Dec 1, 2017.
UNITYYT YTI E E, ,
I HAD I HAD
I HADtH — [—.]
UNITYYT YTI E E, ,(——1.5)
BGTI, BGT 5.0 ()
(YYT)(YYHT)(YHT,THHT)(OS)(OS)(YewJJn)
QUADTT — NOTHNOTH WE OSS(BLLUSHL11L1L2L21(212))
MeH Neel Lee nH ILK ll oo mo tutH LL
MLH jjLLHoO
FLL.EDDTrRLLOH E
No GJ jgGJA SHUH — H SbSb
HCheck demonic studies.
Gj KL KL KLE bcE WDDI
Brian is a SimianL2
dob — DLL — H
dob — DLL — H
dob — DLL — H
dob — DLL — HL1
HE IS THE ONE THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE CUP THE MAYOR OF HELL
PUU PUU EEE WOW WAS WOW
CONTRACTING A DISEASE
I MUST HAVE FLIPPED A HAT TRICK
Muste have been an early play Ops
- Some wisdom was included in Premier Education.
- I thought this might be humorous: New Method (Southern CT State University, 2023)
- Nathan Coppedge (…)
- Physics Girl (…)
- Archimedes (…)
- Neat & Tidy 2020s Technology (…)
- What is the greatest historical theory? How many such theories have there been? What is your evidence? (according to some statistical models perhaps)
…
SHE’S A HAG
YOU MAY AS WELL SELL YOUR SOULS TO THE LESBIAN TROJANS YOU ARE
…
Hmmma.
I think I spelled it wrong.
Now we’re desperadoes.
Too bad Michael robbed Nathan of the lucky leaper.
Fine to say toss up — supposedly evil — superific acronym
Alfred is god — Aphrodite is too hippy — aphrodite is too hippy — people take too many drugs — shittake mushroom kingdom — after the mushroom kingdom — they’re like torpeedos —
…
Michael and Brian are such like major league luckily spelled backwards.
…
COLLEGE CLIME
In Kohlberg's theory, authority figures and social roles can influence a person's moral development. For example, obedience to authority figures is a characteristic of the earlier stages, while understanding and respecting the rights and roles of others is a characteristic of the later stages. —Kohlberg's Moral Development Stages.
ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE:
Occam's Razor suggests if God is simple and important for the universe, then he may exist. Still, a wide array of hypotheses would have to be considered carefully in addition to the Razor. Occam actually does so to a remarkable extent in his theological writings. However, ockham's weakness may have been a reliance on essentialism and biblical literalism. Unless Ockham can question his overall belief system he is not opening himself to true theological foundationism. However, I do not feel completely qualified to judge Occam's writings, after all, I have not read all of them and some of them may be irrelevant to modern readers, particularly since they may be written in Latin, which occupies a different linguistic reality perhaps one would say more accepting of illusions or more in denial about the basics prior to modernism and honest education. I think honest education is what really does in Ockham's theology. But perhaps I'm being stupid and religion is for geniuses. But then why would the Chinese have no state religion except Atheism? I believe the Chinese use real language and I am not sure they are God.
Hume's Guillotine clearly shows an anti-religious argument. It says no ‘is’ can imply any ought (or vice versa depending on how you read it). Seeming to disprove all morality, its main weakness is that if practicality is ethical, practicality can still be shown to be practical, then if practicality is seen as ethical, then ethics may be equated with the results but only in the sense that they are practical and that it is virtuous to be practical for the sake of being practical. However, practicality does not sound very religiously ethical. In fact it sounds like a lot of the justifications used for selfish, deceitful, and atrocious behavior. Though not everyone is going to assume an atrocity is practical, someone might.
