Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • ONCE YOU SEE IT YOU CAN’T UNSEE IT 1 ) Via Positiva vs Via Negativa 2 ) Additive

    ONCE YOU SEE IT YOU CAN’T UNSEE IT

    1 ) Via Positiva vs Via Negativa

    2 ) Additive vs Subtractive

    3 ) Reason vs Science

    4 ) Logic vs Correspondence

    5 ) Rationalism vs Empiricism

    6 ) Justification vs Falsification

    7 ) (((Pilpul vs Critique)))

    8 ) (((Marxism))) vs Postmodernism

    9 ) (((Abrahamism))) vs Natural Law

    10) Conflation vs Deconflation

    11) Ambiguation vs Disambiguation

    It’s:

    Pilpul Via-Positiva Justification (deception)

    -vs-

    Critique via Negativa Falsification (deception).

    The invention of lying through loading, framing, overloading,

    and suggestion under cover of appeals to reasonableness,

    rather than Truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-30 14:38:00 UTC

  • NOTES: Constant vs contingent vs inconsistent vs non-relations. Recursive Contin

    NOTES:

    Constant vs contingent vs inconsistent vs non-relations.

    Recursive Continuous Disambiguation vs Scale of Set of Constant Relations(density)

    Cumulation of association vs falsification of associations

    Computational efficiency.

    State Persistence vs breadth search, vs depth search

    We cannot know the intelligence of distant ancestors.

    Planning a series of steps in sequence must emerge – which requires recursion.

    Consciousness must emerge, meaning, the ability to compare states.

    Cooperation must emerge, meaning, the ability to empathize with intent.

    At some point we must develop sufficient computational ability to manipulate our bodies in some way that allows for unambiguous communication, or a means of continuous disambiguation, that is fast enough for one another to make use of in real time, and easy enough for one another to retain.

    And at some point, given sufficient computational ability, memory, and state persistence independent of recursion, language must emerge.

    At some point the value of such communication much be such that the cost of it is offset by the rewards of it.

    And we should see a cliff in history where there is a dramatic change when we did develop those abilities. And we do see it – rather recently.

    But language requires a system of measurement. The system of measurement is limited by our senses. And as such meaning refers to a set of measurements, eventually reducible to analogies to human experience.

    So while semantic content (measurements) must vary from species to species, grammar (continuous recursive disambiguation) should be universal in the sense that it varies predictably with computational abilities.

    We can understand a child, a person with 60IQ, 70IQ and so on, up to 200+ IQ. But as far as I can tell the set of measurements (basis of semantics) remain the same, and all that changes is the scope of the state persisted, the depth of recursion, and the density and distance of relations, and the ability to model (forecast). In other words, simple people are in fact simply ‘more simple’ in the density of content of their semantics, use of grammar, and models (Stories) that they can construct with them.

    So universal grammar as a set of computational minimums and efficiencies, should always exist, and human universal grammar as universal grammar limited to human measurements (semantics), does exist. And any organism with sufficient computational (neural) capacity, should develop some means of communication using some variation of universal grammar, and some sense-perception – action dependent semantics.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-29 16:28:00 UTC

  • Will Aliens Use the Same Grammar?

    (and thus be comprehensible?) Um. I don’t think they’ll be different, for reasons I hope to publish this year. Although there is a substantial difference… Chomsky can take 40 minutes to communicate an idea, and if you look at his sentence structure and vocabulary it’s extraordinary. I cannot match Chomsky’s context-retention during his discourses. This is how I know he’s smarter than I am. His ability to ‘maintain state’ while communicating complex relations and stories is exceptional. Despite working at it terribly hard, I find ‘simplification’ extremely difficult, and I find I use a variation on latin grammar, more 19th century sentence structure, and overwhelm the audience very easily with content. If you listen to young adults they often have trouble forming complete sentences, paragraphs, and narratives with any degree of precision (they require shared context). Some people (me when I was younger) and many people in the tech field for example, speak very very fast with very high word counts. Some people cannot manage that at all. Some people use large vocabularies to concentrate more content in fewer words while preserving or increasing precision. Some groups use terms (english, german) and some tones (chinese). Where terms are more precise because they are less demanding of deduction. Some groups use (awful) high context grammar, and some low context grammar. It appears that once you develop the ability to communicate in language all that matters is the increasing content and precision of that communication method. So we evolved from simple vocal sounds serialized. Others might evolved from parallel tones. Maybe others from some other form of display. Language must at least originate with analogy to experience, so its possible that creatures with different senses or processing (octopods) might use analogies that took us time to decode. So if you look across just that set of dimensions you can imagine that some very smart species would speak very quickly, in very precise very dense grammar, with a very large vocabulary, with long sentences (transactions), and long narratives, in serial (informationally limited) or more parallel (informationally dense) means. And thisso their context retention ability and processing ability would be higher than ours. That said, for reasons that chomsky defends his universal grammar (and for the same reasons that while base number would change and the vocabulary will change, all mathematical systems would be the same) Once you grasp that the term ‘grammar’ means ‘continuous disambiguation’, but that actions in the real world cause languages to eventually converge on the descriptive through nothing other than competition, then This continuous disambiguation is important because it corresponds to falsification (eliminative), just as continuous construction correspondes to justificationism (cumulative). And as such it turns out that since falsehood has a higher truth content than truth claims, the via negativa of continuous disambiguation is the counter intuitive but descriptive and necessary means of communication of truth content. (Apologies if this is too dense an argument.)

