(Diary)
Looking forward to the time when have the privilege and joy of working with
@LukeWeinhagen
every day. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 23:59:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937661837283410000
(Diary)
Looking forward to the time when have the privilege and joy of working with
@LukeWeinhagen
every day. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 23:59:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937661837283410000
(Brilliant)
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 23:57:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937661337502634482
(Diary)
Reminded by a young female neighbor:
My default behavior is indistinguishable from flirting.
I’m just friendly and gregarious. The chances I’m flirting are very close to zero. I don’t have time. And I’m not interested. 😉
The power of autism: lack of self awareness. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 23:56:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937661072162586794
You’re smart. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 23:16:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937651131997651464
–“As in all things, most people define ‘True’, ‘Ethical’ and ‘Moral’ according to their abilities, biases, utility, and knowledge.”–
The Natural Law, Volume IV – The Law.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 18:44:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937582662878970339
RE: —“MacDonald’s GES is a starting hypothesis. Doolittle’s work renders it actionable law.”—
This is my understanding of the correct interpretation of our works – compatible. IMO MacDonald is much more understandable by the vox populi but to render it into law requires my work. 😉
Thanks for your work on thise matters.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 18:41:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937581937184616842
Well you can contrive a private meaning for the term true, but the only ‘true’ that is not imaginary and subjective is that which is testifiable and survives adversarial testimony.
You appear to be worth investing in. 😉 (my form of a profound compliment) 😉
So,
All my work relies on ternary logic an/or supply and demand instead of syllogistic truth or falsehood.
So instead I suggest ‘true enough for what’?
Here is Curt Doolittle’s explicit truth spectrum, as stated in his operational epistemology:
“True enough for me to believe it”
“True enough for me to act upon it”
“True enough for others to act upon it”
“True enough for us to coordinate upon it”
“True enough for others to rely upon it”
“True enough to demand restitution if false”
“True enough to use as evidence in court under oath”
“True enough to use in the conduct of science”
“True enough to use in the construction of a formal logic or mathematics”
Each level represents an increasing standard of warranty, reciprocity, and liability, moving from subjective belief to universal decidability under formal institutional constraints. This spectrum underpins Doolittle’s performative definition of truth: truth is a warranty of non-imposition that satisfies the demand for testifiability in the relevant context.
Curt Doolittle defines decidability as:
“The satisfaction of the demand for infallibility in the context in question, without the necessity of discretion.”This means a claim is decidable if it can be judged true or false without subjective interpretation, relying only on operationally defined, testifiable, and reciprocally insurable terms. Decidability eliminates ambiguity by making all judgments algorithmically resolvable given the context—legal, scientific, ethical, or cooperative.
In Doolittle’s framework, this criterion is required to institutionalize reciprocity and prevent discretionary rule. It is a logical and moral standard, necessary for converting moral intuitions or beliefs into formal law and policy.
Here is the current state of our GPT if you want to ask it questions. But ensure that when you ask and want my exact words to say so. Otherwise it generates its interpretation. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 18:34:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937580129770930298
Wow. Never tried that. Thank you. ;). (And thank you for all you do for me, and us.)
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 18:23:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937577411656450255
I don’t know if I’d disagree with ‘meaning’ or ‘knowledge sufficient for individual action’ which is I think your intention. My problem is different: judicial and political – when we are in conflict, or perhaps more importantly, when people use non-testimonial methods to achieve personal to political ends while engaging in the spectrum of baiting into hazard that constitutes so much of human discourse.
The only problem is the mixed bag of say, religion, or say marxist pseudoscience, which attempts to achieve a good by fictionalist means (deception), that by externality causes harm – and all religions it turns out caused as much harm as they did good.
But the three philosophical traditions of europeanism, confucianism, and original buddhism, … each was defeated by some other ‘religion’ because the original non false solutions to the expansion of human numbers were inaccessible by too much of the population.
In other words, the upper intellectual classes can produce non-false non-bad philosophies that fulfill the demands of any religion in producing mindfulness. But they are not available to far too much of the population that is less cognitively evolved (or carrying too much genetic load).
This is … depressing.
What we can learn however, is that it just means we must spend more on indoctrination than we have so far. Religions are cheap indoctrination. Education is expensive indoctrination. But it may require expensive indoctrination to leave behind our vulnerability the hazards of easily accessible religions as a means of achieving mindfulness.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 18:22:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937577123918872730
I mean, you are only concerned with self and others who agree with you. But hte function of judges in resolving conflicts is one of independence of subjectivity.
The reason you think as you do is because you have been indoctrinated into a given moral system that relies on justification and makes few demands of people and presumes a relatively simplistic agrarian condition of life.
The fish is unaware of the water.
I mean, you are only concerned with self and others who agree with you. But the function of judges in resolving conflicts is one of independence of subjectivity.
Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 17:18:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937561059721904208