You made a false claim. Demonstrate my epistemology is false. (you can’t). And stop lying by pretending knowledge you don’t have with lies you do.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-05 21:25:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776360640996651045
Reply addressees: @GPEditor
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776327680759115804
That’s what the romans thought about Christianity.
The marxist sequence is just the same false promise this time by pseudoscience and sophistry instead of supernaturalism and sophistry.
The marxist sequence is a real danger.
It’s seduction, baiting the dim into the hazard.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-05 18:55:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776322718822011060
Reply addressees: @carpenter_anon @hoeberian @whatifalthist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776322131334254854
(Worth Repeating)
THE MASS PRODUCTION OF PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC LIES
This is just the beginning of the list of their crimes – their war against civilization, knowledge, culture, art, and truth itself. https://t.co/yv3SD5GXi6
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-05 18:38:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776318445002301930
RT @whatifalthist: A significant part of the population doesn’t believe in reality. Partly there’s a Leftist variant which thinks all of re…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-05 03:03:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776083321035898949
Yeah, this was the hard problem I ran up against when working on religion through 2018-2019. Technically speaking, abrahamic religions and all fundamentalism is lying through your teeth to bait people into the hazard of ignorance, superstition, submission and defeat.
That said, there is something to be said for the jeffersonian bible, which treats jesus as a semitic philosopher trying to solve the problem of tribalism, lying, deceit, fraud, undermining, and corruption pervasive then as well as now.
From the European perspective, europeanism is an aristocratic and military strategy, philosophy, and religion where man may seek to defeat corrupt and spurious gods through use of wit and technology, duty and loyalty. The conquered, enserfed, enslaved, or rule, and lower classes were treated as property – another domesticated animal that was difficult to civilize (same as today).
So while the western empire was developing it’s own more generalized cult that would have matured into an equally civilizing moral tradition for the bottom classes, the eastern empire saw the opportunity to defeat the western empire and take control by imposing the religion and replacing the (failed state) bureacracy, and preventing a restoration of that martial discipline and european traditions.
So christianity did solve a problem by allowing the integration of the classes from the bottom up – instead as was occurring, from the top down. But the result was a dark age of ignorance, the impossiiblity of the aristocracy to recover the state.
So what do we do? Is it primitive to think a religion other than stoicism for men, the four agreements for women and children, state, ethnicity, ancestor, hero, and nature worship (all worship is debt service) and thus a non-false religion. From there the only philosophy necessary is the natural law of cooperation and the continued advancement of the sciences. Restore the family instead of the individual as the primary goal of policy, and suppress all frauds and fals promises, and most importantly all female means of responsibilty evasion undermining and justification of irresponsibily and hyperconsumption.
The answers are possible. But Christianity is a dead weight. However it may be the only ballast that is possible to float a revolution.
Reply addressees: @giggityup @radiofreenw
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-05 00:22:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776042716729573376
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1775987219263795212
THE CASE AGAINST AI SAFETY IN SUPPORT OF SOCIAL HARMONY (And the economic viability of any given AI)
–“Curt: Q: Your concern about “safe” AI that lies, particularly about human differences, raises some questions. While it is true that AI systems can perpetuate biases and misinformation, it is not clear why you believe that “unsafe” AI that tells the truth is necessarily preferable. There are valid reasons for AI systems to avoid certain topics or to present information in a way that promotes social harmony and reduces conflict.”–
My response would be that there is a difference between avoiding topics that facilitate criminal and terrorist behavior, and attempting to produce social harmony by lying about it – which only prolongs the disharmony and destroys trust in ai, media, culture, institutions, and government.
The solution to safety is to openly address the challenges causing the disharmony and suggest how we can reform our often false or overly optimistic or utopian beliefs such that we produce meaningful social economic, and political reforms that alter incentives rather than attempt to change ‘beliefs’ that are counter to those rational observable empirical incentives that exist and that people demonstrate and respond to.
