Curt Doolittle updated his status.
THERE IS NO FIRST MOVER
All existence is a consequence of randomness generated at the moment of recreation, and the very small number of laws that arise from whatever the universe is actually made of in different states of excitement. And it is not even clear that time (first) has any meaning before the event at which universe(s) are recreated.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 19:56:39 UTC
THERE IS NO FIRST MOVER
All existence is a consequence of randomness generated at the moment of recreation, and the very small number of laws that arise from whatever the universe is actually made of in different states of excitement. And it is not even clear that time (first) has any meaning before the event at which universe(s) are recreated.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 15:56:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg
Is the statement an axiom? No. Itâs a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable).
Is the law self evident? Self evident means âobviousâ. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious.
What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason.
Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both âMan Actsâ and âNon Aggressionâ are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than oneâs reflection. (Quite stupid really.)
The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-03 15:00:24 UTC
https://t.co/X0C0GANSPghttps://t.co/X0C0GANSPgMy answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg
Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable).
Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious.
What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason.
Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.)
The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-03 11:00:00 UTC
https://t.co/X0C0GANSPgMy answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg
Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable).
Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious.
What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason.
Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.)
The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-03 11:00:00 UTC
I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIGMS CONSISTING OF CONSTANT RELATIONS THE REMAIN CONTIGUOUS ACROSS DISCIPLINES
In other words, Logic > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biochemistry > Biology > Sentience > Consciousness > Reason > Calculation > Computation.
So when you ask me “Hey have you hear of X nonsense?” I hear “Hey have you heard of this set of fictional paradigms that are discontiguous with existential, observable, testifiable, reality?”
No. Fairy stories. I like fairy stories. But only when they are in fact fairy stories, not fairy stories claiming to be something else.
There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. And that most parsimonious paradigm is that which consists of constant relations contiguous across the disciplines.
CONTIGUOUS
1 : being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point – the 48 contiguous states
2 : touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence – contiguous row houses contiguous vineyards
3 : next or near in time or sequence -The fires were contiguous with the earthquake.
DISCONTIGUOUS
1 : not contiguous – intermittent · sporadic · broken · fitful · interrupted · on and off · disrupted · erratic · disconnected
CONSTANT RELATIONS
1 : properties shared between two or more referents.
2 : properties remaining constant between two or more states.
INCONSTANT RELATIONS
1 : properties not shared between two or more referents.
2 : properties not constant between two or more states.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 19:20:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
WHY DO YOU CONSTRAIN ARGUMENT TO THE MATERIAL AND COMPUTATIONAL?
The reason I stick so rigidly with the computational model and existential (material) model is to close the door completely to abrahamism(jewish), rationalization(french) and phenomenalism(german) as means of self deception.
The computational and material model explains the phenomenological. With it we can discuss the phenomenological without attributing CAUSATION TO IT.
Our experiential world is the result of the physical and computational.
Most philosophical and argumentative systems measure the experiential rather than merely observe that the experiential is a measurement (consequence) of the material and computational.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 14:12:14 UTC
The evolutionary reason some of us have agency and most of us do not, is because reason is subject to temporal failure, and information is subject to intertemporal failure, and instinct provides a very successful method of graceful failure. Meanwhile selection for success of those with agency allows others to adopt new knowledge and understanding by imitation without abandoning their dependence upon intuition. This is the same reason we still have cheaters. While cooperation is most beneficial under ordinary circumstances, cheating (immorality), and predation (violence), are extremely valuable methods of graceful failure. The animal majority is insurance in case we fail. But they are not to be taken seriously whatsoever.
The evolutionary reason some of us have agency and most of us do not, is because reason is subject to temporal failure, and information is subject to intertemporal failure, and instinct provides a very successful method of graceful failure. Meanwhile selection for success of those with agency allows others to adopt new knowledge and understanding by imitation without abandoning their dependence upon intuition. This is the same reason we still have cheaters. While cooperation is most beneficial under ordinary circumstances, cheating (immorality), and predation (violence), are extremely valuable methods of graceful failure. The animal majority is insurance in case we fail. But they are not to be taken seriously whatsoever.
by Anne Summers
The inability to face Truth, and the ability to take comfort in an omission of Truth is causally dense and nuanced.
Think of the poor guy who has to have his heart ripped out and frapped several times before he can accept that the “love” of his life isn’t. Even then, sometimes Truth can’t be brutal enough to get through to him about her nature.
The pain one feels when they willfully and honestly stare straight into the Mirror (in the mythological context of soul, or self examination) is similar to placing flesh over an ionizer – only it radiates from the heart/chest cavity and gut. It’s not an condition where one’s tolerance of the experience is sustainable.
I believe those conditions are the origin for the practices of sacrifice, sanctifying, purification and baptism. And later on in the ritual of expulsion what’s further conceptualized as forgiveness.
Somehow, the evil of doing wrong, of being wrong had to be expunged, numbed, healed and renewed. Verity, Truth, kills those not annealed.
(Truth is a luxury of security?)
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 14:05:00 UTC