The original version of Epicurus's trilemma states that if someone cannot live they cannot fight, if someone cannot fight they cannot eat, if someone cannot eat they cannot live (and around it goes in a loop). This is supposedly a metaphor. It is aimed at men who are soldiers, with less emphasis on politics. It is intended to imply that politicians fight a bigger battle and that all soldiers are somehow virtuous. However, this seems to imply either a non-preference for any one religion (maybe all religions are right in this attitude, it seems to imply), or on the other hand maybe might-makes-right and all leaders are better than all followers. However, in some ways this is a hidden false dichotomy which suggests that no defense of a leader's morals are necessary regardless of supposed beliefs. So, it is really a view favoring non-belief and justification for any crime on the basis of might-makes-right. In this sense it really is an earlier version of Hume's Guillotine which says that nothing political could ever really be ethical, because in the end you need an army if you want to be right, and once you have an army you need to feed an army, and if the army dies people will just want you to raise another army, and the army may sometimes need to fight to eat or you wouldn't have an army at all and then you would likely lose. While this does not seem anti-religious if it's one-sided, if there are two or more sides in the same shape like in Epicurus's Rome, then affirming more than one side seems to suggest Atheism.
THEORISTS
Around 2016 - 2018 it was determined [by Nathan Coppedge] that most likely apart from simply getting more and more esoteric, the most theoretical subjects probably start to deal with the individual and the society:
This is observed by arguing that there is not much to add to Theory in terms of theory itself, rather one can add the concept of ‘theorist’.
My Dad who is a Yale PhD had concepts similar to this around the 1970s or somewhat earlier.
Additionally, it could be argued general theories that do not become specific ultimately become social theories or simply aim to perfect what is abstract. If one is dodging the abstract, one will most likely find the social or the technical. Thus, what is general seems to become the social. This may be why social philosophy is such an all-encompassing topic.
…
TRADITIONAL ATTITUDES AND PROPERTY RIGHTS
Why don’t we find precious stones on the beaches?
My dad says, because humans pick them up. Humans have picked them up for over 100 or more years, so by now they are a rare find. The gemstones are basically all gone except on special beaches or if there was originally a large quantity of them, like rounded quartz or something like that.
It took social organizing to realize it was okay to take the stones from certain beaches, which required modern language and politics except for people who were inclined to steal, or who were the first to claim land, or a few people who lived only in particular areas before property rights existed.
If someone lives a particular place they may have no trouble just putting the rock back in the sand, that’s how it used to be probably, he might have said. Modern people are greedy and don’t think of putting things back where they were. It’s modern consumer culture getting back at us.
…
Michael once said: “the brain, that’s just the devil. There are better strategies, but they may require too much effort”.
INTERNAL INCONSISTENCY IN SCIENCE:
(Nathan says: From a coherentist angle, it could be logically flawed, or empirically incorrect, or perhaps make too many assumptions. Scientifically what is internally flawed to a coherentist could mean externally flawed to a scientist).
Paraphrase of Michael:
I think what scientists usually mean is if the methodology does not work, or if the theory does not analyze properly. It could also mean that an equation used by a theory does not have predictive power possibly. Though it ends up being a bit obscure to have an internal problem, it does come up sometimes. It is usually something unexpected and interesting. Most flaws are external in the study of scientific systems.
…
TIPS FOR MICHAEL:
- Katy said at one point that she would ‘give people opportunities to not have hearts if they chose’ and this was supposedly a basis for the concept of the undead (similar to Katy’s invention of Da Vinci). In other words, Katy integrated the concept of the undead with the concept of heartlessness. Usefully, if you don’t love the undead, you may find you have a working heart. —KR
…
Michael at one point claimed my scientific process reduced to something like:
Dark / Stealth, Ambergris, Bliss, Sublime, Bitch, Chart, Lightning.
Or, ‘Hazy, Little Drugs, Overdose, High-mind you, Antoinette, Reduction, Inconceivable’
This is an attempt to reconstruct something Michael thought about. I’m not sure he’s comfortable talking about this, and I think I might have a different opinion, so I am expressing my version of it: I’m not against technology, but in terms of technology, people resist progress mainly for six reasons. This explains the motivation for any type of progress, positive or negative:
1. Things are currently complex, but they want to go back to simple. [AGRARIANS]
2. Things are currently simple, but they want to go back to complex. [OLD GUARD]
3. Things are currently simple, but they don’t want to become complex. [TRADITIONALISTS]
4. Things are currently complex, but they don’t want to become simple. [ESTABLISHMENT]
5. Things are going to be simple, but they want them to skip a step and become complex. [INNOVATORS]
6. Things are going to be complex, but they want them to skip a step and become simple. [NAYSAYERS]
Forgetters, Rememberers, Followers, Leaders, Anti-Smoking, Smoking
…
Your dose of Michael:
Someone said: “We were killed by the devil many times.”
