Philosophy is like the consulting business: there is a low barrier to entry but a low probability of survival, and a near total inability to capitalize your investment.
I survived the consulting business and capitalized my investment too you know.
Sigh. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 07:18:00 UTC
“ECCENTRIC?”
Olga (an extremely uncomfortably amazingly beautiful woman who works here in some management capacity or other) says to me this morning ‘You are eccentric. That is the right word, yes?”
I laughed. “It’s much better than being called weird”. (much laughter.)
But then I thought I would spin it “You know, for a philosopher it is like advertising. it’s not like you can put a sign on the shop that says ‘shoes’, or wear a card on my head that says philosopher. So if you act eccentric it’s just advertising. People know you’re a philosopher that way. ” (more laughter).
I like making the people here laugh. I like making everyone laugh.
But on a more serious note, and in all honesty, I have found that with increased UNDERSTANDING of the world of man, I am more appreciative of my fellow man, and more joyous in interacting with him….
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:45:00 UTC
The loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of platonism and religion is the reason for two millennia of limited progress. I suspect at first this was a linguistic limitation of early languages, combined with the history of animism, plus … one thing that is obvious to me… that operational language is expensive. Not just in words, but in the number of subset searches you must perform to convey an idea. So truth places a much higher burden on us until we develop a symbolic language for it that shortens the burden on us.
Just in my lifetime I perceive the difference in the metaphysical content of our language only half of which (science and probability) is beneficial, while the other half (high time preference, individualistic immoralism) is tragic.
As you go back, every generation it recedes into much clearer dialog using very clear references on one hand (enlightenment thought) then degrades into mystical thought. But if I must judge, I would say that we speak more superstitiously now than we did under the church.
Anyway, I have tried to restore all dimensions to philosophical argument and unite philosophy, morality, law, and science, as well as psychology and social science, into a single universal language.
Unfortunately that language is tedious. Just as I am sure science was tedious, and just as I am sure that removing animism, adding probability and evolutionary processes…. all were tedious.
But each transformation made man better than he was before.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:29:00 UTC
***Your opinion is only enough to determine your action, but it is not enough to claim it is ‘true’, When you claim something is true, at that point you promise to others it is true enough to determine their action. And by that claim expose them to potential harm. This violates every ethical and moral limit to cooperation.***
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:19:00 UTC
TWO MODES OF TRANSCENDENCE? BUT BOTH REQUIRE TRUTH.
(worth repeating)
I think that we are still half animal and have not yet transcended into fully human. because our genes do bias us.
One of the competing theories I’m working with is that we function as a collective at all times, and that our diversity of abilities allows us both specialize in an intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and to adapt to the changing universe around us. And that our cognitive biases are a useful means of specialization.
If this is true then we need only now how we err, not know the truth, since the truth so to speak is a product of social interaction assuming we can obtain truthfulness (the best information possible) from others.
So we have two possible axis of evolution: equality or specialization. And given the difference between the genders and the difference in our abilities I am rapidly converting from the individual to the social.
In both axis we must learn how to speak truthfully. However for all practical purposes we will always be superior as a collective for the purpose of collective ascertainment of truth. It s simply a matter of computational power and specialization.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:13:00 UTC
SELF DECEPTION OR NOT SELF DECEPTION IN TRANSCENDENCE?
My fiend Lee C Waaks tries to remind me regularly the people do not engage in self deception so much as cognitive bias. I hold the position that our genes cause us to possess different intensities of cognitive bias, such that we tend to construct edifices of falsehood to defend our reproductive strategies. The reason we do this is that we must act optimistically in favor of our strategies even if those strategies are difficult or next to impossible. as such our genes are capable of deceiving that part of us that we call self awareness or ‘self’. And we must struggle very hard at times to learn tools of truth if truth is our ambition. This is because truth is usually more useful than our genes evolved to accommodate. And that is because our ability to discern truth is relatively recent in our developmental history.
perception->memory->intuition->presentation->reason.
