Theme: Decidability

  • I use a large vocabulary, but the number of definitions-in-series I rely upon is

    I use a large vocabulary, but the number of definitions-in-series I rely upon is far smaller than it appears. Memorizing them is not all that difficult. It’s understanding how to use them in argument without relying on your past ‘fuzzy use of terms’ that’s hard.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-24 13:33:00 UTC

  • Seriously. I mean. You don’t really ‘get it’ until you practice it a bit. But mo

    Seriously. I mean. You don’t really ‘get it’ until you practice it a bit. But most of the problem with argument is lacking definitions. And only definitions in series eliminate conflation and therefore the misrepresentation of meaning.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-24 13:02:00 UTC

  • SPECTRUM OF TESTIMONIES (TRUTH) (Nutshell version of Testimonialism) [T]AUTOLOGI

    SPECTRUM OF TESTIMONIES (TRUTH)

    (Nutshell version of Testimonialism)

    [T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.

    [A]NALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).

    [I]DEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)

    [T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    [H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    [D]emonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements

    [O]pinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.

    [P]osition: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.

    [P]reference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).

    [I]ntuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

    DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR TESTIMONY (TRUTH)

    [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful.

    1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?

    2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?

    3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.

    4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such?

    5) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification)

    6) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?)

    7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)

    D]EMAND for TRUTH:

    True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    WARRANTY (‘SKIN IN THE GAME’)

    Your ability to warranty is limited to that for which you can perform restitution.

    So, completing the cycle with Demand, your ability to perform restitution determines the depth of and limit of that which you can testify to.

    TRUTH IS A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-23 13:43:00 UTC

  • By claiming one is doing good, one can justify bads. But while bads are decidabl

    By claiming one is doing good, one can justify bads. But while bads are decidable and universal, goods are only preferable and particular. As such one claims he does good only as an excuse to do bad. When, one only does good if he does NO bad. Ergo, all that is not bad is good.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-19 14:33:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064527079444746243

  • By claiming one is doing good, one can justify bads. But while bads are decidabl

    By claiming one is doing good, one can justify bads. But while bads are decidable and universal, goods are only preferable and particular. As such one claims he does good only as an excuse to do bad. When, one only does good if he does NO bad. Ergo, all that is not bad is good.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-19 09:33:00 UTC

  • One point – an ideal, or ideal type – tells you nothing. Three points to test a

    One point – an ideal, or ideal type – tells you nothing. Three points to test a line. More points falsify the line. Hence, demand for definitions in series as a defense against conflation, inflation, and fictionalism. -hugs brother.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-18 16:59:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064201454796320768

    Reply addressees: @danqueseq

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064198332363476992


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064198332363476992

  • Anyway, you asked, I’ll repeat it again…. EIther make an argument against my p

    Anyway, you asked, I’ll repeat it again….

    EIther make an argument against my proposition or stop wasting my time.

    1) We lack agency. Our genes provide intuitionistic decidability. That intuitionistic decidability in matters of cooperation can be expressed on a spectrum from psychotic and solipsistic to ‘normie’ to analytic and autistic. This spectrum describes the differences in male and female brain structures (see Baron Cohen.). We assume we are making choices but we are not. We are merely following instinct. In this distribution the male and female brains produce biases that reflect their caloric and reproductive demands, with female the herd,r,offspring, and male,k,pack and this measurement shows up in all aspects of life from METHOD OF SPEECH, content of gossip, chatter, and banter, selection of terms, means of argument, value judgements, personality profile differences, job selection, time allocation, consumer product purchases, voting records. However, given the industrial technological era, and the independence of females from demand for male income we are seeing demand for ‘fulfillment’ (divergence) in not only gender preferences (toward the extremes) but in class and reproductive preferences (insurance from risk, vs achievement liberty). The more equal the more we diverge in demand for fulfillment of our reproductive strategies. At present we have those of us who prefer to separate from those of you. We experience you as ‘disgusting’ whereas you see fear we see disgust. This is because you are setting off our ‘harm to the tribe’ response. This is also genetic on our end. Truth, Loyalty, Purity are all anti-disgust demands. So in our perception of the world, you are not fully human, but simply semi-domesticated animals that can speak. We do not say this but it is how we perceive you. So we prefer to satisfy our disgust response they way you want to satisfy your fear of being left behind response, and separate from you. The alternative is warfare. Which is frankly more desirable but less profitable.

    2) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, nationalism the optimum means of protecting it, nomocracy and markets in everything, the optimum means of political order to achieving it, and soft eugenics (regulating underclass rates of reproduction) a necessity of defeating regression to the mean, such that demographics correspond to states of development rather than regress the standards of living, because together they produce rates of adaptation faster than all possible alternatives.

    The mediocre seek safety in the herd and speech and defense from the pack. The exceptional seek achievement and action – and to leave its dead weight behind.

    We can afford to speciate by reproductive strategy. You and yours are welcome to speciate by your preferred means, if me and mine are by our preferred means. That is reciprocity. If we cannot agree to reciprocity, then defeat, conquest, enserfment, enslavement, and extermination are preferable to loss.

    The Herd seeks equality, proportionality, and the Pack hierarchy and reciprocity. These are genetic and therefore intuitionistic and pre-cognitive expressions of fitness for social orders.

    So we can Revolt, Separate, Prosper (or not), and Speciate or we can war. The coming civil war is not over race – it is over our new found wealth sufficient to speciate. Or in historical terms, we continue the conflict between masculine indo-european-asian and feminine anatolian-semitic-afro-asiatic.

