The first question of philosophy is “Why do I not commit suicide?” –Camus
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-01 12:02:00 UTC
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
The first question of philosophy is “Why do I not commit suicide?” –Camus
The first question of philosophy is “Why do I not commit suicide?” –Camus -
The first question of philosophy is “Why do I not commit suicide?” –Camus
The first question of philosophy is “Why do I not commit suicide?” –Camus -
WHY I WRITE NATURAL LAW (SCIENCE) NOT PHILOSOPHY (CHOICE). Human nature invests
WHY I WRITE NATURAL LAW (SCIENCE) NOT PHILOSOPHY (CHOICE).
Human nature invests minimum to gain maximum and is quite lazy when it comes to unnecessary precision, but then attempts to use imprecise terms (and ideas) to solve precise problems.
Human experties in sciences (deflationary grammars) serves to deflate any given level of abstraction. I have a chart you need to see.
I understand the unification of the sciences and I think plenty of other people do – but it’s just very different from what we’d expected.
—“the inference would be that a corresponding language of specificity would be a part of that.”—
Well, exactly.
–“However, that is not why we have failed at achieving”—
The reason we failed is that there is a market for agency via deception (non-correspondence, inconsistency, and in-coherence), just as much as there is a market for agency via truthfulness(correspondence, consistency, and coherence).
Ergo, just as we have eliminated the markets for violence, theft, fraud, free riding, etc, we can eliminate the market for falsehoods: by law. The problem was (and is no longer) a criteria for warranty of due diligence against falsehood of information entered intot he informational commons.
In other words, I’m not ‘selling’. I’m not interested in convincing people that crime is crime, only in producing law that states what crime is, and therefore outlaws it.
People will then respond accordingly – as they always have done – to incremental suppression of parasitism.
And that is the means by which we have produced civilization: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the incremental expansion of the law, by the discovery and cataloging the means by which man engages in parasitism.
So I am not really writing philosophy (choice and preference), but law (necessity and truth).
Hence my lack of concern for what ‘people think’. People have ‘thought’ that outlawing each form of parasitism was bad in every generation because it forces them into survival in the service of others in the market – and non-survival if they do not.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-25 12:42:00 UTC
-
Why I Write Natural Law (Science) Not Philosophy (Choice).
Human nature invests minimum to gain maximum and is quite lazy when it comes to unnecessary precision, but then attempts to use imprecise terms (and ideas) to solve precise problems. Human experties in sciences (deflationary grammars) serves to deflate any given level of abstraction. I have a chart you need to see. I understand the unification of the sciences and I think plenty of other people do – but it’s just very different from what we’d expected. —“the inference would be that a corresponding language of specificity would be a part of that.”— Well, exactly. –“However, that is not why we have failed at achieving”— The reason we failed is that there is a market for agency via deception (non-correspondence, inconsistency, and in-coherence), just as much as there is a market for agency via truthfulness(correspondence, consistency, and coherence). Ergo, just as we have eliminated the markets for violence, theft, fraud, free riding, etc, we can eliminate the market for falsehoods: by law. The problem was (and is no longer) a criteria for warranty of due diligence against falsehood of information entered intot he informational commons. In other words, I’m not ‘selling’. I’m not interested in convincing people that crime is crime, only in producing law that states what crime is, and therefore outlaws it. People will then respond accordingly – as they always have done – to incremental suppression of parasitism. And that is the means by which we have produced civilization: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the incremental expansion of the law, by the discovery and cataloging the means by which man engages in parasitism. So I am not really writing philosophy (choice and preference), but law (necessity and truth). Hence my lack of concern for what ‘people think’. People have ‘thought’ that outlawing each form of parasitism was bad in every generation because it forces them into survival in the service of others in the market – and non-survival if they do not. -
Why I Write Natural Law (Science) Not Philosophy (Choice).
Human nature invests minimum to gain maximum and is quite lazy when it comes to unnecessary precision, but then attempts to use imprecise terms (and ideas) to solve precise problems. Human experties in sciences (deflationary grammars) serves to deflate any given level of abstraction. I have a chart you need to see. I understand the unification of the sciences and I think plenty of other people do – but it’s just very different from what we’d expected. —“the inference would be that a corresponding language of specificity would be a part of that.”— Well, exactly. –“However, that is not why we have failed at achieving”— The reason we failed is that there is a market for agency via deception (non-correspondence, inconsistency, and in-coherence), just as much as there is a market for agency via truthfulness(correspondence, consistency, and coherence). Ergo, just as we have eliminated the markets for violence, theft, fraud, free riding, etc, we can eliminate the market for falsehoods: by law. The problem was (and is no longer) a criteria for warranty of due diligence against falsehood of information entered intot he informational commons. In other words, I’m not ‘selling’. I’m not interested in convincing people that crime is crime, only in producing law that states what crime is, and therefore outlaws it. People will then respond accordingly – as they always have done – to incremental suppression of parasitism. And that is the means by which we have produced civilization: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the incremental expansion of the law, by the discovery and cataloging the means by which man engages in parasitism. So I am not really writing philosophy (choice and preference), but law (necessity and truth). Hence my lack of concern for what ‘people think’. People have ‘thought’ that outlawing each form of parasitism was bad in every generation because it forces them into survival in the service of others in the market – and non-survival if they do not. -
by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth t
by Kage Keller
Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth to create models that corresponde with reality. We use that model for heuristics.
—“definition: a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals”—
We need these models for prediction so that we can make choices, and take actions, to survive.
We seek novelty to improve our models.
