Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Yes. And they are working on a similar issue of expression the consequences of c

    Yes. And they are working on a similar issue of expression the consequences of constant relations as superior to set operations (which they, and I ) clearly agree are problematic (and in my opinion, one of the reasons for 20th c pseudoscience, and the failure of 20thc philosophy to contribute anything meaningful.)

    My view goes something like this (and I don’t know if its been touched on in math before):

    Properties > Operations > “Categories”(incl math cat) > Sets (sets of categories) > (repeat iteratively vs decompose recursively).

    This is a language of constant mathematical relations that in my opinion is a reflection of verbal (theoretical) semi-constant relations expressed by the universal epistemelogical process:

    Free association > pattern > wayfinding > hypothesis > theory > Law (repeat iteratively vs decompose recursively).

    In other words mathematics functions as a test of constant relations, and that is the best that we can do until we discover the underlying operations.

    Moreover, think of it like this: We evolved to think at human scale, and just as we use mathematics to describe relations about which we do not know the causal operations, to explore the GRANULAR, we also can engage in combinatorial ‘categories’ at higher and higher levels of abstraction in order to imagine (envision) greater and greater patterns. So that between math for reduction, and language for expansion, we are starting from the conceptual middle (human scale) and working toward the finite (descriptive) and the infinite (imaginary) using the tools of higher precisino (math, operations) and the tools of opportunity generation (langauge, free assocaiaion).

    By the processs of imaginatino and reduction we attempt to construct that which is OPERATIONALLY POSSIBLE at HUMAN SCALE.

    I think this is the most profound way that I know how to unify the range of human thought into a single explanatory narrative.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 10:41:00 UTC

  • (for super-geeks)(math vs science)(unification of disciplines)(universal epistem

    (for super-geeks)(math vs science)(unification of disciplines)(universal epistemological method) (human scale)

    (read the comments with Davin and I.)

    MATH VS SCIENCE?

    Mathematics is not a science (theoretic system of external correspondence) but a logic (axiomatic system of internal consistency).

    We are, almost universally, fooled by the fact that we cannot imagine all consequences of our axiomatic declarations, and equate this to the same phenomenon of our inability to imagine all consequences of our observations of reality. But axiomatic systems are declared (models) and theoretic systems are observed (reality). When our models and reality appear to correspond, we say that the model appears good or true.

    For this reason mathematical (axiomatic systems) do not produce truths (ultimately parsimonious and completely correspondent descriptions of reality) , but proofs of internal consistency. Theories = True correspondence. Axioms = Proof of internal consistency. Both of which require that we are describing constant relations.

    Until we discover the set of possible operations in the universe (causality or causal particulars) we must content ourselves with descriptions of the consequences of those operations (mathematics), by creating models with which we declare descriptive axioms as a general expression of the unknown causal operations.

    Ergo we can use mathematics to create models of theoretic systems (reality) because axioms express constant relations and the universe operates deterministically (according to a set of rules that produce observably constant relations).

    Science != to Empiricism (that the error of positivism). Instead, identity, logics, empiricism, operations, and morality when tested by limits, full accounting, and parsimony, assist us in removing error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deception from our thoughts, words, and deeds.

    This is why mathematics generally succeeds in representing highly deterministic systems (constant relations of constant categories) but why mathematics fails us in slightly deterministic systems – in particular, heuristic systems (inconstant relations of inconstant categories.)

    Mathematics is an abstraction of operations. A generalization for the expression of observations about which we do not know the operations.

    Science on the other hand ensures that we use categories, sets, mathematical descriptions, empirical correspondence, causal operations, moral reciprocity (in matters of cooperation: social science) and then define limits, test for full accounting, and test for parsimony.

    This process of ensuring is what we call falsification. if a description (theory) can survive all those tests, we can warranty that we have performed due diligence and speak truthfully.

    In other words science provides us with a universal epistemology.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 09:45:00 UTC

  • TESTIMONIALISM, TRUTH, AND UNCERTAINTY by James Augustus Berens Negative Convexi

    TESTIMONIALISM, TRUTH, AND UNCERTAINTY

    by James Augustus Berens

    Negative Convexity of Information:

    – Dependent variable (y): consequential knowledge

    – Input (x): information

    – Function (f): human cognition

    Justificationism and rationalism only hold when (a) the relationship between (y) and (x) is linear, and (b) when assume the correspondence of (y).

    But, f(x) is nonlinear [negative convexity]: an increase in the input (x) will yield more of (y) until the the limits of the function are approached; after which an increase in the input (x) will yield diminishing returns to scale.

    Because of uncertainty, we cannot identify the optimal input of (x) for the given function. However, we can test* (y) [via negativa] and conclude with a higher degree of certainty if the output is non-correspondent.

    Testing (y) allows us to calibrate our inputs and function to yield higher returns (optimal computation via algorithm).

