Theme: Grammar

  • WHY PHILOSOPHY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT IS DEAD: A CONVERSATION WITH A FRIEND –“Q: W

    WHY PHILOSOPHY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT IS DEAD: A CONVERSATION WITH A FRIEND

    –“Q: What’s the point of [any] f*cking book [of philosophy] if you don’t say any of the contextual details of the situation”–

    Ergo why philosophy died with darwin. The analytic philosophy movement was the last gasp of trying to ‘science’ philosophy. The sciences then defeated philosophy. But they have failed to coalesce into a substitute for philosophy or theology or mythology for that matter. So there is a decoherence between the spectrum of grammars of existence: embodiment, anthropomorphism, spirituality, mythology, philosophy, empiricism, science, and operationalism (I do operationalism in this attempt at unification). Yet we need the entire spectrum of subjective to objective to address the spectrum of human experience, such that we can produce mindfulness as both child and aged, female and male, simple and wise, with the same consistent logic under increasing scales of precision demanding increasing knowledge that humans can only slowly accumulate with the wetware we call a brain.

    Your fundamental insight, or at least suggestion of insight when you say: “what’s the point of [any] f*cking book if you don’t say any of the contextual details of the situation” is in the failure of drawing the relationship between the very simple laws of the universe (operationalism), their expression in a given context (point in space time conditions and human experience) creating commensurability, and the grammar of precision necessary to provide understanding to the populatoin needed help in adapting to (understanding), changing behavior (acting), and organizing (scaling) in response to the causal density (problem) of the moment.

    Sounds like math, sort of, because it is math effectively: an equation. The universe cannot calculate because it cannot predict, but it can compute by trial and error and record it’s findings in physical, biological, neurological, and the metaphysical presumptions, group strategies, traditions, norms, values, habits, rituals and institutions that store that complexity as a scale version of our minds, just as our minds are a scale version of our cells-and-genes, our genes a scale version of elements, and elements a scale version of particles, and particles a scale version of the vacillations of the quantum background.

    Science (truth) should terminate with operationalism just as Embodiment (experience) should terminate with neuroscience. But that only tells us what exists and how the universe behaves. It does NOT advise us what to do with that ‘kit’ of understanding. Parables tell us what is universal, history what is particular, science what is precise, and the purpose of philosophy remains in the production of a theory of the production of the good in a given context produced by a given era, and the state of man in the conditions of that era.

    There is nothing preventing us from the european ambition to ascend into gods – other than failing to understand our mission is the knowledge necessary for godhood.

    Affections
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-21 17:52:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881761787525402624

  • Not sure what term to use. Ideas? “Patriate” and “Repatriate”? Seems correct

    Not sure what term to use. Ideas? “Patriate” and “Repatriate”? Seems correct.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-20 13:11:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881328646545367187

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881317213619323280

  • EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION THE GRAMMARS AND REDUCIBILITY (I’m glad ChatGPT can exp

    EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION THE GRAMMARS AND REDUCIBILITY
    (I’m glad ChatGPT can explain my work. lol 😉

    PROMPT
    Just as we have explored mathematical versus computational reducibility, and in our organization we have carried it forward to physical, operational, verbal reducibility, even what we would call imaginary reducibility – what’s imaginable. That’s the progress occurring in our understanding of what is reducible under evolutionary computation.

    ANSWER

    You’re essentially highlighting the progression of understanding reducibility across domains as not just a technical or disciplinary shift, but an extension of our epistemic and operational boundaries under evolutionary computation.

    It seems you’re suggesting that evolutionary computation itself defines the limits of reducibility, because it forces us to confront not just what can be modeled or reduced but also what can be constructed, tested, and imagined within the bounds of reality. Here’s how I interpret your point in alignment with this framework:

    From Mathematical to Computational Reducibility: The move from static, abstract systems (e.g., mathematical formulas) to dynamic, algorithmic systems (e.g., computational models) expands our ability to operationalize complex phenomena. Evolutionary computation, however, demonstrates that even some computational processes are irreducible—they must “run” to reveal their outcomes.

