(FB 1550010424 Timestamp) WE DON’T NEED YOU IF YOU’RE COSTLY – AND HONESTLY, THERE AREN’T ANY OTHER BUMPER CARS TO RIDE AT THE MOMENT. —“You guys are going to have to learn how to be more resilient people if you want to grow your educational program. You can’t handle every dissenter this way and it reflect well. Anyways, it’s fine if you’re set in your ways for now. I’ll just take a break and see if I can answer any questions in the future.”— Josh Jeppson We don’t need numbers, we need quality. Once we have sufficient quality, then numbers are useful. But educating a dead weight of large numbers for whom the content is simply too difficult is a waste of time. We will very likely end up leading some population of people for the simple reason that (a) we will have a solution (b) we will have the smart folk, (c) our solution appeals across the middle of the laboring, working, middle, and professional classes, against the parasitic top and bottom. In other words one of our central discussions is why don’t we just leave mouth-breathers behind entirely, and like the frankfurt school and the marxists focus on the talent, which generate all the positive propaganda (information and persuasion). Men who will fight will fight for self interest alone, and all we need to do is provide the many (not the fringe) with reason for providing pressure out of simple self interst, using the least disruption to the social, economic, and political order, with the most natural means of reorganization. I mean, you guys are the third rail of guaranteed failure, not an opportunity for success. It’s not like you’re all gonna sit home if an opportunity presents itself. But you haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of generating an opportunity. I’ll take everyone who wants to fight. and learn how to fight, whether argumentatively socially or militarily. But I”m not interesting in fighting internally. We need men, not boys. Get on the train, or off it, and join another, or make your own.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550010424 Timestamp) WE DON’T NEED YOU IF YOU’RE COSTLY – AND HONESTLY, THERE AREN’T ANY OTHER BUMPER CARS TO RIDE AT THE MOMENT. —“You guys are going to have to learn how to be more resilient people if you want to grow your educational program. You can’t handle every dissenter this way and it reflect well. Anyways, it’s fine if you’re set in your ways for now. I’ll just take a break and see if I can answer any questions in the future.”— Josh Jeppson We don’t need numbers, we need quality. Once we have sufficient quality, then numbers are useful. But educating a dead weight of large numbers for whom the content is simply too difficult is a waste of time. We will very likely end up leading some population of people for the simple reason that (a) we will have a solution (b) we will have the smart folk, (c) our solution appeals across the middle of the laboring, working, middle, and professional classes, against the parasitic top and bottom. In other words one of our central discussions is why don’t we just leave mouth-breathers behind entirely, and like the frankfurt school and the marxists focus on the talent, which generate all the positive propaganda (information and persuasion). Men who will fight will fight for self interest alone, and all we need to do is provide the many (not the fringe) with reason for providing pressure out of simple self interst, using the least disruption to the social, economic, and political order, with the most natural means of reorganization. I mean, you guys are the third rail of guaranteed failure, not an opportunity for success. It’s not like you’re all gonna sit home if an opportunity presents itself. But you haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of generating an opportunity. I’ll take everyone who wants to fight. and learn how to fight, whether argumentatively socially or militarily. But I”m not interesting in fighting internally. We need men, not boys. Get on the train, or off it, and join another, or make your own.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550151623 Timestamp) METAPHYSICS: “FITTING” You see, you start with the supply side error of ‘fitting’ and tell me what the unicorn of metaphysics ‘is’. I start with the demand side and ask what problems are you supposedly trying to solve. The answer is that there exist only the material with potential to know, the experiential, memory of experience, and the products of our actions with the potential to know them. The rest is just fictionalism. Why: because the scale of free association is ‘exciting’ just as hallucinogens are exciting, and for the same reasons So if you mean you want to engage in experiential fictionalism I understand it as a form of entertainment. But that’s all it is. EPISTEMOLOGY Experience > Free association > Hypothesis > Theory > Law. GRAMMARS Deflationary < descriptive < ordinary > narrative > Inflationary > Conflationary Don’t confuse ‘Philosophy’ with ‘literature’. Fantasy literature exists in every field. It’s just that we are honest about literary fiction and dishonest about literary fictional-ISM (occult, pseudoscience, idealism, sophism.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550154997 Timestamp) MORE “METAPHYSICS IS JUST FICTION” I am not sure a discipline called philosophy exists any longer, just as I am not sure a discipline of theology exists any longer, other than as fictionalisms. Both theology and philosophy are simply statements of limited ability due to ignorance. While useful in their time, I can think of no reason to use them today other than to engage in deception, and I have found no argument put before me that is not an attempt to engage in deception. —“That’s because you presume an epistemic objectivity of science that isn’t inherent to its methods. You’ve, in the words of Dan Dennett, “take your philosophical baggage onboard” without realizing. As far back as Plato even, it has been understood by some that empirical methodology is limited in scope in terms of what kind of knowledge it can produce. Cognitive science could get as advanced as you like, perhaps even building minds which we can observe via phenomenological verification, but that wouldn’t change anything, because all scientific findings would be couched within the methodology. ….. As I said note, if you’re more empirically minded, temperament-wise, then none of that will probably interest you, as your concerns are pragmatic, and the differences that those who have a more abstract or balanced temperament are things you either don’t notice, or disdain.”