    Testimonialism—as performed warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deception and fraud—increases the objectivity of (y) through the reduction of subjective inputs (cognitive bias).

    *Tests (criticism)

    i. identity (category)

    ii. internal consistency (logic)

    iii. external correspondence (explanatory power)

    iv. existential possibility (existence proof)

    v. limits (falsification) (parsimony)

    vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)

    vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers)

    Ultimately, we can never be fully certain of truth. We can, however, prove possibility (truth candidacy) and incrementally decrease the probability of speaking/testifying falsely.

    That is, we advance knowledge through subtraction (via negativa)—not justification (via positiva).

    (CURT: This is absolutely flawless. Excellent. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 12:17:00 UTC

  • EPISTEMOLOGY AT CIVILIZATIONAL SCALE James Augustus Berens —“The relationship

    EPISTEMOLOGY AT CIVILIZATIONAL SCALE

    James Augustus Berens

    —“The relationship between investment and return on exploration is non-linear (negative-convexity/concavity): we see increases in our ROI up to the vertex of our function, where additional investment begins to yield diminishing returns.

    I was thinking about non-linearities in information, exploration and discovery a few weeks ago:

    1) “During the Age of Discovery, the acquisition of knowledge and territory produced high return to investment ratios. However, given the limits of human perception and cognition and available territory, we’ve observed diminishing returns.

    It is now costly, and highly unlikely, though not impossible, that we can make consequential scientific discoveries that produce the returns observed in the early scientific period. Similarly, humans have populated all habitable areas of planet earth, so territorial expansion is costly and rarely pursued.

    With these two changes we observe a corresponding shift from ‘discovery,’ the low-cost identification and capitalization of opportunities, to scientific criticism (high-cost identification + optimal calculation via negativa) of available, and known choices/opportunities.”***

    And

    2) “Testimonialism, Truth & Uncertainty

    Negative Convexity of Information:

    Dependent variable (y): consequential knowledge

    Input (x): information

    Function (f): human cognition

    Justificationism and rationalism only hold when (a) the relationship between (y) and (x) is linear, and (b) when assume the correspondence of (y).

    But, f(x) is nonlinear [negative convexity]: an increase in the input (x) will yield more of (y) until the the limits of the function are approached; after which an increase in the input (x) will yield diminishing returns to scale.

    Because of uncertainty, we cannot identify the optimal input of (x) for the given function. However, we can test* (y) [via negativa] and conclude with a higher degree of certainty if the output is non-correspondent.

    Testing (y) allows us to calibrate our inputs and function to yield higher returns (optimal computation via algorithm).

    Testimonialism—as performed warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deception and fraud—increases the objectivity of (y) through the reduction of subjective inputs (cognitive bias).

    *Tests (criticism)

    i. identity (category)

    ii. internal consistency (logic)

    iii. external correspondence (explanatory power)

    iv. existential possibility (existence proof)

    v. limits (falsification) (parsimony)

    vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)

    vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers)

    Ultimately, we can never be fully certain of truth. We can, however, prove possibility (truth candidacy) and incrementally decrease the probability of speaking/testifying falsely.

    That is, we advance knowledge through subtraction (via negativa)—not justification (via positiva).”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 12:15:00 UTC

  • THE LITERATURES acquisitionism(operationalism) -> … “selective” historical lit

    THE LITERATURES

    acquisitionism(operationalism) ->

    … “selective” historical literature ->

    … … aesthetic moral/philosophical literature ->

    … … … aesthetic religious/theological literature ->

    … … … … aesthetic occult/mythical literature ->

    … … … … … aesthetic dream state ‘stories’.

    I might be able to do the first three but the rest are beyond me. yet we require ALL of these literatures in concert in order to convey ideas to the entire body of people. Why? Because each of us relies on a different intuitionistic combination in order to empathize with the same idea.

    HOW DO WE DO THIS?

    I think it’s most useful if we correctly categorize each form of explanation. As far as I know as long as the ‘science’ holds (any statement is testable under acquisitionism (operationalism/science/truth) then the manner of its communication (and the inspiration provided by that form) is just a matter of ‘speaking in the language of the audience’.

    I can pretty much decompose any of the literatures if I work at it (and have someone explain their experiences/feelings to me). And if we can truth test it, then the method of communication holds.

    What one CANNOT do is perform DEDUCTIONS (argumetns) instead of EXPLANATIONS. In other words, ANY VIA-POSITIVA that survives VIA-NEGATIVA criticism is still ‘true’. But it’s not possible to ARGUE, only EXPLAIN by via-positiva.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 11:38:00 UTC

  • GENERAL RULES OF INTAKE (DEFENSE AGAINST PSEUDOSCIENCE) 1) VIA POSITIVA: If the

    GENERAL RULES OF INTAKE (DEFENSE AGAINST PSEUDOSCIENCE)

    1) VIA POSITIVA: If the consequence of any consumption are negative the consequences will be readily visible to the general public with in a generation.