Novelty-seeking saves time and energy – where we use pattern recognition and our predictive power of neurons to identify where others have done the processing for us.
When we consider what someone else has said (running it through our pattern recognition and predictive “wiring”, and then integrate it into a new model) we save time/processing power that we can use for other endeavors (survival reinforcement for our genetics).
This is an efficient use of social information processing…
But, if and only if you know enough about the problem to predict someone else’s processing result has a high probability of being right.
But, it is disastrous if you have a very weak model on the subject. Because then you can be INDOCTRINATED – where a biased model can be learned (installed) and then be extraordinarily difficult to overcome with future information (novelty).
This is where we rely on experts who have processed answers for us. It is dangerous however to take answers on faith.
Without digging into their model and having done some processing on your own, you leave yourself open to have your foundations supplanted by some entities’ agenda.
You become a pawn, or sheep, or cuck…etc. e.g. you surrender your agency for a modicum of processing savings.
Being well read is an insurance policy against indoctrination (which disenfranchises your agency(freedom to make decisions for survival))
(Curt: well done!)
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-25 12:27:00 UTC
-
by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth t
by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth to create models that corresponde with reality. We use that model for heuristics. —“definition: a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals”— We need these models for prediction so that we can make choices, and take actions, to survive. We seek novelty to improve our models. Novelty-seeking saves time and energy – where we use pattern recognition and our predictive power of neurons to identify where others have done the processing for us. When we consider what someone else has said (running it through our pattern recognition and predictive “wiring”, and then integrate it into a new model) we save time/processing power that we can use for other endeavors (survival reinforcement for our genetics). This is an efficient use of social information processing… But, if and only if you know enough about the problem to predict someone else’s processing result has a high probability of being right. But, it is disastrous if you have a very weak model on the subject. Because then you can be INDOCTRINATED – where a biased model can be learned (installed) and then be extraordinarily difficult to overcome with future information (novelty). This is where we rely on experts who have processed answers for us. It is dangerous however to take answers on faith. Without digging into their model and having done some processing on your own, you leave yourself open to have your foundations supplanted by some entities’ agenda. You become a pawn, or sheep, or cuck…etc. e.g. you surrender your agency for a modicum of processing savings. Being well read is an insurance policy against indoctrination (which disenfranchises your agency(freedom to make decisions for survival)) (Curt: well done!) -
by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth t
by Kage Keller Pardon me for restating in language less exacting. We use Truth to create models that corresponde with reality. We use that model for heuristics. —“definition: a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving, learning, or discovery that employs a practical method not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect, but sufficient for the immediate goals”— We need these models for prediction so that we can make choices, and take actions, to survive. We seek novelty to improve our models. Novelty-seeking saves time and energy – where we use pattern recognition and our predictive power of neurons to identify where others have done the processing for us. When we consider what someone else has said (running it through our pattern recognition and predictive “wiring”, and then integrate it into a new model) we save time/processing power that we can use for other endeavors (survival reinforcement for our genetics). This is an efficient use of social information processing… But, if and only if you know enough about the problem to predict someone else’s processing result has a high probability of being right. But, it is disastrous if you have a very weak model on the subject. Because then you can be INDOCTRINATED – where a biased model can be learned (installed) and then be extraordinarily difficult to overcome with future information (novelty). This is where we rely on experts who have processed answers for us. It is dangerous however to take answers on faith. Without digging into their model and having done some processing on your own, you leave yourself open to have your foundations supplanted by some entities’ agenda. You become a pawn, or sheep, or cuck…etc. e.g. you surrender your agency for a modicum of processing savings. Being well read is an insurance policy against indoctrination (which disenfranchises your agency(freedom to make decisions for survival)) (Curt: well done!) -
If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly cons
If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly constructed grammar) in ordinary language, yet you treat formal grammars (mathematics: constant positional relations), and logic (constant semantic relations), and physics (constant physical state relations) as they should be; formal grammars – then you are holding a double standard.
Why is it that you cannot write in, speak in, think in equally logical and scientific prose? Yet it is that inability to speak in equally scientific prose that leads you to the conclusions you hold.
Thereby attributing to your own state authority that cannot exist because it lacks the rigor of those grammar and semantics that you refer to with authority?
Why would intellectual history be complicated? Why is the physical world (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological, sentient) not ‘simple’ in, that like higher mathematics, forms lie groups (externalities) that limit the permutations of the underlying grammar (operations) – and then this cycle repeats itself, producing in the physical world, what we call sciences at every hierarchy of chose limits?
All I have really done is state that:
(a) via negativa is all that we can search for. What remains (as in markets) is a truth candidate. And we are actually quite good at falsification (criticism).
(b) that the logics, sciences, and ethics serve only as via-negativa deflationary grammars (processes of continuous disambiguation) that remove ambiguity and error.
(c) that the operational revolution failed in the 20th century due to lagging justificationism, and that the hard sciences adopted it, and that the law has always adhered to it, and that operational grammar serves as a deflationary grammar that falsifies (disambiguates) fictionalisms (fiction, pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, supernaturalism.
(d) that humans feel, reason, and act to acquire predictable categories, and that these categories are constant across all of us (given biases in the genders) – and without htat constancy we would not be able to empathize, and without being able to empathize, we would not be able to cooperate.
I had to adapt or create a lot of terminology from all fields in order to produce an operational semantics (vocabulary) without resorting to continental ‘word fabrication’. And as such, it’s a bit unnatural and difficult to learn.
But it is far better than colloquial or disciplinary vocabularies and their pretenses of knowledge – particularly their pretense of knowledge of existence.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-25 12:04:00 UTC