by Bill Joslin So to distill this down a bit more. As far as I can tell, cognition has three broad frames, experiential (perceptual), imperative (action-reaction), and consequential (perceptual feedback of action-reaction). The progress of disambiguation of grammars has been the incremental movement toward accounting for all three frames. The ambiguous grammars have been a reduction in accounting to all three frames (ussually preferences one frame over others). The accounting and interplay between each frame (a market) decontextualizes the information to the consequential frame (the only frame which encompasses the other two). What we are doing with testimonialism is translating experiential and imperative data into a consequential frame where it can be tested (falsified)
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
Frames….
by Bill Joslin So to distill this down a bit more. As far as I can tell, cognition has three broad frames, experiential (perceptual), imperative (action-reaction), and consequential (perceptual feedback of action-reaction). The progress of disambiguation of grammars has been the incremental movement toward accounting for all three frames. The ambiguous grammars have been a reduction in accounting to all three frames (ussually preferences one frame over others). The accounting and interplay between each frame (a market) decontextualizes the information to the consequential frame (the only frame which encompasses the other two). What we are doing with testimonialism is translating experiential and imperative data into a consequential frame where it can be tested (falsified)
-
I don’t care what you can make excuses for. People make excuses for everything.
I don’t care what you can make excuses for. People make excuses for everything. And you can make excuses to justify you addiction to a malinvestment (suite of lies). But you cannot testify to it. As such I presume you are lying.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 18:16:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016385710012715009
Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @IberianSoldier
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016295136731586561
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/1016295136731586561
-
“We depend upon Morality in the negotiation between oursleves and others for fro
—“We depend upon Morality in the negotiation between oursleves and others for front row seats (or even seats half way) in the present theater of life. The strong have less of a need to negotiate than the weak. The weak are more fanatic about morality precisely because they lack the (inner) strength to manifest themselves in life. They need the approval of others. And the weaker you are, the more nonsense you drag into the moral negotiation.”—Roger Dols
Good articulation – yes. Also. If you are very wealthy (which i have been), with any degree of influence (power), then you come to understand that nothing changes whatsoever, other than the wealth and influence of those who you compete with, and their decreasing compatibility of interests with you. and you can trust no one. It is nearly as difficult to defend wealth as it is to make it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 10:07:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. FRAMES…. by Bill Joslin So to distill this
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
FRAMES….
by Bill Joslin
So to distill this down a bit more.
As far as I can tell, cognition has three broad frames, experiential (perceptual), imperative (action-reaction), and consequential (perceptual feedback of action-reaction).
The progress of disambiguation of grammars has been the incremental movement toward accounting for all three frames. The ambiguous grammars have been a reduction in accounting to all three frames (ussually preferences one frame over others).
The accounting and interplay between each frame (a market) decontextualizes the information to the consequential frame (the only frame which encompasses the other two).
What we are doing with testimonialism is translating experiential and imperative data into a consequential frame where it can be tested (falsified)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 00:10:51 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. JOSLIN HITS IT OUT OF THE PARK. by Bill Josli
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
JOSLIN HITS IT OUT OF THE PARK.
by Bill Joslin
(Just want to say that no one else has made it this far, and bill is rocking it.)
1 ———-
PSYCHOLOGY
Psychology – ostensive (experiential) argumentation to account for behavior.
Incentive: seek a monopoly on perception via ostensive grammars
Alternative: Aquisitionism where by human behaviour can be fully accounted via incentives.
Outcome: a market for coherence via descriptive explanations of behaviour which can be tested with low or no context (declarative).
2 ————
POLITICAL *-OCRACY
Any *-ocracy (democracy, oligarchy, Plutarchy, monarchy etc) are systemic moral justifications for control of nomocracy argued through imperatives.
Incentive: to obtain a monopoly on the creation and execution of law – power over others argued via preferences for one “the good”.
Alternative: propertarianism whereby all transactions must meet the criteria of perfect reciprocity.
Outcome: disambiguous execution of law. A market for the creation of many “goods”.
3 ———-
RELIGIOUS THEOLOGY
Religio-philosophical are sets of arguments for prefered criteria of measuring truth.
Incentive: obtain a monopoly on truth (justify god like proclamations about reality). Unwarranted declaration.
Alternative: Testimonialism which uses all available criteria to demonstrate due diligence in eliminating error, bias, and deception
Outcome: a market for coherence.
4 ———
MONOPOLY(DECEPTION) VS MARKET(TRUTH)
In all cases above, the former uses ostensive or imperative grammars to obtain a monopoly.
Each alternative “deframes” arguments, converting ostensive and imperative grammars into declarative statements.
Why? Because only the declarative has the quality of being testable.
This results in the destruction of monopolies over perception, law (violence) and truth allowing reality to dictate decisions and actions.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 23:53:25 UTC
-
FRAMES…. by Bill Joslin So to distill this down a bit more. As far as I can te
FRAMES….
by Bill Joslin
So to distill this down a bit more.
As far as I can tell, cognition has three broad frames, experiential (perceptual), imperative (action-reaction), and consequential (perceptual feedback of action-reaction).
The progress of disambiguation of grammars has been the incremental movement toward accounting for all three frames. The ambiguous grammars have been a reduction in accounting to all three frames (ussually preferences one frame over others).
The accounting and interplay between each frame (a market) decontextualizes the information to the consequential frame (the only frame which encompasses the other two).
What we are doing with testimonialism is translating experiential and imperative data into a consequential frame where it can be tested (falsified)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 20:10:00 UTC
-
Big Five Physical Regions (and Not)
–“Openness/Intellect did not have any significant correlation with the volume of any brain structures. Conscientiousness was associated with increased volume in the lateral prefrontal cortex, a region involved in planning and the voluntary control of behavior. Extraversion was associated with increased volume of medial orbitofrontal cortex, a region involved in processing reward information. Agreeableness was associated with increased volume in regions that process information about the intentions and mental states of other individuals. Neuroticism was associated with increased volume of brain regions associated with threat, punishment, and negative emotions.”— DeYoung, C. G.; Hirsh, J. B.; Shane, M. S.; Papademetris, X.; Rajeevan, N.; Gray, J. R. (2010). “Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five”. Psychological Science. 21 (6): 820–828. doi:10.1177/0956797610370159. PMC 3049165 Freely accessible. PMID 20435951.
-
Big Five Physical Regions (and Not)
–“Openness/Intellect did not have any significant correlation with the volume of any brain structures. Conscientiousness was associated with increased volume in the lateral prefrontal cortex, a region involved in planning and the voluntary control of behavior. Extraversion was associated with increased volume of medial orbitofrontal cortex, a region involved in processing reward information. Agreeableness was associated with increased volume in regions that process information about the intentions and mental states of other individuals. Neuroticism was associated with increased volume of brain regions associated with threat, punishment, and negative emotions.”— DeYoung, C. G.; Hirsh, J. B.; Shane, M. S.; Papademetris, X.; Rajeevan, N.; Gray, J. R. (2010). “Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five”. Psychological Science. 21 (6): 820–828. doi:10.1177/0956797610370159. PMC 3049165 Freely accessible. PMID 20435951.
-
“Cooperation is fine in a protected environment. Let no man call himself politic
—“Cooperation is fine in a protected environment. Let no man call himself politically educated who has not studied iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma.”— William Frisby
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 15:39:00 UTC