Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • Precision in Argument vs Transfer of Meaning

    Most of what I encounter is people trying to talk about precise things dependent upon reason and deduction, while relying on imprecise language from which reason and deduction are largely impossible. One cannot make deductive arguments from the common speech – which is full of error and ignorance. There is a very good reason that each discipline uses specific terminoligy despite the confusion that this creates for non-members: some degree of precision is necessary for the purpose of argument.

    Law still uses latin terms for good reason: they’re not open to colloquial interpretation.

  • Most of what I encounter is people trying to talk about precise things dependent

    Most of what I encounter is people trying to talk about precise things dependent upon reason and deduction, while relying on imprecise language from which reason and deduction are largely impossible.

    One cannot make deductive arguments from the common speech – which is full of error and ignorance.

    There is a very good reason that each discipline uses specific terminoligy despite the confusion that this creates for non-members: some degree of precision is necessary for the purpose of argument.

    Law still uses latin terms for good reason: they’re not open to colloquial interpretation.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 10:13:00 UTC

  • ORDER IN COMMUNICATION Chaos (non-identity) Identity (existence) Tautology(neces

    ORDER IN COMMUNICATION

    Chaos (non-identity)

    Identity (existence)

    Tautology(necessity),

    Proof(possibility),

    Rational(potential),

    Literature(narrative/meaningful)

    Daydreaming -stream of consicusness – (free association )

    COSTS OF TRUTH

    Hierarchy of Truths by internality to externality of costs.:

    1) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2) True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    3) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    4) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7) True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    8) Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    OPERATIONALIZED (by Moritz Bierling)

    1) I recognize that when I try to form a connection between these concepts (follow this recipe), I can make it work.

    2) I recognize that when I think about this recipe, I feel good about my ability to make this connection mentally (follow the sequence/relation).

    3) I recognize that when I do the thing this recipe tells me to, I benefit sufficiently to outweigh the cost of the action.

    4) I recognize that when I do the thing this recipe tells me to, others react negatively to my action and therefore costs me something.

    5) I recognize that when I use this recipe, I can resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6) I recognize that when I use this recipe, I can resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7) I recognize that this recipe works for everyone at all times under all circumstances.

    8) I recognize that this recipe describes completely the thing it produces.

    EXPLANATION (by Moritz Bierling)

    “Recipes unlock opportunities of varying size with respect to the acquisition of energy at lower cost than the actor following the recipe expends, and recipes require the actor applying them to expend different amounts of energy depending on their complexity and the number of steps they contain, and we call those recipes more true that contain fewer errors, and those recipes resulting in the highest energy yield while requiring the least amount of steps we call of high utility.”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 08:30:00 UTC

  • “WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSAL MORAL GRAMMAR?”— (probably impor

    —“WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSAL MORAL GRAMMAR?”—

    (probably important)

    Well, while I agree that for our level of intellectual capacity that we practice an {actor, verb, noun} grammar, and that such a grammar, similar to logic but evocatively rather than critically allows us to speak and transfer experiences by association, in increasingly complex sets, which the audience consistently re-sorts to produce something sensible tot hem, I also think the presentation is pseudoscientific, and that all human emotions(self) and moral intuitions (others) are reducible to changes in the state of inventory of one asset or another, across a very broad set of assets from the informational, to the habitual, to the normative, to the institutional, to the physical, to kin, to body and life.

    The universe is telling us something very clearly: it’s very simple. As part of the universe, the human mind is a very simple thing, which achieves the appearance of complexity through sheer numbers and layers of neurons. We are part of the physical universe. We are bound by its laws. The most basic of those laws is that we must conserve energy to persist our lives, our kin, and our offspring, while at the same time transforming the universe’s current condition into one that is our benefit.

    Our problem in understanding our minds, is not discovering complexity, but discovering simplicity, by removing our imaginary content, error, bias, justification, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and overloading, and deceit from our ideas – each of which is produced by free association. Albeit, the mathematics (measurement) of that free association appears to be as difficult for us to measure as is the subatomic universe.

    Nature does not need to reduce memory to verbal symbolism in order for us to act. We need to reduce memory to verbal symbolism to perform an inexpensive means of communicating complex memories.

    We need to reduce memory to a model only in so far as we wish to understand our limits of communication. And we need to understand the limits of our communication in order to eliminate error bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and overloading, justification, and deceit from those communications.

    We cannot necessarily increase the density of information except through habituation (practice). Yet we can reduce the error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, overloading, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, justification, and deceit from it. Which appears to be the only remaining purpose of philosophy that is not possible to produce by other, superior means.

    The Universe is Simple.

    We Imagine by free association.

    We test for possibility by ‘wayfinding’

    We launder possibility by criticism.

    We use criticism to perform due diligence against:

    1 – Ignorance and Error,

    2 – Bias, Wishful Thinking, Suggestion, Moral Loading and;

    3 – Overloading, Justification, Obscurant Mysticism, Pseudorationalism, Pseudoscience, and;

    4 – Information hiding and outright Deceit.

    We perform due diligence by testing for consistency (determinism):

    1 – categorical (identity / properties)

    2 – logical (internal consistency / verbal / sets)

    3 – relational (relational consistency / mathematical / logical instruments )

    4 – empirical (external correspondence / physical instruments )

    5 – existential (existential possibility / operational language )

    6 – moral (volitional possibility / subjective testing of rational voluntary exchange)

    7 – fully accounted, parsimonious and limited (that we have fully accounted for that which we speak of and that we include nothing that we do not speak of.

    If we have performed this due diligence, and warranty that we have done so, (‘skin in the game’) then it is quite difficult to speak falsely.