  • Will Aliens Use the Same Grammar?

    (and thus be comprehensible?) Um. I don’t think they’ll be different, for reasons I hope to publish this year. Although there is a substantial difference… Chomsky can take 40 minutes to communicate an idea, and if you look at his sentence structure and vocabulary it’s extraordinary. I cannot match Chomsky’s context-retention during his discourses. This is how I know he’s smarter than I am. His ability to ‘maintain state’ while communicating complex relations and stories is exceptional. Despite working at it terribly hard, I find ‘simplification’ extremely difficult, and I find I use a variation on latin grammar, more 19th century sentence structure, and overwhelm the audience very easily with content. If you listen to young adults they often have trouble forming complete sentences, paragraphs, and narratives with any degree of precision (they require shared context). Some people (me when I was younger) and many people in the tech field for example, speak very very fast with very high word counts. Some people cannot manage that at all. Some people use large vocabularies to concentrate more content in fewer words while preserving or increasing precision. Some groups use terms (english, german) and some tones (chinese). Where terms are more precise because they are less demanding of deduction. Some groups use (awful) high context grammar, and some low context grammar. It appears that once you develop the ability to communicate in language all that matters is the increasing content and precision of that communication method. So we evolved from simple vocal sounds serialized. Others might evolved from parallel tones. Maybe others from some other form of display. Language must at least originate with analogy to experience, so its possible that creatures with different senses or processing (octopods) might use analogies that took us time to decode. So if you look across just that set of dimensions you can imagine that some very smart species would speak very quickly, in very precise very dense grammar, with a very large vocabulary, with long sentences (transactions), and long narratives, in serial (informationally limited) or more parallel (informationally dense) means. And thisso their context retention ability and processing ability would be higher than ours. That said, for reasons that chomsky defends his universal grammar (and for the same reasons that while base number would change and the vocabulary will change, all mathematical systems would be the same) Once you grasp that the term ‘grammar’ means ‘continuous disambiguation’, but that actions in the real world cause languages to eventually converge on the descriptive through nothing other than competition, then This continuous disambiguation is important because it corresponds to falsification (eliminative), just as continuous construction correspondes to justificationism (cumulative). And as such it turns out that since falsehood has a higher truth content than truth claims, the via negativa of continuous disambiguation is the counter intuitive but descriptive and necessary means of communication of truth content. (Apologies if this is too dense an argument.)

  • WILL ALIENS USE THE SAME GRAMMAR? (and thus be comprehensible?) Um. I don’t thin

    WILL ALIENS USE THE SAME GRAMMAR?

    (and thus be comprehensible?)

    Um. I don’t think they’ll be different, for reasons I hope to publish this year. Although there is a substantial difference…

    Chomsky can take 40 minutes to communicate an idea, and if you look at his sentence structure and vocabulary it’s extraordinary. I cannot match Chomsky’s context-retention during his discourses. This is how I know he’s smarter than I am. His ability to ‘maintain state’ while communicating complex relations and stories is exceptional.

    Despite working at it terribly hard, I find ‘simplification’ extremely difficult, and I find I use a variation on latin grammar, more 19th century sentence structure, and overwhelm the audience very easily with content.

    If you listen to young adults they often have trouble forming complete sentences, paragraphs, and narratives with any degree of precision (they require shared context).

    Some people (me when I was younger) and many people in the tech field for example, speak very very fast with very high word counts. Some people cannot manage that at all.

    Some people use large vocabularies to concentrate more content in fewer words while preserving or increasing precision.

    Some groups use terms (english, german) and some tones (chinese). Where terms are more precise because they are less demanding of deduction.

    Some groups use (awful) high context grammar, and some low context grammar.

    It appears that once you develop the ability to communicate in language all that matters is the increasing content and precision of that communication method. So we evolved from simple vocal sounds serialized. Others might evolved from parallel tones. Maybe others from some other form of display.

    Language must at least originate with analogy to experience, so its possible that creatures with different senses or processing (octopods) might use analogies that took us time to decode.

