Source: Facebook

  • If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly cons

    If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly constructed grammar) in ordinary language, yet you treat formal grammars (mathematics: constant positional relations), and logic (constant semantic relations), and physics (constant physical state relations) as they should be; formal grammars – then you are holding a double standard.

    Why is it that you cannot write in, speak in, think in equally logical and scientific prose? Yet it is that inability to speak in equally scientific prose that leads you to the conclusions you hold.

    Thereby attributing to your own state authority that cannot exist because it lacks the rigor of those grammar and semantics that you refer to with authority?

    Why would intellectual history be complicated? Why is the physical world (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological, sentient) not ‘simple’ in, that like higher mathematics, forms lie groups (externalities) that limit the permutations of the underlying grammar (operations) – and then this cycle repeats itself, producing in the physical world, what we call sciences at every hierarchy of chose limits?

    All I have really done is state that:

    (a) via negativa is all that we can search for. What remains (as in markets) is a truth candidate. And we are actually quite good at falsification (criticism).

    (b) that the logics, sciences, and ethics serve only as via-negativa deflationary grammars (processes of continuous disambiguation) that remove ambiguity and error.

    (c) that the operational revolution failed in the 20th century due to lagging justificationism, and that the hard sciences adopted it, and that the law has always adhered to it, and that operational grammar serves as a deflationary grammar that falsifies (disambiguates) fictionalisms (fiction, pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, supernaturalism.

    (d) that humans feel, reason, and act to acquire predictable categories, and that these categories are constant across all of us (given biases in the genders) – and without htat constancy we would not be able to empathize, and without being able to empathize, we would not be able to cooperate.

    I had to adapt or create a lot of terminology from all fields in order to produce an operational semantics (vocabulary) without resorting to continental ‘word fabrication’. And as such, it’s a bit unnatural and difficult to learn.

    But it is far better than colloquial or disciplinary vocabularies and their pretenses of knowledge – particularly their pretense of knowledge of existence.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-25 12:04:00 UTC

  • “Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platon

    —“Truth is temporal, not absolute”—

    Try to say that without appealing to platonism. You wont be able to. Why?

    If you can’t state the means of a things existence without the verb to be, then you do not know of what you speak. Reliance on the verb to-be (is, are, was, were etc) violates strict grammatical construction in our high precision, low context language.

    When you say that rules of logic include a litany of fallacies, again, you refer to violations in the compatibility of semantic content and the deflationary grammars (logics) with which we test commensurability of states (statements).

    In other words: word games.

    Let me state it better for you (as I did in the opening sentence)

    The information (semantics: consisting of networks of constant relations) we rely upon, must of necessity include symbols (referrers, terms, words), that serve as categories (general rules of arbitrary precision), that as such categorical aggregates, exclude (disambiguate) our experience of the universe. Ergo: our knowledge remains incomplete. And our language remains imprecise – including ignorance, error bias, and deceit. So in any attempt at testing one’s testimony, we must test the constant relations in each perceivable dimension of reality, and across all dimensions of perceivable reality. And to do so we require multiple grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation).

    So when you speak of logic(words) and science(actions) and sympathetic tests of rationality (rewards), you speak of the three (and only three) categories of grammatical tests we can employ in order to speak without ignorance error, bias, and deceit: truthfully.

    We speak (testify) truthfully or we do not.

    WORDS(LOGIC)

    1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative.

    1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states).

    ACTIONS(SCIENCE)

    2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony.

    2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations.

    RATIONAL (INCENTIVES)

    3.1- Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony.

    3.2 – Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest.

    We cannot know the Truth (the most parsimonious speech possible)

    We can know Truthfulness (survival of due diligence in the dimensions of perceivable reality.

    And we do that by the production of grammars that force us to continuously disambiguate our categories of perception into those categories that disambiguous describe reality.

    Slowly we get there….


