Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/23333930_10155862946252264_30316962

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/23333930_10155862946252264_30316962

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/23333930_10155862946252264_3031696271668975324_o_10155862946252264.jpg Ok. I did it. Unfortunately, linguistics and logic use the term ‘mode’ rather than ‘dimension’ – the term that is used in all other fields. So correcting that term, and completing the hierarchy, we see this organization. And now we get to ‘wow’ people with the meaning of universal grammar and its relation to the physical, experiential, and imaginary dimensions of our reality.

    I have almost completed the data structure for language but I am not sure that this is a good investment of my time – since all I want to demonstrate is that all grammatical dimensions in all disciplines use different terms but mirror reality.

    From that point I can more easily demonstrate that operational grammar limits semantic and therefore dimensional content to the existential – and why.

    I was originally struggling because I was not separating the semantic (set of paradigms) in any langauge, from the dimensional grammars that can be constructed regardless of language, using different deflationary and inflationary grammars of universal grammar.

    Unfortunately we will have to wait for artificial intelligence to discover the metric we need for quantitative expression of these relations. Either that or some scientist will stumble on it by puzzling it enough. So just as we compare IQ to the center of the white distribution, we will compare the x-factor of universal grammar as a relationship between a 100IQ and our first general intelligence.Bill JoslinI suspected measurement and commensurability were going to be key.

    I’m now convinced that the universe is relational.

    Time – relation between changes in the state of affairs of the universe

    Space – positional relations of mass/matter

    Matter – constant relations of forces (persistent roperty of a relation) in proximity

    Phenomena – relations which occured constantly within set limits

    Operational language – centers language on relations, and measures of relations opposed to identity.

    Identity – boundaries (limits) where constant relations occur

    Math – nearly perfect relational language (models based on analogy of quantity and relationships of quantity.

    Blah blah blah

    A relational paradigm may provide commensurability between languages ( a meta measure of language and linguistic models) and a spectra from languages which afford the most explicit measure (accounting) of relations to the most obscure accounting for relations.Nov 07, 2017 11:12amCurt DoolittleyepNov 07, 2017 11:19amCurt Doolittle;)Nov 07, 2017 11:19amCurt Doolittlewhen I built the grammar-table it kind of freaked me out for a bit. Sort of de-humanizing in a way…..Nov 07, 2017 11:20amBill JoslinSpoken language couples to persception. Persception is a piss poor measure of relations (unless at personal human scale). Math couples to measure and is nearly perfect relational model but doesn’t couple to persception very well. Analogies and metaphors take a piss-poor measure (persception) and try to high light a relation, but in doing so further obscures measurement – it fakes commensurability.

    Then relying on coherence theories of truth (does the assertion cohere to experience) proclaims authority on universal truths – when it has actually taken steps away from measure and commensurability.Nov 07, 2017 11:28amTimo RohnerJust don’t follow Leibniz and his relationalism too long lest you don’t mind ending up with idealism. That’s where Leibniz arrived at some point.Nov 07, 2017 12:28pmBryan Nova Brey@[1255416290:2048:Blake Southwood] is a programmer tennis coach friend of mine with a pretty high IQ who will be blown away by this. He was working on a “plain language” programming language years ago. Looks like you cracked the code!

    Congrats dude.

    Atlas level effort!Nov 08, 2017 1:36amBlake SouthwoodIt’s a fun problem. It’s masking conplexity with simplicity with managed order. Semantics is taste and upbringing and is tainted by the first programming language someone is exposed too.

    Machine learning and expert systems using fuzzy logic with accumulating human knowledge, wisdom, information will prevail. It’s a Holy Grail problem that is a quest difficult to manage and represent in one dimension. For i sight read Chomsky Linguistics and Dijkstra’s Turing speech. Everything is mathematical and there is order in chaotic systems. Chaos theory is everywhere. Watson at IBM is fluent in 12 human languages now including all the hard ones. Hal is the wrong direction. An interface between man and code that is more palatable will be the bridge.

