Theme: Grammar

  • (a) Oh, I missed this one. Do you mean that ridiculous fellow on Chat who tried

    (a) Oh, I missed this one. Do you mean that ridiculous fellow on Chat who tried to equate LOGIC (rules of inference) with TRUTH (consistency, correspondence, and coherence), and outright denied (over and over and over again) that logic consists of tests of constant relations?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 13:35:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953259454706913280

    Reply addressees: @Imperius__13

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953250310721622016


    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/953250310721622016

  • What Is The Basis Of Civilization, Language, Science, Religion?

    —”What is the basis of civilization, language, science, religion, race, a mixture or other circumstances, such as a specific political organization, etc.?”—- THE BEST ANSWER The answer is deceptively simple. (a) We are born with one resource to spend: **TIME**, and by early adulthood, we must produce more than we expend over a three week period, or we will die. (b) We are able to produce only so many **calories** in that time. And, alone, barely enough to survive as a gatherer. (c) We are however, capable of **cooperation**. (d) The **returns** on cooperation are not additive but multiplicative – on the order a power of five to ten per person added to the division of labor. (Really. its that much). (e) All our biological abilities: language, reason; our habitual abilities: manners, norms, and traditions; our institutions: money, law, banking, politics, religion, and even war, assist us in **cooperating** in every larger numbers. (f) and through that vast system of heartless, mindless, communication, cooperation, we produce and transform infinitely **more** calories than we could on our own. (g) for this reason, we have only one form of wealth, time, and we are not wealthier than cave men. We have only made everything **infinitely cheaper** in the only **currency** we have to spend when we are born: **time**. (h) however, we are all born **rational** actors, and act morally (do not lie, cheat, steal, or free ride) and immorally (lie, cheat, steal, and free ride) as is in our best self interest. (i) And the **velocity and scale** of cooperation is dependent upon truth telling, adhering to promise and contract, and incentives for both reward and punishment if we fail to speak the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, adhere to promise and contract, and follow only those incentives that impose no costs upon the investments(costs) of others. (j) **Science** (Demonstrated determinism of the physical world), **Economics **(Demonstrated human Behavior) and **Tort**(Demonstrated human Conflict) are the only languages of truth that we know of. (k) Humans evolved **language** to ‘deceive’, negotiate, and speak ‘morally’, not to speak truthfully, scientifically, economically, or legally. And humans evolved to **cheat** where they have the opportunity, and continue to do so. (l) So the primary **difficulty** in history is creating language, habits, and institutions, that **assist** us in truthful, voluntary, reciprocally beneficial, cooperation while **suppressing** untruthful, involuntary, irreciprocal impositions. In the end, as inhuman as it may seem, **we are all just calculating opportunities** to work together to pursue the highest return at the lowest cost in the shortest time with the greatest degree of certainty at the lowest risk. We are calculating, and the ‘equals sign’ in that vast set of calculations is when we cooperate. We work together to increase the returns on **time**. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
  • WHAT IS THE BASIS OF CIVILIZATION, LANGUAGE, SCIENCE, RELIGION? —”What is the ba

    WHAT IS THE BASIS OF CIVILIZATION, LANGUAGE, SCIENCE, RELIGION?

    —”What is the basis of civilization, language, science, religion, race, a mixture or other circumstances, such as a specific political organization, etc.?”—-

    THE BEST ANSWER

    The answer is deceptively simple.

    (a) We are born with one resource to spend: **TIME**, and by early adulthood, we must produce more than we expend over a three week period, or we will die.

    (b) We are able to produce only so many **calories** in that time. And, alone, barely enough to survive as a gatherer.

    (c) We are however, capable of **cooperation**.

    (d) The **returns** on cooperation are not additive but multiplicative – on the order a power of five to ten per person added to the division of labor. (Really. its that much).

    (e) All our biological abilities: language, reason; our habitual abilities: manners, norms, and traditions; our institutions: money, law, banking, politics, religion, and even war, assist us in **cooperating** in every larger numbers.

    (f) and through that vast system of heartless, mindless, communication, cooperation, we produce and transform infinitely **more** calories than we could on our own.

    (g) for this reason, we have only one form of wealth, time, and we are not wealthier than cave men. We have only made everything **infinitely cheaper** in the only **currency** we have to spend when we are born: **time**.

    (h) however, we are all born **rational** actors, and act morally (do not lie, cheat, steal, or free ride) and immorally (lie, cheat, steal, and free ride) as is in our best self interest.

    (i) And the **velocity and scale** of cooperation is dependent upon truth telling, adhering to promise and contract, and incentives for both reward and punishment if we fail to speak the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, adhere to promise and contract, and follow only those incentives that impose no costs upon the investments(costs) of others.

    (j) **Science** (Demonstrated determinism of the physical world), **Economics **(Demonstrated human Behavior) and **Tort**(Demonstrated human Conflict) are the only languages of truth that we know of.

