Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • It’s not about whether I like it. 😉 It’s about whether it’s false. Compare natu

    It’s not about whether I like it. 😉
    It’s about whether it’s false.
    Compare natural philosophy with literary philosophy.
    We get rousseau, kant, hegel, heidegger, and marx, derrida, … why? Because it’s all fantasy literature. None of it is other than analogy. And most all of hit has been harmful. math, physical science, cognitive science, economics, law, evolutionary law. It’s not that complicated.

    I mean between plato’s contribution to the dark ages, rousseau’s proto-marxism in an attempt to repace the catholic church with a secular theology, Kant’s desperate attempt to replace religoius law with secular theology. Hegel’s desperate wish to restore the simplicity of teh agrarian past as a secular theology, and marx’s contribution to the present dark age, and Heidegger’s attempt to invert noun and verb… well, isn’t that enough “cope” by pseudoscience and sophistsriy for all eternity? Isn’t that enough?

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 01:28:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634003342660628481

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633982016516505602

  • I don’t like materialism either. But I sorta have this job. And the testifiable

    I don’t like materialism either.
    But I sorta have this job.
    And the testifiable truth thing is, well, pretty much unavoidable… 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-09 22:46:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633962555298267137

    Reply addressees: @CharlesL1902 @Esoteric_Dago @demosphachtes @KetaIDFBabe

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633959658384945152

  • “how can he scientifically prove that everything he experiences is real?”– Easi

    –“how can he scientifically prove that everything he experiences is real?”–

    Easily. With extraordinary precision.
    Though sense(stimuli), percieve (observables), and experience (imagination) are three different things.
    We even know how to explain Qualia.
    There is nothing left…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-09 22:22:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633956460659867649

    Reply addressees: @atlanteanfate @Esoteric_Dago @demosphachtes @CharlesL1902 @KetaIDFBabe

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633949449922785281

  • Well, the platonists were wrong, always have been wrong, and they’re the source

    Well, the platonists were wrong, always have been wrong, and they’re the source of every horror from Christian Chuchianity to French moralizing, German Phenomenalism to Marxism, to Postmodernism.

    Philosophy is pseudoscience.
    It’s therapy for those unable to handle sciences. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-09 18:40:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633900605335846921

    Reply addressees: @demosphachtes @CharlesL1902 @KetaIDFBabe

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633899350358147080

  • Um. I guess you don’t know what postmodern means. Because I’m the very definitio

    Um. I guess you don’t know what postmodern means. Because I’m the very definition of a modernist, empiricist, scientist, and operationalist. 😉 To the point where it makes reader’s eyes water.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-09 18:32:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633898578845286414

    Reply addressees: @demosphachtes @CharlesL1902 @KetaIDFBabe

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633896863102377984

  • Analogies are not identities

    Analogies are not identities.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-09 06:51:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633722209926627329

    Reply addressees: @HansNiesund @guffynicola @shermanklumpp

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633721291181096962

  • Um. no. It can imitate my style. But my work CANT be simplified. Because it’s wr

    Um. no. It can imitate my style. But my work CANT be simplified. Because it’s written as a PROOF.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-09 00:15:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633622558636376064

    Reply addressees: @MaunaLoona

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633621105536823296

  • Well it’s just science. Though there is a difference between logical and rationa

    Well it’s just science.
    Though there is a difference between logical and rational, in that rationality can include subjective choice, and logical can explain subjective choice, not argue it.
    At some point the principle difference in intelligence results in error detection. As you get smarter your ability to learn concepts of increasing abstraction and more so with multiple states in working memory, improves marginally. But if you look at human performance it tends to result largely in error detection, more so than any increase in innovation.
    Conversely, the most visible sign of decline in intelligence other than knowledge and sentence content, formation, and length, is logical incompetency.
    Logical competency declines rather rapidly under 100-105 to where simple negative logic (just like neural nets fail to perform) is overwhelming for the individual.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-09 00:00:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633618805074145289

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633616650376466433

  • (New Followers) WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED? The short answ

    (New Followers)
    WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED?
    The short answer is that it looks like language but it’s much closer to math.

    Please notice how I use:
    … a) ‘lists’ (serializations) and
    … b) ‘balances between male and female’ (equilibrations)
    … c) ‘operational language’ (actions)
    … d) And weaving together lists and balances to illustrate the consistency of the properties of the universe, including humans, over time.

    This structure is the equivlant of writing object-oriented program code. Where the purpose of object-oriented programming is to produce Simulations that survive adversarial competition (life and evolution).

    For example:
    … a) Serialized lists = Types
    … b) Equilibrations = Functions
    … c) Operational language = Syntax
    … d) Together = Classes

    WHY?
    Because if you write in this way, in complete sentences in operational language, using definitions by types, and equilibrations by functions together in classes, it is very difficult to error, bias, or deceive (yourself or others) without the grammar and syntax exposing that fact.

    This doesn’t mean we write everything algorithmically. It means that we can expand anything we write into algorithms, classes, types, and functions and test what we hear or what we have said.

    As in most programming languages, there are a limited number of rules. Likewise in human experience, there are a limited number of rules. And there aren’t very many. There is a very simple ternary logic to these rules. The ‘work’ in learning this method of testing the truth of any statement is largely in memorizing how to use these techniques on the one hand and overcoming your intuitions that you assume are products of reason so that you are in fact relying on reason and ‘computation’.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers
    -Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 23:53:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633616867213430785

  • (New Followers) WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED? The short answ

    (New Followers)
    WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED?
    The short answer is that it looks like language but it’s much closer to math.

    Please notice how I use:
    … a) ‘lists’ (serializations) and
    … b) ‘balances between male and female’ (equilibrations)
    … c) ‘operational language’ (actions)
    … d) And weaving together lists and balances to illustrate the consistency of the properties of the universe, including humans, over time.

    This structure is the equivlant of writing object-oriented program code. Where the purpose of object-oriented programming is to produce Simulations that survive adversarial competition (life and evolution).

    For example:
    … a) Serialized lists = Types
    … b) Equilibrations = Functions
    … c) Operational language = Syntax
    … d) Together = Classes

    WHY?
    Because if you write in this way, in complete sentences in operational language, using definitions by types, and equilibrations by functions together in classes, it is very difficult to error, bias, or deceive (yourself or others) without the grammar and syntax exposing that fact.

    This doesn’t mean we write everything algorithmically. It means that we can expand anything we write into algorithms, classes, types, and functions and test what we hear or what we have said.

    As in most programming languages, there are a limited number of rules. Likewise in human experience, there are a limited number of rules. And there aren’t very many. There is a very simple ternary logic to these rules. The ‘work’ in learning this method of testing the truth of any statement is largely in memorizing how to use these techniques on the one hand and overcoming your intuitions that you assume are products of reason so that you are in fact relying on reason and ‘computation’.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers
    -Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 23:53:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633616867473358848