Michael said: “Then you must be terribly bad at sailing.”
The other one said: “Actually, we were a gunnery boat.”
Michael said: “Then I know you’re lying.”
The other said: “Actually, a gunny is a type of boat, and it is true. Except it is the gunny that died.”
…
SURVIVAL ADVICE:
According to my dad, if people have money they should always seek civilization. Or if they don’t have money, they should seek a public water fountain or perhaps if they are lucky a natural spring to live near.
…
…
Here is the formula Michael may have called ‘a deal with the devil’:
D + function spectrum + 1
Specifically applied in a chart like this:
…
Counter-attack to ‘flat earth’: Actually, according to my Dad, the Earth is more like depressed, but now and then you have to go up a ‘hill’ to compensate. On average, it’s slightly curved, but most people can’t tell.
As far as general types of inventions:
THE 7 ARCHETYPES PERHAPS FIRST DISCOVERED BY MICHAEL COPPEDGE:
Simple Physics, Complex Intelligence, Technological Simplicity, Creative Complexity, Universal Technology, Physical Creativity, Intelligent Universe
…
I only mention this sample from Nathan Coppedge because my Dad worked on something called related to 20-Ideas plus Copernican:
…
MICHAEL COPPEDGE AND THE BIBLE
Paraphrase:
What religious people have to hope is that there is a ‘grand plan’ that runs deeper than what the Bible is literally saying. But this suggests that people are best manipulated by using reverse psychology against being psychopaths, which is not very reassuring. Otherwise, it suggests humans are naturally psychopaths but should resist their instincts. In any case, it comes across as either a load of lies or a load of deceptions. —Nathan Coppedge's answer to If The Bible states in Matthew 24:5; “For many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many” Do you think that statement creates a statistical probability that the Bible itself is a fallacy?
…
MICHAEL COPPEDGE AND WITTGENSTEIN:
My Dad seems to agree with the now-obvious translation: ‘If one is not able to speak well, then obviously one should remain silent.’ In other words, trust in the experts who really know what to say.
…
“I offended an ape was one of my biggest mistakes.” —Michael Coppedge
…
‘Some principles are sweet’ ~ MC
Silly song?
Coherence and chromosomes, that’s all we got, see if you can change that, see if you’re God…
…
I recommend you go to efficient differences and branch out.
I don’t know you will, actually I do know, because I can script you
I can script you: isn’t that scary? I know that much.
~MC
[The period during which the scripting apparently occurred took place over approximately 17+ years beginning in 2005 when Nathan was 23. I didn’t catch up with the initial instruction at all for 17 years].
…
Traditional Values?
[My Dad might] argue that they’re normative rather than subjective. But, one point is that things like pleasure and pain are founded on instinct which is objective evolutionarily.
…
Someone could sell their soul, but then it would be gone, as my Dad the atheist said.
…
Socially-Enforced Hypochondriacs? (…)
…
Philosophy of science similar to work by my Dad, the Yale PhD.
…
Michaelian Dualism: That fantasy seems better then real life, but within a fantasy, real life is somehow better than a fantasy.
…
The advice on tornadoes is you really have to be more literal. They are really big batches of wind. —Does the Wizard of Oz provide evidence that a Tornado is a terrestrially based rip in space/time that spans dimensions?
…
They were jabbering about how they didn’t get the juiciest part. Context: they had removed a core brain sample from my brain with a hypodermic needle while I was trying to nurse. —Nathan Coppedge
…
“Consider yourself as having survived hell, at least once…” —MCoppedge
“There is no right answer to bad situations.” —MCoppedge
…
Trying to be confident is not a confident thing to do. How do you overcome this paradox?