    (k) Humans evolved **language** to ‘deceive’, negotiate, and speak ‘morally’, not to speak truthfully, scientifically, economically, or legally. And humans evolved to **cheat** where they have the opportunity, and continue to do so.

    (l) So the primary **difficulty** in history is creating language, habits, and institutions, that **assist** us in truthful, voluntary, reciprocally beneficial, cooperation while **suppressing** untruthful, involuntary, irreciprocal impositions.

    In the end, as inhuman as it may seem, **we are all just calculating opportunities** to work together to pursue the highest return at the lowest cost in the shortest time with the greatest degree of certainty at the lowest risk. We are calculating, and the ‘equals sign’ in that vast set of calculations is when we cooperate.

    We work together to increase the returns on **time**.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 09:48:00 UTC

  • What Is The Basis Of Civilization, Language, Science, Religion?

    —”What is the basis of civilization, language, science, religion, race, a mixture or other circumstances, such as a specific political organization, etc.?”—- THE BEST ANSWER The answer is deceptively simple. (a) We are born with one resource to spend: **TIME**, and by early adulthood, we must produce more than we expend over a three week period, or we will die. (b) We are able to produce only so many **calories** in that time. And, alone, barely enough to survive as a gatherer. (c) We are however, capable of **cooperation**. (d) The **returns** on cooperation are not additive but multiplicative – on the order a power of five to ten per person added to the division of labor. (Really. its that much). (e) All our biological abilities: language, reason; our habitual abilities: manners, norms, and traditions; our institutions: money, law, banking, politics, religion, and even war, assist us in **cooperating** in every larger numbers. (f) and through that vast system of heartless, mindless, communication, cooperation, we produce and transform infinitely **more** calories than we could on our own. (g) for this reason, we have only one form of wealth, time, and we are not wealthier than cave men. We have only made everything **infinitely cheaper** in the only **currency** we have to spend when we are born: **time**. (h) however, we are all born **rational** actors, and act morally (do not lie, cheat, steal, or free ride) and immorally (lie, cheat, steal, and free ride) as is in our best self interest. (i) And the **velocity and scale** of cooperation is dependent upon truth telling, adhering to promise and contract, and incentives for both reward and punishment if we fail to speak the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, adhere to promise and contract, and follow only those incentives that impose no costs upon the investments(costs) of others. (j) **Science** (Demonstrated determinism of the physical world), **Economics **(Demonstrated human Behavior) and **Tort**(Demonstrated human Conflict) are the only languages of truth that we know of. (k) Humans evolved **language** to ‘deceive’, negotiate, and speak ‘morally’, not to speak truthfully, scientifically, economically, or legally. And humans evolved to **cheat** where they have the opportunity, and continue to do so. (l) So the primary **difficulty** in history is creating language, habits, and institutions, that **assist** us in truthful, voluntary, reciprocally beneficial, cooperation while **suppressing** untruthful, involuntary, irreciprocal impositions. In the end, as inhuman as it may seem, **we are all just calculating opportunities** to work together to pursue the highest return at the lowest cost in the shortest time with the greatest degree of certainty at the lowest risk. We are calculating, and the ‘equals sign’ in that vast set of calculations is when we cooperate. We work together to increase the returns on **time**. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
  • Have another ‘debate’ coming up. But I’m extremely …. cautious of them. Why? B

    Have another ‘debate’ coming up. But I’m extremely …. cautious of them. Why? Because (I had this conversation with an interviewer recently) it often takes three or four logical steps to get from where advocates today are standing, to understand anything I’m saying. And (as two trolls have succeeded in infuriating me lately), I have reached a point in my life where I am no longer willing to invest in exposing a disingenuous debate partner. And I am not able, in an hour conversation, to move someone across so great a frame. If we still have people that don’t understand the many things that should be obvious (evolution, relativity, justificationism vs science) then why should they be able to understand propertarianism when it rewrites so many pseudoscientific frames of reference?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 08:31:00 UTC

  • >**Hello.** I’m analytic philosopher. This is Part 3 of my walkthru of Chris’ CT

