Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • Why Do We Justify Our Arguments?

    [W]E JUSTIFY:
    (a) To convey meaning – to provide a path by which we incrementally transfer properties by analogy to achieve conclusions.
    (b) To convey honesty – to demonstrate that we are telling the truth to the best of our understanding.
    (c) To demonstrate the we adhere to NORMS in our reasoning – that we have not violated the social contract. (This is how we get into all sorts of interesting problems. Because truth is only truth in the sense that we mean it, in the west.)

    AND CONVERSELY:

    (d) To lie – to lead others to false conclusions by design.
    (e) To vector a lie for pragmatic purposes – to lead others to conclusions we prefer using the arguments of others as a matter of practical action.

    AND HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THE FORMER WITHOUT THE LATTER?

    (f) separate the route by which we establish meaning, from the route by which we demonstrate truth. It is possible to construct a theory by any means, but it is only possible to testify to the truth of it by operational means – existentially possible means, and in matters of human action, SUBJECTIVELY TESTABLE means. (rationality of incentives).

    MATH CONFUSED US.

    In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations.

    We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks.  But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

  • Why Do We Justify Our Arguments?

    [W]E JUSTIFY:
    (a) To convey meaning – to provide a path by which we incrementally transfer properties by analogy to achieve conclusions.
    (b) To convey honesty – to demonstrate that we are telling the truth to the best of our understanding.
    (c) To demonstrate the we adhere to NORMS in our reasoning – that we have not violated the social contract. (This is how we get into all sorts of interesting problems. Because truth is only truth in the sense that we mean it, in the west.)

    AND CONVERSELY:

    (d) To lie – to lead others to false conclusions by design.
    (e) To vector a lie for pragmatic purposes – to lead others to conclusions we prefer using the arguments of others as a matter of practical action.

    AND HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THE FORMER WITHOUT THE LATTER?

    (f) separate the route by which we establish meaning, from the route by which we demonstrate truth. It is possible to construct a theory by any means, but it is only possible to testify to the truth of it by operational means – existentially possible means, and in matters of human action, SUBJECTIVELY TESTABLE means. (rationality of incentives).

    MATH CONFUSED US.

    In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations.

    We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks.  But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

  • WHY DO WE JUSTIFY OUR ARGUMENTS? (a) To convey meaning – to provide a path by wh

    WHY DO WE JUSTIFY OUR ARGUMENTS?

    (a) To convey meaning – to provide a path by which we incrementally transfer properties by analogy to achieve conclusions.

    (b) To convey honesty – to demonstrate that we are telling the truth to the best of our understanding.

    (c) To demonstrate the we adhere to NORMS in our reasoning – that we have not violated the social contract. (This is how we get into all sorts of interesting problems. Because truth is only truth in the sense that we mean it, in the west.)

    AND CONVERSELY:

    (d) To lie – to lead others to false conclusions by design.

    (e) To vector a lie for pragmatic purposes – to lead others to conclusions we prefer using the arguments of others as a matter of practical action.

    AND HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THE FORMER WITHOUT THE LATTER?

    (f) separate the route by which we establish meaning, from the route by which we demonstrate truth. It is possible to construct a theory by any means, but it is only possible to testify to the truth of it by operational means – existentially possible means, and in matters of human action, SUBJECTIVELY TESTABLE means. (rationality of incentives).

    MATH CONFUSED US.

    In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations.

    We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks. But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-21 04:19:00 UTC

  • I CAN TRANSLATE THIS ONE TOO: —“(a) Mathematics is common sense; (b) do not as

    I CAN TRANSLATE THIS ONE TOO:

    —“(a) Mathematics is common sense; (b) do not ask whether a statement is true until you know what it means; (c) A proof is any completely convincing argument; (d) Meaningful distinctions deserve to be preserved.”—

    Morality is common sense. Do not ask whether a statement is moral unless you know what it means. a proof of construction is a completely convincing argument because that is all we seek to prove.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 20:18:00 UTC

  • PROFOUND: MEANING AND TESTIMONY —“Brouwer’s criticisms of classical mathematic

    PROFOUND: MEANING AND TESTIMONY

    —“Brouwer’s criticisms of classical mathematics were concerned with what I shall refer to as ‘the debasement of meaning’”— (Bishop in Rosenblatt, 1985, p. 1)

    Let me see if I can translate this one….