    2) VIA NEGATIVA: There are no positive consequences of consumption only negative consequences of underconsumption or overconsumption. (you can over-consume or under-consume but you cannot improve state by selective consumption.)

    3) CONTENT IS NOT EQUAL TO STATE: Evidence of change in state is evidence of change in state. Evidence of change in content is not evidence of change in state.

    4) HUMAN SCALE OBSERVATION: (A) The evidence is that there is zero truth to all nutritional(chemical) pseudoscience unless it is visibly perceptible change in individuals in a common distribution. (B) The evidence is that there is nearly perfect truth to ‘stereotypical’ assessments of one another. (Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science.)

    SCIENCE I AM FAIRLY CERTAIN OF:

    1 – Pot decreases sperm count and therefore fertility.

    2 – Pot inhibits the formation of memories.

    3 – Pot causes reduction of neural pathways in development (natal, child, and young adulthood. This does not appear to be the case after reaching maturity.

    4 – Given the use of pot for self-medication, use of pot will correlate with many psychological disorders. This is the result of self-selection not causality.

    5 – Pot *appears* to exacerbate predispositions to depression, psychoses and in particular, schizophrenia – and recent research suggests that depression-schizophrenia is a spectrum of causally related phenomenon as are solipsism-autism, hetero-homosexuality, yet we do not yet know why other than (a) runs in families and (b) hints that it is an in-utero developmental cause.

    POSITIVES

    The positive consequences are those that suppress excitable and obsessive behavior in otherwise normal individuals (non-predisposed).

    COMPARISONS

    The use of marijuana vs alcohol can be compared to the difference between coffee, tobacco, and wine – which appears to have social consequences (coffee being a good one). Alcohol exacerbates opportunities for violence, and alcoholism, while pot produces soporific effects instead and is only a gateway for those predisposed to self-medicating. Tobacco produces calming and reduces hunger, but produces anxiety afterward, and cancer in the long term. The most serious consequences for pot and alcohol use are increasing hunger(hyperconsumption) and danger of operating motor vehicles and power equipment. Pot is currently the most cited cause of accidents under influence. and is 500% increase in risk, where alcohol varies from 300-700% increase in risk, except with younger drivers, where it can exceed 25000% increase in risk. So while alcohol peaks at higher risk, pot begins at slightly higher risk.

    IOW: If you operate on human-power-only when under the influence of pot, and do not have predispositions to mental illness, it’s probably the recreational exit of choice.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 11:27:00 UTC

  • “Veritatis simplex oratio est”–Seneca (The language of truth is simple.) Unfort

    —“Veritatis simplex oratio est”–Seneca

    (The language of truth is simple.)

    Unfortunately, the language by which we discover it is not.

    Else it would not have taken us millennia to create it.

    Gods work with simple rules. But they transcribe them in the most complex of languages: the fabric of the universe.

    The translation effort has been our costliest monument.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 10:23:00 UTC

  • ANTI-PHILOSOPHY Science is a method by which we attempt to remove error, bias, w

    ANTI-PHILOSOPHY

    Science is a method by which we attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, theology, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience) from our thoughts and speech. It’s purely reductive.

    1 – Categories are the methods by which we test names for consistency of state, properties and relations.

    2 – The logics are methods by which we test dimensions for internal consistency.

    3 – The empirical is the method by which we test for external consistency (correspondence).

    4 – The operational is the method by which we test for existential possibility.

    5 – Reciprocity is the method by which we test for morality.

    6 – Limits (and full accounting) are the method by which we test for parsimony and completeness.

    Literature is the method by which we construct and communicate fantasies (generate possibilities which we can then test by Scientific Means.

    Philosophical literature is a conflation of fantasy moral literature combined with insufficient testing. In other words, it’s deception. 😉 Hence why philosophers have been accused of doing far more harm than good.

    We read philosophy in order to obtain ideas.

    We read and practice science in order to sift what little truth is contained in them.

    Via Positiva (ideas through free association), Via Negativa (survival from criticism), Via Deceptio ( advocacy without supplying the full suite of criticisms )

    I have seen precious little in philosophy that is other than an attempt to create a literary moral alternative to theology.

    ANOTHER VIEW

    Physical Science (external correspondence)

    Law (reciprocity)

    Logic (internal consistency)

    Accounting (scope)

    Testimony (language)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 10:03:00 UTC

  • SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/09/26/a-short-course-in-propertarian-reasoning/A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 13:12:00 UTC

  • DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR A WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/04/due-diligence-necessary-for-the-warranty-of-truthfulness/DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR A WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 13:11:00 UTC