    >**Hello.** I’m analytic philosopher. This is Part 3 of my walkthru of Chris’ CTMU paper. The Body. >Chris’ text in italic, mine in normal font. I’ve worked through the remainder of the paper. And as usual, it doesn’t warrant further paragraph by paragraph analysis. It just took me a bit to get my arms around what he was trying to say. I can reduce it quite simply to this. 1. Chris is using a very … private language … by pulling from a host of analogies (a super-geek common failing) to say something both true and relatively obvious, that can be stated in quite simple terms. 2. This kind of behavior comes from identifying patterns across many bodies of work, without adopting the rigor (limits) of those disciplines he draws from. I’m sympathetic. 3. Technically speaking, this is a work of academic … narrative… or perhaps poetry. It’s not technically pseudoscientific, because it’s not false. I’m not sure he makes any pseudoscientific claims at all. I see … liberties with language and logic. But, still the paper stated in pseudoscientific and pseudo rational prose – and bordering on supernatural in cases. There is a vast difference between analogy, accuracy, and necessity. So I understand the critics response. I’m probably one of the most skilled people living – at least across disciplines if not within them – and I can take this apart and determine that he’s not full of it. I think this is an honest representation of the mind of an autist, in the grammar and semantics of an autist. 4. There is however nothing calculable here, only ‘reasonable’. Nothing certain. Nothing Proven (although we do not ‘prove’ science, since laws are forever contingent.) There is nothing stated operationally and therefore causally. What we have is a work of EXPLANATION by analogy stated with examples from math, logic, and science 5. I’m not sure if he’s making an anthropomorphic argument for narrative purposes or because he wants to imply it. I almost wrote him off immediately. There are at least three points of view he could be making: that there is a first mover. That there is no difference between our reasoning and the reasoning of the universe. Or that it’s a convenient means of drawing analogy. 6. And there is nothing original here other than the matter of the narration of the topic. I mean, science fiction authors said this in the 40’s and 50’s. 7. That does not discount – in the least – **that it is not FALSE**. All the pseudoscientific costumery of the French Theatre aside, the underlying narrative is correct. We learn truths from the fictions of tolstoy and shakespeare. We can learn truths from the mind of an autist (I am one also). It’s just that the claims are obvious. Or at least obvious to me. 8. Not sure I am excited to weigh in on this but people asked me to, and it’s my job to debunk nonsense. And I’m pleasantly surprised that while it’s written a bit nonsensically, it’s not nonsense. 😉
  • All grammars limit the domains (property ranges) of semantic content. Semantic l

    All grammars limit the domains (property ranges) of semantic content. Semantic limits do not exist independent of grammars, but expand (inflate) fictionally or contract (deflate) operationally, empirically, and logically (meaning scientifically). In fact, the purpose of deflationary grammars is primarily to decrease deception, fiction, disambiguation, and dimensions, and therefore increase precision.
  • All grammars limit the domains (property ranges) of semantic content. Semantic l

    All grammars limit the domains (property ranges) of semantic content. Semantic limits do not exist independent of grammars, but expand (inflate) fictionally or contract (deflate) operationally, empirically, and logically (meaning scientifically). In fact, the purpose of deflationary grammars is primarily to decrease deception, fiction, disambiguation, and dimensions, and therefore increase precision.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-14 14:59:00 UTC

  • All grammars limit the domains (property ranges) of semantic content. Semantic l

    All grammars limit the domains (property ranges) of semantic content. Semantic limits do not exist independent of grammars, but expand (inflate) fictionally or contract (deflate) operationally, empirically, and logically (meaning scientifically). In fact, the purpose of deflationary grammars is primarily to decrease deception, fiction, disambiguation, and dimensions, and therefore increase precision.
  • What Is The Adjective Form Of Truth?

    WHAT DOES TRUTH MEAN? (AND WHAT IS ITS ADJECTIVE FORM?)

    Truth can only mean ‘descriptive testimony free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit’. In other words, speech, the semantic content of which corresponds with reality.

    One speaks truthfully, or untruthfully , or honestly or dishonestly.

    To be precise, one speaks honestly not having done due diligence, nor warrantying one’s speech. One speaks truthfully having done due diligence, and warrantying one’s speech.

    So you might speak honestly – not having done due diligence on your speech. But that is not the same as speaking truthfully – having done due diligence on your speech. So you might give your honest opinion, but that differs from doing diligence that such an opinion survives criticism – meaning correspondence.

    Both the physical sciences and law specialize in the art of due diligence. As an extension of law, anglo analytic philosophy attempts to specialize in the art of due diligence. Strangely, continental philosophy does the opposite.

    But if speaking truthfully requires that we perform due diligence, and warranty our speech, then how does one perform such due diligence? How do we test correspondence? In the most simple of terms, a truth statement must be:

    1. categorically consistent (non conflationary)
    2. internally consistent (logical),
    3. externally correspondent (empirical),
    4. operationally possible (existentially possible),
    5. coherent categorically, internally, externally, and operationally (consistent across all tests)
    6. fully accounted (you haven’t cherry picked cause and/or consequence)

    And if you want to claim it’s ethical and moral (and objectively legal):

    1. rational: consisting of nothing but a series of fully rational choices
    2. reciprocal: consisting of nothing other than productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of imposition upon others by externality.

    We use the word ‘Truth’ in many, many contexts. Most of them somewhere between a convenience and a dishonesty. True, honest, logical, and good are independent concepts frequently conflated to attribute authority where it is absent.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-adjective-form-of-truth