Yeah, but she’s a normie. Doesn’t do to correct her when it’s not a conflict of context. She’s colloquially right. so acknowledge it, then if necessary clarify. Don’t negate the unnecessary. Just… civil.
My wife said “Curt, be nice to the bunnies”
Meaning. If normies are…
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 20:46:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634294634024239106
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634291947475959812
Disambiguation.
Many words mean many things in many contexts this is why disciplines adopt specific definitions.
Assets: heredity, Inherit, heritability comes from property 13th/15thc
Behavior: We often use ‘inherited’ to softly distinguish between the two. begins in 1740s…
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 20:43:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634293827937632259
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634291732853534725
Correct. Hence the need for a value-neutral language of ethics economics and politics https://twitter.com/kontherad1/status/1634082140106416128
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 13:11:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634180294692548609
(New Followers)
WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED?
The short answer is that it looks like language but it’s much closer to math.
Please notice how I use:
… a) ‘lists’ (serializations) and
… b) ‘balances between male and female’ (equilibrations)
… c) ‘operational language’ (actions)
… d) And weaving together lists and balances to illustrate the consistency of the properties of the universe, including humans, over time.
This structure is the equivlant of writing object-oriented program code. Where the purpose of object-oriented programming is to produce Simulations that survive adversarial competition (life and evolution).
For example:
… a) Serialized lists = Types
… b) Equilibrations = Functions
… c) Operational language = Syntax
… d) Together = Classes
WHY?
Because if you write in this way, in complete sentences in operational language, using definitions by types, and equilibrations by functions together in classes, it is very difficult to error, bias, or deceive (yourself or others) without the grammar and syntax exposing that fact.
This doesn’t mean we write everything algorithmically. It means that we can expand anything we write into algorithms, classes, types, and functions and test what we hear or what we have said.
As in most programming languages, there are a limited number of rules. Likewise in human experience, there are a limited number of rules. And there aren’t very many. There is a very simple ternary logic to these rules. The ‘work’ in learning this method of testing the truth of any statement is largely in memorizing how to use these techniques on the one hand and overcoming your intuitions that you assume are products of reason so that you are in fact relying on reason and ‘computation’.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
-Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 23:53:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633616867473358848
(New Followers)
WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED?
The short answer is that it looks like language but it’s much closer to math.
Please notice how I use:
… a) ‘lists’ (serializations) and
… b) ‘balances between male and female’ (equilibrations)
… c) ‘operational language’ (actions)
… d) And weaving together lists and balances to illustrate the consistency of the properties of the universe, including humans, over time.
This structure is the equivlant of writing object-oriented program code. Where the purpose of object-oriented programming is to produce Simulations that survive adversarial competition (life and evolution).
For example:
… a) Serialized lists = Types
… b) Equilibrations = Functions
… c) Operational language = Syntax
… d) Together = Classes
WHY?
Because if you write in this way, in complete sentences in operational language, using definitions by types, and equilibrations by functions together in classes, it is very difficult to error, bias, or deceive (yourself or others) without the grammar and syntax exposing that fact.
This doesn’t mean we write everything algorithmically. It means that we can expand anything we write into algorithms, classes, types, and functions and test what we hear or what we have said.
As in most programming languages, there are a limited number of rules. Likewise in human experience, there are a limited number of rules. And there aren’t very many. There is a very simple ternary logic to these rules. The ‘work’ in learning this method of testing the truth of any statement is largely in memorizing how to use these techniques on the one hand and overcoming your intuitions that you assume are products of reason so that you are in fact relying on reason and ‘computation’.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
-Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 23:53:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633616867213430785
(New Followers)
WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED?
The short answer is that it looks like language but it’s much closer to math.
Please notice how I use:
… a) ‘lists’ (serializations) and
… b) ‘balances between male and female’ (equilibrations)
… c) ‘operational language’ (actions)
… d) And weaving together lists and balances to illustrate the consistency of the properties of the universe, including humans, over time.
This structure is the equivlant of writing object-oriented program code. Where the purpose of object-oriented programming is to produce Simulations that survive adversarial competition (life and evolution).