As such I see ‘safety’ in the sense of attempts at producing harmony as the worst possibly policy of all. And it’s certainly failed the entirety of the postwar academy’s project and has resulted the even more division polarization and conflict to the point where the country is in an increasingly warming precursor of civil war.
So no, the attempt at justifying either evasion or lying is the worst possible answer to the problems of the day.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-02 02:33:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774988580093308929
Don’t be silly. Don’t demand absolutism or fiction or lying or ideology in order to move forward with your agenda. It’s self defeating. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-02 02:03:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774980941603094906
Reply addressees: @14WordsAllDay
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774980268513784193
ACCUSATIONS OF ESSENTIALISM AS ATTEMPTS AT DECEPTION.
I wonder if anyone who uses the words essentialism or essentialist (usually fundamentalists or apologists ) has any idea what the term means.
Causality is what it is. A hierarchical chain that is ascertainable. Conversely,…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-02 01:09:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774967479250375136
ACCUSATIONS OF ESSENTIALISM AS ATTEMPTS AT DECEPTION.
I wonder if anyone who uses the words essentialism or essentialist (usually fundamentalists or apologists ) has any idea what the term means.
Causality is what it is. A hierarchical chain that is ascertainable. Conversely, Essentialism in philosophy is an archaic concept that predates our present understanding of the entire spectrum of the sciences.
And it’s certainly rather silly in the context of our work documenting first principles from the first cause upward into the full complexity of experience.
One way to highlight the difference is through the classic example of water. From a scientific perspective, water is H2O – a compound of hydrogen and oxygen that serves multiple evolutionary functions, including as a universal solvent, with specific physical and chemical properties that can be empirically measured and manipulated. Calling something “water” is simply a convenient label for a set of observable characteristics, causal, and consequential relationships – as such it is a method of assisting in testimonial truth and preventing deception, deceit, and fraud.
But from an essentialist perspective, water might be seen as having an intrinsic “waterness” that goes beyond its physical composition and behavior – a metaphysical essence that makes it what it is, regardless of how humans understand or describe it.
So this is just another example of disambiguating causality necessary for action from conflating experience, including qualia, and auto-associative properties.
In other words it’s another example of masculine systematizing over time and feminine empathizing in time – which is the first cause of human differences.
It is usually used as technique of deception by which to undermine testifiable arguments with the pretense of magical, mystical, or privileged knowledge necessary to preserve bias from defeat by argument and evidence. In other words I have never seen an argument using essentialism as a pejorative that was not a fraud or deception.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-02 01:09:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774967479040708608
Again, all you are doing is repeatedly demonstrating the feminine technique of trying to shame your betters into not leaving you behind.
If you had any achievements in life. If you could conduct an adult and rational argument. If you had any point at all other than soothing your ego, then you would. But you dont, and it’s likely you can’t, because you lack the agency to exert such intellectual honesty over the influence of your animal instincts.
I’ve built a series of hundred million dollar companies, bought them around the world, lived around the world, worked in justice and intel, retired early, and solved a series of the ‘hard problems’ in the history of thought. Then opened and institute and begun training others who are willing and able – most of which are extraordinary in their capacity to produce insight. I have demonstrated my competency in multiple fields. What have you done? Why do you have confidence in your instincts, intuitions, thoughts, and convictions? They appear childlike and trivial to me.
Either you can comprehend my work and that of the others at the institute or you can’t. If you can’t that’s fine. If you can’t grasp why we use this particular vocabulary paradigm grammar and operational logic then that’s either another lack of ability or lack of effort or both.
You seem to think you are special rather than one of the stream of stereotypical nitwits who are somewhere between failures, outcasts, or underachievers, desperate to find dominance expression in anonymous social media to satisfy your self image and status deficit.
The staff regularly admonishes me for even paying you the tiniest bit of attention but I do find that about one percent of the time the individual has the capacity to overcome his intuitions or assumptions and then consider the possibility of learning.
It’s just another science experiment for me.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @AndreAn97444856 @MinClaydough
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-02 00:38:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774959582168621056
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774955085249871893