1) I don’t think you understand that logics are not closed – they only test possibility (survivability) and without categorical consistency, logical consistency (internal consistency) operational consistency (existential possibility), full accounting, parsimony, and limits ….
All justificationism is false. We can perform deductions (necessary), inductions (contingent), abductions (free associations), but in the end deduction or induction, or abduction only provide us with an hypothesis that must survive falsification.
@curtdoolittle You: We don’t need to make a statement about the physical universe because our actions aren’t contingent upon our understanding; even though I’m going to pretend that my actions actually gives me a piece of evolutionary knowledge- which I made no hypothesis on.
The only possible closure is categorical, internal, external, operational, consistency and coherence, including limits, parsimony and full accounting – meaning falsification against reality. Argumentative rationalism isn’t closed. Hence why it’s the hide of sophists and theology.
@curtdoolittle The scientific method and falsification are also reliant upon constructivist rationality- which is the product of consensus (irrational) thought- and furthermore, is predicated on the axiom that one can, or ever will, be able to understand the universe.
—“NAXALT presumes arguments on distribution are asserting AXALT. It’s applying lower order assessment to results of more complex systems (collapsing scales)”— Bill Joslin
—“If you don’t actually understand AWALT none of it will make sense. Solipsism means they can’t separate themselves from a statement. They are center stage in any and every play. Any story, about any women, immediately causes them to see themselves in that situation, and they want an insurance policy for in case that happens. They NEVER want to pay the price for bad decisions. Men say “sucks to be him” and “dumbass, what did he think would happen” women never say these things are are flabbergasted when men say them out loud.”— Greg Hamilton
You know, I love my laboring, working, middle class, and upper middle class brothers, because they are by and large a moral bunch.
But unlike most of them I have spent time with and largely been one of our upper class cousins. And my working class brothers in particular vastly overestimate their understanding of those classes – and just how mentally and emotionally superior they are. Even if they are less … moral … by a long shot. And especially because unlike me, those cousins have abandoned responsibility for using their abilities and positions in the interests of my brothers.
Most of us who are moral operate heavily by moral intuitions. We cannot imagine that people that have power of any kind have it because it is given to them in exchange for furthering the interests of those who have a portfolio of property in toto.
They do not sense. They calculate. Because they must. With the right formulae to calculate with they will act very differently. But they are entirely capable of rule once they are limited to the formulae to calculate with that is in the interests of my brothers.
We have all been under democratic propaganda so long we do not remember the obvious: we are different in ability, and there are a fairly large number who are exceptional in ability in every field.
The problem is we must restore the relationship between their interests and ours – and we must do it by violent imposition of those rules – those rules of morality we call reciprocity.
You know, I love my laboring, working, middle class, and upper middle class brothers, because they are by and large a moral bunch.
But unlike most of them I have spent time with and largely been one of our upper class cousins. And my working class brothers in particular vastly overestimate their understanding of those classes – and just how mentally and emotionally superior they are. Even if they are less … moral … by a long shot. And especially because unlike me, those cousins have abandoned responsibility for using their abilities and positions in the interests of my brothers.
Most of us who are moral operate heavily by moral intuitions. We cannot imagine that people that have power of any kind have it because it is given to them in exchange for furthering the interests of those who have a portfolio of property in toto.
They do not sense. They calculate. Because they must. With the right formulae to calculate with they will act very differently. But they are entirely capable of rule once they are limited to the formulae to calculate with that is in the interests of my brothers.
We have all been under democratic propaganda so long we do not remember the obvious: we are different in ability, and there are a fairly large number who are exceptional in ability in every field.
The problem is we must restore the relationship between their interests and ours – and we must do it by violent imposition of those rules – those rules of morality we call reciprocity.
FIX THE MEANS OF CALCULATION (DECIDABILITY) AND FIX THE PROBLEM
You know, I love my laboring, working, middle class, and upper middle class brothers, because they are by and large a moral bunch.
But unlike most of them I have spent time with and largely been one of our upper class cousins. And my working class brothers in particular vastly overestimate their understanding of those classes – and just how mentally and emotionally superior they are. Even if they are less … moral … by a long shot. And especially because unlike me, those cousins have abandoned responsibility for using their abilities and positions in the interests of my brothers.
Most of us who are moral operate heavily by moral intuitions. We cannot imagine that people that have power of any kind have it because it is given to them in exchange for furthering the interests of those who have a portfolio of property in toto.
They do not sense. They calculate. Because they must. With the right formulae to calculate with they will act very differently. But they are entirely capable of rule once they are limited to the formulae to calculate with that is in the interests of my brothers.
We have all been under democratic propaganda so long we do not remember the obvious: we are different in ability, and there are a fairly large number who are exceptional in ability in every field.
