Category: Epistemology and Method

  • What are Verbal Illusions (Deceptions)?

    ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS (important) (I figured out how to talk about suggestion)

    The pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be”: creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures. The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself. We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut is combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution. In other words, it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same trick that occurs with optical illusions. Both optical illusions and verbal illusions are created by the same means of suggestion: disinformation or partial information constructed to force intuitionistic substitution. This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse. Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man. It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy. Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
  • What are Verbal Illusions (Deceptions)?

    ENDING THE POLLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF OPTICAL ILLUSIONS (important) (I figured out how to talk about suggestion)

    The pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be”: creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures. The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself. We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut is combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution. In other words, it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same trick that occurs with optical illusions. Both optical illusions and verbal illusions are created by the same means of suggestion: disinformation or partial information constructed to force intuitionistic substitution. This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse. Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man. It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy. Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
  • Sources of Ignorance: God Speech in Logic and Legislation

    Logic is written as is legislation. Testimonialism is written as natural law. This is the origin of the conflict: legislation and mathematics, rather than natural law and physics. What does that mean? That law is written as a command. That logical statements are written as promises. The physical statements are written as hypotheses.

  • Sources of Ignorance: God Speech in Logic and Legislation

    Logic is written as is legislation. Testimonialism is written as natural law. This is the origin of the conflict: legislation and mathematics, rather than natural law and physics. What does that mean? That law is written as a command. That logical statements are written as promises. The physical statements are written as hypotheses.

  • “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”— -Albert Einstein This isn’t q

    —“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”—

    -Albert Einstein

    This isn’t quite right. It’s that knowledge is a form of consumption while imagination is a form of production.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-15 10:35:00 UTC

  • logic is constructed as a set of god-mode statements. testimonialism is construc

    logic is constructed as a set of god-mode statements.

    testimonialism is constructed as a series of human statements.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-14 01:37:00 UTC

  • @mises ( No. I think someone will start the equivalent of the Frankfurt School f

    @mises ( No. I think someone will start the equivalent of the Frankfurt School for truthful rather than untruthful speech. That’s my hope.)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 14:33:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775703844059742209

  • 19th/20th century media allowed industrialization of overloading – exceeding our

    19th/20th century media allowed industrialization of overloading – exceeding our truth tests.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 14:22:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775701068256870400

    Reply addressees: @adissidentright @ThomasEWoods @Wellerwilldo

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775699686070050816


    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/775699686070050816

  • Series:Suggestion, loading, framing, overloading(pseudorationalism, pseudoscienc

    Series:Suggestion, loading, framing, overloading(pseudorationalism, pseudoscience), propaganda.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 14:20:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775700749158342656

    Reply addressees: @adissidentright @ThomasEWoods @Wellerwilldo

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775699686070050816


    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/775699686070050816

  • 1) the properties of x equal the properties of x. (identity/tautology) these axi

    1)

    the properties of x equal the properties of x. (identity/tautology)

    these axioms allow me to say x (identity/tautology)

    -and-

    the properties of x are sufficiently equal to the properties of y for the purpose of this argument (ok) (category)

    2)

    These axioms x and those axioms y allow me to say z for the purpose of this argument, becuase that argument depends only on the axioms of x and y.

    -and-

    the properties of known x are shared with the properties of unknown y for the purpose of communicating the meaning of y. (ok) (meaning)

    3)

    given the properties of x and the properties of y, we can deduce z. (deduction) (No, no, no, no….!!!!!)

    – and –

    given the axioms x and the axioms y, we and deduce z. (deduction) (No, no, no, you can only guess z might be possible, however unlikley)

    4)

    given this subset of properties of x and this subset of properties of y, we can deduce z from the properties of x or y that are not a subset of x and y. (conflation) (No No No No…..!!!!)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 07:51:00 UTC