(FB 1548869369 Timestamp) MORE ON ADAM AND CURT’S DISCUSSION ON METAPHYSICS. (QUESTIONS FOR METAPHYSICISTS) —“…substance…”— Your [Adam] approach is extremely useful in demarcation of legal decidability. It is the physical equivalent of the decidability provided by potential interest and demonstrated interest. So as you taught me recently Aristotle is an exceptional framework for cognition at human scale, and while we may know post human scale both micro and macro, that only assists us in removing falsehood and error from decisions at human scale. We are only capable of acting at human scale and cooperating at human scale…. So Aristotle really did learn about the universe from writing the athenian constitution…. —“…underlies…”– Operationalize that term and … —“Real Metaphysics – How we ought to think. If you are actually thinking, then you are so constrained that you cannot help but think such and such, which we call “metaphysics”. This there is a form of necessity that is neither logical nor physical, but which underlies both.”— I don’t know what metaphysics means – other than ‘Aristotle’s failed attempt to operationalize the brain’. So ‘fitting’ is simply error. And any talk of “metaphysics’ is fitting. We can instead ask, given his ignorance, what categories of phenomenon was he seeking to explain? He could not explain the function of the brain, and the relationship between that lower function, and the means of calculation and communication we call language. (serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation, resulting in sufficiency for a contract for meaning.) I know the following. 1 – the natural world exists (reality) and persists independent of our thought and action, and follows simple deterministic rules from which complexity arises, including the complexity of near chaos due to the hierarchy of possible operations and near-infinite scale. I know this because I am unwilling to act contrary to that condition in any manner that would test that condition; and I observe this in everyone else; Beyond that is meaningless because only action determines outcomes. 2 – to be able to act in this world and capture calories we have evolved a great deal of memory with which to convert high information density experience into fragmentary (distributed fractional memory) but reconstructable experiences, of lower information density. 3 – to be able to plan a sequence of actions we have evolved categories of constant contingent relations in memory by the addition of more layers of memory. 4 – to be able to communicate we evolved language to communicate stories in serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation until a contract for meaning has been achieved.) 5 – this language required rules of continuous disambiguation, and so we evolved the natural grammar. 6 – once we had the grammar we could engage in reason, calculation, and eventually computation. 7 – increases in opportunity for exploitation of the natura world (and the human) cause increase scope of communication. T 8 – the greater the correspondence with reality, and the greater the scope, and the more consistent the relations in those categories and grammar, the greater the ability to act to seize calories by which to insulate the mind, emotions, and body from stress and cellular damage (wear and tear). 9 – at some point a competitive advantage in non-correspondence evolved (frauds and deceits) in order for those lacking agency to compete with those possessing agency. 10- this ‘resistance movement’ creates many fictions (non correspondences) to improve political resistance in opposition to economic and military agency Ergo my only interest is not in the correspondence per se but in the use of non-correspondence for the purpose of parasitism and predation.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548875653 Timestamp) —“I learned years ago to think in terms of what would be beneficial rather that whats good or bad. Good and bad can be argued all day long but determining what is beneficial is quite simple and difficult to argue against. I believe that change in paradigm is aligned perfectly with reciprocity, as reciprocity(according to my understanding) is finding the most beneficial compromise between two or more parties. What people consider to be “moral” is subjective as it varies from culture to culture and has changed throughout time. I haven’t seen evidence to support the idea that there is such a thing as objective or absolute morality since it is subject to change. Perhaps the notion of defining morality or determining what is moral and amoral is a thing of the past and should be updated to include the most beneficial practices for all parties involved. One sided thinking in the extreme has led to most if not all the social issues that plague humanity, in my opinion of course – I’m sure there are plenty who would disagree(in their state of one sided thinking ;p)”—David McCarthy
