Sep 17, 2016 1:43pm So here is the central issue:
| ++Voluntary exchange++ | vs | –Decidability by law– |
| ++Positive epistemology++ | vs | –negative epistemology– |
So rather than reason how we might do something as individual thinkers I ask HOW CAN WE CALCULATE SOMETHING by voluntary exchanges within the constraints of natural law. In other words, how do we scale the ability to reason?
Aug 25, 2016 8:02am There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (decidability), between Operationalism and Empiricism, as there was between empiricism and reason, and between reason, and storytelling. This is why, in the future, people will rely on Propertarianism and Testimonialism over ‘mere’ empiricism, the same way we empiricists rely on empiricism over rationalism. And this in turn, is why Propertarianism and Testimonialism and Operationalism will produce as great a leap forward in the ‘average’ human mind, as scientific thinking using general rules has produced an advance over rational thinking using particularist recipes.
Aug 25, 2016 8:02am There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (decidability), between Operationalism and Empiricism, as there was between empiricism and reason, and between reason, and storytelling. This is why, in the future, people will rely on Propertarianism and Testimonialism over ‘mere’ empiricism, the same way we empiricists rely on empiricism over rationalism. And this in turn, is why Propertarianism and Testimonialism and Operationalism will produce as great a leap forward in the ‘average’ human mind, as scientific thinking using general rules has produced an advance over rational thinking using particularist recipes.
So here is the central issue:
++Voluntary exchange++ vs –Decidability by law–
++Positive epistemology++ vs –negative epistemology–
So rather than reason how we might do something as individual thinkers I ask HOW CAN WE CALCULATE SOMETHING by voluntary exchanges within the constraints of natural law.
In other words, how do we scale the ability to reason?
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-17 06:43:00 UTC
The difference is that you won’t spend an entire year on one topic and cover the entire corpus searching for a method of decidability rather than meaning or utility. That’s the difference. We evolved to search for meaning so that we can discover opportunities. I don’t. I search for decidability in matters of conflict. So most people look for more haystacks to search, and I look for the single needle in each one.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-17 06:25:00 UTC
[W]e make the mistake that norms are in fact moral when they may in fact not be. We call norms moral just like we call legislation law. But norms may or may not be decidably moral and legislation and regulation may or may not be decidably law. So positive normative moral pretenses, and negative objective moral prohibitions are very different things. We may not be able to say what is best but we can say what is worst. This is the purpose of all natural law: prohibition. We spend most of our energies trying to rally numbers to different causes, so that we obtain the discounts of may hands making light work for large numbers. But we may rally to any cause one or another. At every given time there is a market for causes to rally in favor of. However, when we say something is moral or immoral, it is not because of the positive ends it achieves, but because it is not a violation of moral limitations. When you say “my portfolio of reproductive interests consists of set X, and your productive portfolio consists of set Y”, that means only that we cannot impose a POSITIVE demand on either person. We can only impose a NEGATIVE limit on both, so that they must trade to obtain what it is that they wish. Evolutionary strategies are not equal but that does not mean that they are not compatible. They are compatible through compromise, not perfection. We seem to evolve toward nash equilibrium in everything we do. This serves evolution as well, since it shuts out the bottom. So it’s true that morality is objective and universal. the problem is that objective and universal morality simply LIMITS what we can demand from each other while preserving cooperation. It does not tell us what is good and we should do, only what is bad and we should not do. That leaves exchange open to choose what is good for all as long as it is bad for none. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
[W]e make the mistake that norms are in fact moral when they may in fact not be. We call norms moral just like we call legislation law. But norms may or may not be decidably moral and legislation and regulation may or may not be decidably law. So positive normative moral pretenses, and negative objective moral prohibitions are very different things. We may not be able to say what is best but we can say what is worst. This is the purpose of all natural law: prohibition. We spend most of our energies trying to rally numbers to different causes, so that we obtain the discounts of may hands making light work for large numbers. But we may rally to any cause one or another. At every given time there is a market for causes to rally in favor of. However, when we say something is moral or immoral, it is not because of the positive ends it achieves, but because it is not a violation of moral limitations. When you say “my portfolio of reproductive interests consists of set X, and your productive portfolio consists of set Y”, that means only that we cannot impose a POSITIVE demand on either person. We can only impose a NEGATIVE limit on both, so that they must trade to obtain what it is that they wish. Evolutionary strategies are not equal but that does not mean that they are not compatible. They are compatible through compromise, not perfection. We seem to evolve toward nash equilibrium in everything we do. This serves evolution as well, since it shuts out the bottom. So it’s true that morality is objective and universal. the problem is that objective and universal morality simply LIMITS what we can demand from each other while preserving cooperation. It does not tell us what is good and we should do, only what is bad and we should not do. That leaves exchange open to choose what is good for all as long as it is bad for none. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
NOTES ON DANIEL DENNETT’S TALK
SELF
1 – Ability To Choose Action. (necessity)
2 – Maximum energy-economic value. (evolutionary utility)
3 – Center of gravity=”preferential decidability” (seems not only common but universal)
4 – Competitive centers of gravity (common, but one observer?)
5 – Undecidable centers of gravity (uncommon but … solipsism to autism?)
The common Error of mechanistic and material (cells), rather than persistent information within the limits of human actions that the cells make possible. Information can persist across cell lifetimes if only by revisiting memories.
We evolve from ‘mostly personality’ to ‘mostly memories’.
As someone who has had many episodes of unconsciousness it is very clear to me that as we ‘wake’ the ‘self’ exists prior to memory, and is identifiable to the increasing layers of introspection.
It has made me extremely conscious of the change in my ‘self’ how it relies upon my personality’s biases, and then as memory increasingly becomes available, how we adjust perception as we retain consciousness.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-07 03:23:00 UTC