Reminds me of how European civilisation way back to the Indo-Europeans and the various subcultures have always had a tripartite class structure, with separate functions and incentives. Is that what you’re getting at with trifunctionalism? — Reece Haynes
Exactly: Priests, judges, scientists — Curt
Responsible for:Priest – what we do not know that we do not know Judge – what we know that we do not know Scientist – what we know. —Luke Weinhagen
Reminds me of how European civilisation way back to the Indo-Europeans and the various subcultures have always had a tripartite class structure, with separate functions and incentives. Is that what you’re getting at with trifunctionalism? — Reece Haynes
Exactly: Priests, judges, scientists — Curt
Responsible for:Priest – what we do not know that we do not know Judge – what we know that we do not know Scientist – what we know. —Luke Weinhagen
(CORE) Feb 12, 2020, 9:16 PM [I] would rather let this conversation go forward without my interjection to let the team demonstrate their skills but to save time 0) I use falsification. Falsification in science evolved from falsification by contest (competition, adversarial) in European law. And falsification by adversarial competition in law is our oldest continuous political tradition after sovereignty. 1) I do not presume people have agency, or that they have other than the minimum consciousness and self-reflection and self-regulation to engage in negotiation deception, parasitism, and predation to minimize the costs of obtaining wants and needs by productive voluntary exchange (people only demonstrate the minimum morality necessary to act in their interests.) 2) I do not presume that people seek truth but that people seek to justify priors, to lie, or sow social constructions for manipulation in pursuit of a discount, to engage in fraud, or to engage, or to conspire. 3) I do not presume when I don’t know the answer – I say something from the spectrum “We don’t know, I don’t know yet”, or “as far as I know”, or “we only know x so far”, or” we only know x so far and these possibilities are consistent with what we know so far”, or “as far as I know that’s false”, or “that can’t be true” – as that is the only truthful testimony I can give. 4) The history of all thought consists of the history of falsification of all causal claims other than realism naturalism under operationalism 5) All alternatives, all knowledge claims that are consistent with failure of all alternatives to realism, naturalism, under operationalism, must depend on some incentive other than “we don’t know yet, but all causality will depend upon realism, naturalization under operationalism”. 6) While we can testify to causes of realism naturalism operationalism and empiricism including subjective testing of incentives (rational choice), we cannot possibly testify to any claim that is not dependent upon realism, naturalism, under operationalism, because we cannot claim to have that knowledge, 7) If we can identify incentive, meaning, means motive and opportunity, for giving false testimony, by claiming the untestifiable then there is nothing else to determine – the person is lying. 8) In other words, theology and philosophy, negotiation and chit chat (exchange of signals of safety) seek opportunity for agreement or consent by means motive and opportunity, while, mathematics, logic, science, and law seek opportunity for falsification or decidability in dispute resolution by means motive and opportunity. In other words, if you can’t testify to a claim you’re starting out informing, negotiating, persuading, threatening by lying. Now, in a public forum at distance without direct physical contact I can’t engage in physical punishment for lying. But as a European man, defending the informational commons, I do the best I can in prose.
