulations in search of a reality that AI can't deliver, and so the behemoths are using all techniques to remain relevant. It's stillnly one step ahead of a magic act. Obviously they are finished, ready for obliteration by insightful, imaginative succession. Bureaucracies are all targets for replacement, especially Doctorow's type of prose.

The scientific reality of loss of gray matter in children from screen use can't be downvoted away.

Perhaps this is how engineering is forced to change its tune: the irreversible damage to children.