May 6, 2020, 11:02 AM So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement. By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce). By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
“All Language Consists of Measurements”
“All Language Consists of Measurements” https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/all-language-consists-of-measurements/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 03:25:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265846578721456129
-
“All Language Consists of Measurements”
May 10, 2020, 10:14 AM We don’t think of it geometrically but that’s the best frame for representing it’s organization. Our senses (nervous system) register pulses, which vary only in on-off, and frequency – a measurement – and we combine those measurements, because our body is a system of commensurability, into a world-model useful for our actions. Then we describe the world in combinations of sense-perceptions. The second fundamental problem with AI so far (aside from our hardware is architected inversely) is that it has no system of commensurability like we have – the body – and so it cannot develop consciousness: a model with predictive differences given our possible actions (physical, logical, verbal). Archetypes – prototype measurements of combinations of instincts Stereotypes – consistent predictions from measurements. In the Foundations Course, I frame our consciousness geometrically from the start. Unfortunately constitution and revolution is more pressing than continuing work on consciousness and behaviour but I will get there….
-
“All Language Consists of Measurements”
May 10, 2020, 10:14 AM We don’t think of it geometrically but that’s the best frame for representing it’s organization. Our senses (nervous system) register pulses, which vary only in on-off, and frequency – a measurement – and we combine those measurements, because our body is a system of commensurability, into a world-model useful for our actions. Then we describe the world in combinations of sense-perceptions. The second fundamental problem with AI so far (aside from our hardware is architected inversely) is that it has no system of commensurability like we have – the body – and so it cannot develop consciousness: a model with predictive differences given our possible actions (physical, logical, verbal). Archetypes – prototype measurements of combinations of instincts Stereotypes – consistent predictions from measurements. In the Foundations Course, I frame our consciousness geometrically from the start. Unfortunately constitution and revolution is more pressing than continuing work on consciousness and behaviour but I will get there….
-
It’s Not an Act. It’s a Methodology
It’s Not an Act. It’s a Methodology. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/its-not-an-act-its-a-methodology/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 03:20:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265845487350935554
-
Testimony
Testimony https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/testimony-13/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 02:57:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265839700838944769
-
Testimony
May 26, 2020, 11:39 PM CORRECT. P IS A METHODOLOGY.
—“As a general rule, I assume someone knows nothing about P (regardless of their claims to contrary and criticisms) if they don’t first acknowledge it’s a methodology.”—Grant Cameron McPhee
Smart.
-
Testimony
May 26, 2020, 11:39 PM CORRECT. P IS A METHODOLOGY.
—“As a general rule, I assume someone knows nothing about P (regardless of their claims to contrary and criticisms) if they don’t first acknowledge it’s a methodology.”—Grant Cameron McPhee
Smart.
-
Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism
Oct 1, 2019, 11:55 AM Given any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.). Edit
-
Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism
Oct 1, 2019, 11:55 AM Given any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.). Edit