(CORE) Feb 12, 2020, 9:16 PM [I] would rather let this conversation go forward without my interjection to let the team demonstrate their skills but to save time 0) I use falsification. Falsification in science evolved from falsification by contest (competition, adversarial) in European law. And falsification by adversarial competition in law is our oldest continuous political tradition after sovereignty. 1) I do not presume people have agency, or that they have other than the minimum consciousness and self-reflection and self-regulation to engage in negotiation deception, parasitism, and predation to minimize the costs of obtaining wants and needs by productive voluntary exchange (people only demonstrate the minimum morality necessary to act in their interests.) 2) I do not presume that people seek truth but that people seek to justify priors, to lie, or sow social constructions for manipulation in pursuit of a discount, to engage in fraud, or to engage, or to conspire. 3) I do not presume when I don’t know the answer – I say something from the spectrum “We don’t know, I don’t know yet”, or “as far as I know”, or “we only know x so far”, or” we only know x so far and these possibilities are consistent with what we know so far”, or “as far as I know that’s false”, or “that can’t be true” – as that is the only truthful testimony I can give. 4) The history of all thought consists of the history of falsification of all causal claims other than realism naturalism under operationalism 5) All alternatives, all knowledge claims that are consistent with failure of all alternatives to realism, naturalism, under operationalism, must depend on some incentive other than “we don’t know yet, but all causality will depend upon realism, naturalization under operationalism”. 6) While we can testify to causes of realism naturalism operationalism and empiricism including subjective testing of incentives (rational choice), we cannot possibly testify to any claim that is not dependent upon realism, naturalism, under operationalism, because we cannot claim to have that knowledge, 7) If we can identify incentive, meaning, means motive and opportunity, for giving false testimony, by claiming the untestifiable then there is nothing else to determine – the person is lying. 8) In other words, theology and philosophy, negotiation and chit chat (exchange of signals of safety) seek opportunity for agreement or consent by means motive and opportunity, while, mathematics, logic, science, and law seek opportunity for falsification or decidability in dispute resolution by means motive and opportunity. In other words, if you can’t testify to a claim you’re starting out informing, negotiating, persuading, threatening by lying. Now, in a public forum at distance without direct physical contact I can’t engage in physical punishment for lying. But as a European man, defending the informational commons, I do the best I can in prose.
Feb 13, 2020, 7:52 AM
—“Free speech is free TRUTHFUL speech. Not carte blanche to spread false allegations, lies, deception, or accusations without a demonstrated attempt at due diligence for truth. You don’t get to be a lying parasite. Your resistance proves your desire for continued parasitism. Under P-Law, truthful speech is always protected. P-Law serves as the Raid for lying deceitful parasites that the left tends to breed like roaches. Your continued slander proves only that you have no real invested time in learning Propertarianism, or do not have the cranial capacity to fully understand Propertarianism. Neither are a good excuse to troll these pages with your ill conceived illogical commentary on a subject matter you clearly have no understanding of… ..”—Clinton McLaggan
Feb 13, 2020, 7:52 AM
—“Free speech is free TRUTHFUL speech. Not carte blanche to spread false allegations, lies, deception, or accusations without a demonstrated attempt at due diligence for truth. You don’t get to be a lying parasite. Your resistance proves your desire for continued parasitism. Under P-Law, truthful speech is always protected. P-Law serves as the Raid for lying deceitful parasites that the left tends to breed like roaches. Your continued slander proves only that you have no real invested time in learning Propertarianism, or do not have the cranial capacity to fully understand Propertarianism. Neither are a good excuse to troll these pages with your ill conceived illogical commentary on a subject matter you clearly have no understanding of… ..”—Clinton McLaggan
Feb 13, 2020, 8:05 AM
—“You reason that people are fundamentally economic agents, and therefore the whole of human history and sociology is downstream from economics, which Curt himself has declared the highest sociology.”— Josef Kalinin
That’s false. Are you lying or erring? Instead, all human incentive, thought, and action can be expressed in value-neutral economic terms, thereby uniting the physical, psychological, and social sciences in a single commensurable paradigm, vocabulary, and logic, with demarcation dependent upon the absence or presence of memory of state. This is demonstrably true.
Feb 13, 2020, 8:05 AM
—“You reason that people are fundamentally economic agents, and therefore the whole of human history and sociology is downstream from economics, which Curt himself has declared the highest sociology.”— Josef Kalinin
That’s false. Are you lying or erring? Instead, all human incentive, thought, and action can be expressed in value-neutral economic terms, thereby uniting the physical, psychological, and social sciences in a single commensurable paradigm, vocabulary, and logic, with demarcation dependent upon the absence or presence of memory of state. This is demonstrably true.
