Category: Epistemology and Method

  • subjective experience vs objective results

    subjective experience vs objective results.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-07 12:32:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1258374028345122819

    Reply addressees: @EricLiford @YvesBurri @Nationalist7346

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1258370679717724161

  • You are welcome to debate me on any subject if you can avoid false promise, bait

    You are welcome to debate me on any subject if you can avoid false promise, baiting into hazard, unwarrantable speech, advanced by Pilpul, defended by Critique and GSRRM, and preference or face over truth. But then, that would require masculinity in body, intuition and mind. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-04 20:49:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1257411941544402944

    Reply addressees: @Lasagna4all

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1257411121952296960


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Lasagna4all a) You didn’t make a criticism, you just used empty GSRRM. (Female>Jewish>Marxist Critique) as a substitute for argument. b) The tweet is out of context. In context:”How would we state Dumizel’s Trifunctionalism in trifunctional prose so that it could be embedded in a preamble.”

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1257411121952296960

  • MORON: “The Goal is…” or “The idea is…. ” SMART PERSON: this set of protocol

    MORON: “The Goal is…” or “The idea is…. “

    SMART PERSON: this set of protocols, procedures, processes, and institutions with these incentives given these counter incentives will produce a tendency toward this behavior.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-04 11:55:00 UTC

  • HIERARCHY: GRAMMARS, TESTIMONIES, METAPHYSICS, DECEITS Human Language Facility:

    HIERARCHY: GRAMMARS, TESTIMONIES, METAPHYSICS, DECEITS

    Human Language Facility:

    Grammars

    … Paradigms

    … … Dimensions

    … … … Vocabulary

    … … … … Referents

    … … … … … State

    … … … … Operations

    … … … Logic

    … … Testimonies

    … … … Analytic Truth

    … … … Ideal Truth

    … … … Truthfulness

    … … … Reasonableness

    … … … Honesty

    … … Narrations

    … … … Storytelling

    … … … Fictions (analogies)

    … … Metaphysics

    … … … Fictionaisms (sophistries)

    … … … Phenomenalisms (experiences)

    … … Deceits

    … … … Deceptions


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-04 10:41:00 UTC

  • Correct. There are no paradoxes. There are only grammatical errors and incomplet

    Correct. There are no paradoxes. There are only grammatical errors and incomplete sentences producing errors of inference. The origin is our empirical law vs “math” where math in the european mind is geometric (physical) and in the non european mind rational (verbal/astrological)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 22:48:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1257079540523958279

    Reply addressees: @eruditenights @DuchesneRicardo

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1257054091726827525

  • What’s the difference between Babbage and Cantor? Between Menger and Marx? Betwe

    What’s the difference between Babbage and Cantor?
    Between Menger and Marx? Between Hilbert and Bohr? Russell and Wittgenstein, Goedel and Kripke, Turing and Chomsky?
    The more you know the more obvious it is.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 22:38:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1257077130082615296

    Reply addressees: @DuchesneRicardo

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1257039963897634818


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @DuchesneRicardo This is a very, very, interesting topic that counter-intuitively illustrates the vast difference between european thought and non-european thought. Why is it that european thought is precise enough to discover paradoxes? Which are grammatical errors not paradoxes? And Why?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1257039963897634818

  • P: THE ACCOUNTANCY OF HUMAN ACTIONS Again, most of what the P-method consists of

    P: THE ACCOUNTANCY OF HUMAN ACTIONS

    Again, most of what the P-method consists of learning is

    … a) disambiguation of concepts into terms by serialization (competition)

    … b) in operational terms (actions from single point of view)

    … c) in complete, promissory sentences

    … d) composing fully accounted transactions.

    … e) within limits, with parsimony, with warranty.

    If you understand basic geometry, it’s the same thing.

    If you understand database normalization its the same thing.

    If you understand object oriented analysis and design it’s the same thing.

    if you understand sophomoric philosophy, platonism, idealism, pilpul and critique, is the OPPOSITE thing. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 13:13:00 UTC

  • METAPHYSICS VS PARADIGMS: THE LESSON. 1. Language consists of measurements organ

    METAPHYSICS VS PARADIGMS: THE LESSON.

