Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIGMS CONSISTING OF CONSTANT RELATIONS

    I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIGMS CONSISTING OF CONSTANT RELATIONS THE REMAIN CONTIGUOUS ACROSS DISCIPLINES

    In other words, Logic > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biochemistry > Biology > Sentience > Consciousness > Reason > Calculation > Computation.

    So when you ask me “Hey have you hear of X nonsense?” I hear “Hey have you heard of this set of fictional paradigms that are discontiguous with existential, observable, testifiable, reality?”

    No. Fairy stories. I like fairy stories. But only when they are in fact fairy stories, not fairy stories claiming to be something else.

    There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. And that most parsimonious paradigm is that which consists of constant relations contiguous across the disciplines.

    CONTIGUOUS

    1 : being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point – the 48 contiguous states

    2 : touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence – contiguous row houses contiguous vineyards

    3 : next or near in time or sequence -The fires were contiguous with the earthquake.

    DISCONTIGUOUS

    1 : not contiguous – intermittent · sporadic · broken · fitful · interrupted · on and off · disrupted · erratic · disconnected

    CONSTANT RELATIONS

    1 : properties shared between two or more referents.

    2 : properties remaining constant between two or more states.

    INCONSTANT RELATIONS

    1 : properties not shared between two or more referents.

    2 : properties not constant between two or more states.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 19:20:00 UTC

  • The reason: 1) as the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and a

    The reason: 1) as the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy increases, the information vastly increases, but the scope of that knowledge rapidly decreases, as do the cause and effect relationships between our thoughts actions and consequences.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 19:17:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013864305144553474

    Reply addressees: @NothingTheGreat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013817181753098240

    IN REPLY TO:

    @NothingTheGreat

    @curtdoolittle You’re generous with your time, thanks Curt. The ‘animal impulses’ -such as envy and fear- are just as much our evolved heritage as the drives that inform our ‘human goods’/self-authored virtues. So, I guess that you’re saying mindfulness is… (continued)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013817181753098240

  • Truth is a merciless, zero-tolerance, weapon. Truth is merciless. Truth is the s

    Truth is a merciless, zero-tolerance, weapon.

    Truth is merciless. Truth is the scientific, legal, political, educational, and religious means of defeating the abrahamisms. But Truth is not a selective weapon. It is indescriminate – a weapon of zero tolerance. It will destroy your Christianity along with the first generation abrahamic religions: judaism, christianity, and islam, and second generation abrahamic religions: marxism (Judaism), feminism, and postmodernism (Christianity), and fundamentalist islam.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 18:09:00 UTC

  • I don’t think a lot of people will be able to wield the epistemology all that we

    I don’t think a lot of people will be able to wield the epistemology all that well – although I might be wrong. But the number of people who will make arguments, and make them better and more accessible than I do is large. I mean, I see this stuff showing up everywhere. The terms. The ideas. The arguments. And the people who have been around for years are better than I am at the inspirational.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 15:46:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. According to Christopher Heumann, an 18th-cen

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    According to Christopher Heumann, an 18th-century scholar, pseudo-philosophy has six characteristics:[23]

    A preference for useless speculation
    It appeals merely to human authority
    It appeals to tradition instead of reason
    It syncretises philosophy with superstition
    It has a preference for obscure and enigmatic language and symbolism
    It is immoral

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 13:06:33 UTC

  • WHY DO YOU CONSTRAIN ARGUMENT TO THE MATERIAL AND COMPUTATIONAL? The reason I st

    WHY DO YOU CONSTRAIN ARGUMENT TO THE MATERIAL AND COMPUTATIONAL?

    The reason I stick so rigidly with the computational model and existential (material) model is to close the door completely to abrahamism(jewish), rationalization(french) and phenomenalism(german) as means of self deception.

    The computational and material model explains the phenomenological. With it we can discuss the phenomenological without attributing CAUSATION TO IT.

    Our experiential world is the result of the physical and computational.

    Most philosophical and argumentative systems measure the experiential rather than merely observe that the experiential is a measurement (consequence) of the material and computational.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 10:12:00 UTC

  • According to Christopher Heumann, an 18th-century scholar, pseudo-philosophy has

    According to Christopher Heumann, an 18th-century scholar, pseudo-philosophy has six characteristics:[23]

    A preference for useless speculation

    It appeals merely to human authority

    It appeals to tradition instead of reason

    It syncretises philosophy with superstition

    It has a preference for obscure and enigmatic language and symbolism

    It is immoral

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 09:06:00 UTC

  • Socrates: Critique Plato: Pilpul Aristotle: Truth

    Socrates: Critique
    Plato: Pilpul
    Aristotle: Truth

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 00:03:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012849075572658176

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. Socrates: Critique Plato: Pilpul Aristotle: T

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    Socrates: Critique
    Plato: Pilpul
    Aristotle: Truth

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 00:03:17 UTC

  • Analytic Philosophy

    Analytic Philosophy One of the nonsense descriptions of analytic philosophy is that one is required to write in ‘clear’ prose. This is yet another bit of rationalist nonsense. —“it is characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision, often making use of formal logic, conceptual analysis, and, to a lesser degree, mathematics and the natural sciences.”— The analytic philosophy movement (anglo) evolved out of the anglo predisposition for legal prose, the conversion of mathematics from prose to symbols, and the (desperate) desire of philosophy to find a pretense of calling itself a science. As far as I know the movement is dead, as have been most philosophical movements. At present, I am not sure much philosophy exists outside of a study of the evolution of math, logic, science, law, politics, and theology. So, it’s not that analytic prose must be clearer per se, in the sense that the average idiot should be able to understand it in colloquial prose (we leave that to the left and the europeans) – it’s that it must be constructed out of terms, phrases, and sentences that are logically testable, and free of analogy, the imaginary, and the phenomenal(experiential) – and the undecidable left to scientific investigation. Or as I would say it: it must be stated as mathematical, logical, operational, or scientific argument under natural law. The problem is that: 1) While relations are constant in mathematics they are also trivially simple (positional). 2) There are always more dimensions in a comparison of references than there are constant relations (this is a truism). 3) Closure does not exist (overplay contradiction) …. Argh. I don’t want to go through all this again…. Rationalism is usable only for interpretation of scriptural law. It evolved out of it. (Pilpul and Critique). Justified true belief is nonsense. No amount of justification will determine what is true. It is only survival from criticism that determinse a truth candidate, and justification merely explains one of the roads to rome (understanding).