    So if you look across just that set of dimensions you can imagine that some very smart species would speak very quickly, in very precise very dense grammar, with a very large vocabulary, with long sentences (transactions), and long narratives, in serial (informationally limited) or more parallel (informationally dense) means.

    And thisso their context retention ability and processing ability would be higher than ours.

    That said, for reasons that chomsky defends his universal grammar (and for the same reasons that while base number would change and the vocabulary will change, all mathematical systems would be the same)

    Once you grasp that the term ‘grammar’ means ‘continuous disambiguation’, but that actions in the real world cause languages to eventually converge on the descriptive through nothing other than competition, then

    This continuous disambiguation is important because it corresponds to falsification (eliminative), just as continuous construction correspondes to justificationism (cumulative). And as such it turns out that since falsehood has a higher truth content than truth claims, the via negativa of continuous disambiguation is the counter intuitive but descriptive and necessary means of communication of truth content.

    (Apologies if this is too dense an argument.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-28 10:31:00 UTC

  • The Axial Age (civilization Formation) Anchored Us All

    It’s just a fact that the ‘wisdom literature’ of each civilization (a) relies upon the grammar, (b) relies upon the argumentative methodology of the law, (c) relies upon the mythos. This is inescapable. There is a reason jews appropriated Babylonian history, and integrated greek idealism to create Pilpul (justificationism in theology that relies upon the same techniques as justification in astrology and numerology) … and predictably enough, the same argument you are making (critique – the via-negativa of pilpul’s via-positiva). Just as there is a reason Confucius couldn’t solve the problem of politics an the chinese speak in contrasts (riddles). Just as there is a reason westerners speak in law, evidence, and testimony. The ‘Axial Age’ anchored us all.
    May 24, 2018 2:01pm

  • The Axial Age (civilization Formation) Anchored Us All

    It’s just a fact that the ‘wisdom literature’ of each civilization (a) relies upon the grammar, (b) relies upon the argumentative methodology of the law, (c) relies upon the mythos. This is inescapable. There is a reason jews appropriated Babylonian history, and integrated greek idealism to create Pilpul (justificationism in theology that relies upon the same techniques as justification in astrology and numerology) … and predictably enough, the same argument you are making (critique – the via-negativa of pilpul’s via-positiva). Just as there is a reason Confucius couldn’t solve the problem of politics an the chinese speak in contrasts (riddles). Just as there is a reason westerners speak in law, evidence, and testimony. The ‘Axial Age’ anchored us all.
    May 24, 2018 2:01pm

  • THE AXIAL AGE (CIVILIZATION FORMATION) ANCHORED US ALL It’s just a fact that the

    THE AXIAL AGE (CIVILIZATION FORMATION) ANCHORED US ALL

    It’s just a fact that the ‘wisdom literature’ of each civilization (a) relies upon the grammar, (b) relies upon the argumentative methodology of the law, (c) relies upon the mythos.

    This is inescapable.

    There is a reason jews appropriated Babylonian history, and integrated greek idealism to create Pilpul (justificationism in theology that relies upon the same techniques as justification in astrology and numerology) … and predictably enough, the same argument you are making (critique – the via-negativa of pilpul’s via-positiva).

    Just as there is a reason Confucius couldn’t solve the problem of politics an the chinese speak in contrasts (riddles).

    Just as there is a reason westerners speak in law, evidence, and testimony.

    The ‘Axial Age’ anchored us all.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 14:01:00 UTC

  • BEFORE YOU ASSUME I”M WRONG, ASK. I had to create a language of commensurability

    BEFORE YOU ASSUME I”M WRONG, ASK.

    I had to create a language of commensurability across all the disciplines so I pulled terms from each where they were ‘the least wrong’ so to speak, giving precedence to math, physics and economics wherever possible.

    If my vocabulary confuses you (which I understand) just ask me how I”m using it. Many words are used in different contexts in different disciplines.

    Don’t assume (like most people) that I don’t know what I”m talking about. I create commensurability the best I can and then define my terms precisely. But this vocabular takes some work to master. Mastering operational language is even harder. Mastering complete operational grammar is … painful – it’s like programming.

    I’m extremely precise.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 11:49:00 UTC

  • “The key is training our women. I’ve helped my wife think and speak specifically

    —“The key is training our women. I’ve helped my wife think and speak specifically and empirically, “operational language” (I use this all the time, thank you for that.) I’ve watched my wife go from admin to Vice President of a major corporation because of it. It’s our duty to teach our women to think like men.”—Eric Bumpus

    You are braver than I am but I agree that stoicism and operational language would be of even greater benefit to women than to men, because women of necessity lack men’s agency and so they need it more so than we do.

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 11:42:00 UTC