(diary) It’s snowing in L’viv today.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-24 02:50:00 UTC
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
SPEAKING TRUTHFULLY IN MORAL LANGUAGE? (advanced topic) (from elsewhere) Numbers
SPEAKING TRUTHFULLY IN MORAL LANGUAGE?
(advanced topic) (from elsewhere)
Numbers (positional names) exist quite differently from hammers. While it certainly is possible that some higher mathematics exists than a simple truth table – it is hard to conceive of such a thing. We have no discretion over numbers, whereas we have a lot of discretion over hammers.
…sensation, synthesis, association, representation, description, hypotheses, theories, laws, logic, names, numbers, recipes, actions, constructions….
The beauty of numbers is that if we construct a series of axiomatic statements, then all numerical consequence lies deterministically in those statements – yet these consequences are beyond our perceptions.
The “calculator” (device), does in fact compute: perform a series of user-configurable operations according to fixed rules.
If we mean – via Searle – that the device lacks sentience (awareness), with which experience the meaning of the performance of the operations. We must then express meaning which requires perception, memory, association, evaluation, choice. :the mixing of perception with memory, intuition, and instinct.
But a human arranged information in the device, and the device does in fact perform operations that constitute the computation.
And the test of this argument is that man cannot perform these operations without the aid of the device. (See Mandelbrot).
…The information in the man’s mind.
The actions performed by man.
The information embodied in the construction of the device by man.
The information entered into the device for the purpose of computation.
The transformation of information by the device.
The perception of the output information by the man.
Association of the output information with the memory of man….
The man created the tool of transformation but he did not transform it. In fact, that is why we use most such tools: we are incapable of such transformations in real time without them.
Does an idiot savant know he is performing computations? Or is he merely reciting a series of steps that others have trained him to perform?
Most of us lear by repetition and gain undrestanding of what it is we do only after we have learned it through repetition.
Des that mean we do not calculate until we know the meaning of calculating?
I tend to see these statements as a language problem originating in the attempts to use common language to make scientific statements, and nothing more. Our language evolved for justification (permission) and anthropomorphization (basic association).
So we use analogies, nor names of analogies, or names of experiences, but not existential names: descriptions of a series of operations. This CONFLATION of common language terminology with which we convey meaning, with the attempt to produce trutfhu statemetns, results in failure. And most philosophical discourse is nothing more than the parlor game of trying to fit a term of common language into a technical one, like two puzzle pieces that clearly were not cut from the same board.
But if we follow the information just as in economics we follow the money, we can operationally (scientifically) describe any process that transforms information.
The colloquial tongue with which we discourse is no more suitable to speaking truthfully (operationally) than formal logic is for dinner chat.
Why? the economics of transfer is utilitarian, and we manage exceptions, not perfect at all times. That would be an unnecessary burden.
I remember ancient mechanical adding machines that my parents had in the shop in the 60’s and 70’s. The energy of my arm pulling the lever transformed some arrangement of numbers into other numbers – I knew not how. Today the energy stored in batteries, delivered by dc or ac current does the same.
To say the I performed a calculation and the machine assisted me by performing computations is about as accurate in our language as we can get. Why? because the purpose of the statement is to distinguish my efforts and responsibilities from those which were not my efforts and responsibilities. Since that is the content of moral (cooperative) language: cause and accountability.
We evolved speech to cooperate. We cooperate because it is more productive than any other individual action we can take by orders of magnitude. We evolved moral intuitions, moral language, and not unsurprisingly, justificationary argument because of the value of cooperation. And so our common language is framed for the purpose of conveying moral information. Why else would we even care about speaking the truth?
Man is a moral creature – he must be. So he gives precedent to moral framing. And truthfully, man is largely unsuitable for nearly any other form of discourse.
If you want to speak amorally it is possible, but one must merely describe the movement of information to do so – without conflating the language of morality with the language of truth (testimony).
I am not sure others have addressed this issue or not. I have not found it in the literature. Although I tend to read science…
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-24 02:24:00 UTC
-
If we take out America then it is possible. But we must remove her from the worl
If we take out America then it is possible. But we must remove her from the world stage. This is possible by a number of methods. The indirect being the best. Through insurrection and secession. Or through insurrection and reconstitution the empire can fall. With it Anglo universalism falls.
If we clear the west in this generation then we can save her.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-23 12:57:00 UTC
-
VERY BRIEF, JEFFERSON BIBLE
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/THE VERY BRIEF, JEFFERSON BIBLE
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-23 04:24:00 UTC
-
JEFFERSON COMPARING JESUS TO THE PHILOSOPHERS Syllabus of an Estimate of the Mer
JEFFERSON COMPARING JESUS TO THE PHILOSOPHERS
Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, Compared with Those of Others. By Thomas Jefferson
In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry and superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.
Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy or of their individuals; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.
I. Philosophers.
1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquillity of mind.[Note] In this branch of philosophy they were really great.
2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred and friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: towards our neighbors and countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity and love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.
II. Jews.
1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious.
2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.
III. Jesus.
In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, and of the sublimest eloquence.
The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.
