Source: Facebook

  • The standard of decidability in philosophy is excuse making (justificationism).

    The standard of decidability in philosophy is excuse making (justificationism).

    The standard of decidability in law is malincentive, evidence, and warranty. (less well articulated as Means, motive, opportunity, and evidence)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:58:00 UTC

  • CAN SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS BY MATURING POST HASTE by Brandon Hayes [Stop making just

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYR0H3DzXgWE CAN SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS BY MATURING POST HASTE

    by Brandon Hayes

    [Stop making justificatory arguments about feelings]

    The convergence points of the brightest minds are obvious to anyone that is looking (an example below):

    —“It’s the women who are going to stand-up to the women who are just trying to destroy conversation; and I think that that is something where, Jordan has talked about it; none of the men want to make this argument, it would be better optically if it were women saying “Hey, some of us are out of line! this is too much and it’s too aggressive and you can’t say “mansplaining” about EVERYTHING.” — Eric Weinstein

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYR0H3DzXg

    ———–

    “WHY DO WOMEN ENGAGE IN NAXALT?”

    —“Question – why do women hate generalizations more than men? Women far more inclined to say “yes but not all X are like that!”, where as men get the idea that trends exist, even if some individuals are outliers to this trend. Is it to do with the risk or social ostracism or one of these female power plays?”— A Friend

    It’s not complicated:

    Herd Instinct: Fear of being ostracized, ‘left behind’, or ‘left out of resource consumption’, or having her children face the same, because despite their children’s empirical value to the tribe,women want their children to have the best opportunities for social, economic, and reproductive success.

    Men think of the tribe (generalization) women think of themselves (solipsism) and their offspring (individualism).

    Female Herd “who will be harmed by this truth”,

    -vs-

    Male Pack “what opportunity can be seized by this truth”

    Hence why monogamy was a compromise that succeeded by dividing labor, and while no one had perfection each person had a ‘chance’ of benefitting from the division of labor between the genders.

    The question is, now that women are at least marginally as capable in the workforce within the boundaries of the majority of jobs ‘in the middle’ (easy jobs), we are returning to serial marriage, or single motherhood (maternalism).

    To men, everything is a distribution (bell curve). To women everything is a flat line in the making.

    – Curt Doolittle

    —-

    We ought not destroy competing packs to benefit the herds. Herds can’t respond efficiently to rapidly changing environments; what you get instead of problem solving is panic.

    Panic among animals shortens their time horizons (they make quicker decisions less thought through) for shorter term gains. This mistake accumulates until the day of reckoning comes about. The day all of your “not planning for the future” comes back to haunt you.

    Strong feelings are not the equivalent to being correct. There isn’t a feel good substitute for truth; no matter how much we’d like there to be!

    https://www.facebook.com/brandon.hayes.5851/posts/10103416983160261Updated Aug 31, 2018, 9:56 AM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:56:00 UTC

  • NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM Scien

    NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM

    Science consists of performing due diligence such that we can warranty our testimony in operational terms each of which is testable by the audience (jury). In other words, science (which emerged out of western customary law) In science we attempt to falsify until only truth existentially possible candidates remain.

    Philosophy as the term is used, and as the consists of justificationism. It is an attempt to bridge the legal(scientific), and Imaginary (fictional). Just as theology is an attempt to exit the legal(scientific). In other words, both philosophy and theology seek to circumvent the demand for testimony.

    Law/Science (falsification) > Philosophy (justification) > Theology justificationary fictionalism).

    In other words, you either practice law or your practice sophism (fraud) or you practice fictionalism (lying).

    The question is, if you can’t state your testimony in legal (scientific) language, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about or your lying for one reason or another, because you CAN’T DO OTHERWISE.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:33:00 UTC

  • The resurrection was added much later and copied from a babylonian source. There

    The resurrection was added much later and copied from a babylonian source. There are no records of testimony from the period, nor records of his existence. We know the origin of the three days narrative, and we know the origin of the rising from the dead narrative. These were added later by other authors. Saul (Paul) made up most of it, from what was possibly a real person who was rebelling against the use of the temple to raise more money – the roman occupation and the introduction of roman gods meant that temple revenues had decreased rapidly, so the priests were ‘drumming up new business’ and it seems likely some zealot rebelled and was imprisoned and killed for it. But there are no ‘testimonies’ and every pretense of testimony we have appears to be a fabrication.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:24:00 UTC

  • NATURALISM contains Literary and Demonstrate Respect with man a risen beast maki

    NATURALISM contains Literary and Demonstrate Respect with man a risen beast making ‘deals’ with nature.

