Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Thank you for the compliment. Not that it affects the argument. Evidence of all

    Thank you for the compliment. Not that it affects the argument. Evidence of all language is that it competes in markets and as such was only slightly weakened by (a)the standardization of spelling during printing, and (b)the development of science as universal language of truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-31 02:26:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090798474310963205

    Reply addressees: @LJ_Berkmann @TrueDilTom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090787975510671360

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090787975510671360

  • “Searching for a fancier refutation, but I’ll just cop out and say you’re just t

    —“Searching for a fancier refutation, but I’ll just cop out and say you’re just too Anglo in your thinking.”—

    Thank you for the compliment. Not that it affects the argument. 😉

    Evidence of all language is that it competes in markets and as such was only slightly weakened by (a)the standardization of spelling during printing, and (b)the development of science as universal language of truth.

    It is true that we are often limited in ‘meaning’ to methods of reasoning, calculation, and computation by the grammar and vocabulary available to use, but that free association prevails regardless. Language markets continue unabated.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-30 21:41:00 UTC

  • Your fallacy the same as determinism/free will. Saying that we are bounded by li

    Your fallacy the same as determinism/free will. Saying that we are bounded by limits of nature, by limits of our physical properties, and limits of our knowledge is not to say that we do not have extraordinary ability to circumvent all three of those constraints albeit slowly.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-30 18:15:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090674905866293248

    Reply addressees: @TrueDilTom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090498360916602881

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1090498360916602881

  • “I learned years ago to think in terms of what would be beneficial rather that w

    —“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

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-30 14:14:00 UTC

  • MORE ON ADAM AND CURT’S DISCUSSION ON METAPHYSICS. (QUESTIONS FOR METAPHYSICISTS

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-30 12:29:00 UTC

  • SEARCHING FOR PROPER TERMS… SOPHISTS Skeptics (aristotle) Idealists (plato et

    SEARCHING FOR PROPER TERMS…

    SOPHISTS

    Skeptics (aristotle)

    Idealists (plato et al)

    …

    NATURALISTS

    Naturalists (Democritus, Aristotle)

    Empiricists (Bacon, Locke, Smith, Hume)

    Scientists (Poincare, Maxwell, Menger, Weber, Darwin)

    Falsificationists (Popper, Hayek, (..?..), (most physicists) )

    Operationalists ( (Brouwer, Bridgman, Mises), Turing, Chomsky, Searle.

    Recirocalists ( Hoppe, Doolittle(completeness))

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-29 14:35:00 UTC

  • WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? 1) I understand your meaning. 2) That statement is meanin

    WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

    1) I understand your meaning.

    2) That statement is meaningful.

    3) That statement is true.

    “…for the purpose of … “

    a) conveying an experience (allegorical)

    b) conveying a causal relation (contingency)

    c) conveying a premise for the purpose of deduction (consistency)

    Note how we conflate these.

    1 = a, 2 = b, 3 = c.

    Truthfulness requires the satisfaction of the market demand for meaning(disambiguation), contingency(opportunity), consistency (deduction).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-29 14:23:00 UTC

  • THE “ENTIRELY REASONABLE” UTILITY OF MATHEMATICS —“…Russell and Frege …”–

    THE “ENTIRELY REASONABLE” UTILITY OF MATHEMATICS

    —“…Russell and Frege …”–

    Sorry but mathematics is so useful because it consists of precisely one constant relation: position, for which we have invented a naming scheme of positional names. Therefore every reference in any set of constant relations of any scale, at any scale, can be named (in as many as n-dimensions), and with that name all other relations ascertainable.

    Mathematics consists of the assignment of, and operations upon, positional names names, and the various techniques for constructing or deducing constant relations with others names.

    The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is nothing more than its dependence upon a single immutable constant relation: positional name.

    This simplicity makes the error to which all other names (other logics) are subject effectively impossible, and limits error to errors of operation and deduction.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 07:47:00 UTC

  • THAT THING WE CALL ‘LOGIC” We can observe our use of logic, math, geometry, just

    THAT THING WE CALL ‘LOGIC”

    We can observe our use of logic, math, geometry, just fine, the way we can observe every other one of our senses. But, until the present era would could not inspect the mechanism by which logic, math, geometry function: the detection of differences in constant relations between recursive neural networks.

    In other words, we lacked instrumentation for observation and measurement at such scales, and a paradigm (logic) for modeling them instrumental (computer science). it also is the most complex phenomenon we have examined which, because it’s heuristic (adaptive).

    But the fundamentally ability of us to sense differences, particularly in something so informationally dense (concentrated) as speech, is produced by differences in degree and distribution of excitement of neural networks. In other words we sense both constant and inconstant relations, in what babbage correctly called ‘a difference engine’.

    The logical facility consists in our ability to detect differences in constant relations between a nearly infinite hierarchy of forever-contingent associations. The discipline we call logic attempts to tests whether we ‘speak’ in constant relations. The discipline of formal logic attempts to produce a grammar of categories of constant relations in an effort to test for inconstant relations, claimed to be constant.

    —“Long before the twentieth century the prevailing opinion was that Euclidean geometry, standard mathematics, and logic did not rest on experience in any obvious way. They were largely presupposed in our empirical work, and it was difficult to see what if anything might disconfirm them. Geometry was a special case and might be handled in different ways that we shall not discuss here. That leaves logic and mathematics.”—S.E.P.

    – Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-28 07:34:00 UTC

  • No other way to turn a lot of ‘very conflated colloquial language’ for the purpo

    No other way to turn a lot of ‘very conflated colloquial language’ for the purpose of discounts on conveying meaning by free association, into a set of measurements for the purpose of prohibiting ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fraud, and deceit prohibiting free assoc.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-25 16:12:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088832047957848064

    Reply addressees: @mediocrecroat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088824696425070592

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088824696425070592