<—————un-aware———-.-><——–aware————>
<—————gene-driven———><–awareness driven–>
…………….”The Elephant”………..|……….The Rider………..
SO IS THIS “SELF”?
<——————————–Self———————————->
OR IS THIS “SELF”
<————–Not-Self—————><———–Self————>
Because in the former we are capable of self deception, while in the latter we are not capable of self deception, so much as struggling either in favor of or against bias-reinforcement.
GENE MACHINES
I think that we are still half animal and have not yet transcended into fully human. because our genes do bias us.
One of the competing theories I’m working with is that we function as a collective at all times, and that our diversity of abilities allows us both specialize in an intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and to adapt to the changing universe around us. And that our cognitive biases are a useful means of specialization.
If this is true then we need only now how we err, not know the truth, since the truth so to speak is a product of social interaction assuming we can obtain truthfulness (the best information possible) from others.
So we have two possible axis of evolution: equality or specialization. And given the difference between the genders and the difference in our abilities I am rapidly converting from the individual to the social.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:10:00 UTC
CURT: WHAT DO YOU CALL SOMETHING YOU WISH TO OBSERVE?
(apriorism does not convey truth, only a discount on testing)
I would call it either existence or reality prior to my observation of it. and the mixture of existence or reality and my memory and imagination after I observe it. Hence the necessity to use discipline by performing due diligence that what I record or testify is a ‘fact’ (because it has survived testing) rather rather than a statement of error, bias, wishful thinking or deception.
Now as a trite but possibly helpful example, lets take your use of ‘fact’ to assume that nature provides truth rather than you provide truth. Nature/Reality exists. It can’t promise. It can’t testify. It cannot create truth propositions. It can’t observe. Only we can. So we create facts, and we create truthfulness, within our promise and testimony that our observations are free of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. Truth exists in the correspondence between reality and description of it. But man creates the description and when he utters it he promises it is free of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.
So in your case you did not test that your use of the term ‘fact’ was truthful (truth by necessity) rather than merely honest (truth by analogy). You may be honest but you erred.
Likewise you did not test that the conveying truth content sufficient for persuasion of others was warrantied to be truthful rather than merely honest, and attempted to use this honesty but falsehood to persuade me by an appeal to the truth or authority of this non-fact that you claimed to be a fact.
Truth is constructed by man and it is always open to revision. Hence all knowledge is hypothetical and subject to future criticism, and no knowledge is ever persuasive in itself. It is only persuasive because of the accumulated test for falsehood that have eliminated error. And as such we must always test all deductions, inductions, abductions, and outright guesses that result from it.
ergo, apriorism is a means of hypothesizing not of truthfulness.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 02:33:00 UTC
CURT, WHAT DO YOU CALL AN OBSERVATION?
(frowns)
“An observation”
Observation–>Fact as Hypothesis -> Theory
Observations that survive criticism are facts.
Hypotheses that survive criticism are theories.
I may observe and err. A fact survives tests that I err/bias/think-wishfully/deceive in my observations.
In other words, truth candidacy is a product of survival.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FACT
1) something to observe
2) an observer to witness it
3) (possibly) a method of observation (“instrumentation”)
4) a method of recording (memory or instrumentation)
5) a method of criticizing the observation to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from the record (memory).
If we cannot find a way to falsify the record then we may morally claim it is a truth candidate, and therefore a fact.
Some observations are easy to test: “john wrote that post”.
Some observations are harder to test: “that car hit the pedestrian”.
Some observations are very hard to test: last year’s faster than light problem due to improper fitting of a connector.
It’s not hard guys unless you confuse the application of justifiction (law) to criticism (science). Which is common.
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 02:17:00 UTC
#NRx #libertarian #conservative #Altright #tlot https://t.co/oDjspTOmpc
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 16:47:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/686227930926694400
—“Pakistan says it will respond to any threat to Saudi Arabia”—AP Wire
Thats the Signal I was looking for! 🙂
Now we are getting somewhere!
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 15:15:00 UTC