    1. Language consists of measurements organized into transactions and sets of transactions. We cannot speak in anything other than measurements of sense-perception-auto-association.

    2. We refer to each internally consistent system of measurement as “metaphysics” if we are using platonic (imaginary) vocabulary, and “paradigm” if we are using the descriptive (existential) language paradigm.

    3. Metaphysics = Language Paradigm = Internal Constant relations independent of external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, limits, scope, accounting, warrantability, competitive surval.

    4. Description = Language Paradigm consisting of Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, limits, scope, accounting, warrantability, competitive surval.

    5. Narratives create imaginary world models that assist us in calculating by the most primitive means available to us: empathy, sympathy, and imitation. Archetypes personify instincts. Plots are formulae which teach us the consequences of following our instincts in in different conditions in the pursuit of ends – and most parables teach us the crime of either hubris or cowardice or laziness.

    6. We learn in generations of cognitive development from fairy tales to myths and legends, to heroic histories, to norms, manners, ethics morals, and traditions, to the dance of mating an family, to the various sciences, to the multitude of skills we use to apply them. Each of these generations requires greater agency and agency greater ability. Likewise we have theology, philosophy and the sciences. Likewise we have imitative, rule based, and outcome based ethics. Likewise we have an age of choice, age of consent, age of maturity, and age of political influence.

    7. There is only one most parsimonious system of measurement of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws of action. That language is what we call the formal(logical), physical(non-sentient), and social (sentient, action) sciences.

    8. That most parsimonious system of measurement of physical, natural and evolutionary laws of action, cannot capture the sense, perception, and associative experience. It can only EXPLAIN the experiential and associative to prevent ERROR and DECEIT by the experiential and associative.

    9. All other systems of measurement vary from that most parsimonious paradigm. Each variation from that most parsimonious paradigm produces costly consequences for the individual, those who associate with the individual, the society that is affected by them, and the polity that includes them, and under some conditions the world.

    10. People have explicable incentives for a) varying from that most parsimonious paradigm. b) choosing a fictional narrative (parables, stories, networks of parables and stories (mythologies), as means of decision (choice) making. c) habituating the degree of separation of conflation the parsimonious paradigm (real unknown), experienced (real known) from the fictional paradigm (imagined).

    11. Our brains develop our minds in a predictable hierarchy from the sensory to the physical to the interpersonal to the rational, and the impulsive, normative, and considered, at varying rates. The degree of ‘friction’ due to developmental failures in our ability to learn each step in that hierarchy determines the degree of complexity we use for our ‘resting state’. Some of us more sensory, some more physical, some more imaginary, some more social, and some more rational resting states (our normal). And we are more or less able to express agency, or vulnerable to sedation givne our lack of agency dependent upon that resting state.

    12. We are all subject to involuntary defect (psychosis, schizophrenia), voluntary defect (sedatives, psychedelics stimulants) invent and construct addiction to because cognitive agency is costly in the face of uncertainty, amplified by one’s failures to reduce costs of calculating successful actions, amplified by one’s failures of prediction of outcomes, amplified by one’s competitive failures in the familial, social, economic and political marketplaces, and by amplified others rejection and low status in those marketplaces. The solution of course is to lower one’s demands to suit one’s market value (epicureanism), and to learn to insulate one’s self from market pressures (stoicism, buddhism, christianity). The problem being that most of us maintain biological demand for social interaction and membership so that we seek means of sedation by escape, psychological construction, social construction, or changing our social circumstance, or improving our agency and market value so that we are more competitive.

    13. We differ in cognitive ability, meaning we differ in the dependence upon a) physical sense-perception and auto association b) intuitionistic auto-associative valuation and subsequent emotional response c) prediction of social (empathic/short/interpersonal) and physical (physical/long/political) permutations, d) regulation of those predictions by direction of attention to differing predicted experiences and states, e) agency in selecting which of those regulated predictions we will permute upon in order to produce a desired outcome, f) skill in calculating (imputing, calculating and computing) the means of achieving those ends. Ergo we differ in demand for mindfulness (relief from competitive pressures), and our means of obtaining mindfulness.

