Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • LANGUAGE IS TRIVIALLY SIMPLE : A MARKET COMPETITION BETWEEN GRAMMAR AND SEMATICS

    LANGUAGE IS TRIVIALLY SIMPLE : A MARKET COMPETITION BETWEEN GRAMMAR AND SEMATICS

    Language is actually trivially simple: continuous disambiguation in grammar, and continuous ambiguity in semantics.

    The evolutionary problem is achieving in imagination the same level of modeling that we have in body movement.

    Once we had complex body movement (our neural density is far higher than other creatures) and complex motion-planning, it was somewhat deterministic that we could gain complex verbal planning.

    These problems seem difficult until you work with recursive neural networks long enough. Then the brain is a very simple thing that just far more neural computing power than any of our competing life forms.

    An octopus for example, is interesting, because while we have a spine that extends our brain into our body so to speak, the octopus has eight of them, and they do a lot of their own processing the way our heart and lungs do their own processing.

    Far too much ‘cheap’ philosophy, not enough ‘expensive’ physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence.

    Learn something substantial.

    Philosophy can assist us in determining choice, preferences and goods It is notoriously if not catastrophically faulty at anything we call ‘truth’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-10 14:24:00 UTC

  • Language Is Trivially Simple : A Market Competition Between Grammar And Sematics

    Language is actually trivially simple: continuous disambiguation in grammar, and continuous ambiguity in semantics. The evolutionary problem is achieving in imagination the same level of modeling that we have in body movement. Once we had complex body movement (our neural density is far higher than other creatures) and complex motion-planning, it was somewhat deterministic that we could gain complex verbal planning. These problems seem difficult until you work with recursive neural networks long enough. Then the brain is a very simple thing that just far more neural computing power than any of our competing life forms. An octopus for example, is interesting, because while we have a spine that extends our brain into our body so to speak, the octopus has eight of them, and they do a lot of their own processing the way our heart and lungs do their own processing. Far too much ‘cheap’ philosophy, not enough ‘expensive’ physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. Learn something substantial. Philosophy can assist us in determining choice, preferences and goods It is notoriously if not catastrophically faulty at anything we call ‘truth’.

  • Language Is Trivially Simple : A Market Competition Between Grammar And Sematics

    Language is actually trivially simple: continuous disambiguation in grammar, and continuous ambiguity in semantics. The evolutionary problem is achieving in imagination the same level of modeling that we have in body movement. Once we had complex body movement (our neural density is far higher than other creatures) and complex motion-planning, it was somewhat deterministic that we could gain complex verbal planning. These problems seem difficult until you work with recursive neural networks long enough. Then the brain is a very simple thing that just far more neural computing power than any of our competing life forms. An octopus for example, is interesting, because while we have a spine that extends our brain into our body so to speak, the octopus has eight of them, and they do a lot of their own processing the way our heart and lungs do their own processing. Far too much ‘cheap’ philosophy, not enough ‘expensive’ physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. Learn something substantial. Philosophy can assist us in determining choice, preferences and goods It is notoriously if not catastrophically faulty at anything we call ‘truth’.

  • Does Wittgenstein’s Conclusion On The Omnipotence Paradoxes Put An End To Them?

    Wittgenstein did not solve the problem that he sought to, Frege thru Kripke and the followers of Turing (meaning Chomsky) did.

    (a) there exist no paradoxes, only the application of the rules of formal (deflationary) grammars to colloquial (suggestive) and inflationary (fictional) speech. In other words, there exist no paradoxes that are not simply incomplete sentences (transactions).

    (b) wittgenstein and russell are correct: in the end, the investment in logic has been a waste of time. It’s nothing but tautology. Because we cannot use the logic of constant semantic relations (language) as we do the logic of constant positional relations (mathematics) to produce proofs. And the Intuitionists were correct: We cannot even do so in mathematics. So what the logics allow us to do is falsify statements, but not prove statements.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-Wittgensteins-conclusion-on-the-omnipotence-paradoxes-put-an-end-to-them

  • Does Wittgenstein’s Conclusion On The Omnipotence Paradoxes Put An End To Them?

