(very well done.) Both, but in the order 2 (no info), 1 (no termination). In other words, neither is continuous disambiguation provided, nore is there a means of completing the transaction for meaning. ie: malformed statement violating first rule of grammar.
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-19 15:12:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1384162921605857295
Reply addressees: @skyfire1201
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1384161221591453710
Fictionalism is the name of the judgment within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make-believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”). Fictionalism consists of at least the following three theses:
1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be “truth-apt”; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.
2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:
Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of
Of our statements. (We white and grey lie all-time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.)
3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication, and communication by suggestion, with which anlogy is the necessary means of transfer of meaning. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.The Common occurrences of fictionalism are:
1) Mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)
2) Modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and;
3) Idealism (Platonist Fictionalism)
4) Moral Fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.
5) Religious Fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism.
6) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) We must note that all of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past. Positioning the Fictionalisms In Grammatical Context
|Fictions| Testimony > Narration > Story > Fiction > Fictionalism > Deception > Fraud A positive Fictionalism refers to those statements that appear to be descriptions of the real world (reality) but are cases of “make believe” – of pretending that a given useful fiction is other than just a useful fiction. A negative Fictionalism refers to the most successful means of deception (coercion) by loading, framing and overloading. Given our the methods of perception:
|Perception| Physical (sensory) > Intuitionistic (intuitionistic, emotional) > Mental (intellectual, reason) And the methods of inflating and conflating them:
|Fictionalisms| Magical (Technical, Physical) > Supernatural (Occult, Experiential) > Ideal (Intellectual, Verbal) We produce these common uses of Fictionalism:
1. Ideal (verbal, intellectual):
1) Mathematical Fictionalism, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)
2) Platonic Fictionalism (Idealism) which states that….
3) Rational Fictionalism (continental philosophy)
2. Magical (Physical, Technical):
4) Human Fictionalism (‘Denialism’) state that equality in all possible dimensions (a falsehood), is too necessary to throw out.
5) Modal Fictionalism developed by _________ which states that possible worlds, or multiple worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse.
6) Pseudosciences:
3. Supernormal (Imaginary, Experiential):
7) Moral Fictionalism in meta-ethics, suggests that fictions (falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.
8) Religious Fictionalism in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of Fictionalism are too useful, and somehow necessary to throw out.
9) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) are somehow necessary to escape reality, or fabricate a false version of it. We must note that all of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past, and failing to perform the cost of reformation of the terms, paradigms, and stories. Fictionalisms make use of three presumptions:
1) Communication of Meaning: The purpose of discourse(discovery) in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.
2) Meaningful but not True: Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.
3) A Useful Fiction Not Open To Further Interpretation (Face Value): The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:
… Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of:
… of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.) Speakers attempt to preserve the use of Fictionalisms for one of the following possible reasons:
1) To obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 2) To preserve the sunk cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 3) To avoid the costs of reformation the method of decidability within their domains. 4) To avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. 5) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgments are truths. 6) To conduct frauds by using their arbitrary preferences or judgments for coercion or profit. And, of these groups:
0) Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism) 1) Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ), 2) Supernormal Physicists, and 3) Mathematical Platonists; All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons:
1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths. 2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains. 5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. And so:
If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and;
If we define Truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then:
We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.
We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.
Fictionalism is the name of the judgment within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make-believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”). Fictionalism consists of at least the following three theses:
1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be “truth-apt”; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.
2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:
Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of
Of our statements. (We white and grey lie all-time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.)
3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication, and communication by suggestion, with which anlogy is the necessary means of transfer of meaning. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.The Common occurrences of fictionalism are:
1) Mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)
2) Modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and;
3) Idealism (Platonist Fictionalism)
4) Moral Fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.
5) Religious Fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism.
6) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) We must note that all of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past. Positioning the Fictionalisms In Grammatical Context
|Fictions| Testimony > Narration > Story > Fiction > Fictionalism > Deception > Fraud A positive Fictionalism refers to those statements that appear to be descriptions of the real world (reality) but are cases of “make believe” – of pretending that a given useful fiction is other than just a useful fiction. A negative Fictionalism refers to the most successful means of deception (coercion) by loading, framing and overloading. Given our the methods of perception:
|Perception| Physical (sensory) > Intuitionistic (intuitionistic, emotional) > Mental (intellectual, reason) And the methods of inflating and conflating them:
|Fictionalisms| Magical (Technical, Physical) > Supernatural (Occult, Experiential) > Ideal (Intellectual, Verbal) We produce these common uses of Fictionalism:
1. Ideal (verbal, intellectual):
1) Mathematical Fictionalism, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)
2) Platonic Fictionalism (Idealism) which states that….
3) Rational Fictionalism (continental philosophy)
2. Magical (Physical, Technical):
4) Human Fictionalism (‘Denialism’) state that equality in all possible dimensions (a falsehood), is too necessary to throw out.
5) Modal Fictionalism developed by _________ which states that possible worlds, or multiple worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse.
6) Pseudosciences:
3. Supernormal (Imaginary, Experiential):
7) Moral Fictionalism in meta-ethics, suggests that fictions (falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.
8) Religious Fictionalism in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of Fictionalism are too useful, and somehow necessary to throw out.
9) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) are somehow necessary to escape reality, or fabricate a false version of it. We must note that all of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past, and failing to perform the cost of reformation of the terms, paradigms, and stories. Fictionalisms make use of three presumptions:
1) Communication of Meaning: The purpose of discourse(discovery) in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.
2) Meaningful but not True: Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.
3) A Useful Fiction Not Open To Further Interpretation (Face Value): The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:
… Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of:
… of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.) Speakers attempt to preserve the use of Fictionalisms for one of the following possible reasons:
1) To obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 2) To preserve the sunk cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 3) To avoid the costs of reformation the method of decidability within their domains. 4) To avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. 5) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgments are truths. 6) To conduct frauds by using their arbitrary preferences or judgments for coercion or profit. And, of these groups:
0) Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism) 1) Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ), 2) Supernormal Physicists, and 3) Mathematical Platonists; All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons:
1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths. 2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains. 5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. And so:
If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and;
If we define Truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then:
We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.
We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.
Summary: The liar’s paradox, like all paradoxes, and most if not all philosophical claims of depth, complexity, or undecidability consists of nothing but malformed statements in the grammar of continuous recursive disambiguation that violate the contract of suggestion (truthful speech) and due diligence against error, bias, and deceit, between speaker and audience. Given the Liar’s Paradox (And all the historical equivalents):
“[ everything in this box is false ]” 1. Langauge consists of “Incremental suggestion by Continuous Recursive Disambiguation”, and grammar the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. 2. The liar’s paradox is grammatically incorrect because it calls for recursion without supplying additional(continuous) information – in algorithmic logic this is called an infinite loop: a malformed statement that violates the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. 3. Human Cognition: Consists of the series: Sensation, Logic (constancy of relations in time frame), Predictive Memory (elements), Episodic Memory (location, place(space), direction, turn direction, head direction, eye direction, objects, landmarks, boundaries, exits), Auto-Association, Wayfinding (Recursion), Adversarial Prediction, Thalmic Awareness, Attention-Recursion, Choice, Action, Repeat (recurse). 4. Human Grammatical Capacity is just an application of the primitive hierarchy of movement: Continuous Recursive Disambiguation. 5. Human Speech consists of minor variations in phonetics and grammars of continuous recursive disambiguation. 