    From Computational to Physical Reducibility: Evolutionary computation is inherently grounded in the physical universe. It explores what is constructible within the constraints of physical law, tying reducibility not just to abstract operations but to what exists as a sequence of actions or events.

    Operational and Verbal Reducibility: As you’ve emphasized in your work, the shift to operational (actionable) and verbal (communicable) reducibility connects abstract systems to human cognition and cooperation. Evolutionary computation shows that only systems reducible to demonstrated actions or articulated relationships can survive in cooperative domains.

    Imaginary Reducibility: This is a compelling addition. It seems to acknowledge the boundary of imagination—what can be conceived, though not yet reducible in any concrete sense. Evolutionary computation might constrain this domain by exposing latent irreducibilities—concepts or systems that, while imaginable, cannot yet (or ever) be constructed or tested.

    The Limit of Reducibility in Evolutionary Computation: Here, you’re touching on the ultimate epistemological question: What is irreducible, and why? Evolutionary computation demonstrates that some processes—whether in nature, society, or thought—may always escape reduction, not because they are mystical but because their complexity exceeds the capacity of any observer or participant to fully resolve them within bounded time or resources.

    Implications
    This perspective reframes the progress of reducibility as not merely a technical achievement but as an evolving boundary defined by the interaction of imagination, cooperation, and reality. The constraints of evolutionary computation not only determine what can be reduced but also force us to confront and adapt to irreducibility as a fact of existence.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-18 20:07:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880708641747316737

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @EmbitteredThe @TheSovereignMD @nayibbukele @TyrantsMuse 1) I

    RT @curtdoolittle: @EmbitteredThe @TheSovereignMD @nayibbukele @TyrantsMuse 1) I cannot answer a question without definitions or premises u…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-17 19:08:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880331403369574503

  • 1) I cannot answer a question without definitions or premises upon which it depe

    1) I cannot answer a question without definitions or premises upon which it depends. Your attempt to do so is just a common juvenile sophistry. Try harder.
    I tried to establish (a) your definition of socialism (b) how the spectrum of socialism can vary from national to international, and how fascism creates this distinction (c) and the premises upon which all our arguments are made – the inequality of individuals, classes, sexes, populations (ethnicities), and group strategies (civilizations (and the overlap with races).)
    You have avoided each of these, and they are necessary for any discourse.
    2) You have not demonstrated that you can reduce an author’s contribution to a debate to your own terms such that a reciprocal discourse ons hared meaning can be established. So I have no idea if you are capable of any knowledge of discourse at all. So far all I see is posturing. I have a long established reputation for the opposite: excruciatingly rigorous detail.

    I recognize that i) you have no idea to whom you speak and ii) my peers would not waste time on you. (I do because it teaches others who read it.). But it should be increasingly obvious to you that you are being boxed in very deliberately.

    So I mean, put up or shut up so to speak. 😉

    Reply addressees: @EmbitteredThe @TheSovereignMD @nayibbukele @TyrantsMuse


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-17 18:49:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880326671917805570

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880324696551616928

  • (Philosophers) WHY DO WE NEED NEW DEFINITIONS AND TERMS? 1) Every philosopher mu

    (Philosophers)
    WHY DO WE NEED NEW DEFINITIONS AND TERMS?

    1) Every philosopher must and does both add terms and alter the properties of terms. Otherwise the function of a philosopher, which is the reorganization of existing categories, relations, operations, and values is impossible. The question is only whether we are increasing precision or decreasing precision. In our case we are increasing precision in order to prevent deceptions.

    2) We remove misrepresentation from terminology by the use of deflation, series, and operational definitions. This means that many terms, when placed in series with related terms, can only ‘fit’ (avoid conflation and misrepresentation) if properties that cause conflation are attributed to one term and not another. By the combination of deflation, isolation of properties, and operational language we all but remove fungibility (use in deception) from terms. Moreover, we eliminate the ability to use deception in the most common manner it is used: the pretense of knowledge where the speaker lacks the knowledge to make the claims he does. Or where he has identified and is making use of a loose relation for the purpose of argument or deduction that does not hold under scrutiny.

