We have to first admit that Americans have their own unique culture. Individualism, distrust of authority, pragmatism, not knowing how to do nothing, verbal orientation, etc. combine to create a kind of personality that perhaps creates a natural inhibition for 'real talk'.
Facebook epitomizes and maginfies this personality for all to see. What is seen in FB are the lives of the idealized self of its users. It shows only a world of perfection. An image of oneself that self-actualization is reached by doing more stuff than anyone else.
Americans simply do not have the practice of spending entire afternoons doing nothing with friends. Activities without an agenda require their participants to focus on what's important. It's not about seeking a new agenda, it is about being present in the moment.
What has made Americans successful in this world also has its downside. Americans are unable to appreciate what Alan Watts' calls the eternal now. This is due to a lack of practice.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Damasio in his book 'The Strange Order of Things' argues that the core of condition lies in homeostasis. I agree with this generalization. But let me work out in a tweet storm how consciousness relates to homeostasis.
Human consciousness is related to awareness of surprising or threatening observations. It's an error-correcting mechanism that lends attention to discrepancies of our expectations of the world.
The mind is composed of many layers of cognition. Also, its massive parallelism implies reducing the conditional checks required for error correction.
What can we learn from $GME about investing. The key take away that the trade that can set you up for life can be found with good research and positioning months before the actual event.
It mirrors the Big Short movie where several researchers came to the same conclusion. Coincidentally, Michael Burry was involved in both trades.
But it's conceptually the same thing. A lot of institutional investors crowding together on the wrong side of a trade. In the Big Short it was emergent risk created by the housing bubble. For GME it was the excessive bets against a company far from bankruptcy.
The interview with CNBC of @chamath is a much watch because there is so much insight hidden underneath.
There are many things that caught my attention. The one thing was the abstraction that hedge fund strategies are all 'momentum' plays. What it seems to imply is that the marshaling of resources at an opportune time drives the future behavior of a stock.
From basic physics, we know that momentum is mass times velocity. So any 'momentum' tactic employs the variation of mass, velocity or both. Wrt stocks, mass is money and velocity is speed of trade.
Constructivism is perhaps the most important idea that will shape the future of humanity. The ills of society are a consequence of the willful ignorance of constructivism.
There are two important definitions of constructivism, one comes from mathematics and the other from psychology. The mathematical definition leads rejects the law of excluded middle. It's relevant in understanding causation.
The psychological definition: "Humans actively construct their own knowledge, and that reality is determined by our experiences as a learner."
@gershbrain Almost there. Just as the word 'create' glosses over too many things, the word 'generalize' does that too. What is need is an idea that straddles between the two.
@gershbrain Your argument against create employs a degenerate notion of create (i.e. brute force copying)(degenerate in the math and physics sense). The notion of creation is that there is some competence (however developed) that leads to the replication of the features of the target system.
@gershbrain But in this word create, is an entire logic of constructivism. An intuitionistic logic to more precise. The cognitive dissonance in the quote is that Feynman was a theoretical physicist.
Lazy Twitter: Is the phrase 'symmetry breaking' unintuitive? Just asking because I like using the phrase.
Yes, I agree that it's a difficult phrase to parse. That's because you have to understand what symmetry is meant for physicists and how it is used to analyze a system.
Then once you've understand what symmetry means, you introduce a notion that is not the opposite of symmetry (i.e. antisymmetry) but rather a verb that says the original symmetry transitions to a state of non-symmetry. The process of breaking is what interests physicists!