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548875653 Timestamp) —“I learned years ago to think in terms of what would be beneficial rather that whats good or bad. Good and bad can be argued all day long but determining what is beneficial is quite simple and difficult to argue against. I believe that change in paradigm is aligned perfectly with reciprocity, as reciprocity(according to my understanding) is finding the most beneficial compromise between two or more parties. What people consider to be “moral” is subjective as it varies from culture to culture and has changed throughout time. I haven’t seen evidence to support the idea that there is such a thing as objective or absolute morality since it is subject to change. Perhaps the notion of defining morality or determining what is moral and amoral is a thing of the past and should be updated to include the most beneficial practices for all parties involved. One sided thinking in the extreme has led to most if not all the social issues that plague humanity, in my opinion of course – I’m sure there are plenty who would disagree(in their state of one sided thinking ;p)”—David McCarthy
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549037552 Timestamp) GOOD POSITIONING —“I usually shorten Propertarianism to the Wilsonian synthesis (if they are academic) or an intellectual project to apply the scientific method to every other area outside of STEM.”–AlcyoneLast Or the completion of the operationalist program. Or the formal logic of social science. Or the natural law…. lol
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549033010 Timestamp) GENERATIONS AND THE ERAS OF FRAUD E-Prime = Testimony of My Knowledge (Science=Testimony) Medieval Thought = Supernatural knowledge Greco/Roman Thought = Supernormal Knowledge Germanic Languages = Testimonial (descriptive). (Germanic=Scandinavian, Germanic, Celtic, Italic) (Italic(present) = Romance (latin) languages.) Aristotle RESTORED naturalist thought. Bacon et all RESTORED naturalist thought. The Operationalists RESTORED naturalist thought.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548991173 Timestamp) Bill Joslin IMO korzybski devised a way to enact an essentially relativistic and nihilists position. The brilliance of this tool, again IMO , was grounding e-prime into a standard criteria i.e. operationalism. By doing so it closes the door to the relativistic, nihilistic uses. Further to that, e-prime strongly couples our speech and thought to the operational criteria. But if left at this alone, I think it would suffer the same flaws as logical positivism… By expanding the criteria into multiple dimensions, we don’t reduce our warrant (speech and thought) to overly restrictive limitations (i.e. cherry picking, erroneous or undue dismissiveness.) The last component , acknowledging truth as an approximation (as per Curt’s view) prevents us from undue certainty and dogmatically held assertions of “truth”. So – E-prime eliminates unfounded assertions – Operationalism eliminates relativistic nihilistic application – Expanded operationalism (testimonial criteria) eliminates myopic limitations (undue dismissiveness) – And provisional truth theories eliminate dogmatic assertions of certainty. – The first contributor did the light lifting – nothing really – The second (Bridgeman) cross the major threshold – Curt and his community (assuming other contributed – Curzon etc) the the heavy lifting
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1548968617 Timestamp) IF YOU PRACTICE EPRIME ALONE YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE WHAT IT WILL DO FOR YOUR REASONING OVER TIME.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549037552 Timestamp) GOOD POSITIONING —“I usually shorten Propertarianism to the Wilsonian synthesis (if they are academic) or an intellectual project to apply the scientific method to every other area outside of STEM.”–AlcyoneLast Or the completion of the operationalist program. Or the formal logic of social science. Or the natural law…. lol
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549033010 Timestamp) GENERATIONS AND THE ERAS OF FRAUD E-Prime = Testimony of My Knowledge (Science=Testimony) Medieval Thought = Supernatural knowledge Greco/Roman Thought = Supernormal Knowledge Germanic Languages = Testimonial (descriptive). (Germanic=Scandinavian, Germanic, Celtic, Italic) (Italic(present) = Romance (latin) languages.) Aristotle RESTORED naturalist thought. Bacon et all RESTORED naturalist thought. The Operationalists RESTORED naturalist thought.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548991173 Timestamp) Bill Joslin IMO korzybski devised a way to enact an essentially relativistic and nihilists position. The brilliance of this tool, again IMO , was grounding e-prime into a standard criteria i.e. operationalism. By doing so it closes the door to the relativistic, nihilistic uses. Further to that, e-prime strongly couples our speech and thought to the operational criteria. But if left at this alone, I think it would suffer the same flaws as logical positivism… By expanding the criteria into multiple dimensions, we don’t reduce our warrant (speech and thought) to overly restrictive limitations (i.e. cherry picking, erroneous or undue dismissiveness.) The last component , acknowledging truth as an approximation (as per Curt’s view) prevents us from undue certainty and dogmatically held assertions of “truth”. So – E-prime eliminates unfounded assertions – Operationalism eliminates relativistic nihilistic application – Expanded operationalism (testimonial criteria) eliminates myopic limitations (undue dismissiveness) – And provisional truth theories eliminate dogmatic assertions of certainty. – The first contributor did the light lifting – nothing really – The second (Bridgeman) cross the major threshold – Curt and his community (assuming other contributed – Curzon etc) the the heavy lifting