Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • So I would have to understand WHY you’re trying to do what you’re doing. To undr

    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.

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

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

    Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173702739077083141

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Semiogogue Again, the purpose of speech is increase in disambiguation at cost of education whereas purpose of signs is broad association at cost of ambiguation. Active attempt by (((left))) to destroy western symbolism was successful.Not that Xianity is worth preserving, but archetypes are.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173702739077083141

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Semiogogue Again, the purpose of speech is increase in disambiguation at cost of education whereas purpose of signs is broad association at cost of ambiguation. Active attempt by (((left))) to destroy western symbolism was successful.Not that Xianity is worth preserving, but archetypes are.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173702739077083141

  • Again, the purpose of speech is increase in disambiguation at cost of education

    Again, the purpose of speech is increase in disambiguation at cost of education whereas purpose of signs is broad association at cost of ambiguation. Active attempt by (((left))) to destroy western symbolism was successful.Not that Xianity is worth preserving, but archetypes are.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 20:58:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173702739077083141

    Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173701851881070592

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Semiogogue Was just publishing my notes so that you would know I actually watched and thought about what you’d said. Good direction you’re going. Just not fond of trying to fit the frame rather than just sticking with the science. -cheers

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173701851881070592

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Semiogogue Was just publishing my notes so that you would know I actually watched and thought about what you’d said. Good direction you’re going. Just not fond of trying to fit the frame rather than just sticking with the science. -cheers

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173701851881070592

  • The degree to which we are dependent upon whatever set of paradigms in whatever

    The degree to which we are dependent upon whatever set of paradigms in whatever set of narratives, we use for our network of decidability, is something between humbling and humiliating – which only increases my conviction that we must accumulate Law like we do accounting entries.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 15:32:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173620651892101121

    Reply addressees: @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173537178669895680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Outsideness

    … They’re generally so bad at lying they have to become deception zombies.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173537178669895680

  • 15) signs are evidence of action (change in state). how do geological difference

    15) signs are evidence of action (change in state). how do geological differences, animal scent markers, human mark making differ (intent, choice). 16) space is correct, since all memories are associated by spatio-temporal indices, and it is these space,location,time indices…

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 06:28:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173483866935480320

    Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173483033510469632

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Semiogogue 11) In art we study “mark-making”. 12) there is a relationship between illiteracy and symbolism because of costs 13) Logos(Brands) are decorative standard of weight and measure 14) we are visually dominant, but 20% of people have no internal vision same for internal voice.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173483033510469632

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Semiogogue 11) In art we study “mark-making”. 12) there is a relationship between illiteracy and symbolism because of costs 13) Logos(Brands) are decorative standard of weight and measure 14) we are visually dominant, but 20% of people have no internal vision same for internal voice.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173483033510469632

  • 11) In art we study “mark-making”. 12) there is a relationship between illiterac

    11) In art we study “mark-making”. 12) there is a relationship between illiteracy and symbolism because of costs 13) Logos(Brands) are decorative standard of weight and measure 14) we are visually dominant, but 20% of people have no internal vision same for internal voice.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 06:25:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173483033510469632

    Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173482105235542018

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Semiogogue 9) economics of signs precision increases cost of learning, generalization and imprecision decreases 10) we use symbols, glyphs, and signals today to demarcate between philosophy (pseudoscience – arbitrary paradigm) and science (constant paradigm as a system of measure.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173482105235542018

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Semiogogue 9) economics of signs precision increases cost of learning, generalization and imprecision decreases 10) we use symbols, glyphs, and signals today to demarcate between philosophy (pseudoscience – arbitrary paradigm) and science (constant paradigm as a system of measure.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173482105235542018

  • 9) economics of signs precision increases cost of learning, generalization and i

    9) economics of signs precision increases cost of learning, generalization and imprecision decreases 10) we use symbols, glyphs, and signals today to demarcate between philosophy (pseudoscience – arbitrary paradigm) and science (constant paradigm as a system of measure.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 06:21:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173482105235542018

    Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173481447119888385

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Semiogogue 5) signs compete in a market of competing paradigms. 6) paradigms need not be consistent nor correspondent, only associative, indexing a narrative or it’s elements. 7) signs hide ignorance under pretense of knowledge. 8) language facility is not vocalization dependent.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173481447119888385

