–Matthew Pirkowski @MattPirkowski
Constantly astounded by how few seem to think in probabilities, and therefore tend to perceive even the mere entertainment of low probability ideas as akin to ideological infections that must be purged from one’s phenomenological ambience…
Matthew,
The more I understand about cognitive differences and worse, differences in ability, the more I understand that language is a nearly universal system of measurement – but logic isn’t. In fact, the rate at which cognition declines say, under 125 even, is terrifying.
What exactly do you mean by “universal system of measurement”? And how do you see the semantic / syntactic structures of language and logic mapping differentially onto the aforementioned concept?
–Matthew Pirkowski @MattPirkowski
All language consists of measures by marginal INDIFFERENCE in embodiment. All thought of auto-association, prediction, attention, and wayfinding by marginal DIFFERENCE in neural adaptation (intelligence). All reason of marginal DIFFERENCE of dimensions of predictive variables.
All language consists of (a grammar) strings of continuous recursive disambiguation, of more dimensions of causality, over more paths of wayfinding, through space, time, and population, limited by the individual’s ability to ‘sum’ those predictions within his or her abilities.
All mind is quality of prediction of possibility (qualitative) but probability(quantitative) is an increase in the skill of possibility, and all probabilities are limited by suppy/demand (curves): competition, and probability is necessary when the topic is beyond human scale.
This is why vocabulary, sentence length, increase in number of permutations, fitness of attention, (agreement, choice, decision for context), reduction of error roughly reflect intelligence – varying by individual empathizing-systematizing bias: predicting emotions or processes.
Capacity to learn probability (that which extends perception by skilled repetition of extra-embodiment means of measurement) is limited (radically) by neural scale, transmissibility(adaptability), bias, training, and delta in embodiment = difficulty in adapting (learning).
I wasn’t sure I could do that very well in a few tweets, but knowing you a bit I assume it’s most of the way there… 😉 -Cheers