…
Based on Ockham, in order of increasing complexity:
1 Solution Paradigm (for example, providing resources)
2 Conjunction of Opposites (Deal making, for example, improving resources)
3 Compromise of Opposites (Accepting Conditions, for example, bureaucracy)
4 Equality of Opposites (Democratic preferences, for example, meeting needs)
5 Singular Solution (Coherence, for example, researching problems)
6 Multiple Compromises (Material Concern, for example, neediness)
…
Rumor is Michael had the wrong theory about everything… that is why Nathan was created. Unfortunately, Nathan is some jerk-o who can’t apply himself to anything. Nathan might look like a devil, except he’s kind of retarded and is of no use to anybody.
“‘General' and ‘specific' are not really hindrances, but they are more useful terms if you are a generalist.” ---How would you define "hyper-novelty" if you had to write it as a dictionary entry? (…)
Michael said “It got to the point where the ice tray was somehow stuck”. And Brian the Gifted said “You have somehow outdone yourself in your geniius.”
“I left plastic packaging (bubble wrap) in the womb, and Nathan’s ‘ears popped’. He’s also kind of a plastic person. If you leave condoms in the womb someone will probably have sex, but they won’t feel like having kids. You have to be careful what you do with babies. They make everything part of their reality.” —MC
Contemporary issues:
- What is the future of social science?
- Would you believe a data scientist’s claim of election fraud?
- What are the mechanisms of quorum sensing?
- Which ones are the most interesting scientific knowledge to apply, and why?
- How do you handle cyclicality in causal relationships (causality, statistics)?
The key to thinking is “to live in the future”.
He believes in the devil’s advocate. He believes the opposite because it’s less obvious. But there is no real reason to sustain that. If a direct method could be more accurate, it would be more preferred. Michael’s philosophy serves a useful purpose in creating exceptions when they are not obviously available. Yet, once exceptions are available they need not be created again. There will always be a purpose for someone like Michael, but only metaphorically. While someone may still create exceptions, they will likely do so in completely different ways to meet completely different functions. And such sacrifices will not always involve pain, unless the world is always painful. Keep in mind the reason I give him lip service is partly because it seems so appealing to do so, not necessarily because the things Michael did led to the best available conclusions.
“The aperture in Archimedes is you, Nathan. I came to that conclusion through what might be like a divine revelation…” --Michael Coppedge (I think my sugar is imbalanced today, so sorry if it is a misquote)
…
Why is there nothing worse than worse no matter how you look at it?
The original expression is: “When the worse comes to the worst.” Real English.
That’s literally what is meant, though it is hard to believe: when the worst comes to the very worst.
My Dad the Yale PhD had to explain this to me once.
It’s easy to be lazy with language, but laziness is often not what language means.
…
My Dad the Yale PhD thinks it’s not really Murphy’s Law, instead Murphy’s Law is a delusion created by unaccustomed privilege. What we have to adjust to is not the worst possible case, but instead the reality that things are usually not this good, and MIGHT get worse. We can strategize, but we are not likely to get everything we want.
- How do experts feel about paradigm shifts?
- Does Bayesian epistemology solve Hume’s problem of induction?
Function Theory Identity Theory System Theory
Guesses about probability: Is contemporary science probabilistic?
Specialized Heuristic Combinations (while this is from Nathan's work, much of it may be a product of a conversation between Nathan's Dad and Jorge Vargas).
Just consider in real life I always have a stack of cards made of a 52-card deck. --Unknown
…
An Insight Into My Dad's Democratic Theories…
If a solution is solved, assuming it was a good solution in every way, it creates a problem.
The further back we go, the more we find GREAT solutions that were JUST TOO TOUGH.
Based on this we can see that there is a democratic trend to history towards EASIER SOLUTIONS, easier solutions that are not very challenging.
It is the only alternative to the tough solutions.
Through this ‘dialect’ we can see that what seems the very worst is what was tough recently, as this is the toughness that we see.
