Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

Google John Mark Says for neurotypical versions of the work. Most of it will be

Google John Mark Says for neurotypical versions of the work. Most of it will be inaccessible you otherwise.

Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 17:52:40 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174018346586652672

Reply addressees: @Brian_Alford @DineshDSouza

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174018055548129281

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@Brian_Alford @DineshDSouza You have it backward. I’m followed, not following. 😉

-Cheers

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174018055548129281

IN REPLY TO:

@curtdoolittle

@Brian_Alford @DineshDSouza You have it backward. I’m followed, not following. 😉

-Cheers

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174018055548129281

September 17, 2019
You have it backward. I’m followed, not following. 😉 -Cheers

You have it backward. I’m followed, not following. 😉

-Cheers

Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 17:51:31 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174018055548129281

Reply addressees: @Brian_Alford @DineshDSouza

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174017952066265089

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@Brian_Alford @DineshDSouza They are cases of application. Theories of observations (facts), theories of application (theories), evidence of application (laws), evidence of parsimony (coherence). A position is a preference. One does not take a position on the science. One falsifies it – or fails to.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174017952066265089

IN REPLY TO:

@curtdoolittle

@Brian_Alford @DineshDSouza They are cases of application. Theories of observations (facts), theories of application (theories), evidence of application (laws), evidence of parsimony (coherence). A position is a preference. One does not take a position on the science. One falsifies it – or fails to.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174017952066265089

September 17, 2019
RT @Biorealism: This essay reminds me of the debate between @charliekirk11 and @

RT @Biorealism: This essay reminds me of the debate between @charliekirk11 and @TuckerCarlson about consecutives focussing on growth/free m…

Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 13:07:05 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173946478026534912

September 17, 2019
“Sounds like” can mean anything, since it’s merely free association. You sound l

“Sounds like” can mean anything, since it’s merely free association. You sound like you live in a bubble of dunning kruger ignorance. 😉 Means nothing. Make an argument or don’t waste oxygen.

Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 03:20:54 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173798957597822976

Reply addressees: @Brian_Alford @DineshDSouza

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173797905083162624

IN REPLY TO:

Original post on X

Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173797905083162624

September 17, 2019
It’s a promise. 😉

It’s a promise. 😉

Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 03:01:45 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173794137486831617

Reply addressees: @Brian_Alford @DineshDSouza

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173792149134958592

IN REPLY TO:

Original post on X

Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173792149134958592

September 17, 2019
“Can anyone elaborate on the baiting into moral hazards via pilpul please? Is th

—“Can anyone elaborate on the baiting into moral hazards via pilpul please? Is that to use philosophy and morality as an argument as opposed to utility, reciprocity based on empirical?”—… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=467121393884756&id=100017606988153

Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 23:55:44 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173747326244007936

September 16, 2019
Brian, copy for you

Brian, copy for you. https://t.co/1C2bGRJs0Z

Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 23:36:55 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173742590941900801

Reply addressees: @Brian_Alford @DineshDSouza

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173434479982989314

IN REPLY TO:

Original post on X

Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173434479982989314

September 16, 2019
I still don’t get what you’re trying to do. I”m trying and I don’t get it. I mea

I still don’t get what you’re trying to do. I”m trying and I don’t get it. I mean, I studied mark making because it’s central to art theory. But it’s most likely tool making came first and mark making second (sure looks like it), language third, writing, then math etc.

Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:30:22 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173710742744444929

Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173710469183528960

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@Semiogogue So what? Crawling came first. Scent first. Black and white vision first. As far as I know imitation(body), empathy(emotion), sympathy (mind), communication and physical transformation (tool making) all evolved in parallel because they’re all dependent upon the same faculties.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173710469183528960

IN REPLY TO:

@curtdoolittle

@Semiogogue So what? Crawling came first. Scent first. Black and white vision first. As far as I know imitation(body), empathy(emotion), sympathy (mind), communication and physical transformation (tool making) all evolved in parallel because they’re all dependent upon the same faculties.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173710469183528960

September 16, 2019
Do you mean lying? 😉 Do you mean misleading? Do you mean the art of creative as

Do you mean lying? 😉 Do you mean misleading? Do you mean the art of creative association? (loading, framing, overloading, suggestion, obscurantism)

Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:23:00 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173708891659653120

Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173708328565952512

IN REPLY TO:

@Semiogogue

@curtdoolittle Are two parties necessary for such ‘communication’?

What of the role of idiolects?

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173708328565952512

September 16, 2019
Everyone wants to defend the malinvestment in their frame no matter how ridiculo

Everyone wants to defend the malinvestment in their frame no matter how ridiculous, art, literature, religion, philosophy, utilitarianism, marxism – whatever – when science is gradually producing the most unambiguous frame. So what is it that you want to produce and why?

Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:01:03 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173703367794810881

Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173703101716606977

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@Semiogogue So I would have to understand WHY you’re trying to do what you’re doing. To undrestand why your approach suits it. Most people want discounted references by increasing homogeneity of narratives required for symbolism to provide discounts on cognition and trust extension.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173703101716606977

IN REPLY TO:

@curtdoolittle

@Semiogogue So I would have to understand WHY you’re trying to do what you’re doing. To undrestand why your approach suits it. Most people want discounted references by increasing homogeneity of narratives required for symbolism to provide discounts on cognition and trust extension.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173703101716606977

September 16, 2019