Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • THE FOUNDATIONS OF ALL PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT The function of science and natural

    THE FOUNDATIONS OF ALL PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT

    The function of science and natural law is adaptation.

    The function of Theology, Philosophy, Pseudoscience and Sophistry is to provide psychological comfort in relieving the stress of innovation, adaptation, productivity, reciprocity.

    Seeking the truth is always superior to seeking the preferential as a subsititute. This is why every other people – every single one – other than european middle and upper classes failed evolution’s test of continuous adaptation and innovation. Non european thought is almost universally dedicated to escapism. Because the value of cooperation is assumed to be infinite.

    EPISTEMOLOGY:

    1. Body: Sense > Model(of existence) > Perception > Auto Association > Auto-Prediction > Valuation > Recursion:
    2. Langauge facility (wayfinding): Continuous recursive disambiguation:
    3. Promise: Speech: Existential > Declarative > Ostensive > Imperative > Agree/Not:
    4. Evidence: Actions: Invariant .> True-False .> Correspondent-not > Success-Fail > Agree/Not
    5. Recursion: Free Association > Hypothesis > Theory > Surviving Theory
    6. Because: Relational Possibility > Self Test > Demonstrated Test > Market Test

    That’s what exists and how body, language facility, Speech, action and resulting evidence performs.

    My argument is that group strategies vary from highly correspondent, productive, innovative, and adaptive to non-correspondent, parasitic, destructive, and devolutionary.

    This is what almost every single theologian, philosopher, or scientist fails to include. Because they assume that infinite cooperation and decreasing competition is valuable rather than disastrous.

    So given that rapid continuous adaptation is the European tradition, I would argue that tradition is something we shouldn’t leave behind because our tradition is trifuctionalism mediated by truth (law). The most action-oriented tradition in history.

    BEAUTY:

    As far as I know, beauty in all cases is the availability of resources (fertility), quality (fertility), aesthetics (symmetry in fertility), ease (fertility), awe (new opportunities in fertility). AFAIK There are no exceptions to this. It’s was my first philosophical subject.

    Beauty is no different from any other experience, or any other truth. We have experiences, associations based on them, and personal valuations of them for extremely idiosyncratic reasons.

    So knowing First Causes (what I do) only provides understanding not prescription.

    And so again we come to declarative (is) vs imperative (can, must, should).

    And the difference is decidability in matters of conflict (is) vs decidability in matters of agreement (can, must, should).

    And again we see via negativa law(science) vs via positiva philosophy(preference), and conflation of both by theology(demand), and simple necessity in war (command)

    So: Masculine Command > law > preference < wisdom < Feminine Demand

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-02 17:00:02 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105662723050575845

  • And so again we come to declarative (is) vs imperative (can, must, should). And

    And so again we come to declarative (is) vs imperative (can, must, should). And the difference is decidability in matters of conflict (is) vs decidability in matters of agreement (can must should). Via negativa law vs via positiva philosophy, and conflation of both by theology.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-02 16:49:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356645899137667077

    Reply addressees: @Imperius__13

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356645538632982529

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Imperius__13 Beauty is no different from any other experience, or any other truth. We have exerperiences, associations based on them, and personal valuations of them for extremely ideosyncratic reasons. So knowing First Causes (what I do) only provides understanding not prescription.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1356645538632982529

  • Beauty is no different from any other experience, or any other truth. We have ex

    Beauty is no different from any other experience, or any other truth. We have exerperiences, associations based on them, and personal valuations of them for extremely ideosyncratic reasons. So knowing First Causes (what I do) only provides understanding not prescription.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-02 16:47:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356645538632982529

    Reply addressees: @Imperius__13

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356644373375631362

  • Body: Sense > Model > Perception > Auto Association > Auto-Prediction > Valuatio

    Body: Sense > Model > Perception > Auto Association > Auto-Prediction > Valuation > Recursion:
    Langauge:Continuous recursive disambiguation:
    Promise: Speech: Existential > Declarative > Imperative > Agree/Not:
    Evidence: Actions: Invariant .> True-False .> Success-Fail > Agree/Not

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-02 16:27:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356640341143785472

    Reply addressees: @Imperius__13

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356616502854746116

  • Seeking the truth is always superior to seeking the preferential as a subsititut

    Seeking the truth is always superior to seeking the preferential as a subsititute. This is why every other people – every single one – other than european middle and upper classes failed evolution’s test of continuous adaptation and innovation. Non european thought is escapism.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-02 13:42:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356598852405653508

  • Entropy (cause) ……….Physical Behavioral Evolutionary (laws) Mathematical .

    ……………………….Entropy (cause)
    ……….Physical Behavioral Evolutionary (laws)
    Mathematical . Operational . Adversarial (logics)
    ………………………..Verbal (logic)
    ……………………Formal Logic (logic)

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-02 11:15:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1356561800100257793

  • Learning P-Law vs Philosophy, Psychology or Sociology

    There is a difference between mythology, theology, philosophy, science, and logic – and in logic between mathematics(existence), action(operations), and words(logic of lanquage). They share a common grammar but uncommon paradigms and vocabulary – from Inflationary to deflationary. So what I do, what we do, is operational logic of behavior where decidability is provided by tests of reciprocity and testimony – that is what law – scientific law – consists of. Scientific Law, Natural Law, and “accordance with nature” and the laws of the universe are synonyms. And so if you have had training in ‘literary’ thought it will be almost useless in understanding P-Logic and P-Law. Because P-Law is an operational logic (like programming), uses behavioral logic from economics, and legal decidability by tests of reciprocity, and testifiability. Max Weber warned the social sciences that all fields would eventually be reduced to some sort of calculation. P-Logic and P-Law are constructivist logics that provide calculability in the behavioral sciences (cog sci, language, psychology, sociology, ethics, law, and politics).

  • Learning P-Law vs Philosophy, Psychology or Sociology

    There is a difference between mythology, theology, philosophy, science, and logic – and in logic between mathematics(existence), action(operations), and words(logic of lanquage). They share a common grammar but uncommon paradigms and vocabulary – from Inflationary to deflationary. So what I do, what we do, is operational logic of behavior where decidability is provided by tests of reciprocity and testimony – that is what law – scientific law – consists of. Scientific Law, Natural Law, and “accordance with nature” and the laws of the universe are synonyms. And so if you have had training in ‘literary’ thought it will be almost useless in understanding P-Logic and P-Law. Because P-Law is an operational logic (like programming), uses behavioral logic from economics, and legal decidability by tests of reciprocity, and testifiability. Max Weber warned the social sciences that all fields would eventually be reduced to some sort of calculation. P-Logic and P-Law are constructivist logics that provide calculability in the behavioral sciences (cog sci, language, psychology, sociology, ethics, law, and politics).

  • What is the difference between? 1. a philosophical system 2. a logical system 3.

    What is the difference between?
    1. a philosophical system
    2. a logical system
    3. a scientific system

    1. created, consistent, and arbitrarily correspondent.
    2. created or discovered, consistent, and contingently correspondent
    3. discovered, consistent, and correspondent.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-01-30 00:22:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1355310257623474177

  • @CaptainBoner well, you know, what I learned from working on the grammars is tha

    @CaptainBoner well, you know, what I learned from working on the grammars is that all sciences and all language that we use in them are consistent. So as far as I know the sciences (logics, physical, behavioral, evolutionary ) are all unified now. and all the theoretical, fictional and fictionalisms follow the same rules as well. So, the future ought to be as radically different from the 1900’s as the 1800s were from the 1600’s.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-01-29 21:31:27 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105641141017651002