—- —“… the method….”— The only methodology in science is testimony. That is the lesson of the 20th century. The rest consists of particular attempts to demonstrate that one performed due diligence prior to testimony. We run ideas thru a sequence of markets(competitions), and they survive or they dont. We are very close now to coherence (consistency) across all disciplines (which is what my work consists of: the completion of the scientific method – due diligence necessary for testimony – and we are left with why, if coherence is possible (operational prose) and fictions are possible (models that assist us in free associations[ideation]) then there is no such thing as metaphysics, only fictions that assist us in either entertainment or ideation that might somehow fit into coherence. There is no reason why (which is the correct argument for you to put forward) why networks of meaning (not truth) should not be constructed (fictions) for the purpose of either simplifying, problem solving, or expanding opportunities for investigation. That is very different from claiming such fictions ‘exist’ or are somehow other than fictions for the purpose of opportunity generation, entertainment, sedation, escape, and self and other deception. —“That’s because you presume an epistemic objectivity of science that isn’t inherent to its methods”— Actually I don’t. I simply test whether something is testifiable or not (knowledge exists sufficient to make a truth claim) and whether there is malincentive (the equivalent of ‘criminal’ ). And if one makes a truth claim that cannot be made, in support of an incentive to engage in falsehood, I just apply the law: protect others from fraud. —“…. pragmatic…”– Again. This is not an argument. The assertion stands that there exist only two or three disciplines: physical science, cognitive science, and language (grammars), and that every instance of a thing called metaphysics that I can find consists of fictionalisms for the purpose of opportunity generation, entertainment, sedation, escape, and self or other deception. None. Worse, it is under this pretense that metaphysics is other than fiction, that occult, theology, pseudoscience, idealism, sophism, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, loading and framing, the fictionalisms and deceits are justified. If you can generate an example that survives the above criteria of falsification it would be helpful, since as far as I know – none exist – or can.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550161259 Timestamp) —“No we don’t. There is no way to describe via current orthodoxy how you are experiencing typing on FB in a non-causal non-evolving domain called objective spacetime geometry.”— I can do so in existing language with sufficient precision that further increases in precision will not falsify such a statement (and have). And I know Searle can as well if not Dennett. And this was quite some time ago. I haven’t seen any significant improvement since ’05 in general description. We are simply trying to understand the underlying mechanics and new publications come out almost daily. —“There is no way to describe via current orthodoxy how you are experiencing typing on FB in a non-causal non-evolving domain called objective spacetime geometry.”— We share experiences all the time. It’s called language. All language is reducible to analogy experience – and has to be. The question is marginal indifference of those experiences since they are always constituted from memory, and while memories are marginally indifferent in composition they very greatly in construction. And that does not mean anything that can be spoken of is marginally different. Just the opposite. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to empathize, sympathize, cooperate, communicate, negotiate, plan, calculate, and compute by the same means. And we can. with just 300 words and time. The claim that language cannot be converted to geometry is patently false since I have been involved in doing so for over fifteen years now. We were limited until the current video cards, but we are still limited by board and data bandwidth although this is rapidly decreasing. (We could not obtain funding in the mid 2000’s when we proposed it. it was too early and tenuous but people obtain funding daily at present it’s the hot thing.) As far as I know consciousness proper (not sentience and imitation of consciousness) requires sufficient recursion which is somewhere in the distance due to cost (and possibly heat); the open question is whether it is possible to reason without language and grammar as a proxy for categories of experience. The required mathematical constructs are just manifolds and we are not the only people to have used them and proposed them, and agents to search them. In fact, the only difference between the current vertex based world modeling and what we call ‘meaning’ is extra dimensions. Because the only difference between the existential and experiential is the dimensions possible by our lovely homunculus we call a nervous system. Like I said. Phil is dead. It’s been relegated to ‘religion’ in library science and the university for this reason. And when I find a single argument that is not an attempt at deception I will have something to ‘understand’ that I do not now. One of our cognitive biases consist in the presumption that when we feel we don’t know something there is much more to be known (mathematics). The converse is that we have overconfidence in the completeness of what we know (economists, and dunning kruger). Working in computer science eliminates mathematical idealism. Working with databases eliminates a host of illusions about the complexity of reality as other than variations in language, and working in neural networks eliminates the illusion of ‘complexity’. Our imagination is a wonderful machine of free association and we love the daydreaming experience because it stimulates the reward system that seeks opportunities (the undiscovered valley). But it is just another recreational drug. And we love our self induced recreational drugs. And we are easily addicted to them. Religion and philosophy more so than literature and science.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550157314 Timestamp) I don’t know what a metaphysics is if I have constructed one. I know I have deflated and disambiguated LANGUAGE.