    Meaning != Truth. Meaning = Justification of prior knowledge. That is all we can say.

    It says nothing about the truth of any proposition.

    This is the central failure of philosophical inquiry: justificationary meaning over critical truth.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 09:00:00 UTC

  • Identity(categories / properties) Mathematics (ratio operations) Logic (language

    Identity(categories / properties)

    Mathematics (ratio operations)

    Logic (language / set operations )

    Programs (decisions)

    Operations (recipes) (actions)

    Science (general rules)

    Literature (associations)

    Religion (conflation)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-16 16:48:00 UTC

  • PROGRAMMING IS AN ADDITION TO THE SET OF LOGICS —“Aristotle, Buddhism, Heidegg

    PROGRAMMING IS AN ADDITION TO THE SET OF LOGICS

    —“Aristotle, Buddhism, Heidegger, Patanjali, Dawkins on evolution, Darwin, Hume, and my Cognitive Science and Oblect-Oriented Programming textbooks. Always keep coming back to them; underline, highlighting, marginalia, notes, etc. These ideas are infinite, because they express who we are essentially.”— Adam Voight

    Notice his addition of cognitive science and object oriented programming.

    Programming is a new form of logic. It’s as necessary as every other form of logic. Because it requires computability. Or put more clearly, it requires existential possibility.

    You can learn philosophy very easily by designing databases and programs. The difference is that since a compiler cannot infer, you must provide a sequence of statements that are testable with the information at your disposal.

    Programming is the most current logic that we have. It avoids the errors of set theory, which while useful, also leave room for catastrophic errors and deceptions.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 11:50:00 UTC

  • CATEGORIES As far as I know, by analogy, a category acts as the verb and an acti

    CATEGORIES

    As far as I know, by analogy, a category acts as the verb and an action acts as a nouns.

    I cannot find and case where this fails.

    Why. Because the range and limits of human actions provide the unit of measure that makes commensurable those concepts that we wish to communicate.

    This is, as I understand it, the universal law of categories.

    And will remain so until we find some alien race with whom we must communicate and cooperate, and we add complexity to our categories just as we add non Euclidean spaces to our geometry.

    As far as I know this model is complete.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-12 12:43:00 UTC

  • Types of Promise(Warranty)

    Unless one starts with a definition of truth these are fairly meaningless words. More desperate attempts to apply axiomatic or theoretic rules to loaded, framed, colloquial speech without the awareness that colloquial speech evolved to tolerate laziness, obscure ignorance, convey moral promise, and as such is neither axiomatic or theoretic but merely “meaningful”: conveying associations not necessary relations that are open to deduction. Types of Commitment ( promise, warranty ):

    • Understanding: I can also find a relationship between that description and my experience. ( warranty of sympathy )
    • Belief: I intuit so given my experience but I cannot warranty I have tested it. But I warranty that I speak honestly, even if I err.(moral warranty)
    • Rational: I can find no contradiction for within my experience, and warranty that I have tried. ( warranty of diligence without cost of testing )
    • Empirical: I find it to be correspondent with observations (measurements) that warrant against errors in observation ( warranty of diligence and bearing the cost of testing )
    • Scientific: despite my efforts, I find it is correspondent and I cannot find a reason that it is false so it remains a truth candidate. ( warranty of diligence and investing in expanding testing )
    • Testimonial: I have conducted tests of identity, internal consistency, empirical consistency, existential possibility, objective morality, full accounting, parsimony and limits and as such it is very likely for the question at hand that this statement will survive all scrutiny and only increase in parsimony. ( warranty of total testing )
    The only existentially possible truth is promissory. The only existential truth we can warranty is testimonial. One does not justify a truth one demonstrates a warranty of the degree of his diligence. Thus endeth the lesson. 😉. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Types of Promise(Warranty)

    Unless one starts with a definition of truth these are fairly meaningless words. More desperate attempts to apply axiomatic or theoretic rules to loaded, framed, colloquial speech without the awareness that colloquial speech evolved to tolerate laziness, obscure ignorance, convey moral promise, and as such is neither axiomatic or theoretic but merely “meaningful”: conveying associations not necessary relations that are open to deduction. Types of Commitment ( promise, warranty ):

    • Understanding: I can also find a relationship between that description and my experience. ( warranty of sympathy )
    • Belief: I intuit so given my experience but I cannot warranty I have tested it. But I warranty that I speak honestly, even if I err.(moral warranty)
    • Rational: I can find no contradiction for within my experience, and warranty that I have tried. ( warranty of diligence without cost of testing )
    • Empirical: I find it to be correspondent with observations (measurements) that warrant against errors in observation ( warranty of diligence and bearing the cost of testing )
    • Scientific: despite my efforts, I find it is correspondent and I cannot find a reason that it is false so it remains a truth candidate. ( warranty of diligence and investing in expanding testing )
    • Testimonial: I have conducted tests of identity, internal consistency, empirical consistency, existential possibility, objective morality, full accounting, parsimony and limits and as such it is very likely for the question at hand that this statement will survive all scrutiny and only increase in parsimony. ( warranty of total testing )
    The only existentially possible truth is promissory. The only existential truth we can warranty is testimonial. One does not justify a truth one demonstrates a warranty of the degree of his diligence. Thus endeth the lesson. 😉. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Are All Set-Arguments Deceptions?

    (thought) I’m getting the feeling that all set based argument is just lying. I mean we can TEACH by transferring properties via sets. But you know, you gotta criticize that nonsense once you turn the lightbulb on, oyu gotta look around the room a bit and make sure you see what you think you see. You do that by sequences. Not just ORDERED SETS, but supply demand CURVES with LIMITS.