Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • that associate fragments of disambiguated sense-perception into episodes. 17) pr

    … that associate fragments of disambiguated sense-perception into episodes. 17) problem in this paradigm is that it is trying to create a discipline that is just language facility, and discontinuous. 18) There is no limit to set size indexed, only increase in generalization.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 06:34:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173485259243044864

    Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173483866935480320

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Semiogogue 15) signs are evidence of action (change in state). how do geological differences, animal scent markers, human mark making differ (intent, choice). 16) space is correct, since all memories are associated by spatio-temporal indices, and it is these space,location,time indices…

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173483866935480320

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Semiogogue 15) signs are evidence of action (change in state). how do geological differences, animal scent markers, human mark making differ (intent, choice). 16) space is correct, since all memories are associated by spatio-temporal indices, and it is these space,location,time indices…

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173483866935480320

  • 11) In art we study “mark-making”. 12) there is a relationship between illiterac

    11) In art we study “mark-making”. 12) there is a relationship between illiteracy and symbolism because of costs 13) Logos(Brands) are decorative standard of weight and measure 14) we are visually dominant, but 20% of people have no internal vision same for internal voice.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 06:25:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173483033510469632

    Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173482105235542018

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Semiogogue 9) economics of signs precision increases cost of learning, generalization and imprecision decreases 10) we use symbols, glyphs, and signals today to demarcate between philosophy (pseudoscience – arbitrary paradigm) and science (constant paradigm as a system of measure.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173482105235542018

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Semiogogue 9) economics of signs precision increases cost of learning, generalization and imprecision decreases 10) we use symbols, glyphs, and signals today to demarcate between philosophy (pseudoscience – arbitrary paradigm) and science (constant paradigm as a system of measure.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173482105235542018

  • 9) economics of signs precision increases cost of learning, generalization and i

    9) economics of signs precision increases cost of learning, generalization and imprecision decreases 10) we use symbols, glyphs, and signals today to demarcate between philosophy (pseudoscience – arbitrary paradigm) and science (constant paradigm as a system of measure.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 06:21:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173482105235542018

    Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173481447119888385

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Semiogogue 5) signs compete in a market of competing paradigms. 6) paradigms need not be consistent nor correspondent, only associative, indexing a narrative or it’s elements. 7) signs hide ignorance under pretense of knowledge. 8) language facility is not vocalization dependent.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173481447119888385

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Semiogogue 5) signs compete in a market of competing paradigms. 6) paradigms need not be consistent nor correspondent, only associative, indexing a narrative or it’s elements. 7) signs hide ignorance under pretense of knowledge. 8) language facility is not vocalization dependent.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173481447119888385

  • 5) signs compete in a market of competing paradigms. 6) paradigms need not be co

    5) signs compete in a market of competing paradigms. 6) paradigms need not be consistent nor correspondent, only associative, indexing a narrative or it’s elements. 7) signs hide ignorance under pretense of knowledge. 8) language facility is not vocalization dependent.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 06:19:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173481447119888385

    Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173480946634502144

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Semiogogue 1) Indices 2) We remember novelties, novelties with more associations. 3)Trying to justify the frame and rationalist interpretation of it rather than the science. 4)Inventory and categorize signs and symbols as indices to narrative components instead.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173480946634502144

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Semiogogue 1) Indices 2) We remember novelties, novelties with more associations. 3)Trying to justify the frame and rationalist interpretation of it rather than the science. 4)Inventory and categorize signs and symbols as indices to narrative components instead.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173480946634502144

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/69993107_466697960593766_42629825242

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/69993107_466697960593766_42629825242

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/69993107_466697960593766_4262982524222832640_n_466697957260433.jpg PATTERN EMERGING

    (to expand, see grid cells, location cells etc)

    —“…when there are four choices, a quantum search can distinguish between four alternatives in a single step. Indeed, four is optimal number.

    This thinking also explains why there are 20 amino acids. In DNA, each set of three nucleotides defines a single amino acid. So the sequence of triplets in DNA defines the sequence of amino acids in a protein.

    But during protein assembly, each amino acid must be chosen from a soup of 20 different options. Grover’s algorithm explains these numbers: a three-step quantum search can find an object in a database containing up to 20 kinds of entry. Again, 20 is the optimal number.

    In other words, if the search processes involved in assembling DNA and proteins is to be as efficient as possible, the number of bases should be four and the number of amino acids should to be 20—exactly as is found. The only caveat is that the searches must be quantum in nature.”—PATTERN EMERGING

    (to expand, see grid cells, location cells etc)

    —“…when there are four choices, a quantum search can distinguish between four alternatives in a single step. Indeed, four is optimal number.