    This means that we have the opportunity to exit the unfit from our order, and the undesirable from yours.

    Or we have the opportunity to have the bloodiest conflict in human history – and one that it is very hard to imagine the ‘right’ will not win.

    The people who talk, teach, and preach, vs the people who act, produce, and invent.

    If this isn’t acceptable to your and yours, then enemies you choose to be.

    So, this is why we must separate.

    We don’t need to agree.

    It’s just going to happen.

    So the question is only how unpleasant it will be.

    3) We want separation. We don’t want cooperation or balance when the other side daily engages in hate speech against me, my people, my civilization and advocates for our eradication, and the browning of the country in order to exterminate us. SO no. You don’t compromise with those who want genocide —- YOU RETURN THE SAME.

    We don’t WANT YOU AT ALL. You are disgusting. Really. you ruin everything. Our neighborhoods, our schools, our history, our education, our governments, our city streets, our parks, our stores, our religion, our festivals, are armies, or civic order, even our gene pool… .. I mean…. you’re just bad people. We don’t want you. You are like locusts that consume everything beautiful. You are a plague against our people, our civilization, and the efforts of our ancestors. So no. We don’t need you. CIvilizations prosper most by getting rid of the underclass through prosecution and harsh winter starvation. And the fewer of you the better for us and for the planet, and for the future of mankind. You are a living breathing waste of the planet and mankind’s potential.

    We want to ‘leave you behind’.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 11:43:00 UTC

  • THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT 1) We lack agency. Our genes provide intuitionistic decidab

    THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT

    1) We lack agency. Our genes provide intuitionistic decidability. That intuitionistic decidability in matters of cooperation can be expressed on a spectrum from psychotic and solipsistic to ‘normie’ to analytic and autistic. This spectrum describes the differences in male and female brain structures (see Baron Cohen.). We assume we are making choices but we are not. We are merely following instinct. In this distribution the male and female brains produce biases that reflect their caloric and reproductive demands, with female the herd,r,offspring, and male,k,pack and this measurement shows up in all aspects of life from METHOD OF SPEECH, content of gossip, chatter, and banter, selection of terms, means of argument, value judgements, personality profile differences, job selection, time allocation, consumer product purchases, voting records.

    However, given the industrial technological era, and the independence of females from demand for male income we are seeing demand for ‘fulfillment’ (divergence) in not only gender preferences (toward the extremes) but in class and reproductive preferences (insurance from risk, vs achievement liberty). The more equal the more we diverge in demand for fulfillment of our reproductive strategies. At present we have those of us who prefer to separate from those of you.

    We experience you as ‘disgusting’ whereas you see fear we see disgust. This is because you are setting off our ‘harm to the tribe’ response. This is also genetic on our end. Truth, Loyalty, Purity are all anti-disgust demands.

    So in our perception of the world, you are not fully human, but simply semi-domesticated animals that can speak. We do not say this but it is how we perceive you. So we prefer to satisfy our disgust response they way you want to satisfy your fear of being left behind response, and separate from you.

    The alternative is warfare. Which is frankly more desirable but less profitable.

    2) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, nationalism the optimum means of protecting it, nomocracy and markets in everything, the optimum means of political order to achieving it, and soft eugenics (regulating underclass rates of reproduction) a necessity of defeating regression to the mean, such that demographics correspond to states of development rather than regress the standards of living, because together they produce rates of adaptation faster than all possible alternatives.

    The mediocre seek safety in the herd and speech and defense from the pack. The exceptional seek achievement and action – and to leave its dead weight behind.

    We can afford to speciate by reproductive strategy. You and yours are welcome to speciate by your preferred means, if me and mine are by our preferred means. That is reciprocity. If we cannot agree to reciprocity, then defeat, conquest, enserfment, enslavement, and extermination are preferable to loss.

    The Herd seeks equality, proportionality, and the Pack hierarchy and reciprocity. These are genetic and therefore intuitionistic and pre-cognitive expressions of fitness for social orders.

    So we can Revolt, Separate, Prosper (or not), and Speciate or we can war. The coming civil war is not over race – it is over our new found wealth sufficient to speciate. Or in historical terms, we continue the conflict between masculine indo-european-asian and feminine anatolian-semitic-afro-asiatic.

    This means that we have the opportunity to exit the unfit from our order, and the undesirable from yours.

    Or we have the opportunity to have the bloodiest conflict in human history – and one that it is very hard to imagine the ‘right’ will not win.

    The people who talk, teach, and preach, vs the people who act, produce, and invent.

    If this isn’t acceptable to your and yours, then enemies you choose to be.

    So, this is why we must separate.

    We don’t need to agree.

    It’s just going to happen.

    So the question is only how unpleasant it will be.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 10:27:00 UTC

  • No it is a logic you silly. Rather than argue with me ask questions. Research co

    No it is a logic you silly. Rather than argue with me ask questions. Research constructivist project in law, intuitionistic project in math, praxeological project in micro economics, the operationalist project in psychology and physics, before you think you know anything.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 23:54:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062131612312322048

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062130934089203714


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle EP isn’t science.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062130934089203714

  • But at some point we have elminated the returns given the categorical precision

    But at some point we have elminated the returns given the categorical precision that we have produced… ie: for all intents and purposes further precision will not change the measure.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 23:52:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062131074984226817

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062128888011280384


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle Do historians claim that history is a science?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062128888011280384