    14. The difference in individual family, class, and group ability is not superiority but accumulated defects due to genetic load due to survival of defects under monogamy, familism, pastoralism, agrarianism, industrialism, and lack of selection pressures, combined competing with those who continuously suppress genetic load by continuous selection pressure, which produces evolution of neotonic maturity, rational agency, and calculative ability as a consequence.

    15. We have however discovered the genes for improving heart, muscle, lungs, and remove defects from liver, kidney, and stomach. So it is possible in the future to both add innovations and remove defects. Even if man’s continues dysgenic reproduction means we cannot control negative selection pressures (increasing genetic load) we can still speciate with elites by selective breeding (classes) and by selective genetic manipulation (positive eugenics).

    16. There is no false equivalency. There is the most parsimonous science(calculation)(action) and fiction (theorizing) (imagination) and metaphysical (conflation and deceit).There is no extant metaphysical – only the imaginary. There is but most parsimonious – the truth – the rest is different degree of error, bias, wishfulthinking and deceit.

    17 If that experience is unorganized the psychotic (rational ), schizophrenic(social), or psychedelic (experiential). If organized the fictional(fictions). if locally ritualized the cult. If socially constructed the religion. if chemically induced: the drug addiction. These are all imaginary. These are all addictions. They are all falsehoods. They are all admissions of failure. Instead there is the fictional, the historical, the wisdom literature of the centuries, and the sciences whether formal, physical(physics, chemistry, biology), or sentient (language, psychology, sociology).

    18. Metaphysics = Addicts. Just addicts. Nothing more. We need only determine the reason for the addiction, and the method of addiction, but these are addictions, and addicts ‘disposable’ at best, and ‘cancer’ at worst.

    19. There is every good reason to either remove addicts from public discourse and influence, on one hand, and to follow Duerte if they get out of hand on the other. This is what houses of government by demonstrated achievement accomplish, and what prohibition on addictions prevents from influencing those houses.

    20. Addicts will stop at nothing to justify their addiction. They will export the costs of their addiction. To the limit of the adult tolerance for bearing the costs of it.

    At present we need to imitate duterte and clean house.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 12:47:00 UTC

  • THE SIMPLE VERSION OF METAPHYSICS AS ADDICTION —“you don’t believe metaphysics

    THE SIMPLE VERSION OF METAPHYSICS AS ADDICTION

    —“you don’t believe metaphysics is anything other than imagination”—

    So you didn’t understand then. You’re another one of the mouth breathers who say “calculus is hard so it must be false”.

    Here in simple terms for simple folks:

    1. Language consists of measurements organized into transactions and sets of transactions. We cannot speak in anything other than measurements of sense-perception-auto-association.

    2. We refer to each internally consistent system of measurement as “metaphysics” if we are using platonic (imaginary) vocabulary, and “paradigm” if we are using the descriptive (existential) language paradigm.

    3. There is only one most parsimonious system of measurement of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws of action. That language is what we call the formal(logical), physical(non-sentient), and social (sentient, action) sciences.

    4. All other systems of measurement vary from that most parsimonious paradigm. Each variation from that most parsimonious paradigm produces costly consequences for the individual, those who associate with the individual, the society that is affected by them, and the polity that includes them, and under some conditions the world.

    5. People have explicable incentives for a) varying from that most parsimonious paradigm. b) choosing a fictional narrative (parables, stories, networks of parables and stories (mythologies), as means of decision (choice) making. c) habituating the degree of separation of conflation the parsimonious paradigm (real unknown), experienced (real known) from the fictional paradigm (imagined).

    7. Our brains develop our minds in a predictable hierarchy from the sensory to the physical to the interpersonal to the rational, and the impulsive, normative, and considered, at varying rates. The degree of ‘friction’ due to developmental failures in our ability to learn each step in that hierarchy determines the degree of complexity we use for our ‘resting state’. Some of us more sensory, some more physical, some more imaginary, some more social, and some more rational resting states (our normal). And we are more or less able to express agency, or vulnerable to sedation givne our lack of agency dependent upon that resting state.