6. Human Speech organized by Grammarof Continuous Recursive Disambiguation consists of Names(Referents), statements(transformations), sentences (transactions), narratives(ledgers), and consent/not(balances) in communication, with additional continuous recursive disambiguation as due diligence against error, bias, deceit both parties. 7. All Paradigms (disciplines) from logic and math to Ordinary Language to the fictionalisms (occult->theology, sophistry->idealism, magic-pseudoscience) consist of either deflationary elimination of dimensions of human perceptible constant relations or inflationary removal of constraints on observables open to human sense perception and increases in permissible dimensions of fictions. 8. Words don’t mean things people do. People fail to communicate, or we fail to interpret their failure of communication, or we err in interpretation. 9. The only intent (meaning) of a paradox is to deceive (or create an illusion) – because it was created by intent – just as are optical illusions. Humans find very few natural conditions that can ‘fool’ human sense perception for more than a few moments -including such complex imagery as zebras. 10. Success of these illusions that exploit human intuition is dependent on human ignorance of their construction. We can learn to detect and correct for them just as we can learn to detect and correct for mirages. 11. The example of the liar’s paradox illustrates operational (algorithmic) vs set logic and why the foundations of mathematics, philosophy, and the philosophy of language movements failed to produce the sciences they sought – and even physics to economics suffer from this continued failure. 12. I have been unable to discover any pretense of philosophical undecidability that isn’t a malformed statement (as in mathematical grammar), that violates a variation of the promise of continuous recursive disambiguation, producing a transaction for meaning plus due diligence. 13. We call this failure of the philosophical and logical movments ‘mathiness‘ or the failure to grasp the operational foundations of mathematics, vs the verbal, set, or symbolic reduction of mathematics for ease of human use. (In particular that the computational reducibility of mathematics is far smaller than the computational possibility of operations.) 14. The failure of thought leadership in western civilization in the 20th is due to the failure of Babbage (or his peers) to generalize his discovery of computation, allowing a century of innumeracy, sophistry, and pseudoscience, to crate what Hayek called ‘the new mysticism’. 15. It has taken the Turing revolution, the computational revolution, the neuroimaging revolution, and the AI revolution (and one simple insight of Chomsky’s application of Turning) to solve a problem that never should have occurred, and now we must reverse the better part of two centuries of sophistry and pseudoscience, producing a third scientific revolution that corrects them. [End of Document]
Summary: The liar’s paradox, like all paradoxes, and most if not all philosophical claims of depth, complexity, or undecidability consists of nothing but malformed statements in the grammar of continuous recursive disambiguation that violate the contract of suggestion (truthful speech) and due diligence against error, bias, and deceit, between speaker and audience. Given the Liar’s Paradox (And all the historical equivalents):
“[ everything in this box is false ]” 1. Langauge consists of “Incremental suggestion by Continuous Recursive Disambiguation”, and grammar the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. 2. The liar’s paradox is grammatically incorrect because it calls for recursion without supplying additional(continuous) information – in algorithmic logic this is called an infinite loop: a malformed statement that violates the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. 3. Human Cognition: Consists of the series: Sensation, Logic (constancy of relations in time frame), Predictive Memory (elements), Episodic Memory (location, place(space), direction, turn direction, head direction, eye direction, objects, landmarks, boundaries, exits), Auto-Association, Wayfinding (Recursion), Adversarial Prediction, Thalmic Awareness, Attention-Recursion, Choice, Action, Repeat (recurse). 4. Human Grammatical Capacity is just an application of the primitive hierarchy of movement: Continuous Recursive Disambiguation. 5. Human Speech consists of minor variations in phonetics and grammars of continuous recursive disambiguation. 6. Human Speech organized by Grammarof Continuous Recursive Disambiguation consists of Names(Referents), statements(transformations), sentences (transactions), narratives(ledgers), and consent/not(balances) in communication, with additional continuous recursive disambiguation as due diligence against error, bias, deceit both parties. 7. All Paradigms (disciplines) from logic and math to Ordinary Language to the fictionalisms (occult->theology, sophistry->idealism, magic-pseudoscience) consist of either deflationary elimination of dimensions of human perceptible constant relations or inflationary removal of constraints on observables open to human sense perception and increases in permissible dimensions of fictions. 8. Words don’t mean things people do. People fail to communicate, or we fail to interpret their failure of communication, or we err in interpretation. 