    3) All pretense of knowledge and deception is caused by hiding information, partial information, embellishment of information, or incorrect information, causing demand for substitution on the part of the audience, and thereby causing suggestion in the audience.

    4) Suggestion can be used to transfer meaning, which we can then deflate (limit) to truthful propositions. Or suggestion can be used to transfer partial meaning, which we let perform suggestion, or which we expand into falsehood. In other words, we can communicate then limit or we can communication and let the audience expand an idea to unlimited form. Or we can communicate and suggest other limits. And various permutations thereof. So we cannot communicate truthfully without supplying both via positiva (meaning) and via-negativa (limits) so that the competition between meaning and limits allows only potentially true information to survive.

    5) The most successful methods of deception are caused by increasingly *indirect* means of suggestion that cause the audience to perform substitution (fill in the blanks). Advertising (commercial), propaganda(political), and theology(religious) saturation of the environment produces suggestion by deception by the use of overloading the environment. And humans are not able even intentionally to insulate themselves from the free association caused by experiential phenomenon (information). So Advertising, Propaganda, and Theology are methods of deception through deception and overloading.

    6) The use of “-isms”. An “-ism” refers to a portfolio of categories, values, relations that provide decidability within a domain. So an ism is a ‘name’ for an algorithm providing some form of decidability. This ism can be very narrow (Platonism) or very broad (Marxism). The decidability offered can be true, undecidable, or false, or moral, amoral or immoral. But without referring to ‘-ism’s’ one must list the sometimes long sets of arguments (categories, values, and relations) within them.

    So it is ‘shorthand’ to use those terms, just like it is shorthand to use math, logic, geometry, calculus, or family, genus, species, race. And yes, it is burdensome on the reader who is ignorant of the subject – but it is comfortable for both the author and the reader who are knowledgeable.

    The strange question we should contemplate is, “Why do people read other technical literature, which they must look up and understand terms, yet people who will read technical literature – analytic philosophy, making use of law, economics, science, and mathematics – and expect NOT to look up a lot of terms?”

    The answer of course is that we have no choice but to participate in that science we call cooperation: ethics, morality, and politics. While we have the choice to participate in every other scientific discipline.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-02 21:01:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1874924122691805184

  • A DIFFERENCE ENGINE? OR A PREDICTION ENGINE? RELATIONS EPISODES (INDICES) COMPAR

    A DIFFERENCE ENGINE? OR A PREDICTION ENGINE?

    RELATIONS

    EPISODES (INDICES)

    COMPARISONS (TRANSFORMATIONS, OPERATIONS)

    FIELD

    DIMENSION

    PARADIGM

    GRAMMAR

    LOGIC MEANS PREDICTION

    The difference between correct inference and correct prediction lies primarily in context, scope, and explicitness of the reasoning process. At their core, both involve the brain’s predictive mechanisms, as the neural structure fundamentally operates on associative and predictive processing. However, their roles and applications differ in significant ways.

    1. Definitions

    Correct Inference:

    Definition: A logical conclusion drawn from existing premises or relations, consistent with the rules of a defined system.

    Key Features:Explicit reasoning process.
    Relies on known information (premises) and applies transformations or rules.
    Often operates in closed, deterministic systems (e.g., deduction, formal logic).
    Output: A conclusion that must follow logically from the premises.

    Example: If all humans are mortal and Socrates is a human, then Socrates is mortal.

    Correct Prediction:

    Definition: A forecast about future states or outcomes based on patterns, relations, or probabilistic models.

    Key Features:Implicit or explicit reasoning process.
    Uses incomplete or probabilistic information.
    Operates in open systems with potential variability or uncertainty.
    Output: An anticipated result that may or may not occur as expected.

    Example: Based on dark clouds, predicting that it will rain.