    The universe is unfathomable and incomprehensibly deep and vast.

    My question is where does the universe reside within and how does the gravity fabric of time and space have structure in a vaccume? As a friend of my brother told me that works at Space X the problem wuth languages is ambiguity and assumptions which is why the boolean logic level and sparce language keyword size and the syntax is cryptic due to tradition (and the mathematical evolution of coding) and to make compilers simpler to write. These were all constraints that were inherited thru the slow evolution of cs. The language I am designing is Strawberry based on Don Knuth’s Literate programming at Stanford.Nov 08, 2017 2:21amCurt DoolittleThe universe is entirely fathomable, the only problem being the discovery of constant relations across limits of prior sets of constant relations.

    I’m working on commensurability of speech in order to prevent various forms of fictionalism (deceit).

    Mathematics, as a system of positional names, provides scale independence (constant relations regardless of scale), but it’s dependent on commensurability.

    So the question is, how do we provide commensurability across paradigms where relations are not constant, and only intermediary phenomenon are constant.

    Logics have tried to do this but they are somewhat lost having nothing but internal consistency as a measure, just as mathematics has only scale independence, and constant relations in n-dimensions.

    Now, if we can develop the mathematics of operational symmetries ( what should emerge out of what today we call lie groups) then I think we have the kind of mathematics that we are looking for.

    But operations are algorithmic just as mathematics is operational in construction. The difference is that it mathematics can only describe the consequence of operations

    In other words, we have to have something to measure, and something commensurable to compare it to.Nov 08, 2017 12:28pmOk. I did it. Unfortunately, linguistics and logic use the term ‘mode’ rather than ‘dimension’ – the term that is used in all other fields. So correcting that term, and completing the hierarchy, we see this organization. And now we get to ‘wow’ people with the meaning of universal grammar and its relation to the physical, experiential, and imaginary dimensions of our reality.

    I have almost completed the data structure for language but I am not sure that this is a good investment of my time – since all I want to demonstrate is that all grammatical dimensions in all disciplines use different terms but mirror reality.

    From that point I can more easily demonstrate that operational grammar limits semantic and therefore dimensional content to the existential – and why.

    I was originally struggling because I was not separating the semantic (set of paradigms) in any langauge, from the dimensional grammars that can be constructed regardless of language, using different deflationary and inflationary grammars of universal grammar.

    Unfortunately we will have to wait for artificial intelligence to discover the metric we need for quantitative expression of these relations. Either that or some scientist will stumble on it by puzzling it enough. So just as we compare IQ to the center of the white distribution, we will compare the x-factor of universal grammar as a relationship between a 100IQ and our first general intelligence.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-07 10:38:00 UTC

  • by Eli Harman “I will offer that it is not “white knighting” to simply call out

    by Eli Harman

    “I will offer that it is not “white knighting” to simply call out bad ideas; just as it is not “white knighting” to interfere in an act of domestic abuse. When one individual seeks to dominate another individual, regardless of the specific characteristics of these individuals, it is incumbent upon those who actually believe in liberty to speak out. Believe it or not some people are more concerned with what is right and good than with what others think of them.”

    ———-

    Most people demonstrably prefer dominance hierarchies, even dominance hierarchies they aren’t at the top of. You would have to coerce them, violating your own principles, in order to override that preference. You’re unlikely to persuade them.

    A stable dominance hierarchy passes along enough benefits, even to those near the bottom, to secure their willing support.

    What do you offer people? Freedom and responsibility most of them can’t handle, don’t want, and wouldn’t know what to do with? Good luck selling that.

    What is right: imaginary.

    What is good: subjective.

    What others think of you: not the be all end all, but of more consequence than your autistic brain weights it.

    Of course, some people just like to kick sh_t over or burn it down. And there is no problem with suppressing such troublemakers, if what they are trying to upset is of value to most. Then it just becomes a question of who will prevail.