    6. We are all subject to involuntary defect (psychosis, schizophrenia), voluntary defect (sedatives, psychedelics stimulants) invent and construct addiction to because cognitive agency is costly in the face of uncertainty, amplified by one’s failures to reduce costs of calculating successful actions, amplified by one’s failures of prediction of outcomes, amplified by one’s competitive failures in the familial, social, economic and political marketplaces, and by amplified others rejection and low status in those marketplaces. The solution of course is to lower one’s demands to suit one’s market value (epicureanism), and to learn to insulate one’s self from market pressures (stoicism, buddhism, christianity). The problem being that most of us maintain biological demand for social interaction and membership so that we seek means of sedation by escape, psychological construction, social construction, or changing our social circumstance, or improving our agency and market value so that we are more competitive.

    6. We differ in cognitive ability, meaning we differ in the dependence upon a) physical sense-perception and auto association b) intuitionistic auto-associative valuation and subsequent emotional response c) prediction of social (empathic/short/interpersonal) and physical (physical/long/political) permutations, d) regulation of those predictions by direction of attention to differing predicted experiences and states, e) agency in selecting which of those regulated predictions we will permute upon in order to produce a desired outcome, f) skill in calculating (imputing, calculating and computing) the means of achieving those ends. Ergo we differ in demand for mindfulness (relief from competitive pressures), and our means of obtaining mindfulness.

    7. The difference in individual family, class, and group ability is not superiority but accumulated defects due to genetic load due to survival of defects under monogamy, familism, pastoralism, agrarianism, industrialism, and lack of selection pressures, combined competing with those who continuously suppress genetic load by continuous selection pressure, which produces evolution of neotonic maturity, rational agency, and calculative ability as a consequence.

    8. We have however discovered the genes for improving heart, muscle, lungs, and remove defects from liver, kidney, and stomach. So it is possible in the future to both add innovations and remove defects. Even if man’s continues dysgenic reproduction means we cannot control negative selection pressures (increasing genetic load) we can still speciate with elites by selective breeding (classes) and by selective genetic manipulation (positive eugenics).

    That’s the simple version in bullet points for simple folks.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 12:22:00 UTC

  • METAPHYSICS AS ADDICTION 1. Metaphysics = Language Paradigm = Internal Constant

    METAPHYSICS AS ADDICTION

    1. Metaphysics = Language Paradigm = Internal Constant relations independent of external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, limits, scope, accounting, warrantability, competitive surval.

    2. Description = Language Paradigm consisting of Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, limits, scope, accounting, warrantability, competitive surval.

    3. There is no metaphysical only the imaginary: If unorganized the psychotic (rational ), schizophrenic(social), or psychedelic (experiential). If organized the fictional(fictions). if locally ritualized the cult. If socially constructed the religion. if chemically induced: the drug addiction. These are all imaginary.

    4. It cannot capture the experience and associative. It can only EXPLAIN the experiential and associative to prevent ERROR and DECEIT by the experiential and associative.

    5. Narratives create imaginary world models that assist us in calculating by the most primitive means available to us: empathy, sympathy, and imitation. Archetypes personify instincts. Plots are formulae which teach us the consequences of following our instincts in in different conditions in the pursuit of ends – and most parables teach us the crime of either hubris or cowardice or laziness.

    5. Metaphysics = Addicts. Just addicts. Nothing more. We need only determine the reason for the addiction, and the method of addiction, but these are addictions, and addicts ‘disposable’ at best, and ‘cancer’ at worst.

    There is every good reason to either remove addicts from public discourse and influence, on one hand, and to follow Duerte if they get out of hand on the other. This is what houses of government by demonstrated achievement accomplish, and what prohibition on addictions prevents from influencing those houses.

    Addicts will stop at nothing to justify their addiction.

    At present we need to imitate duterte and clean house.



    And to cut off the usual sophistry.

    Logical positivism is the opposite of falsificationism.

    We do not claim to know what is true and good.

    We claim only to know what is false and irreciprocal.

    And we claim the evidence is that mankind does not build knowledge so much as removes ignorance error bias and deceit, by continuous incremental discovery of the few universal laws of the universe and their few applications, in the most parsimonious logic, vocabulary and paradigm available to man.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-03 10:43:00 UTC