Without the recent toughness, we have no way of knowing how good tough solutions can be, but unfortunately the recent toughness carries the weight not just of toughness, but of every single compromise.
And we are the ones who are poised to make the next.
It is an offer we can't refuse.
…
Yeah, and then if you have a bad theory you may as well have a good theory, and it kind of goes all the way around —Michael Coppedge (?)
…
Is there any difference between sociological theory and scientific theory?
Triple Functions (?)
What are the theories of sociology and their relevance to the society?
Michael's Rudimentary Coherent Correspondence Theory
A lesson learned from Michael Coppedge
Michaels Determinate Indeterminism
Advanced Probability for Social Metrics
How to do research in social science
What are some events likely to happen within the next 10 years?
Michael Coppedge may have been present or contributed when the Formula for Answering All Questions was formulated.
…
Other than sitting on what's the best use for a chair?
The Logic of Literary Detritus (Crap)
The Structural Universal Genesis Project
Quantum Genetic Equality: An Overview of Desirable Traits
The Utilitarian Equation based on Genetics
…
Michael’s Experiments:
- Always close the soda-bottle tight before you go to bed. Why? Because otherwise the bugs might get you. You might not see them, but they will be there. They will arrive invisibly. Or they will arrive while you are asleep. You are bugging me, Dad. No, the bugs are bugging you. The bugs are bugging you a lot, I can tell. The bugs are bugging you because they’re bugs, and bugs can do that. I like that idea, I said. You might not like that idea. Oh, you mean they’re pretty annoying. That’s really gross. That’s what you should think, he said. I think the bugs got you all the way, what do you think about that? I think I’d better close the soda bottle. If they get you most of the time, what’s the point? See what I mean? Yeah, they’re gross, I said. I don’t think you get it, he said. What a paradox, I said. It’s not a paradox he said, it’s really bad bugs. They are getting you. They got you already, I can tell. At least the bugs aren’t as big and annoying as you, Dad, I said. They might be, someday, he said.
…
My Dad the Yale PhD says ‘reading Ayn Rand is cheating. No doubt about it. Ayn Rand is a genius like Plato.’
Updates on the God-IQ debate here: More Complete Investigation of Infinite 1-Dimensional IQ The latest result suggests God has 100 IQ in the 1st dimension but no one else lives there. Could murder be the 1st dimension? (Anyone can be a murderer, smart or stupid. And it’s like playing God, that’s what we know—MC).
This was insightful:
‘If you think what Picabia said [about men and women being the same] is interesting, it’s not that profound, it just means he has a small d*** size…’
…
Fallacy of the Scales: in order for things to get better, it often requires better things, not a balance of good and bad. If people are equal and someone suffers, then everyone suffers with them. But if someone is superior, and equality is enforced, things may improve a bit for everyone as long as the superior person isn't punished. In effect, we owe equality to elitism, while we don't owe elitism to equality.
…
What Michael is Like Around Nathan: Archimedes’ movie… Sorry that was a misquote, a bad misquote.
…
Michaels Abusive Philosophy (What I learned from a one-time ambiguous abuse)
…
SECRETS OF MICHAEL: I’m an angel. Every relationship I’ve had I luck out. But I’ve only had two relationships. When the relationships end the luck ends. Something different will happen if and when the relationships end. I’ll probably die, I don’t know.
CRITICISM
A lame dog, that’s a new one, a lame dog.
SUGGESTIONS
Chaos—Sometimes stimulation has downsides like poor optimism or angry behaviors. These are some of the most chaotic factors in determining how intelligence develops.
MISC QUOTES
Your assumption seems to be Brian is a unique archetype of sex. But it is not as true as you think.
MICHAEL REVEALS A SECRET
Michael said, that is what a mining camp really looks like: a bunch of dust, and the devil.
“The devil needs a prize, that is what the soul is for…”
“All you earn is dust for your knowledge.”
…
See also:
What are the technical topics that you can resume without any strong knowledge?
How can I infer causation from correlation?
Note for myself: someone Michael knows was interested in typology, function, theme and concept