- I have enumerated the known grammars used by human beings and the history of their development in each era and why.
- I have articulated the dimensions of those grammars and how they all function.
- I have articulated the constitution of grammars although this is merely a refinement of chomsky.
- I have deflated disambiguated, operationalized, and serialized terms from across the fields, reducing all fields to a common vocabulary absent pretense of knowledge (largely idealism).
And a lot more. Physical science, cognitive science, and if grammars are separate from cognitive science then the grammars, and as far as I know the rest is just ‘lies’. As far as I know philosophy is dead, just as theology is dead. There is only one testifiable method we have today (and have always had) and that is the law, and science is just an application of the law (due diligence and warranty of the truthfulness of one’s statements.) So as far as I know metaphysics as defined in every source I know of (which includes the SEP section 5, stating it does not exist) does not exist as other than an attempt to do as I stated above: fictionalism and lies. In other words, as far as I know P constitutes a logic of constant relations using actions which are all subjectively testable and marginally indifferent as a system of measurement. And language consists entirely of measurement. the question is only the precision of those measurements. Science has demonstrated parsimony.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550154997 Timestamp) MORE “METAPHYSICS IS JUST FICTION” I am not sure a discipline called philosophy exists any longer, just as I am not sure a discipline of theology exists any longer, other than as fictionalisms. Both theology and philosophy are simply statements of limited ability due to ignorance. While useful in their time, I can think of no reason to use them today other than to engage in deception, and I have found no argument put before me that is not an attempt to engage in deception. —“That’s because you presume an epistemic objectivity of science that isn’t inherent to its methods. You’ve, in the words of Dan Dennett, “take your philosophical baggage onboard” without realizing. As far back as Plato even, it has been understood by some that empirical methodology is limited in scope in terms of what kind of knowledge it can produce. Cognitive science could get as advanced as you like, perhaps even building minds which we can observe via phenomenological verification, but that wouldn’t change anything, because all scientific findings would be couched within the methodology. ….. As I said note, if you’re more empirically minded, temperament-wise, then none of that will probably interest you, as your concerns are pragmatic, and the differences that those who have a more abstract or balanced temperament are things you either don’t notice, or disdain.”—- —“… the method….”— The only methodology in science is testimony. That is the lesson of the 20th century. The rest consists of particular attempts to demonstrate that one performed due diligence prior to testimony. We run ideas thru a sequence of markets(competitions), and they survive or they dont. We are very close now to coherence (consistency) across all disciplines (which is what my work consists of: the completion of the scientific method – due diligence necessary for testimony – and we are left with why, if coherence is possible (operational prose) and fictions are possible (models that assist us in free associations[ideation]) then there is no such thing as metaphysics, only fictions that assist us in either entertainment or ideation that might somehow fit into coherence. There is no reason why (which is the correct argument for you to put forward) why networks of meaning (not truth) should not be constructed (fictions) for the purpose of either simplifying, problem solving, or expanding opportunities for investigation. That is very different from claiming such fictions ‘exist’ or are somehow other than fictions for the purpose of opportunity generation, entertainment, sedation, escape, and self and other deception. —“That’s because you presume an epistemic objectivity of science that isn’t inherent to its methods”— Actually I don’t. I simply test whether something is testifiable or not (knowledge exists sufficient to make a truth claim) and whether there is malincentive (the equivalent of ‘criminal’ ). And if one makes a truth claim that cannot be made, in support of an incentive to engage in falsehood, I just apply the law: protect others from fraud. —“…. pragmatic…”– Again. This is not an argument. The assertion stands that there exist only two or three disciplines: physical science, cognitive science, and language (grammars), and that every instance of a thing called metaphysics that I can find consists of fictionalisms for the purpose of opportunity generation, entertainment, sedation, escape, and self or other deception. None. Worse, it is under this pretense that metaphysics is other than fiction, that occult, theology, pseudoscience, idealism, sophism, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, loading and framing, the fictionalisms and deceits are justified. If you can generate an example that survives the above criteria of falsification it would be helpful, since as far as I know – none exist – or can.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550157314 Timestamp) I don’t know what a metaphysics is if I have constructed one. I know I have deflated and disambiguated LANGUAGE.