    This thinking also explains why there are 20 amino acids. In DNA, each set of three nucleotides defines a single amino acid. So the sequence of triplets in DNA defines the sequence of amino acids in a protein.

    But during protein assembly, each amino acid must be chosen from a soup of 20 different options. Grover’s algorithm explains these numbers: a three-step quantum search can find an object in a database containing up to 20 kinds of entry. Again, 20 is the optimal number.

    In other words, if the search processes involved in assembling DNA and proteins is to be as efficient as possible, the number of bases should be four and the number of amino acids should to be 20—exactly as is found. The only caveat is that the searches must be quantum in nature.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 03:01:00 UTC

  • Sophists, nearly all.

    It’s exasperating. Continentals are secular theologians at best. But even analytic philosophers are mostly sophists. Try to explain that the logics are falsificationary not justificationary. Ask them to try to prove something non trivial. Heads explode. Better, try “The liar’s paradox isn’t, it’s just a sophism of grammar using the copula in an incomplete sentence.” In fact, ask them to state any difficult philosophical question without using the verb to be, in a complete sentence, in operational language. Oops. Sophisms all. Very frustrating for philosophers playing cunning word games to realize that (a) almost all supposedly complex questions are merely errors in grammar, and (b) there is no closure available to the logics, (c) the logics are purely falsificationary – just like the sciences.

  • Sophists, nearly all.

    It’s exasperating. Continentals are secular theologians at best. But even analytic philosophers are mostly sophists. Try to explain that the logics are falsificationary not justificationary. Ask them to try to prove something non trivial. Heads explode. Better, try “The liar’s paradox isn’t, it’s just a sophism of grammar using the copula in an incomplete sentence.” In fact, ask them to state any difficult philosophical question without using the verb to be, in a complete sentence, in operational language. Oops. Sophisms all. Very frustrating for philosophers playing cunning word games to realize that (a) almost all supposedly complex questions are merely errors in grammar, and (b) there is no closure available to the logics, (c) the logics are purely falsificationary – just like the sciences.

  • Very frustrating for philosophers playing cunning word games to realize that (a)

    Very frustrating for philosophers playing cunning word games to realize that (a) almost all supposedly complex questions are merely errors in grammar, and (b) there is no closure available to the logics, (c) the logics are purely falsificationary – just like the sciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-10 21:47:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171540783494656000

    Reply addressees: @StefanMolyneux @THEWRENCHLEFT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171540362231332864

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @StefanMolyneux @THEWRENCHLEFT Better, try “The liar’s paradox isn’t, it’s just a sophism of grammar using the copula in an incomplete sentence.” In fact, ask them to state any difficult philosophical question without using the verb to be, in a complete sentence, in operational language. Oops. Sophisms all.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1171540362231332864

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @StefanMolyneux @THEWRENCHLEFT Better, try “The liar’s paradox isn’t, it’s just a sophism of grammar using the copula in an incomplete sentence.” In fact, ask them to state any difficult philosophical question without using the verb to be, in a complete sentence, in operational language. Oops. Sophisms all.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1171540362231332864

  • Better, try “The liar’s paradox isn’t, it’s just a sophism of grammar using the

    Better, try “The liar’s paradox isn’t, it’s just a sophism of grammar using the copula in an incomplete sentence.” In fact, ask them to state any difficult philosophical question without using the verb to be, in a complete sentence, in operational language. Oops. Sophisms all.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-10 21:46:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171540362231332864

    Reply addressees: @StefanMolyneux @THEWRENCHLEFT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171539094779772928

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @StefanMolyneux @THEWRENCHLEFT It’s exasperating. Continentals are secular theologians at best. But even analytic philosophers are mostly sophists. Try to explain that the logics are falsificationary not justificationary. Ask them to try to prove something non trivial. Heads explode.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1171539094779772928

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @StefanMolyneux @THEWRENCHLEFT It’s exasperating. Continentals are secular theologians at best. But even analytic philosophers are mostly sophists. Try to explain that the logics are falsificationary not justificationary. Ask them to try to prove something non trivial. Heads explode.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1171539094779772928

  • It’s exasperating. Continentals are secular theologians at best. But even analyt

    It’s exasperating. Continentals are secular theologians at best. But even analytic philosophers are mostly sophists. Try to explain that the logics are falsificationary not justificationary. Ask them to try to prove something non trivial. Heads explode.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-10 21:41:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171539094779772928

    Reply addressees: @StefanMolyneux @THEWRENCHLEFT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171077393609633792

    IN REPLY TO:

    @StefanMolyneux

    It will come as no shock that this philosophy professor @THEWRENCHLEFT, after publicly attacking me, ran away from my debate challenge.

    Academics are mostly the new sophists, the ancient foes of Socrates.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171077393609633792