1. Like Socrates and Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.
2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. I name not Plato, who only used the name of Socrates to cover the whimsies of his own brain. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life and doctrines fell on unlettered and ignorant men, who wrote, too, from memory, and not till long after the transactions had passed.
3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to the jealousy and combination of the altar and the throne, at about thirty-three years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of three years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.
4. Hence the doctrines he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible.
5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatizing followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating and perverting the simple doctrines he taught, by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, and obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, and to view Jesus himself as an impostor.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.
The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merits of his doctrines.
1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of His attributes and government.
2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.
4.He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted or disbelieved by the Jews, and wielded it with efficacy as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-23 04:22:00 UTC
-
(diary) (watched a video about disassembling a device before bed and had nightma
(diary)
(watched a video about disassembling a device before bed and had nightmares all night that my iphone, ipad, and various other imaginary technology bits were devastatingly destroyed.
I have recurring nightmares of a hotel that’s a maze, elevators that the floor falls out, various problems of heights (which are my bane), missing airport /train. In particular in my dream my ferrari is getting stolen and I find it in hollowed out. I have another where I can’t find my porsche 911 in a university parking lot. A whole variety of dreams where I can’t get around an enormous old city and can’t find anything. And the usual bodies are under the floor in the basement. Or I’m underground in a deep tunnel or cave and can’t get out.
I know all the sources of these. But I still have to wake up in order to pull myself out of them. lol)
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-23 04:14:00 UTC
-
Perhaps immigration, islam, feminism, and postmodernism are a sufficient combine
Perhaps immigration, islam, feminism, and postmodernism are a sufficient combined threat that we can finally transcend Christianity, or bend it to our will?
I think so.
We must make it so.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-23 02:50:00 UTC
-
ALL THERE IS TO SAY OF LIBERTY. THERE IS NOTHING MORE. (from elsewhere) I think
ALL THERE IS TO SAY OF LIBERTY. THERE IS NOTHING MORE.
(from elsewhere)
I think that public intellectuals should engage in criticism and advocacy, and where possible explanation. But reason and rationalism are two different standards. And that any statements of proof (strict construction) whether for justificationary or critical purposes, should be left to professionals in that discipline.
More than anything, in hindsight, the libertarian movement is, perhaps as much or moreso than marxism, little more than a history of amateurish, badly made philosophy, attempting to justify a minority disposition as a possible majority preference, in the hope of applying christian moral rhetoric, to obtain the sovereignty of the martial aristocracy
The philosophy of liberty consists in sovereignty and property, the common law, universal standing, and universal application (rule of law), held before a jury of one’s peers. Nomocracy – the law – is the only source of liberty. And the universal militia the only possible source of nomocracy. Even Hayek, slow as he was, finally understood. (Spoken as a slow worker myself.)
We still carry our desire to hear great tales around the campfire before sleep – to carry through our dreams means of integrating our day’s experiences. We still carry the desire to speak in great tales and inspirational language.
But liberty is valuable in that we obtain the maximum ability to pursue our ends as long as we provide no disincentive for others to permit us to do so. And through this liberty we produce trial and error in greater volume than the alternatives. We calculate our evolution at a greater pace than any alternative.
And because we calculate faster, with more of us, we compete against other groups who are less able, more successfully.
We construct liberty not by advocacy, but like the law, by preventing all other alternatives by the aggressive use of organized violence.
That is all there is to say. That is all there is to liberty. Nothing more. The rest is gilding for the weak, timid, the cowardly, and the ignorant.
Rule or be ruled.
That is all there is to say on the topic of liberty.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-23 02:31:00 UTC
-
APPLE SECURITY I can see creating a hardware option available only at apple HQ,
APPLE SECURITY
I can see creating a hardware option available only at apple HQ, where, by paying a fee, and holding a warrant, two apple employees might unlock a phone using the same approach as missile operators, while a state witness observed through a glass wall.
But as far as I know it is immoral, illogical, and empirically hazardous to give government such a power.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-22 17:06:00 UTC
-
THE EVOLUTION OF MANAGEMENT SLAVE MANAGEMENT the act of producing information an
THE EVOLUTION OF MANAGEMENT
SLAVE MANAGEMENT
the act of producing information and incentives for the purpose of organizing people such that they produce your desired outcome against their will, with the resources at your disposal, while prohibiting competition from alternative desires.
Force. Eliminate all other options.
MANORIAL MANAGEMENT (GOVERNMENT)
the act of producing information and incentives for the purpose of organizing people such that they produce your desired outcome at their will, with the resources at your disposal, in competition with alternative desires.
Ostracization. Limit options, systematize parasitism, by preventing entrance and or exit.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
the act of producing information and incentives for the purpose of organizing people such that they produce your desired outcome at their will, with the resources at your disposal, in competition with alternative desires. Compensation. Create superior options to the alternatives. Leaving parasitism nearly impossible.
MARKET MANAGEMENT
The act of creating institutions that assist people in producing information and incentives for the purpose of assisting themselves in producing whatever outcomes they will desire, in competition with alternative desires.
Self Determination. Deny parasitism therefore producing production.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-22 16:08:00 UTC