Seems like Operationalism seeps into the consciousness debate…
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-02 14:49:00 UTC
Seems like Operationalism seeps into the consciousness debate…
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-02 14:49:00 UTC
If one states moral decidability by experiential rather than intertemporal, he demonstrates incompetence.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-31 15:28:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793112405572218884
Reply addressees: @LilDocCollins @realDonaldTrump
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793078994413510657
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/793078994413510657
—“Curt. I don’t understand the connection between science and “common empirical law”. Can you explain?”—
Sure.
CONTEXT
English for example consists of three languages: german for the farmers and workers, french for the ruling class, and latin for the intellectual classes. That’s why its hard to understand english: it’s ‘not conflated’. It’s a class based langauge for a class based civilization.
Similarly, Westerners do not conflate
– Science,
– Law,
– Philosophy,
– Religion,
– Festival.
Instead, each of these disciplines reflects the interests of the classes:
– intellectual/scientific,
– ruling/martial,
– middle/commercial,
– working/family, and
– sport/mating/youth/children.
Because of this non-conflation, westerners are essentially polytheistic – but each class both speaks in a language of its own, and makes use of the ‘theisms’ of whatever classes they participate in. (hence the decline in religion for self-centric families and retention of it for family-centric families).
Because we have been practicing “Market (commercial) Society” for so long, and because we have been outbreeding and are largely homogenous outside of the lower Mediterranean, its hard to see the caste system in the west. But it’s present everywhere OUTSIDE of the “Market” (commerce).
Communism, Socialism and tehir current incarnation as Democratic Secular Humanism are all simply attempts to exploit market society and to destroy the aristocratic (caste) system. So this dominates our state, academy, school, and media. Meanwhile the ‘conservatives’ resist this change in various ways – more successfully than their European counterparts.
NOW THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE CONTEXT, LET US RETURN TO YOUR QUESTION
Aristocracy was imposed on the west by the Yamna (Aryans). And these people had already invented contractualism – out of necessity. And had already developed testimonial ism – the predecessor to empiricism. These are big words but they simply mean that they did not speak in theoretical terms, because martial epistemology is very unforgiving. So they treated all speech as ‘oath’, not ‘teaching’ or ‘sharing’. (I am trying to illustrate the cultural difference because for some cultures this kind of truthfulness in public is hard to comprehend.)
So these warriors, each of whom functioned as a business owner, debated, and used juries (thangs) of different sizes, rather than dictates from rulers to decide community issues.
The greeks maintained this combination of martial epistemology, and testimony, and debate. ANd this is why they were able to extend that process into their reason, and then into primitive science. (Aristotle’s study of constitutions for example). And we see the same in Machiavelli (inventor of political science), and we see the same in Bacon (inventor of empiricism), and of course, bacon plus literacy broke the curse of conflationary Christian mysticism – albeit slowly – creating all manner of sectarian fundamentalism, until we reach darwin and maxwell which end the church’s mysticism and mysticism’s use in our political life forever.
So the fact is that westerners have been ’empirical’ into pre-history for reasons that are not konwn to us. And we are fairly certain now that ‘religion’ in the sense of a political movement, was evolved in REACTION to them. (yep). And this conflcit between religion – including its pseudoscientific secular version today – and science (truthfulness) persists in the current era.
So just as the Common Law (discovered by judges) evolved in reaction to empirical resolution of disputes, quite different from LEGISLATION (commands by politicians), science evolved through trial and error, and the market evolved through trial and error.
That’s an awfully brief explanation of 5000 years. But hopefully it will get the point across.
martial epistemology
Testimony and debate
Non conflation (classism)
Discovered law
Discovered science
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-31 12:22:00 UTC
SCIENCE EVOLVED INTO THE UNIVERSAL LANGAUGE OF TRUTH TELLING
Through trial and error, we have learned, that science evolved the language of truth-telling as a branch of common empirical law. We use the language of science – the language of testimony – not because it contains the most information, but because it contains the least false information. Because the function of the process and language of science, like the process and language of law, is the removal of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, overloading, pseudoscience, rationalism, mysticism, and deceit. The international language of truth telling is science. And so we have to ask ourselves, whether, when we desire to communicate in fantasy religion, fantasy literature, fantasy philosophy, why is it that we prefer to?
