CHICKEN LICKIN

 …

I ACCIDENTALLY TO NATHAN BAD BREATHING

...

LET THEM EAT CAKK

IT WAS IMMORTALITY AND IT WAS BLISS

IT WASN’T A LIE THAT WAS KISSED

FOR THOSE THAT ATE THE BIG FAT FISH

THEY KNEW IT WAS GONE WHAT THEY MISSED

IT’S GOOD THINKING

…

gravveh grappeGRAPPEHIH

gravveh grappeGRAPPEHIH

gravveh grappeGRAPPEHIH

gravveh grappeGRAPPEHIH

incohCOH

How to Think Like Squirrels 2025.

He (doesn’t really obsesse) — CrabbT

WELL ming

—> SeVASTABOL I don’t Know

EEL

SHAKING HAND(S).SHAKING HAND(S)

(OBSS OBS)

ILLE ILLE

ILLE (ILLE ILLE ILLE COMMSAT (ILLE))

667555 borpee IEE

YIKEGO

LOBSTRE — OESTRE

It’s under dippy bird S

Update: I found a formula for correlation called ‘weird relationships’ at: Missing Links (…) I have not come up with a proof yet, working on it.

FORMULA:

Fancy thing:

Ex: Perpetual motion machines.

(COMPARED WITH)

Substance of 'greater class does':

[For ex, Factories] Plural if possible.

COMBINE FIRST WITH SECOND AS BEST YOU CAN, PLACING THE FIRST FIRST.

This would say ‘perpetual motion has a weird relationship with factories’.

So, confounding variables would be anything that contradicts this, or which contradicts a different theory of correlation.

These fall into different classes, but many of them are quantum or weird (not all).

…

PROOF

Fancy thing is something exceptional within a genus. (Ex: Perpetual motion machines).

A content of a genus can always be compared with the genus for similarity, as it shares some characteristic.

Therefore, we can say ‘compares with’ = relationship.

If the comparison is determined as a function of the fancy thing, e.g. what the fancy thing ‘does’ (no matter whether ‘does’ is empty or not), we can see ‘does’ as having a correlation with the genus at least tentatively, because the genus has at least a passing similarity to the fancy thing, and thus can be classed at least superficially as either doing something similar to being related to the same class.

This is less true if the ‘larger class does’ is not the true class of the fancy thing, thus, the correlation becomes empirically verifiable to some degree, completing the basic requirements for correlation. (‘Does’ covers some of the causal component, as ‘does’ implies some sort of cause-effect response with the environment which is implied to be related to the ‘larger class does’).

…

MORE CONVENTIONALLY / LESS HEURISTICALLY:

Philosophically, there are several cases I can think of:

1. If the effect has an acceptable cause, then the effect is correlated with the cause. This is only if the cause is correlated 100% which almost never happens.
2. If, under a particular formalism a behavior is feasible (prior-to-effect), then the behavior is correlated under the formalism, subject to empirical enquiry. This is like, if it tends to happen that way, and the right conditions apply, then formally, under the assumption that we are right, we can act as if we are right if we are good at acting right and if our assumption is correct, though it may be hard to prove, we might be able to act on common sense under some conditions, for example, if risk is not too high.
3. If an effect corresponds ('matches’) the data, it is said to be defeasibly correlated, that is, after the effect. That is, on a quid-pro-quo basis, the data matches the assumption whether or not the data was predicted. It does not usually justify a prediction, just an observation which may or may not have been predicted. This is just saying, observations were made we don’t know if they’re right, but if they’re right they’re right.
4. If a cause is correlated with an effect. For example, someone has a headache, it turns out they took cocaine, cocaine is known to cause headaches. Could be other factors too, but in this case, if cocaine is known to cause big headaches, and the alternatives like brain damage or marital stress or work-related stress or extreme dependence on other drugs are ruled out, then it might be the cocaine.

…

So,

1. ACCEPTABLE: If the result always happens, 2. FEASIBLE: If risk is not high, 3. DEFEASIBLE: Under assumptions and accepting responsibility though that might be bad, and 4. CAUSAL: By reasonable explanation.

So that is it: FEASIBLE, DEFEASIBLE, ACCEPTABLE, and CAUSAL.

And there is one more which is possible logical correlations.

So, FEASIBLE, DEFEASIBLE, ACCEPTABLE, CAUSAL, and SOMETIMES LOGICAL.

Note: Some of this may be due to things I gleaned, perhaps with some inaccuracies, from postgraduate studies related to my Dad Michael Coppedge who has a PhD from Yale specializing in Venezuelan Democracy. I would give my dad credit, except I’m not sure he wants credit for this. It can be quite technical and is not likely to be his work originally.

See also:

Social Science Links.

Or maybe for comparison…

Method of Aesthetic-Metaphysical Selection.

Signed by Eddy Alverez.