9. The only intent (meaning) of a paradox is to deceive (or create an illusion) – because it was created by intent – just as are optical illusions. Humans find very few natural conditions that can ‘fool’ human sense perception for more than a few moments -including such complex imagery as zebras. 10. Success of these illusions that exploit human intuition is dependent on human ignorance of their construction. We can learn to detect and correct for them just as we can learn to detect and correct for mirages. 11. The example of the liar’s paradox illustrates operational (algorithmic) vs set logic and why the foundations of mathematics, philosophy, and the philosophy of language movements failed to produce the sciences they sought – and even physics to economics suffer from this continued failure. 12. I have been unable to discover any pretense of philosophical undecidability that isn’t a malformed statement (as in mathematical grammar), that violates a variation of the promise of continuous recursive disambiguation, producing a transaction for meaning plus due diligence. 13. We call this failure of the philosophical and logical movments ‘mathiness‘ or the failure to grasp the operational foundations of mathematics, vs the verbal, set, or symbolic reduction of mathematics for ease of human use. (In particular that the computational reducibility of mathematics is far smaller than the computational possibility of operations.) 14. The failure of thought leadership in western civilization in the 20th is due to the failure of Babbage (or his peers) to generalize his discovery of computation, allowing a century of innumeracy, sophistry, and pseudoscience, to crate what Hayek called ‘the new mysticism’. 15. It has taken the Turing revolution, the computational revolution, the neuroimaging revolution, and the AI revolution (and one simple insight of Chomsky’s application of Turning) to solve a problem that never should have occurred, and now we must reverse the better part of two centuries of sophistry and pseudoscience, producing a third scientific revolution that corrects them. [End of Document]
11. I have been unable to discover any pretense of philosophical undecidability that isn’t a malformed statement (as in mathematical grammar), that violates a variation of the promise of continuous recursive disambiguation, producing a transaction for meaning plus due diligence.
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 19:57:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383872238089228291
Reply addressees: @_notmo
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383871664203571202
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@_notmo 10. Which consists of Names(Referents), statements(transformations), sentences (transactions), narratives(ledgers), and consent/not(balances) in communication, with additional continjuous recursive disambiguation as due dilligence against error, bias, deceit both parties.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1383871664203571202
10. Which consists of Names(Referents), statements(transformations), sentences (transactions), narratives(ledgers), and consent/not(balances) in communication, with additional continjuous recursive disambiguation as due dilligence against error, bias, deceit both parties.
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 19:54:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383871664203571202
Reply addressees: @_notmo
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383529564601610244
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@_notmo Overly Simplified Version for Twitter:
1. Langauge consists of continuous recursive disambiguation, and grammar the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation.
2. It’s grammatically incorrect brecause it calls for recursion without supplying additional(continuous) information.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1383529564601610244
8. Grammatical Capability is just application of mind: Continuous recusrive dismbiguation.
9. Speech consists of minor variations in phonetics and grammar of continuous recursive disambiguation.
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 19:53:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383871297092866049
Reply addressees: @_notmo
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383529564601610244
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@_notmo Overly Simplified Version for Twitter:
1. Langauge consists of continuous recursive disambiguation, and grammar the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation.
2. It’s grammatically incorrect brecause it calls for recursion without supplying additional(continuous) information.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1383529564601610244
can you pls give me the same for tolerance vs forbearance?
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-18 19:24:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383864019111407623
Reply addressees: @LukeWeinhagen @juniorwolf @ThruTheHayes @G_Eats_Midwits
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383851962253209605
Logic(comparison)
Wayfinding(sequence)
Grammar(continuous recursive disambiguation)
Grammatically well formed names, statements, sentences(transactions).
Unambiguous, consitent, operational, rational, correspondent, parsimonious, fully accounted, coherent narratives(ledger).
Source date (UTC): 2021-04-17 21:20:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383530882397474817