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Semiogogue 5) signs compete in a market of competing paradigms. 6) paradigms need not be consistent nor correspondent, only associative, indexing a narrative or it’s elements. 7) signs hide ignorance under pretense of knowledge. 8) language facility is not vocalization dependent.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173481447119888385

  • 5) signs compete in a market of competing paradigms. 6) paradigms need not be co

    5) signs compete in a market of competing paradigms. 6) paradigms need not be consistent nor correspondent, only associative, indexing a narrative or it’s elements. 7) signs hide ignorance under pretense of knowledge. 8) language facility is not vocalization dependent.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 06:19:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173481447119888385

    Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173480946634502144

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Semiogogue 1) Indices 2) We remember novelties, novelties with more associations. 3)Trying to justify the frame and rationalist interpretation of it rather than the science. 4)Inventory and categorize signs and symbols as indices to narrative components instead.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173480946634502144

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Semiogogue 1) Indices 2) We remember novelties, novelties with more associations. 3)Trying to justify the frame and rationalist interpretation of it rather than the science. 4)Inventory and categorize signs and symbols as indices to narrative components instead.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173480946634502144

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/69993107_466697960593766_42629825242

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/69993107_466697960593766_42629825242

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/69993107_466697960593766_4262982524222832640_n_466697957260433.jpg PATTERN EMERGING

    (to expand, see grid cells, location cells etc)

    —“…when there are four choices, a quantum search can distinguish between four alternatives in a single step. Indeed, four is optimal number.

    This thinking also explains why there are 20 amino acids. In DNA, each set of three nucleotides defines a single amino acid. So the sequence of triplets in DNA defines the sequence of amino acids in a protein.

    But during protein assembly, each amino acid must be chosen from a soup of 20 different options. Grover’s algorithm explains these numbers: a three-step quantum search can find an object in a database containing up to 20 kinds of entry. Again, 20 is the optimal number.

    In other words, if the search processes involved in assembling DNA and proteins is to be as efficient as possible, the number of bases should be four and the number of amino acids should to be 20—exactly as is found. The only caveat is that the searches must be quantum in nature.”—PATTERN EMERGING

    (to expand, see grid cells, location cells etc)

    —“…when there are four choices, a quantum search can distinguish between four alternatives in a single step. Indeed, four is optimal number.

    This thinking also explains why there are 20 amino acids. In DNA, each set of three nucleotides defines a single amino acid. So the sequence of triplets in DNA defines the sequence of amino acids in a protein.

    But during protein assembly, each amino acid must be chosen from a soup of 20 different options. Grover’s algorithm explains these numbers: a three-step quantum search can find an object in a database containing up to 20 kinds of entry. Again, 20 is the optimal number.

    In other words, if the search processes involved in assembling DNA and proteins is to be as efficient as possible, the number of bases should be four and the number of amino acids should to be 20—exactly as is found. The only caveat is that the searches must be quantum in nature.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 03:01:00 UTC

  • Sophists, nearly all.

    It’s exasperating. Continentals are secular theologians at best. But even analytic philosophers are mostly sophists. Try to explain that the logics are falsificationary not justificationary. Ask them to try to prove something non trivial. Heads explode. Better, try “The liar’s paradox isn’t, it’s just a sophism of grammar using the copula in an incomplete sentence.” In fact, ask them to state any difficult philosophical question without using the verb to be, in a complete sentence, in operational language. Oops. Sophisms all. Very frustrating for philosophers playing cunning word games to realize that (a) almost all supposedly complex questions are merely errors in grammar, and (b) there is no closure available to the logics, (c) the logics are purely falsificationary – just like the sciences.

  • Sophists, nearly all.

    It’s exasperating. Continentals are secular theologians at best. But even analytic philosophers are mostly sophists. Try to explain that the logics are falsificationary not justificationary. Ask them to try to prove something non trivial. Heads explode. Better, try “The liar’s paradox isn’t, it’s just a sophism of grammar using the copula in an incomplete sentence.” In fact, ask them to state any difficult philosophical question without using the verb to be, in a complete sentence, in operational language. Oops. Sophisms all. Very frustrating for philosophers playing cunning word games to realize that (a) almost all supposedly complex questions are merely errors in grammar, and (b) there is no closure available to the logics, (c) the logics are purely falsificationary – just like the sciences.