Russell’s paradox isn’t. There aren’t any. Every single proposed paradox consists of a grammatically incorrect statement. There is little profundity in the world that isn’t rather obviously sensible.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-15 13:11:00 UTC
Russell’s paradox isn’t. There aren’t any. Every single proposed paradox consists of a grammatically incorrect statement. There is little profundity in the world that isn’t rather obviously sensible.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-15 13:11:00 UTC
SMALL THINGS MAKE VAST DIFFERENCES
The vast difference between european decidability (k/Masculine: Tell) and semitic (r/Feminine: Sell) reasonableness. What you solve for determines what you solve.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-15 10:21:00 UTC
Aware of each other. My view: same ideas,expressed as Continental (Literary-moral) vs Anglo (Sci.-legal).
I can’t do what Nick does or any continental(literary) thinker- and lack his wit. It reaches far more people. It explains more. (But no one else does what I do:decidability.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-13 18:13:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1205551356632809472
Reply addressees: @_JJ_14 @Outsideness
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1205549999658012672
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/1205549999658012672
Like any formal discipline we use a vocabulary and a logic, and in our case an operational rather than set logic. And where you are used to moral language we use economic and legal. Most of the ‘difficulty’ is the vocabulary, which is (very) precise. So it *IS* hard to follow. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-08 18:39:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1203745815648493574
Reply addressees: @Doxcazi @JFGariepy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1203722209589522433
IN REPLY TO:
@Doxcazi
@curtdoolittle @JFGariepy I can’t really follow but I’ll like it anyways
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1203722209589522433
Explanation: In P-law we use categorize “Psychologisms” within the deceit of “Critique” (meaning ‘undermining in lieu of argument’). All human behavior is expressible in value neutral economic terms, and all Psychologisms are deceits: female means of undermining to avoid truth. https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1203567751450812418
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-08 12:58:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1203660032275107841
–“Domestication isn’t defined the way you just defined it.”–
As socrates said “define your terms”. A term must only be consistent with the use as the speaker defines it. We can use “Domestication” (reproductive selection) or the more unpleasant term “Genetic Pacification” (law, war). The truth is that we use both Domestication and Genetic Pacification. And the unpleasant truth is that
Different fields use the same terms differently. Colloquial speaking people conflate them because they lack the specialized knowledge of those fields. A common series I deal with daily is {reason, rationalism, and logic}.
So, in science, domestication of plants, animals, and man, refers to the same process: making useful (cooperative) with man, by breeding favorable traits and unfavorable traits. At present our understanding is driven by Soviet Scientist Dmitry Belyaev, and his demonstration that foxes could be domesticated in under ten generations.
When we study this process what do we find? We find that we are breeding for the extension of youth, where plants grow, and animals grow, but neither achieves early or FULL maturity. In animals this reduces the impulse to fight, so that the brain can continue to develop.
What does it develop instead of impulse? It maintains the socialization of youth, and gains agency over the self (consciousness, patience, and conscientiousness).
So we are using the term as it is used in science. Humans domesticated themselves, plants, and animals – and some of us domesticated other peoples (and frankly are still trying but failing to do so).
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-07 09:33:00 UTC
Followup: Everyday language is WRONG or it wouldn’t need reorganization. So, it’s like asking me to state science in theological prose. It can’t be done. The purpose of philosophy is to REORGANIZE the common paradigms in response to scientific innovation: To adapt. It’s work.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-06 14:12:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1202954076574670854
Reply addressees: @StanGalerius
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1202952765778980864
IN REPLY TO:
@StanGalerius
@curtdoolittle Structured in every day language, would spread the word further.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1202952765778980864
When combined with 1) promissory form, 2) ePrime (prohibition on the verb to-be), 3) Operational prose, and 4) complete sentences, we have nearly geometric precision in our language. Add Reciprocity and Property-in-toto and you have value neutral language across all disciplines.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-04 17:27:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1202278369657786369
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1202278368693149697
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
In P-law (P-grammars, P-Testimonialism) we use serialization and operationalization to produce semantic disambiguation, and convert a complex language like english to a system of measurement free of ambiguity and therefore limiting errors of equivalence and inference.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1202278368693149697
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
In P-law (P-grammars, P-Testimonialism) we use serialization and operationalization to produce semantic disambiguation, and convert a complex language like english to a system of measurement free of ambiguity and therefore limiting errors of equivalence and inference.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1202278368693149697
In P-law (P-grammars, P-Testimonialism) we use serialization and operationalization to produce semantic disambiguation, and convert a complex language like english to a system of measurement free of ambiguity and therefore limiting errors of equivalence and inference.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-04 17:27:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1202278368693149697
In P-law (P-grammars, P-Testimonialism) we use serialization and operationalization to produce semantic disambiguation, and convert a complex language like english to a system of measurement free of ambiguity and therefore limiting errors of equivalence and inference.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-04 17:25:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1202277747437064193
Reply addressees: @nosilverv @zbingledack
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1202277136754712579
IN REPLY TO:
@nosilverv
@zbingledack @curtdoolittle We do recognize by utility, and language shows the lines along which a society has divided up thingspace by utility. As such, insofar as your utility function is in line with society, language will serve as a good guide; insofar as it differs YOU NEED THE RECTIFICATION OF NAMES
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1202277136754712579