    —“My criticisms of rationalism are concerned with the debasement of the meaning of truth: that which I can testify to having observed. And by consequence the cumulative externalities produced by the systematic debasement of the meaning of truth, and therefore the systematic debasement of our ability to testify truthfully. High trust societies, and their economic velocity, are not possible, or is liberty, under rationalism independent of the requirement for construction”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 19:57:00 UTC

  • “There are no paradoxes. Only bad definitions.”— All conclusions are only as g

    —“There are no paradoxes. Only bad definitions.”—

    All conclusions are only as good as their presumptions.

    Words are not actions, only symbols carrying meaning.

    Actions exist. Measurements (observations) exist.

    Unlike words, definitions constitute formal theories.

    It’s not complicated.

    If you hit a paradox, your theories are wrong.

    (worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-12 08:45:00 UTC

  • THE USE OF TERMS Use of words under normative definitions is pretty poor instrum

    THE USE OF TERMS

    Use of words under normative definitions is pretty poor instrumentalism. What happens to tools when you leave them lying around for any idiot to use? Well, they fall victim to the tragedy of the commons – no one takes care of those tools. They abuse them, they misuse them, and they care not what happens to them. And they are rarely if ever suitable for precise work – ever again. But somewhere exist the original precise versions of these tools, or their offspring, that reflect the precision necessary of master craftsmen. These tools are suitable for precise work. So whenever possible its in your interest to find the precise terms – because the origins of terms was that they solved problems for their creators. It is the problems they solved that constitute their necessary functions, not the various uses and abuses and misuses, that the common man as put them through in opening his barrels, cans and bottles. However, we must also keep in mind that dishonest men and well intentioned fools craft tools of deception that are equally precise. And again, is the problem that they solve with their deception that we must discover, not what they intended us to deduce from it. This is the operational approach to language: to discover the problem solved by the statement, not the intention of the author.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 11:05:00 UTC

  • You know, writing about what you CAN experience, analogies to experience, and th

    You know, writing about what you CAN experience, analogies to experience, and that which you cannot experience is really difficult…. All language is analogy to experience, so try to talk to the blind and deaf about color and sound requires layers of analogy all of which are open to misinterpretation and error… sigh…

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 17:22:00 UTC

  • ON PROPERTARIANISM AS A CURE FOR AUTISTIC SPEECH

    ON PROPERTARIANISM AS A CURE FOR AUTISTIC SPEECH

    I use autistic speech myself. I have to work, not to. If I am ill or tired, then forget it. I don’t have a choice. It is a technical description of the relationship between meaning, analogy and grammar just as poetic is. In autistic speech we intuit systematic and often valid relations between concepts, but lack the means to verbally express those relations in normative vocabulary and grammar – and a such we leave these verbal fragments open for deductive association for others; just as we leave them open for deductive association for ourselves, because deductive association is sufficient for us even if we lack vocabulary and grammar. (in other words there is a pretty vast delta between what we consider spatial reasoning or perhaps better said, non-verbal reasoning, and verbal facility or what we call verbal intelligence.)

    Idea generation for me is a trivial exercise. It’s purely intuitive – I fill my mind with information and just let my mind’s obsession with order do its work. In this sense, I don’t really ‘work’ at solving problems. (In fact I have to insulate myself a bit to make sure I am only exposed to so many at a time.)

    But the act of transforming those ideas into normal, rational, and scientific speech is a brutally challenging act of discipline. I can articulate ideas not because it is natural to me, but because I have spent my adult life, actively attempting to retain my autistic intuition while learning how to express that intuition in rational terms.

    Propertarianism solved the problem of autistic speech for me because it is unloaded. ( non normative, descriptive ethics). Propertarianism may be nothing more than the deterministic result of the need for developing a system of speech for articulating highly correspondent phenomenon i causal rather than normative, experiential and allegorical terms.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 03:31:00 UTC

  • Operational – Empirical Ratio – Empirical Economically empirical. Experimentally

    Operational – Empirical

    Ratio – Empirical

    Economically empirical.

    Experimentally Empirical

    Ratio – Historical

    Ratio – Moral

    Moral / Religio-moral

    A-rational Sentimental.

    Expressive

    … Ok I can write the operational method now, showing that the scientific method consists of a subset of that method.

    Took me almost a year an a half to figure this out. 🙁 and in retrospect it should have been obvious.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 07:50:00 UTC