    Wittgenstein did not solve the problem that he sought to, Frege thru Kripke and the followers of Turing (meaning Chomsky) did.

    (a) there exist no paradoxes, only the application of the rules of formal (deflationary) grammars to colloquial (suggestive) and inflationary (fictional) speech. In other words, there exist no paradoxes that are not simply incomplete sentences (transactions).

    (b) wittgenstein and russell are correct: in the end, the investment in logic has been a waste of time. It’s nothing but tautology. Because we cannot use the logic of constant semantic relations (language) as we do the logic of constant positional relations (mathematics) to produce proofs. And the Intuitionists were correct: We cannot even do so in mathematics. So what the logics allow us to do is falsify statements, but not prove statements.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-Wittgensteins-conclusion-on-the-omnipotence-paradoxes-put-an-end-to-them

  • 2) Jewish law retained Pilpul (The verbal equivalent of numerology, and astrolog

    2) Jewish law retained Pilpul (The verbal equivalent of numerology, and astrology applied to theology). While (thankfully) western law retained empiricism (Tort). Over time, the Lawyers cum philosophers saved us where the theologians cum philosophers failed.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-05 19:50:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960601591589101568

    Reply addressees: @Daylonism

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960597943827931136

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Hermeus_Amer

    @curtdoolittle I could be off base on this, but are your referring specifically to various forms of Jewish mysticism and Jews themselves? (medieval Kabbalah, Neo-Hassidism, etc..).

    Or the influence of Abrahamic traditions (starting with Jews) in general?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960597943827931136

  • 1) I am referring to a conflationary grammar and semantics, that we call ‘fictio

    1) I am referring to a conflationary grammar and semantics, that we call ‘fictionalism’, that appears to have originated in Pilpul, and when exposed to greek rationalism, evolved into Rabbinical Judaism>Christianity>Islam>and the French, German, and Jewish counter-enlightenments.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-05 19:49:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960601169944088578

    Reply addressees: @Daylonism

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960597943827931136

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Hermeus_Amer

    @curtdoolittle I could be off base on this, but are your referring specifically to various forms of Jewish mysticism and Jews themselves? (medieval Kabbalah, Neo-Hassidism, etc..).

    Or the influence of Abrahamic traditions (starting with Jews) in general?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960597943827931136

  • The secret to truthful speech is complete sentences (Transactions), in operation

    The secret to truthful speech is complete sentences (Transactions), in operational semantics (observable), in operational grammar (empirical). The secret Natural Law is the Universal Decidability of Reciprocity. We can outlaw false speech in the commons. #Trump

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-05 16:28:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960550593226997760

  • De Benoist(French Moralism), Yarvin/Mencius (Jewish Critique), Hoppe (German Rat

    De Benoist(French Moralism), Yarvin/Mencius (Jewish Critique), Hoppe (German Rationalism), Buchanan (Anglo Empirical), Doolittle (Anglo Juridical): We speak in the grammar, and semantics, of our cultures – but say the same thing: Eugenics: Kin Markets Defeat Kin Monopoly. #Trump

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-04 15:01:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960166316639510528

  • Again, The Liar’s Paradox Isn’t A Paradox

    The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and its variants. Arthur Prior does a weak job of correctly explaining why it isn’t a paradox. I’ll explain why it’s not a paradox in detail if anyone is interested. The Liar’s Paradox illustrates the difference between math, logic, reason, and science, and difference between platonism vs operationalism, and the difference between well formed and malformed statements in colloquial grammar, ordinary language grammar, vs deflationary grammars. Or stated differently, the grammatical structure of the statement relies on ordinary language grammar, while the question refers to formal, legal,or logical grammar. For example, you can draw the square root of two, you can apply the square root of two in calculation or construction, but you cannot calculate it itself. And for the same reason.