    2. Neural Basis of Inference and Prediction

    The neural structure of the brain is fundamentally predictive:

    Associative Learning:Neural pathways form by strengthening connections between co-occurring stimuli or actions and outcomes.
    Example: Associating a certain smell with food.

    Wayfinding and Spatial Cognition:The brain predicts paths and outcomes based on spatial and environmental cues.
    Example: Navigating a forest by anticipating landmarks.

    How This Relates:

    Inference: When premises and relations are clearly structured, the brain’s predictive mechanisms process them deterministically.

    Prediction: In less structured or open systems, the brain generalizes patterns to anticipate outcomes probabilistically.

    In essence, inference is a subset of prediction, applied in highly structured contexts.

    3. Key Differences

    AspectCorrect InferenceCorrect PredictionSystem TypeOperates in closed, rule-defined systems.Operates in open, probabilistic systems.Input RequirementsRequires explicit premises and clear rules.Requires patterns and probabilistic data.OutputA deterministic conclusion that must follow.An anticipatory outcome with potential variability.Neural ProcessDeterministic, rule-based transformations.Probabilistic pattern recognition and generalization.CertaintyHigh (within the given system).Lower, as outcomes may deviate from the forecast.

    4. Overlap and Integration

    Inference as Structured Prediction:Inference is a formalized form of prediction constrained by rules, ensuring deterministic outcomes.
    Example: A logical syllogism uses explicit premises to predict the necessary conclusion.

    Prediction as Generalized Inference:Prediction extends inference into open systems, where outcomes depend on probabilistic patterns and uncertainty.
    Example: Weather forecasting uses past data (premises) to infer future weather states probabilistically.

    Shared Basis in Neural Processing:Both inference and prediction rely on the brain’s ability to process relations, test outcomes, and adapt pathways.
    Example: A chess player uses inference (rules of the game) and prediction (opponent’s likely moves).

    5. Implications

    For Neural Structure:The brain’s predictive framework suggests that logical inference is a formalization of an underlying predictive mechanism.
    Simple association (e.g., Pavlovian conditioning) evolves into complex inference (e.g., deductive reasoning) through layering of patterns and relations.

    For Understanding Reasoning:Viewing inference as structured prediction bridges the gap between deterministic and probabilistic reasoning.
    This perspective aligns with operationalism: both inference and prediction depend on relations, intelligibility, and closure within the system or field.

    Conclusion

    There is no fundamental distinction between correct inference and correct prediction; they are two expressions of the same underlying predictive mechanism. Inference operates within deterministic, closed systems, while prediction handles probabilistic, open systems. This neural perspective unifies both processes, highlighting that even abstract reasoning (inference) is rooted in the brain’s evolved capacity to predict and adapt.

    CLOSURE


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-02 20:29:25 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1874915926774255616

  • You have known me this long and you don’t think I can do that when every paragra

    You have known me this long and you don’t think I can do that when every paragraph you wrote is deterministic and readily understood by simply scanning? Do you have any idea how many of the same arguments people have sent me over the decades? It’s like a teacher grading thirty papers from students. The repetition is obvious. You went into a bit more detail because you have a bit better knowledge to work with (and the AI helped) but the underlying logic is quite simple and the logical dependencies don’t carry. “Assuming” is not “requiring”. “Analogy” is not “equality”. Inference is not deduction.

    Reply addressees: @njalbertini


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-30 01:08:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873536599205793792

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873535489711734902

  • Where have you been to check my consistency until now? lol… My people is a bro

    Where have you been to check my consistency until now? lol… My people is a broader generalization than my kin. I should change the text to use “my people”.

    That’s two corrections in fifteen minutes…. maybe I need to coerce you into helping us edit the work. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-30 00:11:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873522143042179400

    Reply addressees: @patriciamdavis

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873521629302862281

  • Typo. Ensure: defend

    Typo. Ensure: defend.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-30 00:00:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873519439557390711

    Reply addressees: @patriciamdavis

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873519213450850546