    Every so often, the status quo really is rotten and corrupt, and won’t survive that clash. Now is probably one of those times. But you don’t have the medicine we need.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-07 10:20:00 UTC

  • We do not consent with nature. We do not avoid it or deny it. We defeat it

    We do not consent with nature.

    We do not avoid it or deny it.

    We defeat it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-07 10:16:00 UTC

  • “Curt, I’m a female with autism, what does that make me?”— A Friend It makes y

    —“Curt, I’m a female with autism, what does that make me?”— A Friend

    It makes you a female with autism. Just as it makes a male with psychosis just a male with psychosis.

    When I say (or Baron Cohen says), Female Psychotic or Solipsistic vs Male Aspergers or Autistic, we are only saying that the distribution of brain structures from the conflationary fast growth, to the deflationary slow growth, tend to be distributed in what we consider ‘normal’ individuals, by gender. We associate these brain structures with the dominant distribution of those brain structures.

    For example, homosexuality, at least in males is most likely an in utero developmental defect. For women, they are always more ‘fungible’ with regard to sexuality. But ‘butch’ lesbians are fairly identifiable as having more masculine personalities.

    Two say that there are only two genders is true. To say that there are wide distributions of gender traits is something else. To say that gender norms are determined by both genetic, in utero, developmental, habituation (circumstantial demand, or training), or mental illness (developmental failure) is simply obvious.

    I love being an aspie with other aspies. I love being a normie with normies. I prefer to be with both. The primary problem for aspies is finding each other so that we can develop relationshipos. And then finding women we can mate with and reproduce.

    Thankfully we have internet and internet dating.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-07 10:14:00 UTC

  • “Men must be taught as if you taught them not, and things unknown proposed as th

    “Men must be taught as if you taught them not, and things unknown proposed as things forgot.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-06 23:22:00 UTC

  • And when to Revolution mortals bend their will, how soon they find fit, those in

    And when to Revolution mortals bend their will, how soon they find fit, those instruments of ill. #Trump Revolution Comes!

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-06 23:16:00 UTC

  • IF YOU HAVE SOCIALISM, AND WE DON’T…. Then…. We need to keep our civilizatio

    IF YOU HAVE SOCIALISM, AND WE DON’T…. Then….

    We need to keep our civilization alive while you destroy yours like every other socialist country has destroyed theirs.

    France is nearly gone. Germany and England and Sweden are on the way.

    America is now on the way to joining south america.

    Data is data is data.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-06 19:09:00 UTC

  • Mental illness exists, with the entire spectrum of genetic, developmental, envir

    Mental illness exists, with the entire spectrum of genetic, developmental, environmental, and disease causes.

    We can control genetic and developmental with eugenic reproduction.

    We can control environmental by restoring family and intergenerational care – because stress and exhaustion are the cause of most mental health.

    We can control the creation of environmental stresses by stopping our lying and restoring universal standing in matters of the commons.

    We can control diseases through diet and toxin control.

    The mind needs a healthy brain and healthy information, and circumstances that it can cope with.

    Otherwise american mental illness will continue to climb.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-06 19:06:00 UTC

  • YES, IF YOU WANT AND NEED SOCIALISM, WE WANT YOU TO HAVE IT. I agree. If you wan

    YES, IF YOU WANT AND NEED SOCIALISM, WE WANT YOU TO HAVE IT.

    I agree. If you want a socialist, equalitarian, discretionary rules society you should create and live in a socialist discretionary rule society. I agree, if you want an aristocratic, meritocratic, rule of law society, then those of us who want that should live in an aristocratic society.

    So let’s just agree that the big sort is doing this for us anyway, and divide the country up along the obvious lines that exist by voting patterns, and then live in the societies we want.

    The order of europe was successful because it consisted of small, culturally homogenous states.

    So lets create a europe of north america and then we can stop fighting about it.

    Now, the only reason you can say ‘no’ is greed and oppression of one another. And if you want to do that then I’ guess the only solution is war.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-06 19:02:00 UTC

  • #facebookdown Down via Xfinity

    #facebookdown Down via Xfinity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-06 12:59:00 UTC