The problem is we must restore the relationship between their interests and ours – and we must do it by violent imposition of those rules – those rules of morality we call reciprocity.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/31543373_10156337078467264_8777614105805586432_o_10156337078462264.jpg IF YOU CAN’T CALCULATE IT, IT’S JUST AN EXCUSE
This is part of a list of interview questions an interviewer took from reading just one article. And that’s just one. That’s not on any of the other major topics I cover.
And scanning that list, you don’t have to wonder why I say “It requires a great deal of knowledge to hold discussions on any of these topics” and very, very, few people have the requisite knowledge to do so.
Yet we are all convinced of the value and veracity of our opinions. You don’t find people claiming knowledge of anything calculable, but you find people claiming knowledge of everything intuitable.
Hence why I’ve made speech, ethics, morality, politics, and law, commensurable and operationally calculable, so that we can end the cognitive bias that every idiot’s opinion is worth anything other than the choice of his favorite flavor of ice cream.
We make excuses. That’s what thinking and reasoning do. If you aren’t calculating you’re making an excuse. Because you can’t do otherwise. You evolved to make excuses, not to calculate. Intuition substitutes what you can’t calculate. In this way evolution provides us with the confidence to act probabilistically, despite our profound fallibility – and we don’t give up except by suicide.James SantagataIf we are talking Psychohistory in Asimov’s Foundation series, is Doolittle the Mule? – Claire.May 08, 2018 12:37pmCurt DoolittlelolzMay 08, 2018 1:28pmCurt DoolittleI had to look that up…May 08, 2018 1:29pmJames Santagatalol. It was compliment, just to clarify. :DMay 08, 2018 1:54pmCurt Doolittlelol… i still had to look it up…. ;)May 08, 2018 1:55pmNicholas Arthur CattonJust going through the first interview.
I actually think there lot of value came of the dislocated nature of this conversation. It made for more diverse range associations, and Propertarianism by analogous description by Curt than is usual in a more methodically curated conversation.
If Clare is willing to accept that she may not get clearer on the topic herself, she is surely giving other prop fans insight and angles and associations that arent the standard. It broke beyond the preaching to converted and had the live flavour or an AMA.
It was Good stuff.May 09, 2018 5:50pmCurt Doolittlewell saidMay 09, 2018 7:13pmIF YOU CAN’T CALCULATE IT, IT’S JUST AN EXCUSE
This is part of a list of interview questions an interviewer took from reading just one article. And that’s just one. That’s not on any of the other major topics I cover.
And scanning that list, you don’t have to wonder why I say “It requires a great deal of knowledge to hold discussions on any of these topics” and very, very, few people have the requisite knowledge to do so.
Yet we are all convinced of the value and veracity of our opinions. You don’t find people claiming knowledge of anything calculable, but you find people claiming knowledge of everything intuitable.
Hence why I’ve made speech, ethics, morality, politics, and law, commensurable and operationally calculable, so that we can end the cognitive bias that every idiot’s opinion is worth anything other than the choice of his favorite flavor of ice cream.
We make excuses. That’s what thinking and reasoning do. If you aren’t calculating you’re making an excuse. Because you can’t do otherwise. You evolved to make excuses, not to calculate. Intuition substitutes what you can’t calculate. In this way evolution provides us with the confidence to act probabilistically, despite our profound fallibility – and we don’t give up except by suicide.
SERIES: Intelligible > imaginable(believable) > reasonable > rational > justificationary > logical > calculable > tautological.
1) On can rely on intuitionism and start with reason in order to construct calculation, or one can start with logic explain calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs), and devolve calculation into increasingly incommensurable (deflated, inflated, conflated, fictionalized) categories, until we define the unintelligible.
2) We can start optimistically with an attempt at negotiation and therefore cooperation, leaving open one’s choice of preference, or we can start pessimistically with prosecution and therefore and therefore a threat, leaving decidability (Truth) as the only means of escape.
3) In the market and in philosophy we can choose, in law and the court we cannot, because if you cannot testify to it – which is what empiricism is reducible to – you cannot defend yourself from prosecution with it.
So as I write natural law, I don’t negotiate, I prosecute.
SERIES: Intelligible > imaginable(believable) > reasonable > rational > justificationary > logical > calculable > tautological.
1) On can rely on intuitionism and start with reason in order to construct calculation, or one can start with logic explain calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs), and devolve calculation into increasingly incommensurable (deflated, inflated, conflated, fictionalized) categories, until we define the unintelligible.
2) We can start optimistically with an attempt at negotiation and therefore cooperation, leaving open one’s choice of preference, or we can start pessimistically with prosecution and therefore and therefore a threat, leaving decidability (Truth) as the only means of escape.
3) In the market and in philosophy we can choose, in law and the court we cannot, because if you cannot testify to it – which is what empiricism is reducible to – you cannot defend yourself from prosecution with it.
So as I write natural law, I don’t negotiate, I prosecute.