Feb 13, 2020, 8:44 AM
—“Curt was trying to defend his statement that “Entropy is the prime mover” to refute the theistic claim that God is the prime mover. In the analysis of entropy, he reduced all phenomena to a “fundamental” component, namely “Differences in charge”. There are plenty of other obtuse statements that Curt ought to defend in order to protect his reputation, such as his declaration that “philosophy is a pseudoscience.” That is a wildly hilarious and blatant domain error, that it ought to have disqualified anything Curt has to say on metaphysics or reason.”—- Josef Kalinin Prem Prayojan
1) Entropy/Charge: Any of the terms: entropy( order to disorder), equilibration (equalization of differences), energy(frequency), charge (energy in difference in states), pressure(effect of different states on one another), and difference satisfy the demand for truthful operational speech. The fact that we are as yet uncertain of the classical (geometric) structure of the universe that we describe with quantum mechanics, is a problem of our present technical inability to measure (observe) it. However, there is no evidence it is other than expressible in the same terms of differences in energy, organization, state, and available transformations (operations). No physicist of note will disagree with this statement. 2) Philosophy is a pseudoscience: Yes, as far as I know, the demarcation between philosophy and science is complete with philosophy limited to choice of preference, and science to decidability independent of preference. I can find no evidence that what remains of philosophy consists of other than the history of the evolution of science from philosophy. And I can find no evidence of those practicing philosophy for advocacy of truth claims instead of advocacy for preference claims engaging in other than deception. Part of the reason for this is that we have accumulated evidence of human behavior in large groups across mankind on one hand, and we have discovered the tediously simple method by which brain, mind, and experience are constructed on the other – although I do recognize I’m very current or ahead of the curve in that knowledge. 3) Domain error. There are no domain errors any longer. There is one most parsimonious operational paradigm across all grammars (paradigms) from the deflationary to the descriptive to the inflationary to the deceptive. That paradigm is language because language is the system of measurement we use for thinking and speaking about the world. It will be very difficult to falsify those arguments.
Feb 13, 2020, 8:44 AM
—“Curt was trying to defend his statement that “Entropy is the prime mover” to refute the theistic claim that God is the prime mover. In the analysis of entropy, he reduced all phenomena to a “fundamental” component, namely “Differences in charge”. There are plenty of other obtuse statements that Curt ought to defend in order to protect his reputation, such as his declaration that “philosophy is a pseudoscience.” That is a wildly hilarious and blatant domain error, that it ought to have disqualified anything Curt has to say on metaphysics or reason.”—- Josef Kalinin Prem Prayojan
1) Entropy/Charge: Any of the terms: entropy( order to disorder), equilibration (equalization of differences), energy(frequency), charge (energy in difference in states), pressure(effect of different states on one another), and difference satisfy the demand for truthful operational speech. The fact that we are as yet uncertain of the classical (geometric) structure of the universe that we describe with quantum mechanics, is a problem of our present technical inability to measure (observe) it. However, there is no evidence it is other than expressible in the same terms of differences in energy, organization, state, and available transformations (operations). No physicist of note will disagree with this statement. 2) Philosophy is a pseudoscience: Yes, as far as I know, the demarcation between philosophy and science is complete with philosophy limited to choice of preference, and science to decidability independent of preference. I can find no evidence that what remains of philosophy consists of other than the history of the evolution of science from philosophy. And I can find no evidence of those practicing philosophy for advocacy of truth claims instead of advocacy for preference claims engaging in other than deception. Part of the reason for this is that we have accumulated evidence of human behavior in large groups across mankind on one hand, and we have discovered the tediously simple method by which brain, mind, and experience are constructed on the other – although I do recognize I’m very current or ahead of the curve in that knowledge. 3) Domain error. There are no domain errors any longer. There is one most parsimonious operational paradigm across all grammars (paradigms) from the deflationary to the descriptive to the inflationary to the deceptive. That paradigm is language because language is the system of measurement we use for thinking and speaking about the world. It will be very difficult to falsify those arguments.