    SUPERNATURALISM contains Magic, an Demonstrations of submission, with man a fallen angel, begging forgiveness from a despot.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:18:00 UTC

  • The term isn’t Pagan or Heathen vs Abrahamist so much as it’s NATURALIST vs SUPE

    The term isn’t Pagan or Heathen vs Abrahamist so much as it’s NATURALIST vs SUPERNATURALIST.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:16:00 UTC

  • It is just clear that pagans (non-abrahamics) in the ancient world and ‘pagans’

    It is just clear that pagans (non-abrahamics) in the ancient world and ‘pagans’ (post-abrahamics) in the modern world were thousands of times more effective than abrahamists, who by and large manufactured ignorance and superstition, causing the Abrahamic Dark Age of ignorance and dragging every civilization it touched into collapse.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:15:00 UTC

  • The purpose of a Sophism is to overload your reason such that you must appeal to

    The purpose of a Sophism is to overload your reason such that you must appeal to intuition for decidability. And intuition is even more negatively biased than cognitive biases.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:11:00 UTC

  • Can you empirically state that gods to not exist?”— Well, yes, of course. As i

    —Can you empirically state that gods to not exist?”—

    Well, yes, of course. As in all things, evidence of externality is evidence of internality. This is how we defeat the fallacy that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Instead, evidence of externality is evidence of existence. In fact, all empirical science above and below observable scale is conducted by this method.

    Empirically means ‘observably and therefore measurably’. The purpose of empiricism is to suppress one’s ability to substitute imagination (non existence) for description (existence). The purpose of empirical (observation and measurement) is to ensure that you’re not adding something that isn’t there, not to insure that what you say is there is there. Ok? Justificationism dies hard in people. We have been trained by sophists both theological and philosophical and science defeats both of them slowly and with a great deal of effort.

    Can anyone testify to the existence of any supernatural entity at all, anywhere, at any point in time? We have had millions of people trying to find even one example, one instance, one event that cannot be explained as other than an attempted FRAUD by the person or persons making the claim.

    Can we however testify to the many crimes of priests, monotheistic religion, and the rapid increase in the quality of life before and after the existence of such fictions? We can identify the incentives why people lie to themselves, each other, and demonstrate the need for self induced chemical suppression of fear and uncertainty.

    Can we testify to the chemical reward of submission response being equal to the chemical rewards obtained when under the process of suggestion during narration?

    In other words, there is no evidence that such supernatural beings or forces exist. There is every evidence for intentional habituation of a submission response that produces a natural drug addiction. There is every evidence of universal acts of fraud when making claims of supernatural forces or beings. There is historical record of the incremental fabrication of religious falsehoods by the cumulative addition of greater and greater lies (religion is a ‘fish story’). There were political reasons for, and a historical record of, forcing these religions upon people who did not want them.

    Claims of the supernatural are inconsistent, non correspondent, operationally impossible, provide individual malincentives, provide interpersonal malincentives, evidence of overwhelmingly negative externalities, and are non testifiable, and non demonstrable.

    So we have incentives to lie, a record of the development of the lies, a record of the predations c

    Drug addicts have no agency and cannot help but defend their addictions. The fact that we are suggestiable, and open to such addiction through repetition is simply a biological fact. The fact that people exploit this vulnerability to create frauds and profit from them is simply a matter of the historical record.

    Religion, drugs, alcohol, escapism, idealism, snake oil. Occultism. They are all the same: frauds. Entertaining frauds. Entertaining frauds open to easy addiction through intentional repetition.

    A failure to develop emotional fitness. And a failure to develop intellectual fitness. And as a consequence a failure to develop physical and genetic fitness.

    Ergo, prosecuting theologians (Occultists), psedurodratioalists (sophists), pseudoscientists (frauds), drug dealers, fraudsters, libelers and slanderers is simply empirically beneficial in order to reduce the harmful externalities that accumulate due to addiction to their use.

    Evidence of externality is how we measure phenomenon. And the externality of sophism, occultism, and pseudoscience is measureable.

    Justificationary philosophy is just an attempt to justify lies.

    Just as pilpul is an attempt to justify lies.

    The the biology that creates demand for lies (false chemical rewards), the incentive to lie to the self, the incentive to lie to others, the results of their lying, are evidence of non existence of gods, and existence of deceit.

    There are many devices that allow us to create mindfulness, with exercise, ritual, and feast being the most effective means of providing our ‘reason’ a ‘vacation’.

    There are many that induce the ‘vacation’ of reason as well. The problem is these ‘vacations’ are addictive by artificial means, and produce externalities because of the extraordinary drive by addicts to preserve their means of obtaining vacations from reason (cognition).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:05:00 UTC

  • NO PROFESSIONAL PARASITES It’s not that complicated. We have known this fact for

    NO PROFESSIONAL PARASITES

    It’s not that complicated. We have known this fact for two thousand years: (a) no professional priests, (b) no professional politicians (c) no monopoly bureaucracy, and therefore no insulation from the market.

    Add (d) full accountability for the truthfulness of public speech by involuntary warranty of consistency, correspondence, existential possibility, rationality, reciprocity, and full accounting.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 08:34:00 UTC