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-25 10:30:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://nypost.com/2018/02/23/four-sheriffs-deputies-hid-during-florida-school-shooting/


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-25 01:35:00 UTC

  • answer to Do you think that postmodernism has had a negative or positive effect

    https://t.co/MXL4lqYm3iMy answer to Do you think that postmodernism has had a negative or positive effect on education, especially in lite… https://t.co/MXL4lqYm3i


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-24 23:24:00 UTC

  • answer to Do you think that postmodernism has had a negative or positive effect

    https://t.co/MXL4lqYm3iMy answer to Do you think that postmodernism has had a negative or positive effect on education, especially in lite…


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-24 23:24:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-russians-colluded-massively-with-democrats/?utm_source=quorahttps://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-russians-colluded-massively-with-democrats/?utm_source=quora


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-24 19:11:00 UTC

  • answer to Why doesn’t a high IQ mean you’re smart?

    https://t.co/U0ob9kJmaVMy answer to Why doesn’t a high IQ mean you’re smart?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-24 12:37:00 UTC

  • DOESN’T A HIGH IQ (ALONE) MEAN YOU’RE SMART?”– I’ll give you the correct answer

    https://t.co/G936Iejqs8–“WHY DOESN’T A HIGH IQ (ALONE) MEAN YOU’RE SMART?”–

    I’ll give you the correct answer.

    1 – Measured Intelligence, or Intellectual Capability is equivalent to a personality trait. There is such a high correlation between openness to experience and intelligence that this idea will go mainstream in the next decade if it has not already. Intelligence may be the most important personality trait.

    2 – The remaining personality traits, (five or six factors, and ten or twelve dimensions) and their predictable gender biases, affect the application of intelligence.

    So like Anna Karenina’s “all healthy families are the same, and all unhealthy families are different”, or like the domestication of animals, which requires a certain combination of behaviors are present, demonstrated intelligence requires not only its presence as an ability, but the absence of traits that interfere with its expression.

    In other words, many things must go right, and if any one goes wrong, we do not demonstrate that intelligence (or at least do not demonstrate it beneficially).

    3) So, demonstrated intelligence depends upon the following:

    a) What we call ‘g’, or general intelligence (which has many components but all scale together), which is a loose measure of the rate at which you accumulate information and identify patterns – the obvious differences being the female verbal and the male spatial biases in brain structure. Despite claims as far as I know, it is not possible to alter it.

    b) What we call ‘short term memory’ – the ability to preserve states over time (I do not possess this and am constantly aware of it) As far as I know, despite claims, it is not possible to alter it.

    c) General Knowledge – the totality of knowledge (information and experience) that we can draw from in identifying opportunities for patterns. (Hence why being well read and are the best things that you can do to improve your demonstrated intelligence. )

    d) What we call “personality traits” that do not negatively interfere with the expression of one’s intellectual capacity/measured intelligence/g.

    e) And the wildcard of “beliefs and wants”. One can increase the correspondence of one’s thoughts with the universe, or one can decrease the correspondence of one’s thoughts with the universe. If you want something that is impossible, or you believe something is false, you will constantly err, and accumulate errors. The more false and impossible beliefs and wants, the more error you will accumulate.

    As I currently understand mankind, our primary drive is status, whether shelf image or reputation, or behavior of others toward us despite our self image and reputation.

    And the majority of failures of intelligence are caused by the inability to develop, or lack of training in, the mindfulness (stoicism) to judge one’s value in the markets for communication, association, friendship, productive cooperation, reproduction(family), commons production, political production, and military production.

    So many of us wish the world were different, and go slightly foolish, anxious, depressed, or entirely mad, because we cannot tolerate a self image that corresponds with reality. Meaning, we cannot develop a self image that accurately describes our market value to others: Our Status.

    Otherwise, trauma causes similar dysfunctions, since trauma forces us to work constantly to avoid activating parts of our memories ( minds, brains), via association. This becomes exhausting. Which is why hallucinogens work so effectively at allowing us to observe experiences rather than feel them, and therefore create alternative pathways and weights that allow us to circumvent those traumas (land mines).

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-24 12:37:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-a-high-IQ-mean-youre-smart/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=dff85cff&srid=u4Qv

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-24 12:37:00 UTC

  • answer to Why doesn’t a high IQ mean you’re smart?

    https://t.co/U0ob9kJmaVMy answer to Why doesn’t a high IQ mean you’re smart? https://t.co/U0ob9kJmaV


    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-24 12:37:00 UTC