For example:
… a) Serialized lists = Types
… b) Equilibrations = Functions
… c) Operational language = Syntax
… d) Together = Classes
WHY?
Because if you write in this way, in complete sentences in operational language, using definitions by types, and equilibrations by functions together in classes, it is very difficult to error, bias, or deceive (yourself or others) without the grammar and syntax exposing that fact.
This doesn’t mean we write everything algorithmically. It means that we can expand anything we write into algorithms, classes, types, and functions and test what we hear of what we have said.
As in most programming languages, there are a limited number of rules. Likewise in human experience, there are a limited number of rules. And there aren’t very many. There is a very simple ternary logic to these rules. The ‘work’ in learning this method of testing the truth of any statement is largely in memorizing how to use these techniques on the one hand and overcoming your intuitions that you assume are products of reason so that you are in fact relying on reason and ‘computation’.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
-Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 23:53:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633616576174858240
(New Followers)
WHY IS WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WRITE COMPLICATED?
The short answer is that it looks like language but it’s much closer to math.
Please notice how I use:
… a) ‘lists’ (serializations) and
… b) ‘balances between male and female’ (equilibrations)
… c) ‘operational language’ (actions)
… d) And weaving together lists and balances to illustrate the consistency of the properties of the universe, including humans, over time.
This structure is the equivlant of writing object-oriented program code. Where the purpose of object-oriented programming is to produce Simulations that survive adversarial competition (life and evolution).
For example:
… a) Serialized lists = Types
… b) Equilibrations = Functions
… c) Operational language = Syntax
… d) Together = Classes
WHY?
Because if you write in this way, in complete sentences in operational language, using definitions by types, and equilibrations by functions together in classes, it is very difficult to error, bias, or deceive (yourself or others) without the grammar and syntax exposing that fact.
This doesn’t mean we write everything
algorithmically. It means that we can expand anything we write into algorithms, classes, types, and functions and test what we hear of what we have said.
As in most programming languages there are a limited number of rules. Likewise in human experience, there are a limited number of rules. And there aren’t very many. There is a very simple ternary logic to these rules. The ‘work’ in learning this method of testing the truth of any statement is largely in memorizing how to use these techniques on the one hand and overcoming your intuitions that you assume are products of reason so that you are in fact relying on reason and ‘computation’.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
-Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 23:53:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633616006487633920
Sorry, there are multiple definitions of agency used in different fields. Your definition is the marxist definition used in marxist sociology. I used the scientific definition from behavioral economics.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 23:28:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631436412204597250
Reply addressees: @88Fires
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631435215250882561
It doesn’t say how. It’s a false promise. A pretense.
Grammar provides rules by which we disambiguate sequences of phonemes into words phrases and sentences (transactions) sufficiently to convey unambiguous meaning within the broader context of the discourse.
So grammar is used for (a) disambiguation (b) model formation (c) predicting testing (falsification) in that order. And Q&A for further recursive disambiguation until sufficiently unambiguous decidability is achieved by determination of possibility(truth) or impossibility (falsehood).
I’m kind of wondering if you’ve done any computer or AI work yourself because this is pretty basic nonsense there. I’m just adding neurologically what happens and in what sequence.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 21:46:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631410659651878912
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631408252259905536
I can’t figure out what TTM’s trying to argue because he keeps suggesting rather than explaining his way into it. This might help with people who don’t know better, but we specialize in language, logics, grammars, and especially the grammars of falsehood and lying.
So we already know what we’re talking about. What we need is a theory to test. And so far all we’ve seen is postmodern neologism to claim differences that don’t exist, novelties that don’t exist, and so far it’s just another language game.
So, what’s the theory?
There is absolutely zero chance I won’t understand it. That might sound ostentatious but it’s just a painful truth. I know my domains of ignorance because they are my domains of disinterest. But epistemically, I don’t think there is anyone on the planet even close.
And that’s a bad thing. ‘Cause it’s one of the reasons we are where we are.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 20:45:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631395210860044307
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631393388162326550