We study Aristotelianism (Western Philosophy) because it is an extension of empirical western law, that resulted in empirical, testimonial, western science.
We can study philosophy as a fantasy moral literature. We can study philosophy as a rational religion of aspirations. We can study it as pre-scientific method of inquiry. or we can study it as scientific means of speaking truthfully (meaning parsimoniously).
At present most of us study it for the latter reason. But it’s true that some people still study it as fantasy moral literature, rational religion, and pre-scientific, rational inquiry.
I have never found an objection to science over philosophy that wasn’t reducible to an attempt to preserve the illusion of fantasy moral literature.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-31 06:38:00 UTC
DECENTRALIZED DECISIONS ARE BEST WITH AUTHORITY ONLY HELPFUL WHEN QUESTIONS ARE OTHERWISE UDECIDEABLE.
(from Eli Harman )(worth repeating)
I like markets and all – if suitably tempered by prohibition on what is demonstrably harmful.
Offers and prices are the way of communicating positive values in the marketplace, with payment the authentication made that such communication is accurate.
Threats are the means of communicating negative values in the marketplace with initiation of violent hostilities the authentication that such communication is accurate.
Prices may be reckoned in money, or in blood.
But either way, decentralized methods of decision making are generally best, with authority only better in select cases, and those too, vetted and delimited by decentralized means.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-28 10:42:00 UTC
Could you please define objectivity, set it in context, and state limits? I have my own formulation as influenced by your thinking, but would like an independent analysis to compare the two.
(prompted by a friend sending me this: https://medium.com/@emiliorocca/objectivity-intersubjectivity-space-and-blockchain-162086fa57d1#.omkz8z85u)
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-27 09:29:00 UTC
TALEB AND DOOLITTLE
( by James Augustus Berens )
The problem: the scalability/scope of cognition
Methodology in identifying the problem: Causative (Curt) vs Mathematical (Taleb)
Solution:
Curt
Anglo-empirical (tests/criticism + warranty)
Force transactions to be fully informed, productive, warrantied, and voluntary. (This applies to information production as much as it does to trade)
Vs
Taleeb
Aphoristic/Institutionalized Skepticism
As far as I can tell, Taleeb understands the danger (negative externalities) of Scientism (pseudoscience), but he isn’t trying to reform the (social) sciences so that we can produce and act on warrantied information. Instead he wants to make institutions “idiot proof”/antifragile. He advocates implementing skin-in-the-game policies because he has skepticism of our ability to calculate at modern scale (who can blame him?), but he knows that will intuit their self-interest and act accordingly.
In a way he is arguing that we create law so that we have a pre-modern experience and act-accordingly. This can be observed not only in his politics, but also in his diet and exercise program. Like many people on the right, he wants to go back to what we have observed to work.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-26 21:33:00 UTC
STUFF I DIDN’T KNOW: “EFFORT POSTING”
“effort post”
When a poster on an internet forum writes about their opinion, project, story or otherwise and actually takes the time to properly research, cite sources, and utilize proper diction and grammar, generally as a means to convince, sway, or otherwise argue. Usually the first response is ‘tldr’.
–comments–
—“I think that there is an “average post length/effort” that is expected from users on various social networks and comment platforms. These averages depend on the communities inhabiting said platforms. Going over it will be interpreted as effort posting, going under will be interpreted as shitposting.”—
CD: This may be true, but shitposting is a tactic employed by the alt-right for the same purpose as marxists: increasing transaction costs of alliance building.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-26 08:54:00 UTC