- I have enumerated the known grammars used by human beings and the history of their development in each era and why.
- I have articulated the dimensions of those grammars and how they all function.
- I have articulated the constitution of grammars although this is merely a refinement of chomsky.
- I have deflated disambiguated, operationalized, and serialized terms from across the fields, reducing all fields to a common vocabulary absent pretense of knowledge (largely idealism).
And a lot more. Physical science, cognitive science, and if grammars are separate from cognitive science then the grammars, and as far as I know the rest is just ‘lies’. As far as I know philosophy is dead, just as theology is dead. There is only one testifiable method we have today (and have always had) and that is the law, and science is just an application of the law (due diligence and warranty of the truthfulness of one’s statements.) So as far as I know metaphysics as defined in every source I know of (which includes the SEP section 5, stating it does not exist) does not exist as other than an attempt to do as I stated above: fictionalism and lies. In other words, as far as I know P constitutes a logic of constant relations using actions which are all subjectively testable and marginally indifferent as a system of measurement. And language consists entirely of measurement. the question is only the precision of those measurements. Science has demonstrated parsimony.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550175792 Timestamp) (ruminating) I’ll support my people who are misguided but of good heart and avoid criticism of christians as long as none of their mysticism is used in argument. I’ll support them because they are my people. And I will love them even if they are misguided. But between heroes of history – Generals, Inventors, Scientists, Thinkers, Artists – the european heathen and pagan cults of Sky Father’s family and Odin’s family, and the indian cults of the wisdom lit, and the Wisdom of Confucius and Lao Tzu versus the entire corpus of the semitic (fecal material) of judaism, christianity, and islam, I can tolerate everything except the last – the literature of those who lie. There is no religion superior to the history of a successful people, and nothing to worship more than our ancestors. There are five rules of christianity that that serve the interests of the poor and I will accept these five rules – and nothing else. I will not give attention, voice, time, or merit to the stories, rules, laws, heroes or god of our ancient enemies. But I understand that once addicted one cannot give up the drug. Stoicism for all. Law for the aristocracy, science for the professionals, literature for the middle, and religion for the bottom, and it appears nothing can change this. We need literature that matches our agency – otherwise it is of no use.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550175792 Timestamp) (ruminating) I’ll support my people who are misguided but of good heart and avoid criticism of christians as long as none of their mysticism is used in argument. I’ll support them because they are my people. And I will love them even if they are misguided. But between heroes of history – Generals, Inventors, Scientists, Thinkers, Artists – the european heathen and pagan cults of Sky Father’s family and Odin’s family, and the indian cults of the wisdom lit, and the Wisdom of Confucius and Lao Tzu versus the entire corpus of the semitic (fecal material) of judaism, christianity, and islam, I can tolerate everything except the last – the literature of those who lie. There is no religion superior to the history of a successful people, and nothing to worship more than our ancestors. There are five rules of christianity that that serve the interests of the poor and I will accept these five rules – and nothing else. I will not give attention, voice, time, or merit to the stories, rules, laws, heroes or god of our ancient enemies. But I understand that once addicted one cannot give up the drug. Stoicism for all. Law for the aristocracy, science for the professionals, literature for the middle, and religion for the bottom, and it appears nothing can change this. We need literature that matches our agency – otherwise it is of no use.